ACCESSING COMPETENCIES OF FACULTY MEMBERS WITH REFERENCE TO

COIMBATORE DISTRICT

INTRODUCTION
We live in a knowledge society where applications, creation, recycling, sharing and storing of
knowledge are considered crucial to growth and development (Lewin et.,al.,1999;
Christensen,2000). Therefore we see both private companies and public organizations
experimenting with knowledge management, in particular concerning the possible role of
individual knowledge workers, as they are the ones said to ‘possess’ knowledge. This is a
problem for management, obviously, because suddenly the power of the knowledge worker
over a central resource in society is beyond the immediate grasp and reach of the manager.

The question is then, how is it possible to get access to managing the knowledge
competencies of individual? If knowledge is to be managed, it has to go through the
individual, but since the individual’s innermost feelings, sentiments are attached to it
knowledge is not directly amendable to managerial interventions, is management of
knowledge then possible? For this purpose many researches are emerged with models of
assessing the competencies of knowledge worker.

Hierarchical Model of Management Competencies

Teaching
Competencies

Research Competencies

Knowledge Management Competencies

Leadership & Supervisory Competencies

Social Competencies

Intrapersonal Competencies

The pyramid form was selected as the most appropriate visualization with regard to the
structure of these competencies. This hierarchical model was originally developed on the
basis of iceberg model of Garavan and Mc Guire (2001) where skills and knowledge form the
tip and the less visible items exist at the bottom, beneath the surface.
Description of the above competencies

Teaching competencies
These competencies are those a manager needs in handling the contents of the processes or
functions that s/he is responsible for (see for example Katz, 1974;Pavett and lau, 1983). They
refer to the ability to use tools, procedures and techniques in a specialize field. They usually
represent skills and knowledge in which a Knowledge Worker has specialised, for example as
part of his/her education. Typical examples would include finance and accounting, computing,
engineering and chemistry.

Research competencies
Research Competencies are needed in management-related work in any Research (Hogan and
Warrenfeltz, 2003) with many of them being generic in nature. These competencies include,
for example, strategic perception, decision making and board management (Institute of
directors, 1995), the ability to think in terms of systems and knowing how to lead systems, as
well as giving vision, meaning, direction and focus to the organization (Scholtes, 1999). The
leveraging of internal and external resources to respond customer needs fall into this category
(Rifkin et al., 1999) along with planning, monitoring budgets, forecasting costs and revenues,
cutting costs, mapping strategies, evaluaitng performance, and organizing necessary reports
(Hogan and Warrenfeltz, 2003).

Knowledge Management Competencies

Knowledge Management Competencies can be distinguished as a separate cluster, which
reflects the special current and future demands of Knowledge Worker. It would seem that this
area seemingly overlaps with both Research and leadership competencies. However according
to Knowledge Management literature, it is arguably justifiable in the current Research climate
to separate this area from the more traditional aspects of management and leadership. Indeed
it is suggested that Knowledge Workers should not only be proficient in information handling
on the personal level, but also capable in the management of information processing, learning
and development at the group and organisational level (Ekvall and Arvonen, 1991;Ellinger
and Bostrom, 1999;Viitila, 2002). Knowledge Management competencies includes, for
example, information search, concept formation and conceptual flexibility (Katz, 1974;Pavett
and Lau, 1983;Cockerhill et al., 1995), analytical understanding (Institute of Directors, 1995),
complex problem solving skills and solution construction skills (Mumford, Zaccaro, Connelly
and Marks, 2000), an understanding of learning, development and improvement (Scholtes,
1999) as well as facilitating and tutoring the learning of others(Luthans and
loskwood,1984;Yulk,1994;Senge,2000).these competencies form a sort of bridge between
cognitive-based skills and social skills.

Leadership and supervisory Competencies

Leadership and supervisory competencies refer to leading people. They concern the exercise
of power to some degree (Stogdill, 1974). They refer to a manager’s capability to direct
people, support people and participate people (House and Mitchell, 1974), facilitate people
and empower people (Ellinger and Bostrom, 1999). They also comprise the competencies
needed in creating a common purpose with subordinates, managing diversity, supporting
creativity and creating community (Rosen, 1996). Compared to social competencies they are
tightly connected to relationships between a manager and his/her subordinates in an
organization. Compared to Knowledge Management the focus is on people issues. These
competencies are generic and transferable.

Social Competencies
Social competencies or interpersonal competencies refer to coping in the manager’s social
relations (see Hogan and Warenfeltz, 2003). They include a manager’s ability to build and
maintain relationships with different stakeholders. This means for example, understanding
people and their behaviour (Scholtes, 1999), social judgment skills (Mumford, Zaccaro,
Connelly and Marks, 2000) communication and interacting with others (Institute of Directors,
1995), motivating people and handling conflicts (More and Wagner, 1978). Interpersonal
skills have been categorized into four components disposition to put oneself in the place of
another person, a skill to get it right when one tries to anticipate another man’s expectations, a
skill to incorporate the information about the other persons expectation into one’s subsequent
behaviour,and self control to stay focused on the other person’s expectations(Hogan and
Warrenfeltz).These competencies overlap with leadership skills and intrapersonal
competencies.

Intrapersonal Competencies
These competencies lie deep in the manager’s personality (Hogan and Warrenfeltz, 2003).
They are closely associated with the trait approach of leadership. Along with traits, the social
role, self-image, motives and values have been included in this area of competency. The
important capabilities are self-confidence, proactive orientation and achievement orientation
(Cockerhill et al, 1995), social judgment skills (Zaccaro et al, 2000) as well as conflict
resolution (Klagge, 1998), and tolerating and mastering uncertainty (Nordhaug, 1998).
According to Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003), intrapersonal competencies generally contain
three main components: core self-esteem attitudes toward authority, and self-control.

A number of academics and scholars in the field of management development have suggested
that improving self-knowledge must be the basis for developing oneself. Competency model
could serve as a tool for evaluating the performance of a knowledge Worker.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

For this study we used questioner to collect data. We used primary data for the study. The
data was collected from Faculty members. The sample size is 200 The sample was selected
using the random sampling technique. For measuring the employees competencies the
questionnaire was distributed among the selected employees and they where requested to give
the level of agreement towards each statement. After getting the filled questionnaire the same
questionnaire was given to their superiors to get their opinion on the competencies of these
employees. This procedure was followed to avoid the biased responses of the employees who
are part of the research.

Dimensions selected for the study

Based on the above literature we have selected six important dimensions to measure the
competence of the knowledge workers in the Jindal Steel Plant.

1) Teaching Competencies
2) Research Competencies
3) Leadership and Supervisory Competencies
4) Social Competencies
5) Knowledge Management Competencies
6) Intrapersonal Competencies
Reliability Analysis of the Instrument
Using Alpha technique we have done the reliability analysis of the Competency Mapping
instrument. For this purpose a sample of 30 respondents were considered.. The analysis was
done for all the 6 dimensions of the Competency Mapping to establish the level of reliability
in the overall study.

Sl.No Dimensions Alpha Value

1. Teaching Competencies .7049
2. Research Competencies .7137
3. Leadership and Supervisory Competencies .7302
4. Social Competencies .7469
5. Knowledge Management Competencies .7318
6. Intrapersonal Competencies .7127
Table-1

In the analysis all the alpha values are greater than .7. It shows us that all the Dimensions of
Competency Mapping has a positive reliability. The factors and dimensions included for the
analysis carry a good degree of reliability to support the objectives formulated. All
dimensions have got significant relationship to make the real representation of the study.

Descriptive study of the data

To measure the descriptive behaviour of the data we have done descriptive analysis using the
SPSS. The results show us how the respondents have responded to the different
competencies.
 Teaching Competency Dimension
Teaching Competencies Minimum Maximum Mean
I have the ability to use tools, procedures & techniques
1 5 4.12
in a specialized field.
I am good in identifying problems in machines, and
1 5 4.04
compute other technologies.
I am capable of using imagination to combine ideas in
1 5 4.18
new ways.
I am interested in teaching 1 5 3.97
I have a very good knowledge of how to perform my
1 5 4.24
job in a very best way.
Table-2
In this Teaching Competency Dimension, for all the statements the mean value is greater than
3.5(>3.5) in a five point scale, which implies that all the employees have agreed they are
Teachingly competent and they have agreed that it is a important one to measure the
Competencies of a Knowledge worker and the standard deviation is also less and so it implies
that all the respondents are converging in this point.

Research Competency Dimension

Research Competencies N Minimum Maximum Mean
I am highly interested in research 200 1 5 4.44
I have the ability to judge risk involving
200 2 5 4.35
situation and come up with various solutions.
I am good in analyzing the situation and
200 2 5 4.40
finding alternatives
I am good in research 200 1 5 4.35
I am good in project planning and project
200 1 5 4.26
management.
Table-3
In this Research Competency Dimension for all the statements mean value is greater then
3.5(>3.5) in a five point scale that shows all the employees have the Research Competencies
in them and they have agreed that it is a important one to measure the Competencies of a
Knowledge worker .The standard deviation is also less, which implies that all the respondents
are converging in this point.

Leadership & Supervisory Competency Dimension

Leadership & Supervisory Competencies N Minimum Maximum Mean
I have the ability to make others move in a
200 1 5 4.29
desired way.
I am good in managing & developing others. 200 1 5 4.29
I have good interaction with others. 200 1 5 4.31
I coach others on how to perform their task. 200 1 5 4.22
I encourage & facilitate co-operation, trust, and
200 1 5 4.30
group identity.
 Table-4
In this Leadership & Supervisory competency Dimension for all the statements mean value is
greater then 3.5(>3.5) in a five point scale ,implying that all the employees have Leadership
& Supervisory Competencies in them and they have agreed that it is a important one to
measure the Competencies of a Knowledge Worker .The standard deviation is also less
implying that all the respondents are converging in this point.
Social Competency Dimension
Social Competencies N Minimum Maximum Mean
I have the skill to build constructive working
200 1 5 4.13
relationship with others.
I can easily collaborate with people and work
200 1 5 4.13
well in partnership and alliances.
I am good in cultivating informal networks. 200 1 5 4.21
I have the ability to handle the emotions and
200 1 5 4.12
pressures of others.
I am good in dealing with the conflicts. 200 1 5 4.14
Table-5
In this Social competency Dimension for all the statements mean value is greater then
3.5(>3.5) in a five point scale that shows all the employees have the Social Competency and
they have agreed that it is a important one to measure the Competencies of a Knowledge
Worker. The standard deviation is also less revealing that all the respondents are converging
in this point.

Knowledge Management Competency Dimension

Knowledge Management Competencies N Minimum Maximum Mean
I know different strategies/ways to deal with
200 1 5 4.20
challenging work problems.
I am capable of seeking sources of information
from various experts to maintain current 200 1 5 4.20
knowledge.
I have the ability to create practical solutions to
200 1 5 4.16
the problems.
I am good in producing sound conclusions &
recommendations that contribute to effective 200 1 5 4.11
decision-making.
I am competent in interacting with others to
200 1 5 4.07
share & develop ideas and information.
Table-6
In this Knowledge Management competency Dimension for all the statements mean value is
greater then 3.5(>3.5) in a five point scale which implies all the employees have the
Knowledge Management Competency and they have agreed that it is a important one to
measure the Competencies of a Knowledge worker .The standard deviation is also less
implying that all the respondents are converging in this point.

Intrapersonal Competency Dimension

Intrapersonal Competencies N Minimum Maximum Mean
 I have the self-confidence and good self-image. 200 1 5 4.18
I have the capacity to strive for self-
200 1 5 4.19
improvement.
I have the main components like core self-
200 1 5 4.11
esteem, attitude authority and self-control.
I have the ability to act quickly in emergencies. 200 1 5 4.21
I have the capabilities like pro-active and
200 1 5 4.14
achievement.
Table-7

In this Intrapersonal competency Dimension for all the statements mean value is greater then
3.5(>3.5) in a five point scale implying that all the employees have the Intrapersonal
Competencies and they have agreed that it is an important one to measure the Competencies
of a Knowledge Worker .The standard deviation is also less implying that all the respondents
are converging in this point.

Table Showing the Paired Sample T Test

To study the relationship between Superior’s Opinion and the Employees Opinion in Jindal
Steel Plant on Competency Mapping for assessing the Competencies of Knowledge Workers.
For this we have used Paired Sample T Test.

Paired Sample T Test for Teaching Competency Dimension

Teaching Competencies

Evaluation by Total Mean Total Std Sig. (2 –

T - Value
Score Deviation tailed)
Employees Self – appraisal. 20.53 3.165
Supervisor – appraisal for the 2.831 .005
19.5 3.794
employees.
Table-8
Employees were given a Questionnaire to find the level of agreement on their Teaching
competencies using 5-point scale (Highly agree - Highly disagree). Sample T test is done
using SPSS to find the level of deviation or convergence between the 2 responses given by the
employees and their superiors. The study reveals the mean value of Teaching competencies is
20.53 and T value is 2.831 and the significant value is .005. It means that there is a significant
difference of opinion among employees and their superiors. Therefore we can infer that
employee’s analysis differs from the analysis of their superior for the Teaching competencies.
Even though they differ the mean value shows us that both the employees & the supervisor
are in agreement for the Teaching competencies them to be of a higher order.

Paired Sample T Test for Research Competency Dimension

Research Competencies
Total Mean Total Std Sig. (2 –
Evaluation by T - Value
Score Deviation tailed)
Employees Self – appraisal. 21.79 2.401
Supervisor – appraisal for the 11.388 .000
18.20 3.766
employees.
 Table-9
Employees were given a Questionnaire to find the level of agreement on their Research
competencies using 5 point scale (Highly agree - Highly disagree).Sample T test is done using
SPSS to find the level of deviation or convergence between the 2 responses given by the
employee and the superior. The study reveals the mean value of Research competencies is
21.79 and T value is 11.388 and the significant value is .000. It shows that there is a
significant difference of opinion among employees and their superiors. Therefore we can infer
that employee’s analysis differs from the analysis of their superiors in measuring the Research
competencies. Even though they differ the mean value shows us that both the employees &
the supervisor are in agreement for the Research competencies to be of a higher order.

Paired Sample T Test for Leadership & Supervisory Competency Dimension

Leadership & Supervisory Competencies
Total Mean Total Std Sig. (2 –
Evaluation by T - Value
Score Deviation tailed)
Employees Self – appraisal. 21.41 2.692
Supervisor – appraisal for the -.911 .363
21.65 2.482
employees.
Table-10
Employees were given a Questionnaire to find the level of agreement on their leadership &
supervisory competencies using 5 point scale (Highly agree - Highly disagree).Sample T test
is done using SPSS to find the level of deviation or convergence between the 2 responses
given by the employees and their superiors .The study reveals that the mean value of
leadership & supervisory competencies is 21.41 and T value is -.911 and the significant value
is .363. It shows that there is no significant difference of opinion among employees and their
superiors. Therefore we can infer that employee’s analysis are similar to the analysis of
superior for the leadership & supervisory competencies. They are similar and the mean value
shows us that both the employees & the supervisor are in agreement for the leadership &
supervisory competencies to be of a higher order.

Paired Sample T Test for Social Competency Dimension

Social Competencies
Std Sig. (2 –
Evaluation by Mean Score T - Value
Deviation tailed)
Employees Self – appraisal. 20.73 3.539
Supervisor – appraisal for the .449 .645
20.58 3.552
employees.
Table-11
Employees were given a Questionnaire to find the level of agreement on their social
competencies using 5 point scale (Highly agree - Highly disagree).Sample T test is done using
SPSS to find the level of deviation or convergence between the 2 responses given by the
employees and their superiors. The study reveals the mean value of social competencies is
20.73 and T value is .449 and the significant value is .654. It means that there is no significant
difference of opinion among employees and superiors. Therefore we can infer that employee’s
analysis is similar to the analysis of their superiors for the social competencies. They are
similar and the mean value implies that both the employees & their superiors are in
agreement for the social competencies to be of a higher order.
 Paired Sample T Test for Knowledge Management Competency Dimension
Knowledge Management Competencies
Std Sig. (2 –
Evaluation by Mean Score T - Value
Deviation tailed)
Employees Self – appraisal. 20.74 3.435
Supervisor – appraisal for the -2.587 .010
21.49 2.577
employees.
Table-12
Employees were given a Questionnaire to find the level of agreement on their knowledge
management competencies using 5 point scale (Highly agree - Highly disagree).Sample T test
is done using SPSS to find the level of deviation or convergence between the 2 responses
given by the employees and their superiors. The study reveals the mean value of knowledge
management competencies is 20.73 and T value is -2.9587 and the significant value is .010. It
implies that there is a significant difference of opinion among employees and their superiors.
Therefore we can infer that employee’s analysis differs from the analysis of supervisor for the
knowledge management competencies. Even though they differ the mean value shows us that
both the employee & the supervisor are in agreement for the knowledge management
competencies to be of a higher order.

Paired Sample T Test for Intrapersonal Competency Dimension

Intrapersonal Competencies
Std Sig. (2 –
Evaluation by Mean Score T - Value
Deviation tailed)
Employees Self – appraisal. 20.82 3.416
Supervisor – appraisal for the -1.425 .156
21.27 2.708
employees.
Table-13
Employees were given a Questionnaire to find the level of agreement on their intrapersonal
competencies using 5 point scale (Highly agree - Highly disagree).Sample T test is done using
SPSS to find the level of deviation or convergence between the 2 responses given by the
employees and their superiors. The study reveals the mean value of intrapersonal
competencies is 20.82 and T value is -1.425 and the significant value is .156. It implies that
there is no significant difference of opinion among employees and their superiors. Therefore
we can infer that employee’s analysis is similar to the analysis of their superior for the
Teaching competencies. Even though they differ the mean value implies that both the
employee & the supervisor are in agreement for the intrapersonal competencies to be of a
higher order.

All the above analysis shows us clearly how the above selected 6 dimensions of employee
Competency Mapping Model has been used for assessing the Competencies of Knowledge
Worker.

Conclusion:
The data that we have analyzed from both the angles (Superiors evaluation and Employees
evaluation), it is felt that for any manufacturing firm all the six competencies are equally
distributed in a Knowledge Worker.
From the study it is observed that the Research Competency level seemed to be high in the
employees when compared to all the other competencies followed by the Leadership and
Supervisory Competency.

It is also observed that Knowledge Workers need to have all these competencies in a higher
order to do their work effectively and efficiently in the Industry. Also it is observed that all the
other competencies namely Knowledge Management Competencies, Research Competencies,
Social Competencies and Intrapersonal competencies have to be present to a certain level. The
absence of any of these competencies in the Knowledge Workers will affect the productivity
of Knowledge Workers.

On the whole the study reveals that most of the Knowledge workers in the Jindal Steel Works
are competent. It implies the competencies of the Organization are also good to carry out the
various activities and to take strategic decisions.
We would suggest the above model for evaluating the competencies of Knowledge Workers in
a Manufacturing Industry. This model will help the Managers to analyze the competencies of
Knowledge Workers and also it helps to understand the overall competency level of an
organization. f

References
[1] Bennis, W. (1979), “Leadership: a beleaguered species”, in Kolb, D.A., Rubin, J.M. and
McIntyre, J.M. (Eds), Organizational Psychology. A Book of Readings, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 36-46.
[2] Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row,
NewYork, NY.Burgoyne, J. (1990), “Doubt about competency”, in Devine, M. (Ed.),
The Photofit Manager, Unwin-Hyman, London, pp. 20-6.
[3] Carrington, L. (1994), “Competent to manager?”, International Management,
September, p. 17.
[4] Cockerhill, T., Hunt, J. and Schroder, H. (1995), “Managerial competencies: fact or
fiction?”, Research Strategy Review, Vol. 6 Nos. 3, Autumn, pp. 1-12.
[5] Conger, J.A. (2001), “Training leaders for the twenty-first century”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 203-18.
[6] Ekvall, G. and Arvonen, J. (1991), “Change-centered leadership: an extension of the
two-dimensional model”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 17-26.
[7] Ellinger, A.D. and Bostrom, R.P. (1999), “Managerial coaching behaviours in learning
organizations”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 752-71.
[8] Fletcher, S. (1992), 8 Competence Based Assesment Techniques, Kogan Page, London.
[9] Garavan, T.N. and McGuire, D. (2001), “Competencies and workplace learning: some
reflections on the rhetoric and the reality”, Journal of Workplace learning, Vol. 13 No. 3
and 4, pp. 144-63.
[10] Hayes, J., Rose-Quirie, A. and Allinson, C.W. (2000), “senior managers’ perceptions of
the competencies they require for effective performance: implications for training and
development”, Personnel Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 95-105.
[11] Hogan, R. and Warrenfeltz, R. (2003), “Educating the modern manager”, Academy of
Management Learning and Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 74-84.
[12] House, R.J. and Mitchell, T.R. (1974), “Path-goal theory of leadership”, Journal of
Contemporary Research, Autumn, pp. 81-97.
[13] Institute of Directors (1995), Standards of Good Practice for UK Boards of Directors,
IoD, London. Jackson, S., Farndale, E. and Kakabadse, A. (2003), “Executive
development: meeting the needs of top teams and boards”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 185-265.
[14] Kakabadse, A. and Korac-Kakabadse, N. (2000), “Leading the pack: future role of IS/IT
professionals”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 97-115.
[15] Katz, R.L. (1974), “Skills of an effective administrator”, Harvard Research Review,
September-October, pp. 90-102.
[16] Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1991), “Leadership: do traits matter?”, The
Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 48-60.
[17] Klagge, J. (1998), “Self-perceived development needs of today’s middle managers”, The
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 481-92.
[18] Luthans, F. and Lockwood, D. (1984), “Towards observation system for measuring
leader behaviour in natural settings”, in Hunt, J., Hoskings, D.-M., Schiersheim, C.A.
and Stewart, R. (Eds), Leaders and Managers. International Perspectives on Managerial
Behavior and Leadership, Pergamon Press, New York, NY. Development needs of
managers 449
[19] Lucia, A.D. and Lepsinger, R. (1999), The Art and Science of Competency Models,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
[20] McCauley, C.D. and Van Velsor, E. (2004), “Our view of leadership development”, in
Van Velsor, E. and McCauley, C. (Eds), Handbook of Leadership Development, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1-22.
[21] McClelland, S. (1994), “Gaining competitive advantage through strategic management
development”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 4-13.
[22] McLagan, P.A. (1998), “What is a competency”, Training, June, pp. 58-64.
[23] Morse, J.J. and Wagner, F.R. (1978), “Measuring the process of managerial
effectiveness”, Academy of Management Journal, March, pp. 23-35.
[24] Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Connelly, M.S. and Marks, M.A. (2000), “Leadership
skills: conclusions and future directions”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 155-
70.
[25] Mumford, M.D., Marks, M.A., Connelly, M.S., Zaccaro, S.J. and Reiter-Palmon, A.
(2000), “Development of leadership skills: experience and timing”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 87-114.
[26] Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Johnson, J.F., Diana, M., Gilbert, J.A. and Threlfall, K.V.
(2000), “Patterns of leader characteristics: implications of performance and
development”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 115-33.
[27] Nordhaug, O. (1998), “Competencies specificities in organisations”, International
Studies of Management & Organizations, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 8-29.
[28] Parks, M.R. (1985), “Interpersonal communication and the quest for personal
competence”, in Knapp, M.L. and Miller, G.R. (Eds), Handbook of Interpersonal
Communication, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
[29] Parry, S.B. (1996), “The quest for competencies”, Training, July, pp. 46-56.
[30] Pavett, C.M. and Lau, A.W. (1983), “Managerial work: the influence of hierarcical level
and functional speciality”, Academy of Management Journal, March, pp. 170-7.
[31] Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1986), A Manager’s Guide to Self-
development, McGraw-Hill, London.
[32] Pickett, L. (1998), “Competencies and managerial effectiveness: putting competencies
to work”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 103-15.
[33] Rifkin, K.I., Fineman, M. and Ruhnke, C.H. (1999), “Developing techical managers –
first you need a competency model”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 53-7.
[34] Rosen, R.H. (1996), Leading People, Penguin Books, New York, NY.
[35] Scholtes, P.R. (1999), “The new competencies of leadership”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 10 No. 4 and 5, pp. 704-10.
[36] Senge, P.M. (2000), “Reflection on a leader’s new work: building learning
organizations”, in Morey, D., Maubury, M. and Thuraisingham, B. (Eds), Knowledge
Management. Classic and Contemporary Works, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.
53-60.
[37] Spencer, L.M. (1983), Soft Skills Competencies, Scottish Council for Research in
Education, Edinburgh Stogdill, R.M. (1974), Handbook of Leadership. A Survey of
Theory and Research, The Free Press, New York, NY.
[38] Stuart, R. and Lindsay, P. (1997), “Beyond the frame of management competencies:
towards a contextually embedded framework of managerial competence in
organizations”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 26-33.
[39] JWL 17,7 450 Viitala, R. (2002), Knowledge Leadership, Acta Wasaensia No. 109,
doctoral dissertation, University of Vaasa, Vaasa.
[40] Yukl, G. (1994), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[41] Zaccaro, S.J., Mumford, M.D., Connelly, M.S., Marks, M.M. and Gilbert, J.A. (2000),
“Assessment of leader’s problem solving capabilities”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 37-64.
[42] Further reading Ireland, R.D. and Hitt, M.A. (1999), “Achieving and maintaining
strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: the role of strategic leadership”, The
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 43-57.
[43] Kossek, E.E., Roberts, K., Fisher, S. and Demarr, B. (1998), “Career self-management: a
quasi-experimental assessment of the effects of a training intervention”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 935-60.
[44] Metz, E.J. (1998), “Designing succession systems for new corporate realities”, Human
Resource Planning, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 31-7.