Thanks much for the explanation and recommendations. I must say, though, that I am a little disapointed: The method you describe sounds so pedestrian. I was sure I was dealing with something way brilliant. The essay--that is, the "text"--in which I found mention of the competence-based approach had all the markings of pomo theory: made-up words ("linkedness," "common-sensual"), high-falutin phrases replacing easier-to-grasp ones ("Pareto-rents," "meta-tales," "phylogenetic"), brain-warping diction, and multi-disciplinary gymnastics. And the best part is that it was able to summon a seemingly disparate source to prove its theory: according to this essay, which was written by Nicolai Foss, one of the people you mentioned, "Thorstein Veblen should be considered one of the important precursors of the emerging competence-based approach to the firm." I love it. It's at http://netec.mcc.ac.uk/WoPEc/data/Papers/wopabbswp96-15.html for anyone whose interested.
I thought I'd stumbled upon something really essential here, but it sounds merely like theoretical excuses for massive layoffs and plant closings; it sounds like justification for the US business press when it hectors the Japanese to stop pampering their workers, to end the practice of full and life-long employment, etc. But still worth reading more about I think. Anything the business world is up to is worth reading about.
Thanks again, Kelley.
Eric