Competency Model Cm Has Replaced Traditional Tja Commerce Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Although there is argument between these two models, but there is no evident to prove that statement. The conclusion of this article has been made and they found out that CM and TJA has the potential to fulfill any "empty space" for one another. With this combination, the organization can achieve the goal and to set employee direction behavior towards the achievement of the strategic objectives.


Competency model (CM) has replaced Traditional (TJA) in many organizations. Most of big organizations are involved and take part to develop this process and adapt into their organization as well. Seem like CM is more relevant and up to date to be implemented in the organization. But without TJA fundamental, CM won't be able to grow as the basic of CM is comes from TJA itself.

In this study case, we will see the differences between CM and TJA that been discussed in this article. Indirectly, this article also will raise awareness about the fundamentally different purposes pursued by TJA and CM as well. The six dimensions that been discussed also will shows that although there is some argument on CM and TJA, in term of functionality, fundamental and purpose. Few areas from CM and TJA have been identified and have the capability to full fill and empty space in both models may supplement each other in a host of HR applications.

Problem statement

There is no evident or agreement to say that Competency model (CM) and Traditional Job Analysis is a different methods. Some have argued that any CM project is at its foundation also a job analysis (Ruggeberg, 2007). Some others said that both are having the same goal even have the different approaches and ideas, but at the end it is still linking to the business goals. There is another statement said that, TJA methodology is more accurate and having more details processes than CM in term of data collection, level of detail, assessment of reliability of result and research documentation process (Schippmann et al., 2000) . Still others have the opinion that CM is actually is detailing and structuring the TJA method and CM will not able produce anything new if the TJA itself cannot accomplish.

There is no concrete answer for the question of how differ is CM and TJA. This argument and finding is make us more complicated to get the answer. Although CM has been discussed and practiced in the texts, but still no concrete agreement about the definition "competency" or methodology involved in developing the CM. However, they prefer to say "either/or" when debating these two methodologies.

So this author would like to discuss this topic in different way, which is they would like to maintain the functionality of these two methods and not to replace with one another. They still prefer and keep these methods exist in the any organization.

This is a fact to say, they are really not bother to find any differences about CM and TJA. This is rarely exists in organization practice as well as they know that the objective and the process is same in both approaches. Hence, with these kind of information and confusion has triggered them to clarify the differences between TJA and CM. To clarify and to highlight the different purposes they may use, develop and complete one another.


The main objectives of this article is as below;

To find the differences between Competency Model (CM) and Traditional Job Analysis (TJA) from six dimensions that will be discussed later.

To find any potential in CM to fulfill any "empty space" in one another.

To raise awareness about the fundamentally different purposes pursued by TJA and CM.


The methodology that been used in this article is as below;

Find the differences between Competency Model (CM) and Traditional Job Analysis (TJA) in six dimensions and to find any potential that may fulfill each other in a host of HR applications.

Outline how the practice of CM can be supplemented using not only TJA but also new forms of work analysis.

Make conclusion to raise awareness to trigger further research that may strengthen the case for the union of these methods, and the value that it may add to organizational effectiveness and human resource management.

Competency Model (CM)

CM is an approach or process of identifying key characteristic that not only lead to successful job performance but also support the organizations culture, goals and strategies. It's also helps organizations to pursue long term goals as the development of training programs, performance management systems and career development tracks. [John M.Ivancevich, 2013]

Traditional job analysis (TJA)

TJA is systematic process of gathering, documenting and analyzing information about the content, context and requirement of a job. [John M.Ivancevich, 2013]

It is the formal process of identifying the content of a job in terms activities involved and attributes needed to perform the work and identifies major job requirements. Job analyses provide information to organizations which helps to determine which employees are best fit for specific jobs.


To have the clear overview of the differences between Traditional Job Analysis (TJA) and Competency Model (CM). Researchers have narrowed down six of points as below;

Purpose (describe versus influence behavior).

CM is to influence how such assignments are performed in a manner aligned with the organization's strategy (J.J Sanchez, E.L Levine, 2009). A parallel can be drawn with the notions of "trait relevance" and "situation strength," which correspond to the concepts of "channel" and "volume" in signal detection theory (Tett & Burnet, 2003). Beside, TJA is concerned primarily with determining "trait relevance" or the appropriate "channels" (e.g., worker attributes) that are called for by the nature of the work assignment.

TJA is best positioned in the domain of applied measurement and serves to inform HR functions such as staffing, training, and compensation. Besides, CM is best conceived of as a strategy execution tool whose closest referents can probably be found in Organizational Culture and Social Control theories.

CM is having better package to the task in order to influencing staff behavior with strategic lines than TJA. The key of CM is to provide a path between day to day employee behavior and broader goals of the organization (Schippmann et al., 2000), Beside, TJA usually having long list of tasks of Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other Characteristics (KSAOs), this is to give clear understanding of the daily nature works and its requirements.

View of the job (an object to be described versus a role to be enacted).

TJA usually refers to the job or position; indirectly implies that the assumptions and imagination also depend on the term "job". The term of "job" as a separate entity from the person who performs a certain work can be seen in our working environment. TJA is referring to the "job" and not to "the person doing the job" and it is seen separately. The job is referring to thing to be done and no matter who is perform it. Although, they have been asked to make a report, they were asked to report on the job or task and not the person who did the job. This is because TJA more focused on the elements of the job description to the task and not one that holds the task.

Focus (job versus organization).

TJA just focus on the job, it does not recognize that the behavior of work or job requirements may be influenced by factors other than the official duty and equipment set to work (JJ Sanchez, EL Levine, 2009)

Besides CM is more towards implementing the overall employment in the organization and should be influenced by the behavior of certain well-connected to the organizational strategy. For example, the implementation of the cleanliness campaign by the organization, to undertake the "job" of cleaning if done as a whole in the organization, this campaign will give a good impression of the organization.

Time orientation (past versus future)

TJA essentially descriptive, where TJA try to provide equality objectives and work or activity related to the needs of their employees. TJA also backed in the past, and it describes the work as it has done in the past. TJA depends entirely on the people who have been doing work as a primary source of information for referral.

The main purpose of CM is to serve as a channel strategy into organizations especially the daily behavior of employees. This strategic influence will pave the way for a new interpretation of employment, which may differ from that used by the TJA.

CM is mainly prescriptive (Sackett & Laczo, 2003), where it has set the way in which work activities to be carried out in line with the organization's strategy. CM to focus on the future and it hints at the way in which work should be interpreted and implemented from now on, regardless of whether or not the employee has adopted such an approach in the past.

Performance level (typical versus maximum).

With respect to performance level, TJA arguably more focused on the job description - a typical job that was given to the job. Beside, CM aims at inducing "maximal" performance as reflected in a strategic interpretation of the job that results in a series of behaviors that fit certain strategic themes (Sackett, Zedeck, & Fogli, 1988).

In the relationship between the organization and the employee, TJA more addresses to do limited work in their job description only. They just do the job with what been paid by company. But CM, not only the work commitments on their work, but also their role in the organization must be consistent and also future roles along the lines in maximizing the performance of the company in line with the organization's strategy.

Measurement approach (Latent trait versus clinical judgment)

TJA said, which has the advantage of employee skills and capabilities in certain tasks will have a great job of potential to grow in their carrier. Based on that fact, the only employees who have "gifted" skills will be able to perform the extra ordinary tasks.

CM was of the view that, skill or ability characteristics of any individual can be measured or counted. To do a job, if they don't have those skills, if given enough exposure and training, the skills or the ability of the individual can be maximized, using formulas across different domains and levels of analysis.

Author recommendation and conclusion.

As discussed, the author put some hope that TJA and CM can supply each other rather than to replace it. Furthermore, the practice of CM can be enriched by both approach of TJA and CM. As recommendation the author has outlined few ideas that may connect between to methodologies. As an additional, the authors hopes that with these ideas may lead to future research direction to answer the unanswered question regarding CM.

From the finding, they have recognized that TJA has a weakness because it tends to ignore the value added by strategic variables. Strategic job analysis is a comparison between present and future-oriented job-analytic, may reveal unforeseen strengths, weaknesses, advantages and threats affecting the strategic HR

planning process. However, CM focuses on strategy execution and strategic job analysis. Therefore, they disagree with statement that strategic job analysis can replace CM, because strategic job analysis does not provide a channel between strategic business goals and day-to-day employee behavior.

Below are the recommendations on how TJA can supplement CM at various points of the CM process.

Derivation of strategic and functional competencies.

The first step to do is to implement the organization's strategy into a series of competencies. This implementation must involve a significant number of panels, which include strategic person from top decision makers. These groups are the backbone of the organization who involved in setting the organization's mission and vision. Individuals who are familiar with all of the organization's operations and functions also can participate in this panel group, because the distinctive competitive advantage of the organization often lies in the operational details (Kaplan & Norton, 2004).

Evaluation of CM.

If an organization wants to design a system, e.g. personnel system more competencies, the idea to design their system must be carried out in detail. Because every action and criteria of work in the system can be challenging, based on meta analytic research suggests that measures of person-organization fit have null to small relations with both performance and turnover (Arthur, Bell,Villado, & Doverspike, 2006).

Developing the organization's own competency language

CM acts as the organization's internal guidelines, these guidelines should be able to understand and influence the behavior of the daily workers. It is important to ensure that employees can understand how efficiency can be behaviorally reflected in their daily routine and in accordance with the meaning that will be shared parallel with the organizational strategy.

Derivation of behavioral incidents

"Translate" the meaning and definition of each competency using its own format and can be proven as a reference frame approach. By doing modularity and cross between TJA and CM. (mix and match) and to involve their knowledge work to identify the circumstances in which competence can influence the behavior of one or more employees. Creative examples of this type of CM-TJA cross-fertilization have been employed to produce behavioral indicators at various levels of each competency (Fink, 2007; Phillips & Odman, 2007; Ruggeberg, 2007).

Issue of the article

Basically these two models are having same purposes. One of the TJA main purposes is to prepare job descriptions and a job specification which in turn helps hire the right quality of staff into an organization. The general purpose of job analysis is to document the requirements of a job and the work performed. Beside, CM is more into long term and helps organizations pursue long term goals as the development of training programs, performance management systems and career development tracks. The objective is in the same direction where is still linking to the result to business. But, overall the differences of these model are exist but no concrete agreement to support this statement.

We need to understand the basic concept and objective of these two models and know how to determine the purpose as well. As these model unofficially is "interrelated" to each other, we tend to get confuse if we didn't know what is the basic purpose and method behind both processes. So we need to really understand the process fundamental first to get know the detail.

The six dimensions that have been discussed here, will describe in few points to show the differences between these two models although there are lot of argument about it. The differences may contributes small evident but if we put an effort to bring that points to be discussed in detail. There is an opportunity to contribute something in future or to rebranding the methodology.


Overall, we expect that the discussion presented here will raise awareness about the fundamentally different purposes pursued by TJA and CM, thus ending the either-or debate between them. In essence, whereas TJA focuses on describing and measuring the requirements of work, CM creates a conduit to influence day-to-day employee performance along strategic lines. Having highlighted how we stand to gain from using them together, we hope to stimulate research on the manner in which TJA and CM may supplement each other in a host of HR applications.

As a conclusion for this article, although there are a lot of arguments on these models, the author would like to discuss this topic in different way, which is they would like to maintain the functionality of these two methods and not to replace with one another. They still prefer and keep these methods exist in the any organization.

So in order to see the differences, the six points that have been discussed hopefully can trigger awareness about functionality, features and approaches point of view. Basically CM and TJA are based on the same fundamental. Thus, they may supplement one to another and can fulfill any empty space in both sides as well.


Maintain the basic fundamental of TJA.

Although there is a lot of argument between TJA and CM, I think the best thing to keep this argument in safe mode is to maintain the basic of fundamental of TJA in mind. Make it as the guidelines when developing any CM in the organization. So that the organization will not misses the functionality of CM.

Enrich CM with fix features, functionality and definition.

By enrich CM with the fix features, functionality and definition; it may lead to more understanding on the functionality of this model. An organization will be able to use it without any problem in term of functionality and process. If these model well defined, one of the benefit is to avoid confusion for those doesn't really know about the models

Rebranding CM as a standard model.

As far as we concern, CM is now progressively been implemented in many organization to replace TJA in the organization. They start to know the benefit of CM for long term. What kind of approach in CM and functionality to be used. CM can be many versions depend on the organization requirement. CM could be anything for the organization. It's also can be rebranding as new a new name. But it's cannot be separated by TJA as the basic fundamental.