The differing faces of managerial competency in Britain and America

Abstract

Research on managerial competence has been narrowly focused and confusing in its terminology. In particular, a disparity has emerged between the definitions and assessments of competence developed in the USA and the approaches adopted in the UK. In this paper it is argued that each perspective is incomplete and therefore lacking as a comprehensive frame for understanding both managerial competence and the management of performance. Furthermore, they have failed to deal with issues of the dynamic environment and the widely different contexts for managerial performance, particularly with regard to identifiable cultural differences. This paper aims to paint a more complete picture of “competence” by subjecting it to conceptual analysis. An examination of its contemporary use identifies both conceptual and practical flaws. Accordingly, an alternative approach is posited which places emphasis on those issues critical to achieving desired enhancements in management performance.

The Opportunities and Threats of Small and Medium Enterprises in Pekanbaru: Comparison between SMEs in Food and Restaurant Industries

“…Competence, on the other hand, has been preferred in the UK and developments have been supported by government, since 1988, through the Management Charter Initiative. Competence is seen as a description of something which a person who works in a given occupational area should be able to achieved, it is a description of an action, behaviour or outcome which a person should be able to demonstrate (Cheng and Dainty, 2003).…”

Exploring the behavioural patterns of entrepreneurial learning

“…It is a multi-dimensional construct constituted from different components, including inputs, process, outputs, and contexts (Cheng et al, 2003;Erondu and Sharland, 2002;Mole et al, 1993). Each dimension represents different emphasis on studying the key factors affecting the development of competencies.…”

“…For example, the main emphasis of the inputs to competencies is on the different types of individual characteristics, including attitudes, psychological traits, mentality, willingness, knowledge, experience, skills, and abilities (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1997;Boyatzis, 1982;Burgoyne, 1988;Durkan et al, 1993;Hood and Young, 1993;Stuart and Lindsay, 1997), whereas the focus of the process dimensions is on the tasks or behaviours carried out by individuals (Bird, 1995;Man et al, 2002;McClelland, 1987;Mitton, 1989). The outcomes dimension focuses the existence of different levels of competence (Bird, 1995;Caird, 1992: Cheng et al, 2003, and the context dimension means that competencies may differ among different levels of managerial hierarchy or under different contexts, and so it is equally important to consider the organizational and environmental contexts affecting the development of competencies (Stuart et al, 1995). Therefore, in applying the competency approach, it is more important to consider whether the skills, abilities, or knowledge can be integrated with certain values and attitudes towards competence in performing the job roles, rather than the mere possession of these component characteristics.…”

Power, Leadership and Culture as Drivers of Project Management

“…Theoretically, developing these key competencies in other managers, should lead to competent high performing individuals. In addition, if the competencies are used during the selection process, then this should lead to higher success and lower costs with the fullness of time (Cheng et al, 2003(Cheng et al, /2005.…”