Blog

When an organisation needs to identify which candidates or internal employees have the potential to succeed in managerial roles, two tools dominate the conversation: assessment centres and psychometric tests. Both are legitimate. Both have a substantial evidence base. And both are consistently misapplied in ways that reduce their value and occasionally produce decisions worse than those made without any structured assessment at all.

Most L&D conversations in Indian organisations eventually hit a fork in the road. You have a team that is underperforming, misaligned, or struggling to work cohesively and the question comes up: do we send them for training, or do we bring in a coach? The answer is rarely obvious because both approaches genuinely work, but they work for entirely different reasons and in entirely different situations.

In our experience working with mid-size Indian organisations across BFSI, manufacturing, IT services, and pharma, the most common failure point in competency framework design is not technical. It is strategic. Organisations build frameworks without asking the most important question first: what specific talent decisions will this framework actually inform?

Here is a problem that repeats itself in organisations of every size. An HR team invests three months building what looks, on paper, like a thorough competency mapping exercise. They produce a framework with eight competencies, each with four proficiency levels, neatly formatted into a document that gets signed off by the CHRO and filed into the talent management system. Twelve months later, the succession planning committee tries to use it to assess director-level readiness and discovers that every single competency applies equally well to a team lead as to a C-suite executive. The framework is not wrong. It is just not leadership-specific. And that distinction costs organisations more than most HR teams realise.

Most organisations that commission a competency framework get exactly what they asked for: a well-formatted document with competency names, proficiency levels, and behavioural indicators neatly arranged by role family. It sits in a shared drive. Managers receive a communication about it. And six months later, the only people who remember it exists are the L&D team who built it and the consultant who billed for it.

Here is a problem that repeats itself in organisations of every size. An HR team invests three months building what looks, on paper, like a thorough competency mapping exercise. They produce a framework with eight competencies, each with four proficiency levels, neatly formatted into a document that gets signed off by the CHRO and filed into the talent management system. Twelve months later, the succession planning committee tries to use it to assess director-level readiness and discovers that every single competency applies equally well to a team lead as to a C-suite executive. The framework is not wrong. It is just not leadership-specific. And that distinction costs organisations more than most HR teams realise.

Here is a scenario that will feel familiar. Your organisation invested three months building what looked like a solid competency framework, ran a full day of assessment centre exercises, put six managers in the room as assessors, and produced a set of ratings. Then someone in the wash-up meeting asked: “Why did Panel A rate the same candidate a 4 and Panel B rate them a 2?” The answer, nobody had a clean one. The data was inconsistent. The decisions that followed were, by any honest standard, no more defensible than a panel interview would have been.

There is a hiring decision that plays out every week in Indian organisations, at every level and in every sector. A shortlist arrives. One candidate has eight years of directly relevant experience, a recognised employer on the CV, and references who confirm solid performance. Another candidate has four years of experience, an unconventional background, and assessment data suggesting exceptional learning agility and problem-solving capacity.

High performers leave quietly. There is rarely a dramatic confrontation or a grievance letter. Instead, there is a gradual withdrawal, a slowing down of initiative, a polite silence in meetings where there was once energy. By the time the resignation lands on your desk, the employee has already been mentally absent for weeks, sometimes months.

Every CHRO in India has sat through a presentation where the L&D team reports that 94 percent of employees completed the quarterly training programme and that satisfaction scores averaged 4.3 out of 5. Every CFO in the same room has wondered, silently or aloud, whether any of that spending changed anything that matters to the business.