Competency Framework Examples: Real Models From Major Organisations
Most people searching for competency framework examples are not looking for another definition. They are looking for names: real frameworks they can examine, compare against, or cite when making decisions about their own organisations. The frameworks below are the ones I see referenced most often in practice, across sectors and use cases, from global HR standards to profession-specific models.
What a Competency Framework Is, Briefly
A competency framework defines the behaviours, skills, and performance expectations required of a workforce or role family, expressed at multiple levels. Each competency is described with observable indicators showing what it looks like in practice, from foundational performance through to advanced or expert application. The distinction that matters here is between what a competency framework actually defines (behaviours and performance standards) and what a capability framework or skills taxonomy defines. Conflating the two produces documents that cannot be applied cleanly to either purpose.
The examples below are structured frameworks. Each has named competencies, defined levels, and a documented purpose. They are not informal lists of desirable qualities.
Named Competency Framework Examples
Korn Ferry Leadership Architect
The Korn Ferry Leadership Architect is one of the most widely referenced commercial competency frameworks globally. It defines 38 competencies organised into 4 factors and 12 clusters, covering the domains of thought, results, people, and self. Each competency is described with skilled behaviours and overused behaviours, reflecting the view that competency strengths can become liabilities when applied without situational judgement.
The Leadership Architect traces its lineage to the Lominger model, developed by Robert Eichinger and Michael Lombardo before the Lominger business was acquired by Korn Ferry. The underlying competency set has remained largely stable across that transition, which is why many practitioners still reference Lominger competencies by name even when working within the current Korn Ferry framework.
Organisations that license the Leadership Architect typically use a subset of the 38 competencies rather than all of them, selecting the ones most relevant to their leadership pipeline requirements. The framework also includes career stallers and stoppers: the behaviours that tend to derail high-potential leaders and are often used in succession and development assessment processes.
SHRM Body of Applied Skills and Knowledge
The Society for Human Resource Management's Body of Applied Skills and Knowledge (SHRM BASK) defines the competencies required of HR professionals across career levels and functions. It organises competency across nine behavioural competencies and one technical competency domain covering HR-specific knowledge.
The nine behavioural competencies in the SHRM model are: leadership and navigation, ethical practice, diversity equity and inclusion, relationship management, communication, global mindset, business acumen, consultation, and analytical aptitude. These apply across the career continuum, from early-career HR practitioners through to senior HR leaders operating in strategic roles.
SHRM developed the framework through research involving thousands of HR professionals across 33 countries. That cross-sectoral reach gives it legitimacy as a benchmark for HR workforce planning and professional development. The framework also underpins SHRM's professional certification examinations, which means it functions as a credentialing standard as well as a competency reference.
CIPD Profession Map
The CIPD Profession Map defines what it means to be a competent HR and people development professional. It distinguishes between core behaviours expected of all practitioners, specialist knowledge required within specific HR practice areas, and the values underpinning professional practice.
Unlike the SHRM model, which is a behavioural competency framework, the CIPD Profession Map takes an integrated approach, combining specialist knowledge areas with behavioural standards and professional values in a single architecture. It is used by practitioners and organisations across the UK and internationally as a benchmark for HR competency development and professional accreditation.
DDI Leadership Competency Framework
Development Dimensions International, known as DDI, publishes a leadership competency framework built around the skills and abilities that predict leadership effectiveness. DDI's model emphasises behaviours observable in real leadership interactions: communicating with impact, influencing others, coaching for success, and similar. The framework is used particularly in high-stakes leadership selection and development contexts where predictive validity matters, and DDI has developed an evidence base across decades of leadership assessment research that underpins how the competencies are defined and weighted.
Profession-Specific and Sector Examples
Beyond commercial frameworks, several professions and sectors have built their own named models.
For HR professionals, the frameworks above represent the dominant external standards. For sales roles, organisations often build or adapt their frameworks from a base of commercially recognised competencies. A sales competency framework defines the behaviours and skills specific to commercial roles, from account management through to enterprise sales leadership, and is typically built at a role-type level rather than applied wholesale across an entire business.
In the public sector, the Australian Public Service Commission's Integrated Leadership System defines the capability and behaviour expectations of APS leaders across all classification levels. It applies across the whole of the Australian Public Service and organises leadership expectations into five clusters, including shapes strategic thinking, achieves results, and communicates with influence.
For project and delivery professionals, the Project Management Institute defines competencies across knowledge and performance domains in its frameworks. These are used internationally as a reference for role design and professional certification in project management disciplines.
What These Examples Have in Common
Across all the frameworks named above, a consistent structural logic appears. Each defines a set of named competencies, describes those competencies in terms of observable behaviours, and distinguishes between levels of performance, either by career level, proficiency, or both. This structure is what makes them usable for workforce decisions rather than simply aspirational.
The differences are primarily in scope, specificity, and purpose. A commercial framework like the Korn Ferry Leadership Architect is designed to be adapted: organisations license and subset it to their contexts. A professional body model like the SHRM BASK is designed to define the profession; it applies as a standard rather than a starting point. Research on competency-based framework development and implementation identifies that frameworks with the most sustained use are those that balance structural rigour with adaptability to the specific contexts in which they are applied.
For practitioners building an internal competency model framework, examining named external frameworks is a useful starting point precisely because it reveals where the genuine design decisions are: how many competencies to include, how to define the levels, and how to express behavioural indicators in language that reflects the actual work rather than generic HR categories.
Common Failure Modes
The most common mistake organisations make when referencing named frameworks is adopting them wholesale without contextualisation. A framework designed for global use will express competencies at a level of abstraction that is intentionally broad. That breadth is appropriate for a framework applying across diverse industries and geographies. It is not appropriate for a role-specific or function-specific application where practitioners need to see their actual work reflected in the language.
A second failure is using named frameworks as catalogue documents rather than structured references. Picking fourteen Korn Ferry competencies because they sound relevant is not a competency framework. It is a list. A framework has intentional structure, defined levels, and clear connections to the decisions it is designed to inform.
A third failure, specific to profession-based frameworks like the SHRM BASK or CIPD Profession Map, is applying them beyond the scope for which they were designed. These are frameworks built for HR professionals. Using them as an organisation-wide competency standard produces something incoherent, because the competencies are calibrated for a specific workforce context that does not generalise.
Trade-offs and Constraints
Named, commercially developed frameworks offer legitimacy and reduce design effort. They have been validated against large populations, are regularly updated, and are recognised by practitioners who have used them elsewhere. The cost is a level of generic language that may not resonate in every organisational context.
Internally developed frameworks offer relevance and specificity. They can be built in the language of the organisation, aligned to its strategic context, and tested against its actual workforce. The cost is design effort, maintenance, and the absence of external legitimacy that a named framework provides.
Most organisations that get this right operate some version of a hybrid: a named external framework as a reference architecture, with internal adaptation of the competencies and indicators that need to reflect their specific context. The leadership competency model examples that sustain real use are almost always the ones that went through that translation step rather than being imported and applied unchanged.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are some examples of competency frameworks?
Named examples include the Korn Ferry Leadership Architect (38 competencies across 4 factors), the SHRM Body of Applied Skills and Knowledge (9 behavioural competencies for HR professionals), the CIPD Profession Map (for people development professionals), and DDI's leadership competency framework. Sector examples include the Australian Public Service Integrated Leadership System and profession-specific models across project management, data, and digital roles.
What is the Korn Ferry competency framework?
The Korn Ferry Leadership Architect defines 38 competencies organised into 4 factors (thought, results, people, and self) and 12 clusters. Originally developed as the Lominger model before acquisition by Korn Ferry, it is used globally for leadership development, succession planning, and performance assessment. Organisations typically license and subset it for their specific context rather than applying all 38 competencies.
What competency framework does SHRM use?
SHRM uses the Body of Applied Skills and Knowledge (SHRM BASK), which defines nine behavioural competencies and one technical competency domain covering HR-specific knowledge. It applies across HR career levels and underpins SHRM's professional certification examinations.
How many competencies should a competency framework include?
There is no universal answer. Commercial frameworks like the Korn Ferry Leadership Architect include 38 competencies, but organisations typically select a subset for internal use. Most internal frameworks that are actively applied define between 8 and 15 competencies: enough to be specific without becoming unmanageable.
What is the difference between a competency framework and a competency model?
The terms are often used interchangeably. Some practitioners use "competency model" to refer to a role-specific or function-specific application and "competency framework" for a whole-of-workforce standard. In practice, both describe a structured set of competencies with defined levels and behavioural indicators. The usage varies more by organisation and region than by any consistent technical distinction.
Can you build a competency framework from scratch instead of using a named model?
Yes, and for some organisations that is the right decision. Internally developed frameworks can be more specific to the organisation's context, language, and strategic priorities. The trade-off is design effort and the absence of external validation that named frameworks provide. Many organisations use a named framework as a reference architecture and adapt the competencies, rather than starting from nothing.