What Is Competence?

[교육학과조교]

What Is Competence?

What Is Competence?
FRANC¸ OISE DELAMARE LE DEIST & JONATHAN WINTERTON
Toulouse Business School, France
ABSTRACT This paper explores the definitions and usage of competence, especially in the
context of training and development initiatives in the USA, UK, France and Germany, seeking to
clarify the concept by incorporating knowledge, skills and competences within a holistic
competence typology. One-dimensional frameworks of competence are inadequate and are giving
way to multi-dimensional frameworks. Functional and cognitive competences are increasingly
being added to behavioural competencies in the USA, while in the UK cognitive and behavioural
competences are being added to the occupational functional competence model. France, Germany,
and Austria entering the arena more recently, adopted from the outset more holistic, but different,
approaches. After comparing these approaches, we argue that a holistic framework is useful in
identifying the combination of competences that are necessary for particular occupations and to
promote labour mobility.
KEY WORDS: Knowledge, skills, competence, competency
The concept of competence or competency (‘competence’ generally refers to
functional areas and ‘competency’ to behavioural areas but usage is inconsistent,
as shown below) dominated the management strategy literature of the 1990s,
which emphasized ‘core competence’ as a key organizational resource that could
be exploited to gain competitive advantage (e.g. Campbell and Sommers Luchs,
1997; Mitrani et al., 1992; Nadler and Tushman, 1999). Hamel and Prahalad
(1994) defined core competence as ‘the collective learning in the organisation,
especially how to co-ordinate diverse production skills and integrate multiple
streams of technologies’ (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990: 82). From the perspective of
a resource-based theory of the firm, sustained competitive advantage is seen as
deriving from a firm’s internal resources if these can add value, are unique or
rare, are difficult for competitors to imitate and are non-substitutable (Cappelli
and Crocker-Hefter, 1996; Ellestro¨ m, 1992; Foss and Knudsen, 1996). The virtue
of the core competence approach is that it ‘recognises the complex interaction of
people, skills and technologies that drives firm performance and addresses the
importance of learning and path dependency in its evolution’ (Scarborough, 1998:
229).
Correspondence Address: Jonathan Winterton, Group ESC Toulouse, 20 Boulevard Lascroses, BF 7010,
31068 Toulouse, France. Email: j.winterton@esc-toulouse.fr
Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 8, No. 1, 27 – 46, March 2005
ISSN 1367-8868 Print/1469-8374 Online/05/010027-20 # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1367886042000338227
It is paradoxical that, while management strategists were emphasizing competences
that are unique and firm-specific, the HRD literature was more concerned
with developing highly transferable generic competences that are required for most
jobs or particular occupations or job roles (Le´vy-Leboyer, 1996; Stasz, 1997). There
is an inherent tension between the strategy and HRD approaches. If concentrating
on core competences that are ‘distinctive and specific to each individual organisation’
is what gives competitive advantage (Bergenhenegouwen et al., 1996), the scope for
generic competence frameworks is limited; as Thompson et al. (1996) note, rigid
adherence to a generic list for managers of a small firm may undermine the very
things that have led to its current success.
The competence-based approach in HRD and vocational education and training
(VET) was driven by several factors, some global in nature, others particularly
European. First, and universally, the pace of technological innovation in products
and processes, along with demographic change, has increased the importance of
adaptive training and work-based learning in the HRD agenda. This need has led to
the second global factor, the replacement of supply-driven traditional education
systems with demand-driven models that favour output-related (typically described
as ‘competence-based’) systems of VET. Third, and especially in Europe, lifelong
learning policy emphasizing informal and non-formal learning has led to initiatives
like the Personal Skills Card and the European Skills Accreditation System, to
identify and validate competences so acquired, and in many EU member states the
education and training systems have begun to validate tacit skills (Bjørna˚vold, 1999,
2000). This policy emphasis is related to a fourth factor, supporting ‘Social Europe’,
since recognizing learning outcomes, irrespective of the routes of acquisition involved,
rather than inputs in terms of time spent in institutions of learning, is key to
widening access to learning and providing ‘ladders’ for those who have had fewer
opportunities for formal education and training but have nonetheless developed
competence experientially. The fifth factor, also related to the objectives of European
lifelong learning policy, is the potential of a competence-based approach for
integrating traditional education, vocational training and experiential development.
The sixth factor, elaborated in the European Employment Strategy, is the need to
improve the skills and qualifications of the labour force and to promote labour
mobility through constructing common reference levels of occupational competence.
In relation to this generic competence approach, the development of an
appropriate typology of competence is important for integrating education and
training, aligning both with the needs of the labour market and promoting mobility
for individuals (vertical as in career progression, lateral as in movement between
sectors and spatial as in geographically), especially for workers faced with job
insecurity (van der Klink and Boon, 2002). If competence is important, it follows
that its meaning is also important, since without a common understanding there is
little chance of integration, alignment or mobility in practice. However, despite the
central role of competence, there is considerable confusion surrounding the term,
which reflects conflation of distinct concepts and inconsistent usage as much as
differences in systems, structures and cultures of HRD and VET. This paper explores
the various definitions and usage of competence, contrasting three dominant
approaches in the USA, UK, France Germany and Austria, which developed more
or less independently, and, comparing these, seeks to clarify the concept by
28 F. Delamare Le Deist & J. Winterton
incorporating knowledge, skills, competences and competencies within a holistic
competence typology.
Competence as a ‘Fuzzy Concept’
There is such confusion and debate concerning the concept of ‘competence’ that it is
impossible to identify or impute a coherent theory or to arrive at a definition capable
of accommodating and reconciling all the different ways that the term is used. As
Norris argued, ‘as tacit understandings of the word [competence] have been
overtaken by the need to define precisely and [to] operationalize concepts, the
practical has become shrouded in theoretical confusion and the apparently simple
has become profoundly complicated’ (1991: 332). Describing competence as a ‘fuzzy
concept’, Boon and van der Klink nonetheless acknowledge it as a ‘useful term,
bridging the gap between education and job requirements’ (2002: 6).
Snyder and Ebeling (1992) refer to competence in a functional sense, but use
‘competencies’ in the plural. Some authors consistently use ‘competency’ when
referring to occupational competence (Boam and Sparrow, 1992; Mitrani et al.,
1992; Smith, 1993) or treat the two as synonymous (Brown, 1993, 1994). Hartle
argues that competency as ‘a characteristic of an individual that has been shown to
drive superior job performance’ (1995: 107) includes both visible ‘competencies’ of
‘knowledge and skills’ and ‘underlying elements of competencies’, like ‘traits and
motives’. Elkin (1990) associates competences with micro-level job performance and
competencies with higher management attributes and, in defining ‘managerial
competencies for the future’, Cockerill (1989) combines output competences, like
presentation skills, with inputs like self-confidence. The difficulty of using
competence as an overarching term as well as a specific one is demonstrated by
the apparently tautological definition provided by Dooley et al.: ‘Competency-based
behavioural anchors are defined as performance capabilities needed to demonstrate
knowledge, skill and ability (competency) acquisition’ (2004: 317). According to this
construction, competency is a sub-set of itself.
The few attempts to establish coherent terminology (Boak, 1991; Tate, 1995;
Winterton and Winterton, 1999; Woodruffe, 1991) have had little impact to date.
Boak (1991) argues that ‘competency’ in the American sense complements
‘competence’ as used in the UK occupational standards. Burgoyne (1988) similarly
distinguishes ‘being competent’ (meeting the job demands) from ‘having competencies’
(possessing the necessary attributes to perform competently). Woodruffe
(1991) offers the clearest statement, contrasting areas of competence, defined as
aspects of the job which an individual can perform, with competency, referring to a
person’s behaviour underpinning competent performance. Woodruffe’s definition is
endorsed by Tate who warns against confusing ‘input competencies with output
competences’ (1995: 86).
Mangham (1986) noted that competence may relate to personal models, outcome
models or education and training models, as well as to the standards approach in
which benchmarking criteria are used.Mansfield (2004: 304) similarly contrasts three
different usages of competence: outcomes (vocational standards describing what
people need to be able to do in employment); tasks that people do (describing what
currently happens); and personal traits or characteristics (describing what people are
What Is Competence? 29
like). Weinert (2001) lists nine different ways in which competence has been defined
or interpreted: general cognitive ability; specialized cognitive skills; competenceperformance
model; modified competence-performance model; objective and
subjective self-concepts; motivated action tendencies; action competence; key
competencies; meta-competencies.
Different cultural contexts influence the understanding of competence (Cseh, 2003)
and this is especially important in relation to the extent to which competence is
defined by cultural literacy involving group identities such as race, gender, age and
class (ascription), as opposed to demonstrable behaviour (achievement). As Jeris and
Johnson note, the distinction is confounded by the role of ascription in providing
access to education and career opportunities that enable achievement: ‘As much as
the behavioral and skill-based performance assessments portend to be ‘‘neutral and
objective,’’ the ascriptive elements remain present and troubling for today’s
increasingly diverse workplaces’ (2004: 1104). There have been few attempts
(notably Boon & van der Klink, 2002 in the USA; Eraut, 1994 in the UK) to
situate competence in terms of socio-cultural practices, which as Jeris and Johnson
note:
is disturbing in light of the strong bonds between identifying competencies and
tying them to practice standards. These standards, once developed, find their way
into practice through certification of people and processes, through accrediting
agencies (public and private) for all sorts of educational programs, and through
qualification examinations and licensure requirements.. . .The commodification of
competence into certifiable competencies privileges the KSA (knowledge, skills and
attitudes) worldview, and turns what Boon and van der Klink (2002) found to be a
somewhat flexible concept into a rigid sorting mechanism that may have grave
consequences for marginalized groups.
(Jeris & Johnson 2004: 1108)
The same argument can be made in relation to the neglect of organizational culture
and workplace context, since generic competences may not be transferable across
different knowledge domains (Burgoyne, 1989; Canning, 1990; Kilcourse, 1994). The
Job Competences Survey developed by Dulewicz and Herbert (1992) demonstrated
that the skill needs of managers are sufficiently generic to permit generalizations
across the occupation. Despite differences in the managerial function in different
contexts, Dulewicz (1989) found that firm-specific competencies represented only 30
per cent of the total competencies basket, while the remaining 70 per cent were
common to a wide range of organizations. However, Antonacopoulou and
FitzGerald warn that the ‘fact that many organisations use the same terminology
to describe a set of managerial characteristics is not a strong argument for claiming
that it is possible to identify a set of universal management competencies’ (1996: 31).
Such critics claim that rationalist approaches create abstract, narrow and oversimplified
descriptions of competence that fail adequately to reflect the complexity of
competence in work performance (Attewell, 1990; Norris, 1991; Sandberg, 1994).
Since competences are centred on the individual, they are viewed as independent
of the social and task-specific context in which performance occurs, yet ‘skill level is
a characteristic not only of a person but also of a context. People do not have
30 F. Delamare Le Deist & J. Winterton
competences independent of context’ (Fischer et al., 1993: 113). Constructivist and
interpretative approaches derived from phenomenology view competence as a
function of the context in which it is applied, where ‘worker and work form one
entity through lived experience of work’ (Sandberg, 2000: 50). Competence is
constituted by the meaning that the work has for the worker in their experience
(Stoof et al., 2002; Velde, 1999). Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986), who used an
interpretative approach to investigate competence among pilots and others, found
that attributes used in accomplishing work are bound to the work context regardless
of the level of competence attained and that in the work situation individuals acquire
situational or context-dependent knowledge and skills. Other interpretative studies,
with nurses (Benner, 1984) and police officers (Fielding, 1988a, 1988b), have equally
demonstrated that attributes acquire context-dependency through individuals’
experience of work. One of the advantages of the interpretative approach is that it
acknowledges workers’ tacit knowledge and skills (Polanyi, 1967), which can be
overlooked if competence is treated as context-free since the way people work in
practice seldom accords with the formal job description. Tacit competences, not only
of professionals (Eraut, 2000) but also of so-called ‘unskilled workers’ (Kusterer,
1978), can have a determining impact on the success of an enterprise (Flanagan et al.,
1993).
In view of the terminological and conceptual confusion surrounding competence,
we set out to explore three dominant approaches which began relatively
independently, first in the USA, then in the UK and most recently in France and
Germany. These approaches are contrasted before proposing a comprehensive
holistic typology of competence.
The Behavioural Approach: The US Tradition
White (1959) is credited with having introduced the term competence to describe
those personality characteristics associated with superior performance and high
motivation. Postulating a relationship between cognitive competence and motivational
action tendencies, White defined competence as an ‘effective interaction (of the
individual) with the environment’ and argued that there is a ‘competence motivation’
in addition to competence as ‘achieved capacity’. McClelland (1973) followed this
approach and developed tests to predict competence as opposed to intelligence, but
subsequently (McClelland, 1976) also described this characteristic underlying
superior performance as ‘competency’, introducing the approach to the consulting
firm that became Hay McBer.
Measures of competence were developed as an alternative to using traditional tests
of cognitive intelligence because these were held to be poor predictors of job
performance, although Barrett and Depinet (1991) defended the predictive power of
intelligence tests. The competence approach starts from the opposite end, observing
successful and effective job performers to determine how these individuals differ
from less successful performers. Competency thus captures skills and dispositions
beyond cognitive ability such as self-awareness, self-regulation and social skills;
while some of these may also be found in personality taxonomies, competencies are
fundamentally behavioural and, unlike personality and intelligence, may be learned
through training and development (McClelland, 1998). This tradition has remained
What Is Competence? 31
particularly influential in the USA, with competency defined in terms of ‘underlying
characteristics of people’ that are ‘causally related to effective or superior
performance in a job’, ‘generalizing across situations, and enduring for a reasonably
long period of time’ (Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer and Spencer, 1993). The Hay Group et
al. (1996) demonstrated widespread use of this approach in USA companies in order
to raise performance.
This is the tradition followed by Boyatzis (1982), who determined empirically the
characteristics of managers that enable them to be effective in various managerial
positions, based on a study of 2,000 managers holding forty-one different positions
in twelve organizations. Boyatzis proposed an integrated model of managerial
competence that explains the interrelationship of these characteristics and their
relationship with both management functions and the internal organizational
environment. Similarly, Spencer and Spencer (1993) demonstrated the use of the
McClelland/McBer job competence assessment (JCA) methodology with an analysis
of 650 jobs to propose generic job models. For them, competencies include:
motives, traits, self-concepts, attitudes or values, content knowledge, or cognitive
or behavioral skills – any individual characteristic that can be measured or
counted reliably and that can be shown to differentiate significantly between
superior and average performers, or between effective and ineffective performers.
(Spencer and Spencer, 1993: 4)
Similarly, noting that different cultures are commonly associated with an emphasis
on particular work attributes, Dooley et al. (2001) found that Mexican and
American trainers listed the same top ten competencies from a list of thirty-nine
considered relevant to their training and development activities.
Paradoxically, the use of generic competencies has lived alongside the strategic
approach to core competence in the US. Twenty-five years ago, the American
Management Association (AMA) identified five clusters of competencies that were
believed to be associated with effective managerial behaviour (Hayes, 1979) and
these prompted the American Association of Colleges and Schools of Business
(AACSB) to promote the competency approach in US Business Schools (Albanese,
1989). More recently, the State Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills
(SCANS), established by the US Secretary of Labor, identified ‘generic
competencies’ (resources, interpersonal, information, systems and technology)
(SCANS, 1992). The link between core competence and generic competencies is
made through competency modelling and competency assessment. Competency
modelling is used to identify the critical success factors driving performance in
organizations (Lucia and Lepsinger, 1999), while competency assessment is used to
determine the extent to which individuals have these critical competencies (Spencer
et al., 1997).
Since the end of the 1990s, competency-based HRM has become widespread in the
US, in relation not only to HRD in general, but also to leadership in particular as
well as selection, retention and remuneration (Allbredge and Nilan, 2000; Athey and
Orth, 1999; Dubois and Rothwell, 2004; Foxan, 1998; Naquin and Holton, 2002;
Rodriguez et al., 2002). In this renaissance, competency has a much broader
conception than hitherto, including knowledge and skills alongside the behavioural
32 F. Delamare Le Deist & J. Winterton
or psycho-social characteristics in the McClelland tradition. Even within the
predominantly behavioural approach, many conceptions of competency now include
knowledge and skills alongside attitudes, behaviours, work habits, abilities and
personal characteristics (Gangani et al., 2004; Green, 1999; Lucia and Lepsinger,
1999; Naquin and Wilson, 2002; Nitardy and McLean, 2002; Russ-Eft, 1995).
More comprehensive competence frameworks appearing in the USA incorporate
job standards and processes as well as knowledge measured by qualifications
(Cooper, 2000; Evers et al., 1998). Competency models have been widely used to
align individual capabilities with the core competence of the organization (Rothwell
and Lindholm, 1999). A competency framework is typically viewed as a mechanism
to link HRD with organizational strategy: ‘a descriptive tool that identifies the skills,
knowledge, personal characteristics, and behaviors needed to effectively perform a
role in the organization and help the business meet its strategic objectives’ (Lucia and
Lepsinger, 1999: 5). Gangani et al. (2004: 1111) similarly argue that ‘competencybased
practices utilize a competency framework to align the strategic objectives of an
organization with its key HR business processes’.
Much of the recent US literature focuses on job-related (functional) competences
(Aragon and Johnson, 2002; Boon and van der Klink, 2002), often with associated
underpinning behavioural competencies. For example, in the influential leadership
competency model developed by Holton and Lynham (2000), six ‘competency
domains’ are identified relating to performance at the organization, process and
individual levels. These domains are broken down into ‘competency groups’ and
then further divided into ‘sub-competencies’. At the organization performance level,
the two competency domains identified are strategic thinking and strategic
stewardship, beneath which there are, respectively, four and five competency groups,
with further sub-competencies (Collins et al., 2000). Similarly, at the process level,
the two competency domains identified are process management and process
planning, each broken down further into three competency groups, with further subcompetencies
(Baker et al., 2000). At the individual level, the two competency
domains, employee performance and employee appraisal, are each further subdivided
into four competency groups, with further sub-competencies (Wilson et al.,
2000). All of the competencies listed are based on functional job-related standards,
rather than behavioural competencies (although some are clearly underpinned by
behavioural competencies).
While the behavioural competency approach promoted most notably by David
McClelland and Hay-McBer is still much in evidence in the US, a broader
conception of competence, which emphasizes also job-related functional skills and
underpinning knowledge, is clearly gaining ground.
The Functional Approach: The UK Tradition
Recognizing endemic deficiencies of skill formation in the UK, governments during
the 1980s introduced a competence-based approach to VET in order to establish a
nation-wide unified system of work-based qualifications. This VET reform was
driven by the adoption of a competence-based qualifications framework, which
subsequently influenced similar developments in other countries in the Commonwealth
and the European Union.
What Is Competence? 33
The new vocational qualifications (National Vocational Qualifications, NVQs, in
England and Wales, Scottish Vocational Qualifications, SVQs, in Scotland) created
under this framework were based on occupational standards of competence,
grounded in functional analysis of occupations in a variety of contexts (Mansfield
and Mitchell, 1996). Other (non-NVQ/SVQ) vocational qualifications continued to
exist alongside. The Management Standards, for example, were developed and tested
with over 3,000 managers, across a range of sectors (Frank, 1991). Occupational
standards identify key roles, which are then broken down into a number of units of
competence. These are further sub-divided into elements of competence and, for each
element of competence, performance criteria are defined which form the basis of
assessment, with range indicators provided for guidance. Occupational standards are
firmly rooted in the reality of work (Mansfield, 1993); employers play a leading role
in their validation, as do trade unions in unionized sectors. Nevertheless,
participation by employers in the formal vocational qualifications system has been
far from universal, partly because of a perceived lack of relevance to specific
employer needs and partly due to the bureaucracy associated with assessment
procedures. Assessment for VQs involves accrediting the competence of individuals
against actual performance in the workplace, which was designed to ensure
continued relevance to the work situation (Miller, 1991), although there is evidence
that assessment fails to capture many of the outcomes of informal learning.
Another criticism of the new VQs related to their apparent lack of adequate
theoretical underpinning as the competence-based approach was concerned mainly
with demonstrating competence in the workplace and not the systematic acquisition
of knowledge. However, underlying knowledge has always played a major part in
craft qualifications of the City and Guilds of London Institute and this continued to
be the case under the new VQs, as City and Guilds became one of the awarding
institutions. The criticism probably also reflects the resistance of educational
institutions to a competence-based approach. Much of the early UK literature on
NVQs was dominated by academic critiques which were hostile to the competencebased
approach per se (Bates, 1995; Jones and Moore, 1995). Hyland (1994)
described NVQs as fundamentally flawed and inappropriate to current and future
education and training needs. Smithers (1993) attacked the underpinning knowledge
of NVQs compared with VQs in countries like Germany and did not disguise his
opposition to a learner-centred approach. Significantly, the Management Standards
developed by the Management Charter Initiative (MCI) had little influence on UK
Business Schools (IoM, 1994) in comparison with the adoption of competency by the
AACSB in the US.
With a competence-based approach to VET, the emphasis is on functional
competence and the ability to demonstrate performance to the standards required of
employment in a work context (Knasel and Meed, 1994). The definition of
occupational competence provided by the Manpower Services Commission (MSC,
1986) and adopted by Investors in People (1995: 41) was ‘the ability to perform
activities in the jobs within an occupation, to the standards expected in employment’.
However, the definition also included ‘mastery of skills and understanding’ and
‘aspects of personal effectiveness’. As Mansfield and Mitchell note, this definition
‘appears to include a mix of models: work expectations, input measures (knowledge
and skills) and psychological attributes’ (1996: 46). Indeed, the original Management
34 F. Delamare Le Deist & J. Winterton
Standards were supplemented by an MCI competency model, defining behavioural
performance indicators. Nevertheless, the MSC definition of competence was
subsequently adopted as the official Employment Department approach in defining
occupational standards as ‘a description of something which a person who works in
a given occupational area should be able to do. . .[and] able to demonstrate’
(Employment Department and NCVQ, 1991). A government review of vocational
qualifications in 1996 (Beaumont, 1996) expanded the definition of competence as:
‘The ability to apply knowledge, understanding and skills in performing to the
standards required in employment. This includes solving problems and meeting
changing demand.’
While the main approach in the UK remains one of functional competence, some
employers developed their own competence frameworks for managers or adopted
other generic models instead of using the MCI Standards (Carrington, 1994; Hirsh
and Strebler, 1994). Some organizations adopted the Hay McBer competency
framework in preference to the competences embodied in the Management
Standards (Mathewman, 1995; Cockerill, 1989). Diverse competence models have
been introduced in relation to competence-based pay systems (Reilly, 2003) and
especially for competence-based management development (Strebler and Bevan,
1996).
Hodkinson and Issitt (1995: 149) argued for a more holistic approach to
competence in the caring professions, integrating knowledge, understanding, values
and skills that ‘reside within the person who is the practitioner.’ Similarly, Cheetham
and Chivers (1996, 1998) claimed to develop a holistic model of professional
competence, comprising five sets of inter-connected competences and competencies.
Their competence framework comprises five dimensions:
. Cognitive competence, including underpinning theory and concepts, as well as
informal tacit knowledge gained experientially. Knowledge (know-that), underpinned
by understanding (know-why), is distinguished from competence.
. Functional competences (skills or know-how), those things that ‘a person who
works in a given occupational area should be able to do. . .[and] able to
demonstrate’.
. Personal competency (behavioural competencies, ‘know how to behave’), defined
as a ‘relatively enduring characteristic of a person causally related to effective or
superior performance in a job’.
. Ethical competencies, defined as ‘the possession of appropriate personal and
professional values and the ability to make sound judgements based upon these
in work-related situations’.
. Meta-competencies, concerned with the ability to cope with uncertainty, as well
as with learning and reflection.
This framework was applied in an analysis of the future skills needs of managers in
the UK undertaken for the Department for Education and Skills (Winterton et al.,
2000), and in a modified version (where ethical competencies were subsumed under
personal competency, as in the MCI Personal Competency Model) in a study
undertaken for the UK government taxation agency, the Inland Revenue (Winterton
and Winterton, 2002). This later research into the implementation of management
What Is Competence? 35
standards in sixteen organizations found that nine were using the functional
competences based on the Management Standards only, two were using behavioural
competency frameworks and five had combined functional competence and
behavioural competency to introduce hybrid competence models. This evidence
suggests that in the UK, too, the concept of competence is being broadened to
capture underlying knowledge and behaviours rather than simply functional
competences associated with specific occupations.
A Multi-dimensional and Holistic Approach: France, Germany and Austria
In mainland Europe, two other approaches are evident, exemplified by France and
Germany, which each adopted competence in their approaches to HRD more
recently. Most other European countries have followed the UK, French or German
approaches (Winterton et al., 2005), so confining the discussion to these nonetheless
permits a wider generalization of the issues.
The competence movement in France began during the 1980s, and became
particularly influential from the 1990s. The emergence and development of
competence has passed through several stages: after the first appearance of the
idea within organizations, came the development of instruments and tools for
HRM practitioners and consultants, then the conceptualization of competence as
a theoretical concern, and finally more critical approaches. The major development
of competence-based practice appeared in 1984, linked to the need to
develop new competences and the role of enterprises in developing them (Cannac
and CEGOS, 1985). Gilbert (2003) traces the history of the management of
competence a` la franc¸ aise, which carries the imprint of national culture (in a
context of a right to vocational training and the important role of collective
agreements), so that the strong global influence of the McClelland approach is
much less evident in France.
The state encouraged a competence-based approach in 1993 when the national
employment agency, ANPE (Agence nationale pour l’emploi), modified its framework
of occupations (Re´pertoire Ope´rationnel des Me´tiers et des Emplois) to a
competence-based system, which stimulated widespread academic commentary (Le
Boterf, 1994; Levy-Leboyer, 1996; Merle, 1996; Minet et al., 1994). Enterprises
adopted individual eval‎uation of competence instead of relying upon qualifications
(Durand, J. P., 2000), increasing flexibility but sometimes jeopardizing job security
(Arnaud and Lauriol, 2002). Further impetus was given to the competence
movement during the 1990s when the state introduced a right for individuals to
have their competences assessed (bilan de competences) independently to provide a
basis for personal development in their occupation (Joras, 2002). The concept of
competence featured increasingly in HRM since the mid 1990s, both in research
and practice and has been associated with several different normative models and
various practices (Minet et al., 1994). Competence also became more focused on
HRD (Dousset, 1990) and the instruments for developing and measuring
competences began to appear (Dietrich, 2003; Klarsfeld and Roques, 2003;
Paraponaris, 2003; Tre´po and Ferrary, 1998). Competence-based pay was
introduced in some heavy industries (Brochier and Oiry, 2003; Klarsfeld and
Saint-Onge, 2000). The competence movement gained further ground after the
36 F. Delamare Le Deist & J. Winterton
employers’ association MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France) launched
Objectif competences (MEDEF, 2002) encouraging the adoption of competence
approaches in enterprises and further stimulating academic interest (Brochier,
2002; Dupray et al., 2003; Klarsfeld and Oiry, 2003).
Haddadj and Besson (2000) note that, from an epistemological perspective, the
logic of competence is polarized into two distinct directions: an individual approach,
centred on individual behaviours, and a collective approach, centred on building the
required competence in an organization. Most definitions of competence fall
somewhere between two extremes: competence as a universal attribute, such as
literacy, and competence in terms of individual capacity, which is found only in the
work context (Klarsfeld, 2000). Several French authors have compared the French
approach with the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ (often exclusively American) approach. The
French approach is generally more comprehensive, considering savoir (compe´tences
the´oriques, i.e. knowledge), savoir-faire (compe´tences pratiques, i.e. functional
competences) and savoir-eˆtre (compe´tences sociales et comportementales, i.e.
behavioural competencies). Tremblay and Sire (1999) note a strong concordance
between the UK use of functional competence and the French savoir-faire and
between the USA use of soft competences, as in the Hay approach, and the French
savoir-eˆtre. Dejoux (1999) comments that in France, while the notion of individual
competence has not yet generated a general, empirically validated theory, there is
nonetheless a consensus definition based on the minimal three dimensions already
mentioned. These three dimensions rest on the concepts of knowledge (savoir and
connaissance), a component based on experience (savoir faire or savoir agir) and a
behavioural component (savoir eˆtre or la faculte´ de s’adapter). According to Cazal
and Dietrich (2003) this triptyque is largely confined to HRD, although it has
occasionally appeared in the vocabulary of those concerned with strategy (Durand,
T., 2000).
While competence (Kompetenz) was always implicit in the German dual system of
VET, the main emphasis was on specifying the necessary learning inputs, rather than
outcomes, to master a trade. Occupational competence is rooted in the concept of
Beruf (usually translated as occupation, but encompassing the traditions of the craft
from the trade and craft guilds), which defines vocational training theory and
associated pedagogy. Within this tradition, modularization and generic competences
are regarded with suspicion since these may damage the unity of the craft. From the
1980s, the concept of ‘key qualifications’ (Schlu¨sselqualifikationen) appeared,
including personal competences, such as ‘ability to act autonomously and to solve
problems independently’, ‘flexibility’, ‘ability to cooperate’, ‘practical ethics and
moral maturity’. While Qualifikation signifies the ability to master concrete
(generally professional) situation requirements (so is clearly application-oriented),
Kompetenz refers to the capacity of a person to act and is more holistic, comprising
not only content or subject knowledge and ability, but also core and generic abilities
(Arnold et al., 2001: 176).
In 1996 the German education system adopted an ‘action competence’ approach,
moving from subject (inputs) to competence (outcomes) and curricula specifying
learning fields (Lernfelder) rather than occupation-related knowledge and skills
content (Straka, 2004). A standard typology of competences now appears at the
beginning of every new vocational training curriculum, elaborating vocational
What Is Competence? 37
action competence (Handlungskompetenz) in terms of domain or subjectcompetence
(Fachkompetenz), personal competence (Personalkompetenz) and social
competence (Soziaekompetenz). Domain competence describes the willingness and
ability, on the basis of subject-specific knowledge and skills, to carry out tasks and
solve problems and to judge the results in a way that is goal-oriented, appropriate,
methodological and independent. General cognitive competence (Sachkompetenz),
the ability to think and act in an insightful and problem-solving way, is a
prerequisite for developing Fachkompetenz, which therefore includes both cognitive
and functional competences. Personal competence describes the willingness and
ability, as an individual personality, to understand, analyse and judge the
development chances, requirements and limitations in the family, job and public
life, to develop one’s own skills as well as to decide on and develop life plans. It
includes personal characteristics like independence, critical abilities, self-confidence,
reliability, responsibility and awareness of duty, as well as professional and ethical
values. Personalkompetenz therefore includes both cognitive and social competences.
In some accounts, self-competence (Selbkompetenz) is distinguished, as the
ability to act in a morally self-determined humane way, including the assertion of a
positive self-image and the development of moral judgement. Social competence
describes the willingness and ability to experience and shape relationships, to
identify and understand benefits and tensions, and to interact with others in a
rational and conscientious way, including the development of social responsibility
and solidarity. Sozialkompetenz therefore includes both functional and social
competences. A balance of subject, personal and social competence is the
prerequisite for ‘method and learning competence’ (Methodenkompetenz and
Lernkompetenz). Method competence is an extension of Sachkompetenz and
Fachkompetenz arising from the implementation of transversal strategies and
processes of invention and problem-solving, while learning competence equates to
the meta-competence ‘learning how to learn’.There are currently 350 occupational
profiles in Germany defined to a common format elaborating the competences
required in terms of the above.
Austria adopted a similar approach to Germany in respect of the concept of key
qualifications (Schlu¨sselqualifikationen), defining these as transversal functional and
professional qualifications, including non-subject specific abilities and aspects of
personality formation (Archan and Tutschek, 2002). These are grouped under three
headings: cognitive, social and personal competences. Cognitive competence
(Sachkompetenz) is defined as knowledge, skills and abilities that may be used in
the specific occupation as well as transversally, and skills and abilities for mastering
tasks and developing appropriate problem-solving strategies. Thus theoretical
thinking, method competence (including learning techniques) and general vocationally
oriented skills such as IT, workplace safety and business management are
subsumed under Sachkompetenz. Social competence (Sozialkompetenz) is largely
concerned with dealing with others and is defined as the ability and willingness to
cooperate, to interact with others responsibly and to behave in a group and
relationally oriented way. Personal competence (Selbstkompetenz) comprises key
qualifications for dealing with oneself and is defined in terms of ability and
willingness to develop personally, as well as to develop skills, motivation and
attitudes to work and to the wider world.
38 F. Delamare Le Deist & J. Winterton
Towards a Typology of Competence
This review has argued that one-dimensional frameworks of competence are
inadequate and are giving way to multi-dimensional frameworks. Functional and
cognitive competences are increasing being added to the behavioural competencies in
the USA, while in the UK cognitive and behavioural competences are being added to
the occupational functional competence model. France, Germany and Austria,
entering the arena more recently, appear to be adopting from the outset a more
holistic framework, considering knowledge, skills and behaviours as dimensions of
competence, as have most of the other countries that have adopted competencebased
vocational training.
From this analysis, we argue that a holistic typology is useful in understanding the
combination of knowledge, skills and social competences that are necessary for
particular occupations. The competences required of an occupation include both
conceptual (cognitive, knowledge and understanding) and operational (functional,
psycho-motor and applied skill) competences. The competences more associated
with individual effectiveness are also both conceptual (meta-competence, including
learning to learn) and operational (social competence, including behaviours and
attitudes). The relationship between these four dimensions of competence is
demonstrated in Figure 1 which forms an over-arching framework for developing
a typology of competence.
The first three dimensions, cognitive, functional and social competences, are fairly
universal and are clearly consistent with the French approach (savoir, savoir faire,
savoir eˆtre) as well as the longstanding KSA (knowledge, skills and attitudes) of the
training profession. Thus, knowledge (and understanding) is captured by cognitive
competence, skills are captured by functional competence and ‘competencies’
(behavioural and attitudinal) are captured by social competence. Meta-competence
is rather different from the first three dimensions since it is concerned with
facilitating the acquisition of the other substantive competences. It should also be
recognized that, while the distinction between these dimensions can be made
analytically, in practice, not only must a person have underlying knowledge,
Figure 1. Typology of competence.
What Is Competence? 39
functional skills and appropriate social behaviour in order to be effective at work,
the competences required of an occupation are also invariably described in multidimensional
terms.
The holistic competence model is perhaps better represented as a tetrahedron,
reflecting the unity of competence and the difficulty of separating cognitive,
functional and social dimensions in practice. In Figure 2, the holistic competence
model is represented as a tetrahedron in plan view. Meta-competence is presented as
an over-arching input that facilitates the acquisition of output competences at the
base of the tetrahedron. Practical competences may be thought of as situated on the
faces of the tetrahedron, combining elements of the dimensions of competence in
varying proportions.
However it is represented, the multi-dimensional holistic competence approach is
becoming more widespread and offers the opportunity of better aligning educational
and work-based provision as well as exploiting the synergy between formal
education and experiential learning to develop professional competence.
Conclusion
The challenge is to develop a consistent and coherent typology of competence in a
context where even within countries there is apparent diversity in the approaches.
Each of the four dominant approaches has particular strengths. The traditional
American approach has demonstrated the importance of individual characteristics
and the use of behavioural competence as a means of developing superior
performance. The mainstream UK approach has shown the value of occupationally
defined standards of functional competence and their applicability to the workplace.
The approach adopted in France and Germany demonstrates the potential of a
multi-dimensional and more analytical concept of competence. Moreover, there are
signs of convergence in national approaches to competence, not only within Europe
but also between the European and American models, suggesting that there is value
Figure 2. Holistic model of competence.
40 F. Delamare Le Deist & J. Winterton
in a multi-dimensional approach for developing a more global understanding of the
term.
This is a tentative effort to clarify the ‘fuzzy concept’ based on an analysis of
current practice in some countries that have made particular progress with
competence in different ways. It is limited in both breadth and depth but forms a
starting point for developing a comprehensive typology that will permit greater
transparency and mobility. Inevitably, further research is required, extending the
breadth of countries and to complete the work begun, first with all twenty-five EU
Member States and then beyond the EU, since the challenges are global rather than
European. It is necessary to extend the depth of analysis, investigating competence in
greater detail in specific occupations, since it is at this level that competence has most
concrete meaning. There is also a need to address the rift between the rationalist
approaches that dominate in VET systems and interpretative approaches that are
becoming more widespread among HRD academics. While these approaches appear
dichotomous and incompatible, developing a common ground that draws upon the
strengths of each would be a major advance for both theory and practice, the
ultimate beneficiaries of which will be those participating in learning at work.
Acknowledgements
An early version of this paper was presented at the Fifth Conference on HRD
Research and Practice: International Comparative and Cross Cultural Dimensions
of HRD, Limerick, 27 – 8 May 2004. Subsequent versions have been presented to the
European Commission Technical Working Group on the European Credit Transfer
System for VET in Brussels, 10 – 11 May 2004, the European Symposium La
construction de qualifications europe´ennes, European Parliament, Strasbourg, 30
September – 1 October 2004 and at the Workshop on European Credit Transfer
System in Vocational Training, Wissenschaftszentrum, Bonn, 12 – 13 October 2004.
The paper has been substantially amended in the light of comments from
participants in these events, as well as from the editor and anonymous referees of
HRDI. Limitations of space necessitated reducing the references; a more
comprehensive bibliography is provided in Winterton et al. (2005).
References
Albanese, R. (1989) Competency-based management education, Journal of Management Development,
8(2), pp. 14 – 20.
Allbredge, M. E. and Nilan, K. J. (2000) 3M’s leadership competency model: an internally developed
solution, Human Resource Management, 39(2), pp. 133 – 145.
Antonacopoulou, E. P. and FitzGerald, L. (1996) Reframing competency in management development,
Human Resource Management Journal, 6(1), pp. 27 – 48.
Aragon, S. R. and Johnson, S. D. (2002) Emerging roles and competencies for training in e-learning
environments, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(4), pp. 424 – 439.
Archan, S. and Tutschek, E. (2002) Schlu¨sselqualifikationen: Wie vermittle ich sie Lehrlingen? (Vienna:
Institut fu¨ r Bildungsforschung der Wirtschaft).
Arnaud, G. and Lauriol, J. (2002) L’ave`nement du mode` le de la compe´tence: quelles e´volutions pour la
GRH?, La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 194, pp. 11 – 20.
Arnold, R., Nolda, S. and Nuissl, E. (2001) Wo¨rterbuch Erwachsenen-pa¨dagogik (Bad Heilbrunn:
Kilnkhardt).
What Is Competence? 41
Athey, T. R. and Orth, M. S. (1999) Emerging competency methods for the future, Human Resource
Management, 38(3), pp. 215 – 226.
Attewell, P. (1990) What is skill?, Work and Occupations, 4, pp. 422 – 448.
Baker, D. E., Walsh, M. B. and Marjerison, L. (2000) Developing high performance leadership at the
process level, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, pp. 47 – 72.
Barrett, G. V. and Depinet, R. L. (1991) A reconsideration of testing for competence rather than for
intelligence, American Psychologist, 46(10), pp. 1012 – 1024.
Bates, I. (1995) The Competence Movement; conceptualising recent research, Studies in Science Education,
25, pp. 39 – 68.
Beaumont, G. (1996) Review of 100 NVQs and SVQs (London: Department for Education and
Employment).
Benner, P. (1984) From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice (San
Francisco: Addison-Wesley).
Bergenhenegouwen, H. F. K., ten Horn, H. F. K. and Mooijman, E. A. M. (1996) Competence
development – a challenge for HRM professionals: core competences of organisations as guidelines for
the development of employees, Journal of European Industrial Training, 20(9), pp. 29 – 35.
Bjørna˚ vold, J. (1999) Identification, Assessment and Recognition of Non-Formal Learning: European
Tendencies (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP).
Bjørna˚ vold, J. (2000) Making Learning Visible (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP).
Boak, G. (1991) Developing Managerial Competences: The Management Learning Contract Approach
(London: Pitman).
Boam, R. and Sparrow, P. (Eds) (1992) Designing and Achieving Competency (London: McGraw-Hill).
Boon, J. and van der Klink, M. (2002) Competencies: the triumph of a fuzzy concept, Academy of Human
Resource Development Annual Conference, Honolulu, HA, 27 February – 3 March, in: Proceedings,
Vol.1, pp. 327 – 334.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982) The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance (New York: Wiley).
Brochier, D. (Ed.) (2002) La Gestion des Compe´tences: Acteurs et Pratiques (Paris : Economica).
Brochier, D. and Oiry, E. (2003) Dix ans de re´mune´ration par les compe´tences a` l’usine des plastiques: de
la dynamique des acteurs a` la dynamique de l’outil?, in: A. Klarsfeld and E. Oiry (Eds) Ge´rer les
Compe´tences: des Instruments aux Processus, pp. 59 – 88 (Paris: Vuibert).
Brown, R. B. (1993) Meta-competence: a recipe for reframing the competence debate, Personnel Review,
22(6), pp. 25 – 36.
Brown, R. B. (1994) Reframing the competency debate: management knowledge and meta-competence in
graduate education, Management Learning, 25(2), pp. 289 – 299.
Burgoyne, J. (1988) Competency Based Approaches to Management Development (Lancaster: Centre for the
Study of Management Learning).
Burgoyne, J. (1989) Creating the managerial portfolio: building on competency approaches management
development, Management Education and Development, 20(1), pp. 56 – 61.
Campbell, A. and Sommers Luchs, K. S. (1997) Core Competency-Based Strategy (London: Thomson).
Cannac, Y. and la CEGOS (1985) La Bataille des Competences: l’e´ducation Professionelle Permanent au
Coeur des Strate´gies de l’entreprise (Paris: Editions Hommes et Techniques).
Canning, R. (1990) The quest for competence, Industrial and Commercial Training, 122(5), pp. 12 – 16.
Cappelli, P. and Crocker-Hefter, A. (1996) Distinctive human resources are firms’ core competencies,
Organisational Dynamics, 24(3), pp. 6 – 22.
Carrington, L. (1994) Competent to manage?, International Management, 49(7), p. 17.
Cazal, D. and Dietrich, A. (2003) Compe´tences et savoirs: quels concepts pour quelles instumentations, in:
A. Klarsfeld and E. Oiry (Eds) Ge´rer les Compe´tences: des Instruments aux Processus, pp. 241 – 262
(Paris: Vuibert).
Cheetham, G. and Chivers, G. (1996) Towards a holistic model of professional competence, Journal of
European Industrial Training, 20(5), pp. 20 – 30.
Cheetham, G. and Chivers, G. (1998) The reflective (and competent) practitioner: a model of professional
competence which seeks to harmonise the reflective practitioner and competence-based approaches,
Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(7), pp. 267 – 276.
Cockerill, T. (1989) The kind of competence for rapid change, Personnel Management, September,
pp. 52 – 56.
42 F. Delamare Le Deist & J. Winterton
Collins, D. B., Lowe, J. S. and Arnett, C. R. (2000) High-performance leadership at the organization level,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, pp. 18 – 46.
Cooper, K. C. (2000) Effective Competency Modeling and Reporting (New York: Amacom).
Cseh, M. (2003) Facilitating learning in multicultural teams, Advances in Developing Human Resources,
5(1), pp. 26 – 40.
Dejoux, C. (1999) Organisation qualifiante et maturite´ en gestion des compe´tences, Direction et Gestion des
Entreprises, p. 158.
Dietrich, A. (2003) La gestion des compe´tences: essai de mode´ lisation, in: A. Klarsfeld and E. Oiry (Eds)
Ge´rer les Compe´tences: des Instruments aux Processus, pp. 215 – 240 (Paris: Vuibert).
Dooley, K. E., Lindner, J. R., Dooley, L. M. and Alagaraja, M. (2004) Behaviorally anchored
competencies: eval‎uation tool for training via distance, Human Resource Development International,
7(3), pp. 315 – 332.
Dooley, L. M., Paprock, K. E., Shim, I.-S. and Gonzalez Y Gonzalez, E. (2001) Differences in priority for
competencies trained between U.S. and Mexican trainers, Academy of Human Resource Development
Annual Conference, Tulsa, OK, 28 February – 2 March, in: Proceedings, Vol.1, pp. 115 – 122.
Dousset, A. (1990) Entreprises, De´veloppez vos Compe´tences (Paris: Editions Entente).
Dreyfus, H. L. and Dreyfus, S. E. (1986) Mind over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise
in the Era of the Computer (New York: The Free Press).
Dubois, D. A. and Rothwell, W. J. (2004) Competency-Based Human Resource Management (Palo-Alto,
CA: Davies-Black).
Dulewicz, V. (1989) Assessment centres as the route to competence, Personnel Management, November,
pp. 56 – 59.
Dulewicz, V. and Herbert, P. (1992) Personality, Competences, Leadership Style and Managerial
Effectiveness, Henley Working Paper No.14/92, Henley.
Dupray, A., Guitton, C. and Monchatre, S. (Eds) (2003) Re´fle´chir la compe´tence: approches sociologiques,
juridiques, e´conomiques dune politique gestionnaire (Toulouse: Octare` s).
Durand, J. P. (2000) Les enjeux de la logique compe´tences, Ge´rer et Comprendre, 62, pp. 16 – 24.
Durand, T. (2000) Lalchimie de la compe´tence, Revue Franc¸ aise de Gestion, 26, pp. 84 – 102.
Elkin, G. (1990) Competency-based human resource development, Industrial and Commercial Training,
22(4), pp. 20 – 25.
Ellestro¨ m, P.-E. (1992) Kompetens, Utbildung och La¨rande i Arbetslivet: Problem, Begrepp och Teoretiska
Perspektiv (Stockholm: Publica).
Employment Department and NCVQ (1991) Guide to National Vocational Qualifications (Sheffield: ED).
Eraut, M. (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence (Brighton: Falmer Press).
Eraut, M. (2000) Non-normal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work, British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 70, pp. 113 – 136.
Evers, F. T., Berdrow, I. and Rush, J. C. (1998) The Bases of Competence: Skills for Lifelong Learning and
Employability (New York: Jossey-Bass/Wiley).
Fielding, N. G. (1998a) Competence and culture in the police, Sociology, 22, pp. 45 – 64.
Fielding, N. G. (1998b) Joining Forces: Police Training, Socialization and Occupational Competence
(London: Routledge).
Fischer, K.W., Bullock, D. H., Rotenberg, E. J. and Raya, P. (1993) The dynamics of competence: how
context contributes directly to skill, in: R. H. Wozniak and K. W. Fischer (Eds) Development in Context:
Acting and Thinking in Specific Environments, pp. 93 – 117 (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
Flanagan, M., McGinn, I. and Thornhill, A. (1993) Because No Bastard Ever Asked Me (Canberra:
Stakeholder).
Foss, N. J. and Knudsen, C. (Eds) (1996) Towards a Competence Theory of the Firm (London: Routledge).
Foxan, M. J. (1998) Closing the global leadership competency gap: the Motorola GOLD process,
Organization Development Journal, 16, pp. 5 – 12.
Frank, E. (1991) The UK’s Management Charter Initiative: the first three years, Journal of European
Industrial Training, 17(1), pp. 9 – 11.
Gangani, N. T., McLean, G. N. and Braden, R. A. (2004) Competency-based human resource
development strategy, Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference, Austin, TX, 4 –
7 March, in: Proceedings, Vol. 2, pp. 1111 – 1118.
Gilbert, P. (2003) Jalons pour une histoire de la gestion des compe´tences, in: A. Klarsfeld and E. Oiry
(Eds) Ge´rer les Compe´tences: des Instruments aux Processus, pp. 11 – 32. (Paris: Vuibert).
What Is Competence? 43
Green, P. C. (1999) Building Robust Competencies (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Haddadj, S. and Besson, D. (2000) Introduction a` la gestion des compe´tences, Revue Franc¸ aise de Gestion,
January – February, pp. 82 – 83.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1994) Competing for the Future (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press).
Hartle, F. (1995) How to Re-engineer your Performance Management Process (London: Kogan Page).
Hayes, J. L. (1979) A new look at managerial competence: the AMA model of worthy performance,
Management Review, November, pp. 2 – 3.
Hay Group, Towers Perrin, Hewitt Associates Llc, M. William Mercer Inc. and American Compensation
Association (1996) Raising the Bar: Using Competencies to Enhance Employee Performance (Scottsdale,
AZ: American Compensation Association).
Hirsh, W. and Strebler, M. (1994) Defining managerial skills and competences, in: A. Mumford (Ed.)
Gower Handbook of Management Development, pp. 79 – 96 (Aldershot: Gower).
Hodkinson, P. and Issitt, M. (1995) The Challenge of Competence (London: Cassell Education).
Holton, E. F. and Lynham, S. A. (2000) Performance-driven leadership development, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 6, pp. 1 – 17.
Hyland, T. (1994) Competence, Education and NVQs: Dissenting Perspectives (London: Cassell
Education).
Institute of Management (1994) Management Development to the Millennium: The Cannon and Taylor
Working Party Reports (London: Institute of Management).
Investors in People UK (1995) The Investors in People Standard (London: IiP UK).
Jeris, L. and Johnson, K. (2004) Speaking of competence: toward a cross-translation for human resource
development (HRD) and continuing professional education (CPE), Academy of Human Resource
Development Annual Conference, Austin, TX, 4 – 7 March, in: Proceedings, Vol. 2, pp. 1103 – 1110.
Jones, L. and Moore, R. (1995) Appropriating competence: the competency movement, the New Right
and the ‘culture change’ project, British Journal of Education and Work, 8(2), pp. 78 – 92.
Joras, M. (2002) Le Bilan de compe´tences (Paris: PUF, collection Que sais – je? No. 2979), 3rd Edn.
Kilcourse, T. (1994) Developing competent managers, Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(2),
pp. 12 – 16.
Klarsfeld, A. (2000) La compe´tence, ses de´finitions, ses enjeux, Revue Gestion 2000, March – April,
pp. 31 – 47.
Klarsfeld, A. and Oiry, E. (Eds) (2003) Ge´rer les Compe´tences: des Instruments aux Processus (Paris:
Vuibert).
Klarsfeld, A. and Roques, O. (2003) Histoire dune instrumentation de gestion des compe´tences: entre
rationalite´ contingente, rationalite´ limite´ et rationalite´ institutionelle, in: A. Klarsfeld and E. Oiry (Eds)
Ge´rer les Compe´tences: des Instruments aux Processus, pp. 171 – 190 (Paris: Vuibert).
Klarsfeld, A. and Saint-Onge, S. (2000) La re´mune´ration des compe´tences: the´orie et pratique, in: J.-M.
Peretti and P. Roussel (Eds) Les Re´mune´rations: Politiques et Pratiques pour les Anne´es 2000, pp. 65 – 80
(Paris: Vuibert).
Knasel, E. and Meed, J. (1994) Becoming Competent: Effective Learning for Occupational Competence
(Sheffield: Employment Department).
Kusterer, K. C. (1978) Know-How on the Job: The Important Working Knowledge of Unskilled Workers
(Boulder, CO: Westview).
Le Boterf, G. (1994) De la Compe´tence: Essai sur un Attracteur E´trange (Paris: Editions d’Organisation).
Levy-Leboyer, C. (1996) La Gestion des compe´tences (Paris: Les Editions d’Organisation).
Lucia, A. D. and Lepsinger, R. (1999) The Art and Science of Competency Models: Pinpointing Critical
Success Factors in an Organization (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer).
McClelland, D. (1973) Testing for competence rather than for ‘intelligence’, American Psychologist, 28(1),
pp. 1 – 14.
McClelland, D. (1976) A Guide to Job Competency Assessment (Boston, MA: McBer).
McClelland, D. (1998) Identifying competencies with behavioural-event interviews, Psychological Science,
9(5), pp. 331 – 339.
Mangham, I. (1986) In search of competence, Journal of General Management, 12(2), pp. 5 – 12.
Manpower Services Commission (1986) SASU Note 16: Guidance on Designing Modules for Accreditation,
mimeo (Sheffield: Standards and Assessment Support Unit).
44 F. Delamare Le Deist & J. Winterton
Mansfield, B. (1993) Competency-based qualifications: a response, Journal of European Industrial Training,
17(3), pp. 19 – 22.
Mansfield, B. (2004) Competence in transition, Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(2/3/4),
pp. 296 – 309.
Mansfield, B. and Mitchell, L. (1996) Towards a Competent Workforce (London: Gower).
Mathewman, J. (1995) Trends and developments in the use of competency frameworks, Competency, 1(4).
MEDEF (2002) Objectif Compe´tences: des Pratiques Europe´enne Innovantes (Paris: Mouvement des
Entreprises de France).
Merle, P. (1996) La Compe´tence en Question: E´cole, Insertion, Travail (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de
Rennes).
Miller, L. (1991) Managerial competences, Industrial and Commercial Training, 23(6), pp. 11 – 15.
Minet, F., Parlier, M. and de Witte, S. (Eds) (1994) La Compe´tence: Mythe, Construction ou Re´alite´?
(Paris: L’Harmattan).
Mitrani, A., Dalziel, M. and Fitt, D. (1992) Competency Based Human Resource Management (London:
Kogan Page).
Nadler, D. A. and Tushman, M. (1999) The organisation of the future: strategic imperatives and core
competencies for the 21st century, Organisational Dynamics, 27(1), pp. 45 – 58.
Naquin, S. S. and Holton, E. F. (2002) The development of a competency model and assessment
instrument for public sector leadership and management development, Academy of Human Resource
Development Annual Conference, Honolulu, HA, 27 February – 3 March, in: Proceedings, Vol. 1,
pp. 139 – 146.
Naquin, S. S. and Wilson, J. (2002) Creating competency standards, assessments and certification,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(2), pp. 180 – 187.
Nitardy, C. N. and McLean, G. N. (2002) Project management competencies needed by HRD
professionals: a literature review, Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, Honolulu,
HA, 27 February – 3 March, in: Proceedings, Vol. 2, pp. 956 – 963.
Norris, N. (1991) The trouble with competence, Cambridge Journal of Education, 21(3), pp. 1 – 11.
Paraponaris, C. (2003) L’instrumentation de la gestion des compe´tences: une instrumentation a` finalite´ s
multiples?, in: A. Klarsfeld and E. Oiry (Eds) Ge´rer les Compe´tences: des Instruments aux Processus, pp.
191 – 214 (Paris: Vuibert).
Polanyi, M. (1967) The Tacit Dimension (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990) The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review,
May – June, pp. 79 – 91.
Reilly, P. (Ed.) (2003) New Reward I: Team, Skill and Competence-Based Pay (Brighton: Institute of
Employment Studies).
Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D. and Gowing, M. K. (2002) Developing competency
model to promote integrated human resource practices, Human Resource Management, 41, pp. 309 –
324.
Rothwell, W. J. and Lindholm, J. E. (1999) Competency identification, modeling and assessment in the
USA, International Journal of Training and Development, 3(2), pp. 90 – 105.
Russ-Eft, D. (1995) Defining competencies: a critique, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(4),
pp. 329 – 335.
Sandberg, J. (1994) Human Competence at Work: An Interpretive Approach (Go¨ teburg: Bas).
Sandberg, J. (2000) Competence – the basis for a smart workforce, in: R. Gerber and C. Lankshear (Eds)
Training for a Smart Workforce, pp. 47 – 72 (London: Routledge).
SCANS (1992) Secretary’s Commission for Achieving Necessary Skills (Washington, DC: Department of
Labor).
Scarborough, H. (1998) Path(ological) dependency? Core competencies from an organisational
perspective, British Journal of Management, 9, pp. 219 – 232.
Smith, B. (1993) Building managers from the inside out: competency based action learning, Journal of
Management Development, 12(1), pp. 43 – 48.
Smithers, A. (1993) All Our Futures: Britain’s Education Revolution (London: Channel Four).
Snyder, A. and Ebeling, H. W. (1992) Targeting a company’s real core competencies, Journal of Business
Strategy, 13(6), pp. 26 – 32.
Spencer, L. and Spencer, S. (1993) Competence at Work: A Model for Superior Performance (New York:
Wiley).
What Is Competence? 45
Spencer, L. M., McClelland, D. C. and Kelner, S. (1997) Competency Assessment Methods: History and
State of the Art (Boston, MA: Hay/McBer).
Stasz, C. (1997) Do employers need the skills they want? Evidence from technical work, Journal of
Education and Work, 10(3), pp. 205 – 233.
Stoof, A., Martens, R. L., Van Merrienboer, J. and Bastiaens, T. (2002) The boundary approach of
competence: a constructivist aid for understanding and using the concept of competence, Human
Resource Development Review, 1(3), pp. 345 – 365.
Straka, G. A. (2004) Measurement and eval‎uation of competence, in: 3rd European Research Report:
Vocational Education and Training (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP, forthcoming).
Strebler, M. T. and Bevan, S. (1996) Competence-Based Management Training (Brighton: Institute of
Employment Studies).
Tate, W. (1995) Developing Managerial Competence: A Critical Guide to Methods and Materials (London:
Gower).
Thompson, J. E., Stuart, R. and Lindsay, P. R. (1996) The competence of top team members – a
framework for successful performance, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), pp. 48 – 66.
Tremblay, M. and Sire, B. (1999) Re´muner les competences plutoˆ t lactivite´ ?, Revue Franc¸ aise de Gestion,
special issue, Le retour au travail, 126(November—December), pp. 129 – 139.
Tre´po, G. and Ferrary, M. (1998) La gestion des competences: un outil strate´gique, Sciences Humaines,
81(March), pp. 34 – 37.
van der Klink, M. and Boon, J. (2002) The investigation of competencies within professional domains,
Human Resource Development International, 5(4), pp. 411 – 424.
Velde, C. (1999) An alternative conception of competence: implications for vocational education, Journal
of Vocational Education and Training, 51(3), pp. 437 – 447.
Weinert, F. E. (2001) Concept of competence: a conceptual clarification, in: D. S. Rychen and L. H.
Salganik (Eds) Defining and Selecting key Competencies, pp. 45 – 66 (Go¨ ttingen: Hogrefe).
White, R. (1959) Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence, Psychological Review, 66, pp. 279 –
333.
Wilson, L. S., Boudreaux, M. A. and Edwards, M. (2000) High performance leadership at the individual
level, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, pp. 73 – 103.
Winterton, J. and Winterton, R. (1999) Developing Managerial Competence (London: Routledge).
Winterton, J. and Winterton, R. (2002) Implementing management standards in the UK, Academy of
Human Resource Development Annual Conference, Honolulu, HA, 27 February – 3 March, in:
Proceedings, Vol. 2, pp. 974 – 981.
Winterton, J., Parker, M., McCracken, M., Dodds, M. and Henderson, I. (2000) Future Skill Needs of
Managers, Research Report RR182, Sheffield: Department for Education and Employment.
Winterton, J., Delamare-Le Deist, F. and Stringfellow, E. (2005) Prototype Typology of Knowledge, Skills
and Competences (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP).
Woodruffe, C. (1991) Competent by any other name, Personnel Management, September, pp. 30 –