The five point rating scale is the most common though talent3sixty is flexible and offers other models to suit your policy.
Values are invariably assessed on a 3 point scale. (1)Does not live the values (2)Lives the values & (3)Sponsors the values.
One challenge is to apply the rating scale across multiple roles and levels. Does the competency model apply uniformly across roles and levels? How do we use this to create a leadership model? There are two alternatives.
Define different behaviors for each competency for each role. In effect, in the above example, “customer centricity” has different behavior anchors for the Strategic Leader, the Solid Core and the Foundation depending on the contribution which they are required to make and the specific behaviors required to discharge their roles effectively.
This has an impact on how the talent3sixty is implemented. Separate question bank for each competency for each role, and effectively 3 separate 5-point scales.
Adopt the same definition for each competency irrespective of roles and calibrate the definition at the level of “expert. “. In the above example, “customer centricty” has one “expert level” definition, irrespective of role. This becomes like a gold standard against which the leadership is assessed. The rating implication is that the same question bank is used for each competency and effectively you have a single 5 point rating scale against which all are assessed.
Talent3sixty has a point of view on this though the product is flexible to adopt both approaches. We prefer alternative 2 for the following reasons.
a. It provides a single view of each competency. So the leadership in different roles has a clear view of the gradient to climb from a development standpoint to discharge higher roles.
b. It’s simpler to implement.
c. It creates a clear development trajectory against the benchmarks of a gold standard set for each competency.
d. The same model can be used for other forms of assessment in PMS or assessment centers.
e. It avoids the confusion of multiple scales. For example, If I am rated at 3.5 in the talent3sixty assessment for “bias for action” at a foundation level, that assessment cannot be compared with a 3.5 talent3sixty rating on “bias for action” at the solid core level. This “telescoping” is left out and sometimes difficult to explain and translate.
Alternate 1 is simpler for the assessor / manager, and sometimes they would specifically ask for alternate 1 because its easier for them.
Please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org for further discussion and advise.