How to Create a Competency Framework
A competency framework is a structured set of behavioral definitions that describe what effective performance looks like in an organization or role. Each competency names a capability, such as communication, analytical thinking, or leadership, and defines it through observable behavioral indicators at different performance levels. Organizations use competency frameworks to create consistency across hiring, performance evaluation, development planning, and succession decisions. A well-built framework connects every people decision to the same evidence-based definition of what good performance looks like.
Why Competency Frameworks Often Fail
Most competency frameworks are built the wrong way. They are assembled from generic lists, populated with aspirational language, and launched without validation evidence or practitioner training. The result is a document that HR teams maintain and line managers ignore.
Campion, Fink, Ruggeberg, Carr, Phillips, and Odman (2011), in the most comprehensive review of competency modeling practice published in Personnel Psychology, identified the core failure modes. Frameworks are built without involving subject matter experts. They are not validated against actual performance outcomes. They list too many competencies to be usable. And they use vague, abstract language that cannot be reliably observed or scored.
These failures are not inevitable. They reflect process choices that can be corrected. The steps below reflect the best practices Campion et al. (2011) identified from leading practitioners and I/O psychologists across the field.
Step 1: Define the Purpose Before Building the Framework
A competency framework built for selection has different requirements from one built for development or succession. Selection frameworks need behavioral indicators that can be reliably assessed in an interview or assessment center. Development frameworks need indicators specific enough to guide coaching conversations. Succession frameworks need to define the capabilities required at future leadership levels.
Define the intended use before building anything. The answer determines which competencies to include, how many levels of behavioral indicators to define, and what evidence base is needed to validate the framework. Campion et al. (2011) list clarity of purpose as a foundational best practice. Frameworks that try to serve all purposes simultaneously tend to serve none well.
Step 2: Ground the Framework in Job Analysis
Competencies should be derived from the actual demands of the roles they describe. This requires a job analysis. A job analysis is a structured process for identifying the tasks, responsibilities, and performance standards that define effective work in the target roles.
Job analysis produces two outputs that competency frameworks need. First, it identifies which capabilities genuinely differentiate high performance from adequate performance in the role. Second, it provides the behavioral evidence base for writing indicators at different performance levels. Campion et al. (2011) are explicit on this point. Competency frameworks not grounded in job analysis produce competencies that are organizationally credible but behaviorally indefensible. They look reasonable but do not predict performance.
Bartram (2005) demonstrated that competency frameworks aligned to empirically derived taxonomies, such as the Great Eight competency model, show stronger criterion validity than those assembled from intuition or organizational preference alone.
Step 3: Involve Subject Matter Experts
Competencies should be defined by people who understand what effective performance in the role actually looks like. This means involving a structured panel of subject matter experts: high performers in the role, their managers, and HR business partners familiar with the function.
Subject matter expert involvement is one of the most consistently cited best practices in Campion et al. (2011). It improves the content validity of the framework, increases line manager buy-in, and surfaces behavioral distinctions that job descriptions and generic competency libraries miss. The panel should validate both the competency list and the behavioral indicators through a structured rating exercise before the framework is finalized.
Step 4: Write Behavioral Indicators, Not Trait Labels
Competencies should be defined through observable behavioral indicators. "Strategic thinking" is a trait label. "Identifies second-order consequences of a decision before committing to a course of action" is a behavioral indicator. The difference matters for every application of the framework.
Behavioral indicators can be assessed in a structured interview. They can be scored consistently across raters. They can be connected to development actions. Trait labels cannot. Campion et al. (2011) identify behavioral specificity as one of the strongest predictors of framework usability. Write three to five behavioral indicators per competency at each performance level. Keep the total number of competencies between eight and twelve for selection frameworks and twelve and sixteen for development frameworks.
Step 5: Validate and Maintain the Framework
A competency framework is not a document that is built once and stored. It requires validation against performance outcomes and periodic updating as roles evolve.
Validation means testing whether scores on the framework's competencies predict actual performance ratings or other relevant criteria. Without this evidence, a competency framework is a classification system rather than a predictive tool. Campion et al. (2011) identify validation as one of the most frequently neglected steps in practice and one of the most consequential for long-term usefulness.
Maintenance means reviewing the framework when roles change significantly, when business strategy shifts, or when validation data reveals that certain competencies are not differentiating performance as expected.
A competency framework used for hiring is itself a selection procedure. That means it should be job-related and, where it influences who is screened in or out, checked for adverse impact across protected groups. In the United States the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (EEOC, 1978) and the SIOP Principles (2018) set the expectation that selection tools, including competency-based ones, are validated for the job and monitored for differential impact. Building fairness checks into validation from the outset is both more defensible and easier than retrofitting them later.
Common Mistakes
Including too many competencies. A framework with thirty competencies is not used. Practitioners focus on the three or four they can remember. Restrict selection frameworks to eight to twelve competencies maximum.
Using generic competency libraries without customization. Off-the-shelf competency lists provide a starting point. They should be customized through job analysis and subject matter expert review before use. Generic frameworks miss the role-specific behavioral distinctions that make a framework useful.
Skipping behavioral indicators. A competency named without behavioral indicators cannot be assessed consistently. Every competency requires observable, specific indicators that assessors can identify in interview responses or on-the-job behavior.
Building without involving line managers. A framework built by HR alone will not be used by line managers. Subject matter expert involvement is a prerequisite for adoption, not an optional enhancement.
How Deeper Signals Supports Competency Frameworks
Most organizations do not need to build a competency framework from scratch. The Deeper Signals Capability Model provides a validated, pre-built framework that organizations can adopt directly or adapt to their own context, along with the measurement layer that competency frameworks require. The model defines 28 work-relevant competencies across six domains (emotional skills, social skills, cooperation skills, energy and goal skills, exploration skills, and task skills), organized across three levels of work: leading self, leading others, and leading projects. This structure lets organizations map the right competencies to the right roles rather than applying a single undifferentiated list across every level.
The model is powered by the Core Drivers and Core Values Diagnostics. Bespoke scoring algorithms translate personality and values data into competency profiles without requiring a separate competency assessment, and each diagnostic can be completed in under ten minutes.
The model can also be customized to align with an organization's existing framework. Deeper Signals' I/O psychologists interview business leaders to understand the capabilities that matter in context, empirically key the relevant behavioral indicators, develop tailored scoring algorithms, and map the model onto the organization's own performance language. Because a competency framework used in hiring is itself a selection procedure, all custom scoring algorithms are tested for adverse impact across protected groups (age, gender, ethnicity), and where possible evidence of concurrent and predictive validity is provided.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many competencies should a framework include?
Between eight and twelve for selection purposes, and twelve and sixteen for development purposes. More than this reduces usability. Practitioners naturally focus on the subset they can retain, so a smaller, better-defined framework is more effective than a comprehensive one that is rarely applied.
How long does it take to build a competency framework?
A rigorous framework built through job analysis and subject matter expert review typically takes eight to twelve weeks. Faster timelines are possible but usually involve skipping the job analysis or validation steps that determine whether the framework actually predicts performance.
Should competencies be the same across all levels of the organization?
Core competencies can apply organization-wide, but behavioral indicators should be level-differentiated. What "communication" looks like for an individual contributor is different from what it looks like for a senior leader. Using the same indicators across levels produces a framework that is not diagnostic at any level.
How do you validate a competency framework?
Collect competency ratings for a sample of employees alongside independent performance measures. Correlate competency scores with performance ratings, promotion outcomes, or other relevant criteria. Low correlations between a competency and performance indicate that the competency is not differentiating effectively and should be revised or replaced.
Can AI be used to build a competency framework?
AI tools can support competency framework development by generating initial competency lists from job descriptions, synthesizing job analysis data, or suggesting behavioral indicators. They should be used as a starting point for subject matter expert review rather than as the sole source of framework content. Campion et al. (2011) emphasize human expert judgment as the foundation of a defensible framework.
Does a competency framework need to be checked for adverse impact?
If it is used to make selection or promotion decisions, yes. A competency framework that screens candidates in or out functions as a selection procedure, so the same standards apply as to any assessment: it should be job-related, validated, and monitored for adverse impact across protected groups under the Uniform Guidelines (EEOC, 1978) and the SIOP Principles (2018). Frameworks used purely for individual development carry lower risk, but job-relatedness still improves their usefulness.
Last reviewed by Dr. Reece Akhtar — June 2026
References
Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B. (2011). Doing competencies well: Best practices in competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 225–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01207.x
Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1185–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1185
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2018). Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures (5th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: SIOP.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1978). Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. 29 C.F.R. Part 1607.
