|Reference : Competency Model validation process : an illustration in public administration sector|
|Scientific congresses and symposiums : Poster|
|Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Social, industrial & organizational psychology|
|Competency Model validation process : an illustration in public administration sector|
|Lothe, Benoit [Université de Liège - ULg > Département Psychologies et cliniques des systèmes humains > Valorisation des ressources humaines >]|
|Hansez, Isabelle [Université de Liège - ULg > Département Psychologies et cliniques des systèmes humains > Valorisation des ressources humaines >]|
|Bertrand, Françoise [Université de Liège - ULg > Département Psychologies et cliniques des systèmes humains > Psychologie du travail et des entreprises >]|
|XVth European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology|
|25-28 mai 2011|
|European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology|
|[en] Background: Nowadays Human Resource Management issues are highly related to the strategic approach (Analoui, 2007; Daft, 2008; Becker, Huselid & Beatty, 2009 ; Jackson, Schuler & Werner, 2009). Workforce is considered as an asset and HRM is required to match human capital with organization strategic purposes. HRM practices have accordingly evolved to better fulfil this requirement through for instance Competency Modelling (CM) (Werbel & De Marie, 2005).
Diagnosis: This communication illustrates a specific CM validation process in a wide Public Administration. Through a “one-size-fits-all” competency model approach (Mansfield, 1996), the HRM department of this Public Administration has developed a set of 29 transverse competencies broken down across 290 behavioural indicators. After several in-house pre-validation steps (workshops and test cases), Human Resources Development Unit of University of Liege was invited to collaborate to the final validation process.
Solution: Based on Van Beirendonck (2006) CM validation criteria, a two steps validation method was jointly developed. Four main criteria were used, therefore each behavioural indicator ought to : (1) meet various organizational departments needs; (2) be clearly understood within the organization (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004); (3) have a straight link with its belonging competency and (4) be observable. A questionnaire survey (n=252) was drawn up to appraise the first three criteria and quantitative analysis results provided the CM improvement framework. The concluding validation stage assessed the three last criteria by measuring Subject Matter Experts (HR managers responsible for staff evaluation) interrater agreement in order to improve CM content validity (Sanchez & Levine, 2009).
Finding: Results comfortably confirm CM content validation under the four criteria. One of the project’s more relevant elements is developing a scientifically based method adapted to wide administration organizational features and constraints. In contrast, this CM validation project presents some limitations in relation to the CM theoretical concept (ambiguous concept in its validation perspective) and to organizational constraints (lack of strategic project concerning the use of the CM). Method and outcomes will be discussed in connection with the customer’s requirements and the constraints from the organizational context.
There is no file associated with this reference.
All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.