The core idea
Competency frameworks describe the capabilities or behaviours expected for effective work. Terminology varies: some writers distinguish behavioural competency from task-based competence, but organisations do not use the words consistently. Armstrong and Taylor discuss frameworks as a way of connecting people processes. Their value depends on clear definitions and credible evidence from the work.
Source and attribution [1]Using it in practice
Start with a few important roles and gather examples of effective and ineffective performance. Translate these into observable actions, keeping context and level of responsibility explicit. Test the wording with role holders and managers. Pilot the framework in development conversations before using it for high-stakes decisions. Explain how evidence will be gathered and how disagreements can be reviewed.
An example, not a reported case
Worked example · illustrative
A supervisor framework replaces “strong presence” with examples such as explaining priorities, checking understanding and escalating safety concerns promptly. Assessors discuss evidence from several situations rather than judging confidence in one interview. Employees can see what to practise and what a more demanding role would require.
What to watch for
A framework can encode the preferences of its designers. Traits such as polish or cultural fit may reward similarity rather than effectiveness. Behaviour also depends on resources, opportunity and team conditions. Do not infer a fixed personal deficit from one incident.
Separate requirements from preferences
Ask whether each criterion is necessary to the work and how someone could demonstrate it in different ways. Avoid descriptions that simply resemble current high-status employees. Review whether part-time staff or people at quieter sites have equivalent opportunities to provide evidence.
Use levels carefully
Higher levels should describe increased complexity, scope or independence, not increasingly flattering adjectives. Keep the framework short enough for a manager and employee to use in a real conversation. Provide examples without making them an exhaustive checklist.
Calibrate and improve
Ask assessors to rate the same sample evidence and explain their judgement. Investigate disagreement before assuming an average score is accurate. Revise ambiguous descriptors and check for patterns of inconsistent application across groups and locations.
Take it into your next conversation
Three useful questions.
- Can we observe this requirement in the work?
- Could someone demonstrate it in more than one way?
- What support would enable improvement?
Related terms
Go to the evidence
Sources & attribution
Further reading: Michael Armstrong with Stephen Taylor (2023), Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 16th edition, chapters 16, 72. Edition & reading notes ↗
[1] Armstrong & Taylor (2023), 16th edition, chapters 16, 72 — reading notes ↗
The core idea is an original summary of the cited work. Application notes, examples and sketches are our interpretations, not quotations or reproductions of the authors’ figures. Publisher records may require access to read the full original work.
Original teaching guide informed by the cited handbook chapters. The four-step sketch is an ADM HR application aid, not a named Armstrong model. Examples are invented. The 2023 book is not used to establish current employment law.
Published 2026-09-25 · Reviewed 2026-09-25. Editorial approach