In competence we trust? Addressing conceptual ambiguity

Abstract

Purpose The competence framework continues to be plagued by unresolved conceptual ambiguity. This paper aims to consider other perspectives of managerial performance. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual article that examines and critiques current perspectives of competence based on an extensive literature review. Findings Sources of conceptual ambiguity are rooted in treating competence as both independent and dependent variables in relation to managerial performance. A managerial learning framework and a career perspective may offer less ambiguous, more promising conceptual frameworks for managerial performance. Research limitations/implications The arguments presented for moving beyond the competence framework need to be developed into propositions that can be tested empirically. Practical implications Management development and education activities may not be achieving their intended outcomes due to the level of conceptual ambiguity found with the competence framework. It may be necessary to reconsider the efficacy of development programs and activities that rely on a competence approach. Originality/value Conceptual ambiguity regarding competence has been previously noted. This paper presents an analysis of the possible sources of ambiguity, and the dilemmas faced when trying to reduce the level of ambiguity. By clarifying these issues, the paper may be of value to researchers in the management development field and to practitioners involved with employee and managerial development.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 84 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.