CBM and PM in the public sector

Although competency was initially introduced much earlier by ^{White as the skills necessary for performance (White, 1959}), in the public sector, competency-based actions have been increasingly introduced since the 1990s (^{Horton, 2000}). For example, in Brazil, the Federal Government has stimulated CBM by introducing new Public Management and Public Administration strategic models (^{Guimaraes & Medeiros, 2003}; ^{Valadares & Emmendoerfer, 2012}).

According to ^{Montezano and Silva (2019}), CBM can be considered an innovation in public sector management because it articulates PM actions and performance/results in public organizations. Presidential Decree No. 9991 (.^{Decreto n°. 9.991, 2019}) defines competency used in Brazilian public administration as a “set of knowledge, skills, and conduct [attitudes] necessary for exercising the position or function” to achieve institutional objectives. Initially established in 2006 by Decree No. 5707, this conception adopts CBM for the public servants constant development.

In this sense, among individual competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes), it is important to highlight the managerial competencies in the public sector (^{Lopes et al., 2020}). Furthermore, besides being a key dimension in changing processes, ^{Asame and Wakrim (2018}) state that managerial competencies also play an essential role in mobilizing other dimensions of organizational competencies: core (at the organization level), functional (organization and groups), and individual. Because of this, CBM has emerged in an organizational context of changes and transformations characterized in Table 1.

Therefore, when the notions of competence are implemented in organizations, they are called CBM. ^{Bergue (2020}) states that CBM has a vital strategic core role. In Brazil, the predominant CBM model is oriented to PM because, according to ^{Capuano (2015}), many of the present models are not clearly connected to individual competencies and strategic organizational guidelines, despite previously published proposals in this regard.

According to ^{Brandáo and Guimaráes (2001}), a CBM model in PM implies that the public organization must plan, select, develop, and compensate human resources by focusing on core competencies. These authors assessed the postulations and applications of CBM and presented the first framework to illustrate this model’s main stages or phases (Figure 1). For this research, the illustration does not intend to understand CBM activities and interactions procedurally but rather summarize this model’s operational logic from an integrative perspective.

Source: Adapted from ^{Brandáo & Guimaráes (2001}, p.14).

Figure 1 Operational logic of the Competency-Based Management (CBM) Model 

Figure 1 shows the possible connections between CBM and PM processes, stimulating public servants’ strategic and shareable vision about these issues. In this sense, the CBM model based on ^{Brandáo and Guimaráes (2001}) integrates PM and organizational strategy. Corroborating the studies of ^{Bergue (2020}), this model aids the management of recruitment, selection, training, career management, and the formalization of strategic alliances, among others. These tools are directed to capturing and developing the necessary competencies needed to achieve organizational goals.

^{Brandáo and Guimaráes (2001}) state that integrating PM actions based on competency must be configured as innovative management that cannot be focused exclusively on objectifying and individualizing tasks, risking deepening the organization’s psychosocial control over its collaborators. Individual competencies are obtained by the competency mapping composing the model. Competency mapping is essential for implementing the CBM model because the actions that follow are derived from it (^{Brandáo & Bahry, 2005}).

^{Brandáo and Bahry (2005}) proposed a competency-based management model, associating PM subsystems and defining necessary competencies (competency diagnosis), which must be constructed based on organizational strategy. According to ^{Pires (2005}), this strategy allows CBM to be articulated with selective processes (competency capture), personnel training and development (competency development), performance evaluation (follow-up and assessment), and competency compensation (retribution). Thus, CBM refers to a set of integrated organizational actions to manage and develop competencies, aiming to create and implement management rules and learning processes to reduce gaps between the required competencies to achieve organizational goals and the available competencies in the organization (^{Brandáo & Bahry, 2005}).

^{Dutra (2016}) argues that two significant bases should structure PM: general organizational and competency principles and strategies such as productive performances, delegating responsibilities, and situation categories, and personal and action competencies linked to individual and collective involvement, motivations, effective decision-making, and commitment. PM is also linked to formalizing and guiding projects and mobilizing experiences and their actions. PM should be able to ensure convergence and consistency between these two poles.

^{Brandáo and Guimaráes’ (2001}) and ^{Brandáo and Bahry s (2005}) models were the first proposals that served as a reference for public organizations in the Brazilian context. ^{Montezano and Petrys (2020}) study combines a theoretical framework on CBM models by stages, authors, and descriptions applied in public organizations. They highlight the need for greater organizational support and evaluation tools to advance this model. According to these authors, Electoral Courts have uniquely redesigned the theoretical proposals of CBM models and practical experiences of other public sector organizations. However, irrespective of the CBM model, ^{Montezano and Silva (2019}) found that each court adopts different versions or stages of the model, developing actions and CBM implementation and evaluation tools. Moreover, according to these authors, the courts had common difficulties, primarily cultural, to be overcome, such as lack of support from higher management, lack of CBM model prioritization in decision-making, and workers’ resistance to change. However, according to ^{Montezano et al. (2019}) and ^{Montezano and Petry (2020}), the CBM model in the Judiciary System has shown practical advances in the Brazilian Public Administration context. Thus, it may be more mature than its counterparts in the Executive and Legislative branches, making it and PM promising research fields.

The competency approach seems to be an important tool for building and maintaining organizational flexibility, focused on individual resources, abilities, attitudes, and organizational capacities and providing flexible management forms (^{Skorková, 2016}). The manager must manage organizational and human skills, teams, social networks, learning processes, changes, and innovations for private and public organizations. The manager should also offer conditions to reach the organizations optimal levels to allow it to survive in the current complex and dynamic environments (^{Guimaráes & Medeiros, 2003}). These authors advocate interpreting the competency-management approach as a potentially neutral management technology serving whoever controls it.

CBM in the selection of public servants

The competition for positions in public organizations in Brazil is extremely high. To illustrate this point, based on the Supreme Electoral Courts (^{Tribunal Superior Eleitoral, 2011}) previous public tendering, 1,102,633 candidates applied for Judicial Analyst and Technician positions.

Electoral justice courts have few available positions and very high job searches; thus, there is no difficulty recruiting candidates in this field. Public notices are published in the Brazilian Federal Governments Official Union Journal to recruit candidates, and many sign up. However, the personnel selection process presents a different reality in the courts studied. According to constitutional precept, the selection processes occur through public examinations and contests consisting of qualification tests and evaluations that primarily evaluate the candidates knowledge, putting aside other aspects of competency. Although these exams are very extensive and usually involve literature from different areas of expertise, demanding thorough preparation by the candidates, this process does not always evaluate the candidate s ability and, especially, attitude. This flawed or deficient evaluation method can lead to premature selections, corroborating with ^{Pires (2005}) and research data from ^{Montezano and Silva (2019}).

The last public notices published by the Electoral Justice courts verify this insufficiency. Although the analyzed documents indicate that the tests examine candidates’ knowledge and skills, the interviews show that only their knowledge is evaluated. After all, the test is composed solely of multiple-choice questions and an essay. This approach reveals a limitation in using only documents in Public Administration studies (^{Garcia et al., 2016}) and how data source triangulation, adopted in this work, is relevant, as it revealed these normative and practical differences in PM and CBM.

Regarding the programmatic selection content, Public Notice No. 1 by the ^{TSE (2011}) states: “Multiple-choice questions may assess skills that are beyond mere memorized knowledge, including comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, valuing rational capacity.” Thus, skill assessment is limited to multiple-choice tests. However, although the current model may select people with high academic knowledge to enter the public service, the ability to apply this knowledge productively and their behavioral profile are not evaluated satisfactorily, indicating a CBM gap in the courts studied. This situation can generate losses for public organizations (^{Pires, 2005}). Public management may be challenged to prove low performance because of the problematic evaluation process, or the employee may be found unfit for office after the probationary period. Thus, a public examination that only involves knowledge and excludes evaluating the candidates abilities and attitude can lead to societal and organizational losses (^{Capuano, 2015}), which will only cease when the public servant retires.

The interviews indicated that introducing CBM in this selection process does not eliminate public tendering rules but improves them. The public contests must include new selection steps that evaluate abilities and attitudes to select personnel with a more appropriate profile. Evidendy, this model is more time-consuming and expensive than the current model adopted by the Electoral Court. However, by introducing the new CBM model, which uses personnel management principles, competence-based selection would lead to lower training expenses and reduced turnover probability.

The interviews also indicated that the courts studied should work together in the selection process with unified procedures. According to the interviewees, each court currently selects its public servants according to particular criteria, programmatic content, and test type. Selection standardization could reduce costs for public administration, shortening the selection period and rationalizing the process.

CBM in the planning of training activities

Based on the data collected, especially from the interviews, the training activities developed by the courts follow a random priority policy. However, their actions are similar (^{Montezano & Silva, 2019}), mainly because they follow the CNJ’s strategic planning for the Brazilian Judiciary System. Among the downsides of these actions is that public servants’ actual requirements are not verified, and the actions disregard the public servant’s position, meaning that public servants occupying different positions are trained in the same manner. This training policy produces training courses that are inconsistent with the public servants’ duties, which generates unnecessary costs for the public administration.

However, CBM systems can correct these deficiencies. Considering that the recognized ability gaps guide CBM, it can support personnel managers in promoting professional development (^{Dutra, 2016}; ^{Souza, 2004}). CBM actions are individual and focus on public servants’ real requirements, envisioning organizational competencies founded on public strategies. One interviewee commented on this need: “the identification of competencies that add value to the organization’s knowledge capital is essential to formulating relevant management policy” (E22).

The current training policy, which disregards public servants’ positions and competencies, would be abandoned in this context. Instead, a new, long-term, individual training policy could be implemented, focusing on gaps and the strategic goals of the Electoral Justice System. The TRE-GO CBM Program Report analysis proves this. It showed that investments in public servant training and development after introducing CBM can gradually and steadily fill knowledge gaps, providing more effective resource expenditures and better personnel education.

Developing competencies to make personnel performance compatible with organizational objectives demands competencies beyond simple task execution (^{Skorková, 2016}); institutions must strengthen its staffs learning capacity (^{Souza, 2004}). Training should develop civil servants’ competencies, seeking to effectively align their potential and achieve organizational goals, providing public servants with professional accomplishment alternatives.

In line with ^{Skorková (2016}), CBM allows organizations to focus on what is essential, enabling them to achieve their operational and strategic objectives without eliminating the development of other non-work-related competencies. It can integrate and coordinate skills, knowledge, and attitudes to significantly improve performance.

The replacement of the current training policy by CBM has effectively met training demands and systematized the entire process (^{Skorková, 2016}), in addition to allowing managers to plan integrated and effective actions by identifying gaps and negotiating the development plan between public servants and their superiors.

CBM in compensation determination

CBM can also be applied to determine the public servants remuneration to enhance motivation and improve performance (^{Montezano & Silva, 2019}; ^{Pires, 2005}; ^{Souza, 2004}). Currently, compensation in judiciary careers consists of two parts: basic wage and gratification for judicial activity. However, based on the collected documents and interviews, it was verified that public servants also have the right to two extra payments under specific conditions: gratification for training and gratification for capacity development. The first is obtained when the public servant participates in 180 hours of courses of interest to the public body. The second is added to the salary when the public servant graduates.

Unlike other public organizations, there is no performance gratification when a judiciary public servant accomplishes institutional goals. Many interviewees mentioned the criticism surrounding this bonus, some affirming that it could increase overworking and moral harassment. Nonetheless, the interviewees consider it possible to diminish certain injustices in public service. For example, a productive public servant would receive better remuneration than a non-productive one. For them, CBM is a possibility in the courts.

Considering the Public-Sector Workers Pension System guarantees, Law No. 8,112 (1990) prohibits dismissal due to performance insufficiency; however, it allows extra gratifications as a viable alternative to increase effectiveness. Public servants would be rewarded according to better performance. Thus, the service delivery dimension would be accomplished in public careers.

CBM s great advantage is that it integrates all PM subsystems, creating more precise criteria in civil servants’ selection and training. For example, according to ^{Bergue (2020}), CBM can identify the organizational and individual competencies that will influence remuneration using service delivery as a parameter. Failure to recognize talented professionals who systematically assume additional responsibilities and tasks can make them frustrated and discontent, precisely the strategic and professional traits organizations should try to preserve (^{Dutra, 2016}; ^{Pires, 2005}).

The new compensation forms should recognize individual differences and how people assume responsibilities, as this recognition can be translated into different organizational contributions (^{Bergue, 2020}). However, although this may increase flexibility in compensation management, it does not solve the problem completely. A complete solution to compensation management in dynamic environments must necessarily include review criteria for baseline compensation, as it is the basis for calculating the variable portion in many cases. According to Bergue (2020), another problem in variable compensation as a solution to individual recognition is that most actions prioritize monitoring collective, not individual goals.

CBM in the nomination and appointment of commissioned positions

Brazil’s Federal Constitution of 1988 states that nominations and dismissals for commissioned positions are free from restriction (Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, 2021), a remnant of the patrimonial regime in Brazilian public administration, involving external political influence and nominations (^{Valadares & Emmendoerfer, 2012}). Although heavily criticized by the court interviewees, in ^{Berge’s (2020}) opinion, these commissioned positions can reward good professionals, as public servants delivering better performance can attain positions or functions of trust. However, the author does not mention how these appointments should be made, implying that subjective criteria would continue to influence decision-makers in public organizations, even though, according to ^{Andrade and Ckagnazaroff (2018}), there is room to improve the mechanism based on CBM.

Furthermore, considering there is no variable portion of compensation in the current structure of the Electoral Justice careers, commissioned positions may be an effective alternative to increase public servants’ motivation, as long as the trust criterion in the appointments is abandoned. However, these positions are freely appointed, and changing that would require new legislation or a constitutional amendment. The nomination of commissioned positions is the last stage of the process that begins with selection by public tendering, training within the organization, and finally, the internal selection process based on competencies. When asked about this issue, one interviewee answered the following:

There is no project in that direction. It is a highly political Court, and its functions are previously directed. Public servants are dissatisfied and demotivated. The CBM model, together with a talent pool, could replace the present model. The function selection by competencies would present good results, such as public servant motivation and valorization. [...] Given the potential of the CBM model, it tends to face significant resistance from senior management since it would replace the subjective trust criterion with an objective standard based on skills. This demonstrates how free appointment positions are still a patrimonial remnant firmly rooted in Brazilian public administration (E21).

CBM and competency criteria can also appoint commissioned and trust positions. According to ^{Bergue (2020}), this would represent a qualitative leap in the process, rewarding good professionals and eliminating persistent patrimonial remnants in Brazilian public administration.

CBM in career management

The careers summarize the access and ascension paths a civil servant must reach, following the desire to retain and develop talents to benefit society (^{Dutra, 2016}). According to Law No. 11,416 (2016), a career system has three main requirements: a position plan, a professional merit structure, and a connection to a public body, area, or function. For example, there are three distinct careers in the Federal Judiciary Power: Judicial Analyst (graduate level), Judiciary Technician (secondary level), and Judiciary Auxiliary (primary level). Each position has its duties defined by law, and the time-of-service criterion guides career promotion and progression. CBM may significandy alter this reality:

CBM provides institutions with formal knowledge of the required skills for each role in the organization. Thus, training actions will be connected to individual needs and the organizations goals. Civil public servants can be compensated by technical and objective criteria based on the competencies needed for each sector. Finally, I believe that organizations will individually explore the potential of each public servant based on the present competencies and results (E22).

The instrumentalization of PM tools applied to public Judiciary careers would provide theoretical support to competency-based careers resulting from the administrative reform process. These careers are considered traditional and, since Law No. 11,416 (2016), have been organized linearly, with three classes and 13 standards. This traditionalism tends to generate inflexibility, subjectivity, and even a lack of integration with the principles and actions of public organizations. In this model, personnel improvement and the encouragement of participatory action are marginalized, limiting advances from CMB in PM in the public sector (^{Montezano & Petry, 2020}).