Premium
THE PRACTICE OF COMPETENCY MODELING
Author(s) -
SHIPPMANN JEFFERY S.,
ASH RONALD A.,
BATJTSTA MARIANGELA,
CARR LINDA,
EYDE LORRAINE D.,
HESKETH BERYL,
KEHOE JERRY,
PEARLMAN KENNETH,
PRIEN ERICH P.,
SANCHEZ JUAN I.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
personnel psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.076
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1744-6570
pISSN - 0031-5826
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00220.x
Subject(s) - strengths and weaknesses , psychology , job analysis , confusion , dimension (graph theory) , applied psychology , work (physics) , scale (ratio) , industrial and organizational psychology , best practice , job satisfaction , management , social psychology , engineering , pure mathematics , mechanical engineering , physics , mathematics , quantum mechanics , economics , psychoanalysis
The purpose of this article is to define and explain a trend that has caused a great deal of confusion among HR researchers, practitioners, and consumers of HR‐related services: competency modeling. The Job Analysis and Competency Modeling Task Force, a work group jointly sponsored by the Professional Practice Committee and the Scientific Affairs Committee of the Society For Industrial and Organizational Psychology, has recently concluded a 2‐year investigation into the antecedents of competency modeling and an examination of the current range of practice. Competency modeling is compared and contrasted to job analysis using a conceptual framework (reflected in a 10‐dimension Level of Rigor Scale) that practitioners and researchers may use to guide future work efforts, and which could be used as a basis for developing standards for practice. The strengths and weaknesses of both competency modeling and job analysis are identified and, where appropriate, recommendations are made for leveraging strengths in one camp to shore‐up weaknesses in the other.