 |
competence - defining the concepts
The concept of competence has different meanings. It is not always immediately
clear which of the many forms of competence is being used or discussed. Four
influential (but confusing) definitions during the last decade can be summarised
as:
- predictive competency - i.e. testing the characteristics and aptitudes
that are likely to differentiate superior performers.
- organisational core competencies - i.e. aggregates of capabilities,
where synergy is created that has sustainable value and broad applicability for
an organisation.
- proven competence - i.e. a real and demonstrated ability to successfully
carry out some activity which is totally identified.
- adaptive competence - i.e. 'metacompetence' or the ability to read a new
situation and adapt/apply appropriate competences.
|
Predictive competency |
|
|
Predictive competency derived largely from the work of David McClelland, a Harvard
psychologist involved in psychometric testing, (and founder of the McBer consultancy).
His 1973 article Testing for Competence Rather Than for Intelligence stimulated
interest, and a former student, Richard Boyatzis, popularised the term competency
in his 1982 book The Competent Manager.
Many large companies apply the concepts in one form or another - but usually only
for their high-potential personnel. "As a job becomes more complex the less
excellence is a function of task mastery and more a function of other, less tangible
qualities" [Hunter, Schmidt & Judiesch, Journal of Applied Psychology,
1990].
Most corporate systems, however, do not use the sophisticated tests envisaged by
McClelland, but rely on assessment (or self-assessment) against 'competency statements.'
One major company, for example, has a Group 'Competency Framework' which describes
in detail by corporate function "the things that people need to be good at
if they are to be effective in the jobs and meet the needs of the organisation."
|
|
Organisational core competencies |
|
|
In the second definition, organisational core competencies are characteristics of
the organisation as a whole, not of individuals. Prahalad and Hamel, two business
academics, introduced the concept in a 1990 Harvard Business Review article.
A core competency is "an area of specialised expertise that is the result of
harmonising complex streams of technology and work activity." The example used
was Honda's expertise in engines. Core competencies provide a set of unifying principles
for the organisation, they are pervasive in all strategies, they provide access
to a variety of markets, they are critical in producing end products, and they are
rare or difficult to imitate.
The concept became highly fashionable in the mid-1990s.
|
|
Proven competence |
|
|
Both the above definitions were widely used in hazardous industries in the period
following the Cullen Report, but they concerned probability rather than proof of
competence. Duty holders needed proven competence, and therefore turned to the third
definition. In most cases, they borrowed from the VQ structure to define competence
as: "the ability of people to perform work to a set standard in employment."
In this definition, competence is judged by what people produce in the course of
their work, not what they put into it. This means that competence focuses on the
outputs from activities, not inputs. It is not what they know or have learned about,
but what they implement when they do the job. It means that what the workers produce
is considered and compared with a standard, to check that it exceeds the minimum
acceptable level of performance.
|
|
Adaptive or meta-competence |
|
|
Over the last decade or so, a fourth variation has emerged and has been applied
widely to professional roles where practitioners create and define their own tasks.
In a 1991 article, Fleming described The concept of meta-competence as "that
which allows someone to locate a particular competence within a larger framework
of understanding." Others define it as the ability to read a new situation
and adapt or apply appropriate competences.
It is not about answering questions posed by predictable tasks in known worlds.
It is about dealing with uncertainty and incomplete evidence, asking the right questions,
and developing the means to resolve problems. At its most basic, it may be seen
as "learning to learn", "flexible transfer and application of knowledge
and skills across contexts", or "thinking outside the box."
|
|
beyond competence - the rowanhill approach |
 |
All four definitions have advantages and disadvantages. The first can lead
to subjective, judgmental assessment if it is not tied to a rigorous testing strategy.
The second is difficult to translate into individual assessable behaviours.
The third can become a bureaucratic nightmare and may seem inappropriate for knowledge
workers or professionals. The fourth can be difficult to assess in a meaningful
way for organisations.
The rowanhill approach
uses the proven-competence definition as a starting-point, but applies it within
strategic frameworks, and translates 'superior performer' qualities and even 'metacompetence'
into proven-competence terms. In other words, we go beyond competence
and integrate the four concepts into a holistic approach where competency standards
and performance measurement are aligned rigorously to critical business processes.
|
|
We keep abreast of advances in learning and competence theory, but our approach
is firmly grounded in over 30 years' practical experience of what works and what
does not in different organisational or occupational contexts.
A case study is available, describing a real-world example where ‘beyond competence’
was applied in practice. If you’d like a copy, please contact
us
. |
|
|
|
|
