Content uploaded by Roy Canning
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roy Canning on Jan 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Industrial and Commercial Training
THE QUEST FOR COMPETENCE
Roy Canning
Article information:
To cite this document:
Roy Canning, (1990),"THE QUEST FOR COMPETENCE", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 22 Iss 5 pp.
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197859010006004
Downloaded on: 28 January 2015, At: 02:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 157 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Charles Woodruffe, (1993),"What Is Meant by a Competency?", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol.
14 Iss 1 pp. 29-36 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb053651
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 215485 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by University of Stirling At 02:18 28 January 2015 (PT)
INDUSTRIAL AND
COMMERCIAL
TRAINING
THE QUEST FOR
COMPETENCE
Roy Canning
INTRODUCTION
We have seen since the publication of the
Constable-Handy reports into management
education and development a resurgence of
interest in the area of management
competencies. In this article I will review
some of the current literature in the field,
and look at how this concept of competence
is being applied within UK organisations. In
doing so I will raise the question of whether
it is possible to pursue some generic sense of
competence or whether the concept itself has
to be context-specific to organisations. I will
also show how the concept of "competence"
is underpinned by assumptions about the
nature of organisations, the nature of
management and the nature of learning and
development. I will make some of these
assumptions explicit to enable practitioners to
make a link between theory and practice in
assessing and developing managerial
resources within their organisations. Finally, I
hope to make linkages with other training
and development approaches, particularly in
the areas of self-development, self-managed
learning, action learning and on-the-job
development activities.
MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES AND THE
MANAGEMENT CHARTER INITIATIVE
The directors of the Management Charter-
Initiative (MCI) should be congratulated on
the initiative they have taken at the national
and local level in harnessing some of the
energy that has been raised around the issues
of management education and development
in the UK. As we have seen from a recent
survey by personnel management[l], people
development is now top of the agenda as an
item to be addressed within organisations.
So although our track record compared with
other countries in Europe, and in Japan and
America has been poor, I feel that the MCI
has again ignited interest in the issue of
management development. This can only be
good news, given that 50 per cent of
employees in the UK do not receive any form
of training at
all[2].
As Bob Reed described in one of the early
conferences[3] run by the MCI, the main
benefits that this grouping could offer are:
● it is employer-led
● it is based on practice, not theory
● it is flexible and responsive, not
bureaucratic.
In many ways it has achieved these objectives
with the launch of local MCI networks, with
their pursuance of nationally recognised
qualifications for managers who have
invested a significant amount of their time in
development activities and in spreading good
practice within industries. However, I would
like to go back to some of these basic aims
and question the direction that they are now
taking. The issue for me is one of tactics
rather than strategy as I think we would all
agree that our aim is to develop high quality
managers and an excellent management
education system within the UK. First of all
the objective of being employer-led has been
met. It is good to see the local networks
taking shape, some 440 member organisations
having now signed up to the MCI with some
25 local MCI networks being set up
throughout the UK. In a recent update of the
MCI's activities in
Training
and
Development[4],
we have seen that they are
also beginning to share good practice at a
local level, examples being the setting up of
graduate development programmes in the
North East, introducing management
development programmes in the North West
and developing close links between schools
and colleges in Northampton. This employer-
12
Downloaded by University of Stirling At 02:18 28 January 2015 (PT)
VOLUME
22
NUMBER
5
1990
led approach
is
also being made
at the
national level with discussions with
the
Training Agency
and the
links between
MCI
networks
and the
local TECs
and
discussions
with various educational institutes, around
their curricula
for
management training
and
development.
The second objective stated
by Bob
Reed
is
that
the MCI
approach should
be
based
on
practice,
not
theory.
I
believe that
the
practical emphasis
is
important
but
this
should
not be
seen
as
opposite
in any way to
good theory.
My
preference would
be to
work with informed practice which builds
on
past experience
and is
routed
in
practical
work carried
out by
respected practitioners
in
the field.
I am
sure that
the MCI has not
meant
to
present these
as
opposites,
as the
idea
of
management competencies seems
to
have
its own
theoretical base well developed
from Boyatzis
and the
work
of the
American
Management Association[5].
If we are
willing
to acknowledge
the
theory base
to our
practice then
we can, as
practitioners,
examine
the
assumptions
and
principles
underlying
our
work
as a
basis
for
taking
informed action rather than ignoring
the
"wisdom"
of
previous ages.
It
could
be
argued that
one of the
reasons
for
training
being seen
as
peripheral
in
organisations
is
the
way in
which
it
seems
to
respond
relentlessly
to
professional fads.
□
THERE
IS
LITTLE EVIDENCE THAT
YOU CAN PRODUCE GENERIC LISTS
OF MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES...
□
The third
and
last
of the
objectives
is to be
more flexible
and
responsive
and
less
bureaucratic
in the way in
which
management development issues
are
tackled
in organisations. This they
are
certainly
doing
at a
local network level
by
sharing
good practice
and
responding
to
local needs.
However, nationally
I am not
convinced that
the route
to
nationally recognised
qualifications based
on
generic competence
meets these criteria. Rather
it
seems
to
give
organisations like
the
Training Agency
an
opportunity
to
spend what
is a
limited
amount
of
resources chasing this
all-
encompassing idea
of
generic competencies
for
UK
managers.
I
believe there
are
something
in the
region
of
nine research
projects being financed
to
discover what
these competencies
are and how
they
can be
used
for
development purposes.
I
wonder
in
fact
how
this meets
the
objective
of
being
non-bureaucratic
and
responsive
to
local
needs.
My
guess
is
that, above
all
else, this
will generate frustration among practitioners
who
are
looking
for a
more pragmatic
approach
to
providing systematic
development
for
their managerial
staff.
GENERIC COMPETENCIES VERSUS
COMPETENCIES
IN
CONTEXT
There
is
little evidence[6] that
you can
produce generic lists
of
management
competencies,
e.g.
using
the MCI
definition
that competence
is
taken
to
mean "ability
to
perform effectively functions associated with
management
in a
work-related situation"[7].
I
do believe that excellent work
has
been done
in
the
field
of
developing management
competencies
but
only within
the
context
of
a specific organisation. Examples
of
good
practice
in
this field
can
already
be
found
in
the literature,
for
instance
the
Nat West High
Performance Managerial Competencies[8],
Cadbury's Dictionary
of
Competence[9],
and
BP's Glossary
of
Competencies[10]. What
is
interesting about these approaches
is
that
they
are all
organisation-specific, reflecting
the culture
and
environment
in
which these
particular companies find themselves
operating. They also reflect
not
only what
is
happening currently
but are
looking into
the
future
to
what would
be
expected
of a
manager
in the
1990s.
However,
the
danger
is
that trainers
and
developers
and,
indeed, managers begin
to
look
for a
toolkit
of
competencies which
have been developed
by
other organisations,
or indeed
by the MCI or the
Training
Agency,
and use
these
as a way of
deciding
the best management practice
for
their
own
staff. I
strongly believe that
the
focus
of
attention
and
resource allocation should
be
around helping particular organisations
at a
local level
to
develop
a
"competencies
approach" which reflects their individual
needs
and the
markets
in
which they operate.
The emphasis here
is on how to
derive
and
work with your
own
competencies,
not on
deriving
a set of
competencies from
an
outside agency
and
then finding
out how to
use them, which
is the
route
the MCI and
the Training Agency
are
taking.
I
believe
we
should
be
looking towards developing
13
Downloaded by University of Stirling At 02:18 28 January 2015 (PT)
INDUSTRIAL AND
COMMERCIAL
TRAINING
competencies in context rather than generic
competencies. In other words we should be
helping those organisations where a
competency approach would be beneficial to
develop the methodology and the know-how
to use such a system. We should also be
helping them to decide whether it is the right
approach for them or whether in fact
another one would be more appropriate.
I am assuming here that we have not fallen
into the old trap of believing that there is
only one right way to conduct management
education and training.
COMPETENCE IN CONTEXT
In deciding how to use management
competencies you have to understand the
nature of your own organisation. It is useful
here to refer to Morgan's work, Images of
Organisations[11],
and the use of metaphors
to describe the culture or "how organisations
do things". Using his approach you can see
that mechanistic organisations, which have
different levels of management with different
functions and written job descriptions and
operate with a role culture, would respond
enthusiastically to a systems approach to
development based on competence. In this
case you would identify what various levels
of management would do, e.g. junior
managers and senior managers would indeed
have distinct functions and would carry out
their work quite differently. Then compile a
list of competencies on which to base your
training and development. The organisations
which are probably closest to this
"metaphor" are the BPs, Cadburys and
Nat Wests of this world.
One such competence would be "thinking
strategically" which would be a senior
manager's role in such a large organisation,
e.g. strategy would be decided at a senior
level and then cascaded through
communication channels to other managers
inside the organisation. It is unlikely that
first-line managers would actually be able to
contribute significantly to the corporate
strategy of their organisation. Therefore in
this multi-layered organisation it is
reasonable to expect senior managers to
develop strategic management skills and in
turn not to expect first-line supervisors to do
so.
The second area I would identify here is
product development. This will generally be
led by senior managers in the mechanistic
organisation. However, again junior level
managers would not be expected to be
involved in major decisions about new
product launches or developing new
businesses. This is not to say that they would
not be involved in issues of quality and
service, but this would be very much around
the actual day-to-day operations. So again
specific competencies could be identified by
the type and level of management.
□
(MANAGERS')... WORK
IS
OFTEN REACTIVE, FAST-MOVING
AND FRAGMENTED
□
The second type of metaphor using Morgan's
typology is the "organismic" organisation.
For this organisation there is likely to be a
high degree of decentralisation and autonomy
for individual business units, and a team
focus and entrepreneurial type base to its
culture. Such organisations are also likely to
have a single status philosophy and to base
reward systems on performance. In this type
of culture promotion would come through
achievement, and competencies would mean
something very different. Everyone would be
expected to be thinking about strategy, about
product development and marketing and
about quality and service. This key difference
in defining "competence" would have to be
acknowledged when one was deciding how to
develop effective managers within these
particular organisations.
I have given here only two examples of the
types of difference that can arise through
looking at and understanding the nature of
your organisation. Introducing the
competencies approach would be very
different for these two types of organisation
and in fact it could be argued that the whole
assumption of competence and the way of
dealing with it is based on an implicit
understanding of the organisation as
mechanistic. Those pursuing management
competence within fast-moving and turbulent
businesses (these include most middle-sized
or small businesses) would have to think
seriously about exactly what makes an
effective manager within these types of
culture. A generic list of management
competencies developed by the Training
Agency or the MCI would not be a good
starting base.
14
Downloaded by University of Stirling At 02:18 28 January 2015 (PT)
VOLUME 22 NUMBER 5
1990
THE NATURE OF MANAGEMENT
The second question that has to be dealt
with is: what is the nature of management
within the organisation? Can you have a
professional manager who could move from
one company to another, from one industry
to another, or from one specialism to
another? Or does effective management have
a context in which it can be understood? For
instance, again looking at some of the work
of the MCI and Training Agency on what
managers do, they still use the classical
theory which is based on the manager
spending his/her time planning, organising,
controlling and co-ordinating others. But, as
we have seen in empirically based research by
Mintzberg[12] and Kotter[13], managers do
not spend their time in this manner. Their
work is often reactive, fast-moving and
fragmented. So in looking at competencies
you have to ask the question of how your
managers spend their time within your own
particular organisation. Only by answering
this question could you develop a realistic basis
for identifying competence and using it as a basis
for development. This may not be as daunting
a task as it would appear, as well-tested
techniques have already been developed to
help you do this, e.g. grid approaches.
THE NATURE OF LEARNING
Finally, I believe the third question that has
to be answered is: how do people learn and
develop? In particular, how do your
managers learn and develop? Again we have
an excellent research base to help you to
answer this question. The work of
Mumford[14] and Margerison[15] indicates
that managers generally learn in what may
appear to be a very ad hoc and unsystematic
way to most observers of their behaviour.
However, as yet no one has put forward an
argument that this apparently informal
method has been unsuccessful for particular
chief executives or middle managers within
organisations. The fact that they learn
through networking with other managers,
through dealing with make-or-break projects,
by moving through different functions at an
early age and through developing personal
skills in communication, rather than by
attending formal management training
programmes, can help us to understand how
they learn in practice. Managers do learn in
different ways. Some are highly motivated to
learn and develop and some learn implicitly
through achieving success in the tasks which
they are performing. We have also learnt that
there is no one way to learn and develop that
fits every individual and every organisation.
We also know that in the UK there has been
the continual growth in approaches towards
self-development, action learning,
self-
managed learning and mentoring and
coaching within organisations[16].
□
...MOST SENIOR MANAGERS
PROBABLY
DO NOT
USE
ANY
FORMALISED 0FF-THE-J0B
TRAINING PACKAGES...
□
These have been very practical approaches,
developed from what has been happening on
a day-to-day basis within the organisation.
They do not begin with an assumption that
there is a set level of skill and knowledge out
there that has to be acquired, but start with
the real problems that people have to face
and to which they have to find solutions. It
is interesting to note that most senior
managers probably do not use any formalised
off-the-job training packages or indeed have
not undergone any systematic approaches to
training. This is not to say that this would
not benefit other, younger managers who are
now coming through into senior positions in
organisations, but again there has been no
evidence to prove that the way in which these
senior managers have learned in the past has
been unsuccessful. So the question for most
training and development managers is: what
is the nature of learning and development
within your own organisation? How do
people learn here, in what way can we
enhance learning, how can we use both
systematic and what may appear to be
unsystematic approaches to learning? The
answer might be competencies for some
organisations. For others this might actually
hinder the development processes for
particular individuals.
CONCLUSIONS
I have attempted to highlight here the need
to put the idea of competencies into context.
I do not believe that the quest for generic
managerial competence is a useful one and I
hope that the MCI and the Training Agency
15
Downloaded by University of Stirling At 02:18 28 January 2015 (PT)
INDUSTRIAL AND
COMMERCIAL
TRAINING
will channel their resources to a local level to
deal with particular organisations and their
interest in the competencies approach. In
doing so I would hope that we could offer to
those who are interested our experience on
how to develop competencies within their
own context, e.g. within their own
organisation, their own culture, and their
own management style. I hope that it is not
too late to do this and that in the search for
generic competencies we do not end up
frustrated and disillusioned with the practical
implications of what has been an excellent
initiative at national and local level by the MCI.
Again, I would also hope that we do not
fall into the trap of believing that there is
only one way to learn and develop and that
is through competence. In the UK over the
last 15 years we have developed excellent
approaches in the field of self-development,
self-managed learning, action learning, and
on-the-job development processes which have
contributed significantly in helping
individuals, teams and organisations to
develop. If we recognise that people learn in
different ways then this should be reflected in
the types of learning opportunity which we
offer at national level. I do believe firmly
that if we are going to reward managers for
the amount of time and effort which they
put into their development then we should do
so by recognising the different ways in which
they go about this, one of which is
competency-based development.
References
1.
"Management
Training:
It's Priority for Personnel",
Personnel
Management,
December 1989.
2.
Training
in
Britain,
A
Research
Report,
HMSO,
London,
1989.
3. "MCI/CRAC [Careers Research and Advisory
Centre] Conference on Management
Development Practice", 2 October 1989.
4.
Training
and
Development,
April 1990.
5.
Storey,
J.,
"Management Development: A Literature
Review and Implications for Future Research,
Part I: Conceptualisations and Practices",
Personnel
Review,
Vol. 18 No. 6, 1989, pp. 3-19.
6. Defining
Managerial
Skills,
IMS Report No. 185,
Institute of Manpower Studies, University of
Sussex, Brighton, 1989.
7. How
Good are Your Managers?
and MCI
Guidelines,
MCI booklets, c/o Shell UK, Strand,
London WC2R OPX.
8. "The Kind of Competence for Rapid Change",
Personnel
Management,
September 1989.
9. "Cadbury's Dictionary of Competence",
Personnel
Management,
July 1989.
10.
"Oiling the Wheels of Competence",
Personnel
Management,
August 1989.
11.
Morgan, G.,
Images
of
Organisations,
Sage
Publications, London, 1986.
12.
Mintzberg, H.,
The Nature
of
Managerial
Work,
Harper & Row, New York, 1973.
13.
Kotter, J.P.,
The General
Managers,
Macmillan,
London,
1982.
14.
Mumford, A.,
Developing
Directors:
The
Learning
Processes,
Manpower Services
Commission, Moorfoot, Sheffield, 1987.
15.
Margerison, C., "How Chief Executives
Succeed",
Journal of
European Industrial
Training,
Vol. 4 No. 3, 1985.
16.
The Line Manager's Role
in
Developing
Talent,
The Industrial Society, London, 1989.
Roy Canning is based at Roffey Park
Management College, Horsham, West Sussex,
where he is Programme Director for the
College's Advanced Diploma in Manager
Development.
16
Downloaded by University of Stirling At 02:18 28 January 2015 (PT)
This article has been cited by:
1. Jason P. Koenigsfeld, SeungHyun Kim, JaeMin Cha, Joe Perdue, Ronald F. Cichy. 2012. Developing a competency model for
private club managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:3, 633-641. [CrossRef]
2. Johathan Winterton, Jonathan Winterton. 2009. Competence across Europe: highest common factor or lowest common
denominator?. Journal of European Industrial Training 33:8/9, 681-700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. George Boak, Diane Coolican. 2001. Competencies for retail leadership: accurate, acceptable, affordable. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 22:5, 212-220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Paul Smith. 2000. Introducing competence‐based management development: a case study of a university‐hospital partnership.
Journal of Workplace Learning 12:6, 245-251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Paul D. Hanno, Dean Patton, Sue Marlow. 2000. Transactional learning relationships: developing management competencies
for effective small firm‐stakeholder interactions. Education + Training 42:4/5, 237-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Sue Marlo. 2000. Investigating the use of emergent strategic human resource management activity in the small firm. Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development 7:2, 135-148. [Abstract] [PDF]
7. Alexander Kouzmin, Nada Korac‐Kakabadse, Andrew Korac‐Kakabadse. 1999. Globalization and information technology:
vanishing social contracts, the “pink collar” workforce and public policy challenges. Women in Management Review 14:6,
230-252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Thomas N. Garavan, Bridie Barnicle, Fiachra O’Suilleabhain. 1999. Management development: contemporary trends, issues
and strategies. Journal of European Industrial Training 23:4/5, 191-207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Nada Korac‐Kakabadse, Alexander Kouzmin. 1997. Maintaining the rage: from “glass and concrete ceilings” and metaphorical
sex changes to psychological audits and renegotiating organizational scripts ‐ Part 2. Women in Management Review 12:6,
207-221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. John Loan‐Clarke. 1996. The Management Charter Initiative ‐ a critique of management standards/NVQs. Journal of
Management Development 15:6, 4-17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. David Holman, Laura Hall. 1996. Competence in Management Development: Rites and Wrongs. British Journal of
Management 7:2, 191-202. [CrossRef]
12. Graeme Currie, Roger Darby. 1995. Competence‐based management development: rhetoric and reality. Journal of European
Industrial Training 19:5, 11-18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Christopher Conway. 1994. Developing Senior Management Competences at Ocean Group. Management Development Review
7:1, 7-12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Stefan Wills. 1993. MCI and the Competency Movement: The Case So Far. Journal of European Industrial Training 17:1. .
[Abstract] [PDF]
15. Linda Miller. 1991. MANAGERIAL COMPETENCES. Industrial and Commercial Training 23:6. . [Abstract] [PDF]
Downloaded by University of Stirling At 02:18 28 January 2015 (PT)
