2

 


taking competencies and the impact you can make with them to the next level...


10.1 - Competencies vs. Traits - Which Are More Important?
By Mark Norland

I’m often asked questions like:


  • Is it better to recruit for traits or competencies?
  • We’re developing promotion and succession planning criteria – should we worry more about competencies or traits?
  • Competencies can be learned and developed, but traits are what they are - and can’t really be changed – right?


My response may sound like the easy answer, but I’m convinced it’s also the right answer.  Both competencies and traits are important.  They often collide with each other in interrelationship and don’t always lend themselves to tidy categorization.  Traits may support, co-exist with, or even interfere with demonstration of competencies.  In return, certain competencies may showcase or expose certain traits – for better or for worse.

As to the third question, competencies are indeed developed.  People develop them at different rates and to varying levels of proficiency based upon aptitude and other factors (e.g. diligence, experiences, and access to resources).  The behaviors associated with many traits can be modified through effective role modeling, feedback, and coaching.

I think of competencies as skills and capabilities.  I think of traits as characteristics and attributes.  As people observe your behaviors, they will identify your traits.  They will also draw conclusions about your skills and capabilities.  As we’ll explore, competencies and traits often work together in concert.  Some further definition and examples may be helpful on the front-end.

Traits – following are examples of what may generally be considered appealing traits:

                Articulate

                Industrious

                Resourceful

                Focused

                Gracious

                Creative


Competencies – following are examples of competency statements:

  •    Lead a team to comprehensively achieve its objectives.
  •    Delegate work effectively and efficiently.
  •    Analyze data to support cogent conclusions and recommendations.
  •    Implement a new process or system successfully, on time, and within budget.


You’ll note competencies are typically phrases that can lead with an action verb.  They are also phrases that can be preceded by “Knows how to…” or “Has demonstrated the ability to…”  Competencies may also be expressed as nouns that can be followed by the word "skills" or sometimes action words like "building" - e.g. negotiation skills, team building, consensus building.  Traits are more often descriptive adjectives or nouns.

Traits are often leveraged in demonstrating competencies.  For example, someone who is collaborative (a trait) is likely going to be more effective in demonstrating teamwork competencies.  A corresponding competency statement might read something like this:

    Collaborates effectively with team members in consistently developing the best solutions to problems as they arise.

Competencies are skills and capabilities that can be learned, practiced, and assessed.  I think of traits as part of “who we are” – our natural tendencies that define our style.  It would be difficult to “teach” patience, but it might be role modeled effectively.  The behaviors associated with traits might also be modified to some degree through coaching and feedback.  For example, while patience is often considered to be a desirable trait; someone may benefit from some coaching to understand that they are too patient when dealing with situations requiring a sense of urgency.

Traits tend to be more subjective – they don’t lend themselves as readily to measurement.  Hiring or promotion decisions based solely upon an individual’s traits don’t always lead to the best outcomes.  We tend to gravitate toward people with traits that mirror our own – again, for better or for worse.  If you were able to hire only one person to assist you, you may actually benefit more by hiring someone with desirable traits you don’t naturally or consistently exhibit yourself.  They may serve to complement vs. mirror what you bring to the table.

Talent acquisition…

In my view, the most logical approach to developing hiring criteria is sequential as follows:


  • Identify and define the competencies you need to execute your strategies and achieve your objectives.
  • Identify and describe the traits that support the competencies you've identified.
  • Incorporate both the competencies and the traits identified into your position descriptions, interview questions, and other materials used by recruiters and hiring managers
  • As candidate decisions are made, consider the investment you are or are not prepared to make in fully developing the competencies you need.  Do you need a new employee to be able to hit the ground running - firing on all cylinders?  Or do you have a strategy, time, and the resources to further develop the specific skills required for the role once employment commences?


Well written position descriptions and other criteria used in selecting candidates incorporate both competencies required for the role and desirable traits.  Potential candidates may actually choose to self-select themselves out of consideration for a role based upon their own introspection of traits.  For example, someone who is more laid back may realize that he/she is not a good match for a position description consistently emphasizing “high energy.”

Behavioral interviewing techniques seek to discover both traits and competencies successfully (or not so successfully) demonstrated in an individual’s real-life prior experiences.  The methodology is predicated upon the theory that past behaviors are predictive of future behaviors.  Click here to learn more about behavioral interviewing with some examples.

Too much of a good thing…

The ability to perform all of the competencies well as defined for a role is of course a good thing.  While we’ve all heard of someone being “overqualified” for a job, it’s rare that we hear criticisms of people demonstrating too much skill.  Traits, on the other hand, may be a different matter.  Too much of any “good” thing may become a liability under some circumstances.  For example:


  • Someone who is too adventurous may not always manage risk responsibly.
  • Someone who is too creative may not develop practical solutions when needed.
  • Someone who is obsessively compulsive about being organized may not get anything else done beyond being organized.
  • Someone who is too confident may be perceived as arrogant - a classic example of an appealing trait that can morph into a not so appealing trait.


By the way, therein underscores the power of teams.  In addition to diversity of experiences, ideas, and competencies; a well cast team also benefits from diversity of traits.  Traits of one team member may complement traits of another and some traits may even productively counterbalance each other.

Traits can have a big impact upon an organization's culture.  Back to my confidence example above, arrogance can breed more arrogance if left unchecked.  Unfortunately, unappealing traits are sometimes mimicked in "monkey-see-monkey-do" fashion.  Conversely, appealing traits can also become contagious.  People really do observe and learn from the behaviors of their leaders and their colleagues.  Some are naturally comfortable with their individual styles; others are more works-in-progress and actively seek to adopt and exhibit traits they believe will help them "fit in" and succeed in their environment.

Leadership – a compelling hybrid example:

Much has been written about leadership – how to best define it and how to develop it.  I think of leadership as an activity leveraging a collection of competency families accompanied by a cluster of supporting traits – a true hybrid.  Successful leaders tend to consistently exhibit a series of traits that directly support the leadership competencies they consistently demonstrate.  While not comprehensive lists to be sure, examples of each might include:


Leadership Competencies
Leadership Traits
Building and maintaining relationships
Integrity
Managing change
Courage
Team building
Credibility
Developing others
Enthusiasm
Consensus building
Persuasion
Negotiation skills
Confidence
Communication skills
Judgment
Delegation skills
Decisiveness


It takes but a quick scan of both lists above to identify and appreciate the relationships between competencies and traits.  A confident leader will be a better negotiator.  A credible and persuasive leader will be a better consensus-builder.  And so on… 

Splitting hairs…

In the end, it may not be all that important or worthwhile to endlessly split hairs or parse words in differentiating competencies from traits – they are destined to interrelate.  There are indeed points of intersection and overlap.  For example, you might say that someone is very analytic (a trait) and also define a competency specific to analytic skills.  Similarly, decisiveness may be considered a trait, but you can also define competencies specific to decision-making skills.

What is important is that you comprehensively define and effectively integrate the combinations of competencies and traits that directly support your strategies and objectives throughout your talent/HR processes including:


  •     Recruiting / talent acquisition
  •     Learning and professional development curricula
  •     Deployment / assignment decision-making
  •     Performance management
  •     Promotion criteria
  •     Succession planning efforts


Afterall, what could be more important than consistently hiring, developing, incenting, and promoting the talent you really need?