Competency management：theory, research & business practice

Teresa Kupczyk – Professor of Economics and Management at Vistula University (Institute of
Management, Faculty of Business and International Relations) and at University of Business in

Wroclaw (Department of Management), Poland.
Graduate of Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Department of Management and
Computer Science, as well as Wroclaw University of Economics (Executive MBA). Other post-gradu-
ate studies include: “European Vocational Counsellor”, “European Project Management”, and
Washington Professional Development Program (2010) and School of Professional & Extended
Studies (2012), American University in Washington, USA. Many years of experience in business
management, position of director of post-graduate studies and research projects. Vice-Rector
for Scientific Research at University of Business in Wroclaw. Author of books and other publica-
tions in the field of management, particularly specializing in competencies, competencies of staff
management in the Knowledge-Based Economy, women in mana-gement and demand driven
qualifications in the job market.
Marzena Stor – Extraordinary Professor of Strategic International Human Resources Manage-

ment at Wrocław University of Economics (WUE), Faculty of Management, Computer Science and
Finance, Poland; higher doctoral and doctoral degree in management science, master of applied
linguistics, master of English philology; studied in Poland and the USA; head of Human Resources
Management Department and director of MBA program at WUE; the author of about 100 scientific
publications in both Polish and English; participated in and directed over 20 research projects,
including international ones; attended many international scientific conferences on International
Human Resources Management; awarded dozens of awards for outstanding scientific and didactic
achievements granted from the University authorities and reputable scientific associations; scien-
tific and research interests cover: international and cross-cultural aspects of HRM, transnational
corporations, competency management, interpersonal business communication, business & HRM
strategies, managing international teams; provides classes both in English and Polish language;
broad experience in teaching Erasmus students; conducted classes for English translators within
the scope of law & economics and financed within various European Union funded projects.
Peer reviewed by
prof. nadzw. dr hab. Elżbieta Jędrych
Edited, DTP
Zuzanna Helis (Helis House Publishing)
Printing and binding by

Drukarnia Sowa, Warszawa
ISBN 978-83-946671-1-5
©Copyright by Wyższa Szkoła Handlowa we Wrocławiu, Wrocław 2017
Published by
University of Business in Wroclaw
(Wyższa Szkoła Handlowa we Wrocławiu)
ul. Ostrowskiego 22
53–238 Wrocław
www.handlowa.eu
Table of Contens
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CHAPTER I. THEORETICAL APPROACH TO COMPETENCIES MANAGEMENT
1. THE BASIC TERMINOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.1. Competence vs. competency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2. Competency profiles and models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.3. Competency and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2. COMPETENCY MANAGEMENT AS A PART OF HRM
AND COMPANY MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.1. The strategic connections between competencies and HRM
and business goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2. The goals of competency management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.3. The subfunctions of HRM in which competencies are used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.4. The theoretical approaches to competency management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.5. The measurement of effectiveness and efficiency
of competency-based HRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3. THE COMPETENCY MANAGEMENT PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.1. Selected theoretical concepts presented in the literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2. Selected examples from business practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3. Structuring competencies: methods, techniques and instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4. THE CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT OF THE COMPETENCY MODELS . . . . . 87
4.1. Theory-oriented criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2. Business-practice oriented criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.3. Common barriers and problems encountered in theory
and business practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5. SUMMARY AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS ON LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
CHAPTER II. COMPETENCES MANAGEMENT IN BUSINESS - RESEARCH RESULTS
6. ABSTRACT OF RESEARCH RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7. METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

7.1. Research objectives and problems, hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.2. Description of research methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.3. Characteristics of the research sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
8. COMPETENCIES MANAGEMENT AT POLISH ENTERPRISES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
8.1. Implementation of competencies management, identification
and classification of competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
8.2. Competencies assessment and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
8.3. Modern technology and European initiatives in competencies management . . 138
9. COMPETENCIES MANAGEMENT AT SELECTED ENTERPRISES
IN AUSTRIA, SPAIN AND POLAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
9.1. Level of implementation of competencies management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
9.2. Competencies identification and classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
9.3. Competencies assessment methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
9.4. Competencies development and training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
9.5. Application of technology in competencies management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
9.6. Enterprises’ knowledge concerning European initiatives related
to competencies, their quality and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
10. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
10.1. Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
10.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
FINAL NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
ATTACHMENT 1. QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
ATTACHMENT 2. COMPETENCIES MANAGEMENT AT ENTERPRISES – DETAILED
RESULTS OF THE STUDY (STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Competency Management: theory, research & business practice 7
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, staff competencies have become key capital for enterprises, as

well as their success factor, as they make it possible for enterprises to adapt
to customised market requirements and to achieve competitive advantage
as well as good financial results. Many studies have confirmed a positive cor-
relation between employees’ competencies and corporate results (Barrick,
Mount, 1991; Takeuchi et al., 2009; Becker, Gerhart, 1996; Becker, Huselid,
2006; Gangani et al., 2006, Teodorescu, 2006; Huselid, 1995; Appelbaum
et al., 2000; Kalmi, Kauhanen, 2008; Kupczyk, 2014). In the modern environ-
ment, determined by the processes of globalisation, volatility of environ-
ment, developing knowledge and technology, enterprises may achieve their
objectives through competencies management. Therefore, competencies
management has drawn attention of scholars and business professionals.
Another reason to explore this subject is that finding and attracting employ-
ees of specific competencies nowadays is listed among the major challenges
for management staff of enterprises. It was rated as the third most impor-
tant HR trend in 2017 (Deloitte, 2017). Statistics confirm deficiencies in staff
and difficulties in finding relevant people for available vacancies all over
the world (Barometr Manpower Perspektyw Zatrudnienia Polska Q1, 2017;
Global Skills Index, 2016; World Economic Forum, 2016; Global Entrepreneur-
ship Monitor Polska, 2016; The future of work: jobs and skills in 2030; Un-
derstanding The Future Of Work 2017). This trend will continue. Considering
these elements, competencies management has become a strategic issue
for enterprises. These reflections led to the definition of two main objec-
tives of this monograph. The first one involved determination of the content
of competencies management and identification of modern theoretical mod-
els presented in scientific publications. The other objective involved identifi-
cation, analysis and diagnosis of competencies management at the selected
enterprises in Poland, Spain and Austria. Consequently, the presented publi-
cation discusses results of both literature review and empirical study in two
separate chapters. Chapter I presents approaches to defining such terms as
competences and competencies, competencies management, competency
models and profiles. It also describes the selected classifications of these
models and profiles. There are various perspectives concerning relations
between competencies and management, e.g. in such management-related
areas as competencies management, competencies-based corporate man-
agement or competencies-based human resources management. Section 2
of chapter I presents competencies management as a component of human
resources management (HRM) and corporate management. It explores stra-
8 Teresa Kupczyk, Marzena Stor
tegic linkage between competencies, business objectives and HRM objec-

tives. The section describes in detail objectives of competencies manage-
ment and discusses those subfunctions of HRM which refer to competencies.
The authors outline theoretical approaches to competencies management
and explain economic and management-related perspectives concerning ef-
ficiency and efficacy measurement of competencies-based human resources
management. Section 3 of this chapter presents theoretical and practical ap-
proaches to competencies management. It describes and analyses selected
theoretical concepts and practical examples known from the literature, as
well as structures competencies and presents applied methods, techniques
and tools. Critical analysis of the content of various competency models
and related approaches is presented in section 4 which focuses on theory
and business practices. Chapter I ends in a resume and conclusions concern-
ing the presented results of the literature review.
Chapter II is devoted to empirical results of the study held in 2015
and 2016 at selected enterprises based in Poland, Austria and Spain. This
was a quantitative-qualitative study based on a questionnaire. One part
of the described study was held within the project “Agile Based Competency
Management”, implemented by the Polish companies Profes and E-peers,
consulting company Hominem from Spain, as well as a non-profit organisa-
tion from Austria called the Multidisciplinary European Research Institute
Graz (MERIG). The authors of this publication carried out the study on behalf
of the Polish partners, i.e. Profes and E-peers. A substantial part of the de-
scribed research was carried out in Poland within the obligatory activities
of the university which employs the authors. The first stage of the study in-
volved research at 119 enterprises, including 78 enterprises based in Poland,
24 in Austria and 16 in Spain, while the second one, outside the project, con-
tinued in Poland and covered 140 enterprises. Further empirical exploration
was meant to find response to the research problems, reflected in the fol-
lowing questions:
To what degree have enterprises introduced competencies manage-
ment? Are there any differences between companies from Poland,
Austria and Spain in this respect?
How long have the companies been involved in competencies man-
agement?
Who within the enterprises is involved in the process of introducing
competencies management?
What are the objectives of competencies management at enterprises?
What methods are used to identify competencies at enterprises?
What methods are used to assess competencies at enterprises?
How is job analysis performed at enterprises?
Who describes competencies at enterprises?
What methods are used by enterprises in the area of staff development?
In the preparation phase of the empirical research, the following hy-
potheses were developed:
H1: There are significant differences in the level of implementation of com-
petencies management between companies from Poland, Austria and Spain.
H2: There is a significant correlation between the duration of enterprises’
market operations and level of competencies management.
H3: There is a correlation between the size of enterprises and level of com-
petencies management.
The present study was based on the following definition: competen-
cies are skills, knowledge, personal features and behaviour necessary to effi-
ciently perform the role/job in a given organisation and to support the enter-
prise in achievement of its strategic goals. They are related to actual actions
or achieved results of such actions in specific circumstances. Competencies
management was defined as a set of actions aimed at the organisation’s ac-
quiring, developing and maintaining such employee competencies which en-
able achievement of the company’s strategic goals.
Specifically, chapter II includes a description of empirical research
and research sample. It provides characteristics of competencies at the Polish
enterprises and a detailed comparative analysis of competencies management
at the selected enterprises in Austria, Spain and Poland. The comparisons
considered the country of the enterprise’s headquarters, time of its market
operations, held experience in competencies management, as well as its size.
This chapter presents specifically the degree of implementation of competen-
cies management, the duration of involvement of enterprises in the process
and who within the enterprise is responsible for competencies management.
It describes objectives designed for competencies management, methods
applied to identify and assess competencies, how job analysis is performed
and what methods are used in the area of training and employee develop-
ment. The chapter ends with conclusions, discussion and postulates.
This monograph is meant basically for management staff of enter-
prises, HR specialists, scholars specialising in competencies management, as
well as students.
CHAPTER I
THEORETICAL APPROACH
TO COMPETENCIES MANAGEMENT
1. THE BASIC TERMINOLOGY
1.1. Competence vs. competency
In today’s competitive and constantly changing business environment com-

petency management (CM) is considered as a tool that may help companies
to respond to competitive business challenges. The main assumption is that
with the implementation of a competency framework, employees are seen
as the main source of value added, as well as the main source of competi-
tive advantage (Stor, Kupczyk, 2015:49–50). In this context, the fundamental
question is, what competency management is about and how it may support
company management. To answer these questions, firstly we need to deter-
mine the basic terminology and definitions used within the scope of com-
petency management, like: competency, competence, competency profiles
and models, and relationship between competency and management itself.
In the literature there is no common agreement on how to definite
competency and how it differs from competence as these two terms are
sometimes used interchangeably and sometimes as two words of different
meanings. One of the reasons is, as C.J. Gonsalvez and F.L. Calvert suggest,
that competency and competence are objects of interests of different scien-
tific disciplines (Gonsalvez, Calvert, 2014:201). Yet another important reason
is, as E.C. Page et al underline, that competencies are an object of interest
in different sectors, both private and public, and, within this, both in the USA
as well as in Europe (Page et al, 2005). Thus, competencies are discussed
from national, sectorial or organizational perspectives (Chapman, Lovell,
2006). So far, various stakeholders have been interested in competencies
(Juchnowicz, 2016), such as (Burgoyne after: Hoffmann, 1999:275):
psychologists – concerned with the concept as a measure of ability
and whether the observable performance of a person represented
their underlying traits or capacity;
management theorists – applying a functional analysis to define how
organizational goals were to be best achieved through improved in-
dividual performance;
human resource managers – viewing the concept as a technical
tool to implement strategic direction through the tactics of recruit-
ment, placement, training, assessment, promotion, reward systems
and personnel planning;
educationists – attempting to relate the idea of work preparation
and professional recognition with that of a broad education;
politicians – including those involved in the political process such as

trade unions, employer groups, political parties, politicians forming
European Union institutions that have used the concept as a means
of improving the efficiency of the labor market.
Apart from that, for many years there have been some differences
between American and British English within the scope of competency
and competence (Moore et al, 2002). The dominant approach in the USA
has been to employ a person-oriented job analysis (e.g. behavioral event in-
terviews) to identify those characteristics distinguishing superior perform-
ers. The competencies are thus expressed as skills, personal characteristics
or behaviors. The dominant approach in the UK is to use a tasks-oriented
job analysis technique called functional analysis to identify the necessary
roles, tasks and duties of the occupation, rather than the skills of successful
job holders. This involves the identification or definition of the key purpose
or function of an occupation, followed by its subdivision or desegregation,
in order to establish the outcomes which must be reached for the key pur-
pose to be achieved (Cheng et al, 2003:530).
Anyway, a general literature review, covering the publications pro-
duced within the last 35 years, results in a broad array of various definitions.
Here are some selected ones:
1. Competency is a motive, trait, skill or an aspect of one’s self-image or
social role, or a body of knowledge (Boyatzis, 1982:16).
2. Competencies are underlying characteristics of people and indicate
ways of behaving or thinking, generalizing across situations, and en-
during for a reasonably long period of time (Guion, 1991:335).
3. Competencies can be motives, traits, self-concepts, attitudes or val-
ues, content knowledge, or cognitive or behavioral skills - any individ-
ual characteristic that can be measured or counted reliably and that
can be shown to differentiate significantly between superior and av-
erage performers, or between effective and ineffective performers
(Spencer, Spencer, 1993:4).
4. Competency is the set of behavior patterns that the incumbent
needs to bring to a position in order to perform its tasks and func-
tions with competence (Woodruffe, 1993:29).
5. Competency is knowledge, skill, ability, or characteristic associated
with high performance on a job (Mirabile, 1997:21).
6. Competency means a written description of measurable work habits
and personal skills used to achieve work objectives (Green, 1999:5).
7. Hay Group defines competency as a measurable characteristic
of a person that is related to effective performance in a specific job,
organization, or culture (The Manager…, 2001:1).
8. Competency covers a validated decision tool, correlated to a specific
group of activities that describes key knowledge, skills, and abilities
for performing those activities (Buford, Lindner, 2002:3).
9. Competencies are the skills, knowledge, abilities and other characteris-
tics that one needs to perform a job effectively (Jackson, Schuler 2003).
10. Competency is a mixture of knowledge, skills, abilities, motivation,
beliefs, values, and interests (Gangani et al, 2006:127).
11. Competency is a combination of tacit and explicit knowledge, be-
havior and skills, that gives someone the potential for effectiveness
in task performance (Draganidis, Mentzas, 2006:53).
12. Competency is also considered as organizational competencies,
of course they are inherent in individuals or teams of individuals, but
it is a quality that develops and refines something (e.g. capabilities,
resources), occasionally to a visionary end (e.g. to generate sustain-
able profits). In this perspective competence makes a general notion
and conceptually is defined as developments made by individuals
and teams (Ljungquist, 2007:396).
13. Competence means the ability to perform activities to the standards
expected in employment: it is a combination of practical and thinking
skills, experience and knowledge plus personal behaviors and under-
standing (Guidelines …, 2011:33).
14. Competency describes the knowledge or skills that a person requires
to be able to perform a task (Guidelines …, 2011:33).
15. Competency means the skills, knowledge, personal characteristics,
and behaviors needed to effectively perform a role (work) in an organi-
zation and help the business meet its strategic objectives. (Stor, 2014:15).
This brings to a conclusion that, depending on a scientific perspec-
tive that somebody employs, the definitions of competency and competence
are formulated respectively. At the same time the similar phenomena are
observed in business practice, meaning various definitions of competency
and competence resulting from different practical and implementive per-
spective (Stor, Suchodolski; 2016:232b).
For example, T. Teodorescu, a practitioner with a long experience
in competency management consulting business, underlines that competen-
cy and competence are not the same things, although businesses sometimes
treat them with no special care, which is incorrect. The differences between
competence and competency, by the quoted author, are briefly presented
in Table 1. The comparative analysis covers such elements as definitions

of competency and competence themselves, areas of focus in competency
and competence models, results within these models and their applications.
Table 1. Comparative perspective of competency and competence by a consulting
practitioner
of comparison
Elements
Competence Competency
Competence equals worthy performan- Competency covers those characteristics

Definition
ce that leads directly to the most efficient — knowledge, skills, mindsets, thought
accomplishment of organizational goals. patterns, and the like — that when used
whether singularly or in various combina-
tions, result in successful performance.
With competence models the area of focus With competency models the area of fo-
is the definition of measurable, specific, cus is the definition of skills, knowledge,
and objective milestones describing what attributes, and behaviors that successful
people have to accomplish to consistently people possess. It is thought that if other
achieve or exceed the goals for their role, people know what skills, knowledge, at-
team, division, and whole organization. Im- tributes, and behaviors successful people
Areas of focus in models
proper guidance and feedback are the sin- have, these others will be motivated to ac-
gle largest contributors to incompetence quire them and will in turn become more
in the world of work. The goal of compe- successful. Practitioners who develop
tence models is to remove the cause of in- competency models work with trainers,
competence by providing clear and concise human resource professionals, subject
guidelines to success with clearly marked matter experts, and, in some cases, man-
and measured milestones, in other words, agers to define the skills, knowledge, at-
a Roadmap to Success. Because any que- tributes, and behaviors that successful
stion about needs for training has to start people demonstrate. The desired out-
with “what do people have to do . . .?”, we come is to replicate the competencies
first define that very clearly, then the requi- of successful people in less successful
red skills, knowledge, and key tasks and be- people through hiring, training, assess-
haviors to support competence become ment, and development programs.
clear.
With competence models the result is a fra- With competency modeling, the result is
mework that defines the following: ▪▪ a list,
▪▪ the process used to generate the requi- ▪▪ graphic,
red results, ▪▪ spreadsheet, or
▪▪ the critical step-by-step accomplish- ▪▪ interactive program that lists
ments, related tasks, and best practices -- the skills,
that top performers consistently achieve -- knowledge,
Results
to meet or exceed the goals of the business, -- attributes, and

▪▪ the skills and knowledge required to sup- -- desirable behavior thought to be requi-
port achievement of critical accomplishments, red for successful performance for a spe-
▪▪ the environmental supports required cific job role.
to build, support, and maintain desired per-
formance and competence levels, as well as
the current obstacles obstructing achieve-
ment of needed results.
Competence models can be used to provi- Competency models are used in a variety
de guidelines to success, assess measurable of ways by organizations to build training, hi-
gaps, and direct people to tools, resour- ring, evaluation, and assessment programs.
ces, and training that are directly aligned The most extensive process for which one
with the work results required of the job can use it is included the following stages:
and with the goals of the organization. Spe- ▪▪ Competencies are ranked for order of im-
cifically, competence models can be used to: portance and desired level of attainment.
▪▪ set clear, measurable, and specific expec- ▪▪ Individual performers are given
tations about how to produce the results the competency model for their role
the organization needs, and told that to be successful they
▪▪ simplify management and improve per- must exhibit the competencies defined
formance by laying out a successful and re- in the model.
Application
peatable work process, decreasing variabili- ▪▪ Self-assessments or 360-degree as-

ty in performance, increasing consistent top sessments (or both) are built based on
performance, and controlling costs and risk, the competency model and are admini-
▪▪ measure, track, coach, and improve per- stered to assess whether individuals have
formance, acquired all competencies. Individuals are
▪▪ ensure training meets the performance given a number or a graphic (or both) in-
requirements of individual roles and the go- dicating their areas of strengths and we-
als and metrics of the business, aknesses as compared to the required
▪▪ define and set measurable performance levels of competency for their role (or
standards for hiring and selection. for a role to which they would like to be
promoted).
▪▪ Individuals are then given lists of tra-
ining, tools, information, and resources
to help them bridge any gaps and attain
the desired level of competency.
Source: Teodorescu T., (2006), Competence versus competency. What is the difference?, (in:)
“Performance Improvement”, Vol. 45, No. 10, Nov/Dec, p. 27–29.
The literature review provides some other comparative explanations,

for example C. Rowe suggests it is useful to use competence to mean a skill
and the standard of reached performance, while competency refers to the be-
havior by which it is achieved. In other words, one describes what people can
do, while the other focuses on how they do it. There is, therefore, an interface
between the two, i.e. the competent application of a skill is likely to make one
act in a competent manner, and vice versa (see Figure 1). The plural of each
word, therefore, gives us two different meanings – as competences and compe-
tencies are not the same thing. Competences refer to the range of skills which
are satisfactorily performed; while competencies refer to the behaviors adopt-
ed in competent performance. In C. Rowe’s view, it is this distinction that is vi-
tal to the whole debate and the failure of many to recognize it largely explains
the problems that many organizations have experienced (Rowe, 1995:12).
Some other authors focus on inputs and outputs connected with com-
petencies and consider them in the context of individual or corporate require-
ments. T. Hoffmann provides a table that may help explain the differences be-
tween each type of approach and the purposes for each (see Figure 2).
Figure 1. The interface between competence and competency
Source: Rowe, C. (1995), Clarifying the use of competence and competency models in recruitment,
assessment and staff development, (in:) “Industrial and Commercial Training”, Vol. 27 Iss 11, p. 13.
The input and output at the left of the table refer to the two types
of uses of the term competency. The term has been used to refer to both in-
dividual and corporate types of competency descriptions. These are labeled
at the top of the table. Within the table there are brief labels of the mean-
ing of the term competency for each typology. To the right of the table is
the purpose for using either an input or an output approach to the definition
of competency (Hoffmann, 1999:283).
Figure 2. Typologies of meaning and purpose of the term competency
Source: Hoffmann, T., (1999), The meanings of competency, (in:) “Journal of European Industrial
Training”, Vol. 23 Iss 6, p. 283.
F. Belkadi et al claims that despite their differences, most of the defini-

tions highlight key characteristics of competency that are fundamental to un-
derstanding and emphasizing the close relationship between competence
and the work situation. It means that (Belkadi et al after: Capece, Bazzica,
2013:42):
competency is a combination of various resources whose value de-
rives from more than the simple possession of these resources,
competency is related to an actor which may be for instance, a com-
pany, a project team or an individual,
competency is supported by a cognitive structure that organizes
the way the activity is performed and that is relatively stable across
a full range of situations,
competency is a construction that each time it is activated, it may be im-
proved, enriched, and developed in order to be adapted to the changing
features of the situation. Competencies are not stereotypes and, although
responsive to situational variety, they have limits and, when the variation
exceeds certain limits, new competencies may be developed.
Yet some other writers opt for more situational explanation of com-
petency. According to a situationalist perspective by Capaldo et al compe-
tency is understood as an individual ability or characteristic that is activated
by a worker together with personal, organizational, or environmental re-
sources to cope successfully with specific work situations. And the particular
elements are explained as follows (Capaldo et al, 2006:434):
individual abilities and characteristics are personal attributes such as
skills, know-how, and traits,
resources are means for action such as tools, facilities, relationships
with other people, archives, and knowledge repositories that are
made available by the individual, the organization, or the external
environment as a whole,
job situations are perceived by individuals as prototypical spaces
of action characterized by a certain combination of expected behav-
iors and results.
Capaldo et al also assume that competencies come on the scene
in two ways (Capaldo et al, 2006:434):
when the performance produced by an expected behavior is consid-
ered by an internal or external customer to be above average (ex-
pected competency) and
when the performance is obtained in the course of action through un-
expected or surprising behavior (emerging competency). An emerging
competency is one that an organization does not realize it possesses
but that employees have developed through individual learning de-
signed to help them face new or unexpected work situations.
A further analysis of the concept of competency may bring to the con-
clusion that, typically, a competency is defined in terms of (Draganidis, Ment-
zas, 2006:53-54):
category – a group to which homogeneous and/or similar competen-

cies belong,
competency – a descriptive name for the specific competency,
definition – statement(s) that explains the basic concept of this com-
petency,
demonstrated behavior – behavior indicators which an individual
should demonstrate if the specified competency is possessed.
Nowadays competencies are also considered in the context of mana-
gerial capital as a source of company’s competitive advantage (Stor, 2014),
in the context of managerial functions and work (Poor et al, 2015b; Stor, Su-
chodolski, 2016a), international companies’ requirements and knowledge-
based economy (Stor, 2010; Poor et al, 2015a) and all this influences on how
the main terms are defined and explained.
Special interest to competencies is also paid in transnational compa-
nies in which competencies play a very specific role towards job characteristics
(Engle et al, 2001). In this context one of separately discussed competencies is
cultural competency (Davidhizar, Newman Giger, 2000). The value of compe-
tencies in international companies, and particularly the one connected with in-
ternational experience of managers, results in some other definitions of com-
petency and competence (Park, Rhee, 2012). Moreover, some other con-
texts in which competencies are analyzed may form understanding of these
words differently. For example, when key competencies of managerial staff
in the knowledge-based economy are considered, they are defined as those
psychological traits, knowledge and skills which are important or very impor-
tant in the knowledge-based economy (Kupczyk, 2011; Kupczyk, 2014:25).
But managerial competencies may be also considered in the gender context
and this, again, may result in some other definitions (Kupczyk, 2013a:25; Kup-
czyk, 2013b). Furthermore, some may pay more attention to emotional intel-
ligence in competency models and its role in social effectiveness (Kunnanatt,
2008), while others may be more interested in technical aspects of behavio-
ral performance. Obviously, these varying approaches and views do not make
the whole list of possible contexts and perspectives determining competency
and competence definitions. It would be even impossible to make such a com-
pleted list. But the examples provided here prove that any discussion over
competency and competence demands clear explanation of definitions which
are assumed for these words to know what the debate is about.
Summarizing this literature review we can conclude that although
competence and competency look and sound alike, they are not synony-
mous. The literature provides a vast array of definitions trying to explain
what is what and what is not, but, unfortunately, there is no commonly
accepted agreement. In our book we assume that competency means
the skills, knowledge, personal characteristics, and behaviors needed to ef-
fectively perform a role (work) in the organization and help the business
meet its strategic objectives. And, to make the distinction between com-
petence and competency clear, we also assume that competence (plural –
competences) means a potential ability or a potential capability to function
in a given situation while competency (plural – competencies) focuses on
the actual performance in a situation. Thus, competences make employees
capable of fulfilling their job responsibilities and their competencies make
them perform their jobs as expected. In other words, competencies are de-
termined by comparing where the employees are now with established per-
formance standards developed in the work environment according to their
roles and setting based on standard (template) competences; which means
that an employee needs competence before he or she can expect to achieve
competency (Stor, 2014:15; Stor, 2016:165). Now, we can focus on compe-
tency models and profiles which make the subject of interest in the following
subchapter.
1.2. Competency profiles and models
When it comes to defining competency profiles and competency models we

encounter the same kinds of problems as those within the scope of compe-
tency and competence. Sometimes these terms are used interchangeably
and sometimes they are applied to mean even contradictory issues. All this
causes a kind of a terminological mess and makes discussion difficult as nei-
ther within the body of scientists, nor within the population of practition-
ers common terms and definitions are accepted. The following brief review
of literature will explain the problem.
Some authors see the competency profiles as elements composing
competency models. For example, Ł. Sienkiewicz defines a competency mod-
el as a set of all competencies required from employees of a given organiza-
tion which are grouped into appropriate profiles for particular positions or
organizational roles. At the same time, he explains that a competency pro-
file is a set of all competencies that describe particular work environment
or an organizational role. Moreover, in this perspective the profile also de-
termines the required level of employee competencies and the competency
models (and competency profiles included in it) are to ensure coherence be-
tween different HRM systems in the organization (Sienkiewicz, 2013:13).
R. Mansfield takes up a different view and assumes that a competen-
cy model is a detailed, behaviorally specific description of the skills and traits
that employees need to be effective in a job (Mansfield, 1996:7). It may mean

that what for Ł. Sienkiewicz makes a competency profile, for R. Mansfield is
equal to a competency model.
Furthermore, the analysis of some of the empirical research brings
to a conclusion that most of competency profiles comprise the following
traits: technical skills, areas of knowledge, preferable behaviors, individual
features, biographical data, achieved results and the most important experi-
ences [Dubois, Rothwell, 2004: 41], and some authors name them profiles
while others models.
F. Draganidis and G. Mentzas, when talking about a competency
model, explain it as a list of competencies which are derived from observ-
ing satisfactory or exceptional employee performance for a specific occupa-
tion. The model can provide identification of the competencies employees
need to develop in order to improve performance in their current job or
to prepare for other jobs as a result of promotion or transfer. The model
can also be useful in a skill gap analysis, the comparison between available
and needed competencies of individuals or organizations. An individual de-
velopment plan could be developed in order to eliminate the gap. Important
variables to be considered during the development of a competency model
are use of skill dictionaries, or creation of customized ones, aw well as com-
petency identification and verification methods – surveys, interviews, focus
groups, etc. According to the cited authors, competencies are the building
blocks of competency models. They provide an example in which a compe-
tency model for an area sales manager might include such competencies as:
sales planning, team working, market competition, industry trends and stra-
tegic thinking. Each competency in the model would be defined, including
behavioral descriptors of how exemplary and lower levels of proficiency are
demonstrated (Draganidis, Mentzas, 2006:56). Analyzing this approach, it is
difficult to say whether F. Draganidis and G. Mentzas refer to what previously
quoted authors named models or profiles.
One of the reasons may lie in specific business practices. Namely,
competency models (or profiles) can group competencies in different ways,
depending on the goals they are to serve in particular companies (see exam-
ples of systems engineers in: Kasser et al, 2013). For example, some compe-
tencies can be grouped into competencies needed to increase employees’
engagement and some others into competencies needed to increase manag-
ers’ engagement, i.e. referring to line managers and more senior managers
(managers of managers) (Management…, 2011). Furthermore, a company that
has been successful because of its focus on developing and selling innovative
software directly to customers (strategic focus on technical leadership) may
decide instead to leverage its understanding of software and customer needs
by creating an Internet site that brings customers and software developers to-
gether (strategic focus on customers). In this case, the company’s competency
model may then need to de-emphasize competencies that support core capa-
bilities in product development (e.g., technical leadership, innovative product
design) and more strongly highlight core capabilities in building and sustaining
customer relationships and loyalty (Gangani et al, 2006:131).
S. C. Hsieh et al make a similar conclusion. After a deep literature study,
their inference is that both authors in the literature and companies in business
practice use different competency models as well as different competencies
with different reference frequency (Hsieh et al, 2012). Giving an example, we can
refer to Van Assen who proposed a competence management model for an ag-
ile manufacturing environment. He suggested that agile manufacturing is large-
ly dependent on the capabilities of its people to learn and evolve with change,
and thus demands a specific competency model (Van Assen, 2000).
J. Graber in his work uses the term competency model but its under-
standing seems to be close to the definition of competency profile by Ł. Sien-
kiewicz presented at the beginning of this section. According to J. Graber,
competency models are groups of competencies (typically from 5 to 30 per
model) that are required to perform a job or role well. Each competency
model is composed of competencies selected from some of the following
categories (Graber, 2012:1):
core employee competencies (for all employees in the organization),
core manager competencies (for supervisors and managers),
core leader competencies (for executives),
cross functional competencies (job related competencies, but not
applied to many types of jobs. For example, time management, com-
munication, or basic computer skills);
technical (or functional) competencies (job related competencies related
to one’s key specialty or function; for example, accounts payable, heavy
water chemistry, computer programming, or security procedures).
Another example of terminological differences is provided by the prac-
tice of the Hay Group that developed a manager competency model through
empirical research. They did it through a process of observing and interview-
ing outstanding performers in a wide variety of jobs and roles to determine
what sets these outstanding employees apart from everyone else. These
characteristics are defined in terms of behaviors — thoughts and actions
of outstanding performers. They also emphasize that because competencies
are behavioral, they can be developed (The Manager…, 2001:1).
To get a closer look at the Hay Group practice it is worth presenting

their approach. The structure of manager’s competency contains 11 competen-
cies, organized in four clusters. The four clusters are (The Manager…, 2001:2–7):
1. managing yourself:
empathy - recognizes and responds to others’ feelings and concerns:
ͳ ͳ recognizes others’ emotions,
ͳ ͳ understands people’s feelings,
ͳ ͳ understands what people mean,
ͳ ͳ understands underlying reasons for behavior,
self-control - recognizes and manages one’s emotions and strong
feelings under stress or when provoked:
ͳ ͳ holds back,
ͳ ͳ responds calmly,
ͳ ͳ responds constructively,
ͳ ͳ calms others,
self-confidence - possesses confidence in one’s ability to meet chal-
lenges and makes right decisions:
ͳ ͳ acts independently,
ͳ ͳ has confidence in own ability,
ͳ ͳ takes on challenges,
ͳ ͳ stands firm,
2. managing your team:
developing others - helps others increase capabilities, maximize their
potential, or recognize options:
ͳ ͳ expresses positive expectations,
ͳ ͳ gives directions or makes helpful suggestions,
ͳ ͳ develops people by providing specific feedback,
ͳ ͳ coaches,
holding people accountable - provides task focus and direction; en-
sures that others understand performance standards:
ͳ ͳ provides task clarity,
ͳ ͳ sets limits and boundaries,
ͳ ͳ sets clear standards for high performance,
ͳ ͳ takes corrective measures to ensure compliance,
team leadership - creates an environment in which people can work
together to meet organizational goals:
ͳ ͳ keeps people informed,
ͳ ͳ promotes team’s effectiveness,
ͳ ͳ motivates and energizes the team,
ͳ ͳ aligns the team with the organization,
3. managing the work:
results orientation - focuses on improving performance, meeting
goals, and producing results:
ͳ ͳ tracks performance,
ͳ ͳ improves work processes,
ͳ ͳ sets measurable, challenging goals,
ͳ ͳ makes cost/benefit analysis,
initiative - sees opportunities and acts on them:
ͳ ͳ takes action,
ͳ ͳ acts decisively,
ͳ ͳ is proactive,
ͳ ͳ takes a long-term view,
problem solving - identifies problems and tests alternative solutions
to achieve the best outcome:
ͳ ͳ objectively identifies problems,
ͳ ͳ recognizes patterns,
ͳ ͳ analyzes and tests alternatives,
ͳ ͳ creates solutions,
4. managing collaboratively:
influencing others - persuades, convinces, or influences others
to change their viewpoint or accept a desired course of action:
ͳ ͳ uses direct persuasion,
ͳ ͳ uses several methods of direct persuasion,
ͳ ͳ calculates impact of actions or words,
ͳ ͳ uses complex influence strategies,
fostering teamwork - promotes cooperation and collaboration be-
tween individuals and groups:
ͳ ͳ has positive expectations,
ͳ ͳ encourages others,
ͳ ͳ values others’ input and expertise,
ͳ ͳ promotes the team within the organization.
Each competency is defined in terms of four behavior levels. Level 1
is the most basic level of performance, while level 4 the most sophisticated
one. For each competency, level 3 is defined as the target level. Level 3 be-
haviors typically define excellence in managers’ jobs (The Manager…, 2001:2).
Anyway, whatever the competency structure is, some authors warn
that the situational context works as a filer that enables or disables using
own competencies (Filipowicz, 2014:64) and thus no competency models or
profiles are free from the contextual influences.
The literature review also suggests that general goals used for particu-
lar competency models or profiles may have an influence on how they are de-
fined. The research findings presented in the literature show that competency
profiles are mostly treated as normative tools of human resources (i.e. stand-
ardized requirements set against potential job performers) but not as tools
that provide more flexibility and diversity to human capital available in a given
company (i.e. differentiating employees with regard to their unique, difficult
to copy and imitate competencies, needed to gain market success by the or-
ganization – according to the theory of key organizational competencies
by Prahalad and Hamel) (Sienkiewicz, 2013:89). This may result in discrepancy
between theory and practice of competency modeling and profiling.
Summarizing this brief literature review, we can say that competency
models and competency profiles are not the same things, although some au-
thors tend to define them similarly and use interchangeably. And, to make
the distinction between these two terms clear in our book, we assume that
competency model is a set of all competencies required from the employees
in the organization which is composed of some particular groups of compe-
tencies, which are called competency profiles. These competency profiles
that compose the structure of competency model may include these compe-
tencies which are required to (c.f. Stor, Suchodolski, 2016a:102):
perform successfully some kind of work on particular organizational
positions which can be analyzed, described, and categorized (pro-
filed) within the range of:
ͳ ͳ the comparable contents of jobs, e.g. administrative, technical,
sales, front office etc.,
ͳ ͳ the comparable organizational levels or units, e.g. upper level
managers, operational managers, team leaders, etc.,
play successfully some organizational roles, e.g. mentors, coaches,
leaders, innovation implementers, etc.,
fulfill successfully the duties rooted in a specific type of management, e.g.:
ͳ ͳ process-based management,
ͳ ͳ function-based management,
ͳ ͳ project-based management,
ͳ ͳ lean-based management etc.,
contribute successfully to the strategic goals realization through:
ͳ ͳ competencies inputs to the organization success (entry quali-
fication requirements, e.g. abilities, skills, knowledge, psycho-
logical traits, experience),
ͳ ͳ competencies outputs to the organization success (behavior
exhibited in performance, outcomes of actions, achievements),
fulfill successfully:
ͳ ͳ the general demands of work performance (generic competen-
cies), meaning those that are transferable between sectors, or-
ganizations, departments etc.,
ͳ ͳ the specific demands of work performance (specific compe-
tencies), meaning those that are usable only in a given sector,
given company, given occupation or profession etc.
Thus, competencies are the building blocks of competency profiles
and the competency profiles are the building blocks of competency models
in organizations.
1.3. Competency and management
Both in the literature and business practice competencies are discussed in asso-
ciation with management, as to mention such phrasal expressions as: competen-
cy management, competency-based management, competency-based company
management, competency-based human resources management and so on.
Having in mind that competencies in organizations are used for something pur-
poseful, it is important to understand what we mean when we match the term
competency with different collocations of management. The following referenc-
es to the literature are selected intentionally to show why it is necessary to be
precise when talking about competency and management. The discussion will
be conducted from the perspective of management science.
M. Homer introduces competency management as a key process
which is currently recognized to ensure that the individual and organization
training plans are linked to business goals (Homer, 2001:59). It looks as compe-
tencies are subordinate to business goals and competency management relies
only on matching competencies needed to realize business goals with training
needs of individuals and organization itself. It suggests that competency man-
agement is equal to development of training plans. This seems to be improper
because management and development are two different things.
N. Gangani et al take some similar approach in a sense that they
match competency management with a strategic approach to business man-
agement. They say that the need to implement a competency-based strate-
gy should be derived from a strategic business need. Successful implementa-
tion of competency models should be closely aligned with business strategy
and also be able to support where the company is headed, not just reflect
what made it successful in the past (Gangani et al, 2006:131). In a similar
vein, G. Capece and P. Bazzica underline a connection between business
strategy and competencies. They say that whether enterprises consider that
firm’s competencies should be adjusted to follow its strategy or that strategy
and competencies should interact, it has long been recognized that the link
between strategy and competencies is critical for many firms. Further-
more, G. Capece and P. Bazzica notice that, looking at the term competency
from an etymological point of view, its root “competere” relates to competi-
tion and competing. Then, an enterprise task within the field of competency
management can therefore be seen as using the abilities of people in such
a way that synergies are created within and among the business activities
created. Competency management thus requires various methods and in-
struments for the qualitative and quantitative measurement of competency
and should address all the processes that are involved in the development,
implementation, and use of processes involved in the creation of products
or services (Capece, Bazzica, 2013:40-44). From this standpoint competency
management can be regarded as a part of strategic business management,
or, more precisely, competency-based strategic business management. How-
ever, probably one of the weaknesses of this approach is that more actions
are to be directed toward competencies themselves than to people possess-
ing these competencies. In practice it may limit the effectiveness and effi-
ciency of such actions as we cannot separate people from the human capital.
Some authors are interested in defining and assessing competencies
as a key aspect of human capital management (Juchnowicz, 2014), while some
others do this for competency-based, outcome-focused management devel-
opment (see: Rausch et al, 2002). In this case competency management prob-
ably makes a component of human resources development which, by some,
is recognized to be a part of human resources management and by others as
a separately developing object of theoretical and practical considerations.
M. F. Van Assen seems to combine the approaches mentioned above.
His perspective on competency management (in his work he applies the term
competence) is that it comprises the integral management of strategic, or-
ganizational and individual competencies. Organizational competencies,
that form the basis for core competencies, are based on individual compe-
tencies and vice versa. A central theme within competency management
for M. F. Van Assen is the ability to learn, unlearn and relearn, on all lev-
els within an organization (Van Assen, 2000:142–143). Thus, both strategic
and developmental issues in a company are covered.
F. Draganidis and G. Mentzas perceive competency management
(which they call competence management in their original publication)
as an important research object in the more general area of knowledge
management and a competency management system is often integrated
with learning management systems (LMSs) (Draganidis, Mentzas, 2006:51).
In this case competency management is treated as a part of knowledge
management, which is a kind of newly-developing subdiscipline of science,
probably nested in the context of so-called learning organization. But here
the question arises, whether it is justified to see knowledge management as
being composed of competency management, and if so, what are the other
elements, apart from competency management, that compose knowledge
management? And furthermore, what is the relationship between compe-
tency management and learning management mentioned by the cited au-
thors? Is it a part of knowledge management as well, or not?
Some of the practitioners, when discussing competency manage-
ment refer directly to activities connected with employees. For example,
in one petroleum company they define competency management (originally
using the word competence) as the process of getting staff to be compe-
tent, followed by competency assessment and reassessment, and maintain-
ing staff competency. For them competency management is both a system
and a process used to develop and maintain staff competency that includes:
risk assessments of activities, selecting suitable standards and using process-
es and methods to carry out competency management, maintaining records,
carrying out verification, audits and reviews of the system and feeding back
recommendations to improve the system (Guidelines…, 2011:33). This expla-
nation suggests that competency management is connected and/or devel-
oped from human resources management (HRM) because it considers some
standard subfunctions of HRM, like staff development, its retention, assess-
ment, performance feedback etc.
D. Rodriguez et al in their approach to competency management take
this more human resources management orientation as well. In their opinion,
in the past, organizations hired those who could perform a set of tasks, usu-
ally focusing on technical knowledge. These traditional job-based selection
and development strategies are less flexible than competency-based selection
and development strategies. By focusing on the full range of competencies
or whole-person assessment, the emphasis is on potential, or what the per-
son can bring to the organization, rather than on a set of narrowly defined
tasks based on job requirements (Rodriguez et al, 2002:310). So, this is a kind
of an approach in which people are identified with human capital and activi-
ties directed toward their competencies are also directed toward them.
Connecting competency management with human resources man-
agement has made some scientists interested in relationships between these
two issues and company management. For example, H. Ngo et al, in one
of their research projects, attempted to investigate the relationship between
human resource management (HRM) competency and firm performance.

Drawn upon the resource-based view and alignment theory, HRM compe-
tency was expected to be related to the adoption of high performance work
systems (HPWS) and the achievement of external fit in HRM, which, in turn,
contribute to firm performance. Results indicate that HRM competency has
a significant and positive effect on firm performance. Such an effect is found
to be mediated by the achievement of external fit, but not the adoption
of HPWS (Ngo et al, 2014).
There are also the authors who straightly refer to what they call com-
petency-based human resources management. For example, Ł. Sienkiewicz
defines competency-based human resources management system as a set
of coherent and mutually associated HRM practices in all its field: from peo-
ple entering the organization (e.g. staffing composed of recruitment, selection
and placement), through their efficient functioning (e.g. performance apprais-
al, motivating activities), development (training and off-training developmen-
tal activities) to leaving the organization by its employees (destaffing, out-
placement) (Sienkiewicz, 2013:10). To understand this approach, it is of course
necessary to explain what human resources management itself is about.
Like in any other case in which we want to define some phenomena
in management, to define human resources management we have to select
some of the existing provisions in the literature, and there are a lot of them,
or develop our own handling. Anyway, it seems that there is rather no special
need for this book to conduct a discussion over various definitions of HRM
in the publication sources. We believe it is just enough to say that after
the literature study it would be justified to assume that human resources
management (HRM) can be defined as a set of activities concerning people
and tending to achieve organizational objectives and fulfill employees’ needs
(Listwan, 1986:19). Following, this definition is based on the belief that indi-
vidual performance is a result of motivated employee behavior and this be-
havior is best achieved by integrating personal goals with the goals of the or-
ganization. Personal goals can only be integrated with those of the organiza-
tion if employees’ expectations of their employer, as well as the employer’s
expectations of individual employees, are clearly spelt out during the nego-
tiation phase of the psychological contract.
It’s worth adding that human resources management is both an aca-
demic theory and a business practice that address the theoretical and prac-
tical issues of managing workforce in organizations. The synonyms that are
sometimes used include personnel administration, personnel management,
industrial relations, employee relations, people management, and others.
However, nowadays these traditional expressions are becoming less com-
mon as it is believed they convey different meanings. One term which is
broadly accepted and interchangeably applied is personnel function (or HR
function). Although some authors argue that personnel function covers both
regulative and implementive activities, while human resources management
only regulative ones (see Lichtarski, 2000:239–240], HRM will be identified
with personnel function throughout this entire book. This approach is based
on the observable phenomena taking place in contemporary business or-
ganizations in which convergence between regulative and implementive ac-
tivities oriented towards people comes to so high degree as it is impossible
to distinguish HRM from personnel function (see also Pocztowski, 2003:13).
The main goal of HRM is to make a company gain its competitive
edge and enable the organization to succeed through its employees, while
simultaneously attaining individual objectives (such as having a challenging
job and obtaining recognition), and societal objectives (such as legal compli-
ance, ethical behavior, and social responsibility).
The performance and delivery of HRM is believed to be management’s
responsibility, shared among both line (operational) managers and those re-
sponsible for running service or staff functions. Managers are wholly account-
able for making the best use of their resources (Armstrong, 1992:23).
Moreover, because of the importance of strategic approach to HRM,
which is nowadays a top priority in strategic business management, follow-
ing T. Listwan, we can take over the conception that strategic human re-
sources management (SHRM) covers these decisions and actions which re-
fer to employees, give direction for personnel operations in their long run
and are of substantial significance to organization success (Listwan, 2000:14).
The goal of SHRM is to provide the directions and means of utilizing human
resources in pursuing company’s goals achievement (Listwan, 2010:60).
Summarizing this part of the literature review on competency
and management we can conclude that there are different approaches
to what competency management is about. Whether it is a part of something
bigger, like generally understood company management, human resources
management, human resources development, knowledge management,
or whether it is a separate issue from all those mentioned above, for sure,
in the context of a company it cannot be considered as something existing
in a vacuum.
In order to make our book content consistent we have made some
basic assumptions. Firstly, competency management is defined as a set
of activities performed in an organization and oriented toward identifica-
tion, acquirement, development and maintenance of such employees’ com-
petencies which enable the company reach its strategic goals (Stor, Kupczyk
2015:52; Stor, 2016:165). Secondly, it is also perceived as a part of human re-

sources management which itself is a part of company management. Hence,
in some more general sense we can talk about competency-based company
management when a set of competencies to managing human resources is
applied so that performance contributes efficiently and effectively to organi-
zational results. Thirdly, human resources management (HRM) itself is de-
fined as a set of activities concerning people and tending to achieve organi-
zational objectives and fulfill employees’ needs. Fourthly, the main objective
of HRM is to make the company gain its competitive edge and enable the or-
ganization to succeed through its employees. Nevertheless, as competen-
cies are expected to bring the company its competitive edge through some
value added, it is justified to employ some more modern approach to HRM,
that is the strategic one. In this context, what makes the fifth assumption
is that strategic human resources management (SHRM) covers these deci-
sions and actions which refer to employees, give direction for personnel op-
erations in their long run and are of substantial significance to organization
success. Sixthly, the goal of SHRM is to provide the directions and means
of utilizing human resources, identified with people and their competencies,
in pursuing company’s goals achievement.
2. COMPETENCY MANAGEMENT AS A PART OF HRM
AND COMPANY MANAGEMENT
2.1. The strategic connections between competencies and HRM

and business goals
Having defined competencies and basing on the assumptions taken at the end
of the previous part of this book, here it is worth to elaborate on the main
relationships between company management, human resources manage-
ment and competency management to explain the possible uses of compe-
tency in various subfunctions of HRM oriented toward efficient and effective
realization of organizational goals.
What the authors emphasize in the literature is that competency-based
HRM enables the company to fulfill its business needs. This should be valuable
for those companies whose goals are to [Dubois, Rothwell, 2004:53–45]:
increase competitive advantage,
improve the quality of products and/or services,
improve production efficiency and productivity,
prepare the organization to further growth and development,
facilitate change implementation in organizational culture,
reach better results in relationships with customers,
improve financial results,
integrate particular HRM procedures,
adjust HRM procedures to company mission, vision, values, strate-
gies and business goals.
In this handling, competency management feeds and supports both
HRM and company management simultaneously. It is perceived as a com-
mon ground for business and HRM strategies and substrategies.
In other publications competency frameworks (or models) are often
proposed to provide a practical way for an organization to integrate its HRM
practices across the employee life cycle, from selection through training
and development, to performance appraisal and promotion. Using an integrat-
ed framework is purported to enable the organization to strategically deploy
its human capital to meet business objectives. In consequence, some research-
ers explore the utility of a competency framework embedded throughout se-
lection and performance appraisal processes, identifying the organizational
advantages accrued, as well as highlighting some of the difficulties in practical
application. In their opinion, using the same competencies for both selection
and later performance appraisal, and then making comparisons of individual’s
scores provides an effective means of evaluating HRM subfunctions, as well

as individual development. Moreover, they say that identifying competency
ratings at interview which are associated with later work outcomes, such as
increased likelihood of turnover, potential for further development and pro-
motion and higher levels of performance would be invaluable in assessing
the utility of competency frameworks (Sutton, Watson, 2013:1026). Then it can
be concluded that competency management is used to make all the subfunc-
tions of HRM internally coherent, as well as the entire HRM function with its
subfunctions externally integrated with business strategies.
K. E. Soderquist et al explain that the concept of competency lies
at the heart of HRM, providing a basis for horizontal integration of key HRM
activities, such as selection, performance assessment, training, career devel-
opment, and reward management, as well as vertical integration with, among
others, organizational strategy, values, business processes and performance
outcomes. As such, it consists of a coherent approach to the management
of people, and places HRM as a core contributor to building and sustaining
competitive advantage, by bridging individual career development and or-
ganizational strategy. In this context, HRM processes need to be centered on
the flexible and dynamic deployment of employees’ competencies, rather
than on task-related and pre-defined sets of qualifications, as traditionally
has been the case. Today, as the cited authors note, the integration of HRM
policies and systems with the explicit objective of creating fit and alignment
between individual competencies and organizational capabilities, plays a cen-
tral role for sustained competitive advantage (Soderquist et al, 2010:326).
Thus, this perspective is nested in a resource-based view in management
in which sustained competitive edge of the company, or even any competi-
tive advantage at all, is conditioned by the organizational capabilities which
are primarily conditioned by the quality of human competencies.
In this handling, a company can gain, maintain and develop its com-
petitive edge thanks to people treated as a (Stor, 2012):
resource which is valuable (possesses some value), rare (possesses
certain unique features), inimitable (imperfectly imitable), and non-
substitutable (imperfectly substitutable), but also as a
capital asset which is a source of present and future incomes, and,
through investment made in this asset, it can bring an expected re-
turn in the form of benefits or value added inputs.
This makes at least a partial explanation why competency-based
practices utilize a competency framework to align the strategic impera-
tives of an organization with its key HRM programs. By applying a system-
atic framework to evaluate employee competencies, an organization may be
able to build an ongoing snapshot of the overall knowledge and skills portfo-
lio of its workforce. An organization can utilize this information to perform
organizational assessment and may be able to improve its HRM programs,
including talent acquisition practices, performance management system,
training and development tools, employee retention practices, and organiza-
tion development strategies (Gangani et al, 2006:127). In the context of tal-
ent and organizational development strategies, N. Juhdi et al focus on high
potential employees who must be identified, developed and managed well.
Nonetheless, the identification of high potential employees must first be
preceded with determining the competencies and the determination of such
competencies must be in line with the organizations’ missions and goals
(Juhdi et al, 2015:4).
So far, the conclusion is that basing company management and HRM
on key competencies and further making the strategies of these two types
of management coherent is expected to positively influence sustainable
competitive advantage of a company. The practice may go two ways. A com-
pany may firstly decide to determine its business goals. Then it may identify
the competencies necessary to reach these goals. And finally it may establish
a framework for competency-based HRM in which different subfunctions
of HRM are founded on competencies and all this is to contribute to the real-
ization of business goals. However, a company may also decide to go the oth-
er way which is to build its business strategies after the key human compe-
tencies and organizational capabilities are identified. In this case, it is not
strategies that determine competencies needs but its competencies that de-
termine the strategies. When this first task is completed, the company may
establish its competency-based HRM system to acquire, maintain and devel-
op its human competencies (and company’s capabilities) in pursuing its busi-
ness goals and competitive advantage. These strategic connections between
competencies and HRM and business strategies make the basic foundations
for competency management itself.
2.2. The goals of competency management
The theoretical considerations and empirical research findings presented in the pre-
vious part of this book generate some other questions about competency manage-
ment. One of them is, what are the typical goals of competency management?
The research shows that organizations adopt competency manage-
ment for similar reasons (listed in decreasing order of frequency): to enhance
performance, to integrate HR processes, to align behavior with corporate
values, selection, development and career pathing (Stone, 2013:335). Rang-

ing from selection, retention, and development to organizational strategic
planning, competencies are used today in a wide range of functions within
human resources (Gangani et al, 2006:128). In this context we can ask an-
other question about the meaning of competency management to company,
its goals, strategies, HRM system and so on.
The meaning of this competency approach in contemporary manage-
ment may be explained by the comparison of this approach to task-oriented
approach so popular in most companies in the past. Namely, the key differ-
ences between a task-based and a competency-based approach to HRM can
be summarized as follows. Competency-based HRM (Soderquist, 2010:328):
is human-centered and concentrates on how objectives are met or how
work is accomplished successfully, rather than on what is accomplished,
seeks to identify those competencies that will enable long-term or-
ganizational fit with evolving business conditions, rather than achiev-
ing a short-term task match,
provides a specification of the individual level competencies that
are core and common for an occupational group executing a range
of jobs, rather than describing what is required for executing the spe-
cific tasks that make up a specific job,
allows behavioral traits to be integrated in HRM models, rather than
focusing merely on technical skills,
enables assessing individuals ex-ante against requirements and re-
sponsibilities other than those currently held, and activating potential
skills and behavioral traits, rather than evaluating the performance
in executing specific tasks ex-post.
The Petroleum Industry Association provides in its publication the fol-
lowing examples of the purposes of the competency management system
which are to (Guidelines…, 2011:11):
assure the company, individuals and appropriate external bodies that
the workforce is competent now and for the future,
prioritize regulatory requirements, process safety, occupational
health and safety, and environmental requirements in the workplace,
comply with statutory requirements for a competent workforce,
comply with corporate management system procedures,
support individuals in developing and demonstrating the skills,
knowledge, behaviors and experience required for doing their jobs,
demonstrate fair and consistent methods and measures to verify
competence aligned to the agreed job description and particular re-
quirements of each individual,
support company systems and models in managing performance
safely and effectively from an individual, management and organiza-
tional perspective,
align, wherever possible, to nationally recognized qualifications
and standards or their equivalent and encompass assessment proce-
dures,
identify training requirements for individuals, teams and the organi-
zation to meet and support competency requirements,
identify accountabilities and responsibilities for management
and personnel,
accommodate change and support the management of change,
maintain suitable and auditable records.
This short discussion of the meaning and goals of competency man-
agement leads to a conclusion that, depending on specific needs of a com-
pany, its HRM system, as well as people themselves, competency manage-
ment finds a lot of different uses which serve selected goals. They range
from more general to more precise, from more business-oriented to more
human capital-oriented, from more organizational to more individual. But
in our book we assume, following M. Stor, that the main goal that compe-
tency management is to support and to enable the company success, to gain
and maintain its competitive advantage and to prepare the organization
for any alterations and changes that appear in its external and internal envi-
ronment (Stor, 2016:166). We believe this perfectly goes in line with the goal
of HRM discussed previously and helps us to develop our concepts reason-
ably and maintain internal logic.
2.3. The subfunctions of HRM in which competencies are used
As said previously, various subfunctions of HRM can be based on compe-

tency models and profiles that compose these models. Of course, the com-
panies may decide to base their whole HRM system on competency models
and profiles or may just follow an idea of basing only some of HRM subfunc-
tions on such developments. The practice shows that it is rare that companies
deliberately decide to base only some of their HRM subfunctions on compe-
tencies. In most cases when only some of the HRM subfunctions are compe-
tency-based it is usually because they are just at the beginning of the road
to establish a complex and fully integrated competency-based HRM system.
For demonstrative purposes a competency-based model and exemplary
subfunctions of HRM in which competencies can be used are depicted in Table 2.
Table 2. The exemplary subfunctions of HRM in which competencies can be applied

Subfunction
Description
of HRM
▪▪ the emphasis is placed on talents and value added generated by HR
to the organization,
Planning ▪▪ no assumptions that either the future will be similar to the past or
the same number of employees will be needed to reach established results,
▪▪ the quality methods of planning are preferable
▪▪ identification of those activities that brought talented people to the or-
ganization,
▪▪ the recruitment sources are the same or similar, employment decisions
Staffing
are based on capabilities that are verified against some selected tasks or on
(recruitment &
the basis of approved results,
selection)
▪▪ the model assumes comparing the talents of applicants with a compe-
tency profile of an employee whose performance results are satisfactory
in full or whose results are above average in his or her field of work
▪▪ mostly the barriers that limit individual efficiency are considered, parti-
cularly those that result from duties imposed by the organization and ma-
Employee
nagerial staff and these types of hindrances are then overcome,
training
▪▪ the model enables developing individual competencies in order to reach
measureable and outstanding (or at least fully satisfactory) results
▪▪ performance appraisal is conducted periodically and according
to the competency profile that corresponds with the currently performed
Performance
task by employees and regarding their own aspirations and desires,
management
▪▪ the model comprises of a feedback system and facilitates employees
with pursuing a desired level of performance results
▪▪ the goal of the model is to attract and retain employees whose measu-
Compensation
reable contribution to organization performance proves they are capable
system
of realizing the tasks at expected standard level
▪▪ the goals are to help people discover their own competencies, to support
the organization in revealing the talents of employees and to continue ta-
lent development when the task is completed,
Employee deve- ▪▪ the assumption is that 98% of all efforts directed to competencies crea-
lopment tion finally result in acquirement of professional experience,
▪▪ the same emphasis is put on the work results as on the process of work
realization itself and this makes as a mean of building a strong personnel
backup which helps people to gain new experience.
Source: Dubois, D. D., Rothwell, W. J., (2004), Competency-Based Human Resource Manage-
ment. Davis-Black Publishing. Palo Alto, pp. 27-29.
In summary, we can say that the particular applications of competen-

cy models and profiles in various numbers of HRM subfunctions depend on
how many elements of personnel function are distinguished and differenti-
ated in a given company. This also makes the basic framework for competency
management which is – according to the assumptions taken in this research
project – a part of human resources management which itself is a part of com-
pany management. In this way, we receive, what was also previously defined
in this book, competency-based company management in which a set of com-
petencies to managing human resources is applied so that performance con-
tributes efficiently and effectively to organizational results.
2.4. The theoretical approaches to competency management
There are different approaches to competency management and, what fol-

lows, different types of their classifications. Not to conduct a long discussion
over this issue, after W. J. Rothwell and J. E. Lindholm, we can quote five ap-
proaches to competency identification, modeling and assessment which are
divided into the following categories (Rothwell, Lindholm, 1999:97–101):
the process-driven approach – attaches much weight to the work
process which is performed by exemplary job incumbents,
the outputs-driven approach – focuses attention on the key outputs
of the targeted job, occupation, team or work group,
the invented approach – decision-makers are guided through a sys-
tematic process of developing a competency model by making it up,
the trends driven approach – focuses attention on the future issues
or trends affecting the job, work, team or occupation,
the work responsibilities-driven approach – derives outputs, competencies,
roles, and quality requirements from work responsibilities or activities.
More general classification is proposed by D. Ruth who distinguishes
three main approaches to how competency can be identified (Ruth, 2006:211):
the behavioral approach – primarily based on outstanding perform-
ers; competency assessment of actual behavior, defined in terms
of underlying characteristics, knowledge, skills and motives, and was
causally related to superior performance,
the standards approach – defines minimum levels of accepted perfor-
mance in a specific job or positions, and focuses on actual job output;
the situational approach – explores factors that may influence the re-
quired competencies; on one side situational factors vary so much
that it is impossible, for example, to make a generic list of managerial
competencies that are relevant for most managerial positions, but, on
the other side, superior managers of all types and levels share a gen-
eral profile of competencies; managers of all types are more like each
other than they are like the individual contributors they manage.
The research reports data empirically linking competencies of indi-
vidual leaders to business profitability also demonstrate that competencies
are cross-culturally valid. In one study, a set of competencies was identi-
fied as predictive of unit profit growth in managers in both North America
and the European Union. Subsequent regression analysis showed that 17%
of the variance in business unit profitability could be accounted for by four
competencies, specifically: team leadership, developing others, achieve-
ment orientation, and impact and influence. Cross-cultural validity was dem-
onstrated to the degree that similar competencies predicted performance

in both North America and the European Union as evidenced by the corre-
lation between both rating of subordinate competencies and profit growth
(Ryan, 2012). This means, that apart from previously enumerated approach-
es to competency management, that is behavioral, standard and situational,
we may also distinguish the cultural one. Otherwise, the cultural approach
may be seen as nested in the situational approach.
Capaldo et al, commenting the theoretical approaches, busi-
ness practices, including the consulting ones, say that the dominant view
in managerial practice assumes that competencies are universal constructs
whose meaning is independent from any specific organizational context.
The description of each competency (i.e., its meaning) is usually general
enough to fit into many different contexts and work situations. That is what
they call the universalist approach that ensures a high degree of efficiency
through standardization of competency codebooks, however, the effective-
ness of this approach has often been questioned since it suffers from sev-
eral conceptual and practical limitations. In their opinion, overgeneralization
makes the description of competencies ambiguous and does not provide HR
managers with adequate practical information. An alternative, situationalist
approach – as they claim – defines competencies as situated, idiosyncratic
constructs whose meaning is deeply influenced by organizational culture
and by the unique way people make sense of their jobs. Capaldo et al pro-
pose a methodological approach to competency management based on
a situationalist perspective. Using a field study carried out in a large Italian
organization, they discuss the issues relevant to consider when developing
competency-management systems through a situationalist approach. In par-
ticular, in their article they show that the situationalist approach, by ensuring
higher attention to the meaning and to the situated nature of competencies,
is more capable of dealing with some of the critical management challenges
outlined in the recent literature, such as the demand for more participative
approaches and the increasing emphasis on emerging competencies (Capal-
do et al, 2006).
To summarize this brief presentation of theoretical approaches
to competency management we can conclude that ambiguity in the descrip-
tion of competencies due to generalization and standardization does not
provide both managerial staff and HR professionals with detailed and con-
crete implications for practice – for instance, in terms of training. In an alter-
native to the universalist perspective, competencies are deeply influenced
by different types of culture (e.g. national, organizational, departmental,
team, occupational etc.), specificity of work being performed in a particular
context, social interaction, and the unique way people make sense of their
jobs within organizations. We call such approaches situationalist (or contex-
tualist), since they share the perspective that competencies are idiosyncratic
situated constructs. In the situationalist perspective, individuals can be con-
sidered competent within a tradition. In other words, the definition of com-
petencies and the reasons why one is considered competent in a specific task
are strictly related to the social context in which competencies are activated
and developed through time. The situational approach that we support ex-
plores factors that may influence the required competencies. In our opinion
situational factors vary so much that it is impossible for example to make
a generic list of managerial competencies that are relevant for most manage-
rial positions.
In general, competency models simply consist of a (hierarchical) lists
or catalogues, describing desirable competencies. They usually include op-
erational definitions for each competency, together with measurable or ob-
servable performance indicators against which to evaluate individuals. De-
pending on the desired application (e.g. performance management vs. suc-
cession planning, staffing or 360-degree feedback), the list of competencies
can be described at different levels of detail. However, we support the ap-
proach in which models of competency need to contain not only competen-
cy components, but also situational variables and outcome criteria. Further-
more, the research should examine which situational circumstances (such as
group characteristics, position of job) moderate the relationships between
competencies and performance.
2.5. The measurement of effectiveness and efficiency of competency-

based HRM
Applying competency approach to management we need to remember about

measurement which is to help the organization control its goals realization.
Referring to some empirical research findings, it can be stated that where
there is clear evidence of objective measurement, performance ratings tend
to improve. It confirms the hypothesis that when attention is focused on
a competency through visible measurement, it improves (Thompson, Cole
1997:162). As mentioned previously, the main object of interest in resource-
based view and capital-based view within HRM, including competency-based
HRM, is foremostly a measurable input that is made by HRM to a company.
This is connected with the measurement of HRM effectiveness and efficien-
cy. This issue is of particular importance to competency-based HRM.
When talking about efficiency and effectiveness in the vernacular,

a nonscientific language, these two terms are often used interchangeably
by the general public. But when it comes to business and its management
the scientific lexicon needs to be applied. On the surface it appears to be
easy: providing the common scientific definitions and then keeping discus-
sion going on. Yet two fundamental problems may stay unsolved (Stor, 2012):
whether there is a real common agreement between scientists or
management on how to understand efficiency and effectiveness,
and what efficiency and effectiveness measures should be applied.
There are many factors that influence the final choices in this scope.
For example, in the context of selecting, applying and interpreting definitions
and measures of HRM efficiency and effectiveness in multinational companies
(MNCs) two of such factors are worth special consideration, namely (Stor, 2012):
disciplinarism (e.g. economics vs. other sciences and scientific disci-
plines),
contextualism (e.g. geographical region and culture).
Particular scientific disciplines may differ in their assessment of ef-
ficiency and effectiveness, and some of them even introduce efficacy as
an additional term supporting the assessment of the former two (discipli-
narization of a concept). Since HRM is both an interdisciplinary and multidis-
ciplinary field of knowledge, various disciplinary concepts may be preferred
depending on the analyzed problems. Furthermore, even though the con-
sensus within a given discipline on definitions seems to be achieved, their
cultural interpretation in a given country on what and how to measure may
reveal differences in various parts of the world (contextualization of a con-
cept) (Stor, 2012). Anyway, in this book, HRM efficiency and effectiveness are
considered from an economic perspective and thus no concepts from other
scientific disciplines should be expected. Within the economic sciences we
assume that (Stor, 2009:37; Stor 2012):
efficiency – is the ratio of output to input,
effectiveness – is the extent or degree to which targeted objectives
are achieved, and
efficacy - is the capacity of something/somebody to produce an effect.
Hence, we usually say that being effective is about doing the right
things, while being efficient is about doing the things in the right manner.
In judging the effectiveness of HRM activities, we are usually concerned
with whether or not the function is doing the right things. Unfortunately,
in the assessment of effectiveness (who conducts the assessment and what
specific criteria are used, or should be used) which is problematic. As one
might surmise, the idiosyncratic values of individuals and groups play a large
role in determining what the right things are. As a result, the biases of spe-
cial interest groups vying for influence and power can render the reliability
and validity of the results questionable, at best. HRM efficiency, by contrast,
is typically associated with an internal, value-free assessment of the func-
tion. Efficiency can be viewed as maximizing outputs relative to inputs, and,
in contrast to effectiveness, is concerned with doing things right (Wright et
al, 1990:4). In consequence the HRM function can be judged as (Stor, 2012):
efficiently ineffective – keeping cost down but ultimately not really
providing the services the internal customers (or stakeholders) need,
inefficiently effective – providing first class service but at champagne
prices that the company cannot pay,
efficient and effective – keeping cost down and providing first class
service,
inefficient and ineffective – providing poor but expensive services
to the internal customers (or stakeholders).
In business practice the effectiveness of the HRM function is often
judged with connection to efficiency criteria. This may cover such issues
as: whether personnel requisitions were promptly filled, whether the last
knowledge management programs increased the value of human capital,
whether the union contract was settled with a minimum of new and costly
benefits, whether the rates of absenteeism and turnover were maintained
or reduced, whether employee work commitment increased after the im-
plementation of empowerment program and many others. The long-run
effectiveness of the HRM function, however, both in terms of the organiza-
tion and the environment, often depends on its being somewhat inefficient,
at least in the short-run. For example, preparing competency models, defin-
ing competency profiles, job descriptions, conducting orientation meetings,
providing career, retirement, and outplacement counseling, and processing
complaints, grievances, and suggestions are essentially inefficient activities,
but critical to long-run effectiveness. A continual trade-off goes on between
efficiency and effectiveness in most organizations, and both are necessary.
The ongoing problem, of course, is to determine an optimal mix (Wright et al,
1990: 4–16). All depends on HRM efficacy – in this case both human and or-
ganizational capacity to bring desired effects. Ideally within HRM, we expect
that the right people do the right things right (Stor, 2012). Anyway, as pre-
sented in Figure 3, the measurement of efficiency, effectiveness, and efficacy
can take different forms and apply different instruments.
Figure 3. Economic perspective on efficiency, efficacy and effectiveness in business

and HRM
ECONOMIC SCIENCES
EFFICIENCY EFFICACY EFFECTIVENESS
Definition: Definition: Definition:

the ratio of output to input the capacity of something the extent or degree to which tar-
/somebody to produce an effect geted objectives are achieved
EXEMPLARY ORGANIZATIONAL MEASURES: EXEMPLARY ORGANIZATIONAL MEASURES:

 productivity – the ratio of performance results to  the quality of services being delivered,
performance cost (e.g. unit of output to resources  how well the output of the process meets the
used), requirements of the end user or customer,
 saving economy – the ratio of performance cost to  the number of tasks performed,
performance results (e.g. cycle time per unit, trans-  how well the output of the subprocess meets
action or labor cost), the requirements of the next phase in the pro-
 value added – the increase in the market value of a cess,
product that takes place at each stage of the pro-  tardiness
duction process; the market value of a firm’s out-
put lower than the value of the inputs which it has
purchased from others
EXEMPLARY HRM MEASURES:
 staffing – differences in performance between
external/internal hires, applicability of selection
EXEMPLARY HRM MEASURES: methods,
 absence/attendance – levels, causes, cost,  training and development – sufficiency of train-
 staffing – number of vacancies filled, number of ing programs and career paths to individual and
internal/external hires, cost for AC per hour/hire, organizational needs,
 retention – staff turnover data,  knowledge sharing – appropriateness of employ-
 training and development – training hours per ee motivating system,
employee, qualification levels of the workforce,  compensation – attractiveness of remuneration
time needed to improve work to cover expendi- and benefits system to employees,
tures on training,  reward system – relationship between intrinsic
 spending on particular HRM subfunctions compared reward processes and engagement,
with relevant benchmark data,  retention – maintaining key, talents/skills in the
 health & safety – number of accidents, compensa- organization,
tion claims, state penalties,  organizational culture – extent to which a culture
 compensation – cost of labor hour to production of corporate responsibility and ethical issues are
unit, cost of payment increase to output results embedded
EXEMPLARY HRM MEASURES:

 innovative capacity of the employees and within the organization,
 employees’ skills to maximize added value of services/products
 leadership capacity, ability and skills of managerial staff,
 willingness and ability to work in teams,
 organizational capacity to upgrade employees’ self-efficacy by finding appropriate mentors,
 managerial and leadership skills supporting desired organizational culture,
 labor union and management cooperative capacity.
Source: (Stor, 2012).

Different perspectives on increasing the effectiveness of HRM as
a contributor to organizational success are evident in business and manage-
ment research, and, as mentioned previously, the HRM effectiveness is often
evaluated with connection to efficiency criteria. S. Gibb suggests that there
are two dimensions that underpin most existing research (Gibb, 2000:58):
the extent to which a concern with HRM effectiveness involves an internal,
organizational orientation or an external, general standards orientation,
the extent to which the value of either an objective or a subjective
framework for operationalizing HRM effectiveness is adopted.
In consequence, we receive four primary combinations of perspec-
tives on evaluating HRM effectiveness which are presented graphically
in Figure 4. These are (Gibb, 2000:58–60):
internal orientation and objective factors – covering the internal fit
(both vertical and horizontal) of HRM activities with business objectives,
goals and needs and often involving the strategic approach to HRM,
external orientation and objective factors – adopting a standard set
of best practices and measuring the attainment of clearly defined ob-
jectives, including the profitability of good people management; ap-
plying HRM audit and accountancy,
external orientation and subjective factors – encompassing bench-
marking with perceived leader organizations whose HRM practices
are deemed to be superior and successful and thus worth copying,
internal orientation and subjective factors – involving obtaining
and analyzing the views of managers and employees as customers or
end-user of HRM within the organization.
So far, we’ve discussed HRM efficiency and effectiveness
from the standpoint of economics and one may assume that the final agree-
ment – on how these terms and associated measures are defined – has been
reached. But recognizing the same definitions may unequal the same under-
standing of them. It is the matter of so-called contextualization.
Contextualization can take various forms: from very general to very
detailed. This may include the analysis of such contextual factors as, for ex-
ample, globalization (see e.g.: Colakoglu et al, 2006:210; Friedman, 2007:166–
167), religion, national culture (see e.g.: Dicke et al, 2004:6; Hofstede, Hofst-
ede, 2005), policy, history, economic or technological development (see e.g.:
World...), managerial concepts and practices, social and labor relations, in-
terpersonal relations within teams or between superiors and their subordi-
nates, formal and informal networks of mutual dependency (see: Trompe-
naars, Hampde-Turner, 1997) and many others. In practice this means that
the same economic definitions of HRM effectiveness and efficiency may be
interpreted differently in particular countries and – what is more surprising –

result in applying different measures to measure the same things1. For MNCs
operating worldwide it is a kind of snag: How to compare the performance
results of particular local subsidiaries when different measures of competen-
cy-based HRM effectiveness and efficiency are employed? (Stor, 2012).
Figure 4. The matrix of perspectives on evaluating HRM effectiveness
OBJECTIVE FACTORS
Best practices Fit with

EXTERNAL ORIENTATION
INTERNAL ORIENTATION
models business
Benchmarking
Manager & staff
with “excellence” views
SUBJECTIVE FACTORS
Źródło: (Gibb, 2000:59)
One of the fundamental problems that MNCs have to face is coping

with differences they experience between home and host country. The suc-
cess is often determined by the quality of social relations developed with inter-
nal and external stakeholders (e.g. local employees, business partners, profes-
sional associations, local officials or even the government) in the destination
country. These relations are built in different interpersonal situations, both
formal and informal. Not surprisingly, research shows clearly that culture, as
one of such differences, influences the practices of management. A lot of man-
agement concepts, techniques, and systems developed and taught in business
schools are based on cultural beliefs, values, and assumptions about how man-
agers and workers should behave, and they work well in the countries in which
they were developed. However, these concepts, techniques, and systems may
not work as intended in other cultures. If they are transferred to another coun-
try and used improperly, they can compound managers’ problems. Cultural dif-
ferences, if not understood, can also pose significant barriers to the implemen-
1
See examples showing the relations between HRM efficiency and employee compensa-
tion and promotion, team performance appraisal, loyalty to company etc. in Japan (Ma-
zur, 2004) and examples from France explaining how employee relations influence gener-
al standing of the company and its efficiency in particular (Doucouliagos, Laroche, 2002).
tation and success of a business venture. In this context MNCs have to make
attempts to find the best measures for competency-based HRM efficiency,
effectiveness, and efficacy as competency-based HRM is expected to help
managers manage the companies and reach intended organizational goals. De-
termining the fundamental factors for competency-based HRM efficiency, ef-
fectiveness, and efficacy for various organizational levels, at least for the HQ’s
(headquarters) and local subsidiary’s, may help MNCs to determine some
general framework for the evaluation of corporationwide competency-based
HRM effectiveness, efficiency, and efficacy. And, in a result, it may also help
to compare the outcomes received at different local subsidiaries. But it should
not be interpreted that standardization of measures makes the best practice
or recommendation. While some standard measures may be acceptable or
applicable worldwide, some may be not and when used in local subsidiaries
they may bring even reverse effects. It is like imposing only collective-oriented
measures when promoting creativity in teams. In highly individualistic cul-
tures, as to mention American, Austrian and Polish, performance appraisal or
compensation system based only on team results may lead to so-called so-
cial loafing, a well-known phenomenon in international organizational studies.
Thus, the recommendation is to use local measures as well, particularly when
the measures applied determine the opportunity for value added creation
through managerial and employee behaviors. All this may result in competen-
cy-based HRM strategies of higher quality as a product of higher quality strat-
egy formulation and realization (Stor, 2014).
Then, the general conclusion from this part of literature review is that
all competency-based HRM activities, according to the basic principles as-
sumed in the presented book, aim at supporting companies, including MNCs,
in reaching high levels of efficiency and effectiveness in the scope of goals,
strategies, and tasks performed at different organizational levels. What is ex-
pected in practice is that good results at lower levels will contribute to good
results at the organizationwide or, in the case of MNCs, at the corporationwide
level. As mentioned before, the measures that can be used here may straightly
refer to competency-based HRM effectiveness, efficiency and its efficacy.
Summarizing, it is necessary to emphasize that competency-based
HRM strategies and competency-based HRM itself make a part of a big-
ger company management system. However, it is a part of fundamental
significance. It decides not only about the success of any type of activities
performed by the company and inside the company but also determines
whether any type of activities can be performed at all. In this context meas-
uring the effectiveness and efficiency of competency management is one
of the fundamental success factors of competency-based HRM.
3. THE COMPETENCY MANAGEMENT PROCESS
3.1. Selected theoretical concepts presented in the literature
The competency management process, as the name implies, is a sequence

of activities that one needs to perform to manage competencies. The litera-
ture provides various examples of both theoretical approaches and practical
developments applied in this scope in business practice. In this part of the lit-
erature review we intend to present some selected examples of compe-
tency management deriving from theory and practice. But the problem
encountered immediately is the one we experienced in the previous parts
of this book, meaning terminology. What we mean by competency manage-
ment some authors name competency identification, competency assess-
ment, competency development, competency modeling or just competency
models. There are of course many other names used in the literature but we
believe that the abovementioned examples outline the problem sufficiently.
Another thing is that what sometimes goes after the terminology being used
is the understanding of what the process of competency management cov-
ers, what are its steps or final results. Because our goal is neither to uni-
fy nor standardize these review results, we have decided not to change
the original names when describing those various concepts. What especially
supports this decision is that doing so we will be able to show a diversity
of conceptual, empirical and practical developments within the competen-
cy management process.
For the start it is worth mentioning that one of the most cited meth-
ods of competency identification is so-called job competence assessment
method developed by R. E. Boyatzis and presented in one of his articles
nearly three and a half of decades ago. It was used to generate a validated
profile for a job and is composed of five steps which are presented in Table 3.
It needs to be explained that this method examines a person in the job, not
only the job itself (Dubois, Rothwell, 2004: 46)
Since that time a lot of other concepts have been developed. In gener-
al, the literature says that many organizations have taken a “one-size-fits-all”
approach to competency modeling, by developing one competency model,
usually for leaders, and applying this model to a large set of jobs, sometimes
even non-managerial ones. Other organizations have moved in the opposite
direction, by simultaneously developing multiple competency models for dif-
ferent jobs within an organization (Gangani et al, 2006:130–131).
Table 3. The job competence assessment method
Steps Activities Results
▪▪ choose an appropriate measure of job ▪▪ job performance data on
Identification
performance, selected category of employ-
of criterion
▪▪ collect data on a category of employees ees
measure
you are interested in
▪▪ generate list of characteristics perceived ▪▪ a weighted list of character-
to lead to effective and/or superior job per- istics perceived by the select-
formance, ed category of workers to re-
Job element
▪▪ obtain item rating by the selected cate- late to superior performance,
analysis
gory of employees, ▪▪ a list of the clusters into
▪▪ compute weighted list of characteristics, which these characteristics
▪▪ analyze clusters of characteristics can be grouped
▪▪ conduct behavioral event interviews, ▪▪ a list of characteristics hy-
▪▪ code interviews for characteristics or pothesized to distinguish effec-
develop the code and then code the inter- tive and/or superior from poor
Behavioral event
views, or less effective job perfor-
interviews
▪▪ relate the coding to job performance mance,
data ▪▪ a list of validated charac-
teristics or competencies
▪▪ choose tests and measures to assess ▪▪ a list of validated charac-
competencies identified in prior two steps teristics or competencies
Tests and mea-
as relevant to job performance, as assessed by these tests
sures
▪▪ administer tests and measures and score them, and measures
▪▪ relate scores to job performance data
▪▪ integrate results from prior three steps, ▪▪ a validated competency
▪▪ statistically and theoretically determine model (profile)
Competency
and document casual relationships among
model
the competencies and between the com-
petencies and job performance
Source: Boyatzis, R. E., (1982), The competent manager. The model for effective performance.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 42.
In the 1990s the two most common ways of developing and us-
ing competency models were: (1) the single-job competency model and (2)
the “one-size-fits-all” competency model – that provide neither effective
ways to differentiate the requirements of various jobs, nor ways to match in-
dividual competency profiles to a wide range of jobs or assignments (Mans-
field, 1996:7). A description of these approaches is provided in a Table 4.
Basing on the aforementioned approaches R. Mansfield proposed
his own approach named a multiple-job approach to develop competency
models. The main characteristics of this approach enumerated by the cited
authors are: using a common set of building block competencies, allowing
for customization, defined levels of competencies and requirements. A de-
scription of these characteristics is presented in Table 5.
50
Table 4. The single-job and one-size-fits-all competency models
Charac- The “one-size-fits-all” competen-
The single-job competency model
teristics cy model
▪▪ developing a model starts with an identified ▪▪ the first step is to identify
critical job that line management or an HR pro- the population for whom the mod-
fessional sees as needing better selected or de- el will apply, such as all managers,
veloped incumbents, ▪▪ a team charged with developing
▪▪ the data collection usually includes both the competency model usually selects
a resource panel or focus group of job holders concepts from available individual job
and/or their managers and interviews with jo- competency models and from books
Steps of development
bholders, and articles on leadership, business,

▪▪ the data gathering phase may also include organizational development, and hu-
interviews with customers and direct reports, man resource development,
surveys of additional job holders, and direct ▪▪ a consulting firm with broad ex-
observation of job holders at work, perience in developing competen-
▪▪ once this is complete, the next step is to ana- cy models may also supply a com-
lyze the data to distill it into a competency mo- mon model based on a distillation
del that typically includes 10-20 traits or skills, of concepts and behaviors from in-
each with a definition and a list of specific dividual job models,
behaviors that describe what effective perfor- ▪▪ senior management then reviews
mers do and how to achieve effective results and revises the model to ensure
that it reinforces the organization’s
mission and values and any ongoing
efforts to change the culture
▪▪ developing a competency model usually ta- ▪▪ in addition to developing
kes several months and costs a lot if the com- the common competency model,
pany retains a consulting firm, most organizations, also develop
▪▪ before the organization can gain much value HR applications based on it,
from the model, it must build human resources ▪▪ such applications may cover
tools and a program based on the model, a competency assessment qu-
Requirements
▪▪ a typical program might include a compe- estionnaire, a resource guide

tency assessment questionnaire to be comple- for developing the competencies,
ted by job holders, their supervisors, and their and a performance management
peers; a resource guide to help job holders program,
form development plans based on their com- ▪▪ this may be used for assessing
petency assessments; and a workshop to ex- and developing the competencies
plain the competency model and provide trai- as part of the performance ap-
ning in development planning, praisal process.
▪▪ developing these tools and the program ty-
pically takes several more months and involves
significant additional costs
Source: Mansfield, R., (1996), Building competency models: Approaches for HR Professionals,
(in:) “Human Resource Management”, Spring, Vol. 35, No 1, p. 7–9.
51
Table 5. A multiple-job approach to develop competency models
Charac-
Description
teristics
▪▪ The first requirement - different models be built from a common set of building
Using a common set of building block com-
block competencies, so-called job competency menu. It is necessary to facilitate

matching individuals to jobs.
▪▪ Identifying a common set of building block competencies requires experience
in building competency models for a wide range of jobs.
▪▪ A set of building block competencies typically includes 20 to 40 competencies,
each with a definition and a set of 5 to 15 behaviors describing common ways
petencies
in which employees demonstrate the competency. The behaviors do not specify

where and with whom the competency is demonstrated, as would a competency
in a single-job competency model.
▪▪ Before using a set of building block competencies for model building, organiza-
tions can customize it by using consistent organizational language and concepts
and by adding those competencies that reflect skills and qualities being emphasized
as part of ongoing organizational change efforts. This customization can be accom-
plished in a two- to three-hour meeting with key senior managers and human reso-
urces staff who will be involved in building the model.
▪▪ It must allow customization because, although the same competency may be re-
quired for two different jobs, it often needs to be demonstrated in different ways.
Allowing for customization
For example, consider the competency, „Initiative.” A sales manager may demonstra-
te Initiative by developing a new incentive program for sales representatives. A ge-
neral manager may demonstrate Initiative by restructuring a division and creating
cross-functional teams to do work previously accomplished by several departments.
▪▪ To be useful to job holders, a competency model must describe specifically how com-
petencies need to be demonstrated in specific jobs.
▪▪ One way to customize a model is to develop job-specific behaviors that specify
how, when, and with whom the competency is demonstrated.
▪▪ During a model building session, job holders and their supervisors can identify
job-specific behaviors to add to or replace the generic competencies.
▪▪ Another way to identify the behaviors is to conduct critical event interviews
with effective performers in the job.
▪▪ Define a consistent set of levels for the building block competencies to distin-
Defined levels of competencies
guish the extent to which a competency is required in different jobs.

▪▪ Levels facilitate the accurate assessment of individuals, when, for example, iden-
tifying individuals who possess the competencies required for a particular assignment
or job. With no defined levels of a competency, individuals are assessed according
to the frequency and/or effectiveness with which they demonstrate the behaviors
associated with effective performance, as is done when using 360 feedback. Such ra-
tings, however, are influenced significantly by various forms of rater bias.
▪▪ Each competency in the set of building block competencies needs a set of levels,
but, because competency levels will be used to rate and compare individuals who are
in different jobs, the levels of a competency need definitions that are independent
of any specific job.
▪▪ The approach should involve job holders and their managers to build support
for the models and the HR applications derived from them.
Requirements
▪▪ Since jobs are changing rapidly and many new jobs are being created as part
of reengineering efforts, the process for building competency models also needs
to focus more on future needs than on past needs.
▪▪ Implementing the approach involves convening a day-long focus group com-
prising of 6-12 job holders, supervisors of job holders, and other subject matter
experts. The agenda should include identification of:
-- ongoing and anticipated changes – in the organization, industry, marketplace,

and technology –that are affecting the target job,
Requirements cont. -- a core set of main responsibilities,
-- the most important tasks or work outputs for job holders,
-- the performance criteria for each key task,
-- the building block competencies and other skills needed for each key task or work
output,
-- job-specific behaviors by which the competencies are demonstrated.
▪▪ This simple approach to model building is sufficient to identify the competency
requirements of a job. For greater precision, additional data, such as critical event
interviews with superior performers in this and other organizations or interviews
with clients or customers of persons performing the target job, can be incorporated.
Source: Mansfield, R., (1996), Building competency models: Approaches for HR Professionals,
(in:) “Human Resource Management”, Spring, Vol. 35, No 1, p. 12–16.
Some other authors assume that the general process of competen-

cy management needs to address the following aspects (Belkadi et al after:
Capece, Bazzica, 2013:43):
competence identification, which integrates all the processes con-
cerning the inventory of competencies required by the business pro-
cesses (with tasks and missions), and those acquired by the actors
(e.g., the company’s employees and the project teams),
competence allocation (or team building), which is the process of as-
signing various missions to human actor(s) who possess different
kinds of knowledge, according to defined management policies,
competence acquisition, which involves recruiting, selecting, and hir-
ing people to meet the company’s present and expected needs
for competencies,
competence mobilization, which concerns the managers’ practices
of setting up favorable work conditions to enable human resources
to achieve their missions through the utilization of their competencies,
competence development, which involves various forms of train-
ing and learning on-the-job (e.g., reinforcement and enhancement
of existing competencies and the development of new competen-
cies). Competence development aims at maintaining competencies
within the firm and is supported by a process that identifies the na-
ture and state of existing competencies, as well as process that result
in employee motivation and coordination,
competency characterization, which aims at formalizing competen-
cies and storing key features that will be re-used as data by the other
processes involved in competence management,
competence evaluation (or assessment), which is closely linked
to competence identification and characterization. Evaluation criteria
have to be established in advance. Evaluation concerns the compari-
son between the planned (or expected) outcomes related to the ap-
plication of competencies and the actual outcomes. As a result of this
evaluation, revised judgments may be made with respect to whether
individuals possess certain competencies and/or the competencies
necessary to perform certain actions successfully.
Table 6. Steps in the development of a competency model
Step Description
Creation of a competency As a first step, many enterprises and organizations create a CST
systems team (CST) which consists of human resources staff, top executives and employ-
ees who possess a deep know-how of the jobs included in the mod-
el. This team has a responsibility for overseeing the whole initiative
Identification of perfor- A proficiency scale is prepared in order to define superior, aver-
mance metrics and valida- age and marginal performance for the jobs included in the model
tion sample
Development of a tentati- The CST develops a preliminary list of competencies which serve
ve competencies list as a basis for building the model. The creation of such a list can
be successful, through reviewing competency models that have
already been developed by other organizations and considering
the organization’s own business strategies
Definition of competencies In this step, information is collected on what competencies are
and behavioral indicators needed to perform the jobs in the model by conducting inter-
views, focus groups, and surveys with employees and managers
Development of an initial The CST develops an initial competency model based on the infor-
competency model mation collected in the previous step by performing quantitative
analysis of the survey results and content analysis of the themes
contained in the interview and focus group results
Cross-check of initial mo- It is important to check that the initial model is accurate
del by conducting additional focus groups, interviews, or surveys
with groups of managers and employees who did not participate
in the defining of the initial model
Model refinement The same types of analysis used in developing the initial compe-
tency model are used by the CST to refine the model
Validation of the model Validation efforts begin with converting the competencies into
a questionnaire that can be used for rating individual effective-
ness. The individuals identified earlier as superior, effective,
and marginal performers are rated on this questionnaire by mul-
tiple individuals if possible, such as managers, peers, and direct
reports. The ratings on the competency questionnaire are cor-
related to the performance ratings to determine if each compe-
tency relates to job performance
Finalization of the model The last step involves eliminating any competencies that do not
correlate with the performance measures to provide a validated
model that is linked to effective performance
Source: Draganidis, F., Mentzas, G., (2006), Competency based management: a review of systems
and approaches. (in:) “Information Management & Computer Security”, Vol. 14, No. 1. p. 58.
It is worth noting that this concept refers to two types of manage-

ment mentioned in part 1.2. of this book, that is process-based management
and project-based management. Hence it may be concluded that the compe-
tencies are structured around processual and projectual needs of a company
and refer to its business performance and goals. This also explains why com-
petency management is perceived as a process (see more: Oleksyn, 2006).
F. Draganidisand and G. Mentzas, after a literature review and analysis
of 22 different organizations, came to a conclusion that in most cases it is possible
to identify 9 steps in the development of a competency model as shown in Table 6.
The literature review and research conducted in different companies
inclined F. Draganidis and G. Mentzas to propose their own definitions of es-
sential terms and processes associated with competencies. With comparison
to the previously described approach they seem to take a broader perspec-
tive and, while presenting their concept, they discuss the essentials within
the range of both competency management and competency based man-
agement. And the terms and processes which are of the highest importance
in their concept cover (Draganidis, Mentzas, 2006:55):
Competency identification. The process of discovering what compe-
tencies are necessary for exemplary or fully-successful performance.
Competency model. A narrative description of the competencies
for a targeted job category, occupational group, division, department
or other unit of analysis.
Competency assessment. The process of comparing an individual’s
competencies to those of a competency model.
Competency-based management. Application of a set of competen-
cies to managing human resources so that performance contributes
efficiently and effectively to organizational results.
Competency standard. Identifies the essential skills and knowledge work-
ers must have, and defines the performance levels they must achieve,
to demonstrate competency in a specific work segment or function.
Competency profile. Document that describes the set of competencies
particular to a position/job/occupational group/functional community.
On the contrary, it would be valuable to present a completely differ-
ent approach to competency management. B. C. Yang et al propose a model
formulated from related theories in strategy management and competency
in the HRM field. The model focuses on value-activity and process analysis.
The goal of the model is to develop a systematic tool that can help a compa-
ny quickly and precisely identify its core competency. They name it the pro-
cess oriented core competency identifying (POCCI) model. The rationale
of structuring the model is presented in Figure 5.
Competency Management: theory, research & business practice
Figure 5. The rationale of structuring the POCCI model 55
Figure 5. The rationale of structuring the POCCI model
Source: Yang, B.C., Wu, B.E., Shu, P.G., Yang, M.H., (2006), On establishing the core competency
identifying model. A value-activity and process oriented approach, (in:) “Industrial Manage-
ment & Data Systems”, Vol. 106 Iss 1, p. 65.
B. C. Yang et al explain that the POCCI model is to be understood

via the top-down as well as the bottom-up stream of thinking. Top-down
approach follows the traditional strategy development process that starts
from an analysis of external environmental factors. The firm’s strategic fo-
cus and core competency are then determined so as to meet the challenges
from external environment. This thread of thinking is similar to the envi-
ronment-strategy-structure (ESS) rationale. In contrast, the bottom-up ap-
proach indicates that the strategic processes were initiated by an examina-
tion of a firm’s existing competencies that serve as comparative advantages
to win the competitive edge. In other words, the process starts from the mi-
cro-perspective and uses the internal resource to explore and position it-
self for the winning status. This thread of thinking is more like the resource-
based viewpoint (RBV). The POCCI model contains four perspectives (Yang et
al, 2006:68):
external-in (ESS) rationale,
internal-out (RBV) rationale,
the bottom-up (core competency oriented) viewpoint,
the top-down (strategic thinking oriented) viewpoint.
B. C. Yang et al believe that from the four perspectives, the model
can truly link the competency in individual level, as well as organizational
level and bridge the company’s strategy and human resource management
(Yang et al, 2006:68). The particular elements of the model being described
are presented in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Elements of POCCI model
Figure 6. Elements of POCCI model
Source: Yang, B.C., Wu, B.E., Shu, P.G., Yang, M.H., (2006), On establishing the core competency
identifying model. A value-activity and process oriented approach, (in:) “Industrial Manage-
ment & Data Systems”, Vol. 106 Iss 1, p. 66.
The cited authors also explain that each working procedure in the POC-
CI model is clearly defined as a standard procedure for implementation. In so
doing, the application value and the effectiveness of this model are therefore
advanced. The working procedure serves as the bridge to practice theories.
The procedures involved in this model include (Yang et al, 2006:67):
identifying the focal value that customers want,
developing the value activity chain to satisfy customers’ focus,
recognizing and collecting activities with high value and strategic im-
plications,
checking the resources gap to meet the requirement from customers,
investigating the required operation processes to attain those recog-
nized value activities,
decomposing those processes into step-by-step procedures,
deciding the required competencies to complete the procedures,
conducting the data analysis by a designed computing system,
deciding the weighting scheme,
setting the priority by the ranked competency summing from the fre-
quency in all steps within the developed processes,
proposing the core competency for each business unit, department,
function, value activity, and process,
concluding the core competency for the company,
elaborating and standardizing the core competency items.
All the aforementioned procedures are arranged accordingly to echo
the related theories and to interact with each element for functioning
of the POCCI model. Yang et al believe that with the standardized procedures,
the POCCI model is more objective and valid in terms of identifying core compe-
tency than the existing approaches indicated in literature (Yang et al, 2006:67).
The theoretical concepts presented in this part of the literature review
lead to a general conclusion that the competency management process can be
perceived from a narrower or broader perspective depending whether the au-
thors focus on tying competencies directly with strategic company goals, busi-
ness strategies and associated HRM strategies or whether they focus on com-
pany functioning performance, business processes, project requirements, job
demands, tasks characteristics etc. All this determines the number of particu-
lar steps followed in competency management, the content of these stages,
their internal and external connections, as well as expected results.
3.2. Selected examples from business practice
The goal of this part of the literature review is to present some selected ex-
amples of the competency management process developed in business prac-
tice. Five such examples were chosen. The first one comes from 3M compa-
ny. Its main business is involved in the manufacture and sales of a wide array
of products. The second one makes American Medical Systems, Inc., a mid-
sized health-care and medical device company. The third one is a Chilean
construction company which specializes primarily in construction markets,
like: buildings, water and sewage, roads and highway and other civil infra-
structure. The fourth one derives from a joint project of two organizations,
that is United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association (UKPIA) and Cogent.
UKPIA is a trade association representing the main oil refining and marketing
companies in the UK, while Cogent is a UK’s industry skills body for chemi-
cals, pharmaceuticals, nuclear, oil and gas, petroleum and polymer business-
es. The last example, the fifth one, is taken from Automobile Club d’Italia. It
is an Italian, public nonprofit organization whose main institutional aims are
to provide services to motorists and to safeguard their interests.
The 3M Company
The 3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and Manufactur-
ing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation based
in St. Paul, Minnesota. It is roughly a 100-year-old company, with approxi-
mately 40 business divisions, as well as many departments and subsidiaries,
involved in the manufacture and sales of an unusually wide array of products.

In addition to the core businesses, which manufacture tapes and abrasives,
the company also produces and sells products in markets as diverse as print-
ing, health care, automotive, construction and home improvement, office
supplies, transportation, and specialty materials. This intensely independent
attitude and environmental challenges that the company identified as necessi-
tating strengthened leadership have resulted in the desire of 3M management
to create a customized model of leadership competency rather than accept-
ing an existing model. The main idea was to create a 3M template of global
leadership competencies for use in assessment, development, and succession.
The principal driver at 3M for creation of this leadership model was a need
of the organization to survive and grow (Alldredge, Nilan, 2000:133-134).
The goals of executive-level global competency model at 3M com-
pany were [Alldredge, Nilan, 2000:137]:
an accurate assessment of leadership capability,
more effective development of talent within the organization,
selection and placement of leaders into key positions.
At 3M company the verification and development of a competency
model went in the following stages [Alldredge, Nilan, 2000: 135–144]:
organization of a global conference during which two leaders
of the project were identified,
a review of literature that was oriented toward leadership, compe-
tency and development,
comparison of earlier work at 3M on general competencies to exist-
ing corporate models and to leadership competency,
the project leaders identified and focused on three critical success factors:
ͳ ͳ involvement of key executives and senior managers actively
in the process,
ͳ ͳ inclusion of three elements in the model: competency labels,
competency definitions and behavioral anchors for each com-
petency,
ͳ ͳ convention an international team of internal HR practition-
ers in the area of leadership development and assessment
from around the globe,
establishing a group of executive clients as working partners,
clarification and simplification of the existing set of competency la-
bels and definitions,
individual meetings with top executives to review the material and dis-
cuss leadership philosophy, business complexity, and verbiage,
debating with executives about the importance of wording, phrasing
and interpretation to clarify their beliefs about leadership, as well as
to determine current expectations and future needs of leaders at 3M,
modifications within competency labels and descriptions,
the global HR team contributed by clustering the 12 competencies
into a framework that illustrated how these competencies develop
during an executive’s career,
merging the competencies with an existing list of job experiences
critical for successful general management at 3M’,
working with position profile and candidate analysis form, the hiring
executive creates a profile of the priority competencies and work ex-
perience needed for a specific, open position,
the global HR team identified a framework for organizing the 12com-
petencies into three main categories (see more details in Table 7):
ͳ ͳ fundamental,
ͳ ͳ essential,
ͳ ͳ visionary,
defining behavioral definitions of competencies by anchoring them
within the 3M experiences and describing what a high degree of each
competence looks like,
a global team conducts critical incident interviews with 70 executives
across 3M’s global operations to extract behaviors associated with each
of the leadership competencies, to identify general items that can be
observed on the job and used to assess and develop leadership compe-
tence, and to generalize the behavior across markets and regions,
identification of three to five behaviors for each competency area
following the assumption that observation of these behaviors should
enable an observer to judge the degree of competence,
development of assessment tool to evaluate the leadership compe-
tence in which a three-degree scale was applied: not a strength, suf-
ficient, a strength,
the executives discussed the leadership competence of direct reports,
summarizing 70 profiles of the executives,
leading a consensus review of the 70 executives at a monthly meeting,
application becomes an annual process,
the process is validated and closely monitored against business re-
sults and objectives performance assessment.
The leadership competencies at 3M making the final results of activi-
ties taken in the process of verification and development of a competency
model are presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Leadership competencies at 3M

Main ca-
Particular competencies
tegories
Ethics and integrity
Exhibits uncompromising integrity and commitment to 3M’s corporate values, hu-
man resource principles, and business conduct policies. Builds trust and instills self-
-confidence through mutually respectful, ongoing communication.
Fundamental
Intellectual capacity
Assimilates and synthesizes information rapidly, recognizes the complexity in issu-
es, challenges assumptions, and faces up to reality. Capable of handling multiple,
complex, and paradoxical situations. Communicates clearly, concisely, and with
appropriate simplicity.
Maturity and judgment
Demonstrates resiliency and sound judgment in dealing with business and corporate
challenges. Recognizes when a decision must be made and acts in a considered and ti-
mely manner. Deals effectively with ambiguity and learns from success and failure.
Customer orientation
Works constantly to provide superior value to the 3M customer, making each inte-
raction a positive one.
Developing people
Selects and retains an excellent workforce within an environment that values di-
versity and respects individuality. Promotes continuous learning and the deve-
lopment of self and others to achieve a maximum potential. Gives and seeks open
Essential
and authentic feedback.

Inspiring others
Positively affects the behavior of others, motivating them to achieve personal sa-
tisfaction and high performance through a sense of purpose and spirit of coopera-
tion. Leads by example.
Business health and results
Identifies and successfully generates product, market, and geographic growth oppor-
tunities, while consistently delivering positive short-term business results. Continually
searches for ways to add value and position the organization for future success.
Global perspective
Operates from an awareness of 3M’s global markets, capabilities, and resources.
Exerts global leadership and works respectfully in multicultural environments
to 3M’s advantage.
Vision and strategy
Creates and communicates a customer-focused vision, corporately aligned and en-
gaging all employees in pursuit of a common goal.
Nurturing innovation
Visionary
Creates and sustains an environment that supports experimentation, rewards

risk taking, reinforces curiosity, and challenges the status quo through freedom
and openness without judgment. Influences the future to 3M’s advantage.
Building alliances
Builds and leverages mutually beneficial relationships and networks, both internal
and external, which generate multiple opportunities for 3M.
Organizational agility
Knows, respects, and leverages 3M culture and assets. Leads integrated change
within a business unit to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Utilizes teams
intentionally and appropriately.
Source: Alldredge, M. E., Nilan, K. J., (2000), 3M’s leadership competency model: an internally
developed solution, (in:) “Human Resources Management”, Vo. 39. No 2, p. 139.
American Medical Systems, Inc (AMS)
American Medical Systems (AMS) is a mid-sized health-care and medical
device company. It is one of the world’s premier urology companies, de-
veloping, manufacturing, and marketing advanced medical technologies.
The company’s core products set the standard for quality implantable de-
vices and are regarded as effective therapy for patients suffering from erec-
tile dysfunction, urinary and fecal incontinence, and urinary obstruction.
With a focus on business need, competitive challenges, and growing talent
selection and development needs, AMS chose a competency-based strategy
for their human capital performance improvement (Gangani et al, 2006:132).
Before implementing the competency-based initiative, AMS per-
formed a thorough needs analysis to identify a strategy to address critical
business imperatives, competitive forces, and growing talent acquisition
and development challenges. Business leaders and HR professionals brain-
stormed the pressing need of choosing a competency-based strategy for its
HR performance improvement, with the focus on addressing critical business
challenges. Before implementing the competency-based strategy, AMS built
the conceptual model of competencies to navigate its way to the following
HRM performance improvement goals (Gangani et al, 2006:132–133):
competency-based leadership development process,
behavior-based interview practice,
strategic succession management,
career path and career development system,
performance improvement and management.
The competency models were developed by utilizing the Develop-
ment Dimension International (DDIR) software, Identifying Criteria for Suc-
cess (ICSR), for various U.S. and international positions. The competency
model is presented in Figure 7 and its development covered the following
stages (Gangani et al, 2006:134–137):
performing a thorough needs analysis to identify a strategy to ad-
dress critical business imperatives, competitive forces, and growing
talent acquisition and development challenges,
business leaders and HR professionals brainstorm the pressing need
of choosing a competency-based strategy for its HR performance im-
provement, with the focus on addressing critical business challenges,
identifying the purpose of the competency-based application,
building the conceptual model of competencies to navigate its way
to the selected HR performance improvement goals,
identification of work content experts (WCEs) - the individuals who
had a strong impact (direct or indirect) on a particular job; for vari-
ous positions, the WCEs were the incumbents (who were effective
in their job, not necessarily superior performers); supervisors; cross-
functional team members; and visionaries and thought leaders,
collecting the data through job analysis interviews, focus groups,
and current job descriptions of the incumbents,
insuring the validity and reliability of the data constructing a ques-
tionnaire survey as a result of critical incident interviews that includ-
ed job incumbents, cross-functional teams, supervisors, and internal
thought-leaders and visionaries,
using DDI software to prepare a detailed analysis questionnaire (DAQ),
distributing the DAQ to a random sample of 20% of the incumbents
for a sample size of 430,
to insure content validity, both importance and frequency of each
job task and behavior were confirmed by the DAQ,
to verify the results gathered through the DAQ and to identify
the importance rankings of competencies, a dimension (competen-
cy) confirmation questionnaire (DCQ) was distributed to supervisors
and visionaries (who were the senior business leaders, including vice-
presidents of various departments),
the final competency model was a reflection of research data on
a particular role gathered from current job descriptions, critical inci-
dent meetings, focus groups, and survey responses,
statistical procedures were used to determine final dimension mod-
els for various jobs:
ͳ ͳ the mean was used to determine the typical rating for a dimen-
sion or activity, e.g. in the Dimension Analysis module, work
content experts rated the importance of individual dimensions,
ͳ ͳ a mean score was computed for importance of each individual
dimension,
ͳ ͳ computing the mean score for each individual dimension in a dimen-
sion analysis answers the question, “On average, how important is
this particular dimension to the job (which is being analyzed)?”,
ͳ ͳ standard deviation calculations were used in the Dimension
Confirmation phase of dimension analysis- they showed how
ratings given by different raters for the same dimension were
similar to each other.
ͳ ͳ work content experts were also asked to provide ranking data
in the Dimension Confirmation phase of a dimension analysis
to help determine whether a particular dimension should be
included in the final list of dimensions.
ͳͳ before any mathematical calculations were performed on
the ranking data, they were converted to standard scores that
have quasi-equal adjacent points on a scale,
ͳ ͳ converting ranking data to standard scores not only placed
the rankings on a linear scale, but also made comparisons
of rankings between two different jobs reliable,
Before finalizing the dimension model (competency model) for a par-
ticular position, the comprehensiveness ratings were also determined by having
the WCEs indicate the percent of job covered by the activities in the analysis (DAQ
and DCQ). If the WCEs selected a high comprehensiveness rating that meant that
they believed that a person who performs acceptably in the dimensions and/or ac-
tivities will be successful in the job that is being analyzed. If the WCEs selected a low
comprehensiveness rating, that meant that they believed a number of dimensions
and/or activities important to job performance had not been included in the analy-
sis or that there may be irrelevant dimensions and/or activities in the analysis.
Figure 7 summarizes the connections of competencies in various
human resources development (HRD) functions. As illustrated in the fig-
ure, the competency model at AMS is dynamic and interlinked. Referring
to the theoretical assumptions adopted in this book it looks as what is called
at American Medical Systems, Inc. a competency model is close to what we
Figure 7.mean by competency
Competency model management.
at American Medical Systems, Inc.
Figure 7. Competency model at American Medical Systems, Inc.
Source: Gangani, N., McLean, G. N., Braden, R. A., (2006), A competency-based human resourc-
es development strategy, (in:) “Performance Improvement Quarterly”, Vol. 19. No 1, p. 135.
A Chilean construction company

Founded in 1981, the company specializes primarily in the following con-
struction markets: buildings, water and sewage, roads and highway and oth-
er civil infrastructure. It is also involved in the real estate market, where it
develops its own projects. Over the last several years the firm has demon-
strated a strong desire to become one of the leading and most competitive
construction companies in Chile, and to this end has adopted a well-defined
strategic vision. To achieve its objectives, the firm has implemented several
innovations and advances to improve its performance in different areas (for
example: successfully completed its ISO 9001 certification, implemented in-
novative information technologies for performance control at construction
sites). Having employed more than 1,500 employees working on different con-
struction projects, it has also announced a rigorous human resources policy
aimed at creating a highly competent work force who demonstrate the most
appropriate work attitudes and behavior for each job or task. Though a rela-
tively young company, it already possesses a strong organizational culture
that promotes participation of all employees within the organization. The ap-
plication of the competency framework reported on here is in fact the first
such effort in the Chilean construction industry (Serpell, Ferrad, 2007:593).
The example provided here makes a part of an original model based
on the labor competency management framework that was proposed
for training, developing and certifying construction supervisors in Chile
and other developing countries. The example focuses on just one of the vari-
ous employment positions typically found in a construction enterprise, which
is the construction site supervisor function. Included in this job category are
general foremen and foremen. In this framework the role of the site supervi-
sor is interpreted as a “critical labor function” due to its impact on site pro-
ductivity, quality and general site performance and its importance for achiev-
ing the objectives of a construction project (Serpell, Ferrad, 2007:595). In this
section we present the results of a specific application of the competency-
based labor management framework to the site supervisor’s job at a Chilean
construction company.
As part of the application of the competency-based management
framework, an implementation model in a construction company was de-
veloped and is shown here in Figure 8. In what follows, the model’s prin-
cipal stages are explained with emphasis on the site supervisor function.
Each stage is represented by a rectangle corresponding to an activity to be
performed. The model presented here focuses on two major things, that is
the business processes and function that people have to perform in their or-
ganization (Serpell, Ferrad, 2007:595).
Figure8.8.Competency-based
Figure Competency-based labor
labor management
management implementation
implementation model model in a con-
in a construction
struction company
company
(ovals represent inputs or results and rectangles represents activities)

Source: Serpell, A., Ferrad, X., (2007), A competency-based model for constriction supervisor
in developing countries, (in:) “Personnel Review”, Vol. 36, No. 4, p. 595.
As said previously, this company focused on labor functions and then,

identifying these functions, they build competency profiles. Table 8 provides
an example of the functions (which are also called critical activities) per-
formed by a site supervisor. The purpose of the identification of critical ac-
tivities of the site supervisor was to see the general purpose of this position.
And the general purpose was to supervise and coordinate the execution
of the critical activities in the operational work in accordance with the pro-
ject plan (Serpell, Ferrad, 2007:596).
Table 8. Critical activities of the site supervisor in a construction company

General goals Precise goals
To plan the site and operational ▪▪ To plan and implement operational actions of work
processes in accordance with ta- teams in accordance with project cost, time, quality and sa-
ctical plan of construction proje- fety indicators.
ct and company policies ▪▪ To distribute and control resources required by basic site
operations in accordance with process plan and quality
standards.
▪▪ To coordinate execution of site activities at the different
work faces based on operational plan.
To lead internal and external ▪▪ To assign functions and their responsibilities among
work teams carrying out proje- the different construction process stages in accordance
ct construction in accordance with project’s human resources plan.
with personnel management po- ▪▪ To involve internal and external construction workers
licies of organization in quality system, safety and environmental practices
in accordance with corporate policies.
▪▪ To train and evaluate competencies of construction wor-
kers involved in basic construction processes in accordance
with corporate and project policies.
To supervise the progress of con- ▪▪ To supervise the fulfillment of construction objectives
struction activities and their while ensuring compliance with legal safety and environ-
execution, ensuring compliance mental regulations and company policies.
with the organization’s quality ▪▪ To measure progress of construction activities in accor-
system, safety and environmen- dance with project’s tactical and operational schedule.
tal standards ▪▪ To report the state of progress of operational activities based
on performance indicators and operational plan measures.
The information and descriptions generated up to this point in the com-

pany under study were enough to establish the knowledge, attitudes and be-
havioral attributes a site supervisor should possess in order to achieve a pro-
ficient performance level. They assume that a competency profile should not
be an abstract list of items obtained from a dictionary of competencies, but
rather must be founded on a complete prior analysis that would enable a clear
delineation of site supervisors’ performance criteria, training, performance
levels and psycho-social behavioral characteristics. In this perspective a cor-
rectly drawn-up profile was to contain the elements necessary for an effective
subsequent evaluation of the competencies involved. Table 9 shows the com-
petency profile of the site supervisor under analysis that was obtained using
the aforementioned procedure. The main output of this stage was the list
of competencies for the site supervisor function. In this way the table provides
an example of a competency profile that was created in correlation with these
functions (Serpell, Ferrad, 2007:596–597).
Table 9. Competency profile of a site supervisor in a construction company
General
Detail characteristics
description
▪▪ understands the concepts and elements of the tactical and operational plan-
ning of a construction project,
Education ▪▪ distinguishes and evaluates construction materials and equipment frequen-
and training tly used in construction projects,
▪▪ recognizes different construction techniques,
▪▪ distinguishes and applies quality, safety and environmental procedures
▪▪ leads operational working teams and involves them in operational planning,
Abilities ▪▪ involves people in safety, quality and environmental practices,
and perfor- ▪▪ plans construction projects at the operational level,
mance ▪▪ applies management tools to evaluate the progress of construction projects
and evaluates quality
▪▪ oriented to the mission and vision and strategic goals of the project,
▪▪ committed to the organizational values of the company,
Attitudes
▪▪ committed to the safety of personnel and the security of material resources,
▪▪ flexible and able to adapt in the face of aggressive environments and situations
A joint project of UKPIA & Cogent in petroleum industry

In promoting and leading on key sector process safety initiatives, United
Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association (UKPIA) with Cogent has devel-
oped, through its members, guidelines on competence management sys-
tems for downstream and petroleum sites. UKPIA is the trade associa-
tion representing the main oil refining and marketing companies in the UK
and Cogent is the UK’s industry skills body for chemicals, pharmaceuticals,
nuclear, oil and gas, petroleum and polymer businesses, which also has a key
role in meeting the skills needs of emerging technologies (Guidelines for…,
2011:48).
In their joint project the intention was not to specify how competency
management systems should be developed, nor replace any existing corporate
policies on competence management. The intent was to provide a reference
for those organizations developing or wishing to review competency manage-
ment systems. There project was entitled Guidelines for Competency Manage-
ment Systems for Downstream and Petroleum Sites and was the subject of ex-
tensive consultation and designed with input from industry experts who have
many years of experience working in the sector (Guidelines for…, 2011:7).
In the project they assume that competence assurance is realized
through a competence management process that aligns to six key principles
(Guidelines for…, 2011:8):
demonstrating leadership and commitment,
identifying business critical activities pertaining to the control of ma-

jor, accident hazards,
setting procedures and standards,
compliance against your standards,
taking actions to improve competence,
commitment to continuous improvement.
UKPIA and Cogent also explain that the purpose of a competency
management system is to control, in a logical and integrated manner, a cy-
cle of activities that will assure competent performance. The aim is to en-
sure that individuals are clear about the performance expected of them, that
they have received appropriate training, development assessment and re-
assessment; and that they maintain or improve their competency over time.
Whilst these guidelines emphasize the importance of adopting a risk based
approach to ensure that the competency management system focuses on
safety critical tasks, they can also be applied to the entire workforce and all
roles (Guidelines for…, 2011:8).
UKPIA and Cogent, in their approach to development of competen-
cy management system, broke down the guidelines into 6 steps presented
in Figure 9. It is worth remembering that these guidelines are for competen-
cy management systems for downstream and petroleum sites.
In their guidelines UKPIA and Cogent also exemplify some of assess-
ment methods that can be matched to competency type in petroleum indus-
try. These matches and their brief descriptions are given in Table 10.
The guidelines worked out by UKPIA and Cogent go further then
only to the development of competency management system as presented
previously in Figure 9. They also frame the whole competency management
process from a systems approach perspective. This conceptual approach
for practical application in presented in Figure 10.
Figure 9. Steps in developing competency management system in petroleum industry

Figure 9. Steps in developing competency management system in petroleum industry
Source: Guidelines for Competency Management Systems for Downstream and Petroleum Sites,
(2011), Petroleum Industry Association Ltd, published by Cogent, p. 10.
Table 10. Example of assessment methods matched to competency type

Type of com-
Type of assessment methods Examples
petency
▪▪ ▪▪ NVQ based assessment,
Physical and sen-
practical “show me” tests,

(visual, auditory,
sory motor skills
touch, etc.).
▪▪ simulated tasks / mock ups, ▪▪ driving skill road tests,
▪▪ peer review of quality of work, ▪▪ workshop based test of welding ability on
▪▪ evidence of prior experience a mocked up item of equipment
▪▪ simulated exercises, ▪▪ classroom verbal test of candidate’s rec-

a prescribed procedure
▪▪ pen and paper tests, ollection of a procedure of work,

Ability to carry out
▪▪ talk-throughs, ▪▪ talking through the correct procedure

▪▪ shadowed work, of isolating a hydrocarbon pump using
of work
▪▪ peer assessed decision-making, a Piping and Instrumentation Diagram,

▪▪ post task debriefing – verbal ▪▪ observation of a fitter following the pro-
talk through of decisions cedure for installing a seal on a hydrocar-
bon pump, checking its operability and ad-
vising operations that it is safe to restart
▪▪ simulated exercises, ▪▪ performance of a sample of tasks on
▪▪ pen and paper tests, a control room simulator,
Cognitive skills
▪▪ talk-through, ▪▪ talking through the interpretation of a set

▪▪ peer assessed decision-making, of alarms
▪▪ post task debriefing – verbal
talk through of decisions,
▪▪ peer observation and feedback,
▪▪ psychometric tests,
▪▪ shadowed work
▪▪ talk-through, ▪▪ verbal or written examination of individu-
plant and pro-
Interpersonal of equipment,
Knowledge
▪▪ verbal knowledge tests al’s knowledge of safety function, of various

cesses
by experts, items of equipment, including formal quali-

▪▪ post task debriefing – verbal fication / tests,
talk through of decisions ▪▪ explanation of how a chemical reaction may
go exothermic due to process deviations
▪▪ peer observation and feedback, ▪▪ observation of behavior using behavioral
▪▪ group exercises, markers in real or simulated activities,
skills
▪▪ self-assessment questionnaires ▪▪ self-completion of psychometric ques-

and psychometric tests, tionnaires
▪▪ shadowed work
▪▪ peer observation in real or si- ▪▪ observation of behavior using behavioral
nagement
Team ma-
mulated tasks, markers in real or simulated activities,

skills
▪▪ self-assessment questionnaires ▪▪ self-completion of psychometric ques-

and psychometric tests tionnaires
▪▪ peer observation in real or si- ▪▪ observation of behavior using behavioral
mulated tasks, markers in real or simulated activities,
Safety attitudes
and behavior
▪▪ verbal tests ▪▪ statement about the appropriate way

of responding to conflicting operational /
safety requirements,
▪▪ verbal examination of supervisors under-
standing of how their behavior influences
safety climate
Figure 10. The competency
Competency management
Management: theory, process
research & business in petroleum industry 71
practice
Figure 10. The competency management process in petroleum industry
Automobile Club d’Italia (ACI)
Automobile Club d’Italia (ACI) is an Italian, public nonprofit organization
whose main institutional aims are to provide services to motorists and to
safeguard their interests. It is the largest and most important Italian organi-
zation for motorist assistance, with more than 2,200 employees and 100 of-
fices located in each major Italian town throughout the national territory.
Among ACI services are road assistance, road educational programs, and in-
formation and assistance to Italian and foreign motorists through media
such as magazines, radio, the World Wide Web, and television. A relevant
part of ACI activities concerns the management of the Italian Public Register
of Motor Vehicles (PRA). The PRA offices are in charge of providing all admin-
istrative and bureaucratic services related to motor vehicles (tax payment,
changes of property, demolition, etc.) (Capaldo et al, 2006:432).
In order to cope with various changes appearing in external and inter-

nal environment (precisely determined by the organization), the HR director
decided to develop a new and more effective HRM system, based on an up-
dated and more detailed picture of the jobs performed by several professional
roles in ACI’s offices. The aim of the new HRM system was to support the stra-
tegic changes through the development and redesign of these roles toward
quality, customer satisfaction, and market competitiveness. Consequently,
from the very beginning, the new management system was targeted to meet
organizational development needs. It was thus decided to develop a compe-
tencies management system in order to (Capaldo et al, 2006:432):
develop a map of the competencies currently held by the organiza-
tion and by a number of areas characterized by high levels of cus-
tomer interaction,
develop a competency management system of nonexecutive staff
that would facilitate the identification of the training needs of a large
share of the company’s employees through an analysis of their strong
points and weaknesses,
develop managerial tools and procedures that would constantly
and dynamically support HR management in identifying competen-
cies and evaluating training needs,
achieve better coordination between the HR management depart-
ment and the peripheral offices scattered all over Italy.
From the outset it was decided that the competency management sys-
tem is to be based on the situationalist approach. To explain how the system
was developed in Automobile Club d’Italia it is necessary to refer to the defini-
tion assumed for a competency. Graphically it is presented in Figure 11 and us-
ing a descriptive form of its presentation it is to say that a competency was
defined as an individual ability or characteristic that is activated by a worker
together with personal, organizational, or environmental resources to cope
successfully with specific work situations (Capaldo et al, 2006:432).
In Automobile Club d’Italia individual abilities and characteristics
were understood as personal attributes such as skills, know-how, and traits.
Resources were means for action such as tools, facilities, relationships
with other people, archives, and knowledge repositories that are made
available by the individual, the organization, or the external environment as
a whole. Job situations were perceived by individuals as prototypical spac-
es of action characterized by a certain combination of expected behaviors
and results. Automobile Club d’Italia also assumed that competencies come
on the scene in two ways (Capaldo et al, 2006:432):
when the performance produced by an expected behavior is consid-
ered by an internal or external customer to be above average (ex-
pected competency),
when the performance is obtained in the course of action through un-
expected or surprising behavior (emerging competency). An emerging
competency is one that an organization does not realize it possesses
but that employees have developed through individual learning de-
signed to help them face new or unexpected work situations.
Figure 11. The definition of competency in situationalist approach applied in Automobile
Club d’ItaliaFigure 11. The definition of competency in situationalist approach applied in Auto-
mobile Club d’Italia
Source: Capaldo, G., Iandoli, L., Zollo, G., (2006), A situationalist perspective to competency
management, (in:) “Human Resources Management”, Vol. 45, No. 3, p. 432.
For Automobile Club d’Italia from these considerations it follows that (Ca-
paldo et al, 2006:432–433):
1. Superior performance can be explained by either an internal or exter-
nal customer as the result of either expected or emerging successful
behaviors within either usual or unusual job situations.
2. Because performers, commitments, customers, activities, resources,
and constraints are all situated, a detailed account of a superior perfor-
mance can be provided only by the individuals involved in the situations.
3. Such an explanatory account must be convincing to the whole set
of people that, as customers, have expectations for the performer.
Before developing the competency management system, the research

team (including the university scientists cooperating with company, four rep-
resentatives of the HR department, and three organizational unit managers)
first met with the HR Director to identify expectations, company objectives,
aims, and the scope of the new competencies management system. The work
was articulated in four main phases (Capaldo et al, 2006:432–433):
1. Competencies mapping and elicitation – through meetings with HR
department experts and top management and through interviews
with employees working in different offices.
2. Development of the competency evaluation – procedure, through
the design of the assessment tool.
3. Implementation of an information system – for competency man-
agement containing the competency map, the assessment session
results, and the ability to perform statistical analysis about compe-
tency levels and training needs.
4. Redesign of some relevant HR management processes – includ-
ing the development of competency-based recruitment, training,
and career-path processes.
Table 11 provides an idea of the variety of actors involved and the
main steps through which the intervention developed. It is worth explaining
that the approach used in the field study required the identification of sali-
ent job situations through which an individual frames his/her work. A work
situation can be described through a number of fundamental dimensions, all
pertaining to the way the employee interprets the task to perform, such as
the commitment he/she feels to have undertaken, the behaviors and the ac-
tivities he/she makes, the organizational members representing the network
of customers, and the individual abilities and available resources that can be
activated to satisfy customers’ expectations. As to the information sources,
the aim of the proposed approach was to map competencies as a result
of a careful analysis of how individuals experience their daily work in real
situations, interpret the outcomes of their actions, and build the mean-
ing of the competencies through their interaction with the other members
of the organization (Capaldo et al, 2006:435).
Data acquired through the interviews were coded through stand-
ard forms to summarize the most relevant information, such as descriptions
of job situations, relevance of each situation to the overall job as perceived
by the interviewees (expressed as a percent weight), short descriptions of in-
dividual characteristics, and resources activated within each situation (Ca-
paldo et al, 2006:438), as shown in Table 12.
Table
Table11.
11.The main
The mainphases and and
phases actors involved
actors in a development
involved of competency
in a development manage-
of competency
ment system in Automobile
management Club d’ItaliaClub d’Italia
system in Automobile
Figure 12. The coding form applied in Automobile Club d’Italia
Table 12. The coding form applied in Automobile Club d’Italia
Consequently, it was easy to build shared definitions of competencies

by integrating those different perspectives into inclusive definitions. The out-
put of this stage was the situation/competencies matrix, used to represent
the relationships between job situations, competencies, and resources (Ca-
paldo et al, 2006:438). Table 13 presents the relationship between situations
and competency attributes discussed here.
The matrix contains three important pieces of information (Capaldo
et al, 2006:438):
a list of the situations that are relevant for a given position,
a list of individual characteristics activated within situations,
cross-points between individual characteristics and situations.
Table 13. Relationship between situations and competency attributes applied in Au-
tomobile Club d’Italia
Front-office employee in small and medium-sized offices
Mana-
Situations Inter-
gement Process
raction
of the pro- straem-
(Individual characteristics (skills, with custo-
duction line
traits,knowledge) mers
process
C1 = Legal rules
Knowledge of the regulations
X X X and organization
and of the organization
knowledge
C2 = Technical kno-
Technical knowledge X
wledge
C3 = Information
Ability to search for information X X
search
C4 = Knowledge
Ability to transfer knowledge X X
transfer
Ability to monitor activities C5 = Process control
X X
and processes
C6 = Understanding
Ability to listen to others X
others
Self-control X C7 = Self-control
Job situations are described in terms of activities, resources, organi-

zational observers, frequency, and relative weight on the overall work activ-
ity, evaluated in terms of the percentage of total time on average absorbed
by that situation. For example, let us consider the situation regarding man-
agement of the production process (Capaldo et al, 2006:440):
activities: customers’ request processing, including the phases
of acceptance of customer requests through request forms, checks
for technical and juridical correctness of data, request processing, ap-
proval, print, and delivery; support to customers and peers in the in-
terpretations and explanations of applicable regulation and norms,
organizational observers: customers, peers, supervisor,
relative weight for the given organizational position: 40%,
resources: personal experience, advice provided by experienced peers
or supervisors, company information system for document manage-
ment and customer request processing, additional information sourc-
es such as internal archives, instructions, Web sites, and the like.
In Table 13, each competency is represented by the row of the ma-
trix, according to the definition provided earlier in this book (i.e., a compe-
tency is an individual ability or characteristic that is activated by a worker
together with personal, organizational, or environmental resources to cope

successfully with specific work situations). Competencies were assigned
a comprehensive label and described first in terms of general contents, then
analytically with references to the cross-points with situations. Cross-points
between competencies and situations are very important, as they permit
the company to catch the multisituational nature of competencies by high-
lighting the nuances of meaning assumed by a competency when activated
in different work situations (Capaldo et al, 2006:440).
For example, competency C1 (legal rules and organization knowl-
edge) is supported by the knowledge of the norms regulating vehicle admin-
istrative issues, the capability to interpret and apply them in concrete cases,
the knowledge of the company’s organizational structure and procedures,
and general understanding of the work contract and ethical code of conduct.
With reference to the situation/competencies matrix of Table 13, the com-
petency C1 becomes the activation of technical/legal knowledge in the situ-
ation management of the administrative process. However, the same compe-
tency assumes a relational nuance when it is used in the situation interaction
with customers, in which C1 is activated in terms of the employee’s ability
to interpret rules and laws and to explain them to the customer acting as
an advisor (Capaldo et al, 2006:440).
The competencies assessment in Automobile Club d’Italia was
the starting point for the company to build an integrated competency-based
HRM system. A competency assessment tool was designed by considering
usual aspects such as the structure of the evaluation form, the development
of suitable metrics based on verbal evaluations, and the way to determine
aggregated judgments (Capaldo et al, 2006:440).
Summarizing this subchapter it can be concluded that the competency
management systems in business practice are developed from broader con-
texts, like industry, or from narrower one, meaning company’s. And, similarly
to theoretical conceptions presented in the previous part of this book, compe-
tency management systems are applied to improve organizational functioning,
ensuring business goals and strategies realization mostly by tying competency
management with particular subfunctions of human resources management.
3.3. Structuring competencies: methods, techniques and instruments
In this subchapter we focus on methods, techniques and instruments which

are used in competency management development process. This is mainly
to show how theoretical knowledge is used in business practice and that is why
we base this part of book on examples provided by consulting companies.
G. Filipowicz, basing on his long term consulting background, states
that in organizational practice there are four main groups of methods and in-
struments used to evaluate competencies (Filipowicz, 2014:182–221):
observation scales and questionnaires (based on 180-degrees appraisal
and 360-degrees appraisal) – this refers to observable aspect of human
functioning which are described at all levels using behavioral language,
competency tests – they evaluate the competencies in the scope
of knowledge (how we should behave) and attitudes (what is our at-
titude toward required behaviors),
behavioral interview (the basis of a staffing process) – it is a kind
of conversation in which questions associated with descriptions
of concrete competencies are asked; answering the questions an em-
ployee needs to refer to his/her past experience; the assumption is
that when somebody behaved in a particular way in the past then
he/she may behave similarly in the future,
Assessment & Development Center – a set of various methods, tech-
niques, and instruments used to diagnose competencies; they may
include different types of tests, work samples, tasks, interviews etc.
As about the first group, meaning observation scales, the main activi-
ties for constructing are (Filipowicz, 2014:185):
determining which competencies are to be evaluated,
preparing 4–7 characteristic behaviors for each competency,
describing each of the behaviors for each particular acquisition level which
correspond with an adopted measurement scale of competencies,
all this should be juxtaposed in a table (rather no bigger than A4 page
format),
providing short instruction of how to use the scale.
Table 14 provides an example of a completed observation scale
for competency entitled decision making and Table 15 shows an example
of an evaluation result of this competency.
Table 14. An example of completed observation scale for competency entitled decision making
80
Decision making
Level A1 B2 C3 D4 E5
Conclusion taken It happens the de- The decisions are The decisions taken Exhibits talent for making fast
rashly, most decisions cisions are wrong; accurate and based on properly and precio- and proper decisions.
1 X
are wrong. the conclusion may proper conclusions. us instructions given
be improper. to others in this scope.
Decisions taken too It happens the deci- The decisions are ta- The decisions are taken Excellence in taking difficult
long; it happens they sions are taken too ken in proper time. in proper time even decisions in proper time, even
2 X
are unnecessarily late, e.g. because in difficult situations. in crisis situations.
delayed. of indecisiveness.
Don’t anticipate Tries to forecast Determines the conse- Determines and descri- Other people often consult
the results of the de- the results of the de- quences of decisions bes precisely long-term with him/her the results
cisions being made. cisions being taken being taken and finds effects of decisions be- of different decisions. Predicts
3 X
but problems within remedies. ing taken and considers in an excellent and accurate
this scope are visible. them in performance. way the influence of decisions
on situation development.
Avoids making deci- Makes decisions Makes decisions even Perfectly recognizes key Makes accurate decisions even
sions if no compete when information is though no complete information and uses in exceptionally complicated
4 information is avai- incomplete but it ap- information is avai- X them to make accurate situations and basing on limi-
lable. pears to be difficult. lable. decisions. He/she helps ted information.
others in this scope.
Making decisions Sometimes has Making decisions ana- Distinguished by taking Proposes different perspective
he/she analyzes problem with taking lyzes the problematic a broad perspective to consider the problem, cre-
the problem in a nar- up the problem situations from various on a given problem atively looks for alternatives
5 X
row perspective, no in a broad perspecti- perspective and in- and possessing the skills and indicates many alternative
alternative solutions ve and finding alter- dicates alternative of finding alternative solutions.
are proposed. native solutions. solutions. solutions.
Source: Filipowicz, G., (2014), Zarządzanie kompetencjami. Perspektywa firmowa i osobista, Oficyna a Wolters Kluwer business, Warszawa, p. 186-187.
Table 15. An exemplary result of decision making competency evaluation based on
observation scale
Decision making A B C D E
Making use of conclusions based on the analysis of available data
Making decisions in proper time
Forecasting the consequences, the results of decision
Handling with lack of complete data
Taking into consideration various perspectives in decisional process
Source: Filipowicz, G., (2014), Zarządzanie kompetencjami. Perspektywa firmowa i osobista, Ofi-
cyna a Wolters Kluwer business, Warszawa, p. 188.
Within the first group of previously mentioned methods and instru-

ments used to evaluate competencies there are also competency question-
naires. A competency questionnaire is a set of adequately selected statements
characterizing behaviors resulting from the acquisition of a given competency
at different levels. The statements are taken straightly from the observation
scales. Each statement in a questionnaire is constructed in such a way as it refers
to one of the indicators of a given competency. Usually, at least two statements
are formulated for each indicator in order to refer the evaluation to different
levels of development in a given area. The statements provide some broader
explanation of particular indicators. The evaluation is usually made in connec-
tion with Lickert scale (Filipowicz, 2014:191). Table 16 presents an exemplary set
of competency questionnaire statements in the area of customer service and Ta-
ble 17 makes an example of questionnaire construct in this scope.
Table 16. An exemplary set of competency questionnaire statements in the area
of customer service
Indicator Statement 1 Statement 2

Informing the customer Checks whether the customer During a contact informs the custo-
has all the necessary information mer about the course of order
Taking care of customer Fulfills the standards of custo- Irrespectively of situation maintains
service standards mer service standards of customer service
Taking care of product Ensures high product quality Checks whether the quality of pro-
quality ducts is satisfying
Sensitivity to remarks Pays attention to customers’ Taking up actions considers the re-
and suggestions made remarks and suggestions marks made by customers
by customers
Keeping to the contracts Sticks to the deadlines agreed Realizing contracts he/she per-
previously with a customer forms the scope of work previously
agreed with the customer
Table 17. An exemplary competency questionnaire construct in the area of custom-

er service
Strongly disagree
Rather disagree
Strongly agree
Rather agree
Undecided
No Statement
1 Checks whether the customer has all the necessary information 1 2 3 4 5

2 Fulfills the standards of customer service 1 2 3 4 5
3 Ensures high product quality 1 2 3 4 5
4 Pays attention to customers’ remarks and suggestions 1 2 3 4 5
5 Sticks to the deadlines agreed previously with the customer 1 2 3 4 5
During a contact informs the customer about the course of or-
6 1 2 3 4 5
der.
7 Irrespectively of situation maintains standards of customer service 1 2 3 4 5
8 Checks whether the quality of products is satisfying. 1 2 3 4 5
9 Taking up actions considers the remarks made by customers. 1 2 3 4 5
Realizing contracts he/she performs the scope of work previou-
10 1 2 3 4 5
sly agreed with a customer.
cyna a Wolters Kluwer business, Warszawa, p. 192-193.
As said at the beginning of this chapter, competency tests make

the second group of methods and instruments used to evaluate competen-
cies. Competency tests are used to diagnose professional competencies,
and more specifically – knowledge on how one should behave in a given
work situation. With comparison to personality tests it does not base on
self-evaluation but on skills, knowledge and attitudes necessary to perform
properly the tasks (questions) provided in a test (Filipowicz, 2014:194).
Here are both advantages and disadvantages of competency tests. G. Fil-
ipowicz gives the following examples of their advantages (Filipowicz, 2014:194):
They are easy in usage. Usually demand fulfilling a few pages com-
prising tasks or questions. Regardless whether it is a paper or com-
puter test, it usually takes 30–90 minutes to complete it.
The analysis is mostly performed by specialists (or computer pro-
grams). A person whose competencies are appraised is given a final
report with test scores and interpretation.
If the tests are well-elaborated and adjusted to the competency sys-
tem functioning in a company, then the test results may be consid-
ered as credible.
As about the disadvantages of competency tests G. Filipowicz refers
to the following ones (Filipowicz, 2014:194–195):
Their scope of research is usually strictly determined – from a few
to a couple of dozens of rigidly determined competency areas. If our
competency set is diverse, sometimes two, three or four tests need to be
performed. In such a case the research is neither short nor friendly.
They are built on the basis of concrete theoretical models of each
appraised competencies. Unfortunately, there are no universal com-
petency models and that is why there are various kinds of such mod-
els functioning in organizations. Tests in their contractions base on
the most external, visible competency indicators and this may result
in a situation in which a test may diagnose competencies properly
in one organization but in another, in which the competencies are
even defined exactly in the same way – it may be useless.
Although the meaningful advancements in test construction are vis-
ible, the results gained from them are still believed to be of a limited
reliability. Usually the results of competency evaluation are some-
what better than those received from other methods. This means,
firstly, that we can cheat the test to some degree. Secondly, it is
much easier to demonstrate knowledge from the competency area
than present its practical acquisition.
In practice there are two types of competency tests which are used
to diagnose the level of competencies (Filipowicz, 2014:195–196):
ͳ ͳ introspective tests – include the questions that refer to the eval-
uation of how a given person functions; usually they are com-
posed of statements describing behaviors in certain situations
and a diagnosed person needs to determine how he/she han-
dles them (see Table 18);
ͳ ͳ performance tests – they are used to determine how an employee
will behave in certain situations; in most cases these tests provide
short descriptions with a choice of few answers, including the best
and the worst behavior in a given situation (see Table 19).
Table 18. Exemplary questions from an introspective test
1. When an employee asks me for help in performing his/her work I do this.
  
No Difficult to say Yes
2. Before I formulate new tasks and goals I discuss this with my employees.
  
No Difficult to say Yes
Table 19. Exemplary questions from a performance test

1. During a discussion over some difficult problem a work-based conflict arise among a team
of employees.
Bad Good
  You try to talk openly about all doubts and needs.
First of all you try to dodge quarrels and maintain good atmosphere be-
 
tween disputing parties.
You pass over in silence the most problematic and controversial issues – ta-
 
king about them would bring more harm than benefits.
2. Your coworker comes to you with a problem concerning a project that he/she is currently
working on but you are very busy.
Bad Good
You firmly say that he/she needs to go to somebody else – to justify yourself
 
you show a pile of documents on your table.
  You talk about his/her doubts in the most substantial way.
  You ask him/her to come back in a half an hour later.
Behavioral interviews are the third group of methods and instru-

ments used to evaluate competencies and introduced at the beginning
of this chapter. In behavioral interviews questions are formulated in such
a way as to evaluate either the level of competencies of somebody who
has some kind of experience in a given scope (retrospective questions) or
to evaluate the declarative level of competencies of somebody who has no
such experience and now is asked to use own imagination to solve a problem
(perspective questions) (Filipowicz, 2014:207–208). The examples of both
kinds of questions are shown in Table 20.
Because F. Draganidisand and G. Mentzas consider the develop-
ment of competency models within a different context than G. Filipowicz,
who refers straightly to competency-based HRM, in their work they also
focus on competency features included in learning management systems
(LMSs). These features are provided in Table 21 and categorized accord-
ing to the vendors of LMSs and their products. This gives some other view
on what IT systems and tools are used to respond to the business needs
in the scope of competency management and what are the expected fea-
tures to be included in such systems.
One of the possible conclusions is that the strategic competencies
need to receive attention and priority treatment, and what follows, improve-
ments in this cope should be measured. One essential element is ensuring
that people inside the organization understand this thinking and prioritiza-
tion; they appreciate what matters and why (Thompson, 1998:219). The oth-
er conclusion is that some individual and contextual factors determine man-
agement competency needs (Agut, 2003). That is why competency models
and competencies themselves need to be more context-specific. In a com-
pany it would be a good idea to divide the competencies into more and less-
context specific (Ljungquist, 2007:246). Yet another conclusion that can be
made is that competencies should be also oriented to the future and not
only form a mechanism for cloning the past (Woodruffe, 1993:36).
All this means that depending on the company’s needs and require-
ments, connected with both competency-based company management
and competency-based human resources management supported by com-
petency management, individual companies may choose different approach-
es, methods, techniques and instruments to build such competency-based
management systems that respond to their external and internal environ-
mental characteristics and demands in the most effective and efficient way.
Table 20. Examples of retrospective and perspective questions in a behavioral
interview
Type of question
Competency
Indicator
Question Categories of answers
Have you ever experienced a si-

A – only the easiest and routine tasks
Retrospective
tuation in which you had to per-

are delegated to employees; believes
Delegates tasks in a skillful way independently
that when something is performed form a lot of tasks at the same

by him/her than it is done well time? Did you perform all the ta-
Delegation of responsibilities/tasks
from the level of their complexity
sks by yourself? If not, what ru-

B – delegates tasks to employees but
les did you use to assign these
those most complicated prefers to per-
form by him/herself; no efforts aretasks to others and to yourself?
made to analyze employees’ compe-
tencies and basing on this analysis de-
legates at least part of difficult tasks
Imagine the situation in which C – tasks are delegated in a skillful way
you have to perform a lot of ta- independently from the level of their
Perspective
sks at the same time. Do you try complexity; knows exactly which task
to perform all of them by your- may be delegated to which employees
self? If not, what criteria would D – delegates difficult and responsible
you use to assign particular ta- tasks and thanks to this good results
sks to yourself and to others? are achieved
E – delegates diverse tasks and this
results in heightening of performance
efficiency
86
Table 21. Competency features included in learning management systems (LMSs)
Source: Draganidis, F., Mentzas, G., (2006), Competency based management: a review of systems
and ap-proaches. (in:) “Information Management & Computer Security”, Vol. 14, No. 1. p. 60.
4. THE CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT OF THE COMPETENCY MODELS
4.1. Theory-oriented criticism
In this part of our literature review we focus on critical analysis of the con-
tent of the competency models, and, what follows, on different approaches
and perspectives that accompany them. Firstly, we will conduct such analysis
with regard to theory-oriented criticism. Then we will try to present some
criticism coming from business practice. And finally, we will discuss some
common barriers and problems appearing within competency management
both in theory and business practices.
To start with theory-oriented criticism it is worth mentioning that
the often repeated problem in literature on competency management is for-
mulated in the scope of terminology and a clear need toward developing
a common set of terminology is strongly articulated. G. Capece and P. Bazzica
discuss this problem applying a broader explanation. They notice that one trend
currently observed in many enterprises, although recognizing the contribution
of human resources to the success or failure of the company, tend to make use
of these resources planned rather mechanically, failing to take into account
nuances and the inherent complexity of competence. They argue that these
approaches are too coarse if one wants to assign human resources to tasks or
projects in an adequate manner. However, there appears to be a lack of meth-
ods with which individual competencies can be taken into account during
an organization’s competence planning and management. To address this, as
G. Capece and P. Bazzica propose, it is necessary to develop a standard ter-
minology and suitable concepts for the representation of competency in order
to support competency analysis and planning (Capece, Bazzica, 2013:41).
Some other objections being raised in the literature refer to the re-
search content and focus. R. Klendauer et al notice that, in general, compe-
tency models simply consist of a (hierarchical) list or a catalogue, describing
desirable competencies. They usually include operational definitions for each
competency, together with measurable or observable performance indica-
tors against which to evaluate individuals. Depending on the desired appli-
cation (e.g. performance management vs. succession planning, staffing or
360-degree feedback), the list of competencies can be described at different
levels of detail. Research, however, has indicated that models of competency
or performance need to contain not only competency components but also
situational variables and outcome criteria.
88
Table 22. The pros and cons of the single-job, one-size-fits-all and multiple-job competency models
Evalu-
The single-job competency model The „one-size-fits-all” competency model The multiple-job competency models
ation
▪▪ The competencies provide a framework ▪▪ The competencies and HR programs based ▪▪ Using a common set of building block com-
for describing key job requirements. on them apply to a large number of employe- petencies permits companies to compare jobs
▪▪ The model provides a way to improve deve- es. for purposes of job evaluation.
lopment and selection for a job seen as critical ▪▪ There is one consistent framework of con- ▪▪ It makes training and development more effi-
to the organization’s success. cepts describing effective behaviors. cient. For example, a training module based on
▪▪ Initiating such a project may require ▪▪ The competency framework can be aligned a particular competency can be used with any
the approval of only one line manager, and the- with the unit’s mission and values and with individual who needs that module, regardless
re is no shortage of consultants and HR profes- other key organizational initiatives. of their jobs.
sionals with the skills to implement this appro- ▪▪ All employees in the group for whom ▪▪ Facilitates comparison of competency models
ach. the model is developed are assessed against with each other and comparison of employee
▪▪ The specific behaviors tell job holders what the same competencies and, therefore, can profiles with multiple jobs.
they must do to achieve superior results. be compared with each other. ▪▪ More cost effective than the single-job appro-
Strengths
▪▪ Because job holders and their managers have ▪▪ The cost of this approach is modest, given ach, if many competency models are needed.
contributed to the model in important ways, the breadth of its impact. ▪▪ As organizations accomplish more and more
they are likely to feel ownership of the results. ▪▪ Because the competencies are not based work through teams that are assembled for spe-
▪▪ At the very least, the new, competency-ba- on any individual job, the competency mo- cific projects, the organization can assess all em-
sed application is usually better than whatever del does not need to be updated every time ployees on a large set of technical and nontech-
existed before. an individual job is redefined. nical competencies.
▪▪ If these assessments are stored in a database,
it is easy to locate individuals with required com-
binations of skills.
Table 22 cont.
Evalu-
The single-job competency model The „one-size-fits-all” competency model The multiple-job competency models
ation
▪▪ The cost, time, and effort required to deve- ▪▪ The competency model does not clearly ▪▪ The most difficult of the three approaches
lop the competency model make its use impra- describe what is needed in any specific job. to implement.
ctical for more than a small proportion of jobs ▪▪ People in the jobs covered in the model ▪▪ Like the one-size-fits-all approach, it requires
in the organization. may see the competencies as espoused va- approval of top management.
▪▪ Consider also the cost, time, and effort lues rather than as skills they need to use ▪▪ It also demands an agreement from various
in light of the rate at which jobs are chan- to obtain results, or they may accept the va- HR groups within the organization.
ging in many organizations and the fact that lue of the competencies but fail to see how ▪▪ Because of its complexity, the multiple-job
the shelf life of a competency model is likely to apply them in their own jobs. approach is more difficult to explain.
to be two years or less. ▪▪ Because the common competency model ▪▪ Thus an effective champion from the HR fun-
▪▪ Layering job-specific HR programs over broa- does not differentiate among the require- ction is needed to gain support for the appro-
der organizational programs can lead to incon- ments of different jobs, it is of limited use ach.
sistency. For example, how does the new selec- in guiding selection for specific jobs. A Vice ▪▪ Implementing requires an effective champion
tion program for Sales Representatives relate President of International Marketing needs from the HR function or from line management.
to the general selection policies and programs different competencies than a Plant Mana- ▪▪ Another essential requirement of the mul-
Disadvantages
previously established by HR for the entire di- ger, but what are these competencies? tiple-job approach is a set of generic compe-
vision? ▪▪ It usually requires approval of top manage- tencies that can encompass the requirements
▪▪ Because individual competency mo- ment and may also require agreement of se- of a diverse set of jobs.
dels often are not systematically connected veral independent HR groups. ▪▪ There are relatively few HR professionals
to an organization’s other competency mo- ▪▪ Implementing requires an effective cham- and consultants with the experience and exper-
dels, it is difficult to compare the competency pion from the HR function or from line mana- tise to provide a good set of generic competen-
requirements of one job to the requirements gement. cies.
of another job or an individual’s competency ▪▪ In addition, someone must provide a cre-
assessments in one job to the requirements dible framework of common competencies.
of another job.
Source: Mansfield, R., (1996), Building competency models: Approaches for HR Professionals, (in:) “Human Resource Management”, Spring, Vol. 35, No 1, p. 7–16.
89
But conclusions from research suggest that future research must ex-
amine which situational circumstances (such as group characteristics) mod-
erate the relationships between executive competencies and performance,
as exploratory cluster analysis suggested a main effect for situations on per-
formance. Overall, there are several shortcomings in the current literature
on expertise in software design (Klendauer et al, 2012:482):
The main body of research has focused on cognitive processes without
taking into consideration real-world settings; in general, communication
and coordination processes have rarely been systematically studied.
Despite a general consensus about the definition of expertise as
“outstanding performance” at the conceptual level, expertise has
been operationalized as years of experience in most empirical stud-
ies; novice students were usually compared with more advanced stu-
dents (or professionals). However, long years of experience are not
necessarily related to a high performance level.
There is a lack of research with regard to possible moderators,
such as task or situational characteristics; most studies used simple
tasks, taking less than two hours to accomplish, with a question-
able external validity. There is a need for more complex real-world
tasks and situations that require the coordination and prioritization
of subtasks in the context of multiple constraints (e.g., economic, er-
gonomic and domain-specific).
The analysis of literature review also results in determination
of the strengths and weakness of competency models. The pros and cons
of three approaches to competency model development, that is:
the single-job competency model,
the “one-size-fits-all” competency model,
the multiple-job competency model
are illustrated in Table 22. The strengths and weaknesses are discussed
from different angles and with various details.
This short theory-oriented criticism on competency management
and competency models seems to summarize the most important findings
gained from the literature review.
4.2. Business-practice oriented criticism
As announced at the beginning of this chapter, here we will try to present

some criticism on competency management and associated competency
models coming from business practice.
A good starting point to discuss business-practice oriented criticism
would be to comment the common business approaches. Rothwell and Kaza-
nas categorize these approaches according to the methods being used, that
is into (after: Yang et al, 2006:64):
borrowed approach,
borrowed and tailored approach,
tailored approach.
Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages and the
most suitable one to use is crucially depended on situational factors. Bench-
marking approach is a quick and easy way to have the items of core compe-
tence by simply copying the practices of the leading company. In so doing,
the company can easily keep up with the competitors without bothering to de-
velop a model for its own. However, this approach neglects possible variety
among companies and might mislead the company into a wrong direction.
Job analysis is an alternative approach that is internally oriented to explore
the core competency needed by the company. It can be conducted via job
description that clearly breaks down each task or job item. Based on job de-
scription, researchers make the judgment. The core competency can be clearly
defined with a careful watch on the key positions. However, the result is cru-
cially dictated by the experience and proficiency of the researchers. Moreo-
ver, in a rapidly changing world, the context documented in job description
might be outdated or imprecisely depicted the real responsibility and content
of a job. Another approach of identifying core competency is through col-
lecting opinions from experts. This approach is conducted through in-depth
interview, focus group discussion or cross examination to ask internal senior
staffs or external professional people what is the requirement for each specific
position or job. However, people are also the main problem for this approach
in that outsiders might not have the domain knowledge and insiders might be
trapped in self-dealing intent. The problem is even worsened when conflicts
emerge between involving parties. Questionnaire survey approach is popular
in collecting the related data and can be tailored to the competency model.
One merit of this approach is that data can be massively collected. However,
there are two drawbacks to hinder its usage: whether the questionnaire can
be comprehensively and structurally designed and whether the sample targets
are representative of professional opinions (Yang et al, 2006:64).
Competency models have been also criticized for their attempt to for-
mulate universal models for varying contexts, and for viewing competencies
as work-role characteristics without interpreting the overall situation. More-
over, they have been criticized for producing idealized lists of qualities, which
contain almost everything. There also have been questions raised concerning
attempts to disaggregate lists of managerial competences that may have uni-

versal application. There are typically implicit assumptions made in research
that a common set of competencies is required from all managers. There is
research evidence, however, that the demands for certain competencies vary
considerably, not least depending on the variety of job-related demands.
Some authors have pointed out through a thorough investigation that certain
weaknesses exist concerning some of the philosophical and epistemologi-
cal dimensions of competency and their usage. First, the competencies are
usually seen as a specific set of attributes that are context-free. The mean-
ing of internal organizational context is in this sense often ignored. Second,
many descriptions of competency do not consider the role of the employee
and their experience (Viitala, 2005:438).
The research over the business practice brings some other notions as
well. Namely, some of the conclusions clearly suggest that there needs to be
a correlation between the managerial competencies necessary in an organi-
zation to be successful and the competencies the organization have in their
managerial performance appraisal systems, i.e. they should be the same
competencies. But the point is sometimes they are not (Abraham, 2001).
Another criticism appearing in business practice is often referred
to something that we can call low (or none) flexibility of HRM system. For ex-
ample, A. Serpell and X. Ferrad underline that it is just business practice that
shows that a good human resources management function should be aligned
with the strategy of the organization, and this can be efficiently achieved
through the application of the competency approach. However, there is always
a risk that human resources systems can damage an organization’s competitive
advantages, inhibiting the mobilization of new competencies or the appropri-
ate exploitation of existent ones (Serpell, Ferrad, 2007:587). Thus, personnel
function, business management and competency management need to be co-
ordinated in a flexible way which enables to adjust the whole systems to op-
portunities for competitive advantages of the organization.
The criticism encountered in business practice sometimes sees time-
orientation as one of the most important issues within competency devel-
opment and management. But trying to find some common solution would
appear to be impossible. Some theorists and practitioners opt for more
future oriented solutions while others pay more attention to what was ef-
fective in the past. Yet another group of scientists and practitioners suggest
only current-time oriented developments. And here it is how it is commented
within these three time perspectives.
M. A. Robinson et al notice that one of the major criticisms of compe-
tency approaches is that because they focus on behavior that has already oc-
curred, they tend to be, at best, present-focused and, at worst, past-focused.
This is especially true in periods of high business change, where focusing solely
on the present will ensure that the competency profile identified and, conse-
quently, the organization, both remain in the past (Robinson et al, 2007:66).
T. Teodorescu sees the problem in a little different way. He says that
with competency modeling, the result is a list, graphic, spreadsheet, or in-
teractive program that lists the skills, knowledge, attributes, and desirable
behavior thought to be required for successful performance for a specific job
role. But one major problem is that these statements may be very broad
and may not link directly to the actual day-to-day work or to the measurable
results that the organization requires and pays people for. Here are three im-
plications of this missing link that T. Teodorescu has witnessed with several
clients he worked for (Teodorescu, 2006:28):
1. People may interpret competencies differently, which can lead to var-
iability in performance.
2. People may not see the connection between achievement of compe-
tencies and their day-to-day jobs. For example, sales reps are moti-
vated to be as successful as possible—their paycheck is dependent on
it, but they are focused on what they need to do day in and day out
to meet their goals for the quarter. Sales representatives and manag-
ers are not interested in attaining high-level skills, knowledge, behav-
iors, or attributes just for the sake of having them, unless they see
a direct and immediate application to winning more business now.
3. Managers may have a difficult time systematically assessing, devel-
oping, and coaching competencies because they are subjective, they
are not easily measurable, and they are often very high level and are
not directly observable in day-to-day performance. For example,
one manager once stated: “my sales organization is trying to drive
double-digit growth, replicate top performers, and decrease ineffi-
ciencies and variables within the sales force. Neither my managers
nor myself see a ready-to-use, easy way to apply competency models
to help our sales organization achieve these objectives. They are just
at too high of a level and too far removed from what we are trying
to accomplish day in and day out.”
Another criticism is directed toward so-called industrial approach.
Koenigsfeld et al notice that while many management competencies can be
similar across all industry segments, managers and leaders in different occu-
pations may display different behavior characteristics and skill sets and thus
competencies need to be generated by studying a profession or a particular
position (Koenigsfeld et al, 2012:633).
Other critical analysts focus on competency modeling oriented to-

ward jobs. B. Hansson’s business requirements analysis results in a sugges-
tion that competencies should be modeled to the job. This is because job-
specific models are less plagued with distortions in the estimates compared
with more general models. Taking into account the individual’s perception
of how important the specific competency is for performing a particular job
(relative competencies) might be a way to handle problems with the varia-
tion in the importance of different competencies. The question of whether
self-reports of acquired competency should be adjusted by the immediate
superior remains open, in that differences in evaluation constitute consider-
able problems (Hansson, 2001:440).
Global (or organizationwide) approaches make a separate field of in-
terest in business practice analysis. Some authors, like G. Capece and P. Baz-
zica suggest that a global approach to the characterization of competencies
as they are related to specific work situations should follow the following
stages (Capece, Bazzica, 2013:44):
collection of data about the operator’s activity through questions ad-
dressing the situation and classes of situations,
analysis of events dealing with a specific situation and the nature and func-
tion of the operator’s cognitive model in that particular situation,
development of different connections between the kind of situation
and the competency(ies) required,
definition of the competencies required and then, construction
of a reference system.
Business practice-oriented analysis sometimes focuses on what we call
a need for more dynamic approach. An important task of competency man-
agement is competency characterization that consists in formalizing the com-
petency and determining its key components as well as the situational features
that link a particular competency with a particular actor’s activity. The identi-
fication and indexing of competencies requires organizing them into reference
systems. However, the rapid evolution of the actor’s environment means that
information recorded in this type of reference system quickly becomes obso-
lete and needs frequent updating (Capece, Bazzica, 2013:44).
To summarize this critical business-oriented analysis on competency
management and its models it is sufficient to say that most objections con-
centrate on general approaches to how competencies are framed, the philoso-
phies that stand behind them, time perspectives in which and for which they
are built, organizational versus job classified reference points, static versus
dynamic implications and various understandings of situational requirements
that need to be included in various competency-based management systems.
4.3. Common barriers and problems encountered in theory
and business practice
In this part of our book we want to focus on some selected barriers and prob-
lems that are mentioned on somehow regular basis both in theoretical
and practical considerations covering competency management and compe-
tency models build for this type of management.
Some researches indicated that the main obstacles to establish core
competency model include: huge expense, time consuming, disconnection
to strategic thinking, and strong subjectivity of competency identification
(Yang et al, 2006:61). From a company’s standpoint these are very serious
reasons that may restrain any efforts taken to develop and implement any
competency-based solutions at all.
The other thing is that managers often express a lack of satisfaction
with existing methods and tools that are intended to support knowledge
and competency management. Often, these approaches are perceived as
being too complicated, insufficiently known and poorly popularized or, on
the contrary, they are too elementary and basic, or focused on a particular
domain and unadoptable to other areas (Capece, Bazzica, 2013:41). Hence,
it would be very difficult, if not impossible at all, to implement competency
management system when the managerial staff is neither personally involved
in this system nor supports this system in everyday work.
All this looks much worse when we consider that the traditional ap-
proaches to competency assignment planning lack in the development of appro-
priate tools for the management of the competence (Capece, Bazzica, 2013:40).
This means that even the managers who are willing to support and participate
in competency management actively are deprived from these opportunities.
J. H. Semeijn, et al focus on competency practices that are relevant
for managerial effectiveness but from two different perspectives, that is sub-
ordinates’ and superiors’. To explain the problem they provide an example.
In one study multicourse feedback, also called 360-degree feedback, to eval-
uate managerial competencies and their relations with managerial effec-
tiveness and organizational effectiveness was applied. Organizations often
use multisource feedback to distinguish between effective and ineffective
managers. This feedback is used by the ratee to make training and develop-
ment plans, and by organizations to make decisions – for example, on pay or
promotion. Anyway, as about the research results, as it was expected, sub-
ordinates, peers, and supervisors have distinct perspectives on the manage-
rial competencies that are relevant for effectiveness. Moreover, the specific
managerial competencies differ in terms of their predictive validity respec-

tively for managerial and organizational effectiveness. The findings of this
study also indicate that ratings on competencies are indeed more similar
within rater groups than between rater groups. Across sources, peers and su-
pervisors appear to agree most, while disagreement is highest between
peers and subordinates. For subordinates, peers, and supervisors, the rela-
tionships- and results-oriented competencies received different value rat-
ings, indicating that the raters differed in terms of the perceived importance
of these competencies for managerial effectiveness. Rating incongruence
may also be caused by differences in performance expectations, differences
in performance observed, contextual factors, observer recall, or observer
cognition. These differences between observers may refer to meaningful
subjective discrepancies. The outcomes of this study suggest that a multi-
source and multimethod approach is valuable in assessing both managerial
competencies and managerial and organizational effectiveness (Semeijn, et
al 2014). But, in other cases, discrepancies may cause overwhelming obsta-
cles to effective usage of competency profiles composing competency mod-
els and then becoming serious barriers in competency management.
Consulting companies often underline that competency management
must be embedded in a software framework as an instructional engineering
tool. It is to inform the runtime environment of the knowledge that is pro-
cessed by actors, and their situation toward achieving competency-acquisi-
tion objectives. They come with different developmental software solutions
and present various ontologies for designing competency-based learning
and knowledge management applications. Such an example is well-described
in an article by G. Paquette in which he presents a software framework for on-
tology-driven e-learning systems (see more: Paquette, 2007). Thus, competen-
cy management dedicated software can make a remedy for some of the prob-
lems discussed and quoted after different theorists and practitioners in this
part of our book.
Finally, agreeing with D. D. Dubois and W. J. Rothwell, it may be said
that the biggest challenge in building competency profiles and models is their
precision and credibility, as well as time needed to develop them. Sometimes
it may appear that when they are ready they are just out of time. The other
hurdle may come from employees’ resistance, poor organizational commu-
nication, organizational culture not supporting competencies development,
unawareness of potential benefits, lack of managerial support, no appropri-
ate explanation of what it is for, low stakeholders’ interests, decisional prob-
lems, fear of change and additional tasks that people have to do, and poor or
no coherence between competencies and organizational strategies [Dubois,
Rothwell, 2004: 42–44].
So, to formulate a brief summary it would be enough to conclude that
there are neither best nor universal competency models that can be success-
fully applied in competency management systems in all types of organizations.
What for one organization may look as a weakness, the other may treat as
a strength. In a similar vein, what in one theoretical concept may be perceived
as an advantage, in the other one may be appraised as a disadvantage.
5. SUMMARY AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS ON LITERATURE REVIEW
Competency and competence are often used interchangeably and this causes
certain chaos both in science and business practice. In our book we assume
that competency (plural – competencies) means the skills, knowledge, person-
al characteristics, and behaviors needed to effectively perform a role (work)
in the organization and help the business meet its strategic objectives and it
focuses on the actual performance in a situation (Stor, 2014:15; Stor, 2016:165).
Similarly, competency models and competency profiles are often
used as synonyms what makes the analysis within competency manage-
ment more complicated. To make the distinction between these two terms
in our research project clear, we assume that competency model is a set
of all competencies required from the employees in the organization which
is composed of some particular groups of competencies which are called
competency profiles. These competency profiles that compose the struc-
ture of competency model may include these competencies which are re-
quired to: perform successfully some kind of work on particular organiza-
tional positions, play successfully some organizational roles, fulfill success-
fully the duties rooted in a specific type of management, contribute suc-
cessfully to the strategic goals realization through competencies inputs or
outputs to the organization success, fulfill successfully the general and spe-
cific demands of work performance. Thus, competencies are assumed to be
the building blocks of competency profiles and the competency profiles are
the building blocks of competency models in organizations.
The literature review on competency and management leads also
to the conclusion that there are different approaches to what competency
management is about or not and whether it is perceived as a part of some-
thing bigger or it is just considered as a self-existing system in a company. That
is why in our book we make some basic assumptions for the research project
described in the further part. Firstly, competency management is defined
as a set of activities performed in an organization and oriented toward iden-
tification, acquirement, development and maintenance of such employees’
competencies that enable the company reach its strategic goals (Stor, Kupczyk
2015:52; Stor, 2016: 165). Secondly, competency management is perceived
as a part of human resources management which itself is a part of company
management. Hence, in some more general sense we can talk about compe-
tency-based company management when a set of competencies to manag-
ing human resources is applied so that performance contributes efficiently
and effectively to organizational results. Thirdly, human resources manage-
ment (HRM) itself is defined as a set of activities concerning people and tend-
ing to achieve organizational objectives and fulfill employees’ needs [Listwan,
1986:19]. Fourthly, the main objective of HRM is to make the company gain its
competitive edge and enable the organization to succeed through its employ-
ees. But as competencies are expected to bring the company its competitive
edge through some value added it is justified to employ some more modern
approach to HRM, that is the strategic one. In this context, what makes the fifth
assumption, strategic human resources management (SHRM) covers these
decisions and actions which refer to employees, give direction for personnel
operations in their long run and are of substantial significance to organiza-
tion success. Sixthly, the goal of SHRM is to provide the directions and means
of utilizing human resources, identified with people and their competencies,
in pursuing company’s goals achievement.
The above approach undertaken by us is nothing unusual in the man-
agement literature in general but for sure it possesses one valuable feature
– it makes some order within the strategic relations between competencies
and company performance. It derives from the literature-based conclusion
that basing company management and HRM on key competencies and fur-
ther making the strategies of these two types of management coherent may
influence positively on sustainable competitive advantage of a company.
The literature review shows that the practice may go two ways. A compa-
ny may firstly decide to determine its business goals. Then it may identify
the competencies necessary to reach these goals. And finally it may estab-
lish a framework for competency-based HRM in which different subfunc-
tions of HRM are founded on competencies and all this is expected to con-
tribute to the realization of business goals. But a company may also decide
to the other way which is to build its business strategies after the key human
competencies and organizational capabilities are identified. In this case it is
not strategies that determine competencies’ needs but its competencies that
determine the strategies. When this first task is completed then the com-
pany may establish its competency-based HRM system to acquire, maintain
and develop its human competencies (and company’s capabilities) in pursu-
ing its business goals and competitive advantage. These strategic connec-
tions between competencies and HRM and business strategies make the ba-
sic foundations for competency management itself.
The literature review also justifies the conclusion that, depending on
specific needs of a company, its HRM system as well as people themselves,
competency management find a lot of different uses which serve selected
goals. They range from more general to more precise, from more business-
oriented to more human capital-oriented, from more organizational to more
individual. But the main goal that competency management is to support
is to enable the company succeed, to gain and maintain its competitive ad-
vantage and to prepare the organization for any alterations and changes that
appear in its external and internal environment (Stor, 2016:166).
In summary, we can also say that the particular applications of com-
petency models and profiles in various numbers of HRM subfunctions depend
on how many elements of personnel function are distinguished and differenti-
ated in a given company. This also makes the basic framework for competency
management which is – according to the assumptions taken in this research
project – a part of human resources management which itself is a part of com-
pany management. In this way we receive, what was also previously defined
in this book, competency-based company management in which a set of com-
petencies to managing human resources is applied so that performance con-
tributes efficiently and effectively to organizational results.
Furthermore, as about the theoretical approaches to competency
management we can conclude that ambiguity in the description of compe-
tencies due to generalization and standardization does not provide both
managerial staff and HR professionals with detailed and concrete implica-
tions for practice. And, what is more, even the common user may be unsure
of what is expected from them and for what reason. That’s why our research
assumption is that models of competency need to contain not only compe-
tency components but also situational variables and outcome criteria.
In our literature review we refer to three important economic meas-
ures applied in the scope of management – efficiency, efficacy and effective-
ness. We define efficiency as the ratio of output to input, effectiveness as
the extent or degree to which targeted objectives are achieved, and efficacy
as the capacity of something/somebody to produce an effect. This clari-
fication of terms is important since all competency-based HRM activities,
according to the basic principles assumed in the present book, aim at sup-
porting companies, including multinational companies (MNCs), in reaching
high levels of efficiency and effectiveness in the scope of goals, strategies,
and tasks performed at different organizational levels. What is expected
in practice is that good results at lower levels will contribute to good results
at the organizationwide or, in the case of MNCs, at the corporationwide lev-
el. And the measures that can be used here may straightly refer to compe-
tency-based HRM effectiveness, efficiency and its efficacy.
It’s worth reminding here again that competency-based HRM strat-
egies and competency-based HRM itself make a part of a bigger company
management system. However, it is a part of fundamental significance.
It decides not only about the success of any type of activities performed
by the company and inside the company but also determines whether any
type of activities can be performed at all. In this context measuring the ef-
fectiveness and efficiency of competency management is one of the funda-
mental success factors of competency-based HRM.
As about competency management process our literature review find-
ings lead to a general conclusion that this process can be perceived from nar-
rower or broader theoretical perspective depending whether the authors fo-
cus on tying competencies directly with strategic company goals, business
strategies and associated HRM strategies or whether they focus on company
functioning performance, business processes, project requirements, job de-
mands, tasks characteristics, etc. All this determines the number of particu-
lar steps followed in competency management, the content of these stages,
their internal and external connections, as well as expected results.
In our literature studies we were interested not only in the theoreti-
cal approaches to competency management processes but we tried to pre-
sent some selected examples from business practice as well. Our choice
covered five different practical developments that differed in their scopes,
approaches, goals, steps, methods, results, etc. Summarizing that presenta-
tion, we concluded that the competency management systems in business
practice are developed from broader contexts, like industry, or from a nar-
rower one, meaning company’s. And similarly to theoretical conceptions
presented in the previous part of this book, competency management sys-
tems are applied to improve organizational functioning, ensuring business
goals and strategies realization mostly by tying competency management
with particular subfunctions of human resources management.
In the further part of our book we focused on methods, techniques
and instruments that are used in competencies structuring. This was mainly
to show how theoretical knowledge is used in business practice and, be-
cause of that, we based our discussion on examples provided by consulting
companies. Our general conclusion in this scope is that that depending on
the company’s needs and requirements, connected with both competen-
cy-based company management and competency-based human resources
management supported by competency management, individual companies
choose different approaches, methods, techniques and instruments to build
such competency-based management systems that respond to their exter-
nal and internal environmental characteristics and demands in the most ef-
fective and efficient way. The other conclusion is that competency models
and competencies themselves need to be more context-specific because
there are certain individual and contextual factors determining manage-
ment competency needs. That is why, in a company it would be a good idea
to divide the competencies into more- and less-context specific. Yet another
conclusion that can be made is that competencies should be also oriented

to the future and not only form a mechanism for cloning the past.
The last part of our literature review focused on critical analysis over
the content of the competency models and, what follows, on different ap-
proaches and perspectives that accompany them. Firstly, we conducted such
analysis with regard to theory-oriented criticism. Then we tried to present
some criticism coming from business practice. And finally, we discussed
some common barriers and problems appearing within competency man-
agement both in theory and business practices. To summarize this critical
analysis on competency management and its models it is sufficient to say
that most objections concentrate on general approaches to how competen-
cies are framed, the philosophies that stand behind them, time perspectives
in which and for which they are built, organizational versus job classified ref-
erence points, static versus dynamic implications and various understandings
of situational requirements that need to be included in various competency-
based management systems.
To formulate the final and brief summary it seems to be proper to re-
peat the conclusion that there are neither best nor universal competency mod-
els that can be successfully applied in competency management systems in all
types of organizations. What for one organization may look as a weakness,
the other may treat as a strength. In a similar vein, what in one theoretical
concept may be perceived as an advantage, in the other one may be appraised
as a disadvantage. This all calls for more situational approach in competency
management, more situationally-responsive competency models and more
situationally-structured competency profiles that compose these models.
And referring to the needs of companies, their employees, managerial staff
and HRM departments that were identified in this literature review, it would
be recommended to provide such computer software and IT tools that com-
petency management process becomes efficient and effective from economic
perspective and user-friendly from all the stakeholders’ perspectives.
CHAPTER II
COMPETENCES MANAGEMENT IN BUSINESS

- RESEARCH RESULTS
6. Abstract of research results
6.1. Research objective and methods

The main objective of the empirical study was to identify, analyse and diag-
nose competencies management processes at the selected enterprises in Po-
land, Spain and Austria. The detailed objectives provided for finding answers
to the following research questions listed below and analysed differences
related to such criteria as: enterprise size, country of the enterprises’ head-
quarters and time of the enterprises’ involvement in competencies manage-
ment processes:
To what degree have companies introduced competencies management?
agement?
What persons are involved in the process of introducing competen-
cies management at enterprises?
What methods are used to identify and assess competencies at en-
terprises?
What methods are used by enterprises in the area of staff development?
What is the role of technology in competencies management at en-
terprises?
What is the knowledge of the enterprises’ staff concerning the Eu-
ropean initiatives related to competencies, competencies models
and development?
A questionnaire study was held in 2015 and 2016. The first stage in-
volved 119 enterprises, including 78 in Poland, 24 in Austria and 16 in Spain.
In the second stage the study was continued only in Poland and the sample
included 140 enterprises.
6.2. Level of implementation and objectives of competencies management

The research among employees of enterprises from Austria, Spain and Po-
land allowed to determine the level of implementation of competencies
management as compared to the target level. In the study sample, 20%
of the respondents described the process as “medium”, between 41–60%.
At 19% of the respondent enterprises the implementation level was below
10%. Only 3% had almost completed the process of competencies manage-
ment implementation. As almost half of the studied enterprises had imple-
mented competencies management in 0–50%, as compared to the target
level, it is justified to conclude that the process is at a medium level. The av-
erage level of competencies management (in the range from 0 to 100) was
the highest in Austria (M=70,1), medium in Spain (M=57,7), and the lowest
in Poland (M=39,2). The study revealed that at the enterprises with longer
market experience the declared level of competencies management was
higher. No significant differences in implementation of competencies man-
agement were found with respect to enterprises’ classification by their size.
The studied enterprises varied in the duration of their experience
with / involvement in processes related to competencies management: 30%
had managed competencies for 2–4 years, 24% from 5 to 9 years, 21% over
10 years and 18% for less than one year. Most frequently the following staff
was involved in implementation of competencies management: HR manag-
ers (54%), top managers (50%), HR specialists (43%), line managers (34%),
medium level managers (29%) and external consultants (19%). HR manag-
ers were more frequently involved in competencies management imple-
mentation at medium and big enterprises, at those with longer experience
with competencies management: 2–4 years (68.6%), 5–9 years (55.2%),
over 10 years (64%); and at enterprises from Austria (75%) and Spain (75%).
In the case of HR specialists, they were more frequently involved in com-
petencies management implementation at big enterprises, line managers –
at enterprises with 5–9 years of experience in competencies management.
Medium level managers were more frequently involved in this process at big
enterprises and at enterprises with 5–9 years of experience in competencies
management.
The studied enterprises most frequently applied competencies man-
agement for purposes of training and developmental programs (59%), perfor-
mance appraisal (55%), recruitment and selection (52%), career management
(47%), assigning tasks to people (40%), design and management of compen-
sation systems (26%), talent management (24%), succession planning (20%)
and selection of university students/young graduates for job placement (18%).
In competencies management, enterprises designed the following goals:
employee performance appraisal – this objective was selected more
frequently by big enterprises;
staff recruitment and selection – this objective was defined more
often by enterprises from Austria (79.2%) and Spain (75%) and those
with longer experience in competencies management, i.e. over 10
years (72%) and 2-4 years (63%);
career management – this objective was selected more frequently
by medium enterprises and those with over 10 years of experience
in competencies management;
assigning tasks to people – this objective was defined by enterpris-
es with over 10 years of experience in competencies management
(χ2(4)=16.924, p= 0.002);
succession planning – this objective was selected more frequently
by enterprises from Austria;
selection of university students/young graduates for job placement – this
objective was selected more frequently by enterprises with 5–9 years
of experience in competencies management and by big enterprises.
6.3. Competencies identification and classification

Within competencies management processes, the studied enterprises ap-
plied various methods of competencies identification. The largest group
of enterprises used direct observation (57%) or employee self-evaluation
(48%). Only about one fourth of them applied more variable techniques, e.g.
group discussions (29%), open interviews (26%), job analysis questionnaires
(25%), working sessions with experts (24%) and behavioural event inter-
views (24%). Evidence of exercise questionnaire was applied very rarely (15%).
The study revealed differences of application of the following methods
of competencies identification by enterprises:
self-evaluation – more frequently used by big (59.7%) and medium
enterprises (50%);
working sessions with experts – more frequently applied by enter-
prises from Spain (50%) and Austria (41.7%);
open interviews – more frequently applied by enterprises from Spain
(50%) and Austria (41.7%).
In analysing job positions, 60% of respondent enterprises considered
both current and future requirements concerning the job in question, includ-
ing enterprises from Austria (66.7%), Poland (59%) and Spain (56.3%). Mean-
while, 35% of enterprises took only the current requirements into account
(enterprises from Poland: 38.5%, Austria 29.2%, Spain: 25%). It is worth not-
ing that both current and future requirements were considered in job analy-
sis mainly by enterprises with longer experience in competencies manage-
ment, i.e. 5–9 years (79%), over 10 years (72%). Comparing, exclusively cur-
rent requirements were considered in job analyses performed by enterprises
with less than one year of experience in competencies management (50%).
Almost one third of the respondent enterprises did not classify com-
petencies at all. These were more frequently microenterprises (62.5%) and en-
terprises with less than one year of experience in competencies management
(54.5%). Half of the respondent enterprises used classification for core em-
ployee competencies (for the entire organisation). This concerned more fre-
quently those enterprises which had longer experience in competencies man-

agement, i.e. 2–4 years (60% ), 5–9 years (58.6%), over 10 years (56%). 37%
of the enterprises defined key managerial competencies: more frequently this
was performed by big enterprises (53.7%). 24% of the respondents defined
core leader competencies, including more frequently big enterprises (53.7%)
and enterprises with longer experience in competencies management, i.e. 5–9
years (31%), over 10 years (44%). Some enterprises (21%) classified technical /
functional competencies: this involved more frequently enterprises from Aus-
tria (45.8%) and those with over 10 years of experience (44%). Almost one
in five enterprises classified cross-functional (interdisciplinary) competencies:
more frequently enterprises from Spain (43.8%) and Austria (37.5%), as well as
those with over 10 years of experience (40%).
Describing competencies at the studied enterprises was mainly
the responsibility of:
employees (44.5%), more frequently at the enterprises from Poland
(50%) and Austria (50%);
teams composed of the respondent enterprise’s staff and exter-
nal consultants (31.9%), more frequently selected by enterprises
from Spain (12.5%);
other enterprises / external consultants (less than 6%).
6.4. Competencies assessment methods

The respondent enterprises applied fairly variable methods in competencies
assessment:
interviews (38.7%), more frequently applied by enterprises from Spain
(68.8%) and Austria (58.3%);
analysis of performance results (35.3%);
analysis of personnel documents (31.9%), applied more frequently
by enterprises from Poland (38.5%) and Austria (29.2%);
360° Feedback (28.6%), which is applied more frequently by enter-
prises with longer experience in competencies management, i.e. 5–9
years (51.7%);
questionnaires (27.7%);
working sessions with experts (24.4%);
assessment centre (23.5%);
critical incidents interview (21%);
situational tests (cases based on real situations) (12.6%);
workshops (10.9%);
expert opinions (7.6%).
The respondent enterprises applied various approaches to compe-
tencies assessment. The most frequent one was to assess linkage between
competencies and corporate objectives or strategies (35.3%). Every forth
enterprise assessed competencies to distinguish high performing employees
from average employees, and 21% evaluated importance of the given compe-
tency at present and in the future. Enterprises from Austria more frequently
assessed linkage of competencies with corporate strategies than their coun-
terparts in Poland or Spain. In this respect Polish enterprises ranked the low-
est, which may suggest insufficient concentration on matching competencies
to corporate goals or strategies. This may have a negative impact on their
results and development. The Austrian enterprises’ focus on their objectives
and strategies was also reflected in the fact that virtually none of them as-
sessed meaning of competencies for now only, without considering future
needs. This approach was applied only at 4.2% of the enterprises, in contrast
to respondents from Poland (25.6%) and Spain (25%).
The studied enterprises applied various scales / levels of competencies:
job grade level (e.g., associate engineer, staff engineer, or senior engi-
neer), more frequently applied by companies from Poland and Austria;
progressive levels of competency development on the job (e.g., nov-
ice, master, and expert) (26,9%), significantly more frequently used
by enterprises from Poland and Austria;
levels of competency performance (e.g., marginal, good, and excel-
lent) (19.3%), more often used by enterprises from Spain.
The respondent enterprises reviewed and updated competencies:
once a year (42.9%), this solution was more frequently used by en-
terprises from Austria (62.5%) and those with 5-9 years of experience
in competencies management;
every two years (11.8%);
every three years (7.6%);
at intervals longer than 5 years (5.9%);
they have never done it before (21%) – this concerns more frequently
enterprises from Spain and those with less than a year of experience
in competencies management. Among enterprises with this answer
there were none based in Austria, while 50% of them had headquar-
ters in Spain.
6.5. Technology’s role in competencies management

Enterprises use modern technologies in competencies management, but not
to a very high degree. Most frequently, technologies are applied to develop
competency profiles (28.6%) and to enable application of competencies pro-
files and models by storing the derived HR applications (e.g. selection proce-
dures, performance appraisals, career development tools) (26.1%). One fifth
of the enterprises applied technology to ensure place to store the compe-
tency profiles and make them electronically available to the organization’s
members. In Poland, more frequently than in the other countries, technol-
ogy provided a single source of competency information within the whole
organization in order to help ensure consistency in the competencies applied
to a job group or other organizational units. However, a significant difference
was observed in relation to the enterprises’ experience with competencies
management. Technologies are significantly more frequently applied to facil-
itate the use of the competency models and profiles by housing the derived
HR applications (e.g., selection procedures, performance appraisals, career
development tools) by enterprises with longer experience in this area.

to competencies, their quality and development
Employees of the respondent enterprises had scarce knowledge of the following
European initiatives related to competencies, their quality and development:
European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) (19.3%);
European Qualifications Framework – EQF (17.6%);
EUROPASS (five documents [Curriculum Vitae, Language Passport,
Europass – Mobility, Certificate Supplement, Diploma Supplement]
which allow European citizens present their acquired skills and quali-
fications clearly and easily understood in Europe) (17.6%);
ͳ ͳ this tool is more frequently unknown to representatives of big
(82%) and medium enterprises (67.9%);
ͳ ͳ this tool is more frequently known to representatives of micro-
enterprises and it is applied in the search for young university
students / graduates for potential employment;
European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training
(ECVET) (14.3%), more frequently known to representatives of micro-
enterprises;
European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) (7.6%);
Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET)
(6.7%), more often known to representatives of microenterprises;
E-Competence Framework (e-CF) (5%);
Euroguidance Network, more frequently known to representatives
of microenterprises (3.4%);
Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE) (1.7%), more frequently
known to representatives of small enterprises.
6.7. Research conclusions
The performed analysis revealed statistically significant correlations which
allow for development of a list of specific features of competencies manage-
ment for enterprises in specific groups, i.e.:
big, medium, small enterprises and microenterprises;
enterprises from Poland, Spain and Austria;
enterprises with no experience in competencies management vs.
those with longer experience in this area.
Specific features of competencies management vs. enterprise size

Features which are specific for competencies management at big enterpri-
ses as compared to enterprises of different size:
they achieve higher level of implementation of competencies man-
agement as compared to the target level and they have the longest
experience in this area;
more frequently competencies management falls within responsibili-
ties of HR managers, HR specialists, medium-level specialists;
the objective of competencies management is more frequently de-
fined as assessment of employees’ performance and selection of stu-
dents / young university graduates for vacancies;
more frequently, they identify competencies by self-evaluation
of employees;
more often they group competencies by classifying core manager
and leader competencies;
they apply mentoring more frequently as a method of staff training
and development;
EUROPASS tool is known to their employees less frequently.
Features which are specific for competencies management at medium en-
terprises as compared to enterprises of different size:
HR managers are more frequently involved in competencies manage-
ment processes;
more often competencies management is designed to serve career
management;
they more frequently apply self-evaluation as competencies as-
sessment method.
Features which are specific for competencies management at small enterpri-
they identify competencies more often through group discussions;
their employees more frequently know the European initiative called
Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE).
Features which are specific for competencies management at microenterpri-

they are characterised by the lowest level of competencies mana-
gement as compared to the target level and by the shortest time
of experience in this area;
more often they fail to classify competencies at all;
their employees more often have knowledge about such European
initiatives concerning definition of competencies, competency mo-
dels and competencies development as:
ͳ ͳ European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training
(ECVET);
ͳ ͳ Euroguidance Network;
ͳ ͳ Quality assurance in vocational education and training (EQAVET);
ͳ ͳ EUROPASS – they apply this tool more frequently to search for yo-
ung students / university graduates for potential employment.
Specific features of competencies management vs. the country of headquarters

Features which are specific for competencies management at enterprises
from Poland as compared to the other groups (Austria and Spain):
they represent the lowest level of competencies management as
compared to the target level (contrary to the other countries),
although it is a level which should be described as medium;
they assign the task of competencies description to employees more
frequently;
more often they selected personnel documentation analysis as
a method of competencies assessment;
more frequently than others they assess current importance of com-
petencies without considering future needs (in relation to corporate
objectives or strategies);
scales / levels of competencies applied more often by Polish enterpri-
ses included: job levels (e.g. associate engineer, engineer, senior en-
gineer), further progressive levels of job competencies development
(e.g. novice, master and expert);
technology serves them more often as a single source of competen-
cy information within the whole organization in order to help ensure
consistency in the competencies applied to a job family or other or-
ganizational units.
from Spain as compared to the other groups (Austria and Poland):
HR managers are more often involved in the competencies manage-
ment processes;
their objective in competencies management is more frequently staff
recruitment and selection;
for competencies description they hire other enterprises / external
consultants more frequently;
they more often apply the following methods of competencies iden-
tification: working sessions with experts and open interviews;
more frequently they group (classify) job-related cross-functional (in-
terdisciplinary) competencies which may be important at many va-
rious posts;
they use job interview as a competencies assessment method more
frequently;
more frequently they apply scales related to the level of performance
(competencies applied at work) (e.g. marginal, good and excellent);
more frequently they declare they have never reviewed and updated
competencies;
they apply mentoring in employee training and development more often.
from Austria as compared to the other groups (Poland and Spain):
they represent the highest level of implementation of competen-
cies management as compared to the target level (higher than
in the other studied countries);
HR managers are more frequently involved in the processes of com-
petencies management;
they define the objectives of competencies as staff recruitment
and selection, as well as succession planning more frequently;
they apply the following methods of competencies identification
more often: working sessions with experts and open interviews;
more frequently they entrust competencies description to their own
employees;
they classify (group) the following competencies more often:
ͳ ͳ cross-functional (interdisciplinary) competencies related
to the performed job which may be applied at many positions;
ͳ ͳ technical / functional competencies.
they apply interviews and personnel documentation analysis as com-
petencies identification methods more frequently;
they assess significance of competencies currently and in the future;

more frequently they apply the following scales / levels of compe-
tencies: job grade level (e.g., associate engineer, staff engineer, or se-
nior engineer) and progressive levels of competency development on
the job (e.g., novice, master, and expert);
more of them update and review competencies once a year;
they use training programs in employee development more often.
Specific features of competencies management vs. experience in compe-

tencies management
with less than one year of experience in competencies management as
compared to enterprises with longer experience:
they are characterised by a lower level of implementation of compe-
tencies management;
more frequently they fail to classify competencies at all;
more frequently they consider exclusively current requirements
in job analysis;
competencies.
with longer experience in competencies management as compared to en-
terprises with less than one year of such experience:
they represent the highest level of competencies management im-
plementation as compared to their target;
the following positions are more frequently involved in implementa-
tion of competencies management: HR manager, medium-level ma-
nager, lower-level (line) manager2;
more frequently they declare that they review and update compe-
tencies once a year (in the case of enterprises with 5-9 years of expe-
rience in competencies management);
more often they define the following objectives of competencies ma-
nagement:
ͳ ͳ career management (in the case of enterprises with over 10 ye-
ars of experience in competencies management);
ͳ ͳ assigning tasks to employees (in the case of enterprises with over
10 years of experience in competencies management);
2
Involvement of medium-level and lower-level (line) managers occurs only at enterprises
with 5–9 years of experience in competencies management.
ͳͳ selection of university students/young graduates for job place-
ment (in the case of enterprises with 5-9 years of experience
in competencies management);
ͳ ͳ staff recruitment and selection (in the case of enterprises
with 2–4 years of experience in competencies management
and those with over 10 years of experience in competencies ma-
nagement);
at job analysis they consider both current and future requirements
more frequently (in the case of enterprises with 5-9 years of expe-
more often they group / classify competencies as follows:
ͳ ͳ core employee competencies (for the entire organisation);
ͳ ͳ core leader competencies (in the case of enterprises with 5–9
years of experience in competencies management and those
with over 10 years of experience in competencies management);
more frequently they group / classify the following competencies:
to the performed job which may be applied at many positions
(in the case of enterprises with over 10 years of experience
ͳ ͳ technical / functional competencies (in the case of enterprises
with over 10 years of experience in competencies management).
they assess competencies more frequently with such methods as:
ͳ ͳ 360º feedback (in the case of enterprises with 5–9 years of ex-
perience in competencies management);
ͳ ͳ assessment centres (in the case of enterprises with over 10
years of experience in competencies management);
ͳ ͳ situational tests (cases based on real situations) (in the case
of enterprises with over 10 years of experience in competen-
cies management);
ͳ ͳ job interviews (in the case of enterprises with 5–9 years of ex-
perience in competencies management and those with over 10
they declare more often that they review and update competencies
once a year (in the case of enterprises with 5–9 years of experience
in competencies management they apply technology more frequen-
tly to facilitate the use of the competency models and profiles by ho-
using the derived HR applications (e.g., selection procedures, perfor-
mance appraisals, career development tools);
more often they use mentoring, self-education and learning

in the area of employee training and development.
The comprehensive analysis of the empirical research results authorises
the following conclusions and postulates:
1. The degree of implementation of competencies management as com-
pared to the target level at the studied enterprises in Austria, Span
and Poland shows that advancement of this process is medium. The de-
gree is the highest in Austria, then Spain and the lowest in Poland.
2. There are significant differences in the level of implementation of com-
petencies management among enterprises related to the duration
of their business operations. The study revealed that enterprises which
have been present on the market for a longer time are characterised
by a higher level of implementation of competencies management.
3. The level of implementation of competencies management shows
significant positive correlation with enterprise size, leading to a con-
clusion that the larger the enterprise is, the higher degree of compe-
tencies management implementation it has achieved. The degree was
the highest at big enterprises and the lowest in microenterprises.
4. A moderate positive correlation was found between enterprise size
and duration of experience in competencies management. There-
fore, one may conclude that the larger the enterprise is, the longer
experience in competencies management it has.
5. Responsibility for competencies management at enterprises was as-
signed the most frequently to HR managers, top managers and HR spe-
cialists. A low degree of involvement was observed in the case of me-
dium-level managers, as well as lower-level/line managers. Employees
at these posts are involved in the process only at enterprises with lon-
ger experience in competencies management. Lack of involvement
of lower-level / line managers should be considered especially wor-
rying, as their tasks include assignment of work and performance as-
sessment, so these functions are strongly related to competencies.
HR managers are involved in competencies management more fre-
quently at enterprises from Austria and Spain. This may suggest that
at Polish enterprises top management more frequently underestimates
the significance of competencies management. At Polish enterprises
with longer experience in competencies management the process is
more often (as compared to big enterprises) the responsibility of top
managers, and – equally importantly – lower-level / line managers.
Only one enterprise in five hires external consultants for competencies
management. Microenterprises and small enterprise don’t do it at all.
6. Enterprises apply competencies management the most frequently
for such objectives as: training and development programs, perfor-
mance appraisal, staff recruitment and selection and career mana-
gement. Too rarely companies declared that competencies mana-
gement served to “select students / young graduates for vacancies”
– only one in four big enterprises and hardly any small and microen-
terprises, while they are the most vulnerable when it comes to shor-
tage of talented staff. Neither do enterprises apply competencies
management sufficiently for assignment of tasks to employees.
More frequently this is a criterion of work assignment at enterprises
with over 10 years of experience in competencies management. This
will certainly hamper assignment of tasks according to employees’
strengths, and consequently it may lead to reduced employee com-
mitment. The situation is similarly adverse in the case of application
of competencies management to assess work results / performan-
ce. This objective is selected more often by big enterprises, contra-
ry to microenterprises. This may suggest that the latter are insuffi-
ciently focused on linking employee competencies to performance.
Competencies management is applied for staff recruitment and se-
lection more often by enterprises with longer experience in compe-
tencies management and by enterprises from Austria and Spain. It
may be assumed that thus, they will adapt employee competencies
better to actual needs and strategies. To a certain degree, enterpri-
ses neglect career planning – more frequently applied by enterpri-
ses with over 10 years of experience. It should be stressed that de-
velopment is an important factor of employee motivation, especially
in the case of younger people. Enterprises from Poland are less focu-
sed on using competencies management for career and succession
planning. The latter goal is more frequently selected by enterprises
from Austria. Talent management is another neglected objective
of competencies management. Analysis of study results concerning
Polish enterprises showed that if enterprises managed competencies
for a longer period, their objectives involved more frequently: talent
management, tailored training and development programs, career
planning, performance appraisal, assigning tasks to people, designing
and management of remuneration systems.
7. In competencies management enterprises implement various methods
of competencies assessment, especially direct observation and em-
ployee self-evaluation. Only about one in four apply more variable
methods, e.g. group discussions, open interviews, work analysis que-
stionnaires, working sessions with experts, behavioural events inter-

views or questionnaires with exercises. Group discussions are more
often applied in competencies assessment by small enterprises, self-
-evaluation is used more frequently by big and medium enterprises,
while working sessions with experts and open interviews are more
popular with enterprises from Spain and Austria. Enterprises from Po-
land significantly less frequently use the following methods of compe-
tencies identification: evidence of exercise questionnaires, job analysis
questionnaires and behavioural event interviews. At smaller enterpri-
ses from Poland direct observation is applied more often to identify
competencies, while in bigger ones – self-evaluation is more frequent.
8. In job analysis most enterprises consider both current and futu-
re requirements. This approach is more frequent among enterpri-
ses with longer experience in competencies management. Those
with less than a year of experience in competencies management
tend to include exclusively current requirements in job analysis. This
may suggest that they miss strategic approach. Enterprises from Po-
land more frequently focus exclusively on current requirements, wit-
hout considering the future.
9. The studied enterprises group / classify core employee competencies
(for all employees in the organization), core leader and manager com-
petencies, cross-functional (interdisciplinary) competencies and tech-
nical / functional competencies. One third of the sample do not classify
competencies at all – more frequently this is the case of microenterpri-
ses. Enterprises from Austria and Spain group (classify) cross-functio-
nal / interdisciplinary competencies more often. Additionally, Austrian
enterprises more frequently group (classify) technical / functional
competencies. Enterprises from Poland are more focused on grouping
/ classifying managerial competencies than core employee competen-
cies (for the entire organisation). The latter are in focus at enterprises
with longer experience in competencies management.
10. At enterprises from Poland and Austria competencies description
is more frequently the responsibility of employees. Big enterprises
from Poland and those with longer experience in competencies ma-
nagement establish teams composed of internal employees and ex-
ternal consultants. The case is similar for enterprises from Spain.
11. There are statistically significant differences in application of competen-
cies assessment methods by enterprises. 360º feedback, assessment
centre and situational tests are more often used by enterprises with lon-
ger experience in competencies management. Documentation analysis
is applied more frequently at enterprises from Poland and Austria, while
360º feedback is more popular with big enterprises in Poland.
12. In the case of enterprises from Poland, with longer experience
in competencies management, they apply significantly more fre-
quently such methods of competencies assessment as: analysis
of performance results, assessment centre, expert opinions, critical
events interviews and workshops.
13. Most enterprises fail to assess the degree of linkage between compe-
tencies and their corporate objectives and strategies. One in four en-
terprises assess competencies to rate the extent to which the com-
petency distinguishes high performing employees from average
employees and one in five assesses significance of the competencies
now and in the future. Enterprises with longer experience in compe-
tencies management are focused on better adaptation of staff com-
petencies to their objectives and strategies.
14. Less than a half of the enterprises review and update competencies
once a year. Every fifth enterprise do it every second year, while more
than 20% of them have never done it before. It should be stressed that
there was no enterprise from Austria in this latter group and even 50%
were from Spain. This situation occurred more frequently at enterpris-
es with less than a year of experience in competencies management.
15. The larger the enterprise is, the more frequently it applies coach-
ing and training programs in employee development. With longer
experience in competencies management enterprises apply more
frequently the following methods of employee training and develop-
ment: coaching, training programs and self-education. Most enter-
prises hope that their employees would learn by themselves.
16. Fewer than one fifth of the enterprises apply levels of competency
performance (e.g. marginal, good and excellent). Consequently, one
may suppose that without enterprises’ performing such assessment,
employees do not get feedback concerning their competencies.
17. Technology plays insufficient role in competencies management.
The respondent enterprises apply it to a medium degree. Technology
serves the most frequently to develop the competency profiles and to
facilitate the use of the competency models and profiles by housing
the derived HR applications (e.g., selection procedures, performance
appraisals, career development tools). One enterprise in five use tech-
nology to provide a place to store the competency profiles which are
thus made electronically available to organizational members.
18. The respondent enterprises had very little knowledge about European
initiatives related to competencies, their quality and development.
19. The study revealed that competencies were applied at most enter-
prises within the entire range of various subfunctions of human re-
sources management.
20. A significant part of the respondent enterprises changed their ap-
proach in human resources management from task-oriented to com-
petencies-focused approach.
21. Some enterprises are still unable to perceive significance of compe-
tencies management in the modern environment or they ignore it.
Concluding, one should notice specific features3 of competencies

management of the respondent enterprises with longer experience in this
respect (at least 5 years). They indicate a certain direction of changes un-
derway at enterprises. The objectives of competencies management involve
more frequently career planning, assigning tasks to people, recruitment
and selection, as well as selection of university students/young graduates
for job placement. At such enterprises more frequently not only HR manag-
ers and specialists, top and medium-level managers are involved in compe-
tencies management, but lower-level/line managers, too. These enterprises
more frequently declare that they review and update competencies once
a year. At job analysis they consider both current and future requirements
more frequently. And more often they classify / group competencies as fol-
lows: core employee competencies (for all employees in the organization);
core leader competencies; cross-functional (interdisciplinary) competencies
and technical / functional competencies. In competencies assessment they
apply the following methods more often: 360º feedback, assessment centre
and situational tests (cases based on real-life situations). Further, they apply
technology in competencies management more frequently to allow the use
of the competency models and profiles by housing the derived HR applica-
tions (e.g., selection procedures, performance appraisals, career develop-
ment tools). Finally, these enterprises more frequently select mentoring
and self-education in employee training and development.
The Authors developed the following postulates:

1. Enterprises, especially the smaller ones, should increase the le-
vel of implementation of competencies management, treating it as
3
Identified based on statistically significant differences.
a priority and strategic issue. Otherwise, they won’t be able to com-
pete for customers, better financial results and employer image.
2. Higher-level management staff should ensure higher involvement
of medium-level and line managers in competencies management.
This will require planning development training to include training
increasing their respective skills.
3. Enterprises, especially microenterprises, should apply competencies
management more often for talent management, career management,
assigning tasks to employees and results/performance appraisal.
4. It would be valuable for enterprises to apply more variable methods
of competencies assessment, e.g.: assessment centre, 360º feed-
back, expert opinions, critical events interviews and workshops.
As most enterprises haven’t applied them so far, certainly there is
a need to improve management staff’s competencies in this respect.
5. Considering growing problems in filling vacancies of specific competen-
cies requirements, it would be surely well if all enterprises, especially
small and microenterprises focused on the objective of “finding students
/ young graduates for vacant posts” in competencies management.
6. Application of technology in competencies management should be
expanded in the context of high volatility of the environment and ne-
cessity to react quickly to customers’ needs and cooperation among
companies.
7. It seems necessary to launch information campaigns among enter-
prises concerning the European initiatives related to competencies,
their quality and development. Employees of enterprises from three
different countries had hardly any knowledge about them, which may
reflect low efficiency of previous publicity measures.
8. Special training cycles should be developed for management staff
and HR specialists to develop competencies concerning the best pra-
ctices in competencies management, considering also international
environment and intercultural aspects. Universities which train mana-
gers should enrich their curricula with training in this competencies.
7. Methodology of empirical research
7.1. Research objectives and problems, hypotheses
The main objective of the research was to identify, analyse and diagnose
competencies management at enterprises. There were also specific goals de-
fined and they concerned:
methods of competencies identification and assessment;
role of technology in competencies management at enterprises;
level of employees’ knowledge about European initiatives on defining
competencies, models of competencies and competencies development.
The empirical exploration was designed to answer the described re-
search problems expressed as the following questions:
To what degree have companies introduced competencies manage-
ment? Are there differences between companies from Poland, Aus-
tria and Spain in this respect?
agement?
What persons are involved in the process of introducing competen-
cies management at enterprises?
What methods are used to identify competencies at enterprises?
What methods are used to assess competencies at enterprises?
Does competencies management include competencies hierarchisation?
What methods are used by enterprises in the area of staff develop-
ment?
In the phase of preparation of the empirical research, the following
operational hypotheses were developed:
H1: There are significant differences in the level of implementation of com-
petencies management between companies from Poland, Austria and Spain.
H2: There is a strong correlation between the duration of enterprises’ mar-
ket operations and level of competencies management.
petencies management.
The research applied the following definition: competencies are skills,
knowledge, personal features and behaviour necessary to efficiently perform
the role/job in a given organisation and to support the enterprise in achieve-
ment of its strategic goals. They are related to actual actions or achieved re-
sults of such actions in specific circumstances. Competencies management is
defined as a set of actions aimed at the organisation’s acquiring, developing
and maintaining such employee competencies which enable achievement
of the company’s strategic goals.
7.2. Description of research methods
To verify the defined hypotheses, research was held in 2015 and 2016 at en-
terprises based in Poland, Austria and Spain. A part of the described study
was held within a project called “Agile Based Competency Management”,
implemented by two Polish companies Profes and E-peers, a consulting
company Hominem from Spain, as well as an Austrian non-profit organisa-
tion Multidisciplinary European Research Institute Graz (MERIG). The authors
of this paper implemented the research on behalf of Profes and E-peers.
The research tool was developed by a team including the authors, Yazid-a Isli
and Brigitte Zörweg. However, the major part of the discussed research was
carried out in Poland as an element of statutory research of the university
which employs the authors.
Looking in detail, the first stage involved research at enterprises
in Poland (N=78), Austria (N=24) and Spain (N=16), then, the study was con-
tinued exclusively in Poland, where the number of respondent enterprises
reached N=140. These limitations resulted from the fact that international
research was carried out within a time-bound Erasmus+ project. The authors
of this paper resolved to continue research in Poland, increasing the research
sample. Consequently, the research results will be analysed and presented
in this paper in the following configuration:
data concerning competencies management at 140 enterprises in Poland;
data concerning competencies management at 118 enterprises, in-
cluding 78 ones in Poland, 24 in Austria and 16 in Spain.
The researchers resolved to commence the diagnosis with describing
the Polish part of the study (N=140). Then, statistically significant differences
in business practice were discussed concerning competencies management
in Poland (N=78) as compared to the experience of Austria (N=24) and Spain
(N=16). The identified differences were also analysed in the context of en-
terprise size, time of its market operations, business sector (European Clas-
sification of Activities) and time involved in actions related to competencies
management.
The study applied the methodology of the grounded theory which

involves development of theories based on the collected empirical data (Gla-
ser, Strauss, 1967:1–2; Glaser, 1978:2). This was a quantitative-qualitative
study which required integration of the obtained measurement data by its
preparation for statistical processing. A questionnaire, developed specifi-
cally for the purpose of this study, was used after initial research. The study
included qualitative research based on IDI (Individual in-Depth Interviews)
and ITI (In-depth Telephone Interviews). The researchers decided to use
targeted sampling, because a narrower number of analysed cases and mini-
mised differences between them allowed better exposition and identifica-
tion of the studied phenomena or processes (Hammersley, Atkinson 2000).
Arbitrary (non-random) selection of respondents enables a choice of those
members of the population who have a higher potential to provide reliable
information (Kotler, 2005:136–137; Kotler et al., 2002:376). Hence, the held
research was idiographic, which means that its conclusions concern only
the studied population. Resignation from a broad generalisation of results
does not necessarily reduce their cognitive value (Chełpa, 2003:151). Many
authors use targeted selection of samples, persuaded that this is the opti-
mal method (cf. Nogalski, 1986; Witkowski, 1995; Stolarska, 1998; Błaszczyk,
1999; Szaban, 2000; Morawski, 2009). In this case, the respondent enter-
prises were selected based on the following criteria: implementation of ele-
ments of competencies management, size of the enterprise, business sector
according to the European Classification of Activities, time of market opera-
tions and country of the head office. The researchers addressed company
owners, directors and presidents, persons in charge of companies’ HR poli-
cies as well as training specialists, asking them to indicate persons with rele-
vant knowledge on how competencies management was implemented at the
companies. Then, those persons were asked to participate in the study per-
formed by the following techniques:
CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) – technique which
involves telephone interviews carried out with computer software
assistance;
CAWI (Computer Assisted Web Interview) – direct interview tech-
nique held by internet with an online interview for the respondents
to fill in by themselves;
CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) – technique which in-
volves interviews with respondents using mobile devices (e.g. laptop,
palmtop) which record the provided answers;
CASI (Computer Assisted Self-interviewing) – questionnaire study
with computer assistance in which respondents fill in the question-
naires by themselves, entering their responses in a questionnaire on
a computer provided by the research institution’s staff.
The obtained results were analysed statistically. Mean results
and standard deviations were calculated. To define differences in responses
considering the analysed criteria, Student’s t-test for independent samples
was performed with the IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0 package. Correlations be-
tween the studied variables were analysed by Pearson’s chi-squared test.
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to check distribution of the variable “As-
sessment of the level of competencies management”. The significant result
of this test (p < .05) showed that the distribution of the analysed variable
is not similar to normal and therefore non-parametric tests were applied.
To verify potential differences in the level of competencies management
in different countries, Kruskal-Wallis test was applied (p < .05). It was also used
to compare the level of competencies management considering the length
of the studied companies’ market operations. Correlation between the de-
gree of implementation of competencies management and companies size
was analysed with Spearman’s correlation coefficient.
7.3. Characteristics of the research sample
The research covered 181 enterprises, including 140 ones based in Poland,
24 in Austria and 16 in Spain (Table 23). These were mainly big enterprises
(59%), 25% were medium enterprises, 10% were small enterprises and 7%
were micro-enterprises.
Table 23. Structure of studied enterprises by country of the head office
State of the headquarters Number of enterprises %
Poland 140 77.3
Austria 24 13.3
Spain 16 8.8
other 1 0.6
Total 181 100
Source: developed by the authors based on research results.
In this research, enterprises were defined as entities which are ac-

tive in business, regardless of the legal form, including: self-employed per-
sons, family businesses specialising in crafts or other domains, as well as
companies and consortia which run regular operations. Big enterprises
were defined as those which employ more than 250 persons and have an-
nual turnover exceeding 50 million euro and/or total annual balance above
43 million euro. A medium enterprise is a company which employs from 50
to 250 people and has annual turnover above 50 million euro or total assets
above 43 million euro evidenced by a balance at the end of the turnover year.
A small enterprise means an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 per-
sons and has annual turnover and/or total annual balance below 10 million
euro. Micro-enterprise is a company which employs fewer than 10 employ-
ees and has annual turnover below 2 million euro or annual balance amount
below 2 million euro4. An enterprise was eligible for the research if it had
its head office in the country, provided that the respondent person was
employed at this office. The studied enterprises represented various indus-
tries according to the European Classification of Activity. The largest group
specialised in manufacturing (26%), financial and insurance activities (12%),
wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles (9%).
Details of the industries represented in the study are shown in Table 24.
Table 24. Structure of respondent enterprises considering business sector according
to the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community
Percentage
Business sector according to the European Classification of Activities
of responses
Manufacturing 0.26
Financial and insurance activities 0.12
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 0.09
Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 0.06
Information and communication 0.06
Professional, scientific and technical activities 0.05
Administrative and support service activities 0.05
Public administration and defense; compulsory social security 0.05
Accommodation and food service activities 0.04
Education 0.04
Construction 0.04
Transportation and storage 0.04
Mining and quarrying 0.03
Arts, entertainment and recreation 0.03
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 0.01
Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 0.01
Real estate activities 0.01
Human health and social work activities 0.01
Source: developed by the authors based on research results.
4
Definition of enterprises sizes came to force on 1 January 2005 according
to the Commission Regulation (CE) no. 364/2004 (Official Journal of the European
Union L 63 of 28.02.2004), according to art. 1 of Annex I to Regulation 800/2008.
Another criterion of differences among the respondent enterprises
concerned duration of market operations. The dominant group (36%) includ-
ed those which had been present at the market for 11–20 years; 34% had
experience of more than 20 years; 16% were active at the market for 6–10
years; enterprises which had been operating for 3–5 years constituted 9% of
the sample. Only 3% of the enterprises were less than 2 years old. The re-
spondents were employees of the enterprises, mainly HR specialists and rep-
resentatives of training departments, as well as management staff who de-
clared knowledge about how competencies management processes are im-
plemented at their enterprise.
8. COMPETENCIES MANAGEMENT AT POLISH ENTERPRISES
8.1. Implementation of competencies management, identification

and classification of competencies
This section is designed to present the level of implementation of competen-

cies management at enterprises in Poland (N=140), as well as to identify how
long the enterprises were involved in the process and who of the staff took
part in competencies management, what objectives the process served, what
methods were used to identify competencies, how analysis is performed, how
competencies are grouped (classified) and who describes competencies.
The level of implementation of competencies management at the
studied enterprises in Poland (N=140) as compared to the target level is
shown in Table 25
Table 25. Level of implementation of competencies management at the selected
enterprises in Poland N=140 (percentage of responses)
Below 11– 21– 31– 41– 51– 61– 71– 81– 91–
10% 20% 20% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0.19 0.06 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.09 0.03
Source: original development of research results.
The largest group consisted of those enterprises (19%) which de-

scribed the level of implementation as lower than 10%. At 14% of the re-
spondent enterprises the level of implementation was very high (71–80%),
and further 13% of them selected the answer 61–70%. Only 3% of them had
almost completed the process of implementation of competencies manage-
ment (Table 25). As 52% of the respondent enterprises described their level
of implementation of competencies management between 51 and 100%
of the target level, advancement of the process may be described as medi-
um. The data was analysed considering enterprise size. Single-factor variance
analysis revealed differences in implementation of competencies manage-
ment between enterprises of different size F(3.136)=2.9, p<.05. Post-hoc test
analysis showed that the level of implementation of competencies manage-
ment was assessed as significantly higher at enterprises with more than 250
people of staff as compared to enterprises which employed from 10 to 49
people. A significant (weak), positive Spearman’s correlation (rs=.18, p<.05)
was revealed between enterprise size and implementation level. This jus-
tifies a conclusion that the larger the enterprise was, the higher the level
of implementation of competencies management it had achieved.
The respondent enterprises from Poland varied in time of experience
in competencies management. Forty-three per cent had managed competen-
cies for 2–4 years, 14% for 5–9 years, 12% for longer than 10 years and 24%
for less than one year. A moderate positive correlation was found (Spearman’s
correlation, rs=.37, p<.001) between enterprise size and time of held experi-
ence in competencies management, allowing for a conclusion that the larger
the enterprise was, the longer experience in competencies management it
had.
The staff involved in the process of competencies management
included the most frequently: top managers (46%), HR managers (39%)
and HR specialists (35%) (Table 26).
Table 26. Persons involved in the process of implementation of competencies man-
agement at the selected enterprises in Poland (N=140)
HR Top HR Lower level Middle External
manager manager specialist managers managers consultants
39% 46% 35% 20% 27% 17%
Chi-square tests revealed a significant correlation between enter-

prise size and time of experience in competencies management on one hand
and staff involved in implementation of this process on the other. These
were the following correlations.
The larger the enterprise was, the more frequently it assigned re-
sponsibility for competencies management to the following roles:
HR manager (χ2(3)=25.7, p<.001);
HR specialist (χ2(3)=12.1, p=.007);
medium level manager (χ2(3)=10.3, p=.016).
top managers (χ2(3)=9.4, p=.024).
No statistically significant correlations were found between enterprise
size and involvement of such roles as lower level (line) manager and external
consultant in competencies management. With no differences concerning en-
terprise size, about 13–23% of the enterprises assigned these responsibilities
to lower-level (line) managers and 8–26% to external consultants. Low involve-
ment of lower-level managers in competencies management should be per-
ceived as a worrying finding, because these are the people mainly responsible
for assigning tasks, employee assessment and their rewarding.
The researchers analysed involvement of staff in competencies man-
agement considering the enterprises’ experience / time of implementa-
tion of competencies management. They found that the longer experience
in competencies management the enterprise had (starting from two years

of experience), the more frequently it assigned responsibilities for this pro-
cess to the following roles:
top managers (χ2(3)=30.9, p<.001);
HR managers (χ2(4)=16.9, p=.002);
HR specialists (χ2(4)=16.8, p=.002);
lower-level (line) managers (χ2(4)=12, p=.017);
medium-level managers (χ2(4)=11.6, p=.021).
These results suggest a conclusion that at enterprises with longer
experience in competencies managements, the process involved more fre-
quently (as compared to big enterprises) top managers, and – which is equal-
ly important – line (lower-level) managers.
The study involved also exploration of objectives designed for compe-
tencies management at enterprises. The process served the most frequently
such purposes as training and developmental programs (59%), employee
performance appraisal (55%), recruitment and selection (52%) and career
planning (47%) (Table 27).
Table 27. Objectives of competencies management at the selected enterprises
in Poland (N=140)
Goals of competency management in organization %
Tailored training and developmental programs 54
Performance assessment 41
Recruitment and selection 39
Career management 33
Assigning tasks to people 44
Design and management of compensation stems 22
Talent management 23
Succession planning 12
Selection of university students/young graduates for job placement 16
The performed chi-square tests revealed a significant correlation

between enterprise size and objectives designed for competencies manage-
ment. The findings showed that the larger the enterprise was, the more fre-
quently it planned the following objectives for competencies management:
career planning (χ2(3)=24.8, p<.001);
employee performance assessment (χ2(3)=18.1, p<.001);
talent management (χ2(3)=18.1, p<.001);
selection of university students/young graduates for job placement
(χ2(3)=8.3, p=.04).
The significant result of the test (χ2(3)=19.2, p<.001) suggests that
at smaller enterprises competencies management was more frequently ap-
plied to assign tasks to people.
The analysis concerning time of the enterprises’ experience in com-
petencies management shows that the longer experience the enterprise had,
the more often it selected such objectives as:
tailored training and developmental programs (χ2(4)=34.7, p<.001);
career planning (χ2(4)=28.8, p<.001);
talent management (χ2(4)=17.2, p=.002);
employee performance assessment (χ2(4)=14.58, p=.006);
assigning tasks to employees (χ2(4)=13.8, p=.008);
design and management of compensation systems (χ2(4)=13.1, p=.011).
Within competencies management the respondent enterprises had im-
plemented various methods of competencies identification. The largest group
of enterprises used direct observation (61%) and employees’ self-evaluation
(53%). Only about one third applied more variable methods such as: group dis-
cussions, open interviews, working sessions with experts or behavioural event
interviews. Exercise questionnaires are applied very rarely (Table 28).
Table 28. Methods of competency identification implemented at the selected en-
terprises in Poland (N=140)
Methods of competency identification %
Direct observations 61
Self-evaluation of the employees 53
Group discussions 29
Open interviews 16
Working sessions with experts 16
Job analysis questionnaires 14
Behavioural event interviews 11
Evidence of exercise questionnaires 4
Chi-square test of independence revealed a significant correlation

between enterprises’ size and method of competency identification applied
by them in the case of self-evaluation (χ2(3)=11.2, p=.011). The obtained
value of probability (p=.011) was compared to the predefined level of sig-
nificance (α=0,05), allowing for rejection of the hypothesis H0 and confirma-
tion of the hypothesis of a correlation between the variables. Thus, it could
be concluded that self-evaluation as a competency identification method is
preferred by big enterprises. Furthermore, the significant result of the test,
χ2(3)=7.9, p<.05, suggests that smaller enterprises more frequently applied
direct observation to identify competencies. Significant correlations were

also revealed between duration of the enterprises’ experience in compe-
tencies management and applied methods of competencies identification.
At enterprises where competencies had been managed for at least several
months, the following methods were applied more frequently:
self-evaluation (χ2(4)=13.6, p=.009);
direct observations (χ2(4)=11.9, p=.018);
From the perspective of competencies management it was interest-
ing to verify whether job analysis took into account only current require-
ments concerning the analysed post or future ones, too. It turned out that
56% of the enterprises considered both current and future requirements
concerning the analysed posts, while 41% of them considered only current
requirements. This result should be considered as worrying, because a large
group of the enterprises failed to apply strategic approach to human re-
sources management, which may have adverse impact on their development
and implementation of future strategies.
There was no correlation identified between enterprise size
and methods of job analysis (checked by Spearman’s correlation). Analogi-
cally, no significant correlations were found between the enterprises’ expe-
rience in competencies management and methods of job analysis as far as
current and future requirements are concerned.
Another important issue in the study concerned verification whether
the respondent enterprises applied competencies groups/classifications. It
was revealed that almost one third of them did not classify competencies
at all, while 44% of the enterprises classified core employee competencies
(for the entire organisation), 32% defined core managerial competencies
and 18% classified core leader competencies. Only one fourth of the sample
identified technical/functional competencies, and 15% – cross-functional (in-
terdisciplinary) competencies (Table 29).
Chi-square test of independence revealed significant correlations
between enterprise size and applied methods of competencies grouping/
classification. The correlations were as follows. Smaller enterprises more fre-
quently failed to classify competencies at all (χ2(3)=26.4, p<.001). The larger
the enterprise, the more frequently it applied the following methods of com-
petencies classification:
core manager competencies (for supervisors and managers)
(χ2(3)=20.4, p<.001);
core leader competencies (for executives) (χ2(3)=20.4, p<.001);
core employee competencies (for all employees in the organization)
(χ2(3)=8.7, p=.033).
Table 29. Methods of classification / grouping competencies at the selected enter-
prises in Poland (N=140)
Methods of classification/grouping competencies %
Core employee competencies (for all employees in the organization) 44
Core manager competencies (for supervisors and managers) 32
We don’t group competencies at all 31
Technical (or functional) competencies (job related competencies related to one’s
key specialty or function; for example, accounts payable, heavy water chemistry, 25
computer programming, or security procedures)
Core leader competencies (for executives) 18
Cross functional competencies (job related competencies, which cannot apply to many
15
types of jobs; for example, time management, communication, or basic computer skills)
The results showed also a significant correlation between experience

in and duration of the enterprises’ competencies management and methods
of competencies grouping / classification. It turned out that with shorter ex-
perience competencies management, the more frequently competencies are
not classified at all (χ2(4)=32.3, p<.001).
The longer experience in competencies management the enterprise
had (especially at organisations which had managed competencies for 5-9
years), the more frequently competencies were classified as follows:
core manager competencies (for supervisors and managers)
(χ2(4)=31.3, p<.001);
core employee competencies (for all employees in the organization)
(χ2(4)=22.1, p<.001);
core leader competencies (for executives) (χ2(4)=14.7, p=.005).
Description of competencies at the respondent enterprises was
mainly the responsibility of employees (55%), but also teams composed
of employees and external consultants (29%). Only 10% of them assigned
the task to other enterprises/external consultants (Table 30).
Table 30. Persons in charge of describing competencies at the selected enterprises
in Poland (N=140)
Persons in charge of describing competencies at enterprises %
Our company employees 55
A team composed of our company’s employees and external consultants 29
External company/external consultants 10
Similarly, as described above, the researchers attempted to verify

potential significant differences between enterprises considering enterprise
size and duration of experience in competencies management. The signifi-

cant result of χ2(3)=9.8, p=.02 suggests that at larger enterprises competen-
cies were more frequently described by a team of employees and external
consultants. At enterprises with short experience in competencies manage-
ment this was the most frequently a responsibility of employees (χ2(4)=14.7,
p=.005). With longer experience in competencies management, competen-
cies were more frequently described by a team composed of employees
and external consultants (χ2(4)=21, p<.001).
8.2. Competencies assessment and development
This section discusses research results concerning assessment and devel-

opment of competencies at the selected enterprises in Poland (N=140).
It explores such issues as methods of competencies assessment applied
by the enterprises, applied scales, approaches and levels of complexity/pro-
ficiency, how often competencies were reviewed and updated within com-
petencies management and what methods were applied in the area of em-
ployee training and development.
The findings showed that the respondent enterprises applied various
methods for competencies assessment, such as: observation (61%), perfor-
mance analysis (36%), interviews (24%), questionnaires (29%), 360º assess-
ment (20%) and analysis of personnel documents (19%). Fourteen per cent
of the enterprises assessed competencies by situational tests based on real
situations and workshops. Only 11% of the sample used assessment centres
and critical incidents interviews (Table 31).
Table 31. Competencies assessment methods applied at the selected enterprises
in Poland (N=140)
Competencies assessment methods %
Observation 61
Performance results 36
Questionnaires 29
Interviews 24
360º Feedback 20
Analysis of personnel documents 19
Situational tests (cases based on real situations) 14
Workshops 14
Assessment centre 11
Critical incidents interview 11
Expert opinions 6
Repertory grid analysis 1

The data was analysed considering differences related to enterprise
size and held experience in competencies management.
Chi-square tests revealed no significant differences with respect
to enterprise size, but they confirmed a correlation between years of expe-
rience in competencies management and applied methods of competencies
management. It turned out that enterprises with longer experience in com-
petencies management significantly more frequently assessed competencies
by the following methods:
performance analysis (χ2(4)=16.9, p=.002);
Assessment Centre (χ2(4)=11.9, p=.018);
expert opinions (χ2(4)=11.8, p=.019);
critical incidents interviews (χ2(4)=10.1, p=.04);
workshops (χ2(4)=16.1, p=.003).
From the perspective of competencies management it was interest-
ing to determine what approach enterprises had to assessment of complex-
ity/proficiency of competencies. It turned out that there were various ap-
proaches. The most frequently enterprises assessed the linkage of the com-
petencies to organizational goals, objectives or strategies (40%). Almost one
in three enterprises assessed competencies in order to distinguish highly
performing and average employees, while 29% assessed importance of par-
ticular competencies now and in future (Table 32).
Table 32. Enterprises’ approach to assessment of complexity / proficiency levels
of competencies at the selected enterprises from Poland (N=140)
Enterprises’ approach to assessment of complexity /
%
proficiency levels of competencies
Rating the linkage of the competencies to organizational goals, objectives or strategies 40
Rating the extent to which the competency distinguishes high performing employees
31
from average employees
Rating the importance of the competency now and in future 29
This latter result should be considered especially worrying. With so

volatile environment, including technological changes and innovations, it
seems necessary to monitor regularly the demand for competencies at the
labour market (now and in the future). It should be taken into account that
employees need a lot of time to gain new competencies at a good or expert
level, and these are the competencies which are needed the most nowadays.
There were no statistically significant differences identified between
enterprises as far as enterprise size is concerned. Analysis of responses con-
sidering differences in experience in competencies management revealed
a statistically significant result of the test χ2(4)=19.4, p=.001. This result sug-
gests that with longer experience in competencies management, the enter-
prises more frequently considered competencies complexity/proficiency
focusing on assessment of the degree of competencies linkage to corporate
objectives or strategies. Therefore, it seems grounded to conclude that en-
terprises with longer experience in competencies management will be able
to find a better match between employees’ competencies and corporate ob-
jectives and strategies.
The respondent enterprises from Poland applied various scales/levels
of competencies. The most often these were job levels (e.g. associate engineer,
engineer, senior engineer) (39%), further progressive levels of job competen-
cies development (e.g. novice, master and expert) and levels of achieved (ap-
plied at work) competencies (e.g. marginal, good and excellent) (Table 33).
Table 33. Scales / levels of competencies applied at the selected enterprises in Po-
land (N=140)
Competencies scales / levels %
The job grade level (e.g., associate engineer, staff engineer, or senior engineer) 39
The progressive levels of competency development on the job (e.g., novice, master,
29
and expert)
The levels of competency performance (e.g., marginal, good, and excellent) 29
There were no significant correlations identified between the applied

scales/levels of competencies and enterprise size or duration of the enter-
prise’s experience in competencies management.
The study involved also an attempt to verify how often the enterpris-
es reviewed and updated competencies. The largest group within the sample
did it once a year (48%), while 29% of the respondent enterprises had never
done it before (Table 34).
Table 34. Frequency of competencies reviews and updates in the selected enter-
prises in Poland (N=140)
Frequency of competencies reviews and updates %
Once a year 48
We haven’t done it yet 29
Every 2 years 6
Every 3 years 4
Every 5 years 4
At longer intervals than 5 years 3

A small percentage of the enterprises reviewed and updated com-
petencies at longer intervals than once a year. This finding is not surprising,
since in the modern economy, especially if it is based on knowledge and in-
novation, demand for competencies is very volatile. The enterprises’ decla-
rations were also affected by high fluctuation of staff, especially in the case
of well-trained and younger employees, who nowadays have a broad choice
of employment offers.
Chi-square tests revealed a significant (moderate) positive correla-
tion between enterprise size and frequency of competencies review (rs=.26,
p=.002). This allows a conclusion that the larger the enterprise is, the more
frequently it reviews and updates competencies. Also, a significant, positive
and moderately strong correlation was found between the enterprises’ ex-
perience in competencies management and frequency of competencies re-
views and updates (rs=.44, p<.001). This justifies a conclusion that with larg-
er experience in competencies management, enterprises review and update
their employees’ competencies more frequently.
The respondents were also asked what methods they applied in em-
ployee training and development. The most frequent response involved
training programmes (64%). The study revealed that most enterprises hoped
their employees would learn and develop by themselves (59%), while only
35% applied coaching and 24% – mentoring. Only a small group applied
blended learning methods and outdoor measures (Table 35).
Table 35. Methods applied in employee training and development at the selected
enterprises in Poland (N=140)
Methods applied in employee training and development %
Training programmes 64
Self-education and development 59
Coaching 35
Mentoring 24
Blended learning 8
Outdoor measures 5
The performed chi-square tests showed a significant correlation be-

tween enterprise size as well as time of involvement in competencies man-
agement on one hand and methods applied in employee training and de-
velopment on the other. These were the following correlations. The larger
the enterprise was, the higher the probability of application of the following
methods in employee training and development:
coaching (χ2(3)=8, p=.046);

training programs (χ2(3)=11.9, p=.008).
The results showed that with longer experience in competencies
management, the enterprises more frequently applied the following meth-
ods in employee training and development:
coaching (χ2(4)=13.4, p=.01);
training programs (χ2(4)=34.7, p<.001);
self-development and learning (χ2(4)=11, p=.026).
8.3. Modern technology and European initiatives

in competencies management
This section explores the role played by technology in competencies man-

agement at the selected enterprises in Poland. Research results make a ba-
sis for a conclusion that the level of application of technologies in this area
is medium. The most often technology was applied to develop the compe-
tency profiles (31%). One fourth of the enterprises used technology to pro-
vide a single source of competency information within the whole organiza-
tion in order to help ensure consistency in the competencies applied to a job
family or other organizational units. 21% apply technology for assessing com-
petencies, while for 19% technology is a tool to facilitate the use of the com-
petency models and profiles by housing the derived HR applications (e.g.,
selection procedures, performance appraisals, career development tools)
(Table 36).
Table 36. Technology’s roles in competencies management at the selected enter-
prises from Poland (N=140)
Technology’s roles in competencies management %
We use technology to develop the competency profiles 31
We use technology as a single source of competency information within the who-
le organization in order to help ensure consistency in the competencies applied 24
to a job family or other organizational units
We use technology for assessing competencies 21
We facilitate the use of the competency models and profiles by housing the de-
rived HR applications (e.g., selection procedures, performance appraisals, career 19
development tools)
We use technology to provide a place to store the competency profiles which are
16
thus made electronically available to organizational members

There were no significant correlations found between the role played
by technologies in competencies management and enterprise size or experi-
ence in competencies management.
The study involved also an attempt to verify whether the staff
of the Polish enterprises knew the European initiatives related to competen-
cies, their quality and development. Their knowledge in this respect should
be assessed as very low, as 65% know none of them (Table 8.3.2.). The best
known ones include: European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System
(ECTS) (11%), European Qualifications Framework – EQF (8%), EUROPASS (5%)
and Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE) (5%). The other initiatives
listed in Table 37 are virtually unknown to the enterprises’ employees.
Table 37. Knowledge concerning European initiatives related to competencies defi-
nition, competency models and competencies development among employees
of the selected enterprises in Poland (N=140)
Knowledge concerning European initiatives related to competencies definition,
%
competency models and competencies development
I have never heard of these initiatives 65
European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) 11
European Qualifications Framework – EQF 8
EUROPASS 5
Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE) 5
E-Competence Framework (e-CF) 4
European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) 3
European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) 3
Quality assurance in vocational education and training (EQAVET) 1
Euroguidance Network 1
The significant result of the test χ2(4)=27, p<.001 suggests that the Eu-
ropean initiatives concerning definition of competencies, competency mod-
els, competencies development were the least known at enterprises which
had managed competencies for several months up to 5–9 years.
No differences were found in knowledge of these initiatives
with respect to enterprise size.
9. COMPETENCIES MANAGEMENT AT SELECTED ENTERPRISES

IN AUSTRIA, SPAIN AND POLAND
9.1. Level of implementation of competencies management
The basic research objective was to determine the level of implementation

of competencies management at enterprises. The study was meant to de-
termine for how long enterprises had been involved in the process, who had
taken part in it and what objectives competencies management had served.
The researchers focused on finding differences depending on the country
of the enterprise’s headquarters, enterprise size and duration of involvement
in / experience with competencies management. The questionnaire study
was addressed to staff of the selected enterprises and it allowed the research-
ers to determine the staff’s opinion concerning the level of implementation
of competencies management as compared to the target level. 20% of the re-
spondents described the level of implementation as medium (41–60%). In 19%
of enterprises the level of implementation was described as below 10%. Only
3% had almost completed the process of implementation of competencies
management (Table 38). As almost half of the studied enterprises had imple-
mented competencies management in 0–50% as compared to the target level,
it is justified to conclude that the process is at a medium level.
Table 38. Level of implementation of competencies management at the selected enterpris-
es in Austria, Spain and Poland (percentage of responses)
Below 11– 21– 31– 41– 51– 61– 71– 81– 91–
10% 20% 20% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0.19 0.06 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.09 0.03
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to verify the distribution

of the variable “assessment of the level of implementation of competencies
management at the enterprise”. The significant result of this test (p < .05)
shows that the distribution of the analysed variable is not close to a nor-
mal distribution, so non-parametric tests were applied. To assess whether
the level of implementation of competencies management depends on
the duration of the enterprise’s operations, Kruskal-Wallis test was used.
The significant result of this test shows that there were statistically signifi-
cant differences between enterprises depending on how long they had been
present on the market. It turned out that the longer the enterprise had been
active in business, the higher its competencies management level was as-
sessed. In the case of enterprises present at the market for up to 2 years
M=11 (SD=12.7); for enterprises active for 3 to 5 years M=23.75 (SD=32.9),
for enterprises active from 6 to 10 years M=45.21 (SD=30.1), for enterprises
active from 11 to 20 years M=53.2 (SD=27.4) and for enterprises with over
20 years of experience M=50.6 (SD=29.3). In analysing responses vs. different
countries of headquarters, the researchers found out that the average level
of competencies management (in a range 0–100) was the highest in Austria
(M=70.1, SD=24.5), next in Spain (M=57.7, SD=29.2), and the lowest in Po-
land (M=39.2, SD=27.4). No similar differences in the level of competencies
management were revealed in the case of classification by enterprises’ size.
The next analysed variable concerned duration of involvement in / experi-
ence with competencies management processes. 30% of respondent enter-
prises had been managing competencies for 2–4 years, 24% between 5 and 9
years, 21% for more than 10 years and 18% of them for less than one year.
Persons involved in competencies management were as follows: HR manag-
ers (54%), top managers (50%) and HR specialists (43%) (Table 39).
Table 39. Persons involved in the process of implementation of competencies man-
agement at the selected enterprises in Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119)
HR Top HR Line Middle External
managers managers specialists managers managers consultants
54% 50% 43% 34% 29% 19%

tween enterprises’ size, country of headquarters and duration of the compa-
nies’ involvement in competencies management on one hand and persons
involved in implementation of this processes on the other. The correlation
was as follows: HR managers were involved in the process of implementa-
tion of competencies management more frequently:
at medium and big enterprises (χ2(4)=10.443, p=0.034);
at enterprises with longer experience in competencies management
(χ2(4)=13.541, p=0.009), i.e. with 2–4 years of experience (68.6%), 5–9
years of experience (55.2%), more than 10 years of experience (64%);
at companies from Austria (75%) and Spain (75%) (χ2(3)=12.235, p=0.007).
In the case of HR specialists, they were involved in competencies man-
agement implementation more frequently at big enterprises (χ2(4)=21.263,
p=0.000). Line managers were involved in these processes more frequently
at enterprises with 5–9 years of experience in competencies management
(χ2(4)=11.609, p=0.021).
In the case of medium-level specialists, they were involved in compe-

tencies management implementation more frequently:
at big enterprises (χ2(4)=9.754, p=0.045);
at enterprises with 5–9 years of experience in competencies man-
agement (χ2(4)=19.762, p=0.041).
The study involved determination of objectives designed for competen-
cies management at enterprises. The most frequently it was applied for training
and development programs (59%), employee performance appraisal (55%), re-
cruitment and selection (52%) and for career planning (47%) (Table 40).
Table 40. Objectives of competencies management at selected enterprises in Aus-
tria, Spain and Poland (N=119)
The goals of competency management in organization %
Design tailored training and developmental programs 59
Employee performance appraisal 55
Personnel recruitment and selection processes 52
Career management 47
Assigning tasks to people 40
Design and management of compensation systems 26
Talent management 24
Succession planning 20
Selection of university students/young graduates for job placement 18
The performed chi-square tests showed a statistically significant cor-

relation between the size of the enterprise, the country of its headquarters
and years of experience in competencies management on one hand and objec-
tives involved in competencies management at the enterprises on the other:
employee performance appraisal – this objective was defined more
frequently by big enterprises (χ2(4)=9.892, p=0.042);
personnel recruitment and selection processes – was the objec-
tive pursued by enterprises from Austria (79.2%) and Spain (75%)
(χ2(3)=16.267, p=0.001) and those with longer experience in compe-
tencies management (χ2(4)=14.413, p=0.006), i.e. more than 10 years
of experience (72%) and 2–4 years of experience (63%);
career management – this was the objective selected more frequently
by medium enterprises (χ2(4)=19.780, p=0.001) and those with over 10
years of experience in competencies management (χ2(4)=9.704, p=0.046);
assigning tasks to people – was the objective pursued more frequent-
ly by enterprises with more than 10 years of experience in compe-
tencies management (χ2(4)=16.924, p=0.002);
succession planning – this objective was selected more frequently
by enterprises from Austria (χ2(3)=8.944, p=0.030);
selection of university students/young graduates for job placement –
this objective was pursued more frequently by enterprises with 5–9
years of experience in competencies management (χ2(4)=14.632,
p=0.006) and by big enterprises (χ2(4)=11.357, p=0.023).
In other cases there were no differences between enterprises identi-
fied with respect to objectives of competencies management.
9.2. Competencies identification and classification
This section presents study results concerning methods of competencies

identification. It describes also who is responsible for competencies descrip-
tion, how jobs are analysed, how often competencies are reviewed and up-
dated and how they are classified.
In the studied enterprises, competencies management involved intro-
duction of various methods of competencies identification. The largest group
of enterprises applied direct observation (57%) and employee self-evaluation
(48%). Only about one fourth of the respondent enterprises used more diversi-
fied methods, such as: group discussion, open interviews, job analysis ques-
tionnaires, working sessions with experts or interviews concerning behavioural
events. Job analysis questionnaires were applied very rarely (Table 41.).
Table 41. Methods of competencies identification implemented at the selected en-
terprises in Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119)
Methods of competency identification %
Direct observations 57
Self-evaluation of the employees 48
Group discussions 29
Open interviews 26
Job analysis questionnaires 25
Working sessions with experts 24
Behavioural event interviews 24
Evidence of exercise questionnaires 15

tween the size of the enterprise and country of its headquarters and com-
petencies identification methods applied at the enterprises. For instance,
chi-square independence test showed a significant correlation between
the size of the enterprise and application of group discussions as a method
to identify competencies (χ2(4)=13.328, p=0.010). The revealed probability

value (p=.010) was compared to the predefined significance level α = 0.05
and the comparison allowed rejection of the hypothesis H0 and confirmation
of the hypothesis postulating the correlation between the variables. There-
fore, it could be assumed that group discussions, as a method to identify com-
petencies, were preferred by small enterprises. The performed chi-square
tests, analogically, revealed statistically significant differences in frequency
of implementation of the following methods of competencies identification:
self-evaluation of the employees – the most frequently applied by big
(59.7%) and medium enterprises (50%) (χ2(4)=16.004, p=0.003);
working sessions with experts – more frequently applied by enter-
prises from Spain (50%) and Austria (41.7%) (χ2(4)=14.382, p=0.002);
open interviews – applied more frequently by enterprises from Spain
(50%) and Austria (41.7%) (χ2(4)=11.720, p=0.008).
From the perspective of competencies management, it was interest-
ing to determine whether job analyses took into account only the current
job-related requirements or the future ones, too. It was revealed that 60%
of respondent enterprises considered both current and future requirements
associated with the analysed job, including 66.7% enterprises in Austria, 59%
from Poland and 56.3% in Spain. On the other hand, 35% of the respondent
enterprises took only current needs into account (including in Austria 29.2%,
in Poland 38.5%, in Spain 25%).
No statistically significant differences were identified between re-
sponses to this question and country of the enterprise’s headquarters
(χ2(9)=13.185, p=0.154). However, the observed differences may suggest that
Austrian enterprises have more strategic approach to human resources man-
agement. No statistically significant correlations were identified between re-
sponses to this question and the enterprise size (χ2(12)=20.321, p=0.771) or
years of experience in competencies management (χ2(12)=8.176, p=0.061).
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that inclusion of both current and future
requirements in job analyses was especially characteristic for enterprises
with longer experience in competencies management, i.e. 5–9 years (79%) or
more than 10 years (72%). On the contrary, exclusively current requirements
were considered mainly by enterprises with less than a year of experience
in competencies management (50%).
An important issue in the study was to determine whether the studied
enterprises group / classify competencies. It turned out that almost one third
of them applied no competencies classification at all. A half of the competencies
classified core employee competencies (for the entire organisation), 37% define
core competencies of managers, and 24% – core leader competencies (Table 42).
Table 42. Methods of classification / grouping competencies at the selected enter-
prises in Austria Spain and Poland (N=119)
If you group competencies in your company somehow, what are the categories
%
of these groups?
Core employee competencies (for all employees in the organization) 50.4
Core manager competencies (for supervisors and managers) 37.0
We don’t group them at all 27.6
Core leader competencies (for executives) 24.4
Technical (or functional) competencies (job related competencies related to one’s
key specialty or function; for example, accounts payable, heavy water chemistry, 21.0
computer programming, or security procedures)
Cross functional competencies (job related competencies, can apply to many types
19.3
of jobs; for example, time management, communication, or basic computer skills)
About one fifth of the enterprises classified cross-functional (interdisci-

plinary) competencies related to the performed tasks which were useful in many
professions, for instance: time management, communication or basic computer
skills as well as technical / functional skills connected to the employee’s spe-
cific specialisation or function, e.g. accounts payable and due, security proce-
dures etc. (Table 42). The performed chi-square tests revealed a significant cor-
relation between the country of the enterprises’ headquarters and experience
in competencies management on one hand and classification of competencies
on the other. It means that, depending on duration of experience in competen-
cies management and country of their headquarters, the enterprises applied
different methods of grouping / classifying competencies. The correlations are
shown below. Chi-square tests determined statistically significant differences
in methods of grouping / classifying competencies by enterprises, i.e.:
no competencies classification at all – the most frequently selected
at small enterprises (62.5%) (χ2(4)=10.302, p=0.036) and enterprises
(54.5%) (χ2(3)=16.805, p=0.001);
core competencies of all employees (within the entire organization)
– classification applied more frequently by enterprises with longer
experience in competencies management, i.e. 2–4 years (60% ), 5–9
years (58.6%), more than 10 years (56%) (χ2(3)=9.660, p=0.047);
core competencies of managers – more frequently classified by big
enterprises (53.7%) (χ2(4)=21.093, p=0.000);
core leaders competencies – classified more frequently by big enter-
prises (53.7%) (χ2(4)=14.385, p=0.006) and enterprises with longer
experience in competencies management, i.e. 5–9 years (31%), over
10 years of experience (44%) (χ2(4)=13.296, p=0.010);
cross-functional (interdisciplinary) competencies – classified more

frequently by enterprises from Spain (43.8%) and Austria (37.5%)
(χ2(3)=16.805, p=0.001) and by enterprises with more than 10 years
of experience (40%) (χ2(4)=10.005, p=0.040);
technical / functional competencies – more frequently classified by en-
terprises from Austria (45.8%) (χ2(3)=12.302, p=0.015) and by enterpris-
es with more than 10 years of experience (44%) (χ2(4)=10.005, p=0.040).
At the studied enterprises, competencies were described mainly
by employees (44.5%), but also by a dedicated team of the enterprise’s em-
ployees and external consultants (31.9%). Only less than 6% of the respond-
ents hired other enterprises / external consultants (Table 43).
in Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119)
Who described the competencies in your company? %
Our company employees 44.5
A team composed of our company’s employees and external consultants 31.9
External company/external consultants 5.9
The researchers intended to verify whether there were any differ-

ences related to enterprises’ size, years of experience in competencies man-
agement and country of the enterprises’ headquarters. Chi-square tests re-
vealed statistically significant differences concerning the person at the enter-
prise who was in charge of description of competencies:
employees – more frequently selected by enterprises from Poland
(50%) and Austria (50%) (χ2(12)=31.875, p=0.001);
third parties / external consultants – hired more frequently by enter-
prises from Spain (12.5%) (χ2(12)=31.875, p=0.001).
No statistically significant differences were identified in this case
considering enterprises’ size (χ2(16)=21.710, p=0.153) or years of experience
in competencies management (χ2(16)=12.779, p=0.689).
9.3. Competencies assessment methods
This section presents methods of evaluation of competencies applied at the

studied enterprises, approaches and measurement scales, as well as inter-
vals between competencies reviews and updates. The study revealed that
the enterprises applied quite variable methods to assess competencies.
Mainly, these were interviews, performance analyses, employee documenta-
tion analysis, 360º evaluation and questionnaires. Only one fourth of the re-
spondent enterprises applied working sessions with experts, assessment
centres or critical incidents interviews. Only about one tenth of them used
situational tests based on actual cases and workshops (Table 44).
Table 44. Methods of competency assessment used at the selected enterprises
from Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119)
Methods of competency assessment %
Interviews 38.7
Analysis of performance results 35.3
Analysis of personnel documents 31.9
360º Feedback 28.6
Questionnaires 27.7
Working sessions with experts 24.4
Assessment centre 23.5
Critical incidents interview 21.0
Situational tests (Cases based on real situations) 12.6
Workshops 10.9
Expert opinions 7.6
Repertory grid analysis 0.8
The performed chi-square tests showed a significant correlation

between the country of the enterprises’ headquarters and years of experi-
ence in competencies management on one hand and methods of competen-
cies evaluation on the other hand. It means that enterprises which varied
by the mentioned criteria applied also different methods of competencies
assessment, as shown below.
Chi-square tests revealed statistically significant differences in com-
petencies assessment methods applied by the enterprises, i.e.:
interviews – more frequently used by enterprises from Spain (68.8%)
and Austria (58.3%) (χ2(3)=15.188, p=0.002);
analysis of personnel documents – more often used by enterprises
from Poland (38.5%) and Austria (29.2%) (χ2(3)=11.252, p=0.010);
360º Feedback – more frequently applied by enterprises with long-
er experience in competencies management, i.e. 5–9 years (51.7%),
(χ2(4)=15.136, p=0.004).
The studied enterprises had variable approach to competencies as-
sessment. The most frequently, they assessed the linkage between compe-
tencies and corporate objectives or strategies (35.3%). Every fourth enter-
prise evaluated competencies with view to differentiate outstanding and av-
erage employees and 21% of them assessed meaning of particular compe-
tencies now and in the future (Table 44).
There were no statistically significant differences between enterprises

considering country of their headquarters (χ2(12)=17.102, p=0.146), enterprise
size (χ2(16)=11.361, p=0.787) and years of experience in competencies manage-
ment (χ2(16)=11.576, p=0.773). However, it is worth noting that Austrian enter-
prises more often verified relations between competencies and corporate objec-
tives or strategies than Polish or Spanish ones. The lowest result in this respect
concerned enterprises from Poland, which may suggest that they did not focus
sufficiently on matching competencies vs. strategies and objectives. This may
have a negative impact on their results and development. The Austrian enter-
prises’ focus on their objectives and strategies is also reflected in the fact that
virtually none of them assessed meaning of competencies for now only, without
considering future needs. This approach was applied only at 4.2% of the enter-
prises, in contrast to respondents from Poland (25.6%) and Spain (25%) (Table 45).
of competencies at the selected enterprises from Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119)
When rating the complexity/proficiency levels of the competencies
Austria
total %
Poland
Spain
in your company, which one of the following approaches do you
apply?
Rating the linkage of the competencies to organizational goals, objec-
35.3 29.5 50 43.8
tives or strategies
Rating the importance of the competency in the future compared
23.5 26.9 25 0
to the present
Rating the extent to which the competency distinguishes high per-
21 25.6 4.2 25
forming employees from average employees
The respondent enterprises applied various scales / levels of com-

petencies. The most often these were job levels (e.g. associate engineer,
engineer, senior engineer), further progressive levels of job competencies
development (e.g. novice, master and expert). Less than one fifth of the en-
terprises applied levels of competency performance (e.g. marginal, good
and excellent) (Table 46).
Table 46. Scales / levels of competencies applied at the selected enterprises in Aus-
tria, Spain and Poland (N=119)
What do the levels of complexity/proficiency measure
% Poland Austria Spain
in your company?
The job grade level (e.g., associate engineer, staff engineer,
37 43.6 33.3 6.3
or senior engineer)
The progressive levels of competency development on
26.9 28.2 33.3 12.5
the job (e.g., novice, master, and expert)
The levels of competency performance (e.g., marginal,
19.3 12.8 16.7 56.3
good, and excellent)
Chi-square tests were performed and they confirmed a correlation be-
tween the country of the enterprises’ headquarters and applied scales / levels
of competencies (χ2(12)=26.731, p=0.008). There were also statistically signifi-
cant differences revealed in scales / competencies levels applied by enterprises:
the job grade level (e.g., associate engineer, staff engineer, or senior
engineer) – this scale was selected markedly more often by enter-
prises from Poland and Austria;
the levels of competency performance (e.g., marginal, good, and excel-
lent) – these levels were applied more frequently by Spanish enterprises;
the progressive levels of competency development on the job (e.g.,
novice, master, and expert) – such grading system was markedly
more popular among Polish and Austrian enterprises.
No correlations were identified between the applied competencies
scales / levels and enterprises’ size (χ2(3)=13.253, p=0.654) or time of experi-
ence in competencies management (χ2(3)=19.782, p=0.230).
The highest percentage of the respondent enterprises reviewed
and updated competencies once a year (42.9%). Every fifth enterprise did it bi-
annually and 7% once in three years. More than 20% of the enterprises have
never done it so far. It is worth noting that none of such enterprises were based
in Austria while, as many as 50% of them, had headquarters in Spain (Table 47).
Table 47. Frequency of competencies reviews and updates in the selected enterpris-
es from Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119)
How often do you review and update competencies Overall Austria Poland Spain
and competency management in your company % % % %
Once a year 42.9 62.5 43.6 12.5
We haven’t done it yet. 21.0 0.0 21.8 50.0
Every 2 years 11.8 16.7 11.5 6.3
Every 3 years 7.6 4.2 9.0 0.0
In periods longer than 5 years 5.9 8.3 3.8 12.5
Every 5 years 3.4 0 3.8 6.3
Based on chi-square tests, statistically significant correlations were

found between frequency of competencies reviews and updates on one hand
and time of experience in competencies management and country of the en-
terprise’s headquarters. There were also statistically significant differences
in frequency of competencies reviews and updates at the enterprises:
once a year – this approach was more frequent among enterprises
from Austria (62.5%) χ2(18)=35.904, p=0.007 and those with 5–9 years
of experience in competencies management (χ2(4)=48.758, p=0.002);
we haven’t done it yet – this concerns more often enterprises from Spain
χ2(18)=35.904, p=0.007 and those with less than a year of experience
in competencies management (χ2(24)=48.758, p=0.002).
There were no differences identified in this respect related to the cri-
terion of enterprise size (χ2(24)=31.807, p=0.132).
9.4. Competencies development and training
From the perspective of competencies management it was interesting to verify

what methods were applied at enterprises in the area of training and employ-
ee development. The analysis concerned the enterprise size, country of the en-
terprise’s headquarters, as well as duration of its experience in competencies
management. The most frequently applied tools at the respondent enterprises
involved training programmes (75.6%), self-development and learning (55.5),
coaching (54.6%) and mentoring (31.1%). Only a small group of the enterprises
used blended learning or outdoor measures (Table 48).
Table 48. Methods applied in employee training and development at the selected
enterprises in Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119)
Methods applied in employee training and de- Overall Austria Poland Spain
velopment % % % %
Training programs 75.6 95.8 66.7 93.8
Self-development and learning 55.5 66.7 55.1 43.8
Coaching 54.6 54.2 48.7 81.3
Mentoring 31.1 33.3 24.4 62.5
Blended learning 16 20.8 14.1 18.8
Outdoor measures 13.4 25 7.7 25
Chi-square tests revealed statistically significant correlations between

methods applied by the enterprises in the area of employee training and de-
velopment on one hand and their size, country of headquarters and duration
of experience in competencies management on the other. The findings were
as follows:
mentoring – more frequently applied by big enterprises (χ2(4)=11.817,
p=0.019), those with longer experience in competencies man-
agement (χ2(4)=10.538, p=0.032) and by enterprises from Spain
(χ2(3)=9.525, p=0.023);
training programs – more often used by big enterprises (χ2(4)=11.182,
p=0.025) and enterprises from Austria (95.8%) and Spain (93.8%)
(χ2(3)=14,669, p=0.002);
self-development and learning – more often applied by enterprises
with longer experience in competencies management (χ2(4)=10.022,
p=0.040).
9.5. Application of technology in competencies management
This section presents the role of technology in competencies management

at the studied enterprises. The study results showed that its application is
at a medium level. The most frequent application of technology involves de-
velopment of competencies profiles (28.6%) and support of competencies
models and profiles by storage of the derived HR applications (e.g. selec-
tion or assessment procedures, career development tools) (26.1%). One fifth
of the enterprises applied technology to ensure place for storage of the de-
veloped competencies profiles and make them electronically available to all
members of the organisation (Table 49).
Table 49. Technology’s role in competencies management at the selected enterpris-
es from Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119)
What role does technology play in your company com- Overall Austria Poland Spain
petency management? % % % %
We use technology to develop the competency profiles 28.6 25 30.8 25
We facilitate the use of the competency models and pro-
files by housing the derived HR applications (e.g.,
26.1 20.8 23.1 43.8
selection procedures, performance appraisals, career
development tools)
We use technology to provide a place to store the com-
petency profiles which are thus made electronically avail- 22.7 41.7 16.7 25
able to organizational members
We use technology as a single source of competency in-
formation within the whole organization in order to help
22.7 8.3 32.1 0
ensure consistency in the competencies applied to a job
family or other organizational units
We use technology for assessing competencies 21 16.7 17.9 43.8
Chi-square tests showed only one statistically significant difference

concerning the role of technology in competencies management which is re-
lated to the country of the enterprises’ headquarters. In Poland technology
serves more frequently than elsewhere as the sole source of competency in-
formation within the whole organization in order to help ensure consistency
in the competencies applied to a job classes or at similar organizational units
(χ2(4)=11.706, p=0.008).
However, a significant difference was observed in application of tech-

nology in the context of the enterprises’ experience in competencies man-
agement. They served to facilitate the use of competency models and pro-
files by housing the derived HR applications (e.g., selection procedures,
performance appraisals, career development tools) significantly more fre-
quently at enterprises with longer experience in competencies management
(χ2(4)=12.970, p=0.011).

to competencies, their quality and development
The study involved verification whether employees of the respondent enter-

prises knew the European initiatives related to competencies, their quality
and development. The most known ones are the European Credit Transfer
and Accumulation System (ECTS) (19.3%), European Qualifications Frame-
work –EQF (17.6%), EUROPASS (17.6%) and European Credit System for Vo-
cational Education and Training (ECVET) (14.3%). The other initiatives listed
in Table 50 are less known.
Table 50. Knowledge of enterprises concerning European initiatives related to com-
petencies, their quality and development (N=119)
Are you aware of the following initiatives available at Eu-
Overall Austria Poland Spain
ropean level in relation with competencies definitions,
% % % %
competencies models and competencies development
European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) 19.3 50 10.3 18.8
European Qualifications Framework –EQF 17.6 41.7 10.3 18.8
EUROPASS 17.6 58.3 6.4 12.5
European Credit system for Vocational Education
14.3 50 5.1 6.3
and Training (ECVET)
European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occu-
7.6 8.3 6.4 12.5
pations (ESCO)
Quality assurance in vocational education and training
6.7 20.8 2.6 6.3
(EQAVET)
E-Competence Framework (e-CF) 5.0 0 6.4 6.3
Euroguidance Network 3.4 8.3 2.6 0
Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE) 1.7 0 2.5 0
Chi-square tests revealed statistically significant differences in knowl-

edge about European initiatives concerning competencies definition, models
and development:
European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training
(ECVET) – more frequently known to representatives of microenter-
prises (χ2(4)=17.118, p=0.002);
Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE) – more frequently
recognised by representatives of small enterprises (χ2(4)=15.571,
p=0.004);
Euroguidance Network – more often known to representatives of mi-
croenterprises (χ2(4)=13.091, p=0.011);
Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET)
– more often known to representatives of microenterprises
(χ2(4)=13.784, p=0.008);
EUROPASS – this tool is less known to representatives of big (82%)
and medium enterprises (67.9%) (χ2(4)=10.302, p=0.036) – micro-
enterprises more frequently selected the answer: “I know this tool
and we use in our company for selection of university students /
young graduates for job placements” (χ2(4)=10.336, p=0.035).
10. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION
10.1. Summary and conclusions
The performed analysis revealed statistically significant correlations which

allow for development of a list of specific features of competencies manage-
ment for enterprises in specific groups, i.e.:
big, medium, small enterprises and microenterprises;
enterprises from Poland, Spain and Austria;
enterprises with no experience in competencies management vs.
those with longer experience in this area.
Specific features of competencies management vs. enterprise size

Features which are specific for competencies management at big enterpri-
they achieve higher level of implementation of competencies man-
agement as compared to the target level and they have the longest
experience in this area;
more frequently competencies management falls within responsibili-
ties of HR managers, HR specialists, medium-level specialists;
the objective of competencies management is more frequently de-
fined as assessment of employees’ performance and selection of stu-
dents / young university graduates for vacancies;
more frequently, they identify competencies by self-evaluation
of employees;
more often they group competencies by classifying core manager
and leader competencies;
they apply mentoring more frequently as a method of staff training
and development;
EUROPASS tool is known to their employees less frequently.
Features which are specific for competencies management at medium en-
terprises as compared to enterprises of different size:
HR managers are more frequently involved in competencies manage-
ment processes;
more often competencies management is designed to serve career
management;
they more frequently apply self-evaluation as competencies as-
sessment method.
Features which are specific for competencies management at small enterpri-
they identify competencies more often through group discussions;
their employees more frequently know the European initiative called
Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE).
Features which are specific for competencies management at microenterpri-
they are characterised by the lowest level of competencies mana-
gement as compared to the target level and by the shortest time
of experience in this area;
more often they fail to classify competencies at all;
their employees more often have knowledge about such European
initiatives concerning definition of competencies, competency mo-
dels and competencies development as:
ͳ ͳ European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training
(ECVET);
ͳ ͳ Euroguidance Network;
ͳ ͳ Quality assurance in vocational education and training (EQAVET);
ͳ ͳ EUROPASS – they apply this tool more frequently to search for yo-
ung students / university graduates for potential employment.
Specific features of competencies management vs. the country of headquarters

from Poland as compared to the other groups (Austria and Spain):
they represent the lowest level of competencies management as
compared to the target level (contrary to the other countries),
although it is a level which should be described as medium;
they assign the task of competencies description to employees more
frequently;
more often they selected personnel documentation analysis as
a method of competencies assessment;
scales / levels of competencies applied more often by Polish enterpri-
ses included: job levels (e.g. associate engineer, engineer, senior en-
gineer), further progressive levels of job competencies development
(e.g. novice, master and expert);
technology serves them more often as a single source of competen-
cy information within the whole organization in order to help ensure
consistency in the competencies applied to a job family or other or-

ganizational units.
from Spain as compared to the other groups (Austria and Poland):
HR managers are more often involved in the competencies manage-
ment processes;
their objective in competencies management is more frequently staff
recruitment and selection;
for competencies description they hire other enterprises / external
consultants more frequently;
they more often apply the following methods of competencies iden-
tification: working sessions with experts and open interviews;
more frequently they group (classify) job-related cross-functional (in-
terdisciplinary) competencies which may be important at many va-
rious posts;
they use job interview as a competencies assessment method more
frequently;
more frequently they apply scales related to the level of performance
(competencies applied at work) (e.g. marginal, good and excellent);
competencies;
they apply mentoring in employee training and development more often.
from Austria as compared to the other groups (Poland and Spain):
they represent the highest level of implementation of competen-
cies management as compared to the target level (higher than
in the other studied countries);
HR managers are more frequently involved in the processes of com-
petencies management;
they define the objectives of competencies as staff recruitment
and selection, as well as succession planning more frequently;
they apply the following methods of competencies identification
more often: working sessions with experts and open interviews;
more frequently they entrust competencies description to their own
employees;
they classify (group) the following competencies more often:
ͳͳ cross-functional (interdisciplinary) competencies related
to the performed job which may be applied at many positions;
ͳ ͳ technical / functional competencies.
they apply interviews and personnel documentation analysis as com-
petencies identification methods more frequently;
they assess significance of competencies currently and in the future;
more frequently they apply the following scales / levels of compe-
tencies: job grade level (e.g., associate engineer, staff engineer, or se-
nior engineer) and progressive levels of competency development on
the job (e.g., novice, master, and expert);
more of them update and review competencies once a year;
they use training programs in employee development more often.
Specific features of competencies management vs. experience in compe-

tencies management
with less than one year of experience in competencies management as
compared to enterprises with longer experience:
they are characterised by a lower level of implementation of compe-
tencies management;
more frequently they fail to classify competencies at all;
more frequently they consider exclusively current requirements
in job analysis;
competencies.
with longer experience in competencies management as compared to en-
terprises with less than one year of such experience:
they represent the highest level of competencies management im-
plementation as compared to their target;
the following positions are more frequently involved in implementa-
tion of competencies management: HR manager, medium-level ma-
nager, lower-level (line) manager5;
more frequently they declare that they review and update compe-
tencies once a year (in the case of enterprises with 5-9 years of expe-
more often they define the following objectives of competencies ma-
nagement:
5
Involvement of medium-level and lower-level (line) managers occurs only at en-
terprises with 5–9 years of experience in competencies management.
ͳͳ career management (in the case of enterprises with over 10 ye-

ars of experience in competencies management);
ͳ ͳ assigning tasks to employees (in the case of enterprises with over
10 years of experience in competencies management);
ͳ ͳ selection of university students/young graduates for job place-
ment (in the case of enterprises with 5-9 years of experience
ͳ ͳ staff recruitment and selection (in the case of enterprises with 2–4
at job analysis they consider both current and future requirements
more frequently (in the case of enterprises with 5-9 years of expe-
more often they group / classify competencies as follows:
ͳ ͳ core employee competencies (for the entire organisation);
ͳ ͳ core leader competencies (in the case of enterprises with 5–9
more frequently they group / classify the following competencies:
to the performed job which may be applied at many positions
(in the case of enterprises with over 10 years of experience
ͳ ͳ technical / functional competencies (in the case of enterprises
with over 10 years of experience in competencies management).
they assess competencies more frequently with such methods as:
ͳ ͳ 360º feedback (in the case of enterprises with 5–9 years of ex-
perience in competencies management);
ͳ ͳ assessment centres (in the case of enterprises with over 10
ͳ ͳ situational tests (cases based on real situations) (in the case
of enterprises with over 10 years of experience in competen-
cies management);
ͳ ͳ job interviews (in the case of enterprises with 5–9 years of ex-
perience in competencies management and those with over 10
they declare more often that they review and update competencies
once a year (in the case of enterprises with 5–9 years of experience
in competencies management they apply technology more frequen-
tly to facilitate the use of the competency models and profiles by ho-
using the derived HR applications (e.g., selection procedures, perfor-
mance appraisals, career development tools);
more often they use mentoring, self-education and learning
in the area of employee training and development.
The comprehensive analysis of the empirical research results authorises

the following conclusions and postulates:
1. The degree of implementation of competencies management as com-
pared to the target level at the studied enterprises in Austria, Span
and Poland shows that advancement of this process is medium. The de-
gree is the highest in Austria, then Spain and the lowest in Poland.
2. There are significant differences in the level of implementation of com-
petencies management among enterprises related to the duration
of their business operations. The study revealed that enterprises which
have been present on the market for a longer time are characterised
by a higher level of implementation of competencies management.
3. The level of implementation of competencies management shows
significant positive correlation with enterprise size, leading to a con-
clusion that the larger the enterprise is, the higher degree of compe-
tencies management implementation it has achieved. The degree was
the highest at big enterprises and the lowest in microenterprises.
4. A moderate positive correlation was found between enterprise size
and duration of experience in competencies management. There-
fore, one may conclude that the larger the enterprise is, the longer
experience in competencies management it has.
5. Responsibility for competencies management at enterprises
was assigned the most frequently to HR managers, top manag-
ers and HR specialists. A low degree of involvement was observed
in the case of medium-level managers, as well as lower-level/line
managers. Employees at these posts are involved in the process only
at enterprises with longer experience in competencies management.
Lack of involvement of lower-level / line managers should be consid-
ered especially worrying, as their tasks include assignment of work
and performance assessment, so these functions are strongly related
to competencies. HR managers are involved in competencies man-
agement more frequently at enterprises from Austria and Spain. This
may suggest that at Polish enterprises top management more fre-
quently underestimates the significance of competencies manage-
ment. At Polish enterprises with longer experience in competencies

management the process is more often (as compared to big enter-
prises) the responsibility of top managers, and – equally importantly
– lower-level / line managers. Only one enterprise in five hires ex-
ternal consultants for competencies management. Microenterprises
and small enterprise don’t do it at all.
6. Enterprises apply competencies management the most frequently
for such objectives as: training and development programs, perfor-
mance appraisal, staff recruitment and selection and career mana-
gement. Too rarely companies declared that competencies mana-
gement served to “select students / young graduates for vacancies”
– only one in four big enterprises and hardly any small and microen-
terprises, while they are the most vulnerable when it comes to shor-
tage of talented staff. Neither do enterprises apply competencies
management sufficiently for assignment of tasks to employees.
More frequently this is a criterion of work assignment at enterprises
with over 10 years of experience in competencies management. This
will certainly hamper assignment of tasks according to employees’
strengths, and consequently it may lead to reduced employee com-
mitment. The situation is similarly adverse in the case of application
of competencies management to assess work results / performan-
ce. This objective is selected more often by big enterprises, contra-
ry to microenterprises. This may suggest that the latter are insuffi-
ciently focused on linking employee competencies to performance.
Competencies management is applied for staff recruitment and se-
lection more often by enterprises with longer experience in compe-
tencies management and by enterprises from Austria and Spain. It
may be assumed that thus, they will adapt employee competencies
better to actual needs and strategies. To a certain degree, enterpri-
ses neglect career planning – more frequently applied by enterpri-
ses with over 10 years of experience. It should be stressed that de-
velopment is an important factor of employee motivation, especially
in the case of younger people. Enterprises from Poland are less focu-
sed on using competencies management for career and succession
planning. The latter goal is more frequently selected by enterprises
from Austria. Talent management is another neglected objective
of competencies management. Analysis of study results concerning
Polish enterprises showed that if enterprises managed competencies
for a longer period, their objectives involved more frequently: talent
management, tailored training and development programs, career
planning, performance appraisal, assigning tasks to people, designing
and management of remuneration systems.
7. In competencies management enterprises implement various methods
of competencies assessment, especially direct observation and em-
ployee self-evaluation. Only about one in four apply more variable
methods, e.g. group discussions, open interviews, work analysis que-
stionnaires, working sessions with experts, behavioural events inter-
views or questionnaires with exercises. Group discussions are more
often applied in competencies assessment by small enterprises, self-
-evaluation is used more frequently by big and medium enterprises,
while working sessions with experts and open interviews are more
popular with enterprises from Spain and Austria. Enterprises from Po-
land significantly less frequently use the following methods of compe-
tencies identification: evidence of exercise questionnaires, job analysis
questionnaires and behavioural event interviews. At smaller enterpri-
ses from Poland direct observation is applied more often to identify
competencies, while in bigger ones – self-evaluation is more frequent.
8. In job analysis most enterprises consider both current and futu-
re requirements. This approach is more frequent among enterpri-
ses with longer experience in competencies management. Those
tend to include exclusively current requirements in job analysis. This
may suggest that they miss strategic approach. Enterprises from Po-
land more frequently focus exclusively on current requirements, wit-
hout considering the future.
9. The studied enterprises group / classify core employee competencies
(for all employees in the organization), core leader and manager com-
petencies, cross-functional (interdisciplinary) competencies and tech-
nical / functional competencies. One third of the sample do not classify
competencies at all – more frequently this is the case of microenterpri-
ses. Enterprises from Austria and Spain group (classify) cross-functio-
nal / interdisciplinary competencies more often. Additionally, Austrian
enterprises more frequently group (classify) technical / functional
competencies. Enterprises from Poland are more focused on grouping
/ classifying managerial competencies than core employee competen-
cies (for the entire organisation). The latter are in focus at enterprises
with longer experience in competencies management.
10. At enterprises from Poland and Austria competencies description
is more frequently the responsibility of employees. Big enterprises
from Poland and those with longer experience in competencies ma-
nagement establish teams composed of internal employees and ex-

ternal consultants. The case is similar for enterprises from Spain.
11. There are statistically significant differences in application of competen-
cies assessment methods by enterprises. 360º feedback, assessment
centre and situational tests are more often used by enterprises with lon-
ger experience in competencies management. Documentation analysis
is applied more frequently at enterprises from Poland and Austria, while
360º feedback is more popular with big enterprises in Poland.
12. In the case of enterprises from Poland, with longer experience
in competencies management, they apply significantly more fre-
quently such methods of competencies assessment as: analysis
of performance results, assessment centre, expert opinions, critical
events interviews and workshops.
13. Most enterprises fail to assess the degree of linkage between compe-
tencies and their corporate objectives and strategies. One in four en-
terprises assess competencies to rate the extent to which the com-
petency distinguishes high performing employees from average
employees and one in five assesses significance of the competencies
now and in the future. Enterprises with longer experience in compe-
tencies management are focused on better adaptation of staff com-
petencies to their objectives and strategies.
14. Less than a half of the enterprises review and update competencies
once a year. Every fifth enterprise do it every second year, while more
than 20% of them have never done it before. It should be stressed that
there was no enterprise from Austria in this latter group and even 50%
were from Spain. This situation occurred more frequently at enterpris-
es with less than a year of experience in competencies management.
15. The larger the enterprise is, the more frequently it applies coach-
ing and training programs in employee development. With longer
experience in competencies management enterprises apply more
frequently the following methods of employee training and develop-
ment: coaching, training programs and self-education. Most enter-
prises hope that their employees would learn by themselves.
16. Fewer than one fifth of the enterprises apply levels of competency
performance (e.g. marginal, good and excellent). Consequently, one
may suppose that without enterprises’ performing such assessment,
employees do not get feedback concerning their competencies.
17. Technology plays insufficient role in competencies management.
The respondent enterprises apply it to a medium degree. Technology
serves the most frequently to develop the competency profiles and to
facilitate the use of the competency models and profiles by housing
the derived HR applications (e.g., selection procedures, performance
appraisals, career development tools). One enterprise in five use tech-
nology to provide a place to store the competency profiles which are
thus made electronically available to organizational members.
18. The respondent enterprises had very little knowledge about European
initiatives related to competencies, their quality and development.
19. The study revealed that competencies were applied at most enter-
prises within the entire range of various subfunctions of human re-
sources management.
20. A significant part of the respondent enterprises changed their ap-
proach in human resources management from task-oriented to com-
petencies-focused approach.
21. Some enterprises are still unable to perceive significance of compe-
tencies management in the modern environment or they ignore it.
Concluding, one should notice specific features6 of competencies

management of the respondent enterprises with longer experience in this
respect (at least 5 years). They indicate a certain direction of changes un-
derway at enterprises. The objectives of competencies management involve
more frequently career planning, assigning tasks to people, recruitment
and selection, as well as selection of university students/young graduates
for job placement. At such enterprises more frequently not only HR manag-
ers and specialists, top and medium-level managers are involved in compe-
tencies management, but lower-level/line managers, too. These enterprises
more frequently declare that they review and update competencies once
a year. At job analysis they consider both current and future requirements
more frequently. And more often they classify / group competencies as fol-
lows: core employee competencies (for all employees in the organization);
core leader competencies; cross-functional (interdisciplinary) competencies
and technical / functional competencies. In competencies assessment they
apply the following methods more often: 360º feedback, assessment centre
and situational tests (cases based on real-life situations). Further, they apply
technology in competencies management more frequently to allow the use
of the competency models and profiles by housing the derived HR applica-
tions (e.g., selection procedures, performance appraisals, career develop-
ment tools). Finally, these enterprises more frequently select mentoring
and self-education in employee training and development.
6
Identified based on statistically significant differences.
The Authors developed the following postulates:

1. Enterprises, especially the smaller ones, should increase the le-
vel of implementation of competencies management, treating it as
a priority and strategic issue. Otherwise, they won’t be able to com-
pete for customers, better financial results and employer image.
2. Higher-level management staff should ensure higher involvement
of medium-level and line managers in competencies management.
This will require planning development training to include training
increasing their respective skills.
3. Enterprises, especially microenterprises, should apply competencies
management more often for talent management, career management,
assigning tasks to employees and results/performance appraisal.
4. It would be valuable for enterprises to apply more variable methods
of competencies assessment, e.g.: assessment centre, 360º feed-
back, expert opinions, critical events interviews and workshops.
As most enterprises haven’t applied them so far, certainly there is
a need to improve management staff’s competencies in this respect.
5. Considering growing problems in filling vacancies of specific competen-
cies requirements, it would be surely well if all enterprises, especially
small and microenterprises focused on the objective of “finding students
/ young graduates for vacant posts” in competencies management.
6. Application of technology in competencies management should be
expanded in the context of high volatility of the environment and ne-
cessity to react quickly to customers’ needs and cooperation among
companies.
7. It seems necessary to launch information campaigns among enter-
prises concerning the European initiatives related to competencies,
their quality and development. Employees of enterprises from three
different countries had hardly any knowledge about them, which may
reflect low efficiency of previous publicity measures.
8. Special training cycles should be developed for management staff
and HR specialists to develop competencies concerning the best pra-
ctices in competencies management, considering also international
environment and intercultural aspects. Universities which train mana-
gers should enrich their curricula with training in this competencies.
10.2. Discussion
Level of implementation of competencies management in the respondent

enterprises cannot be described as satisfactory as compared to the target le-
vel. It shows that there is still a lot to be done in this area. The situation at en-
terprises is assessed similarly in many other scientific publications (Chapman,
Lovell 2006; Soderquist et al. 2010; PARP 2015; Penc-Pietrzak 2013; Sidor-
-Rządkowska 2011; Sutton, Watson 2013; Sienkiewicz 2013; Filipowicz 2014;
Gonsalvez, Calvert, 2014). However, the study described in this monograph
shows that many enterprises have changed their approach to competencies
management: from task-oriented to competencies-focused approach. This
direction of transformation at enterprises had been observed before (Soder-
quist, 2010:328), but still among objectives of competencies management
the respondent enterprises stressed especially support for their business go-
als. The most frequent choice involved tailored training and development
programs for the enterprise’s specific needs and performance appraisal. This
may suggest that at enterprises competencies are still perceived as subject to
business goals, while competencies management involves mainly combining
competencies needed to achieve these goals. Therefore, it seems grounded
to conclude that this approach, as described in many publications (Homer,
2001:59; Dubois, Rothwell, 2004:53-45; Rausch, et al. 2002) is still preferred
by enterprises. On the other hand, opinions and research results have been
published to show that this approach is rather a postulate than a description
of the reality. Therefore, enterprises still treat competencies management as
an HR process rather than a business imperative. This fact is also reflected
in amounts assigned to HR and related investments. Experts argue that the
situation will not improve until competencies management is treated as a
business imperative (Loew 2016).
The study revealed that every fourth enterprise assessed competen-
cies to distinguish high-performing employees from average staff. Manage-
ment staff perceive it as a chance to identify core competencies and use them
in development measures. This shows that such a solution, which has been
known for many years (The Manager…, 2001:1), is still popular at enterprises.
The studied enterprises apply variable methods of competencies clas-
sifications which they find more or less efficient. However, since they perceive
business grounds for these measures, it should be assumed that competencies
management requires largely an individual approach, considering such aspects
as the organisation’s needs, possibilities and strategy, as well as the circumstan-
ces. There are many publications confirming the need for such an approach (So-
derquist et al. 2010Hsieh et al, 2012; Graber, 2012:1; Filipowicz 2014).
The study showed that nowadays enterprises realise that compe-

tencies need frequent (annual) review and update. This may suggest that
modern, highly dynamic changes in the enterprises’ envi-ronment require
exactly this approach. There have been many publications showing that only
those enterprises which update competencies are able to create strategic al-
ternatives for themselves [Rybak 2003, p.8; Soderquist et al. 2010], however,
it seems that in the current situation the process needs to be more dynamic
and flexible. It should be treated as a priority.
The respondent enterprises assigned responsibility for implementation
of competencies management the most frequently to: HR managers, top mana-
gers and HR specialists. However, at enterprises with longer experience in com-
petencies management, lower-level/line managers were involved in the process,
too. It seems reasonable, especially in dispersed, matrix-type or global structures
of corporate functioning. Besides, one should remember that it is difficult to im-
plement a competencies management system, if lower-level management staff
is not involved in it and doesn’t support it in everyday work. Previous publica-
tions showed that companies still failed to involve lower-level/line managers in
competencies management (Sienkiewicz 2013, p. 42). In this context it would be
valuable for enterprises to explore in-depth the level of active participation of
management staff, especially low-level management staff in development and
implementation of the strategy of competencies management.
The direction of changes underway in the respondent enterprises
is evidenced by features which are specific for enterprises with experience
in competencies management (at least 5 years). They are worth noting, but
it should be stressed that the point lies not in occurrence of specific featu-
res, because they were present before, too. The change involves intensity
and coexistence of these features. The most important objectives of com-
petencies management at these enterprises were: career management for
employees considering corporate strategies, assigning the right tasks to
employees according to their competencies (strengths), recruitment and se-
lection (acquiring competencies which are missing in the enterprise, while
needed in future) and selection of students / young graduates for vacan-
cies. The process of implementation of competencies management involves
more frequently lower-level/line managers, too. These enterprise review
and update competencies (at least once a year). At job analysis they consider
both current and future requirements. They focus rather on classification of
interdisciplinary, as well as technical / functional competencies. They apply
more variable methods of competencies assessment, including those which
require higher level of competencies and resources, e.g. 360º feedback, as-
sessment centre and situational tests (cases based on real-life situations).
They apply technology intensively in competencies management, and they
use more diversified methods of employee training and development. They
apply competencies management more comprehensively to integrate inter-
nally all subfunctions of human resources management, as well as externally
with the organisation’s corporate strategies.
Following the discussion of the research results, one should stress
especially some deficien-cies of the process of competencies management
at organisations. A significant group of the respondent enterprises misses
linkage between competencies management and their strategy. Many rese-
archers confirm this finding (Woodruffe, 1993:36; Lipka 2000; (Robinson et
al, 2007:66).). This suggests that despite the passing time some enterprises
fail to notice the problem or ignore it. Critical significance of the relation
between competencies and organisational strategies has been well-docu-
mented (Gangani et al, 2006:131; Juchnowicz 2007; Rybak 2003, p. 16-18;
Dudzińska-Głaz 2012, p. 82).
The study showed that a large group of enterprises not only fails to
manage talents, but don’t even identify competencies. Therefore, it is hard to
say whether the competencies coincide with corporate objectives and strate-
gies. One may add that this is not only a problem of the respondent enterpri-
ses from Austria, Spain and Poland. Other studies confirm this phenomenon,
too. On one hand, 74% of organisations claim that defining core competencies
by talent segment and post role has critical meaning for the enterprise, on
the other only 7% has implemented methods of competencies identification
(Loew 2016). This problem is discussed in many publications, stressing that
development strategies should focus on high-potential employees who shou-
ld be identified, developed and relevantly managed. Obviously, identification
of such employees should be preceded by definition of specific competencies
and these competencies in turn should conform to the organisation’s mission
and objectives (Juhdi et al, 2015:4). Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclu-
de that some enterprises are still unable or unwilling to perceive significan-
ce of competencies management in the modern environment. The related
literature describes these issues broadly (Lipka 2000; Sienkiewicz 2013, p.
36; Fitz-enz 2001; Juchnowicz M., Sienkiewicz 2006; Loew 2016). It seems
to be evolving nowadays when acquiring qualified employees is one of the
main challenges faced by management staff of enterprises. It has been rated
third most important HR trend in 2017 (Deloitte 2017). It’s not irrelevant that
competencies management is a very difficult task and enterprises fail in this
area frequently. Some studies showed that as many as 69% of organisation
confirmed that their competencies management had been unsuccessful or
successful to a very low degree (Loew 2016).
Only 40% of the respondent enterprises apply competencies mana-

gement to assign tasks to employees. This may have adverse impact on assig-
ning tasks by employees’ strengths and consequently on their commitment
and performance. Thus, the study confirms results of Gallup Institute’s rese-
arch showing still insufficient stress on assigning employees to tasks related
to their strengths (Buckingham, Coffman 2003).
The research revealed that at many enterprises, more frequently tho-
se with longer experi-ence in competencies management, competencies are
applied in the entire range of diverse subfuctions of human resources manage-
ment and competencies management serves to integrate these subfunctions.
Many experts stress that such approach is a necessity (Gangani et al, 2006:128;
Guidelines …., 2011:33; Rodriguez et al, 2002:310; Sidor-Rządkowska 2011).
Concluding, the performed literature review and empirical research
show than nowadays competencies development at enterprises is insufficien-
tly adapted to business objectives. To make the end optimistic, this is a beau-
tiful area where still large reserves of organisational effectiveness and success
can be found. However, for these reserves to be found and used, it will be
necessary to change competencies of the management staff in this area signifi-
cantly, but also to develop their attitudes. It is necessary to apply technology in
competencies management more broadly. It will allow efficient and automated
management of competencies in real time, to include complete description of
the employees’ competencies. This, in turn, will serve as a basis to determi-
ne the existing potential, use it as well as possible and identify existing gaps.
Enterprises would benefit from broader application of advanced software to
support competencies identification and development. Broader cooperation
between science and business would be valuable, especially joint research to
allow introduction of innovations in competencies management.
FINAL NOTES
The defined objectives of the literature review and original research were
achieved.
The authors described approaches to defining such terms as: com-
petencies, competencies management, competencies models and profiles.
They also discussed the problems of stra-tegic associations between compe-
tencies and corporate business objectives. Finally, they attempted to explain
the economic perspective and management approach to measurement of ef-
ficiency and efficacy of competencies-based human resources management.
The publi-cation also includes a discussion of selected theoretical concepts
of the competencies man-agement process, as well as the applied methods,
techniques and tools. Furthermore, the book presents barriers and problems
encountered most frequently in theoretical concepts and practices of com-
petencies models. It includes results of empirical research concerning com-
petencies management at selected enterprises in Poland, Spain and Austria.
The authors compared the enterprises in detail, considering the country of
their headquarters, time of market operations, experience in competencies
management and enterprise size. They found statistically significant differen-
ces. The analysis of the study results was the basis for many conclusions and
postulates. It also allowed verification of the predefined hypotheses. The re-
sults confirmed that:
H1: There are significant differences in the level of implementation of compe-
tencies man-agement between enterprises from Poland, Austria and Spain.
H2: There is a correlation between the duration of enterprises’ market ope-
rations and level of competencies management.
petencies man-agement.
It should be stressed that there are no grounds to project these re-
sults onto the general population considering selection, structure and size
of the sample. Limitations of the study are basically the result of the small
number of respondent enterprises, as the researchers could not achieve the
originally planned size of the sample for particular countries (50 en-terprises
from each country). This may be due to quite short time of the study, limited
by project requirements. This, in turn, had a negative impact on comparative
analyses, so it is necessary to continue the research on markedly larger, com-
parable samples. There were also some flaws observable in the applied mea-
surement ranges, terminology or identifica-tion of differences in competen-
cies management in the studied countries. The reasons for these differences
were not recognised; they may arise from cultural differences, higher level
of innovativeness and competitiveness of the country of the enterprise’s he-

adquarters or different level of management staff’s skills. Certainly, it would
be interesting to broaden future studies so that they include these issues.
However, it should be stressed that such a research plan would also require
analysis of complex terminology and methodology issues.
Concluding, despite the described limitations, the original research
has cognitive value, es-pecially since these issues had not been thoroughly
explored previously, as evidenced by the literature review. The achieved re-
sults and conclusions will enable better management of competencies at or-
ganisations, however they should be treated as a starting point for plan-ning
further studies, formulating new hypotheses and their empirical verification.
In the fu-ture, analogical studies should be held at the best enterprises recog-
nised in ratings and those outside rating lists in order to determine potential
strong correlations between high level of competencies management and
achievement of above-average corporate financial results. It would also be
very valuable to monitor the competencies gap among management staff
related to competencies management. It would be certainly beneficial to or-
ganise simi-lar studies at universities which educate managers to analyse the
curricula and their consis-tency with needs identified in competencies mana-
gement. It would be an attractive subjects and the conclusions might be very
useful for business.
In conclusion, one fundamental reflection should be stressed: the
presented confrontation of empirical results and theoretical studies, as well
as the developed conclusions and postulates should be treated as a starting
point for exploration of this difficult and multi-disciplinary subject. Nevert-
hless, it is necessary to take action in this area, because in modern and future
circumstances enterprises cannot and will not be able to succeed without
efficient management of competencies. Significance of these issues will grow
in the future in the context of major deficiency of employees of relevant
competencies – and the forecasts are pessimistic. Therefore, it should be
deemed necessary to continue empirical and theoretical exploration of this
area in order to monitor the situation, reconcile opinions and optimise rese-
arch methodology, and last but not least – to provide scientific support for
enterprises.
REFERENCES
1. Abraham, S.E., Karns, L.A., Shaw, K., Mena, M.A., (2001), Managerial competencies
and the managerial performance appraisal process, (in:) “Journal of Management De-
velopment”, Vol. 20, Iss 10.
2. Agut, S., Grau, R., Peiró, J.M., (2003), Individual and contextual influences on manage-
rial competency needs, (in:) “Journal of Management Development”, Vol. 22, Iss 10.
3. Alldredge, M.E., Nilan, K.J., (2000), 3M’s leadership competency model: an internally
developed solution, (in:) “Human Resources Management”, Vo. 39, No 2.
4. Armstrong, M., (1992), Human Resources Management. Strategy & action. Kogan Page,
London.
5. Barometr Manpower Perspektyw Zatrudnienia Polska Q1, 2017.
6. Baron, A., Armstrong, M., (2008), Zarządzanie kapitałem ludzkim. Uzyskiwanie wartości
dodanej dzięki ludziom. Oficyna a Wolters Kluwer Business, Kraków.
7. Błaszczyk W., Kadra kierownicza polskich przedsiębiorstw państwowych w warunkach
zmian systemu gospodarczego, Wydaw. Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź 1999.
8. Borkowska, S., (2007), Dwie koncepcje proefektywnościowego zarządzania zasobami
ludzkimi. (in:) Borkowska, S. (ed.), Systemy wysoce efektywnej pracy. Instytut Pracy
i Spraw Socjalnych, Warszawa.
9. Boyatzis, R.E., (1982), The competent manager. The model for effective performance.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
10. Buckingham M., Clifton D., Teraz odkryj swoje silne strony, Wydaw. MT Biznes, War-
szawa 2003. Deloitte, „Trendy HR”, 2017.
11. Buford, J.A. Jr., & Lindner, J.R. (2002). Human resource management in local government:
Concepts and applications for students and practitioners, Southwestern, Cincinnati.
12. Capaldo, G., Iandoli, L., Zollo, G., (2006), A situationalist perspective to competency
management, (in:) “Human Resources Management”, Vol. 45, No 3.
13. Capece, G., Bazzica, P., (2013), A practical proposal for a “competence plan fulfillment”.
Key performance indication, (in:) “Knowledge and Process management”, Vol. 20, No 1.
14. Cascio, W.F., (2001), Kalkulacja zasobów ludzkich. Oficyna Ekonomiczna, Dom
Wydawniczy ABC, Kraków.
15. Chapman, J.A., Lovell, G., (2006), The competency model of hospitality service: why
it doesn’t deliver”, (in:) “International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-
ment”, Vol. 18, Iss 1.
16. Chełpa S., Kwalifikacje kadr kierowniczych przedsiębiorstw przemysłowych. Kierunki i
dynamika zmian, Wydaw. Akademii Ekonomicznej, Wrocław 2003.
17. Cheng, M.I., Dainty, A.R.J., Moore, D.R., (2003), The differing faces of managerial compe-
tency in Britain and America, (in:) “Journal of Management Development”, Vol. 22, Iss 6.
18. Colakoglu, S., Lepak, D.P., Hong, Y., (2006), Measuring HRM effectiveness: Considering mul-
tiple stakeholders in a global context. (in:) “Human Resource Management Review”, No 16.
19. Davidhizar, R., Newman Giger, J., (2000), Cultural competency matters, (in:) “Leader-
ship in Health Services”, Vol. 13, Iss 4.
20. Dicke, C., Holwerda, J., Kontakos, A.M., (2004), Global HR best practices: Maximizing
innovation, Effectiveness and Efficiency in HR. Center for Advanced Human Resource
Studies, New York.
21. Doucouliagos, C., Laroche, P., (2002), Efficiency, productivity and employee relations
in French equipment manufacturing. (in:) European Association of Labour Economics 14
th Annual Conference. EALE, Sorbonne.
22. Draganidis, F., Mentzas, G., (2006), Competency based management: a review of systems
and approaches. (in:) “Information Management & Computer Security”, Vol. 14, No 1.
23. Dubois, D.D., Rothwell, W. J., (2004), Competency-Based Human Resource Manage-
ment. Davis-Black Publishing. Palo Alto.
24. Dudzińska-Głaz J. (2012), Zarządzanie kompetencjami pracowników jako jeden z elemen-
tów strategicznego zarządzania zasobami ludzkimi, W. Harasim (Red.) Zarządzanie kapita-
łem intelektualnym w organizacji inteligentnej, Wyższa Szkoła Promocji, Warszawa 2012.
25. Engle, A.D., Mendenhall, M.E., Powers, R.L., Stedham, Y., (2001), Conceptualizing
the global competency cube: a transnational model of human resource, (in:) “Journal
of European Industrial Training”, Vol. 25, Iss. 7.
26. Filipowicz, G., (2014), Zarządzanie kompetencjami. Perspektywa firmowa i osobista,
Oficyna a Wolters Kluwer business, Warszawa.
27. Fitz-Enz J., Rentowność inwestycji w kapitał ludzki, Oficyna Ekonomiczna – Dom
Wydawniczy ABC, Kraków 2001.
28. Fitz-Enz J., Rentowność inwestycji w kapitał ludzki, Oficyna Ekonomiczna – Dom
Wydawniczy ABC, Kraków 2001.
29. Forbes, The Employee Experience Is The Future Of Work: 10 HR Trends For 2017, 2017,
www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2017/01/05/the-employee- experience-is- the-
future-of-work- 10-hr- trends-for- 2017/#7039eec820a6.
30. Friedman, B.A., (2007), Globalization Implications for Human Resource Management
Roles. (w:) “Employee Responses Rights Journal”. Vol. 19.
31. Gangani, N., McLean, G.N., Braden, R. A., (2006), A competency-based human resourc-
es development strategy, (in:) “Performance Improvement Quarterly”, Vol. 19, No 1.
32. Gibb, S., (2000), Evaluating HRM effectiveness: the stereotype connection. (w:) “Em-
ployee Relations”. Vol. 22 (1).
33. Glaser B., Strauss A.L., Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative re-
search, Aldine, Chicago 1967.
34. Glaser B.G., Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory,
Sociology Press, 1978, 4.
35. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Polska, 2016.
36. Global Skills Index, 2016; World Economic Forum, 2016.
37. Gonsalvez, C.J., Calvert, F.L., (2014), Competency-based Models of Supervision: Princi-
ples and Applications, Promises and Challenges, (in:) “Australian Psychologist”, Vol. 49.
38. Graber, J., (2012), Core competency identification, (in:) “Business Decisions”.
39. Green, P.C. (1999). Building robust competencies. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
40. Guidelines for Competency Management Systems for Downstream and Petroleum
Sites, (2011), Petroleum Industry Association Ltd, published by Cogent.
41. Guion, R.M. (1991). Personnel assessment, selection and placement. Consulting, Psy-
chological Press. Palo Alto.
42. Hammersley M., Atkinson P., Metody badań terenowych, Zysk i S-ka, Poznań 2000.
43. Hansson, B., (2001), Competency models: are self-perceptions accurate enough?, (in:)
“Journal of European Industrial Training”, Vol. 25, Iss 9.
44. Hoffmann, T., (1999), The meanings of competency, (in:) “Journal of European Indus-
trial Training”, Vol. 23, Iss 6.
45. Hofstede G., Hofstede G.J.,(2005), Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
46. Homer, M., (2001), Skills and competency management, (in:) “Industrial and Commer-
cial Training”, Vol. 33, Iss 2.
47. Hsieh, S.C., Lin, J.S., Lee, H.C., (2012), Analysis on literature review of competency, (in:)
“International Review of Business and Economics”, Vol. 2.
48. Huselid, M.A., Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S., (1997), Technical and strategic human re-
source management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance.(in:) “Academy
of Management Journal”, Vol. 40 (1).
49. Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S. (2003), Managing Human Resources through Strategic Part-
nerships, South-Western, Mason.
50. Juchnowicz M. (red.), Elastyczne zarządzanie kapitałem ludzkim w organizacji wiedzy,
Wydaw. Difin, Warszawa 2007, s. 121.
51. Juchnowicz M., (2014), Założenia koncepcji zarządzania kapitałem ludzkim, (in:)
Zarządzanie kapitałem ludzkim. Procesy, narzędzia, aplikacje, M. Juchnowicz
(ed.), Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne, Warszawa.
52. Juchnowicz M., Sienkiewicz Ł., Jak oceniać pracę? Wartość stanowisk i kompetencji,
Wydaw. Difin, Warszawa 2006.
53. Juchnowicz, M. (ed.), (2016), Elastyczne zarządzanie kapitałem ludzkim z perspektywy
interesariuszy. PWE, Warszawa.
54. Juhdi, N., Pa’wan, F., Hansaram, R., (2015), Employers’ experience in managing high po-
tential employees in Malaysia, (in:) “Journal of Management Development”, Vol. 34, Iss 2.
55. Kasser, J., Hitchins, D., Frank, M., Zhao, Y.Y., (2013), A Framework for Benchmarking
Competency Assessment Models, (in:) “Systems Engineering”, Vol. 16, No 1.
56. Klendauer, R., Berkovich, M., Gelvin, R., Leimeister, J.M., Krcmar, H., (2012), Towards a com-
petency model for requirements analysts, (in:) Information Systems Journal”, No 22.
57. Koenigsfeld, J.P., Kimb, S., Cha, J., Perdue, J., Cichye, R.F., (2012), Developing a competency model
for private club managers, (in:) “International Journal of Hospitality Management”, Vol. 31.
58. Kotler P., Armstrong G., Saunders J., Wong V., Marketing. Podręcznik europejski, PWE,
Warszawa 2002.
59. Kotler P., Marketing, Rebis, Poznań 2005.
60. Kunnanatt, J.T., (2008), Emotional intelligence: theory and description. A competency mod-
el for interpersonal effectiveness, (in:) “Career Development International”, Vol. 13, Iss 7.
61. Kupczyk, T. (ed.) (2011), Kluczowe kompetencje kadry kierowniczej w gospodarce opar-
tej na wiedzy: różnice między kobietami i mężczyznami, Wydaw. Difin, Warszawa.
62. Kupczyk, T. (ed.) (2013a), Kobiety i mężczyźni w zarządzaniu – liczebność, kompetencje,
współdziałanie, konieczne zmiany, Wyższa Szkoła Handlowa we Wrocławiu, Wrocław.
63. Kupczyk, T., (2013b), Relations between management competences and organizational
success considering gender issues – research results, (in:) “China-USA Business Review”,
March, Vol. 12, No 3.
64. Kupczyk, T., (2014), Competencies of management staff in the knowledge-based econo-
my, Wyższa Szkoła Handlowa we Wrocławiu, Wrocław.
65. Łańcucki, J., (2004), Skuteczność i efektywność systemu zarządzania jakością. (in:)
Łańcucki, J. (ed.), Efektywność systemów zarządzania. Polskie Zrzeszenie Inżynierów
i Techników Sanitarnych Oddział Wielkopolski, Poznań.
66. Lichtarski, J. (2000), Funkcja personalna a zarządzanie personelem. (in:) Zarządzanie
kadrami. Perspektywy badawcze i praktyka. (ed.) T. Listwan. Wydaw. Akademii Ekono-
micznej we Wrocławiu, Wrocław.
67. Lipka A., Strategie personalne firmy, Wydaw. PSB, Kraków 2000.Loew 2016.
68. Listwan, T., (1986), Organizacja zarządzania kadrami w przedsiębiorstwach przemysło-
wych. Wydaw. Akademii Ekonomicznej we Wrocławiu, Wrocław.
69. Listwan, T., (2000), Przedmiot i znaczenie zarządzania kadrami. (in:) Zarządzanie kadrami.
Podstawy teoretyczne i ćwiczenia. Wydaw. Akademii Ekonomicznej we Wrocławiu, Wrocław.
70. Listwan, T., (2010), Modele i składniki strategicznego zarządzania kadrami. (in:) Zarzą-
dzanie kadrami. [ed.] T. Listwan. Wydaw. C.H. Beck, Warszawa.
71. Ljungquist, U., (2007), Core competency beyond identification: presentation of a model,
(in:) “Management Decision”, Vol. 45, Iss 3.
72. Ljungquist, U., (2007), How Do Core Competencies Discriminate? Identification of Influenc-
ing Similarities and Differences, (in:) “Knowledge and Process Management”, Vol. 14, No 4.
73. Loew L., Competency management: challenges and benefits, February 25, 2016.
74. Łukasiewicz, G., (2009), Kapitał ludzki organizacji. Pomiar i sprawozdawczość. Wydaw.
Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
75. Management competencies for enhancing employee engagement, (2011), Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
76. Mansfield, R., (1996), Building competency models: Approaches for HR Professionals,
(in:) “Human Resource Management”, Spring, Vol. 35, No 1.
77. Mazur, B., (2004), Profile kultury a skuteczność systemów zarządzania jakością. (in:)
Łańcucki, J. (red.), Efektywność systemów zarządzania. Polskie Zrzeszenie Inżynierów
i Techników Sanitarnych Oddział Wielkopolski, Poznań.
78. Mirabile, R.J. (1997). Implementation planning: Key to successful competency strate-
gies. (in:) “Human Resource Professional”, Vol. 10, No 4.
79. Moore, D.R., Cheng, M., Dainty, A. (2002), Competence, competency and competen-
cies: performance assessment in organisations, (in:) “Work Study”, Vol. 51, Iss 6.
80. Morawski M., Zarządzanie profesjonalistami, PWE, Warszawa 2009.
81. Ngo, H., Jiang, C.Y., Loi, R. , (2014), Linking HRM competency to firm performance:
an empirical investigation of Chinese firms, (in:) “Personnel Review”, Vol. 43, Iss 6.
82. Nogalski B., Sterowanie zmianą organizacyjną w instytucji, Wydaw. Uniwersytetu
Gdańskiego, Gdańsk 1986.
83. Oleksyn T., (2006), Zarządzanie kompetencjami, teoria i praktyka, Oficyna Ekonomicz-
na, Kraków.
84. Page, E., Hood, C., Lodge, M., (2005), Conclusion: is competency management a passing
fad? (in:) “Public Administration”, Vol. 83, No 4.
85. Paquette, G. (2007), An Ontology and a Software Framework for Competency Modeling
and Management. (in:) “Educational Technology & Society”, Vol. 10, No 3.
86. Park, T., Rhee, J., (2012), Antecedents of knowledge competency and performance
in born globals, (in:) “Management Decision”, Vol. 50, Iss 8.
87. PARP, Kapitał ludzki jako wartość firmy. Narzędzie Pomiaru Kapitału Ludzkiego – wdro-
żenie, analiza i wnioski, 2015.
88. Penc-Pietrzak I. System zarządzania kompetencjami w organizacji, Zeszyty Naukowe
Ostrołęckiego Towarzystwa Naukowego, 2013, 27, 415–428.
89. Pocztowski, A., (2003), Zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi. Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekono-
miczne, Warszawa.
90. Poór, J., Engle, A.D., Kovács, I.E., Slavic, A., Wood, G., Szabó, K., Stor, M., Kerekes, K.,
Karoliny, Z., Alas, R., Némethy, K., (2015a) HR Management at Subsidiaries of Multina-
tional Companies in CEE in Light of Two Surveys of Empirical Research in 2008 and 2013.
(in:) “Acta Polytechnica Hungarica”, Vol. 12, No 3.
91. Poór, J., Slavić, A., Berber, N. (2015b), The competences of HR managers and their im-
pact on the organizational success of MNCs’ subsidiaries in the CEEregion (in:) “Central
European Business Review”, Vol. 4, No 01.
92. Ramlall, S.J., (2003), Measuring human resource management’s effectiveness in im-
proving performance. (in:) “Human Resource Planning”. Vol. 26 (1).
93. Rausch, E., Sherman, H., Washbush, J.B., (2002), Defining and assessing competencies
for competency-based, outcome-focused management development, (in:) “Journal
of Management Development”, Vol. 21, Iss 3.
94. Robinson, M.A., Sparrow, P.R., Clegg, C., Birdi, K., (2007), Forecasting future competen-
cy requirements: a three-phase methodology, (in:) “Personnel Review”, Vol. 36, Iss 1.
95. Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D., Gowing, M.K., (2002), Developing com-
petency models to promote integrated human resource practices, (in:) “Human Re-
source Management”, Fall, Vol. 41, No 3.
96. Rothwell, W.J., Lindholm, J.E. (1999), Competency identification, modeling and assess-
ment in the USA, (in:) “International Journal of Training and Development”, Vol. 3, No 2.
97. Rowe, C. (1995), Clarifying the use of competence and competency models in recruitment,
assessment and staff development, (in:) “Industrial and Commercial Training”, Vol. 27, Iss 11.
98. Ruth, D., (2006), Frameworks of managerial competence: limits, problems and sugges-
tions, (in:) “Journal of European Industrial Training”, Vol. 30, Iss 3.
99. Ryan, G., Spencer, L.M., Bernhard, U., (2012), Development and validation of a customized com-
petency-based questionnaire. Linking social, emotional, and cognitive competencies to business
unit profitability, (in:) “Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal”, Vol. 19, Iss 1.
100. Rybak M. (red.), [2003], Kapitał ludzki a konkurencyjność przedsiębiorstw, Poltext,
Warszawa.
101. Semeijn, J.H., Van Der Heijden, B.J.N., Van Der Lee, A., (2014), Multisource Ratings of Mana-
gerial Competencies and Their Predictive Value For Managerial and Organizational Effec-
tiveness, (in:) “Human Resource Management”, September-October, Vol. 53, No 5.
102. Serpell, A., Ferrad, X., (2007), A competency-based model for constriction supervisor
in developing countries, (in:) “Personnel Review”, Vol. 36, No 4.
103. Sidor-Rządkowska M., Kompetencyjne systemy ocen pracowników. Przygotowanie,
wdrażanie i integrowanie z innymi systemami ZZL, Oficyna Wolters Kluwer business,
Warszawa 2011, s. 37.
104. Sienkiewicz Ł. (red.), Polityka zarządzania kompetencjami pracowników, Instytut
Badań Edukacyjnych, 2013, s. 38.
105. Sienkiewicz, Ł. (2013), Zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi w oparciu o kompetencje. Pers-
pektywa uczenia się przez całe życie. Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych, Warszawa.
106. Soderquist, K.E., Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G., Prastacos, G., (2010), From task-based
to competency-based. A typology and process supporting a critical HRM transition, (in:)
“Personnel Review”, Vol. 39, Iss 3.
107. Spencer, L.M. Jr., Spencer, S.M. (1993), Competencies at work: Models for superior per-
formance, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
108. Stolarska M., Inżynier-menedżer. Zawód, system kształcenia, kariery zawodowe. Studi-
um porównawcze w Polsce i we Francji, Wydaw. Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź 1998.
109. Stone, T.H., Webster, B.D., Schoonover, S. (2013), What Do We Know About Competency Mod-
eling?, (in:) “International Journal of Selection and Assessment”, September, Vol. 21, No 3.
110. Stor M. (2012), Continental frameworks for HRM effectiveness and efficiency in MNCs:
European, American, Asian, and African perspectives. (in:) “Human Resource Manage-
ment”. Vol 6, No 89.
111. Stor, M., (2009), Wyzwania wobec międzynarodowej kadry menedżerskiej w gospodar-
ce opartej na wiedzy. (in:) T. Kupczyk (ed.), Uwarunkowania sukcesów kadry kierowni-
czej w gospodarce opartej na wiedzy. Wydaw. Difin, Warszawa.
112. Stor, M., (2010), Kwalifikacje i kompetencje kadry menedżerskiej korporacji międzyna-
rodowej w gospodarce opartej na wiedzy. (in:) Menedżer w gospodarce opartej na wie-
dzy. (ed.) T. Listwan, S.A. Witkowski. Wydaw. Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego, Wrocław.
113. Stor, M., (2014), Managerial capital as a source of company’s competitive advantage,
(in:) Success in human resources management. Diversity in human capital manage-
ment – approaches, methods, tools. Economic and managerial issues. Research papers
of Wrocław University of Economics No 349. (ed). M. Stor, T. Listwan, Wrocław Univer-
sity of Economics, Wrocław.
114. Stor, M., (2014), Reconceptualizing Strategic International Human Resources Manage-
ment in Pursuing Sustainable Competitive Advantage of MNCs (in:) “Human Resource
Management”. No 6 (10).
115. Stor, M., (2016), Paradoksalne i nieparadoksalne oksymoronizmy w strategiach zarzą-
dzania kompetencjami pracowniczymi – refleksje badawcze, (in:) „Nauki o zarządza-
niu”, Vol. 27, No 2, Wydaw. Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu.
116. Stor, M., Suchodolski, A., (2016a), Kompetencje kadry menedżerskiej w obszarze ZZL
z perspektywy wyników uzyskiwanych przez przedsiębiorstwa polskie i zagraniczne w
Polsce, (in:) „Organizacja i kierowanie”, Vol. 173, No 3,.
117. Stor, M., Suchodolski, A., (2016b), Wartościowanie kompetencji kierowników perso-
nalnych z perspektywy wyników uzyskiwanych przez przedsiębiorstwa polskie i zagra-
niczne w Polsce, (in:) „Sukces w zarządzaniu kadrami. Dylematy zarządzania kadrami
w organizacjach krajowych i międzynarodowych. Problemy zarządczo-ekonomiczne”.
Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu No 429. Wydaw. Uniwer-
sytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu.
118. Stor, M., Kupczyk, T., (2015), Differences in Competency Management – Comparative
Analysis between Polish, Spanish, and Austrian Business Practices, “Journal of Intercul-
tural Management”, Vol. 7, No 2.
119. Sutton, A., Watson, R., (2013), Can competencies at selection predict performance
and development needs?, (in:) “Journal of Management Development”, Vol. 32, Iss. 9.
120. Szaban J., Przemiany roli polskich dyrektorów w wyniku zmian ustrojowych. Od dyrek-
tora do euromenedżera, Wydaw. Wyższej Szkoły Przedsiębiorczości i Zarządzania im.
L. Koźmińskiego, Warszawa 2000.
121. Teodorescu, T., (2006), Competence versus competency. What is the difference?, (in:)
“Performance Improvement”, Vol. 45, No. 10, Nov/Dec.
122. The future of work: jobs and skills in 2030.
123. The Manager Competency Model, (2001), Hay Acquisition Company, Boston.
124. Thompson, J., Cole, M., (1997), Strategic competency - the learning challenge, (in:)
“Journal of Workplace Learning”, Vol. 9, Iss 5.
125. Thompson, J.L., (1998), Competency and measured performance outcomes, (in:) “Jour-
nal of Workplace Learning”, Vol. 10, Iss. 5.
126. trainingmag.com/competency-management-challenges-and-benefits
127. Trompenaars F., Hampden-Turner C., (1997), Riding the Ways of Culture. Understand-
ing Diversity in Business”, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
128. Understanding The Future Of Work 2017.
129. US Human Capital Effectiveness Report. PwC Saratoga 2010/2011. Pricewaterhouse-
Coopers, 2010.
130. Van Assen, M.F., (2000), Agile-based competence management: the relation between
agile manufacturing and time-based competence management. (in:) “International
Journal of Agile Management Systems”, Vol. 2, No 2.
131. Viitala, R., (2005), Perceived development needs of managers compared to an integrat-
ed management competency model, (in:) “Journal of Workplace Learning”, Vol. 17, Iss 7.
132. Winkler, R., (2008), Zarządzanie komunikacją w organizacjach zróżnicowanych kul-
turowo. Oficyna a Wolters Kluwer Business, Kraków.
133. Witkowski S.A., Psychologiczna prognoza efektywności kierowania. Możliwości i ogra-
niczenia, Wydaw. Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, Wrocław 1995.
134. Woodruffe, C., (1993), What Is Meant by a Competency?, (in:) “Leadership &
Organization Development Journal”, Vol. 14, Iss 1.
135. World Value Survey: www.worldvaluesurvey.com (19.12.2007).
136. Wright P.M., McMahan G. C., McWilliams A., (1990), Human resources as sustained
competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective. Center for Effective Organiza-
tions. Marshall School of Business. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
137. Yang, B.C., Wu, B.E., Shu, P.G., Yang, M.H., (2006), On establishing the core
competency identifying model. A value-activity and process oriented approach,
(in:) “Industrial Management & Data Systems”, Vol. 106, Iss 1.
List of Figures
Figure 1. The interface between competence and competency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 2. Typologies of meaning and purpose of the term competency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 3. Economic perspective on efficiency, efficacy and effectiveness in business
and HRM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 4. The matrix of perspectives on evaluating HRM effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 5. The rationale of structuring the POCCI model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 6. Elements of POCCI model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 7. Competency model at American Medical Systems, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 8. Competency-based labor management implementation model
in a construction company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure 9. Steps in developing competency management system
in petroleum industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Figure 10. The competency management process in petroleum industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 11. The definition of competency in situationalist approach applied
in Automobile Club d’Italia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparative perspective of competency and competence
by a consulting practitioner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 2. The exemplary subfunctions of HRM in which competencies can be applied. . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 3. The job competence assessment method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 4. The single-job and one-size-fits-all competency models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 5. A multiple-job approach to develop competency models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 6. Steps in the development of a competency model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 7. Leadership competencies at 3M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 8. Critical activities of the site supervisor in a construction company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 9. Competency profile of a site supervisor in a construction company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 10. Example of assessment methods matched to competency type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 11. The main phases and actors involved in a development
of competency management system in Automobile Club d’Italia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Table 12. The coding form applied in Automobile Club d’Italia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 13. Relationship between situations and competency attributes applied
in Automobile Club d’Italia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 14. An example of completed observation scale for competency
entitled decision making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 15. An exemplary result of decision making competency evaluation
based on observation scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 16. An exemplary set of competency questionnaire statements in the area
of customer service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 17. An exemplary competency questionnaire construct in the area
of customer service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Table 18. Exemplary questions from an introspective test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 19. Exemplary questions from a performance test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Table 20. Examples of retrospective and perspective questions
in a behavioral interview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table 21. Competency features included in learning management systems (LMSs). . . . . . . . . . 86
Table 22. The pros and cons of the single-job, one-size-fits-all
and multiple-job competency models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Table 23. Structure of studied enterprises by country of the head office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Table 24. Structure of respondent enterprises considering business sector according
to the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community. . . . . . . 126
Table 25. Level of implementation of competencies management
at the selected enterprises in Poland N=140 (percentage of responses). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Table 26. Persons involved in the process of implementation
of competencies management at the selected enterprises in Poland (N=140). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Table 27. Objectives of competencies management at the selected enterprises
in Poland (N=140). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Table 28. Methods of competency identification implemented
at the selected enterprises in Poland (N=140). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Table 29. Methods of classification / grouping competencies
in Poland (N=140). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Table 31. Competencies assessment methods applied at the selected enterprises
in Poland (N=140). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
of competencies at the selected enterprises from Poland (N=140). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Table 33. Scales / levels of competencies applied at the selected enterprises i
n Poland (N=140). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Table 34. Frequency of competencies reviews and updates in the selected enterprises
in Poland (N=140). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Table 35. Methods applied in employee training and development
Table 36. Technology’s roles in competencies management
at the selected enterprises from Poland (N=140). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Table 37. Knowledge concerning European initiatives related to competencies
definition, competency models and competencies development among employees
of the selected enterprises in Poland (N=140). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Table 38. Level of implementation of competencies management at the selected
enterprises in Austria, Spain and Poland (percentage of responses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Table 39. Persons involved in the process of implementation of competencies
management at the selected enterprises in Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Table 40. Objectives of competencies management at selected enterprises
in Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Table 41. Methods of competencies identification implemented
at the selected enterprises in Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Table 42. Methods of classification / grouping competencies
at the selected enterprises in Austria Spain and Poland (N=119). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Table 44. Methods of competency assessment used at the selected enterprises
from Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
of competencies at the selected enterprises from Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119). . . . . . . . 148
Table 46. Scales / levels of competencies applied at the selected enterprises
Table 47. Frequency of competencies reviews and updates
in the selected enterprises from Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Table 48. Methods applied in employee training and development
at the selected enterprises in Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Table 49. Technology’s role in competencies management
at the selected enterprises from Austria, Spain and Poland (N=119). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Table 50. Knowledge of enterprises concerning European initiatives related
to competencies, their quality and development (N=119). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Attachment 1. Questionnaire
Dear managers, Dear HRM managers and specialists,
We would like to ask you to complete the short questionnaire below which will be used as a basis of our ini-
tial research. The research applied the following definition:
Competencies are skills, knowledge, personal features and behaviour necessary to efficiently perform the
role/job in a given organisation and to support the enterprise in achievement of its strategic goals. They are
related to actual actions or achieved results of such actions in specific circumstances.
Competencies management is defined as a set of actions aimed at the organisation’s acquiring, developing
and maintaining such employee competencies which enable achievement of the company’s strategic goals.
I. Gathering information about “IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETENCY MANAGEMENT”

1. Could you please fill in the following information about your company´s profile:
1.1. Where is your company based:
Poland
Spain
Austria
1.2. Size of the company measured by the number of employees
0–9
10–49
50–249
>250
1.3. Years of functioning on the market
Up to 2
3–5
6–10
11–20
More than 20
1.4. Sector of activity according to European Classification of Business Activity
A. Agriculture, forestry and fishing
B. Mining and quarrying
C. Manufacturing
D. Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
E. Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
F. Construction
G. Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
H. Transportation and storage
I. Accommodation and food service activities
J. Information and communication
K. Financial and insurance activities
L. Real estate activities
M. Professional, scientific and technical activities
N. Administrative and support service activities
O. Public administration and defense; compulsory social security
P. Education
Q. Human health and social work activities
R. Arts, entertainment and recreation
S. Activities of households as employers
T. Activities of extraterritorial organizations and bodies
2. Please assess the level of competency management implementation in your company,

against the intended level (final end).
Up to 10%
11–20%
21–20%
31–40%
41–50%
51–60%
61–70%
71–80%
81–90%
91–100%
3. Since when has your company been involved in competency management?
Less than 1 year
2–4 years
5–9 years
More than 10 years
4. During the implementation process of competency management in your company, who
from the following people have been involved (You can select several options)?
HR manager
HR specialist
1
Line managers
Middle managers
Top managers
External consultants
Others, who? ........................................................................................................
5. What are the goals of competency management in your organization? (You can select
more than one option)
Design tailored training and developmental programs
Personnel recruitment and selection processes
Selection of university students/young graduates for job placement
Assigning tasks to people
Employee performance appraisal
Career management
Design and manage compensation system
Succession planning
Talent management
If others, please specify: .....................................................................................
II. Gathering information about “IDENTIFICATION OF COMPETENCIES”

6. What methods of competency identification have you implemented within your compa-
ny? (You can select more than one option)
Working sessions with experts
Open interviews
Direct observations
Group discussions
Self evaluation of the employees
Evidence of exercise questionnaire
Job analysis questionnaire
Behavioral event interview
7. When performing job analysis, which one of the following approaches do you apply in
your company?
You only consider the present/current requirements of each analyzed job
You consider both the present/current and future requirements of each analyzed job
8. If you group competencies in your company somehow, what are the categories of these
groups? (You can select more than one option)
We don’t group them at all
Core employee competencies (for all employees in the organization)
Core manager competencies (for supervisors and managers)
Core leader competencies (for executives)
Erasmus + / Agile Based Competency Management

Cross functional competencies (job related competencies, but can´t apply to many types
of jobs; for example, time management, communication, or basic computer skills);
Technical (or functional) competencies (job related competencies related to one’s key spe-
cialty or function; for example, accounts payable, heavy water chemistry, computer pro-
gramming, or security procedures)
If others, please specify: .............................................................................................
9. Who described the competencies in your company?
Our company employees
External company/external consultants
A team composed of our company’s employees and external consultants
If there were other solutions, please specify: .............................................................
III. Gathering information about “ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES ”

10. What competency assessment methods do you use, in your company? (You can tick more
than one option) 2
360° Feedback
Observation
Assessment Centers
Situational tests (Cases based on real situations)
Critical incidents interview
Repertory grid analysis
Expert opinions
Questionnaires
Interviews
Analysis of personnel documents
Workshops
Performance results
11. When rating the complexity/proficiency levels of the competencies in your company,
which one of the following approaches do you apply?
Rating the importance of the competency in the future compared to the present
Rating the extent to which the competency distinguishes high performing employees from
average employees
Rating the linkage of the competencies to organizational goals, objectives or strategies
12. What do the levels of complexity/proficiency measure in your company?
The progressive levels of competency development on the job (e.g., novice, master, and
expert)
The levels of competency performance (e.g., marginal, good, and excellent)
The job grade level (e.g., associate engineer, staff engineer, or senior engineer)
13. How often do you review and update competencies and competency management in
your company?
We haven’t done it yet
Once a year.
Every 2 year
Every 3 years
Every 5 years
In longer periods than 5 years
IV. Gathering information about “TECHNOLOGY & C0MPETENCIES”

14. What role does technology play in your company competency management? (You can
tick more than one option)?
We use technology to develop the competency profiles
We use technology to provide a place to store the competency profiles which are made,
by this way, electronically available to organizational members

We use technology as a single source of competency information within the whole organi-
zation in order to help ensure consistency in the competencies applied to a job family or other
organizational units
We facilitate the use of the competency models and profiles by housing the HR applica-
tions that derive from the them (e.g., selection procedures, performance appraisals, career
development tools)
We use technology for assessing competencies
V. Gathering information about “COMPETENCIES AND EMPLOYEE TRAINING & DEVEL-

OPMENT OF COMPETENCIES”
15. When conducting employee training and development processes, what methods do you
implement in your organization? (You can tick more than one option)
Coaching
Mentoring 3
Training programs
Blended Learning
Outdoor activities
Self-learning and self-development
VI. Gathering information about the “EUROPEAN DIMENSION OF COMPETENCIES”

16. Are you aware of the following initiatives available at European level in relation with
competencies definitions, competencies models and competencies development? (You
can select more than one option)
I´m not aware of these initiatives
European Qualifications Framework – EQF
European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET)
European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)
EUROPASS
European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO)
Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE)
Euroguidance Network
Quality assurance in vocational education and training (EQAVET)
E-Competence Framework (e-CF)
If you know other initiatives, please specify: .............................................................
17. With regards to the “EUROPASS” tool, please? (You can select more than one option)
I don´t know this tool
I know this tool and we use in our company for Selection of university students/ young
graduates for job placements
I know this tool and we use it in our company for Personnel recruitment processes
If you use it for other purposes, please specify: .............................................................

Attachment 2. Competencies management at enterprises

– detailed results of the study (statistically significant correlations)7
2.1. Responses with respect to enterprises size as a criterion

Involvement of staff in the process of competencies management at enterprises
Table 2.1.1. Involvement of HR managers in the process of competencies management at the studied en-
terprises vs. the criterion of enterprise size (N=119)
During the implementation process of Size of the company measured by the number of
competency management in your company, employees:
in all
who from the following people have been
involved (HR manager) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 2 28 7 8 10 55
No
% 40,0% 41,8% 87,5% 72,7% 35,7% 46,2%
strength 3 39 1 3 18 64
Yes
% 60,0% 58,2% 12,5% 27,3% 64,3% 53,8%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.2. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: involvement of HR managers
in competencies management, enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Pearson's chi-square 10,443a 4 ,034
Likelihood ratio 11,072 4 ,026
N valid observations 119
a. 40.0 % of the cells (4) had expected quantity below 5 . The
minimal expected quantity is 2.31
Table 2.1.3. Involvement of HR specialists in the process of competencies management at the studied en-
competency management in your company, employees: in all
involved (HR specialist) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 4 27 8 10 19 68
No
% 80,0% 40,3% 100,0% 90,9% 67,9% 57,1%
strength 1 40 0 1 9 51
Yes
% 20,0% 59,7% 0,0% 9,1% 32,1% 42,9%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.4. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: involvement of HR specialists
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
7
Source of tables: original analysis of empirical results.
Table 2.1.5. Involvement of medium-level managers in the process of competencies management at the
studied enterprises vs. the criterion of enterprise size (N=119)
During the implementation process of
Size of the company measured by the number of
competency management in your company,
employees: in all
involved (middle managers) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 5 42 8 10 20 85
No
% 100,0% 62,7% 100,0% 90,9% 71,4% 71,4%
strength 0 25 0 1 8 34
Yes
% 0,0% 37,3% 0,0% 9,1% 28,6% 28,6%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.6. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: involvement of medium-level
managers in competencies management, enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
a. 40.0 % of the cells (4) had expected quantity below 5. The
Table 2.1.7. Involvement of top managers in the process of competencies management at the studied en-
competency management in your company, employees: in all
involved (top managers) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 4 36 2 9 8 59
No
% 80,0% 53,7% 25,0% 81,8% 28,6% 49,6%
strength 1 31 6 2 20 60
Yes
% 20,0% 46,3% 75,0% 18,2% 71,4% 50,4%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.8. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: involvement of top managers
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Objectives of competencies management at enterprises

Table 2.1.9. Objectives of competencies management at the respondent enterprises (Selection of univer-
sity students/young graduates for job placement) vs. the criterion of enterprise size (N=119)
What are the goals of competency Size of the company measured by the number of
management in your organization? (selection of employees:
in all
university students/young graduates for job
placement) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 3 49 8 11 26 97
No
% 60,0% 73,1% 100,0% 100,0% 92,9% 81,5%
strength 2 18 0 0 2 22
Yes
% 40,0% 26,9% 0,0% 0,0% 7,1% 18,5%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.10. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: selection of university students/
young graduates for job placement as the objective of competencies management, enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
a 40.0 % of the cells (4) had expected quantity below 5 . The
Table 2.1.11. Objectives of competencies management at the respondent enterprises (Employee perfor-
mance appraisal) vs. the criterion of enterprise size (N=119)
management in your organization? (employee employees: in all
performance appraisal) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 3 29 6 8 8 54
No
% 60,0% 43,3% 75,0% 72,7% 28,6% 45,4%
strength 2 38 2 3 20 65
Yes
% 40,0% 56,7% 25,0% 27,3% 71,4% 54,6%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.12. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: employee performance apprais-
al as the objective of competencies management, enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Table 2.1.13. Objectives of competencies management at the respondent enterprises (career manage-
ment) vs. the criterion of enterprise size (N=119)
management in your organization? (career employees: in all
management) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 4 24 6 10 19 63
No
% 80,0% 35,8% 75,0% 90,9% 67,9% 52,9%
strength 1 43 2 1 9 56
Yes
% 20,0% 64,2% 25,0% 9,1% 32,1% 47,1%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.14. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: career management as the ob-
jective of competencies management, enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Methods of competencies identification applied at enterprises
Table 2.1.15. Methods of competencies identification implemented at the respondent enterprise (group
discussions) vs. the criterion of enterprise size (N=119).
What methods of competency identification Size of the company measured by the number of
have you implemented within your company? employees: in all
(Group discussions) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 0 51 6 7 20 84
No
% 0,0% 76,1% 75,0% 63,6% 71,4% 70,6%
strength 5 16 2 4 8 35
Yes
% 100,0% 23,9% 25,0% 36,4% 28,6% 29,4%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.16. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: method of competencies identi-
fication implemented at the enterprise (group discussions), enterprise size (N=119).
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Table 2.1.17. Methods of competencies identification implemented at the respondent enterprise (employ-
ee self-evaluation) vs. the criterion of enterprise size (N=119)
What methods of competency identification Size of the company measured by the number of
have you implemented within your company? employees: in all
(Self evaluation of the employees) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 4 27 7 10 14 62
No
% 80,0% 40,3% 87,5% 90,9% 50,0% 52,1%
strength 1 40 1 1 14 57
Yes
% 20,0% 59,7% 12,5% 9,1% 50,0% 47,9%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.18. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: method of competencies identi-
fication implemented at the enterprise (employee self-evaluation), enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Forms of competencies grouping (classification) at enterprises

Table 2.1.19. Forms of competencies grouping/classification (We don’t classify competencies at all) vs.
the criterion of enterprise size (N=119)
If you group competencies in your company Size of the company measured by the number of
somehow, what are the categories of these employees: in all
groups? (We don’t group them at all) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 5 53 3 6 19 86
No
% 100,0% 79,1% 37,5% 54,5% 67,9% 72,3%
strength 0 14 5 5 9 33
Yes
% 0,0% 20,9% 62,5% 45,5% 32,1% 27,7%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.20. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: forms of competencies group-
ing/classification (We don’t classify competencies at all), enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Table 2.1.21. Forms of competencies grouping/classification (core manager competencies) vs. the crite-
rion of enterprise size (N=119)
groups? (Core manager competencies) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 5 31 8 10 21 75
No
% 100,0% 46,3% 100,0% 90,9% 75,0% 63,0%
strength 0 36 0 1 7 44
Yes
% 0,0% 53,7% 0,0% 9,1% 25,0% 37,0%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.22. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: Forms of competencies group-
ing/classification (core manager competencies), enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Table 2.1.23. Forms of competencies grouping/classification (core leader competencies) vs. the criterion
of enterprise size (N=119)
groups? (core leader competencies) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 3 43 8 11 25 90
No
% 60,0% 64,2% 100,0% 100,0% 89,3% 75,6%
strength 2 24 0 0 3 29
Yes
% 40,0% 35,8% 0,0% 0,0% 10,7% 24,4%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
ing/classification (core leader competencies), enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Methods of competencies assessment at enterprises
Table 2.1.25. Methods of competencies assessment at the respondent enterprises (360º Feedback) vs.
What competency assessment methods do you
employees: in all
use, in your company? (360º Feedback)
> 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 5 38 8 11 23 85
No
% 100,0% 56,7% 100,0% 100,0% 82,1% 71,4%
strength 0 29 0 0 5 34
Yes
% 0,0% 43,3% 0,0% 0,0% 17,9% 28,6%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.26. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: methods of competencies as-
sessment at the respondent enterprises (360º Feedback), enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Methods applied by enterprises in the area of employee training and development

Table 2.1.27. Methods applied in the area of employee training and development (Mentoring) vs. the cri-
terion of enterprise size (N=119)
When conducting employee training and Size of the company measured by the number of
development processes, what methods do you employees: in all
implement in your organization? (mentoring) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 5 38 6 10 23 82
No
% 100,0% 56,7% 75,0% 90,9% 82,1% 68,9%
strength 0 29 2 1 5 37
Yes
% 0,0% 43,3% 25,0% 9,1% 17,9% 31,1%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.28. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: methods applied in the area
of employee training and development (Mentoring), enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Table 2.1.29. Methods applied in the area of employee training and development (Training programs) vs.
When conducting employee training and Size of the company measured by the number of
development processes, what methods do you employees:
in all
implement in your organization? (training
programs) > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
strength 1 9 3 5 11 29
No
% 20,0% 13,4% 37,5% 45,5% 39,3% 24,4%
strength 4 58 5 6 17 90
Yes
% 80,0% 86,6% 62,5% 54,5% 60,7% 75,6%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.30. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: methods applied in the area
of employee training and development (Training programs), enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Employees’ knowledge concerning the European initiatives related to the defi-

nition of competencies, competency models and competencies development
Table 2.1.31. Employees’ knowledge concerning the European initiatives related to the definition of com-
petencies, competency models and competencies development (European Credit system for Vocational
Education and Training - ECVET) vs. the criterion of enterprise size (N=119)
Are you aware of the following initiatives Size of the company measured by the number of
available at European level in relation with employees:
competencies definitions, competencies
in all
models and competencies development?
(European Credit system for Vocational > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
Education and Training (ECVET))
strength 4 61 3 10 24 102
No
% 80,0% 91,0% 37,5% 90,9% 85,7% 85,7%
strength 1 6 5 1 4 17
Yes
% 20,0% 9,0% 62,5% 9,1% 14,3% 14,3%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.32. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: employees’ knowledge concern-
ing the European initiatives related to the definition of competencies, competency models and compe-
tencies development (European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training - ECVET), enterprise
size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
petencies, competency models and competencies development (Platform for Adult Learning in Europe
(EPALE)) vs. the criterion of enterprise size (N=119)
Are you aware of the following initiatives employees:
available at European level in relation with
competencies definitions, competencies in all
models and competencies development? > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
(Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE)
strength 4 67 8 10 28 117
No
% 80,0% 100,0% 100,0% 90,9% 100,0% 98,3%
strength 1 0 0 1 0 2
Yes
% 20,0% 0,0% 0,0% 9,1% 0,0% 1,7%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.34. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: employees’ knowledge con-
cerning the European initiatives related to the definition of competencies, competency models and com-
petencies development (Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE)), enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
petencies, competency models and competencies development (Euroguidance Network) vs. the criterion
of enterprise size (N=119)
competencies definitions, competencies in all
models and competencies development? > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
(Euroguidance Network)
strength 5 65 6 11 28 115
No
% 100,0% 97,0% 75,0% 100,0% 100,0% 96,6%
Yes
% 0,0% 3,0% 25,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,4%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
petencies development (Euroguidance Network), enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
petencies, competency models and competencies development (Quality assurance in vocational educa-
tion and training [EQAVET]) vs. the criterion of enterprise size (N=119)
competencies definitions, competencies
in all
models and competencies development?
(Quality assurance in vocational education and > 250 0-9 10 - 49 50 - 249
training (EQAVET)
strength 5 64 5 11 26 111
No
% 100,0% 95,5% 62,5% 100,0% 92,9% 93,3%
Yes
% 0,0% 4,5% 37,5% 0,0% 7,1% 6,7%
strength 5 67 8 11 28 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.1.38. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: employees’ knowledge concerning
the European initiatives related to the definition of competencies, competency models and competencies
development (Quality assurance in vocational education and training (EQAVET)), enterprise size (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
2.2. Responses with respect to the country of the enterprise’s headquar-

ters (Austria, Spain and Poland)
terprises vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
During the implementation process of competency Where is your company based

management in your company, who from the following in all
people have been involved (HR manager) Austria Other Poland Spain
strength 6 0 45 4 55
No
% 25,0% 0,0% 57,7% 25,0% 46,2%
strength 18 1 33 12 64
Yes
% 75,0% 100,0% 42,3% 75,0% 53,8%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
in the process of competencies management at the studied enterprises, country of the enterprises head-
quarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
a. 25.0% of the cells (2) had expected quantity below 5. The
minimal expected quantity is .46

Table 2.2.3. Objectives of competencies management at the respondent enterprises (personnel recruit-
ment and selection processes) vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria,
Spain, Poland) (N=119)
What are the goals of competency management in Where is your company based
your organization (personnel recruitment and selection in all
processes) Austria Other Poland Spain
No
% 20,8% 100,0% 60,3% 25,0% 47,9%
strength 19 0 31 12 62
Yes
% 79,2% 0,0% 39,7% 75,0% 52,1%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.2.4. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: personnel recruitment and selec-
tion processes as the objective of competencies management, country of the enterprises headquarters
(Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Table 2.2.5. Objectives of competencies management at the respondent enterprises (succession planning)
vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
What are the goals of competency management in Where is your company based
in all
your organization? (Succession planning)
Austria Other Poland Spain
strength 14 1 67 13 95
No
% 58,3% 100,0% 85,9% 81,3% 79,8%
strength 10 0 11 3 24
Yes
% 41,7% 0,0% 14,1% 18,8% 20,2%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.2.6. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: succession planning as the objec-
tive of competencies management, country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Methods of competencies identification applied at enterprises

Table 2.2.7. Methods of competencies identification applied at the respondent enterprises (working sessions
with experts) vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
What methods of competency identification have you Where is your company based
implemented within your company? (Working sessions in all
with experts) Austria Other Poland Spain
strength 14 1 67 8 90
No
% 58,3% 100,0% 85,9% 50,0% 75,6%
strength 10 0 11 8 29
Yes
% 41,7% 0,0% 14,1% 50,0% 24,4%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.2.8. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: methods of competencies identi-
fication applied at the respondent enterprises (working sessions with experts), country of the enterprises
headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Table 2.2.9. Methods of competencies identification applied at the respondent enterprises (open inter-
views) vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
Where is your company based
What methods of competency identification have you
in all
implemented within your company? (Open interviews) Austria Other Poland Spain
strength 14 1 65 8 88
No
% 58,3% 100,0% 83,3% 50,0% 73,9%
strength 10 0 13 8 31
Yes
% 41,7% 0,0% 16,7% 50,0% 26,1%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.2.10. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: methods of competencies iden-
tification applied at the respondent enterprises (open interviews), country of the enterprises headquar-
ters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance

Table 2.2.11. Forms of competencies grouping/classification (cross functional competencies) vs. the crite-
rion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
If you group competencies in your company somehow, Where is your company based
what are the categories of these groups? (Cross in all
functional competencies ) Austria Other Poland Spain
strength 15 1 71 9 96
No
% 62,5% 100,0% 91,0% 56,3% 80,7%
strength 9 0 7 7 23
Yes
% 37,5% 0,0% 9,0% 43,8% 19,3%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
ing / classification (cross functional competencies), country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria,
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Table 2.2.13. Forms of competencies grouping / classification (technical/functional competencies) vs.

the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
If you group competencies in your company somehow, Where is your company based
what are the categories of these groups? (Technical in all
(or functional) competencies) Austria Other Poland Spain
strength 13 1 68 12 94
No
% 54,2% 100,0% 87,2% 75,0% 79,0%
strength 11 0 10 4 25
Yes
% 45,8% 0,0% 12,8% 25,0% 21,0%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
ing / classification (technical/functional competencies), country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria,
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Persons responsible for describing competencies at enterprises

Table 2.2.15. Persons responsible for describing competencies at enterprises vs. the criterion of the coun-
try of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
Who described the competencies in your company in all
strength 2 0 5 4 11
% 8,3% 0,0% 6,4% 25,0% 9,2%
A team composed of strength 6 0 26 6 38
our company’s
employees and % 25,0% 0,0% 33,3% 37,5% 31,9%
external consultants
External strength 0 1 4 2 7
company/external
consultants % 0,0% 100,0% 5,1% 12,5% 5,9%
strength 4 0 4 2 10
Other
% 16,7% 0,0% 5,1% 12,5% 8,4%
Our company strength 12 0 39 2 53
employees % 50,0% 0,0% 50,0% 12,5% 44,5%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.2.16. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: persons responsible for describing
competencies at enterprises, country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance

Table 2.2.17. Methods of competencies assessment at enterprises (job interview) z vs. the criterion
of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
What competency assessment methods do you use, in Where is your company based
your company? (interviews) in all
strength 10 1 57 5 73
No
% 41,7% 100,0% 73,1% 31,3% 61,3%
strength 14 0 21 11 46
Yes
% 58,3% 0,0% 26,9% 68,8% 38,7%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.2.18. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: methods of competencies assess-
ment at enterprises (job interview), country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Table 2.2.19. Methods of competencies assessment at enterprises (analysis of personnel documents) vs.
the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
What competency assessment methods do you use, in Where is your company based
in all
your company? (analysis of personnel documents)
strength 17 0 48 16 81
No
% 70,8% 0,0% 61,5% 100,0% 68,1%
Yes
% 29,2% 100,0% 38,5% 0,0% 31,9%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
sessment at enterprises (analysis of personnel documents), country of the enterprises headquarters (Aus-
tria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
a. a. 25.0 % of the cells (2) had expected quantity below 5. The
Role of technology in competencies management at enterprises

Table 2.2.21. Role of technology in competencies management at the respondent enterprises (technology
serves as a single source of competency information within the whole organization in order to help en-
sure consistency in the competencies applied to a job family or other organizational units) vs. the criterion
of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
What role does technology play in your company
competency management? (we use technology as a Where is your company based
single source of competency information within the
whole organization in order to help ensure consistency in all
in the competencies applied to a job family or other Austria Other Poland Spain
organizational units)
strength 22 1 53 16 92
No
% 91,7% 100,0% 67,9% 100,0% 77,3%
Yes
% 8,3% 0,0% 32,1% 0,0% 22,7%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.2.22. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: Role of technology in competencies
management at the respondent enterprises (technology serves as a single source of competency information
within the whole organization in order to help ensure consistency in the competencies applied to a job family
or other organizational units), country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Methods applied by enterprises in the area of employee training and development

Table 2.2.23. Methods applied by the respondent enterprises in the area of employee training and development
(mentoring) vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
When conducting employee training and development Where is your company based
processes, what methods do you implement in your in all
organization? (mentoring) Austria Other Poland Spain
strength 16 1 59 6 82
No
% 66,7% 100,0% 75,6% 37,5% 68,9%
strength 8 0 19 10 37
Yes
% 33,3% 0,0% 24,4% 62,5% 31,1%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.2.24. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: methods applied by the re-
spondent enterprises in the area of employee training and development (mentoring), country of the en-
terprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Source: original analysis of empirical results.
Table 2.2.25. Methods applied by the respondent enterprises in the area of employee training and de-
velopment (training programs) vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria,
When conducting employee training and development
processes, what methods do you implement in your in all
organization? (training programs) Austria Other Poland Spain
No
% 4,2% 100,0% 33,3% 6,3% 24,4%
strength 23 0 52 15 90
Yes
% 95,8% 0,0% 66,7% 93,8% 75,6%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.2.26. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: methods applied by the re-
spondent enterprises in the area of employee training and development (training programs), country
of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
a.a. 37.5 % of the cells (3) had expected quantity below 5. The
Employees’ knowledge concerning the European initiatives related to defini-

tion of competencies, competency models and competencies development
petencies, competency models and competencies development (European Qualifications Framework –
EQF) vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
Are you aware of the following initiatives available at Where is your company based
European level in relation with competencies
definitions, competencies models and competencies in all
development? (European Qualifications Framework Austria Other Poland Spain
–EQF)
strength 14 1 70 13 98
No
% 58,3% 100,0% 89,7% 81,3% 82,4%
Yes
% 41,7% 0,0% 10,3% 18,8% 17,6%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
petencies development (European Qualifications Framework – EQF), country of the enterprises headquar-
ters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
petencies, competency models and competencies development (European Credit system for Vocational
Education and Training [ECVET]) vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria,
Are you aware of the following initiatives available at Where is your company based
development? (European Credit system for Vocational Austria Other Poland Spain
Education and Training (ECVET)
strength 12 1 74 15 102
No
% 50,0% 100,0% 94,9% 93,8% 85,7%
Yes
% 50,0% 0,0% 5,1% 6,3% 14,3%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.2.30. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: Employees’ knowledge con-
petencies development (European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training [ECVET]), country
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
Table 2.2.31. Employees’ knowledge concerning the European initiatives related to the definition of competen-
cies, competency models and competencies development (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System
[ECTS]) vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
Table 2.2.31. Employees’ knowledge concerning the European initiatives related to definition of competencies, competency models and competencies d
Are you aware of the following initiatives available at
development? (European Credit Transfer and
Accumulation System (ECTS))
strength 12 1 70 13 96
No
% 50,0% 100,0% 89,7% 81,3% 80,7%
Yes
% 50,0% 0,0% 10,3% 18,8% 19,3%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
petencies development (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System [ECTS]), country of the enter-
prises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
petencies, competency models and competencies development (EUROPASS) vs. the criterion of the coun-
try of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
European level in relation with competencies Where is your company based
development? (EUROPASS) Austria Other Poland Spain
strength 10 1 73 14 98
No
% 41,7% 100,0% 93,6% 87,5% 82,4%
Yes
% 58,3% 0,0% 6,4% 12,5% 17,6%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.2.34. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: employees’ knowledge concerning
the European initiatives related to the definition of competencies, competency models and competencies
development (EUROPASS), country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
aa. 50.0 % of the cells (4) had expected quantity below 5. The
petencies, competency models and competencies development (Quality assurance in vocational edu-
cation and training [EQAVET]) vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria,
development? (Quality assurance in vocational Austria Other Poland Spain
education and training (EQAVET)
strength 19 1 76 15 111
No
% 79,2% 100,0% 97,4% 93,8% 93,3%
strength 5 0 2 1 8
Yes
% 20,8% 0,0% 2,6% 6,3% 6,7%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
petencies development (Quality assurance in vocational education and training [EQAVET]), country
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
petencies, competency models and competencies development (I have never heard of these initiatives)
vs. the criterion of the country of the enterprises headquarters (Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
Are you aware of the following initiatives
available at European level in relation with Where is your company based
competencies definitions, competencies models in all
and competencies development? (I´m not aware
of these initiatives) Austria Other Poland Spain
strength 20 0 32 5 57
No
% 83,3% 0,0% 41,0% 31,3% 47,9%
strength 4 1 46 11 62
Yes
% 16,7% 100,0% 59,0% 68,8% 52,1%
strength 24 1 78 16 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
petencies development (I have never heard of these initiatives), country of the enterprises headquarters
(Austria, Spain, Poland) (N=119)
asymptotic
degrees of
Value (bilateral)
freedom
significance
2.3. Responses vs. number of years of experience in competencies manage-
ment as a criterion
terprises vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
During the implementation process of Since when has your company been involved in
competency management in your company, who competency management
in all
from the following people have been involved? 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
(HR managers) years years year 10 years
strength 5 11 13 17 9 55
No
% 62,5% 31,4% 44,8% 77,3% 36,0% 46,2%
strength 3 24 16 5 16 64
Yes
% 37,5% 68,6% 55,2% 22,7% 64,0% 53,8%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
in the process of competencies management at the studied enterprises, enterprises’ experience in com-
petencies management (N=119)
degrees asymptotic
Value of (bilateral)
freedom significance
minimal expected quantity is 3.70.
Table 2.3.3. Involvement of lower-level/line managers in the process of competencies management at the
studied enterprises vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
in all
from the following people have been involved? 2–4 5 – 9 Less than 1 More than
(Line managers) years years year 10 years
strength 7 23 13 19 17 79
No
% 87,5% 65,7% 44,8% 86,4% 68,0% 66,4%
strength 1 12 16 3 8 40
Yes
% 12,5% 34,3% 55,2% 13,6% 32,0% 33,6%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.3.4. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: involvement of lower-level/line
managers in the process of competencies management at the studied enterprises, enterprises’ experi-
ence in competencies management (N=119)
degrees asymptotic
Table 2.3.5. Involvement of medium-level managers in the process of competencies management at the
studied enterprises vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
in all
from the following people have been involved? 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
(Middle managers) years years year 10 years
strength 8 26 13 21 17 85
No
% 100,0% 74,3% 44,8% 95,5% 68,0% 71,4%
strength 0 9 16 1 8 34
Yes
% 0,0% 25,7% 55,2% 4,5% 32,0% 28,6%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.3.6. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: involvement of medium-level
managers in the process of competencies management at the studied enterprises, enterprises’ experi-
degrees asymptotic

Table 2.3.7. Objectives of competencies management at the respondent enterprises (staff recruitment and se-
lection processes) vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
Since when has your company been involved in
What are the goals of competency management competency management
in your organization? (personnel recruitment and in all
selection processes) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
years years year 10 years
strength 7 13 15 15 7 57
No
% 87,5% 37,1% 51,7% 68,2% 28,0% 47,9%
strength 1 22 14 7 18 62
Yes
% 12,5% 62,9% 48,3% 31,8% 72,0% 52,1%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.3.8. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: recruitment and selection processes
as the objective of competencies management, enterprises’ experience in competencies management (N=119)
degrees asymptotic
a.a. 20.0 % of the cells (2) had expected quantity below 5.
The minimal expected quantity is 3.83.
Table 2.3.9. Objectives of competencies management at the respondent enterprises (selection of uni-
versity students/young graduates for job placement) vs. number of years of experience in competencies
management as criterion (N=119)
in your organization? (selection of university in all
students/young graduates for job placement) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 6 33 18 21 19 97
No
% 75,0% 94,3% 62,1% 95,5% 76,0% 81,5%
strength 2 2 11 1 6 22
Yes
% 25,0% 5,7% 37,9% 4,5% 24,0% 18,5%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.3.10. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: selection of university students/
young graduates for job placement as the objective of competencies management, enterprises’ experi-
degrees asymptotic
a.a. 30.0 % of the cells (3) had expected quantity below 5.
Table 2.3.11. Objectives of competencies management at the respondent enterprises (assigning tasks
to people) vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
in all
in your organization? (assigning tasks to people) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 7 23 22 12 7 71
No
% 87,5% 65,7% 75,9% 54,5% 28,0% 59,7%
strength 1 12 7 10 18 48
Yes
% 12,5% 34,3% 24,1% 45,5% 72,0% 40,3%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.3.12. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: assigning tasks to people as
the objective of competencies management, enterprises’ experience in competencies management
(N=119)
degrees asymptotic
Table 2.3.13. Objectives of competencies management at the respondent enterprises (career manage-
ment) vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
in all
in your organization? (career management) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 6 20 12 16 9 63
No
% 75,0% 57,1% 41,4% 72,7% 36,0% 52,9%
strength 2 15 17 6 16 56
Yes
% 25,0% 42,9% 58,6% 27,3% 64,0% 47,1%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.3.14. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: career management as the ob-
jective of competencies management, enterprises’ experience in competencies management (N=119)
degrees asymptotic

Table 2.3.15. Forms of competencies grouping / classification at the respondent enterprises (We don’t classify
competencies at all) vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
If you group competencies in your company competency management
somehow, what are the categories of these in all
groups? (we don’t group them at all) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 6 27 24 10 19 86
No
% 75,0% 77,1% 82,8% 45,5% 76,0% 72,3%
strength 2 8 5 12 6 33
Yes
% 25,0% 22,9% 17,2% 54,5% 24,0% 27,7%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
ing / classification at the respondent enterprises (We don’t classify competencies at all), enterprises’ ex-
perience in competencies management (N=119)
degrees asymptotic
a. a. 10.0 % of the cells (1) had expected quantity below 5.
Table 2.3.17. Forms of competencies grouping / classification at the respondent enterprises (core employee
competencies) vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
groups? (core employee competencies) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 5 14 12 17 11 59
No
% 62,5% 40,0% 41,4% 77,3% 44,0% 49,6%
strength 3 21 17 5 14 60
Yes
% 37,5% 60,0% 58,6% 22,7% 56,0% 50,4%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
ing / classification at the respondent enterprises (core employee competencies), enterprises’ experience
in competencies management (N=119)
degrees asymptotic
Table 2.3.19. Forms of competencies grouping / classification at the respondent enterprises (core leader
competencies) vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
groups? (core leader competencies) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 5 30 20 21 14 90
No
% 62,5% 85,7% 69,0% 95,5% 56,0% 75,6%
strength 3 5 9 1 11 29
Yes
% 37,5% 14,3% 31,0% 4,5% 44,0% 24,4%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
ing / classification at the respondent enterprises (core leader competencies), enterprises’ experience
degrees asymptotic
Table 2.3.21. Forms of competencies grouping / classification at the respondent enterprises (cross-func-
tional / interdisciplinary competencies) vs. number of years of experience in competencies management
as criterion (N=119)
If you group competencies in your company Since when has your company been involved in
somehow, what are the categories of these competency management
in all
groups? (cross-functional / interdisciplinary 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
competencies) years years year 10 years
strength 7 31 23 20 15 96
No
% 87,5% 88,6% 79,3% 90,9% 60,0% 80,7%
strength 1 4 6 2 10 23
Yes
% 12,5% 11,4% 20,7% 9,1% 40,0% 19,3%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
ing / classification at the respondent enterprises (cross functional competencies), enterprises’ experience
degrees asymptotic
Table 2.3.23. Forms of competencies grouping / classification at the respondent enterprises (technical / func-
tional competencies) vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
groups? (technical/functional competencies) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 7 31 22 20 14 94
No
% 87,5% 88,6% 75,9% 90,9% 56,0% 79,0%
strength 1 4 7 2 11 25
Yes
% 12,5% 11,4% 24,1% 9,1% 44,0% 21,0%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
ing / classification at the respondent enterprises (technical / functional competencies), enterprises’ expe-
rience in competencies management (N=119)
degrees asymptotic

Table 2.3.25. Methods of competencies assessment at the respondent enterprises (360º feedback) vs.
number of years of experience in competencies management as criterion (N=119)
What competency assessment methods do you competency management
in all
use, in your company? (360º feedback) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 7 26 14 21 17 85
No
% 87,5% 74,3% 48,3% 95,5% 68,0% 71,4%
strength 1 9 15 1 8 34
Yes
% 12,5% 25,7% 51,7% 4,5% 32,0% 28,6%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
sessment at the respondent enterprises (360º feedback), enterprises’ experience in competencies man-
agement (N=119)
degrees asymptotic
Table 2.3.27. Methods of competencies assessment at the respondent enterprises (assessment centre) vs.
number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
in all
use, in your company? (assessment centre) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 8 28 22 19 14 91
No
% 100,0% 80,0% 75,9% 86,4% 56,0% 76,5%
strength 0 7 7 3 11 28
Yes
% 0,0% 20,0% 24,1% 13,6% 44,0% 23,5%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.3.28. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: methods of competencies assessment
at the respondent enterprises (assessment centre), enterprises’ experience in competencies management (N=119)
degrees asymptotic
Table 2.3.29. Methods of competencies assessment at the respondent enterprises (situational tests (cases
based on real situations)) vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as criterion (N=119)
use, in your company? (situational tests (cases in all
based on real situations)) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 8 30 26 22 18 104
No
% 100,0% 85,7% 89,7% 100,0% 72,0% 87,4%
strength 0 5 3 0 7 15
Yes
% 0,0% 14,3% 10,3% 0,0% 28,0% 12,6%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
sessment at the respondent enterprises (situational tests (cases based on real situations), enterprises’
experience in competencies management (N=119)
degrees asymptotic
Table 2.3.31. Methods of competencies assessment at the respondent enterprises (job interview) vs.
number of years of experience in competencies management as criterion (N=119)
10. What competency assessment methods do competency management
in all
you use, in your company? (job interview) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 7 24 13 17 12 73
No
% 87,5% 68,6% 44,8% 77,3% 48,0% 61,3%
strength 1 11 16 5 13 46
Yes
% 12,5% 31,4% 55,2% 22,7% 52,0% 38,7%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
sessment at the respondent enterprises (job interview), enterprises’ experience in competencies man-
agement (N=119)
degrees asymptotic
Frequency of competencies reviews and updates within competencies man-

agement at enterprises
Table 2.3.33. Frequency of competencies reviews and updates within competencies management at the re-
spondent enterprises vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as criterion (N=119)
How often do you review and update competency management
competencies and competency management in in all
your company? 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
% 12,5% 5,7% 3,4% 0,0% 20,0% 7,6%
Every 2 strength 0 7 1 3 3 14
year % 0,0% 20,0% 3,4% 13,6% 12,0% 11,8%
year % 25,0% 0,0% 20,7% 4,5% 0,0% 7,6%
years % 0,0% 5,7% 0,0% 4,5% 4,0% 3,4%
In longer strength 0 0 3 0 4 7
periods
% 0,0% 0,0% 10,3% 0,0% 16,0% 5,9%
than 5
years
Once a strength 3 12 15 10 11 51
year % 37,5% 34,3% 51,7% 45,5% 44,0% 42,9%
strength 2 12 3 7 1 25
We haven’t
done it yet % 25,0% 34,3% 10,3% 31,8% 4,0% 21,0%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.3.34. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: frequency of competencies re-
views and updates within competencies management at the respondent enterprises, enterprises’ experi-
degrees asymptotic
a.80.0 % of the cells (28) had expected quantity below 5. The
Role of technology in competencies management at enterprises
Table 2.3.35. Role of technology in competencies management at enterprises (We facilitate the use
of the competency models and profiles by housing the derived HR applications (e.g., selection proce-
dures, performance appraisals, career development tools) vs. number of years of experience in compe-
tencies management as a criterion (N=119)

What role does technology play in your company
competency management
competency management? (We facilitate the use of
the competency models and profiles by housing the in all
derived HR applications (e.g., selection procedures, 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
performance appraisals, career development tools) years years year 10 years
strength 5 30 20 20 13 88
No
% 62,5% 85,7% 69,0% 90,9% 52,0% 73,9%
strength 3 5 9 2 12 31
Yes
% 37,5% 14,3% 31,0% 9,1% 48,0% 26,1%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.3.36. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: role of technology in competen-
cies management at enterprises (We facilitate the use of the competency models and profiles by hous-
ing the derived HR applications (e.g., selection procedures, performance appraisals, career development
tools), enterprises’ experience in competencies management (N=119)
degrees asymptotic
Methods applied by enterprises in the area of employee training and devel-

opment
Table 2.3.37. Methods applied by enterprises in the area of employee training and development (mentor-
ing) vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion (N=119)
When conducting employee training and competency management
development processes, what methods do you in all
implement in your organization? (mentoring) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 8 28 17 16 13 82
No
% 100,0% 80,0% 58,6% 72,7% 52,0% 68,9%
strength 0 7 12 6 12 37
Yes
% 0,0% 20,0% 41,4% 27,3% 48,0% 31,1%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.3.38. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: methods applied by enterprises
in the area of employee training and development (mentoring), enterprises’ experience in competencies
management (N=119)
degrees asymptotic
Table 2.3.39. Methods applied by enterprises in the area of employee training and development (self-ed-
ucation and development) vs. number of years of experience in competencies management as a criterion
(N=119)
Metody stosowane w przedsiębiorstwach w competency management
obszarze szkolenia i rozwoju pracowników in all
(Samodzielna nauka i samorozwój) 2–4 5–9 Less than 1 More than
strength 7 11 15 11 9 53
No
% 87,5% 31,4% 51,7% 50,0% 36,0% 44,5%
strength 1 24 14 11 16 66
Yes
% 12,5% 68,6% 48,3% 50,0% 64,0% 55,5%
strength 8 35 29 22 25 119
in all
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Table 2.3.40. Chi-square test of independence for the following variables: methods applied by enterprises
in the area of employee training and development (self-education and development), enterprises’ experi-
degrees asymptotic
Teresa Kupczyk – Professor of Economics and Management at Vistula University (Institute of
Management, Faculty of Business and International Relations) and at University of Business in
Wroclaw (Department of Management), Poland.
Graduate of Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Department of Management and
Computer Science, as well as Wroclaw University of Economics (Executive MBA). Other post-gradu-
ate studies include: “European Vocational Counsellor”, “European Project Management”, and
Washington Professional Development Program (2010) and School of Professional & Extended
Studies (2012), American University in Washington, USA. Many years of experience in business
management, position of director of post-graduate studies and research projects. Vice-Rector
for Scientific Research at University of Business in Wroclaw. Author of books and other publica-
tions in the field of management, particularly specializing in competencies, competencies of staff
management in the Knowledge-Based Economy, women in mana-gement and demand driven
qualifications in the job market.
Marzena Stor – Extraordinary Professor of Strategic International Human Resources Manage-

ment at Wrocław University of Economics (WUE), Faculty of Management, Computer Science and
Finance, Poland; higher doctoral and doctoral degree in management science, master of applied
linguistics, master of English philology; studied in Poland and the USA; head of Human Resources
Management Department and director of MBA program at WUE; the author of about 100 scientific
publications in both Polish and English; participated in and directed over 20 research projects,
including international ones; attended many international scientific conferences on International
Human Resources Management; awarded dozens of awards for outstanding scientific and didactic
achievements granted from the University authorities and reputable scientific associations; scien-
tific and research interests cover: international and cross-cultural aspects of HRM, transnational
corporations, competency management, interpersonal business communication, business & HRM
strategies, managing international teams; provides classes both in English and Polish language;
broad experience in teaching Erasmus students; conducted classes for English translators within
the scope of law & economics and financed within various European Union funded projects.
View publication stats

Competency management：theory, research &amp; business practice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Competency management：theory, research &amp; business practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teresa Kupczyk – Professor of Economics and Management at Vistula University (Institute of

Management, Faculty of Business and International Relations) and at University of Business in

Marzena Stor – Extraordinary Professor of Strategic International Human Resources Manage-

Printing and binding by

©Copyright by Wyższa Szkoła Handlowa we Wrocławiu, Wrocław 2017

CHAPTER I. THEORETICAL APPROACH TO COMPETENCIES MANAGEMENT

1. THE BASIC TERMINOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHAPTER II. COMPETENCES MANAGEMENT IN BUSINESS - RESEARCH RESULTS

6. ABSTRACT OF RESEARCH RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

7. METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Nowadays, staff competencies have become key capital for enterprises, as

tegic linkage between competencies, business objectives and HRM objec-

1.1. Competence vs. competency

In today’s competitive and constantly changing business environment com-

 politicians – including those involved in the political process such as

in Table 1. The comparative analysis covers such elements as definitions

Competence equals worthy performan- Competency covers those characteristics

to meet or exceed the goals of the business, -- attributes, and

peatable work process, decreasing variabili- ▪▪ Self-assessments or 360-degree as-

The literature review provides some other comparative explanations,

Figure 1. The interface between competence and competency

F. Belkadi et al claims that despite their differences, most of the defini-

 category – a group to which homogeneous and/or similar competen-

1.2. Competency profiles and models

When it comes to defining competency profiles and competency models we

that employees need to be effective in a job (Mansfield, 1996:7). It may mean

To get a closer look at the Hay Group practice it is worth presenting

1.3. Competency and management

human resource management (HRM) competency and firm performance.

2015:52; Stor, 2016:165). Secondly, it is also perceived as a part of human re-

2.1. The strategic connections between competencies and HRM

scores provides an effective means of evaluating HRM subfunctions, as well

2.2. The goals of competency management

values, selection, development and career pathing (Stone, 2013:335). Rang-

2.3. The subfunctions of HRM in which competencies are used

As said previously, various subfunctions of HRM can be based on compe-

Table 2. The exemplary subfunctions of HRM in which competencies can be applied

In summary, we can say that the particular applications of competen-

There are different approaches to competency management and, what fol-

onstrated to the degree that similar competencies predicted performance

2.5. The measurement of effectiveness and efficiency of competency-

Applying competency approach to management we need to remember about

When talking about efficiency and effectiveness in the vernacular,

Figure 3. Economic perspective on efficiency, efficacy and effectiveness in business

EFFICIENCY EFFICACY EFFECTIVENESS

Definition: Definition: Definition:

EXEMPLARY ORGANIZATIONAL MEASURES: EXEMPLARY ORGANIZATIONAL MEASURES:

EXEMPLARY HRM MEASURES:

Source: (Stor, 2012).

interpreted differently in particular countries and – what is more surprising –

Best practices Fit with

One of the fundamental problems that MNCs have to face is coping

3. THE COMPETENCY MANAGEMENT PROCESS

3.1. Selected theoretical concepts presented in the literature

The competency management process, as the name implies, is a sequence

bholders, and articles on leadership, business,

▪▪ a typical program might include a compe- estionnaire, a resource guide

block competencies, so-called job competency menu. It is necessary to facilitate

in which employees demonstrate the competency. The behaviors do not specify

guish the extent to which a competency is required in different jobs.

-- ongoing and anticipated changes – in the organization, industry, marketplace,

Some other authors assume that the general process of competen-

It is worth noting that this concept refers to two types of manage-

B. C. Yang et al explain that the POCCI model is to be understood

Competency management：theory, research & business practice

Competency management：theory, research & business practice

politicians – including those involved in the political process such as

category – a group to which homogeneous and/or similar competen-

identifying business critical activities pertaining to the control of ma-

they assess significance of competencies currently and in the future;

more often they use mentoring, self-education and learning