Competence (polyseme)

Competence (also called competency or capability) is a polyseme indicating a variety of different notions. In current literature, three notions are most evident. The first notion is that of a general competence, which is someone's capacity or ability to perform effectively on a specified set of behavioral attributes (e.g. performances, skills, attitudes, tasks, roles, talents, and so forth). The second notion refers to someone's capacity or ability to successfully perform a specific behavioral attribute — be it overt or covert — like learning a language, reading a book or playing a musical instrument. In both notions, someone may be qualified as being competent. In a third notion, a competence is the behavioral attribute itself, instead of a general or specific capacity or ability. One may for example excel at the competence of baking, at the competency of ceramics, or at the capability of reflexivity.

The pluralized forms of competence and competency are respectively competences and competencies. According to Boyatzis (2008) competencies are part of a behavioral approach to emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence. Moreover, competence is measurable and can be developed through training. In the context of human resources, practice may enable someone to improve the efficiency or performance of an activity or a job.

Concepts like knowledge, expertise, values or desires are not behavioral attributes but can be contained in behavior once executed. Take for example sharing knowledge or actualizing a desire.

The term 'competence' is not novel, and it predates literature in the 20th century. It first entered professional literature via the article Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence authored by R.W. White in 1959. He introduced the term competence to describe those personality characteristics associated with high motivation and superior performance. Postulating a relationship between achieved capacity and competence motivation, White defined competence as an ‘effective interaction (of the individual) with the environment’.

In the late 1960s, the 'Competence movement' had been initiated by David McClelland. The movement has its origins in the conspicuous failure of educational qualifications to predict occupational success. The term gained traction in 1973, when McClelland wrote a seminal paper entitled Testing for Competence Rather Than for Intelligence. McClelland followed White's approach in arguing that capacity is more important than intelligence.

The term has since been popularized, most notably, by individuals such as:

Its uses vary widely, which has led to considerable misunderstanding. Studies on competence indicate that competence covers a very complicated and extensive range of disciplines, ranging from human resources to psychology and from science to education, with various scholars holding different interpretations of the term. According to Zemke (1982), the terms 'competency', 'competence', and their affiliated counterparts are akin to "Humpty Dumpty words" that derive their meaning solely from the interpreter's intent. This issue arises not due to ill intentions, ignorance, or commercial motives, but stems from procedural and philosophical variations among those vying to establish and shape the concept. This involves constructing the blueprint for how the broader population will incorporate competencies into their routine training endeavors.

In an influential paper from 1992, Dorothy A. Leonard took on a knowledge-based approach when discussing competency in the context of managerial and technical systems. She defined a 'core capability' as a set of knowledge that distinguishes a company strategically. Core capability wasn't new concept, back in the '90s. Other scholars have also referred to it using various terms like distinctive competences, core competencies, resource deployments, and invisible assets. Leonard was however the first to explicitly plot core capabilities against core rigidities. In a narrow sense, core rigidities represent inappropriate knowledge-sets that can hinder a firm's progress. Following the release of this paper, a tendency has grown to employ the terms competencies and capabilities interchangeably, often without clear differentiation. In other instances, a more precise definition is given priority over a highly inclusive scope.