I have used the previous and now this version of the competencies with clients several times, mainly underpinning HR capability development projects. But out of the two versions, it is the latest one that works best for me.
I've even grown to prefer it to my own version. It's the credible activist competency that makes the difference for me, which is why I link it to 'creating value' in the value triangle. The competency is about being both credible (respected, admired, listened to) and active (offers a point of view, takes a position, challenges assumptions). RBL note:
"HR professionals who are credible but not activists are admired but do not have much impact. Those who are activist but not credible may have ideas but will not be listened to."
Yes, but for me, between the two it is the activist part that will really make the difference. This is why I put strategic partnering above personal credibility in my own competency framework. But I think activism offers something even more important.
Within HR we all know we need to be strategic, but there's still a surprising range of perspectives about what being strategic means. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just think all senior HR people need to have their own beliefs about what's important, about how they personally, and how their function will be strategic, and then develop and implement their strategy in line with this belief. Which is to me what activism is about.
Yes the belief will need to be tested and moderated over time, but I think this will result in significantly better outcomes than not having a clear belief to begin with.
I'm delivering an HR leadership programme around this activist perspective in Hong Kong next month. I'll let you know how it goes.