using competency development tools as a strategy for change in the human resources function: a case...

Using Competency Development Tools as a Strategy for Change in the Human Resources Function:

A Case Study

Debbie Morris

This case study explores issues in building and implementing competency-based development tools for an HR organization in the midst of fundamental change. The case includes a realistic appraisal of the critical design decisions, marketing strategies, and implementation success factors required for using competencies to articulate and foster understanding of a change efort. 0 1996 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

This article summarizes an 18-month initiative to define and intro- duce a competency model and development tool kit for the North Amer- ican human resources (HR) function of a major telecommunications systems company. The project was to be a catalyst for changing behavior as the function restructured to reduce costs and to change from a tradition- al transactional organization to a customer-focused strategic business partner. The article identifies a suggested formula for successful implementation and analyzes the lessons learned.

THE CASE

The North American HR organization at Nortel (Northern Telecom) began restructuring in 1993 and downsized by 40% in January 1994. The resulting organization had fundamentally changed its service delivery strategy: centralizing transactional services; assigning HR "primes" to the top levels of each strategic business unit and support function to provide strategic consulting support; and establishing geographically based HR organizations to provide organization development and employee relations services to the lower levels of management. The HR leadership team realized that development of the HR staff would be a

Human Resource Management, Spring 1996, Vol. 35, Number 1, Pp. 35-51 0 1996 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0090-4848/96/010035-17

key success factor for the new organization and that a competency-based approach would be a primary development strategy (Kochanski, 1994).

One lesson Nortel learned is that competency models are like electricity and microchips. Discovering and building them is an intriguing learning experience. They provide current or intelligence but only when embedded in an application, tool, or process that provides value to people, just as a lamp makes electricity useful or a spreadsheet makes a computer chip useful. Although Nortel had built several HR competency models over the previous five years, they were never utilized effec- tively. In fact, because the development of the previous models had consumed so much time and attention, the function had none left with which to develop tools and processes that would have translated the models into changed behaviors.

This time, however, the leadership made it clear that a set of development tools, not the competency model alone, was the deliverable. The senior management steering committee that was developing the initial vision for the project chartered a volunteer design team to begin the project in the summer of 1993.

Functional Models vs. Role-Specific Models

The design team represented a diagonal slice of the function: ten people from a range of levels and sub-functions, all of whom had full- time duties in the new HR structure. The team’s first step was to trans- late the steering committee’s vision into project goals. In particular, the team debated how best to help everyone in the function understand and demonstrate the new behaviors required as business partners. The choices were to anchor the base model for the tools to a particular level and job family or to the function as a whole.

In such a high-change environment, the risk of anchoring the model to a specific role and level would be rapid obsolescence. A role or level model would potentially create barriers between other roles and organizational levels. Further, modeling the new roles was virtually impossible at the time because they were still being defined in 1993 and, hence, exemplar job holders could not reliably be identified. Therefore, the team decided to model the function as a whole.

The steering committee’s vision was that the new model and tools would be a catalyst for changing behavior across the function. The design team translated that vision into a two-fold purpose: (1) to educate the population about the behaviors required by the new business partner relationship and (2) to educate the human resources function about the use of competencies for development.

Because the model was anchored to the whole function, it did not include technical and professional skills such as ”principles of compensation.” The company’s other experiences with competency models in-

36 I Human Resource Management, Spring 1996

dicated that the complexity introduced by including technical skills dis- courages usage of the model. In addition, skill needs are shifting so quickly that it is difficult to adequately capture them and cumbersome to keep them updated. In the end, the team focused on building a foundation model of observable, teachable behaviors that would improve the ability of all levels and job families to perform as customer-focused, strategic business partners.

Building a Model for the Function

The construction of the model and tools followed two key principles: (1) maximize involvement to ensure buy-in, and (2) use multiple inputs in creating the content. (Dubois, 1993).

The major inputs to the model included three existing internal models, one of which had been constructed using a rigorous interview tech- nique to identify behaviors and strategies that distinguish superior from average performers in the HR generalist population. Because competencies are more enduring than the ”strategy du jour,” and because superi- or performers tend to adapt quickly and are superior in other environ- ments as well, the team assumed this model was still valid after three years (Spencer et al., 1994). The team also examined four competency models from other leading corporations that were moving to a similar HR approach.

After analyzing the competencies in each model to understand and capture the major themes, the team developed the following criteria for selecting which clusters of behaviors to use in the initial model:

Does this move us toward a partner/consulting role for the future? Does it describe behavior seen in successful people and not seen in

Will it help produce valued results for Nortel and the function’s

Is it applicable to all levels and job families within HR as we know

How frequently does it occur in the internaUexterna1 models?

less successful people here?

success?

them?

After constructing a draft, the competency dictionary of a consulting firm was used to ensure that the model described observable behaviors that people could learn vs. inherent traits. Development Dimensions International (DDI) was a partner in the initiative.

The draft model was tested in focus groups of 140 people at all levels of the HR function across the company’s North American sites. The senior HR executives for the business units were also asked to interview line executives for feedback about the model so that feedback from both these activities could be incorporated into the second version of the

Morris: Competency Development Tools and Change / 37

[ itt- competencies WR~I

model. The design team then used DDI’s dictionary again to ensure construct validity, i.e., that the competencies would measure what they were intended to measure, and that there were no overlaps between clusters of behaviors.

Once the content was stable, DDI loaded the model into its software system (DDI’s SynergEASE System is a state-of-the-art software package with built-in human resource expertise) which generated a customized self-assessment, 360” feedback questionnaire, development guide, and selection interview guide. The design team then customized the tools with terms familiar to the Nortel culture and converted the tools to be compatible with Macintosh-based software applications to allow sharing across Nortel’s internal computer network.

Finding the ”Secrets of the Pros”

The design team had adopted a marketing strategy and mindset at this point in the project. At every step along the way, the primary decision criteria was based on creating “market pull’’-rather than simply finishing the tool kit and pushing it onto the end users. The team augmented the consultant-generated development guide to create more “market pull” by supplementing the generic development suggestions with the real “secrets of the Nortel pros.”


Each team member interviewed two or three HR executives, managers, and/or individual contributors who exemplified excellence in one of the competencies, a total of 25 people. The results of these interviews were incorporated into the development guide using the “pro’s” an- swers to the following questions:

What are the challenges of ___ (competency)? What are your strategies for meeting those challenges? What assignments and experiences helped you achieve excellence in this competency?

Although completed in only two weeks, this exercise was one of the most rewarding aspects of the project. The interviews helped validate that the model had identified behaviors that the pros use to create business impact and other outcomes valued by the company. By capturing the development experiences specific to Nortel, the guide was trans- formed from a fairly generic encyclopedia to a friendly chat with the HR pros. The team expected that the process would also strengthen senior management buy-in because their own experiences formed the back- bone of the guide.

Implementation Success Factors

The history of all past Nortel models pointed to some possible success factors and barriers the team considered in designing the implementation strategy. The most important findings of the team’s analysis:

Keep it simple, user friendly, and flexible. The competency-based initiatives which tried to identify every important skill and competency for every job family in a function tended to be overly complex and under-utilized. Implementation strategies that were too complicated seemed to run out of steam. Go for top down organizational commitment from more than a single sponsor. Projects with one major sponsor disappeared when the sponsor moved on or out. Provide choices about whether, when, and how to implement. One of the most successful Nortel competency-based tools, a collection of development suggestions, was never released as a finished product but was so widely requested in its draft state that it became a standard offering of the internal training department. Link it to other important organizational processes, especially re- wards and recognition. One of the most successful tools, a model for Product Line Managers, would have been even more effective had it been used in other HR subsystems besides the creation of development plans. Create high involvement. Projects which involved the users in the design & implementation seemed to have a longer shelf life.


Management Support

Management support was evident in a number of ways. First, the original steering committee was interested in the project’s progress. An active ”sustaining” sponsor, who was part of the steering committee, played a critical role in keeping the volunteer design team focused through the turbulence of the downsizing and the departure of key members from the organization (see Table I). (Conner, 1992 offers a discussion of the roles and responsibilities of initiating sponsors vs. sustaining sponsors.)

A project management approach called a ”gate process,” ensured regular reviews with the HR leadership team and also provided continu- ity and guidance throughout the 18 months as team members left, joined, and juggled their regular duties with project commitments. The gate process outlines five critical decision points of a project or product. Each gate must be passed by accomplishing a set of objectives to the satisfaction of a reviewing body-in this case the executive leadership of the function. Although a similar process had been commonly used in developing Nortel’s products and systems, such a disciplined approach to product development was new to the HR function. At each gate the design team leader and senior sponsor held a project review with the HR executive leadership to receive feedback and approval to move ahead.

In addition to the discipline of the gate process, the project management structure was robust enough to survive over the 18 months of the project and ensured representation of a cross section of the organization (see Figure 3).

Given the steering committee, regular project reviews, a well-

Table I. Effective Behaviors of the Sustaining Sponsor.

Remove Political & Organizational

Seize Opportunities to Champion the Project Help Market and Sell to Other Leaders Give Advice on Politics to the Team Keep the Team Motivated to Achieve Hold the Team Accountable for Meeting

Impediments

Milestones


Gate 0 Deciaion to

Conceptuil Solution and Close on Features

Gate2 Product Review Prior to

Gate 3: Agreement to Proceed with Full

1 Gate4 Product

Figure 2. The gate process.

connected sustaining sponsor, and a representative team structure, management support for the initiative seemed solid.

The Principle of Free Choice

It became clear to the design team that implementation had to offer maximum choice about when and whether to use the tools given a pervasive fear in the function that the model would be used to assess and downsize the organization. In fact, during the actual downsizing in December 1993 and January 1994 the team stopped work on the project to send a clear message to the HR staff that this work was in no way

Included Design Team Project Manager

Included Multiple Levels and Sub- Functions

Lead Users from

Locations /

Sub-Functions and Geographical

each Geographicax Location

Figure 3. Project management structure


connected to “de-selecting” people. The project was to be part of a new beginning for the function, not part of the end of the old function.

This principle of free choice led to a packaging solution to house all the tools: a portfolio of tools to serve multiple uses at any point in time. If the tools were viewed as just ”another training binder” they would sit on the shelf rather than being used, so the packaging had to be user- friendly and attractive but not so flashy as to appear extravagant.

The free choice message as it was delivered in the introduction workshop was well-received: ”Although use of these particular tools is optional, development of competencies and skills is not optional.” That this was not a mandated program seemed to help people accept that there might be something valuable for them in the material.

Linkage to Organizational Process

With a simple, user-friendly, flexible set of tools, the design team approached one of the toughest hurdles: linking the competencies and tools to other organizational processes. Because there had been discussion about competency-based pay at the corporate level, the team had to be clear that although this tool set was for development only, it might over time evolve for other uses. The initiative was positioned as a first step for us as a “lead user” community to gain some experience with competency technology prior to the whole corporation considering changing its approach to compensation.

Although the HR competencies couldn’t be linked to the pay system yet, the team created an instant reward for those who attended the introduction workshop-a small wooden puzzle to serve as a reminder of the competencies. The puzzle symbolized that each employee has at least one strength (piece of the puzzle), that each piece is an important part of the whole picture, and that no one was expected to be an exemplar in every competency. This message helped reassure people that competencies would not be used to smother individual diversity.

Two methods were used to establish a link between the HR competency initiative and Nortel’s corporate development system. In addition to educating people about the model and tool kit, the team used the implementation strategy to create a common language about development and competency-based HR systems across the function. The packaging also included a flow-chart that showed how to use the tools to create a development plan that would fit with the corporate performance management form and process.

High lnvolvement

The team had successfully carried out a high involvement strategy during the design phase, but implementation was another matter. As it


became clear that a one-time training-style delivery would not be an effective high-involvement implementation strategy, the design team solicited volunteers to be lead users of the model and tools in each Nortel geographic area. The lead user network strategy was to pair each lead user with a member of the design team to deliver the introduction workshops in their geographic locations. These lead users would also search for opportunities to cultivate ongoing usage and new applications of the tools. Finally, they would serve as a reality check to ensure that implementation was customized to local needs.

In addition to creating the lead user network, the high involvement strategy for a successful launch also required the team to pilot the workshop and tools before full deployment (see Figure 4).

The half-day introduction workshop was first presented as a pilot program to a group that was not very enthusiastic about the idea of a competency model but saw it as a potential tool to help them jell as a team. After the pilot session, the design team facilitated a structured group interview process which examined each component of the workshop process and content as well as the tool kit and packaging. All of the feedback was incorporated into a second workshop design and mod- ifications were made to all the materials, including the puzzle.

At this point, the group of lead users had been identified and were invited to begin their training by attending the second pilot of the re- vised workshop. The same structured group interview process was used, and the lead users stayed for an additional day and a half to understand the model and tools in preparation for delivering the workshop in their home locations.

This group devised its own "train-the-trainer" method which was to divide the group into two halves, where Group A determined the key messages in a section of the workshop, and Group B identified all the questions an audience would ask in that same section. By alternating the group roles for each module of the workshop, the participants started to deeply understand the material. They suggested significant changes to strengthen the design of the session yet again. This training method

From Second bo-Delivery

[ Session / Oeslgn Team

Member Y

Figure 4. High involvement implementation.

Morris: Competency Development Tools and Change I 43

was also useful for encouraging the participants to adapt the material to their own teaching styles and audience needs, provided that the key messages were covered.

After the introduction sessions had been delivered, lead users were to help their co-workers understand and evolve new applications for the tools and to collect feedback so that knowledge about competency-based tools and processes could be shared across the whole function. These lead users are continuing to provide one-on-one introduction sessions to new entrants into the function.

Action Learning in Competency Acquisition and Development

Confident that it had created a winning implementation strategy, the design team and steering committee set specific goals for the tool kit launch:

Implement usage in a way which will infuse, leverage, and sustain

Use the implementation process to create common language and the growth of competencies in HR

increase overall understanding of competency technology.

A half-day introduction workshop was designed to help participants know how to and want to use the tools. Since the content was standard across the locations, the workshop was the primary strategy for ensuring a common language and experience. The design involved maximum interaction and minimum lecture so as to provide a safe setting for people to air their questions and concerns about competencies.

The team chose action learning as a workshop design for infusing, leveraging, and sustaining the growth of competencies. Action learning is a “learning-by-doing alternative to expert-based training” in which participants “internalize patterns, get feedback, and develop judgment” rather than memorize facts or principles (Sorohan, 1993).

At first the team designed an approach using issues on which intact teams were working as a framework for the workshop, but this approach proved to be unfeasible because of the newness of the HR structure, the varying levels of interdependency in teams, the complexity of schedul- ing, and the absence of facilitators trained in action learning.

The subsequent design was a half-day workshop for individuals in the function; it began by having participants choose from the model a particular behavior which they wanted to practice throughout the session. This exercise allowed participants to read the model at the beginning of the workshop rather than waiting through a long build-up of history and context setting. They could see that the behaviors weren’t threatening or overly complex, so they could relax and fully focus on the rest of the workshop content.


At the end of the workshop, participants formed small groups to compare notes about what they noticed as they practiced the behavior. In some groups, the concept worked well, but in others it was clear that the ability to monitor and notice one’s own behavior while doing a task is an acquired skill. Still, this action learning approach did lessen participants’ fears as to how difficult it would be to develop a new competency. They began to see that changing behavior involves (1) a choice about whether to adopt a new habit and (2) the ability to keep one eye on the ”how” and one eye on the “what“ while keeping up with current responsibilities. We demonstrated in a small way that basic competency improvement can happen day-to-day as part of one’s work with only a shift of attention and little additional effort.

THE LESSONS WE LEARNED

More than 400 HR staff participated in the introductory workshops, held from September to December of 1994. After giving the initiative a chance to take root, the design team and a representative of the lead user group reconvened for a day in April 1995 to assess the project so far and develop recommendations for next steps to the HR leadership team.

On the positive side of the ledger, people within the function generally do understand what a competency is. We have started to develop a common language about what development is, how it occurs, and why competencies are important to business success. The beginnings of shared expectations between HR employees and managers about self- responsibility for development as part of a ”new employment relationship” are emerging (Bridges, 1994).

Users say the tools are easy to use, very flexible, very simple, and adapted to the company’s language and needs. The self-assessment provides a new mechanism for giving and receiving feedback by allowing both manager and employee to complete an assessment of the employee and then to compare results. HR is also using the competencies to create postings for open positions within the function.

One of the most frequently used tools is the interview guide, which includes 10-20 questions for each competency, as well as a behavior- based approach to selection that is both practical and builds on the current corporate interview process and training. The development guide has also been labeled practical by the line managers who use it with their direct reports to build development plans.

Developing HR Develops the Line

One surprising lesson was the degree to which the project has helped HR staff help the line. Even though the competencies and tools were


supposed to be for the function, the interview and development guides have been widely shared with line clients. The development guide has been helpful in educating line managers on how to identify free, on-the- job development strategies beyond classroom training. Both the con- cepts presented in the workshop and the materials defining competencies, competency acquisition, and development in general have been completely transferable to line clients and have provided them with a simple frame of reference and common language. There has been significant interest in using competency development technology in line functions as they begin to see it as a tool for performance improvement.

The Power of Packaging

While often overlooked, the packaging surrounding the competencies did much to move them forward in the organization. For example, the puzzle demonstrated the company’s commitment and is keeping the model in front of people. It delighted participants at the end of the training sessions, and it didn’t cost much to produce.

The portfolio which houses the material is an 8-1/2 X 11” brochure with inserts of the model, a card for each competency, the most critical educational pieces, and a Macintosh diskette of all the tools as well as materials in the brochure. The design is intended to appeal to both paper users and computer users. With the introduction sessions completed, the tools also reside on a central file server to allow people to download future updates.

Use Multiple Channels for Marketing Communications

Throughout development and implementation, the team focused on communication to inform and educate HR employees about key con- cepts concerning competency development. The focus groups and pilot sessions were critical to creating buy-in and credibility. By incorporating feedback from each step, the design team sent a consistent message that the feedback was being heard and valued. At first, people were skeptical that real change would happen and then were amazed and supportive when they saw that the materials did, in fact, reflect their input.

Despite all the team’s energy and focus on communication and involvement, there were still parts of the organization who saw the project as a closely held secret. In hindsight, by the time the team began implementation, organizational memory had faded, and the team should have reenlisted the support of the formal and informal leaders. Even though the structure was much less hierarchical and the rhetoric was egalitarian, the function’s informal structure and unwritten rules had changed less than the espoused design. (Scott-Morgan, 1994). Further,


most people in the function intellectually understand that they are re- sponsible for their own development, but leadership still drives whether the belief is put into action. Where the leaders are openly supportive of the initiative, people are using the tools. If the leaders are not supportive, people are less inclined to use it.

Measurement is Everything

Although almost every competency tool involves measurement, the team didn't appreciate how challenging and critical measurement can be until late in the process. The current scale used in the assessment tool is a five-point scale that reads:

1 = Not Demonstrated 2 = Novice 3 = In Development 4 = Fully Capable and 5 = Expert

Although the team struggled to define the degrees simply, concisely, and objectively, the scales still only measure a perceived level of proficiency. While increased awareness of discrepancies in perceptions is useful, users have said that the differences in ratings are small, so it is hard to set development priorities. Raters are generally hesitant to go to the negative side of the scale, and this method of measuring has not addressed the issue of objectivity sufficiently. For example, ensuring that multiple raters consistently understand and apply the meaning of each level of the scale has proven to be difficult and, hence, a barrier to embedding the competencies approach in more sensitive applications beyond development.

At the organizational level, if competencies are to be useful in changing an organization's capability and culture, establishing a baseline of "where we are," and periodically assessing progress and identifying strategic learning needs should be a part of the approach.

The original assumption was that the 360" assessment results would be held in a database and used both to set a benchmark and to measure progress over time, but the project ran into difficulty in implementation. Nortel has been using 360" feedback for about five years. As participant's comfort level has increased, their expectation for simpler, faster methods of gathering and processing the feedback has shifted. The original strategy for 360" feedback involved the use of an external vendor to collect and scan answer sheets into their computer. This approach would have worked one or two years ago but is too complicated, cumbersome, and administratively burdensome to meet current expectations. Nortel has one of the world's largest Macintosh networks, and employees have high expectations for simplicity and paperless processing.


Looking back, the team should have shown ways to adapt one basic assessment tool to be more role specific and/or to be able to collect multiple inputs. With a better sense of the organization’s readiness for something besides anonymous feedback managed by an outside third party, the team would have reached a workable solution earlier.

The team also anticipated that in Phase 2 of the project, job families and sub-functions would define more specific role profiles and performance standards using the 360” feedback results database to identify appropriate weightings and levels of proficiency. Phase 2 wouId also include a process of identifying the technical and professional skills required by the job families. Without the skills component in the model, users say it is often difficult to see the linkage of the model to business results, and the model doesn’t fully answer the frequent question, “What do I have to know and do to be considered for that job.” This phase however, has been stalled because of the need to simplify the feedback collection and reporting process.

The Missing Part of the Success Formula

Several parts of a formula for successful implementation have become apparent. The introduction session addressed two parts of the formula: Do employees want to use the tools, and do employees know how to use the tools. Fear about how the model may be used punitively had been diminished significantly, thus increasing employees’ willingness to con- sider using the tools. The team assumed that if “market pull” and leadership support were not high enough, the initiative would fail. Another success factor also needed to be considered: “Will the organization systems enable employees to use the tools?

The team built the set of competency tools around an assumption of employee self-reliance. Since the HR organization had become a flat- tened hierarchy, few employees had a manager with enough time to help construct a development plan. Individuals must pursue development activities on their own or with a partner. This assumption helped drive the following marketing strategy: to create ”market pull” rather than dump the tools on people as had been done with HR programs so frequently in the past. The workshop and lead users were to nurture people’s enthusiasm about and ability to use the tool kit.

The introduction workshop was effective in educating people about the tools, their source, and how to use them; it also provided time to think about and fully discuss competencies and development. Some employees said they would have preferred a full day session with enough time to prepare a personal development plan.

The lead-user network provided the team with a reality check and feedback about the tools, methods, messages, and approaches used in the workshop. The design team asked for and acted on the feedback


Individual Level Oraanizational Level

M x K H >F

M = Motivation to use the tools KH = Know how to use the tools F = Fear

0s = LS x PL x PO

0s = Organizational Support LS = Leadership Support PL = Linkages to existing processes PO = Payoffs for investing the time

Figure 5. A formula for implementation.

consistently, and, as a result, developed a much better overall package and presentation. Because most of the volunteers expected to deliver a few training sessions and be done, and because the pace and amount of daily work drives employees to be event driven, the lead users’ ability to maintain an advocacy role over a period of time is limited.

As in any change effort, leadership support is a critical success factor. The original strategy was to pilot the introduction workshop for members of the HR leadership team, so that they could assess themselves and choose one competency to model and coach. Unfortunately, because the project was behind schedule and a critical mass of the executives was unable to go through the session and provide feedback, the team substi- tuted a pilot workshop with associates.

Because executives were not engaged enough in the content of the model, they had an uneven depth of understanding about competency technology. The use of tools among their subordinates, therefore, is highly correlated to the senior executive’s level of support. For some, for example, competency development is considered an extra or a nice-to- do. Others believe that the return on time invested in self-assessment and development planning is only individual and internal in nature. It is not apparent to others that self-development buys anything other than increased satisfaction. The HR function recently introduced a course designed to teach people how to operate from an internal locus of con- trol. This is a component of a revitalization strategy for the function that HR professionals should view as further encouragement and “permis- sion” for self-development. Further changes in the unwritten rules of the function, however, will be necessary before achieving the expected level of development.

In retrospect, the design team members agreed that they would have


held the first pilot with the associates but would have also asked each executive to try the assessment tool on one direct report, have a development discussion, and provide individual feedback about the tool and process. Approval to proceed should not to be confused with adequate sponsorship, and reading a model is not the same as understanding what it says.

Other organization systems issues are also preventing full impact of the tool kit. There is no recognized infrastructure or owner to maintain and evolve the tool kit. Providing time for development planning in a structured setting may be required, as it is unlikely that good planning will happen in the office or after hours. Providing visible recognition and support for those who improve their level of business impact would help encourage more people to embrace competency development. A workshop for managers on changing their people management practices to fully utilize competencies is another potential way to build more overt support for development.

CONCLUSIONS

Was Nortel's project a catalyst for changing behavior in the HR function? The function achieved some significant outcomes, namely educa- tion about competencies, deeper understanding of implementation success factors in competency-based tools, and new understanding about self-development and how to use development tools. Although the design team struggled with action learning, it achieved a better understanding of how to use it in competency development. Most impor- tantly, the function is better positioned to help the line transition to competency-based tools and systems for the future by drawing on its experiences of what does and doesn't work.

At the same time, behavior has not yet changed as much as expected. The project became disconnected from an overall change strategy, and the overall change strategy lost focus as people got comfortable in their new roles, and new issues consumed their attention. The project became an end in itself and was expected to be a driver of change rather than an articulation of change already occurring and supported in multiple places throughout the function. The focus on changing behavior could have been more effective if it had not lost the connection to improving performance and delivering results.

Competency technology continues to be utilized at Nortel. A corporate alignment of the many independent models into a corporate competency dictionary is under way. It is expected that the dictionary will create a foundation for future applications by providing a common language that is directly tied to business direction, and that this common language will counter the centrifugal force of more autonomous business units. In the end, the lessons learned in this project have laid a


foundation for a more successful implementation strategy for the corporate effort.

Debbie Morris is an internal consultant in organization development at Nortel Ltd. In addition to implementing programs for 360" feedback, leadership development, teambuilding, and career development, her primary focus over the past five years has been on using competency modeling for improving performance of organizations. In addition to the North American Human Resources model, she has modeled the general manager role, manufacturing executives, middle-level technical managers , and secretaries .

Debbie received an undergraduate degree in public policy from Duke Univer- sity, and is pursuing a masters degree in human resource development at North Carolina State University.

REFERENCES

Bridges, W. (1994). Jobshift. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Conner, D. R. (1993). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed

and prosper where others fail. New York: Villard Books, p. 110. Dubois, D. D. (1993). Competency-based performance improvement. Amherst, MA:

HRD Press. Kochanski, J. K., and Randall, P. (1994). Rearchitecting the human resource

function at Northern Telecom, Human Resource Management, 33, p. 299-315. Scott-Morgan, P. (1994). The unwritten rules of the game: Master them, shatter them,

and break through the barriers to organizational change. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Sorohan, E. G. (1993). We do, therefore we learn. Training and Development, October, p. 47-65.

Spencer Jr., L. M., McClelland, D. C., and Spencer, S. M. (1994). Competency assessment methods: History and state of the art. Hay/McBer Research Press (a monograph).


using competency development tools as a strategy for change in the human resources function: a case...

Documents