Enhancing human resources competitiveness using skill charting methods.

ABSTRACT

This paper is about performance improvement attained through the application of skill charting methods. The methods are applicable in a broad variety of training and education situations where improvements are desired among employees. Improved performance translates directly

INTRODUCTION

In order to attract and retain customers, leverage individual and organizational learning, and to remain competitive in one's market it is vitally important for employees in organizations to perform at high levels over time. Employee competence and skill are extremely important matters today in view of the general shortage of talent and the mobility of employees with talent. Worrall and Cooper (2001) report on issues of skill development of managers and competitiveness from studies they completed in the UK on quality of work life (Worrall and Cooper, 1997, 1998). Two factors emerged as being perceived by company CEO's to have the greatest impact on the competitiveness of the region and these were, in priority order: improving managerial skills in businesses, and improving the training and development of the workforce.

Related to skills, competence and competitiveness is the emphasis by many firms on the use of balanced scorecards and performance scorecards in the human resources areas (Cedar Group, 2003; Chang and Morgan, 2000). At this time, much attention is given to the areas of performance measurement and management. Directly and indirectly, competitiveness is at the core of these areas. The literature on performance improvement is growing rapidly and is exemplified by the work of Kaplan and Norton (1996), Lev (2001), and Neely (2002).

In this paper, the ideas of Gilbert (1996) are used to guide definitions of competence and skill. Competence is some performance (doing) that results in valuable accomplishment. Achieving valuable accomplishment while reducing the costs (e.g., money, time, effort) of performance represents an increase in competence. Clearly, the competitive meaning of competence is hereby reflected. Competence is derived from accomplishment. We can measure the performance of managers, technicians, customer service representatives and basketball referees and the performance measurement can be done reliably and with precision given that relevant participants agree on terms, rules, and practices. These definitions and assertions are supported in the literature of assessment of skills and competencies (Allen, 2000).

Skill is the application of some behavior that has some discriminations of mastery, for example, quality and/or quantity. Like competence it has relativistic referents. Virtually every task or job may be performed more or less skillfully depending on effects achieved, time used, and resources applied. Both competence and skill are qualitative terms.

ASSISTING EMPLOYEES TO CHANGE AND IMPROVE PERFORMANCE

The specific training methods and tools explained in this paper are grounded on the basic concepts of a social constructivist approach to employee learning and change. A constructivist approach is an active one in which the employees are constructing new knowledge over a foundation of prior or previous learning. Much important construction takes place in our interactions with others. Drath and Paulus (1994) put it succinctly, "... and people make meaning socially--they construct their experience together so they can communicate and cooperate and agree about what is happening. They can interpret, anticipate, and plan together" (p. 3).

A social constructivist approach to employee learning creates the expectation that there are many ways in which to improve performance of a particular skill. There is not necessarily one best way (Jonassen, 1991). There are multiple representations of reality. People, together, construct reality and the construction is ongoing and changing.

Most of us have been taught that learning was purely an individual activity. Yet, we know that groups learn, too, and self-directed small groups can become very efficient in their learning as Raelin (2000) has demonstrated in his research. The constructivist approach to learning is a good match for skill learning and development because we can emphasize authentic tasks in organizational contexts that most employees can understand. Skill learning can make use of competitive contexts in which to situate learning activities. In the skill learning the elements of a performance need to be specified, made known, and understood (Jonassen, 1994).

In constructivist terms, we view meaning and reality personally, as universal grounding of meaning and reality are less important or not important at all. The basis for this way of thinking is found in psychological research in situated cognition where the person or persons in a particular context are the main foci (Wilson & Meyers, 2000). Evidence of this approach to thinking about performance in organizations is reflected in the research of Lawrie (2002) in which management systems are built around the development of locally relevant performance measures. Then, each management team uses practices that permit each team to control completely the content and targets that apply to them.

In this paper we link constructivist learning methods in training with skills creation and improvements in order to stimulate the enhancement of performance. The means or vehicle used to help create improved skills and performance is skills charting or competency mapping [SC/CM]. This vehicle [SC/CM] represents a variety of tactics aimed at creating or improving skills, competence, and ultimately, performance. Improvements are achieved by assisting individuals, working alone or in groups, to systematically isolate important behaviors and standards of performance aimed at addressing specific business needs. The better the needs are met, the more likely is the firm to improve its competitive posture.

SKILLS CHARTING, COMPETENCY MAPPING PROCESSES

In this paper, Skills Charting and Competency Mapping are interchangeable terms. Because Competency Mapping, as a term, has appeared more frequently in various sources, we will use the term competency map or competency mapping [CM] to use throughout the remainder of this paper. There is virtually no publicly available empirical research to support the use of these methods. The research in this paper helps to address this gap. In organizations, human resource experts and consultants use competency maps (CM) to improve the alignment of what the individuals are currently able to perform and what they need to do to perform better and/or differently consistent with the aims and objectives of the organization (Shell Global Solutions, 2001). As Green (1999) reports, the study of competencies in real and/or applied terms helps people to use the same language, repeatedly, to make important standards, expectations, and objectives part of everyday conversations. We can help get everyone pointed in the same directions; we can better compare what was done with what was expected. Clearly, within the context of constructivist approaches to learning and change, these outcomes are most desirable towards enhancing learning, performance and competitive position.

IN PRACTICE

CM is frequently used, on a small or large scale, in a process of activities in organizations to identify domains of knowledge, skills, and abilities that represent the individuals of a particular group or unit. Individuals using direction and guidelines map the competencies. (Kaul Assoc., 2001; Lyons, 2002). The CM is primarily the result of a process of listing critical skill and knowledge elements of a task, job, role, unit or organization so as to demonstrate or discover, initially, what is needed for successful performance. Identities and listings are followed by activities that seek to create refinements of skilled behavior, create standards for measuring skilled performance and related activities.

The map starts out as a graphical representation of activities and behavior that might be part of an episode where the employee needs to behave in a skilled manner to be effective. This effort at creation may be a powerful stimulant for learning and change. Keep in mind that much, but not all, of the behavior addressed or encompassed with these methods is aimed at interpersonal behaviors as contrasted with purely technically based skills behaviors. The creation of the map is just the beginning. The construction of the map serves as a graphic organizer of ideas. Individuals or small groups can brainstorm a number of ideas, behaviors, or performances that may help to define skilled performance in some domain. We need a "trigger" skill area to commence this activity. For example, in a sales organization, a skill area could be: assist the customer to define his/her needs. Assume our individual or small group used this skill area as its stimulus or trigger. Then, they could list, on a large sheet of paper or on a whiteboard, the major activities, and actions that would need to occur as part of a skillful repertoire of behavior. This is how the physical map commences.

Each of these significant component areas should have subordinate parts. As the mapping takes on complexity and details we discover that the participants are, in large measure, creating a script or repertoire of skilled performance. That is, the participants are constructing the features, activities and language of a skilled performance. The graphical nature of the map helps to illuminate interrelationships among components as well as interdependencies.

Once a somewhat detailed and/or hierarchical set of actions or behaviors has been identified the team may discuss the adequacy of the repertoire as a sufficient process to achieve the original goal: assisting the customer to define his/her needs. Each of the elements can be examined in terms of skilled performance. The following questions may be helpful. What criteria would define each element as a skilled performance? What criteria make sense in terms of quality, cost, or consequences? Where are the gaps in the repertoire now that we have defined what we are referring to as skilled behavior? This reflective dialogue is often very useful in aiding understanding.

The Competency Mapping process may assist managers and supervisors to attain a more complete understanding of the transferability of skills from job activity to job activity (Gunner, 2001). A manager or supervisor can use the process as an instructional tool. It can be used in a work session with employees in reference to some activity that needs to be performed with more precision, attention, or care.

In the following paragraphs we present the results of a study in which team members rate various, important aspects of their leader's performance. One group (experimental) of team leaders, who had participated in substantial competency/skills mapping training, developed new skills for improving team performance. A second group (control) of team leaders participated in more traditional training to develop new means and methods of improving team performance. As a follow-up to that training, this study seeks to determine how team members perceived the changes in performance of their respective team leaders.

METHODS

Prior to this study, and following the receipt of skill mapping training, all team leaders from the experimental group (n=38) conditions and from the control group (n=42) conditions rated their own perceived changes in functioning. Those perceptions clearly indicated that the team leaders from the experimental group judged their performance to be positively influenced with the mapping training, and they reported relatively high levels of satisfaction with their improved functioning, Then, we wanted to have the people the team leaders' work with and direct, the team members, assess the team leaders' performance in relation to changes in practices and new methods of managing performance. We wanted to have the team members give some indication of the performance of their respective team leaders on valued performance variables and then examine differences between the team leaders who participated in the sessions using mapping strategies with those team leaders who did not participate in those strategy sessions. As this is an exploratory study, no explicit hypotheses are defined. Examination of the actual changes in performance of the teams, over time, per established output standards of the organization is not part of this study.

We randomly selected ten team leaders who participated in the mapping strategy sessions (the original experimental group) and ten team leaders who did not participate in those sessions (the original control group). Then, we identified all of the team members who worked with the respective team leaders. Two groups of team members were identified, those who worked with team leaders in the original experimental group and those members who worked with team leaders in the original control group. From each (experimental, control) group of team members we randomly selected 10 individuals to represent all team leaders. The team leaders and all participants in this study are involved with customer service operations of a large financial services (insurance, investments, etc.) conglomerate with headquarters in the Northeast U.S. Virtually all of the team leaders have a baccalaureate degree, a few have a master's degree. For the entire group, years of service with the firm were quite variable; from less than one year to 19 years with the majority having less than five years service.

The individuals who conducted the training of the team leaders (facilitators) conducted a focus group-type meeting with each of the two groups of team members for the purpose of identifying qualities or characteristics of team leaders that would help describe improved performance on the part of team leaders who had been exposed to, had learned about, had been substantially influenced by some new information, knowledge, and so on. That is, we desire to identify characteristics or behaviors of team leaders that define their improved performance from the viewpoint of the team members. This approach is a very important feature of this study. Two 75-minute meetings of each group were required in order to identify the performance characteristics. The two groups came up with similar indicators or characteristics of changed performance; however, the facilitators had to reconcile the lists of characteristics. The characteristics thus derived are listed here:

Team leader performance changed (or should change) in terms of:

* response time for coaching when errors occur,

* efficiency in time used for supervision, coaching, etc.,

* providing clearer focus on desired behaviors of team members

* use of positive reinforcement and

* being there back-up for team members.

[Note: the facilitators had some confusion in communication with the focus groups on the last item in the list. It seemed that the team members felt very strongly that team leaders needed to be highly supportive of their teams, yet the team members could not articulate what that meant with clear definition. They agreed that it was vitally important for a team leader to be supportive of his/her team in order to build community, rapport, and trust.] An instrument was prepared with the five items, above, arranged in Likert-type scales with all items stated in the positive. "Strongly Agree = 5; Strongly Disagree = 1. For example: My team leader currently demonstrates a rapid response time for coaching me as errors occur- Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Not sure = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1.

At approximately three weeks following the training sessions of the team leaders, their respective teams of employees rated their team leaders on the five variables, above. The team leaders had no knowledge during or following training that their team members would rate them on these five variables. There were from 8 to 11 members on each team. This meant that each team leader had scores per each of the five variables and a composite score that is six scores, contributed by each of their employees. We are thus able to compare scores of performance change as perceived by team members for each team leader as that team leader represents a control or experimental condition. We may also examine the differences between the team leaders, as groups, per the control and experimental conditions.

Groups

We are using two groups, experimental (E) and control (C). Job classification per each individual in the groups is the same. The groups are equal in size and the age range of subjects in groups was generally equal with E group age range from 23 to 45 years and C group age range from 24 to 41 years. Average age in E group was 27 and was 28 in the C group. Years of work experience (all work experience) were nearly equal in the groups (E = 10.4 years, on average; with C = 9.7 years, on average). For the ten randomly selected team leaders for each condition (Control, Experimental) we have, respectively, average age of 28 and 27, and average number of years of work experience at 9.7 and 10.4. In the Control group are 3 men and 7 women and in the Experimental group are 4 men and 6 women. The information in demonstrates that the two groups of team leaders are quite similar in several respects The similarities, in aggregate, help support conclusions regarding performance differences that may be influenced by the training methods used with the respective groups. With regard to the members of the teams of the selected team leaders, team members are generally younger than team leaders and have about half as much work experience as their team leaders. Gender distribution is about equal for team leaders and team members, in the aggregate. Again, the similarities of the two groupings of team members may give credence to findings that demonstrate performance differences.

RESULTS

In November of 2002, approximately three weeks following the conclusion of the training of the team leaders, the team members rated the performance of their respective team leaders using the scale items and weightings mentioned above. Each team member provided five ratings for his/her team leader. All ratings were completed and all data collected was usable for this study. For a total score for each team leader per each variable, all team member ratings are aggregated. With one exception, "Positive Reinforcement," the mean values for the five variables are greater for the Experimental group team leaders than for the Control group team leaders. This finding is encouraging as aggregate ratings of those team leaders who participated in the mapping training are clearly greater than those team leaders who did not participate in the training. The total ratings demonstrate relatively small standard deviations.

The t-Test for the means for the variables, assuming unequal variances, demonstrates that only the differences in Control and Experimental groups for the variable, "providing clearer focus on desired behaviors of team members," and for the total or aggregate rating achieved significant differences at the .05 level. So, while the means of ratings for the Experimental group are greater, the differences, with two exceptions, are not significant. This is not as encouraging as we would like; however, there is some evidence to support the efficacy of the mapping training strategy.

Finally, since t-Tests were used that assume unequal variances in the samples, two tests were applied that seek to discover if, in fact, the sample variances (per variable) are unequal. Using a test for unequal variances and Levene's test for equality of variances we learn that in a comparison of variances for each variable across the Control and Experimental groups, only two variables are considered to have homogeneous variances: Efficiency and Total (sum of all variables). In this study we do not have many significant mean differences nor do we have many variables in which variances are homogeneous. Both tests used demonstrate that aggregate rating differences across groups are homogeneous, thus supporting the significance of the mean differences found in Experimental and Control groups. Only one variable, efficiency in time used for supervision/coaching, defined variances in samples as homogeneous.

DISCUSSION

In this study we attempted to control as many factors as possible to include random selection of participants for training, random selection of team leaders for performance assessment, and two training facilitators who worked with both samples. The team members who actually applied the performance ratings were, by default, randomly selected and were highly similar in gender, age, years of education and years of work experience. All of these elements help to establish a substantial foundation for comparisons of Experimental and Control groups.

Some differences in perceived performance of team leaders who received the mapping training compared with team leaders who did not receive the mapping training did occur. There were few significant differences. The mean differences give direction and this is encouraging. The mean difference in the total or aggregate ratings is significant. When coupled with the result of tests for equality of variances we have an encouraging outcome regarding the efficacy of the mapping strategy.

This study is subject to various limitations, namely: relatively small sample sizes, qualitative performance measures (as contrasted with verifiable, quantitative measures), and the variable time-lag from conclusion of training until the actual performance ratings, and the heterogeneity of variances between the samples. Another limiting feature is the fact that the two facilitators had practically no prior experience with mapping training.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary focus of this study concerns performance improvement of employees as such improvement enhances the competitive posture of an organization. If employees can learn faster and better to improve performance, then an organization may attain a competitive edge, other things being equal. This study looks at the development of skill and competence and examines, on a limited scale, the skill development of supervisors as experienced and perceived by the individuals that the supervisor attempts to influence.

The experiment contained in this study demonstrates that the application of constructivist, skill charting methods to improve skills and competence makes some difference in performance. The performance variables used in the study are primarily qualitative in nature as contrasted with purely quantitative measures of results or output. The quantitative measures aspect is subject matter for a future study along these lines.

While some improvements are noted in the study, only one performance variable, (supervisors) providing clear focus on the desired behavior of team members emerges as a significant change. Hence, only one of five variables demonstrates substantial performance improvement. However, when data from all variables is considered, in aggregate, we discern an overall substantial improvement in performance. Since the aggregate of the data is less influenced by sample size, the noted change in performance is clearly meaningful. What is also clear is that more study needs to be done to examine the efficacy of the skill charting strategy as a problem solving, training and development tool.

The charting strategy tools have implications for many aspects of the human resources domain to include: job analysis, task analysis, skill development, development of competencies and standards, training, performance analysis and appraisal, and performance improvement. Virtually all of these human resource matters influence individual and organizational performance and have clear implications for the competitiveness of an organization. Finally, it would be most desirable to create a study that would address some quantitative performance results or outcomes of supervisors and employees following training using the methods proposed in this paper.

REFERENCES

Allen, L. (2000). Competencies that count: Strategies for assessing high performance skill. LAB Working Paper #2, Providence, R.I: Northeast and Islands Regional & Educational Laboratory.

Cedar Group. (2003). HR strategy using the HR scorecard Surrey. U.K.

Chang, R. and Morgan, M.W. (2000). Performance scorecards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Drath, W.H. and Paulus, C.J. (1994). Making common sense: Leadership as meaning-making in a community of practice. Greensboro, N.C: Center for Creative Leadership.

Gilbert, T. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. Washington, D.C: International Society for Performance Improvement.

Green, P. (1999). Building robust competencies: Linking human resources systems to organizational strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Gunnar, M. (2001). Your transferable skills. Live and Learn, 4(1), 19-21.

Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning. Educational Technology, 31 (9), 28-33.

Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996). Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. California Management Review, 39(1), 53-79.

Kaul Associates, Ltd. Consulting. Personal Communication. (2001, November 16).

Lawrie, G. (2002). The BSC as a communication protocol for managing across intra-organizational borders. 2GC Active Management: London.

Lev, B. (2001). Intangibles: Management, measurement, and reporting. Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution.

Lyons, P. (2002). Competency mapping. Aligning performance by improving knowledge and skills. Presentation made at the 2002 Lilly Conference on College & University Teaching, Towson, Maryland.

Neely, A. (2002). Business performance measurement: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Raelin, J. (2000). Work-based learning: The new frontier of management development. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Shell Global Solutions, Learning & Development Consultancy. Personal communication. (2001, November 30).

Wilson, B.G. and Meyers, K.M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical contexts. In D.M Jonassen and S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57-88). Mahway, N.J: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Worrall, L. and Cooper, C. (1997). The quality of working life 1997 report. London: Institute of Management.

Worrall, L. and Cooper, C. (1998). The quality of working life 1998 report. London: Institute of Management.

Worrall, L. and Cooper, C. (2001). Management skills development: A perspective on current issues and setting the future agenda. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 22(1), 34-39.

Paul Lyons is Professor of Management in the Department of Management at Frostburg State University, of the University System of Maryland, U.S.A. Paul teaches courses in organizational behavior and leadership. He has experience in higher education as director of research, division head, dean of graduate school, department chair, and associate dean of the College of Business. In addition, he has experience in sales management, and in human resources management with the City of Tampa, Florida. Paul has extensive experience as a consultant and trainer with a variety of businesses and non-profit organizations.