-
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001Wooten, Elden / A
COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE
COGENERATING A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE: A MODEL ANDSOME
LESSONS FROM EXPERIENCE
Kevin C. WootenMax EldenUniversity of HoustonClear Lake
The past several decades have witnessed a remarkable growth in
thehuman resource profession. As social and organizational
transformationshave occurred, so too has the increased importance
of human resource man-agement (HRM) (Cascio, 1998; DeCenzo, 1995;
Sherman, Bohlander, &Snell, 1996). Corporate restructuring,
global competition, shifts in theworkforce, industrial democracy,
and constant revisions in employment lawhave propelled human
resource management as one of the pivotal areas fororganizational
success. Along with HRMs new strategic role (Huselid,1995; Martell
& Carroll, 1995; Ulrich, Yeung, Brockbank, & Lake,
1994;Wright & McMahan, 1992) come new role demands and requests
on humanresources (HR) practitioners and consultants (Baill, 1999;
Dyer, 1999;Hunter, 1999; Losy, 1999).
As the field of HRM has generally evolved, so have the concerns
of pro-fessionalism (Wiley, 1995). As noted by Wilhelm (1990), this
increasedfocus on professionalism is well represented by the HRM
professionaldegrees offered by many leading colleges and
universities (Adler & Lawler,1999; Brockbank, Ulrich, &
Beatty, 1999; Heneman, 1999; Kaufman, 1999)as well as training and
certification by professional associations such as theAmerican
Society for Training and Development (ASTD), Society of
HumanResource Management (SHRM), Human Resource Planning Society
(HRPS),
231
Authors Note: Correspondence should be addressed to Kevin C.
Wooten, University of HoustonClear Lake, School of Business and
Public Administration, 2700 Bay Area Blvd., Houston, TX77058;
phone: (281) 283-3237; e-mail: [email protected] OF
MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 25 No. 2, April 2001 231-257 2001 Sage
Publications, Inc.
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
and the American Compensation Association (ACA), to name a
few.Although there is certainly by no means uniformity in formal
degree pro-grams, there is increased clarity as to certification
standards for professionals(Foreman & Cohen, 1999). Whereas
certification clearly enhances the pro-fessionalism of HRM
practice, little substantial attention has been given tothe
development of university curriculum to prepare the next generation
ofHRM leaders (Kaufman, 1999).
One reason for the enhancement of professional education and
certifica-tion has been the identification of key competencies,
experience, and levelsof knowledge required by todays HRM
practitioners (Ulrich, Brockbank, &Yeung, 1989). Whereas the
practice areas (e.g., staffing, planning, training,compensation,
etc.) of HRM have become increasingly clear, one area thathas not
been adequately addressed is that of educational curriculum to
pre-pare HRM professionals (Barber, 1999; Barksdale, 1998; Wiley,
1995).Richard Boyatzis, who has championed competency-based
professional edu-cation, observed that for the human resource
professional there are a numberof different sources of development:
One of them is school. Here is a placewhere, unfortunately, because
most academic programs are not really gearedtowards developing the
whole person, they are more like intellectualbaby-sitting functions
(Yeung, 1996, p. 126). That is to say, the field ofhuman resource
management is in great need of developing educational stan-dards
and processes similar to programs in engineering, accounting,
andaccredited MBA programs. Again, the need to educate
professionals in newand higher level skills is clear. As we shall
see, what the new skill sets andprofessional competencies are in
general is also becoming clear. Whatremains unclear and as yet
unaddressed even in the most recent literature ishow an HR program
can develop a competency-based curriculum thatresponds to the
specific, local needs of the immediate customers of
thatprogram.
The primary purpose of this article is, therefore, to describe
and assess theprocess by which we have moved from a traditional HR
functions-based pro-gram to a new competency-based paradigm.
Although we will describe thecontent of our new HR competencies, we
will focus primarily on the organi-zation development process by
which we developed the competencies.Because we aimed at a set of
competencies that would be strongly needed bylocal HR employers,
their active participation was a key element in our devel-opment
process, and we used an approach, cogenerative learning (Elden
&Levin, 1991), that would maximize their influence. We will
assess how wellour organizational development (OD) model based on
this approach hasworked and what lessons can be learned from
implementing it in a graduateHRM program.
232 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Essentially, we describe the design and experiences from an
organizationdevelopment journey that is still in process. Other HRM
programs may findthe process and its product to be relevant where
they desire to reinvent theirprograms to adapt to new demands for
increased professionalism and compe-tencies as needed in their
local markets. Although we focus on a particularmodel of
organization development, we are not arguing that the content
ofspecific competencies is unimportant. We concentrate on
development pro-cesses because there is less available existing
literature on the how comparedto the what in developing
competency-based HR curricula.
Because we found it useful as a point of departure in our own
organizationdevelopment project for developing our HR degree
program project, webegin by summarizing recent literature on what
might be called the compe-tency movement in professional education
and trainingespecially with ref-erence to HRM. Next, we describe a
recent effort involving a competency-based redesign of a graduate
HRM program. Of particular interest is theapplication of a
cogenerative learning process involving the use of a groupdecision
support technology with numerous stakeholders to determine
cur-riculum competencies, program vision and mission, and program
tracks andspecializations. Third, we discuss the current status of
implementation, les-sons learned, and the implications for other
HRM programs and the field ingeneral.
The Competency Movement in HRM
Clearly, competency models and competency-based HRM systems are
atthe forefront of HRM practice (Kochanski, 1996). Review of
several majorHRM texts (Byars & Rue, 1997; Cascio, 1998;
Dressler, 1994; Fisher,Schoenfeldt, & Shaw, 1998; French, 1998;
Ivancevich, 1998; Mathis &Jackson, 1997; Milkovich &
Boudreau, 1998; Noe, Hollenback, Gerhardt, &Wright, 1997) well
illustrates the shift from personnel specialist to HRMprofessional.
One of the foremost reasons for this shift is the
ever-increasingstrategic value of HRM and the competencies that are
required. This, ofcourse, comes at a time when the very nature of
the HRM field is being recon-sidered and reengineered (Spencer,
1995). Dyer (1999) summarized the newcompetencies for HR managers
as involving the ability to be a business part-ner, technical HR
knowledge, organizational development skills, and theability to
facilitate change management.
The competency movement in HRM has generally followed the
efforts toidentify key competencies for general management. Seminal
efforts byBoyatzis (1982), Dubois (1993), and Spencer and Spencer
(1993) have illus-
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 233
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
roxanamirteaHighlight
roxanamirteaHighlight
-
trated empirically sound approaches for differentiating levels
of employeeperformance. Competency models for general management
have numerousimplications for the practice of HRM, specifically in
the areas of selection,performance appraisal, job analysis,
succession planning, and the like. Use ofcompetency models can be
used to create integrated HRM systems that areclearly directed
toward successful performance. Such an approach has alsobeen used
in education. Boyatzis, Cowen, and Kolb (1995) recently
illus-trated how a competency-based approach was used to redesign
the MBA pro-gram at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case
Western ReserveUniversity. The effort was designed specifically to
reflect the added value ofmultiple stakeholders and focus on
learning outcomes.
A good bit of evidence now exists that private industry has used
the com-petency process to change how HRM is practiced. Morris
(1996) illustratedhow a competency model and developmental sequence
successfully restruc-tured an HR function for a telecommunications
organization. Kesler (1995)also demonstrated the use of HRM
competencies in redesigning roles andHRM practices in a
multinational corporation. Of particular importance inthis case was
the utilization of a partnership with line managers in the
organi-zation. Kochanski and Rose (1996) also chronicled the use of
competenciesin the redesign of HRM practices and provided
successful evidence from twomultinational organizations.
At least three broad-based general competency models are now
availablefor HRM practitioners. These three competency models are
shown in Table 1.One of the first models produced was by the School
of Business at the Univer-sity of Michigan. The components of this
model are well documented (Ulrichet al., 1989). In this model,
there are three broad components composed ofbusiness capabilities,
managing change, and HR practices. The McBer Com-pany also
developed a competency model for HRM managers that is alsocomposed
of three general areas. As noted by Yeung (1996), these involve
theareas of goal and action management, interpersonal and people
management,and analytical reasoning.
Perhaps the most comprehensive competency model for HRM
practitio-ners is that developed by Lawson (1990). The results of
this study produced asenior-level competency model depicting the
characteristics of highly effec-tive HRM leaders. This model was
intended to define and describe prescrip-tively the competencies
and related behaviors required by superior perform-ers from both
the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and the HR
practitionersperspective (Lawson & Limbrick, 1996, p. 68). As
noted in Table 1, thismodel consists of five competency clusters.
These are goal and action man-agement, functional and
organizational leadership, influence management,business knowledge,
and HR technical proficiency.
234 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
roxanamirteaHighlight
roxanamirteaHighlight
roxanamirteaHighlight
-
Clearly, competency models and competency-based HRM systems are
atthe forefront of HRM practice. Although private industry has made
use of thisapproach, the trend has not been as widespread in
educational institutionspreparing HRM professionals. It is time for
colleges and universities to pre-
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 235
TABLE 1Comparison of Competencies for Human Resource
Management
Study Competencies
University of Michigan (Ulrich,Brockbank, & Yeung, 1989)
Business capabilities: financial, strategic,
andtechnologicalManaging change processes: diagnosis, influ-ence,
contracting, intervention, problem solving,relationships, and
communicationHR: staffing, development, appraisal,
rewards,organization, planning, and communication
McBer and Company(Yeung, 1996)
Goal and action management abilities: efficiencyorientation,
planning, initiative or efficacy, atten-tion to detail,
self-control, and flexibilityInterpersonal people management:
empathy,persuasiveness, networking, negotiating, self-confidence,
group management or team leader-ship, developing others, and oral
communicationsAnalytical reasoning: systems thinking,
patternrecognition, social objectivity, and written
com-munications
Society for Human ResourceManagement (Lawson, 1990)
Goal and action management abilities: effectiveorientation,
proactivity, concern with impact, anddecisivenessFunctional and
organizational leadership: devel-oping others, group management
skills, functionalmarketing, leading through vision, and
integrityInfluence management: perceptual
objectivity,coalition/network building, communication pro-cess
skills, and negotiation skillsBusiness knowledge: general
management skills,value-added perspective, industry knowledge,
or-ganizational awareness, and strategic focusHR technology
proficiency: HR planning, selec-tion, and placement; training and
development;employee and labor relations; compensation andbenefits;
health, safety, and security; personnelresearch; organizational
development; and HRinformation systems
NOTE: HR = human resources.
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
roxanamirteaHighlight
-
pare the next generation of HRM professionals in the same
fashion thathighly skilled HRM professionals are changing their own
organizations,namely, through identification and development of
critical competencies.The question remains: How?
What we get from this brief review of recent literature is a
general set ofalternative but somewhat generic categories that help
to identify what com-petency groupings or clusters of competencies
can be at least a point of depar-ture for developing a specific HR
competency-based degree program. We cansee that there is some
consensus on the need for basic categories such as HRfunctional
skills, business literacy, and interpersonal or leadership
competen-cies. But different institutions have different ways of
combining and differentemphasis on different skill sets depending,
no doubt, on a variety of localcontingencies (Dyer, 1999). Thus, it
seems safe to conclude that there is nooverall, specific model of
HR competencies for all HR degree programs at alluniversities. On
one hand, the existing literature is helpful. We do not have
toreinvent the wheel. On the other hand, it is of limited use. We
cannot just use acookie-cutter approach. This leads to the central
issue we facedhow can wedetermine the specific competencies that
would be appropriate and distinc-tive for reinventing out HRM
program? The existing literature provides onlygeneral
guidelines.
A Model for Competency-Based CurriculumRedesign and How It
Worked
By the mid-1990s, the HRM faculty at the University of
HoustonClearLake (UHCL) School of Business and Public
Administration (SBPA) real-ized that the graduate HRM program
needed rethinking. The profession waschanging, in some ways
dramatically. New demands were emerging as clearfeedback from the
literature, but more important, from program alumni andlocal
employees. Faculty interests were shifting. And not the least
important,as the dean pointed out, enrollments were decreasing. We
experienced a clearneed to change.
In this section, we first set the scene with a fuller
description of our HRprogram. Then we introduce our model for
shifting it to become competencybased and discuss the prework we
did in launching our development project.Finally, we concentrate on
describing exactly what we did in implementingour model.
UHCL is an upper division undergraduate and graduate school
serving alarge urban petrochemical, health care, and aerospace
community. Indeed,NASAJohnson Space Center, with its predominantly
scientific and techni-
236 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
cal high-tech workforce of more than 12,000 employees (including
contrac-tors)is virtually wall to wall with UHCL. The SBPA graduate
programoffers a masters in HRM and maintains a student body of
approximately 55to 60 graduate HRM students. Most of these students
are part-time eveningstudents with full-time jobs and often well
along in their careers (average agein the mid-30s).
The HRM faculty first met in 1997 to begin developing a strategy
for rede-signing the graduate program. We agreed that fundamental
change wasneeded to meet the emerging challenges of the information
age (Dolence &Norris, 1995). Together, we made three important
policy decisions. First, aproduct champion was identified (the
first author) to design and lead theHRM reinvention project. The
rest of the faculty members committed to sup-port the project. This
was obviously not a one-person job. Second, the projectwould not
only be highly participative regarding faculty members but
wouldactively involve other stakeholders as much as possible. We
wanted tocogenerate the new program in partnership with our
students and employerrepresentatives. This in itself was a
significant decision. At the time, we hadno formal, systematic
means of gathering stakeholder input. Third, weagreed that the new
program would be based on graduates being able todevelop specific
competencies. Finally, we agreed that a set of guiding prin-ciples
or vision statement was needed. In retrospect, our policy
decisionssomewhat resembled those developed in the redesign of the
WeatherheadSchool of Management MBA program (Boyatzis et al., 1995)
in relying onstakeholders to construct a new program vision,
mission, and curriculummodel and in focusing on learning outcomes
or exit competencies to realignthe curriculum. Significantly in
both efforts, the curriculum change process,although highly
participative regarding stakeholders, would be led and ownedby the
faculty members servicing the program.
Our model of change differed from the Weatherhead approach in
relyingon a dialogic process in which stakeholders (particularly
external ones) werefull partners in cocreating new categories of
meaning. In the standard text-book process of managing change,
stakeholder involvement is critical forsanctioning the process and
setting broad guidelines, often in the form of avision. The
researchers or consultant then gathers and analyzes data on
thecurrent state of the system, which generates the basis for an
action plan. Theaction is conceived and unfolds within the
epistemological context of the con-sultant, according to his or her
sense-making framework or theory of thesituation.
In our approach, we tried to share the work of epistemology
constructing anew situational or local theory (for more details,
see Bartunek, 1992; Elden,1981, 1983) through a cogenerative
process (Elden & Levin, 1991). The idea
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 237
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
is that each actor in a change process has an implicit framework
or local the-ory for making sense out of any given situation. What
is needed is anepistemologically egalitarian process such as
dialogue (see Isaacs, 1999, fora recent overview on the art of
thinking together) for cogenerating a thirdshared framework as the
basis for joint action. In our case, for example,dialogues with
stakeholder representatives serving on an advisory boardwere
essential in cogenerating competencies (see the following). The
compe-tencies we came up with were not predictable from the local
theory of any oneset of actors. Stakeholders did more than just
creative work to sanction a pro-cess or a vision. They were full
partners in cocreating competencies.
The four phases illustrated in Figure 1 span the years of 1997
to present.Phase 1, identifying stakeholder and resources, occurred
during 1997. Phase2, data collection and analysis, occurred during
1997 and 1998. Phase 3, cur-ricular revision and rollout, spanned
the years of 1998 to fall of 2000. Phase 4,assessment and
evaluation, will be implemented during the fall of 2000 andspring
of 2001.
PHASE 1: IDENTIFYINGSTAKEHOLDERS AND RESOURCES
Six specific steps were involved in Phase 1. First, we created
the advisoryboard for the HRM Program. Two senior HR leaders were
selected from localindustries along with a senior partner from an
international consulting firmand a senior manager from a Fortune
100 organization. The next stepinvolved the use of the advisory
board in the identification of potential HRMexperts. The HRM
leaders assembled a potential list of knowledgeable HRMmanagers
from the region, specifically identifying potential experts
acrossrepresentative industries serviced by the university (e.g.,
health care, aero-space, petrochemical, and banking). The senior
partner from the consultingfirm assembled a list of senior partners
and officers in regional HR consultingfirms. The senior manager
from industry assembled a pool of senior manag-ers and officers
from prominent local employers, with the emphasis placedon creating
a pool of well-experienced senior managers. Also as a part of
thisstep, we polled faculty members and others to establish a pool
of HRMalumni as well as current students who could participate.
The third step of Phase 1 involved the identification of
existing compe-tency models. Due to the time and expense of a
full-blown competency study,it was decided to use the findings of
previous studies and create a generalizedmodel as a point of
departure for our reengineering effort. Although thismethod has
several downsides (Mansfield, 1996), the resources needed tobuild a
completely unique competency model for the many stakeholders of
238 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
the program simply were not available. We used three competency
models(illustrated in Table 1) along with the Body of Content
Taxonomy developedby the Society for Human Resource Management
(SHRM) (1996) for certifi-cation exams, which specifies the areas
of knowledge that are consideredimportant in the HRM field.
The fourth step, therefore, was to develop a preliminary working
set ofoutcome competencies. In keeping with the emerging
literature, we identi-fied three sets of competencies. First, we
used the basic HR functional areasfrom the Body of Content Taxonomy
(SHRM, 1996), including staffing andselection, compensation and
benefits, employee and labor relations, trainingand development,
health and safety, and qualitative and quantitative skills.
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 239
Figure 1: Phases and Steps of the ProjectNOTE: SHRM = Society
for Human Resource Management.
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
We added information technology and evaluation methodology.
Next, usingthe results from the University of Michigan study, we
established a secondcomponent, general business/management. It
includes skills in the areas ofbusiness strategy, budget and
finance, employee involvement or motivation,leadership,
international management, communications, group/team pro-cesses,
and results and performance management. Third, based on the
Uni-versity of Michigan and SHRM senior-level competency models, we
createda new category, change management. This consisted of areas
such as organi-zational design/learning, coaching and counseling,
planning and implement-ing change, consulting skills, intervention
strategies, intervention evaluation,and interaction with different
cultures. In total, our preliminary competencymodel contained 98
potential learning outcomes in three components (i.e.,HR functions,
general business/management, and change management). Wenow had
something to work witha provisional template of generally
desir-able HR competency outcomes.
Also in this fourth step, we worked extensively with our new
advisoryboard to develop specific questions for program evaluation
and curriculumdesign. As illustrated in Table 2, we decided to ask
about program strengths,weaknesses, and recommended changes along
with input about the con-structed competency template. We also
decided to obtain input about pro-gram vision and mission as well
as potential program (specialist) tracks,recruitment, and hiring
factors that were important for our graduates. Asshown in Table 2,
these questions were differently assigned among the sixstakeholder
groups, comprising our HRM faculty members, students, andprogram
alumni and the external stakeholders of HRM experts,
consultants,and customers (organizational leaders/officers).
The fifth step involved the development of the data collection
methodol-ogy. We considered many traditional data acquisition
methodologies butfound that mail surveys, telephone interviews, and
focus groups would nei-ther be cost- nor time-effective nor
particularly inclusive. Given that wewanted to include a number of
different constituencies at different timesusing a different mix of
questions, it was decided that the best choice for ourstudy would
be to use a Group Decision Support Lab (GDSL) environment.GDSLs are
advanced information technologies that combine communica-tion,
computers, and decision processes to assist groups of individuals
in col-laborative problem solving and information gathering. A
tremendousamount of literature has been generated researching the
characteristics andeffectiveness of computer-mediated meetings
(Hollingshead & McGrath,1995; Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 1997;
McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994;Miranda & Saunders, 1995;
Nunamaker, Applegate, & Konsynski, 1988).We chose the GDSL
approach specifically to obtain both qualitative and
240 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
quantitative data at a low cost, with high participation and
immediate feed-back to groups.
Through the use of specialized group-meeting software, a master
templateand meeting protocol process was established. Using the
matrix of questionsand stakeholders shown in Table 2, the software
was loaded with questionsappropriate to each stakeholder group, and
a sequence of activities was estab-lished. According to McGraths
(1984) task classification schema for tech-nology, a process and
protocol was established reflecting both generative andchoosing
activities. Specifically, the process and protocol
establishedinvolved creativity tasks of generating ideas,
intellectual tasks of solvingproblems, and decision-making tasks
involving deciding issues with optionsand answers. For some
questions, for example, the competencies, partici-pants were asked
to add, delete, change, or comment on the existing
templateprovided. On other questions, such as program strengths and
weaknesses, amultistage protocol was used. Here, open-ended idea
generation tasks werefollowed by sorting and organizing ideas,
followed by ranking and rating.
In relation to the methods to identify HRM competencies, the use
of a tem-plate developed from other competency studies and the use
of GDSL can beconsidered a hybrid. Kochanski (1996) classified
competency identificationmethodologies in terms of potential buy-in
and validity. The use of apredeveloped template combined with GDSL
procedures reflects the highbuy-in of using focus groups and
artifact (i.e., secondary data) analysis andthe high validity of
using expert panels. Thus, this process was distinct from a
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 241
TABLE 2Matrix of Questions and Stakeholders
ConstituenciesQuestions To Be HRMAsked in Group Faculty HRM HRM
CustomerDecision Support Lab Members Students Alumni Executives
Consultants Leaders
Program strengths X X XProgram weaknesses X X XRecommended
changes X X XExit competencies X X X X X XVision and mission X X X
XProgram tracks X X X X XRecruitment XHiring factors
(knowledge,skills, and abilities) X X X
NOTE: HRM = human resource management.
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
full-blown competency study (Spencer & Spencer, 1993) where
identifica-tion of behaviors and traits that differentiate specific
levels of performance(e.g., superior) is a paramount objective. In
this case, we used a process toidentify highly generalizable
competencies to drive the reengineering of ourcurriculum.
PHASE 2: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Phase 2 involved three specific steps. The first step involved
conductingthe six different stakeholder meetings. In total, 9
faculty members, 8 pro-gram alumni, 9 current students, 9 HRM
executives, 8 high-level operatingmanagers/officers, and 10 HRM
consultants were used. UHCLs GDSL wasset up to accommodate up to 14
participants. Each participant sat in front ofan independent
computer terminal in a room configured to both maximizeface-to-face
interaction as well as honor terminal privacy. Each session usedone
technical facilitator as well as a session facilitator. Faculty
membersacted as session facilitators. The software used allowed us
to employ a modi-fied nominal group technique so that we could
generate ratings and rankingsfor the questions involving vision,
mission, program strengths, programweaknesses, and so on. The
results of each question were electronically dis-played on a large
screen, and printouts of each session were provided to ses-sion
participants. Each session lasted 2 to 3 hours.
The second step of Phase 2 involved the synthesis of data and
identifica-tion of key findings. Literally thousands of individual
responses were col-lected and, when tabulated, allowed us to
compare responses across thestakeholder groups. The faculty members
and the advisory board then con-structed a new vision and mission.
Based on the input, the new vision andmission (as shown in Table 3)
were distinctly different from the focus of theold program.
Specifically, the stakeholders input produced a vision and mis-sion
that reflected the strategic nature of HRM and its relation to
bottom lineaccountability. A high degree of consensus was obtained
relative to programstrengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for
change.
On the basis of 10-point rating scales, top-rated responses
across stake-holder groups were used. Top program strengths
involved student-centeredfaculty, the applied nature of the
program, the relationship of the programwith local organizations,
and international ties. Top-rated weaknessesinvolved program
marketing and class availability and scheduling.
Top-ratedrecommended changes involved program marketing and
specific curriculumredesign issues. A high degree of consensus
across constituencies revealedinterest in creating program
specialization tracks in HR information systems,
242 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
international management, training and employee development,
OD/changemanagement, compensation/benefits, and employee relations/
labor law.
The last step of Phase 2 was to develop a competency model for
learningoutcomes. Data gathered from stakeholder groups concerning
program com-petencies were first analyzed by faculty leaders of the
project. When two ormore groups generated the same suggestion, it
was considered to have rele-vance. A draft of potential
competencies was developed that included infor-mation concerning
knowledge, skills, and abilities that HRM executives,
HRconsultants, and high-level leaders desired of program graduates
(i.e., hiringfactors). What emerged from this content analysis were
clusters of competen-cies much richer than the initial template. In
general, stakeholders providedlittle disagreement with areas of
knowledge provided by the SHRM (1996)Body of Content Taxonomy.
Rather, most input, additions, and commentsinvolved needed refined
interpersonal skills (e.g., flexibility, dispute resolu-tion, etc.)
and specialized conceptual skills (e.g., critical
thinking,value-added perspective, etc.). Of specific importance
were the additions andcomments surrounding the areas of ethics,
self-awareness, personal manage-ment (i.e., stress management and
time management), career planning andlifelong learning, critical
thinking, and visioning.
How did the use of GDSL support the cogeneration process?
Clearly, sev-eral tasks involved creativity (program vision and
mission), whereas othersinvolved decision making and generation
where stakeholders added, deleted,and changed the template used for
identifying competencies. Thus, thishybrid methodology (McGrath,
1984) did not initially facilitate much inter-action beyond that
which was electronically mediated. It did, however, gener-ate data
to create new categories of meaning (e.g., competencies). Thus,GDSL
createdeconomically, individually, and quicklythe context
forcogeneration to occur. In this case, cogeneration occurred where
members ofthe advisory board met to make sense of the data, thereby
generating a newframework (e.g., new competencies) on which to base
program development
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 243
TABLE 3Program Vision and Mission
Program vision: Providing a strategic HRM educational system
that adds value to individualsand organizations.
Program mission: Providing the community with highly competent
professionals who applytheir knowledge to achieve organizational
effectiveness in line with business needs, therebyserving as
strategic business partners.
NOTE: HRM = human resource management.
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
actions. To this extent, GDSL was used to quickly and
economically producethe stimuli to engage our stakeholders as
partners.
Through numerous rounds of group meetings with faculty members
andthe advisory board, we evolved our own specific competency model
that builton but went beyond our initial general one derived from
the literature. Asshown in Figure 2, our new competency model has
five broad competencyclusters: core HR processes, general business
management, strategic deci-sion making and problem solving, change
management, and personal mas-tery and influence.
Each of the five new competency clusters is defined in Table 4.
In total,analysis of the stakeholder data identified 84 specific
exit competencies orlearning outcomes. The competency cluster
labeled core HR processesclosely reflects SHRMs (1996) Body of
Knowledge Outline, includingbroad areas such as staffing;
compensation and benefits; employee and laborrelations; training
and development; health, security, and safety; and qualita-tive and
quantitative analysis. The second cluster, general business
manage-ment, builds on the University of Michigans business
capabilities cluster butextends in ways reflecting local needs and
priorities. This cluster involvesareas such as strategy, budgeting,
ethics, communication, computer literacy,understanding of
organizational culture, and leadership.
The third cluster, change management, closely reflects
competency clus-ters identified in Table 1. This cluster involves
the ability to create afuture-based vision, organizational design,
and broad-based counseling;intervention; and facilitation skills.
The fourth competency cluster, personalmastery and influence,
identifies not only cognitive frameworks but refinedinterpersonal
skills as well. In this cluster, abilities such as
interpersonalinfluence, flexibility, negotiations, sensitivity
toward other cultures, personalethics, and managing yourself (e.g.,
stress, time, and career) emerged. Thefifth cluster, strategic
decision making and problem solving, reflects thechanging role of
HR professionals. This cluster reflects an interesting inte-gration
of previous models illustrated in Table 1, primarily focusing on
criti-cal and systems thinking, problem solving, creativity,
strategic alignment andfocus, and a value-added perspective. The
resulting competency datadepicted in Table 4, as previously stated,
is a generalized competency model.To this extent, our competency
model is at the same level of abstraction andspecificity as the
SHRM Senior Level Model (Lawson, 1990).
PHASE 3: CURRICULUM REVISION AND ROLLOUT
As shown in Figure 1, there were three steps involved in Phase
3. The firststep was to identify the extent to which the existing
HRM courses included
244 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
the newly created learning outcomes. The entire HRM faculty was
againinvolved, this time in assessing which courses and to what
extent the newlydefined 84 exit competencies were to be addressed.
From this analysis, itbecame evident that not only would existing
courses need extensive revision,but new courses would be needed as
well.
This step of Phase 3 required the faculty to operationalize the
competen-cies generated in the delivery of existing courses as well
as in the constructionof new courses. Because faculty members were
asked to first identify whichcompetencies were covered by each
course offered, a matrix of courses bycompetencies was generated.
These course-specific competencies are nowdepicted in each syllabus
in addition to the course objectives, and curriculartime has been
allocated to the development of the requisite competencies.Faculty
members have specifically designed exams and project
applicationsfor each course that directly relate to the
competencies associated with it.
The second step of Phase 3 involved both revision and evaluation
of newcurriculum. Three new courses were added to the curriculum,
two coursesredesigned and reengineered, and two others completely
changed. EachHRM program course now reflects specific competencies
that it is responsi-ble for developing and assessing. The revised
curriculum now reflects 12hours of foundation courses, inclusive of
introductory management, intro-
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 245
Figure 2: The University of HoustonClear Lake HRM Competency
ModelNOTE: HR= human resource; HRM = human resource management.
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
246 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
TABLE 4Learning Outcomes of Competency Clusters
Competency Cluster 1Core human resource processesStaffing
Issues
RecruitmentSelectionEqual employment opportunity/affirmative
actionHuman resource planningCareer planning and succession
planningLegal and regulatory concerns in staffingStaffing and
recruiting evaluation
Compensation and benefitsTax and accounting issuesEconomic
issuesCompensation strategy and policyCompensation and benefits
programsJob analysis and evaluationAnalysis of benefit
programsLegal and regulatory concernsCompensation and benefit
evaluation
Employee and labor relationsUnion representationUnfair labor
practicesLabor and management cooperationCollective
bargainingGrievance and arbitrationEmployee coaching and
counselingPublic sector labor relationsEmployment policies and
proceduresPerformance appraisal and feedback systemsLegal and
regulatory concerns in employee and labor relationsEvaluation of
employee relations programs
Training and developmentNeeds assessmentProgram
developmentProgram evaluationLegal and regulatory concerns in
employee developmentCareer development and assessment
Health, security, and safetyLegal and regulatory issuesHealth
promotion and wellnessSafety programsOrganizational securityHealth
and safety evaluation
Qualitative and quantitative analysisResearch design and program
evaluationStatistical analysisApplication of information
systems
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 247
TABLE 4 continued
Competency Cluster 2General business managementBusiness
strategyBudgeting and financial controlsEmployee involvement,
empowerment, and motivationOrganizational
cultureLeadershipInternational management practicesBusiness
ethicsComputer literacyOral and written communicationsGroup
processes and team developmentQuality and performance
management
Competency Cluster 3Change managementVisioningOrganizational
design and learningPlanning and implementing changeCoaching and
counselingConsulting skillsFacilitation skillsIntervention
strategiesIntervention analysis
Competency Cluster 4Personal mastery and influenceAction
orientationFlexibilitySelf-awarenessDiversity awarenessSensitivity
toward other culturesGlobal perspectiveNetworking and coalition
developmentNegotiationsDispute and conflict resolutionInterpersonal
influenceIndividual communications techniquesTime managementStress
managementProject managementPersonal ethics and integrityLifelong
learning orientationPersonal career plans
Competency Cluster 5Strategic decision making and problem
solvingProblem analysisAnalytical and logical abilitiesSystems
thinkingCritical thinkingIndividual and group decision-making
techniquesCreativity and innovationProblem-solving
techniquesStrategic focus and alignmentValue-added perspective
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
duction to HRM, data analysis techniques, and accounting
concepts. Basedon the new curriculum model, there are now 33 hours
of required core coursescompared to 21 hours required in the old
program. The requirements nowinclude HR law, organizational
behavior, group processes, data analysis/program evaluation, HR
information systems, employee planning, staffingand selection,
compensation and benefits, organizational change, andemployee
training and development. Two new capstone courses have beenadded.
The first capstone course involves advanced leadership for HRM.
Thesecond capstone course now involves ethics and international and
strategicissues.
The last step of Phase 3 involved the rollout of the new
curriculum. Thisnecessitated that a 5-year master schedule be
created. The 5-year masterschedule was produced to systematically
allow for the changes in the newprogram to occur while
simultaneously maintaining the structure and contextof the old
program so that students could graduate. Essentially, this
schedulecreated a rollout template such that new courses could be
phased in during1998, 1999, and the 2000 calendar years. This
calendar called for all newrequired courses to be implemented by
the fall of 2000 and new electives tosupport the newly created
specialty tracks to be developed by the fall of 2001.This master
schedule has been, therefore, useful in two ways. First, it is
nowpossible to schedule needed classes such that both full-time and
part-timeworking students can graduate in a specified number of
semesters. Second,by scheduling certain foundation classes first,
it has allowed developmentaltime for faculty to develop new courses
and reengineer existing courses toaddress the new competency
model.
We have recently completed the first implementation of all
required andcore courses. The faculty members met early in the
process and determinedwhat competencies were being covered by
existing coursework and whichcourses required revision. Entirely
new courses were also developed forimplementation. Most of our
developmental energies have been devoted toinventing or reinventing
courses to be truly competency based. As we striveto operationalize
specific courses, we are finding that this is a
challengingintellectual task in its own right, and because the
competencies themselvesare not only complex but interrelated, we
are having to work through the rela-tionships between courses as
well. Because the competency model generatedwas at a generalizable
and categorized level of specificity, considerable fac-ulty member
time has been devoted to operationally defining these categoriesand
generating new curriculum to meet them.
Lets look at a few specifics to illustrate the complexity of
integratingcompetencies into a curriculum. Leadership, for example,
is a general busi-ness management competency (Cluster 2), but there
is not a single, widely
248 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
accepted way of defining or operationalizing it, and other
clusters (especiallyCluster 3, change management; Cluster 4,
personal mastery and influence;and Cluster 5, individual and group
decision-making techniques) appear tocontain specific competencies
required for it (e.g., facilitation skills, actionorientation,
self-awareness, sensitivity toward others, interpersonal
influ-ence, communication, individual and group decision making,
etc.). But ourprogram is designed to produce something more than
just technically compe-tent HR professionals. We want our graduates
to understand leadership andexercise it effectively. This has
required us to rethink our curriculum at threelevels: foundation,
required or core, and capstone.
Lets see how the competencies in personal mastery and influence
(Clus-ter 4) that clearly relate to leadershipaction orientation,
self-awareness,and sensitivity toward othersare operationalized at
each of these three lev-els. Courses at each level contain
appropriate theory and concepts concerningthe relevant
competencies, and the skill learning is designed to be
progres-sive. That is, each level builds on the prior one in
attempting to deepen andextend the competencies. The foundation
course, an introduction to manage-ment, is heavily team based (60%
to 70% of the gradea cooperative learn-ing design), and team
members are introduced to nine behaviorally anchoredrating scales
for measuring individual team member effectiveness. Eachteam member
provides written feedback to every other team member at
thebeginning and the end of the semester using the nine scales. The
initial feed-back data provide each student with data for the
individualized skill develop-ment during the semester. Data at the
end of the semester provide measures ofprogress. Students are
graded on the feedback they give, not on the feedbackthey receive.
At the next level, in a required course on group process
andteam-based organization, students also work mostly in teams and
give eachother feedback on interpersonal competence, but each team
now develops itsown set of behaviorally defined competencies. Both
these courses existedprior to our new program but were revised to
meet the need for focusing onleadership competencies.
Our capstone course on leadership was completely new. It was
designed tobuild on the two courses described earlier and other
related courses so stu-dents could integrate their graduate
coursework and experience from profes-sional work at a personal
level around the idea of leadership. Therefore, theinstructional
design shifted from cooperative learning to individual
learningcontracts and portfolios where students were required to
demonstrate prog-ress toward self-developed learning goals. The
goals had to include individ-ual assessment of progress on 20 HR
leadership competencies selected bythe class as a whole from a list
of 86 generic leadership competenciesoperationalized by Lombardo
and Eichinger (1996). Each student got data
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 249
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
from 8 people from his or her workplace using a 360-degree
feedback instru-ment. This followed up and reinforced the
self-awareness competency whileproviding each student with
context-specific feedback on specific HR-relevantleadership skills.
Although we cannot discuss the design of the entire course,other
leadership competencies were followed up in a stretch project
carriedout in the students home organization. Progress in
developing specific com-petencies was jointly assessed by
instructor and student according to criteriaagreed to in the
learning contract at the beginning of the semester.
We do not have the space here to describe other competencies,
their inter-relatedness, or the necessary complexity that must be
dealt with in making afull transition to competency-based education
in business. We anticipatedthat the challenges of specifying all
competencies fully for all courses wouldbe significant. However,
rather than specifying everything in advance anddelaying the
program, we decided to implement operationalizing competen-cies
gradually over several years as the program had come on line. As of
now,all competencies are associated with specific courses and are
in the process ofimplementation.
PHASE 4: ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
Phase 4 is now in the process of final design and initial
implementation.The first step of this phase will be the use of a
self-assessment tool adminis-tered to all new students as they
participate in the introduction to HRMcourse. Similar to the
assessment tool for the senior-level SHRM compe-tency model
(Lawson, 1990), our self-assessment tool identifies areas
ofexisting competence and specific developmental objectives
concerning our84 learning outcomes. Each of the learning outcomes
is described, requiringstudents to rate their own current
proficiency level (low, moderate, or high).A pilot test of this
instrument during the fall of 1999 revealed several interest-ing
points. First, the data gathered from 23 entry-level students were
quitediverse and, when tabulated during an in-class exercise,
revealed very diverselearning needs. Second, future use of this
instrument will require its docu-mentation into a new student
record and its integration into the creation of aportfolio for each
student. Third, the scaling of the instrument requires revi-sion.
At present, respondents rate their current proficiency and their
desiredproficiency and subsequently identify their developmental
priorities as aresult of the difference between these data points.
We are currently in the pro-cess of revising the instrument such
that decision making will be more sys-tematic and objective.
In the future, students will be requested to determine whether
each compe-tency is a developmental priority during a special
session held during their
250 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
introductory course. We are currently in the process of devising
a process forin-class assessment, discussion, and planning. At the
end of this initialassessment, the top developmental priorities
will be listed along with com-ments and observations. This
instrument is not seen as one to be developedwith rigorous
psychometric properties. Rather, it is seen as a grounded tool
tohelp students customize and focus their HR graduate classes and
provide fac-ulty members with data for future curriculum planning
and development.Ultimately, we plan to implement an online version
of this instrument, allow-ing for greater control over the data,
faculty guidance, integration with classscheduling, and creation of
a developmental plan and record for each student.
The self-assessment tool will be administered to all
first-semester studentsbeginning in the fall of 2000. We see the
results from this self-assessment asimportant to the student in at
least three ways. First, self-assessment and sub-sequent
developmental planning is critical to the development of
severalcompetencies that are defined (e.g., personal mastery).
Second, it will hope-fully promote the student as an active
participant in the design of his or herown curriculum. Because
students have choice relative to electives, special-ization tracks,
and internships, they are requested to plan their curriculum
inrelation to their developmental priorities. Because all 84
competencies areaddressed either individually or collectively by
specific required courses,allowing the student direction and
control over specific developmental prior-ities is seen as
constructive for achieving the programs vision and mission.Third,
use of an early diagnostic process, we believe, will set up the
motiva-tion for the second step of Phase 4, the development of
portfolios for eachstudent.
The second step of Phase 4, illustrated in Figure 1, involves
the use of aportfolio assessment. Arter and Spandel (1992) well
chronicled the processand contents of student portfolios. The idea
is that each student would gradu-ate with a collection of
demonstrated competencies that would be helpful inapplying for jobs
but, more important, in the long run would serve as a foun-dation
for continued professional and career development. We intend for
stu-dents to select specific competencies that they emphasize in
their outcomes-oriented courses and be able to articulate how they
interrelate in supporting aparticular career direction.
The portfolio assessment process is currently in the process of
design. Weanticipate providing each student a designated location
on the programsWeb page. Here, each student would be responsible
for maintaining a currentresume as well as maintaining current data
relevant to their program. Spe-cifically, we expect students to use
the self-assessment tool described earlierto articulate their
developmental priorities. Related to this, each studentwould
provide evidence demonstrating how the developmental priorities
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 251
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
were addressed through projects, papers, and so on. A special
program devel-opment retreat is currently planned to finalize the
design of a Web page and astudent portfolio system. This retreat
will be attended by faculty members,students, and potential users
of the portfolios (e.g., local employers).Although students may at
first vary considerably in relation to the rigor andeffort to
establish portfolios, the approach fits well within the context of
theoverall change effort (i.e., cogenerative learning) and the new
program focuson HR competencies.
The third and final step of Phase 4 will involve the use of the
SHRM certif-ication exam. Thus, by passing the SHRM certification
exam, our studentswill have satisfied an important external
professional expectation in additionto the program requirements and
their own personal learning objectives.Although we cannot make
graduation from our program contingent on suc-cessful performance
on the exam, we plan on providing our students with aspecial
departmental certificate for those who have completed all
programrequirements as well as self-assessment of their
competencies, creation of anassessment portfolio, and a passing
score on the SHRM certification exam.
It is in Phase 4 where we believe the real transformation of our
programshall be achieved, namely, with our students. Phase 4 is
important for ourprogram to the extent that the use of
self-assessment, portfolios, and theSHRM certification exam will
serve as a constant reality check relative toour curriculum
relevance and efficacy. More important, however, the use
ofself-assessment and demonstration of mastery in the form of
portfolios willhopefully provide both a symbolic and tangible
process for that which is mostcrucial to the HRM profession, that
of lifelong learning and development.
Implications and Lessons Learned
In short, there are three major innovations that the
cogenerative processbrings to competency-based education. First,
using a decision support envi-ronment greatly enhances stakeholder
interaction and mutual influenceessential to ultimately generating
competencies that are intellectually andpractically grounded.
Second, the cogenerative process results in a potentialnew socially
constructed reality. Third, the cogenerative process can producethe
needed content for a competency-based curriculum. The real
innovationof this effort, therefore, involved the use of GDSL to
quickly and economi-cally create the context for cogeneration. What
would normally take manymonths or years to produce and be beyond
the resource means of most institu-tions similar to ours was
produced in a matter of mere weeks. When properlyused together,
GDSL can establish a cogenerative culture that ultimately cre-
252 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
ates an altogether new framework. We created this new framework
by sharingdata in a nonconfrontational fashion, creating new
categories of meaning,thus generating a third or community-based
framework on which to base ourdevelopmental actions. Thus,
innovation in this project came from integrat-ing two technologies,
one social in the form of cogeneration and the otherbeing
electronic in the form of a decision support environment.
The information obtained from this project has resulted in a
dramaticchange for the UHCL HRM program. It has been realigned,
redefined, andreinvented. In general, the project has resulted in a
radical shift from a tradi-tional and functionally based curriculum
to a vision-based effort focusing onlearning outcomes. The
competency model developed well illustrated theneed for our program
to focus on different skills, different levels of knowl-edge, and
abilities more closely aligned with achieving strategic
partner-ships. This is directly attributable to the use of the
cogenerative learningmodel, culminating in the creation of a new
socially constructed reality and anew shared framework for program
development.
What, then, have been the lessons learned from this process?
First andforemost, it was not necessary to reinvent the wheel to
produce a paradigmshift. Through the use of a commonly accepted
domain of desired knowledgeand well-researched competency studies,
we were able to create ageneralizable competency model to guide our
new vision and mission. Theimplication from this lesson is that
such a process can also be used by otheruniversity-level HRM
programs when they need to develop local definitionsof skills and
competencies.
The second important lesson involves the participation of the
customer inthe redesign process. Through the use of six different
stakeholder groups,several key objectives were met. First and
foremost, the quality and validityof the data were greatly
enhanced. When all groups of stakeholders articu-lated the same
need or point of view, then the direction for needed changeswas all
the more clear. Another key benefit was a simple artifact of
participa-tion, namely, buy-in. Potential customers in the form of
stakeholder represen-tation (e.g., HRM managers, HRM consulting
firms, etc.) have created newand important relationships for the
program and opportunities for our gradu-ates. This is also true of
other HRM programs that have recently reinventedthemselves (Adler
& Lawler, 1999; Heneman, 1999). The implication of thislesson
is quite simple. Academicians must generate more community
andprofessional support to create viable educational vehicles and
deliverysystems.
The third important lesson learned is that using a
computer-mediatedmeeting environment is clearly cost-efficient and
timely. By creating tem-plates and decision processes in a decision
lab context, what was achieved in
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 253
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
a series of several-hour meetings would normally require large
blocks of timeand unavailable resources. For example, the
stakeholder meetings for HRMexecutives, consultants, and high-level
managers were held on Saturdaymornings. By only asking for a few
hours rather than many hours or days, wegot a high degree of
involvement and participation. It added a lot that partici-pants
were able to see the results of their participation as they
producedthemin real time. The implication of this lesson is
obvious. The spread ofinformation technology will allow
universities to increasingly use similartools, even in
resource-constrained situations.
Last, an important lesson obtained from this process involves
the manage-ment of change dynamics. By creating a new vision,
mission, and curriculummodel, the blueprint for change was made
clear. The focus on competenciesor learning outcomes made the task
of curriculum redesign an integrated pro-cess rather than a
disaggregated function. The implication here, of course,involves
the critical factor in change dynamics of creating readiness and
par-ticipation in creating a new reality.
What, then, could other programs learn from our experience?
First, reli-ance on internal (i.e., faculty) and scholarly sources
for curricular design isnot sufficient. Use of multiple external
constituents from the local commu-nity is instrumental in not only
a comprehensive approach to program revi-sion but to establish a
climate for change readiness. Second, the high cost ofdeveloping
competencies can be constrained by first starting with
previouslydeveloped models and taxonomies. Customization of
established compe-tency models, particularly those with established
credibility and validity(e.g., SHRM model), reduces the time, cost,
and resistance typically associ-ated with significant curriculum
change. Thus, some conclusions can bemade about use of decision
support systems that greatly expedites the facili-tation of
constituent input.
Perhaps the most important lesson learned from our experience
involvesthe cultural change among the faculty. In our case, greater
ownership andpartnership in the program has occurred as a result of
generating agreed-onoutcomes (i.e., competencies). Initial threats
from the potential loss of aca-demic freedom through outdated
course objectives have been replaced byclarity of common purpose.
Most important, the opportunity for creativity inoperationalizing
competencies through revised coursework and alternativeteaching
methodologies has created a sense of optimism and energy.
Given rapidly changing circumstances that produce demands for
newHRM competencies, the research literature can only take us so
far in creatingcompetency-based academic HRM curricula and
programs. The need to rein-vent HRM is clear, as is the direction
in which a new HRM education shouldmove. It is useful but not
sufficient to know that in broad terms traditional HR
254 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
competencies such as selection and compensation need to be
supplementedby general, MBA-type competencies such as finance and
marketing and bychange management skills. But these are only
general guidelines. The spe-cific outcome competencies and
curricular reconstructions that make an edu-cational program
relevant to its customers must be coproduced with all stake-holders
working as partners. The space between on one side not starting
fromscratch and on the other not using a cookie-cutter approach
gets filled by aprocess of cogenerative inquiry where all relevant
stakeholders worktogether to invent what is needed locally.
References
Adler, P. S., & Lawler, E. E. (1999). Who needs MBAs in HR?
USCs strategic human resourcemanagement MBA concentration. Human
Resource Management, 38, 125-130.
Arter, J., & Spandel, V. (1992). NCME instructional module:
Using portfolios of student work ininstruction and assessment.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11, 36-44.
Baill, B. (1999). The changing requirements of the HR
professional: Implications for the devel-opment of HR
professionals. Human Resource Management, 38, 171-176.
Barber, A. E. (1999). Implications for the design of human
resource managementEducation,training, and certification. Human
Resource Management, 38, 177-182.
Barksdale, K. (1998). Why we should update HR education. Journal
of Management Education,22, 526-530.
Bartunek, J. (1992, August). Local theories are really useful
theories. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, Las Vegas, NV.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for
effective performance. New York:John Wiley.
Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen, S. S., & Kolb, D. A. (1995).
Innovation in professional education: Stepson a journey from
teaching to learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brockbank, W., Ulrich, D., & Beatty, R. W. (1999). HR
professional development: Creating thefuture creators at the
University of Michigan Business School. Human Resource Manage-ment,
38, 111-118.
Byars, L. L., & Rue, L. W. (1997). Human resource management
(5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cascio, W. F. (1998). Managing human resources (5th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.DeCenzo, P. (1995). Human resource management:
Concepts and practices (5th ed.). New
York: John Wiley.Dolence, M. G., & Norris, D. M. (1995).
Transforming higher education: A vision for learning in
the 21st century. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and
University Planning.Dressler, G. (1994). Human resource management
(6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.Dubois, D. D. (1993). Competency-based performance
improvement. Amherst, MA: HRD
Press.Dyer, W. G. (1999). Training human resource champions for
the twenty first century. Human
Resource Management, 38, 119-124.Elden, M. (1981). Sharing the
research work. In P. Reason & J. Rowen (Eds.), Human
inquiry
(pp. 253-266). New York: John Wiley.
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 255
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Elden, M. (1983). Democratization and participative research in
developing local theory. Jour-nal of Occupational Behavior, 4,
21-33.
Elden, M., & Levin, M. (1991). Co-generative learning:
Bridging participation into actionresearch. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.),
Participatory action research (pp. 127-142). Newbury Park,CA:
Sage.
Fisher, C. D., Schoenfeldt, L. F., & Shaw, J. B. (1998).
Human resource management (4th ed.).Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Foreman, D. C., & Cohen, D. J. (1999). The SHRM learning
systemA brief history. HumanResource Management, 38, 155-160.
French, W. (1998). Human resource management (4th ed.). Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.Heneman, R. L. (1999). Emphasizing analytical
skills in HR graduate education: The Ohio State
University MLHR program. Human Resource Management, 38,
131-134.Hollingshead, A. B., & McGrath, J. E. (1995).
Computer-assisted groups: A critical review of
the empirical research. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team
effectiveness and decision mak-ing in organizations (pp. 46-78).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hunter, R. H. (1999). The new HR and the new HR consultant:
Developing human resource con-sultants at Anderson Consulting.
Human Resource Management, 38, 147-155.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management
practices on turnover, pro-ductivity, and corporate financial
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38,635-672.
Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together.
New York: Doubleday.Ivancevich, J. M. (1998). Human resource
management (7th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J.
J., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Effects of leadership style and
problem structure
on workgroup process and outcomes in an electronic meeting
system environment. Person-nel Psychology, 50, 121-146.
Kaufman, B. E. (1999). Evolution and current status of
university HR programs. Human ResourceManagement, 38, 103-110.
Kesler, G. C. (1995). A model and process for redesigning the
HRM role, competencies, andwork in a multi-national corporation.
Human Resource Management, 34, 229-252.
Kochanski, J. T. (1996). Introduction to special issue in human
resource competencies. HumanResource Management, 35, 3-6.
Kochanski, J. T., & Rose, D. H. (1996). Designing a
competency-based human resource organi-zation. Human Resource
Management, 35, 19-33.
Lawson, T. E. (1990). The competency initiative: Standards of
excellence for human resourceexecutives. Alexandria, VA: Society
for Human Resource Management.
Lawson, T. E., & Limbrick, V. (1996). Critical competencies
and developmental experiences fortop HR executives. Human Resource
Management, 35, 67-85.
Lombardo, M., & Eichinger, R. (1996). For your improvement:
A development and coachingguide. Madison, WI: Lombardo.
Losy, M. R. (1999). Mastering the competencies of HR management.
Human Resource Manage-ment, 38, 99-102.
Mansfield, L. S. (1996). Building competency models: Approaches
for HR professionals.Human Resource Management, 35, 7-18.
Martell, K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). How strategic is HRM?
Human Resource Management, 34,253-268.
Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (1997). Human resource
management (8th ed.). St Paul, MN:West.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups, interaction, and performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
256 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups
interacting with technology. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Milkovich, G. T., & Boudreau, J. W. (1998). Human resource
management (6th ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.
Miranda, S. M., & Saunders, C. (1995). Group support
systems: An organization developmentintervention to combat
groupthink. Public Administration Quarterly, 19, 193-216.
Morris, D. (1996). Using competency development tools as a
strategy for change in the humanresource function: A case study.
Human Resource Management, 35, 35-51.
Noe, R. A., Hollenback, J., Gerhardt, B., & Wright, P.
(1997). Human resource management(2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Nunamaker, J. F., Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. J.
(1988). Computer-aided deliberation:Model management and group
decision support. Journal of Operations Research, 36,826-848.
Sherman, A. W., Bohlander, G. W., & Snell, A. P. (1996).
Managing human resources (10th ed.).Cincinnati, OH:
Southwestern.
Society for Human Resource Management. (1996). Body of
knowledge. Alexandria, VA:Author.
Spencer, L. M. (1995). Reengineering human resources. New York:
John Wiley.Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993).
Competencies at work. New York: John Wiley.Ulrich, D., Brockbank,
W., & Yeung, A. (1989). HR competencies in the 1990s: An
empirical
assessment of what the future holds. Personnel Administration,
34, 91-93.Ulrich, D. D., Yeung, A., Brockbank, W., & Lake, D.
(1994). Human resources as a competitive
advantage: An empirical assessment of HR practices and
competencies in global firms. NewYork: John Wiley.
Wiley, C. (1995). Reexamining professional certification in
human resource management.Human Resource Management, 34,
269-291.
Wilhelm, W. R. (1990). Revitalizing the human resource function
in a mature, larger corpora-tion. Human Resource Management, 29,
129-144.
Wright, P., & McMahan, G. (1992). Theoretical perspectives
for strategic human resource man-agement. Journal of Management,
18, 295-320.
Yeung, A. K. (1996). Competencies for HR professionals: An
interview with Richard E.Boyatzis. Human Resource Management, 35,
119-132.
Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE 257
at National School of Political on May 21,
2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from