Employee Assessment: Human Resource Management

Job Analysis and Competency Modeling Literature has shown that just like the skills, knowledge and competencies required for success differ from position to position, the methodologies for determining the specific KSAs required for success also differ. For instance, whereas administrative and clerical positions require one to conduct a local job analysis alone to determine the required KSAs, supervisory and executive positions would call for the development of a competency model in addition to a local job analysis.

For an administrative position, therefore, the methodology for KSA determination would basically include analyzing the requirements of the position under changing business environments (based on information presented in books and other business-related literature), and then determining the knowledge (say university degree or relevant certification) and skills (the least amount of experience) that an incumbent would require at entry to be able to execute the duties and responsibilities of that particular position.

This methodology is simpler than that used for managerial and supervisory positions, but its applicability is questionable given the difficulty involved in validating the requirements -- for instance, managers will often find it difficult to determine whether to choose a candidate with the relevant certification or one who lacks certification but possesses the relevant experience. Some managers will opt for the latter and others for the former, and there cannot, therefore, be a one-fit strategy for the full validation of requirements (Reed, McCloy & Whetzel, 2010).

This model, though simple, may not work effectively with supervisory and managerial positions. In such cases, competency modeling would be used in addition to local job analysis to determine the required KSAs.

In this case, the methodology would be more complicated, involving i) analysis of the job/position under changing business environments (just as is the case with administrative positions); ii) identification of effective and ineffective behaviors through leadership-based theory (analysis of cognitive and effective leadership skills required); iii) analysis of gathered data and formulation of competency model combining all the relevant skills and competencies), and iv) validation of the appropriateness of the developed model (Schmit & Strange, 2010).

Unlike the methodology used in the case of the administrative position, this one is competency-based, allowing the manager to assess a candidate's suitability to the position in a holistic manner, and not just based on their experience and educational qualification.

Towards this end, the methodology is also suitable for use in the determination of KSAs for entry-level positions because then the incumbents are new to the organization, and it is more reasonable to assess them from a holistic perspective; that is, in terms of their suitability not just for the position at hand, but for the organization in general.

Generally, however, job analysis and competency modeling are most appropriate for use when the organization's jobs do not differ substantially because in that case, a lot of resources would not have to be spent in the development and validation of different competency models, which could be quite costly. Part Two: Multi-Rator Assessment There is a raging debate on whether multi-rator (3600) feedback (MRF) ought to be used for administrative purposes only or for administrative purposes as well, such as in the determination of who should be promoted.

Proponents of the latter argue that the benefits of MRF are not maximized if it is used for development purposes only, which in this case basically means behavioral change (Bracken et al., 1997). After reviewing the views presented by both sides, I am of the opinion that organizations are safer using MRF for developmental purposes only. The reason is simple -- when information collected through MRF is used for assessment and other administrative purposes, it is no longer safe.

For instance, if an individual receives negative ratings when the data is meant to determine their eligibility for salary increment or promotion, they are likely to get defensive, reject the same and begin to harbor negative feelings towards their rators. However, if the information is not tied to any administrative functions, and is to be used purely for behavioral-development purposes, then the individual is likely to take the same positively and change wherever necessary simply because there is no harm in doing so.

Using MRF for administrative purposes is based on the wrong assumption that information provided by rators is always accurate, and rators are after the best interests of the person being rated. A manager who punishes employees for underperformance is more likely to be rated lower than a more lenient one who is out to build ratings for themselves -- if information gathered through such ratings is used for performance appraisal, we could end up promoting into positions.