Competence (polyseme)
Competence is a polyseme indicating a variety of different notions. In current literature, three notions are most evident. The first notion is that of a general competence, which is someone's capacity or ability to perform effectively on a specified set of behavioral attributes. The second notion refers to someone's capacity or ability to successfully perform a specific behavioral attribute — be it overt or covert — like learning a language, reading a book or playing a musical instrument. In both notions, someone may be qualified as being competent. In a third notion, a competence is the behavioral attribute itself, instead of a general or specific capacity or ability. One may for example excel at the competence of baking, at the competency of ceramics, or at the capability of reflexivity.
The pluralized forms of competence and competency are respectively competences and competencies. According to Boyatzis competencies are part of a behavioral approach to emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence. Moreover, competence is measurable and can be developed through training. In the context of human resources, practice may enable someone to improve the efficiency or performance of an activity or a job.
Concepts like knowledge, expertise, values or desires are not behavioral attributes but can be contained in behavior once executed. Take for example sharing knowledge or actualizing a desire.
Etymology
The term 'competence' is not novel, and it predates literature in the 20th century. It first entered professional literature via the article Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence authored by R.W. White in 1959. He introduced the term competence to describe those personality characteristics associated with high motivation and superior performance. Postulating a relationship between achieved capacity and competence motivation, White defined competence as an ‘effective interaction with the environment’.In the late 1960s, the 'Competence movement' had been initiated by David McClelland. The movement has its origins in the conspicuous failure of educational qualifications to predict occupational success. The term gained traction in 1973, when McClelland wrote a seminal paper entitled Testing for Competence Rather Than for Intelligence. McClelland followed White's approach in arguing that capacity is more important than intelligence.
The term has since been popularized, most notably, by individuals such as:
- Thomas F. Gilbert, in Human competence: engineering worthy performance ;
- Richard E. Boyatzis, in The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance ;
- C. K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel, in The Core Competence of the Corporation and
- Daniel Goleman, in Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ.
Competence and capability
In an influential paper from 1992, Dorothy A. Leonard took on a knowledge-based approach when discussing competency in the context of managerial and technical systems. She defined a 'core capability' as a set of knowledge that distinguishes a company strategically. Core capability wasn't new concept, back in the '90s. Other scholars have also referred to it using various terms like distinctive competences, core competencies, resource deployments, and invisible assets. Leonard was however the first to explicitly plot core capabilities against core rigidities. In a narrow sense, core rigidities represent inappropriate knowledge-sets that can hinder a firm's progress. Following the release of this paper, a tendency has grown to employ the terms competencies and capabilities interchangeably, often without clear differentiation. In other instances, a more precise definition is given priority over a highly inclusive scope.Competence and performance
Performance has been described by some scholars as the capacity or ability to accomplish specific tasks. Noteworthy figures such as White, McClelland, and Boyatzis have all upheld the notion that competence is tantamount to effective performance. Furthermore, a consensus has arisen among scholars like McClelland, Boyatzis, Spencer and Spencer, as well as H.F. Evarts, regarding the similarity between competence and superior performance. Authors including McClelland, Kanungo and Misra, and Martin and Staines consider competence to be successful performance. All these conceptualizations corroborate performance's role as a neutral carrier for competence. Oftentimes, the term "performance" is extended to delineate the capacity or ability of mechanical, rather than biological systems, to fulfill certain tasks. This task-oriented approach diverges from a behavioral approach as to evade anthropomorphisms. Amidst ongoing developments in artificial intelligence, mechanistic systems receive anthropomorphic characteristics increasingly often. The way performance is being defined mirrors attempts made by authors to emphasize core competence in a similar light. This attempt has failed however, since a consensus on consistent use of competence and competency as separate terms has not been established.Competence and intelligence
In his influential paper 'Testing for Competence Rather Than for Intelligence' David McClelland sheds light on the advantages of measuring competence over intelligence. McClelland points out that the traits measured by traditional intelligence tests do not reliably correlate with high-level performance in society. He goes on to identify a significant error in categorizing these abilities as "general intelligence", advocating for a more nuanced approach. McClelland's approach acknowledges the multifaceted nature of human capabilities, signaling a departure from a singular focus on cognitive or intellectual abilities.McClelland emphasizes that there is no solid evidence to suggest that human traits, including cognitive abilities, are innate and cannot be altered. This perspective aligns with the idea that individuals have the capacity to grow, learn, and develop new skills throughout their lives. McClelland's perspective encourages a move away from the pursuit of pinpointing abstract ability factors. Instead, he urges the adoption of assessments that align with the evolving nature of human potential. He suggests that tests rooted in life-outcome behaviors can validate their worth by demonstrating that a person's ability to perform such tasks improves as their competence in those areas increases.
Competence typologies
Atomistic and holistic competence
In 1996, a paper titled "What is competence?" was published by Hager and Gonczi, which addresses an apparent tension between atomistic and holistic competence. Hager and Gonczi criticize the misconception among scholars that labeling an approach as atomistic automatically warrants its rejection without further justification. They emphasize the necessity of justifying the application of any competence standard. To illustrate their point, they draw an analogy with chemistry, where discrete atoms come together to form molecules with distinct properties. Similarly, in the interpretation of competence, especially occupational competence, the authors assert that breaking down an occupation into isolated tasks, as done in a task-oriented approach, is inherently atomistic. This approach fails to provide a synthesis of the tasks, thereby undermining the complex nature of the occupation and corresponding competences. On the other hand, Hager and Gonczi caution against adhering strictly to a rigid holism that dismisses all forms of analysis. They acknowledge that some degree of atomism in competence approaches may be necessary, as long as it is complemented by an appropriate amount of holism. Finding the right balance between analysis and synthesis is crucial for understanding and developing competency standards effectively.Occupational competences are constructs, which are often inferred from the performance of complex tasks. In contrast, the performance of a task is directly observable and doesn't have to be inferred. Unlike atomistic tasks, holistic tasks are not discrete and independent. For example, practice and assessment, will typically involve a simultaneity of several tasks. Furthermore, these tasks will involve ‘situational understanding’, which means that a worker must take into account multiple contexts while being involved in practice. Although tasks are given as an example, Hager and Gonczi stress the importance of integrating competence standards as to also include attributes. Forgetting about attributes and concentrating solely on tasks may lead someone to lapse into a narrow view of occupational competence, they insist. Approaches to competence that focus exclusively on either tasks or attributes ignore the complex nature of competence. Hence an integrated approach to competence standards, which integrates key tasks and attributes, is supported.