It is imperative, as indicated in the aforementioned reasoning, to gain an understanding of the core constructs used in the construction of a competency model as they play a pivotal role in this research proposal. Using the aforementioned line of reasoning to gain an understanding of the connotative meaning of a construct, it is necessary to consult the literature on competency modelling and to gain a comprehensive understanding of the manner in which the core constructs are used in language. With the aid of the previous research and conceptualisation of the construct, one can create a well-researched comprehensive definition that can be used throughout the current study.
Interestingly, when referring to the literature on competencies, it seems that two conceptually different viewpoint exists on what constitutes competencies. These differing viewpoints seem to correlate with the geographical origin of the definition. The conceptualisation of competencies more specifically seems to depend on whether they originate from the United States of America (USA) or whether they stem from the United Kingdom (UK) (Cheng, Dainty & Moore, 2003).
It is hoped that by acknowledging both, it will be possible to use the contributions of both viewpoints without ignoring a facet that may be exclusive to either source. Further, the differing views proposed by the literature can assist in understanding the domains of the competency model.
Firstly, the researchers from the USA tend to consider competencies to be attributes that are causally related to success (Boyatzis, 1982; Campion, Fink, Ruggeberh, Carr, Phillips & Odman, 2011; Klemp, 1980). Researchers from the UK in contrast refer to the same construct as competency potential latent variables. An example of such a definition that alludes completely to the attributes of a person is that of Klemp (1980, p. 21) in which he views a job competency as an ‘underlying characteristic of a person which results in effective or superior performance on a job’. In the current study, it is not characteristics of individuals that are of interest but rather the characteristics of individuals as a collective which are working together as a unit towards shared organisational unit objectives.
Contrary to the definitions of competencies suggested by the USA, the UK definition and understanding of a competency considers the construct to be the abstract theme shared by a bundle of related behaviours that are casually related to success (Bartram, 2006; Bartram, Robertson & Callinan, 2002; SHL, 2011). This view is illustrated in the definition that is used by Saville and Holdsworth (SHL), in which Bartram (2006, p. 2), refers to competencies as a ‘set of behaviours that are instrumental in the delivery of desired results or outcomes’.
Using the insight gained from both viewpoints, the definition of competencies, that forms the basis for the study, is that of Spangenberg and Theron (2016) which stipulates:
competencies are sets of related behaviour, arising from underlying aspects of the individual which are determinants of success … as they are focused on what people do, competency based approaches have the potential to offer a clear and integrated set of dimensions against which performance can be measured.
For the purpose of this study, a variation of the aforementioned definition of competencies is employed. This varied definition is used so as to acknowledge that competencies refer to the abstract theme shared by a bundle of related behaviours displayed by an organisational unit and thus are constructs, that the level of competence achieved on competencies is determined by organisational unit characteristics (competency potential) and that the level of competence achieved on the competencies determine the extent to which the outcomes are achieved for which the unit exists. The current study therefore defines competencies as follows:
Competencies are the abstract themes in distinct bundles of related observable organisational work unit behaviour, driven by a nomological network of organisational work unit characteristics, situational characteristics and unit*situation characteristics latent interaction effects, which, when exhibited, would constitute high organisational work unit performance and would probably, depending on situational constraints/opportunities lead to organisational work unit success defined in terms of outcomes for which the unit exists.
It is important to note that, according to the current study, the construct of competencies does not embrace both characteristics and behaviour. It refers to one or the other and neither interpretation is inherently wrong or deficient. Both interpretations add value. A model that attempts to describe and explain work unit performance that excludes either of the two interpretations would be deficient. A choice therefore had to be made for one interpretation under the name competencies and the other interpretation had to be re-christened with a new term. Allowing the construct of competencies to refer to both behaviours and outcomes, in turn, would squander the explanatory opportunity that the distinction offers.
The current study follows the UK tradition to refer to the characteristics that allow the agent (in this case the organisational work unit but in other cases the individual employee) to display a specific level of competence on the competencies as competency potential latent variables (Bartram, 2006). Competency potential latent variables in the current study therefore refer to relatively malleable and less easily malleable characteristics of the work unit that affect the level of competence that the unit displays on the competencies comprising organisational work unit performance. Organisational work units exist to achieve specific outcomes. The level of competence that organisational work units achieve on the competencies determine the degree of success that they achieve on these outcome latent variables. The latent outcome variables therefore represent the results that the organisational work unit is held accountable for. Organisational work unit performance is constituted by the extent to which the outcomes the organisational work unit is held accountable for is achieved in conjunction with the level of competence that the unit displays on the competencies that are instrumental in the attainments of the outcomes.