The research register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this

of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

The increasing scope of Training and

development
training and development competency

competency
Zane Berge and Marie de Verneil 43
UMBC, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Nancy Berge
Fairfax County Public Schools, Columbia, Maryland, USA
Linda Davis
LDRA Perfomance Consultants, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, and
Donna Smith
Arnold, Maryland, USA
Keywords Competences, Training, Development, Literature, Performance
Abstract Organizations find it increasingly difficult to stay competitive in today's global
economy. Leaders in the workplace are using benchmarking, competency, competency models,
and competency studies to help make human resource decisions, such as hiring, training, and
promotions. In training and development (T&D), it is helpful for competencies to focus on
knowledge, skills and/or abilities. But neither the field of T&D, nor competency within the field, is
static. Reported here is a careful review of literature showing the trends in competency over the
past three decades in the training and development field, and provides some speculation
regarding competencies needed in the near future for professionals in T&D. Two of the most
apparent changes in T&D are the shift to performance improvement and the use of technology.
Thus the skills, knowledge, and abilities involving these areas will continue to become increasingly
necessary for T&D professionals.

The field of training and development (T&D) has undergone changes that
reflect the dynamic factors in the corporate world overall. T&D's objectives
continue to shift from a focus on programmed instruction (and behavioral and
task analysis), to performance-system analysis. Learning is now defined as a
competitive strategy in the global workplace. Therefore, trainers must engage
in defining strategic goals, analyzing organizational processes and providing
better systemic performance within the business context.
Increased need for improved performance requires more efficient ways to
identify, recruit, measure, and improve the training and education of the
workforce. As traditional, hierarchical organizational structures are
increasingly transforming to self-directed, cross-functional, process oriented,
and knowledge-based models, both organizations and individuals are
increasingly faced with new challenges to maximize the organization's
competitive edge, and to meet new standards of excellence in performance.
Subsequently, many organizations are adopting competency-based models to Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, 2002,
pp. 43-61. # MCB UP Limited,
The authors wish to thank Betsy Alexander, Carolyn Anderson, Amy Krug, Osama Morad, and 1463-5771
Lorene Pryor for their work on the framework and the compilation of the information in Table I. DOI 10.1108/14635770210418579
BIJ meet the ever-evolving goals and needs (Clark, 1999). What changes have
9,1 occurred over the past several decades with respect to competence in the T&D
field? Why does competency matter? What are the most important
competencies to have now, and what will become more or less valuable in the
future? While the answers to these questions may not be easily obtained, it is
better to begin with some solid benchmarking. The benchmarks derived in this
44 study are done through a literature review ± an atypical methodology perhaps,
but a reasonable activity that occasionally needs to be done when exploring
standards in the field of T&D.

Defining competency
As the industrial age yields to the information age, the very definition of work
is undergoing a fundamental reevaluation (Greengard, 1998). Along with that
redefinition has come a shift in the worker competencies necessary to
accommodate it. So, the context in which competency models exist fuels change
and the transformation of the competency needed in T&D. Such rapid change
makes the task of comparing a list of competencies authored in the mid-1980s
to one produced today problematic. Any analysis and comparison between the
two lists must be based, not only upon what human resources (HR)
professionals were doing and thinking then, but also upon what they could not
have anticipated about today and tomorrow. These developments include an
explosion in communication and information technology, increased workforce
diversity, changes in global competition, and the emergence of democracy as
the political system of choice for much of the world (McLagan, 1996). Therefore,
this evolution has required a change in the ways worker competencies are
viewed and developed.

Different definitions of competency

Providing for a competent workforce has led to the general inquiry about
competencies as a basis for a common language. This goes beyond the
changing roles and titles found across organizations. There are many
definitions of competency ± with definitions dependent on how the concept is
used. Indeed, early on in the defining of competency, it was believed that
clearly defined competencies would systematically insure effective job
performance. In fact, many different definitions have been proposed resulting
in a wide range of frameworks and definitions in the literature of various fields.
Not all these definitions are compatible, and debate continues.
For instance, Mirabile (1997, p. 74) defined a competency as ``a knowledge,
skill, ability, or characteristic associated with high performance on a job, such
as problem solving, analytical thinking, or leadership. Some definitions of a
competency include motives, beliefs, and values''. Competencies that reflect
motives, beliefs, and values can turn into a list made up of personality traits
and deeply held values, and imply a selection strategy, not a T&D strategy
(Dalton, 1997). Parry (1998) expanded on this by stating that identifying certain
traits and characteristics might be helpful to recruiters and interviewers, but it
is not the trainer's job to assess or develop them. Additionally, Parry (1996, Training and
p. 49) stated ``most HR experts believe that training programs, performance development
appraisals, and wage and salary administration should focus on performance, competency
not personality'', and that it is not within the scope of a trainer's job to affect
personality, but rather a job for psychotherapy.

Different approaches to competency models 45

Not only are there many definitions of competency found in the literature, but
also there are various approaches used in framing and making sense of
competencies. McLagan (1996) identified six approaches to defining and
developing models for competency:
(1) job tasks;
(2) results of work efforts;
(3) outputs;
(4) knowledge, skills and attitude (KSA);
(5) qualities of superior performances; and
(6) bundles of attributes.
With the increased adaptations of competency frameworks in both educational
institutions and private sectors organizations, many of the competency models
developed during the past three decades at least partially correspond to the six
approaches identified, or with combinations of these six.

Which definition(s) and approach(es) are best for T&D

In general, authors of the recent T&D literature have used an approach to
competency models that aligns with the business needs of the organization.
T&D's primary, traditional role has been to insure that the workforce is
provided with the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to perform a given
function well. For the purposes of T&D, a competency is a cluster of related
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that correlates with effective job performance,
can be measured and evaluated, and that can be improved through training and
development (McLagan, 1983, 1989a, 1996; Richey et al., 2001). This definition
of competency includes only what seems to be trainable and desirable. By
trainable we mean competencies in T&D can be affected by training effort, as
compared with a trait, that cannot be trained. A trait is a relatively enduring
characteristics of an individual's behavior that cannot be easily changed
through training. By desirable we mean that it does not seem politically
incorrect or as being manipulative, such as it may if an attempt is made to
change a group of employees' values using training.
Much was accomplished concerning competencies in the field during the
1980s and early 1990s. Looking back, one can appreciate the tremendous work
that was done in designing tools, models and definitions of competencies
throughout the workplace in a variety of fields. The competency movement
BIJ resulted in some profound shifts: from merely listing job title to the notion of
9,1 work as ``outputs'' and different roles, thus reflecting the multi-tasking
approach that jobs have come to mean in the past ten years. The National
Human Resource Development (HRD) Executive Survey on Trends in HRD
(ASTD, 1997) suggested the top ten most probable trends as:
(1) Greater need to provide training on computer skills.
46
(2) Greater need to provide training on teamwork.
(3) Shift from providing ``training'' to improving ``performance''.
(4) Greater need to provide training on decision making or problem solving.
(5) Increased pressure for rapid development and deployment of HRD
services.
(6) Greater need to provide training on systems thinking.
(7) Increased pressure to demonstrate outcomes of training.
(8) Increased pressure to measure performance outcomes.
(9) Shift from providing ``training'' to facilitating ``learning''.
(10) Increased pressure to develop business case for HRD interventions.
From these, it can be seen that HRD is undergoing a shift in purpose ± with
``training'' no longer the primary deliverable of HRD. The emphasis is now on
performance and performance outcomes.

Paradigmatic shifts in training and development

In a world characterized by rapid rates of change, what has emerged is quality
and custom-driven services and products. The fall of the Berlin wall and the
opening of the communist bloc to Western capitalism extended what was
already a reality for the Western corporate world: increased globalization. To
this new reality, T&D reacted with an increased use of systems approaches in
HRD (McLagan, 1996). The search for competencies and desired behavior had
led to job environment analysis and performance analysis.
T&D could not anticipate quickly enough the changes that were occurring in
the workplace. Gill (1995, p. 26) remarks that:
It's true that the profession is changing. But the gears are shifting very slowly. Most HRD
practitioners still spend the bulk of their time in the design and delivery of class-room-based
training events . . . Why do trainers find it so difficult to reinvent themselves and adopt a new
role? The profession must examine its mental models if it is to reinvent itself and become
instrumental in learning organizations.

Looking back at traditional T&D, one realizes that it had been conceived for a
much more well-defined and stable workplace. Traditional training focused on
the trainer. Gill (1995, p. 26) lists five myths of HRD's old paradigm: the belief
that ``training makes a difference, training's purpose is to achieve learning
objectives, the trainer's purpose is to manage training programs, training is
(the) trainer's job, trainees should enjoy the training they receive''.
 Brinkerhoff and Gill (1995) have analyzed traditional program-driven Training and
training (TPDT) and have compared it to what they call highly effective development
training (HET). For TPDT, the training department conducts the needs competency
analysis and sets the goals which are defined as learning outcomes. For HET,
line managers conduct the needs analysis. Goals are defined as business
results, are based on performance, and are linked to strategic goals. Training is
``just-in-time'' and is content appropriate ± with just enough content provided 47
on or close to the job (Brinkerhoff and Gill, 1995).
What Brinkerhoff and Gill described is a paradigmatic shift from traditional
training to learning, a shift that corresponds to a corporate belief that to be
competitive and maintain a technological advantage, new knowledge must be
at the heart of competitive strategies (Berge, 2001; DeVito, 1996). As Tobin
(1998, p. 153) remarked:
Learning focuses on the employee ± the person doing the learning ± whereas training focuses
on the trainer. In the knowledge-enabled organization, only the employee and her manager
can determine what is to be learned to improve individual and organizational performance.

This paradigmatic shift and focus on the learner has great implications for
training. Learning is no longer the transfer of information but the creation of
knowledge as it is visibly expressed by improvement in business results and
innovations. Underlying this shift is the recognition that well-designed
instruction does not guarantee performance, and that instruction is one of
many solutions to performance improvement. The employee's empowerment
and the evaluation of performance in terms of business results has forced T&D
to redefine itself. If managers conduct need analysis and learning encompasses
all aspects of the workplace, the traditional academic model based on well-
defined methodologies and transfer of information has become obsolete.
Training and development practitioners must forgo their reactive function and
become new business partners, facilitating learning in the new workplace
environment.

Competency framework
The list of 52 T&D competencies in Table I was developed based on an
examination of the 35 references listed in the table. Broad clusters of skills,
knowledge, and attitudes were grouped together. Competencies that pertain
specifically to T&D are included in the ``Technical'' competencies cluster in the
table and competencies applicable to all professions are included in the
``Business, Interpersonal, and Intellectual'' competencies clusters in the table.
This list of competencies, while comprehensive, is not meant to be definitive.
Persons wishing to use this as a competency model would probably need to
make adjustments for their context and organization. The main point of Table I
is to show the comparison of competencies across time in the T&D field.
T&D competencies have actually remained quite stable during the last two
decades. A minimal number of new competencies are now expected of the T&D
professional, and a minimal number seem to also be fading from the training
and development professional's repertoire. What is important to note is that the
skills, knowledge, attitudes, and abilities that comprise each cluster have
increased in scope. Competencies encompass more skills and knowledge than
ever before, and today's T&D professional is expected to know more than his
or her counterpart a decade or two ago. The similarities between competency-
profiling and benchmarking become obvious. By comparing the desired with
the existing, both at the individual level and the organizational level, the
organization can focus on bridging any existing or anticipated gaps
(Chowdhury, 1999).

Future competency
The current and future success of an organization depends on the effectiveness
of management's leadership competencies combined with the competencies of
the organization's workforce (Picket, 1998). Management and workforce
competencies should reflect an organization's current and future needs
(Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). This makes the identification of the competencies
that will enable organizations to meet the demands of the future of vital
importance (Picket, 1998). Essentially, there are two areas in which T&D
professionals will need to continue increasing their competence: using
technology and aligning performance goals with the business needs of the
organization.

The trainer as performance technologist

According to Rosenberg (1996, p. 370), human performance technology (HPT)
is a ``practice that helps link business strategy and goals and the capability of
the workforce to achieve them, with a wide array of human resource
interactions which include but are certainly not limited to education and
BIJ training''. HPT significantly addresses the paradigmatic shift that has taken
9,1 place in the workplace. It establishes a relationship between performance
improvement and business results; empowers the workforce; and
acknowledges that learning is not limited to education and training. The
iterative nature of the HPT process should be stressed:
Human performance technology is not about machines; it is about people and how to improve
58 and maintain their productivity and competitiveness. It is an iterative process in which each
successful application results in positive changes to the competence and abilities of the
workforce. As new organizational challenges are addressed, the performance technology
process is the key to ensuring that the workforce is ready to meet them head on ((ISPI, 1998,
p. 1).

Using technology
Another change that has occurred involves the technology explosion.
Computers, faxes, the Internet, e-mail, cell phones, work stations at home, and
networks are only a few of the technological changes that have dramatically
altered the look of today's workplace (McLagan and Nel, 1995). Managers will
have to focus more on productivity and less on tracking employees and their
tasks (Greengard, 1998). Skill requirements will continue to increase and
change as the technology revolution proceeds on its course (Bassi et al., 1996).

Conclusions
Clearly, as technology evolves, it is redefining how, why and when training
takes place. It is evident that in the near future, knowledge of computer-based
technologies for training should be a standard rather than an innovation.
The new paradigm integrates all business functions and sees everything in
the organization as part of a process that can continuously be improved.
Problems will have to be addressed systemically with a long-range perspective
encompassing all employees. It is becoming less likely that any one person will
be expert in all the competencies in the training and development field
(Rothwell, 1996). The use of a systems approach for performance improvement
in all business functions naturally leads to HPT ± a systematic approach to
achieve improved performance.
This leads to the main goal of an organization: to effectively manage
performance. A performance management process is created by integrating
systems in the human resources areas, such as selection, development, and
succession planning (Robinson and Robinson, 1995a, b, p. 10). In order to
accomplish this, the organization must have a common language.
Competencies provide the common language and concepts, and draw attention
to many of the critical business needs of the organization.
If we learned anything through the process used here, it is that this cannot
be the only benchmarking used for an organization's competency modeling.
Next steps might include a review of different job functions in training and
development, and then setting different standards for novice practitioners
versus experts for each of those jobs. Still, by occasionally benchmarking
overall training and development competencies in the manner we did, Training and
organizations ensure that they remain open to new ideas, changing trends, and development
evolving technology (Bogan and English, 1996). competency
References
ASTD (1997), The 1997 National HRD Executive Survey ± Trends in HRD [Online], available at:
http://www.astd.org/virtual_community/research/nhrd_executive_survey_97tr_cms.htm, 59
accessed 17 May, 2001.
Bassi, L.J., Benson, G. and Cheney, S. (1996), ``The top ten trends'', Training and Development,
Vol. 50 No. 11, November, pp. 28-42.
Berge, Z.L. (2001), Sustaining Distance Training: Integrating Learning Technologies into the
Fabric of the Enterprise, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Bogan, C.E. and English, M.J. (1996), ``Benchmarking for best practices'', in Craig, R.L. (Ed.), The
ASTD Training and Development Handbook: A Guide to Human Resource Development,
4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 394-412.
Bowling Green State University (1996), ``Competencies sought by employers'', [Online], available
at: http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/sa/career/students/competencies.htm, accessed 17 May,
2001.
Brinkerhoff, R.O. and Gill, S.J. (1995), ``The learning alliance: systems thinking in human resource
development'', in Frantzerb, R.B. (Ed.), Training and Development Yearbook, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 2.11-2.14.
Burke, M. (1997), The Valuable Office Professional, American Management Association, New
York, NY.
Charney, C. and Conway, K. (1998), The Trainer's Toolkit, American Management Association,
New York, NY.
Chowdhury, P.R. (1999), ``The right profile'', Business Today, [Online], available at: www.india-
today.com/btoday/07061999/human.html, accessed 23 September, 2001.
Clark, D. (1999), Performance Technology. Big Dog's HRD Page. [On-Line], available at: http://
www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/pi.html, accessed 18 May, 2001.
Clement, R.W., Pinto, P.R. and Walker, J.W. (1979), ``Changing demands on the training
professional'', Training and Development Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 3-7.
Commonwealth of Virginia (1999), ``Human resources generalist program'', June [Online],
available at: http://dpt.vipnet.org/hrg/hrg_comp.htm, accessed 17 May, 2001.
Dalton, M. (1997), ``Are competency models a waste?'', Training & Development, Vol. 51 No. 10,
pp. 46-50.
Dare, D.E. and Leach, J.A. (1999), ``Preparing tomorrow's HRD professionals: perceived relevance
of the 1989 competency model'', Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, Vol. 15
No. 2, [Online], available at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/v15n2/dare.html,
accessed 17 May, 2001.
DeVito, J. (1996), ``The learning organization'', in Craig, R.L. (Ed.), The ASTD Training and
Development Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 77-83.
Eline, L. (1998), ``A trainer's guide to skill building'', Technical Training, [Online], accessed
17 May, 2001.
Federal HRDC Model and Strategy Committee (1997), Getting Results Through Learning: HRD
Competencies (Appendix E), May, [Online], available at: http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/
handbook2/hrdhdbk.pdf, accessed 25 May, 2001.
Frank, F.D., Struth, M. and Donovan, J. (1980), ``Speaking from experience: `practitioner certification:
the time has come''', Training and Development Journal, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 80-3.
BIJ Gayeski, D. (1981), ``Educating the training professional'', Training and Development Journal,
Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 60-6.
9,1
Gill, S. (1995), ``Shifting gears for high performance'', Training and Development, Vol. 44 No. 5,
May, pp. 25-31.
Greengard, S. (1998), ``How technology will change the workplace'', Workforce, Vol. 77 No. 1,
pp. 78-84.
60 Hanley, M. (1986), ``Technical know-how vs. teaching skills ± training's sticky issues'', Data
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 14-15.
Huse, E.F. (1975), Organizational Development and Change, West Publishing, St Paul, MN.
International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (1998), Summary of
the core competencies developed in the standards, October, [Online], available at: http://
www.ibstpi.org/summary.html, accessed 17 May, 2001.
International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (1999a), The IBSTPI
1998 instructional design competencies, April, [Online], available at: http://www.ibstpi.
org/98comp.html, accessed 17 May, 2001.
International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (1999b), The IBSTPI
instructional design competencies, January, available at: http://www.ibstpi.org/idrevised.
html, accessed 19 October, 1999.
International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (1999c), The IBSTPI
training manager competencies, May, [Online] avialble at: http://www.ibstpi.org/
trngstandards.html, accessed 17 May, 2001.
International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (1999d), The IBSTPI
instructor competencies, May, [Online], available at: http://www.ibstpi.org/instsandards.
html, accessed 17 May, 2001.
International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) (1998), What is HPT? [Online],
available at: http://www.ispi.org/services/whatshpt.htm, accessed 17 May, 2001.
Kenny, J.B. (1982), ``Competency analysis for trainers: a model for professionalization'', Training
and Development Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 142-8.
Leach, J.A. (1996), ``Distinguishing characteristics among exemplary trainers in business and
industry'', Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, Vol. 12 No. 2 [Online], available
at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/v12n2/leach.html, accessed 17 May, 2001.
McLagan, P.A. (1983), Models for Excellence: The Conclusions and Recommendations of the
ASTD Training and Development Competency Study, American Society for Training and
Development, Washington, DC.
McLagan, P.A. (1989a), Models for HRD Practice, American Society for Training and
Development, Alexandria, VA.
McLagan, P.A. (1989b), ``HRD competencies'', Training and Development Journal, Vol. 43 No. 9,
pp. 56-7.
McLagan, P.A. (1996), ``Great ideas revisited: creating the future of HRD'', Training and
Development, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 60-5.
McLagan, P.A. and Bedrick, D. (1983), ``Models for excellence: the results of the ASTD training
and development competency study'', Training and Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6,
pp. 10-20.
McLagan, P. and Nel, C. (1995), ``The dawning of a new age in the workplace'', The Journal for
Quality and Participation, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 10-16.
Margulies, M. and Wallace, J. (1973), Organizational Change: Techniques and Applications, Scott,
Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.
Marquardt, M.J. and Engel, D.W. (1993), ``HRD competencies for a shrinking world'', Training Training and
and Development, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 59-65.
development
Mirabile, R.J. (1997), ``Everything you wanted to know about competency modeling'', Training &
Development, Vol. 51 No. 8, pp. 73-8. competency
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (1995), ``Skills and competencies needed to
succeed in today's workplace'', [Online], available at: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/
issues/methods/assment/as7scans.htm, accessed 17 May, 2001.
61
Pace, R.W., Peterson, B.D. and Porter, W.M. (1986), ``Competency-based curricula'', Training and
Development Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 71-8.
Parry, S.B. (1996), ``The quest for competencies'', Training Magazine, Vol. 33 No. 7, July, pp. 48-56.
Parry, S.B. (1998), ``Just what is a competency? (And why should you care?)'', Training, Vol. 35
No. 6, pp. 58-64.
Picket, L. (1998), ``Competencies and managerial effectiveness: putting competencies to work'',
Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 103-15.
Pinto, P.R. and Walker, J.W. (1978), ``What do training and development professionals really do?'',
Training and Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 58-64.
Prahalad, C.R. and Hamel, G. (1990), ``The core competence of the corporation'', Harvard Business
Review, May-June, pp. 79-91.
Richey, R., Fields D. and Foxon M. (2001), International Board of Standards for Training,
Performance and Instruction: Instructional Design Competencies: The Standards, 3rd ed.,
ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Technology.
Robinson, J.C. and Robinson, D. (1995a), ``Performance takes training to new heights'', Training
and Development, Vol. 49 No. 9, September, pp. 20-5.
Robinson, J.C. and Robinson, D. (1995b), Performance Consulting: Moving beyond Training,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Rosenberg, M. (1996), ``Human performance technology'', in Craig, R.L. (Ed.), The ASTD
Training and Development Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, p. 370.
Rossett, A. and Sharpe, D. (1981), ``Start their training career right'', Instructional Innovator,
pp. 29-46.
Rothwell, W. (1996), ASTD Models for Human Performance Improvement, ASTD, Alexandria,
VA, pp. 3-32.
Rothwell, W. (1998), ``Competencies associated with HPI work'', [Online], available at: http://
www.astd.org/CMS/templates/template_1.html?articleid=20785, accessed 17 May, 2001
Sanders, E.S. (1998), ``Roles and competencies for learning technologies'', [Online], available at:
http://www.astd.org/CMS/templates/template_1.html?articleid=10825, accessed 17 May,
2001.
Smith, P.A. (1994), ``Reinventing SunU'', Training and Development, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 22-7.
Tobin (1998), The Knowledge-enabled Organization: Moving from ``Training'' to ``Learning'' to
Meet Business Goals, AMACOM, New York, NY.
Training (1984), ``Training skills ranked; thinking, writing and speaking still tops'', Training,
Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 107-8.
University of Colorado at Denver, School of Education and Information and Learning
Technologies (1999), Information and learning technolgies, April, [Online], available at:
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/public/education/ilt/ILThome.html, accessed 17 May, 2001.
Varney, G.H. (1980), ``Developing OD competencies'', Training and Development Journal, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 30-5.