DISPA MEETING Competency frameworks in European public...

SERVICII DE ASISTENȚĂ PENTRU

“DEZVOLTAREA UNUI SISTEM DE MANAGEMENT UNITAR AL RESURSELOR UMANE

DIN ADMINISTRAȚIA PUBLICĂ”

COD SIPOCA 136

DISPA MEETING

Competency frameworks in European public

administrations and the challenges of the

implementation

16 May 2019

Timișoara, Romania

Competența face diferența!

Proiect selectat în cadrul Programului Operațional Capacitate Administrativă cofinanțat de Uniunea Europeană, din Fondul Social European

CONTENT OF THE PRESENTATION

1. Why the assessment of the competency frameworks in the European

public administrations?

2. What have we analyzed?

3. The main findings

4. The lessons learned



THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ANALYSES

1. Why the assessment of the competency frameworks in

the European public administrations?



HRM PROJECT Overview

RAS Objective: Support in implementation of the National Strategy to Strengthen the Public

Administration, focusing on the human resource management (HRM) regulatory framework,

consolidating HRM practices, and clarifying HRM roles and responsibilities.

Components

1. Public Policy 2. HRM Guidelines

and procedures

3. Competency

framework

4. Recruitment

system

5. Performance

management

system

➢ Baseline Diagnosis

of legal and

institutional

framework

➢ Recommended

options for HRM in

Romania

➢ Consultation

workshops

➢ Study on data

requirements

➢ HRM procedural

manual

(Operationalization

of the HR Council)

➢ Methodology for

monitoring the new

pay law

➢ Standard job

descriptions

➢ Competency

framework for

clusters of jobs

➢ Model for a

nationwide

competition

➢ IT design and

integration

requirements

➢ Recommendations

for a new model

➢ Procedures and

guidelines on the

new performance

management

system and tools



Where are we now?

High rate of unocupied positions

Frequent reorganizations

Competitive salaries–

depends on institution and job position

High rate of temporary

appointments

Inverted pyramid of seniority at execution

level

High rate of stability –

depends on institutions

Attractivity

Retention

Motivation

20% managerial

positions

68% high level

civil servants

+70% highest

professional

grade

Ca. 5-6% in/outs per

year

60% entry

level/junior

17%

61% central

institutions

Use

Challenges of HRM– civil service

Fragmentation of

HRM



Ce putem face?

How do we know that

we progress?

Tracking and

analyzing key

indicators

• Consolidating

administrative data

• Surveys applied to the

employees

How do we make

sure we're

progressing?

Institutional

Leadership • HR Council + SGG +

NACS

What we do to

progress?• What priority

reforms?target group?

• How we better

integrate the HRM

functions?

Existing Strategies

& legal framework

• National competition,

competency framework,

data bases;

• Strategic HR analysis and

planning;

• Career, performance and

professional development;

• Consolidating the strategic

role of HR departments

1. HRM

Vision

2. HRM

processes

3. HRM

leadership

Main recommendations



Accu

rate

an

d c

om

pre

he

nsiv

e d

ata

Strategic and transparent career

management that leaves room for

growth

Equitable and transparent

remuneration policy

Training adapted to organizational and

individual needs

Transparent and meritocratic

recruitment

Strategic HR analysis and planning

Modern approach to performance

management C

om

pe

ten

cy fra

me

wo

rk

Unitary and strategic HRM system

Attract, deploy,

retain, and motivate

the right people

with the right skills

to do right job to

deliver high-quality

public goods and

services

Results of high-

performing HRM system

(“Vision”)



THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESMENT

2. What have we analyzed?

STRUCTURE

✓ General characterization of

competency frameworks;

✓ System management,

responsibilities and actors

✓ HR processes’ integration

✓ Main findings and lessons learned

✓ Country case-studies

❑ European Level:

• Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia,

Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,

Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,

Luxemburg, Lithuania, Malta, The

Netherlands, Portugal, Romania,

Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,

United Kingdoms

❑ Other OECD countries’ level:

• Australia, Canada, South Korea,

SUA

❑ International organizations' level:

• OECD, World BANK, European

Commission

WE LOOKED AT: WHERE?

THE MAIN FINDINGS

3. What have we identified?

THE TARGET GROUPS

Use of competency frameworks in OECD countries

One common

framework

Each ministry/agency

develops a framework

under central guidelines

Total

Senior managers 23 6 29

Civil servants 17 4 21

Specific functions 13 5 18

All public

employees

10 4 14

Adapted from OECD (2017)

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS IN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF

COMPETENCY FRAMEWORKS

1. Competency frameworks – firstly for senior level management;

2. Two approaches in the structure of the competency framework

a. Specific competency framework for each professional grade Ireland, Australia,

Canada, South

Korea or Estonia

b. One common generic competency framework

b.1

.

each competency has different behavioral

descriptors/indicators for each grade

United Kingdoms

b.2

.

competencies are selectively applied to each grade Belgium

b.3

.

one common framework used in combination with a job

classification guide to establish specific job profiles

Netherlands

c. one single framework provides specific competencies

detailed for each reference job (no distinction between

professional grades)

France

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TYPOLOGIES OF

COMPETNECIES

1. Generic competencies transversal to an organization, sector or the

whole civil service;

related to public service values and ethics,

professional behaviors and personal

attitudes;

specific competencies relate to specific job families;

related to the functional content of a job

family

(French case vs other cases assessed)

2. knowledge theoretical understanding of a subject area

know-how ability to put knowledge to practice

behavior attitudinal and relational traits used in the

work environment

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TYPOLOGIES OF COMPETNECIES

most used competencies in competency frameworks

▪ Values and ethics

▪ Leadership

▪ Results achievement

▪ Strategic thinking

▪ Communication

▪ Team work

▪ Problem solving

▪ Professionalism

▪ Interpersonal relationships

OECD (2017)

▪ Efficiency

▪ Self development and learning

▪ Judgement

▪ Initiative

▪ Coordination

▪ Vision

▪ Customer and client orientation

▪ Adaptability and flexibility

SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACTORS

Institutions in charge of common competency framework management

Country Institution (Hierarchical supervision)

Australia Australian Public Service Commission (Prime Minister)

Belgium Federal Public Service Policy and Support (Minister for the Budget and for Civil

Service Affairs)

Canada Privy Council Office (Prime Minister)

France Directorate General for Administration and the Public Service (Ministry of Public

Action and Accounts)

Ireland Recruitment - Public Appointments Service (Commission for Public Service

Appointments)

Performance management - Department (Ministry) of Public Expenditure and

Reform

Lithuania Civil Service Department (Ministry of the Interior)

The

Netherlands

Department for Organizational and Human Resources Policy (Directorate General

for Public Administration, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations)

South Korea Ministry of Personnel Management

United

Kingdom

Cabinet Office (Prime Minister)

HR PROCESSES' INTEGRATION

Competency mapping Competency-based recruitment

and selection

Competency-based workforce planning Competency-based performance

evaluation

Training needs assessment

Austria⬤

C⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Belgium⬤

C D⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Bulgaria⬤ ⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Canada⬤

D⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Croatia C D⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Cyprus C⬤ ⬤

Estonia⬤ ⬤

Finland D⬤

France⬤

C D⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Germany⬤ ⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Greece⬤

C⬤

Ireland⬤

C D⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Italy⬤

C D

Latvia⬤

D⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Luxembourg⬤

C⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Malta⬤ ⬤

Netherlands⬤

C D⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Norway⬤ ⬤

Portugal⬤

C⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Romania⬤

C D⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Slovakia C D

Slovenia C D⬤

South Korea⬤

C D⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Spain⬤

C D⬤ ⬤ ⬤

Sweden⬤

D⬤

LESSONS LEARNED

4. What did we learn?

LESSONS LEARNED

• Ownership and participation;

• Leadership commitment;

• Engagement of end-users throughout the process;

• Gradual implementation;

• Effective communication;

• Wide training programmes;

• Evaluation, feedback, reporting;

• Central coordination;

• Specialized knowledge and capabilities for the process;

• Flexibility and ease-of-use

MULTUMESC!

[email protected]

Ramona MOLDOVAN

Public Sector Specialist

The World Bank Group

mailto:[email protected]

DISPA MEETING Competency frameworks in European public...

Documents

Transcript of DISPA MEETING Competency frameworks in European public...