We are working on several projects right now to help clients identify which metrics relate directly to success, which factors can predict whether an individual might have problems on-boarding successfully, and whether the demonstration of the factors described within competency models in fact are statistically related to higher performance. All of this work we find very interesting, since it offers the opportunity to prove that it is possible to measure the relationship between key performance outcomes and particular behaviors, while in other cases, we think there are relationships, but in fact there are not.
In one situation, we found that actual merit payouts are not curvilinearally reflective of performance. Kind of disturbing, I would say, but understandable when you dig further to find that the actual payouts are sometimes modified to take into account other factors, such as unique accomplishments, changes in job titles or other rewards perhaps not directly related to higher sales numbers, for example. The problem I see with this finding is that if we don’t find the linkage to stated performance outcomes, don’t you think that actual performers who are paid under these systems could question the accuracy of their reward?
In the study mentioned above, we also found that there were direct relationships between particular behavioral traits and the tendency to demonstrate high performance. This information is particularly useful in the selection process when you have a tool, such as the ECI Behavioral Insight, incorporated to help assess a candidate’s potential to demonstrate the trait.
In another study, we found a statistically significant correlation of .05 or better between higher ratings in competency performance dimensions and actual performance. This means that a well-crafted competency performance system can be used to coach and evaluate performance and that enhancing ratings of competency do increase performance. Many sales intensive companies have for years paid strictly on the dollars produced and have held their competency ratings on the side as “nice to know abouts”. This study shows that by developing key competencies, you will increase productivity in sales numbers.
Using metrics to assess performance factors and to identify the factors that emerge in high performers is of critical importance today when all businesses have to do more with less. The less people you have, the better they had better be able to perform. And the better your performance metrics need to be in order to reinforce the real behaviors that deliver results.
It is important to note that I am not talking about reach and frequency models of sales management. I am talking about the demonstration of critical behaviors and their relationship to producing more results. This is the most important reason competency systems should be instituted…to enable companies to establish the behavioral expectations for performance and to ensure that these expectations will in fact deliver better results.
Filed under: 1 | Tagged: assessment of performance factors, behavioral statistics, correlation of competency to results, identifying high performance factors
Competency models only define those knowledge areas which should produce positive results. The missing link is not skill, but the will to utilize those skills. Results are all about having the right people, in the right places, doing the right things correctly and often enough.
True. I agree with you, but right people, right places and right things is only a part of the full equation. But how do you know which people to choose and what things they should be doing and how often without a metrical basis or benchmark against which to assess the potentials? The competency model, built upon this metrical basis, is a foundational piece that describes what, how and when things should be done in order to achieve success. Form follows function….step one, find out what you need, how often and where through the study of the population and the job; step two, based on the study findings, describe these factors behaviorally and incorporate metrics for tracking; step three, compare your candidates against this measured behavioral model when hiring; step four, hold them accountable to demonstrate the behaviors through monitoring metrics and taking action to enhance performance..