Here is an alternative management development process then…in just 5 easy steps!…built around authentic learning tasks and supported by informal learning assets and small team action learning sessions.

Please visit my new blog Performance X Design to read the rest of this post and others.

Note:  The Gram Consulting blog has been discontinued…I post blog introductions here  to encourage Gram Consulting readers to visit the new blog.   Please come on over…

I recently received my Certified Training and Development Professional Designation (CTDP) from the Canadian Society for Training and Development (CSTD). I’ve been working in this profession for a number of years and have been an intermittent member of CSTD over that time.  CSTD has been working hard to build the certification as an indicator of accomplishment and excellence in the workplace learning and performance profession in Canada.

from the CSTD website: CSTD is a strategic world leader, driving excellence in workplace learning and performance, impacting business success. The CTDP designation is intended to set the standard for quality for the Training and Development industry

The CSTD Training Competency Architecture

The performance standard for the CTDP designation is the Training Competency Architecture, a set of competencies, knowledge and behaviours describing best practice performance in five categories.   CTDP holders must demonstrate competence against these standards.  I’ve listed the five competency categories and core competencies from the Architecture below.

What’s Missing?

The Architecture and supporting certification exam are currently under formal review for additions and modifications.  Most learning and performance professionals will notice areas where the competencies could be modified to incorporate crossover disciplines and meet emerging trends.  For example, I think technology in learning and performance is at this point a core skill, as are informal learning approaches and sister competencies such as knowledge management and performance consulting.

Do you have any thoughts on the competencies and how they might be modified/updated to meet current workplace requirements?

CSTD Competency Categories

Each competency category is subdivided into core competencies, which are further subdivided into contributing competencies.  Details can be found here

Analyzing Performance/Training Needs
Core Competencies:

1. Prepare Training Needs Analysis Strategy/Project Plan
2. Prepare Training Needs Analysis Methods and Media
3. Conduct Training Needs Analysis
4. Identify and Evaluate Solutions
5. Present Solutions and Document Decisions

Designing Training
Core Competencies:

1. Conduct a Detailed Training Design Analysis
2. Determine the Performance/Learning Objectives & Sequence
3. Prepare a “Concept Draft” of the Training Design
4. Design the Learning Evaluation (Process & Content)
5. Design the Learning Materials & Media
6. Validate/Pilot the Training Design (Process & Content)
7. Finalize/Produce the Learning Materials & Media
8. Support the Implementation/Evaluate the Organizational Impact
9. Update and Maintain Learning Materials & Media

Facilitating/Instructing
Core Competencies:

1. Prepare to Facilitate/Instruct
2. Relate Design to Unique Needs of Learners & Organization
3. Create and Maintain a Hospitable Learning Environment
4. Create and Maintain a Learner-Centered Environment
5. Foster Learning
6. Facilitate Individual and Group Work and Process
7. Engage Learners Through Communication Skills
8. Use Media and Technology to Enhance Learning
9. Behave Ethically and Keep Current

Evaluating Training
Core Competencies:

1. Prepare the Training Evaluation System/Process
2. Determine the Training Evaluation Methods and Media
3. Implement the Training Evaluation System/Process
4. Respond to Evaluation Results/Recommendations
5. Maintain and update the training evaluation system/process

Coaching the Application of Training
Core Competencies:

1. Identify the Need for Performance Improvement/Development
2. Communicate Learning Expectations/Follow-Up Coaching Plan
3. Support and Monitor Completion of Training
4. Coach On-the-Job Application of Training
5. Evaluate Success of Training Application & Support

More information on the CTDP certification can be found here

Competency based talent management (training, development, performance management, selection etc.) is now firmly entrenched in corporate HR culture.  The approach is so commonplace that it’s an expected feature in any Talent or Learning Management System worth its salt.  Some even come with pre-defined competency libraries taking away the need for any of that nasty and time consuming internal competency analysis.

Originally,  the approach struck me as a reliable way to define performance “standards” for jobs, roles, and even entire organizations.  They could be used to measure current performance against the “standard” to identify gaps which could be then be used for performance management, training, career development, and selection.  It fit with the performance consulting notion that training needs should be based on the difference between desired and actual performance.  The problem is, with some competency approaches, you’re not really measuring performance at all.

There are (at least) three different competency philosophies at work.  The first originated in the 50′s with Dr. David McClelland at Harvard.  It’s the approach that informs how most HR units use competencies.  This approach is based on identifying the critical traits or personality factors associated with high performers. They are “fairly deep and enduring part of a person’s personality and can predict behavior in a wide variety of situations and job tasks” (from Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance“).   We’ve all seen statements and behavioural descriptors for competencies like “achievement orientation” or “interpersonal understanding”.  These are pure trait theory type competencies.

Another approach is more akin to traditional task analysis approaches where an analyst breaks down a job or role into key results areas, tasks and then knowledge and skill required produce the results.  The link to performance requirements is much more direct but its application is much more narrow and restricted to specific jobs.  A little old school in today’s knowledge oriented economy.

The third and I believe most useful for defining and managing modern knowledge work involves developing a menu of performance outputs and associated behavioral practices that can be assigned to jobs and roles as they change with an organization. It identifies both the job performance requirements (outputs) and the individual capabilities need to produce the outputs of a job or role. This approach might more accurately be called a performance model vs. a competency model.  Performance models are more aligned with approaches of Patricia McLagan,  Robinson and Robinson, and Geary Rummler.

Many companies mix and match these approaches and end up with unwieldy lists of competency statements, behavioral descriptions, task statements, and results lists that cause most employees and managers to wonder yet again what the hell is going on in HR.

Experience tells me that personality type competencies are more useful for selection and placement purposes than for training.  However, a well researched “performance model” that identifies the key results of top performers and the skills and practices used to achieve those results is far more useful for identifying performance gaps, supportive training and other measures that can have a real impact on business performance.