Score

Competency Framework Maturity Assessment

Capability is assessed informally, largely through manager judgment and reputation

A framework exists on paper, though it isn't consistently referenced in actual talent decisions

A clear, well-documented framework exists and is actively used as the reference point for hiring, development, and promotion decisions

We're in the process of developing one, but it isn't finalised yet

Q1. Does your organisation have a clearly defined competency framework, or does capability get assessed more informally?

The framework largely reflects competencies that have historically predicted success in this organisation

Some future-oriented competencies have been added, though the framework is still largely legacy in structure

The framework has been deliberately redesigned around the capabilities the future operating environment will require, even where those differ from what's historically been rewarded

We haven't examined the framework through this forward lens specifically

Q2. How closely does your competency framework reflect what leadership will actually need three to five years from now, versus what has historically been valued?

Application varies considerably; different parts of the organisation interpret and use it differently

There's reasonable consistency at senior levels, less so further down

The framework is applied with genuine consistency across levels and functions, supported by shared language, calibration, and common evaluation standards

We haven't specifically checked for consistency of application

Q3. How consistently is the competency framework actually applied across different levels and functions?

Competencies are described at a fairly high, conceptual level

Some behavioural detail exists, though it's uneven across competencies

Each competency is defined through specific, observable behaviours at each level, making it genuinely possible to assess consistently and give concrete feedback against it

We haven't reviewed the framework specifically for this level of detail

Q4. How observable and behaviourally specific are the competencies in your framework (versus abstract traits like "leadership" or "strategic thinking")?

Primarily through manager judgment, based on general impression over time

A mix of manager input and some structured input (e.g., self-assessment, periodic review)

Through genuine multi-source evidence: 360-degree input, specific behavioural examples, and real outcomes, not impression or self-report alone

We don't currently have a structured assessment approach for this

Q5. How is competency actually assessed: self-report, manager opinion, or gathered evidence?

The framework is assumed to be relevant based on how it was originally designed

Some informal correlation has been noticed, though it hasn't been formally examined

The framework's relevance is actively tested against real outcomes (retention, performance, promotion success), and adjusted when the evidence suggests it should be

Q6. How is the competency framework validated against actual business outcomes, rather than assumed to be relevant?

It was set a while ago and hasn't been substantially revisited since

It gets reviewed occasionally, though not on a defined or predictable cycle

It's reviewed on a deliberate, regular cadence, with real willingness to add, retire, or reweight competencies as the environment changes

We haven't yet established a review cadence

Q7. How often is the competency framework itself reviewed and updated as the market and organisation evolve?

It sits primarily with HR or L&D as a functional responsibility

Senior leaders are generally supportive, though it isn't a visible personal priority for them

A senior leader (often the CEO or a business head) actively champions it, visibly uses it in their own talent decisions, and holds others accountable to it

Q8. Who owns and actively champions the competency framework at a senior level?

The framework primarily assesses current role performance

There's some distinction, though it isn't sharply defined in practice

The framework explicitly and separately assesses current performance and future potential, recognising that strong performers and high-potential leaders aren't always the same people

We haven't examined this distinction specifically

Q9. How well does the framework distinguish between competencies needed for current role performance versus competencies needed for future potential?

The framework leans toward competencies that reward executing known playbooks well

Some ambiguity-related competencies exist, though they sit alongside a framework still weighted toward proven execution

The framework explicitly values and assesses comfort with ambiguity, willingness to explore the unknown, and audacious, well-reasoned risk-taking, alongside disciplined execution

We haven't reviewed the framework through this specific lens

Competency Framework Maturity Assessment

How Mature Is Your Organization's Competency Framework?