>LBOers,
>
>Sorry for the rather esoteric request, but does anyone out there know what
>the hell this "competence-based approach" or "compete-based approach to the
>firm" is? If so, could you explain it to me, in English?
ha ha ha. hey, i was going to write back to your post on sports as prep for real life, but my fuser crashed big time and i've spent far too many hours trying to figure out how to reinstall win98 and get my modem installed w/ the right dang driver and yeehah but i lost everything! everything i tell you. anyway, all i can say is that i spent far too many hours hanging out with managers in a frim and their language was the most fascinating thing about hanging with them--that and the sexism and racism but for another post. in other words, hanging out with managers was an anthropological experience equal to any i've ever read about. it's all about learning the lingo, see. the dominant metaphor: football. players, carrying the ball, punting, sacked, sidelined, huddle, monday morning quarterback meetings, reverse, going over the top, running interference, quarterback....ad nauseum.
this competence based mgmt crappola--well it's just a dang complex idea there eric, at least it purports to be. it's not: it's about assessing hiring and promotion decisions based on someone's competence--WOW! what a concept. the idea is to create scientifically, objectively determined standards of assessment, rather than what rbt jackall calls the conventional and pervasive 'alchemy' approach that most managers use. heh.] it's bigger in the UK than here it think. in the states, the management consulting guru that this probably derives from is william bridges, _jobshift_. it's actually worth a read given that he actually provides an historical account of 'work' as it evolved into "the job" and, according to bridges, is devolving back into the old concept of work, but with a postmodern spin: jobs are passe, says bridges. jobs are about job descriptions and dead wood. work is about doing what needs to be done, about project (or task-based work, instead of position based work), about new rules in which no one is loyal to anyone and everyone is a contingent worker and, as such, everyone must be continually upgrading the skills and competencies, always on the make for something else because there are no more guarantees--if there ever were any. You & Company, he calls--always marketing yourself, selling yourself, promoting yourself.
you'll see it reflected in the current vogue of resume style which focuses on competence--what you have done and what you can do--rather than on employment history. [this is also useful if you're not exactly a young whipper snapper] when i was studying unemployed managers/professionals in a career transition program, this was one of the things they had to learn. one of the interesting things that came out of the research, among other things, was that these were people who'd been hiring others for decades but they'd readily admit that they didn't know what the hell they were doing when it came to picking the 'right man for the job' rather, they admitted that it was all about how the candidate 'felt', if things were 'clicking', --iow, it was all about rituals of status and deference and 'the right man for the job' was the one who knew how to play the game, not whether or not he was any good.
this attempt to scientifically manage hiring and promotion decision is an old story--why the hell do you think they have business schools and master's programs which don the mantle of 'scientific management' and objectivity but are *really* about teaching folks how to play the game, network, make the right connections, etc.
btw, for a great book on the subject, see _Moral Mazes_ , Robert Jackall. he focuses on the conflict between the ostensibly objective structure of bureaucratic organization heads smack into the steel wall of a corporate culture that really operates on the basis of feudalistic organizational structure and charismatic leadership--or loyalty to a person [as opposed to loyalty to the bureaucratic office'--that is, in a bureaucracy-as firms are supposed to be--one is supposed to be committed to the rules and regulations that govern that office and it doesn't matter if the dude inhabiting that office is a pedophile, smokes, or wanks far too often after working hrs.] jackall shows how this conflict leads to things like the production of ford pintos or the dalkon shield. as jackall writes:
"Hard work, is is frequently asserted, builds character. [In reality, we} have little patience for those who, even though they work hard, make a habit of finishing out of the money. In the end, it is success that matters, that legitimates striving, and that makes work worthwhile. What becomes of the social morality of the corporation...when there is thought to be no fixed or, one might say, objective standard of excellence to explain how and why winners are separated from also-rans...? What rules do people fashion to interact with one another when they feel that, instead of ability, talent, and dedicated service to an organization, politics, adroit talk, luck, connections, and self-promotion are the real sorters of people into sheep and goats."
you asked once for recommendations, eric, well _moral mazes_ is one of them.
oh and this is the only title i came up with from my files: FOSS & KNUDSEN , Towards a Competence Theory of the Firm
smooches, k