A situationalist perspective to competency management

A Situationalist Perspective onCompetency Management:Competencies as SituatedConstructs

C ompetency management can pro-vide crucial leverage in the currentcompetitive scenario where organi-zational performance increasinglydepends on their assets of knowl-

edge and skills (Yeung, 1996). In such an in-creasingly changing environment, it makesmore sense to consider human resources asowners of skills and situated individualknowledge, rather than trying to constraintheir behavior within roles characterized bypredefined expectations and responsibili-ties. Consequently, the adoption of acompetency-based approach seems an ap-propriate way to overcome the lack of flexi-

A SITUATIONALIST PERSPECTIVE

TO COMPETENCY MANAGEMENT

G U I D O C A PA L D O , L U C A I A N D O L I , A N D G I U S E P P EZ O L L OThe dominant view in managerial practice assumes that competencies are“universal” constructs whose meaning is independent from any specificcontext. The “universalist” approach ensures a high degree of efficiencythrough standardization of competency codebooks. However, the effective-ness of this approach has often been questioned. Overgeneralization makesthe description of competencies ambiguous and does not provide HR man-agers with adequate practical information. An alternative, “situationalist” ap-proach defines competencies as situated, idiosyncratic constructs whosemeaning is deeply influenced by organizational culture and by the uniqueway people make sense of their jobs. We propose a methodological ap-proach to competency management based on a situationalist perspective.Through a field study carried out in a large Italian organization, we discussthe issues relevant to consider when developing competency-managementsystems though a situationalist approach. In particular, we show that the sit-uationalist approach, by ensuring higher attention to the meaning and to thesituated nature of competencies, is more capable of dealing with some of thecritical management challenges outlined in the recent literature, such as thedemand for more participative approaches and the increasing emphasis onemerging competencies. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correspondence to: Luca Iandoli, DIEG, Università di Napoli Federico II, Piazzale Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli (Italy),Tel. +39 0817682935, Fax +39 0817682154, E-mail: [email protected]

Human Resource Management, Fall 2006, Vol. 45, No. 3, Pp. 429–448© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20121

430 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2006

bility of job-based approaches to organiza-tional design (Kochanski & Ruse, 1996;Lawler & Ledford, 1997).

The adoption of a competency-based ap-proach to HRM raises a number of questions

concerning how competenciescan be elicited, described, andevaluated, and how to developmanagerial systems to map com-petency profiles, evaluate them,and manage their development(Alldredge & Nolan, 2000; Mans-field, 1996).

The dominant view in mana-gerial practice assumes competen-cies are “universal” constructswhose meaning is independentfrom the specific organizationalcontext in which they are acti-vated and developed (Sandberg,2000). The universalist approachcan be traced back to the well-known McClelland studies(1978), an approach in whichcompetencies are mapped byusing statistics to identify thosebehaviors distinguishing averagefrom the best performers, and toSpencer and Spencer’s (1993) sur-veys aimed at identifying generalcompetency profiles for standardprofessional figures.

The widespread adoption ofthe universalist approach ismainly due to the fact that it isusually quite easy to adapt preex-isting competency codebooks and

standard profiles instead of performing time-consuming and expensive field analyses.

It is important to note that, from a tech-nical point of view, some approaches thathave been classified as rationalist or deduc-tive (Sandberg, 2000) such as the Spencerand Spencer method, are actually bottom-upapproaches in which competencies areelicited through in-depth interviews accord-ing to the critical incident technique (Flana-gan, 1954). The universalist character of theSpencer and Spencer approach lies, however,in its deliberate attempt to generalize com-petency definitions through identification of

standard scales and profiles for typical pro-fessional figures.

In managerial practice, due to the highcosts of extensive field analysis, the univer-salist approach is applied in a deductive sense(Sandberg, 2000): competency profiles areusually defined as top-down through the useof standard codebooks in which the descrip-tion of each competency (i.e., its meaning) isusually general enough to fit into many dif-ferent contexts and work situations. Further-more, the “universalist” approach ensures ahigh degree of efficiency through standardi-zation of competency codebooks.

However, the effectiveness of this ap-proach has often been questioned since itsuffers from several conceptual and practicallimitations (Zingheim, Ledford, & Schuster,1996).

On the conceptual side, increasing stan-dardization through a top-down definitionproduces a paradox: whereas in the compe-tency-based theory of the firm (Prahalad &Hamel, 1990) competencies are distinctive,value-creating, and inimitable assets, ineveryday practice most organizations end upwith similar competencies. For these reasons,the use of generalized competency modelshas been criticized by Boyatzis (1998), whosuggests limiting the use of standard code-books and developing an in-depth qualita-tive analysis for eliciting competencies.

On the practical side, ambiguity in thedescription of competencies due to general-ization and standardization does not provideHR managers with detailed and concrete im-plications for practice—for instance, in termsof training.

In an alternative to the universalist per-spective, competencies are deeply influencedby organizational culture, social interaction,and the unique way people make sense oftheir jobs within organizations (Le Boterf,2000; Levy-Leboyer, 1996; Sandberg, 2000).We term such approaches situationalist, sincethey share the perspective that competenciesare idiosyncratic situated constructs. In thesituationalist perspective, individuals can beconsidered competent within a tradition(Polanyi, 1967). In other words, the defini-tion of competencies and the reasons why

The adoption of a

competency-based

approach to HRM

raises a number of

questions

concerning how

competencies can

be elicited,

described, and

evaluated, and how

to develop

managerial systems

to map competency

profiles, evaluate

them, and manage

their development.

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

A Situationalist Perspective to Competency Management 431

one is considered “competent” in a specifictask are strictly related to the social contextin which competencies are activated and de-veloped through time.

In this article, we argue that by ensuringmore attention will be paid to meaning andto the situated nature of competencies, andby promoting high involvement, the situa-tionalist approach seems more capable thanthe universalist approach for managing somecritical HR challenges, such as the demandfor more participative approaches and theincreasing emphasis on emerging competen-cies (Athey & Orth, 1999).

Through a field study carried out in alarge Italian company, this article offers thefollowing contributions:

1. To emphasize the methodological prob-lems inherent in the situationalist ap-proach to competency management;

2. To provide methodological suggestionsfor eliciting and mapping competenciesaccording to a situationalist perspectiveand to discuss the main advantages de-riving from the adoption of such an ap-proach; and

3. To illustrate how the proposed approachmay help an organization transform itsHR management department from an ad-ministrative unit to a strategic functionaimed at enhancing organizational de-velopment by putting competencies atthe core of the system through the inte-gration of some key HR managementprocesses such as recruitment, career de-sign, and training (Morris, 1996; Ro-driguez, Patel, Bright, Gregory, & Gow-ing, 2002).

Managing Organizational ChangeThrough Competency Management:A Field Study

The renewal process experienced by the Ital-ian public sector in the past few years high-lights the need for public companies toadopt new management practices that im-prove performances in quality and effi-ciency. This need was particularly felt in HRmanagement. In fact, the innovation process

in the supply of public services cannot beachieved just by renewing infrastructuresand processes. These processes require deeporganizational and cultural changes sup-ported by the proper implementation ofhuman resource management practices (e.g.,training, personnel evaluation and compen-sations policies, and communication) aimedat producing a shift from a bureaucratic atti-tude to a service- and customer-oriented vision.

Automobile Club d’Italia(ACI) is an Italian, public non-profit organization whose maininstitutional aims are to provideservices to motorists and to safe-guard their interests. It is thelargest and most important Ital-ian organization for motorist as-sistance, with more than 2,200employees and 100 offices lo-cated in each major Italian townthroughout the national territory.Among ACI services are road as-sistance services, road educa-tional programs, and informationand assistance to Italian and for-eign motorists through mediasuch as magazines, radio, theWorld Wide Web, and television.A relevant part of ACI activitiesconcerns the management of theItalian Public Register of MotorVehicles (PRA). The PRA officesare in charge of providing all ad-ministrative and bureaucraticservices related to motor vehicles(tax payment, changes of property, demoli-tion, etc.).

In the last few years, the social and eco-nomical context in which ACI operates hasundergone a major transformation charac-terized by the passage from a monopolisticinto a competitive market in which cus-tomers may choose among a wide range ofservices from different operators. Moreover,increasing automation of administrativetasks has led to a recent process reengineer-ing in the PRA organization.

As a consequence of such deep changes,ACI is transforming from a hierarchical or-

The renewal

process

experienced by the

Italian public sector

in the past few

years highlights the

need for public

companies to adopt

new management

practices that

improve

performances in

quality and

efficiency.



ganization strongly focused on the accom-plishment of administrative tasks and rigidprocedures into a modern, flexible serviceprovider in which each employee is requiredto know the entire job process and to pay at-

tention to internal/external cus-tomer needs.

To cope with such transfor-mation, ACI top management un-dertook a deep renovation of itscurrent human resource manage-ment practices. Despite large in-vestments in training, the HR di-rector was not completelysatisfied with the results pro-duced by such actions. Managersand employees perceived thesechanges to be “imposed” fromthe top and designed without theavailability of reliable informa-tion related to training needs andcritical competencies to be devel-oped.

In order to cope with such is-sues, the HR director decided todevelop a new and more effectivepersonnel management system,based on an updated and moredetailed picture of the jobs per-formed by several professionalroles in ACI’s offices. The aim ofthe new personnel managementsystem was to support thesestrategic changes through the de-velopment and redesign of theseroles toward quality, customersatisfaction, and market competi-tiveness. Consequently, from thevery beginning, the new manage-ment system was targeted to meetorganizational developmentneeds. It was thus decided to de-velop a competencies manage-

ment system in order to:

1. Develop a map of the competencies cur-rently held by the organization and by anumber of areas characterized by highlevels of customer interaction;

2. Develop a competency management systemof nonexecutive staff that would facilitate

the identification of the training needs ofa large share of the company’s employeesthrough an analysis of their strongpoints and weaknesses;

3. Develop managerial tools and proceduresthat would constantly and dynamicallysupport HR management in identifyingcompetencies and evaluating trainingneeds;

4. Achieve better coordination between theHR management department and the pe-ripheral offices scattered all over Italy.

The Field Study Approach and Steps

Our research approach is based on the con-sideration that real organizational changecannot be obtained solely through a diagno-sis performed by an external expert, but re-quires the adoption of a “generative style”aimed at helping others to help themselves(Lewin, 1951; Reason & Bradbury, 2001;Schein, 1987).

Following this approach, a project taskforce made up of consultants and some ACIinternal experts was formed and chargedwith the objective of carrying out the newproject. The creation of mixed teams helpedthe organization adapt the program for theirspecific needs and incorporate new method-ologies and managerial tools, while allowingfor the professional growth of its internal re-sources. Members of such teams act as “in-ternal organizational investigators” lookingfor improvements on behalf of the entire or-ganization (Argyris & Schön, 1978).

Before developing the system, the re-search team (including the authors, four rep-resentatives of the HR department, and threeorganizational unit managers) first met withHR management to identify expectations,company objectives, aims, and the scope ofthe new competencies management system.The work was articulated in four mainphases:

1. Competencies mapping and elicitation,through meetings with HR departmentexperts and top management andthrough interviews with employeesworking in different offices;

Despite large

investments in

training, the HR

director was not

completely satisfied

with the results

produced by such

actions. Managers

and employees

perceived these

changes to be

“imposed” from the

top and designed

without the

availability of

reliable information

related to training

needs and critical

competencies to be

developed.



2. Development of the competency evaluationprocedure, through the design of the as-sessment tool;

3. Implementation of an information systemfor competency management containingthe competency map, the assessment ses-sion results, and the ability to performstatistical analysis about competency lev-els and training needs; and

4. Redesign of some relevant HR managementprocesses, including the development ofcompetency-based recruitment, training,and career-path processes.

Table I provides an idea of the variety ofactors involved and the main steps throughwhich the intervention developed. In thefollowing sections, critical issues and practi-


Trade Information HR Organizational Union Systems

Department Units Manager Workers Representatives Designer

Competency mapping and elicitation

• Preliminary meetings and task force formation X X

• Survey tools design X X

• Sample identification X

• Field research X X X

• Identification of competency profiles X X

• Presentation of the results of the filed work X X X X

Development of the competency evaluation procedure

• Design of the evaluation process X X X

• Design of the evaluation tools X X X

• Test of the evaluation tool X X X

• Presentation of the tool X X

Implementation of an information system for competency management

• Design of the system X X

• Test of the system X X X X X

• Presentation of the system X X X

• Training for users X X X

HR management process redesign

• Training paths definition X

• Personnel recruitment X

T A B L E I Architecture for Intangibles


cal details concerning the main phases out-lined above are illustrated and discussed.

Bringing the Situationalist Approachinto Practice

Following the situationalist perspective, inthis article we propose the following defini-tion of a competency: an individual ability orcharacteristic that is activated by a worker to-gether with personal, organizational, or environ-mental resources to cope successfully with spe-cific work situations (Figure 1).

Individual abilities and characteristics arepersonal attributes such as skills, know-how,and traits. Resources are means for action suchas tools, facilities, relationships with otherpeople, archives, and knowledge repositoriesthat are made available by the individual, theorganization, or the external environment asa whole. Job situations are perceived by indi-viduals as prototypical spaces of action char-acterized by a certain combination of ex-pected behaviors and results.

Competencies come on the scene in twoways: (1) when the performance produced byan expected behavior is considered by an in-ternal or external customer to be above aver-age (expected competency) and (2) when theperformance is obtained in the course of ac-tion through unexpected or surprising be-havior (emerging competency). An emerging

competency is one that an organization doesnot realize it possesses but that employeeshave developed through individual learningdesigned to help them face new or unex-pected work situations.

In comparing the situational definition toother psychological definitions of competency(Boyatzis, 1982; McClelland, 1978; Nordhaug& Gronhaug, 1994; Spencer & Spencer, 1993)in which a competency is an underlying indi-vidual characteristic causally related to a supe-rior performance, we wish to emphasize amajor difference. The situationalist approachignores the deep-seated psychological aspectsof personality. This approach is more con-cerned about contingent factors characterizingthe socially constructed nature of competen-cies (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Giddens,1979) and the network of social, moral, andtechnical ties in which a worker is involved(Akrich & Latour, 1992; Latour, 1992).

Psychological aspects are relevant, but ina situated perspective based on Lewin’s fieldtheory (1951), behavior is a function of boththe person P and the situation S, and muchof the competency movement has focusedheavily on the P at the expense of the S. Psy-chological determinants usually are moredifficult to elicit and describe. Furthermore,the connection between those general un-derlying characteristics of individuals andjob contents and performances can beloosely coupled and heavily conditioned bysituational aspects.

In this view, to cope successfully with ajob situation, a worker must frame actionwithin a “field” of tensions and relationshipswith the environment (Blackler, 2002), mustbe committed to one or more internal as wellas external customers, and must achieve asatisfying performance even in the presenceof conflicting expectations and constraints.

From these considerations it follows that:

1. Superior performance can be explained byeither an internal or external customer asthe result of either expected or emergingsuccessful behaviors within either usualor unusual job situations;

2. Because performers, commitments, cus-tomers, activities, resources, and con-


FIGURE 1.The Definition of CompetencyAccording to the Situationalist Approach


straints are all situated, a detailed ac-count of a superior performance can beprovided only by the individuals in-volved in the situations; and

3. Such an explanatory account must beconvincing to the whole set of peoplethat, as customers, have expectations forthe performer.

According to this perspective, customers,as observers of the performer, can explain in-dividual performance by offering a numberof plausible reasons upon which most orga-nizational members may agree. Given the sit-uated and consensual nature of such expla-nations, their mapping cannot be obtainedwithout the involvement of the organizationmembers. Explanation is a carrier that bringsto the surface individual knowledge andskills an organization may not be aware of.Once elicited, such emerging knowledge canbe used to describe emerging competenciesand to update the map of the organization’scompetencies.

In addition to the theoretical considera-tions outlined above, two practical concernsof the case study organization justify theadoption of a situationalist approach, namely:

1. The need for the company to be fullyaware of the competencies it currentlyholds and the explicit will to use them asa starting point to redesign incremen-tally some professional roles and makethem coherent with the new strategicpriorities of the company and

2. The need to build a set of competency-based HRM systems through the involve-ment of managers and employees inorder to create consensus about their im-plementation.

Adopting a Situationalist Approachto Competency Mapping:Methodological Issues andSuggestions

Adopting a situationalist approach to com-petency mapping usually requires both large-scale and in-depth qualitative field research.In particular, we propose to map competen-

cies by eliciting discourses through whichpeople describe and explain their own orothers’ superior performance (Heracleous &Barrett, 2001; Oswick, Keenoy, & Grant,1997). We term such discourses explanatorydiscourses (Figure 2). Discourse elicitationand analysis do require a high level of inter-action between the researcher/analyst andother organizational members to deal withmethodological issues such as:

1. What information has to becollected during the fieldstudy?

2. What are the sources of infor-mation?

3. What are the possible tech-niques for identifying and an-alyzing data contained in anexplanatory discourse?

Type of Information andInformation SourcesThe approach used in the fieldstudy requires the identificationof salient job situations throughwhich an individual frameshis/her work. A work situationcan be described through a num-ber of fundamental dimensions,all pertaining to the way the em-ployee interprets the task to per-form, such as the commitmenthe/she feels to have undertaken,the behaviors and the activitieshe/she makes, the organizationalmembers representing the net-work of customers, and the individ-ual abilities and available resourcesthat can be activated to satisfycustomers’ expectations.

As to the information sources,the aim of the proposed approachis to map competencies as a result of a care-ful analysis of how individuals experiencetheir daily work in real situations, interpretthe outcomes of their actions, and build themeaning of the competencies through theirinteraction with the other members of theorganization.

Adopting a

situationalist

approach to

competency

mapping usually

requires both large-

scale and in-depth

qualitative field

research. In

particular, we

propose to map

competencies by

eliciting discourses

through which

people describe and

explain their own or

others’ superior

performance.



Thus, information sources are necessarilyrepresented by the individuals themselves.They provide the elements necessary for theanalysis through the inevitable filter of theirown subjectivity. The collection and analysisof the accounts justifying a good perform-ance through an explanation permit thetransmission of a great deal of informationon the dimensions of the competencies (sit-uations, activities, resources, and organiza-tional counterparts). It also makes it possibleto understand the points of view of thosewho, as organizational counterparts of agiven role, express specific expectations andinteract with the individual who performsthat specific role at different times and in dif-ferent situations.

To map competencies for each role, weidentified a network of organizational mem-bers who, as organizational observers, ex-pressed expectations related to the role andwere considered able to describe the job situ-ations and the characteristics of an individ-ual performer. There were at least three ob-servers: the employee (self-evaluation),

his/her direct supervisor, and one of his/herpeers and collaborators.

Different observers usually report aboutdifferent situations depending on the rela-tionship with the performer. Of course, dif-ferent observers may refer to similar situa-tions by experiencing and emphasizingcomplementary aspects of that situation.The whole set of job situations is thus ob-tained by considering all the situationsquoted by the observers and by merging dif-ferent points of view for the same situationquoted by more than one observer.

Techniques for Analyzing andMapping Explanatory DiscourseThe approach proposed in this article is basedon the assumption that it is possible to mapindividual competencies starting from theanalysis of the explanations through whichthe organization members make sense oftheir actions (Schank, 1986; Weick, 1979).Consequently, to elicit competencies, oneneeds to have suitable techniques for analyz-


FIGURE 2. An Excerpt of an Interview


ing examples of explanatory discourse. Inthis article, we propose to elicit discoursesthrough semistructured interviews and to an-alyze them through a text-analysis techniqueknown as argument analysis (Fletcher & Huff,1990; Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1979).

During the interview, the analyst first asksan observer to express an overall evaluativejudgment about the performance of an indi-vidual performing a given role, and then asksfor explicit reasons to motivate the judgment.

The process starts from a proposition pcontaining such a judgment (e.g., p = “Johnis a good manager”) the analyst may askquestions such as:

• Why do you say that John is a good man-ager?

• In which situations has John been a goodmanager?

• What arguments you can offer to say thatJohn has been a good manager in thatsituation?

• Can you provide me with some examplesin which John has been a good manager?

The interview develops according to theanswers provided by the observer, and theinterviewer goes ahead asking for more de-tailed explanations until he/she has gained asatisfactory level of understanding of the in-terviewee’s overall argument.

The same approach can be used if the in-terviewee is the individual performing therole. In this case, the interviewee is asked tomake a self-evaluation of her/his work per-formances. In Figure 2, we provide an exam-ple through an excerpt from a self-evaluationinterview carried out during the field analy-sis. The interviewee is an employee workingin the HR department who enjoys a verygood reputation in the company due to hercapability for providing effective internalconsultancy about HR legal issues.

Interviews were recorded and tran-scribed. Interviewers used standard ques-tions such as:

• What is your level of satisfaction aboutyour own (or your collaborator’s/yourcolleague’s) performance?

• How do you explain such a good (bad)performance?

• Can you provide examples, facts, and/oropinions about situations in which you(your collaborator/your colleague) usu-ally achieve(s) such results?

• Can you tell me about how your typicalworkday develops?

• How did you/your collaborator/your col-league cope with that difficult situation?

• Which kind of resources were valuablesupports to solve the problem?

The aim of the interviews wasto highlight recurring job situa-tions (e.g., management of relation-ships with the trade unions, consul-tancy to other offices) for eachprofessional role and the set of in-dividual characteristics and re-sources activated within each sit-uation according to the points ofview of each observer.

For example, “accuracy in an-swering,” “objectivity and independ-ence,” “rapidity in providing adviceand performing in-depth research,”and “capability of looking for infor-mation about HR legal issues” areskills, knowledge, and traits re-ported and activated by the inter-viewee in specific job situations.Archives and (dispersed) informa-tion systems, as well as extensiveexperience in the company, areexamples, respectively, of organi-zational and personal resources.

Each interview was analyzedthrough the argument-analysis techniqueproposed by Fletcher and Huff (1990) inorder to identify arguments and reasonsthat the interviewees provided to explaintheir excellent performance. The argumentanalysis maps the argument structure inorder to identify key claims, facts providedas evidence for claims (grounds), inferencerules used by the speaker (warrants), andlinguistic expressions limiting the validityof a claim or a rule.

The intrinsic characteristic of an argu-ment is that it exhibits a rational structure

The aim of the

interviews was to

highlight recurring

job situations for

each professional

role and the set of

individual

characteristics and

resources activated

within each

situation according

to the points of view

of each observer.



aimed at convincing other people that can beanalyzed into its constitutive elementsthrough the argument-analysis technique.This technique permits the isolation of keyelements of an argument, as well as the com-

parison of arguments offered bydifferent people explaining thesame performance from their ownperspective (Toulmin et al., 1979).

The interview and mappingtechniques were demonstrated toteam members before starting thefield study. A few test interviews,like the one partially reported inFigure 2, were conducted in orderto train team members and trans-fer the methods.

The Construction ofCompetency Profiles

Competency mapping was car-ried out through a field study ona set of three organizational posi-tions upon which the progressivecomputerization of the PRA of-fices (including the automationof several administrative proce-dures) was having a major im-pact. During the field study, 214employees working in seven of-fices scattered all over the na-tional territory were interviewed.

Examples of explanatory dis-courses were collected throughsemistructured interviews, withthe observers and the employeesin their specific roles. Interviewswere carried out by a mixed re-search team, including the au-thors, four representatives of theHR department, and three com-

pany managers involved in the research. Weanalyzed three organizational front-officeroles representing about 70% of the PRAworker population. We first identified a suit-able sample of individuals for each role, andthen we chose the network of observers foreach individual. Individuals belonging to thesample were indicated as best performers bythe manager of each office. At the end of the

interview phase, we classified offices in twomain typologies: large offices operating inmetropolitan areas and small offices operat-ing in medium-size provincial towns. Even-tually, we mapped competency profiles forsix organizational positions (the three rolesin both large and small offices).

Data acquired through the interviewswere coded through standard forms to sum-marize the most relevant information, suchas descriptions of job situations, relevance ofeach situation to the overall job as perceivedby the interviewees (expressed as a percentweight), short descriptions of individualcharacteristics, and resources activatedwithin each situation, as shown in Figure 3with reference to the interview example inFigure 2.

Analyzing the coding forms required col-laboration among all members of the re-search team. Shared descriptions of the jobsituations were obtained only after severalgroup work sessions in which the empiricalmaterials were analyzed and discussed. Dur-ing such meetings, the research team identi-fied recurring job situations, individual char-acteristics (such as traits, skills, andknowledge), and resources activated to elim-inate redundancies. Then, we clustered ele-mentary activities together and built shareddefinitions of job situations and competen-cies that were inclusive of the nuances ofmeaning elicited during the interviews. Dif-ferent points of view expressed by the ob-servers very often highlighted complemen-tary aspects of the same situation orcompetency. Consequently, it was easy tobuild shared definitions of competencies byintegrating those different perspectives intoinclusive definitions. The output of thisstage was the situation/competencies matrix,used to represent the relationships betweenjob situations, competencies, and resources(Figure 4).

The matrix contains three importantpieces of information:

• a list of the situations that are relevantfor a given position;

• a list of individual characteristics acti-vated within situations; and

Examples of

explanatory

discourses were

collected through

semistructured

interviews, with the

observers and the

employees in their

specific roles.

Interviews were

carried out by a

mixed research

team, including the

authors, four

representatives of

the HR department,

and three company

managers involved

in the research.




FIGURE 3.The Coding Form

FIGURE 4. Relationship Between Situations and Competency Attributes


• cross-points between individual charac-teristics and situations.

Job situations are described in terms ofactivities, resources, organizational ob-

servers, frequency, and relativeweight on the overall work activ-ity, evaluated in terms of the per-centage of total time on averageabsorbed by that situation. Forexample, let us consider the situ-ation regarding management of theproduction process:

• Activities: customers’ requestprocessing, including the phasesof acceptance of customer re-quests through request forms,checks for technical and juridicalcorrectness of data, request pro-cessing, approval, print, and de-livery; support to customers andpeers in the interpretations andexplanations of applicable regula-tion and norms;• Organizational observers: cus-tomers, peers, supervisor;• Relative weight for the givenorganizational position: 40%; and• Resources: personal experi-ence, advice provided by experi-enced peers or supervisors, com-pany information system fordocument management and cus-tomer request processing, addi-tional information sources suchas internal archives, instructions,Web sites, and the like.

In Figure 4, each competencyis represented by the row of thematrix, according to the defini-tion provided earlier in this arti-cle (i.e., a competency is an indi-vidual ability or characteristic thatis activated by a worker togetherwith personal, organizational, or en-

vironmental resources to cope successfully withspecific work situations). Competencies wereassigned a comprehensive label and de-scribed first in terms of general contents,

then analytically with references to thecross-points with situations. Cross-points be-tween competencies and situations are veryimportant, as they permit us to catch themultisituational nature of competencies byhighlighting the nuances of meaning as-sumed by a competency when activated indifferent work situations.

For example, competency C1 (legal rulesand organization knowledge) is supportedby the knowledge of the norms regulatingvehicle administrative issues, the capabilityto interpret and apply them in concretecases, the knowledge of the company’s orga-nizational structure and procedures, andgeneral understanding of the work contractand ethical code of conduct. With referenceto the situation/competencies matrix of Fig-ure 4, the competency C1 becomes the acti-vation of technical/legal knowledge in thesituation management of the administrativeprocess. However, the same competency as-sumes a relational nuance when it is used inthe situation interaction with customers, inwhich C1 is activated in terms of the em-ployee’s ability to interpret rules and lawsand to explain them to the customer actingas an advisor.

The Development of an IntegratedCompetency-Based HRM System

The competencies assessment has been thestarting point for the company to build anintegrated competency-based HRM system.

A competency assessment tool was de-signed by considering usual aspects such asthe structure of the evaluation form, the de-velopment of suitable metrics based on ver-bal evaluations, and the way to determineaggregated judgments.

The assessment tool was tested withinone company assessment section at the endof 2003, during which 2,279 employees wereevaluated (about 95% of all company em-ployees). The assessment form depicted inFigure 5 was used by managers. The form re-quired managers to assess the same compe-tency within different situations.

Three anchor points were provided on anine-level scale and were identified in three

The competencies

assessment has

been the starting

point for the

company to build an

integrated

competency-based

HRM system.

A competency

assessment tool

was designed by

considering usual

aspects such as the

structure of the

evaluation form, the

development of

suitable metrics

based on verbal

evaluations, and the

way to determine

aggregated

judgments.



ranges (“to be improved,” “average,” and“satisfactory”). Competencies were classi-fied into four categories: technical-specialis-tic knowledge (knowledge of the regulationsand of the organization itself, technical-procedural knowledge), self-efficacy compe-tencies (referring to individual characteris-tics such as decisional autonomy andemotional stability), managerial competen-cies (referring to the individual’s capacity touse his knowledge and experience in themanagement of operational activitiesunder direct responsibility such as problemsolving, organization and control of activi-ties, and flexibility), and relational compe-tencies (referring to the ability to useknowledge and experience in the area ofinterpersonal relations in the office andwith customers).

The results of this analysis were pre-sented to managers and discussed with themduring several meetings in which sugges-tions for revision of the form and evaluationitems were collected. Suggested changes weremade for the new evaluation tool and wereapplied in the following assessment sessions.

After the test, the first part of the system(i.e., the one concerning the competencymapping and assessment) had then beenconstructed and implemented. The secondpart of the intervention involved the re-design of the main human resource manage-ment processes (e.g., recruitment, careerpaths, training, etc.) according to a compe-tency-based approach.

Consequently, all of the processes rela-tive to the recruitment and development ofhuman resources have been reorganized onthe basis of the competency assessment.

For each company position, competencyprofiles have been constructed through thedescription of the typologies and the levels ofcompetency that are necessary in order to ful-fil the position. For example, in Table II, aprofile of standard competencies is shownwith reference to the position of organiza-tion analyst.

The standard competency profiles areused by the company both for recruitmentand career progress, as well as for designingtraining programs.

As far as recruitment is concerned, candi-dates are evaluated on the basis of their ré-sumé and several interviews with respect tothe typologies, the contents, and the levelsof the competencies necessary to fulfill thevacant position.

As to career progress, differences areidentified between the actual level of compe-tencies obtained after the assessment of anemployee working in a given position andthe expected level of competencies requiredfor another position. Possible actions such astraining initiatives are identified andplanned to fill the competency gaps.

As to training programs, differences be-tween the average level for each position, asshown by the assessment and computed bythe information system, and the correspon-ding level deemed necessary in order to ful-


FIGURE 5.The Competency Assessment Form


fill the position effectively are evaluated andused by the HR department to identify thepriorities in training actions in terms oftraining objectives and modules.

Together with such large-scale trainingprograms, the managers of local units mayidentify customized alternatives for individ-ual development in their staff. Managers oflocal units are requested to provide theiremployees with individual feedback aftereach competency-assessment session. Dur-ing these interviews the manager and the

evaluated employee meet each other anddiscuss ways to achieve an agreement basedon the manager’s assessment regarding thecompetencies to be reinforced within thediverse work situations and the identifica-tion of possible actions supporting the em-ployee in defining an individual develop-ment path. This path can be realizedthrough several possible leverages—for in-stance, through job rotation, direct assis-tance on the part of the manager, or cus-tomized training initiatives.


1 2 3 4 5

1. Technical-Specialized Knowledge

Basic knowledge of the nature and role of the company X

Knowledge of own organizational context and the dynamics of current changes X

Knowledge of the principal organizational theories and their evolution over time X

Knowledge of techniques and tools for the analysis of the organization and operative and management processes X

Knowledge of techniques of analysis, planning, and evaluation of work positions X

Knowledge of the techniques relative to qualitative and quantitative planning of human resources X

Knowledge of techniques and tools in knowledge management X

Knowledge of techniques of the gathering of statistical data and analysis of productivity and efficiency indicators X

2. Self-Efficacy

Decisional autonomy X

Capability for communication and reporting X

Capability for transferring knowledge X

Problem solving X

3. Managerial Competencies

Ability to analyze and diagnose organizational problems at the macro and micro level X

Ability to apply techniques of knowledge management X

Ability to elaborate projects for organizational change X

4. Relational Competencies

Ability to work as part of a team X

Ability to communicate and willingness to discuss X

Ability to manage conflicts X

T A B L E I I Typologies and Levels of Competence Necessary for the Position: Organization Analyst


In the course of action, we realized thatlocal managers needed support in this activ-ity because they (and the managerial culture)lacked the appropriate people skills to havethese conversations. The research team de-signed and developed initiatives to promotea new attitude toward people managementin local managers.

Extensive training involving all the mid-dle managers was designed and imple-mented. These sessions were aimed at help-ing managers think of the assessment asneither reward nor punishment, but as a wayto help their collaborators transform and de-velop. Another goal was to help managersovercome their resistance to accepting re-sponsibility for these commitments.

During these training initiatives, role-playing sessions were designed to simulatemeetings with their collaborators in whichmanagers were requested to simulate an as-sessment session, to provide feedback, and tojoin with their collaborators to build feasibletraining paths and development initiatives.Role playing was aimed at bringing to the sur-face defensive reasoning and routines aimedat avoiding conflicts and to allow for opendiscussion about weaknesses and strengths ofcollaborators (Argyris & Schön, 1978).

Conclusions

The aim of this article has been to provideboth theoretical reflections and practicalcontributions to HR managers interested inbuilding competency-based managementsystems through an alternative approachthat we have termed situationalist. Such anapproach appears quite different from tradi-tional top-down competency managementwith respect to several issues.

First, the situational approach is con-cerned with the situated meanings of com-petencies rather than with the standardiza-tion of methods, and the generalization ofcompetency profiles. Attention to the mean-ing of competencies implies focusing onuniqueness in their description, the buildingof consensual definitions, and an emphasison nuances of meanings assumed by compe-tencies in different job situations.

Second, it requires a strong degree of in-volvement of organizational members in thebuilding of systems in severalphases of development, from elic-iting competencies through ex-planatory discourses, to mappingand assessment.

Third, participation has to befostered and supported throughthe design of suitable manage-ment tools and other initiatives,such as internal communicationand ad hoc training.

We have argued that the com-bination of the situationalist ap-proach and a participative fieldanalysis can contribute to im-proving the effectiveness, useful-ness, and reliability of compe-tency management for anorganization. Such improvementis not to be ascribed to technicalsophistications but to both in-tense involvement and to “cogni-tive” support offered to users. Inthe following, we discuss these is-sues by making reference to theconcrete experience presented inthis article.

Improving Effectiveness,Reliability, and UsefulnessThrough Participation andInvolvementMany authors have shown thatthe higher the involvement inthe design stage of a personnelevaluation system, the higher itsdegree of reliability (Grote, 1996;Mohrman et al., 1989). As illus-trated previously, the process ofdeveloping the procedure of map-ping and evaluating competen-cies was implemented by involving ACImanagement and the future users of themethod in several ways. They were also in-volved in many stages of the researchprocess, such as testing, implementation ofinformation systems, and training for evalu-ators. Moreover, the bottom-up approach

We have argued

that the combination

of the situationalist

approach and a

participative field

analysis can

contribute to

improving the

effectiveness,

usefulness, and

reliability of

competency

management for an

organization. Such

improvement is not

to be ascribed to

technical

sophistications but

to both intense

involvement and to

“cognitive” support

offered to users.



helped to collect many different points ofview and to integrate them into consensualdefinitions of competencies and job situa-tions.

An adequate level of consistency betweenthe method and the organizationalcharacteristics was obtained inseveral ways. First, the in-depthfield research contributed to in-creased knowledge of the organi-zation and of the effects of theundergoing changes. Second, anumber of meetings with the HRmanagement and the tradeunions were held to checkwhether the method under de-velopment was more or less con-sistent with worker and manage-ment expectations.

A priority for the entire inter-vention was the need to createconsent for the new system andsimultaneously to drive the or-ganization to implement a realcultural change in personnel eval-uation and development. To thispurpose, attention was paid tothe activities aimed at promotingand disseminating the method,mainly using traditional organi-zation communication channels.Furthermore, ad hoc training ini-tiatives for managers were de-signed and implemented. Theaim of the training was to illus-trate to middle management thecharacteristics of the compe-tency-based approach in peopleevaluation, its implications interms of development, the char-acteristics of the new compe-tency-management tools, andhow to provide feedback to col-laborators.

The availability of situatedand detailed descriptions of com-petencies is a major advantage ofthe application of the situational-ist approach since it represents a

valuable source of information for trainingdesign and planning, especially for organiza-

tions that are interested in deep strategic andcultural changes.

Improving Reliability ThroughCognitive Support to EvaluatorsThe analysis of factors influencing reliabil-ity in personnel evaluation has been thesubject of many studies. Many of them havefocused mainly on organizational factors,such as the evaluation procedure organiza-tion (McCormick & Ilgen, 1989) and thenumber and kind of people involved in thedesign of the system (Mohrman et al., 1989;Wright, Simon, & Gilbert, 2000). Otherstudies have considered factors associatedwith the characteristics of the evaluators, in-cluding evaluators’ attitudes (Lowe, 1986;McCormick & Ilgen, 1989) and the diffi-culty of making explicit the wide range ofknowledge and information used by evalua-tors (Fischhoff, Slovic, & Lichtenstein,1989; Lowe, 1986).

We can link most of the evaluator-relatedissues in competency evaluation to twomajor problems: the ambiguity and the sub-jectivity of the evaluation process.

Ambiguity is due to the problem of as-signing meanings to competencies. Whenfacing ambiguous or too general competencydefinitions, evaluators may activate theirown subjective schemata, cognitive bias, andprejudices (Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Tversky &Kahneman, 1971) by either adapting the ex-isting competency profiles to their ownneeds or completely ignoring them. Previousexperience and existing subjective knowl-edge induce managers to trust solely theirown “nose” and “rules of thumb” instead ofapplying a formal/rational method.

Subjectivity means to rely on personalevaluation categories and impressions thatmay be affected by several judgment errors.Subjective “errors” in personnel evaluationcan be classified in two main categories:“shift” errors, such as leniency or central ten-dency effects, in which evaluators underesti-mate or overestimate the (supposed) correctvalue, and errors due to “interpretative dis-similarity,” such as halo, contrast, or prox-imity effect, in which evaluators superim-

A priority for the

entire intervention

was the need to

create consent for

the new system and

simultaneously to

drive the

organization to

implement a real

cultural change in

personnel

evaluation and

development. To this

purpose, attention

was paid to the

activities aimed at

promoting and

disseminating the

method, mainly

using traditional

organization

communication

channels.



pose to the reality their own subjective inter-pretative schemata.

We adopted several practices to limit theimpact of both shift and interpretative er-rors. First, we structured the competencyprofiles and the evaluation form to focusevaluators’ attention on job situations.Within the evaluation form, the differentcompetencies are presented in sequence, andevaluators are asked to assess the same com-petency with respect to different job situa-tions. In this way, the proposed methodhelps evaluators to relate their judgment to aspecific situation by considering behaviors,past examples, and events pertaining only tothat situation.

Second, during the training sessions formiddle managers, it was emphasized thatcompetency evaluation was solely related totraining and development. Consequently,since “negative” evaluation represented onlyaspects to be improved and not a bad per-formance, managers were encouraged to beneither cautious nor indulgent when ex-pressing their judgment of the strengths andweaknesses of their collaborators.

Finally, the evaluation procedure wastested by all managers during training inorder to analyze problems encountered bythe evaluators in interpreting and using theform.

From a theoretical point of view, the sit-uationalist approach can offer cognitive sup-port to evaluators in two ways: (1) by reduc-ing ambiguity, thanks to attention tonuances of meanings and higher contextual-ization of competencies, and (2) by mediat-ing subjectivity effects through consensusaround intersubjectively valid representa-tions of competencies related to the existingorganizational culture and language, ratherthan through the imposition of an imper-sonal objective standard.

The bottom-up mapping of both situa-tions and competencies and their descrip-tion through the “language” of the organiza-tion can reduce misalignments andconflicting interpretations. This approachalso can increase consensus, agreement, andthe development of shared interpretations.The potential of the situationalist approach

in offering cognitive support toevaluators and increasing the va-lidity and reliability of evaluationresults lie in this tension towardconsensus and participative con-struction of shared meanings.

However, it is known that a rel-evant body of literature in theclosely related field of performanceappraisal points out that increasedcontextualization and specificity ofdimensions do not significantlyenhance the validity of the results(Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). It istherefore possible that the situa-tionalist competency perspectivecould suffer the same fate.

On one hand, these relevantresearch contributions must beacknowledged; on the otherhand, it is also important to re-mark that performance appraisalusually refers to more objectiveevaluation items, often measuredthrough quantitative indicators,whereas competencies have anintangible nature and their mean-ing is subjective and potentiallycontroversial.

Thus, the sense associatedwith the concept of “validity”and the role of “subjectivity”have to be reframed when passingfrom the evaluation of objec-tive/tangible items such as per-formance indicators to subjec-tive/intangible ones such ascompetencies. In the former case,validity is intended in terms ofcorrespondence or fitting with anexternal objective standard, whilesubjectivity is a source of errorsand biases. In the latter case, in-stead, validity is conceived interms of coherence and viability,which is the capability of a modelor framework to allow its users toachieve their goals (Bettoni,1997), and subjectivity as a sourceof potentially useful knowledgeand insight.

From a theoretical

point of view, the

situationalist

approach can offer

cognitive support to

evaluators in two

ways: (1) by

reducing ambiguity,

thanks to attention to

nuances of meanings

and higher

contextualization of

competencies, and

(2) by mediating

subjectivity effects

through consensus

around

intersubjectively

valid representations

of competencies

related to the

existing

organizational

culture and

language, rather

than through the

imposition of an

impersonal objective

standard.



A possible way to reduce, at least partly,the distance between these two perspectivesis to test through further research whetherthe relationship between validity and con-textualization of evaluation dimensions canbe mediated by the level of consensusaround items’ meanings (competencies). Inother words, higher contextualization andan adequate level of consensus increase thevalidity of competency assessment.

Note

Though this article is the fruit of collabora-tive work, Sections 2, 3, and 7 are by Guido

Capaldo, Sections 5 and 8 are by Luca Ian-doli, and Section 4 is by Giuseppe Zollo. Theremaining parts have been written jointly bythe authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Francesco Ruggero(ACI Human Resources Director), SimonettaPetruccini (ACI responsible for the project), andall the members of the research team for their sup-port and participation in the field study. The au-thors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewerswhose suggestions and comments were of greathelp to definitely improve the quality of this work.


GUIDO CAPALDO received a PhD in business and management from the University ofRome Tor Vergata (Italy) in 1996. He is a full professor of business economics and or-ganization in the faculty of engineering of the University of Naples Federico II. He carriesout his research activity in the Department of Business and Managerial Engineering atthe University of Naples Federico II. His main research interests concern managementand organization of public services companies, small innovative companies, and humanresource management evaluation through the competency-based approach. His papershave been published in Omega, R&D Management, and Small Business Economics.

LUCA IANDOLI received his master’s in electronics engineering in 1998 from the Univer-sity of Naples Federico II and a PhD in business and management from the University ofRome Tor Vergata in 2002. Currently, he is a researcher in the Department of Business andManagerial Engineering at the University of Naples Federico II. His current research in-terests include application of computational techniques to business and management,human resource management, organizational learning and cognition, information tech-nology, and organization. His papers have been published in the Fuzzy Economic Review,Small Business Economics, the Journal of Global Information Technology Management,and the Journal of Information Science and Technology. He is a member of the editorialboard of the Fuzzy Economic Review, the Journal of Information Technology: Cases andApplications, and the Journal of Global Information Technology Management.

GIUSEPPE ZOLLO is a full professor of business economics and organization in the fac-ulty of engineering of the University of Naples Federico II. During the years 1985–1986,he was a visiting research associate in the Department of Economics of NortheasternUniversity, Boston, Massachusetts. He has published in several journals and has pre-sented papers at international conferences on innovation management, organization,small innovative firms, and managerial application of fuzzy logic. In 1992, 1993, and1995, he received the “Entrepreneurship Award” at the RENT-Research in Entrepreneur-ship Workshops organized by the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Manage-ment; in 1994, he received the “Best Paper Award” from FGF, Universitat Dortmund atthe IntEnt ’94 Conference. Moreover, he is a member of several editorial boards of in-ternational and Italian journals. He is vice president of the International Association forFuzzy-Set Management and Economy (SIGEF) and director of the University of NaplesCenter for Organizational Innovation and Communication (COINOR).


ReferencesAkrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a con-

venient vocabulary for the semiotics of human andnonhuman assemblies. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law(Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp.259–264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Alldredge, M. E., & Nolan, K. J. (2000). 3M’s leadershipcompetency model: An internally developed solu-tion. Human Resource Management, 39, 133–145.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizationallearning: A theory of action perspective. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Athey, T. R., & Orth, M. S. (1999). Emerging competen-cies methods for the future. Human Resource Man-agement, 38, 215–226.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social con-struction of reality: A treatise in the sociology ofknowledge. New York: Doubleday.

Bettoni, M. (1997). Constructivist foundations of mod-eling: A Kantian perspective. International Journalof Intelligent Systems, 12, 577–595.

Blackler, F. (2002). Knowledge, knowledge work andorganizations. In C. W. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), Thestrategic management of intellectual capital andorganizational knowledge (pp. 47–64). Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: Amodel for effective performance. New York: Wiley.

Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative informa-tion: thematic analysis and code development.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1989).Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values.In D. E. Bell, H. Raiffa, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Decisionmaking (pp. 117–141). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique.Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–358.

Fletcher, K. E., & Huff, A. S. (1990). Argument map-ping. In A. S. Huff (Ed.), Mapping strategic thought(pp. 165–193). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory:Action, structure and contradiction in social analy-sis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Grote, D. (1996). The complete guide to performanceappraisal. New York: AMACOM.

Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizationalchange as discourse: Communicative actions anddeep structures in the context of information tech-nology implementation. Academy of ManagementJournal, 44, 755–778.

Kochanski, J., & Ruse, D. (1996). Designing a compe-tence-based human resources organization.Human Resource Management, 35, 19–34.

Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? Thesociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E.Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/buildingsociety (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lawler, E. E., & Ledford, G. E. (1997). New approachesto organizing: Competencies, capabilities and thedecline of the bureaucratic model. In C. C. Cooper& S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organi-zations: A handbook for future research in organi-zational behavior (pp. 231–249). Chichester, UK:Wiley.

Le Boterf, G. (2000). Ingenierìa de las comptencias.Barcelona: Gestion 2000.

Levy-Leboyer, C. (1996). La gestion des compétences.Paris: Les éditions d’organization.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in the social science: Se-lected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.

Lowe, T. E. (1986, January). Eight ways to ruin a per-formance review. Personnel Journal, pp. 60–62.

Mansfield, R. S. (1996). Building competence models:Approaches for HR professionals. Human ResourceManagement, 36, 147–150.

McClelland, D. C. (1978). Guide to behavioral event in-terviewing. Boston: McBer.

McCormick, E. J., & Ilgen, D. (1989). Industrial and or-ganizational psychology. London: Routledge.

Mohrman, A. A., Resnick-West, S. M., & Lawler, E. E.,III. (1989). Designing performance appraisal sys-tems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morris, D. (1996). Using competence developmenttools as a strategy for change in the human re-sources function: A case study. Human ResourceManagement, 35, 35–51.

Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understand-ing performance appraisal: Social, organizationaland goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference:Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nordhaug, O., & Gronhaug, K. (1994). Competencesas resources in firms. International Journal ofHuman Resources, 5(1), 89–103.

Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (1997). Managerialdiscourses: Words speak louder than actions?Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6, 5–12.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York:Doubleday.



Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core compe-tence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,68(3), 78–91.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Inquiry and partici-pation in search of a world worthy of human aspi-ration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Hand-book of action research (pp. 1–13). Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A. Gregory, D., & Gow-ing, M. K. (2002). Developing competency modelsto promote integrated human resource practices.Human Resource Management, 41, 309–324.

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human compe-tence at work: An interpretative approach. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 43, 9–25.

Schank, R. C. (1986). Explanation patterns: Under-standing mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schein, E. (1987). Process consultation: Its role in or-ganization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competenceat work: Models for superior performance. NewYork: Wiley.

Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R., & Janik, S. M. (1979). An in-troduction to reasoning. New York: MacMillan.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the lawof small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76,105–110.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organiza-tion (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Wright, R., Simon, L., & Gilbert, W. (2000). Cognitivemaps of appraisal system effectiveness in HongKong: A comparison between human resourcesand the line. Academy of Management AnnualMeeting, Toronto, August 4–9.

Yeung, A. K. (1996). Competencies for HR profession-als: An interview with Richard E. Boyatzis. HumanResource Management, 35, 119–131.

Zingheim, P. K., Ledford, G. E., & Schuster, J. R.(1996). Competencies and competence models:Does one size fit all? ACA Journal, 5(1), 56–65.


A situationalist perspective to competency management

Documents

Transcript of A situationalist perspective to competency management