Peter said...
Carts and horses, as someone has suggested.

Define "measuring" - as in appraising ? They shouldn't be appraising against competences but against results. Ergo, not measuring differently depending on male or female. If measuring for development or selection, then how were the criteria defined in the first place - in a non-genderist way, such as critical incident interviewing of star performers (as defined by results = non-genderist)?

And I resent the implication that only women can define a set of competences for other women, even if such a daft idea as separate competences had any creedence. It's a basic misunderstanding of the role of competences.

Adam said...
I don't think this debate is too far removed from the 'affirmative action' debate in the US in that the fundemental question being asked is "can you level the playing field through applying different selection criteria?" my personal perspective is that getting the best person for the job is one of the cornerstones of a true free market economy.
There are certain areas in which traditionally "female" skills will be of more use than what are perceived to be "male" skills and vice-versa, so eventually, some sort of balance should be struck.
how about we give fat people a 10 second head start in a 100m race seeing as they are the victims of Britain's "culture of obesity." lets not. lets just get the right people doing the right job. come on then ... argue with that i dare you?! (typical male combatitiveness)

Jane said...
I am assuming that you are a man Newtboy? In which case, don't you think that the women who have posted here are better qualiied to say whether we should be measured against 'female' competencies or not?

Newtboy said...
Isn't it sometimes right to measure people against different competencies? One size does not always fit all. I think this kind of effort is admirable. Men have written the rules of membership to all clubs (including senior management positions) for too long.

Jane said...
Oh my gosh! Whoever this organisation is, it is setting back all the progress women have made in the last few years. As a woman who has enjoyed some success, have I only done that because I have aped men? No, I have done it because I am pretty good at what I do. Please, please don't get carried away with good intentions and screw it up for us all!

Abi said...
I find this interesting and slightly worrying actually.

Does it matter whether all women or all men are the same? If people and/or genders demonstrate different levels of competence in different areas then surely that mix is a good thing? If everyone had the same strengths, weaknesses, competencies and skill sets, it could lead to to all sorts of issues and problems, not only in business but in society more generally?!

I say stick to one set and get the balance right!

Derek said...
Interesting how it looks to me like the vast majority of your bloggers are male! I have never heard of anyone doing this before - not least because it risks completely undermining the achievements of women against your 'unisex' competencies. Any other HR directors out there got a view? I am intrigued?

Clare said...
My feeling is that we should all be measured against the same competencies.

If not, we risk actively encouraging the division of employees as they will have been placed in certain 'boxes' and have to answer questions related only to that box.

And nobody likes being put in a box.

Derek said...
Interesting how it looks to me like the vast majority of your bloggers are male! I have never heard of anyone doing this before - not least because it risks completely undermining the achievements of women against your 'unisex' competencies. Any other HR directors out there got a view? I am intrigued?

"360° Feedback For Managers - A Practical Guide": Get Your Free Copy Here