Tiempo

For the purpose of the research, the conceptualisation by Bartram (2006) of competency potential latent variables was utilised. He defines competency potential as “the individual attributes necessary for someone to produce the desired behaviours” (Bartram, 2006, p. 3). As this research is conducted on the work unit, the reference to

‘individual’ is further extended to ‘the individual and the organisational work unit’. However, the core of the definition remains.

2.6.1.1 Capacity

The current study regarded two of the eight PI performance dimensions as competency potential variables. The first performance dimension in the PI that was regarded as a competency potential variable is: capacity. Capacity, was conceptualised by Spangenberg and Theron (2004, p. 23), as ‘the internal strength of the unit’. This internal strength is further dissected into two distinct aspects: the materialistic and the quality of the staff. The materialistic aspects include the financial resources, profits and investment, physical assets and materials supply. It is logical to suggest that the materialistic facets provide the organisational unit an opportunity for success. Although it is possible that an organisational unit may succeed with a low presence of these material resources, the likelihood is greatly decreased. This notion is particularly relevant in the presence of physical assets and material supply.

The second category of capacity as suggested by Spangenberg and Theron (2004) refers to the individuals comprising the unit. The quality of staff, the first consideration, is arguably one of the most important characteristics of a work unit. Individuals with superior abilities and more importantly, individuals that have a propensity for teamwork can undoubtedly perform satisfactorily in a work unit. Further, a team consisting of individuals with superior quality can overcome an unfavourable shortage of the aforementioned material resources. In addition, a team consisting of a diverse range of members is classified as part of the capacity competency potential latent variable. This diversity includes, but is not limited to, cultural, ethnic, academic background and individual preferences. This notion of a diverse team is particularly relevant in the South African context that has a diverse population. The PI latent dimension of capacity can therefore also be described as the wealth of the resources that the organisational work unit has at its disposal (Cockerill et al., 1993; Nicholson & Brenner, 1994). It is clearly a characteristic of an organisational work unit that can vary in magnitude and that influences the level of competence that the unit achieves on the competencies that constitute work unit performance. It is clearly not an organisational work unit competency or an outcome.

2.6.1.2 Adaptability

The second PI performance dimension under consideration for classification in the category of competency potential latent variable was: adaptability. Adaptability is defined by Spangenberg and Theron (2004, p. 30) as:

Flexibility of the unit’s management and administrative systems, core processes and structures, capability to develop new products or services and versatility of staff and technology. Overall, it reflects the capacity of the unit to appropriately and expeditiously change.

The adaptability of a team, according to Spangenberg and Theron (2004), can be further dissected into two subfactors. The first categorisation describes aspects pertaining to the formal organisational environment that the unit operates within. The second categorisation illustrates the specific contributions of the individuals in the team.

The environment that the unit operates is explicated by Spangenberg and Theron (2004) as the flexibility of the unit’s management and administrative system. The importance of the work unit’s management cannot be overstated; th_{e work unit is} greatly enhanced by favourable conditions in which a supportive management is considered a pivotal factor and a catalyst for the other environmental conditions. The willingness and ability of the work unit’s management to acknowledge that ch_{ange is} an inevitable variable that must be taken cognisance of and that the work unit, in order to be successful, needs to have conditions that are created by management which acknowledge this. This includes administrative systems such as performance appraisals that acknowledge the differing goals of teams due to changing conditions and structures that allow the team to appropriately respond to sudden changes quickly. The second facet of adaptability refers to the capability of staff to develop new products or services through versatility and technology. It is further stated that overall, it reflects the capacity of the unit to appropriately and expeditiously change (Spangenberg & Theron, 2004). Adaptability is also clearly a characteristic of an organisational work unit that can vary in magnitude and that influences the level of competence that the unit achieves on the competencies that constitute work unit performance. It is not an organisational work unit competency or an outcome.

2.6.1.3 Behavioural Competency Dimensions

The behavioural competency dimensions are understood in accordance with the definition provided by SHL (2000) and Bartram (2005 & 2006) as the abstract theme in related sets of behaviours that are instrumental in the delivery of the results or outcomes for which the unit exists.

2.6.1.4 Core people processes

The core people processes performance dimension of the PI was suggested to be a behavioural competency variable. Core people processes as defined by Spangenberg and Theron (2004, p. 23) refers to:

Reflect organisational effectiveness criteria such as goals and work plans, communication, organisational interaction, conflict management, productive clashing of ideas, integrity and uniqueness of the individual or group, learning through feedback and rewarding performance.

Core people processes refers to the extent to which clear goals and work plans for the organisational unit are continuously derived and adapted through a process of open communication, vibrant interaction and productive clashing of ideas between unit members in the interest of improving unit performance, and in which contributions of individual unit members are valued and rewarded (Henning, 2002). In accordance with the above definition, it is appropriate to classify core people processes as a behavioural dimension. The above definition can be further subdivided into two aspects, behaviours pertaining exclusively to interactions within the work unit and behaviours that include interactions between the work unit and individuals and/or groups external to the unit.

Conflict is a natural occurrence in human interaction and the potential for conflict is heightened in the work unit. This conflict can range from a personal level in the clashing of personalities or values, which is particularly prominent in the early stages of group formation, to an intellectual disagreement. Conflict is not to be avoided or discouraged. What is important in the presence of conflict is the manner in which it is handled. The correct manner in which conflict is handled is through constructive conflict management, that attempts to use the occurrence of conflict to build the team as a unit and to derive synergy from the conflict. In this trend, it is appropriate to give

special cognisance to the intellectual conflict of a team. The correct manner to handle intellectual conflict is through the productive clashing of ideas; creative conflict (Becker & Huselid, 1998). This constructive behaviour includes not discrediting a member’s idea but using differing ideas to create a converging, and usually better, newly constructed idea (Henning, 2002).

Further, communication must be considered. Communication is pivotal in team behaviour to create a common understanding between individuals and can further encourage the constructive handling of diverging interests or ideas.

In this sub-categorisation of the core people processes, the creation of goals and work plans for the unit is a behaviour of which the importance cannot be understated. The team must create goals that are aligned with the organisational goals in the outcome domain and create a satisfactory and productive plan to achieve these (Henning et al., 2004; Spangenberg & Theron, 2004).

Regarding the second facet of the core people processes performance dimension, the unit's interaction with the larger organisation in which it is embedded is of importance. The interaction can be in the form of discussions and meetings that ensure the work unit is working in accordance with the goals that the larger organisation requires. This will encourage feedback that the unit must constructively use in the improvement of processes or ideas to meet the requirements of the larger organisation (Henning et al., 2004; Spangenberg & Theron, 2004). This is particularly relevant to the outcomes discussed later.

In the same trend, the larger organisation must reward the performance of the work unit. However, this is not the only manner in which rewarding takes place. The unit itself must reward the individuals appropriately, both intrinsically and extrinsically, according to the contribution and effort of each member (Henning et al, 2004; Spangenberg & Theron, 2004).

It is uncertain, however, in the description of core people processes, why Spangenberg and Theron (2004) included integrity and the uniqueness of the individual under core people processes. Integrity is a value that an individual holds

and must therefore be considered as a competency potential latent variable. Likewise, the uniqueness of an individual is also seen in the same manner. If one refers to the uniqueness of an individual, it should be considered to be a characteristic. Alternatively, an adjustment is suggested to rather interpret this aspect as referring to interaction amongst unit members that demonstrates respect for the integrity and uniqueness of the individual. This will highlight the behavioural aspect and not consider the value or characteristic aspect of the construct. Moreover, interaction amongst unit members that demonstrates respect for the integrity and uniqueness of the individual probably is a necessary prerequisite for constructive conflict and a productive clashing of ideas.

Despite having been developed a work unit performance measure core people processes is the only latent behavioural competency measured by the PI. This clearly raises serious concerns on the content validity of the PI.