In the contemporary paradigm around leadership and
management, people's competences are very central. And that is correct; It is time for us to recognize people in
their strengths, and to provide the necessary space and support for
development. The world is slowly moving forward!
However, there is a problem with the language. According to dictionaries and to
Wikipedia, the definition of competence is the sum of 'can' and 'may' (or authority) . A competence is therefore a behavior that
is effective and based on a talent of a person. This definition hides an important leadership issue. It looks like a camouflage maneuver!
Let's start from a narrow definition: competence =
can! We apply that to a simple example: making soup. I can, for example , make an excellent tomato soup. That is a competence. But: I don't have any (or bad) vegetables
(resources); I am not allowed in the kitchen frequently enough or
on the wrong timing (authority); I am allowed in the kitchen, but we are in
each other’s way and I am distracted
(organization); I can't do it in 10 minutes (stress due to deadlines); my colleagues don't allow
me that success (team atmosphere); and so on! The result is that I cannot convert my
competence into results. The factors that prevent this not only have something
to do with me, but also with the social and material context in which I
function. This context is largely the responsibility of the
organization, and leadership in particular. Holding people accountable for bad results
without placing proper responsibility on all parties involved is unjust and not
productive. If we define a competency as "observable behavior", we are throwing all determining factors in one pile, and put them at the responsibility of the individual employee. I wonder what exactly is understood by
competence development in this definition, and how it is realized in practice! Is this equal to organizational
development?
It becomes a lot clearer and more useful if we first
divide competency into cognitive competences (I know), skill competencies (I
can do it), behavioral competencies (I can develop appropriate behavior ) and social competences (I can contribute
in a social context to results). On top of that there is another step
between the sum of these four and the end result. And that is organizational context. The management's responsibility is to recognize the competencies (sum of the four ), to provide room for growth and resources, and to provide the
necessary and useful support. In the absence of this leadership, a
competence will never be fully converted into results; and that is not the shortcoming of the employee and his competence, but of the management. Authority, which according to the 'wrong' but common definition is part of a competence, is exclusively
part of the responsibility of the management. If employees are given the responsibility
(purpose of their competence development) to achieve a perfect result in any
circumstances, including in the event of failing leadership, then leaders have
cleverly cleared themselves of any responsibility!
Conclusion: the more precise we make our language, the
more useful it becomes to guide our communication to agreements and solutions. With unclear, vague , confusing and ambiguous names and
concepts, we cannot build solid solutions, only chaos. It would be an interesting approach for a
study to find out how we came to this 'camouflaging' definition of competences. I suspect that cognitive dissonance has
once again had a hand in this. Or is it simply because most people have
an associative brain that, for the sake of convenience, has added the necessary
competence to 'being able', because it is felt that without authority it will
not work out anyway? In any case, this wrong definition (ability +
authority) is a signal of outdated leadership thinking where the boss is always
right (Latin culture ?!) and all reasons for ineffective behavior should be
sought on the side of the employee!
"Keep rolling your eyes, maybe you find a brain back
there". (found on “pinterest” )
Hugo Der Kinderen
No comments:
Post a Comment