Review of Leadership Competency Models
Content Analysis of O*NET and an Existing Competency Model
Interviews with Student Leaders
Interviews with Leadership Council
Interviews with Administrators
Integrating Information Collected
Appendix A: A Priori Model of Leadership Competencies
Appendix B: Initial Definitions of Leadership Competency Dimensions
Appendix C: Sorting Exercises of O*NET Knowledges
Appendix D: Sorting Exercises of O*NET Cross-Functional Skills
Appendix E: Sorting Exercises of O*NET Abilities
Appendix F: Sorting Exercises of O*NET Work Styles
Appendix G: Sorting Exercises of O*NET Generalized Work Activities
Appendix H: Sorting Exercises of O*NET Work Contexts
Appendix I: Sorting Exercises of O*NET Organizational Contexts
Appendix J: Interview Guides for Student Leaders
Appendix K: Interview Guides for Alumni
Appendix L: Interview Guides for Employers
Appendix M: Interview Guides for Faculty
Appendix N: Interview Guides for Leadership Council
Appendix O: Interview Guides for Administrators
Appendix P: Highlights from Interviews with the University Community
This report functions as a description of the process used to develop a leadership competency model. Although a variety of organizations could utilize this competency model, it was created with Central Michigan University’s student leaders as the intended focal point. The leadership competency model is being distributed to members of the campus community, including the Leadership Institute, the Leadership Council, members of the administration, faculty, interested employers, and interested student groups. The competency model was created by eight graduate students and Dr. Stephen Wagner in the Industrial/Organizational Psychology Practicum class during the fall semester of 2004. This model will serve as a basis for creating tools to aid in the development of leaders, including a multi-source feedback instrument and a handbook of developmental activities for leaders.
The purpose of the competency model is to help student leaders develop their skills, knowledge, and abilities in order to successfully perform in current and future leadership roles. Five leadership competency dimensions, as well as specific competencies for each dimension, were identified through examination of leadership literature, competency model literature, existing leadership competency models, taxonomies of relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET), and through conducting interviews with different groups of constituents having a vested interest in leadership development.
Each class member provided unique insights gathered from the above sources and collaborated to develop the competency model. Each class member took responsibility for gathering data from a specific constituency and providing information from that process. The following technical report provides detailed descriptions of the process for developing this leadership competency model. The appendices of the report provide interview guides and sorting exercises utilized in the process of developing the competency model.
The literature review consisted of readings on two subjects, the concept and process of competency modeling, and leadership theory and development. References for the literature reviewed are listed on page 10. The process began with readings describing what competency models are, how they are developed, and how they relate to the more common practice of job analysis (Schippmann, 1999). Effective interviewing techniques were reviewed to enhance qualitative data collection skills (Stewart & Cash, 1988). The critical incidence technique of job analysis was also reviewed (Levine, 1983). Once a foundation for understanding competency models was established, theories of leadership and leadership development were reviewed. Sources were academically oriented and included books (e.g., Northouse, 2004) and journal articles (e.g., Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Van Engen, 2003). Topics reviewed included issues such as leadership development, ethics, diversity, self-concept, gender, and leading under pressure. In addition to these sources, a book on O*NET (Peterson, Mumford, Borman, Jeanneret, & Fleishman, 1999) provided guidance in how leadership core competencies could be conceptualized and described.
Review of Leadership Competency Models
An Internet search for existing leadership competency models yielded a wide variety of results in terms of quality, content, and appearance. The Websites reviewed are presented on page 12. The majority of the models reviewed came from government and military organizations. Additional sources were academic institutions and private corporations. The models were very diverse in quality. While some had specific definitions for factors, others were vague and abstract. The content of some of the models was extremely thorough, whereas, others had limited content and a narrow definition of leadership. Most of the models included competencies related to task management and leading others; however the inclusion of other factors was inconsistent across models. Many competencies were also tailored to the organization for which the model was established. These existing models were reviewed and discussed among the practicum class.
After reviewing existing leadership competency models, each member of the practicum class developed their own leadership competency model. The models were broad, ranging from three up to ten or more factors. These models were again reviewed and discussed within the group. Aggregating the information learned from the existing and created competency models, the practicum class reached a consensus model (see Appendix A). This a priori model consisted of five dimensions with numerous potential core competencies listed under each dimension. The a priori model served as a basis for discussion and a reference utilized in defining the leadership dimensions and conducting interviews and content analyses. Initial definitions of each dimension were also developed by small groups and refined by discussion of the whole group (see Appendix B).
Content Analysis of O*NET and an Existing Competency Model
The content of O*NET and an existing competency taxonomy for management (Schippman, 1999) were also analyzed by the class. O*NET is an online descriptive reference tool developed and maintained by the United States Department of Labor. This tool provides an extensive list of jobs and describes the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to successfully perform these jobs. O*NET breaks down job characteristics into twenty-one categories; several of these categories were relevant to leadership. These include: basic and cross-functional skills, knowledges, abilities, work styles, generalized work activities, work context, and organizational context. Sorting exercises completed for these aspects of O*NET are presented in Appendices C through I. The eight members of the practicum class individually indicated which competencies within each category were relevant to leadership development. Competencies identified as relevant were sorted into the dimensions of the model. To determine which competencies to retain, a consensus approach was used. At least four of members of the practicum class had to agree that the competency was applicable to leadership in order for the competency to be retained. For those competencies that were rated as important to multiple dimensions, the dimension the competency was categorized under was determined by short discussion. A similar process was used to sort the work activities in Schippmann’s (1999) management taxonomy. The practicum class then collectively defined the competencies identified as important, and eliminated any redundant items to arrive at the final competency list for each dimension.
Interviews with Student Leaders
The opinions of current CMU students in various leadership positions on campus were highly relevant because the focus of the leadership competency model was to aid student leadership. Their direct and immediate experience with student leadership roles were explored through the process of interviewing.
Two members of the practicum class were assigned the task of interviewing student leaders on campus. The first step of the process was to identify the sample. In this stage the researchers examined the list of Registered Student Organizations on campus on CMU’s Student Life website. From this preliminary list, organizations were eliminated that were not academically or service oriented. Those eliminated included clubs such as social fraternities, sororities, and sports teams. The list reduced to forty organizations. Presidents of these organizations were contacted through e-mail and by phone and were requested to participate in an interview. Overall fifteen of the forty student leaders responded and agreed to be interviewed. The interview process generally lasted from 30-45 minutes. Two separate forms of the interview were used (see Appendix J). In addition to the lead questions in the interview guides, several probing questions were asked depending on the responses provided and the interviewees’ area of expertise. Interviewees were also requested to complete a critical incident survey. These asked for examples of either excellent or poor leadership in each of the five dimensions identified in the a priori competency model. Four of the fifteen interviewees returned the filled out critical incidents.
Graduates of CMU were also thought to have valuable insights about leadership. Their insights on the competencies of leadership were explored through the process of surveying.
Guidelines for content of the interview questions were developed by the class, and a survey was developed based on these guidelines so that it would contain all of the components of the interview questions in a format that could be administered electronically (see Appendix K). This was done to reach a greater number of respondents so as to collect more information. To keep the survey at a reasonable length, the questions were split so that a Form A and Form B existed. The Leadership Survey Form A contained questions regarding the competencies and work activities that a leader must have or be able to perform and Form B contained questions regarding the environment that a leader must work in and the strategic factors to which they must be able to adapt. A Critical Incident Leadership Survey was also developed to find anecdotal evidence of either exceptional or poor leadership. The Critical Incident Leadership Survey Form A asked respondents to give examples of both good and poor leadership for the following competencies: Self-Management, Leading Others, and Social Responsibility, and Form B asked for examples of good and poor leadership for the following competencies: Leading Others, Task Management, and Innovation. The surveys were checked by the instructor and were given to three outside parties to check for ease of completion and comprehensibility of instructions prior to administration.
The Alumni Office of Central Michigan University and the Leadership Office were contacted for lists of alumni to participate in the survey. The Alumni Office sent a long list of names (over 200), over half of which included usable e-mail addresses. Additionally, all of the names on the alumni list had been identified as an outstanding leader, and most of them had very prestigious job titles. A total of 83 e-mails were sent out containing either Leadership Survey Form A or Form B, and 39 e-mails were sent out containing the Critical Incident Survey Form A or Form B. Complete responses were received from 13 respondents for Leadership Survey Form A, 5 for Leadership Survey Form B, and 3 for Critical Incident Leadership Survey Form A. In total, 122 e-mails were sent out with 21 respondents completing the surveys, resulting in a response rate of 17.2%.
Preparing students to succeed in leadership roles during their careers is an important goal of leadership development at CMU. Employers of CMU graduates were surveyed to identify leadership competency requirements in their organizations.
The process for gathering data from employers began with development of a survey instrument. It was determined that the survey would be sent out to specific individuals in organizations that hired CMU students, and so the instrument needed to be designed in a way that would be easily accessible. The interview was a document that could be downloaded and completed and returned via electronic communications (see Appendix L). This meant that the number of questions needed to be minimized in order to increase the chances that the respondent would fill out the survey. The survey was divided into two parts. One list of questions was developed and then divided up into two forms so that all questions would get asked, but not all to the same person. At the end of both forms was attached a second section seeking information about a positive and a negative critical incident on leadership. This section was the same for both forms. These critical incident questions were written about only one of the five competency dimensions; therefore, each survey that was sent out asked about only one of the five dimensions, but all five were rotated to different respondents so they would be distributed equally.
Identifying potential respondents was made easy by the fortunate timing of a career fair that was hosted by CMU. Included in the career fair materials was a document which listed 97 e-mail addresses of potential employers of CMU graduates. Rather than just sending the surveys directly to the e-mails listed, it was determined that going to the career fair and providing handouts and discussing the upcoming e-mail survey would maximize the probability of a good response rate. The surveys were e-mailed within one week of the career fair, and 17 surveys from employees at a diverse group of organizations were returned with partial or complete responses. The most frequently omitted section was the critical incident questions, however, all respondents provided a wealth of information and perspectives about leadership.
Faculty from a wide range of disciplines at Central Michigan University were selected as potential interviewees in an effort to validate the competency model. Faculty members were chosen for several reasons. First, the competency model was designed primarily for use by university students to develop as leaders, and many undergraduate students view faculty as role models for leadership in the academic setting. Additionally, the faculty of the university provided a convenient opportunity to interview professionals across a wide range of job families in one location.
Twenty faculty members representing every college at Central Michigan University (College of Business Administration, College of Communication and Fine Arts, College of Education and Human Services, College of Health Professions, College of Humanities, Social and Behavioral Sciences, and College of Science and Technology) were initially contacted via e-mail and office phone. Faculty were selected based on representation of the widest possible range of major fields, demographic characteristics, and courses taught (e.g. some faculty teach courses designated as “leadership” courses at the university). Nine faculty members agreed to participate, resulting in a response rate of 45%. No faculty from the College of Science and Technology chose to participate; all other colleges were well represented in the final group of interviewees.
Participating faculty were all interviewed in person by one member of the practicum class; the same interviewer used an identical structured interview guide to interview all faculty members (see Appendix M). Thus, the interviews were standardized with the exception of individualized follow-up probes when appropriate, resulting in a semi-structured interview format. In general, the nine faculty interviewees were asked to evaluate the initial competency model dimensions in terms of relevance to the applied practice of their discipline and to speculate regarding the future of leadership in their discipline as well as how Central Michigan University students can best prepare themselves to become leaders in these fields outside of the academic setting. Interviews ranged from thirty minutes to one hour in duration. Information gathered from faculty interviews was then used to enhance the competency model. Additions and deletions were made where appropriate, and added material was kept in as close to the original language of the interviewees as possible while protecting the confidentiality of the interviewees.
Back to top
Interviews with Leadership Council
One member of the practicum class was assigned to conduct one-on-one interviews with CMU’s Leadership Council. This group is one of the many committees reporting to the Academic Senate and is responsible for creating, regulating, and modifying university-wide programs and courses relating to the study of leadership. This committee is comprised of two student representatives and eight faculty/administration members. Because of their integral role with leadership study at CMU, their opinions and views regarding the definition of leadership and vital aspects to leadership development were essential to incorporate.
Over the course of two weeks, eight faculty/administrators from the Leadership Council were interviewed. Each interview was conducted either in the privacy of the council member’s office or another private setting. Length of the interview time ranged from forty minutes to as long as two hours. This varied length of time was based on the degree of detail of interviewee responses and their willingness to continue with the interview process over more than one interview session. Only two council members were unable to complete the entire interview form (see Appendix N).
Within twenty-four hours after the interview’s conclusion, a thank-you e-mail was individually sent to each interviewee by the interviewer. This e-mail included survey questions tapping critical incidents of leadership behavior (see Appendix N). Interviewees were asked to respond to the critical incident survey as an e-mail reply.
Overall, 100% (eight of the eight council members) agreed to an interview and provided responses in a one-on-one interview format. Responses were collected for three weeks instead of the original two due to requests for additional time from some of the council members. This resulted in a 63% response rate to the critical leadership incident survey (i.e. 5 of the eight council members provided a leadership story).
Interviews with Administrators
Administrators of CMU were also thought to have valuable insights about leadership. Because of their various authority positions on campus and their effect on the current leadership culture at CMU, the opinions of members of this constituency were also considered highly relevant to the development of a student model of leadership development at CMU.
Participants of this interview process included five top administrative leaders, although more were approached, at Central Michigan University. The goal was to identify those competencies that these leaders felt are, or were, most important to leadership. Scheduling was an issue with this set of participants. Most have busy schedules, therefore interviews ranged from fifteen minutes in length to one hour. All participants seemed willing to help out and displayed an interest in the study. An effort was taken at the beginning of each interview to establish a rapport with each interviewee. This was done both to introduce the interviewer and respective department to the interviewee, as well as to increase the likelihood of an open and frank discussion of the topic. Time was also taken to explain the topic at hand and indicate the goals of the interview.
All participants believed that “honesty” and “integrity” were the foremost qualities needed by a leader. Nearly all participants agreed with the a priori model we had developed. Other recommendations that stood out were the ideas of Giving and Receiving Feedback, Leading by Example, and Accountability. As well, the idea of competencies being compensatory was put forth. Being Compensatory refers to the ability to identify one’s weaknesses and delegate tasks that require those skills to a constituent. Most felt that there is a minimum requirement of overall competency to become a leader. A copy of all interviews can be found in Appendix O.
Integrating Information Collected
The report titled, ‘A Leadership Competency Model: Describing the Capacity to Lead’, was developed by integrating the information collected during the literature review, content analyses, interviews, and surveys. First, core competencies for each dimension of the leadership competency model and important situations for each dimension were identified through the content analyses. The model was then supplemented with information collected during the interviews, surveys, and literature review. The practicum class refined the content of the report individually, in small groups, and in discussions involving the entire class. Core competencies in each dimension of leadership competency were organized into common factors. Definitions of each dimension were refined. Highlight of interviews with the university community were prepared. In the final report, each dimension of leadership competency was described by: a) displaying a model of the core competencies for that dimension, b) defining the leadership dimension, c) providing examples of excellent and poor leadership behavior for that dimension, d) defining the core competencies for that dimension, and e) identifying situations that require focusing on that dimension.
Back to top
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1998). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership. http://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.html
Chemers, M.M., Watson, C.B., May, S.T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 267-277.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and women. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.
Fulmer, R. M. (2004). The challenge of ethical leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 307-317.
Gardner, W. L., & Schermerhorn, J. R. Jr. (2004). Unleashing individual potential: Performance gains through positive
organizational behavior and authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 270-281.
Greenberg, J. (2005). Managing behavior in organizations (4th Ed.). Pearson-Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey.
Hellenbeck, G. P., & Hall D. T. (2004). Self-confidence and leader performance. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 254-269.
Levine, E. L. (1983). Everything you always wanted to know about job analysis and more!-- A job analysis primer. Tampa, FL: Mariner Publishing Co.
London, M. (2002). Introduction: Dimensions of effective leadership. In Leadership Development (pp. 1-24). Mahwah,
NJ: LEA.
London, M., & Maurer, T. J. (2004). Leadership development: A diagnostic model for continuous learning in dynamic organizations. In The Nature of Leadership, Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lorenzi, P. (2004). Managing for the common good: Prosocial leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 282-291.
McCauley, C.D. (2004). Successful and Unsuccessful Leadership. In Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A.T., and Sternberg, R.J. (eds) The Nature of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McKenna, R. B., & Yost, P. R. (2004). The differentiated leader: Specific strategies for handling today’s adverse situations. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 292-306.
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., & Fleishman, E. A. (1999). An occupational
information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological
Association.
Riggio, R. E., Ciulla, J. B., & Sorenson, G. J. (2003). Leadership education at the undergraduate level: A liberal arts approach to leadership development. In Murphy, S. E., & Riggio, R. E. (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 223-236). Mahwah, NJ: USum Associates.
Schippmann, J. S. (1999). Strategic job modeling: Working at the core of integrated human resources. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Stewart, C. J., & Cash, W. B. (1988). Interviewing: Principles and practices (5th Ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Van Fleet, D. D. (1974). Toward identifying critical elements in a behavioral description of leadership. Public Personnel Management, 3, 70-82.
Van Velsor, E., McCauley, C.D., & Moxley, R.S. (1998). Our view of leadership development. The Center for Creative
Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Back to top
The Air War College’s Center for Strategic Leadership Studies, http://leadership.au.af.mil/sls-skil.htm
The Air Force’s Leadership Development Model, http://leadership.au.af.mil/af/afldm.htm
Alberta Public Service: http://www.pao.gov.ab.ca/learning/competencies/apscomp/
Army ROTC leadership minor. (n.d.) Retrieved September 4, 2004, from Slippery Rock University website: http://www.sru.edu/pages/286.asp
Business Leadership Center. (n.d.) Retrieved September 4, 2004, from Virginia Tech website: http://www.cob.vt.edu/buslead/BLM%20Home.htm
The Center for Naval Leadership’s Handbook for Civilian Leadership Training, https://www.netc.navy.mil/cnet/cld/cld_imphb.pdf
The Coast Guard’s Competencies for Leadership Development, http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-w/g-wt/g-wtl/leadci/index.htm
Leadership competency definitions. (2004). Retrieved September 9, 2004, from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission website: http://www.ferc.gov/careers/curr-open/ses-leader.asp
IRS Leadership Competency Model (21 competencies resulting from a 360 assessment study, presented by Dr Jim Trinka, Director of Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness, IRS Strategic Human Resources), http://leadership.au.af.mil/documents/360_study_wye.ppt
The Leadership Center Competency Model from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gov/lanl-ldr-devguide.pdf
Maine Management Services. (2004). Leadership competencies for Maine state government. Retrieved September 8, 2004, from http://www.maine.gov/bhr/mms/leadership/index.html
NASA’s Leadership Development Model, http://leadership.nasa.gov/nasa/lmd/home.htm
The Office of Personnel Management’s Leadership Competencies and Key Characteristics, http://www.opm.gov/ses/competent.asp
Tufts University. (2003). Tufts university leadership competency model. Retrieved September, 2004, from http://www.tufts.edu/hr/odt/comp_model.htm
U. S. Coast Guard. (2004, February). Coast guard leadership competencies. Retrieved September, 2004, from http://www.uscg.mil/leadership/leadci/encl1.htm
Appendix A: A Priori Leadership Competency Model
|
Self Management |
Influencing Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Trait Theories of Leadership |
Behavioral Leadership Theories |
Situational Leadership Theories |
Transformational Leadership Theory |
Leadership Ethics |
|
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership |
Leader-Member Exchange Theory |
Decision-Making Theories of Leadership |
Charismatic Leadership Theory |
Task-specific Ethical Standards |
|
Self-Image Theories |
Influence Tactics/ Persuasion |
Electronic-Leadership Theories |
Systems Thinking, Open-Systems Theories |
Cultural Diversity/ Civil Rights/Global Awareness |
|
Knowledge of Personal Values |
Group Dynamics (e.g., minority influence) |
Task-specific Knowledge & Experience |
Diverse, Interdisciplinary Knowledge & Experience |
Theories of Moral Development |
|
Seeking Feedback |
Oral and Written Communication |
Goal-Setting |
Strategic Planning |
Recognizing Defining Moments |
|
Stress Management |
Conflict Management |
Delegation |
Creativity |
Defining Ethical Issues |
|
Independent, Continuous Learning |
Team Building |
Providing Feedback (Praise & Criticism) |
Creating a vision |
Identifying Affected Parties/Consequences |
|
Acknowledges Mistakes |
Active Listening |
Resource Management |
Recognizing Opportunities |
Moral Reasoning |
|
Introspection |
Negotiation |
Time Management |
Taking Initiative |
Empathy |
|
Adaptation |
Coalition Building |
Problem-Solving |
Inferential Thinking |
Keeping Promises |
|
Tolerance for Ambiguity |
Political Savvy |
Empowering Others |
Resilience |
Honesty |
|
Self-esteem |
Non-verbal Communication |
Setting Priorities |
Entrepreneurial Risk Taking |
Sense of Civic Responsibility |
|
Self-efficacy |
Extraversion |
Conscientiousness |
Persistence/Determination |
Integrity |
|
Courage |
Agreeableness |
Work Ethic |
Cognitive Ability |
Respect for Others |
|
Emotional Stability |
Emotional Intelligence |
Position Power |
Openness to Experience |
Compassion |
|
Internal Self-monitoring |
Sense of Humor |
Need for Achievement |
Resourcefulness |
Values Fairness |
|
Self-actualizing |
Values Relationships |
Values Development of Others |
Need to Test Status Quo |
Values Citizenship |
Appendix B: Initial Definitions of Leadership Competency Dimensions
Self Management
Good leaders know their own values, strengths, and limitations and are able to control their emotions and behaviors. They must seek personal development by being willing to seek help when needed or admit when they have made a mistake and by engaging in continuous learning. They should be able to manage and adapt to stressful or dynamic situation.
Leading Others
Leaders must maximize the potential of others to meet the organization’s vision, mission, and goals. They must be able to manage individual and group performance with an understanding of group dynamics and team building. Leaders must actively listen and communicate effectively to persuade others and build consensus and trust. They should understand and be empathetic toward individual’s emotions and needs and be able to resolve conflicts in a respectful manner.
Task Management
Leaders are ultimately responsible for the group/organization attaining its objectives. This involves using task-specific knowledge and experience to guide the group/organization. Leaders must engage in problem solving, delegation, time and resource management, and setting priorities and goals. Leaders must strive for results and provide feedback to ensure effective contributions from all constituents. Successful leaders empower others and model good work ethics.
Innovation
Leaders must be able to think creatively while taking initiative and calculated risks. Effective leaders have a vision beyond the immediate work of the group/organization. This involves exploring and integrating diverse perspectives, recognizing unexpected opportunities, and obtaining resources needed to achieve progress.
Social Responsibility
Leaders must act with integrity, honesty, and justice. They must work in the best interest of others, showing respect and empathy for unique individual and cultural differences. Good leaders create a culture that promotes high ethical standards along with personal, organizational, and civic responsibility. Ethical leaders recognize and conduct themselves in concert with universal moral principles as well as specific values, laws, and ethics relevant to their group/organization.
Appendix C: Sorting Exercise for O*NET Knowledges
|
Knowledges |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Administration and Management |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clerical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economics and Accounting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales and Marketing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer and Personal Service |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personnel and Human Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production and Processing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Food Production |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Computers and Electronics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering and Technology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Building and Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechanical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mathematics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chemistry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Psychology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sociology and Anthropology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geography |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Medicine and Dentistry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therapy and Counseling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Education and Training |
|
|
|
|
|
|
English Language |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledges |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Foreign Language |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fine Arts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
History and Archaeology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philosophy and Theology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public Safety and Security |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law, Government, and Jurisprudence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tele- communications |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Communications and Media |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transportation |
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
Appendix D: Sorting Exercise for O*Net Basic and Cross-Functional Skills
|
Basic & Cross-Functional Skills |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Reading Comprehension |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Listening |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Writing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mathematics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Learning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Learning Strategies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Critical Thinking |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem Identification |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Information Gathering |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Information Organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Synthesis/ Reorganization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idea Generation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idea Evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implementation Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solution Appraisal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Social Perceptiveness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coordination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Persuasion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Negotiation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service Orientation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operations Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technology Design |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic & Cross-Functional Skills |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Equipment Selection |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Installation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Programming |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Testing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operation Monitoring |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operation and Control |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Inspection |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment Maintenance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Troubleshooting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repairing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Visioning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems Perception |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identification of Downstream Consequences |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identification of Key Causes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judgment and Decision Making |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems Evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time Management |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management of Financial Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management of Material Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management of Personnel Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Appendix E: Sorting Exercise for O*NET Abilities
|
Abilities |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Oral comprehension |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written comprehension |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oral Expression |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written Expression |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fluency of Ideas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem Sensitivity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deductive Reasoning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inductive Reasoning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Information Gathering |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Category Flexibility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mathematical Reasoning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number Facility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Memorization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speed of Closure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flexibility of Closure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perceptual Speed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spatial Organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Visualization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selective Attention |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time Sharing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arm-hand Steadiness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manual Dexterity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finger Dexterity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control Precision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multilimb Coordination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abilities |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Response Orientation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate Control |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reaction Time |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wrist-Finger Speed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speed of Limb Movement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Static Strength |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explosive Strength |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynamic Strength |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trunk Strength |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stamina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extent Flexibility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynamic Flexibility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Body Coordination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Body Equilibrium |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Near Vision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Far Vision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Visual Color Discrimination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Night Vision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peripheral Vision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depth Perception |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glare Sensitivity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Sensitivity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auditory Attention |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sound Localization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speech Recognition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speech Clarity |
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
Appendix F: Sorting Exercise for O*NET Work Styles
|
Work Styles |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Achievement/ Effort |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Persistence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initiative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leadership Orientation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cooperation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concern for Others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Social Orientation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self-Control |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stress Tolerance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adaptability/ Flexibility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dependability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attention to Detail |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integrity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Independence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Innovation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analytic Thinking |
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
Appendix G: Sorting Exercise for O*NET Generalized Work Activities
|
Generalized Work Activities |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Getting information needed for job |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring processes, … |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identifying objects, actions… |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspecting equipment… |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimating characteristics of materials… |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judging the qualities of objects, services or persons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluating information for compliance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Processing information |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analyzing data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making decisions/solving problems |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thinking creatively |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Updating and using job knowledge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developing objectives and strategies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scheduling work and activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organizing, planning, prioritizing work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performing general physical activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generalized Work Activities |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Handling and moving objects |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Controlling machines and processes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating vehicles, equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interacting with computers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drafting, laying-out, and specifying technical devices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implementing ideas, programs, systems… |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repairing and maintaining mechanical equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repairing and maintaining electronic equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Documenting and recording information |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interpreting the meaning of information for others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Communicating with coworkers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Communicating with persons outside organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generalized Work Activities |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Assisting and caring for others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling or influencing others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resolving conflicts and negotiating with others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performing for or working directly with the public |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coordinating the work and activities of others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developing and building teams |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teaching others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guiding, directing , and motivating subordinates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coaching and developing others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Providing consultation and advice to others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performing administrative activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staffing organizational units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring and controlling resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
Appendix H: Sorting Exercise for O*NET Work Contexts
|
Work Context |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Formality of Communication |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Communication Method |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Objectivity of Information Communicated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frequency of Job-Required Social Interaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Privacy of Communication |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supervisory Roles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales Roles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service Roles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adversarial Roles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Participation Roles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responsibility for Safety of Others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interpersonal Conflict |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strained Interpersonal Relation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Types of Work Settings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Privacy of Work Area |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physical Proximity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exposure to Extreme Environmental Conditions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exposure to Job Hazards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possibility of Injury |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Work Context |
Self Management |
Leading Others |
Task Management |
Innovation |
Social Responsibility |
|
Impact of Injury |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Body Positioning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Work Attire |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consequence of Error |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of Decision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responsibility/ Accountability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decision Latitude |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frustrating Circumstances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Degree of Automation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Task Clarity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Required Precision |
|