At HRIZONS we have run across situations where clients have implemented Standards of Performance as objectives because their existing technology does not support sufficient flexibility in using competencies.  In addition to difficulties in reporting, this practice creates challenges in the configuration of employee development and succession planning tools because both employee development and succession planning are built on competencies for planning and assessment.

If we take technology challenges out of the equation, we find that crossing competencies and objectives leads to difficulties in conceptual thinking on the part of end users because the fundamental purpose and structure of each is different.  Standards of Performance refer to HOW you achieve your business results, focusing on the behaviors that drive superior performance.  Objectives define WHAT those results should be, with clearly defined metrics and targets.  Keeping those two functions distinct, and understanding how each contributes to overall business effectiveness, is key to successful performance management.

Structural Differences

Objectives

Objectives in their purest form entail identification of a specific task or set of tasks to be completed within a specified time frame. We are familiar with the S.M.A.R.T. approach to objectives:

• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Realistic
• Time-bound

Nomenclature may differ in practice but the concepts are the same. Three of these concepts are unique to objectives:

1. Specific indicates a discrete task or set of tasks.
2. Measurable indicates that there is a measurable numerical standard.
3. Time-bound indicates that there is a specific time frame for completion or attainment.

Without these three attributes objectives become little more than vague “wishes” and their impact on the organization cannot be aligned with organizational objectives or effectively linked to organizational results.

Competencies

A competency is a behavioral expectation. The implication here is that that a competency is not a specific task or set of tasks but a behavioral standard applied to all relevant tasks.

As an example, let’s take a typical standard of performance developed for a well-known medical center:

I respect privacy and confidentiality .

A certain degree of specificity is defined by an accompanying list of behavioral statements:

• Only engage in conversations regarding patients according to hospital policies and regulatory requirements
• Discuss confidential matters in a private area
• Keep written/electronic information out of the view of others
• Knock prior to entering a patient’s room, identify myself, and ask permission to enter
• Utilize doors/curtains/blankets as appropriate to ensure privacy and explain to the patient why I am doing this, ask permission prior to removing garments or blanket

In contrast to an objective, achievement of this behavioral standard does not have a measurable outcome but is determined by somewhat subjective observations of an evaluator. In theory, these behaviors could be measured using behavioral checklists, but this confuses the distinction between specific tasks and behavioral standards.  The behavioral standard is not simply a series of tasks, but reflects a way of interacting with others in the achievement of tasks.

Donna Wright, a noted competency expert in the healthcare arena, recommends that we move away from our pre-occupation with competency checklists, and rely on other forms of competency validation where appropriate.  This can include behavioral examples or “exemplars” illustrating how the employee demonstrated the competency in a given situation.  Case studies using narrative / qualitative assessment data are more effective than strictly quantitative measures in these areas.  Peer reviews (multi-rater feedback) regarding key behaviors, with supporting narrative examples, are another key element in assessing competency proficiency.

Implementation in Talent Management Systems

Career development and succession planning are directly dependent on definitions of roles, with competencies specific to each role.  As a practical matter, the definition of “I respect privacy and confidentiality” will be different for discrete functional areas, possibly requiring “contextualization” of the competency.   Different behaviors may be appropriate for an HR person, versus those required of an employee in a clinical role.

In a talent management software environment, these competencies are or should be attached to the roles regardless of what person is in the role. The competencies define the knowledge, skills, abilities, or other attributes required to perform in the role.

Conversely, objectives are typically attached to a person rather than a role.  This presents a challenge for the design of succession plans and development plans,  where an employee preparing for a future role most likely does not have access to the objectives of a person in that role and therefore cannot fully determine what is required to be prepared for the role. The same barrier exists for a succession planner attempting to determine if a potential successor is ready for a particular role.

Recommendations

To make sure that your talent management systems support organizational results and effective performance management, career development and succession planning, we recommend the following:

• Be sure your implementation supports your business needs,  taking into consideration the full capabilities of the software vendor’s technology, not just what looks easy to do.
• Partner with your software vendor to best leverage and manage your competency library.  Consider such solutions as “contextualizing” competency definitions where this will lead to clearer performance standards and expectations within selected roles.
• Create a “high feedback culture” to support competency development and the achievement of individual objectives.  Effective performance management starts with the culture.  The technology can help enable many of the processes, but cannot make up for deficits in leadership or the culture.
• Make sure your objective management system supports alignment of objectives throughout the organization and the creation of Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and time-bound objectives.
• Be diligent about understanding the implications of your implementation decisions on such longer term needs as career development and succession planning and not just the immediate needs (typically goal and performance management).
• Ensure that your competency and job description content is in shape to support your technology investments.  Make the investment to improve that content on the front end of your implementation projects, rather than waiting until after the technology has been implemented.  It will save you unnecessary  re-work down the line.

Some months ago I wrote about rating scales and stated rather unequivocally that a five point rating scale is preferred over a three point rating scale necessary to differentiate among performers. I have done some further thinking and concluded that in some cases perpetuation of a currently used three point scale might be best.

In the healthcare industry, strict compliance requirements have driven complexity in job descriptions. However, with a little work, your job descriptions that once were comprehensible only to a few will become tools used by all employees and managers to drive results and compliance.