WHITEPAPER

The Development of the

Hogan Competency Model
1 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background

During the past three years, Hogan Assessment Systems (hereafter “Hogan”) witnessed an increase
in the number of requests for competency-based reports as more organizations develop and use
competency models. To identify relationships between commonly used competencies and
personality, we developed the Hogan Competency Model (HCM). This model provides a foundation
for (a) updating the competency section of Hogan’s job analysis tool, the Job Evaluation Tool (JET);
(b) developing algorithms that drive client competency-based reports; (c) providing a structure for
coding criterion data in the Hogan archive, and (d) updating the synthetic validity evidence used for
validity generalization (VG).

This report outlines the development of the HCM and describes how the Hogan Research Division
(hereafter “HRD”) uses the model to conduct personality-related research. The HCM has three
advantages. First, we designed the model to have minimal overlap between competencies, allowing
us to better measure specific behaviors. Second, we designed competencies to target specific areas
of performance. In contrast, many models target several behaviors with a single competency. This
lack of specificity contaminates measurement and subsequent prediction of the competency.
Finally, our development process centered on a review of twenty-one competency models used
across academic, commercial, and government settings. This both assures that the model is
comprehensive and that it can be easily compared to and used in conjunction with other competency
models.

1.2 History and Development of Competency Modeling

Global markets require organizations to simultaneously work within different locations, legal
environments, and cultures. One strategy for facing this challenge is restructuring jobs, such as
reducing management layers and relying on work teams, to increase adaptability and
responsiveness (Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick, & Kerr, 1995; Howard, 1995; Keidel, 1994). As a result,
traditional task-based job analysis procedures may lack the flexibility required to identify the
knowledge, skills, and abilities essential for success in many jobs (Barnes-Nelson, 1996; Olian &
Rynes, 1991; Sanchez, 1994). Therefore, organizations often use competency models to align many
of their Human Resource Management applications.

The work of David McClelland (1973) set the stage for the widespread growth of competencies.
McClelland argued that aptitude tests, almost universally used to predict performance, do not serve
their intended purpose well and are prone to cultural biases. Also, he argued that other traditional
measures, such as examination results and references, are equally poor at predicting job success.
Instead, McClelland suggested that individual competence might provide a more promising
alternative for predicting performance. He described competencies as representing groups of
behaviors underlying individual characteristics that enable superior job performance.

Competencies appear in educational, training, employment, and assessment contexts, where often a
primary goal is identifying individual characteristics that lead to success (Boyatzis, Stubbs, & Taylor,
2002; Rubin et al., 2007; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Companies can link individual characteristics

2
to competencies that represent critical job components. Then they can use this information to select
individuals with these characteristics and guide development and training efforts.

The 1980s witnessed a growth in using competencies to identify and predict leadership
effectiveness and long-term success (Boyatzis, 1982; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). These
applications led to the development of high-level management and leadership competency models
(Hollenbeck, McCall, & Silzer, 2006) and competency-based selection tools, such as behavioral
event interviews (Boyatzis, 1994; McClelland, 1998; Spencer, McClelland, & Spencer, 1994).
Competencies also provide a structure for linking performance with cognitive ability and personality
(Heinsman, de Hoogh, Koopman, & van Muijen, 2007), coaching employees to overcome
dysfunctional behavior (Boyatzis, 2006), and selecting and developing high potential employees
(McClelland, 1994).

3
2 – DEVELOPMENT OF HOGAN COMPETENCY MODEL
2.1 Competency Evaluation Tool (CET)

The Competency Evaluation Tool (CET), which most recently contained items representing 56
competencies, is a standard part of the JET. Although the CET has undergone several changes,
ranging at times from 41 to 65 competencies, the 56-item version was in place for 5 years prior to
the changes described in this report. The CET asks Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to indicate the
degree to which each competency relates to successful performance in the job or job family under
study. SMEs, anyone that is familiar with the job’s requirements and characteristics that lead to high
performance, typically include supervisors, high performing incumbents, and co-workers. Direct
reports, trainers, and customers have also served as JET SMEs. SME ratings provide a basis for
structural models used to examine comparability of job domains and their competencies across jobs
(J. Hogan, Davies, & R. Hogan, 2007).

Although the CET remains a useful and integral part of Hogan’s job analysis process, an increasing
amount of work based on client’s competency models lead to a critical review of the most recent 56-
item version of the CET. We concluded that three areas needed to be addressed. First, some
competency definitions required revision because they (a) included multiple concepts, (b) overlapped
significantly with other competencies, and/or (c) were unclear. Second, some competencies that
companies commonly included in their models were missing from the 56-item version of the CET.
Third, there was no underlying structure to the model. As outlined in section 2.2, we incorporated
the Domain Model of performance (Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003; Warrenfeltz, 1995) into the HCM as
the main structure of the taxonomy.

2.2 Domain Model

Researchers can use the Domain Model to effectively classify existing competencies into a
comprehensive and meaningful performance model (Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003; Warrenfeltz,
1995), leading to easier interpretations of and comparisons across models. The Domain Model
contains four domains:

• Intrapersonal Skills – Intrapersonal skills develop early in childhood and have important
consequences for career development in adulthood. Core components include core-self
esteem, resiliency, and self-control. Intrapersonal skills form the foundation on which
careers develop.

• Interpersonal Skills - Interpersonal skills concern building and sustaining relationships.

Interpersonal skills can be described in terms of three components: (a) an ability to put
oneself in the position of another person, (b) an ability to accurately perceive and anticipate
other’s expectations, and (c) an ability to incorporate information about the other person's
expectations into subsequent behavior.

• Technical Skills (work skills) - Technical skills differ from Intrapersonal and Interpersonal
skills in that they are (a) the last to develop, (b) the easiest to teach, (c) the most cognitive,
and (d) the least dependent upon dealing with other people. Technical skills involve

4
 comparing, compiling, innovating, computing, analyzing, coordinating, synthesizing, and so
on.

• Leadership Skills - Leadership skills can be understood in terms of five components that
depend upon intrapersonal, interpersonal, and technical skills. First, leadership skills entail
an ability to recruit talented people to join the team. Second, one must be able to retain
talent once it has been recruited. Third, one must be able to motivate a team. Fourth,
effective leaders are able to develop and promote a vision for the team. Finally, leadership
skill involves being persistent and hard to discourage.

R. Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003) suggest that the four domains form a natural, overlapping
developmental sequence, with the latter skills (e.g., Leadership Skills) depending on the appropriate
development of the earlier skills (e.g., Intrapersonal Skills). Each of the performance domains can
be further decomposed into various performance dimensions or competencies. Table 2.1 outlines
the complete domain model, illustrating the links between common competencies associated with
each domain and Five Factor Model (FFM) personality measures. Each competency in the HCM falls
under one of the four domains.

5
Table 2.1 Domain Model of Job Performance, Example Competencies, and Personality Measures
Metaconcept Domain Example Competency FFM Measurement
Achievement
Building Teams Surgency/Extraversion
Business Acumen
Decision Making
Delegation
Leadership Employee Development
Initiative
Leadership
Managing Performance
Resource Management
Getting Ahead
Analysis
Creating Knowledge Openness to Experience
Decision Making
Political Awareness
Presentation Skills
Technical Problem Solving
Safety
Technical Skill
Training Performance
Written Communication
Building Relationships
Communication Agreeableness
Consultative Skills Surgency/Extraversion
Cooperating
Influence
Interpersonal Interpersonal Skill
Organizational Citizenship
Service Orientation
Teamwork
Trustworthiness
Getting Along
Dependability
Detail Orientation Conscientiousness
Flexibility Emotional Stability
Following Procedures
Integrity
Intrapersonal Planning
Respect
Risk Taking
Stress Tolerance
Work Attitude

6
2.3 Creating the HCM

HRD designed the HCM to align with other well known competency models and personality
measures. The development of the HCM included five steps. First, we reviewed the competency
definitions in the 56-item version of the CET, flagging competencies that measured multiple
constructs or overlapped with other competencies. Next, we reviewed 21 academic, commercial,
and government competency models and compared them to the CET (see Appendix A for a list of the
models). Three HRD researchers independently mapped the original 56 competencies to each
comparison model. Based on all available information from the first two steps, we eliminated
redundant competencies, clarified definitions, and added frequently occurring and missing
competencies. Fourth, we obtained feedback from non-Industrial/Organizational (I/O) professionals
on the revised list of competencies. Finally, four HRD researchers again independently mapped the
revised competency model to each of the 21 comparison models. The resulting model included 58
competencies in addition to the 4 domains. The following sections further delineate these steps.

2.3.1 Competency Definitions

We began by examining the competencies and definitions on the 56-item version of the CET. First,
HRD identified overlapping competencies by examining competency definitions and correlating CET
ratings obtained on a sample of over 500 jobs. Results indicated that several competencies
overlapped both conceptually and statistically. For example, Trustworthiness and Integrity
overlapped significantly, as did Adaptability and Flexibility. Furthermore, other models often treated
these and other pairings as one competency.

Next, we reviewed competency definitions. We flagged competency definitions that (a) included the
competency name in the definition, (b) contained multiple concepts, (c) overlapped with other
competencies, or (d) were generally unclear. For example, Innovation was defined as “finding
innovative solutions…,” and the definition of Planning/Organizing addressed multiple concepts
(resource management and time management) but not aspects of organization typically addressed
by similar competencies in other models.

2.3.2 Competitor and Academic Competency Models

Next, we reviewed 21 independent competency models and compared the CET to the identified
models. These models came from academic, commercial, and government sources. We identified
competency models using three strategies. First, we conducted a literature search for publications
outlining relevant competency models (e.g. Tett, Guterman, Bleir, & Murphy, 2000). Next, we
contacted partner organizations, including clients and distributors, and asked for their competency
models. Finally, we contacted companies and competitors with well advertised or commonly used
models (e.g. SHL, Bartram, 2005). We only reviewed complete models containing complete
competency definitions. Our final sample consisted of six commercial models, twelve academic
models, and three from government agencies. Appendix A presents a complete list of the models.

7
2.3.3 Competency Mapping

Competency mapping consisted of three phases.

Phase 1: I/O Professionals. Three HRD researchers independently mapped the CET to each
competency in the 21 comparison models. Raters indicated if the competencies in the other models
mapped directly to a Hogan competency, more than one Hogan competency, or none. In addition,
each rater maintained a list of frequently occurring competencies that mapped poorly to Hogan
competencies or were not included in the Hogan model. We aggregated the results and the raters
met to resolve conflicts and reach a final consensus. Based on these final results and our previous
review of competency definitions (section 2.3.1), we eliminated redundant competencies, clarified
definitions, and added missing competencies.

Phase 2: Non I/O Professionals. To better represent individuals who will use the model in the future,
we asked four non-I/O professionals to provide feedback on the revised list of competencies. Our
goal was to ensure that all competencies were easy for the target population to understand and use.
We obtained feedback from non-I/O professionals with extensive business experience and expertise
in different areas (IT, Finance, Sales, and Operations). First, each individual independently mapped
each competency into the Domain Model, noting if each competency fell under one primary domain
and potentially a secondary domain. Second, they provided recommendations for the content and
phrasing of the competency names and definitions. The raters successfully placed forty-three of the
competencies into the same domain, indicating high rater agreement. Furthermore, no rater noted
any problems with the competency model names and definitions, indicating that the model is
intuitive and not overly laden with I/O jargon.

Phase 3: Re-mapping: I/O Professionals. Finally, four HRD researchers again independently mapped
the revised competency model to each of the 21 comparison models and met to reach a final
consensus. The number of competencies that mapped to the comparison models greatly increased
from phase 1. However, we found a few definitions that needed further revision and identified four
additional competencies for inclusion. For example, because 7 of the 21 comparison models
contained Valuing Diversity, we added it to the Hogan model. The resulting competency model
includes 58 competencies plus names and definitions for the 4 components of the Domain Model.
Appendix B presents the resulting HCM.

After finalizing the model, we calculated the frequency of use for each competency across all 21
comparison competency models. Appendix C presents these results. Overall, each Hogan
competency averaged 7 mappings. We mapped each model to the Hogan model a minimum of
three times. This represents over 12,480 individual comparisons of the Hogan model to the
comparison models. This finding provides further support for the comprehensiveness of the Hogan
model. Also, we calculated the domain use frequency. Interpersonal, Leadership, and Technical
skills contain a similar number of competencies, whereas Intrapersonal skill is the most frequently
used domain.

8
3 – USING THE HOGAN COMPETENCY MODEL
3.1 Job Analysis

The JET contains five sections. The first four align with Hogan inventories (the HPI, HDS, MVPI, and
HBRI); the fifth is the Competency Evaluation Tool (CET). The CET asks SMEs to indicate the degree
to which each of the listed competencies relates to successful performance in the job or job family
under study. Raters evaluate each competency using a five-point scale ranging from “0” (Not
associated with job performance) to “4” (Critical to job performance). Critical competencies must
receive an average score of at least “3” (Important to performance). These ratings serve a number
of purposes, such as identifying competencies to use in synthetic validation for the HPI and HDS,
showing similarities across roles in job comparison studies, determining the importance of an
organization’s existing competency model components, or serving as the foundation for creating a
new competency model to represent and drive performance for a job or job family.

3.2 Competency Mapping Studies

As more companies use competency models for a variety of purposes, the need to align personality
instruments with customized competency models continues to grow. Although competency models
invariably differ across organizations, similarities often exist. HRD developed the HCM to capture
these similarities by continually reviewing a wide range of existing competency models throughout
the development process. As a result, HRD can easily map HCM competencies to the vast majority
of competencies presented in other models.

During the mapping process, Hogan SMEs, consisting of expert Ph.D. and Masters-level practitioners,
evaluate both competency models and indicate which HCM competencies align with each of the
client’s competencies. Often, client competencies are broad and align with multiple HCM
competencies. When that is the case, HRD can combine HCM competencies to adequately align
with the client’s model. During the mapping process, HRD resolves disagreements among SMEs
through a group decision-making task where they discuss the disagreement(s) and come to a
consensus as to which HCM competency best aligns with the corresponding client competency.

Competency mapping studies serve a number of purposes, such as identifying personality scales
that are predictive of performance for a job or aligning CET results to verify that competencies in a
client’s existing model are important for performance. Competency mapping studies may also be the
first step in more comprehensive studies, such as those described in sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5. By
first aligning HCM competencies with competencies in a client’s model, HRD can more effectively
use JET data and data in the Hogan archive to answer critical research questions.

3.3 Criterion-Related Research

Aguinis, Henle, and Ostroff (2001) described criterion-related validity in terms of the relationship
between the predictor (e.g., HPI Scales) and some criterion measure (e.g., job performance), with the
goal of answering the basic question: how accurate are test scores in predicting criterion
performance? Criterion-related validity not only provides the most direct evidence of relationships
between predictor scores and job performance, but serves as the foundation for VG studies and the
development of off-the-shelf selection solutions. As such, researchers have conducted criterion-

9
related validation studies using Hogan assessments on over 250 jobs and job families over the last
30 years. The Hogan archive contains data and results from these studies, which cover a range of
industries, organizations, and jobs.

The Uniform Guidelines state that “evidence of the validity of a test or other selection procedure by a
criterion-related validity study should consist of empirical data demonstrating that the selection
procedure is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of job performance” (29
C.F.R. § § 1607.5 (B)). Ratings gathered from performance rating forms serve as the most
commonly used and often most informative source of criterion data. HRD frequently uses CET
results to inform the creation of performance rating forms for criterion-related validation studies.
Specifically, we use CET ratings to identify the 10-15 most important competencies for a job or job
family. Then, HRD writes performance-related items for each competency, assuring that
performance ratings gathered from criterion-related validation are both comprehensive and job
relevant.

3.4 Synthetic Validity/Job Component Validity

Mossholder and Arvey (1984) defined synthetic validity as “the logical process of inferring test-
battery validity from predetermined validities of the tests for basic work components” (p. 323). If we
know the key components of a job, we can review prior criterion-related studies predicting those
components. We then “synthesize” the valid predictors of the key job components into an
assessment battery for the new job (Balma, 1959; Lawshe, 1952). Brannick and Levine (2002)
point out that synthetic validity allows us to build validity evidence from small samples with common
job components. Although not popular at its inception, published research on synthetic validity has
become increasing more common (e.g., Hoffman, Holden, & Gale, 2000; Jeanneret & Strong, 2003;
Johnson, Carter, Davison, & Oliver, 2001; McCloy, 1994, 2001; Scherbaum, 2005).

J. Hogan, Davies, and R. Hogan (2007) outline the process Hogan uses for synthetic validity.
Synthetic validation involves (a) identifying the important components of a job or jobs comprising a
job family, (b) reviewing prior research on the prediction of each component, and (c) aggregating
correlations across multiple studies for each component to form a test battery (Scherbaum, 2005).
Because the concept of synthetic validity has evolved over 50 years, Hogan uses interchangeably the
terms criteria, performance dimensions, job components, work components, competencies, and
domains of work. Thus, the competencies in the HCM serve as job components and provide a
structure for coding data in the Hogan archive.

The first step in synthetic validation is conducting a job analysis where SMEs identify the important
components of a job. Using data in the Hogan archive, HRD developed and maintains a synthetic
validity table that shows relationships between assessment results and each HCM competency.
These results represent relationships between predictor scores and competency performance across
organizations, industries and jobs. The most recent update to this table occurred during the summer
and fall of 2009 when HRD mapped performance results from thousands of criteria measures
collected from over 260 jobs onto the HCM competencies. HRD then conducted a series of meta-
analyses (see Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) to combine results across studies. These meta-analyses
provide stable estimates of the relationships between results on both the HPI and HDS and job
performance ratings aligned with the HCM competencies.

10
3.5 Competency-Based Reports

Hogan generates two types of competency-based reports. First, client-specific reports present
results in terms of predictive scores on client competency models. HRD uses competency mapping
and both local criterion-related research and archival data to create predictor scales from HPI, HDS,
and MVPI results. Second, off-the-shelf competency-based reports, such as the Safety report and
the High Potential report, present predictor scores on competency models that are specific to areas
of performance but generalize across jobs. For example, safety is an important component of many
jobs. Hogan developed a Safety Competency model containing six dimensions that represent
different components of safe behavior. HRD then used archival data to create predictor scales for
each dimension from HPI results.

3.6 Conclusions

Competency models have several advantages. First, when coupled with job analysis, the use of
competencies ensures that organizations focus on job relevant behaviors. This both increases the
predictive accuracy of a selection system and minimizes legal risk. Second, competency-based
reports present personality assessment results using language that is familiar to the client. Third,
they allow organizations to streamline their selection process by focusing on competencies that (a)
are often assessed using other selection instruments, thereby increasing the predictive accuracy of
the overall selection system by assessing competencies through multiple methods; and (b) are
important for a number of jobs, thereby allowing the organization to determine an applicant’s fit with
multiple jobs at once. Finally, they allow organizations to streamline interventions with existing
employees, such as development/training efforts and performance assessment across departments
and functions.

The HCM represents a significant improvement in Hogan’s ability to provide clients with effective and
easy to use competency based solutions. These solutions allow clients to align personality
assessment results with other organizational interventions aimed at hiring successful employees and
developing existing employees. HRD developed the HCM using a unique and elaborate process to
ensure that the model (a) comprehensively covers the majority of behaviors required for success
across organizations, industries, and jobs; (b) easily maps onto the majority of competencies in
existing models; and (c) can be used to produce results that are both easy to use and understand.

11
 References
Aguinis, H., Henle, C.A., & Ostroff, C. (2001). Measurement in work and organizational
psychology. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, and C. Viswesvaran (Eds.),
Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, (Vol. 1, pp. 27-50).
London, U.K.

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (1995). Actions for global learners, launchers,
and leaders. In R. N. Ashkenas, D. Ulrich, T. Jick, & S. Kerr (Eds.), The boundaryless
organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure (pp. 293-324). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Balma, M. J. (1959). The development of processes for indirect or synthetic validity. Personnel
Psychology, 12, 395-396.

Barnes-Nelson, J. (1996). The boundaryless organization: Implications for job analysis, recruitment,
and selection. Human Resource Planning, 20, 39-49.

Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight Competencies: A Criterion-Centric Approach to Validation.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1185-1203.

Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York, NY:
Wiley.

Boyatzis, R.E. (1994). Rendering unto competence the things that are competent. American
Psychologist, 49, 64-66.

Boyatzis, R.E. (2006). Core competencies in coaching others to overcome dysfunctional behavior. In
R.E. Boyatzis, Linking Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work: Current Research
Evidence with Individuals and Groups. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.

Boyatzis, R.E., Stubbs, E.C., & Taylor, S.N. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional intelligence
competencies through graduate management education. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 1, 150-162.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection

procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38,290-38,315.

Brannick, M. T., & Levine, E. L. (2002). Doing a job analysis study. In Job analysis: Methods,
research, and applications for human resource management in the new millennium (pp.
265-294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heinsman, H., de Hoogh, A.H.B., Koopman, P.L., & van Muijen, J.J. (2007). Competencies through
the eyes of psychologists: A closer look at assessing competencies. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 15, 412-427.

12
Hoffman, C. C., Holden, L. M., & Gale, E. (2000). So many jobs, so little “n”: Applying expanded
validation models to support generalization of cognitive ability. Personnel Psychology, 53,
955–991.

Hogan, J., Davies, S., & Hogan, R. (2007). Generalizing personality-based validity evidence. In S. M.
McPhail (Ed.), Alternative validation strategies (pp. 181-229). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, W. (2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 2, 74-84.

Hollenbeck, G.P., McCall, M.W., & Silzer, R.F. (2006). Leadership competency models. Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 398-413.

Howard, A. (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hunter, J. E., and Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: correcting error and bias in
research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jeanneret, P. R., & Strong, M. H. (2003). Linking O*NET job analysis information to job requirement
predictors: An O*NET application. Personnel Psychology, 56, 465-492.

Johnson, J. W., Carter, G. W., Davison, H. K., & Oliver, D. H. (2001). A synthetic validity approach to
testing differential prediction hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 774-780.

Keidel, R.W. (1994). Rethinking organizational design. The Academy of Management Executive, 8,
12-30.

Lawshe, C. H. (1952). What can industrial psychology do for small business? (A symposium).
Personnel Psychology, 5, 31-34.

McClelland, D.C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence.” American
Psychologist, 28, 1-14.

McClelland, D.C. (1994). The knowledge-testing-educational complex strikes back. American

Psychologist, 49, 66-69.

McClelland, D.C. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews. Psychological

Science, 9, 331-339.

McClelland, D.C., & Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in
management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743.

McCloy, R. A. (1994). Predicting job performance scores without performance data. In B. F. Green &
A. S. Mavor (Eds.), Modeling cost and performance for military enlistment: Report of a
workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

McCloy, R. A. (2001, April). Predicting job performance scores in jobs lacking criterion data. In J.
Johnson & G. Carter (Chairs), Advances in the application of synthetic validity. Symposium

13
 conducted at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Mossholder, K. W., & Arvey, R. D. (1984). Synthetic validity: A conceptual and comparative review.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 322-333.

Olian, J.D., & Rynes, S.L. (1991). Making total quality work: Aligning organizational processes,
performance measures, and stakeholders. Human Resource Management, 30, 303-333.

Rubin, N.J., Bebeau, M., Leigh, I.W., Lichtenberg, J.W., Nelson, P.D., Portnoy, S., Smith, I.L., & Kaslow,
N.J. (2007). The competency movement within psychology: An historical perspective.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 452-462.

Sanchez, J.I. (1994). From documentation to innovation: Reshaping job analysis to meet emerging
business needs. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 51-74.

Scherbaum, C. A. (2005). Synthetic validity: Past, present, and future. Personnel Psychology, 58,
481-515.

Spencer, L.M., McClelland, D.C., & Spencer, S. (1994). Competency assessment methods: History
and state of the art. Boston: Hay-McBer Research Press.

Spencer, L.M., & Spencer, S.M. (1993). Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance.
New York, NY: Wiley.

Tett, R. P., Guterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J., (2000). Development and Content Validation
of a "Hyperdimensional" Taxonomy of Managerial Competence. Human Performance, 12(3),
205-251.

Warrenfeltz, R. B. (1995, May). An executive-level validation of the Borman and Brush taxonomy.
Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

14
Appendix A: Academic and Company Competency Models
Model Reference Model Type
Borman, W.C., & Brush, D.H. (1993). More progress
Borman & Brush toward a taxonomy of managerial performance Academic
requirements. Human Performance, 6, 1-21.

Campbell, McCloy, Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E.
(1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Academic
Oppler, & Sager
Borman (Eds.) Personnel selection in organization (pp.
35-70). San Franisco: Jossey-Bass.
Flanagan, J. C., (1951). Defining the requirements of the
Flanagan Academic
executive's job. Personnel, 28, 28-35.
Hemphill, J. K., (1959). Job descritpions for executives.
Hemphill Academic
Harvard Business Review, 37, 55-67.
Katzell, R. A., Barret, R. S., Vann, D. H., & Hogan J. M.
Katzell (1968). Organizational correlates of executive roles. Academic
Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 22-28.

Luthans, F., & Lockwood, D. L. (1984). Toward an

Luthans & Lockwood observation system for measuring leader behavior in Academic
natural settings. In J. G. Hunt, D. Hosking, C.
Schrieshem, & R. Steward (Eds.), Leaders and managers:
International perspectives on managerial behavior
Morse, J. J., & Wagner, F. R. (1978). Measuring the
Morse & Wagner process of managerial effectiveness. Academy of Academic
Management Journal, 21, 23-35.
Prien, E. P. (1963). Development of a supervisor
Prien description questionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology, Academic
47, 10-14.
Tett, R. P., Guterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J.,
Tett, Guterman, Bleir, & (2000). Development and Content Validation of a Academic
Murphy "Hyperdimensional" Taxonomy of Managerial
Competence. Human Performance, 12(3), 205-251.

Tornow, W.W., & Pinto, P.R. (1976). The development of

Tornow, & Pinto a managerial job taxonomy: A system for describing, Academic
classifying, and evaluating executive positions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61, 410-418.
Wofford, J. C. (1970). Factor analysis of managerial
Woffard behavior variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, Academic
169-173.
Yukl, G. A., & Lepsinger, R. (1992). An integrating
taxonomy of manager behavior: Implications for
Yukl Lepsinger improving managerial effectiveness. In J. W. Jones, B. D. Academic
Steffy, & D. W. Bray (Eds.), Applying psychology in
business: The manager's handbook (pp. 563-572)

15
Model Reference Model Type

https://www.bigby.com/systems/assessv2/admin/white
Bigby Havis Commercial
paper.htm

Tett, R. P., Guterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J.,

Jeaneret & Associates (2000). Development and Content Validation of a Commercial
"Hyperdimensional" Taxonomy of Managerial
Competence. Human Performance, 12(3), 205-251.
Lombardo, M. M. & Eichinger, R. W. (2002). The
leadership machine (3rd edn.). Mineapolis: Lominger
Limited Inc.
Lominger Commercial
Lombardo, M. M. & Eichinger, R. W. (2003). FYI: For your
improvement (3rd edn.). Mineapolis: Lominger Limited
Inc.
Tett, R. P., Guterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J.,
PDI (2000). Development and Content Validation of a Commercial
"Hyperdimensional" Taxonomy of Managerial
Competence. Human Performance, 12(3), 205-251.
Select International Internal Company Source Commercial
Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight Competencies: A
SHL Criterion-Centric Approach to Validation. Journal of Commercial
Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1185-1203.
Career One Stop (U.S.
Department of Labor- www.careeronestop.org Governmental
sponsored Web site)
O*NET www.onetcenter.org Governmental
Office of Personnel
www.opm.com Governmental
Management

16
Appendix B: Hogan Competency Model (2009)
Competency
Competency Definition Domain
Number
Achievement
1 Driven to accomplish goals and complete tasks Intrapersonal Skill
Orientation
Listens and restates the ideas and opinions of others to improve mutual
2 Active Listening Interpersonal Skill
understanding
3 Ambiguity Tolerance Deals comfortably with unclear situations and problems Intrapersonal Skill
4 Building Relationships Develops collaborative relationships to facilitate current or future goals Interpersonal Skill
5 Building Teams Assembles cohesive groups based upon required skills, goals, and tasks Leadership
6 Business Acumen Demonstrates keen insight and application of business policies and procedures Leadership
7 Caring Displays sensitivity towards the attitudes, feelings, or circumstances of others Intrapersonal Skill
8 Citizenship Goes beyond job requirements to help the organization Interpersonal Skill
9 Competitive Driven to exceed the performance of others Intrapersonal Skill
10 Decision Making Uses sound judgment to make timely and effective decisions Leadership
11 Delegation Assigns work based on task and skill requirements Leadership
12 Dependability Performs work in a consistent and timely manner Intrapersonal Skill
13 Detail Orientation Performs work with care, accuracy, and attention to detail Intrapersonal Skill
Provides support, coaching, training, and career direction to peers and
14 Employee Development Leadership
subordinates
Demonstrates keen insight and application of budgeting, financial policies and
15 Financial Acumen Work Skill
procedures
16 Flexibility Willing to receive and accept new ideas, approaches, and strategies Intrapersonal Skill
17 Following Procedures Adheres to directions, policies, and/or legal guidelines Intrapersonal Skill
18 Goal Setting Identifies short-term objectives and steps to achieve them Work Skill
19 Industry Knowledge Demonstrates an understanding of industry knowledge and trends Work Skill
20 Influence Persuades others to a desired result Interpersonal Skill
21 Information Analysis Gathers, organizes, and analyzes diverse sources of information Work Skill
22 Initiative Takes action without the direction of others Intrapersonal Skill
23 Innovation Generates creative ideas and perspectives Work Skill

17
Competency
Competency Definition Domain
Number
24 Managing Change Effectively implements new methods and systems Leadership
25 Managing Conflict Manages hostility between individuals or groups when disagreements occur Leadership
26 Managing Performance Monitors performance providing feedback for improvement as needed Leadership
27 Motivating Others Fosters energy for and provides direction towards organizational goals Leadership
28 Negotiation Explores alternatives to reach outcomes acceptable to all parties Interpersonal Skill
29 Oral Communication Expresses himself/herself effectively through verbal communication Interpersonal Skill
Organizational
30 Demonstrates loyalty and dedication to the organization Interpersonal Skill
Commitment
31 Perseverance Pursues goals despite obstacles and/or challenges Intrapersonal Skill
32 Planning/Organizing Coordinates and directs routine activities effectively Intrapersonal Skill
33 Political Awareness Recognizes and works within the political environment of an organization Work Skill
34 Presentation Skills Effectively presents ideas and information to others Work Skill
35 Problem Identification Detects errors, gaps, and potential flaws in goals and tasks Work Skill
36 Problem Solving Identifies solutions given available information Work Skill
37 Professionalism Acts in accordance with job-related values, principles, and standards Intrapersonal Skill
38 Quality Orientation Emphasizes producing quality products and/or meeting quality standards Work Skill
39 Resource Management Coordinates people and materials to maximize productivity and efficiency Leadership
40 Responsibility Accepts personal accountability for actions regardless of outcomes Intrapersonal Skill
Takes appropriate chances to achieve goals while considering possible negative
41 Risk Management Intrapersonal Skill
consequences
42 Safety Follows safety precautions and displays safe on-the-job behavior Work Skill
43 Sales Ability Effectively demonstrates, promotes, and sells products and services Work Skill
44 Self Confidence Believes in oneself to accomplish tasks/goals Intrapersonal Skill
Actively acquires knowledge, skills, and abilities to remain current with job
45 Self Development Intrapersonal Skill
requirements
46 Service Orientation Creates customer loyalty through courteous, timely, and helpful service Interpersonal Skill
47 Social Engagement Enjoys and seeks out interactions with others Interpersonal Skill
48 Strategic Planning Develops strategies to accomplish long-term goals Leadership
49 Stress Tolerance Handles pressure without getting upset, moody, or anxious Intrapersonal Skill

18
Competency
Competency Definition Domain
Number
50 Talent Management Recruits, rewards, and retains individuals with critical skills and abilities Leadership
51 Teamwork Collaborates with others to achieve goals Interpersonal Skill
52 Time Management Plans work to maximize efficiency and minimize downtime Intrapersonal Skill
53 Trustworthiness Acts with honesty and integrity Intrapersonal Skill
54 Valuing Diversity Respects, values, and leverages individual differences Interpersonal Skill
55 Vigilance Remains alert and focused when performing monotonous tasks Intrapersonal Skill
56 Work Attitude Displays a positive disposition towards work Intrapersonal Skill
57 Work Ethic Exhibits hard work and diligence Intrapersonal Skill
58 Written Communication Effectively expresses him or herself through written communication Work Skill
Gets along well with others, is tactful, and behaves appropriately in social
59 Interpersonal Skills
situations
Demonstrates the appropriate motivation, attitude, and self-control to
60 Intrapersonal Skills
effectively perform on the job
61 Leadership Demonstrates general leadership ability and effectiveness
62 Work Skills Uses existing technology and job-relevant abilities to perform tasks

19
Appendix C
C.1 Frequency of Competency Mapping
Competency Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Achievement Orientation 14 1.68 1.68 1.68
Active Listening 6 0.72 0.72 2.40
Ambiguity Tolerance 3 0.36 0.36 2.76
Building Relationships 5 0.60 0.60 3.37
Building Teams 2 0.24 0.24 3.61
Business Acumen 4 0.48 0.48 4.09
Caring 6 0.72 0.72 4.81
Citizenship 1 0.12 0.12 4.93
Competitive 1 0.12 0.12 5.05
Decision Making 12 1.44 1.44 6.49
Delegation 8 0.96 0.96 7.45
Dependability 2 0.24 0.24 7.69
Detail Orientation 3 0.36 0.36 8.05
Employee Development 18 2.16 2.16 10.22
Financial Acumen 10 1.20 1.20 11.42
Flexibility 13 1.56 1.56 12.98
Following Procedures 6 0.72 0.72 13.70
Goal Setting 3 0.36 0.36 14.06
Industry Knowledge 1 0.12 0.12 14.18
Influence 7 0.84 0.84 15.02
Information Analysis 13 1.56 1.56 16.59
Initiative 8 0.96 0.96 17.55
Innovation 10 1.20 1.20 18.75
Managing Change 5 0.60 0.60 19.35
Managing Conflict 7 0.84 0.84 20.19
Managing Performance 16 1.92 1.92 22.12
Motivating Others 10 1.20 1.20 23.32
Negotiation 6 0.72 0.72 24.04
Oral Communication 4 0.48 0.48 24.52
Organizational Commitment 4 0.48 0.48 25.00
Perseverance 6 0.72 0.72 25.72
Planning/Organizing 12 1.44 1.44 27.16
Political Awareness 9 1.08 1.08 28.25
Presentation Skills 5 0.60 0.60 28.85
Problem Identification 1 0.12 0.12 28.97
Problem Solving 9 1.08 1.08 30.05
Professionalism 9 1.08 1.08 31.13
Quality Orientation 10 1.20 1.20 32.33

20
Competency Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Resource Management 7 0.84 0.84 33.17
Responsibility 12 1.44 1.44 34.62
Risk Management 3 0.36 0.36 34.98
Safety 5 0.60 0.60 35.58
Sales Ability 4 0.48 0.48 36.06
Self Confidence 3 0.36 0.36 36.42
Self Development 24 2.88 2.88 39.30
Service Orientation 10 1.20 1.20 40.50
Social Engagement 3 0.36 0.36 40.87
Strategic Planning 16 1.92 1.92 42.79
Stress Tolerance 9 1.08 1.08 43.87
Talent Management 14 1.68 1.68 45.55
Teamwork 10 1.20 1.20 46.75
Time Management 4 0.48 0.48 47.24
Trustworthiness 9 1.08 1.08 48.32
Valuing Diversity 10 1.20 1.20 49.52
Vigilance 1 0.12 0.12 49.64
Work Attitude 3 0.36 0.36 50.00
Work Ethic 3 0.36 0.36 50.36
Written Communication 13 1.56 1.56 51.92
No Match 298 35.82 35.82 87.74
Multiple Match 100 12.02 12.02 99.76
Non-consensus 2 0.24 0.24 100.00
Total 832 100 100

C.2 Frequency of Domain Mapping

Domain Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Intrapersonal Skill 154 18.51 18.51 18.51
Interpersonal Skill 66 7.93 7.93 26.44
Leadership 119 14.30 14.30 40.75
Work Skill 93 11.18 11.18 51.92
No Match/Multiple 400 48.08 48.08 100.00
Total 832 100 100

21