2024-02-08

The term “competency” is inherently problematic. It is often used in the context of what has been known for many years as “human resources”, or HR for short.¹⁾ Seeing human beings as “resources” unfortunately suggests that humans are valued only for what they can do, what they know, etc., rather than who they are. There is a striking connection between this and what Iain McGilchrist describes as dominance by the left hemisphere of the brain. But like many other people I've been talking with recently, I'm with Iain in the view that the left hemisphere is vital, essential; but it needs to be subservient – in what Iain calls the “emissary” role – and it must not usurp the role of the “master” (or perhaps “mistress”), because Iain sees this as origin of many of the problems of the “polycrisis” or “metacrisis”.

So let's see what we can do, positively, with these dangers in mind, with the idea of a framework of competencies for living in intentional community.

I've been working in this general field for many years. I was the e-portfolio person for Cetis²⁾ for all the time that e-portfolios featured in UK higher education (now, less so). I wrote at length about the e-portfolio field in my book, Electronic Portfolios (2009). My series Logic of Competence never made it to being a book, but that idea led me from e-portfolios to looking in detail into what is meant by ability, skill, competence, competency, etc. I wrote several other related papers, and this also covered the time when I was leading a European expert team, writing the InLOC specification for frameworks of learning outcomes or competences.

A decade earlier, I had been involved, with Janet Strivens, in a related university personal development project we called LUSID, and we wrote a paper in 2000 on Integrated Web-based support for learning employability skills. Another paper published in 2005, along with our technical lead, was called Implementation of a Portable Skills Framework.

Always close by was the theme of a set of skills that are less easily measured or defined, and have been called a number of things including “soft skills”.³⁾ My closest Cetis colleagues in this were Scott Wilson and Simon Whittemore. We worked on various project proposals, but we were never lucky enough to find funding for anything substantial.

The world of ecovillages, intentional communities, etc. has always engaged me, and particularly as what was originally “CHOICE” was rebranded as “ReGenMatch” (and now RegenCHOICE), I've had a great interest in the question of how people find places they fit really well in, and conversely, how communities find the most suited people to join them. Over many conversations at Liminal Village and elsewhere, it has become increasingly clear that whether a person fits into a community depends not only on shared values, but also on certain qualities of the person. What to call those qualities is unclear. Are they character or personality traits? skills? attitudes? Are they fixed in a person, or can they be developed? The last question is central to the relevance of education and training.

Liminal Village is one of many places with this interest. Matching people with communities is for example, the business of two people I know in this space, Cynthia Tina and Lauren Minis, who work together on CommunityFinders, which promises to be an excellent service for those who want the personal touch. Lauren is also the long-esteemed founder of Regeneration Pollination, which is also a great way to meet up with relatively random people who are interested in the “ReGen” world.

But, when communities want new members, at present they often either just search “through the grapevine”, or with a similar approach to companies recruiting — put out an advert; ask people to circulate it widely; have a selection procedure … . Despite this, while it's relatively easy for an individual to find a community, the chances look rather slimmer for a community to find just the right person, at the right time, who would fill that missing role in the community — while at the same time feeling fully at home there.

While the Foundation for Intentional Community has a useful advanced search service for individuals seeking communities, not only is there no obvious place for communities to search for people (more on why, later on), but our conceptualisiation of the characteristics of who they want barely go beyond the kind of “competencies” that are used by businesses. Hence the need.⁴⁾

But before we go on to look at the potential, I'd like to outline a few key facts about what is out there at present.

If we want an efficient as well as accurate service for this kind of seeking and finding, individuals have to be able to “profile” themselves accurately. One very well used example, just for language ability, is the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). The way they do their self-assessment grids works fine, in part (I assume) because there is neither great social status nor stigma attached to how well you can use foreign languages. People have little reason to lie about their language abilities, and if they are untruthful, in any face-to-face situation it will be immediately apparent. However, this is far from true with the kind of skills I was earlier calling “soft skills”. Just consider the stigma that has been attached to neurodiversity — which thankfully is being increasingly challenged and dispelled. Neurodiversity affects how easily “soft skills” come to different people; as does the trauma of adverse childhood experiences.

One framework that does deal with many “soft skills” is the Pathways to Liberation, which is based on Nonviolent Communication. Their (2011) Matrix sets out four levels of a number of skills in communication and relating. My main question around this (otherwise promising) framework is the extent to which people are either able or willing to locate their levels of skill reliably. On the surface, it may look quite similar in form to the CEFR; but (perhaps ironically?) there seems to me clear value judgements embedded in the matrix. Who wants to be, or would identify with being, “unskilled”, in an area where a fair degree of skill is a cultural norm for sociable people? It's much less clear than with natural language what people's levels in these skills are, and there is plenty of room for the Dunning–Kruger effect, where people overestimate the level of skill they have attained. Even with a questionnaire approach, it is quite easy to pretend, and give the “right answers”, albeit subconsciously.

Added to which, for an extra ironic twist, being able to accurately assess your level on these scales is itself a vital skill in self-awareness, and you can't just ask self-assessment questions to assess self-awareness now, can you? Can you be aware of your lack of self-awareness? Isn't this what “blind spots” are all about? This quickly seems paradoxical.

Another framework worth a mention is the Inner Development Goals. As topics and sub-topics, this looks like a very well thought through framework. However it is hard to find a self-assessment tools, matrices, etc. There appears to be some acknowledgement that self-assessment on progress towards these goals is tricky, but has anyone developed any effective approach to self-assessment? If so, I would like to know. I have personally messaged the IDG folks with a suggestion to develop something like this, but I've not yet found anyone who is responsive and positive about the idea.

Another perspective on this comes from the world of adult development theory. Robert Kegan and many others have created models of stages of development that people (in our culture, at least) often progress through. Spiral Dynamics refers more to group culture than to individuals, but there are clear parallels. Although people who have studied these kinds of theory often intuitively agree on where individuals or groups are operating at a particular time; but they themselves may not be aware of this. But this kind of development does greatly affect how individuals relate to groups, whether for living or for work.

So, imagine. Imagine we have effective self-assessment scales (a matrix, framework, or whatever) that people can and will accurately self-assess their “soft skills” and levels of development. I'd like to spell out some of the potential of that.

In the most obvious case, communities could select the level of soft skills, or level of development more generally, that they need people to have, in order for them to fit well into the community. Some communities may not have the time, the resource, the skills (whether individual or collective) to be able to help people to develop or to acquire more skill themselves. The idea here would be to allow everyone more easily to identify the kind of people who would cause problems if they came to live in the community; or, conversely, the kind of people who might be overstretched by the interactions within the community.

Perhaps communities that intend to enable their members to develop would naturally be short-term rather than long term, and we could well compare this kind of learning community to an educational or training establishment, giving courses. And here, for courses, a sound framework is particularly valuable. For those who want to attend a course, they need to know what the outcomes of the course are likely to be; and what the prerequisites of the course are. If a course participant does not come up to the pre-requisites, they might end up feeling that the course has “gone over their heads” adnd thus not contributed anything to them. On the other side, someone who already has achieved the intended outcomes of the course might give it a low rating, on the grounds that they had learned nothing that they didn't know before. Thus, effective self-assessment scales can help ensure that suitable people join courses that are well-adapted to them.

In both cases, for short-term courses or longer-term community living, behaviour that is felt as unacceptable, or that is disruptive and prevents others from realising their own goals, is often dealt with by exclusion — simply removing the “offenders” from the course or the community. But if these problems are more developmental in nature, rather that judgementally excluding people, they could be “referred” on to some course, or some community that is better adapted to their particular characteristics. It doesn't need to be judgemental. In terms of old assessment jargon, this can be “formative assessment” rather than “summative assessment”.

I hope that the promise, as set out above, is sufficiently stimulating for a few people to join (with me, I hope) to tackle this task of setting out effective self-assessment scales for soft skills and levels of development. I have tried a little, and been put off by recognising how hard it is. There, again, is more stimulus — if it is that hard, then no wonder it hasn't been done well yet.

So, some tasks for me, which I welcome people to join in.

1. Look more thoroughly into what other people have done in this field. I see this as the analogue to a literature review for a research project.
2. Find organisations or networks who would value this kind of framework for their own purposes; and if possible bring them in as partners.
3. Set out a much shortened version of this piece — traditionally called an “elevator pitch”.
4. Find people who are interested in working together, and jointly owning and using the framework.

And the more scales we can build, the more of a solid basis we will have for RegenCHOICE as I now call it.

• the LinkedIn post where I announced this piece, and have several reactions and comments
• my Logic of Competence series from back around 2011.
• An article from Fast Company