The aim of this article is to demonstrate the importance of local knowledge for the design of assessment tools intended to develop and enhance human resources in organizations. With respect to the standardization of assessment procedures brought about by the application of universal and global reference models, the article uses a case study to illustrate the potentialities and shortcomings of using a local approach. After a brief survey of the main theoretical frames of reference, the article describes how local knowledge was used at an assessment centre set up at a multinational operating in the maritime transport sector, with a view to developing the competences required by the company. The article describes and discusses the ways in which certain classic knowledge management situations were adapted at the assessment centre to local needs and conditions, and the main results obtained. Finally discussed are the practical and social implications, as well as the limitations and the transferability, of a local approach to assessment.
BourdieuP (1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
3.
BrownJSDuguidP (1991) Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science2(1): 40–57.
4.
BrownJSDuguidP (2001) Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science12(2): 198–213.
5.
BurgoyneJ (1993) The competence movement: Issues, stakeholders and prospects. Personnel Review22(6): 6–13.
6.
ChaiklinSLaveJ (1993) Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
ChiaRHoltR (2006) Strategies as practical coping: A Heideggerian perspective. Organization Studies27(5): 635–655.
8.
CookSBrownJ (1999) Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science10(4): 381–400.
9.
Dall’AlbaGSandbergJ (1996) Educating for competence in professional practice. Instructional Science24(6): 411–437.
10.
DeweyJ (1938) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
11.
EngeströmY (1987) Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
12.
ErautM (1995) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London: Falmer Press.
13.
GeigerD (2009) Revisiting the concept of practice: Toward an argumentative understanding of practicing. Management Learning40(2): 129–144.
14.
GherardiS (2000) Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization7(2): 211–223.
15.
GherardiS (2009a) Introduction: The critical power of the ‘practice lens’. Management Learning40(2): 115–128.
16.
GherardiS (2009b) Knowing and learning in practice-based studies: An introduction. Learning Organization16(5): 352–359.
17.
JacksonDJRStillmanJAEnglertP (2010) Task-based assessment centers: Empirical support for a systems model. International Journal of Selection and Assessment18(2): 141–154.
18.
JarzabkowskiP (2004) Strategy as practice: Recursive, adaptive and practices-in-use. Organization Studies25(4): 529–560.
19.
LanceCE (2008) Why assessment centers do not work the way they are supposed to. Industrial and Organizational Psychology1(1): 140–146.
20.
LaveJWengerE (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: University of Cambridge.
21.
Le DeistFDWintertonJ (2005) What is competence?Human Resource Development International8(1): 27–46.
22.
LievensFThorntonGC (2005) Assessment centers: Recent developments in practice and research. In: EversASmit-VoskuijlOAndersonN (eds) Handbook of Personnel Selection. Oxford: Blackwell, 243–264.
23.
LindgrenRStenmarkDLjungbergJ (2003) Rethinking competence systems for knowledge-based organizations. European Journal of Information Systems12(1): 18–29.
24.
NicoliniD (2009) Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies30(12): 1391–1418.
25.
PolanyiM (1967) The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
26.
RyleG (1949) The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson House.
27.
SackettPRLievensF (2008) Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology59: 419–450.
28.
SandbergJ (1994) Human Competence at Work: An Interpretive Perspective. Göteborg: Bas.
29.
SandbergJ (2000) Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal43(1): 9–25.
30.
SandbergJPinningtonAH (2009) Professional competence as ways of being: An existential ontological perspective. Journal of Management Studies46(7): 1138–1169.
31.
SchatzkiTKnorr-CetinaKSavignyE (2001) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.
32.
SchulzKP (2008) Shared knowledge and understandings in organizations: Its development and impact in organizational learning processes. Management Learning39(4): 457–473.
33.
SpencerLMSpencerSM (1993) Competency at Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
34.
St-OngeS. (2009) Managers’ motivation to evaluate subordinate performance. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal4(3): 273–293.
35.
StoofA. (2002) The boundary approach of competence: A constructivist aid for understanding and using the concept of competence. Human Resource Development Review1(3): 345–365.
36.
StreeckJMehusS (2003) Micro ethnography: The study of practices. In: SandersKFR (ed.) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 381–406.
37.
SuchmanL (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
TsoukasHVladimirouE (2001) What is organizational knowledge. Journal of Management Studies38(7): 973–993.
39.
YanowD (2004) Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries. British Journal of Management15(S1): 9–25.
40.
YanowD (2006) Talking about practices: On Julian Orr’s talking about machines. Organization Studies27(12): 1743–1756.
