역량이란 무엇인가? (Human Resource Development International, 2005)

역량이란 무엇인가? (Human Resource Development International, 2005)

What Is Competence?

Françoise Delamare Le Deist & Jonathan Winterton

competence 또는 competency 의 개념은 (competence는 일반적으로 functional area를 말하며, competency는 behavioral area를 말하나, 그 활용에 일관성은 별로 없다.) 경영전략 논문에서 1990년를 군림했다. 이 분야에서는 'core competence'를 조직의 핵심 리소스로 강조했으며, 경쟁력을 갖추기 위해서 개발해야 할 것이었다. Hamel과 Prahalad는 CC를 ‘조직의 집단 수준의 학습으로서, 특히 어떻게 다양한 생산기술을 조화롭게 하고 다양한 기술의 흐름을 통합하느냐에 대한 것' 이라 정의했다.

The concept of competence or competency (‘competence’ generally refers to functional areas and ‘competency’ to behavioural areas but usage is inconsistent, as shown below) dominated the management strategy literature of the 1990s, which emphasized ‘core competence’ as a key organizational resource that could be exploited to gain competitive advantage (e.g. Campbell and Sommers Luchs, 1997; Mitrani et al., 1992; Nadler and Tushman, 1999). Hamel and Prahalad (1994) defined core competence as ‘the collective learning in the organisation, especially how to co-ordinate diverse production skills and integrate multiple streams of technologies’ (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990: 82).

경영 전략가들이 competences를 강조하면서 '유니크'하고 '기업 특이적인' 것을 강조했는데 HRD 문헌에서는 대부분의 직업이나 특정 직군에서 보다 transferable한 generic competence를 개발하는 것에 관심을 둔 것은 역설적이다. 경영전략에서의 접근과 HRd에서의 접근 사이에는 기본적으로 긴장관계가 있다. 만약 '개별 기관에 독특하고 특이한' 역량에 집중하면 generic 역량에 대한 관점이 협소해진다. Thompson 등이 언급한 바와 같이 작은 회사에서 generic list에 너무 집착하면 현재의 성공을 이루게 한 것을 훼손시킬 수도 있다고 하였다.

It is paradoxical that, while management strategists were emphasizing compe- tences that are unique and firm-specific, the HRD literature was more concerned with developing highly transferable generic competences that are required for most jobs or particular occupations or job roles (Le´vy-Leboyer, 1996; Stasz, 1997). There is an inherent tension between the strategy and HRD approaches. If concentrating on core competences that are ‘distinctive and specific to each individual organisation’ is what gives competitive advantage (Bergenhenegouwen et al., 1996), the scope for generic competence frameworks is limited; as Thompson et al. (1996) note, rigid adherence to a generic list for managers of a small firm may undermine the very things that have led to its current success.

generic 역량 접근법에 있어서 역량을 적절히 분류하는 것은 교육과 훈련을 통합하고, 노동시장의 요구를 맞추면서 개개인의 진로 발전을 촉진시키는 것에 중요하다. 역량이 중요하다는 것은 그것의 의미도 중요하다는 것이다. 공동의 이해 없이는 통합/정렬/기동성 모두가 불가능 하기 때문이다. 그러나 역량의 중심적 역할에도 불구하고, 이 용어를 둘러싼 혼란이 엄청난데 VET와 HRD 의 시스템, 문화나 구조에 있어서 그 용례가 일관되지 않고 독특한 개념들이 융합하는 것을 보여준다.

In relation to this generic competence approach, the development of an appropriate typology of competence is important for integrating education and training, aligning both with the needs of the labour market and promoting mobility for individuals (vertical as in career progression, lateral as in movement between sectors and spatial as in geographically), especially for workers faced with job insecurity (van der Klink and Boon, 2002). If competence is important, it follows that its meaning is also important, since without a common understanding there is little chance of integration, alignment or mobility in practice. However, despite the central role of competence, there is considerable confusion surrounding the term, which reflects conflation of distinct concepts and inconsistent usage as much as differences in systems, structures and cultures of HRDand VET.

'역량'에 대한 개념 혼란

Competence as a ‘Fuzzy Concept’

'역량'이란 단어를 사용하는 대한 무수한 방식을 조화시킬수 있는 일관된 이론이나 정의란 사실상 불가능하다. Norris는 '역량에 대한 암묵적 이해가 개념을 명확히 정의하고 조작화할 필요를 앞질러버렸다. 현실이 이론적 혼란을 덮고 있으며, 겉으로는 단순해 보이는 것이 엄청나게 복잡해졌다'라고 했다. Boon과 van der Klink는 역량을 '혼란스러운 개념'이라고 묘사하긴 했으나 교육과 직무요건의 갭을 채우는 데 유용하다'라고 했다. 

There is such confusion and debate concerning the concept of ‘competence’ that it is impossible to identify or impute a coherent theory or to arrive at a definition capable of accommodating and reconciling all the different ways that the term is used. As Norris argued, ‘as tacit understandings of the word [competence] have been overtaken by the need to define precisely and [to] operationalize concepts, the practical has become shrouded in theoretical confusion and the apparently simple has become profoundly complicated’ (1991: 332). Describing competence as a ‘fuzzy concept’, Boon and van der Klink nonetheless acknowledge it as a ‘useful term, bridging the gap between education and job requirements’ (2002: 6).

다양한 문화적 맥락이 역량에 대한 이해에 영향을 주고, 이것은 특히 인종/성별/연령/계층 등을 포함하는 문화적 문헌에 의해서 정의될 때 특히 중요하다. 역량을 사회-문화적 실천의 용어로 정의하고자 하는 몇몇 시도도 있었다.

Different cultural contexts influence the understanding of competence (Cseh, 2003) and this is especially important in relation to the extent to which competence is defined by cultural literacy involving group identities such as race, gender, age and class (ascription), as opposed to demonstrable behaviour (achievement). As Jeris and Johnson note, the distinction is confounded by the role of ascription in providing access to education and career opportunities that enable achievement: ‘As much as the behavioral and skill-based performance assessments portend to be ‘‘neutral and objective,’’ the ascriptive elements remain present and troubling for today’s increasingly diverse workplaces’ (2004: 1104). There have been few attempts (notably Boon & van der Klink, 2002 in the USA; Eraut, 1994 in the UK) to situate competence in terms of socio-cultural practices, which as Jeris and Johnson note:

조직문화와 직업현장의 맥락을 무시하는 것에 대해서 같은 주장을 할 수 있다. 왜냐하면 generic competence는 서로 다른 지식 영역간 전이가능하지 않을 수 있기 때문이다. 

The same argument can be made in relation to the neglect of organizational culture and workplace context, since generic competences may not be transferable across different knowledge domains (Burgoyne, 1989; Canning, 1990; Kilcourse, 1994). 

• 찬: 매니저에게 요구되는 스킬은 여러 직종에 걸쳐서 일반화가능하다
  The Job Competences Survey developed by Dulewicz and Herbert (1992) demonstrated that the skill needs of managers are sufficiently generic to permit generalizations across the occupation. Despite differences in the managerial function in different contexts, 
• 찬: 직장 특이적 역량은 전체 필요한 역량의 30%밖에 되지 않는다.
  Dulewicz (1989) found that firm-specific competencies represented only 30 per cent of the total competencies basket, while the remaining 70 per cent were common to a wide range of organizations. 
• 반: 여러 조직에서 같은 용어를 사용한다고 해서, 어디서나 통용되는 경영 역량을 정의할 수 있는 것은 아니다.
  However, Antonacopoulou and FitzGerald warn that the ‘fact that many organisations use the same terminology to describe a set of managerial characteristics is not a strong argument for claiming that it is possible to identify a set of universal management competencies’ (1996: 31). 
• 반: 합리주의적 접근이 역량을 추상적이고, 협소하고, 과도하게 단순화시켜서 복잡한 역량을 적절히 반영하지 못한다.
  Such critics claim that rationalist approaches create abstract, narrow and over- simplified descriptions of competence that fail adequately to reflect the complexity of competence in work performance (Attewell, 1990; Norris, 1991; Sandberg, 1994).

역량은 개개인이 지니는 것이라는 점에서 사회나 직무 특이적 맥락과 독립적이라고 생각할 수도 있지만, 여전히 '기술 수준'이란 것은 한 개인이 아니라 그 맥락이 가지는 특징이다. 사람들은 맥락과 동떨어져서 역량을 가질 수 없다. 현상학적 관점에서의 구성주의적 그리고 해석적 접근은 역량을 그것이 적용되는 맥락의 함수로 이해한다. ‘worker and work form one entity through lived experience of work’ 

Since competences are centred on the individual, they are viewed as independent of the social and task-specific context in which performance occurs, yet ‘skill level is a characteristic not only of a person but also of a context. People do not have competences independent of context’ (Fischer et al., 1993: 113). Constructivist andinterpretative approaches derived from phenomenology view competence as afunction of the context in which it is applied, where ‘worker and work form oneentity through lived experience of work’ (Sandberg, 2000: 50). Competence is constituted by the meaning that the work has for the worker in their experience(Stoof et al., 2002; Velde, 1999).

미국식 접근법: 행동주의적 접근

The Behavioural Approach: The US Tradition

많은 미국의 문헌들은 직무와 관련된 역량을 다루고 있으며, 행동적 역량과의 관계속에 있다. 예컨대 리더십 역량 모델에서는 조직/절차/개인 수준에서의 수행능력과 관련된 여섯개의 역량 영역을 정의하였다. 이 영역들은 더 세부적으로 나눠진다.

Much of the recent US literature focuses on job-related (functional) competences (Aragon and Johnson, 2002; Boon and van der Klink, 2002), often with associated underpinning behavioural competencies. For example, in the influential leadership competency model developed by Holton and Lynham (2000), six ‘competency domains’ are identified relating to performance at the organization, process and individual levels. These domains are broken down into ‘competency groups’ and then further divided into ‘sub-competencies’.

행동적 역량 접근법이 David McClelland and Hay-McBer 에 의해서 많이 발전했지만, 직무와 관련된 기능적 기술과 지식을 강조하는 역량에 대한 보다 넓은 개념이 힘을 얻고 있다.

While the behavioural competency approach promoted most notably by David McClelland and Hay-McBer is still much in evidence in the US, a broader conception of competence, which emphasizes also job-related functional skills and underpinning knowledge, is clearly gaining ground.

영국식 접근법: 기능적 접근

The Functional Approach: The UK Tradition

영국 정부는 1980년대부터 VET에 전국적으로 역량바탕접근을 도입했다. 

Recognizing endemic deficiencies of skill formation in the UK, governments during the 1980s introduced a competence-based approach to VET in order to establish a nation-wide unified system of work-based qualifications. This VET reform was driven by the adoption of a competence-based qualifications framework, which subsequently influenced similar developments in other countries in the Common- wealth and the European Union.

Hodkinson and Issitt 는 보다 전인적 접근법을 주장했다. 지식과 이해와 가치와 술기를 통합하였다. 유사하게 Cheetham and Chivers 는 다섯 개의 상호 연결된 역량을 통해서 종합적 모델을 만들었다.

Hodkinson and Issitt (1995: 149) argued for a more holistic approach to competence in the caring professions, integrating knowledge, understanding, values and skills that ‘reside within the person who is the practitioner.’ Similarly, Cheetham and Chivers (1996, 1998) claimed to develop a holistic model of professional competence, comprising five sets of inter-connected competences and competencies. Their competence framework comprises five dimensions:

• 인지적 역량 Cognitive competence, including underpinning theory and concepts, as well as informal tacit knowledge gained experientially. Knowledge (know-that), under- pinned by understanding (know-why), is distinguished from competence. 
• 기능적 역량 Functional competences (skills or know-how), those things that ‘a person who works in a given occupational area should be able to do. . .[and] able to demonstrate’. 
• 개인적 역량 Personal competency (behavioural competencies, ‘know how to behave’), defined as a ‘relatively enduring characteristic of a person causally related to effective or superior performance in a job’. 
• 윤리적 역량 Ethical competencies, defined as ‘the possession of appropriate personal and professional values and the ability to make sound judgements based upon these in work-related situations’. 
• 메타 역량 Meta-competencies, concerned with the ability to cope with uncertainty, as well as with learning and reflection.

프랑스, 독일, 오스트리아: 다차원적 총체적 접근

A Multi-dimensional and Holistic Approach: France, Germany and Austria

In mainland Europe, two other approaches are evident, exemplified by France and Germany, which each adopted competence in their approaches to HRD more recently. Most other European countries have followed the UK, French or German approaches (Winterton et al., 2005), so confining the discussion to these nonetheless permits a wider generalization of the issues.

역량의 유형 분류

Towards a Typology of Competence

이 리뷰에서는 단일 차원적 역량 프레임워크는 부적절하다고 주장한다.

This review has argued that one-dimensional frameworks of competence are inadequate and are giving way to multi-dimensional frameworks.

기능적, 인지적 역량은 점차 미국의 행동적 역량에 덧붙여지고 있으며, 영국의 인지적, 행동적 역량은 기능적 역량 모델에 덧붙여지고 있다. 프랑스, 독일, 오스트리아는 보다 총체적인 프레임워크로부터 시작하여 지식/술기/행동을 역량의 영역으로 보았다.

Functional and cognitive competences are increasing being added to the behavioural competencies in the USA, while in the UK cognitive and behavioural competences are being added to the occupational functional competence model. France, Germany and Austria,entering the arena more recently, appear to be adopting from the outset a moreholistic framework, considering knowledge, skills and behaviours as dimensions of competence, as have most of the other countries that have adopted competence-based vocational training. 

지식/술기/사회적 역량을 아우르는 전체론적 유형화가 유용하다. 

From this analysis, we argue that a holistic typology is useful in understanding the combination of knowledge, skills and social competences that are necessary for particular occupations.

한 직업에서 요구하는 역량은 conceptual하면서 operational 하다. 한 개인과 연관된 역량도 역시 conceptual하면서 operational하다. 

The competences required of an occupation include both 

• conceptual (cognitive, knowledge and understanding) and 
• operational (functional,psycho-motor and applied skill) competences. 

The competences more associated with individual effectiveness are also both 

• conceptual (meta-competence, including learning to learn) and 
• operational (social competence, including behaviours and attitudes)

처음의 세 가지 영역은 상당히 universal하며 명백히 전통적 KSA 혹은 프랑스적 접근과 비슷하다. 

The first three dimensions, cognitive, functional and social competences, are fairly universal and are clearly consistent with the French approach (savoir, savoir faire,savoir eˆtre) as well as the longstanding KSA (knowledge, skills and attitudes) of the training profession. Thus, 

• knowledge (and understanding) is captured by cognitive competence, 
• skills are captured by functional competence and 
• ‘competencies’(behavioural and attitudinal) are captured by social competence

메타-역량은 처음의 셋과 다른데, 다른 역량 획득을 촉진하는 것과 관련되어있기 때문이다.

Meta-competence is rather different from the first three dimensions since it is concerned with facilitating the acquisition of the other substantive competences.

전체론적 역량모델은 정사면체로 묘사될 수 있다.

The holistic competence model is perhaps better represented as a tetrahedron,reflecting the unity of competence and the difficulty of separating cognitive,functional and social dimensions in practice. In Figure 2, the holistic competence model is represented as a tetrahedron in plan view. Meta-competence is presented as an over-arching input that facilitates the acquisition of output competences at the base of the tetrahedron

Conclusion

The challenge is to develop a consistent and coherent typology of competence in a context where even within countries there is apparent diversity in the approaches.

Each of the four dominant approaches has particular strengths. 

• The traditional American approach has demonstrated the importance of individual characteristics and the use of behavioural competence as a means of developing superior performance. 
• The mainstream UK approach has shown the value of occupationally defined standards of functional competence and their applicability to the workplace.
• The approach adopted in France and Germany demonstrates the potential of a multi-dimensional and more analytical concept of competence. 

역량에 대한 국가적 접근법 있어서 통합의 움직임이 있다.

Moreover, there are signs of convergence in national approaches to competence, not only within Europe but also between the European and American models, suggesting that there is value

in a multi-dimensional approach for developing a more global understanding of the term.

---

Reviews

What Is Competence?

Full text HTML

PDF

Full access

DOI:

10.1080/1367886042000338227

Françoise Delamare Le Deist & Jonathan Winterton

pages 27-46

Publishing models and article dates explained

• Published online: 17 Feb 2007

Alert me

Abstract

This paper explores the definitions and usage of competence, especially in the context of training and development initiatives in the USA, UK, France and Germany, seeking to clarify the concept by incorporating knowledge, skills and competences within a holistic competence typology. One-dimensional frameworks of competence are inadequate and are giving way to multi-dimensional frameworks. Functional and cognitive competences are increasingly being added to behavioural competencies in the USA, while in the UK cognitive and behavioural competences are being added to the occupational functional competence model. France, Germany, and Austria entering the arena more recently, adopted from the outset more holistic, but different, approaches. After comparing these approaches, we argue that a holistic framework is useful in identifying the combination of competences that are necessary for particular occupations and to promote labour mobility.

• Full text HTML
• PDF

Keywords

• Knowledge, 
• skills, 
• competence, 
• competency