Ebook Competency-based Succession Planning
Mid-way into the twentieth century, the American economy (and other modern societies) began to shift from an industrial base to a knowledge base. That meant, somewhat simplistically, that the majority of work shifted from fabrication, assembly, and other physical-labor-intensive “manufacturing” tasks to labor of a more knowledge-intensive nature. As the nature of the work changed, so too did the nature of the workers.
With the decline of the industrial base of the American economy, attention of scholars shifted to the new worker in what is variously called the “Information Age,” the “Knowledge Economy,” and the “Post-Industrial Society.” Drucker (1968), Bell (1972), and Mankin (1978), for example, described a new generation of “knowledge workers.” Others (Deming, 1982; Senge, 1990; Tingstad, 1991; Sapienza, 1995; Horibe, 1999; Tapscott and Ticoll, 2003; Glen, 2003; Bennet and Bennet, 2004; Davenport, 2005) described how the characteristics of these new workers demand new patterns of organizational structures and transactions, new ways of designing and managing work systems, and new paradigms of leadership and management. Etzioni (1968) saw the emerging preeminence of knowledge as a force that would reshape societies as a whole.
Toffler (1970, 1980, 1990), Naisbitt (1982, 1996), and others (Naisbitt and Aburdene, 1990) introduced this phenomenon to the popular press.
Other scholars, meanwhile, were turning their attention toward the concept of knowledge per se. Polanyi (1958) and others wrote of philosophies of knowledge. Deming (1982, 1993) argued for 1 Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone, and should not be construed as reflecting the positions, policies, or practices of the Internal Revenue Service. 2 the need for “profound knowledge” of work processes, while Senge (1990) developed the concept of the “learning organization,” where profound knowledge was to be systematically and continuously enhanced and expanded with resultant continuous improvement of organizational performance outcomes.
Toward the end of the 1990s, “Knowledge Management” had become a management discipline in its own right, with numerous scholars (Koulopoulos, 1997; Koulopoulos, Spinello, and Toms, 1997; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Liebowitz and Beckman, 1998; and Frappaolo, 2002) contributing. The general body of knowledge expanded: Fisher and Fisher (1998) studied the role of knowledge management in the performance of work teams. Stewart (1997, 2001) and Chatzkel (2002) addressed “intellectual capital” as a new source of wealth and competitive advantage. Fitz-Enz (2000) focused on knowledge management in terms of “human capital” and the return on investment in human capital. Most recently, Liebowitz (2004), among others, has predicted a coming crisis in human capital.
As knowledge management developed and grew, a sub-discipline – competency management – emerged. By and large, the subject was limited to the use of competencies in organizational management, and specifically to the management of organizational human capital. Lucia and Lepsinger (1999) demonstrated the use of competency modeling; Shandler (2000) addressed the nexus between competencies and Senge's “learning organization;” and Zwell (2000) called for the creation of a “culture of competence.” Dubois and Rothwell (2004) and Schoonover (2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2002d, 2003a) offer holistic approaches to competency-based management of human capital.
Quinn (1996) and Parry (1997) focus on the use of competencies to develop leaders and managers. The American Productivity & Quality Center (1999, 2000), Schoonover (2003b), and Zwell (1998a, 1998b, 1998d) address the use of competencies in identifying, hiring, and developing top-level executives. Zwell (1998c, 2002) and Schoonover (2003a) address competency-based performance improvement, and Dubois (1996) specifically addresses the role of executives in using competencies to improve their organizations' performance.
This paper represents a beginning of an effort to address the need for increased attention to the use of competencies in addressing the issue of succession planning – both within the context of the “brain drain” as the baby-boomer generation retires, and within the broader context of continual organizational readiness to face change. To that end, the paper will briefly discuss individual and organizational competencies and capabilities; competency and proficiency modeling, with a view to improvement of organizational performance or addressing of organizational change issues; competency management; benefits from competency management; and competency centers. A construct for competency-based learning and performance improvement, developed by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Research, will be described. Finally, the concept embodied by the IRS Competency-Based Learning Plan will be expanded to illustrate the use of competencies in succession planning.
Posted in :
