The development of a competency model

and its implementation in a power utility

cooperative: an action research study
LeAnn Brown, Babu George, Candace Mehaffey-Kultgen 
Industrial and Commercial Training

ISSN: 0019-7858
Publication date: 5 March 2018 
PDF (181 KB)
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Background
 Methodology
 Competency model development process
 Competency model implementation
 Discussion
 Conclusion
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to trace the development of a competency model
in a medium-scale power utility company located in the Midwest USA.

Design/methodology/approach
The model is developed based on insights drawn from the literature, company
documents, and primary interviews with the key company stakeholders. The
research process was carried out according to the guidelines of action
research methodology.

Findings
Competencies required for employees were identified and operationally
defined. Existing competencies were inventoried and superimposed on the
required competencies. Gaps in competency presence and proficiency levels
were noticed. The competencies required for effective performance were
distributed across different levels in the hierarchy, according to the
competency needs of each hierarchical level.
Practical implications
Attempts to tie these competencies to employee selection, succession
planning, performance appraisal, training need assessment, leadership
development, etc., are currently ongoing. The case company has also initiated
a competency-driven leadership development process. Possible adaptations
of this model for similarly placed companies in other sectors are discussed.

Originality/value
This is an original case study based on primary data, conducted as action
research.

Keywords
 Organizational change

 Performance management

 Leadership development

 Action research

 Competency model

 Competency mapping

Citation
Brown, L., George, B. and Mehaffey-Kultgen, C. (2018), "The development of a
competency model and its implementation in a power utility cooperative: an
action research study", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp.
123-135. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-11-2017-0087
Download as .RIS
Publisher
: 
Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2018, Emerald Publishing Limited

Introduction
Competencies provide organizations with a way to define in behavioral terms
what people need to do or demonstrate to produce the results that the
organization desires, in a way that is aligned with the company culture
(Kochanski, 1996; Sanghi, 2016). According to Takey and de Carvalho (2015),
competencies refer to the “ability to mobilize, integrate, and transfer
knowledge, skills, and resources to reach or surpass the configured
performance in work assignments, adding economic and social value to the
organization and the individual” (p. 785). There has been a progressively
increasing realization among businesses about the need to found human
resource practices upon factors that are more manageable than intelligence
and aptitude (Viitala, 2005). Competency-based approaches have added the
attraction that they can be liked with business goals and strategies in a much
better way (Ngo et al., 2014).

In the human resource management (HRM) literature, competencies are

generally defined at the individual level while the theory of strategic
management is built on the assumption that competencies are to be sought at
the firm level (Cummings and Worley, 2014). Yet, there is an increasing
recognition in the literature that strategic competencies should have their roots
in the individual level competencies (Lindgren et al., 2004). The success of any
competency-based management solution depends upon exploiting the inter-
linkages between the individual (micro-) and the organizational (macro-) level
competencies. Also, such solutions should have an embedded mechanism to
measure success. For instance, Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) proposed five levels
of competence development: novice: rule-based behavior, strongly limited and
inflexible; experienced beginner: incorporates aspects of the situation;
practitioner: acting consciously from long-term goals and plans;
knowledgeable practitioner: sees the situation as a whole and acts from
personal conviction; and expert: has an intuitive understanding of the situation
and zooms in on the central aspects.

A competency model is the framework for companies to design and effectively

implement their talent management (TM) systems (Naquin and Holton III, 2006).
In particular, applications of competencies can be seen in the following human
resource and employee development functions: interview and selection; job
descriptions; performance appraisals; employee development planning;
identifying high-potential employees; and succession planning (Campion et al.,
2011; Marrelli, 1998). Competency models could underpin successful integrated
HRM practices (Rodriguez et al., 2002).

This paper discusses the competency identification and the process of

managing its implementation in a power utility company in the cooperative
sector, based in the Midwest USA. Particularly, it will focus upon the following
steps: identifying a pool of needed competencies; refining this in the light of
the organizational context, organizational goals, objectives, and strategies;
presenting the competency information to decision makers to gain feedback
and acceptance; imparting professional development activities informed by
the competency model; evaluating the success of the program; and
integrating the competency framework into various associated human
resources processes.

Background
The case company
The subject organization has existed since the 1950s and experienced
various mergers with neighboring service providers. The most recent merger
has occurred within the past ten years, resulting in a doubling of the workforce
now exceeding 400 people. The subject organization provides services to
rural communities throughout a 35,000-square mile area located within the
Midwestern USA. The type of industry of the case company predicates a
bureaucratic design with a centralized “corporate” headquarters with
additional locations throughout the Midwest.

Due to rapid growth, expansion, and change occurring in the organization and
the industry, the case company sought the counsel of the authors to develop a
competency model that identifies and defines the knowledge, skills, and
abilities needed to succeed in this evolving marketplace. Competencies
related to leadership became the primary focus, as the company prepares for
the retirement of several baby boomers holding leadership positions within the
company.

Competency-based management
The ability to develop, implement, and assess competency modeling and
mapping is typically delegated to the HRM function (Lo et al., 2015). According
to Cameron and Green (2015), organizational change should act through the
employees, and competencies are the enablers of the same. Takey and de
Carvalho (2015) posit competencies enable the individual and the organization
to surpass performance goals adding quantitative and qualitative social and
economic value. Interestingly, despite international and industry differences,
both Takey and de Carvalho (2015) and Sengupta et al. (2013) identified
management as the base tool for competency model development,
implementation, and assessment.

Baker et al. (1997) have proposed five classifications of competences that

every successful organization should possess. These are as follows:
1. strategic competence: the degree of alignment between a firm’s
business strategy and the external environmental forces;
2. distinctive competence: employee skills common at multiple
organizational levels that provide a firm its competitive advantage;
3. functional competence: the degree with which the strengths within a
particular function align with the competitive priorities of a firm;
4. individual competence: skills individual employees need to perform a
specified job; and
5. competitive competence: the alignment of the core business processes
of the firm with the best practice standards within its industry.

Competency maps are often used to identify the necessary competencies that
include key skill sets, personal characteristics, and knowledge deemed
necessary to drive strategic organizational objectives (Sanghi, 2016).
Competency mapping typically includes the following steps (Takey and de
Carvalho, 2015):
1. Conduct a job analysis using position information questions to
determine that competencies (behaviors) are desirable for a particular job.
2. Develop a concise job description that encompasses the identified
behaviors.
3. Identify the factors used to determine performance assessment based
on the job description. These factors are the competencies needed for
individuals for the performance of their jobs.

Competency lifecycle management follows a four-stage process (Draganidis

and Mentzas, 2006). In the first stage, competency requirements are identified
and defined based on the organizational mission, business plan, job
descriptions, etc (competency mapping). Then, existing competencies are
compared with the competencies identified above, both in kinds and in their
proficiency levels (competency diagnosis). In the third phase, approaches are
formulated to create needed competencies that are absent or to boost needed
competencies that are deficient in potency (competency development). In the
fourth and final phase, the effectiveness of the competency development
process is evaluated (competency monitoring). The overall goal of this set of
processes is to develop a “practical theory” of effective job performance
tailored to the organization; for notes, see Campion et al. (2011).

Modeling competency
Strategically, competency-based models have been used by HRM to drive
performance excellence and to propel organizational change (McClelland,
1973). Sengupta et al. (2013) expanded upon McClelland’s theory positing that
competency models also propel a competitive advantage. Identifying
excellence and shortfalls in competencies indicate needed improvement
zones.

Sengupta et al. (2013) developed a comprehensive performance-linked

competency model using a systematic methodology of competencies. Their
research involved four key phases: phase I represented charting out the entire
process. Phase II involved competency identification using person-focused,
job-focused, and role-focused competency in relation to current and future
organizational requirements. Phase III formatted the competency assessment
using a scorecard with assigned weights for measurement purposes. Phase
IV represented the alignment of competencies with strategic-based HR
duties/functions.

Integrating the Sengupta et al. (2013) model with our action research model

approach, the present researcher identified the competencies existing in the
organization, determined benchmarks for performance upon these
competencies, and aligned the competencies with the performance
management, goal-setting, and strategic planning of the organization. We
have also identified certain competencies that are currently lacking or are
misaligned and have proposed ways to introduce or improve them. We
developed a competency model for core, technical/professional, supervisor,
manager, and (e) executive employee levels within the case organization.

Criticisms of competency-based management

Despite the abundance of theoretical competency models available, only a
few of them found any practical applications in real-world time, according
to Stone et al. (2013). These authors also observe that traditional job analysis
enjoys more rigor in “choosing task descriptor content, determining reliability
of judgements, and detail of contents” than competency-based models which
are definition-wise elusive (21:3).
Additionally, the definition of competency remains elusive (Tarrant, 2000). It is
plausible that effective performance cannot be clearly isolated cannot be
selected using competencies underpinning performance (Townley, 1994). The
only competency management (CM) portion of multiple definitions receiving
consensus focus on competencies is behavior that aligns with activities
necessary to propel organizational performance. The CM methodology itself is
under question because no standardized format exists. Finally, CM research
contends that CM enables HR systems to align, but the practice of CM does
not have user survey data support indicating effectiveness, or the lack thereof.

This becomes problematic because competency modeling is used extensively

in corporate TM fields by trained HRM to ensure that highly talented people
are hired. TM also provides competencies that enable performance
measurement systems. However, scant information is available to identify the
competency models being used in the workplace; even less information is
available on competency modeling effectiveness, except indirectly through
SWOT analysis conducted to assess organizational strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats (Stone et al., 2013).

Methodology
This research was informed by the methodological principles of the action
research. While it does not have a singularly accepted definition, most action
research projects involve interactive-collaborative inquiry processes and
consent informed application of research findings in the organizational context
for change management (Altrichter et al., 2002). Action research is particularly
suited to solve situated organizational problems and to produce guidelines for
best practice in the organizational system where the problem occurred
(Avison et al., 1999). While generalizability is not a stated objective, these
guidelines should be adaptable to similarly placed systems facing similar
problems (Reason and Bradbury, 2001). This adaptation is relatively
straightforward if the conceptual basis of practices and theories of practice are
well understood (Kemmis et al., 2014).

Plan, act, observe, reflect – the four key phases of a typical action research
cycle (Zuber-Skerritt et al., 2015) – were carried out in this research. Aspinwall et
al. (2017) advocated that meaningful action research should co-create
knowledge along with the organizational stakeholders and should also
appreciate their lived situations before implementing anything that might affect
their lives. For a research like this, it is critically important that members of the
system feel the need for change in what is collectively considered as a
desirable direction and prepare themselves for co-learning with the
researcher. In this sense, this action research project also draws from the
appreciative inquiry paradigm (Lor and George, 2014). The action research
project was carried out in a selected case company and that the findings
should be interpreted as situated truths applicable for the nuanced realities
surrounding the case company – in this sense, this study is constrained by the
scope of applicability of a case study (McManners, 2016).

Awareness of competencies is often embedded in the tacit layers of the

organizational culture (Bourantas and Agapitou, 2016). In order to gain an emic
understanding of the intimate realities of the study field, the first author of this
paper actively engaged with the lived experiences in the organization. This
helped her to step temporarily out of her scholarly veils and subjectively
experience the practical concerns of employees in a problematic situation.
These experiences helped her to gain deeper insights into the organizational
nuances and to gather informed consent of organizational members to
collaborate with the research effort.

A key objective of this investigation was to identify important competencies for

the various levels of the management. To this end, we conducted multiple
focus group meetings and evaluated 85 job descriptions. These, along with
literature review and a content analysis of relevant organizational documents,
helped us to identify a comprehensive competency model for the following
levels – core, technical/professional, supervisor, manager, and executive. In
the next stage of the action research cycle, we developed an interview toolkit
consisting of behavioral interview questions and an evaluation tool aligned
with each of the competencies.

Complementing this, a 360° assessment was created to determine the current

level of employee competencies (Nowack, 1993). Toegel and Conger
(2003) cautioned against using 360° assessments for performance evaluation
without giving valid weightages to the views of different parties involved in the
process. Campion et al. (2015) advocated this tool only as one of the many in
the toolkit for performance management. In this study, we advised the
management of the case company not to use the feedback for anything other
than the development of professional and leadership competencies. One
reason we gathered qualitative narrative feedback was to ensure that the
numbers do not get used mechanically for performance evaluation of the
employees involved in the study (Pulakos et al., 2015).

The Qualtrics360 survey platform was used to manage the 360° assessment
process. Finally, based on the survey results, leadership development plans
for each competency was developed using a variety of learning
methodologies including readings, on-the-job training, stretch assignments,
and training seminars and workshops offered throughout the region. The
performance of these employees was gathered again, after the test phase and
corrective actions were suggested.

The step by step actions employed for this process are summarized as
follows:
1. Reviewed the literature to generate a list of competencies for a typical
company similar to the case company.
2. Reviewed 85 job descriptions in the case company to identify
competencies associated with each level, as reflected in these job
descriptions.
3. Compared the competencies in the extant literature with the
competencies emerging from the job description.
4. Identified a list of the needed competencies for each level within the
organization, based on what the management wanted (as reflected in the
job descriptions and by means of a content analysis of other relevant
organizational documents) and what the literature says the best practices
are (as found in the scholarly literature).
5. Presented the competencies to focus groups comprised of employees
from each level. These groups were also asked to identify competencies
required for their level, their subordinates, and supervisors.
6. Feedback from step 5 was used to refine the list of competencies
needed at each level.
7. Based on this revised list, the researchers developed a competency
model tied to the existing levels in the organizational hierarchy.
8. Presented the model to the executive team, took their feedback, and
further revised the model. This revised competency model was presented
to the executive team, and their approval was received.
9. Identified a pilot group comprised of employees from each level. About
a third of employees in each level participated. Each of these employees
was asked to complete 360° assessments, in the light of the competency
model approved by the executive team in step 8.
10. Based on the gaps identified in the 360° assessments, the pilot group
had to complete a range of professional development activities to improve
competencies. The researchers served as consultants in prescribing
these activities. Some of the professional development training was
offered by the researchers, some by the supervisors of the employees,
and some by other parties.
11. The pilot group was re-evaluated after nine months for changes in
performance across the competencies found important for their levels. In
 general, the results showed substantial progress; some of the participants
exceed the expectations while a few fell short.
12. Based on the overall success of this effort, the organization decided to
couple the competency model with other HR areas and interventions.

Competency model development process

Identification of competencies in the case company
The analysis helps us to identify a multilayered competency model. Certain
base competencies were found to be important across the board while the
relative importance of certain others varied across different layers in the
organizational hierarchy and management levels. We have identified 59
competencies for the case company’s competency toolkit and 5 levels of
development for each of these competencies.

A simple diagrammatic depiction of the competency model we developed is

shown in Figure 1.

Below, we list the competencies and operationalize them at five progressive

levels.

Core competencies
Core competencies are at the heart of any business and these are embedded
in the organization’s culture (Prahalad and Hamel, 2006). These are also
success factors that are permeating across all roles in the organization. The
following seven competencies were the overall case company core
competencies, identified as imperative throughout the organization: technical
competency, respect and dignity, accountability, integrity, trustworthiness,
servant leadership, and safety. These core competencies give the case
company its distinct personality. Organizational culture is considered a
collection of value and belief systems shared by employees (Robbins and
Judge, 2015). The core competencies identified above clearly reflect an open
organizational system with high levels of trust embedded into its key success
factors. This is of particular importance because accountability, integrity,
trustworthiness, respect, and dignity are key components of servant
leadership. Servant leadership is directly related to high ethical standards,
which focuses on the needs of employees to propel performance excellence
(Robbins and Judge, 2015). Evidently, many of the identified competencies listed
above are globally admired values that socially responsible and ethically
prudent businesses should possess.
Tech-professional staff competencies
In science and engineering based businesses, technical competency is
pivotally important (Soong et al., 2001). In an energy utility company, these are
competencies that are specifically required for those carrying out technical
and professional operations. The following eight competencies emerged as
important competencies for technicians and professional staff without
supervisory responsibilities: communication, decision making, flexibility,
initiative, problem solving, quality, team orientation, and technology acumen.
These critical competencies represent the ability of non-supervisory
employees to independently evaluate, assess, and implement decisions
(solutions to problems) within their sphere of expertise. When employees are
empowered to make decisions and solving problem, a solid foundation is
created for flexibility, initiative, team orientation, and overall quality to thrive
(Carpenter et al., 2015). Additionally, these competencies align beautifully with
servant leadership which drives performance (Robbins and Judge, 2015).

Supervisory competencies
Supervisory competence has become an important area of research in
various professional fields (Falender and Shafranske, 2007; Hardison et al.,
2014; Kraemer Tebes et al., 2011). The following seven competencies were
identified to be particularly relevant at the supervisory levels in the case
company: conflict resolution, emotional intelligence, empowering others,
hiring/staffing, informing, performance management, and planning. These
competencies are especially important for those employees who supervise
technical and office workers. It may be noted that most supervisors emerge
from the technical-professional staff ranks and they also possess staff
competencies. These competencies are particularly important at this level
because they represent the substantial duties of HRM, both nationally and
globally (Adler and Gunderson, 2008). Understanding how to empower others
depends a great deal on the ability of supervisory personnel to identify and
develop emotional intelligence (the ability to perceive, understand, and
regulate one’s own emotions and the emotions of others). Knowing
performance management is determined through company-specific control
mechanisms developed by HRM to determine individual performance levels
across an organization (Robbins and Judge, 2015).

Managerial competencies
The following seven competencies were identified to be critically important for
the managerial staff above the supervisory level: analytical thinking, change
management, conceptual thinking, execution, financial acumen, fostering
innovation, and managerial courage. These are success factors that are
specifically of importance to functional division heads and associate heads.
Effective management functions include planning, organizing, leading, and
controlling (often referred to as POLC). While many of these competencies
are included, perhaps adding more specific elements of POLC would enhance
this area of evaluation (Schermerhorn and Bachrach, 2015). However, the list of
managerial competencies identified in this study does align with some of the
important functional competencies listed in the literature (Abraham et al.,
2001; Cockerill et al., 1995).

Senior executive level competencies

The following five competencies were the most significant ones at the senior
executive levels: influence, managing stakeholders, managing vision and
purpose, perseverance, and strategic thinking. These competencies are the
key drivers that link the organization with its future self. The future self is
critical because senior executive levels are specifically responsible for setting
the vision, mission, culture, and structure of the company, and, as leaders,
serve as models of the behavior expected across the organization
(Schermerhorn and Bachrach, 2015; Robbins and Judge, 2015). Also, those
occupying the position of directors and above should have these
competencies in order to align the organization with its external environment.
The role of senior management is creating the capacity to leverage corporate
resources in a manner that aligns with the organization’s vision (Prahalad,
1993); the fact that the senior executives engaged in this study identified the
pivotal importance of the above listed competencies is a positive sign.

Competency model implementation

After identifying the competency model, the logical step is to implement it in
the case company for various outcomes. At the minimum, it was decided that
the model should be integrated into employee selection, succession planning,
performance appraisal, and strategic leadership development. These activities
correspond to the “act” phase of the action research cycle.

Prior to implementing the competency model company-wide, the executive

management and leadership development team selected a pilot group of ten
employees in April 2016. The pilot group and their supervisors received
training on the competency model and the implementation process. Pilot
group participants also completed a 360° assessment evaluating each
competency associated with the participant’s position level. The 360°
assessments also evaluated competencies associated with the employee’s
next level of leadership to determine the employee’s potential to be promoted
within the organization. These initial 360° assessments provided a baseline
score (sufficient, satisfactory, good, very good, excellent) prior to participating
in the competency-focused, professional development activities. This is a
central step in competency need assessment and development, as noted
by Eicker et al. (2008).

After participants received their 360° results, the participant and his/her
supervisor met with the manager of organizational development to identify two
to three competencies to develop over the course of the next nine months.
Participants left the meeting with a professional development plan including
learning activities previously identified by the consultant.

Participants met with their supervisors each month to discuss progress on the
leadership or professional development plan. The manager of organizational
development also met with the participants during month 4 to monitor the
progress of the participants.

In February 2017, participants were re-evaluated using the Qualtrics 360°

assessment survey developed by the consultants. Results were compared
from time 1 to time 2 to determine the overall effectiveness of the leadership
development plan.

The lead consultant and the human resources and organizational

development team met to discuss the overall effectiveness of the competency
model. Edits were made to the survey and to the overall process in selecting
future participants. Feedback was also gathered from participants and
supervisors related to their perceptions of the pilot group experience. The
feedback from the organization’s stakeholders allowed us to make
modifications to the model prior to implementing company-wide through the
performance appraisal system, recruitment and selection process, leadership
development programs, and succession planning efforts.

Discussion
This research reported the process of developing and implementing a
competency model in a real-world medium-scale business enterprise, based
on business processes rather than using the traditional hierarchies as the
basis of grouping competencies. Guided by the extant theories and theoretical
frameworks, the researchers facilitated the identification of a set of
competencies. The democratic bottom-up methodology that we employed was
well grounded in the lived organizational realities and, hence, organizational
acceptance happened organically. Our approach made the key organizational
actors aware of the existing competencies, the need for creating new
competencies, and reflected on ways to deploy the competencies for
competitive advantage.

Pilot group participants who rated themselves very high during the pre-
assessment stage showed low improvement in competencies. This is possibly
due to the Dunning-Kruger effect widely discussed in the literature
(Schlösser et al., 2013). Also, we noted that certain types of competencies were
slower to develop than the others (e.g. team orientation developed much
quicker than emotional intelligence).

Certain competencies emerged in the process were definitely reflective of the

fact that the case company was a cooperative enterprise. Competencies like
servant leadership and stakeholder orientation were supported by the case
company stakeholders are pan-organizationally. Competencies related to
communication, relationships, sharing, and caring are especially important for
cooperative organizations, as Birchall and Ketilson (2009) observes. It is
interesting to note that emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence
competencies were found to be unique predictors of success of cooperatives,
according to a study done by Boyatzis and Ratti (2009) in Italy. Some of the
competencies identified at certain levels were seemingly incompatible with
each other. It would be of both theoretical and applied interest to examine how
the co-existence of such non-complementary competencies creates their
resultant effects.

In the next iteration of this project, we will be examining whether the

confounding factors could have reduced the effectiveness of the professional
development program for some of the participants. A few of the participants
self-rated their competencies as “very high” during the pre-professional
development program survey. However, after nine months of attending the
professional development programs, these participants self-rated their
competencies as less than very high. A possible reason is that the
professional development program made them raise their own bars to
significantly higher levels.

Stressing future competency requirements might possibly have resulted in

corresponding inattention to current competency requirements: post-
professional development program peer ratings for some of the participants
indicate this. Organizationally, this calls for better balance in developing
current and future competencies. Some pilot group participants lamented
about the lack of dedicated time and resources during their professional
development – these are critical issues in the success of interventions like
ours.
Finally, as noted elsewhere, post-professional development 360 results
showed improvement for most participants in the pilot group. However,
participants with more supervisor involvement showed relatively higher
improvement. Organizational commitment and support are key drivers of
competency advocacy. Both office and craft professionals identified similar
behavioral (e.g. ability to work in a team) and professional competencies as
important (e.g. ability to analyze data). However, their responses were
different for the technical competencies. Electrical engineering-related skills
were important for the craft professionals whereas office administration skills
were important for the office workers.

Some limitations of the study need to be reported. During the participant

selection stage of the study, we did observe some anomalies. It occurred to
us that supervisors recommended the participants for the pilot phase based
on who they wanted to grow the most – most likely because of the grapevine
chatter that the participants would get opportunities for professional
development activities and possibly other incentives thereafter. Overall, it is
likely that the selection process had a slight “star employee bias.” While this is
acceptable for a consulting project – supervisors cannot be blamed for
choosing their best employees for further developmental activities – it might
nevertheless have taken away some randomness expected of a scholarly
inquiry. Also, the duration of time given for the pilot group to improve may be
inadequate for any significant improvement in many leadership related traits.
This explains why more improvements in performance were noted in the
technical domain than in the leadership capabilities. Also, although not a
limitation per se, the present study could have observed more closely the role
of supervisors in coaching those who report to them and also various other
constraints in the external loci that would have improved or reduced employee
competency. Isolating such influences would help the action researchers
better assess the impact of their own interventions.

Most action research projects of this nature will not go to the reflect phase of
the research cycle: for instance, Sengupta et al.’s (2013) study that we referred
often did address HR selection and training (not job descriptions),
performance appraisals, employee development planning (to some extent),
identifying high-potential employees using a three-tiered system, and
succession planning but did not engage much in post-implementation
reflections, which left a gap. Our research in the case company goes on to the
reflection phase, especially regarding the development of target specific
training to improve HR employee inefficiencies that were identified.
Conclusion
The very nature of businesses today demands that organizations must
embrace change to survive and thrive (Robbins and Judge, 2015). Responding
to environmental changes requires identification, development, and
deployment of bases of competitive advantage (Baczynska et al., 2016).
Employee and organizational competencies are fundamental to competitive
advantage, as King et al. (2001) notes. Looking from a functional perspective,
management is expected to perform planning, organizing, leading, and
controlling processes (Adler and Gunderson, 2008; Carpenter et al., 2015; Robbins
and Judge, 2015; Schermerhorn and Bachrach, 2015). Effective execution of these
processes also requires an appropriate competency framework. In popular
management theories of individual and organizational performance, however,
competencies are merely implied. Even when the importance of competencies
is explicitly stated, it is typically assumed that competencies are pre-given and
are to be redeveloped in a top-down process (Campion et al., 2011; Capaldo et
al., 2006). Both these assumptions are wrong (Campion et al., 2011).

According to the resource-based theory of firm, competencies are some of the

most important classes of firm specific capabilities and these capabilities
improve business processes which further boost the competitiveness of the
firm (Ray et al., 2004). The mere existence of competencies, however, does
not guarantee competitive advantage for organizations. Leveraging these
resources is the crucial piece (Wernerfelt, 1984). When this study began, most
employees in the case company did not consciously know the existence of
competencies. Identifying and naming the competencies alone was an
important milestone in leveraging them. This, along with the bottom-up
participatory development process that we adopted, ensured every key
stakeholder buying into the competency development strategy. That said,
given the differences in the approaches to mastering competencies shown by
technical, office professional, and managerial staff during the professional
development programs, the present researchers wonder if there are
fundamental differences in the ways of knowing and understanding different
kinds of competencies. This possibility is indicated in the research by Kumagai
(2014) who calls for the attention of researcher to move “from competencies to
human interests.”

We hope that our methodology could be helpful in guiding the development of

competency models in other organizations, even though the exact
competencies that we identified might not be relevant for their needs. In the
future iterations of this study, we would like to identify those items in the
competency model that are inter-professionally relevant and inter-
organizationally applicable. Reeves (2014) suggested this as a very important
step in seeking external validity for competency models. Evidently, the
objective was not to establish a generalizable and universally valid
competency model but rather to make it a tool for informed action for the
practitioners in the case company. Despite this, the model we developed
should be useful for similarly sized and placed power utility companies.

Figures

Figure 1

Competencies identified in the case company

References
Abraham, S.E., Karns, L.A., Shaw, K. and Mena, M.A. (2001), “Managerial
competencies and the managerial performance appraisal process”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 842-52.

Adler, N.J. and Gunderson, A. (2008), International Dimensions of
Organizational Behavior, 5th ed., South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason,
OH.

Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002), “The
concept of action research”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 125-
31.

Aspinwall, K., Abbott, C., Smith, S. and Winterburn, K. (2017), “Crafting action

learning to the context?”, Action Learning: Research and Practice,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 50-2.

Avison, D.E., Lau, F., Myers, M.D. and Nielsen, P.A. (1999), “Action
research”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 94-7.

Baczynska, A.K., Rowinski, T. and Cybis, N. (2016), “Proposed core

competencies and empirical validation procedure in competency modeling:
confirmation and classification”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 273,
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00273.
Baker, J.C., Mapes, J., New, C.C. and Szwejczewski, M. (1997), “A
hierarchical model of business competence”, Integrated Manufacturing
Systems, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 265-72.

Birchall, J. and Ketilson, L.H. (2009), Resilience of the Cooperative Business

Model in Times of Crisis, International Labour Organisation, Geneva.

Bourantas, D. and Agapitou, V. (2016), Leadership Meta-competencies:
Discovering Hidden Virtues, Routledge, London.

Boyatzis, R.E. and Ratti, F. (2009), “Emotional, social and cognitive

intelligence competencies distinguishing effective Italian managers and
leaders in a private company and cooperatives”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 821-38.

Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2015), Making Sense of Change Management: A

Complete Guide to the Models, Tools and Techniques of Organizational
Change, Kogan Page Publishers, London.

Campion, M.A., Fink, A.A., Ruggeberg, B.J., Carr, L., Phillips, G.M. and Odma
n, R.B. (2011), “Doing competencies well: best practices in competency
modeling”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 225-62.

Campion, M.C., Campion, E.D. and Campion, M.A. (2015), “Improvements in
performance management through the use of 360 feedback”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 85-93.

Capaldo, G., Iandoli, L. and Zollo, G. (2006), “A situationalist perspective to

competency management”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 45 No. 3,
pp. 429-48.

Carpenter, M., Bauer, T., Erdogan, B. and Short, J. (2015), Principles of
Management (2nd V), Flat World Knowledge, Inc., Washington, DC.

Cockerill, T., Hunt, J. and Schroder, H. (1995), “Managerial competencies:

fact or fiction?”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 1-12.

Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2014), Organization Development and

Change, Cengage learning, Boston, MA.
Draganidis, F. and Mentzas, G. (2006), “Competency based management: a
review of systems and approaches”, Information Management & Computer
Security, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 51-64.

Dreyfus, S.E. and Dreyfus, H.L. (1980), A Five-stage Model of the Mental

Activities Involved in Directed Skill Acquisition (No. ORC-80-2), California
University Berkeley Operations Research Center, Berkeley, CA.

Eicker, S., Kochbeck, J. and Schuler, P.M. (2008), “Employee competencies

for business process management”,
in Abramowicz, W. and Fensel, D. (Eds), Business Information
Systems, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 251-62.

Falender, C.A. and Shafranske, E.P. (2007), “Competence in competency-

based supervision practice: construct and application”, Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 232-40.

Hardison, D., Behm, M., Hallowell, M.R. and Fonooni, H. (2014), “Identifying
construction supervisor competencies for effective site safety”, Safety
Science, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 45-53.

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. and Nixon, R. (2014), The Action Research

Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research, Springer-
Verlag, Singapore.

King, A.W., Fowler, S.W. and Zeithaml, C.P. (2001), “Managing organizational

competencies for competitive advantage: the middle-management edge”, The
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 95-106.

Kochanski, J.T. (1996), “Introduction to special issue on human resource

competencies”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 3-6.

Kraemer
Tebes, J., Matlin, S.L., Migdole, S.J., Farkas, M.S., Money, R.W., Shulman, L. 
and Hoge, M.A. (2011), “Providing competency training to clinical supervisors
through an interactional supervision approach”, Research on Social Work
Practice, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 190-9.

Kumagai, A.K. (2014), “From competencies to human interests: ways of

knowing and understanding in medical education”, Academic Medicine,
Vol. 89 No. 7, pp. 978-83.
Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O. and Schultze, U. (2004), “Design principles for
competence management systems: a synthesis of an action research
study”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 435-72.

Lo, K., Macky, K. and Pio, E. (2015), “The HR competency requirements for

strategic and functional HR practitioners”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 26 No. 18, pp. 2308-28.

Lor, P.H. and George, B.P. (2014), “An appreciative inquiry into the

healthcare concerns of the elder Hmong women living in Alaska,
USA”, Journal of Rural and Community Development, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 27-35.

McClelland, D.C. (1973), “Testing for competency rather than for

‘intelligence’”, American Pshycology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-4,
doi: 10.1037/h0034092.

McManners, P. (2016), “The action research case study approach: a

methodology for complex challenges such as sustainability in aviation”, Action
Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 201-16.

Marrelli, A.F. (1998), “An introduction to competency analysis and

modeling”, Performance Improvement, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 8-17.

Naquin, S.S. and Holton, E.F. III (2006), “Leadership and managerial

competency models: a simplified process and resulting model”, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 144-65.

Ngo, H.Y., Jiang, C.Y. and Loi, R. (2014), “Linking HRM competency to firm

performance: an empirical investigation of Chinese firms”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 898-914.

Nowack, K.M. (1993), “360-degree feedback: the whole story”, Training &

Development, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 69-73.

Prahalad, C.K. (1993), “The role of core competencies in the

corporation”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 40-7.

Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (2006), “The core competence of the

corporation”, in Hahn, D. and Taylor, B. (Eds), Strategische
unternehmungsplanung – strategische
unternehmungsführung, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 275-92.
Pulakos, E.D., Mueller Hanson, R., Arad, S. and Moye, N. (2015),
“Performance management can be fixed: an on-the-job experiential learning
approach for complex behavior change”, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 51-76.

Ray, G., Barney, J.B. and Muhanna, W.A. (2004), “Capabilities, business

processes, and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in
empirical tests of the resource‐based view”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 23-37.

Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2001), Handbook of Action Research:

Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Reeves, S. (2014), “The rise and rise of interprofessional

competence”, Academic Medicine, Vol. 89 No. 7, pp. 978-83,
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000234.

Robbins, S.P. and Judge, T.A. (2015), Organizational Behavior, 16th
ed., Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D. and Gowing, M.K. (2002),
“Developing competency models to promote integrated human resource
practices”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 309-24.

Sanghi, S. (2016), The Handbook of Competency Mapping: Understanding,

Designing and Implementing Competency Models in Organizations, SAGE
Publications, New Delhi.

Schermerhorn, J.R. and Bachrach, D.G. (2015), Management: Learn
Succeed, 13th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.

Schlösser, T., Dunning, D., Johnson, K.L. and Kruger, J. (2013), “How
unaware are the unskilled? Empirical tests of the ‘signal extraction’
counterexplanation for the Dunning-Kruger effect in self-evaluation of
performance”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 85-100.

Sengupta, A., Venkatesh, D.N. and Sinha, A.K. (2013), “Developing
performance-linked competency model: a tool for competitive
advantage”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 504-27.
Soong, M.B., Chan, H.C., Chua, B.C. and Loh, K.F. (2001), “Critical success
factors for on-line course resources”, Computers & Education, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 101-20.

Stone, T.H., Webster, B.D. and Schoonover, S. (2013), “What do we know

about competency modeling?”, International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 1-6.

Takey, S.M. and de Carvalho, M.M. (2015), “Competency mapping in project

management: an action research study in an engineering
company”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 784-96.

Tarrant, J. (2000), “What is wrong with competence?”, Journal of Further and

Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 77-83.

Toegel, G. and Conger, J.A. (2003), “360-degree assessment: time for

reinvention”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 297-311.

Townley, B. (1994), Reframing Human Resource Management: Power, Ethics

and the Subject at Work, Sage, London.

Viitala, R. (2005), “Perceived development needs of managers compared to

an integrated management competency model”, Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 436-51.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource‐based view of the firm”, Strategic

Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 171-80.

Zuber-Skerritt, O., Fletcher, M. and Kearney, J. (2015), Professional Learning
in Higher Education and Communities: Towards a New Vision for Action
Research, Palgrave-Macmillan, London.

Further reading
Dierdorff, E.C. and Surface, E.A. (2008), “If you pay for skills, will they learn?
Skill change and maintenance under a skill-based pay system”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 721-43.

Lepsinger, R. and Lucia, A.D. (1999), The Art and Science of Competency

Models: Pinpointing Critical Success, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, Hoboken, NJ.
Corresponding author
Babu George can be contacted at: bpgeorge@fhsu.edu

About the authors

LeAnn Brown is an Associate Professor and the Chair at the Department of
Management, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas, USA.
Babu George is an Associate Professor of Management and the Coordinator
of International Programs at the Robbins College of Business and
Entrepreneurship, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas, USA.
Candace Mehaffey-Kultgen is an Assistant Professor at the Department of
Management, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas, USA.