People use "character" to mean personality, ethics, grit, and reputation almost interchangeably, and then try to fold whichever version they mean into a competency framework as if it were just another skill to define and level. It cannot be handled that way. Character only becomes usable in a workforce system once it is translated into observable behaviour, not left as a trait, a value on a poster, or a vibe a manager reports on in a performance review. A character and competency framework is what that translation looks like when it is done properly.
What Is a Character and Competency Framework
A character and competency framework is a competency framework in which the organisation's ethical standards and personal qualities, integrity, respect, accountability, courage, are expressed as competencies with defined proficiency levels and observable behavioural indicators, rather than left as abstract values statements or personality descriptions.
It sits at the intersection of two things organisations usually build separately. A values statement describes what the organisation believes in. A competency framework describes what people are expected to do. A character and competency framework treats specific character-related qualities as competencies: defined, levelled, and assessed against demonstrated behaviour, in exactly the same structure as any other competency in the framework.
The distinction that matters is this: character and competency frameworks describe how a person is expected to act, not who a person is. A framework that describes who someone is has built a personality model, not a competency framework, and personality is not something an employer can require or performance-manage.
Why a Character and Competency Framework Exists
Most organisations already have a values statement. Integrity, respect, collaboration, accountability, printed somewhere and referenced in onboarding. The problem is that values by themselves describe belief, not behaviour, so they cannot be assessed, hired for, or coached with any consistency. Two managers reading "acts with integrity" will apply two different standards, and an employee has no way to know what demonstrating it actually looks like in their day-to-day work.
CIPD's guidance on competency frameworks makes the same point about competencies generally: a framework only has value once it is expressed as something that can be observed and assessed, not aspired to. A character and competency framework exists to close that specific gap, taking the qualities an organisation says it values and giving them the same rigour as any other competency domain.
Because these qualities are meant to apply to everyone regardless of role, character-related competencies are almost always built as core competencies rather than function-specific ones. That is a deliberate structural choice. Core competencies are the layer expected of every person in the organisation, and character sits most naturally there.
How a Character and Competency Framework Works in Practice
In practice, character-related competencies usually populate the professional or ethical competency domain, sometimes grouped with the behavioural or interpersonal domain depending on how the framework is structured. Each one, integrity, respect, accountability, is written with behavioural indicators at three to five proficiency levels, describing what the quality looks like in action rather than describing the quality itself.
"Acts with integrity" is a value statement. "Discloses conflicts of interest before they affect a decision, and corrects the record promptly when an error is identified" is a behavioural indicator. The second version can be observed, coached, and assessed in a way the first cannot.
The Australian Public Service Code of Conduct is a useful real-world example of this translation at scale. Rather than stating that employees should be ethical, it sets out specific, enforceable behavioural requirements, treating people with respect and courtesy, disclosing conflicts of interest, using resources properly, that function exactly like behavioural indicators in a character and competency framework, with consequences attached when they are breached.
Once defined, character-related competencies are applied through the same mechanisms as any other core competency: structured interview questions in recruitment, calibrated assessment in performance reviews, and specific development actions when a gap is identified. The framework only earns its keep if it is used this way. As a static document, it changes nothing.
What a Character and Competency Framework Is Not
It is not a personality assessment. Tools like the Big Five or MBTI describe stable individual dispositions, how someone is naturally inclined to think and behave. A character and competency framework describes an organisational standard everyone is expected to meet regardless of natural disposition. Personality cannot fairly be required of an employee. Behaviour can.
It is not a character strengths inventory. The positive psychology tradition, most visibly the VIA classification of twenty-four character strengths grouped under six virtues, catalogues an individual's distinctive strengths for self-insight and development. A character and competency framework does the opposite: it sets a common standard that applies uniformly, not a profile of what makes each person distinct.
It is not a values statement. Values describe what the organisation believes in. A character and competency framework describes how people are expected to behave as a result. An organisation can have both, and the competencies should be traceable back to the values, but merging them into one artefact tends to produce something too aspirational to assess and too behavioural to inspire.
It is not a competency model built for a single role or function. Character-related competencies are core, applied to the whole organisation. A competency model is an applied selection built for a specific role, level, or job family, and it typically sits on top of the character-based core rather than replacing it.
Named Frameworks and Standards
Several established models treat character or ethics as a distinct, structured layer rather than a slogan.
CIPD Profession Map: CIPD's core behaviours for people professionals include ethical practice, the courage to challenge the status quo, and professionalism, sitting alongside inclusiveness and collaboration as expectations applied to every practitioner regardless of specialism.
SHRM Competency Model: SHRM structures its behavioural competencies for HR professionals around Ethical Practice as the central, non-negotiable competency, with the other eight behavioural competencies built around it.
Academic research increasingly treats character as a distinct third approach alongside virtues and competencies. Research on integrating character strengths into leadership development argues that competency models built purely around deficits and skill gaps miss what a strengths-based, character-aware approach can add, without dispensing with the assessability that a competency framework provides.
Common Failure Modes
The most common failure is writing character-related competencies at the level of a value rather than a behaviour. "Demonstrates integrity" and "shows respect" read like competencies but function as aspirations, because nobody can point to the moment they were or were not demonstrated. Every character-related competency needs behavioural indicators specific enough that two independent observers would reach the same assessment.
The second is treating character-related competencies as unenforceable soft framing while treating technical competencies as the ones that actually affect pay, promotion, and performance ratings. If a breach of a character-related competency carries no real consequence, the framework signals that character is optional, which undermines the rest of the system.
The third is importing another organisation's character competencies wholesale. Courage to challenge authority means something different in a highly regulated public sector agency than it does in an early-stage technology company, and a framework copied from elsewhere without adaptation rarely survives contact with the organisation's actual culture.
Trade-offs and Constraints
The central trade-off is universality against precision. Character-related competencies must be broad enough to apply to every role in the organisation, which means they will always feel less tailored than a function-specific competency in a role-based model. Trying to make them too specific defeats the purpose of a core, universal standard.
There is also a fairness constraint that other competency domains do not carry to the same degree. Judging how someone communicates or solves problems is comparatively low-stakes. Judging someone's character carries a heavier burden of evidence, and frameworks that skip behavioural calibration, training assessors to apply indicators consistently, are exposed to bias and inconsistent application in exactly the area where consistency matters most.
Finally, character-related competencies need more frequent cultural sanity-checking than technical ones. A skill either exists in the market or it does not. A behavioural expectation about integrity or respect can drift out of step with how the organisation actually operates, and a framework that is not periodically tested against real decisions will quietly lose credibility.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a character and competency framework and a values statement?
A values statement describes what the organisation believes in. A character and competency framework translates specific values into observable, levelled behavioural indicators that can be assessed in hiring, performance, and development. Values describe belief; competencies describe demonstrated behaviour.
Is character the same as personality in a competency framework?
No. Personality describes stable individual dispositions that cannot fairly be required of an employee. A character and competency framework describes behavioural standards everyone is expected to meet regardless of personality.
Can character-related competencies be assessed in recruitment?
Yes. Structured behavioural interview questions built around specific indicators, such as how a candidate handled a conflict of interest or admitted a mistake, produce far more reliable signal than asking a candidate to describe their values in the abstract.
Should character competencies be core competencies or role-specific ones?
Almost always core. Because they are meant to apply to every person regardless of role, character-related competencies are built as core competencies that sit beneath role-specific competency models, not as part of them.
How many character-related competencies should a framework include?
Three to five is typical. Character-related competencies compete for space with other core competencies such as communication and collaboration, and a framework that lists too many loses the focus that makes any of them assessable in practice.
What is the difference between a character and competency framework and a character strengths assessment?
A character strengths assessment, such as the VIA classification, identifies an individual's distinctive strengths for self-insight and development. A character and competency framework sets a uniform organisational standard that applies to everyone, not a profile of what makes each person different.