JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

COGENERATING A COMPETENCYBASED HRM DEGREE: A MODEL AND

SOME LESSONS FROM EXPERIENCE

Kevin C. Wooten
Max Elden
University of HoustonClear Lake

The past several decades have witnessed a remarkable growth in the

human resource profession. As social and organizational transformations
have occurred, so too has the increased importance of human resource management (HRM) (Cascio, 1998; DeCenzo, 1995; Sherman, Bohlander, &
Snell, 1996). Corporate restructuring, global competition, shifts in the
workforce, industrial democracy, and constant revisions in employment law
have propelled human resource management as one of the pivotal areas for
organizational 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 human
resources (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 professionalism (Wiley, 1995). As noted by Wilhelm (1990), this increased
focus on professionalism is well represented by the HRM professional
degrees 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 the
American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), Society of Human
Resource Management (SHRM), Human Resource Planning Society (HRPS),
Authors Note: Correspondence should be addressed to Kevin C. Wooten, University of Houston
Clear Lake, School of Business and Public Administration, 2700 Bay Area Blvd., Houston, TX
77058; phone: (281) 283-3237; e-mail: wooten@cl.uh.edu.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 25 No. 2, April 2001 231-257
2001 Sage Publications, Inc.

231

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

232

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

and the American Compensation Association (ACA), to name a few.

Although there is certainly by no means uniformity in formal degree programs, there is increased clarity as to certification standards for professionals
(Foreman & Cohen, 1999). Whereas certification clearly enhances the professionalism of HRM practice, little substantial attention has been given to
the development of university curriculum to prepare the next generation of
HRM leaders (Kaufman, 1999).
One reason for the enhancement of professional education and certification has been the identification of key competencies, experience, and levels
of 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 that
has not been adequately addressed is that of educational curriculum to prepare HRM professionals (Barber, 1999; Barksdale, 1998; Wiley, 1995).
Richard Boyatzis, who has championed competency-based professional education, observed that for the human resource professional there are a number
of different sources of development: One of them is school. Here is a place
where, unfortunately, because most academic programs are not really geared
towards developing the whole person, they are more like intellectual
baby-sitting functions (Yeung, 1996, p. 126). That is to say, the field of
human resource management is in great need of developing educational standards and processes similar to programs in engineering, accounting, and
accredited MBA programs. Again, the need to educate professionals in new
and higher level skills is clear. As we shall see, what the new skill sets and
professional competencies are in general is also becoming clear. What
remains unclear and as yet unaddressed even in the most recent literature is
how an HR program can develop a competency-based curriculum that
responds to the specific, local needs of the immediate customers of that
program.
The primary purpose of this article is, therefore, to describe and assess the
process by which we have moved from a traditional HR functions-based program to a new competency-based paradigm. Although we will describe the
content of our new HR competencies, we will focus primarily on the organization development process by which we developed the competencies.
Because we aimed at a set of competencies that would be strongly needed by
local HR employers, their active participation was a key element in our development process, and we used an approach, cogenerative learning (Elden &
Levin, 1991), that would maximize their influence. We will assess how well
our organizational development (OD) model based on this approach has
worked and what lessons can be learned from implementing it in a graduate
HRM program.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

233

Essentially, we describe the design and experiences from an organization

development journey that is still in process. Other HRM programs may find
the process and its product to be relevant where they desire to reinvent their
programs to adapt to new demands for increased professionalism and competencies as needed in their local markets. Although we focus on a particular
model of organization development, we are not arguing that the content of
specific competencies is unimportant. We concentrate on development processes because there is less available existing literature on the how compared
to the what in developing competency-based HR curricula.
Because we found it useful as a point of departure in our own organization
development project for developing our HR degree program project, we
begin by summarizing recent literature on what might be called the competency movement in professional education and trainingespecially with reference to HRM. Next, we describe a recent effort involving a competencybased redesign of a graduate HRM program. Of particular interest is the
application of a cogenerative learning process involving the use of a group
decision support technology with numerous stakeholders to determine curriculum competencies, program vision and mission, and program tracks and
specializations. Third, we discuss the current status of implementation, lessons learned, and the implications for other HRM programs and the field in
general.

The Competency Movement in HRM

Clearly, competency models and competency-based HRM systems are at
the forefront of HRM practice (Kochanski, 1996). Review of several major
HRM 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 HRM
professional. One of the foremost reasons for this shift is the ever-increasing
strategic value of HRM and the competencies that are required. This, of
course, comes at a time when the very nature of the HRM field is being reconsidered and reengineered (Spencer, 1995). Dyer (1999) summarized the new
competencies for HR managers as involving the ability to be a business partner, technical HR knowledge, organizational development skills, and the
ability to facilitate change management.
The competency movement in HRM has generally followed the efforts to
identify key competencies for general management. Seminal efforts by
Boyatzis (1982), Dubois (1993), and Spencer and Spencer (1993) have illus-

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

234

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

trated empirically sound approaches for differentiating levels of employee

performance. Competency models for general management have numerous
implications for the practice of HRM, specifically in the areas of selection,
performance appraisal, job analysis, succession planning, and the like. Use of
competency models can be used to create integrated HRM systems that are
clearly directed toward successful performance. Such an approach has also
been used in education. Boyatzis, Cowen, and Kolb (1995) recently illustrated how a competency-based approach was used to redesign the MBA program at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve
University. The effort was designed specifically to reflect the added value of
multiple stakeholders and focus on learning outcomes.
A good bit of evidence now exists that private industry has used the competency process to change how HRM is practiced. Morris (1996) illustrated
how a competency model and developmental sequence successfully restructured an HR function for a telecommunications organization. Kesler (1995)
also demonstrated the use of HRM competencies in redesigning roles and
HRM practices in a multinational corporation. Of particular importance in
this case was the utilization of a partnership with line managers in the organization. Kochanski and Rose (1996) also chronicled the use of competencies
in the redesign of HRM practices and provided successful evidence from two
multinational organizations.
At least three broad-based general competency models are now available
for 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 University of Michigan. The components of this model are well documented (Ulrich
et al., 1989). In this model, there are three broad components composed of
business capabilities, managing change, and HR practices. The McBer Company also developed a competency model for HRM managers that is also
composed of three general areas. As noted by Yeung (1996), these involve the
areas of goal and action management, interpersonal and people management,
and analytical reasoning.
Perhaps the most comprehensive competency model for HRM practitioners is that developed by Lawson (1990). The results of this study produced a
senior-level competency model depicting the characteristics of highly effective HRM leaders. This model was intended to define and describe prescriptively the competencies and related behaviors required by superior performers from both the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and the HR practitioners
perspective (Lawson & Limbrick, 1996, p. 68). As noted in Table 1, this
model consists of five competency clusters. These are goal and action management, functional and organizational leadership, influence management,
business knowledge, and HR technical proficiency.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

235

TABLE 1

Comparison of Competencies for Human Resource Management

Study

Competencies

University of Michigan (Ulrich,

Brockbank, & Yeung, 1989)

Business capabilities: financial, strategic, and

technological
Managing change processes: diagnosis, influence, contracting, intervention, problem solving,
relationships, and communication
HR: staffing, development, appraisal, rewards,
organization, planning, and communication
Goal and action management abilities: efficiency
McBer and Company
(Yeung, 1996)
orientation, planning, initiative or efficacy, attention to detail, self-control, and flexibility
Interpersonal people management: empathy,
persuasiveness, networking, negotiating, selfconfidence, group management or team leadership, developing others, and oral communications
Analytical reasoning: systems thinking, pattern
recognition, social objectivity, and written communications
Society for Human Resource
Goal and action management abilities: effective
Management (Lawson, 1990) orientation, proactivity, concern with impact, and
decisiveness
Functional and organizational leadership: developing others, group management skills, functional
marketing, leading through vision, and integrity
Influence management: perceptual objectivity,
coalition/network building, communication process skills, and negotiation skills
Business knowledge: general management skills,
value-added perspective, industry knowledge, organizational awareness, and strategic focus
HR technology proficiency: HR planning, selection, and placement; training and development;
employee and labor relations; compensation and
benefits; health, safety, and security; personnel
research; organizational development; and HR
information systems

NOTE: HR = human resources.

Clearly, competency models and competency-based HRM systems are at

the forefront of HRM practice. Although private industry has made use of this
approach, the trend has not been as widespread in educational institutions
preparing HRM professionals. It is time for colleges and universities to pre-

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

236

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

pare the next generation of HRM professionals in the same fashion that
highly 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 of
alternative but somewhat generic categories that help to identify what competency groupings or clusters of competencies can be at least a point of departure for developing a specific HR competency-based degree program. We can
see that there is some consensus on the need for basic categories such as HR
functional skills, business literacy, and interpersonal or leadership competencies. But different institutions have different ways of combining and different
emphasis on different skill sets depending, no doubt, on a variety of local
contingencies (Dyer, 1999). Thus, it seems safe to conclude that there is no
overall, specific model of HR competencies for all HR degree programs at all
universities. On one hand, the existing literature is helpful. We do not have to
reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, it is of limited use. We cannot just use a
cookie-cutter approach. This leads to the central issue we facedhow can we
determine the specific competencies that would be appropriate and distinctive for reinventing out HRM program? The existing literature provides only
general guidelines.

A Model for Competency-Based Curriculum

Redesign and How It Worked
By the mid-1990s, the HRM faculty at the University of HoustonClear
Lake (UHCL) School of Business and Public Administration (SBPA) realized that the graduate HRM program needed rethinking. The profession was
changing, in some ways dramatically. New demands were emerging as clear
feedback from the literature, but more important, from program alumni and
local employees. Faculty interests were shifting. And not the least important,
as the dean pointed out, enrollments were decreasing. We experienced a clear
need to change.
In this section, we first set the scene with a fuller description of our HR
program. Then we introduce our model for shifting it to become competency
based and discuss the prework we did in launching our development project.
Finally, we concentrate on describing exactly what we did in implementing
our model.
UHCL is an upper division undergraduate and graduate school serving a
large urban petrochemical, health care, and aerospace community. Indeed,
NASAJohnson Space Center, with its predominantly scientific and techni-

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

237

cal high-tech workforce of more than 12,000 employees (including contractors)is virtually wall to wall with UHCL. The SBPA graduate program
offers a masters in HRM and maintains a student body of approximately 55
to 60 graduate HRM students. Most of these students are part-time evening
students with full-time jobs and often well along in their careers (average age
in the mid-30s).
The HRM faculty first met in 1997 to begin developing a strategy for redesigning the graduate program. We agreed that fundamental change was
needed to meet the emerging challenges of the information age (Dolence &
Norris, 1995). Together, we made three important policy decisions. First, a
product champion was identified (the first author) to design and lead the
HRM reinvention project. The rest of the faculty members committed to support the project. This was obviously not a one-person job. Second, the project
would not only be highly participative regarding faculty members but would
actively involve other stakeholders as much as possible. We wanted to
cogenerate the new program in partnership with our students and employer
representatives. This in itself was a significant decision. At the time, we had
no formal, systematic means of gathering stakeholder input. Third, we
agreed that the new program would be based on graduates being able to
develop specific competencies. Finally, we agreed that a set of guiding principles or vision statement was needed. In retrospect, our policy decisions
somewhat resembled those developed in the redesign of the Weatherhead
School of Management MBA program (Boyatzis et al., 1995) in relying on
stakeholders to construct a new program vision, mission, and curriculum
model and in focusing on learning outcomes or exit competencies to realign
the curriculum. Significantly in both efforts, the curriculum change process,
although highly participative regarding stakeholders, would be led and owned
by the faculty members servicing the program.
Our model of change differed from the Weatherhead approach in relying
on a dialogic process in which stakeholders (particularly external ones) were
full partners in cocreating new categories of meaning. In the standard textbook process of managing change, stakeholder involvement is critical for
sanctioning the process and setting broad guidelines, often in the form of a
vision. The researchers or consultant then gathers and analyzes data on the
current state of the system, which generates the basis for an action plan. The
action is conceived and unfolds within the epistemological context of the consultant, according to his or her sense-making framework or theory of the
situation.
In our approach, we tried to share the work of epistemology constructing a
new situational or local theory (for more details, see Bartunek, 1992; Elden,
1981, 1983) through a cogenerative process (Elden & Levin, 1991). The idea

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

238

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

is that each actor in a change process has an implicit framework or local theory for making sense out of any given situation. What is needed is an
epistemologically egalitarian process such as dialogue (see Isaacs, 1999, for
a recent overview on the art of thinking together) for cogenerating a third
shared framework as the basis for joint action. In our case, for example,
dialogues with stakeholder representatives serving on an advisory board
were essential in cogenerating competencies (see the following). The competencies we came up with were not predictable from the local theory of any one
set of actors. Stakeholders did more than just creative work to sanction a process 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. Phase
2, data collection and analysis, occurred during 1997 and 1998. Phase 3, curricular 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 and
spring of 2001.
PHASE 1: IDENTIFYING
STAKEHOLDERS AND RESOURCES

Six specific steps were involved in Phase 1. First, we created the advisory
board for the HRM Program. Two senior HR leaders were selected from local
industries along with a senior partner from an international consulting firm
and a senior manager from a Fortune 100 organization. The next step
involved the use of the advisory board in the identification of potential HRM
experts. The HRM leaders assembled a potential list of knowledgeable HRM
managers from the region, specifically identifying potential experts across
representative industries serviced by the university (e.g., health care, aerospace, petrochemical, and banking). The senior partner from the consulting
firm assembled a list of senior partners and officers in regional HR consulting
firms. The senior manager from industry assembled a pool of senior managers and officers from prominent local employers, with the emphasis placed
on creating a pool of well-experienced senior managers. Also as a part of this
step, we polled faculty members and others to establish a pool of HRM
alumni as well as current students who could participate.
The third step of Phase 1 involved the identification of existing competency 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 generalized
model as a point of departure for our reengineering effort. Although this
method has several downsides (Mansfield, 1996), the resources needed to
build a completely unique competency model for the many stakeholders of

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

239

Figure 1: Phases and Steps of the Project

NOTE: SHRM = Society for Human Resource Management.

the program simply were not available. We used three competency models
(illustrated in Table 1) along with the Body of Content Taxonomy developed
by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) (1996) for certification exams, which specifies the areas of knowledge that are considered
important in the HRM field.
The fourth step, therefore, was to develop a preliminary working set of
outcome competencies. In keeping with the emerging literature, we identified three sets of competencies. First, we used the basic HR functional areas
from the Body of Content Taxonomy (SHRM, 1996), including staffing and
selection, compensation and benefits, employee and labor relations, training
and development, health and safety, and qualitative and quantitative skills.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

240

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

We added information technology and evaluation methodology. Next, using

the results from the University of Michigan study, we established a second
component, general business/management. It includes skills in the areas of
business strategy, budget and finance, employee involvement or motivation,
leadership, international management, communications, group/team processes, and results and performance management. Third, based on the University of Michigan and SHRM senior-level competency models, we created
a new category, change management. This consisted of areas such as organizational design/learning, coaching and counseling, planning and implementing change, consulting skills, intervention strategies, intervention evaluation,
and interaction with different cultures. In total, our preliminary competency
model contained 98 potential learning outcomes in three components (i.e.,
HR functions, general business/management, and change management). We
now had something to work witha provisional template of generally desirable HR competency outcomes.
Also in this fourth step, we worked extensively with our new advisory
board to develop specific questions for program evaluation and curriculum
design. As illustrated in Table 2, we decided to ask about program strengths,
weaknesses, and recommended changes along with input about the constructed competency template. We also decided to obtain input about program vision and mission as well as potential program (specialist) tracks,
recruitment, and hiring factors that were important for our graduates. As
shown in Table 2, these questions were differently assigned among the six
stakeholder groups, comprising our HRM faculty members, students, and
program alumni and the external stakeholders of HRM experts, consultants,
and customers (organizational leaders/officers).
The fifth step involved the development of the data collection methodology. We considered many traditional data acquisition methodologies but
found that mail surveys, telephone interviews, and focus groups would neither be cost- nor time-effective nor particularly inclusive. Given that we
wanted to include a number of different constituencies at different times
using a different mix of questions, it was decided that the best choice for our
study would be to use a Group Decision Support Lab (GDSL) environment.
GDSLs are advanced information technologies that combine communication, computers, and decision processes to assist groups of individuals in collaborative problem solving and information gathering. A tremendous
amount of literature has been generated researching the characteristics and
effectiveness 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

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

241

TABLE 2

Matrix of Questions and Stakeholders

Constituencies
Questions To Be
Asked in Group
Decision Support Lab
Program strengths
Program weaknesses
Recommended changes
Exit competencies
Vision and mission
Program tracks
Recruitment
Hiring factors (knowledge,
skills, and abilities)

HRM
Faculty
HRM
HRM
Customer
Members Students Alumni Executives Consultants Leaders
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

NOTE: HRM = human resource management.

quantitative data at a low cost, with high participation and immediate feedback to groups.
Through the use of specialized group-meeting software, a master template
and meeting protocol process was established. Using the matrix of questions
and stakeholders shown in Table 2, the software was loaded with questions
appropriate to each stakeholder group, and a sequence of activities was established. According to McGraths (1984) task classification schema for technology, a process and protocol was established reflecting both generative and
choosing activities. Specifically, the process and protocol established
involved creativity tasks of generating ideas, intellectual tasks of solving
problems, and decision-making tasks involving deciding issues with options
and answers. For some questions, for example, the competencies, participants were asked to add, delete, change, or comment on the existing template
provided. On other questions, such as program strengths and weaknesses, a
multistage protocol was used. Here, open-ended idea generation tasks were
followed by sorting and organizing ideas, followed by ranking and rating.
In relation to the methods to identify HRM competencies, the use of a template developed from other competency studies and the use of GDSL can be
considered a hybrid. Kochanski (1996) classified competency identification
methodologies in terms of potential buy-in and validity. The use of a
predeveloped template combined with GDSL procedures reflects the high
buy-in of using focus groups and artifact (i.e., secondary data) analysis and
the high validity of using expert panels. Thus, this process was distinct from a

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

242

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

full-blown competency study (Spencer & Spencer, 1993) where identification of behaviors and traits that differentiate specific levels of performance
(e.g., superior) is a paramount objective. In this case, we used a process to
identify highly generalizable competencies to drive the reengineering of our
curriculum.
PHASE 2: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Phase 2 involved three specific steps. The first step involved conducting
the six different stakeholder meetings. In total, 9 faculty members, 8 program alumni, 9 current students, 9 HRM executives, 8 high-level operating
managers/officers, and 10 HRM consultants were used. UHCLs GDSL was
set up to accommodate up to 14 participants. Each participant sat in front of
an independent computer terminal in a room configured to both maximize
face-to-face interaction as well as honor terminal privacy. Each session used
one technical facilitator as well as a session facilitator. Faculty members
acted as session facilitators. The software used allowed us to employ a modified nominal group technique so that we could generate ratings and rankings
for the questions involving vision, mission, program strengths, program
weaknesses, and so on. The results of each question were electronically displayed on a large screen, and printouts of each session were provided to session participants. Each session lasted 2 to 3 hours.
The second step of Phase 2 involved the synthesis of data and identification of key findings. Literally thousands of individual responses were collected and, when tabulated, allowed us to compare responses across the
stakeholder groups. The faculty members and the advisory board then constructed a new vision and mission. Based on the input, the new vision and
mission (as shown in Table 3) were distinctly different from the focus of the
old program. Specifically, the stakeholders input produced a vision and mission that reflected the strategic nature of HRM and its relation to bottom line
accountability. A high degree of consensus was obtained relative to program
strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for change.
On the basis of 10-point rating scales, top-rated responses across stakeholder groups were used. Top program strengths involved student-centered
faculty, the applied nature of the program, the relationship of the program
with local organizations, and international ties. Top-rated weaknesses
involved program marketing and class availability and scheduling. Top-rated
recommended changes involved program marketing and specific curriculum
redesign issues. A high degree of consensus across constituencies revealed
interest in creating program specialization tracks in HR information systems,

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

243

TABLE 3

Program Vision and Mission

Program vision: Providing a strategic HRM educational system that adds value to individuals
and organizations.
Program mission: Providing the community with highly competent professionals who apply
their knowledge to achieve organizational effectiveness in line with business needs, thereby
serving as strategic business partners.
NOTE: HRM = human resource management.

international management, training and employee development, OD/change

management, compensation/benefits, and employee relations/ labor law.
The last step of Phase 2 was to develop a competency model for learning
outcomes. Data gathered from stakeholder groups concerning program competencies were first analyzed by faculty leaders of the project. When two or
more groups generated the same suggestion, it was considered to have relevance. A draft of potential competencies was developed that included information concerning knowledge, skills, and abilities that HRM executives, HR
consultants, and high-level leaders desired of program graduates (i.e., hiring
factors). What emerged from this content analysis were clusters of competencies much richer than the initial template. In general, stakeholders provided
little disagreement with areas of knowledge provided by the SHRM (1996)
Body of Content Taxonomy. Rather, most input, additions, and comments
involved needed refined interpersonal skills (e.g., flexibility, dispute resolution, etc.) and specialized conceptual skills (e.g., critical thinking,
value-added perspective, etc.). Of specific importance were the additions and
comments surrounding the areas of ethics, self-awareness, personal management (i.e., stress management and time management), career planning and
lifelong learning, critical thinking, and visioning.
How did the use of GDSL support the cogeneration process? Clearly, several tasks involved creativity (program vision and mission), whereas others
involved decision making and generation where stakeholders added, deleted,
and changed the template used for identifying competencies. Thus, this
hybrid methodology (McGrath, 1984) did not initially facilitate much interaction beyond that which was electronically mediated. It did, however, generate data to create new categories of meaning (e.g., competencies). Thus,
GDSL createdeconomically, individually, and quicklythe context for
cogeneration to occur. In this case, cogeneration occurred where members of
the advisory board met to make sense of the data, thereby generating a new
framework (e.g., new competencies) on which to base program development

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

244

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

actions. To this extent, GDSL was used to quickly and economically produce
the stimuli to engage our stakeholders as partners.
Through numerous rounds of group meetings with faculty members and
the advisory board, we evolved our own specific competency model that built
on but went beyond our initial general one derived from the literature. As
shown in Figure 2, our new competency model has five broad competency
clusters: core HR processes, general business management, strategic decision making and problem solving, change management, and personal mastery 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 or
learning outcomes. The competency cluster labeled core HR processes
closely reflects SHRMs (1996) Body of Knowledge Outline, including
broad areas such as staffing; compensation and benefits; employee and labor
relations; training and development; health, security, and safety; and qualitative and quantitative analysis. The second cluster, general business management, builds on the University of Michigans business capabilities cluster but
extends in ways reflecting local needs and priorities. This cluster involves
areas such as strategy, budgeting, ethics, communication, computer literacy,
understanding of organizational culture, and leadership.
The third cluster, change management, closely reflects competency clusters identified in Table 1. This cluster involves the ability to create a
future-based vision, organizational design, and broad-based counseling;
intervention; and facilitation skills. The fourth competency cluster, personal
mastery and influence, identifies not only cognitive frameworks but refined
interpersonal skills as well. In this cluster, abilities such as interpersonal
influence, flexibility, negotiations, sensitivity toward other cultures, personal
ethics, and managing yourself (e.g., stress, time, and career) emerged. The
fifth cluster, strategic decision making and problem solving, reflects the
changing role of HR professionals. This cluster reflects an interesting integration of previous models illustrated in Table 1, primarily focusing on critical and systems thinking, problem solving, creativity, strategic alignment and
focus, and a value-added perspective. The resulting competency data
depicted in Table 4, as previously stated, is a generalized competency model.
To this extent, our competency model is at the same level of abstraction and
specificity 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 first
step was to identify the extent to which the existing HRM courses included

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

245

Figure 2: The University of HoustonClear Lake HRM Competency Model

NOTE: HR= human resource; HRM = human resource management.

the newly created learning outcomes. The entire HRM faculty was again
involved, this time in assessing which courses and to what extent the newly
defined 84 exit competencies were to be addressed. From this analysis, it
became 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 competencies generated in the delivery of existing courses as well as in the construction
of new courses. Because faculty members were asked to first identify which
competencies were covered by each course offered, a matrix of courses by
competencies was generated. These course-specific competencies are now
depicted in each syllabus in addition to the course objectives, and curricular
time has been allocated to the development of the requisite competencies.
Faculty members have specifically designed exams and project applications
for each course that directly relate to the competencies associated with it.
The second step of Phase 3 involved both revision and evaluation of new
curriculum. Three new courses were added to the curriculum, two courses
redesigned and reengineered, and two others completely changed. Each
HRM program course now reflects specific competencies that it is responsible for developing and assessing. The revised curriculum now reflects 12
hours of foundation courses, inclusive of introductory management, intro-

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

246

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

TABLE 4

Learning Outcomes of Competency Clusters

Competency Cluster 1Core human resource processes
Staffing Issues
Recruitment
Selection
Equal employment opportunity/affirmative action
Human resource planning
Career planning and succession planning
Legal and regulatory concerns in staffing
Staffing and recruiting evaluation
Compensation and benefits
Tax and accounting issues
Economic issues
Compensation strategy and policy
Compensation and benefits programs
Job analysis and evaluation
Analysis of benefit programs
Legal and regulatory concerns
Compensation and benefit evaluation
Employee and labor relations
Union representation
Unfair labor practices
Labor and management cooperation
Collective bargaining
Grievance and arbitration
Employee coaching and counseling
Public sector labor relations
Employment policies and procedures
Performance appraisal and feedback systems
Legal and regulatory concerns in employee and labor relations
Evaluation of employee relations programs
Training and development
Needs assessment
Program development
Program evaluation
Legal and regulatory concerns in employee development
Career development and assessment
Health, security, and safety
Legal and regulatory issues
Health promotion and wellness
Safety programs
Organizational security
Health and safety evaluation
Qualitative and quantitative analysis
Research design and program evaluation
Statistical analysis
Application of information systems

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

TABLE 4 continued
Competency Cluster 2General business management
Business strategy
Budgeting and financial controls
Employee involvement, empowerment, and motivation
Organizational culture
Leadership
International management practices
Business ethics
Computer literacy
Oral and written communications
Group processes and team development
Quality and performance management
Competency Cluster 3Change management
Visioning
Organizational design and learning
Planning and implementing change
Coaching and counseling
Consulting skills
Facilitation skills
Intervention strategies
Intervention analysis
Competency Cluster 4Personal mastery and influence
Action orientation
Flexibility
Self-awareness
Diversity awareness
Sensitivity toward other cultures
Global perspective
Networking and coalition development
Negotiations
Dispute and conflict resolution
Interpersonal influence
Individual communications techniques
Time management
Stress management
Project management
Personal ethics and integrity
Lifelong learning orientation
Personal career plans
Competency Cluster 5Strategic decision making and problem solving
Problem analysis
Analytical and logical abilities
Systems thinking
Critical thinking
Individual and group decision-making techniques
Creativity and innovation
Problem-solving techniques
Strategic focus and alignment
Value-added perspective

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

247

248

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

duction to HRM, data analysis techniques, and accounting concepts. Based

on the new curriculum model, there are now 33 hours of required core courses
compared to 21 hours required in the old program. The requirements now
include HR law, organizational behavior, group processes, data analysis/
program evaluation, HR information systems, employee planning, staffing
and selection, compensation and benefits, organizational change, and
employee training and development. Two new capstone courses have been
added. The first capstone course involves advanced leadership for HRM. The
second capstone course now involves ethics and international and strategic
issues.
The last step of Phase 3 involved the rollout of the new curriculum. This
necessitated that a 5-year master schedule be created. The 5-year master
schedule was produced to systematically allow for the changes in the new
program to occur while simultaneously maintaining the structure and context
of the old program so that students could graduate. Essentially, this schedule
created a rollout template such that new courses could be phased in during
1998, 1999, and the 2000 calendar years. This calendar called for all new
required courses to be implemented by the fall of 2000 and new electives to
support 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 now
possible to schedule needed classes such that both full-time and part-time
working students can graduate in a specified number of semesters. Second,
by scheduling certain foundation classes first, it has allowed developmental
time for faculty to develop new courses and reengineer existing courses to
address the new competency model.
We have recently completed the first implementation of all required and
core courses. The faculty members met early in the process and determined
what competencies were being covered by existing coursework and which
courses required revision. Entirely new courses were also developed for
implementation. Most of our developmental energies have been devoted to
inventing or reinventing courses to be truly competency based. As we strive
to operationalize specific courses, we are finding that this is a challenging
intellectual task in its own right, and because the competencies themselves
are not only complex but interrelated, we are having to work through the relationships between courses as well. Because the competency model generated
was at a generalizable and categorized level of specificity, considerable faculty member time has been devoted to operationally defining these categories
and generating new curriculum to meet them.
Lets look at a few specifics to illustrate the complexity of integrating
competencies into a curriculum. Leadership, for example, is a general business management competency (Cluster 2), but there is not a single, widely

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

249

accepted way of defining or operationalizing it, and other clusters (especially

Cluster 3, change management; Cluster 4, personal mastery and influence;
and Cluster 5, individual and group decision-making techniques) appear to
contain specific competencies required for it (e.g., facilitation skills, action
orientation, self-awareness, sensitivity toward others, interpersonal influence, communication, individual and group decision making, etc.). But our
program is designed to produce something more than just technically competent HR professionals. We want our graduates to understand leadership and
exercise it effectively. This has required us to rethink our curriculum at three
levels: foundation, required or core, and capstone.
Lets see how the competencies in personal mastery and influence (Cluster 4) that clearly relate to leadershipaction orientation, self-awareness,
and sensitivity toward othersare operationalized at each of these three levels. Courses at each level contain appropriate theory and concepts concerning
the relevant competencies, and the skill learning is designed to be progressive. That is, each level builds on the prior one in attempting to deepen and
extend the competencies. The foundation course, an introduction to management, is heavily team based (60% to 70% of the gradea cooperative learning design), and team members are introduced to nine behaviorally anchored
rating scales for measuring individual team member effectiveness. Each
team member provides written feedback to every other team member at the
beginning and the end of the semester using the nine scales. The initial feedback data provide each student with data for the individualized skill development during the semester. Data at the end of the semester provide measures of
progress. Students are graded on the feedback they give, not on the feedback
they receive. At the next level, in a required course on group process and
team-based organization, students also work mostly in teams and give each
other feedback on interpersonal competence, but each team now develops its
own set of behaviorally defined competencies. Both these courses existed
prior to our new program but were revised to meet the need for focusing on
leadership competencies.
Our capstone course on leadership was completely new. It was designed to
build on the two courses described earlier and other related courses so students could integrate their graduate coursework and experience from professional work at a personal level around the idea of leadership. Therefore, the
instructional design shifted from cooperative learning to individual learning
contracts and portfolios where students were required to demonstrate progress toward self-developed learning goals. The goals had to include individual assessment of progress on 20 HR leadership competencies selected by
the class as a whole from a list of 86 generic leadership competencies
operationalized by Lombardo and Eichinger (1996). Each student got data

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

250

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

from 8 people from his or her workplace using a 360-degree feedback instrument. This followed up and reinforced the self-awareness competency while
providing each student with context-specific feedback on specific HR-relevant
leadership skills. Although we cannot discuss the design of the entire course,
other leadership competencies were followed up in a stretch project carried
out in the students home organization. Progress in developing specific competencies was jointly assessed by instructor and student according to criteria
agreed to in the learning contract at the beginning of the semester.
We do not have the space here to describe other competencies, their interrelatedness, or the necessary complexity that must be dealt with in making a
full transition to competency-based education in business. We anticipated
that the challenges of specifying all competencies fully for all courses would
be significant. However, rather than specifying everything in advance and
delaying the program, we decided to implement operationalizing competencies 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 of
implementation.
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 administered to all new students as they participate in the introduction to HRM
course. Similar to the assessment tool for the senior-level SHRM competency model (Lawson, 1990), our self-assessment tool identifies areas of
existing competence and specific developmental objectives concerning our
84 learning outcomes. Each of the learning outcomes is described, requiring
students to rate their own current proficiency level (low, moderate, or high).
A pilot test of this instrument during the fall of 1999 revealed several interesting points. First, the data gathered from 23 entry-level students were quite
diverse and, when tabulated during an in-class exercise, revealed very diverse
learning needs. Second, future use of this instrument will require its documentation into a new student record and its integration into the creation of a
portfolio for each student. Third, the scaling of the instrument requires revision. At present, respondents rate their current proficiency and their desired
proficiency and subsequently identify their developmental priorities as a
result of the difference between these data points. We are currently in the process of revising the instrument such that decision making will be more systematic and objective.
In the future, students will be requested to determine whether each competency is a developmental priority during a special session held during their

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

251

introductory course. We are currently in the process of devising a process for

in-class assessment, discussion, and planning. At the end of this initial
assessment, the top developmental priorities will be listed along with comments and observations. This instrument is not seen as one to be developed
with rigorous psychometric properties. Rather, it is seen as a grounded tool to
help students customize and focus their HR graduate classes and provide faculty members with data for future curriculum planning and development.
Ultimately, we plan to implement an online version of this instrument, allowing for greater control over the data, faculty guidance, integration with class
scheduling, and creation of a developmental plan and record for each student.
The self-assessment tool will be administered to all first-semester students
beginning in the fall of 2000. We see the results from this self-assessment as
important to the student in at least three ways. First, self-assessment and subsequent developmental planning is critical to the development of several
competencies that are defined (e.g., personal mastery). Second, it will hopefully promote the student as an active participant in the design of his or her
own curriculum. Because students have choice relative to electives, specialization tracks, and internships, they are requested to plan their curriculum in
relation to their developmental priorities. Because all 84 competencies are
addressed either individually or collectively by specific required courses,
allowing the student direction and control over specific developmental priorities is seen as constructive for achieving the programs vision and mission.
Third, use of an early diagnostic process, we believe, will set up the motivation for the second step of Phase 4, the development of portfolios for each
student.
The second step of Phase 4, illustrated in Figure 1, involves the use of a
portfolio assessment. Arter and Spandel (1992) well chronicled the process
and contents of student portfolios. The idea is that each student would graduate with a collection of demonstrated competencies that would be helpful in
applying for jobs but, more important, in the long run would serve as a foundation for continued professional and career development. We intend for students to select specific competencies that they emphasize in their outcomesoriented courses and be able to articulate how they interrelate in supporting a
particular career direction.
The portfolio assessment process is currently in the process of design. We
anticipate providing each student a designated location on the programs
Web page. Here, each student would be responsible for maintaining a current
resume as well as maintaining current data relevant to their program. Specifically, we expect students to use the self-assessment tool described earlier
to articulate their developmental priorities. Related to this, each student
would provide evidence demonstrating how the developmental priorities

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

252

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

were addressed through projects, papers, and so on. A special program development retreat is currently planned to finalize the design of a Web page and a
student 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 and
effort to establish portfolios, the approach fits well within the context of the
overall change effort (i.e., cogenerative learning) and the new program focus
on HR competencies.
The third and final step of Phase 4 will involve the use of the SHRM certification exam. Thus, by passing the SHRM certification exam, our students
will have satisfied an important external professional expectation in addition
to the program requirements and their own personal learning objectives.
Although we cannot make graduation from our program contingent on successful performance on the exam, we plan on providing our students with a
special departmental certificate for those who have completed all program
requirements as well as self-assessment of their competencies, creation of an
assessment portfolio, and a passing score on the SHRM certification exam.
It is in Phase 4 where we believe the real transformation of our program
shall be achieved, namely, with our students. Phase 4 is important for our
program to the extent that the use of self-assessment, portfolios, and the
SHRM certification exam will serve as a constant reality check relative to
our curriculum relevance and efficacy. More important, however, the use of
self-assessment and demonstration of mastery in the form of portfolios will
hopefully provide both a symbolic and tangible process for that which is most
crucial to the HRM profession, that of lifelong learning and development.

Implications and Lessons Learned

In short, there are three major innovations that the cogenerative process
brings to competency-based education. First, using a decision support environment greatly enhances stakeholder interaction and mutual influence
essential to ultimately generating competencies that are intellectually and
practically grounded. Second, the cogenerative process results in a potential
new socially constructed reality. Third, the cogenerative process can produce
the needed content for a competency-based curriculum. The real innovation
of this effort, therefore, involved the use of GDSL to quickly and economically create the context for cogeneration. What would normally take many
months or years to produce and be beyond the resource means of most institutions similar to ours was produced in a matter of mere weeks. When properly
used together, GDSL can establish a cogenerative culture that ultimately cre-

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

253

ates an altogether new framework. We created this new framework by sharing

data in a nonconfrontational fashion, creating new categories of meaning,
thus generating a third or community-based framework on which to base our
developmental actions. Thus, innovation in this project came from integrating two technologies, one social in the form of cogeneration and the other
being electronic in the form of a decision support environment.
The information obtained from this project has resulted in a dramatic
change for the UHCL HRM program. It has been realigned, redefined, and
reinvented. In general, the project has resulted in a radical shift from a traditional and functionally based curriculum to a vision-based effort focusing on
learning outcomes. The competency model developed well illustrated the
need for our program to focus on different skills, different levels of knowledge, and abilities more closely aligned with achieving strategic partnerships. This is directly attributable to the use of the cogenerative learning
model, culminating in the creation of a new socially constructed reality and a
new shared framework for program development.
What, then, have been the lessons learned from this process? First and
foremost, it was not necessary to reinvent the wheel to produce a paradigm
shift. Through the use of a commonly accepted domain of desired knowledge
and well-researched competency studies, we were able to create a
generalizable competency model to guide our new vision and mission. The
implication from this lesson is that such a process can also be used by other
university-level HRM programs when they need to develop local definitions
of skills and competencies.
The second important lesson involves the participation of the customer in
the redesign process. Through the use of six different stakeholder groups,
several key objectives were met. First and foremost, the quality and validity
of the data were greatly enhanced. When all groups of stakeholders articulated the same need or point of view, then the direction for needed changes
was all the more clear. Another key benefit was a simple artifact of participation, namely, buy-in. Potential customers in the form of stakeholder representation (e.g., HRM managers, HRM consulting firms, etc.) have created new
and important relationships for the program and opportunities for our graduates. This is also true of other HRM programs that have recently reinvented
themselves (Adler & Lawler, 1999; Heneman, 1999). The implication of this
lesson is quite simple. Academicians must generate more community and
professional support to create viable educational vehicles and delivery
systems.
The third important lesson learned is that using a computer-mediated
meeting environment is clearly cost-efficient and timely. By creating templates and decision processes in a decision lab context, what was achieved in

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

254

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

a series of several-hour meetings would normally require large blocks of time

and unavailable resources. For example, the stakeholder meetings for HRM
executives, consultants, and high-level managers were held on Saturday
mornings. By only asking for a few hours rather than many hours or days, we
got a high degree of involvement and participation. It added a lot that participants were able to see the results of their participation as they produced
themin real time. The implication of this lesson is obvious. The spread of
information technology will allow universities to increasingly use similar
tools, even in resource-constrained situations.
Last, an important lesson obtained from this process involves the management of change dynamics. By creating a new vision, mission, and curriculum
model, the blueprint for change was made clear. The focus on competencies
or learning outcomes made the task of curriculum redesign an integrated process rather than a disaggregated function. The implication here, of course,
involves the critical factor in change dynamics of creating readiness and participation in creating a new reality.
What, then, could other programs learn from our experience? First, reliance on internal (i.e., faculty) and scholarly sources for curricular design is
not sufficient. Use of multiple external constituents from the local community is instrumental in not only a comprehensive approach to program revision but to establish a climate for change readiness. Second, the high cost of
developing competencies can be constrained by first starting with previously
developed models and taxonomies. Customization of established competency models, particularly those with established credibility and validity
(e.g., SHRM model), reduces the time, cost, and resistance typically associated with significant curriculum change. Thus, some conclusions can be
made about use of decision support systems that greatly expedites the facilitation of constituent input.
Perhaps the most important lesson learned from our experience involves
the cultural change among the faculty. In our case, greater ownership and
partnership in the program has occurred as a result of generating agreed-on
outcomes (i.e., competencies). Initial threats from the potential loss of academic freedom through outdated course objectives have been replaced by
clarity of common purpose. Most important, the opportunity for creativity in
operationalizing competencies through revised coursework and alternative
teaching methodologies has created a sense of optimism and energy.
Given rapidly changing circumstances that produce demands for new
HRM competencies, the research literature can only take us so far in creating
competency-based academic HRM curricula and programs. The need to reinvent HRM is clear, as is the direction in which a new HRM education should
move. It is useful but not sufficient to know that in broad terms traditional HR

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

255

competencies such as selection and compensation need to be supplemented

by general, MBA-type competencies such as finance and marketing and by
change management skills. But these are only general guidelines. The specific outcome competencies and curricular reconstructions that make an educational program relevant to its customers must be coproduced with all stakeholders working as partners. The space between on one side not starting from
scratch and on the other not using a cookie-cutter approach gets filled by a
process of cogenerative inquiry where all relevant stakeholders work
together to invent what is needed locally.

References
Adler, P. S., & Lawler, E. E. (1999). Who needs MBAs in HR? USCs strategic human resource
management MBA concentration. Human Resource Management, 38, 125-130.
Arter, J., & Spandel, V. (1992). NCME instructional module: Using portfolios of student work in
instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11, 36-44.
Baill, B. (1999). The changing requirements of the HR professional: Implications for the development 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 the
Annual 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: Steps
on a journey from teaching to learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brockbank, W., Ulrich, D., & Beatty, R. W. (1999). HR professional development: Creating the
future creators at the University of Michigan Business School. Human Resource Management, 38, 111-118.
Byars, L. L., & Rue, L. W. (1997). Human resource management (5th ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
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.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

256

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / April 2001

Elden, M. (1983). Democratization and participative research in developing local theory. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 4, 21-33.
Elden, M., & Levin, M. (1991). Co-generative learning: Bridging participation into action
research. 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. Human
Resource 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 making in organizations (pp. 46-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hunter, R. H. (1999). The new HR and the new HR consultant: Developing human resource consultants at Anderson Consulting. Human Resource Management, 38, 147-155.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, 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. Personnel Psychology, 50, 121-146.
Kaufman, B. E. (1999). Evolution and current status of university HR programs. Human Resource
Management, 38, 103-110.
Kesler, G. C. (1995). A model and process for redesigning the HRM role, competencies, and
work in a multi-national corporation. Human Resource Management, 34, 229-252.
Kochanski, J. T. (1996). Introduction to special issue in human resource competencies. Human
Resource Management, 35, 3-6.
Kochanski, J. T., & Rose, D. H. (1996). Designing a competency-based human resource organization. Human Resource Management, 35, 19-33.
Lawson, T. E. (1990). The competency initiative: Standards of excellence for human resource
executives. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.
Lawson, T. E., & Limbrick, V. (1996). Critical competencies and developmental experiences for
top HR executives. Human Resource Management, 35, 67-85.
Lombardo, M., & Eichinger, R. (1996). For your improvement: A development and coaching
guide. Madison, WI: Lombardo.
Losy, M. R. (1999). Mastering the competencies of HR management. Human Resource Management, 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: Prentice
Hall.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015

Wooten, Elden / A COMPETENCY-BASED HRM DEGREE

257

McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology. Thousand
Oaks, 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 development
intervention to combat groupthink. Public Administration Quarterly, 19, 193-216.
Morris, D. (1996). Using competency development tools as a strategy for change in the human
resource 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. New
York: 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 corporation. Human Resource Management, 29, 129-144.
Wright, P., & McMahan, G. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. 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.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at National School of Political on May 21, 2015