Career Road Strategy Model, Complementary of Competency Models and Strategic Job Analysis

*Corresponding author (M.B. Fakhrzad). Fax: +98 351 8122402, E-mail address: [email protected]. 2012. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies. Volume 3 No.2. ISSN 2228-9860 eISSN 1906-9642. Online Available at http://TuEngr.com/V03/125-143.pdf.

125

International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies

http://TuEngr.com, http://go.to/Research

Career Road Strategy Model, Complementary of

Competency Models and Strategic Job Analysis

Mohammad Bagher Fakhrzad a* a Department of Industrial Engineering, Yazd University, IRAN A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T RA C T

Article history: Received 01 February 2012 Received in revised form 18 February 2012 Accepted 18 February 2012 Available online 18 February 2012 Keywords: Competency model; Strategic Job analysis; Career Road Planning.

Strategic Job Analysis (SJA) and Competency Models (CM) both have the potential to fill an important void in Career Road Planning (CRP). This paper deals with a strategic model of career road planning to magnify organization and employee's situations in career road guiding complying with the strategic goals of the organization. To approve this meaning, It is assumed that career road planning is a project in organization's human resource management plan. It is then concluded through the investigation of different aspects of job analyzing and competency models that these methods are not able to present a complete solution in directing of career in road of organization's strategic goals because these approaches omit employee's role as a stakeholder in analysis and selection of career road. This paper presents a model with regard to two aspects: amount of career planning independency from organization's goal and stakeholder (organization and employee) roles to guide the strategic career road planning. Based on this analysis, it is inferred that the degree of employee’s independence is an important parameter in the career planning project’s environment that can be used to explain different strategies in career road. We suggest four distinct types of career planning strategies: obedient servant, independent innovator, flexible moderator and strong leader making job analyzing more clearly than previous approaches.

2012 International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies.

2012 International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies.

126 M.B. Fakhrzad

1. Introduction Job analysis may be viewed as the hub of virtually all human resource management

activities need for the successful functioning of organizations [1,2]. At the heart of almost every

human resources management program or activity is the need for accurate and thorough job

information. Job analysis is thus a prerequisite activity for the effective management of human

resources. However, many important assumptions that underlie such fundamental uses of job

analysis in management are becoming questionable in today's business environment. Job

analysis is focused on the collection of work-related information for the job as it currently exists

and/or has existed in the past [3,4]. This has led to call for a more proactive and strategic

approach to job analysis, so that the procedures will continue to be relevant in today's

workplace [5,6].

In many organizations, Competency Modeling (CM) has been replaced with Traditional

Job Analysis (TJA) for a host of human resource applications. However, there seems to be no

professional consensus regarding the difference between TJA and CM, and some have even

argued that any Competency Modeling (CM) project is at its foundation also a job analysis

process [7].

A group of experts, surveying the differences between TJA and CM, noted that the latter's

emphasis on “linking results to business goals” is not only largely absent in TJA, but also

methodologically more rigorous than CM in regards to data collection, level of detail,

assessment of reliability of results and documentation of the research process [8], while others

opined that at least some CM applications are merely watered-down, less-than-rigorous job

analysis [9,10], or that CM does not accomplish anything that new forms of strategic-oriented

job analysis cannot accomplish [11,12].

Guion [13] states: “…job analysis, as we generally know it, suffers from a couple of

serious plagues, at least for inferring performance requirements. One of these is its emphasis on

the status quo…we need further kinds of analysis to avoid the static nature of conventional job

analysis. We need organizational forecasting information, strategic plans, and both current

information and plans related to the interactions between different organizational activities.”


127

The “new” careers literature is grounded in the supposition of a substantial change

affecting careers and the career success construct [14,15]. In particular, much has been written

about the gradual displacement of the traditional, organization-based career and the old

psychological contract with new types of career and the new, employability-orientated

psychological contract [16,17]. Consequently, there has been a noticeable evolution in the way

career and career successes are defined. While Wilensky [18 ] referred to career as a

succession of related jobs, arranged in a hierarchy of prestige, through which persons move in

an ordered (more-or-less predictable) sequence. Super [19] defined career as the combination

and sequence of roles played by a person during the course of a lifetime. Finally, Arthur, Hall

and Lawrence [20] defined career as the evolving sequence of a person’s work experiences over

time, which is an established definition of career today [21]. This evolution from “jobs” to

“experiences”, reflected in the post-modern, turn in the social sciences during the late 1980s

when attention increasingly shifted from the objective to the subjective world of work.

The organization of this paper is as follows: First, we investigate different aspects of each

of the above issues, involving a comparison between CM and TJA followed by a strategic view

to the job analysis. Finally, we converge each of these aspects in a unique road, leading

organization to its strategic objectives. In order to reach this goal, we use a common strategic

planning model.

2. Literature review: career road, TJA, SJA and CM There are different approaches and meanings for career success concept. Savickas [22]

described the “rise and fall” of career in North America by outlining the historical evolution

from an agricultural to an industrial economy and finally, to the current-day knowledge

economy, causing careers to be decreasingly regulated and linear [23,24]. With regard to

culture, several authors have demonstrated that the career narratives of people vary from

different countries. Dany [25] described the European culture as bureaucratic, with servile

obedience, risk aversion and strong commitment as key features. The U.S culture, on the other

hand, was defined as “contractual”; risk-taking and entrepreneurial, individualist attitudes are

valued [26].

Sturges [27] and Nabi [28] both reported finding of two factors in their qualitative studies,

128 M.B. Fakhrzad

i.e. external, or extrinsic, career success versus internal, or intrinsic, career success. Dyke and

Murphy [29] classified their findings on the meanings of career success under the four factors;

balance, relationships, recognition and material success. Lee et al. [ 30 ] identified

organization-based, personal and interlinked themes in interviewees’ discourse about career.

Additionally, Hennequin [31] established three factors within the career success road: material

career success, psychological career success and social career road.

To reach these career success opportunities and to approach to the organization goals, up to

now, to many types of tools, methods and models have been presented. TJA, SJA and also CM

are three famous models of them.

CM is much better suited to the task of influencing employee behavior along the strategic

lines than TJA is. That is, key to CM's capacity to provide a path between day-to-day employee

behavior and the broader goals of the organization. Schippmann et al. [32] relied on a small

number of core competencies that were unambiguously worded to embody the organization's

competitive advantage across jobs, ranks, and locations [33,34]. Thus, competency models

should be easy to understand and communicate to anyone in the organization, regardless of job

title. In contrast, TJA is usually burdened with long lists of tasks and psychologically-worded

Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other Characteristics (KSAOs) that undoubtedly provide a

deep understanding of the nature of each job and its requirements, but which, together, form a

complex description that is difficult to communicate to those who are not closely familiar with

the job or with job-analytic terminology.

As competition and technological innovations increase and product life cycles get shorter,

jobs are becoming not only less static, but also less individually-based. Consequently, the tasks

to be performed, and the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) required for effective job

performance are also becoming more volatile, and sometimes more team-based. Furthermore,

in all likelihood, organizations may perceive the creation of jobs that do not currently exist and

the analysis of which is beyond the scope of traditional job analysis (TJA).

Despite the obvious need for a strategic approach to job analysis, there have been just a few

theoretical attempts in proposing SJA frameworks. In a seminal paper, Schneider and Konz


129

[35] built on traditional job-analytic approaches in which they term a “multi-method job

analysis” procedure. There is nothing particularly unique in their eight steps approach until

the stage of collecting information about the future and revising tasks and KSAs in light of

future expected changes. The eight stages identified are: 1. collect information on the current

job; 2. specify job tasks and build task clusters; 3. develop and administer task surveys; 4.

conduct statistical analysis of task survey responses; 5. conduct the knowledge, skills and

abilities process; 6. develop and administer the KSA surveys; 7. gather information about the

future; and, 8. revise tasks and/or task clusters, and KSAs and/or KSA clusters in light of future

changes.

Schneider and Konz [51] suggested that subject matter experts (SMEs), including job

incumbents, supervisors, managers and job analysts, be brought together in a workshop to

discuss likely future changes.

According to Stewart and Carson [36] “this approach acknowledges the dynamic nature

of work and illustrates how perceptions of current and future jobs may differ, but it still assumes

that jobs can be analyzed independent of people”. Despite practical and theoretical problems

inherent in the approach, the attempt is certainly useful since it highlights the need for SJA and

offers a method to reshape job analysis to suit the emerging needs of many contemporary

organizations.

Snow and Snell [37], in an essay on staffing as a whole, rather than job analysis per se,

argued that new trends in the environment demand changes in many human resource

management functions, and that “companies that respond quickly and appropriately to the

staffing challenges presented by these trends will find that they can outperform competitors

who are slower to develop a strong human resource planning and management function”.

Three conceptual models that characterize the staffing process are presented. Model 1, using

traditional job analysis, seeks to match individuals to specific, well-defined jobs and ignores the

company's strategy. Model 2 views staffing as part of the overall strategic implementation

process and is concerned with broadly defined jobs, as well as linkages between jobs. Model 3

suggests that the recruitment, assessment and selection of high-caliber individuals should be the

130 M.B. Fakhrzad

foundation of strategy. In this model, staffing drives the formation of competitive strategy.

In Model 2, strategy supplements traditional job analysis as the basis of staffing and takes

into account the company's relationship with the environment. Its effectiveness is defined by

the company's accomplishment of its strategic goals rather than just the person–job match.

Model 3 assumes shorter business cycles and rapid technological advances.

3. Comparing TJA and CM approaches It is clear that the dimensional comparison serves to clarify that TJA and CM are (or ideally

should be) two fundamentally different HRM tools, even though the line that separates them

has been blurred in many of their field applications to date.

In doing so, we hope to demonstrate how CM can be implemented in a manner that adds

not only to its strategic purpose thereby overcoming the limitations of TJA denounced

elsewhere [38], but also to the rigor that has been missed in CM [39].

First of all, TJA is best positioned in the domain of applied measurement and serves to

inform HR functions such as staffing, training, and compensation, whereas CM is best

conceived of as a strategy execution tool whose closest referents can probably be found in

Organizational Culture and Social Control theories [40,41]. These theories suggest that a

critical determinant of strategic leadership is not how brilliant the strategy is, but how much

employees understand and share organizational norms concerning strategically-aligned

behavior. CM ideally attempts to open up a conduit for strategy execution, so that the employee

learns how to incorporate strategic concerns into day-to-day behavior.

Secondly, the existence of an external reality dubbed the job that is objectively verifiable

[42]. The arrival of the conceptualization of the job as a separate entity from the person who

performs a certain work activity can be traced to the onset of the industrial revolution, which

created a need for division of labor. Obviously, there is a justification for the recommendation

to separate the job from the person; specifically that the job analyst is interested in a “neutral”

description of the job that is not contaminated by any job holder's idiosyncratic interpretation.


131

Because TJA has focused on capturing the essential elements of the job in the form of an

across-incumbents description, it should not be surprising that this homothetic approach has

obviated the influence of the incumbent's interpretation of the job.

The shared perception reflected in the job descriptions characteristic of TJA reflects the

aggregate of behaviors displayed by job incumbents over time, and the aggregate is just a

homothetic compromise representing the manner in which a non-existent, “average” job

incumbent performs the duties of the job [43]. However, the notion of the job is a social

construction that does not have tangible existence separate from those who perform it [44]. In

contrast to TJA's view of the job as a fixed entity that does not change from incumbent to

incumbent, CM views the job as a role to be first interpreted, and then enacted by each

employee.

Another thing is that, TJA focuses solely on the job and CM, in contrast to TJA, assumes

that performance across all jobs in the organization should be touched by certain behavioral

themes embedded in the competencies that are connected directly to the organizational strategy.

Another point that illustrates this contrast between the foci of TJA and CM is the fact that

the same set of competencies normally cuts across jobs and layers of the organization. Thus,

CM becomes a common language that prescribes the most valued behavioral themes by the

organization, regardless of the job.

The strength of a list of competencies that cuts across all jobs in the organization is still its

ability to simplify succession planning and career development systems. That is, competencies

represent universal behavioral themes that the organization would like to be displayed across all

jobs and, therefore, those who wish to be promoted know exactly what these behavioral themes

are that should lead them to better paid jobs.

Also, whereas TJA is essentially descriptive, CM is primarily prescriptive [45]. That is,

TJA attempts to provide an “objective” account of the “average” work activities and their

associated worker requirements and in contrast, CM intends to prescribe the manner in which

work activities should be carried out in alignment with the organization's strategy.

132 M.B. Fakhrzad

Because of its descriptive nature, TJA is also rooted in the past, and it portrays the job as it

has been done to date. CM, on the other hand, is focused on the future, and it signals the manner

in which the job should be interpreted and performed from now on, regardless of whether or not

employees have adopted such an approach in the past.

TJA is concerned with uncovering day-to-day operational capabilities that have facilitated

the continuation and survival of the organization to date and In contrast, CM is concerned with

evolutionary and dynamic capabilities that facilitate growth and change.

Still another difference lies in the distinct performance level addressed by TJA and CM.

Whereas TJA can be said to focus on describing “typical” performance as represented in the

description of the job as performed by an “average” job incumbent, CM aims at inducing

“maximal” performance as reflected in a strategic interpretation of the job that results in a series

of behaviors that fit certain strategic themes.

TJA is well suited to applications where the goal is in part to determine basic worker

requirements or minimal qualifications needed for job entry and in contrast, CM encourages a

series of loosely coupled behaviors or behavioral themes that go beyond mastery of the basic

aspects of their job, and instead concretize performance excellence as envisioned in the

organization's strategy.

4. Strategic job analysis (SJA) It is generally agreed that various human resources functions should be integrated into the

overall strategic management process of the organization [46].

Strategic job analysis means aligning current and future jobs with the strategic orientation

of the organization. That is, SJA is a purposeful, systematic process of collecting current and

future work-related aspects of a job, within the organization's strategic context.

In order for organizations to become more strategic in terms of their job analysis, Siddique

[47] advised a need to start looking into competencies as opposed to tasks and KSA's as seen in


133

the traditional job analysis approach. So, the use of a competency approach is critical for

organizations wishing to develop a strategic job analysis [48].

Job analysis plays a pivotal role within the human resources management field, and it is of

crucial importance to other functions such as training, compensation and performance

appraisal. As such, strategic job analysis should not only be integrally linked to the strategic

management process of the organization, but to other related organizational functions as well.

An environmental analysis/assessment entails the purposeful scanning of an organization's

internal and external realms for information on opportunities, threats and probable changes.

Environmental scanning provides a rational basis for action by anticipating future

conditions. Interestingly, Schneider and Konz [49], in their approaches to strategic job/work

analysis, advocated the use of subject matter experts in predicting future job changes and then

the present and most likely future situations are compared by SMEs, job analysts and relevant

personnel within the organization. Such a comparison allows an assessment of the extent to

which changes in the environment of the organization yield significant task and KSA changes

for the job in question. This comparison, or gap analysis, will reveal one of the following three

possibilities: little or no significant differences, moderate differences, or significant

differences.

Another implication of SJA also relates to selection and staffing. SJA goes beyond the

traditional person–job match and implies the incorporation of KSAs and work behaviours

aligned with the strategic thrust of the organization. Traditional job analysis infers KSAs solely

from work behaviors associated with the current job.

The human resource function, through a strategic job analysis, can help to ensure such

attributes and in the process, can increase the likelihood of the organization's survival and

success. It is only after a comparison of current and possible future jobs that the organization

can set its strategic job analysis objectives. The objectives should also take into consideration

the overall strategic thrust of the organization. The objectives will guide the development of

SJA action plans/programs and the allocation of resources. The SJA process must also be

134 M.B. Fakhrzad

continuously evaluated through such feedback mechanisms as employee adaptation and

performance.

5. Career Road Strategy, Complementary of TJA, SJA and CM It is obvious from the above discussion that none of these approaches, in spite of their

unique specifications, are able to be an exact view without any shortage for present job analysis

or team base or future job analysis. Studies [50] show that, TJA, SJA and CM approaches are

opposed or at least different in these following aspects:

A: purpose: because TJA describes the job, CM focuses on affects of career behavior and

SJA purposes is a mixture of them.

B: focus: the main attention of TJA is job, the CM approach is the organization and SJA

points the organization with its employee’s skills, knowledge and abilities.

C: time orientation: TJA is rooted in the past, and it portrays the job as it has been done to

date. But both SJA and CM are focused on the future, and signal the manner in which the job

should be interpreted and performed from now on, regardless of whether or not employees have

adopted such an approach in the past.

D: Performance level: whereas TJA can be said to focus on describing “ typical”

performance as represented in the description of the job as performed by an “average” job

incumbent, CM aims at “maximal” performance as reflected in a strategic interpretation of

the job that results in a series of behaviors that fit certain strategic themes and SJA, in this item,

is more approaching to CM.

E: Measurement approach: all criteria used in TJA are measurable so that the assessment of

job’s task is clear and simple while in CM, criteria are elusive and qualitative; SJA criteria

depend on the strategic goals and their indicators for assessment.

Through more precision on details, we can find some other differences between these three

approaches, so we simply can say that, none of these approaches are able to present a complete


135

view for career road strategy. In the other direction, there isn’t any attention to role of the

employee as a stakeholder for selection of career road in all of these approaches. That’s because

each of TJA, SJA and CM are aimed to increase organization’s performance, so the job and the

employee are evaluated just for this goal in theses approaches.

As it can be concluded from the above, employee leaving out during job analysis and

representation of career road process, naturally will decrease organization performance and

lead to unsuccessful strategic goals. Many researchers and practitioners accuse traditional job

analysis of being too legalistic and of creating artificial boundaries that interfere with this

emerging need for team-oriented and cross-functional employees [51] and make reaching to

organization goals very hard. Therefore, representing a tool or method to be a complement part

for theses approaches with entering role of the employee in decision making process and

selection of the career road can be insurance for organization strategic goals acquirement.

This paper introduces career road strategy as a complementary for TJA, SJA and CM

models. This model helps to make clear organization and employee situations to lead the road

of the job and to comply it with the organization goals. In the next section we describe different

aspects of this method.

6. Career Road Strategy Model description In this paper, we present a career road strategic model that insert organization and

employee’s goals inside of the career planning properties. Therefore, planning of the career

road viewed as a project in human resource management plan of organization, so according to a

project independency characters, three tracks can be assumed:

In the first and most dominant track, career planning projects are viewed as subordinate to

the parent organization where career strategy is derived from more significant business

strategies of the parent.

In the second track, career planning projects have been considered as autonomous

organizations connected loosely or tightly to a parent organization.

136 M.B. Fakhrzad

In the third track, career planning projects have been considered as organizations that are

not subject to clearly defined governance or authority setting in relation to their surrounding

organizations or stakeholder organizations. In such cases, career planning projects adapt to the

ongoing changes as career strategic entities of their own.

The Career planning strategy can be considered to be partly derived from the success

discussion. The success issue relates to different stakeholders. The various stakeholders’

different objectives, interests, and needs add to the complexity of managing a career planning

projects. The governance and shaping of the career planning projects in its complex

environment with several stakeholders relate to strategic job analysis with attention to both

employee and organization as stakeholders.

Based on the above analysis, we conclude that the concept of career planning strategy

should not be limited to serve a single organization only. Instead, this issue should

acknowledge organization strategic goals as well as employee’s requirements and

competencies. So, career road strategy is moving on the road of success that both organization

and employee take part in it.

Strategies of career planning project relates to its environment. Career planning project

strategy is influenced by how autonomous an employee towards the organization is.

Traditional/strategic job analysis and competency models in the existing literature assume

that an employee is not autonomous, but the career planning project is run under a strong

governance of one organization. Our interpretation of career planning autonomy is not

restricted only to cover autonomy in relation to the organization, but we’d rather use the

concept of independence that reflects the autonomous position of employee to the organization

as stakeholder.

Based on this analysis, it is concluded that the degree of employee’s independence is an

important parameter in the career planning project’s environment that can be used to explain

different strategies in career road. We suggest four distinct types of career planning strategies:

obedient servant, independent innovator, flexible moderator and strong leader. In Figure 1, we

show these four different types of career strategies can take along the employee’s independence


137

from the organizations goals. The four career planning strategy types are explained

subsequently.

Figure 1: Types of career planning strategies.

Career planning with obedient servant strategy considers its organization as the most

important stakeholder in its environment. Employee exists for the organization and the

objective for the career is to fulfill its organization’s goals. An obedient servant strategy may

result in the career planning project’s success due to appreciation of the organization, measured

by how well the career implements and supports the organization’s business strategy.

Career planning with independent innovator strategy establishes its direction through

encouraging innovative and independent behavior for finding or maintaining the employee’s

own goals and purposes. Career joins with such parts of the organization that help to advance

the career and organization’s purposes, but it simultaneously competes, fights or hedges against

such parts of the organization that pose a threat to the career road’s purpose. The success of an

independent innovator strategy may be measured through newness, degree of change, or impact

related to employee’s outcome, or even through the employee’s competency to renew its

organization’s business strategy.

Career road planning with flexible mediator strategy finds its direction by defining

employee and organization as strong stakeholders. The career planning project adapts to its

stakeholders’ goals and objectives set for the career.

Career road planning with strong leader strategy selects its direction by creating a strong

Independent

Innovator

Obedient

Servant

Strong

Leader

Flexible

Mediato

Career Organization

S T A C K H O L D E R S

High

Low

Deg

ree

of In

depe

nden

ce

138 M.B. Fakhrzad

independent culture and feeling of the importance of making the career successful. This means

that the career establishes and adjusts its own goals and objectives. The career planning project

is organized from inside out by creating a governance umbrella where organization is

positioned in purposeful roles. The success of a strong leader strategy may be measured by the

career’s internal capability of creating a unique purposeful goal and objective for planning of

the career road, capability of using the organization as a resource.

7. Conclusion Job analysis may be viewed as the hub of virtually all human resource management

activities need for the successful functioning of organizations. Strategic Job Analysis (SJA) and

Competency Models (CM) both have the potential to fill an important void in career road

planning. In this paper we present a strategic model for career road planning that makes the

situation of both employee and organization clear in the process of strategic planning.

Characteristics of TJA, SJA and CM are compared and then we concluded that none of them

could be a complete method or tool for career planning, because they don’t pay attention to both

stakeholders together, so career road strategy model is a complementary of competency models

and traditional /strategic job analysis. Degree of employee’s independence is an important

parameter in the career planning project’s environment that can be used to explain different

strategies in career road. We suggest four distinct types of career planning strategies: obedient

servant, independent innovator, flexible moderator, and strong leader.

8. Themes for future research The generic definition of career road strategy as a HRM project introduced in this paper

provides a fruitful foundation for further research. Such further research should take into

account the dynamic nature of the career road strategy, meaning that the career strategies are

dynamically created and they also change during the HRM project lifecycle. We suggest future

research on the following three themes:

First, the practical value of the four types of strategies, created in this paper based on

synthesis of existing research, should be shown by empirical research. What is the more

specific nature of each of the four different career strategies? Which career strategies are the

most appropriate in different contexts, i.e., what are their real success factors?


139

Second, research on career strategy formulation and implementation is needed. What are

the routes through which successful career strategies emerge?

Third, further research is proposed on the evolution and dynamics of career road strategies.

Empirical studies should address especially the factors that determine what kinds of positions a

career may take in relation to its external environment and how that position changes during the

career life. From this perspective, career road strategy can also become a path to change a

career’s position, e.g. to gain more autonomy.

9. References

[1]. Ash, R. (1988). Job analysis in the world of work. In S. Gael (Ed.), The Job Analysis Handbook for Business (pp. 3-13). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

[2]. Siddique, C. M. (2004). Job analysis: A strategic human resource management practice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 219-244.

[3]. Palmer, H., & Valet, W. (2001). Job analysis: Targeting needed skills. Employment relations today, 28(3), 85-91.

[4]. Schneider, B., & Konz, A. (1989). Strategic job analysis. Human Resource Management, 28(1), 51-63.

[5]. Ethridge, G., Rodgers, R. A., & Fabian, E. S. (2007). Emerging roles, functions, specialty areas, and employment settings for contemporary rehabilitation practice, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 38(4), 27-33.

[6]. Sanchez, J. (1994). From documentation to innovation: Reshaping job analysis to meet emerging business needs. Human Resource Management Review, 4(1), 51-74.

[7]. Ruggeberg, B. J. (2007, April). A consultant's perspective on doing competencies well: Methods, models, and lessons. In A. Fink (Ed.), Doing competencies well, Symposium presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.

[8]. Schippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., et al. (2000). The practice of competency modeling, Personnel Psychology, 53, 703-740.

140 M.B. Fakhrzad

[9]. Barrett, G. V., & Callahan, C. M. (1997, April). Competencies: The Madison Avenue approach to professional practice. In R. C. Page (Ed.), Competency models: What are they and do they work? Practitioner Forum presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, Missouri.

[10]. Pearlman, K. (1997, April). Competencies: Issues in their application. In R. C. Page (Ed.), Competency models: What are they and do they work? Practitioner forum, conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.

[11]. Barney, M. (2000). Interdisciplinary contributions to strategic work modeling. Ergometrika, 1, 24-37.

[12]. Sackett, P. R., Laczo, R.M. (2003). Job and work analysis. InW. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. (pp. 21–37). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

[13]. Guion, R. (1993). The need for change: Six persistent themes. In N. Schmitt,W. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers Hammer, L.

[14]. Dany, F. (2003). ‘Free actors’ and organizations: Critical remarks about the new career literature, based on French insights. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(5), 821–838.

[15]. Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 25(3), 457–484.

[16]. Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., & DeMuth, R. L. F. (2006). Protean and boundary less career attitudes: An empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 30–47.

[17]. Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashfort, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 14–38.

[18]. Wilensky, H. L. (1961), Careers, lifestyles, and social integration. International Social Science Journal, 12(4), 553–558.

[19]. Super, D. E. (1980). A life span, life space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 282–298.

[20]. Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Handbook of career theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.


141

[21]. Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Career success in a boundary less career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177–202.

[22]. Savickas, M. L. (2000). Renovating the psychology of careers for the 21st century, In A. Collin & R. Young (Eds.), The future of career (pp. 53–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[23]. Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., & DeMuth, R. L. F. (2006). Protean and boundaryless career attitudes: An empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 30–47.

[24]. Evetts, J. (1992). Dimensions of career: Avoiding reification in the analysis of change. Sociology, 26(1), 1–21.

[25]. Dany, F. (2003). ‘Free actors’ and organizations: Critical remarks about the new career literature, based on French insights. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(5), 821–838.

[26]. Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., Las Heras, M., & Unite, J. A. (2007). Doing well and doing good: Equations for career success in the United States. In J. P. Briscoe (Chair), Doing well by doing good across cultures? A global perspective on career success, Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the academy of management, Philadelphia, PA.

[27]. Sturges, J. (1999). What it means to succeed: Personal conceptions of career success held by male and female managers at different ages. British Journal of Management, 10(3), 239–252.

[28]. Nabi, G. R. (2001). The relationship between HRM, social support, and subjective career success among men and women, International Journal of Manpower, 22(5), 457–474.

[29]. Dyke, L. S., & Murphy, S. A. (2006). How we de.ne success: A qualitative study of what matters most to women and men. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 55(5), 357–372.

[30]. Lee, M. D., Lirio, P., Karakas, F., MacDermid, S. M., Buck, M. L., & Kossek, E. E. (2006). Exploring career and personal outcomes and the meaning of career success among part-time professionals in organizations. In R. J. Burke (Ed.), Research companion to work hours and work addiction (pp. 284–309).

[31]. Hennequin, E. (2007). What’career success’ means to blue-collar workers, Career Development International, 12(6), 565–581.

142 M.B. Fakhrzad

[32]. Schippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., et al. (2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703-740.

[33]. Chatman, J. A., & Cha, S. E. (2003). Leading by leveraging culture, California Management Review, 45(4), 20-34.

[34]. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.

[35]. Schneider, B., & Konz, A. (1989). Strategic job analysis, Human Resource Management, 28(1), 51-63.

[36]. Stewart, G. L., & Carson, K. P. (1997), Moving beyond the mechanistic model: An alternative approach to staffing for contemporary organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 7(2), 157-184.

[37]. Snow, C., & Snell, S. (1993). Staffing as strategy. In N. Schmitt, W. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

[38]. Snow, C. C., & Snell, S. A. (1992). Staffing as strategy. In N. Schmitt, &W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[39]. Schippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., et al. (2000), The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703-740.

[40]. Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-.rm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system, Academy of Management Review, 29, 203-221.

[41]. Chatman, J. A., & Cha, S. E. (2003). Leading by leveraging culture. California Management Review, 45(4), 20-34.

[42]. Cronshaw, S. F. (1998). Job analysis: Changing nature of work. Canadian Psychology, 39(1), 5-13.

[43]. Levine, E. L., & Sanchez, J. I. (2007). Evaluating work analysis in the 21st century, Ergometrika, 4, 1-11.

[44]. Sanchez, J. I., & Levine, E. L. (2000). Accuracy or consequential validity: Which is the better standard for job analysis data? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 809-818.

[45]. Sackett, P. R., Laczo, R.M. (2003). Job and work analysis. InW. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. (pp. 21–37). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.


143

[46]. Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2000). Strategic human resource management: Where have we come from and where should we be going? International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(2), 183-203.

[47]. Siddique, C. M. (2004). Job analysis: A strategic human resource management practice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 219-244.

[48]. Shippmann, J., Ash, R., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L., Hesketh, B., et al. (2000), The practice of competency modelling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703-740.

[49]. Schneider, B., & Konz, A. (1989). Strategic job analysis. Human Resource Management, 28(1), 51-63.

[50]. Juan I. Sanchez, Edward L. Levine,(2009). Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 53–63

[51]. Parbudyal Singh (2008), Human Resource Management Review 18 (2008) 87–99.

Dr. M.B. Fakhrzad is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Industrial Engineering at Yazd University, Yazd, Iran. He received his M.S. and PhD. in Industrial Engineering from University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran. His research activities include Operation management, Systems Engineering, and Optimization Engineering.

Peer Review: This article has been internationally peer-reviewed and accepted for publication according to the guidelines given at the journal’s website.

Date post:	01-Nov-2014
Category:	Technology
Upload:	drboon
View:	650 times
Download:	1 times