Oct. 23, 2009 — Since yesterday's note on Jay and Pat's upcoming Webinar, I have received several comments and inquiries about the concept of replacing job descriptions with competencies — even a bold prediction that this would happen in the next 10 years (yea!!). The concept is definitely intriguing as a potential way of more effectively linking compensation practice with today's talent management environment. Today's work, skills and roles are changing faster than any administrative scheme's capability to keep job descriptions current.
The concept is not new and has been around at least since the 80s, but perhaps the time is finally right for it to take hold. So here's the question we would like to hear more from you about: How are you addressing the issue? Are competencies the answer? Are you already taking that path?
If you are already using competencies, where are you using the approach? Are you using it for Strategic Human Resource management? Performance management? Pay and other rewards? Training and development? Communications? Definition of work? Career development/management? Organizational Design? All of the above?
E James Brennan, III Senior Associate Member Since: 4/19/1979 Comments: 406
Loved the Webinar... fact-filled, with powerpoint slides you could print out, too. At only an hour and a half long, including Q&As, all members should avail themselves of the freebie and see what's working best in the 21st Century.
Most telling to me was the determination of the study participants to share their successful strategic visions without self-identification lest they reveal significant "industrial intelligence" to their rivals. They obviously feel this new strategic foundation construct has been so productive and cost-effective that it is considered a trade secret.
Jay Schuster, PhD Partner Member Since: 6/4/1965 Comments: 6
Hi "Jim and Jim". The interesting thing to us that came from the study 20 organizations that made the change from jobs as the foundation for human resources was the initial reasons for this change were not related to pay. They did this to focus on the people and their skill and competencies and not in jobs into which they were placed. The strong business case was, "People, not jobs, do our work". While these organizations are certainly not of a trend it does tell you about some differences between 'prevailing practice' and 'best practice'. While 'prevailing practice' may be what most organizations do it could be that 'best practice' is a more customized solution driven by how people fit in the formula for organizational success. Oh, and nearly all of these organizations did end up with competencies impacting pay and rewards~~however this came as a result of the other successful changes they made. One CEO said, "Jobs all need to be filled for some reason. During challenging times it is the people that matter and not the jobs that create more structure than a high-performance organization may need in challenging business times". Seems to me that thinking leaders adopt practices that best match where their organization is and where it needs to be~~not just looking at some survey and copying what others do whithout knowing in most cases if it works or not.
Frank Giancola, SPHR Researcher Writer Member Since: 12/1/2004 Comments: 197
According to a 2009 Mercer survey, only about 13 percent of 1,000 firms surveyed use some form of competency based pay, down from 19% in 2002. Interest is actually declining. It is in much greater use in performance management---42% of firms.
Could you also give us the schedule for Dancing With the Stars.
Print this Page