journal of management education 2001 wooten 231 57

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


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


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.






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-


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.



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-



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



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



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.


Figure 1: Phases and Steps of the ProjectNOTE: SHRM = Society for Human Resource Management.


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



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


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.


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,



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


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.


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



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-


Figure 2: The University of HoustonClear Lake HRM Competency ModelNOTE: HR= human resource; HRM = human resource management.



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



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


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



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



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



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



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-



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



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



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.



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.



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.



journal of management education 2001 wooten 231 57

Documents

hrm professionaldegrees

field of hrm

human resource management

human resource professional

hrm professionals barber

professional associations

thehuman resource profession

theamerican society