The subject of competence assessment is multiform in nature, due to the variety of approaches and conceptions of competence. There are two main methodological perspectives: the educational or curricular and the managerial.
Curricular perspective
The educational or curricular perspective is aligned with the competency certification approach. In this perspective, competence is the aptitude to perform a job or occupation. Competence is considered a discrete binary variable: it only admits two values (competent or not yet competent). Scored over one hundred, the competent grade will be associated with 100.
If we apply the Weber-Fechtner principle or psychophysical perceptions, and establish a range based on the perception threshold, as a correction factor for the appreciation error, we would obtain a corrected range of 92 to 100. In other words, the competent person It is the one that reaches 92 points or more in its evaluation. This somewhat linear approach is valid for curriculum design or competency certification, where it is conceived as a goal to be achieved.
Management perspective
In the business world, the concept of competition has been adopted in terms of performance. Competencies are referred to as underlying personal characteristics, which support superior performance. Competence is conceived associated with the ideal performance of a role. In this sense, an occupation (position or occupation) unfolds in a set of roles, such as administrator, leader, motivator, negotiator, planner, designer, among others. The ideal performance of each role is associated with one or more competencies, such as analytical thinking, strategic thinking, negotiation skills, impact and influence, creative thinking, among others. We then see competition as a distinct unit of performance or as underlying personal characteristics.
In the business world, not all people must display competencies, up to the master's level or one hundred percent. Competences are associated with roles and positions, understanding the position as an integrated set of roles. Obviously, the receptionist does not have to dominate the "customer orientation" competence to the same extent as the customer service analyst, and the client analyst does not have to dominate that competence at the same level required of the client service supervisor, nor in comparison with the sales representative. Then, mastery levels are predefined and established, depending on the scope of action and decision of each position, in a gradation that generally goes from 1 to 4 or basic, intermediate, advanced and masters.
Competition: a continuous variable
In the managerial approach, competition is perceived as a continuous variable, that is, it can assume various values within a range associated with a structure of levels of mastery. In organizations, competencies are broken down into levels of mastery, associated with the position structure. In this sense, a person can be "below", "at the level of", or "above" the demands of her position. So something appears that is unacceptable from a curricular perspective, and it is the positive or “ascending” gap; This means that it is admitted that a person has a level of mastery greater than 100%, with respect to the demands of her position.
We must clarify that the curricular and managerial perspectives are not mutually exclusive, because they have different purposes. One, to guide the design and the training process, as well as to establish the bases for the certification of the competence. The other, to guide personnel management on the basis of competencies, within the organization, considering not only people but also positions.
Evaluation criteria in the managerial approach
In the field of personnel management by competencies, we find several methodological routes, applicable to evaluation, but the most used are the descriptive tables and the domain indicators.
Descriptive tables
Descriptive tables are semantic dimensions made up of paragraphs that describe a set of observable behaviors referred to levels of mastery, generally arranged in ascending order. In this case, a person's level of mastery is evaluated with respect to a competence associated with their position, comparing their performance against each descriptive paragraph, and selecting the one that best reflects the person's performance. In this case, the positive or negative gap will result from the difference between the level of mastery corresponding to the selected paragraph and that corresponding to the level of mastery required by the position.
Domain indicators
The domain indicators are a set of items or short sentences referring to observable behaviors, which allow evaluating the competence domain considering, one by one, the entire set of indicators. In this case, the positive or negative gap will result from the score obtained, considering whether the person's performance with respect to the indicator is A, B or C, where A could mean "fully meets or exceeds the demands of the position", B " satisfies the minimum requirements ”and C“ requires formative training to achieve the required performance ”, regarding the indicator. For each letter or other sign chosen, there will be a score, and the domain will be expressed in a total score.
The resulting level of mastery will be expressed in letters A, B or C. For this, an evaluation scale is generated, based on certain design criteria. Considering Weber-Fechtner, the minimum gap and valuation ranges will be established.
Minimum acceptable gap
The first thing to define is the minimum gap. This means, from how many points will a gap be considered to exist. Applying the difference perception threshold (Weber-Fechtner), it will be beyond the limit in which a person is able to detect differences, that is, above eight or ten percent. Therefore, any difference less than or equal to nine points is rejected as an error of assessment. Of course, this applies with respect to the notion of minimum gap. Following this methodological criterion, the superior rank will be between 91 and 100 points, which means that whoever has a score equal to or greater than 91, will be considered A or in the maximum domain rank of the competition.
Then, the amplitude of the following or lower ranges is established: with a dispersion or interval between the upper and lower scores, greater than nine and less than fifteen percent. Although it is a different matter, the rating scales of positions are established following this design criterion, with a range width between 12 and 15% between the minimum and maximum value of each range.
In the case of a rating scale test, to avoid running the risk of being overly demanding, the minimum gap can be up to 12%. Then, over time, the scales will adjust.
Defining the rating of the gaps
Beyond evaluation, we are talking about diagnosis, that is, how gaps are interpreted: when a gap can be considered to be small or unappreciable, moderate, considerable or critical. In this sense, the notion of maximum gap is a methodological resource that allows us to avoid abnormal dispersions of the data.
We must start by "establishing the spectrum of competition domain." We have seen ill-conceived rating scales, where gaps of more than 50% are spoken of, and are considered normal. If a person has a gap of 50% or higher in a certain competition, and this is important for achieving the objectives of the position, then the gap is highly critical, that is, we are facing an abnormal case.
Spectrum of competition domain
To establish the spectrum of competence, it is necessary to start from a methodological premise: if there is a personnel selection subsystem in the company, which allows the entry of a person to a position, based on previous professional training, and having overcome or satisfied certain minimum suitability requirements, then the notion of maximum gap should be between 40 and 45% of mastery of a competition. This limit could be established as the lower limit of the competition domain spectrum. And the following spectrum would result: from 45% to 100%, considering that the threshold or upper limit could pass when we evaluate against a level of mastery required by the position, and we understand that a person may well possess in several competitions a level of mastery higher than that required by your position.As the person moves to a higher position, the level of mastery varies, decreasing, and this becomes cyclical.
If we evaluate by descriptive tables, and the interval between them is 15%, then a small gap is 15% (one level below), a moderate gap can be 30% (two levels below) and a greater gap would be 45% (three levels below). We observe that these variations occur "in leaps".
The evaluation by indicators allows us greater precision, since the resulting values can be extended gradually, without jumps between the ranges. In this methodological path, a small gap would be less than or equal to 15%, a moderate gap would be greater than 15 and up to 20%, a considerable gap would be between 21 and 30%, a large gap between 31 and 40%, and Critical would be more than 40%, understanding that it never exceeds 45%, because it is the lower limit of the spectrum.
Competition impact
A complementary methodological resource in the evaluation of competencies consists of classifying each competency associated with a position according to its impact on the objectives or the results that it must achieve, as "important" and "complementary". In this way, the diagnosis is more accurate, because a considerable gap in an important competence for the position is not the same as in a complementary competence.
Neutral evaluation range
Evaluation, when it touches on aspects of personal performance, can become a threatening event. One way to counter that unwanted effect is to use a neutral scale. This is defined as a set of categories arranged in a discontinuous numerical series, with a low degree of apparent difference between each one, presented in a range of three (3) levels or degrees. It is about avoiding the use of categories identified with sequential letters or numbers, such as "ABC" or "3-2-1", which denote hierarchy, and psychologically condition the evaluator.
The neutral scale, likewise, is designed to seek greater objectivity and, consequently, to minimize the subjectivity of the evaluator. Among its characteristics and advantages, the following should be mentioned:
- Easy to apply: they are simple categories, with an easy-to-understand description: "fully meets or exceeds requirements", "meets basic requirements", and "requires reinforcement to reach the required level". Three numbers are used, each of they preceded by a sign: +2, +1 and -1. They do not denote hierarchy, but only a sequence of simple order. Two of the signed numbers reflect positive recognition, and the third reflects a small deficiency. Letters: AA, A and B can also be used. The important thing is that the apparent values, in view of the evaluating subject, are of little impact or that the visible difference is slight.
How to reconcile a rank of qualification of three categories with a scheme of mastery of four or five levels, is a common problem in the design of scales of evaluation of competences. One way to solve this problem is through the use of differentiated scales, which assign differentiated values or variable scores to each category, as the level of mastery required by the position varies. For example, when the required level is 2 and the qualification (category) is A, then a certain amount is added to the assigned score; on the other hand, when the required level is 5 and the qualification (category) of qualification is A, no amount is added or subtracted. An example of using differentiated scales is shown below, which shows scales or test runs.
