بررسی آنالیز سنتی شغل و مدلینگ شایستگی، تفاوت بین این دو چیست؟ What is (or should be) the difference between competency modeling and traditional job analysis?

abstract We argue that Competency Modeling (CM) has the potential to fill an important void in Traditional Job Analysis (TJA), specifically the infusion of strategic concerns in day-to-day employee behavior. Moreover TJA and CM pursue fundamentally different goals, which those who argue for and against either of these human resource methods at times may overlook. To buttress this point we compare TJA and CM along six dimensions: purpose (describe versus influence behavior), view of the job (an object to be described versus a role to be enacted), focus (job versus organization), time orientation (past versus future), performance level (typical versus maximum), and measurement approach (latent trait versus clinical judgment). We conclude with a series of recommendations regarding ways in which TJA can be joined with CM so that an organization may achieve, among other outcomes, the critical purpose of directing employee behavior toward the accomplishment of its strategic objectives. © ۲۰۰۸ Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Competency modeling Job analysis Strategic work analysis In many organizations, Competency Modeling (CM) has replaced Traditional Job Analysis (TJA) for a host of human resource applications. However, there seems to be no professional consensus regarding the difference between TJA and CM, and some have even argued that any Competency Modeling (CM) project is at its foundation also a job analysis process (Ruggeberg, 2007). A group of experts surveyed regarding differences between TJA and CM noted that the latter’s emphasis on “linking results to business goals” is largely absent in TJA, but also that TJA is methodologically more rigorous than CM in regards to data collection, level of detail, assessment of reliability of results, and documentation of the research process (Schippmann et al., 2000). Still others have opined that at least some CM applications are merely watered-down, less-than-rigorous job analysis (Barrett & Callahan, 1997; Pearlman, 1997), or that CM does not accomplish anything that new forms of strategic-oriented job analysis cannot accomplish (Barney, 2000; Sackett & Laczo, 2003). A straightforward answer to the question of how CM differs from TJA has been elusive because, even though CM is widely practiced and covered in texts (Lucia & Lepsinger, 1999; Schippmann, 1999), there is no agreement regarding either the definition of “competency” or the methodology involved in developing a competency model (Pearlman & Barney, 2000). Instead of prolonging the “either/or” approach to the debate between CM and TJA, we propose framing this dilemma differently. Specifically, we maintain that CM and TJA supplement rather than displace one another and, therefore, that they ought to co-exist in the human resource toolbox of any organization. At the outset, we would be naïve if we did not acknowledge that the distinction we propose between TJA and CM rarely exists in practice, and that the goals of TJA and CM are often confounded in field applications. And yet it is this confusion that provided the impetus for our primary objectives: to clarify differences between TJA and CM, to highlight the different purposes they may serve, and to develop the case for their capacity to supplement each other.