Intersecting Reflections on Competency Management in France and in North America

As a management style that is still in its infancy, the phenomenon of competency management has gradually grown in importance to the point that it is now a well-established practice in full development on both sides of the Atlantic. However, what is called “competency management” covers a wide range of practices in different countries, and is positioned differently, particularly as concerns France and North America. As well, this approach has not yet been well documented from a comparative standpoint.

The comparison of these two national contexts shows that we are clearly faced with two distinct systems, each with its own history, its pace, and its practical details in structuring, its means of organization and of leading and also, doubtlessly, having its own structuring effects on the environments in which it is established. Competency management will thus have given rise to, under the combined effect of a number of historical, economic or structural, legislative and cultural factors, specific developments, and dependant on each of these environments. In this way, managing competencies, in its French form does not cover the same reality as does managing competencies in the American style. Several differentiating elements stand out between the two systems. The conceptual work from which skills management has developed appears more multidisciplinary in nature, more intensive, and at the same time, richer in the French context (sociology, education, ergonomics, cognitive psychology, adult education, etc.) than on the American side, where psychology is the key consideration. The centrality of performance in the debate and in the instrumentation is also clearly evident in the North American context. The key skills are first identified and measured through discriminating behaviours among the most productive workers, then these skills are defined, calibrated, and measured with a view to a certain performance level which is to be attained. What is even more significant, perhaps, is that competency management does not target the same employee categories: middle and upper management, non-unionized, on the North American side, and operators and technicians, often unionized, on the French side. As a corollary of the preferred targets, we often find reference points strongly centered on “soft” and generic skills on the American side, while more specialized knowledge and skills are given center stage on the French side. Instruments for evaluation do exist in the French context, but these seem more “rustic,” and, in a certain way, cut off from academic sources which would make it possible to render the process objective. Finally, if the American style of skills management certainly aims to upgrade internal competency capital, this aim is in parallel with a turn towards mobilization and “cultural control” in trying to promote certain values, and in ascertaining that behaviour sufficiently aligns with strategic priorities. Overall, if the system’s goals are perhaps less “strategic” and if the instrumentation in France is less noticeable, this is doubtless in favour of a more marked goal of social regulation. Competencies do not escape the legislator’s notice, and continue to be a point of collective negotiation between social partners. On the North American side, skills are found to be part of the employer initiative, and their application is strictly reserved for management.

Nevertheless, analysis shows that the competency management instrumentation presents certain important similarities between North America and France. As conceptualized by both sides, one may say that, competency management is not yet truly operationalized and is far from being completely implemented in businesses, thus confirming a significant gap between popular management discourse, and the reality of practices. When it does exist, several observations are clear: (1) A “competence,” as considered as an operational variable, is mostly a shared issue. In both cases, it is an uncertainty whose optimized control has become indispensable to achieving performance; (2) the fields of competence included in a frame of reference only cover, at best, a portion of reality. A more cross-sectional and corporate approach on the one hand, a tendency more towards trade and specialization on the other, the reference points remain strategic and dependant constructs; (3) competency management only covers a small part of the personnel in place (in North American, upper management and hierarchical lines; in France, primarily operators) while competence is each time announced as an issue and as a field of organizational management; (4) only a portion of competencies is actually taken into consideration—the more generic (soft competencies) in North America, the more specialized (skills) in France—leaving aside for the most part (for the time being at least) the other constituents; (5) the linkage of competency management with other human resources sub-systems, that is to say, its purpose is only very partially guaranteed and often called into question in its final implementation; and finally, (6) this means of management, which by definition is supposed to be forward-looking and minimally projected into the future of employees and of the organization is most often guided by the logic of short-term adaptation.

Based on these observations, the hypothesis of convergence for French and North American approaches can be expressed in the short or in the long term. This convergence could be promoted by several “heavy” factors: (1) internationalization of businesses, and of consulting practices, exchanges between managers, consultants and researchers, combined with a broadened publication of knowledge as to the factors for success in competency management etc.; (2) the implantation of centralized systems for similar management so as to standardize approaches by skill; (3) the unifying influence of new concepts popular with managers (“the learning organization,” “the intelligent enterprise,” “knowledge management,” etc.). On the other hand, certain characteristics of each of the two systems seem inevitably to depend on other limitations, whether these are due to legislative, statutory or conventional limitations, due to cultural pressure, through management tradition or due to a purely strategic choice. The idea of a “convergence by means of slow sedimentation” between the two systems cannot therefore be put forward at the conclusion of this article. Competency management systems are, without a doubt, decisional processes involving too many vital company elements so as to be able to easily allow a shift towards universality. But paradoxically, these systems must deal with a resource and with the criteria for using and mobilizing this resource, and these are tending to become so “universal” that their management systems may no longer remain totally centered on local or national realities.