Defining a CompetencyThe word "competency" stalked up on the unwary working in the human resources field. The catalyst for its use was Boyatzis's (1982) book The Competent Manager. He triggered the popularity of the term which became de rigueur for the serious consultant in the late 1980s. Unfortunately, while street credibility demanded use of the word, few were certain in their own minds what it meant. This state of confusion has not really abated with the passage of time.Definitions, abound Boyatzis defines competency broadly as "an underlying characteristic of a person". It could be "a motive, trait, skill, aspect of one's self-image or social role, or a body of knowledge which he or she uses". Hornby and Thomas (1989) define competencies as "the knowledge, skills and qualities of effective managers/ leaders" (p. 53).It often seems to be used as an umbrella term to cover almost anything that might directly or indirectly affect job performance. Given its pivotal role, it is absolutely crucial that there is an adequate and agreed definition of competency. Without precise definition:

ore and more organizations -especially those in the service sector -have become attuned to the idea that there is not much point in employing people at all if you are not going to take steps to make them want to give their best to you. But by no means all organizations think this way, and even if they do, they still need to put this thinking into practice.There remain chief executives and managing directors who believe that their employees will be motivated to give a great performance simply because the company has hired them. These executives see money as a cure-all; their logic is that if they pay their employees enough they will have no reason to grumble. But this thinking is faulty and outdated.While the necessity to earn a living may be the main reason most people work, it does not follow that money is always the main factor when people decide to work for one organization rather than another. In practice, they are likely to be swayed by a range of other, non-financial, factors. This is particularly true of really talented people, who tend to have a good idea of the market rate they can command and will be looking for a prospective employer who can offer this market rate and other advantages. While the precise reasons people work will vary from one individual to the next, it is nonetheless possible to make some useful general observations about employee motivation.

The present study extends the consensual validation of traits with two complementary analyses. First, on average across 14 dimensions, at least 60% of raters agreed with subjects about the subjects’ characteristics. Second, the mean correlation between subjects’ self-descriptions and the average rating of them was .558. The study also examined individual differences in the consensus among raters, and found significant positive correlations between raters’ consensus and subjects’ self-rated consistency for 4 dimensions, and a significant negative correlation for one dimension. Aggregating self-rated consistency across dimensions yielded significant positive correlations with raters’ consensus for five dimensions. With a control for the relation between extremeness and consistency, raters’ consensus was significantly related to self-rated consistency for three dimensions. In a final analysis, the agreement between subjects and raters was computed separately for high and low consistency groups. For 12 dimensions, there was less agreement for the high consistency group. It is suggested that consistent people are less aware of different situations and of themselves, an idea related to the self-monitoring concept.

The present study investigated people's variability across situations by getting ratings of 66 subjects on 14 bipolar dimensions from at least eight interactants, chosen for their diversity. The intercorrelation of single ratings yielded a mean coefficient of. 2 21. The correlation of single ratings with the aggregate of the other ratings for a dimension resulted in a mean coefficient of .388. The correlation of two sets of aggregated ratings gave a mean coefficient of .550, or .710 with application of the Spearman-Brown correction. Finally, computation of Cronbach's alpha gave a mean coefficient of .735. The results provide a further demonstration of the coherence that can be revealed by aggregation. Correlations of aggregated ratings on each of the 14 dimensions with extraversion ranged up to .668, and correlations with neuroticism ranged up to .410. The study suggests that there is a dispositionality in the characteristics people display, and that the emphasis on variability (e.g., Mischel, 1968;Mischel & Peake, 1982) should be tempered.Despite changes and elaborations to his overall theoretical position, Mischel (1968Mischel ( , 1973Mischel ( , 1983Mischel & Peake, 1982) has continued to emphasize the variability of people across situations. In response, a number of authors have maintained that people do show considerable consistency across situations, (e.g.

PurposeTo explain that a fully‐engaged employee is an extremely important commercial asset.Design/methodology/approachIn the absence of detailed research, the author draws on his extensive experience of working with numerous large organizations on maximizing the extent to which their employees are engaged. His experience is practical and has involved working with employees who themselves toil at the “coal‐face” of organizational success. The research presents an informed anecdotal approach to the subject and is made systematic through a range of practical guidelines.FindingsThe nature of the research means that it discusses general strategic issues in business rather than specific statistical findings. But inherent in the paper is the fact that these general strategic issues are unchanging and are of permanent importance.Practical implicationsThe practical implications of the paper are enormous. The author is saying nothing less momentous than that the difference between an engaged employee (i.e. one who is fully emotionally and intellectually motivated by his or her work) compared with an employee who is not engaged, is prodigious and can make a huge commercial difference to an organization's performance.Originality/valuePerhaps the most important observation of all given by the author is that engaged employees provide a discretionary input, that is, they give a level of energy and commitment to the job which the job does not require from a contractual perspective.