## Notes from 13 February 2026 [[2026-02-12|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2026-02-14|Next note →]] This is a nice paper I found: [Blom, Kruyen, and van Genugten (2026)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399853274_Which_competencies_are_the_most_important_in_government_Introduction_of_the_Competency_Explorer_to_investigate_civil_servants_competencies) regarding the **Competency Explorer**. The study tackles the "infinite list" problem common in public administration, where competency matrices often label every trait—from "digital mastery" to "empathy"—as essential. Alternatively, organizations sometimes create competency categories so broad they lose specific meaning. Instead, the authors built a digital tool using **[[Q Methodology]]** that forces civil servants to confront trade-offs by ranking the competencies most relevant to their daily work. The researchers conducted two validation studies with 131 Dutch municipal workers to refine a set of 32 competencies, linking them to three governance paradigms: **Traditional Public Administration (PA)**, **New Public Management (NPM)**, and **New Public Governance (NPG)**. The tool uses a "forced quasi-normal distribution" grid, meaning a user can only pick a few competencies as "most important," while the rest are sorted into "important" or "least important" tiers. This approach addresses the tendency to view every competency as a top priority. One notable aspect of the paper is the iterative refinement of the set. For instance, they initially included "Integrity" but found that participants ranked it at the top as a basic prerequisite for public service. This made it difficult to differentiate between roles, so they replaced it with "Trustworthy" to allow for more nuanced sorting. They also found that labels matter; changing "Unimportant" to "Least Important" reduced participant resistance. While few would call a skill "unimportant," most can agree that certain things are less prioritized in a specific context. What resonates is the practical bridge this builds. The authors demonstrate how the tool provides immediate feedback, allowing civil servants to compare their individual profiles with team averages. The case studies (such as an HR team identifying internal differences in "political-administrative sensitivity") show how this moves beyond theory to serve as a diagnostic tool for organizations.