Strategic competency management: A revision for HR identity

In knowledge based economy, organizations strive to continually acquire and create

new knowledge and competencies for respond to or shape their changing environments. Since

new knowledge and competencies are generated only by human competences, thus, human

resource management functions especially, strategic competency management for creating

unique organizational competencies are far much more critical than ever for organizations to

survive and thrive in the long term. However, recently, both academic and practitioners are

still unclear of concepts of competency modelings, especially of their developments and

applications for strategic purposes compared with and job analyses (Lowe, 1993; Cowan,

1994; Brewster, Farndale, Ommeren, 2000, Lievens, Sanchez, & De Corte, 2004).

This paper will explicate the different applications between competency modelings

and job/task analyses and explain the essential determinants and strategic levels (echelons) of

competency development that may institute human resource management as a profession and

restore the identity of human resource management in strategic management arenas.

Competency modeling has major roles in learning patterns (both static and dynamic)

of internal and external environments for developing activities to achieve the intended results

and job analyses and designs have major roles in scheming and clarifying activities as job

functions. Proper job designs/models frame and formulate task and work schemes for all

business functions to efficiently and effectively engender organizational performance.

However, when organizational environments change, the jobs can delude and constrain

individual, team, departmental and organizational performance and potential. So, several

scholars and practitioners (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Dubois, 1993; Nordhaug, 1994; Lado &

Wilson, 1994; Lawler, 1994; Sandberg, 2000; Schippmann, 2000; Becker, Huselid, & Ulrich,

2001; Lievens, Sanchez, & De Corte, 2004; Morgeson et al., 2004; Becker, Huselid, & Ulrich,

2001; Sandberg, 2000; Schippmann, 2000; Lado & Wilson, 1994; Lawler, 1994; Nordhaug,
 2

1994; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990) increasingly concern with human competences that can be

applied for enhancing various job performances and are more malleable to be adapted and

further developed for respond to or shape changing environments via future jobs. Of simple

jobs in static environments, job specifications of a thorough job analysis can be comparable to

a competency model. For simple jobs, each (simple) competency is “an underlying

characteristic of an employee (i.e., motive, trait, skill, aspects of one’s self-image, social role,

or a body of knowledge) which results in effective and/or superior performance” (Boyatzis,

1982), or KSAO; in superficial changing environments, the combination of the competencies

is adjusted correspond to the changes but each competency is likely to be intact. However, in

radical changing environment, each competency and their combination are likely to be altered

partially or totally depending on the radicalism. For complex jobs in static environments,

competencies tends to be a mixture of complex competencies that is a

combination/integration of simple competencies (motive, trait, skill, aspects of one’s self-

image, social role, or a body of knowledge which results in effective and/or superior

performance) (Spencer, McClelland, & Spencer, 1994) and the simple ones; in superficial

changing environments, the simple ones, the composition of each complex ones and between

the competencies are recombined correspond to the changes; in radical changing environment,

simple competency and the composition of each complex one and between competencies are

likely to be altered partially or totally depending on the radicalism. Of all cases, both

competency modeling and job design (and analysis) are indispensable as strategy and

structure or conceptual and practical aspects of management that proceed to attain settled aims

as two feet walking (Mintzberg, 1991). Nevertheless, the higher of changes, the more

competency models lead job designs, especially of radical environmental changes that alter

the job and environmental contexts requiring new patterns of activities to attain intended

results, on contrary, the lower of changes (no new pattern needed, the job/task schemes are

affirmed), job designs (descriptions) lead the competencies both simple and complex ones.
 3

At this point, it is noteworthy to indicate that only generic competencies even

classified by several levels of proficiency are not adequate to accurately indicate and

differentiate abilities and performance between complex job performers (Markus, Cooper-

Thomas, & Allpress, 2005; Brewster, Farndale, Ommeren, 2000; Sandberg, 2000;

Shippmann, 2000; Raelin & Sims. 1995). For construct practical competency models,

scholars and practitioners should be more concerned with specific competencies that are

contextual specific may have more direct effect on job results. However, a competency should

not merely be labeled as an ability to perform a job description (Morgeson, 2004) (as a CEO’s

duty can be just “make profit” but the CEO’s competency should not be only ability to “make

profit”) but should be interpreted as a set of human attributes that are central prerequisites for

performing the duties/tasks effectively (Sandberg, 2000) and are contextual specific (relate to

the organizational/environmental settings and success factors) to be eligible to comprehend,

effectively adaptable to changes and create sustainable competitive advantages and

performance. Moreover, competencies those incorporate the success factors, environmental

settings and relevant relations between them, especially the essential or/and critical ones, not

only construct the validity and reliability of the competencies (Morgeson et al., 2004) but also

support analyses and syntheses to comprehend, train, and further develop competencies for

changing environment and success factors of the future.

For strategic purposes, both organizations and all professions must acquire their own

core (or essential and critical) competencies comprising of attributes and relations that can

produce or/and manage fundamental and critical success factors/relations and direct or/and

respond to major trends and issues of their internal and external environments better than their

rivals (other professions/departments) to create superior (specific/departmental) performance

and strategic/operational advantages. Core competence resulting from superior or/and

distinguish collective learning processes corresponding with and changes of environmental

settings for attain the right vision will support its own enhancements; continually generates
 4

new effective innovations conferring sustainable strategic/operational advantages and guide

organizational strategies. As core competences of numerous business organizations within an

industry that each of them generates different dominant contributions but altogether create

various benefits for their overall customers and stakeholders and make organizations viable,

all professions have to have their own thrusts to sustain and progress themselves as

professions in particular, especially human resource (HR) profession, in behalf of HR

department, that takes account of competencies of each employee, all teams and departments,

and the organization should really concern with and be proficient in its essential (that “core”

are not labeled because the core competences will be organizational rigidities when systemic

innovations or radical environmental changes take place (Leonard-Barton, 1992) but the

essential competencies of a profession are much harder to be outmoded) and critical

competencies that provide HR unique central contributions, approve and establish HR

professional identity. Essential competencies are the competencies that involve with or/and

manage fundamental factors and relations that still vital and indispensable through (but relate

to) environmental changes and are not industry and organization specific whereas critical

competencies are ones that effectively manage critical success factors and relations that

correspond to environmental changes (as stages of product life cycles) and are industry and

organization specific. For example at basic level in long enough mature stage of product life

cycle, for essential competencies for effective compensation management could be

understanding shared and different subcultures, abilities to justify and compare inter and

intradepartmental job evaluations, comprehend definitions of and relations between

performance and competencies of individuals and those of their departments as well as

between those of departments with the organization, comprehend and compare of inter-

organization compensation managements interrelated with their performances and

competences. These essential competencies are always required either implicitly or explicitly,

provided that after careful considerations, we infer that a combination of performance-

 5

competency-merit based system at particular weights is appropriate in the settings and

situations, competencies for manage the mix system are critical competencies. And it is

noteworthy that if the mature stage of the product life cycle is long enough, based upon

essential competencies, the critical competencies could be altered to be competencies

focusing on managing performance-based compensation. Both essential and critical

competencies are typically generated from both generic and specific competencies that all can

be combined as personal, functional, or/and organizational competencies that are able to

deliver personal, departmental, or/and organizational performance as illustrated in figure 1.

The HR essential competencies at departmental level of analysis can be categorized by

each of and a group of its primary functions. As an initial interpretation, job analysis and

design, competency modeling, and performance management, at basic level in long enough

mature stage of product life cycle, we have to understand and administer the precedent

definitions and interrelations between competencies, jobs, and performances of all

departments at all levels of analyses (individual/job, team/department, organization).

Moreover, we have to comprehend and manage their attributes and interrelations between all

levels; Of Job analysis and design, how individual tasks deliver an operational job, how

several operational jobs and middle management tasks deliver middle management job, and

how middle management jobs and top management tasks deliver top management jobs. Of

competency modeling, as how basic/generic and specific competencies of individual

competencies create job competencies, and how the job competencies create departmental

(business functional) competencies and how the business functional competencies create

organizational competencies. Of performance management, how individual performances

collectively cause team/departmental performance, and how departmental performances

engender organizational performance. These are one group of essential competencies that HR

professionals must accomplish to design and operate HR system aligning with stated

organizational strategy and structure. The associated critical competencies can be abilities to
 6

perform multi-rater assessment, understanding current business model, processes, and

environments. Specific competencies can be HR technology and generic ones are

communication, interpersonal skill, and teamworking. Essential competencies are mandatory

in contents because all fundamental factors and relations always effect HR department

effectiveness but their constructs, criterion variables, their combinations (and configurations,

in cases of paradigmatic changes of the professions) still relate with environmental settings,

essential competencies, as others, should be considered as multi-echelons related to level of

changes encountered.

Based on organizational/dynamic capability literature (Collis, 1994; Teece et al.,

1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Winter, 2003) and human resource management literature

(Tyson, 1987; Caroll, 1991; Lado & Wilson, 1994, Delery & Doty, 1996; Ellstrom, 1997;

Sandberg, 2000, Caldwell, 2003), all competencies including HR competencies can be

classified to three levels as competency deployment (reinforcement/clerk HR/basic),

competency modification (recombination/contract HR/intermediate), competency definition

(reconfiguration/architecture HR/advance) parallel to three levels of changes of organizations

based on organizational change/renewal literature (Mezias & Glynn, 1993; Floyd & Lane,

2000) that are organizational institution, evolution, and revolution. All of three levels of (HR)

competencies and organizational changes correspond with three phrases of product life cycles

(mature, growth, introduction) that require organizational efficiency, flexibility, and

innovation consecutively. Three modes of (HR) competency and organizational change are

delineated in table 1.

However, we have to be proficient in competencies of the basic level to (but not

certainly to) be able to acquire the intermediate ones and to achieve the advance level, we

have to be adept at the intermediate ones as prerequisites. These competencies can be

configured as a curriculum design (Dubois, 1993) and essential competencies can be referred

to as core subjects of each faculty and division (ones who got “A” in the basic or junior
 7

subjects needn’t to get “A”, “B”, or even “C” in intermediate and so on). In other words, if we

are (or understand) a human resource staff how to work well in static environments do not

mean that we will be effective or are able to understand him/her in changed or changing

environments or different HR staffs who also work well in the same settings. Additionally,

even if we understand the different requisite varieties between them or situations, we might

not be able to understand how to or they work well in radical changed settings. Thus, not all

HR people will be a senior HR generalist/specialist, a HR manager, or a HR director.

Of the static environments, all fundamental and critical factors and relations are

manifestly addressed and have to be clearly understood. Of slightly/evolutionary changes,

fundamental factors and relations and their configurations are still but all of the critical

competencies as HR techniques could be changed (for example, from the mix of merit-

performance-competency based pay to the single mode). At departmental level, relations

between job-performance-competency of each person/team/department and across

departments could be changed. Of radical/revolutionary changes, contents of the fundamental

factors and relations at each and between levels of analysis are remained but their constructs

and criterion variables could be changed, so are essential competencies that direct critical and

specific competencies to innovate new individuals’, functional, and departmental

competencies based on architectural competencies of HR managers/directors to develop new

configurations, combinations, and constructs of all but generic competencies for aligning with

other departments’ and organizational strategy and changing environments.

The essential HR competencies addressed above are only a subset of overall HR

essential competencies that distinguish HR from other professions, create HR identity, and

found its own as a profession. Critical competencies support essential ones to deliver HR

roles effectively, however, critical competencies are generally shared between other business

functions for examples, business ally, strategic partner, personal creditability, change agent
 8

and cultural steward (the latter two are still shared with others as they manage departmental

changes and their sub-cultures) as illustrated in figure 2.

The key issue for sustain HR profession is whether HR department (professionals)

have meta-cognitive expertise (Smith, 2003) and meta-ability (Clark, 1999) that discover and

engage with underlying elements, logics, and abilities that underpin and determine why, how,

and when new combinations or/and configurations of competencies are developed and former

competencies are utilized, as self-directed proactivity, critical reflection, and practical

creativity (Marsick & Watkin, 1996, 1999) to prominently manage and align HR functions

with firm strategies in changing environments, especially in intermediate and advance level

more than other departments or not, otherwise, HR functions are very likely to be automated,

taken over, or outsourced.

Abstract

Outsourcing human resource functions (HR) is a prevalent trend and acknowledged as

usual. Several scholars have strived to ascertain HR profession and provoke HR strategic

roles. However, HR literature is still unclear of competency concept, HR central roles that

found HR identity and profession. The insight of the difference and prominence between job

analysis and competency modeling, essential HR competencies and three echelons of

competency are proposed to emphasize HR central roles, resolve the HR identity, and

ascertain HR profession.

Morgeson, Frederick P.; Delaney-Klinger, Kelly; Ferrara, Philip; Mayfield, Melinda

S.; Campion, Michael A. 2004. Self-presentation processes in job analysis: A field experiment

investigating inflation in abilities, tasks, and competencies. Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol. 89 Issue 4, p674-686

 9

Schippmann, J.S., Ash, R.A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L.D. and Hesketh, B., Kehoe, J.;
Pearlman K.; Prien, E. P.; Sanchez, J. I. 2000.The practice of competency modeling,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 iss3, pp. 703-40.

Lievens, F., Sanchez, J.I. and De Corte, F. 2004. Easing the inferential leap in

competency modeling: the effects of task-related information and subject matter expertise,

Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 Issue 4, pp. 881-904.

Raelin, J. A.; Cooledge, A. S. 1995. From Generic to Organic Competencies. Human

Resource Planning, Vol. 18 Issue 3, p24-33

Markus, L.H., Cooper-Thomas, H.D. and Allpress, K.N. (2005), “Confounded by

competencies? An evaluation of the evolution and use of competency models”, New Zealand

Journal of Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 117-26.

Sandberg, J. (2000), ``Understanding human competence at work: an interpretative approach'',

Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 9-17.

Prahalad C.K. & Hamel G. 1990. “The Core Competence of the Corporation,” Harvard
Business Review, 68, May-Jun, pp. 79-91.

Mintzberg, H., 1991 "Learning 1, Planning 0: Reply to Igor Ansoff," Strategic

Management Journal, 12, , 463-466.