International Transaction Journal Career Model

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

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
a*
Mohammad Bagher Fakhrzad
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Yazd University, IRAN

ARTICLEINFO A B S T RA C T
Article history: Strategic Job Analysis (SJA) and Competency Models
Received 01 February 2012
Received in revised form (CM) both have the potential to fill an important void in Career
18 February 2012 Road Planning (CRP). This paper deals with a strategic model of
Accepted 18 February 2012 career road planning to magnify organization and employee's
Available online
18 February 2012 situations in career road guiding complying with the strategic goals
Keywords: of the organization.
Competency model; To approve this meaning, It is assumed that career road
Strategic Job analysis; planning is a project in organization's human resource
Career Road Planning. 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.

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

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.”

126 M.B. Fakhrzad

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,
127

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

128 M.B. Fakhrzad

[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

129

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.

130 M.B. Fakhrzad

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.
131

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

132 M.B. Fakhrzad

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
133

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

134 M.B. Fakhrzad

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.

135

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
136 M.B. Fakhrzad

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

Degree of Independence
Independent Strong
High
Innovator Leader

Obedient Flexible
Servant Mediato
Low

Organization Career

STACKHOLDERS
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
137

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?

138 M.B. Fakhrzad

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.

139

[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.

140 M.B. Fakhrzad

[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.

141

(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

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

[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.

(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

[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.

142 M.B. Fakhrzad

[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

[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.

143

International Transaction Journal Career Model

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie International Transaction Journal Career Model

Ähnlich wie International Transaction Journal Career Model (20)

Mehr von drboon

Mehr von drboon (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

International Transaction Journal Career Model