The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive
t archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
JMP
20,5
380
Received November 2003
Revised November 2004
Accepted December 2004
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 20 No. 5, 2005
pp. 380-396
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940510602941
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
Towards a multidimensional
competency-based managerial
performance framework
A hybrid approach
Mei-I. Cheng and Andrew R.J. Dainty
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, Leicester, UK, and
David R. Moore
Scott Sutherland School, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK
Abstract
Purpose – To report on the development of a new, more balanced approach to managing the
performance of key employees in project-based organizations.
Design/methodology/approach – Following the establishment of the role-based criteria for
performance excellence through focus groups and subsequent factor analysis, performance profiles of
a range of superior and average performing managers were compiled. These were based on
behavioural event interviews (BEIs) from which job, person and role-based aspects were derived. The
final performance model was validated through assessments with an expert panel of HRM specialists.
Findings – This research has developed and demonstrated the potential of a more holistic approach
to managing performance which includes reference to the job requirements, personal behaviours and
the role context. It was found to be particularly suitable to measuring managers’ performance in
dynamic team-based environments.
Research limitations/implications – The empirical work upon which the new performance
framework is based was derived from a limited study within two construction organizations. Future
work will explore the applicability of the approach within other organizations and industries.
Practical implications – Applying this framework to key HRM activities has the potential to
improve the ways in which companies manage, develop and retain their key managerial resources.
Notably, they should be able to engender a more participative, developmental approach to the HRM
function, thereby helping to ensure sustained performance improvements in the future and improved
resource usage effectiveness.
Originality/value – The paper presents the basis for a completely new performance management
paradigm which embeds managerial competence/competency in a way which more accurately reflects
the realities of managerial practice.
Keywords Performance management, Competences, Modelling, Managers
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Devising more effective ways of managing the performance of key managerial
employees has become a cornerstone of organizational development in recent years.
As part of this movement, the establishment of the competence or competency of
individuals, within both their general contribution to the organisation and their specific
contribution in the context of their occupational role, is central to defining the
necessary routes to further development within the organization. Indeed, competency
assessment has been seen as an increasingly versatile and powerful tool to underpin Managerial
many contemporary human resource management (HRM) practices (Armstrong, 2003). performance
Such assessments can help to define job-role characteristics and desired levels of
performance and hence, can provide a basis for many aspects of the HRM function. framework
However, although the general use of the terms “competence” and “competency” is
fairly indiscriminate, there are important conceptual and practical distinctions to be
made that fundamentally effect their application within modern organizations. 381
Within traditionally structured organizations, performance management systems
tend to rely upon competence-based approaches where managers are appraised against
a range of technical job function requirements and in relation to outturn performance
criteria or metrics (Martin and Staines, 1994). Thus, it is focused more on the
performance requirements of job positions than on the jobholders themselves (Stuart
and Lindsay, 1997). Indeed, the underlying characteristics of jobholders are already
assumed to exist (Garavan and McGuire, 2001). In contrast, competency-based
approaches, where managers’ behaviours are utilised as the basis of performance
management and development activities, are less commonly encountered, although
they are more popular in the United States than in Europe (Garavan and
McGuire, 2001). This approach relies upon predominantly input-based criteria, with
a focus on person related variables that individuals bring to a job (Boyatzis, 1982;
Spencer and Spencer, 1993).
Bergenhenegouwen (1996) argued that in a managerial context, managers must
possess a range of personal competencies along with task-specific competences to
perform effectively. Many organizations therefore combine both personal competencies
and job-based competences, but most models do not necessarily balance these two
differing aspects effectively (Bergenhenegouwen, 1996). This is disadvantageous for
the organization as it delimits the potential of learning to correct any imbalance
between the two sets. Rather, a more robust hybrid approach that draws on the best
aspects of both approaches could offer a more effective and innovative performance
management paradigm.
This paper reports on research, which has developed a hybrid performance
management approach and its practical application within a dynamic industrial
context. The research examined the competence and competency requirements of the
project manager role in the construction industry, one of the most demanding
project-based industrial sectors. This offered a test bed to evaluate the practical utility
of a multi-faceted performance management approach for key management
occupations. Based on the empirical evidence gathered, the paper explores whether
such a hybrid approach could define a new and more robust methodology for
measuring and improving managers’ performance within the context of contemporary
organizations and business practices.

Differing dimensions of managerial competency

Performance management is a core strategic HRM activity to which competence and/or
competency frameworks can be applied. By reviewing managers’ performance against
performance standards or desired behaviours (both approaches being examples of the
application of performance criteria), they can be developed and rewarded accordingly.
However, it is also important to recognise that performance actually takes place in a
unique social and cultural context, which is inexorably linked to the job in hand.
JMP Understanding this context is important as it may affect the ways in which
20,5 management performance can be evaluated. Holmes and Joyce (1993) characterised
three different approaches to measuring managerial performance, which are grounded
in different job role contexts:
(1) job-focused;
(2) person-focused; and
382
(3) role-focused criteria.
These are discussed below.

The job-focused approach

The job-focused approach concentrates on identifying the key tasks of managerial
work. This approach treats the job as existing independently of the jobholder. It can
be analysed completely into a coherent set of discrete elements. This view
corresponds with functionalist approaches such as those found within the UK and
Europe. For example, the Standards Programme defines “competence” as “a
description of something which a person who works in a given occupational area
should be able to do, it is a description of an action, behaviour or outcome which a
person should be able to demonstrate” (Training Agency, 1988, p. 5). Competence is
expressed in terms of the job purpose and the standards of performance expected to
be achieved, which is known as “micro competence” (Elkin, 1990). This perspective
is highly centralist in that it determines the push for skill in job performance rather
than understanding and fixing the output standards that regulate education and
training (Burgoyne, 1993).
The functional analysis approach has been widely criticised for the inappropriate
and inflexible standards that it promotes, particularly for higher-level and
management positions (Cole, 2002). Such a model cannot take account of the
complex and dynamic context in which managerial performance is manifested. The
conception that individual managers all engage in similar methodical activity to
achieve the job or organization’s objectives is contradicted by numerous studies of
actual managerial practice. As Cheng et al. (2003) argue, management is a creative
activity and the lower levels may be open to the measurement of competences,
while top management is a process of knowledge implementation that is more than
the practice of measurable skills. Moreover, soft qualities such as creativity,
sensitivity and flexibility are regarded as vital to an organization’s competitiveness
(Jacobs, 1989). Barnett (1994) suggested that the NVQ/competence-based approach
maintains an impoverished view of human action in which individuals are caused
to perform against external standards. Additionally, its focus on studying
competence within the boundaries of current jobs may not help organizations to
face the challenges of the emergence of new job demands in the future.
Additionally, Holmes (1995) stated that this approach fails to provide adequate
guidance on how competence can be inferred from observations of past
performance.

The person-focused approach

The person-focused approach considers a manager’s performance in terms of how
it relates to their personal background, personality, values, motivation and so on
(Holmes and Joyce, 1993). This approach views competencies as macro in nature and Managerial
distinct from the task-specific micro competences of the job-focused perspective. An performance
individual is therefore enabled to deal effectively with non-routine and complex
situations and also in the development of generalisable abilities. Macro competencies framework
are of particular importance to the performance of managers when dealing with the
complexity typical of managerial work (Brown, 1993; Spencer and Spencer, 1993).
Competencies are intangible and dynamic; identifying them is an essential, elusive 383
and growing problem for management (Fowler et al., 2000). Failure to recognize
embedded, often tacit competencies, can have detrimental effects on an organization’s
ability to compete (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). When management is viewed as a
creative activity, it follows that imposing rigid management processes renders those
“creative” managerial competences that achieve success unusable (Henderson, 1993).
In actual managerial practice it would be more appropriate to view managers as not
being simply performers against external standards, but also as reflective actors
(Henderson, 1993). The current use of the person-focused approach used in the USA
originates from the studies of McBer Associates commencing in the 1970s as an
attempt to identify the characteristics that distinguish superior from average
managerial performance. As competencies are seen not as the functional tasks of the
job, but rather as those actions which enable people to carry out their job effectively
(Mansfield, 1999), personal qualities are central to this approach.

The role-focused approach

The role-focused approach attempts to understand managerial performance by
focusing on the social context in which performance is undertaken. Job performance is
considered as the enactment of a role, which emerges through the interaction between
the role holder and the others in the social situation, with their varying perceptions and
expectations (Holmes and Joyce, 1993). A role-focused approach emphasises the
process of examining the various demands, which are made of the individual manager
by others and the extent to which the manager accepts them. It also examines the
degree to which the manager’s performance meets demands imposed by both
themselves and others. In doing this, the role approach is grounded in the reality of the
individual manager’s situation, rather than in an abstract model of what any manager
should be doing.
An aspect of the role approach that illustrates a possible performance inhibiting
impact flowing from a manager’s social context is provided through consideration of
role conflict. Handy (1999) identifies the possibility of an individual possessing several
roles, one of which will be what they regard as their primary function. The job-focused
approach may well be used by themselves and others in judging their performance in
this primary role; their perception of the role may be in terms of what tasks it contains,
irrespective of who is carrying it out. Similarly, the person-focused approach may
allow an individual to perceive their primary role as flowing from their background
(personal experience, training, values and beliefs, etc.) and as being the result of a
holistic perspective on a combination of diverse factors. They judge themselves against
the generally agreed concept of a role rather than a discrete model, as in the job focused
approach. In both cases an individual could have the capacity and the motivation to
perform a specific role and is then offered the opportunity to perform. In this situation
there is no role conflict as the perceptions of all of those involved are congruent; the
JMP individual concerned meets the agreed criteria for capacity and willingness and
20,5 therefore is presented with opportunity. The role focus approach goes further than
either the job or person focus perspectives, in that it allows a level of interaction
between the individual, those working with them and the environment as perceived by
all involved.
By examining the various demands and expectations made on the individual
384 manager by others and the extent to which the manager accepts such demands, the
role-focused approach acknowledges the extent to which their performance meets
imposed demands (Holmes and Joyce, 1993). It also recognises the factors that impact
on job performance (e.g. actions of co-workers, leader behaviour, organizational culture
and values). Thus, assessing and managing the performance of the manager is
grounded in the reality of the individual manager’s situation. This perspective is
particularly appropriate for managers whose activities and performance are contingent
upon the particular circumstances of the project/tasks in hand.

The hybrid approach: a multidimensional competency-based managerial

performance framework
The previous sections of this paper have explicated the definition, discrimination and
relationship of differing dimensions of managerial performance. Each approach has its
own merits. However, arguably, they should not be regarded as being mutually
exclusive, but as potentially complementary. This demands the systematic
combination of both micro competences and macro competencies within a new,
more holistic framework, underpinned by role-focused measures. Such a holistic
managerial performance framework includes a clear description of the work tasks
managers should be competent at (i.e. micro competences), what enables them to
complete those tasks effectively (i.e. macro competencies) and specific role-focused
criteria for performance excellence (social context) to assess his/her job performance.
This has the potential to be more constructive and utilisable to the realities of
managerial practices than are the current fragmented approaches. The ability of such
an approach to identify and respond to changes in each of the three sections provides a
managerial framework within which the performance management function can
achieve a more effective usage of resources. The application of the proposed
framework will provide opportunities for the HRM function to become more aware of
the real-world demands placed upon managers. Such increased awareness can only
beneficially inform the performance management process with regard to the allocation
of resources to the development of an individual manager’s performance.

Methodology
The job role forming the focus of this study was that of the construction project
manager. This role was chosen for its complex, multifunctional nature and the many
dimensions and influences on performance that could be measured. Thus, the job role
has a broad range of discrete but mutually reinforcing competence, competency and
role requirements that could benefit from a multidimensional competency-based
managerial performance framework. The collaboration of two leading organizations at
the forefront of process improvement within the construction sector provided a source
for the data necessary for the work and ensured the practical utility of the managerial
performance framework within the industry context for which it was designed.
Company A was a privately owned contracting organization. Employing over 1,000 Managerial
people, it operated in all construction markets including product and component performance
manufacture, traditional building contracting and design/management services.
Company B was a Public Limited Company also employing over 1,000 people. The core framework
focus of this organization was building and civil engineering contracting. Both
companies operated throughout the UK through a divisional operating structure based
on service specialisation and geographical radius of operation. However, both had 385
centralised HRM departments, which co-ordinated the management of the performance
management systems used by the firms. Neither of the firms were implementing
integrated, multidisciplinary (task, role and person-focused perspectives) performance
management systems.
Development of a multidimensional competency-based performance framework
requires a methodology combining all three perspectives within a single analytical
framework. The research began with the establishment of the role-based criteria for
performance excellence (phase 1). Three focus groups were held in which a stratified
sample of managers ðN ¼ 20Þ ranging from first line supervisors to senior head
office-based managers were used as an expert panel to define the requirements of
performance excellence for the job role. These individuals all relied upon the outputs
from the project manager for the completion of their own job role. The focus group
discussions lasted for a period of between two and three hours, following which the
discussions were recorded, transcribed and then combined into a comprehensive list of
performance criteria. The full range of criteria were then listed and the original
participants asked to rate the importance of each criterion on a seven-point Likert scale
on an individual basis. The independence of the Likert responses ensured that any
influence over subordinates from senior managers during the focus groups was
minimised. Exploratory factor analysis was used as the data reduction tool to reduce
the number of indicators to a manageable and meaningful number of criteria expressed
as factors. In order to understand the underlying constructs of the variables, a principal
components analysis was performed with varimax rotation for eigenvalues greater
than unity.
Phase 2 involved the development of the micro competency model (the job-focused
approach) and macro competency model (the person-focused approach). The role-based
criteria for performance excellence developed in phase 1 were used to identify a group
of superior and a comparison group of average performers to form the basis of the
main data collection phase. A panel of HRM specialists, construction managers, project
managers and site managers from each participating company identified 24 superior
managers and 16 average performers. A variety of data were collected from a total of
40 managers’ interviews. First, a job-tasks interview was carried out. This asked the
superior managers to describe their job tasks and key responsibilities so as to identify
the micro competence(s). The second stage comprised a series of behavioural event
interviews (BEIs) to assess macro competencies (McClelland, 1998). BEIs were
conducted with both superior and average managers. They were asked to describe
critical situations encountered in their jobs. The interviewer then explored what the
situation or task was, who was involved, what the interviewee thought, felt and wanted
to do, what they actually did and what the result or outcome was. The interview lasted
from two to three hours. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim
for analysis.
JMP Data analysis proceeded in line with the two-stage interview process, with the initial
20,5 objective being the production of a micro competence model. The transcripts of the
24 superior managers’ job-task interviews were analysed using the QSR NVivo
qualitative analysis package. Each of the three research team members coded the
transcripts with the objective of identifying and coding the job tasks and key
responsibilities. The second stage of the analysis had the objective of producing a
386 macro competency model. The transcripts of 40 completed BEIs were coded against the
competencies contained within the McBer Competency Dictionary (Spencer and
Spencer, 1993). Each transcript was reviewed and passages were then coded to the
appropriate tree node(s). Each analyst independently identified similar patterns and
themes for each competency. Any motives, thoughts, or behaviours that matched those
provided by the McBer Competency Dictionary were coded and those absent from the
standard dictionary (which therefore are unique construction management
competencies) were extracted. It should be noted that the analysts were not aware of
the group placement (i.e. superior vs average) of any of the interviewees during the
coding process.
The interview coding was analysed statistically to see if the analysts reached an
acceptable level of inter-rater reliability. Examples of competencies were copied from
the transcript to a “dictionary” to provide customised examples of each competency
level coded. The dictionary was customised by tailoring the definitions of competencies
and competency levels to describe the data being coded and a behavioural codebook
was then developed. This coding process provided quantitative data that was used to
test the findings for statistical significance. The one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to examine whether the differences among the competencies
of the two groups (superior vs average managers) were significant. Subsequently, a
forward stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to create a parsimonious
model for the prediction of job performance.
The suitability and applicability of the role-focused and micro competence models
were examined by employees (senior line managers) and employers (HRM specialists)
from each participating company. To validate the macro competency model, a panel of
assessors (HRM specialists and senior line managers) with first-hand knowledge of the
performance and competencies of the candidates, were asked to select a second
criterion sample of managers (12 superior managers and eight average performers)
using the role-based criteria for performance excellence. Subsequently, the panel was
asked to rate the competencies of candidates by using criteria from the developed,
construction bespoke, behavioural codebook to see if the macro competency model
predicted the superior and average managers in the second group.

Results
The role-focused model
Principal factors extraction with varimax rotation was performed using SPSS.
The exploratory factor analysis resulted in 12 factors with eigenvalues greater than
unity being extracted, but the scree test suggested that a nine-factor solution was most
appropriate. Owing to the relatively small sample size, an inter-rater agreement was also
employed to help interpret the data and refine the factors. Along with the inter-rater
agreement, 43 performance criteria were identified which are summarised by nine factors.
The first factor was labelled “Team Building” and explained 22.36 per cent of the variance;
the second factor was concerned with “Leadership” and explained 17.71 per cent of the Managerial
variance; factors 3-9 were concerned with “Decision Making”’ (11.10 per cent of the performance
variance), “Mutuality and Approachability” (8.19 per cent), “Honesty and Integrity”
(7.03 per cent), “Communication” (5.32 per cent), “Learning, Understanding and framework
Application” (4.73 per cent), “Self-Motivation” (4.10 per cent) and “External Relations”
(3.93 per cent). The nine factors extracted therefore accounted for 84.45 per cent of the
variance in responses. The details of the constituent indicators of each of the nine factors 387
extracted can be found in Dainty et al. (2003).

The job-focused model

The job tasks obtained from the first stage of interviews were sorted into 14 elements:
(1) to ensure work is properly considered prior to work commencing;
(2) to deliver the job to client satisfaction and maintain long-term relationships;
(3) to maintain budgetary control and maximise the company’s profits;
(4) to ensure that the project is completed within the original programme
requirements;
(5) to ensure that the quality of the end product meets all stakeholder expectations;
(6) to adhere to health and safety and environmental standards;
(7) to ensure all staff and supervisors are aware of their roles and responsibilities;
(8) to ensure that design and other production information is appropriately and
effectively communicated to members of the project team;
(9) to promote continuous improvement through team learning and development;
(10) to promote and share knowledge;
(11) to champion company standards and approaches;
(12) to input into tendered work and submissions;
(13) to chair meetings and coordinate activities; and
(14) to employ, coordinate and ensure the co-operation of supply chain partners.
Cohen’s (1960) Kappa was calculated to assess inter-rater agreement ðk ¼ 0:97Þ. Job
tasks on which raters could not agree concerning placement into a job task group were
dropped.

The person-focused model

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to identify the competencies,
which distinguish superior managers from those performing at an average level. It
was found that 12 competencies distinguish superior from average performers.
They are:
(1) achievement orientation;
(2) initiative;
(3) information seeking;
(4) focus on client’s needs;
(5) impact and influence;
JMP (6) directiveness;
20,5 (7) teamwork and cooperation;
(8) team leadership;
(9) analytical thinking;
(10) conceptual thinking;
388 (11) self-control; and
(12) flexibility (Table I).

The definition of each competency is detailed in the Appendix.

Logistic regression analysis (forward stepwise) was conducted to discriminate the
most predictive competencies among the 12 identified to generate a parsimonious
model that can predict job performance. To determine a prediction model with the best
possible fit to the data for job performance (superior vs average managers) variable,
all 12 variables were regressed on the dependent variable, job performance. The
12 competencies were entered in a stepwise logistic regression analysis using forward
selection ( p to enter , 0.01) and backward elimination ( p to move . 0.10) based on
likelihood ratio estimates. Once completed, predictive competencies are tested with the
results employed in creating a parsimonious model to predict job performance.
Two competencies made a significant contribution to the prediction of job
performance. At the first step, self-control was entered. The correct class rate of the
discrimination of average managers and superior managers was 92.50 per cent with a
chi-square of 30.93 (1df ) ð p , 0:0001Þ. At the second step, team leadership was
entered. The correct class rate of this elaborated model was 95 per cent with an
increased chi-square (at p , 0:0001 of 44.17 with 2df ). After that, none of the other
competencies could be added.
A classification table (Table II) is presented here to illustrate how well the model fits
the data. As the table shows, the classification results from the logistic regression
revealed an impressive prediction success, an overall correct class rate of 95 per cent

Average managers Superior managers ANOVA

Variable M SD M SD F (1.38)

Achievement orientation 0.56 1.41 3.21 0.78 58.18*

Initiative 1.06 1.18 2.75 0.68 33.04*
Information seeking 0.75 1.00 2.54 1.53 16.98*
Focus on client’s needs 20.44 0.89 1.42 1.28 25.20*
Impact and influence 0.94 0.93 2.30 0.69 28.00*
Directiveness 0.56 1.21 3.92 2.15 32.12*
Teamwork and cooperation 2.19 1.80 4.92 1.44 28.22*
Team leadership 0.75 1.34 4.46 1.69 53.97*
Table I. Analytical thinking 0.94 1.00 3.00 0.83 50.16*
Comparison of Conceptual thinking 0.69 0.79 2.50 1.02 35.84*
competencies of average Self-control 0.31 1.30 2.96 0.75 66.51*
managers ðN ¼ 16Þ and Flexibility 1.13 1.26 3.00 0.42 46.22*
superior managers
ðN ¼ 24Þ Notes: *p , 0:001
 Predicted
Managerial
Average vs superior performance
Observed 0 1 Percentage correct framework
Step 1
Average 0 14 2 87.5
Superior 1 1 23 95.8
Overall percentage 92.5
389
Step 2 Table II.
Average 0 14 2 87.5 Classification table for
Superior 1 0 24 100.0 job performance (cut
Overall percentage 95.0 value is 0.40)

for the total sample of 40 managers. The resulting parsimonious model accounted for
66.90 per cent of the variance in job performance.
The resulting logistic parsimonious regression equation is as follows:

1
ProðsuperiorÞ ¼ self2controlþ1:79 team leadershipÞ
:
1 þ e2ð29:08þ2:40

Validation results
HRM specialists (employer’s perspectives) and senior line managers (employee’s
perspectives) confirmed the suitability and applicability of the role-focused model and
the micro competence model. The resulting full macro competency model was
validated by a second criterion sample. The t-test results show that superior managers
were significantly higher than average managers on the 12 distinguishing
competencies previously identified (Table III).
For the parsimonious model, the scores of self-control and team leadership
competencies were put into the model to assess the probability of an individual being
a superior performer. The results show that the model misclassified 4 of the

Average managers Superior managers t-test

Variable M SD M SD t (19)

Achievement orientation 0.50 0.76 2.50 0.80 2 5.61***

Initiative 0.75 0.71 3.33 1.44 2 4.69***
Information seeking 1.25 0.89 3.08 1.31 2 3.45**
Focus on client’s needs 0.88 0.64 1.91 1.44 2 1.91*
Impact and influence 1.63 0.52 2.75 0.87 2 3.29**
Directiveness 1.75 0.71 3.50 1.00 2 4.27***
Teamwork and cooperation 1.88 1.13 3.92 1.68 2 3.01**
Team leadership 1.50 1.60 4.33 1.78 2 3.63**
Analytical thinking 0.75 0.46 2.67 0.65 2 7.17*** Table III.
Conceptual thinking 1.00 0.53 2.58 1.08 2 3.81** Comparison of
Self-control 0.50 1.20 2.66 0.78 2 4.93*** competencies of average
Flexibility 1.25 0.46 3.00 0.95 2 4.80*** managers ðN ¼ 8Þ and
superior managers
Notes: *p , 0:05 (one-tailed); **p , 0:01; ***p , 0:001 ðN ¼ 12Þ
JMP 20 individuals. The parsimonious model can predict 80 per cent overall accuracy of job
20,5 performance (Table IV).

Discussion
Elkin (1990) suggests that human resource management practitioners face a dilemma;
on one hand, the underlying macro competency/person-focused approach seems
390 removed from the everyday reality of most jobs and the need to demonstrate
immediate benefits from training and development. However, adopting a micro
competence/job-focused approach is normative and geared towards the development of
“identikit” managers (Mangham, 1990). Thus, a sole focus on either competence or
competency-based systems is unlikely to yield rounded, technically competent
managers with the ability to move organizations forward. There is, however, no
intention here to assert that all managers should aspire to become superior performers.
Rather, the suggestion is threefold. First, managers may, in appropriate circumstances,
be encouraged to develop a level of performance, which is superior to their existing
performance in order to contribute to the achievement of a superior organisational
(rather than superior individual) performance. Such a scenario would equate to that
faced by a transitional or transforming (moving forward from a transactional to a
transformational culture) organisation. In such a case the emphasis is on incremental
performance improvements by many individuals as a means of gradually building a
transformational culture. Secondly, a strategy of supporting the development of a core
of managers with the objective of raising their performance to a superior level may be
appropriate in dealing with expansion of an organisation’s area of activity. An example
would be engaging in new activity with regard to what D’Herbemont and Cesar (1998)
refer to as sensitive projects and which have particular demands for project manager
behaviours not demanded by “normal” projects. Thirdly, that in extreme cases the
so-called neutron-bomb approach may be exercised. In this scenario, there is a rapid
and complete displacement of one management culture by an “improved” culture
which drives the organisation forward in a quantum leap. Such an approach requires a
speedy (rather than gradual) development of superior performance in a selected group
of managers. The required speed of this development will place demands on the
selection process so as to identify managers who are already close to the required level
of performance.
The extent of differentiation regarding performance development outlined above
suggests a need to add a consideration of a third dimension, one with an emphasis on
the role rather than the job or person-centred issues. This research has developed and
demonstrated the potential of a more holistic approach to managing performance,
which focuses on the job (micro competences), the person (macro competencies) and the
role (performance excellence in the social contexts). This hybrid approach represents a

Predicted
Average vs superior
Observed 0 1 Percentage correct

Table IV. Average 0 6 2 75

The classification table Superior 1 2 10 83
for parsimonious model Overall percentage 80
radical departure from the appraisal and review strategies currently dominating many Managerial
project-based sectors. Such traditional approaches are useful in assessing performance performance
within the context of a single focus (job or person) and are therefore arguably
appropriate to an organisation with a transactional perspective and operating in a framework
slowly changing environment. However, project-based organisations are faced with
increasing rates of change in their external environments and a single-focus
performance management approach is not appropriate to such environments. 391
Used as the basis of a performance management system, the framework could
promote discussion and diagnosis of the key capabilities and development needs of
individual managers regarding their past and future contributions towards project
focused performance excellence within organizations. This can be achieved due to the
nature of this multifaceted performance framework being both past and future oriented
and combining quantitative and qualitative assessments of performance. Furthermore,
it is sensitive enough to facilitate discussion on specific career development issues
aligned to business requirements. In particular, the hybrid approach is appropriate for:
.
uncertain environments where results are not under manager’s control and
evaluation should be based on whether managers did everything they could,
whether they demonstrated the right behaviours rather than achieving targeted
results;
.
team-based environments where the contribution to the group process may be
more important than individual results; and in
.
dynamic environments and organizations where managers’ potential to
contribute to the company in the future may be more important than their
past performance.
The multifaceted managerial performance framework is useful for supporting a range
of HR functions including recruitment, deployment, training, promotion, reward
management and succession planning. For example, in deployment, the manager may
well be regarded as the most appropriate person to carry out a particular role, even
though they do not meet all the criteria established by either the job-task competence or
behavioural competency models. The role-focused performance excellence model goes
beyond such criteria in that it allows a level of interaction between the individual, those
working with them and the environment as perceived by all involved. In this context,
the role-focused model can be argued to be an example of performance management
within the context of transformational organizations. Moore (2002) suggests that this
form emphasises issues such as sapiential authority (Banner and Gagne, 1995)
whereby appropriate leaders are selected by those participating in a scenario, rather
than by the hierarchy or the guidance of others not directly participating. Performance
management therefore becomes more immediate in nature. In the case of employee
selection, it would be more cost-effective to employ someone already able to evidence
those behavioural competencies required for performance excellence. Such an
individual would be expected to bring immediacy to a higher level of performance and
thereby offer the organization an opportunity to raise its performance over a shorter
timescale. The identification of discriminative behavioural competencies for employee
performance, in addition to providing a rich assessment with regard to the nature of
an individual’s deficiencies (and thereby identifying priorities for training and
development), would also be of significant potential value in the context of
JMP organizational performance management with regard to the recruitment of high
20,5 performing individuals to the organization. The priority for training and development,
for example, should be based on the relationship between the assessed (current) levels
of relevant competencies to be exhibited by individual managers and the impact of this
on their performance. Higher priorities will be those where an individual is assessed as
evidencing a low level of a specific behavioural competency having a high impact on
392 job performance. Behavioural competencies with a high impact on performance levels
are suggested as being those identified as achieving the high level of discriminative
ability (self control and team leadership) with regard to an individual’s level of
performance being either superior or average.
The research has also addressed the idea that inferred competency is of more
significance than observed performance (Holmes and Joyce, 1993). Such a perspective
highlights the need to understand the distinction among job-task competences,
behavioural competencies and overall performance; as Boyatzis (1982, p. 21) states:
“ . . . .action, their results, and the necessary characteristics being expressed do not
necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence”. Thus, the concept of performance
flowing from competency diminishes if the judgement of being competent is limited to
observation of only one of the facets of performance explored in this research. The
judgement of whether someone is competent depends in the confidence of the future
performance of the person to whom the term is applied. Such decisions have direct
relevance to selection, placement, succession planning, training and development. As a
result, managers should therefore be assessed on all facets relevant to performance
excellence and should be given the opportunity to develop “deficient” facets
accordingly. Applying this framework to these key HRM activities has the potential to
improve the ways in which companies manage, develop and retain their key
managerial resources. Notably, they will engender a more participative, developmental
approach to the HRM function, thereby helping to ensure sustained performance
improvements in the future.

Impact of the research

Although conceptually robust, questions remain as to whether this multifaceted
managerial performance framework really reflects practice and if so, to what extent is
it an utilisable framework? Kane (1992) noted that the validity of competency measures
is difficult to determine, as usually there are no definitive measures that can be used as
a criterion reference. However, the key merit of this research is that the resulting
competencies are empirically correlated to successful performance outcomes. This
arguably adds legitimacy and weight to the hybrid framework, as the competencies are
demonstrably predictive of performance excellence. Furthermore, the use of specific
behavioural examples drawn from the BEIs can be used as tangible examples of how
elements of the competency framework can be manifested in real-life workplace
situations. The behavioural codebook developed in this research allows a precise
definition of job competency requirements to be formulated and also makes the
identification of behaviours clear along with providing a means by which they become
measurable. It is also important to note that the job competency assessment methods
adopted in this research, by identifying operant thoughts and behaviours related to
performance excellence, are free from bias by race, gender, age, or demographic factors
(Spencer and Spencer, 1993).
 Furthermore, Armstrong (2003) stated that areas of competence (micro competence) Managerial
are derived by a methodology known as functional analysis. This proceeds by asking performance
what jobholders do – i.e. what they must be competent at. In this research, a refined
methodology was adopted by asking superior managers about their key job tasks and framework
responsibilities. The resulting micro competence model is what superior managers
must be competent at. The descriptions are accessible in that they are in the language
of the managers. Furthermore, the identified competences are context sensitive; they 393
describe what superior mangers actually do in their organizations, not what
psychological or management theory assume is needed for success.
The hybrid competency framework presented here represents a radical departure
from the appraisal and review strategies currently used within the construction sector.
This research has attempted to address the need for bespoke performance management
mechanisms, which align employee’s competency with performance improvement
requirements in the context of the organizational environment and the job demands.
The potential implications for performance levels within the construction industry are
significant. For example, the parsimonious model can be utilised for employee
selection, as it is far more cost-effective to hire someone with these two predictive
competencies, than those without them. For example, personality tests (e.g. 16PF, OPQ)
can be used to assess these two competencies in recruitment. For training and
development of current employees, it would be more effective to use all 12
competencies so as to ensure that construction project managers have the full range of
competencies required to do their job effectively. Applying this framework to these key
HRM activities has the potential to improve the ways in which construction companies
manage, develop and retain their key managerial resources. Notably, they should be
able to engender a more participative, developmental approach to the HRM function,
thereby helping to ensure sustained performance improvements in the future.

Conclusions
The whole issue of competence/competency, a subject at the centre of the debate over
management development, comprises a semantic minefield in which the terms are
used to mean fundamentally different things. This research has explained how the
confusion has come about and proposed a new approach to both establishing what
competence/competency is and developing guidance for use in practice. Bringing
together and integrating the three models provide a more rounded solution, especially
for dynamic and changing industries such as construction. However, measuring
achievement against behavioural competencies is difficult and would require an
attitudinal sea change within industry. It remains to be seen whether the industry is
prepared for such a fundamental shift in approach. It has been suggested that those
planning for management’s needs and development should focus on the future (Briscoe
and Hall, 1999) and it is vital that the lists of competencies and competences must be
reviewed frequently to reflect the best estimate of what the future will require with
regard to competences and competencies.
This research has demonstrated that a hybrid, multidimensional managerial
performance framework can be developed and thereby address some of the criticisms
of traditional approaches to managing performance. Notably, it has provided
important insights into employee perspectives on their vocational roles. These can be
compared with employer’s assumptions of key job, person and role responsibilities
JMP and so should inform the development of future occupational standards for the
20,5 construction management function. These insights should also provide a deeper
understanding of the conflicts that emerge between managers and organizations in the
definition of vocational achievements and so will be relevant to academics working in
the HRM and industrial relations fields.

394
References
Armstrong, M. (2003), A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 9th ed., Kogan
Page, London.
Banner, D.K. and Gagne, T.E. (1995), Designing Effective Organisations, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Barnett, R. (1994), The Limits of Competence, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Bergenhenegouwen, G.J. (1996), “Competence development – a challenge for HRM professionals:
core competences of organizations as guidelines for the development of employees”,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 29-35.
Boyatzis, R. (1982), The Competent Manager – A Model for Effective Performance, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Briscoe, J.P. and Hall, D.T. (1999), “Grooming and picking leaders using competency frameworks:
do they work? An alternative approach and new guidelines for practice”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 37-52.
Brown, R.B. (1993), “Meta-competence: a recipe for reframing the competence debate”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 25-36.
Burgoyne, J. (1993), “The competence movement: issues, stakeholders and prospects”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 6-13.
Cheng, M., Dainty, A. and Moore, D. (2003), “The differing faces of managerial competency in
Britain and America”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 527-37.
Cohen, J. (1960), “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 20, pp. 37-46.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 128-52.
Cole, G. (2002), Personnel and Human Resource Management, 5th ed., Continuum, London.
Dainty, A., Cheng, M. and Moore, D. (2003), “Redefining performance measures for construction
project managers: an empirical evaluation”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 209-18.
D’Herbemont, O. and Cesar, B. (1998), Managing Sensitive Projects: A Lateral Approach,
Macmillan, London.
Elkin, G. (1990), “Competency-based human resource development”, Industrial and Commercial
Training, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 20-5.
Fowler, S.W., King, A.W., March, S.J. and Victor, B. (2000), “Beyond products: new strategic
imperatives for developing competencies in dynamic environments”, Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 17, pp. 357-77.
Garavan, T. and McGuire, D. (2001), “Competencies and workplace learning: some
reflections on the rhetoric and the reality”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 144-64.
Handy, C. (1999), Understanding Organizations, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Henderson, I. (1993), “Action learning: a missing link in management development”, Personnel Managerial
Review, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 14-24.
Holmes, L. (1995), “HRM and the irresistible rise of the discourse of competence”, Personnel
performance
Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 34-49. framework
Holmes, L. and Joyce, P. (1993), “Rescuing the useful concept of managerial competence: from
outcomes back to process”, Personnel Review, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 37-52.
Jacobs, R. (1989), “Getting the measure of management competence”, Personnel Management, 395
June, pp. 32-7.
Kane, M.T. (1992), “The assessment of professional competence”, Evaluation and the Health
Professions, Vol. 15, pp. 163-82.
McClelland, D.C. (1998), “Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 9, pp. 331-9.
Mangham, I. (1990), “Managing as a performing art”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 105-15.
Mansfield, R. (1999), “What is ‘competence’ all about?”, Competency, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 24-8.
Martin, G. and Staines, H. (1994), “Managerial competences in small firms”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 22-34.
Moore, D. (2002), Project Management. Designing Effective Organizational Structures in
Construction, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Spencer, L. and Spencer, S. (1993), Competence at Work: Model for Superior Performance, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Stuart, R. and Lindsay, P. (1997), “Beyond the frame of management competenc(i)es: towards a
contextually embedded framework of managerial competence in organizations”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 26-33.
Training Agency (1988), “The definition of competences and performance criteria”, Guidance
Note 3 in Development of Assessable Standards for National Certification (pp.5), Series,
Training Agency, Sheffield.

Appendix. The definition of macro competency

(1) Achievement orientation. It refers to the manager’s concern for working towards a
standard of excellence. The standard may be based against the individual’s own past
performance, an objective measure or simply personal goals allied to project and
organizational objectives.
(2) Initiative. It is demonstrated by taking proactive actions to avert problems in order to
enhance job results and avoid problems. This may involve finding or creating new
opportunities within and outside of the project environment.
(3) Information seeking. It refers to an underlying curiosity or desire to know
more about things, people, or issues. Making an effort to obtain more information and
not accepting situations at face value are key traits associated with this behaviour.
(4) Focus on client’s needs. It means focusing efforts on discovering and meeting their
client’s requirements, coupled with a desire to help or serve others.
(5) Impact and influence. It refers to the intention to persuade, convince, influence or impress others
in order to support their agenda, or the desire to have a specific impact or effect on others.
(6) Directiveness/assertiveness. It refers to their intentions to ensure that subordinates
comply with his/her wishes. Directive behaviour has a theme or tone of “telling people
what to do”. The tone ranges from firm and directive to demanding.
JMP (7) Team work and cooperation. It implies the genuine intention to work cooperatively with
others as opposed to separately or competitively.
20,5 (8) Team leadership. It refers to the intention to take a role as leader of a team or other group.
Although it implies a desire to lead others and so can be manifested in the form of formal
authority and responsibility, effective team leadership also requires the leader to know
when not to act authoritatively if they are to extract the best out of the team.
396 (9) Analytical thinking. It is the understanding a situation by breaking it apart into smaller
pieces, or tracing the implications of a situation in a step by step causal way. It includes
organising the parts of a problem or situation in a systematic way; making systematic
comparisons of different features or aspects; setting priorities on a rational basis;
identifying time sequences and causal relationship.
(10) Conceptual thinking. It is understanding a situation or problem by putting the pieces
together, seeing the large picture. It includes identifying patterns or connections between
situations that are not obviously related; identifying key or underlying issues in complex
situations.
(11) Self-control. It is the ability to keep emotions under control and to restrain negative
actions when tempted, when faced with opposition or hostility from others, or when
working under conditions of stress.
(12) Flexibility. It is the ability to adapt to and work effectively with a variety of situations,
individuals, or groups. It is the ability to understand and appreciate different and
opposing perspectives on an issue, to adapt an approach as the requirements of a
situation changes and to change or easily accept changes in one’s own organization or
job requirements.