外文翻譯---對(duì)于勝任力感到迷惑？一份勝任力模型的進(jìn)化和應(yīng)用評(píng)估

1、<p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)：</b></p><p>　　Confounded by Competencies? An Evaluation of the Evolution and Use of Competency Models</p><p>　　Leanne H. Markus</p><p>　　Performance G

2、roup International Ltd., Auckland</p><p>　　Helena D. Cooper-Thomas</p><p>　　Department of Psychology, University of Auckland</p><p>　　Keith N. Allpress</p><p>　　Centran

3、um Ltd., Auckland</p><p>　　Over the last ten years there has been a world-wide expansion in the use of competency models as a major underpinning of Human Resources (HR) strategy. The use of the competency ap

4、proach is promoted by consultants and software vendors on the basis that this will improve both individual job performance and organizational effectiveness. Yet there is a substantial, and largely unquestioned, gap betwe

5、en the many claims and the actual benefits measurably delivered by competency initiatives. Industria</p><p>　　This article will review the theoretical perspectives that have informed the competency movement,

6、 review our experience of the use of competency models in New Zealand, and critically examine the assumptions that underpin their use. The research that exists is reviewed with particular reference to the outcome measure

7、s used to substantiate the value of competency models. Finally we identify various research areas and questions that should clearly be investigated by I/O psychologists if they are to</p><p>　　What is a comp

8、etency? Three main approaches</p><p>　　The numerous published definitions can be grouped into three distinct approaches: educational standards, behavioral repertoires, and organizational competencies.</p&

9、gt;<p>　　1. The Educational Approach (The development of skills, achievement of standards, award of credentials)</p><p>　　The modem competency movement originated from the educational discipline. In t

10、he US 'competencies' were based on functional role analysis and described either role outcomes, or knowledge, skills and attitudes, or both, required for role performance, and assessed by a criterion, usually a b

11、ehavioural standard. In the UK, industry bodies especially those requiring trades and technical skills, developed standards of occupational competence based on expected work outcomes (Fletcher, 1992). A 'compet</p

12、><p>　　2. The Psychological Approach- (Behavioural repertoires)</p><p>　　In 1973 David McClelland, working in the educational field in the US, wrote a paper suggesting that personal competencies, w

13、hich he defined as motives and personality traits, are a better means of predicting occupational success than traditional psychometrics such as IQ and aptitude tests.</p><p>　　McClelland's work was to be

14、 enormously influential. Of particular interest was the idea that the factors or inputs associated with individual success could be identified, and then taught to others. McClelland and Boyatzis (1980) developed a method

15、ology for identifying competencies, based on the skilled behavioural repertoires of recognised star performers within particular organisations. They defined competencies as "a generic body of knowledge, motives, tra

16、its, self images and social roles and </p><p>　　3. The Business Approach (Organisational competencies for competitive advantage)</p><p>　　The concept of competencies was taken up by business str

17、ategists in the late 1980s. Hamel and Prahalad (1989) advanced the idea of "Core Competencies" and "Capabilities". Their definition of core competencies as the "collective learning" of the o

18、rganization has been much cited, and contributes to the current interest in "competencies" (Shipmann et al., 2000). Thus Sparrow (1995) suggests that practitioners should aim at defining "higher level"

19、; future oriented organisational competencies.</p><p>　　What are the potential benefits of the Competency approach?</p><p>　　Performance benefits are promised by the various definitions which in

20、clude the causal or instrumental relationship of competencies and job performance (Boyatzis 1982) and competencies and organisational performance. (Organ, 1988; Hamel & Prahalad, 1989).</p><p>　　In addit

21、ion, Sparrow (1995) has observed that the competency literature includes a huge range of claimed benefits specific to HR processes in organisations. In summary, these are:</p><p>　　? improved recruitment and

22、 selection practices through a focus on required competencies;</p><p>　　? improved individual, organisational and career development programmes;</p><p>　　? improved performance management proces

23、ses due to improved assessment; and lastly</p><p>　　? improved communication on strategic and HR issues through a common language.</p><p>　　What is a competency model?</p><p>　　Orga

24、nizations adopting a competency approach must create or utilize a competency model, at minimum a simple list or catalogue, specifying desirable competencies. The structure of this model must support the use of competenci

25、es across the selected HR functions.</p><p>　　Models designed for selection and educational purposes usually describe technical competencies in terms of their antecedent skills and knowledge, at a detailed l

26、evel. Those designed to promulgate behavioural repertoires and citizenship behaviours or organizational competencies typically describe competencies at a much higher level. Regardless of approach, a competency model shou

27、ld provide an operational definition for each competency and subcompetency, together with measurable or observable perf</p><p>　　How do competencies link to other constructs used in I/O Psychology?</p>

28、<p>　　As pointed out by Shippmann et al. (2000) competency modelling is a huge trend in HR. While job analysis focuses mainly at the individual level, examining the specific knowledge, skills, abilities and other

29、attributes required for individual job performance, much competency modelling represents an attempt to identify dimensions of performance applicable to many different roles and situations. Relevant to this is the extensi

30、ve literature in I/O psychology representing many decades of research int</p><p>　　O’ Reilly and Chatman (1986) suggested that two distinct variables relate to job performance; firstly the in-role behaviours

31、 required in the job, and secondly prosocial behaviours which are not specifically prescribed in a particular role. Brief and Motowidio (1986) identified 13 aspects of prosocial organisational behaviour (POB) defined as

32、behaviours aimed at promoting the welfare of other individuals or groups within the organisation. Prosocial behaviour is hypothesised to improve communicati</p><p>　　Similar to O’ Reilly and Chatman's mo

33、del (1986), Motowidio et al. (1997) have identified two elements of overall job performance; task performance, and contextual performance. The latter is essentially the socialisation, application and effort required to f

34、acilitate task performance, and is equivalent to OCB (Organ, 1997). Motowidio et al. suggest that the activities involved in task performance are most likely to vary between roles, while those involved in contextual perf

35、ormance are often simil</p><p>　　Personality has also been related to job performance. The Five Factor Model of Personality includes a multidimensional factor of Conscientiousness, which describes aspects of

36、 effort and application (Anastasi 1997). This factor has been found to correlate with contextual performance, particularly in the aspect of Job-Task Conscientiousness, with overall performance across a wide range of jobs

37、, (Tett and Burnett 2003), and with career advancement (Viswesvaran & Ones 2000). This raises the question</p><p>　　The literature on organizational commitment distinguishes between three types of commit

38、ment, attitudinal commitment; belief in the organisation, instrumental commitment, given on the basis of perceived costs and benefits, and normative commitment, the result of socialisation procedures. (Mathieu & Zaja

39、c, 1990). This is relevant to the use of competency models to promote and reward behaviours which exemplify desired organisational values and core competencies.</p><p>　　Perceived organizational support (POS

40、) is the extent to which employees believe that they are valued by the organisation. It is related to organisational commitment, and job performance. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found fairness to be the most important

41、 factor in POS, followed by supervisor support. Colquitt et al (2001) summarise the elements of organisational justice as consistency of treatment between individuals and over time, the absence of bias, the accuracy of i

42、nformation, conformance</p><p>　　How should competency models be implemented?</p><p>　　In an attempt to quantify the quality of competency models, Shippman et al. (2000) proposed a 10 point leve

43、l of rigor scale in establishing competency taxonomies from job or competency analysis. This covered effective data collection methods, competency descriptor development procedures and quality requirements, links to busi

44、ness strategy, validation procedures, and documentation.</p><p>　　Attempts at model definition often canvas ideas from the wider organisation in order to create buy in. Since there are potentially many ways

45、of defining and phrasing competencies, this can lead to a long drawn out costly process, with results subject to the Abilene effect - you get what no-one disagreed with, not necessarily the best definitions.</p>&

46、lt;p>　　The alternative, buying an off-the-shelf system, is likely to be cheaper up front, but may require ongoing effort from users to adapt it to fit their situation. Either way, once implemented, the competency asse

47、ssment process carries a significant administrative burden, and organisations need to be assured that such investments are worthwhile.</p><p>　　Yet there are major validity issues with the use of competency

48、models, and as yet little evidence to support their claimed benefits.</p><p>　　Issues with the Competency approach</p><p>　　1. Construct validity- What is a competency- can a competency be opera

49、tionalised so that it can be observed and measured?</p><p>　　The aim of construct validity is to assess whether a measure of an individual trait or characteristic actually measures what it is meant to. As wi

50、th many psychological constructs, there is no real world aspect of competencies (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Establishing construct validity therefore requires finding a suitable proxy criterion of the construct (Ghisel

51、li, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981). This is clearly a problem for competencies, with a number of studies documenting disagreement between manag</p><p>　　1a. Content and Face validity - are competencies credib

52、le in organisations?</p><p>　　A major problem with the use of competency models is the lack of agreement on what is meant by the term 'competency'. Sparrow (1995) has suggested that the interchangeab

53、le use of the various competency approaches encourages organisations to "build and integrate HRM systems on a bed of shifting sand" (p. 168).</p><p>　　So what should competency models comprise - th

54、at is, how can we be sure of their content and face validity? Content validity means that the descriptors of competencies are a representative sample of the universe of interest. Face validity means that the competencies

55、 themselves feel accurate and appropriate, as judged by their users. For any particular competency model, content and face validity are essentially subjective judgements. All those to whose roles they are applied are in

56、a position to </p><p>　　Hayes et al. (2000) argue that it may be impossible to break down a competency into an exhaustive list of elements. This suggests that competency models will always be incomplete. The

57、y cite examples of studies where managers have not been able to describe all the competencies required for a role. Certainly the few behavioural statements in most generic competency models could not be regarded as exhau

58、stive.</p><p>　　Associated with this is the difficulty in arriving at a suitable structure for a competency model. In defining competencies, Stuart (1983) highlights the trade off between universality and sp

59、ecificity, the bandwidth – fidelity problem, and between complexity and simplicity (see Table 1). Universal or generic competencies are those which are applicable across roles and organisations, whereas specific competen

60、cies are those particular to roles and organisations. Universal or generic competencies r</p><p>　　In practice, the universal or generic approach is the most commonly adopted. As an example Tett et al. (2000

61、) attempted to identify and validate a "hyper dimensional taxonomy of managerial competence". The many proprietary generic competency catalogues, also corresponding to Stuart's (1983) universal competencies

62、, typically include management and OCB factors. Many of these competencies are so broadly defined that they subsume a mix of personality factors, motivation and cognitive abilities (Bart</p><p>　　1b. Criteri

63、on validity – Can competencies be accurately measured?</p><p>　　An associated issue is that many competencies, especially those related to contextual performance, are defined in very broad terms, and with fe

64、w performance indicators. In these cases it is unlikely that accurate evaluation is possible. This has implications for perceptions of organizational justice (Colquitt et al 2001), and perceived organisational support (R

65、hoades & Eisemberger 2002) which impact employee commitment to the organisation.</p><p>　　Apart from the inadequacy of measurement criteria, competencies are usually evaluated using self and supervisor r

66、atings, and sometimes by peers as well. Thus, the assessment of competencies is likely to suffer from all the same reliability problems, such as rater bias, that the extensive literature records for performance appraisal

67、 in general (Fletcher, 2001).</p><p>　　Yet accurate measurement of competencies is a key issue, especially when evaluations are used in pay for performance schemes. A major pre-occupation of organisations is

68、 to accurately discriminate between different levels of success in order to ensure that "top talent" feels valued and is rewarded appropriately. For example, Hunter et al. (1990) found that in complex roles suc

69、h as professional services, individual output can vary by a factor as much as 12 to 1 between best and worst performers.</p><p>　　Table 1. An illustration of competency modelling options using Stuart's (

70、1983) framework</p><p>　　2. Validation of the competency model</p><p>　　A second major issue is the way that organisations have implemented competency models; that is adoption without validation

71、 (Shippman et al., 2000). Validation is important because competencies describe normative behaviours, behaviours the organization wishes to promote and develop to enhance organizational effectiveness.</p><p>

72、;　　3. Predictive validity – do improved competencies predict improved individual Job performance and/or improved organisational performance?</p><p>　　The third and major issue is the lack of evidence for ben

73、efits that result from adopting a competency approach. The underlying assumption of all competency initiatives is that individual skill development, exemplified by particular behaviours, will lead to improved job perform

74、ance and, in turn, organisational performance. Barrett and Depinet's (1991) review of the research into competency measurement provided little empirical support for McClelland's (1980) claim that competencies are

75、 better pre</p><p>　　Later Laber and O'Connor (2000) highlighted the lack of empirical research into the effectiveness of competency models. Our search of the literature reveals only a handful of studies

76、 investigating the link between competencies and objective job performance, leaving the situation largely unchanged four years later.</p><p>　　One of the many criticisms of the competency movement is the imp

77、licit confusion of competency and job performance. We suggest that this confusion has arisen through the language associated with the competency movement; the confusion of behaviours, knowledge and personality traits whi

78、ch are inputs to the job, with results or outcomes, objective job performance. Thus competencies are assessed by "performance" of behaviours deemed to be criteria of competence/competency. Illustrating this con

79、fusion</p><p>　　This confusion of terminology has created an inherent circularity in the use of competency models. Competencies are identified using a variety of information gathering methods, behavioural cr

80、iteria are defined, and then in the absence of objective measures of job outputs or performance, the subjective evaluation of the occurrence of these behaviours is assumed to equate to (job) performance and validate the

81、competency construct itself. As an illustration, Mayer (2003) reports on a study examinin</p><p>　　Hunter and Schmidt (1996) point out that there is little correlation between OCBs and objective output-based

82、 measures of individual job performance. However when supervisors estimate job performance, there is a high correlation between ratings of OCBs and their subjective ratings of overall job performance. They suggest this i

83、s because supervisors tolerate poor task performance in people with high levels of OCBs. Thus any association of generic competencies with job performance may be due to the</p><p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)譯文：</b>

84、;</p><p>　　對(duì)于勝任力感到迷惑？一份勝任力模型的進(jìn)化和應(yīng)用評(píng)估</p><p><b>　　琳恩 H.馬庫(kù)斯</b></p><p>　　海倫娜 D.庫(kù)珀-托馬斯</p><p><b>　　凱斯 N.奧普瑞斯</b></p><p>　　在最近的十年間，作為人力

85、資源策略的主要基礎(chǔ)的勝任力模型的應(yīng)用正在世界范圍上擴(kuò)張。咨詢公司和軟件供應(yīng)商在提高個(gè)人工作績(jī)效和組織有效性的基礎(chǔ)上促進(jìn)了勝任力方法的應(yīng)用。然而在大量的要求和由勝任力主動(dòng)帶來(lái)的可預(yù)測(cè)的實(shí)際利益之間有著本質(zhì)的、很大程度上毋庸置疑的空白。工業(yè)和組織心理學(xué)家經(jīng)常參與開(kāi)發(fā)和執(zhí)行勝任力模型，但是很少有研究能驗(yàn)證這些方法。作為科學(xué)實(shí)踐者，我們應(yīng)該關(guān)注這方面。</p><p>　　本文將通過(guò)回顧理論觀點(diǎn)使大家了解的勝任力運(yùn)動(dòng)，回

86、顧我們?cè)谛挛魈m使用勝任力模型的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，并仔細(xì)檢查支持它們應(yīng)用的假設(shè)?，F(xiàn)存的研究是與曾用于證實(shí)勝任力模型價(jià)值的結(jié)果測(cè)量的特殊參考一起回顧的。最后我們確定了各種各樣的研究領(lǐng)域和那些I/O心理學(xué)家如果被卷入了勝任力模型在組織環(huán)境中的提升、發(fā)展和實(shí)現(xiàn)時(shí)，明顯會(huì)研究的問(wèn)題。</p><p>　　什么是勝任力？三種主要途徑</p><p>　　許多已發(fā)行的定義可以被歸納為三種有區(qū)別的途徑：教育標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，行為

87、技能，組織能力。</p><p>　　1. 教育途徑（技能發(fā)展，成就的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，授予證書(shū)）</p><p>　　現(xiàn)代的勝任力運(yùn)動(dòng)起源于教育學(xué)科。在美國(guó)，‘勝任特征’基于功能角色分析，描述角色結(jié)果或者知識(shí)、技能和態(tài)度兩者之一，或兩者皆有，要求角色績(jī)效，并且被按照標(biāo)準(zhǔn)評(píng)估，通常是一種行為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在英國(guó)，行業(yè)主體，尤其是那些需要交易和專(zhuān)業(yè)技術(shù)能力的行業(yè)，在預(yù)期工作結(jié)果的基礎(chǔ)上開(kāi)發(fā)了職業(yè)的勝任力標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（弗

88、萊徹，1992）?！畡偃瘟Α华M隘的定義為一種要證明的行動(dòng)、行為或結(jié)果，或者是一種最低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，不同程度的掌握由不同的陳述定義（伯克等，1975，埃蘭，1971）。</p><p>　　2. 基于心理學(xué)的研究-（行為技能）</p><p>　　1973年，在美國(guó)教育領(lǐng)域工作的麥克里蘭寫(xiě)了一份報(bào)告，指出他定義為動(dòng)機(jī)和個(gè)人特質(zhì)的個(gè)人勝任特征與傳統(tǒng)的心理測(cè)驗(yàn)（比如IQ和能力傾向測(cè)驗(yàn)）相比，是一種更好

89、的預(yù)測(cè)職業(yè)成就的手段。</p><p>　　麥克里蘭的工作產(chǎn)生了極大的影響。特別有趣的是一個(gè)想法,即因素或與個(gè)人成功有關(guān)的輸入是可以被鑒定出來(lái)，然后傳授給別人。麥克里蘭和博亞茲（1980）開(kāi)發(fā)了一種研究方法來(lái)識(shí)別勝任特征，基于特定組織中公認(rèn)的明星演奏家熟練的行為技能。他們把勝任特征定義為“一個(gè)與工作中優(yōu)秀的或有效的績(jī)效有因果聯(lián)系的知識(shí)、動(dòng)機(jī)、特質(zhì)、自身形象、社會(huì)角色和技能的通用體系”。（P.369，斜體字）<

90、;/p><p>　　3. 商業(yè)途徑（組織勝任力的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)）</p><p>　　在20世紀(jì)80年代末，商業(yè)策略家開(kāi)始重視勝任特征的概念。哈默和普哈拉德（1989）增加了“核心競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力”和“能力”的概念。他們把核心競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力看做一個(gè)組織的“集體的學(xué)習(xí)”的定義被廣泛的引用，并有助于“勝任特征”的現(xiàn)行利息（謝普曼等，2000）。因此，斯拜羅（1995）建議實(shí)踐者應(yīng)該著眼于界定“更高等級(jí)”未來(lái)導(dǎo)向的組織勝任

91、特征。</p><p>　　勝任力研究有哪些潛在利益？</p><p>　　績(jī)效利益是有指望的通過(guò)多樣的定義，包括勝任特征和工作績(jī)效的因果關(guān)系或工具性關(guān)系（博亞茲，1982）以及勝任特征和組織績(jī)效。（敖根，1988；哈默&普哈拉德，1989）</p><p>　　另外，斯拜羅（1995）觀察過(guò)勝任力文獻(xiàn)，包括針對(duì)組織中人力資源處理過(guò)程的一個(gè)巨大范圍的聲稱的利

92、益?？傊?，有：</p><p>　　? 通過(guò)必須的勝任特征的焦點(diǎn)來(lái)改進(jìn)招聘與選拔實(shí)踐；</p><p>　　? 改進(jìn)個(gè)人、組織和職業(yè)發(fā)展計(jì)劃；</p><p>　　? 為了改進(jìn)評(píng)估而改進(jìn)績(jī)效管理程序；</p><p>　　? 通過(guò)一種共同語(yǔ)言來(lái)改進(jìn)策略和人力資源問(wèn)題上的交流。</p><p><b>　　什么

93、是勝任力模型</b></p><p>　　組織采用勝任力的方法，必須創(chuàng)造或利用一種勝任力模型，至少是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的列表或目錄，具體說(shuō)明合適的勝任特征。這個(gè)模型的構(gòu)成必須支持勝任特征在選定的人力資源功能中的應(yīng)用。</p><p>　　為挑選和教育的目的設(shè)計(jì)的模型通常在一個(gè)詳細(xì)的水平描述技術(shù)性的勝任特征，依據(jù)他們的前期的技能和知識(shí)。那些旨在公布行為技能和公民行為或組織勝任特征的模型，以

94、更高的水平代表性的描述勝任特征。不管什么方法，一個(gè)勝任力模型應(yīng)該為每個(gè)勝任特征和潛在勝任特征提供一個(gè)操作性定義，連同可測(cè)量的或可觀察的績(jī)效指標(biāo)或標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)準(zhǔn)對(duì)個(gè)人評(píng)估。</p><p>　　如何把勝任特征聯(lián)系到其他應(yīng)用于I/O心理學(xué)的概念？</p><p>　　謝普曼等（2000）指出，勝任力建模將會(huì)在人力資源中呈巨大趨勢(shì)。當(dāng)工作分析的焦點(diǎn)主要在個(gè)人水平，檢驗(yàn)專(zhuān)業(yè)知識(shí)、技能、能力和其他個(gè)人工作

95、績(jī)效所必須的特性時(shí)，勝任力建模表現(xiàn)了一種鑒別適用于不同任務(wù)和情境的績(jī)效的嘗試。與此相關(guān)的是I/O心理學(xué)中廣泛的文獻(xiàn)代表了數(shù)十年對(duì)與工作績(jī)效和組織績(jī)效有關(guān)的因素的研究。</p><p>　　O’ Reilly和Chatman（1986）建議有兩種明顯不同的變量和工作績(jī)效相關(guān)；首先是工作中必須的角色內(nèi)行為，其次是在特殊角色中沒(méi)有明確規(guī)定的親社會(huì)性行為。Brief和Motowidio（1986）發(fā)現(xiàn)了親社會(huì)組織行為（P

96、OB）的13個(gè)方面，親社會(huì)組織行為定義為目的在于提升組織中其他個(gè)人或團(tuán)體的福利的行為。親社會(huì)行為是假設(shè)改善溝通、工作和客戶滿意度，繼而工作績(jī)效。角色內(nèi)行為和親社會(huì)行為的各方面也許都包含在勝任力模型中。組織公民行為（OCB）是一個(gè)類(lèi)似的概念，并能引起值得思考的文獻(xiàn)。Organ（1988）把OCBs定義為個(gè)人的行為，除了那些在角色或工作描述中必須的，也就是，作為總體，有助于組織績(jī)效的。</p><p>　　與O’ R

97、eilly和Chatman的模型（1986）相似，Motowidio等（1997）發(fā)現(xiàn)了整體工作績(jī)效的兩個(gè)元素；任務(wù)績(jī)效和周邊績(jī)效（關(guān)系績(jī)效）。后者本質(zhì)上是促進(jìn)任務(wù)績(jī)效所必須的社會(huì)化，應(yīng)用和努力，相當(dāng)于OCB（Organ，1997）。Motowidio等建議任務(wù)績(jī)效包含的活動(dòng)最可能在角色之間不等，然而周邊績(jī)效包含的活動(dòng)通常都是相似的。更進(jìn)一步，他們建議任務(wù)績(jī)效的前因或預(yù)測(cè)更可能涉及認(rèn)知能力，而個(gè)性更可能影響周邊績(jī)效。任務(wù)績(jī)效包括技術(shù)性的

98、和任務(wù)知識(shí)的應(yīng)用，以及任務(wù)習(xí)慣，定義為對(duì)任務(wù)情境反應(yīng)的特征（Borman等2001）。周邊績(jī)效包括行為和特質(zhì)，比如毅力和努力，志愿活動(dòng)，幫助和合作，忠誠(chéng)，政策和程序上的服從，對(duì)組織目標(biāo)的支持和促進(jìn)，主動(dòng)權(quán)和自我發(fā)展（Borman & Motowidio 1997）。多數(shù)的通用的勝任力模型和目錄強(qiáng)調(diào)周邊績(jī)效的方面相對(duì)于任務(wù)績(jī)效。</p><p>　　個(gè)性也和工作績(jī)效有關(guān)。個(gè)性的五因素模型包括一個(gè)責(zé)任感的多維

99、的因素，即描述努力和應(yīng)用的方面（Anastasi 1997）。這個(gè)因素被發(fā)現(xiàn)與周邊績(jī)效有關(guān)，特別是在工作任務(wù)責(zé)任心的方面，以及整體績(jī)效穿過(guò)大范圍的工作，（Tett和Burnett 2003），和職業(yè)提升（Viswesvaran & Ones 2000）。這增加了關(guān)于是否投資大量的勝任力模型的問(wèn)題，訪問(wèn)主要的周邊績(jī)效，提供任何增加的效用。</p><p>　　在組織認(rèn)同感方面的文獻(xiàn)區(qū)分了三種類(lèi)型的承諾，態(tài)度