Competencies, skills and competence

DEFINE DIFFERENT REALITIES

In management, many authors use the same terms to define realities that are different in nature and scope. And since there is no final language authority in these matters, confusion exists, simply because receivers do not hear the concepts addressed in the same way as their transmitters.

COMPETENCE OR COMPETENCIES

One of the most frequently discussed notions nowadays, and one of the most poorly assimilated in organizational management circles, is undoubtedly that of "competence" or "competencies". Hamel and Heene, who dealt with it among the first in Competence-Based Competition (1994), could not fully or sufficiently address the issue. Many interpretative tangents have taken place since this publication, which has only added to the vagueness of the definition of the concept.

COMPETENCIES

Rumelt, who signs the foreword of the above-mentioned work, indicates that the concept of 'core competence' was introduced by Hamel and Prahalad in Competing for the Future: Breakthrough Strategies for Seizinz Control of Your Industry and Creating the Markets for Tomorrow, (1994, 1996). Rumelt points out that the concept, as developed by Hamel and Prahalad, is based on four dimensions: 1) the scope of the activity carried out, in that "core competencies" encompass the organization's business and products; 2) "competencies", which evolve more rapidly and are therefore more unstable, are distinguished from products, which are only the momentary expression of these "competencies", although both contribute to the temporal dominance of the organization in its reference markets; 3) "competencies" are acquired and extended through work, and are therefore based on learning by doing - thus being a collective belonging because they are shared in their application; 4) the product/market tandem is only the superficial aspect of a capacity for competition, which is deeper than "competencies" as such. Rumelt recalls that Hamel, in 1991, defined the organization as "a portfolio of core competencies", distinguishing them from the product/market factor essentially focused on the acquisition of competitive skills. He adds that Selznick, in 1957, referred to the "distinctive competence" of the organization as "what (the organization) can do ... particularly well".

COMPETENCE

Hamel and Heene, for their part, will define "a competence" (in fact "the" competence, understood as an actionable instrument of competitive capacity) by specifying that it "consists of a basket of skills and technologies". They will add that a "core competence" "is confirmed by the integration of a variety of individual skills". Finally, they will speak of "meta-competencies", between five and fifteen, in the hands of the organization. Better yet, they will indicate that a "core competence" is not a stock but a flow, and that it results from chaotic learning based on tacit as well as explicit knowledge. Of course, they will hammer that "core competency" is a unique attribute, since its function is to provide the organization with the ability to enter a market. This implies that all "core competencies" are sources of competitive advantage, although not all "competencies" are core.

CORE COMPETENCIES

Hamel and Heene will complete their first analysis of the subject, stating that "core competencies" are more durable than individual products, and that they are not, at least for a majority of them, product-specific but add a competitive dimension to a range of products and services. In addition, they will indicate, in organizational management, that competition, concerning "core competencies", must be able to be broken down into four specific stages: a) identification (selection); b) strengthening (building); c) deployment (deployment); d) safeguarding (protecting). Finally, they will specify that asserting global leadership on its "core competencies" may take five or ten years, or even longer.

THE USE OF THE SAME TERMS CREATES CONFUSION

What the reader must understand is that the first authors to express themselves on the phenomenon were steeped in the confusion between "competencies" based on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of individuals (ability to perform a task), and "competence" based on the organization's competitive advantage factor (ability to differentiate oneself through the activity of the entire organization). Of course, the "competencies" of some (people) ensure the "competence" of the organization. However, one must avoid using the same term indiscriminately, otherwise one ends up not being able to distinguish one (competencies) from the other (competence). As for Hamel and Heene, and so many others after them, they will have added to the state of confusion on the issue by associating too closely the notions of "competencies" and "skills". This leads today, those who want to find their way through this jumble of interchangeable words, to have to make intellectual contortions to follow the discourse of the promoters of a subject that is badly articulated at its point of origin and badly assimilated and applied at its point of fall.

THE COMPETENCE THAT COMES FROM SKILLS

"Competence", which refers to the basis of the organization's competitive capacity, deserves to be distinguished from "competencies", which depict the ability to perform the work of the people required by the organization's competitive basis. In short, the organization's "competence", understood in these terms, is a vector of long-term differentiation of the organization's market presence. On the other hand, the "competencies" of the people in the organization are a judgment on the outcome of task mandates, which are actionable in the short term. The "competence" of the organization is therefore strong from the "competencies" of its actors, but one (competence) is different from the others (competencies). And the fact of interposing them in each other's field of definition only adds to the confusion of genres, and does not shed any light on the discourse of those who practice the inversion of terms to enamel their presentations... on "the competence(s)". And as soon as they decide to include dimensions such as knowledge, abilities, and skills in their speeches, then the confusion will become a muddle.

PREFER TO TALK ABOUT COMPETITIVE ABILITY AND USEFUL KNOWLEDGE

Instead of talking about the organization's "competence", let's talk about the organization's competitive capacity, and instead of talking about people's "competencies", let's talk about useful and executable knowledge and distinguish them into know-how, know-how to be, know-how to change, know-how to analyze, know-how to conclude, know-how to innovate, know-how to communicate, know-how to motivate, know-how to undertake, and what else. And if there is a safer way to avoid gender confusion in the discourse on organizational management, which is already so cluttered with inappropriate terms, then let's borrow it. But please, let's stop "pearling" by taking and thinking about speaking, intelligibly, and comprehensively.

?