LAS BARRAS FLUVIALES EN EL SECTOR DE AINSA

In order to improve the validity of the measurement instrument, it will be a good idea to apply it within a case study where financial literacy is important as a life skill or competency, but to do so, competencies should first be defined and identified. The aim of this section, therefore, is to define the management competencies by exploring current research, and, then in the next section to identify some of the general management competencies. The discussion will commence with a discussion of the intricacies of defining competency, competency types, and competency characteristics before accepting an appropriate definition for both competency and corporate competence.

In searching for an acceptable comprehensive definition for competency it became clear that this not a new concept. The earliest existence of this concept was during the time of the early Romans, according to Draginidis and Mentzas (2006: 52), where the aim was to use competency profiling in an attempt to detail the attributes of the

“good Roman soldier”. Draginidis and Mentzas identify McClelland, a distinguished Harvard psychologist, as being responsible for introducing the idea of “competency”

into the recent human resource literacy, and Mitrani, Dalziel, and Fitt, (1992: 18), date the existence of a competency movement within the American industrial organisational psychology to the late 1960s.

Although it is not a new concept, defining competency is not a clear-cut issue, because competency means different things to different people. Each of the different stakeholders involved has their own agenda and therefore their own definition of competency (Hoffman, 1999: 275). The “competency stakeholders” referred to are people such as psychologists, management theorists, human resource managers, educationalists and politicians. Therefore, Boyatzis (1982: 22), as early as the eighties stated that to define a competency “… we must determine what the actions were and their place in a system and sequence of behaviour and what the results or effects were and what the intent or meaning of the actions and results were”.

To enhance the complicacy, distinction is made in the UK between competence and competency. Similar to terms such as effectiveness and efficiency these terms are used arbitrarily. As a result, Hoffman (1999: 275) suggested that competence be defined according to the job description set, and that competency be defined according to the individual behaviour illustrated. Hoffman’s explanation is illustrated in Figure 2.1, and is supported by authors Young and Dulewicz (2005: 229) in 2002.

They referred to aspects of the job at which a person is competent (competence) compared to aspects of the person (competency) that enable him/her to be competent. For example, a person making a financial transaction illustrates competency by having money available and the competence by being able to make the transaction.

Figure 2.1: Adjusted competency causal flow model

Source: Adjusted from Mitrani, et al., 1992: 29 and Young and Dulewicz, 2005: 229.

The behaviour or behavioural competencies can be common or specific, according to May (1999: 336). Common behavioural competency is self-explanatory, but in the context of this study, a brief explanation of specific behavioural competency will suffice. Specific behavioural competencies are specific because of the business of the organisation. The officer acting as a gentleman/lady is a specific behavioural competency required within the military environment.

Boak and Coolican (2001: 213), in quoting Mitchell (1989), argue that in theory, behavioural competencies and occupational standards are complementary, because behavioural competencies also expresses the skills and abilities required for effective

Personal

performers to achieve the outcomes expressed by the occupational standards. In trying to clarify the confusion that might exist, Boyatzis (1982: 23) suggests that behavioural competence be referred to as “capabilities”, but for the purpose of this study, the term competency will suffice.

What is also clear from the figure and the arguments of Hoffman (1999: 275), and Young and Dulewicz (2005: 229), is that there is the supply (input) side and the demand (output) side to competency and competence. Various authors, as quoted by Hoffman (1999: 276), in defining competency have taken a stance to either side:

• observable performance (Boam and Sparrow,1992; Bowden and Masters, 1993);

• the standard of quality of the outcome of the person’s performance (Rutherford, 1995; Hager, et al., 1994);

• the underlying attributes of a person (Boyatzis, 1982; Sternberg and Kolligian, 1990).

However, defining competency is not restricted to an input and output side, but may also be defined by various terms, classifications, and characteristics. Firstly, the research done by Draginidis and Mentzas (2006: 52) illustrates that competency can be defined by aspects such as:

• Category: A group to which homogeneous and/or similar competencies belong.

• Competency: A descriptive name for the specific competency.

• Definition: Statements that explain the basic concept of competency.

• Demonstrated behaviour: Behaviour indicators which an individual should demonstrate if the specified competency is possessed.

Secondly, there are various classifications of competencies. Competencies can be classified as differentiating, and threshold or essential competencies. Differentiating competencies distinguish between superior and average performers, while threshold or essential competencies refer to the requirements for minimally adequate or average performance (Mitrani, et al., 1992: 27-28). Boyatzis (1982: 23) identified threshold competencies as referring to a person’s generic knowledge, motive, trait, self-image, social role, or skill that is essential to performing a job.

All non-technical competencies have been classified as being generic competencies and cover individual characteristics such as: attitudes, motivation, and personality

traits (Agut, Grau, & Peiró, 2003: 906). Mitrani, et al. (1992: 28-29) included these characteristics when identifying five classes of competencies: motive, trait, self-concept, content knowledge, and cognitive and behavioural skills. The first four are examples of personal characteristics, and skills are behavioural in nature as can be seen in Figure 2.1. Motive simply is what drives a person. Traits that are important for managerial effectiveness are locus of control; self-esteem; the need for achievement;

affiliation and power (George & Jones, 2006: 48). To improve effectiveness the easiest characteristics to influence are knowledge and skills, because employees can be trained and/or educated. Therefore, Mitrani, et al. (1992: 29) suggests that organisations should appoint employees according to the required motives and traits, and then develop the required knowledge and skills.

Thirdly, Chan (2006: 146), in studying authors such as Cooper (2000), Parry (1996) and Shippman, et al. (2000) identified the following characteristics of competencies:

• a cluster of knowledge, skills, abilities, motivation, beliefs, values and interests;

• related to a major part of the job;

• associated with effective and/or superior performance;

• observable and measurable against well-accepted standards;

• linked to future strategic directions;

• can be improved via training and development.

So far, the approach to defining competency has been either input based, output based or according to terms, classification and characteristics. Although the process of defining competency is interesting, this research needs to identify an acceptable definition, and the search continues by listing various definitions put forward over a number of years as illustrated in Table 2.1.

The definitions in the table are best summarized by referring to the work done by Mitrani et al. (1992: 18, 27, 31), the HR-XML Consortium Competencies Schema, and Draginidis and Mentzas (2006: 51-64). Firstly, Mitrani et al. suggest that a competency is what people bring to the job, but that this should causally relate to effective or superior performance, and secondly that the competencies should reflect the behaviour required for the future success of the organisation. Although some authors relate competencies to successful performance, it should be noted that not all competencies have a causal relationship with superior job performance. Ketel (2005: 39) refers to Meyer as supporting this opinion by stating that competency

does not necessarily result in satisfactory performance. Successful performance is the result of a combination of competency, motivation and opportunity.

Table 2.1: Current Definitions of the Competency Concept Definitions

Competencies are measurable human capabilities that are required for effective work performance demands.

Competencies are those characteristics – knowledge, skills, mindsets, thought patterns, and the like – that, when used either singularly or in various combinations, result in successful performance.

Competencies are not themselves resources in the sense of knowing how to act, knowing how to do, or attitudes, but they mobilize, integrate and orchestrate such resources. This mobilization is only pertinent in one situation, and each situation is unique, although it could be approached as an analogy to other situations that are already known.

Ability expressed in terms of behaviour.

A capacity to mobilize diverse cognitive resources to meet a certain type of situation.

Competencies are defined as “… the skills, knowledge, abilities and other characteristics that someone needs to perform a job effectively”.

Source: Adapted from Draginidis and Mentzas, 2006: 52

Another comprehensive and recent definition of competency is the one offered by the HR-XML Consortium Competencies Schema, as quoted by Draginidis and Mentzas (2006: 52). They defined competency as: “A specific, identifiable, definable, and measurable knowledge, skill, ability and/or other deployment-related characteristic (e.g. attitude, behaviour, physical ability) which a human resource may possess and which is necessary for, or material to, the performance of an activity within a specific business context.” Important to note is that the existence and possession of the competency might not even be known by the holder thereof (Boyatzis, 1982: 21).

To conclude this general assessment of competency the definition presented by Draginidis and Mentzas (2006: 53) is accepted as the working definition for this research. The definition states that competency is: “A combination of tacit and explicit knowledge, behaviour and skills, which gives someone the potential for effectiveness in task performance.”

This definition is accepted as the working definition because it also relates to the public sector, the corporate environment and the military environment. With regard to the public sector Bone and Griggs, according to Lawton and Rose (1994: 189), listed competency as one of the three C’s of quality in public service, suggesting a causal relationship between what employees bring to the public organisation, and what is expected to be successful.

From a corporate perspective competence is seen as something an organisation is good at doing (Thompson, Strickland & Gamble, 2005: 900). A core competence is a competitively important activity that is central to company strategy and competitiveness, and that a company performs better than other internal activities, and better than their rivals (Thompson, et al., 2005: 91). Most often, this competence is cross-department knowledge-based, residing in people, is in a company’s intellectual capital, and not in its assets on the balance sheet. Important to note is that all companies have competencies and the core competencies are the ones that make them competitive. Also of importance, and worth repeating, is the fact that the competency resides in people.

Table 2.2: Typologies of Meaning and Purpose of the Term “Competency”

Individual Corporate Purpose

Output Performance standards

Benchmarks Performance based objectives (training) Input Knowledge, skills and

abilities

Distinctive strengths Subject matter content (education) Source: Hoffman, 1999: 283

Hoffman summarized the different approaches to individual and corporate competency and the purpose of each in Table 2.2. The table indicates on the vertical axis that an approach is either input or output based. The horizontal axis indicates

that the approach be applied to either individual or corporate types of competency descriptions. On the far right is the purpose of that specific typology.

As a concept in the military environment, Vuono (1990: 3) of the United States Army defines competency as being an expert in the profession of arms, and having knowledge of your job at every level. He adds that competence is not an inherited trait but is due to dedication, education, experience, tough realistic training, and plain hard work. Now that competencies are defined within a personal, public, corporate, and military context, the general management competencies should be identified.