Competencies and Workplace Learning

Competencies andworkplace learningsome reflections on therhetoric and the reality

Thomas N Garavan andDavid McGuire

Introduction

The literature on HRD increasingly focuseson how best to select and develop effectivelyperforming employees Such preoccupationsare in direct response to demands for higherproductivity increased flexibility and lowercosts by organisations (Garavan et al 1999Hodgetts et al 1999 Losey 1999)Increasingly organisations seek through theimplementation of sophisticated humanresource development and workplace learningstrategies to develop competencies to enableemployees to respond quickly and flexibly tobusiness needs The need for greaterflexibility has resulted in a more widespreaduse of competency approaches as a basis forworkplace learning provision (Lei and Hitt1996 Spangenberg et al 1999)

Evidence suggests increased usage ofcompetency models by organisations to driveworkplace learning initiatives in the USA andmore recently in the UK The use ofcompetency frameworks as the focus ofworkplace learning serves the dual purpose offacilitating the identification of learning needsand ensuring that learning provisionaddresses business needs (Reid andBarrington 1994 Thomson and Mabey1994) Furthermore the drive for mobilityflexibility and employability has also resultedin employees expecting that their enhancedcompetencies be recognised throughcertification processes The increased usage ofcompetencies is also reflected in theburgeoning academic literature on the topic

The most recent Cranfield University ofLimerick survey (1999) reveals a significantincrease in the usage of competencyframeworks in Europe Empirical evidenceexists to suggest that the competencymovement has taken hold in a number ofcountries among them Australia (Cornfordand Athanasou 1995) the USA (Boyatzisand Kolb 1995) the UK (Newton andWilkenson 1995) the Scandinaviancountries (Mabon 1995) and Israel (Reichel1996) This trend can be attributed to theproactive role played by national governmentsin recognising the benefits that can accruethrough the creation and adoption ofrecognisable competency standards Theinstigation of the National Skills StandardsBoard (NSSB) in the USA and the NationalCouncil for Vocational Qualifications(NCVQ) in the UK as government-appointed

The authors

Thomas N Garavan is a Senior Lecturer in the

Department of Personnel and Employment Relations and

David McGuire is a Government of Ireland scholar both

at the University of Limerick

Keywords

Competencies Workplace learning

Human resource development Competency framework

Abstract

The use of competency frameworks as a basis for

workplace learning initiatives is now relatively

commonplace in organisations This is reflected in the

emphasis given to competencies in the HRD literature

However the terrain of the competency discussion is

somewhat ill-defined This article attempts to define the

context within which the value of competencies as a basis

for workplace learning can be considered and discusses

the philosophical and epistemological perspectives found

in much of the literature Competency definition and

competency measurement issues are explored as is a

range of other issues concerning the value of

competencies in a workplace learning context The article

concludes that in the interests of clarity consistency and

reliability of measurement consensus needs to be

reached on the basic parameters and definition of

competency

Electronic access

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is

available at

httpwwwemerald-librarycomft

Forum

144

Journal of Workplace Learning

Volume 13 Number 4 2001 pp 144plusmn163

MCB University Press ISSN 1366-5626

bodies responsible for the development ofskills standards highlights the emphasisattaching to national competency frameworksas a means of increasing economiccompetitiveness (Horton 2000)Consequently national competencystandards are now considered to be invaluablein establishing a foundation for theimplementation of workplace level trainingand development initiatives (Winterton andWinterton 1996) However recent empiricalresearch by Matlay (2001) suggests that suchtraining initiatives are having little impact inaddressing the training needs of the smallbusiness sector Specifically he concludedthat the actual provision of training in smallfirms fails significantly to keep pace with theperceived needs of ownermanagers and theirworkforce

The utilisation of competency models in theworkplace is considered problematic Inparticular commentators find difficulty withthe notion that the components of effectiveperformance can be clearly isolated andidentified and that employees can be selectedutilising rigorous competency frameworks(Townley 1994) Indeed the very idea thateffective employees should exhibit a set ofspecific competencies is problematic for some(Raelin and Cooledge 1995 Schroder1989) particularly in instances wherecompetency frameworks are linked topromotional opportunities and organisationalcareer development paths (Thomson andMabey 1994) It is worth pointing outhowever that the competency movement hasin an HRD context served the needs of lowerlevel employees as well as those at manageriallevel and in this sense does not reinforcestatus differences in the workplace (Reid andBarrington 1994 Grugulis 1997)

This paper considers some of the morespecific issues surrounding the use ofcompetencies for workplace learning andposits that many of the issues identified relatespecifically to the assumptions of theparticular philosophical and research traditionreflected in the use of competencies to dateThis paper initially considers some of thephilosophical and epistemological dimensionsof competency as concepts and their usage ina workplace learning context The paperfocuses on three significant pragmatic issuesrelated to their value in a workplace learningcontext the difficulties involved in definingnotions of competence and competencies the

related difficulty of assessing the existence ofcompetence and problems related to theclassification of competencies and finally thepaper addresses their limitations as a basis forworkplace learning and the need tounderstand their philosophical bases and theirlimitations

Philosophical and epistemologicaltensions

The literature on competencies sometimesfails to make explicit its underlyingphilosophical assumptions specifically itsassumptions about the nature of work theindividual and the organisationPhilosophically the competency movementfinds its roots in the writings of Taylor(1911) His espousal of the lsquolsquoone best wayrsquorsquo offulfilling a task thus improving efficiency andincreasing production together with hisfunctional view of management led ultimatelyto the development of the competencyapproach (Sandberg 2000 Grugulis 1997Raelin and Cooledge 1995) At a simplisticlevel competency models seek to identify theideal combination of skills knowledgeattitudes and experience the possession ofwhich enables employees to become highperformers with the potential to add value tothe organisation (Gorsline 1996)

One perspective argues that the notion ofcompetencies can be both liberating andempowering ndash an equalising force in thecontext of workplace learning Such aperspective is based on developmentalhumanism This philosophical position positsthat employees should be provided with abroad degree of self-control and self-regulation on the basis that such committedemployees will actively work towards fulfillingthe aims of the organisation Others suggestthat in reality competency notions espouse amore utilitarian instrumentalist philosophythat challenges this line of argument Thisphilosophical position advocates that thelsquolsquorationalrsquorsquo management of employees will leadto the ultimate aim of increased competitiveadvantage This position is characterised bytight management control close direction andprescription of required competencies as wellas by advocating the concept of lsquolsquofitrsquorsquo betweenstrategic objectives and competenciespossessed by employees This latterperspective is the more common one

145

Competencies and workplace learning

Thomas N Garavan and David McGuire


Volume 13 Number 4 2001 144plusmn163

espoused in the managerial and humanresource management literature

Holms (1995) would support this view Heposits that the power relations that existwithin the competency approach do notreflect developmental humanism but insteadeverything that developmental humanism isnot Competency frameworks present adilemma in that those wishing to beconsidered competent are in effect forced toreshape and reinterpret themselves toreconfigure their experience in order to matchthe specific demands of the competencydiscourse He posits that even the assessorwhere there is one lacks autonomy because ofthe requirement to make judgements within aspecified vocabulary and to maintainappropriate records Notions of controltherefore permeate competency approaches

Thus the competency approach fitscomfortably within a strategystructuresystems model of organisations andconsequently it may have questionable valuewithin contemporary postmodernist notionsof workplace learning and more person-focused development initiatives Indeed afundamental premiss underpinningutilitarianism the idea of strategicintegration is itself somewhat problematicand lacking in precision both at a theoreticaland at a measurement level It does howeverrepresent a common justification for theutilisation of competencies by organisationsA utilitarian perspective poses a number ofdilemmas for workplace learning activitiesspecifically the need to justify workplacelearning in strategic terms and treatemployees in a rational and quantitative wayIt may result in very narrowly defined short-term type learning activities at the expense ofmore developmental-type learning It isarguable that the advocacy of utilitarian-instrumentalist notions of competencies areassociated with learning initiatives designed tocontribute to bottom-line performance sothis means that line managersrsquo efforts willconcentrate on revenue producing learning atthe expense of ensuring that employees aredeveloped

There are also epistemological tensionsassociated with the use of competencies in aworkplace learning context The competencyliterature generally espouses a rationalisticpositivistic perspective and makes someimportant assumptions about work andbehaviour A significant proportion of the

literature considers competency to be anattribute-based concept and in particulardefines it in terms of a specific set of attributesthat employees utilise to perform work Thereis a clear assumption that those who performeffectively are considered to have a superiorset of competencies There is a strong bias toconsider notions of competency in a context-free way This tendency manifests itself inprescriptive comments about how possessionof specific competencies can lead to highperformance irrespective of theorganisational context within which they areutilised This literature tends to postulate anotion of competency as atomisticmechanistic bureaucratic and one thatreinforces a notion of competency as a strait-jacket

The literature reveals that a multiplicity oftraditions and perspectives exists each with adifferent and relatively distinct set ofunderpinning assumptions Cockerill andHunt (1995) for example suggest that thesedistinct perspectives may be labelledlsquolsquotraditionalistsrsquorsquo lsquolsquoinventorsrsquorsquo and lsquolsquoscientistsrsquorsquoFor traditionalists the use of competencies isbased on the behaviour of the most successfulmanagers or employees in the organisationThey view successful job performance interms of the speed of career advancementThey advocate the use of the characteristics ofquickly promoted individuals as the basis forthe development of an organisationrsquoscompetency model Inventors focus onpredicting what an organisation and itsattitudes will be in the future and considerthis to be the most effective way of identifyingappropriate managerial behaviours Theoutcome of the perspective is the creation ofcompetency lists based on imaginary futureorganisations The scientific perspectiveplaces emphasis on identifying measuringand developing behaviours which willdistinguish individuals who continuouslyoutperform others This perspectiveadvocates that there are generalisable highperformance competencies that appear todistinguish high performance from averageperforming employees

Many descriptions of competency do notconsider the characteristics of the humanagent In particular they give littleconsideration to when competencies are usedhow they are used and the moderatinginfluence of personal characteristics on theirusage Sandberg (2000) uses the term

146





lsquolsquoindirect descriptions of competencyrsquorsquo tocharacterise a situation where the typologiesadvocated reflect the researchersrsquo own modelsrather than capturing employeesrsquo notions ormodels of competence The literaturereinforces the general tradition of a positivistquantitative approach in particular the dualtendency to assume that there is an objectivereality independent of and beyond the humanmind and the decontextualisation of theindividual in the competency debateWork is conceptualised as objectivedescribed in precise terms and it existsindependently of those employees whoaccomplish it Work and worker areessentially independent

While the intention if not the practice is touse workplace competencies derived fromnational standards the definition of suchcompetencies is often based on rationalisticjob analysis techniques rather than on timeand motion studies which it is argued maylead to more effective workplace outcomes(Sandberg 2000) One alternative thephenomenological approach has made onlymodest impact to date However thisliterature does postulate the view that ourunderstanding of competence andcompetencies cannot ignore the internalorganisational context the role of theemployee and their experiences of work Thetacit dimension is to the fore in this literature(Tyre and Von Heppel 1997 Fielding1988) This contrasting tradition suggeststhat it is not the competencies themselves thatare significant but instead it is the way thatindividuals experience work which isfundamental to their competence

Competence this perspective suggestsmust therefore be internally rather thanexternally framed

The emergence of a postmodernist lens tostudy competencies has some value It isargued that postmodernism by embracingchaos and complexity offers a coherentexplanation of the unpredictable uncertainand uncontrollable nature of the modernbusiness environment (Raelin and Cooledge1995 Freedman 1992) Free from theoverarching ideological claims of positivismit leaves open the possibility thatcompetencies may need to be adjusted to takeaccount of a range of contextual factors andas a result competency frameworks maydiffer from one organisation to another(Cockerill 1989)

Exploring notions of competence andcompetency

Definitional and boundary delineation issuesexist at a number of levels within thecompetency literature This confusion existsprimarily for two reasons differences betweencountries and differences arising frompedagogical theory on how people learn Theformer is largely historically determined andreflects differences in relationships betweeneducation and the labour market in differentcountries Pedagogical differences on theother hand relate to issues of howbehaviouralists cognitivists andconstructivistic theorists consider notions ofcompetency Levels of definitional confusionand differences in perspective exist Conceptualisations of competency in

terms of its function Differences in the context of competency

and competence

Conceptualisations of the function ofcompetency

The literature reveals that competencies aredefined in terms of three distinct perspectivescompetencies as individual characteristicscompetencies as characteristics oforganisations and the notion of competenciesas a tool to structure and facilitatecommunication between education and thelabour market (Boon and Van der Klink2001)

Competencies as characteristics ofindividualsThis perspective argues that competencies areessentially related to characteristics ofindividuals Within this perspective there arehowever differences in emphasis The mostimportant difference in emphasis here relatesto whether these characteristics can belearned or whether they are innate Thedominant view is to emphasise the trainabilitydimension of competency and the potentialcontribution of workplace learning activitiesto the development of competencies (Eraut1994 Fletcher 1992) A more traditionalview emphasises that competencies andcompetence are given They argue thatcharacteristics such as emotion attitude andcognition originate from innate abilities andtherefore cannot be learned they can only be

147





developed (Klink et al 2000) A relatedperspective here is the notion thatcompetencies do not relate to capacities butinstead to the willingness and ability of theemployee to use hisher capacities in specificsituations (Spencer 1983)

Competencies as characteristics oforganisationsAn alternative perspective is to conceptualisecompetencies as characteristics oforganisations This perspective takes as astarting-point the view that humancompetencies are one of the resourcesavailable to organisations The origins of thisnotion of competencies can be attributed tothe work of Prahalad and Hamel (1990) whoanalysed the competitiveness of organisationsand attributed it to the possession of corecompetencies They postulated thatorganisations can possess unique clusters offactors that allow the firm to be competitiveand human capital is one of those factorsResource-based perspectives on the firmutilise the notion of competencies in thisfashion The resource-based viewconceptualises the organisation as a collectionof competencies and draws attention to issuesof learning including knowledgeaccumulation and experience Cappelli andSingh (1992) argue that competentemployees potentially create competitiveadvantage where such competencies are firm-specific and are difficult to imitate

The issue of how firm-specific the humanresource competencies are is a controversialpoint Boon and Van der Klink (2001) arguethat many organisations possess very fixedand rather global listings of competencies anddo not engage in efforts to produce a set offirm-specific descriptions or take proactivesteps to develop these competencies Theyargue that while it is appropriate toconceptualise competencies in this way at thelevel of practice it is problematic toimplement because it is very difficult to findthe appropriate level of context specificity inthe description of competencies They eithercome as lists with very broadly definedcompetencies or are so detailed and reductiveas to be of limited pragmatic value

A further consideration here is whethercompetency frameworks should be based oncurrent organisational priorities or should befuture oriented and derived from anorganisationrsquos vision statement Such a

dualistic choice is dependent on whether oneviews competencies as a tool enablingorganisational change through directcommunication with employees or whetherone believes that competencies should beused as a behavioural modelling mechanismto deal with current organisational problemsand difficulties Those who are labelledlsquolsquoinventorsrsquorsquo would advocate a focus on futurecompetencies

Some commentators consider it to be aninappropriate conceptual stretch of theconcept of competency to regard it as acharacteristic of the organisation Oneproblem that immediately arises is thevariation in terminology used Selznick(1957) uses the term lsquolsquodistinctivecompetencersquorsquo Teece (1990) talks aboutlsquolsquodynamic capabilitiesrsquorsquo Prahalad and Hamel(1990) suggest the term lsquolsquocore competenciesrsquorsquoand Kamoche (1996) suggests lsquolsquohumanresource competenciesrsquorsquo These definitionsrange from narrow specific descriptions tovery broad ones that in some ways can beviewed as tautological capabilities are definedin terms of competence and competence isthen defined in terms of capability (Nanda1996) The empirical support for corecompetencies at the organisational levelsignificantly lags behind the theoreticaldevelopment The notion is solid at themacro-theoretical level but stands relativelyunsupported by micro-theoretical modelsand empirical research The theory wouldsuggest that work-based learning activitiesrepresent a vital if not pivotal componentof organisational success and strategyhowever there is no systematic evidence of atransformation of workplace learningactivities by organisations on both sidesof the Atlantic as a result of resource-based perspectives (Hamel andPrahalad 1993 Beleherman et al 1994Prager 1999)

Competency as a mode of discoursebetween education and the labour marketThis perspective argues that competenciesrepresent a tool to improve communication ineducation and the labour market Itconceptualises competencies as a framingdevice ndash a mode of discourse ndash and it in noway attempts to specify of what competenciesconsist This perspective is commonlyadvocated in Continental Europe and to acertain extent in the UK Schlusmans et al

148





(1999) suggest that the need for such adiscourse arises from two sets ofdevelopments The first relates to thechanging nature of the labour market with itsemphasis on flexibility employability thepotential for obsolescence of knowledge andskills and the emergence of knowledge as aproduction factor These changes in therequirements of the labour market have inturn influenced views on how people areeducated and trained in educationalinstitutions

The view prevails that the educationalsector is now expected to be a partner in thecreation of knowledge and the development ofhuman resources who are flexible and capableof working within innovative environmentsAnother development within this perspectiveof competencies is the perceived requirementfor education to move away from moretraditional pedagogical perspectives andutilise learning strategies and create contextswhere students can learn cognitive and workrelated skills in realistic learningenvironments (Brown et al 1989 Resnick1987 Lave and Wagner 1991 Senior 1997)It is clear that multiple conceptualisations ofthe function of competency exist ndash eachperspective highlights some significantdifferences in emphasis about the function ofcompetencies

The content of competency andcompetence

The lack of a precise or widely accepteddefinition of competency in the literature isconsidered problematic (Jubb and Robotham1997 Gorsline 1996 Nordhaug andGronhaug 1994) The terms lsquolsquocompetencersquorsquoand lsquolsquocompetencyrsquorsquo are attributed multiplemeanings depending on the context and theperspective advocated It appears that ourunderstanding of these terms depends on thescope (individualorganisational) aim(improving performancegaining marketpower) range of HR instruments utilised(selectionpaytrainingstaff appraisalcareerdevelopment) and the structure of the HRfunction (centraliseddecentralised) withinthe organisation (Hondeghem andVandermeulen 2000)

Such divergence in meaning presentsdifficulties when one makes comparisonsacross industry It becomes difficult to

theorise on the value of specific competenciesto organisations because of definitionaldifficulties

UK and US perspectivesThe literature reveals differences in theconceptualisation of competencies betweenthe USA and the UK Table I presents aconceptualisation of the differences

In its most general sense the USA perceivescompetence to be related to the individualand whether they possess the skills andknowledge to perform a specific job or roleThe UK approach is arguably broader andthe perception of competencies not only isrelated to the attributes of job-holders butalso refers to a range of guidelines andpersonal effectiveness issues required to get ajob done

Within the UK approach competencies areviewed as standards for job functions andprofessions whereas in the US approach thebehaviour of excellent performers isconsidered the basis for the development oftests of relevant competencies Generallyboth UK and US perspectives viewcompetencies as being related tocharacteristics of individuals The Europeanperspective on competencies is analogous tothat adopted in the UK Orstenk (1997) andOliveara-Rees (1994) suggest for examplethat in Germany competencies areconceptualised in terms of the capacity ofindividuals to perform within a function or aprofession and the focus is therefore on thequalification or certification they receiveQualifications are viewed as denoting anofficial certification of knowledge skill andattitude

Both UK and US approaches differfundamentally in their pedagogicalperspective and assumptions about thelearning process The US approach placesemphasis on a cognitive perspective oflearning whereas the UK and certainly theEuropean variant place emphasis on aconstructivistic view of learning Bothapproaches offer alternative explanations ofthe context of competencies their interactionwith work and their measurement Cognitiveapproaches place a lot of emphasis onobjective measurement whereasconstructivist approaches give emphasis to thesubjective and motivational dimensions ofcompetency

149





Worker work and multidimensionalapproachesTable II presents some definitions ofcompetency commonly found in theliterature These definitions reflect threeparticular approaches to its definition(1) worker-oriented(2) work-oriented and(3) multidimensional

Significant contributions within eachfieldIn his earlier work Boyatzis (1982) definedcompetency as lsquolsquoan underlying characteristicof a person which results in effective andorsuperior performance in a jobrsquorsquo From this hedeveloped the notion that there exist differentlevels of competencies ranging from alsquolsquothreshold levelrsquorsquo to a lsquolsquosuperior performance

Table I Differences in definition of competencies the UK versus the US approach

Basis for difference UK approach US approach

Purpose Assessment and certification of employees Development of competencies to enhance performance

Focus Focus on jobindividual characteristics and skill

accumulation

Focus on individual behaviour and attributes

Procedure to develop Produce performance standards for job functions and

professions

Produce descriptions of excellent behaviour and attributes

to define standards

Role of organisationalcontext

Context is not as significant as professional area and

specific job functions

Context defines the behaviours and traits required

Conceptualisation of workindividual

The characteristics of the work are the point of departure Greater emphasis on the individual rather than specific

tasks

Methodological approach More multi-method and quantitative Rationalistic and positivistic

Scope Competencies are specific to professions and job functions Competencies are specific to organisations

Measurement Documentation of evidence of work activities and

experiences denotes evidence of competency

Quantitative measurement and identification of a

correlation between possession of attributes and work

performance

Role of assessor Formally assessed by external assessor to determine level Assessment of performance by job supervisors and job

incumbent

Perspective of learningadvocated

Constructivistic perspective of learning Cognitive perspective of learning

Table II Some common definitions of competency found in the literature

Worker-oriented definitions(1) The behavioural characteristics of an individual that are causally related to effective andor superior

performance in a job This means that there is evidence that indicates that possession of the characteristic

precedes and leads to effective andor superior performance on the job (Boyatzis 1982)

(2) An underlying characteristic of an individual that is casually related to criterion referenced effective andor

superior performance in a job or situation (Spencer and Spencer 1993)

(3) A high performance or H-competency is a relatively stable set of behaviours which produces superior

workgroup performance in more complex organisational environments (Schroder 1989)

Work-oriented definitions(4) Occupational competence (is) the ability to perform the activities within an occupation or function to the

level of performance expected in employment (Management Charter Initiative 1990)

(5) The ability to perform the activities within an occupation (Nordhaug and Gronhaug 1994)

(6) An action behaviour or outcome which the person should be able to demonstrate (Training Standards Agency

2000)

Multidimensional definitions(7) The ability to apply knowledge understanding practical and thinking skills to achieve effective performance to

the standards required in employment This includes solving problems and being sufficiently flexible to meet

changing demands (NCVQ 1997)

(8) The skills knowledge and understanding qualities and attributes sets of values beliefs and attitudes which

lead to effective managerial performance in a given context situation or role (Woodall and Winstanley 1998)

Source Adapted from Woodall and Winstanley (1998) and Horton (2000)

150





levelrsquorsquo He generally subscribes to a worker-oriented approach Spencer and Spencer(1993) provide another worker-orienteddefinition The notion of causationdifferentiates both definitions Spencer andSpencer require a higher standard ofcausation they advocate that a link beestablished between a particular competencyand superior performance Their work has asits ultimate aim the measurement ofindividual characteristics and movementtowards an index of key behaviours and skills

The worker-orientated definitions aregenerally associated with the US approachand US academics Dale and Iles (1992)summarise the outcomes of the US approachas follows

The competencies generated have been primarilybehavioural specifying the skills or qualities thata person will use to do a job They are oftengeneric trying to describe as succinctly aspossible the behaviours that high performersmay display though in different proportionsaccording to level function or context

The conceptualisations of Boyatzis andSpencer and Spencer of competency arepredominantly input-based and worker-oriented and focus on person related variablesthat individuals bring to a job Anotherperspective argues that competency notionsshould be output-based or work-oriented andconsiders the outputs associated with effectiveperformance (Martin and Staines 1994) TheManagement Charter Initiative definition forexample takes work as its point of departureand focuses on occupational areas oractivities However such lists of activities donot of themselves indicate the attributesrequired to accomplish such activitieseffectively European researchers generallyadvocate a work-oriented approachNordhaug and Gronhaug (1994) who workwithin an output perspective definecompetency as lsquolsquothe ability to perform theactivities within an occupationrsquorsquo Tolley(1987) also advocates a work-orientedapproach and suggests that organisations areincreasingly looking for indicators ofachievement such as adaptability flexibilityand enterprise Stuart and Lindsay (1997)conclude that the UK approach is moreheavily focused on the organisation andperformance requirements of job positionsthan on the job holders themselves Withinsuch a model the underlying characteristics

identified by Boyatzis and his US colleaguesare already assumed to exist

Multi-dimensional definitions tend to drawon the best of both approaches an indicativeexample is to be found in the work of Woodalland Winstanley (1998) Veres et al (1990)adopted a multidimensional perspective toassess the ideal competencies of police Theirdescription consisted of 46 personal attributesand they were expressed in the form ofstatements of knowledge skills and attitudesthat corresponded to 23 police attributes Thework activities and the personal attributeswere then quantified in percentage terms asthey related to police work Woodruffe (1991)more or less accepts that problems ofdefinition exist and that different models maylead to an alternative definition

Despite the plurality of definitionalapproaches and the use of competencyapproaches in educational andentrepreneurial arenas Boon and Van derKlink (2001) suggest that the vaguenesssurrounding competencies seems not tohinder discourse on the topic On thecontrary they posit that the strength of theconcept lies in its complexity serving toembrace educational and labourorganisations internal and externalorganisational experts and management andemployee interests at the same time

The observable and non-observable elements ofcompetencySome commentators question the value ofspeaking of competence in a plural senseIndeed it has been suggested thatcompetence is a molar concept similar to theconcept of intelligence Both concepts implythat they are composed of a complex ofimportant interrelated elements It followsthat to speak of competencies as sub-parts ofpieces that combine to make up the total is asillogical as calling lsquolsquointelligencesrsquorsquo pieces ofintelligence There is some agreementhowever that there are observable and morenon-observable elements of competencemaybe Birdir and Pearson (2000) suggestthat these components consist of skillsjudgements attitudes values entry skillsknowledge ability and capacity

The iceberg model can be used to illustratethe observable and more non-observableelements of competency Knowledge andskills form the tip ndash at the bottom of theiceberg the less visible elements of

151





competencies exist and these control surfacebehaviours These attributes include socialrole self-image traits and motives In thismodel social role and self-image exist at aconscious level whereas a personrsquos traits andmotives lie further below the surface andcloser to the core If one adopts such aconceptualisation of competency it hasimportant implications for workplacelearning The top level of knowledge and skillis generally easier to train for while thoseattributes at the lower level are more difficultto develop It is also arguable that the morecomplex the role ie managerial the morelikely it is that effective performance is drivenby characteristics at the lower levels of theiceberg Derouen and Kleiner (1994) dividecompetence into technical human andconceptual components They further dividethe technical component into professionaland managerial elements and expand theconceptual category to include mentalcompetence which consists of the ability toidentify and solve problems to memorise andcreate for example The three competencycomponents need to be operated using mentalskill The first three competency componentsare termed intangible recessive skills whilethe latter is a tangible skill

An individualrsquos work performance isinfluenced by professional managerialpeople and mental components but also bywork values and attitudes A personrsquos attitudeis influenced by his values while these valuesare in turn influenced by mental stateTherefore competence as a holistic conceptconsists of technical management peopleattitude value and mental skill componentsThey argue that mental skill components arethe foundation of all the other componentsThe intangible elements of mental skills andvalues influence the tangible elements ofattitude professional people andmanagement components Thiscategorisation has major implications forworkplace learning activities Somecompetencies are easier to develop andtransfer to the work context whereas otherstake longer periods to develop and transferThey suggest that professional andmanagerial components are difficult todevelop and require a significant investmentof time and financial resources Othercomponents such as work values andattitudes people and mental skills are easierto transfer assuming that they are in the

appropriate configuration to meet therequirements of the job role or profession

Webster (2000) suggests that competenceshould be conceptualised as lsquolsquothe quality orstate of being functionally adequate or ofhaving sufficient knowledge judgement skillor strength for a particular duty Thisperspective on competence emphasisesparticular knowledge and specific tasksKrogh and Roos (1995) reinforce this viewand suggest that one may only speak aboutcompetence where a particular fit oragreement between the knowledge and taskexists This would lead to the conclusion thatcompetence is perceived as both knowledge-specific and task-specific and evolves throughan interplay between both execution andknowledge acquisition

Competency frameworks and typologies

There exist some differences in perspective onhow competencies should be categorisedSparrow and Hiltrop (1994) suggest thatcompetencies fall into three categoriesbehavioural managerial and coreBehavioural competencies are defined asbehavioural repertoires which employeesbring to and input on the job The level ofanalysis used is the person and the job andthere is a clear specification that thesecompetencies are what employees need tobring to the rolejob to perform to therequired level Managerial competencies tendto be defined as knowledge skills and attitudeand a small number of personal behavioursThe unit of analysis is the organisation and itis assumed that such competencies aregeneric are externally transferable and thereis an entry threshold standard This contrastswith the concept of a behavioural competencywhere the performance criterion is based oncharacteristics of excellent individualperformance

Core competencies derive from within therealm of strategy and competitive advantageand some would argue that it is stretching itsomewhat to call the strategic resources of theorganisation core competencies The unit ofanalysis is both an organisational and anindividual one While more commonlyreferred to in an organisational context(Prahalad and Hamel 1990) in explainingorganisational competitiveness the corecompetency approach is also used to

152





determine the promotional readiness of amanager within an organisation (Langley2000) In this context it is argued that it canact as a useful tool in assessing thedevelopmental needs of future managers

There exist many examples of attempts todevise competency frameworks withapplication to practice Boyatzis (1982) madeearlier attempts to specify competencyframeworks when he distinguished betweenlsquolsquothresholdrsquorsquo and lsquolsquohigh performancersquorsquo levelcompetencies Whereas this approachequated competencies with levels ofperformance other approaches sought toclassify competencies in terms of differentlevels of generality and specificity to theorganisation The Kioto people managementmodel for example (Devisch 1998)categorises competencies as core functionaland specific competencies

Devisch (1998) argues that the concept ofcore competencies refers to the means bywhich employees adjust to the corporateculture of the organisation Suchcompetencies are considered non-transferableand differ from one organisation to anotherFunctional competencies are linked to jobroles and the way in which they interact withother roles They are considered essential toperformance and can be both technical andorganisational in nature Specificcompetencies are defined as the attributesthat a person is required to bring to a job inorder to ensure successful performanceThese competencies may be transferable if aperson accepts a similar job in anotherorganisation but are generally not thought tobe transferable to other dissimilar work Manycompetency frameworks are staticmechanistic and seek to prescribe a fixed listof desirable competencies They generally failto take account of the need for flexibility andopenness to change and underestimate theimportance of non-task-specificcompetencies

Kuijpers (2000) adopts an even broaderperspective and proposes a typology ofcompetencies which consists of three levels(1) General working competencies which

she defines as competencies required fordifferent working situations and atdifferent time periods

(2) Learning competencies which consist ofa bundle of competencies which facilitatethe development of workingcompetencies

(3) Career related competencies which aredefined to manage working and learningcompetencies within a personal careerpath

Nordhaug (1998) advocates a more robustclassificatory framework of work-relatedcompetencies This framework is differentfrom previous typologies in that it utilisesthree levels of analysis task-specific firm-specific and industry-specific Nordhaugrsquoscontribution to the debate is significantbecause it considers non-firm or industry-specific competencies He suggests threecategories here He uses the term lsquolsquometa-competencersquorsquo to encompass a broad spectrumof knowledge skills and aptitudes such asanalytical capabilities creativity knowledgeof culture and capacity to tolerate and masteruncertainty His additional categories hereinclude intra-organisational competencieswhich include knowledge aboutorganisational culture informal networks thepolitical dynamics of the organisation andgeneral industry competencies such asknowledge about industry and the ability toanalyse the activities of competitors

Considerable doubt exists as to whethercompetencies can be truly classified orformulated into typologies Collin (1989)referring to Stembergrsquos triarchic theoryargues that lsquolsquounderlying successfulperformance in many real-world tasks is tacitknowledge of a kind that is never explicitlytaught and in many instances never evenverbalisedrsquorsquo Given the intangible nature ofmany competencies this is a valid argumentIt raises the question as to whetherclassification is possible or valuable Linked tothis is the argument that the lsquolsquowholersquorsquo may notbe capable of division into sub-categories forthe purposes of classification In this contextemployees are viewed not simply aspractitioners of specific competencies but asactors sensitive to a wide range of factorsparticularly intuitive experience Thisreasoning advocates that the study ofcompetencies should take place within acontext which addresses the employee as awhole person

Identifying the existence of competency

Competency identification and assessmentare controversial issues Considering

153





criticisms about the validity and the reliabilityof identification processes (Burgoyne 1989Collin 1989 Jubb and Robotham 1997)many of the assessment methods are stronglybased on positivistic traditions and reflect thescientific principles of quantitativeapproaches The methods used relate to thedefinitional perspective advocated Work-oriented approaches advocate methods suchas the job element method whereas worker-oriented approaches advocate personalprofiling multidimensional approaches donot advocate any particular method butinstead suggest the use of multiple methodsSome of the methods merit specific comment

One frequently advocated method is criticalincident where employees of average andhigh performance are asked to describecritical situations which have occurred whileat work and how they reacted to thesesituations (New 1996 Thomson and Mabey1994) The learning specialist tries toestablish the important factors whichdistinguish the high performance of oneemployee from the average performance ofanother This method is problematic (Orpen1997) The choice of incident by theemployee as well as the employeersquosdescription of their own actions can in manycases be a subjective exercise and this hasimplications for the usability of the outputsThe evaluation of an employeersquos performanceis subjective in itself and generally in criticalsituations it is difficult to predict individualbehaviour whether of high-performing oraverage performance and consequently thefuture consistency of behaviour is difficult topredict

Job function analysis is also commonlyused Pottinger (1987) suggests that itinvolves the identification of the taskfunctions which are used to infer theknowledge and skills for job performance Ithas the potential to identify in an effectivemanner the essential prerequisite skills andknowledge for a job in addition to theidentification of possible training anddevelopment issues It is argued that jobfunction analysis is not very effective atidentifying the soft components of the jobsuch as the measurement of behaviourattitude intuition and creativity

The literature on competency identificationis strongly positivistic in orientation Itassumes a causal relationship betweenunderlying characteristics of competence and

superior performance The research evidencehowever reveals mixed evidence of thisrelationship Early work by Boyatzis (1982)for example found that where a relationshipexists it could at best be described asassociational Parker and Wall (1998) take amore definite position and argue that nosystematic relationship exists between thepossession of particular competencies andperformance outcomes Recent researchreveals a more positive picture of thebeneficial role of competencies to individualand group performance improvements TheCompetitiveness White Paper (DTI 1995pp 116-18) for example argues thatmanagement performance can be improvedthrough the development of standards andqualifications for management which are alsolinked to development and trainingopportunities In a comprehensive study ofcompetency-based management developmentin sixteen organisations Winterton andWinterton (1996) reported majorimprovements in individual performanceattributable to the effective use of competencyframeworks

The model implemented furthercomplicates the problems of competencymeasurement Work-oriented models viewcompetencies as recognisable in terms of job-specific outcomes It follows that thecompetencies required for a job or role areassessed through an analytical process calledfunctional analysis It is envisaged that such atop-down process will yield a set of itemsincluding the jobrsquos key purpose and key rolesEach in turn is broken down into units ofcompetence which in turn are referred to byelements of competence and performancestandards UK organisations use a variation ofthe work-oriented approach where they try toascertain the manner in which thecomponents of competence interact The UKsystem views competence as consisting ofthree basic components tasks taskmanagement and the job environment

Worker-oriented models see measurementconcerned with the generation of lists ofbehaviours or personal attributes that relate toeffective role performance Essentially theproblem is that in order to measure somethingone needs a yardstick Consequently wherealternative models of competence exist it isdifficult to arrive at a universal understandingof a notion of competence that is amenable tomeasurement for the purposes of

154





benchmarking levels of competence acrossindustry sectors

Table III presents a summary of theliterature on a number of competencyidentification methods

Universal or context-specificcompetenciesKakabadse (1991) suggests that superiorperformance often occurs in hard-workingcollaborative environments Consequently animportant question in the context ofworkplace learning is whether the competencybundle which allows individuals to achievesuperior performance levels in oneorganisation can be replicated when theytransfer to other organisations The answer tothis question depends on whether oneespouses that belief that competencies arespecific to a particular organisation or

whether they can be derived from acquiredknowledge skills or attitudes It raisesquestions regarding to what extent if any anorganisationrsquos culture and externalenvironment moderate the development ofcompetencies (Townley 1994)

It is arguable in the context of managerialwork with its unpredictable and uncertaincharacter that a list of core competencies islargely irrelevant and impractical (Hayes etal 2000 Burgoyne 1989) Commentatorsargue that effective management relies to aconsiderable degree on intuition or lsquolsquotacitknowledgersquorsquo that cannot be fully defined(Antonacopoulou and Fitzgerald 1996Cappelli and Crocker-Hefter 1996Albanese 1989) Hogg (1994) for exampleargues that a context-specific argument isflawed in its assumption that a specific jobconsists of a number of discrete tasks An

Table III Competency identification methods a summary of the research evidence

Method Researchers Process Effectiveness

Direct observation Boam and Sparrow (1992)

Mirabile (1997)

Employees are asked to perform a number

of critical tasks

Observers record the tasks being performed

which in turn form the basis of

competencies

Relatively cheap to implement and not time-

consuming

Provides a clear picture of the observable

elements

Not effective observing mental processes

Subject to observer error

Critical incident technique New (1996)

Thomson and Mabey (1994)

Involves clarifying the differences between

average and superior performers

Interviews with the job-holder supervisor or

other relevant person

Participants asked to describe particular job

incidents

Process is repeated a number of times

Individuals must describe what behaviours

were displayed who was involved and the

outcome

Ability to capture unusual behaviours

Involves key individuals in the job process

Requires a long data collection process

Requires critical knowledge of the position

Capacity to identify good and bad

behaviours

Job competencyassessment method

Spencer and Spencer (1993)

McClelland (1973)

A team is formed to identify the skills and

knowledge required

Team conducts interviews to identify

attributes of outstanding performers

Data are used to develop a competency

model

Expert panels validate the model to

determine its effectiveness

Data can be collected in an effective manner

Useful to identify job functions of individual

jobs

Tends to focus on job functions and

overlook personal attributes

May take some time to generate an

outcome

Expert panels Spencer and Spencer (1993)

Cockerill and Hunt (1995)

Boam and Sparrow (1992)

Selection of a panel of in-house experts and

others who have superior knowledge

Panel observes employees performing tasks

and identifies a list of competencies which

they consider relevant to job

Prioritising of the list to identify those that

require priority development

May give the process legitimacy and

credibility within the organisation

May have difficulty pulling together a panel

of appropriate experts

Suitable to larger organisations

A tendency to miss out on certain

competencies

155





over-reliance on the use of context-specificcompetencies may lead to a situation wheremanagerial work is reduced to a series ofatomistic tasks Johnston and Sampson(1993) suggest that skills must be understoodas integrated and holistic and it is difficult ifnot impossible to separate them intoconstituent parts for competencyclassification purposes

In contrast to focus on universalcompetencies assumes that all managersrequire a similar set to be effective Raelin andCooledge (1995) argue that such an approachis too prescriptive embracing somecompetencies and rejecting others Theyadvocate that management requires a myriadcompetencies some of which may appear tobe contradictory but are required by thecircumstances in which the manager operates

The concept of experience is a relevant onein the context of competencies but is oftenignored Martin and Staines (1994) forexample argue in the context of small firmmanagement for the requirement ofmanagers to possess a sound technicalknowledge of the industry derived fromworking a considerable period of time withinit There is strong empirical evidence tosuggest in the managerial context thatexperience colours the way in which managersapproach particular problems and difficulties(Townley 1994 Ashworth and Saxton1990) The value of experience is significantlyunderestimated in the academic literaturewritten about competencies and would tendto side with a context-specific argument(Brown 1994)

The employability debate raises a numberof important questions with respect to theissue of universal versus specificcompetencies Feldman (1996) points outthat competency development in the form ofseeking out opportunities to develop universalcompetencies enhances an individualrsquosemployability In an increasingly competitivebusiness environment with decreasingpromotional opportunities job rotationstrategies allow employees to increase theirskills knowledge and experience and increasetheir marketability in the external labourmarket (Greenhaus and Callanan 1994)Indeed DeFillippi and Arthur (1996)convincingly argue that firm and task orientedcompetencies are changing rapidly causing asharp decline in the life-span of manycompetencies Competencies that may have

been important in the past are becomingoutdated by virtue of technological andmarket changes Consequently employeesmust ensure that they invest in competenciesthat are in tune with prevailing business andtechnological trends

Increasingly individuals are takingresponsibility for their own professionaldevelopment (Kossek et al 1998 Metz 1998Arthur and Rousseau 1996) They musttherefore ensure that the bundle ofcompetencies they acquire makes themuniquely marketable in meeting the high skillrequirements of employers In this regard thetransferability of competencies has attractedmuch attention It has been argued that thecompetencies developed in one job may behelpful or even essential for successfulperformance in other jobs (Greenhaus andCallanan 1994) Employees with highlytransferable competencies are notorganisationally bound as their competenciesare portable and can be used to good effect indifferent organisations (Sullivan et al 1998)In contrast employees with low transferabilityof competencies are less employable as theyare bound by their present employerrsquosorganisational-specific skills which may notbe effective in other employment (Hirsch andJackson 1996) In conclusion Baker andAldrich (1996) argue that employees trying tobuild up transferability of competencies haveto try to balance the possible stagnation andboredom of high transferability against thethreat of losing all previously acquiredcompetence if they move to a position forwhich prior competence has been poorpreparation

People versus task-oriented competenciesThe person versus task dichotomy representsanother lively debate Bergenhenegouwen etal (1996) argue in the managerial contextthat managers must possess both a range ofpersonal competencies and task competenciesto perform effectively They must also possessthe vision to encourage the development ofpersonal and task competencies amongsubordinates The argument runs along thelines that such a perspective allows employeesto share a common vision of the organisationand permits organisations to link resourcerequirements to business strategies Howeverit is argued that competency models do notspecify the balance between these two sets ofcompetencies This represents a significant

156





drawback because it in turn inhibits thepotential of workplace learning to correct anyimbalance between the two sets Currie andDarby (1995) posit that competency modelsfail to provide a weighting system whichwould allow organisations to prioritisecompetencies Consequently allcompetencies carry equal importance Aproduction manager may be more focusedon task-oriented competencies whereasa sales manager may be more concernedwith enhancing person-orientedcompetencies

The balance between person- and task-oriented competencies will vary according tothe organisational and industry contextNordhaug (1998) suggests that person-centred competencies can be called meta-competencies because they encompass abroad range of personal skills and aptitudessuch as creativity ability to communicate andto cooperate with others the capacity totolerate and master uncertainty and the abilityto adjust to change Van der Wagen (1994)highlights the importance of person-orientedcompetencies in the service industry which isheavily dependent on customers and servicequality This led her to suggest that the focusof future research should be on thedevelopment of competency frameworks forindustry segments

Individual versus team competenciesThe unit of analysis utilised in thecompetency literature is the individual inmore recent years the organisational level ofanalysis is more pronounced in theorganisational behaviour literatureIncreasingly the emphasis in the literatureand in organisational practice is on thedevelopment of teams at all levels within theorganisation (Prager 1999 Taggar et al1999) Strategic decisions are no longer takenby individuals acting alone but by teamsKakabadse and Anderson (1993) argue thatthe prevalence of mergers the focus onproduct and service quality and customer careand orientation suggest that teams are nowthe unit of focus for learning interventionsnot individuals Top-team composition iscurrently an important issue within the HRMD literature Boam and Sparrow (1992) positthat organisations should consider top teamsin terms of a bundle of competencies ratherthan seeking out individuals who each fit adesired competency profile Overmeer (1997)

predicts that collections of individuals whohave conflicting norms of performance mayresult in the creation of an organisation-basedaction bias Havaleschka (1999) posits thatorganisational success is often contingent onthe proper cohesion of top team members andthe mix of competencies which theseindividuals possess In agreement Alderson(1993) identifies five behaviouralcompetencies essential for organisationalsuccess(1) Good interpersonal relationships among

team members(2) Capacity for openness and willingness to

discuss issues(3) High levels of trust among team

members(4) Discipline and cohesion in decision-

making(5) Capacity to discuss and understand both

long and short-term issues

While studies reveal that the correctidentification and implementation of genericteam competencies can lead to more effectiveorganisational outcomes (Winterton andWinterton 1999 Hoerr 1989 Shea andGuzzo 1987) little work to date focuses onthe individual competencies that teammembers should possess and the optimummix of individual competencies withina team

Maximum or minimum competencyWhether competencies constitute a minimumlevel of performance which employees areexpected to achieve or a maximum level onewhich is suited to the realms of top-classemployees is contentious (Athey and Orth1999) In his early work Boyatzis (1982)clearly demarcated these issues creating arange from lsquolsquoThreshold levelrsquorsquo to lsquolsquoSuperiorperformance levelrsquorsquo He recognised differentlevels of competency Stuart and Lindsay(1997) suggest that the lens of theorganisation should define the level ofcompetence required by individuals By usingthe image of a lens they recognise that theorganisational focus (and thus the focus of thelens) is liable to vary over time ascircumstances change Jubb and Robotham(1997) warn of the risks of using acompetency approach in such a fashion Theyargue that due to varying levels ofcompetency the boundaries may beperceived differently by individuals withinorganisations They suggest that if

157





organisations use competencies as ideals tostrive for the risk exists that they will ignorecompetencies which are viewed being lessimportant However it is argued that to be ofvalue competency models need to encompassthe total range of competencies necessary foreffective performance

Cornford and Athanasou (1995) suggestthat current notions of competence set levelstoo low They highlight that competence-based learning activities do not set highenough goals They view competence as amid-way stage of attainment in the skilllearning process and argue that the objectiveof any learning within organisations should beon maximum proficiency and preferablyexpert levels Commentators such asCornelius (1999) take issue with thisperspective and advocate the notion thatcompetency is level neutral and all anorganisation is required to do is set a levelhigh enough to achieve excellence given thecontext in which it operates

However a practical difficulty with such anargument is that any model of competencewhich advocates an excellence standardwould allow too few employees to be certifiedas competent The setting of competencylevels is of particular concern to organisationsoperating in tight labour markets whereany competency frameworks developedmust be perceived to have a beneficialimpact on both employee developmentand morale and in addition should align withthe organisationrsquos employee retentionstrategies

Given the strong behaviourist backgroundof the competency concept and the focuson modelling employees to meet thestandards of so-called lsquolsquoexpertsrsquorsquo it ispostulated that the use of competencies asan idealised level that employees should strivefor is the dominant model currently used byorganisations

In this regard parallels can be drawnbetween competency frameworks andmentoring and coaching initiatives where themain emphasis is on providing psychologicaland skill-based support to the employee to aidtheir development and improve performanceWhile both approaches can work successfullyin tandem training departments are oftenreluctant to move from centralised todecentralised forms of employeedevelopment with the inevitable loss ofpower and control

Conclusion

This paper considers issues emerging fromthe use of competencies as a basis for theprovision of work-based learning activitiesThe competency approach in essencesuggests that if organisations design learningevents to enhance the competencies ofemployees to perform specific job functionsthen they can develop individuals who arecompetent and do it in a more targetedfashion Debate exists about the constitutionof competencies Some commentators viewcompetencies as bundles of demonstratedknowledge skills and abilities (KSAs) andargue that to define competencies in this wayone goes beyond the more traditional KSAs ndashcompetencies represent KSAs that aredemonstrated in a job context influenced byculture and business context Competenciesare also to be considered as elements of thejob that are important for employees toperform effectively if they are to be deemedcompetent Some researchers viewcompetencies as clusters of KSAs that make areal difference in the competitiveenvironment This moves the concept into therealms of resource-based theory and marks asignificant shift in thinking in thatcompetencies are generally thought of asindividual attributes organisationally-specificand job generic (relevant to all jobs within oneorganisation) the performance componentsof which may be either job-generic or job-specific depending on the competency

Competency models consider thedevelopment of competence not in terms ofany set programme of learning the issue isnot whether the employee is trained butwhether the employee can do what is requiredby the role function job or profession Howthe competency is developed is unimportantIt is argued that competency has no timelimits individuals develop and acquire themat their own pace Employees are consideredto be not yet competent rather thanincompetent Notions of competency areadvocated as egalitarian and premissed on theview that given the right motivationcircumstances and practice anyone candevelop almost any set of competencies In aworkplace learning context the notion ofcompetency is based on the job rather thanon common standards of performanceachievable in the workplace Competence isgenerally considered relevant to the job

158





performed and is viewed as the minimumlevel of achievement that is necessary toperform that job effectively

On the surface notions of competencyappear so obviously useful that they cannot beignored Consequently the competencemovement has taken hold in a number ofcountries among them Australia the USAthe UK the Scandinavian countries andIsrael Contradictory evidence exists onwhether competency models have as yetgained widespread acceptance withinorganisations Their use by organisationsprovokes much discussion within theacademic literature and amongstpractitioners Many of the criticisms arepragmatic in nature including the views thatcompetency frameworks are a recipe forunder-achievement and that competence isdifficult (if not impossible) to define andmeasure The non-pragmatic theoreticalcritique focuses on the discourse engaged inand around the competency movementSpecific criticisms here relate to notions ofpower relationships within organisations andthe assumptions made about the usage ofcompetence the role of the individual andassumptions about the organisation and thephilosophical basis of competencies

A number of non-pragmatic issues emergein respect of the use of competencies as abasis for workplace learning Many of thenon-pragmatic issues focus on questions ofphilosophy epistemology and methodologyThe way in which competency ideas havebeen incorporated into workplace learningdiscourse largely relates to issues of increasedinternational competition and the potentialfor sustainable competitive advantage It isarguable that the philosophical andepistemological difficulties are more complexthan the technical ones Technical problemsin particular questions of measurementassessment and definition undermine thecredibility of competencies in a workplacelearning context However the philosophicalbias has resulted in greater attention beingdevoted to short-term control type learning atthe expense of workplace learning in itsbroader sense

Arguments are put forward thatcompetency models promote a conformistculture and give recognition to rather insularlearning activities limit more creativelearning activities and ultimately reinforceorganisational inequalities Competency-

based learning is considered too specialised toprovide evidence of generalisable cross-functional use and not specialised enough tobe of utility to employers in filling specificpositions Competency models are alsoconsidered by some to be overly bureaucraticoverly elaborate and to factor the humanagent out of the learning process

On the epistemological and methodologicallevels there is evidence of a bias in the currentcompetency discourse The literature treatsnotions of competency as somewhatindependent of context and the role of thehuman agent is not central to many accountsIt is assumed that evidence of competence canbe objectively and quantifiably assessedMany conceptions of competence are notthose of the agent or employee but of someother party ie the researcher Limitedemphasis has to date focused on employeesrsquoconceptions of competence and how suchconceptions may influence notions ofworkplace learning and in particular thelearning process

Many pragmatic criticisms exist Chiefamong them is the lack of a coherentdefinition The approaches broadly dividealong US and UK lines The US approachidentifies itself with an input worker-orientedmodel whereas the UK model focuses moreon an output worker-oriented model Somecommentators call for a moremultidimensional approach Academics haveto date found mixed evidence of linksbetween the use of competency models andspecific improvements in employee andororganisational performance Such apreoccupation reflects the strong positivisticassumptions that characterise the generaldiscourse on competencies A view prevailsthat until there is a satisfactory resolution ofthe measurement problem the competencyapproach will be subject to questionsconcerning its validity Others question thefutility of a positivist perspective and suggestthat scepticism will exist as to whether or notit is entirely possible to condense jobs into aseries of clearly defined competencies orattributes An alternative interpretivistparadigm argues that the notion ofcompetence and competencies should bestudied in a specific context where theinteraction issues of worker and work can befully considered

Various dimensions of the measurementdebate are articulated in the literature

159





specifically the lack of a universal model ofcompetence and a universal understanding ofthe phenomena of competence Manycontributions have sought to presentclassifications or typologies of competencySpecific measurement and classificationissues emerge One such issue concerns thequestion of universal or context-specificcompetencies specifically the extent towhich competencies are transferable to otherorganisations Organisational culture andenvironmental variables may have asignificant impact on the universality ofcompetencies In seeking to establish abalance between the universal and context-specific debate some commentators advocatethat experience of the industry is essential tosuperior performance in the managementcontext and particularly so for more universalcompetencies such as creativity risk takingand innovation A second classification issuefocuses on the person-task continuum Thecompetency literature makes a distinctionbetween person- and task-orientedcompetencies It tends to treat both categoriesequally Many commentators andpractitioners argue that the significance ofperson and task competencies is contingenton the prerequisites of the job This has ledsome academics to suggest that ifcompetency approaches are to have enhancedutility as a basis for workplace learningresearch should focus on the competencyrequirements of jobs in similar industrysectors

Competency models clearly have strengthsand weaknesses in a workplace learningcontext Despite significant investments madeby organisations in competency frameworksthey have not always produced the expectedoutcomes Much of the debate oncompetencies takes an objective rationalisticperspective and tends to describe humancompetence in an indirect fashion viewing itas a set of employee characteristics andcharacteristics of the work itself Theirpotential can be enhanced by a moreconsidered analysis of the context withinwhich they are applied They must beembedded not only within the supporting HRsystems but also in terms of the widerorganisation context including its culture theextent to which a competency ethos existswithin the organisation and employees mustunderstand how competency enhancementfits into their career development This latter

requirement perhaps requires a shift in theway competencies are defined and places agreater focus on their context dependentnature

References

Albanese R (1989) ` Competency-based management

educationrsquorsquo Journal of Management Development

Vol 8 No 2 pp 66-79Alderson S (1993) ` Reframing management

competence focusing on the top management

teamrsquorsquo Personnel Review Vol 22 No 6 pp 53-62Antonacopoulou EP and Fitzgerald L (1996)

` Reframing competency in management

educationrsquorsquo Human Resource Management Journal

Vol 6 No 1 pp 27-48Arthur MB and Rousseau DM (1996) ` Introduction

the boundaryless career as a new employment

principlersquorsquo in Arthur MB and Rousseau DM (Eds)

The Boundaryless Career A New EmploymentPrinciple for a New Organisational Era Oxford

University Press New York NYAshworth PD and Saxton J (1990) ` On competencersquorsquo

Journal of Further and Higher Education Vol 14No 2 pp 3-25

Athey TR and Orth MS (1999) ` Emerging competency

methods for the futurersquorsquo Human ResourceManagement Vol 38 No 3 pp 215-28

Baker T and Aldrich HE (1996) ` Prometheus stretches

building identity and cumulative knowledge in

multi-employer careersrsquorsquo in Arthur MB andRousseau DM (Eds) The Boundaryless Career A

New Employment Principle for a New

Organisational Era Oxford University Press NewYork NY

Beleherman G McMullen K Leckie N and Caron C

(1994) The Canadian Workplace in TransitionOntario Inc Press

Bergenhenegouwen GJ ten Hom HFK and Moorjman

EAM (1996) ` Competence development plusmn a

challenge for HRM professionals core competencesof organisations as guidelines for the development

of employeesrsquorsquo Journal of European Industrial

Training Vol 20 No 9 pp 29-35Birdir K and Pearson TE (2000) ` Research chefsrsquo

competencies a Delphi approachrsquorsquo International

Journal of Contemporary Management Vol 12

No 3 pp 12-22Boam R and Sparrow P (1992) Designing and

Achieving Competency McGraw-Hill ReadingBoon J and Van der Klink M (2001) ` Scanning the

concept of competencies how major vagueness canbe highly functionalrsquorsquo 2nd Conference on HRD

Research and Practice across Europe University of

Twente Enschede JanuaryBoyatzis RE (1982) The Competent Manager A Guide

for Effective Management Wiley New York NYBoyatzis RE and Kolb DN (1995) ` From learning styles

to learning skills the executive skills profilersquorsquoJournal of Managerial Psychology Vol 10 No 5

pp 24-7

160





Brown JS Collins A and Duguid P (1989) ` Situatedcognition and the culture of learningrsquorsquo EducationalResearcher Vol 18 No 1 pp 32-42

Brown RB (1994) ` Reframing the competency debatemanagement knowledge and meta-competence in

graduate educationrsquorsquo Management LearningVol 25 No 2 pp 289-99

Burgoyne J (1989) ` Creating the management portfolio

building on competency approaches tomanagement developmentrsquorsquo ManagementEducation amp Development Vol 20 No 1 pp 56-61

Cappelli P and Crocker-Hefter A (1996) ` Distinctivehuman resources are a firmrsquos core competenciesrsquorsquo

Organisational Dynamics Vol 28 No 2 pp 7-21Cappelli P and Singh H (1992) ` Integrating strategic

human resources and strategic managementrsquorsquo inLewin D Mitchell O and Shewer P (Eds)

Research Frontiers in Industrial Relations amp HumanResources Industrial Relations AssociationMadison University of Wisconsin

Cockerill T (1989) ` The kind of competence for rapid

changersquorsquo Personnel Management Vol 21 No 9pp 52-6

Cockerill T and Hunt J (1995) ` Managerialcompetencies fact or fictionrsquorsquo Business StrategyReview Vol 6 No 3 pp 26-34

Collin A (1989) ` Managersrsquo competence rhetoric realityand researchrsquorsquo Personnel Review Vol 28 No 6pp 20-5

Cornelius N (1999) Human Resource Management AManagerial Perspective Thompson Business PressLondon

Cornford T and Athanasou J (1995) ` Developingexpertise through trainingrsquorsquo Industrial amp CommercialTraining Vol 27 No 2 pp 10-18

Cranfield University of Limerick (1999) Department ofPersonnel and Employment Relations University ofLimerick Munster

Currie G and Darby R (1995) ` Competence-basedmanagement development rhetoric and realityrsquorsquoJournal of European Industrial Training Vol 19No 5 pp 11-26

Dale M and Iles P (1992) Assessing ManagementSkills A Guide to Competencies and EvaluationTechniques Kogan Page London

DeFillippi RJ and Arthur MB (1996) ` Boundarylesscontexts and careers a competency-basedperspectiversquorsquo in Arthur MB and Rousseau DM(Eds) The Boundaryless Career Oxford UniversityPress New York NY

Derouen C and Kleiner B (1994) ` New developments inemployee trainingrsquorsquo Work Study Vol 43 No 2pp 13-6

Devisch M (1998) ` The Kioto people managementmodelrsquorsquo Total Quality Management Vol 9 Nos 4-5pp 62-5

DTI White Paper (1995) Competitiveness Forging AheadCM2867 HMSO London

Eraut M (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge andCompetence Falmer Press London

Feldman D (1996) ` Managing careers in downsizedfirmsrsquorsquo Human Resource Management Vol 35No 2 pp 145-61

Fielding NG (1988) ` Competence and culture in thepolicersquorsquo Sociology Vol 22 pp 45-64

Fletcher S (1992) Competence Based AssessmentTechniques Kogan Page London

Freedman DH (1992) ` Is management still a sciencersquorsquoHarvard Business Review Vol 70 No 6 pp 26-38

Garavan TN Bamicle B and OrsquoSulleabhain F (1999)` Management development contemporary trendsissues and strategiesrsquorsquo Journal of EuropeanIndustrial Training Vol 23 No 45 pp 3-12

Gorsline K (1996) ` A competency profile for humanresources no more shoemakersrsquo childrenrsquorsquo HumanResource Management Vol 35 No 1 pp 53-66

Greenhaus JH and Callanan GA (1994) CareerManagement Dryden Press London

Grugulis I (1997) ` The consequences of competencea critical assessment of the management NVQrsquorsquoPersonnel Review Vol 26 No 6 p 428-44

Hamel B and Prahalad CK (1993) ` Strategy as stretchand leveragersquorsquo Harvard Business ReviewMarch-April pp 75-84

Havaleschka F (1999) ` Personality and leadership abenchmark study of success and failurersquorsquo Leadershipamp Organization Development Journal Vol 20 No 3pp 114-32

Hayes J Rose-Quirie A and Allinson C W (2000)` Senior managersrsquo perceptions of the competenciesthey require for effective performance implicationsfor training and developmentrsquorsquo Personnel ReviewVol 29 No 1 pp 48-56

Hirsch W and Jackson C (1996) Strategies for CareerDevelopment plusmn Promise Practice and PretenceInstitute for Employment Studies Brighton

Hodgetts RM Luthans F and Slocum JW (1999)` Strategy and IIRM initiatives for the rsquo00senvironment redefining roles and boundarieslinking competencies and resourcesrsquorsquoOrganisational Dynamics Vol 28 No 2 pp 7-21

Hoerr J (1989) ` The pay-off from teamworkrsquorsquo BusinessWeek pp 56-62

Hogg P (1994) ` European managerial competenciesrsquorsquoEuropean Business Review Vol 23 No 2pp 21-6

Holms L (1995) ` HRM and the irresistible rise of thediscourse of competencersquorsquo Personnel ReviewVol 24 No 4 pp 16-28

Hondeghem A and Vandermeulen F (2000)` Competency management in the Flemish andDutch Civil Servicersquorsquo International Journal of PublicSector Management Vol 13 No 4 pp 25-34

Horton S (2000) ` Introduction plusmn the competencymovement its origins and impact on the publicsectorrsquorsquo International Journal of Public SectorManagement Vol 13 No 4 pp 7-14

Johnston R and Sampson M (1993) ` The acceptableface of competencersquorsquo Management Education ampDevelopment Vol 24 No 3 pp 216-24

Jubb R and Robotham D (1997) ` Competences inmanagement development challenging the mythsrsquorsquoJournal of European Industrial Training Vol 21No 4-5 pp 171-77

Kakabadse A (1991) The Wealth Creators Kogan PageLondon

Kakabadse A and Anderson S (1993) ` Top teams andstrategic changersquorsquo Management DevelopmentReview Vol 11 No 2 pp 10-22

Kamoche K (1996) ` Strategic human resourcemanagement within a resource capability view of

161





the firmrsquorsquo Journal of Management Studies Vol 33No 2 pp 213-34

Klink MR Van Der Boon J and Bos E (2000) ` Theinvestigation of distinctive competencies withinprofessional domainsrsquorsquo Proceedings of the FirstConference of HRD Research amp Practice acrossEurope Kingston University Kingston-upon-Thames pp 105-14

Kossek EE Roberts K Fisher S and Demarr B (1998)` Career self-management a quasi-experimentalassessment of the effects of a traininginterventionrsquorsquo Personnel Psychology Vol 51pp 935-60

Krogh G and Roos J (1995) ` A perspective onknowledge competence and strategyrsquorsquo PersonnelReview Vol 24 No 3 pp 56-76

Kuijpers M (2000) ` Career development competenciesrsquorsquoProceedings of the 2nd Conference of HRD Researchamp Practice across Europe University of TwenteEnschede pp 309-14

Langley A (2000) ` Emotional intelligence plusmn a newevaluation for management developmentrsquorsquo CareerDevelopment International Vol 5 No 3 pp 25-36

Lave J and Wagner E (1991) Situated LearningLegitimate Peripheral Participation CambridgeUniversity Press Cambridge

Lei D and Hitt MA (1996) ` Dynamic core competenciesthrough meta-learning and strategic contextrsquorsquoJournal of Management Vol 22 No 4 pp 549-61

Losey MR (1999) ` Mastering the competencies of HRmanagementrsquorsquo Human Resource ManagementVol 38 No 2 pp 99-111

McClelland DC (1973) ` Testing for competence ratherthan intelligencersquorsquo American Psychologist Vol 28pp 1-14

Mabon H (1995) ` Human resource management inSwedenrsquorsquo Employee Relations Vol 17 No 7pp 57-83

Management Charter Initiative (1990) ManagementCompetencies The Standards Project MCI London

Martin G and Staines H (1994) ` Managerialcompetence in small firmsrsquorsquo Journal of ManagementDevelopment Vol 13 No 7 pp 23-34

Matlay H (2001) ` HRD in the small business sector ofthe British economy an evaluation of currenttraining initiativesrsquorsquo Proceedings of 2nd Conferenceon HRD Research amp Practice across EuropeUniversity of Twente Enschede 26-27 January

Metz EJ (1998) ` Designing succession systems for newcorporate realitiesrsquorsquo Human Resource PlanningVol 21 No 3 pp 31-7

Mirabile R (1997) ` Everything you need to know aboutcompetency modellingrsquorsquo Training amp Development August

Nanda A (1996) ` Resources capabilities andcompetenciesrsquorsquo in Moingeon B and Edmondson A(Eds) Organisational Learning and CompetitiveAdvantage Sage London

National Council for Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ)(1997) Criteria for National QualificationsQualifications and Curriculum Authority London

New GE (1996) ` Reflections a three-tier model oforganisational competenciesrsquorsquo Journal ofManagerial Psychology Vol 11 No 8 pp 44-52

Newton R and Wilkenson MJ (1995) ` A portfolioapproach to management development the

Ashworth modelrsquorsquo Health Manpower ManagementVol 21 No 3 pp 16-31

Nordhaug O (1998) ` Competencies specificities inorganisationsrsquorsquo International Studies of

Management amp Organisation Vol 28 No 1pp 8-29

Nordhaug O and Gronhaug K (1994) ` Competencies asresources in firmsrsquorsquo International Journal of HumanResource Management Vol 5 No 1 pp 89-103

Oliveara-Rees F (1994) ` Qualification versuscompetence a discussion on the meaning of wordsa change in concepts of a political issuersquorsquoBeroepsopleiding Vol 1 pp 74-9

Orpen C (1997) ` Performance appraisal techniques tasktypes and effectiveness a contingency approachrsquorsquoJournal of Applied Management Studies Vol 6No 2 p 139

Orstenk J (1997) Learning to Learn at Work EburonDelft

Overmeer W (1997) ` Business integration in a learningorganisation the role of managementdevelopmentrsquorsquo Journal of ManagementDevelopment Vol 16 No 4 pp 245-61

Parker and Wall in Sparrow P and Marchington M(1998) Human Resource Management plusmn The NewAgenda Financial TimesPitman Publishing London

Pottinger P (1987) ` Competency assessment at schooland workrsquorsquo Social Policy SeptemberOctoberpp 35-40

Prager H (1999) ` Cooking up effective team buildingrsquorsquoTraining amp Development Vol 53 No 12 pp 14-20

Prahalad CK and Hamel G (1990) ` The corecompetences of the corporationrsquorsquo Harvard BusinessReview MayJune

Raelin JA and Cooledge AS (1995) ` From generic toorganic competenciesrsquorsquo Human Resource PlanningVol 18 No 3 pp 24-33

Reichel A (1996) ` Management development in Israelcurrent and future challengesrsquorsquo Journal ofManagement Development Vol 15 No 5pp 22-36

Reid MA and Barrington H (1994) TrainingInterventions Managing Employee Development IPD London

Resnick LB (1987) ` Learning in schools and outrsquorsquoEducational Researcher Vol 16 No 9 pp 13-20

Sandberg J (2000) ` Understanding human competenceat work an interpretative approachrsquorsquo Academy ofManagement Journal Vol 43 No 1 pp 9-17

Schlusmans K Slotman R Nagtegaal C and KinkhorstG (1999) ` Competency-based learningenvironments introductionrsquorsquo in Schlusmans K(Ed) Competency-Based Learning Lemma Utrecht

Schroder HM (1989) Managerial Competencies The Keyto Excellence Kendall Hunt Dubuque IA

Selznick P (1957) Leadership and Administration Harperamp Row New York NY

Senior B (1997) Organisational Change Financial Times-Prentice-Hall London

Shea GP and Guzzo RA (1987) ` Group effectivenesswhat really mattersrsquorsquo Sloan Management ReviewVol 28 No 3 pp 25-31

Spangenberg HH Schroder HM and Duvenage A(1999) ` A leadership competence utilisationquestionnaire for South African managersrsquorsquo

162





South African Journal of Psychology Vol 29 No 3pp 117-29

Sparrow PR and Hiltrop JM (1994) European HumanResource Management in Transition Prentice-HallHemel Hempstead

Spencer LM (1983) Soft Skills Competencies ScottishCouncil for Research in Education Edinburgh

Spencer LM and Spencer S (1993) Competence atWork Models for Superior Performance Wiley NewYork NY

Stuart R and Lindsay P (1997) ` Beyond the frame ofmanagement competencies towards a contextuallyembedded framework of managerial competence inorganisationsrsquorsquo Journal of European IndustrialTraining Vol 21 No 1 pp 26-33

Sullivan SE Carden WA and Martin DF (1998)` Careers in the next millennium directions forfuture researchrsquorsquo Human Resource ManagementVol 8 No 2 pp 165-85

Taggar S Hachell R and Saha S (1999) ` Leadershipemergence in autonomous work teams antecedentsand outcomesrsquorsquo Personnel Psychology Vol 52No 4 pp 899-911

Taylor FW (1911) The Principles of ScientificManagement HarperCollins and Norton New YorkNY

Teece DJ (1990) ` Firm capabilities resources and theconcept of strategy four paradigms of strategicmanagementrsquorsquo CCC Working Paper No 90-8

Thomson R and Mabey C (1994) Developing HumanResources Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford

Tolley G (1987) ` Competency achievement andqualificationsrsquorsquo Industrial amp Commercial TrainingSeptemberOctober pp 6-8

Townley B (1994) Reframing Human ResourceManagement Power Ethics and the Subject atWork Sage London

Training Standards Agency (2000) definition as inHorton S ` Introduction plusmn the competencymovement its origins and impact on the publicsectorrsquorsquo International Journal of Public SectorManagement Vol 13 No 4 pp 7-14

Tyre MJ and Von Heppel E (1997) ` The situated natureof adaptive learning in organisationsrsquorsquoOrganisational Science Vol 1 pp 71-83

Van der Wagen L (1994) Building Quality Service withCompetency-Based Human Resource ManagementButterworth Heinemann Oxford

Veres JG Locklear TS and Sims RR (1990) ` Jobanalysis in practice a brief review of the role of jobanalysis in human resource managementrsquorsquo in FerrisGR Rowland KM and Buckley RM (Eds)Human Resource Management Perspectives andIssues Allyn amp Bacon Boston MA

Webster J (2000) ` Manual of competenciesrsquorsquounpublished Dublin

Winterton J and Winterton R (1996) ` The businessbenefits of competence-based managementdevelopmentrsquorsquo Department of Education ampEmployment Research Series RS16 UK

Winterton J and Winterton R (1999) DevelopingManagerial Competence Routledge London

Woodall J and Winstanley D (1998) ManagementDevelopment Strategy and Practice BlackwellOxford

Woodruffe C (1991) ` What is meant by competencyrsquorsquoLeadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 14 No 1 pp 22-33

163





bodies responsible for the development ofskills standards highlights the emphasisattaching to national competency frameworksas a means of increasing economiccompetitiveness (Horton 2000)Consequently national competencystandards are now considered to be invaluablein establishing a foundation for theimplementation of workplace level trainingand development initiatives (Winterton andWinterton 1996) However recent empiricalresearch by Matlay (2001) suggests that suchtraining initiatives are having little impact inaddressing the training needs of the smallbusiness sector Specifically he concludedthat the actual provision of training in smallfirms fails significantly to keep pace with theperceived needs of ownermanagers and theirworkforce

The utilisation of competency models in theworkplace is considered problematic Inparticular commentators find difficulty withthe notion that the components of effectiveperformance can be clearly isolated andidentified and that employees can be selectedutilising rigorous competency frameworks(Townley 1994) Indeed the very idea thateffective employees should exhibit a set ofspecific competencies is problematic for some(Raelin and Cooledge 1995 Schroder1989) particularly in instances wherecompetency frameworks are linked topromotional opportunities and organisationalcareer development paths (Thomson andMabey 1994) It is worth pointing outhowever that the competency movement hasin an HRD context served the needs of lowerlevel employees as well as those at manageriallevel and in this sense does not reinforcestatus differences in the workplace (Reid andBarrington 1994 Grugulis 1997)

This paper considers some of the morespecific issues surrounding the use ofcompetencies for workplace learning andposits that many of the issues identified relatespecifically to the assumptions of theparticular philosophical and research traditionreflected in the use of competencies to dateThis paper initially considers some of thephilosophical and epistemological dimensionsof competency as concepts and their usage ina workplace learning context The paperfocuses on three significant pragmatic issuesrelated to their value in a workplace learningcontext the difficulties involved in definingnotions of competence and competencies the

related difficulty of assessing the existence ofcompetence and problems related to theclassification of competencies and finally thepaper addresses their limitations as a basis forworkplace learning and the need tounderstand their philosophical bases and theirlimitations

Philosophical and epistemologicaltensions

The literature on competencies sometimesfails to make explicit its underlyingphilosophical assumptions specifically itsassumptions about the nature of work theindividual and the organisationPhilosophically the competency movementfinds its roots in the writings of Taylor(1911) His espousal of the lsquolsquoone best wayrsquorsquo offulfilling a task thus improving efficiency andincreasing production together with hisfunctional view of management led ultimatelyto the development of the competencyapproach (Sandberg 2000 Grugulis 1997Raelin and Cooledge 1995) At a simplisticlevel competency models seek to identify theideal combination of skills knowledgeattitudes and experience the possession ofwhich enables employees to become highperformers with the potential to add value tothe organisation (Gorsline 1996)

One perspective argues that the notion ofcompetencies can be both liberating andempowering ndash an equalising force in thecontext of workplace learning Such aperspective is based on developmentalhumanism This philosophical position positsthat employees should be provided with abroad degree of self-control and self-regulation on the basis that such committedemployees will actively work towards fulfillingthe aims of the organisation Others suggestthat in reality competency notions espouse amore utilitarian instrumentalist philosophythat challenges this line of argument Thisphilosophical position advocates that thelsquolsquorationalrsquorsquo management of employees will leadto the ultimate aim of increased competitiveadvantage This position is characterised bytight management control close direction andprescription of required competencies as wellas by advocating the concept of lsquolsquofitrsquorsquo betweenstrategic objectives and competenciespossessed by employees This latterperspective is the more common one

145












146












and competence




147












148















149











accumulation



professions


to define standards







tasks







performance


incumbent















2000)







150














151












152
















153












154













Mirabile (1997)


of critical tasks



competencies


consuming


elements










incidents




outcome






behaviours



McClelland (1973)


knowledge required




model





jobs




outcome

















competencies

155












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163












146












and competence




147












148















149











accumulation



professions


to define standards







tasks







performance


incumbent















2000)







150














151












152
















153












154













Mirabile (1997)


of critical tasks



competencies


consuming


elements










incidents




outcome






behaviours



McClelland (1973)


knowledge required




model





jobs




outcome

















competencies

155












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163












and competence




147












148















149











accumulation



professions


to define standards







tasks







performance


incumbent















2000)







150














151












152
















153












154













Mirabile (1997)


of critical tasks



competencies


consuming


elements










incidents




outcome






behaviours



McClelland (1973)


knowledge required




model





jobs




outcome

















competencies

155












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163












148















149











accumulation



professions


to define standards







tasks







performance


incumbent















2000)







150














151












152
















153












154













Mirabile (1997)


of critical tasks



competencies


consuming


elements










incidents




outcome






behaviours



McClelland (1973)


knowledge required




model





jobs




outcome

















competencies

155












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163















149











accumulation



professions


to define standards







tasks







performance


incumbent















2000)







150














151












152
















153












154













Mirabile (1997)


of critical tasks



competencies


consuming


elements










incidents




outcome






behaviours



McClelland (1973)


knowledge required




model





jobs




outcome

















competencies

155












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163











accumulation



professions


to define standards







tasks







performance


incumbent















2000)







150














151












152
















153












154













Mirabile (1997)


of critical tasks



competencies


consuming


elements










incidents




outcome






behaviours



McClelland (1973)


knowledge required




model





jobs




outcome

















competencies

155












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163














151












152
















153












154













Mirabile (1997)


of critical tasks



competencies


consuming


elements










incidents




outcome






behaviours



McClelland (1973)


knowledge required




model





jobs




outcome

















competencies

155












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163












152
















153












154













Mirabile (1997)


of critical tasks



competencies


consuming


elements










incidents




outcome






behaviours



McClelland (1973)


knowledge required




model





jobs




outcome

















competencies

155












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163
















153












154













Mirabile (1997)


of critical tasks



competencies


consuming


elements










incidents




outcome






behaviours



McClelland (1973)


knowledge required




model





jobs




outcome

















competencies

155












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163












154













Mirabile (1997)


of critical tasks



competencies


consuming


elements










incidents




outcome






behaviours



McClelland (1973)


knowledge required




model





jobs




outcome

















competencies

155












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163













Mirabile (1997)


of critical tasks



competencies


consuming


elements










incidents




outcome






behaviours



McClelland (1973)


knowledge required




model





jobs




outcome

















competencies

155












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163












156
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163
















157










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163










Conclusion



158













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163













159








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163








References





































pp 24-7

160



















































161
















































162


























163



















































161
















































162


























163
















































162


























163


























163





Documents

Competencies and Workplace Learning