competence (PfeVer 1999 ; Prahalad and Hamel 1990 ; Stewart and McGoldrick 1996 ;
Walton 1999 ). However, whereas HRM has largely replaced Personnel Manage-
ment, not only in a terminological sense but also in underlying theory and practice,
HRD has not displaced training, which occupies a substantially larger domain. The
Academy of Human Resource Development, centered on the USA but with an
international membership, is substantially smaller than the much older American
Society of Training and Development. Claiming to ‘lead practice through theory,’
the AHRD is dominated by academics, whereas the ASTD is predominantly a
practitioner body. Clearly, training is not about to be replaced by HRD.
The rhetoric of development, that ‘all employees will be given the opportunity to
develop to their fullest potential,’ is rather like the HRM mantra that ‘our employ-
ees are our greatest asset.’ In practice, employee development is delimited by work
organization, and Taylorist work design persists in much of manufacturing and
services despite claims of the new knowledge-based economy. Japanese industrial-
ist Konosuke Matsushita claimed in 1979 that Japanese industry had outgrown
Taylorism, recognizing thatWrm survival ‘depends on the day-to-day mobilization
of every ounce of intelligence’ (Molander and Winterton 1994 : 147 ). Certainly,
releasing the energies of all employees is fundamental to kaizen(continuous
improvement), supported by the consensus ofringisei(teamworking). Equally,
there is a tradition in the Nordic countries of developing all employees to their
full potential, but typically with an explicit role for the trade unions (Nordhaug
1993 ).
16.5 Competence
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
There is a broad consensus that competence embraces the ability (capability or
capacity) to perform work tasks to a certain standard and that its opposite is ‘not
yet competent,’ implying scope for learning and development to achieve the
necessary standard, rather than ‘incompetent’ which has no such developmental
association and is generally used in a pejorative sense. Equally, such a simple
dichotomy is inadequately developmental; there are clearly degrees of competence,
whatever it means and however it is measured, which is important when estab-
lishing reference levels of qualiWcations, for example.
The competence-based approach in training was driven byWve factors: techno-
logical innovation and demographic changes increased the importance of adaptive
training and work-based learning (Winterton and Winterton 1997 ); the need to
replace supply-driven, traditional education systems with demand-driven models
(MansWeld 2004 ); lifelong learning policies stressing informal and non-formal
learning and the accreditation of experience (Bjørna ̊vold 2000 ); the social value of
training, development, and competence 333