Abstract
This study aims to understand the competencies considered relevant in performance evaluation at Petrek (a workplace in Angola) and the emphasis placed on the competencies identified. The data were collected by using interviews (n = 24) and a questionnaire (n = 166) with Petrek’s leaders. The questionnaire data, which were analyzed through an exploratory factor analysis, served as a test of reliability of the findings obtained in the interviews. The qualitative and quantitative analyses of the findings indicate that collaboration, organization, delivery, and complexity are the competency clusters considered relevant at Petrek. The analysis of the dimensions identified demonstrates that 25% consists of technical competencies and 75% corresponds to behavioral competencies, indicating that employees at Petrek should invest in behavioral competencies. The overall results are discussed for future research and the practice of organizational management.
In all organizations, employees need to demonstrate competencies to succeed in their job. The knowledge that employees gain from schools, universities, or training centers usually focuses on disciplinary expertise (Jackson & Chapman, 2012), and it is expected to help in performing actions that contribute to the achievement of an organization’s business objectives. In other words, employees are expected to demonstrate technical competencies (Leme, 2007, 2012; Walsh & Linton, 2002). Individual engagements such as creativity, collaboration, and complexity are also deemed necessary for employees to succeed in their job. These individual commitments are known as nontechnical competencies (Jackson & Chapman, 2012), henceforth referred to as behavioral competencies. Technical and behavioral competencies are expected to make individuals successful in organizations, be they schools, universities, or workplaces (Decius & Schaper, 2017; Getha-Taylor, Blackmar, & Borry, 2016; Gómez-Arizaga, Conejeros-Solar, & Martin, 2016; Torres, 2012).
For employees to be successful, they need to learn and demonstrate the competencies expected. In different organizations, therefore, competencies ought to be identified. Some competencies such as creativity, intelligence, collaboration, and empathy are latent variables, that is, they are clusters of competency instances (Boyatzis, 2008; McClelland, 1973) and cannot be diagnosed directly (Field, 2009); however, they can be measured in terms of their dimensions by using research instruments such as interviews and questionnaires (Bryman, 2008; Field, 2009; Tharenou, Donohue, & Cooper, 2007; Van Thiel, 2014). In organizations, therefore, it is possible to identify competency dimensions and draw some conclusions about the predominant competencies.
Competencies need to be defined before they are identified in organizations. Generally, competencies are demarcated as capabilities that help organizations in achieving business and strategic objectives (Blašková, Blaško, & Kucharčíková, 2014; Boyatzis, 2008; Edwards-Schachter, García-Granero, Sánchez-Barrioluengo, Quesada-Pineda, & Amara, 2015; Jackson & Chapman, 2012; Teodorescu, 2006; Ulrich, Younger, & Blockbank, 2008). As will be clarified in the literature review section, this general definition, however, does not contain the concept of visibility, which is a necessary element for the employees’ performance to be perceived and evaluated.
Furthermore, competencies constitute clusters of capability instances, but the emphasis placed on different dimensions has received little attention in the literature. For example, Boyatzis (2008) identified three competency clusters that help employees in performing on their job demands, using individual attributes and coping with organizational environments. Similarly, Torres (2012) diagnosed dimensions such as technical and interpersonal skills, and Gómez-Arizaga et al. (2016) discerned subdimensions such as reflection, passion, and empathy as competency instances required of teachers. None of these studies, however, identified the extent to which leaders in the workplaces focus on different competency clusters in performance evaluation. The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to investigate the concept of competency from the perspective of performance evaluation. Specifically, the study aimed to understand the competencies considered relevant in performance evaluation at Petrek (a workplace in Angola) and the emphasis placed on different competency clusters.
In what follows, first, the contextual background (about Petrek) is explained and the research questions are presented. Then, a literature review, followed by the method and results, is presented. The article ends with the discussion, which includes the implications of the findings for future research and the practice of organizational management.
Contextual Background and Research Questions
Petrek (a fictitious name) is a subsidiary of a U.S. multinational organization, exploring oil and gas in Angola. In this organization, performance evaluation is used as an essential tool for employee compensation, training, and development. At the beginning of each year, employees establish performance agreements with their supervisors.
Agreements are reviewed throughout the year. In the middle of the year, employees meet with their leaders to evaluate compliance with the agreements and find solutions to some performances that may not be on track. The last evaluation begins with a meeting between employees and their supervisors and ends at the highest level, at which the leaders of several subgroups of a department meet to discuss the performance of all the employees. In this meeting, each leader has the possibility to express his or her perceptions about the performance of all the employees under evaluation. In this perspective, when working toward the achievement of business and strategic objectives, employees need to demonstrate competencies that are visible not only to their supervisors but also to all who can participate in their performance evaluation.
These multiple dimensions of performance evaluation justify the search for the competencies that are considered relevant by all the leaders of a particular department and a company in general. It is true that employees have performance agreements with their supervisors, but these agreements do not indicate competencies that leaders can consider when evaluating performance at the highest level. With a view to helping Petrek’s employees with their performance requirements, therefore, this study investigated the competencies considered relevant, as well as the emphasis placed on particular competency types. Specifically, this study answered the following two research questions.
Literature Review
This section begins by presenting the management model used in this study and then discusses the definitions of competencies, with a view to establishing the concept used in the present research. After that, it describes and evaluates some relevant studies conducted on competencies, to provide a rationale for the present research.
This study is conducted within a competency-based model (Decius & Schaper, 2017; Hazen, Bradley, Bell, In, & Byrd, 2017; Rocha, Passador, & Shinyashiki, 2017). According to Rocha et al. (2017), the competency-based model emerged as a reaction to the position-based model of management, in which employees’ performance was evaluated solely on the basis of the tasks required for their job. Because the current organizations face rapid changes and are characterized by competitive environments (Cameron & Green, 2012), the competency-based model is believed to help companies in having higher possibilities of success (Boyatzis, 1982; Rocha et al., 2017). That is, employees are not only required to perform their routine tasks, which require only operational capabilities but also expected to have dynamic capabilities, which help their organization in constantly configuring and reconfiguring resources (Hazen et al., 2017). The differences between the position- and competency-based management models are summarized in Table 1.
Comparison Between Position- and Competency-Based Management Models.
Source. Adapted from Rocha et al. (2017, pp. 234-235).
The competency-based model has been captured in several definitions of competencies in recent years. Boyatzis (2008) defines competencies as different but related capabilities organized around underlying intentions in various circumstances. From this definition, one example is an employee’s interaction to gain impacts (influence) in the view of another employee or leader, and another instance is an interaction aiming to show empathy. Similar definitions have been provided recently by Jackson and Chapman (2012), Blašková et al. (2014), and Edwards-Schachter et al. (2015). From Jackson and Chapman’s perspective, competencies are capabilities entailing attributes, skills, abilities, and values that help employees in operating successfully in the workplace. To Blašková et al., competencies constitute personal and professional skills or talents, as well as behavioral patterns, forming the basis of proficient performance. Edwards-Schachter et al. define competencies as repertoires of the skills utilized to perform specific tasks.
These definitions converge in the point that employees need capabilities to successfully execute their work. The term capabilities is interesting because it denotes competencies as relevant resources in achieving the business and strategic objectives of an organization (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Barney, 1991; Lindgren, Henfridsson, & Schultze, 2004; Ulrich et al., 2008). Nevertheless, a division has been made between operational and dynamic capabilities (Hazen et al., 2017). Whereas the operational capabilities refer to competencies required for routine tasks, dynamic capabilities denote competencies deemed necessary for constantly configuring and reconfiguring resources, with the view to achieving strategic objectives (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Barney, 1991; Hazen et al., 2017). Specifically, operational capabilities can be used to achieve business objectives and dynamic capabilities can be utilized to achieve strategic objectives, which lead to the attainment of competitive advantages (Hazen et al., 2017; Lindgren et al., 2004). From the definitions presented in the previous paragraph, however, it is not clear whether a reference is made to operational capabilities or dynamic capabilities, or both operational and dynamic capabilities.
Furthermore, stating that an employee is successful is evaluating the extent to which proficiency of a certain level has been achieved. However, none of the definitions presented in this section are stated with reference to performance evaluation. A promising definition of competencies has been offered by Gómez-Arizaga et al. (2016). According to these authors, competencies are “a cluster of resources that are mobilized and reorganized by the individual (knowledge, procedures, and attitudes) to respond in an appropriate manner to a situation [. . .]” (p. 2). From the perspective of performance evaluation, this definition is promising because it contains the term recognition. That is, competencies ought to be visible and recognized if they are to be appropriately assessed. In particular, this recognition may be more meaningful to employees if it is made by direct supervisors because hierarchical superiors are the arbiters of employees’ performance. Thus, on the basis of the concepts presented in the literature, this study defines competencies as a repertoire of operational and dynamic capabilities recognized by peers, and leaders in particular, as contributing to the achievement of business and strategic objectives.
In this study, such operational and dynamic capabilities constitute the knowledge gained from schools, universities, training centers, or workplaces, the ability to use this knowledge and the acceptable values and attitudes that help an organization in achieving its business and strategic objectives (Gómez-Arizaga et al., 2016). Whereas the employee’s knowledge and know-how are part of technical competencies, their values and attitudes will be considered as behavioral competencies (Leme, 2012). It is argued, in this study, that required capabilities or competencies (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Ulrich et al., 2008) should be identified if they are to be assessed appropriately in the context of Petrek.
In fact, the competencies deemed relevant in several organizations have been widely investigated to maximize the quality of performance (Blašková et al., 2014; Getha-Taylor et al., 2016; Gómez-Arizaga et al., 2016; Jackson & Chapman, 2012; Torres, 2012). To improve the quality of teaching, Blašková et al. (2014) analyzed the technical and behavioral competencies required of university teachers in the republic of Slovak. By administering a questionnaire survey with 686 students, Blašková et al. identified the competencies that teachers should have and the ones they should not have. The findings were used to create a competency model for university teachers. Similarly, Gómez-Arizaga et al. (2016) analyzed the competencies required of the instructors working with gifted students in Chile. In six focus-group interviews with students, instructors, and the staff members of the gifted students program, these researchers categorized the required competencies into “knowledge, teaching, and social-economic characteristics” (p. 1). Whereas the students emphasized the socio-affective characteristics, the staff members underscored the relevance of knowledge about content and pedagogy. The study highlighted the recognition and acknowledgment of the active members in the educational improvement process. In yet a similar study, Jackson and Chapman (2012) analyzed the behavioral competencies required of entry-level graduates in the United Kingdom and Australia and evaluated the extent to which the competencies are generic across these two countries and the disciplines involved. Behavioral competencies were examined by 291 business academics in the two countries to assess the relative importance of the competencies, and the result indicated very little difference. Thus, the result suggested that behavioral competencies are generic across countries that are culturally similar.
These studies provide great insights into the competencies required in a given organization. One particular insight is valuing the customer’s voice, which is considered paramount in the competency-based model. According to Leme (2012), every stakeholder should be engaged in determining the competencies required in an organization, and this view also resonates with Cook-Sather (2002) and (Gómez-Arizaga et al., 2016). Competencies constitute a broad category of professional and personal capabilities (Boyatzis, 2008; McClelland, 1973), and gaining insights into which competencies are valued across organizational contexts can be an advantage when dealing with performance evaluation.
However, the studies described in this section can be extended in the following three aspects. First, none of the studies identified were conducted in the Angolan context. Because organizational contexts vary from one to another (Gómez-Arizaga et al., 2016; McClelland, 1998), it might be relevant to understand how competencies are considered in the Angolan contexts.
Second, most studies were conducted with reference to university contexts. Although universities provide students with technical expertise required for workplaces (Blašková et al., 2014), organizational contexts may be characterized by some competencies that cannot be captured in the university contexts. Some organizations use competency models, in which every competency required is familiar to employees (Leme, 2012). Nevertheless, in some workplaces, such as Petrek, in which performance evaluation is multifaceted, research is still needed to identify competencies broadly considered relevant across departments.
Third, it was stated, earlier in this article, that competencies constitute different clusters of performance (Boyatzis, 2008; Gómez-Arizaga et al., 2016). However, none of the studies described in this section has focused on the extent to which different clusters of competencies are regarded in performance evaluation in workplaces. The present study, therefore, aimed to investigate the concept of competencies from the perspective of performance evaluation in the Angolan context. In particular, the study investigated the competencies considered relevant at Petrek and assessed the extent to which different competency clusters are emphasized in performance evaluation.
Method
Participants
Two groups of Petrek’s leaders participated in this study. The first group consisted of 24 leaders (19 males and 5 females), randomly selected from a population of 160 leaders, and participated in interviews, which aimed to gain initial insights into the competencies considered as relevant at Petrek. More clearly, the overall population was 450 leaders, but only 160 of this number were easily reachable for the interviews; that is, they were working in the Angolan Capital City, where the main office of Petrek is located, and the others were working in different locations of the country. The 160 leaders, therefore, served as the population for the interviews.
All of the 160 leaders could have been part of the first group, but the number was so high that it could have consumed considerable amount time from the researcher’s working hours (Argyrous, 2011); the researcher of this study, henceforth referred to as the author, works for Petrek. Thus, a decision was made to select a subset of only 25 participants for the first group; the actual participants in the first group were 24 leaders because one participant was dropped for the reason explained later in this section.
The sample of 24 participants, which is 15% of the interview population (N = 160), is too small to be representative. In fact, Van Thiel (2014) provides a rule of thumb of 20% of the entire population for a representative sample. Thus, the small percentage of the interview participants can be treated as a limitation. However, the first group was used only to obtain preliminary information of the competencies considered as relevant at Petrek, and it was used as a case; the significance of the random selection was aimed at guarding against the bias of who could be part of the interviews (Argyrous, 2011), and the limitation in terms of representativeness was compensated for in the second phase of data collection, which was the aim of the second group.
The second group was composed of 166 leaders, who were randomly selected from the overall population (450 leaders) and answered a questionnaire (see the appendix), which aimed to check the reliability of the competencies identified in the interviews. The 166 leaders were selected from the overall population because the questionnaire was submitted via email (the author did not have to spend time to go to the respondents’ work locations), as will be clarified further in this section. Compared with the percentage of the participants in the first group (15%), in the second group the percentage was higher (approximately 36%), and it gave some confidence concerning the representativeness of the entire population (Van Thiel, 2014), as is reported in the Results section of this article. All participants, in the first and second groups, were senior employees with more than 5 years in the leadership role, as noted from the database obtained from the Human Resources department of Petrek, and therefore they were ideal providers of insights into the competencies considered as relevant at Petrek.
Instruments and Procedures
Two instruments were used in this study, namely interviews and a questionnaire, and were administered by the author.
Interviews
Unstructured, qualitative interviews were used. In unstructured, qualitative interviews, attention is focused on the interviewees’ perspectives; the interviewees have the flexibility to express their views to the fullest through additional questions that the interviewer can pose, following the responses given (Bryman, 2008). Unstructured, qualitative interviews were therefore considered appropriate for describing the relevant competencies at Petrek.
Unstructured, qualitative interviews have their drawbacks, such as generating more information than necessary, and taking a long time (Bryman, 2008, 2015; Tharenou et al., 2007). Because workplace professionals have little time to deal with matters that are outside the scope of their work, only one main question was asked as follows:
What elements do you consider important for an employee’s success?
The author initially limited himself to listening and taking notes, as well as recording, where there was an agreement for that purpose. At the end of the interview, the author asked the following additional question: Are there any more elements that we could consider for an employee’s success? In sum, the main question and its extension facilitated the collection of data needed: The competencies considered relevant and the subsequent analysis to understand the extent to which different competency clusters are regarded in performance evaluation at Petrek.
In accordance with the recommendation by the Academy of Management Code of Ethics (Academy of Management, 2006), respondents were contacted by email and asked to volunteer. Of the 25 leaders who received the email, only one was not available and the interviews were conducted with 24 leaders.
Interviews were conducted in Portuguese (respondents’ official language) and were face-to-face, in the leaders’ offices. Each interview lasted about 8 min. The responses were recorded in a notebook, and where the interviewee allowed audio recording, the Galaxy 4s Active Phone was used. Subsequently, the responses recorded in audio were transcribed and translated into English for analysis. Both the answers recorded in the notebook and those in audio were shared with each interviewee before the analysis was performed, to be certain that everything was as stated.
Questionnaire
A questionnaire was constructed from the interviews and literature to assess the reliability of the competencies identified in the interviews. It was submitted to a sample of 166 participants (120 male and 46 female) randomly selected from the database of 450 leaders. These 166 leaders were those who have subordinates and who often participate in performance evaluation. Similar to the interviewees, the questionnaire respondents had more than 3 years of experience in their leadership role.
The questionnaire was composed of 26 items and the items were evaluated in terms of importance on a 5-point Likert-type scale (Jackson & Chapman, 2012; Walsh & Linton, 2002). The 5 points were as follows: 5 = extremely important, 4 = very important, 3 = important, 2 = slightly important, and 1) not important (see the appendix).
The questionnaire was submitted via intranet. The intranet was chosen because not all the Petrek employees have access to the Internet, but all of them have access to the intranet. Each participant received the form (see the appendix), which states the purpose of the research and the request for voluntary participation (Van Thiel, 2014). A questionnaire submitted by email can be incorporated or attached (Bryman, 2008, 2015). In the present study, the questionnaire was attached. The attachment in word document helped in inserting checkboxes, from which the respondents chose in indicating their responses.
The response time was set for 35 days to allow everyone to have access to the form. This time frame was necessary because some respondents work on a 28/28 schedule. That is, they work for 28 days and then go on time off for 28 days. As suggested by Van Thiel (2014), every 10 days a reminder was sent to the participants who had not yet responded.
The clarity of the questions was checked by sending the first five questionnaires and the responses were analyzed, as recommended by Van Thiel (2014). It was noted that, in less than 3 hours, the five participants responded as expected. The clarity of the questions, therefore, was evident and the questionnaire was sent to all participants with the hope that they would respond unambiguously.
Data Analysis
This study utilized qualitative and quantitative analyses. The qualitative analysis focused on the interview data and the quantitative approach was based on the questionnaire data. The interviews of each participant were inserted in the qualitative analysis software, NVivo Version 11 (Edhlund & McDougall, 2016) and were analyzed based on the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998). Specifically, the author read and reread the notes and transcripts of the interviews until almost memorizing all the details. This step helped in reflecting on the general meaning of the data provided by each interviewee. After that step, the author coded words and phrases from any data sets he noticed as significant in terms of technical and behavioral competencies. Then, the coded data units were compared with subsequent units to identify regularities. After open coding, axial coding was applied until the categories were related to their subcategories to form competency clusters (Boyatzis, 2008; Gómez-Arizaga et al., 2016).
The analysis of the questionnaire data was quantitative. The data were entered into a computer and were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), Version 24, using the exploratory factor analysis method (Field, 2009). The certainty of the factors extracted was checked with a parallel analysis performed through the following website: https://analytics.gonzaga.edu/parallelengine/ (Patil, Singh, Mishra, & Danovan, 2007). The exploratory factor analysis helped in verifying, in quantitative terms, the extent to which the competencies identified in the interviews were accurate and that reflected the ones used more broadly across Petrek in performance evaluation.
Results
This study aimed to investigate the competencies considered relevant at Petrek and the extent to which different competency clusters are emphasized in performance evaluation.
Competencies Considered Relevant at Petrek
The results indicate that the organization, collaboration, delivery, and complexity are the competencies considered relevant at Petrek. Each of these competencies manifests itself through several subdimensions, and such subdimensions are presented and analyzed next.
Organization
The dimension of organization encompasses the knowledge of the workplace and its processes, as well as the employees’ discipline. It also includes technical know-how such as computer handling and presentation skills. In the interview with Kamunda (note that all the names are fictitious), the knowledge of the organization manifests itself as follows: I think we have to look at our business plan. We must look at the reason for our business, the reason we exist. So, Number 1, I think it is the knowledge of the organization. To know first what we are, our short-, medium- and long-term viewpoints and then align the competencies based on this existing plan.
In this perspective, Kamunda clarifies that an employee needs to know the business and strategic objectives of the organization for success. This viewpoint was reinforced by Ndalu when he answered the main interview question (What elements do you consider important for an employee’s success?): In fact, the company has these tools. Our company has this culture of identifying procedures; this makes the employee use them for success.
As Ndalu and Kamunda indicate, therefore, the knowledge of the organization’s processes, mission, and vision is considered by Petrek leaders an essential element for success.
From several interviews, it was also observed that employees need to practice the acquired knowledge. In particular, Tchipito stated the following: Now you have to pay attention so you can learn the processes. And then you learn how to get the message across. Knowing how to pass the message means that during your learning, you have to know how to exercise. Knowing how to exercise is what I call knowing how to pass the message.
As suggested by Leme (2012), this perspective points to the importance of the synergy between knowledge and skills for an employee to be considered competent. The data about organization, therefore, indicates that Petrek’s employees need to combine knowledge with practice, to be successful.
Regarding the discipline, the first subdimension is prioritization. This perspective is initially transparent in the following discourse by Kamunda: For example, these tasks are important and these ones are critical. First, I have to work on what is critical, and then I will work on what is important. And that is the vision of our leaders. We also have to understand the vision of our leaders when evaluating performance.
At Petrek, discipline is considered fundamental to the success of employees, as indicated further by Ndalu: There are also things the employee has to have; he ought to have discipline, and everything is embodied in the Petrek’s processes.
The other point that deserves attention is the need to have some technical knowledge, as is evident in the following interaction between the author (A) and Kamunda (E):
You have to understand the technical skills.
Do you have any examples?
For example: analytical, computer, some presentation skills, communication skills and presentation.
Mmm
Ah yes, these will be the critical skills: analytical, technical, computer.
In short, in the dimension of organization, employees need to know the company’s business and strategic objectives and work in accordance with them. They also need to have some knowledge of the technology and its use for conveying information. For employees to demonstrate all of these competencies, they need discipline.
Collaboration
The second competency observed is collaboration. The first subdimension is the ability to know how to listen, as expressed by Cambuta: For me, the behavior also includes the ability to listen. Those who have the ability to listen will understand the instructions I give them.
Cambuta’s perspective is related to Tchipito’s, who considers the need to ask for feedback. Feedback is an element of collaboration because the employees count on the guidance of their peers to improve their performance. Tchipito has stated the following: Feedback is required. The employees must constantly solicit feedback to know where they are failing and where they need to further develop their skills.
The other component that emerges on collaboration is humility. Tchipito has continued as follows: “I think the first step, the simplest one, is the ability to learn. Whoever is humble can easily learn.”
The other subdimension about collaboration is communication. According to the interviewees, communication skills enable employees to work with people from different levels of the organization. Chingombe states the following: The employees need to have the ability to communicate, the ability to work with people of different levels in the organization and outside, and this gives them good knowledge of social culture.
The last subdimension of collaboration is flexibility. In a corporate environment, situations often arise in which an employee needs to leave the workplace to attend to family circumstances and often the employee is required to spend more time in the office than expected. These scenarios require flexibility between subordinates and their hierarchical superiors. On this subject, Kaviti’s interview reveals the following: Sometimes when an employee has needs during the working hour, the supervisor may waive, but if the supervisor asks the employee to work an additional 30 minutes out of business hours, the employee complains. There must be flexibility on the part of employees for them to be successful in performance.
In a nutshell, the second dimension suggests that a competent employee needs to know how to listen. The employee needs to receive feedback and give it when needed. The employee needs to be humble and flexible, which opens up to new knowledge.
Delivery
The third competency noted is delivery. Three subdimensions are identified, namely (a) punctuality, (b) innovation and level of analysis, and (c) interdependence. Regarding punctuality, the interviewees focus on the late fulfillment of tasks. For example, Chingombe states the following: It is also necessary to solve the problems in time; the employee does not need to be pressured but has to have a sense of urgency.
This perspective resonates with Lukenya in the following terms: It does not matter if he is a good professional; if he does not meet the deadlines, he does not help in achieving the company objectives.
This perspective, therefore, is in harmony with the idea that an employee only has competencies if his or her work brings results to the organization (Leme, 2012).
The second subdimension on delivery is innovation and the level of analysis. The results that bring innovation deserve more compensation than the ones that do not. In fact, Chingombe makes the following comment: In our evaluation criteria, in this company, we evaluate individuals of the same level towards others. We then see what they have done in terms of innovation, in terms of analysis, and in terms of suggestions. All these aspects are taken into account.
This comment is reinforced by Kamunda in the following terms: I doubt that here someone will say that from 1 to 10 he only performs 3. No. We all know at least how to make a quarter of the work we perform. That is why we are not 2-; we are 2. But the problem is with what proficiency we practice the skills. What kind of results we bring. So we are informing the staff that these are the critical skills.
In this statement, Kamunda mentions numbers that need clarification. The numbers from 1 to 10 correspond to a gradual scale that ranges from 1 to 10, 10 being the maximum. This scale is not used at Petrek. Numbers 2 and 2– are about the scale used at Petrek and the scale ranges from 3 to 1 (3, 2–, 2, 2+ and 1). The lowest performance is 3 and the highest is 1. Basically, all employees are 2 (the so-called benchmark), as Kamunda mentions. At the end of the evaluation, the employee can keep on the benchmark, achieve less or achieve more rank.
From Kamunda’s perspective, the type of results that an employee presents is crucial in determining performance. An employee, therefore, must produce results, but these results ought to be innovative to deserve higher remuneration.
The third subdimension of delivery is the independence of employees in executing tasks. Respondents indicate that employees who can work independently of supervision are more likely to add values to the organization.
Briefly, in the dimension of delivery, respondents suggest that, to succeed, an employee needs to be punctual, either on arrival at the workplace or on the performance of tasks. The employee also needs to bring innovations. Above all, the employee needs to have a level of independence, showing willingness to work and contribute to the achievement of business and strategic objectives.
Complexity
Three subdimensions are observed in the dimension of complexity, namely: the way of performance, the capacity to exceed, and the ability to find alternatives in solving problems. On performance, Lukenya stresses the following: If you ask someone to carry a table from the second floor to the first floor, the employee can do it in different ways. She can take it by dragging and scratching the floor, she can ask for help to carry the table without dragging on the floor and she can toss it and get to the first floor broken. But she was able to carry the table. How the employee performs the action counts for success.
This perspective resembles that of Kamunda in the following terms: “But now the problem here is with what proficiency we practice the skills.”
The manner in which an employee performs a task, therefore, is a differential component in the performance evaluation at Petrek.
Regarding the ability to exceed, it is considered that an employee should not be limited to what is stated in his or her plan of daily activities, as emphasized by Ndalu: “the employee needs to fulfill his tasks and try to exceed. He should not be complacent.”
This perspective has been expressed by several interviewees and shows that there is a great necessity for the employees to exceed if they are to be assessed more positively. In other words, employees ought to alternate between demonstrating operational capabilities and demonstrating dynamic capabilities (Hazen et al., 2017).
Regarding the ability to find alternatives, the perspective expressed by Lubungululu is striking: Despite the subjectivities that may exist among several supervisors in performance evaluation, what makes a difference, in general, is the commitment. If someone asks you for something and you say “yes, I will make the contact” and then he chases behind you asking “have you contacted?” That is bad. You need to give him every possible solution the quickest possible.
Respondents indicate that a competent employee needs to be proactive. If asked to bring a solution, the employee needs to anticipate some elements that may be useful, as mentioned by Lubungululu, as well as by many other interviewees whose perspectives have been captured through the notebook.
In sum, in complexity, leaders at Petrek suggest that an employee needs to raise the level with which he or she solves day-to-day issues. Although employees have several alternatives on how to perform tasks, they should always opt for the best way possible. The employees need to always exceed and bring alternatives when solving problems.
The analysis of the four competencies (organization, collaboration, delivery, and complexity) reveals that only one dimension (organization) denotes a technical competency. That is, employees need knowledge about the business and strategic objectives, as well as the technical skills that help them in executing their daily tasks. Of the total competencies identified (4), this dimension corresponds to 25%. The other three dimensions denote behavioral competencies (75%). The data of the present study, therefore, indicates that the Petrek’s leaders place greater emphasis on behavioral competencies.
Reliability Analysis
The competencies identified in the interviews were analyzed further, using a questionnaire containing 26 items, to check reliability. An exploratory factor analysis was performed, and an oblique rotation (Promax) was utilized. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measurement verified the adequacy of the sample analyzed (n = 166, KMO = .819), which, according to Field (2009), means good. All the KMO values for the individual items were larger than .6, and this value is above the acceptable limit of .5 (Field, 2009, p. 647). The Bartlett sphericity test, χ2(325) = 3092.701, p <.001, indicates that the relationship between items is significantly high for factor analysis (Table 2).
KMO and Bartlett’s Test (n = 166).
Note. KMO = Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin.
The initial analysis reveals four factors (see Table 3). The certainty of these factors has been checked by utilizing a parallel analysis through the website https://analytics.gonzaga.edu/parallelengine (Patil et al., 2007), and the result indicates Eigenvalues that are lower than those represented in Table 3; this result, therefore, justifies the retention of the four factors for the present study (Horn, 1965; O’Connor, 2000).
Total Variance Explained (n = 166).
After rotation, the items that group together in the factors show that Factor 1 is collaboration, Factor 2 is organization, Factor 3 is delivery, and Factor 4 is complexity. The reliability analysis of each factor, determined through Cronbach’s alpha, indicates a good internal consistency: Factor 1 has 7 items, α = .884; Factor 2 contains 7 items, α = .928; Factor 3 is composed of 6 items, α = .896; and Factor 4 contains 6 items, α = .859. Thus, the data indicate some reliability that organization, collaboration, delivery, and complexity are the competencies considered as relevant at Petrek in performance evaluation.
Discussion
Findings
This study aimed to investigate the competencies considered relevant at Petrek as well as the emphasis placed on each competency cluster identified in performance evaluation. Interviews with 24 Petrek’s leaders reveal that organization, collaboration, delivery, and complexity are the competencies considered relevant. These competencies were later investigated through a questionnaire sent to 166 leaders. In a 5-point Likert-type scale, leaders expressed their views on the importance of the subdimensions that constitute the dimensions identified in the interviews. The result indicates a consistency between the competencies identified in the interviews and the competencies that emerge from the questionnaire. The organization, collaboration, delivery, and complexity, therefore, show the competencies that Petrek leaders consider relevant in performance evaluation.
An analysis of the identified competencies helps in distinguishing between technical and behavioral competencies (Gómez-Arizaga et al., 2016; Leme, 2012). However, there is a great disparity between technical and behavioral competencies. That is, 75% of the dimensions identified are behavioral, indicating that the Petrek’s leaders place greater emphasis on behavioral competencies. This finding, therefore, demonstrates that employees at Petrek have a necessity to invest in the improvement of their behavioral competencies.
The greater emphasis on behavioral competencies indicates that the Petrek leaders are mindful of the constant changes and aim to maintain competitive advantages. In fact, behavioral competencies, in the form of dynamic capabilities, have been recognized as ways of coping with the current organizational changes (Cameron & Green, 2012; Hazen et al., 2017). Employees not only have to demonstrate operational capabilities but also have to show evidence of dynamic capabilities. With 75% of behavioral competencies identified in this study, Petrek is seen to place greater emphasis on being competitive and employees are required to contribute to such an endeavor.
Competencies have been considered latent variables (Boyatzis, 2008; Field, 2009; McClelland, 1973), and they are difficult to identify. However, in this study, it was possible to identify the ones that are considered most relevant at Petrek. One possible explanation for the result is that the interviews were informal in nature and the leaders were fully engaged in expressing their perspectives on competencies in performance evaluation. In fact, Bryman (2008, 2015) and Tharenou et al. (2007) pointed out that in unstructured interviews, the interviewer can obtain as much information as possible by asking additional questions based on respondents’ answers. Thus, the methodological approach probably has contributed significantly to obtaining the results concerning the competencies used in the performance evaluation at Petrek.
The other possible explanation is that the Petrek’s leaders are willing to cooperate. Knowing the purpose of the present study, leaders have probably seen an opportunity to explicitly provide assistance in revealing competencies that can help employees succeed. In fact, of the 25 chosen leaders for the interviews, only one was unavailable. Regarding the questionnaire submitted to the 166 leaders, 100% of the response rate was registered.
On the contrary, the highest percentage of the participants’ adherence is surprising. That is, the percentage of the response rate obtained in the questionnaire (100%) is not common when collecting data through email. This percentage becomes even more difficult when the questionnaire is attached, as was done in the present study. For example, Bryman (2008) reported a study comparing the response rates of the questionnaire sent by email and embedded and the questionnaire sent by email but attached. Whereas the response rate of the attached questionnaire was only 8%, the response rate of the embedded questionnaire was 37%. Thus, an alternative explanation for the results, which is a caveat, is probably that the massive participation was due to the author being part of the research context (Petrek).
Implications for Future Research
This study investigated the concept of competency with reference to Petrek, and similar studies were conducted in different contexts (Blašková et al., 2014; Gómez-Arizaga et al., 2016; Jackson & Chapman, 2012). Similar to the present research, previous studies investigated the competencies deemed relevant to particular contexts, with the view to creating a competency model that leads to the effective achievement of business and strategic objectives (Hazen et al., 2017; Ulrich et al., 2008). However, because contexts vary from one to another (Gómez-Arizaga et al., 2016; McClelland, 1998), this study, conducted in the Angolan context, constitutes a contribution to the previous research. In particular, this study was conducted with reference to a workplace context as opposed to the previous studies that were carried out with reference to university contexts (Blašková et al., 2014; Jackson & Chapman, 2012). A notable contribution of the present study consists of exploring the concept of competencies from the perspective of performance evaluation, focusing on the extent to which different competency clusters are emphasized.
According to Boyatzis (2008), a “competency is defined as a capability or ability. It is a set of related [emphasis added] but different sets of behavior organized around an underlying construct [. . .]” (p. 6). From this definition, it is possible to think of technical and behavioral competencies as related. In fact, one technical competency cluster has been identified in the present study although it corresponds to only 75%. However, neither the previous studies nor the present one have empirically investigated the extent to which such a correlation is observable in workplace contexts. Future studies, therefore, can conduct a correlational analysis to learn about the association between technical and behavioral competencies on performance evaluation.
This study used the competency-based model, which emerged as a reaction to the position-based model (Decius & Schaper, 2017; Rocha et al., 2017). It is widely believed that competency-based models provide superior results when it comes to achieving the business and strategic objectives of organizations (Leme, 2012; Rocha et al., 2017; Torres, 2012). However, no studies are identified in the literature that compare the results of organizations utilizing competency-based model and those that do not. Although the superiority of the competency-based model appears obvious from the perspective of coping with changes (Cameron & Green, 2012), it might be relevant to bring research evidence to establish such superiority in achieving business and strategic objectives. In fact, the competency-based model is a new approach, emerging around 1990s (Rocha et al., 2017), and organizations have survived for years by using the position-based management model.
During the research, in the present study, a tool (questionnaire) for measuring the competencies was developed. Although it was not the main objective of this study, the questionnaire can be reevaluated in future studies. It can be administered in other Angolan workplaces, and possibly in other countries, to assess the extent to which the competencies identified are generic across organizations in performance evaluation.
Implications for the Practice of Organizational Management
The results of the present study have implications for the practice of organizational management. At Petrek, trainers can create workshops in which employees from various departments can participate and maximize their knowledge of the competencies most widely considered relevant.
Regarding development, Petrek leaders can work with their employees to create plans to improve the four competencies identified. Improving these competencies can lead to employees being seen successful in both employee–supervisor evaluation and the evaluation that involves leaders of the other sections, that is, in the 360º evaluation.
Petrek is an organization that renews its staff by doing internal and external recruitment. The disclosure of the competencies identified in this study may add values to those who will eventually become part of Petrek; these new employees will come with an idea of what is expected in terms of behavioral competencies, and Petrek can find facilities in the integration process.
In conclusion, this study investigated the concept of competencies from the perspective of performance evaluation. It examined the competencies considered relevant in performance evaluation at Petrek and the emphasis placed on difference competency clusters. The findings indicate that whereas the organization, collaboration, delivery, and complexity are the competencies considered relevant at Petrek, most emphasis is placed on behavioral competencies (75%). This finding indicates that employees at Petrek should invest in behavioral competencies if they are to be seen more successful from the bottom to the highest leadership of the organization.
This research was conducted in only one institution to obtain an in-depth understanding of the competencies used in performance evaluation at Petrek (Tharenou et al., 2007; Van Thiel, 2014). By using only one institution, the research afforded the author enough time to conduct interviews to gain initial insights into the competencies used, and then have a broader understanding of the competencies in a larger scale survey, which aimed to triangulate the findings obtained from the interviews. Further research is needed in other Angolan workplaces, and probably out of the country, to gain additional insights into the competencies considered relevant in performance evaluation.
Footnotes
Appendix
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.