Competences:

Dialogue without
a Plot?
Providing Context through Business Diagnostics
Andrew Munro and Brendan Andrews
Introduction
The big idea of management development over the past ten years has surely
been management competence. Few of
us have been unaffected by the activities
of its advocates. As managers we have
been encouraged to embark on
competency-based training and
development programmes; as human
resource managers we have sought to
integrate and co-ordinate our efforts in
recruitment, training, career management and succession planning around a
competency framework; and as management consultants, we have recommended competency-driven solutions to
our clients. Indeed, it seems that
management competency has become
something of a growth industry in itself.
And yet after all the energy and money
invested in competency models, programmes and initiatives, there is still a
feeling of some disquiet and unease. We
read the books and attend the conferences to reassure ourselves that competences represent the building-blocks of
human resource activity, but few of us
can claim to have finished the house.
This article highlights a number
of concerns and reservations about the
way in which the management
competency movement has developed.
It attempts to analyse the reasons why
competences may not be the solution
originally envisaged. And it provides an
alternative perspective, which we
believe promises a more powerful
framework in which to discuss
12 Executive Development

individual
and
performance.

organizational

What Is It We Want
Competences to Be Competent
in?
Perhaps the major reason for the disarray within the competency movement
arises from the confusion over the role
of competences. What is it we want of
them? The lack of clarity about their
purpose is not surprising given the
different objectives, often contradictory
and conflicting, which we are asking
them to fulfil.
Here it is suggested that the role of
competences is to enable organizations
to build their competitive advantage by
providing a framework for the human
resource function to focus its efforts in
developing the capability of its
employees. Against this broad
definition, the success of competences
can be evaluated.
Specifically, it can be asked:
(1) Have competences helped to plan
and co-ordinate the full range of
human resource activities within
organizations?
(2) Do competences arise out of an
organizations strategic intent and
its long-term goals, and do they
help provide the organizational
capability to deliver strategic
success?

Vol. 7 No. 6, 1994, pp. 12-15, MCB University Press, 0953-3230

(3) Do competences provide a durable

and sustainable framework which
guides organizational activity over
the long run?

The Integrative Function of

Competences
Whatever competences promised to
deliver, integration was the major
selling point. Competences, it was
claimed, would provide the means of
binding together the various activities
that fall under the human resource
umbrella. Recruitment, training and
development, organizational design and
development, career management and
succession-planning systems would be
unified around the language of
competences. And for many
organizations, a massive undertaking
unfolded, of competence mapping and
profiling, course redesign, manual
rewriting all in the name of the
focusing efforts around the co-ordinated
framework of competences.
As always, the proof of the pudding is
in the eating, and for many companies,
the result has been indigestion. The
outcome has been not so much coordination and integration, but either
bureaucratic uniformity, on the one
hand, or on the other, a haphazard
patchwork of ad hoc competence
models. We have worked with both
kinds of organizations. The first is the
company shackled by the inflexibility of
a competence model which prescribes

not only what should be done but

exactly how it should be done, and
which is slowly but surely strangling
individualism and innovation. The
second is the firm which could be
described as engaged in a battle of
competing competences, and is
bewildering and confusing managers,
and producing disillusionment and
cynicism. We have less experience of
organizations which have been successful in introducing and implementing
competences which have focused and
unified management development
efforts.

business requirements. All well and

good. But there must be something
deeply troubling about the major shifts
which take place in companies as they
adjust and readjust their competence
models. It implies either that the organization is unsure of which competences it
does need to achieve business success,
or more likely that, since the first
competence version did not make any
impact, we need to implement another.
And if that one doesnt work, well, we
can always conduct another exercise in
competence definition.

Competences as Providing
Strategic Focus

Why Are Competences

Showing Signs of
Incompetency?

An increasingly popular view of

strategic design and implementation
comes from the capability school of
writers such as Hamel and Prahalad[1].
Here the emphasis is not so much on
matching your companys strategy to
business conditions, but rather
leveraging your resources to do new and
different things; stretching what you do
have to achieve ambitious goals. The
focus is on rapidly building up new sets
of capabilities to deliver competitive
advantage. The question then becomes:
to what extent has the competency
movement helped organizations achieve
competitive advantage through
reconfiguring its internal energies,
efforts and abilities? It does seem
unlikely that competitive advantage will
come from off-the-shelf competence
models, either as part of a national
initiative or as a consequence of
consultants rehashing the same
competences over and over again.
Refried bean competences will not
provide a mechanism for delivering
distinctive organizational capability.
When you are reviewing your competences with your consultants, ask them,
To what extent are these competences
similar to and different from my major
competitors?
What
is
there
in this list of competences that will
give my organization any specific
competitive advantage? How do these
competences describe my companys
unique strategy?

Competences as a Stable and

Sustainable Framework
Competency proponents no doubt
advise of the need to review an organizations competence framework regularly to ensure it is relevant to changing

There are several reasons to believe that

the competency movement has done
much to rethink the whole area of
human resource management and help
shape specific human resource activity,
but also that it may be missing the
central point.
There is something fundamentally
flawed with the very concept of competence. At first glance, this sounds
extraordinary. Who doesnt wish their
managers to be more competent in what
they do, or their organizations to be run
more competently?
But perhaps there are better ways to
address the issues that the competency
movement attempts to tackle. Before
considering this, it is important to
examine the reasons for the problems
with the competence approach.
The Underlying Thinking Is Based
on a Distorted View of Performance
If the goal of the management competency movement is to improve organizational effectiveness, then it seems to
neglect a critical determinant. Con-

Organizational
(e.g. culture,
climate,
systems and
processes)

sistent, stable effective performance

seems to arise from the interaction of
three factors: organizational, role and
individual (Figure 1). Competences
appear to have put their eggs in the
basket of the role-individual equation,
but lost sight of the need to emphasize
the organizational context in which
individuals perform their roles. Competences do not seem to have placed
sufficient emphasis on that complex set
of relationships between business
intentions, organizational structure and
operating culture which represent the
situation in which managers are asked to
be competent. What happens for
example when an organization removes
several layers of management from its
hierarchy and completely redefines the
roles which are performed?
A Reliance on Lists of Discrete
Functions Obscures the Realities of
Managerial Life
The management competency movement seems to encourage the Chinese
menu approach to management: a
checklist of discrete activities which
provide an agenda for the human
resources function. It might make life
more straightforward for human
resource practitioners, but it doesnt
seem to mirror the realities of management which managers face day to day.
Could it be that the underpinning
assumption that management, if only
broken down to its constituent elements
competences can be reassembled is
simply wrong? Could it be that the
management whole is more than the
sum of its parts, and that competences
encourage a fragmented view which
misses the essentials of business life?
What competences, for example,
does a manager draw on when
comforting a member of staff who has
been bereaved?

Role (e.g. job

definition,
tasks,
duties and
responsibilities)

Individual
(e.g. skills,
knowledge
and attitude)
The role-individual equation:
the competence over-emphasis

Figure 1. The Determinants of Organizational Effectiveness

Volume 7 Number 6 1994 13

Architect

Troubleshooter

Explorer

Regulator

Builder

Integrator

Visionary

innovator with the

passion and
imagination to
completely rethink a
companys products
and services
recognizes the shifts in
the future marketplace
and generates ideas for
next-generation product
development

radical who challenges

the organizational status
quo, and undertakes a
fundamental review of
the internal operation
armed with a sophisticated understanding
of the potential of
information technology,
integrates technology
capability with changes
in organizational
structure and working
practices

moves the business on

rapidly to increase
market share and
profitability through a
shrewd appreciation of
different expansionist
options: diversification,
mergers and
acquisitions, joint
alliances

leader with the

determination and
resolve to tackle
problems of inefficiency
and productivity
puts in place a turnaround programme
which selects the core
business activities and
cuts away those which
are no longer needed
effective in tackling
resistance and
opposition by focusing
on the key issues and
instilling urgency

Explorer

leader with the boldness and energy to

translate the corporate
vision into a growth
strategy

Builder

driven by an obsession
for consistent and
excellent customer
service, ensures that

Figure 2. The Executive Diagnostics Business Types Model

14 Executive Development

Lobbyist

the production and

sales function are
contributing effectively

Trouble-shooter

Architect

Visionary

revitalizes the
companys whole
approach to the
delivery of its products
and services to the
marketplace through
astute use of pricing
policy, novel
distribution and
advertising

appreciates the impact

of economic, social and
political developments
on the companys room
for manoeuvre

influences key
constituents and stakeholders (government,
regulatory bodies,
pressure groups) to
build up corporate
prestige and standing

Integrator

business leader who

unites staff around a
shared vision and
common purpose
builds upon the
energies and talents of
all employees and
encourages cooperation to work
jointly towards
corporate objectives

Lobbyist

far-thinking leader who

understands the need
to represent the
organizations interests
in the external
community

Regulator

leader who recognizes

that an organizations
health depends on
sound financial
management and
efficient processes and
systems

ensures consistency
and co-ordination
throughout the
operation through the
introduction of planning
and control
methodologies, linked
to financial disciplines

Capturing the Past and Not

Preparing for the Future
The criticism that competences freeze
the status quo and all that which has
worked in the past seems particularly
applicable to those competences which
are based on performance standards
built around specific roles. Here,
competences seem to assume that doing
more of what worked before will
guarantee success in the future. As
organizations unshackle themselves
from the constraints of the past and
consider new ways of operating and
behaving, competences would seem to
offer more of a hindrance than a help.
As Peter Vaill in Management as a
Performing Art points out, why do
most lists of competences omit what
may be the most critical competence of
all: the competency to shelve ones
competence in favour of an openness to
the new?[2]
Perhaps by definition, competences
seek to describe what worked in the past
but are less effective in encouraging
managers to think of new ways of doing
things through innovation, creativity
and risk taking.

Asking the Wrong Questions

The competency movement has proved
stunningly successful at answering the
question: What is it that managers do?
But in directing attention to this
question, other issues seem to have been
ignored. Specifically, other questions
seem unanswered: What is the
organizational context in which managers operate? What is the relationship
between management competence and
organizational effectiveness? Why is it
some managers are competent in some
situations but not in others? And why do
managers want to manage anyway?

Another Perspective
There are no easy answers to any of the
previous questions. However, there are
a number of directions which seem to
represent a potentially more promising
way forward for those involved in the
assessment and development of management. The overarching need is to
construct a context for management
behaviour. Three main themes would
seem relevant:
(1) Business strategy what are the
dominant capabilities a firm needs
to develop to deliver its business
goals?

(2) Problem resolution how is information selected and interpreted in

the organizational decision-making
process?
(3) Managerial values what are the
underpinning values and motivations which shape business
direction?
Business Strategy
The failure to link business strategy
with management capabilities has been
the most significant failure of the
management competency movement.
Research, primarily US-based, which
has identified the business challenges
and management demands associated
with different strategies, has largely
been neglected[3]. Yet, this work represents an effective means of mapping out
the business context in which competences are enacted. Figure 2 illustrates
one approach the Executive
Diagnostics Business Types model.
Here the profile highlights eight
distinctive strategic patterns and the
managerial attributes associated with
effectiveness.
Problem Resolution
Organizations develop a preference for
certain types of data and how they are
handled. This has major implications for
the way in which strategies are formed
and implemented, and for the
effectiveness with which managers
approach problems and make decisions.
The competence movement must
acknowledge the impact of the
organizations preferences and priorities
in problem resolution.
Managerial Values
If the themes of business strategy and
problem resolution set the business
context and organizational agenda, then
it is in the area of personal values that
corporate culture becomes relevant.
Whatever the variety of determinants of
culture, senior management values must
be regarded as providing an important
impetus in shaping the way the
organization runs and setting the tone
for how it operates[4]. The competence
movement needs to be more explicit in
mapping out the linkages between
management values, corporate culture
and competence effectiveness.
In an organization shaped by power
and control, for example, management
competence will be expressed very
differently from that of the firm in
which security and stability are valued.

Conclusions
It is within this context of the connections between business strategy,
problem resolution and managerial
values that competences begin to
make sense. A bio-tech company, in
start-up mode, led by senior managers
who are highly creative and driven by
stimulation and variety, will require
very different competences from those
of a construction company facing a
squeeze on profits and governed by
detailed and systematic project management systems.
This article is not intended to bury
and dance on the grave of competences.
The objective is to breathe life into the
competence body through encouraging
a broader perspective which considers
how business strategy, problem-solving
styles and values impact on
competences.
Management competences, without a
business and organizational context, are
like a novel of dialogue, with the plot
removed and the characters asking in
Beckett-like manner, What am I
doing?. The way forward lies in
methodologies and approaches which
provide plot and context.
References
1. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K.,
Strategy as Stretch and Leverage,
Harvard Business Review, MarchApril 1993.
2. Vaill, P., Managing as a Performing
Art, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
1991.
3. Gerstein, M. and Reisman, H.,
Strategic Selection: Matching
Executives to Business Conditions,
Sloan Management Review, Winter
1983.
4. Schein, E., Organizational Culture,
American Psychologist, Vol. 45,
1990, pp. 109-19.

Further Reading
Herbert, T. and Deresky, H., Should
General Managers Match Their Business
Strategies?, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 15, Winter 1987.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C., Organizational
Strategy, Structure and Process,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1978.

Andrew Munro and Brendan Andrews are

Directors of A.M. Ltd (0386 701245), a
company specializing in the design and
application of business diagnostic tools.

Volume 7 Number 6 1994 15