AFFIRMATIVE COACHING@WORK COMPETENCY MODEL

The process of identifying and defining the competency potential latent variables that drive the competencies necessary to achieve the outcomes for which a specific position exists and to map the structural linkages that exist within and between these three domains is called competency modelling (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1998).

A competency model in essence is a structural model (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000) that depicts the manner in which competency potential latent variables, competencies and outcome latent variables are structurally linked. A competency model in essence is a three-domain structural model that maps a network of causally inter-related person characteristics onto a network of causally inter-related key performance areas and that maps the latter onto a network of causally inter-related outcome variables (Myburgh, 2013). The coaching@work competency model as

shown in Figure 1.1 has three primary domains namely a domain of competency potential latent variables, a domain of competency latent variables and a domain of outcome latent variables. The first domain is composed of coach competency potential. According to Van der Bank (2007) competency potential refers to the psychological attributes of, in this case, the coach such as aptitudes, abilities, interests, values, motives and personality that determine job performance. This domain is linked to the coach competencies domain. Competencies are the abstract representations of bundles of related observable behavior, driven by a nomological network of (unknown) constructs (competency potential), which, when exhibited on a job, would constitute high job performance and would (probably, depending on situational constraints/opportunities) lead to job success defined in terms of output/the objectives for which the job exists (Theron, 2011). The second domain is structurally linked to the third domain of coach outcomes which at the same time are the coachee competency potential latent variables. The third domain is linked to a coachee job competencies domain which is also in turn linked to coachee job outcomes. Theron (2011) defined the concept outcome as job success defined in terms of outputs or objectives for which the job exists. The job outcome domain is derived from the objective of the job. Literature generally tends to interpret competency modelling and competency model more narrowly than this study. In most cases a competency model either refers to a list of behavioural competencies that constitute success in a specific position or it is used to refer to a set of personal attributes required to succeed in a specific position. The former interpretation seems to be more prevalent in the United Kingdom (Theron, 2011) whereas the latter seems to be more popular in the United States of America (Theron, 2011).

The basic structure of the three-domain affirmative development coaching@work competency model and the manner in which it links up with a similar three-domain employee@work competency model is shown in Figure 1.1. Again it needs to be emphasised that each domain or circle represents a structural model that maps the structural relations between the latent variables comprising the particular domain.

The development and empirical testing of such sequentially linked structural models would help clarify and define which characteristics affirmative development coaches need to have to enable them to do that which impacts on malleable characteristics of the employees that they coach, which in turn affect the employees’ ability to be

successful on the job. Such a model will be very useful to guide and integrate human resource interventions aimed at increasing affirmative development coach performance.

14

Figure1.1 Affirmative development coaching@work competency model

Coaching competency

potential

Coachee outcomes

Coach competencies

Coachee competencies

Coaching Outcomes=

Coachee competency

potential Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za

Purposeful human resource interventions are possible because, according to Theron (2011), the level of performance achieved by any job holder is not a random event but rather an expression of lawful working of a complex nomological network of latent variables.

There are several approaches to competency identification, modelling and assessment but the more fruitful way is the output-driven approach. Casio (as cited in Van Der Bank, 2007) says that it is important to view behaviour in relation to results in that it provides an indication of the relevant importance of specific individual competencies thereby enabling criterion developers to attach a weight to specific performance areas. In the output-driven approach the focal point is the output of the targeted job or occupation. Rothwell and Lindholm (1998) argue that outputs are what successful performers produce and as such competencies are derived from examining outputs. In this case understanding the relationship between competencies (behaviours) and outcomes is important because it validates the relevance of the competencies. Competencies can be considered relevant to the extent that they are instrumental in achieving the outcomes for which the job exists.

In the above sections it was shown that performance of workers is cardinal in making the organisation reach its goal. In this case the performance of managers acting as affirmative development coaches is vital. Coach performance can be conceptualised on two levels namely on the job result or outcome level as well as on the behavioural level (Van der Bank, 2007). Successful performance on the coach outcome level requires specific levels of performance on the behavioural competencies in that the latter determines the former (Theron, 2011). It is further argued that the level of performance achieved on the outcome level could also feed back onto the level of performance reached on the behavioural competencies. It can therefore be seen that there exist a complex network of causal linkages between coachee outcomes for which the job of the coach exists and coach behavioural variables. Since the level of performance achieved by the coach is not a random event but can be expressed as a lawful working of complex nomological network of latent variables (Theron, 2011) there is need for the development and empirical testing of a coaching competency model. The competency model acknowledges the complexity of the behaviour of working man.

Gaining an understanding of the way in which the latent job competency potential, job competency and job outcome variables in the coaching @work structural model (Figure 1.1) structurally combine would offer the possibility of purposefully and rationally (proactively) improving performance on the coach job competencies relevant to the job outcomes for which the job of affirmative development coach exists through a variety of human resource interventions (Van der Bank, 2007).

Secondly, knowing the relationship between the three domains would offer the possibility of purposefully and rationally (reactively) salvaging currently unacceptable performance (Van der Bank, 2007). To sanction this formative role the accuracy of any hypothesised coaching@work structural model would, however, have to be demonstrated by operationalising the latent variables comprising the model and showing that the model fits empirical data.

Developing and empirically testing a comprehensive affirmative development coaching competency model as defined above represents a formidable challenge.

Apart from the theoretical challenges of identifying the identity of the latent variables involved and the manner in which they structurally interact, empirically testing such a model would make very daunting demands on the data collection procedure. Ideally multiple ratings on the coach and his/her coachee would be required that then has to be aggregated over coaches.

The development and empirical testing of a comprehensive affirmative development coaching competency model will consequently be approached in stages. The first stage will involve the development and psychometric evaluation of an affirmative development coach competency questionnaire. To assist in identifying and theoretically validating the core affirmative development coaching competencies, a partial affirmative development coach coaching competency model will be developed (but not subjected to empirical test) that maps the coach competencies on the outcome variables that the coach is meant to affect.