Vol.:(0123456789)
Management Review Quarterly
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-025-00501-z
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven 
primitives for future research
Dennis Grenda1  · Lauri‑Matti Palmunen1 
Received: 13 November 2024 / Accepted: 25 February 2025 
© The Author(s) 2025
Abstract
Research on competence has yielded a panoply of definitions of managerial compe‑
tence that have caused insecurity among theorists and practitioners regarding how 
to deal with the competence of managers. The aim of this paper is to enhance the 
understanding of the construct of managerial competence. While most research on 
managerial competence is empirical and focuses on identifying the competencies 
of successful managers, we applied a conceptual approach and enhanced construct 
clarity by investigating the fundamental components that constitute managerial com‑
petence. In order to investigate these components, we conducted a systematic lit‑
erature review and identified 31 definitions from diverse sources. Utilizing semantic 
decomposition, we analyzed these definitions to distill them into foundational ele‑
ments. Our findings culminated in the identification of seven prime primitives: role, 
proficiency, disposition, capability, action, context, and effectiveness. We discuss 
the implications of these components in relation to construct clarity, drawing on four 
fundamental elements: definitions, semantic relationships to other constructs, scope 
conditions, and theoretical coherence. Based on our findings, we propose a research 
agenda consisting of four theoretical and three practical areas. A set of 7 research 
topics, 14 new research questions, and research methods to approach them is sug‑
gested to enable scholars and practitioners study the phenomenon in the future.
Keywords Competence · Managerial competence · Construct clarity · Primitives · 
Systematic literature review
JEL Classification M00 · M10 · M12
 * Dennis Grenda 
 degren@utu.fi
 Lauri‑Matti Palmunen 
 lauri‑matti.palmunen@utu.fi
1 Turku School of Economics, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, University 
of Turku, Rehtorinpellonkatu 3, 20500 Turku, Finland
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
1 Introduction
In the evolving landscape of management, the concept of managerial competence 
has emerged as a critical determinant of organizational success. Traditionally, man‑
agers play a crucial role in driving organizational performance, fostering innova‑
tion, and steering their teams toward achieving strategic objectives. As businesses 
navigate increasingly complex environments characterized by rapid technological 
advancements, globalization, and shifting market demands, the ability of managers 
to effectively lead their teams and make informed decisions has become paramount 
in the post‑digital age as well. Therefore, understanding what constitutes managerial 
competence is vital for both current and aspiring managers. The Oxford Learner’s 
Dictionaries provide first insights into the nature of competence, defining it as.
(a) The ability to do something well;
(b) The power that a court, an organization, or a person has to deal with something.
(c) A skill that you need in a particular job or for a particular task.
What can be learned from these definitions is that the term “competence” has 
several meanings: it can be a skill, power, or ability. Furthermore, the same defi‑
nitions are given for the word “competency” (in plural “competencies”) and, thus, 
it assumes that both terms can be used synonymously. Indeed, in the management 
literature, many authors consistently use “competency” and “competence” as syno‑
nyms (Boam and Sparrow 1992; Brown 1993; Smith 1993), which is why the con‑
struct of managerial competence is expressed through the terms “management com‑
petencies” (Carson and Gilmore 2000), “managerial competency” (Bernardin et al. 
2016), or “managerial competencies” (Debrah and Ofori 2005). Moreover, certain 
authors make no differentiation between managerial competence and managerial 
skills. For example, in their book Assessing Management Skills, Paul Iles and Mar‑
garet Dale (1992) use the terms “competence” and “competency” to describe mana‑
gerial skills. Other concepts that can be confused with managerial competence are 
“managerial ability” (Anggraini and Sholihin 2023) or “dynamic managerial capa‑
bility” (Heubeck 2023).
Many definitions highlight the difficulties of defining “competence” as both an 
overarching and specific construct and, therefore, suffer from tautology. Accord‑
ing to Hartle (1995), a single competency consists of several visible competencies 
(such as knowledge and skills) and underlying elements of competencies (such as 
traits and motives). Similarly, Dooley et  al. (2004) regard competencies as “per‑
formance capabilities needed to demonstrate knowledge, skill, and ability (compe‑
tency) acquisition.” These definitions imply that competency is a subset of itself, 
which violates construct clarity (Suddaby 2010). Nevertheless, a few attempts have 
been made to distinguish between “competence” and “competency.” Burgoyne 
(1988) considers “being competent” as meeting job criteria, and “having compe‑
tencies” as “having the required characteristics to perform successfully.” Similarly, 
Woodruffe (1993) defines competence as “aspects of the job that have to be per‑
formed competently” and competency as a “set of behavior patterns” that underpin 
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
competent performance. This goes back to two different approaches of competence: 
the US approach and the UK approach. White (1959), for example, related compe‑
tence to psycho‑social characteristics associated with superior performance, which 
became the dominant approach promoted in the US by McClelland (1973) and oth‑
ers. Such a conception of competence is rather different from European approaches 
that include cognitive, functional, and social dimensions (Winterton 2009) in which 
psycho‑social characteristics do not feature and the emphasis is on performing to the 
standard required of employment rather than on superior performance.
Consequently, a considerable number of authors complain about the ambivalence 
of the competence construct and conclude that attempts to distinguish them are 
futile (e.g., Hoffmann 1999; Stoof et al. 2002; Velde 1997). For example, Weinert 
(1999) comments “that the many implicit (in word use) and explicit (in theoreti‑
cal frames of reference) definitions of competence are so heterogeneous that only a 
small, vague conceptual core remains” (Weinert 1999, p. 26). Moreover, for Ash‑
worth and Saxton (1990), it is “… not clear whether a competence is a personal 
attribute, an act, or an outcome of action….”
Overall, the vast number of definitions on competence and the interchangeable 
use of competence and competency in the literature are a key source of uncertainty 
and divergence in understanding. Identifying the precise meaning of this construct is 
essential because it involves not only how learning and development are conceptual‑
ized and fostered but also the practicality of doing so within organizational settings 
(Collin 1997). Having greater clarity on managerial competence is of significance 
and has positive organizational outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to 
improve the clarity of the competence construct in management literature. In gen‑
eral, a construct is a broad mental configuration of a given phenomenon (Bacharach 
1989, p. 500), which can be presented as a statement consisting of various com‑
ponents of the conceptual world (Priem and Butler 2001 p. 61). In this paper, we 
refer to this construct as the managerial competence construct. By using the term 
“competence,” we adhere to Mulder’s (2007) perspective, according to which “com‑
petency” represents a part and “competence” its corresponding whole.
Specifically, our research question is “What are the conceptual components of 
managerial competence?” To answer this question, we conducted a systematic lit‑
erature review on managerial competence studies using the Scopus database. This 
method has already been applied by other researchers to clarify the definition of a 
construct (e.g., Clark et al. 2023); it enabled us to search for studies from different 
disciplines and over a long period of time. From the studies found, we extracted 
the definitions of managerial competence and conducted semantic decomposition 
(Akmajian et al. 2017) on them. From this, we propose a conceptualization of mana‑
gerial competence that comprises the following seven components: role, action, con‑
text, proficiency, disposition, capability, and effectiveness. Our conceptualization 
offers four contributions to previous calls for studies that could clarify the manage‑
rial competence construct (Boak 1991; Dai and Liang 2012; Jena and Sahoo 2014; 
Stone et al. 2013; Tate 1995; Winterton and Winterton 1999). First, we present all 
the available definitions and systematically use them to formulate an improved def‑
inition. Second, we analyze the semantic relationships to other constructs. Third, 
we demonstrate the scope conditions in which the construct is applicable. Fourth, 
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
we demonstrate how the seven conceptual components form theoretical coherence 
(Suddaby 2010).
The remainder of the paper is organized in the following manner. The theoretical 
background section provides a historical overview of competence to show the reader 
when the term was introduced into research and when it became established in the 
field of management. Thereafter, the methodology section provides an outlook of 
the different steps involved when conducting the systematic literature review. The 
findings section presents the results of the literature review and the corresponding 
analysis. Here, we discuss the findings in terms of the four basic elements of con‑
struct clarity by Suddaby (2010) and propose a research agenda. The concluding 
section presents the theoretical contribution, managerial implications, and the limi‑
tations of the study.
2  Theoretical background
2.1  Antecedents of managerial competence
As indicated by Mulder (2011), the concept of competence as knowing who is good 
enough to carry out particular tasks is an ancient one. The Persian (seventeenth cen‑
tury BCE), Greek (third century BCE), Latin, and Western European (sixteenth cen‑
tury AD) languages contain early accounts of this concept.
Although the term “competence” was not yet an academic construct, it was used 
in academic publications at the beginning of the twentieth century (e.g., Dewey 
1916; Small 1914). One of the first studies in modern times to investigate what con‑
stitutes competent performance at work was that of Taylor (1911). He developed his 
famous time and motion study to ascertain the most efficient method of performing 
a task. This should help managers to understand the skills required for people to 
execute the work and consequently to provide the correct training to improve these 
skills.
White (1959), who is credited with having introduced the term, regarded compe‑
tence as a motivational concept. However, defining competence as “an organism’s 
ability to interact effectively with its environment” is not the most illuminating and 
fails to adequately capture the motivational dimension in White’s work, which is 
itself also questionable, as most management literature clearly distinguishes com‑
petence from motivation. This is evident, for example, in the AMO model, in which 
abilities can be considered competences (Kellner et  al. 2019). McClelland (1973) 
followed White’s approach, and criticized the use of aptitude and intelligence tests 
as tools of selection, as these tests do not have any correlation to successful job 
performance. As they were similar to tests in schools and universities, they would 
be good in predicting academic performance but not job performance. According 
to McClelland, successful job performance would not only consist of intelligence 
but also of personal variables that he called “competencies” (McClelland 1973, p. 
10). With his consulting firm McBer and Company, McClelland developed tests 
that made it possible to predict an individual’s competence instead of intelligence. 
McClelland’s approach and arguments regarding the superiority of competence 
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
have been empirically challenged by Barrett and Depinet (1991), who contributed to 
restoring the idea of intelligence testing.
2.2  The US approach to managerial competence
It was during the 1970s when the concept of competence became connected with 
the field of management for the first time. The American Management Association 
(AMA) wanted to find competencies that differentiated successful managers from 
less successful ones. In this context, they were termed “managerial competencies.” 
Together with McBer and Company, AMA undertook a large‑scale study with 
over 1800 managers to create a competence model. They defined a competency as 
“generic knowledge, motive, trait, self‑image, social role, or skill of a person that is 
causally related to superior performance” (Hayes 1979, p. 2). However, this defini‑
tion is also a source of conceptual confusion because the inclusion of motive, self‑
image, and social role are rather distinct from competence, particularly social role, 
which by definition is a function of a position and not a characteristic of an indi‑
vidual or a skill one can develop.
In 1980, Patricia McLagan proposed to make competency a key topic in human 
resource management. According to McLagan (1980), competencies were “the 
knowledge and skills which underlie effective job performance” (p. 22). The sig‑
nificance of this competence approach is that despite being American, she defines 
competencies using knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA), which are seen as under‑
pinning effective (not superior) job performance. Therefore, it puts McLagan in the 
same category as European approaches to competence.
In 1982, Richard Boyatzis, a colleague of McClelland at McBer Company, wrote 
“the first empirically‑based and fully‑researched book on competency model devel‑
opment” (Rothwell & Lindholm 1999). This book, titled The Competent Manager 
increased the popularity of the term “competency” in the business and management 
sector (Cardy and Selvarajan 2006; Woodruffe 1993). Based on Hayes (1979), Boy‑
atzis defined competency as “an underlying characteristic of a person” that could be 
“a motive, trait, skill, aspect of one’s self‑image or social role, or a body of knowl‑
edge which he or she uses” (Boyatzis 1982, p. 21). He developed a model of effec‑
tive job performance, which consisted of three components: the individual’s com‑
petencies, the job’s demands, and the organizational environment. With this model, 
he emphasized that competent performance does not only require individuals who 
possess relevant competencies but is also dependent on the characteristics of the job 
and the organizational context.
Building upon Boyatzis’ work, Lyle and Signe Spencer summarized 20 years of 
competence research by McClelland and McBer and Company. Their book Com‑
petence at Work: Models for Superior Performance from 1993 is one of the “most 
research‑oriented” and “comprehensive” books on competency modelling (Rothwell 
and Lindholm 1999). Using the findings from 286 competency studies, the authors 
created a Competency Dictionary for the 21 most common competencies that lead 
to superior performance in managerial jobs. Despite the significance of this work, 
it implies that different managerial jobs require the same competencies, which has 
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
been empirically refuted by Jacobs (1989). Nevertheless, the AMA competence 
model became the most influential competence model in the US and also impacted 
competence development in European countries.
2.3  The UK and other European approaches to managerial competence
The Management Charter Initiative (MCI) and National Council for Vocational 
Qualifications (NCVQ) represent the UK’s competence‑based approach, which is 
centered on job performance in particular functions and aimed at certification and 
accreditation (Iles 1993). In accordance with this approach, competence has been 
defined as “the ability to perform the activities within an occupational area to the 
levels of performance expected within employment” (Training Agency 1988). 
Instead of focusing on the individual characteristics of successful job holders, the 
prevalent method in the UK was to identify the essential roles, tasks, and duties 
of the occupation using a tasks‑oriented job analysis technique called “functional 
analysis” (Cheetham and Chivers 1996). This analysis enabled the creation of com‑
petence lists for each functional job as well as performance criteria that indicates 
the appropriate competence level. Competence defined in terms of outcomes had 
the benefit to improve access, recognize prior learning, and enable candidates to 
choose their preferred learning mode (Mulder et al. 2007). Thus, in contrast to the 
US, where managerial competence is based on superior performance of managers, 
the UK framework emphasizes outcomes from managers performing at what is con‑
sidered an average level of performance. This is why Hyland (1997, p. 493) con‑
siders competence to be “a basic minimum or lowest common denominator sort of 
concept …which does not signify high levels of achievement.” Additional problems 
arising from this approach is that people are competent when they have completed 
a defined activity. Consequently, Cheng et al. (2003) question whether people who 
fail to complete this activity are regarded as “incompetent” or “not competent.” As 
indicated by Burgoyne (1989), being competent is different from having competen‑
cies. Simply having competencies begs the question of how they are used, who is 
the person using them, and how this person developed them. In this regard, per‑
sonal behavior that underpins competent performance is not considered. A study by 
Winterton and Winterton (1999) found that even though the functional competence 
approach remained dominant in the UK, employers increasingly adopted hybrid 
models comprising the AMA model and the UK model. The tendency was to go 
toward more holistic competence models that complement functional competence 
with basic knowledge and other elements derived from reality, such as ethics. The 
model by Cheetham and Chivers (1996) consists of five components of professional 
competence: cognitive competence (knowledge), functional competence (skills), 
personal competence (behavior), ethical competence (values), and meta‑compe‑
tence. This approach aligns well with the KSA approach employed extensively in 
training, although, arguably, it is behavior rather than the underpinning attitudes 
that should be emphasized. The approach also reflects the French “tryptique” com‑
petence model described by Le Deist (2009) that consists of knowledge (savoir), 
functional competences (savoir-faire), and behavioral competences (savoir- être). 
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
Similar differentiations can be found in the German‑speaking countries, where the 
overarching concept of vocational action competence (handlungskompetenz) is spec‑
ified in domain or subject competence (fachkompetenz), personal competence (per-
sonalkompetenz), social competence (sozialkompetenz), and method competence 
(methodenkompetenz) (Le Deist and Winterton 2005).
2.4  Empirical research on managerial competence
Empirical research on managerial competence often employs a variety of method‑
ologies, ranging from qualitative (Cheng et al. 2005; Ekaterini 2011; Harison and 
Boonstra 2009; Sudirman et  al. 2019) and quantitative (e.g., Gentry et  al. 2008; 
Veliu and Manxhari 2017) to mixed methods (Abdullah et al. 2018; Qiao and Wang 
2009). These studies typically focus on identifying competencies, assessing per‑
ceived competency levels, and analyzing gaps between current and necessary com‑
petencies to enhance managerial effectiveness across different contexts.
Qualitative approaches to measuring managerial competencies often involve col‑
lecting detailed insights through various types of interviews. These methods pro‑
vide rich, contextual data about the competencies that managers deem essential 
for effectiveness. Ekaterini’s (2011) study exemplifies this approach by collecting 
critical incidents from middle managers during structured interviews. The focus on 
ethical dilemmas and fairness allows researchers to glean insights into the compe‑
tencies that contribute to managerial effectiveness in real‑world scenarios. Studies 
such as those by Sudirman et al. (2019) and Cheng et al. (2005) utilize behavioral‑
event interviews to explore both micro and macro competencies. These interviews 
involve asking managers to describe specific situations where they demonstrated 
competencies, thus highlighting their practical applications. Harison and Boonstra 
(2009) employed expert interviews to refine their competency framework for man‑
aging technochange projects.
Quantitative methods typically involve structured surveys and questionnaires 
that allow for the systematic assessment of competencies across larger samples. 
The SKILLSCOPE instrument used by Gentry et  al. (2008) is a prime example 
of a 360‑degree assessment tool. This method evaluates managerial competencies 
from multiple perspectives, including self‑assessments and feedback from peers and 
supervisors, thereby providing a comprehensive view of an individual’s competen‑
cies. The study by Veliu and Manxhari (2017) utilized a self‑administered question‑
naire to gather perceptions of competencies among managerial employees. Various 
studies (Qiao and Wang 2009; Liang et al. 2018; Viitala 2005; Wickramasinghe and 
De Zoyza 2009) employ five‑point or seven‑point Likert scales to quantify manag‑
ers’ perceptions of the importance and frequency of competencies. These scales 
facilitate the identification of competency gaps and the prioritization of skill devel‑
opment areas.
Some studies adopt mixed methods, combining qualitative and quantitative 
techniques to provide a more nuanced understanding of managerial competencies. 
Abdullah et  al. (2018) employed a multi‑layered thematic analysis of literature 
alongside structured interviews and a survey to validate and generalize technical 
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
competencies in construction management. This combination enhances the robust‑
ness of findings by triangulating data sources. In Qiao and Wang’s (2009) research, 
a combination of qualitative peer nominations and quantitative questionnaires was 
used to identify and validate core competencies, showcasing the benefits of integrat‑
ing multiple methodologies.
The studies presented in this section demonstrate that empirical research on 
managerial competence employs a diverse array of measurement techniques. While 
qualitative methods, such as critical incident interviews and behavioral‑event inter‑
views, provide in‑depth insights, quantitative approaches, such as 360‑degree assess‑
ments and Likert‑scale surveys, facilitate systematic evaluations across populations. 
Mixed‑methods approaches combine the strengths of both qualitative and quantita‑
tive techniques, enhancing the overall validity and applicability of findings.
2.5  Conceptual ambiguities and the need for clarity in managerial competence
To sum up, it is evident that since the introduction of the construct of competence 
and management competence, various conceptual analyses, reviews, and research 
papers have been published (Boak 1991; Burgoyne 1989; Le Deist and Winterton 
2005; Mulder and Winterton 2017; Spencer and Spencer 1993; Tate 1995). As with 
many new concepts in social science, numerous authors have provided alternative 
definitions of “competence” and “competency,” and reviewers have highlighted the 
various features reflected in these definitions. We have already pointed out in the 
introduction that there is a lack of clarity for the concepts of competence and man‑
agement competence, which is why various authors have criticized the concept. For 
example, Westera (2001) regards competence as an “unclear label, that does not 
augment our knowledge and understanding of the world.” Van der Klink and Boon 
(2003) describe competence as a “fuzzy concept,” but acknowledge it as a “useful 
term” to bridge the gap between education levels and requirements for employment.
To enhance construct clarity, this paper examines the conceptual components of 
the managerial competence construct by comparing several definitions of manage‑
ment competence, management competencies, managerial competence, and mana‑
gerial competencies. The most suitable method to find these definitions is a system‑
atic literature review, which is presented in the next section.
3  Methodology
3.1  Research method
Based on Tranfield et al. (2003), the current study uses a systematic literature review 
to answer the research question proposed in the introduction. A systematic litera‑
ture review methodology enabled us to critically analyze and synthesize the exist‑
ing research in order to identify papers with definitions of managerial competence. 
The search was conducted in the Scopus database up until the end of the year 2024. 
Several keywords related to competencies such as skills, capabilities, and expertise 
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
were combined with the Boolean operator OR. Consequently, the following search 
string was used: “competent manager*” OR “managerial competenc*” OR “man‑
age* competenc*” OR “managerial skills” OR “management skills” OR “manage‑
rial expertise” OR “management expertise” OR “managerial capability*” OR “man‑
agement capability*”. In order to guarantee that the information collected is useful 
and connected with the research question being examined, we applied a filtering 
process in the research database. The following limitation criteria were applied by 
the filtering mechanism:
(1) The subject area was limited to business, management, and accounting; other 
disciplines such as mathematics or arts and humanities were not considered.
(2) The document‑type was limited to peer‑reviewed journal articles to ensure scien‑
tific rigor; conference proceedings, book chapters, editorials, and reviews were 
not considered.
(3) The language was limited to articles published in English to ease natural lan‑
guage text analytics processing; articles in other languages were not considered.
(4) The publication stage was limited to articles that have been finalized; unpub‑
lished articles or developmental papers were not considered.
3.2  Sample of articles
The adoption of these limitation criteria resulted in an initial sample of 1036 arti‑
cles. In order to ensure the high quality of papers, we only included articles from 
journals ranked 3, 4, and 4* in the Academic Journal Guide 2021. By doing this, 
we narrowed down the initial sample of 980 articles to 174. In the next step, all 174 
articles were read for unique definitions of managerial competence—that is, defi‑
nitions that the authors of the article formulated. During this process, 143 articles 
were excluded, because they a) focused on the capabilities of the organization rather 
than the competencies of the individual manager (N = 101), and b) defined compe‑
tencies in general by citing other authors (N = 42). The final sample consisted of 31 
articles with unique definitions of managerial competence. Figure 1 summarizes and 
illustrates the systematic review flow used to finalize the dataset of 31 articles.
The sampled articles have been published in a diverse set of academic journals 
from various fields of study. The highest concentration of articles (five articles) was 
found in The International Journal of Human Resource Management. Two articles 
each were published in the International Journal of Hospitality Management, Jour-
nal of International Management, Journal of Management, Journal of Management 
Studies, Management Education and Development, Personnel Review, and Techno-
logical Forecasting and Social Change. The remaining 12 articles were spread over 
12 journals. A closer look at the finding indicates that most articles were published 
in journals in the fields of human resource management (eight articles), general 
management and ethics/CSR (five articles), and innovation (four articles). Nine arti‑
cles have been published before 2000, with the oldest dating from 1976. Further, 
17 articles were published between 2000 and 2020; 5 articles were published after 
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
Fig. 1  Overview of the systematic literature review
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
2020, with the newest ones being published in 2023. The final sample of articles is 
illustrated in Table 1.
3.3  Method of analysis
We analyzed these articles by conducting a semantic decomposition, in which lexi‑
cal content, such as sentences and groups of words, is inductively decomposed into 
smaller parts, called “primitives,” that define the content (Akmajian et  al. 2017). 
Each primitive is then analyzed within the context of the respective definition in 
order to identify overarching features of the extant definitions, which are then used 
for improving construct clarity (Suddaby 2010). We followed the semantic decom‑
position process described by Vial (2019) and Hund et al. (2021). For example, Vial 
(2019) used semantic decomposition to improve the construct clarity of “digital 
transformation.” Based on 23 definitions, the author identified four primitives: target 
entity, scope, means, and expected outcome. Similarly, Hund et al. (2021) conducted 
semantic decomposition to ascertain what constitutes digital innovation. Their anal‑
ysis of 29 definitions resulted in 6 primitives: input, involvement, properties, scope, 
implications, and creation.
For this article, we extracted the 31 definitions of managerial competence into 
an Excel sheet, broke them down into their constituting parts, and assessed them 
based on the semantic purpose of each definition. For example, Bücker and Poutsma 
(2010) defined management competence as “the potential capacity of a manager to 
successfully handle certain situations or complete a certain task or job.” This defini‑
tion included the following constituting parts: (1) potential capacity, (2) manager, 
(3) successfully handle, (4) certain situations, (5) complete, (6) a certain task or job. 
Overall, the 31 definitions of managerial competence resulted in 172 decomposed 
items. After this, we compared all decomposed items to identify overarching fea‑
tures, which resulted in seven primitives. We present our findings in more detail in 
the next section.
4  Findings
4.1  Competence constructs and their definitions
Table 2 represents the competence constructs and their definitions in the 31 articles 
we used for semantic analysis. Overall, eight formulations of the managerial compe‑
tence construct were adopted: management competence (Bücker and Poutsma 2010; 
Du Gay et al. 1996; Ngai et al. 2011; Pedraza‑Rodríguez et al. 2023), managerial 
competence (Avkiran 1999; Burgoyne 1989; Collin 1989), managerial competences 
(Hay 1990; Whitely 1989), management competency (Tett et al. 2000), managerial 
competency (Bernardin et  al. 2016; Hogan and Warrenfeltz 2003; Wickramasin‑
ghe and De Zoyza 2011), management competencies (Carson and Gilmore 2000; 
Carstens and De Kock 2017; Chen and Wu 2011; Daouk‑Öyry et al. 2021; Fjelstul 
and Tesone 2008; Muzzi and Albertini 2015; Sambasivan et al. 2009), managerial 
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
Ta
bl
e 
1 
 A
rti
cle
s s
ele
cte
d f
or
 an
aly
sis
Au
th
or
s
Ye
ar
Ti
tle
Jo
ur
na
l
Av
ki
ra
n
19
99
An
 im
pr
ov
ed
 su
bo
rd
in
ate
 ap
pr
ais
al 
of
 ba
nk
 m
an
ag
er
’s 
co
m
pe
ten
ce
Th
e I
nt
er
na
tio
na
l J
ou
rn
al 
of
 H
um
an
 R
es
ou
rc
e M
an
ag
em
en
t
Be
rn
ar
di
n e
t a
l
20
16
Ra
ter
 ra
tin
g‐
lev
el 
bi
as
 an
d a
cc
ur
ac
y i
n p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 
ap
pr
ais
als
: T
he
 im
pa
ct 
of
 ra
ter
 pe
rso
na
lit
y, 
pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
 
m
an
ag
em
en
t c
om
pe
ten
ce
, a
nd
 ra
ter
 ac
co
un
tab
ili
ty
Hu
m
an
 R
es
ou
rc
e M
an
ag
em
en
t
Bü
ck
er
 an
d P
ou
tsm
a
20
10
Gl
ob
al 
m
an
ag
em
en
t c
om
pe
ten
cie
s: 
A 
th
eo
re
tic
al 
fo
un
da
tio
n
Jo
ur
na
l o
f M
an
ag
er
ial
 P
sy
ch
ol
og
y
Bu
rg
oy
ne
19
89
Cr
ea
tin
g t
he
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 po
rtf
ol
io
: B
ui
ld
in
g o
n c
om
pe
ten
cy
 
ap
pr
oa
ch
es
 to
 m
an
ag
em
en
t d
ev
elo
pm
en
t
M
an
ag
em
en
t E
du
ca
tio
n a
nd
 D
ev
elo
pm
en
t
Bu
rg
oy
ne
 an
d S
tu
ar
t
19
76
Th
e n
atu
re
, u
se
 an
d a
cq
ui
sit
io
n o
f m
an
ag
er
ial
 sk
ill
s a
nd
 
ot
he
r a
ttr
ib
ut
es
Pe
rso
nn
el 
Re
vi
ew
Bu
su
lw
a, 
Pi
ck
er
in
g, 
an
d M
ao
20
22
Di
gi
tal
 tr
an
sfo
rm
ati
on
 an
d h
os
pi
tal
ity
 m
an
ag
em
en
t c
om
pe
‑
ten
cie
s: 
To
wa
rd
 an
 in
teg
ra
tiv
e f
ra
m
ew
or
k
In
ter
na
tio
na
l J
ou
rn
al 
of
 H
os
pi
tal
ity
 M
an
ag
em
en
t
Ca
rso
n a
nd
 G
ilm
or
e
20
00
SM
E 
m
ar
ke
tin
g m
an
ag
em
en
t c
om
pe
ten
cie
s
In
ter
na
tio
na
l B
us
in
es
s R
ev
iew
Ca
rst
en
s a
nd
 D
e K
oc
k
20
17
Fi
rm
‑le
ve
l d
ive
rsi
ty
 m
an
ag
em
en
t c
om
pe
ten
cie
s: 
De
ve
lo
p‑
m
en
t a
nd
 in
iti
al 
va
lid
ati
on
 of
 a 
m
ea
su
re
Th
e I
nt
er
na
tio
na
l J
ou
rn
al 
of
 H
um
an
 R
es
ou
rc
e M
an
ag
em
en
t
Ch
en
 an
d W
u
20
11
IT
 m
an
ag
em
en
t c
ap
ab
ili
ty
 an
d i
ts 
im
pa
ct 
on
 th
e p
er
fo
r‑
m
an
ce
 of
 a 
CI
O
In
fo
rm
ati
on
 &
 M
an
ag
em
en
t
Co
lli
n
19
89
M
an
ag
er
s’ 
co
m
pe
ten
ce
: R
he
to
ric
, r
ea
lit
y a
nd
 re
se
ar
ch
Pe
rso
nn
el 
Re
vi
ew
Da
ou
k‐
Öy
ry
, S
ah
ak
ian
, a
nd
 va
n 
de
 V
ijv
er
20
21
Ev
id
en
ce
‐b
as
ed
 m
an
ag
em
en
t c
om
pe
ten
cy
 m
od
el 
fo
r m
an
‑
ag
er
s i
n h
os
pi
tal
 se
tti
ng
s
Br
iti
sh
 Jo
ur
na
l o
f M
an
ag
em
en
t
De
br
ah
 an
d O
fo
ri
20
05
Em
er
gi
ng
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
cie
s o
f p
ro
fes
sio
na
ls 
in
 th
e 
Ta
nz
an
ian
 co
ns
tru
cti
on
 in
du
str
y
Th
e I
nt
er
na
tio
na
l J
ou
rn
al 
of
 H
um
an
 R
es
ou
rc
e M
an
ag
em
en
t
Do
nb
es
uu
r e
t a
l
20
23
On
 th
e p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 of
 pl
atf
or
m
‑b
as
ed
 in
ter
na
tio
na
l n
ew
 
ve
nt
ur
es
: T
he
 ro
les
 of
 no
n‑
m
ar
ke
t s
tra
teg
ies
 an
d m
an
ag
e‑
ria
l c
om
pe
ten
cie
s
Jo
ur
na
l o
f I
nt
er
na
tio
na
l M
an
ag
em
en
t
Du
 G
ay
, S
ala
m
an
, a
nd
 R
ee
s
19
96
Th
e c
on
du
ct 
of
 m
an
ag
em
en
t a
nd
 th
e m
an
ag
em
en
t o
f 
co
nd
uc
t: 
Co
nt
em
po
ra
ry
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 di
sc
ou
rse
 an
d t
he
 
co
ns
tit
ut
io
n o
f t
he
 ’c
om
pe
ten
t’ 
m
an
ag
er
Jo
ur
na
l o
f M
an
ag
em
en
t S
tu
di
es
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
Ta
bl
e 
1 
 (c
on
tin
ue
d)
Au
th
or
s
Ye
ar
Ti
tle
Jo
ur
na
l
Fj
els
tu
l a
nd
 T
es
on
e
20
08
Go
lf 
an
d c
lu
b e
nt
ry
 le
ve
l m
an
ag
em
en
t c
om
pe
ten
cie
s
In
ter
na
tio
na
l J
ou
rn
al 
of
 C
on
tem
po
ra
ry
 H
os
pi
tal
ity
 M
an
ag
e‑
m
en
t
Ha
rv
ey
 an
d R
ich
ey
20
01
Gl
ob
al 
su
pp
ly
 ch
ain
 m
an
ag
em
en
t: 
Th
e s
ele
cti
on
 of
 gl
ob
all
y 
co
m
pe
ten
t m
an
ag
er
s
Jo
ur
na
l o
f I
nt
er
na
tio
na
l M
an
ag
em
en
t
Ha
y
19
90
M
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
s o
r m
an
ag
er
ial
 ch
ar
ac
ter
ist
ics
?
M
an
ag
em
en
t E
du
ca
tio
n a
nd
 D
ev
elo
pm
en
t
Ho
ga
n a
nd
 W
ar
re
nf
elt
z
20
03
Ed
uc
ati
ng
 th
e m
od
er
n m
an
ag
er
Ac
ad
em
y o
f M
an
ag
em
en
t L
ea
rn
in
g &
 E
du
ca
tio
n
Ka
nu
ng
o a
nd
 M
isr
a
19
92
M
an
ag
er
ial
 re
so
ur
ce
fu
ln
es
s: 
A 
re
co
nc
ep
tu
ali
za
tio
n o
f 
m
an
ag
em
en
t s
ki
lls
Hu
m
an
 R
ela
tio
ns
Le
ve
ns
on
, V
an
 de
r S
ted
e, 
an
d 
Co
he
n
20
06
M
ea
su
rin
g t
he
 re
lat
io
ns
hi
p b
etw
ee
n m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
‑
cie
s a
nd
 pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
Jo
ur
na
l o
f M
an
ag
em
en
t
M
uz
zi 
an
d A
lb
er
tin
i
20
15
Co
m
m
un
iti
es
 an
d m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
cie
s s
up
po
rti
ng
 
SM
E 
s i
nn
ov
ati
on
 ne
tw
or
ki
ng
: A
 lo
ng
itu
di
na
l c
as
e s
tu
dy
R&
D 
M
an
ag
em
en
t
Ng
ai,
 C
ha
u, 
an
d C
ha
n
20
11
In
fo
rm
ati
on
 te
ch
no
lo
gy
, o
pe
ra
tio
na
l, 
an
d m
an
ag
em
en
t 
co
m
pe
ten
cie
s f
or
 su
pp
ly
 ch
ain
 ag
ili
ty
: F
in
di
ng
s f
ro
m
 ca
se
 
stu
di
es
Th
e J
ou
rn
al 
of
 S
tra
teg
ic 
In
fo
rm
ati
on
 S
ys
tem
s
Pe
dr
az
a‑
Ro
dr
íg
ue
z e
t a
l
20
23
M
an
ag
em
en
t s
ki
lls
 an
d o
rg
an
iza
tio
na
l c
ul
tu
re
 as
 so
ur
ce
s o
f 
in
no
va
tio
n f
or
 fi
rm
s i
n p
er
ip
he
ra
l r
eg
io
ns
Te
ch
no
lo
gi
ca
l F
or
ec
as
tin
g a
nd
 S
oc
ial
 C
ha
ng
e
Sa
m
ba
siv
an
, A
bd
ul
, a
nd
 Y
us
op
20
09
Im
pa
ct 
of
 pe
rso
na
l q
ua
lit
ies
 an
d m
an
ag
em
en
t s
ki
lls
 of
 
en
tre
pr
en
eu
rs 
on
 ve
nt
ur
e p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 in
 M
ala
ys
ia:
 
Op
po
rtu
ni
ty
 re
co
gn
iti
on
 sk
ill
s a
s a
 m
ed
iat
in
g f
ac
to
r
Te
ch
no
va
tio
n
Sh
et 
an
d P
er
eir
a
20
21
Pr
op
os
ed
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
cie
s f
or
 In
du
str
y 4
.0 
– I
m
pl
i‑
ca
tio
ns
 fo
r s
oc
ial
 su
sta
in
ab
ili
ty
Te
ch
no
lo
gi
ca
l F
or
ec
as
tin
g a
nd
 S
oc
ial
 C
ha
ng
e
Si
u
19
98
M
an
ag
in
g b
y c
om
pe
ten
cie
s –
 a 
stu
dy
 on
 th
e m
an
ag
er
ial
 
co
m
pe
ten
cie
s o
f h
ot
el 
m
id
dl
e m
an
ag
er
s i
n H
on
g K
on
g
In
ter
na
tio
na
l J
ou
rn
al 
of
 H
os
pi
tal
ity
 M
an
ag
em
en
t
Te
tt 
et 
al
20
00
De
ve
lo
pm
en
t a
nd
 co
nt
en
t v
ali
da
tio
n o
f a
 ’h
yp
er
di
m
en
‑
sio
na
l’ 
tax
on
om
y o
f m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
Hu
m
an
 P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
Ta
bl
e 
1 
 (c
on
tin
ue
d)
Au
th
or
s
Ye
ar
Ti
tle
Jo
ur
na
l
Ve
liu
 an
d M
an
xh
ar
i
20
17
Th
e i
m
pa
ct 
of
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
cie
s o
n b
us
in
es
s p
er
fo
r‑
m
an
ce
: S
M
E’
s i
n K
os
ov
o
Jo
ur
na
l o
f M
an
ag
em
en
t
W
hi
tle
y
19
89
On
 th
e n
atu
re
 of
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 ta
sk
s a
nd
 sk
ill
s: 
Th
eir
 di
sti
n‑
gu
ish
in
g c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
s a
nd
 or
ga
ni
za
tio
n
Jo
ur
na
l o
f M
an
ag
em
en
t S
tu
di
es
W
ick
ra
m
as
in
gh
e a
nd
 D
e Z
oy
za
20
09
An
 as
se
ss
m
en
t o
f m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
cy
 ne
ed
s: 
Em
pi
ric
al 
ev
id
en
ce
 fr
om
 a 
Sr
i L
an
ka
n t
ele
co
m
m
un
ica
tio
n s
er
vi
ce
 
pr
ov
id
er
Th
e I
nt
er
na
tio
na
l J
ou
rn
al 
of
 H
um
an
 R
es
ou
rc
e M
an
ag
em
en
t
W
ick
ra
m
as
in
gh
e a
nd
 D
e Z
oy
za
20
11
M
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
cy
 re
qu
ire
m
en
ts 
th
at 
en
ha
nc
e o
rg
an
i‑
sa
tio
na
l c
om
pe
ten
ce
s: 
A 
stu
dy
 of
 a 
Sr
i L
an
ka
n t
ele
co
m
 
or
ga
ni
sa
tio
n
Th
e I
nt
er
na
tio
na
l J
ou
rn
al 
of
 H
um
an
 R
es
ou
rc
e M
an
ag
em
en
t
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
Ta
bl
e 
2 
 D
efi
ni
tio
ns
 of
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
Au
th
or
(s)
Co
m
pe
ten
ce
 co
ns
tru
ct
De
fin
iti
on
 (c
on
sti
tu
tin
g p
rim
iti
ve
s)
Bü
ck
er
 an
d P
ou
tsm
a (
20
10
)
M
an
ag
em
en
t c
om
pe
‑
ten
ce
Th
e p
ot
en
tia
l c
ap
ac
ity
 (p
1)
 of
 a 
m
an
ag
er
 (p
2)
 to
 su
cc
es
sfu
lly
 ha
nd
le 
(p
3)
 ce
rta
in
 si
tu
ati
on
s (
p4
) o
r c
om
‑
pl
ete
 (p
5)
 a 
ce
rta
in
 ta
sk
 or
 jo
b (
p6
)
Du
 G
ay
 et
 al
. (
19
96
)
Th
e a
ttr
ib
ut
es
 (p
1)
, s
ki
lls
 (p
2)
 an
d c
ap
ac
iti
es
 (p
3)
 m
an
ag
er
s (
p4
) n
ee
d t
o o
pe
ra
te 
co
m
pe
ten
tly
 (p
5)
 w
ith
in
 
or
ga
ni
za
tio
ns
 (p
6)
Ng
ai 
et 
al.
 (2
01
1)
Th
e a
bi
lit
y (
p1
) o
f a
n o
rg
an
iza
tio
n’s
 m
an
ag
em
en
t (
p2
) t
o v
alu
e (
p3
) a
nd
 di
re
ctl
y a
pp
ro
pr
iat
e (
p4
) o
rg
an
i‑
za
tio
na
l r
es
po
ns
e (
p5
) t
o m
ar
ke
t c
ha
ng
e (
p6
)
Pe
dr
az
a‑
Ro
dr
íg
ue
z e
t a
l. 
(2
02
3)
Pe
rso
na
l s
ki
lls
 (p
1)
, c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
s (
p2
), 
att
itu
de
s (
p3
), 
an
d b
eh
av
io
rs 
(p
4)
 in
 th
e e
xe
cu
tiv
es
 (p
5)
 to
 
ac
hi
ev
e t
o b
e e
ffe
cti
ve
 in
 th
eir
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 pr
oc
es
se
s (
p6
)
Av
ki
ra
n (
19
99
)
M
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
‑
ten
ce
An
 un
de
rly
in
g c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
 (p
1)
 of
 a 
m
an
ag
er
 (p
2)
 th
at 
re
su
lts
 in
 (p
3)
 eff
ec
tiv
e (
p4
) a
nd
/o
r s
up
er
io
r 
pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
 (p
5)
 in
 a 
m
an
ag
er
ial
 jo
b (
p6
)
Bu
rg
oy
ne
 (1
98
9)
A 
m
an
ag
er
s’ 
(p
1)
 ab
ili
ty
 (p
2)
 an
d w
ill
in
gn
es
s (
p3
) t
o p
er
fo
rm
 a 
tas
k (
p4
)
Co
lli
n (
19
89
)
Th
e p
os
se
ss
io
n (
p1
) o
f s
pe
cifi
c s
ki
lls
 an
d a
bi
lit
ies
 (p
2)
, [
…
] a
tti
tu
de
s (
p3
), 
va
lu
es
 (p
4)
, a
nd
 m
in
ds
ets
 (p
5)
 
th
at 
all
ow
 m
an
ag
er
s (
p6
) t
o c
on
fro
nt
, u
nd
er
sta
nd
, a
nd
 de
al 
wi
th
 (p
7)
 a 
wi
de
 ra
ng
e o
f f
or
ce
s w
ith
in
 an
d 
ou
tsi
de
 th
eir
 or
ga
ni
sa
tio
ns
 (p
8)
Ha
y (
19
90
)
M
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
‑
ten
ce
s
Th
e c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
s (
p1
) o
f m
an
ag
er
s (
p2
) f
or
 be
in
g e
ffe
cti
ve
 (p
3)
 w
ith
in
 in
cr
ea
sin
gl
y c
om
pl
ex
 en
vi
ro
n‑
m
en
ts 
(p
4)
W
hi
tel
y (
19
89
)
Th
e c
ap
ac
iti
es
 (p
1)
 ne
ed
ed
 to
 pe
rfo
rm
 (p
2)
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 ta
sk
s (
p3
) a
nd
 pr
ob
lem
s (
p4
)
Te
tt 
et 
al.
 (2
00
0)
M
an
ag
em
en
t c
om
pe
‑
ten
cy
An
 id
en
tifi
ab
le 
as
pe
ct 
(p
1)
 of
 pr
os
pe
cti
ve
 w
or
k b
eh
av
io
r (
p2
) a
ttr
ib
ut
ab
le 
to
 th
e m
an
ag
er
 (p
3)
 th
at 
is 
ex
pe
cte
d t
o c
on
tri
bu
te 
po
sit
ive
ly
 an
d/
or
 ne
ga
tiv
ely
 (p
4)
 to
 or
ga
ni
za
tio
na
l e
ffe
cti
ve
ne
ss
 (p
5)
Be
rn
ar
di
n e
t a
l. 
(2
01
6)
M
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
‑
ten
cy
An
 un
de
rly
in
g c
om
pe
ten
cy
 (p
1)
 m
ad
e u
p o
f k
no
wl
ed
ge
 (p
2)
, s
ki
lls
 (p
3)
, a
bi
lit
ies
 (p
4)
, a
nd
 m
ot
iv
ati
on
s 
(p
5)
Ho
ga
n a
nd
 W
ar
re
nf
elt
z (
20
03
)
Pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
 ca
pa
bi
lit
y (
p1
) t
ha
t d
ist
in
gu
ish
es
 (p
2)
 eff
ec
tiv
e [
m
an
ag
er
s] 
(p
3)
 fr
om
 in
eff
ec
tiv
e m
an
ag
er
s 
(p
4)
 in
 a 
pa
rti
cu
lar
 or
ga
ni
za
tio
n (
p5
)
W
ick
ra
m
as
in
gh
e a
nd
 D
e Z
oy
za
 (2
01
1)
A 
m
ea
su
ra
bl
e c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
 (p
1)
 of
 a 
pe
rso
n (
p2
) w
hi
ch
 is
 re
lat
ed
 to
 eff
ec
tiv
e p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 (p
3)
 in
 a 
sp
ec
ifi
c j
ob
 (p
4)
, o
rg
an
isa
tio
n (
p5
), 
or
 cu
ltu
re
 (p
6)
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
Ta
bl
e 
2 
 (c
on
tin
ue
d)
Au
th
or
(s)
Co
m
pe
ten
ce
 co
ns
tru
ct
De
fin
iti
on
 (c
on
sti
tu
tin
g p
rim
iti
ve
s)
Ca
rso
n a
nd
 G
ilm
or
e (
20
00
)
M
an
ag
em
en
t c
om
pe
‑
ten
cie
s
M
an
ag
em
en
t p
ro
ce
ss
 (p
1)
, r
ol
es
 (p
2)
, s
ki
lls
 (p
3)
, a
ttr
ib
ut
es
 (p
4)
, p
er
so
na
l c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
s (
p5
), 
an
d 
de
m
an
ds
 (p
6)
Ca
rst
en
s a
nd
 D
e K
oc
k (
20
17
)
Th
e r
an
ge
 of
 kn
ow
led
ge
 (p
1)
, s
ki
lls
 (p
2)
, a
bi
lit
ies
 (p
3)
, a
nd
 pe
rsp
ec
tiv
es
 (p
4)
 of
 m
an
ag
er
s (
p5
) t
ha
t a
re
 
in
str
um
en
tal
 (p
5)
 in
 th
e a
tta
in
m
en
t o
f p
re
fer
re
d r
es
ul
ts 
(p
6)
Ch
en
 an
d W
u (
20
11
)
Th
e l
ev
el 
of
 sk
ill
s/k
no
wl
ed
ge
 (p
1)
 th
at 
en
ab
le 
m
an
ag
er
s (
p2
) t
o u
nd
er
sta
nd
 th
e d
om
ain
‑sp
ec
ifi
c k
no
wl
‑
ed
ge
 of
 bu
sin
es
s (
p3
), 
sp
ea
k t
he
 la
ng
ua
ge
 of
 bu
sin
es
s (
p4
) a
nd
 in
ter
ac
t (
p5
) w
ith
 th
eir
 bu
sin
es
s p
ar
tn
er
s 
in
 ot
he
r d
iv
isi
on
s (
p6
)
Da
ou
k‑
Öy
ry
 et
 al
. (
20
21
)
Th
e p
er
so
na
l k
no
wl
ed
ge
 (p
1)
, s
ki
lls
 (p
2)
, a
bi
lit
ies
 (p
3)
 an
d o
th
er
 ch
ar
ac
ter
ist
ics
 (p
4)
 of
 m
an
ag
er
s (
p5
)
Fj
els
tu
l a
nd
 T
es
on
e (
20
08
)
Kn
ow
led
ge
 (p
1)
, s
ki
lls
 (p
2)
, a
tti
tu
de
s (
p3
), 
m
ot
ive
s (
p4
), 
tra
its
 (p
5)
, a
nd
 se
lf‑
co
nc
ep
t (
p6
) r
eq
ui
re
d f
or
 
(p
7)
 cu
rre
nt
 eff
ec
tiv
en
es
s (
p8
) a
nd
 fu
tu
re
 su
cc
es
s (
p9
) o
f [
…
] m
an
ag
er
s (
p1
0)
M
uz
zi 
an
d A
lb
er
tin
i (
20
15
)
Th
e b
eh
av
io
ra
l c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
s (
p1
) u
nd
er
ly
in
g (
p2
) t
he
 ac
tiv
iti
es
, t
as
ks
, o
r c
ha
lle
ng
es
 (p
3)
 in
 m
an
ag
m
en
t 
jo
bs
 (p
4)
Sa
m
ba
siv
an
 et
 al
. (
20
09
)
Kn
ow
led
ge
 (p
1)
, s
ki
lls
 (p
2)
, a
nd
/o
r a
bi
lit
ies
 (p
3)
 re
qu
ire
d t
o m
an
ag
e a
 ve
nt
ur
e (
p4
)
Bu
su
lw
a e
t a
l. 
(2
02
2)
M
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
‑
ten
cie
s
Th
e k
no
wl
ed
ge
 (p
1)
, s
ki
lls
 (p
2)
, a
bi
lit
ies
 (p
3)
, a
nd
 ot
he
r c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
s (
p4
) t
ha
t m
an
ag
er
s (
p5
) r
eq
ui
re
 to
 
eff
ec
tiv
ely
 do
 th
eir
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 w
or
k (
p6
)
De
br
ah
 an
d O
fo
ri 
(2
00
5)
Th
e i
nd
iv
id
ua
l b
eh
av
io
ur
s (
p1
), 
su
ch
 as
 go
al 
se
tti
ng
 (p
2)
, a
cti
on
 m
an
ag
em
en
t (
p3
) a
nd
 le
ad
er
sh
ip
 sk
ill
s 
(p
4)
, i
n a
dd
iti
on
 to
 or
ga
ni
za
tio
na
l s
ki
lls
 (p
5)
, s
uc
h a
s H
RM
 (p
6)
 an
d p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 (p
7)
, i
n o
rd
er
 to
 op
er‑
ate
 eff
ec
tiv
ely
 (p
8)
Do
nb
es
ur
r e
t a
l. 
(2
02
3)
Th
e i
nd
iv
id
ua
l‑l
ev
el 
sk
ill
s (
p1
) a
nd
 pe
rso
na
l c
ap
ac
ity
 (p
2)
 of
 to
p m
an
ag
er
s (
p3
)
Ha
rv
ey
 an
d R
ich
ey
 (2
00
1)
To
p m
an
ag
m
en
t t
ea
m
 ca
pa
bi
lit
ies
 (p
1)
, m
an
ag
er
ial
 so
cia
l k
no
wl
ed
ge
 (p
2)
, i
nf
or
m
al 
in
ter
na
l/e
xt
er
na
l b
us
i‑
ne
ss
 ne
tw
or
ks
 (p
3)
 […
] a
nd
 pe
rso
na
l s
oc
ial
 ca
pi
tal
 (p
4)
 of
 m
an
ag
er
s (
p5
) t
ha
t c
an
 be
 us
ed
 to
 ac
co
m
pl
ish
 
th
e m
iss
io
n o
f t
he
 or
ga
ni
za
tio
n (
p6
)
Ka
nu
go
 an
d M
isr
a (
19
92
)
Th
e a
bi
lit
y (
p1
) t
o e
ng
ag
e i
n (
p2
) i
de
nt
ifi
ab
le 
pa
tte
rn
s (
p3
) o
f c
og
ni
tiv
e m
ed
iat
io
ns
 (p
4)
 in
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 
jo
bs
 (p
5)
Le
ve
ns
on
 et
 al
. (
20
06
)
Th
e m
an
ag
er
ial
 ac
tio
ns
 an
d b
eh
av
io
ur
s (
p1
), 
ex
pr
es
se
d i
n t
ec
hn
ica
l s
ki
lls
 (p
2)
, b
as
ic 
m
an
ag
em
en
t s
ki
lls
 
(p
3)
, a
nd
 le
ad
er
sh
ip
 sk
ill
s (
p4
) n
ec
es
sa
ry
 fo
r i
m
pr
ov
ed
 un
it‑
lev
el 
pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
 (p
5)
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
Ta
bl
e 
2 
 (c
on
tin
ue
d)
Au
th
or
(s)
Co
m
pe
ten
ce
 co
ns
tru
ct
De
fin
iti
on
 (c
on
sti
tu
tin
g p
rim
iti
ve
s)
Sh
et 
an
d P
er
eir
a (
20
21
)
De
m
on
str
ab
le 
be
ha
vi
or
s (
p1
) s
tem
m
in
g f
ro
m
 co
m
bi
na
tio
ns
 of
 kn
ow
led
ge
 (p
2)
, s
ki
lls
 (p
3)
, a
nd
 at
tit
ud
es
 
(p
4)
 (K
SA
s),
 an
d l
ea
di
ng
 to
 ov
er
all
 su
pe
rio
r j
ob
 pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
 (p
5)
Si
u (
19
98
)
M
an
ag
er
s (
p1
) h
av
in
g t
he
 ab
ili
ty
 (p
2)
, b
ein
g c
ap
ab
le 
(p
3)
, p
os
se
ss
in
g c
er
tai
n s
ki
lls
 (p
4)
 an
d t
he
 kn
ow
l‑
ed
ge
 (p
5)
 to
 do
 th
eir
 jo
b e
ffe
cti
ve
ly
 (p
6)
Ve
liu
 an
d M
an
xh
ar
i (
20
17
)
Kn
ow
led
ge
 (p
1)
, a
bi
lit
ies
 (p
2)
, s
ki
lls
 (p
3)
 an
d b
eh
av
io
rs 
(p
4)
 re
qu
ire
d f
or
 eff
ec
tiv
e j
ob
 pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
 (p
5)
 
in
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
 (p
6)
W
ick
ra
m
as
in
gh
e a
nd
 D
e Z
oy
za
 (2
00
9)
Th
e k
no
wl
ed
ge
 (p
1)
 an
d s
ki
lls
 (p
2)
 th
at 
en
ab
le 
th
e m
an
ag
er
 (p
3)
 to
 gi
ve
 an
 eff
ec
tiv
e p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 (p
4)
 in
 
sp
ec
ifi
c a
re
as
 of
 m
an
ag
em
en
t (
p5
)
Bu
rg
oy
ne
 an
d S
tu
ar
t (
19
76
)
M
an
ag
er
ial
 qu
ali
tie
s
Th
e k
in
ds
 of
 sk
ill
s (
p1
) a
nd
 ot
he
r q
ua
lit
ies
 (p
2)
 in
 m
an
ag
er
s (
p3
) t
ha
t c
on
tri
bu
te 
to
 (p
4)
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 su
c‑
ce
ss
 (p
5)
 an
d p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 in
 va
rio
us
 fo
rm
s (
p6
)
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
competencies (Busulwa et al. 2022; Debrah and Ofori 2005; Donbesuur et al. 2023; 
Harvey and Richey 2001; Kanugo and Misra 1992; Levenson et al. 2006; Shet and 
Pereira 2021; Siu 1998; Veliu and Manxhari 2017; Wickramasinghe and De Zoyza 
2009), and managerial qualities (Burgoyne and Stuart 1976). Not assuming any dif‑
ference between the words “management” and “managerial,” it is evident that the 
most definitions are for management/managerial competencies (17), seven are for 
management/managerial competence, three for management/managerial compe‑
tency, two for managerial (without management) competences, and one for manage‑
rial qualities.
4.2  Semantic decomposition
To answer our research question “What are the conceptual components of mana‑
gerial competence?”, we applied semantic decomposition to the 31 definitions that 
we identified from our systematic literature review. As outlined in the methodology 
section, we systematically decomposed each definition into a series of constituting 
primitives, which are marked in grey font and number (p1–p8) in Table  2. After 
this, we counted the frequency of each constituting primitive. For those constitut‑
ing primitives that occurred with a frequency greater than one, we checked their 
definitions in the Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE 2010). The definitions aided 
us in comparing the constituting primitives with each other and identify seven prime 
primitives that represent the key conceptual components of managerial competence 
(Table 3): role, proficiency, disposition, capability, action, context, and effectiveness.
4.2.1  Primitive 1: role
The first primitive that becomes apparent from the definitions is “role”; 19 out of 31 
definitions included 1 constituting primitive related to role and 2 out of 31 defini‑
tions included 2 constituting primitives related to role. The most frequently men‑
tioned constituting primitives were “manager” (Avkiran 1999; Bücker and Poutsma 
2010; Burgoyne 1989; Du Gay et al. 1996) and “managers” (Burgoyne and Stuart 
1976; Busulwa et al. 2022; Carstens and De Kock 2017; Daouk‑Öyry et aal. 2021; 
Fjelstul and Tesone 2008; Harvey and Richey 2001; Hay 1990; Siu 1998). Overall, 
this primitive emerged from 23 constituting primitives.
4.2.2  Primitive 2: proficiency
In this primitive, 6 out of 31 definitions included one constituting primitive, 12 out 
of 31 definitions included 2 constituting primitives and 2 out of 31 had 3 constitut‑
ing primitives. The most frequently mentioned constituting primitives were “skills” 
and “knowledge” and many authors used both of them in their definitions (Bernardin 
et al. 2016; Busulwa et al. 2022; Carstens and De Kock 2017; Chen and Wu 2011; 
Daouk‑Öyry et al. 2021; Fjelstul and Tesone 2008; Sambasivan et al. 2009; Shet and 
Pereira 2021; Siu 1998; Veliu and Manxhari 2017; Wickramasinghe and De Zoyza 
2009). Overall, this primitive emerged from 36 constituting primitives.
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
Ta
bl
e 
3 
 C
om
pa
ris
on
 of
 th
e s
ev
en
 pr
im
iti
ve
s f
ro
m
 de
fin
iti
on
s o
n m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
Pr
im
iti
ve
 1:
 R
ol
e
23
Pr
im
iti
ve
 2:
 P
ro
fic
ien
cy
36
Pr
im
iti
ve
 3:
Di
sp
os
iti
on
24
Pr
im
iti
ve
 4:
 C
ap
ab
ili
ty
24
Co
ns
tit
ut
in
g p
rim
iti
ve
s
Fr
eq
Co
ns
tit
ut
in
g p
rim
iti
ve
s
Fr
eq
Co
ns
tit
ut
in
g p
rim
iti
ve
s
Fr
eq
Co
ns
tit
ut
in
g p
rim
iti
ve
s
Fr
eq
M
an
ag
er
/m
an
ag
er
s
12
Sk
ill
s
11
At
tit
ud
es
4
Ab
ili
ty
/A
bi
lit
ies
10
M
an
ag
er
ial
 jo
b/
M
an
ag
er
ial
 jo
bs
1
Kn
ow
led
ge
9
At
tri
bu
tes
2
Ca
pa
cit
ies
2
De
m
an
ds
1
Le
ad
er
sh
ip
 sk
ill
s
2
Ot
he
r c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
s
2
En
ab
le 
th
e m
an
ag
er
/m
an
ag
er
s
2
Ex
ec
ut
ive
s
1
Ba
sic
 m
an
ag
em
en
t s
ki
lls
1
Ch
ar
ac
ter
ist
ics
2
Al
lo
w 
m
an
ag
er
s
1
Or
ga
ni
za
tio
n’s
 m
an
ag
em
en
t
1
In
di
vi
du
al‑
lev
el 
sk
ill
s
1
Va
lu
e/V
alu
es
2
Be
in
g c
ap
ab
le
1
M
an
ag
em
en
t j
ob
s
1
Ki
nd
s o
f s
ki
lls
1
Co
gn
iti
ve
 m
ed
iat
io
ns
1
Be
in
g e
ffe
cti
ve
1
M
an
ag
er
ial
 oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
1
Le
ve
l o
f s
ki
lls
/k
no
wl
ed
ge
1
M
ea
su
ra
bl
e c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
s
1
Pe
rso
na
l c
ap
ac
ity
1
Pe
rso
n
1
M
an
ag
er
ial
 so
cia
l K
no
wl
ed
ge
1
M
in
ds
ets
1
Pe
rso
na
l c
ap
ab
ili
ty
1
Ro
les
1
Or
ga
ni
za
tio
na
l s
ki
lls
1
M
ot
iv
ati
on
s
1
Po
ss
es
sio
n
1
Sp
ec
ifi
c a
re
as
 of
 m
an
ag
em
en
t
1
Pe
rso
na
l k
no
wl
ed
ge
1
M
ot
ive
s
1
Po
ten
tia
l c
ap
ac
ity
1
To
p m
an
ag
er
s
1
Pe
rso
na
l s
ki
lls
1
Ot
he
r q
ua
lit
ies
1
Re
qu
ire
d f
or
1
Pe
rso
na
l s
oc
ial
 ca
pi
tal
1
Pe
rso
na
l c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
s
1
To
p m
an
ag
em
en
t t
ea
m
 ca
pa
bi
lit
ies
1
Pe
rsp
ec
tiv
es
1
Se
lf‑
co
nc
ep
t
1
Un
de
rly
in
g c
om
pe
ten
cy
1
Po
ss
es
sin
g c
er
tai
n s
ki
lls
1
Tr
ait
s
1
Sp
ec
ifi
c s
ki
lls
 an
d a
bi
lit
ies
1
Un
de
rly
in
g
1
Te
ch
ni
ca
l s
ki
lls
1
Un
de
rly
in
g c
ha
ra
cte
ris
tic
s
1
Un
de
rst
an
d t
he
 do
m
ain
‑sp
ec
ifi
c 
kn
ow
led
ge
1
W
ill
in
gn
es
s
1
Pr
im
iti
ve
 5:
 A
cti
on
26
Pr
im
iti
ve
 6:
 C
on
tex
t
14
Pr
im
iti
ve
 7:
 E
ffe
cti
ve
ne
ss
27
Co
ns
tit
ut
in
g p
rim
iti
ve
s
Fr
eq
Co
ns
tit
ut
in
g p
rim
iti
ve
s
Fr
eq
Co
ns
tit
ut
in
g p
rim
iti
ve
s
Fr
eq
Be
ha
vi
or
s
2
A 
ce
rta
in
 ta
sk
 or
 jo
b
1
Eff
ec
tiv
e p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
2
Ac
tio
n m
an
ag
em
en
t
1
A 
wi
de
 ra
ng
e o
f f
or
ce
s w
ith
in
 an
d o
ut
sid
e t
he
ir 
or
ga
ni
sa
tio
ns
1
Ac
co
m
pl
ish
 th
e m
iss
io
n o
f t
he
 or
ga
ni
za
tio
n
1
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
Ta
bl
e 
3 
 (c
on
tin
ue
d)
Pr
im
iti
ve
 5:
 A
cti
on
26
Pr
im
iti
ve
 6:
 C
on
tex
t
14
Pr
im
iti
ve
 7:
 E
ffe
cti
ve
ne
ss
27
Ac
tiv
iti
es
, t
as
ks
, o
r c
ha
lle
ng
es
1
Bu
sin
es
s p
ar
tn
er
s i
n o
th
er
 di
vi
sio
ns
1
At
tai
nm
en
t o
f p
re
fer
re
d r
es
ul
ts
1
At
tri
bu
tab
le 
to
 th
e m
an
ag
er
1
Ce
rta
in
 si
tu
ati
on
s
1
Co
nt
rib
ut
e t
o
1
Be
ha
vi
or
al 
ch
ar
ac
ter
ist
ics
1
Cu
ltu
re
1
Cu
rre
nt
 eff
ec
tiv
en
es
s
1
Co
m
pl
ete
1
HR
M
 (H
um
an
 re
so
ur
ce
 m
an
ag
em
en
t)
1
Di
re
ctl
y a
pp
ro
pr
iat
e
1
Co
nf
ro
nt
, u
nd
er
sta
nd
, a
nd
 de
al 
wi
th
1
In
 a 
pa
rti
cu
lar
 or
ga
ni
za
tio
n
1
Eff
ec
tiv
e i
n t
he
ir 
m
an
ag
er
ial
 pr
oc
es
se
s
1
De
m
on
str
ab
le 
be
ha
vi
or
s
1
In
cr
ea
sin
gl
y c
om
pl
ex
 en
vi
ro
nm
en
ts
1
Eff
ec
tiv
e j
ob
 pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
1
Di
sti
ng
ui
sh
es
1
In
fo
rm
al 
in
ter
na
l/e
xt
er
na
l b
us
in
es
s n
etw
or
ks
1
Eff
ec
tiv
e m
an
ag
er
s
1
En
ga
ge
 in
1
M
ar
ke
t c
ha
ng
e
1
Eff
ec
tiv
ely
 do
 th
eir
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 w
or
k
1
Go
al 
se
tti
ng
1
Or
ga
ni
sa
tio
n
1
Ex
pe
cte
d t
o c
on
tri
bu
te 
po
sit
ive
ly
 an
d/
or
 ne
ga
tiv
ely
1
Id
en
tifi
ab
le 
as
pe
ct
1
Or
ga
ni
za
tio
na
l r
es
po
ns
e
1
Fu
tu
re
 su
cc
es
s
1
Id
en
tifi
ab
le 
pa
tte
rn
s
1
Sp
ec
ifi
c j
ob
1
Im
pr
ov
ed
 un
it‑
lev
el 
pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
1
In
di
vi
du
al 
be
ha
vi
or
s
1
W
ith
in
 or
ga
ni
za
tio
ns
1
In
eff
ec
tiv
e m
an
ag
er
s
1
In
ter
ac
t
1
In
str
um
en
tal
1
M
an
ag
e a
 ve
nt
ur
e
1
Le
ad
in
g t
o o
ve
ra
ll 
su
pe
rio
r j
ob
 pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
1
M
an
ag
er
ial
 ta
sk
s
1
M
an
ag
er
ial
 su
cc
es
s
1
M
an
ag
em
en
t p
ro
ce
ss
1
Op
er
ate
 co
m
pe
ten
tly
M
an
ag
er
ial
 ac
tio
ns
 an
d b
eh
av
io
rs
1
Op
er
ate
 eff
ec
tiv
ely
1
Pe
rfo
rm
1
Or
ga
ni
za
tio
na
l e
ffe
cti
ve
ne
ss
1
Pe
rfo
rm
 a 
tas
k
1
Pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
 in
 va
rio
us
 fo
rm
s
1
Pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
1
Re
lat
ed
 to
 eff
ec
tiv
e p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
1
Pr
os
pe
cti
ve
 w
or
k b
eh
av
io
r
1
Sp
ea
k t
he
 la
ng
ua
ge
 of
 bu
sin
es
s
1
Pr
ob
lem
s
1
Su
cc
es
sfu
lly
 ha
nd
le
1
Re
su
lt 
in
1
Su
pe
rio
r p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
1
1
To
 do
 th
eir
 jo
b e
ffe
cti
ve
ly
1
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
4.2.3  Primitive 3: disposition
In this primitive, 13 out of 31 definitions included 1 constituting primitive, 2 out 
of 31 definitions included 2 constituting primitives, 1 out of 31 had 3 constituting 
primitives, and 1 out of 31 had 4 constituting primitives. The most frequently men‑
tioned constituting primitives were “attitudes” (Collin 1989; Fjelstul and Tesone 
2008; Pedraza‑Rodríguez et al. 2023; Shet and Pereira 2021), “attributes” (Carson 
and Gilmore 2000; Du Gay et al. 1996), various forms of “characteristics” (Avkiran 
1999; Busulwa et al. 2022; Carson and Gilmore 2000; Daouk‑Öyry et al. 2021; Hay 
1990; Pedraza‑Rodríguez et  al. 2023; Wickramasinghe and De Zoyza 2011), and 
“values” (Collin 1989; Ngai et al. 2011). Overall, this primitive emerged from 24 
constituting primitives.
4.2.4  Primitive 4: capability
In this primitive, 18 out of 31 definitions included 1 constituting primitive and 3 out 
of 31 definitions included 2 constituting primitives. The most frequently mentioned 
constituting primitives were “ability” (Burgoyne 1989; Kanugo and Misra 1992; 
Ngai et al. 2011; Siu 1998), “abilities” (Bernardin et al. 2016; Busulwa et al. 2022; 
Carstens and De Kock 2017; Daouk‑Öyry et al. 2021; Sambasivan et al. 2009; Veliu 
and Manxhari 2017), and variations of “capacities” (Bücker and Poutsma 2010; 
Donbesuur et al. 2023; Du Gay et al. 1996; Whitely 1989). Overall, this primitive 
emerged from 24 constituting primitives.
4.2.5  Primitive 5: action
In this primitive, 12 out of 31 definitions included 1 constituting primitive, 2 out 
of 31 definitions included 2 constituting primitives, 2 out of 31 had 3 constituting 
primitives, and 1 out of 31 had 4 constituting primitives. The most frequently men‑
tioned constituting primitives were various types of “behavior” (Muzzi and Alber‑
tini 2015; Pedraza‑Rodríguez et  al. 2023; Shet and Pereira 2021; Tett et  al. 2000; 
Veliu and Manxhari 2017), and “managerial actions” (Carson and Gilmore 2000; 
Debrah and Ofori 2005; Levenson et al. 2006; Muzzi and Albertini 2015; Sambasi‑
van et al. 2009; Whitely 1989). In total, this primitive emerged from 26 constituting 
primitives.
4.2.6  Primitive 6: context
In this primitive, 7 out of 31 definitions included 1 constituting primitive, 2 out of 
31 definitions included 2 constituting primitives, and 1 out of 31 had 3 constitut‑
ing primitives. The most frequently mentioned constituting primitives were related 
to aspects within the organization (Chen and Wu 2011; Collin 1989; Debrah and 
Ofori 2005; Du Gay et  al. 1996; Hogan and Warrenfeltz 2003; Ngai et  al. 2011; 
Wickramasinghe and De Zoyza 2011); however, “a wide range of forces outside 
their organization” (Collin 1989), “informal external business networks” (Harvey 
and Richey 2001), “increasingly complex environments” (Hay 1990), and “market 
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
change” (Ngai et  al. 2011) were also mentioned. Overall, this primitive emerged 
from 14 constituting primitives.
4.2.7  Primitive 7: effectiveness
In this primitive, 14 out of 31 definitions included 1 constituting primitive, 5 out of 
31 definitions included 2 constituting primitives, and 1 out of 31 had 3 constituting 
primitives. The most frequently mentioned constituting primitives were related to 
being effective (Avkiran 1999; Busulwa et al. 2022; Debrah and Ofori 2005; Fjelstul 
and Tesone 2008; Hogan and Warrenfeltz 2003; Pedraza‑Rodríguez et al. 2023; Siu 
1998; Tett et  al. 2000; Veliu and Manxhari 2017; Wickramasinghe and De Zoyza 
2009, 2011), achieving goals (Carstens and De Kock 2017; Harvey and Richey 
2001) and improved performance (Avkiran 1999; Burgoyne and Stuart 1976; Fjel‑
stul and Tesone 2008; Levenson et al. 2006; Shet and Pereira 2021). In total, this 
primitive emerged from 27 constituting primitives.
5  Discussion of the findings and research agenda
In this section, we first discuss our findings considering four basic elements of con‑
struct clarity: definitions, semantic relationships to other constructs, scope condi‑
tions, and theoretical coherence (Suddaby 2010). Second, we propose a research 
agenda for the study of managerial competence related to Suddaby’s (2010) four ele‑
ments of construct clarity as well as three more practical areas.
5.1  Definitions of managerial competence
According to Suddaby (2010, p. 347), arguably the most common problem with def‑
initions is that authors simply fail to define their constructs. In our findings, 26 out 
of 73 articles failed to define the construct of managerial competence. Contrary to 
these articles without definitions, 47 articles provided definitions, 31 of which were 
unique and used in our semantic decomposition. Based on the semantic decomposi‑
tion of these 31 definitions, our findings indicate that managerial competence con‑
sist of seven components: role, proficiency, disposition, capability, action, context, 
and effectiveness. Using these seven components, we propose the following work‑
ing definition of managerial competence: A combination of skills, knowledge, and 
characteristics that provides managers the ability to perform in a manner that posi-
tively impacts their organization. By basing our definition on a systematic litera‑
ture review and semantic decomposition, we contribute to previous studies that have 
requested a clarification of the construct of managerial competence (Dai and Liang 
2012; Jena and Sahoo 2014; Stone et al. 2013). However, we aim to recalibrate this 
working definition after our discussion of the other three basic elements of construct 
clarity.
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
5.2  Semantic relationships to other constructs
In addition to definitions, construct clarity requires the author to scrutinize the 
semantic relationship of the focal construct to other constructs. As our seven primi‑
tives indicate, constructs exist in referential relationships with other constructs and 
the phenomena they are designed to represent (Suddaby 2010, p. 347). The first 
primitive, “role” includes constructs that refer to an individual‑level actor, with 
the most frequent ones being a manager or managers. Interestingly, all these con‑
structs—except for “person”—refer to structural forms, which imply roles and posi‑
tions tied to an organization’s goals and values, rather than to the agency, which we 
define as the voluntaristic actions of people that could restructure these roles and 
positions (see Poole and van de Ven 1989, p. 570).
Conversely, the second primitive “proficiency” and the third primitive “dispo‑
sition” include constructs that relate to a person and not to a role. In the second 
primitive, the constructs “skills” and “knowledge” are aspects that a person has 
learned. Previous studies have empirically measured the relationship of managerial 
competence and other constructs such as skills (Asumeng 2014; Gaál et al. 2013) 
and performance (Levenson et al. 2006; Veliu and Manxhari 2017; Qiao and Wang 
2009). We note that in a few of these articles, managerial competence and manage‑
rial skills are used synonymously (Asumeng 2014; Levenson et al. 2006; Qiao and 
Wang 2009), which decreases the clarity of the construct of managerial competence. 
In the third primitive, constructs such as attitudes, personal characteristics, and traits 
are rooted deeply in an individual’s personality. They are more inherent than skills 
and knowledge in the second primitive. For Boyatzis (1982), the constructs from our 
second and third primitives form competence levels that “affect different aspects of 
the individual’s application of a particular competency” (p. 28). He identified skills, 
self‑image, social role, motives, and traits. Spencer and Spencer (1993) termed 
them “underlying characteristics,” which they classified as knowledge, skills, self‑
concept, traits, and motives. When we compare the constructs that relate to a per‑
son in classical studies on managerial competence by Boyatzis (1982) and Spencer 
and Spencer (1993) with the ones included in the literature review, it becomes evi‑
dent that contemporary researchers regard other constructs as more relevant. While 
knowledge and skills are still included, only one article (Fjelstul and Tesone 2008) 
mentions traits, motives, and self‑concept. Since the term “characteristic” appears as 
well in the definitions, one can assume it includes constructs such as traits, motives, 
and self‑concept. However, such assumptions decrease the clarity of the construct of 
managerial competence.
The fourth primitive, “capability” includes the constructs of “ability,” “capa‑
bility,” and variations of “capacity.” These constructs possess a different theoreti‑
cal dimension than constructs in other primitives. Constructs under “capability” 
describe potentiality instead of actuality, which are two different ontological entities 
(Modrak 1979). They describe manager’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions that 
have the potentiality to actualize (Bolton et al. 1999; Tigre, Henriques, and Curado 
2023). Arguably, the contrast is greatest with our fifth primitive “action.” This 
primitive describes a situation in which the manager is required to make a response; 
in order to make this response, the manager needs proficiency and disposition. 
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
According to Hoffmann (1999), the response is the “observable demonstration” that 
the manager has perceived the situation properly and possesses the relevant personal 
attributes to deal with it competently. This action can be related to a specific mana‑
gerial task, such as interacting with stakeholders, allocating resources, negotiating, 
or handling disturbances. It can also be related to the overall performance of the 
manager in his/her job. Since the work of managers is fragmented, diverse, and vari‑
able (Antonacopoulou and FitzGerald 1996) and since many problems require ad 
hoc troubleshooting (Hales 1986), all competencies must be renewed on a regular 
basis and cannot be regarded as static concepts.
Further, the relationship between constructs included in our second, third, fourth, 
and fifth primitives has previously been visualized as an iceberg (Bergenhenegou‑
wen 1996; Garavan and McGuire 2001; Kennedy and Dresser 2005), with skills, 
knowledge, and behavior lying above the waterline, and abilities, capabilities, and 
attitudes below. The reasoning behind this is that knowledge, skills, and behavior 
are more observable characteristics and are, thus, easier to develop than abilities, 
capabilities, and attitudes, as the last ones represent the “deeper‑lying personal char‑
acteristics” (Bergenhenegouwen 1996). We agree that this visualization is helpful, 
because capabilities and attitudes are indeed more hidden than knowledge and skills. 
However, the iceberg visualization lacks the dimension of potentiality: knowledge, 
skills, and attitudes are constructs that describe something that remains in a person’s 
memory, whereas capabilities do not. Knowledge exists in declarative memory and 
skills and attitudes remain in nondeclarative memory (Squire 2004). Further, abil‑
ity or capability is the power to do something by using the items stored in memory, 
either through conscious recollection of knowledge or automatic expression of skills 
and attitudes through behavior.
In our findings, the sixth primitive “context” and the seventh primitive “effective‑
ness” complete the identified components of managerial competence. Usually, effec‑
tiveness is the consequence of the manager’s response to a certain situation. This 
is only possible if the manager has the necessary combination of proficiency and 
disposition. There is consensus among researchers that competent managers make a 
difference in the level of organizational performance (Albanese 1989; Brown et al. 
2018; Levenson et  al. 2006; Sengupta et  al. 2013; Veliu and Manxhari 2017). As 
indicated in the literature review, managerial competence enables managers to per‑
form their tasks more effectively; it also helps them to achieve their individual goals 
and those of the organization and bring economic and social welfare to individuals 
and organizations.
5.3  Scope conditions of managerial competence
In addition to the definitions and semantic relationships to other constructs, con‑
struct clarity requires the author to delineate the scope conditions under which a 
construct will or will not be applicable (Suddaby 2010, p. 347). In our findings, 
primitives 1 and 6 form the scope conditions in which the managerial compe‑
tence construct will or will not apply. Under the first primitive “role,” the most 
frequently mentioned constituting primitives were “manager” (Avkiran 1999; 
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
Bücker and Poutsma 2010; Burgoyne 1989; Du Gay et al. 1996) and “managers” 
(Burgoyne and Stuart 1976; Busulwa et  al. 2022; Carstens and de Kock 2017; 
Daouk‑Öyry et al. 2021; Fjelstul and Tesone 2008; Harvey and Richey 2001; Hay 
1990; Siu 1998). In these cases, the authors have used an element of the term 
being defined in the definition, which is tautological. Consequently, we propose 
that the words “manager” or “managers” should not be used in a definition of 
managerial competence and, thus, omit it from our working definition. However, 
the frequent use of “manager” and “managers” implies an individual focus, as it 
relates to individuals in management occupations. It does not specify the type of 
manager and is applicable to roles such as lower‑level manager, middle manager, 
and senior manager. Consequently, the managerial role is the first scope condition 
in which the managerial competence construct will be applicable.
The sixth primitive, “context,” represents the setting in which the manager’s 
role is performed. Having context as a part of the definition is not tautological, 
but it appears to create circularity. As an example of circularity, Suddaby (2010, 
p. 347) defines cognitive ability as “a capability that enables people to learn more 
effectively in contexts that are dynamic or complex”, which includes variables—
complex and dynamic contexts—that are causally related to the defined construct. 
The definitions resulting from the literature review mostly mention a specific task 
or job (Bücker and Poutsma 2010; Wickramasinghe and De Zoyza 2011) and a 
certain organization (Hogan and Warrenfeltz 2003; Wickramasinghe and De 
Zoyza 2011), but also a wide range of forces within and outside their organiza‑
tions (Collin 1989), culture (Wickramasinghe and De Zoyza 2011), increasingly 
complex environments (Hay 1990), informal internal/external business networks 
(Harvey and Richey 2001) and market change (Ngai et  al. 2011) as contexts of 
managerial competence. Such a variety of contexts in the definitions of manage‑
rial competence decreases the clarity of the construct. Additionally, the context 
influences and shapes the personal attributes of a manager. As already indicated 
by Hales (1986), factors such as the role of the manager in an organization; the 
level of responsibility; as well as the type, structure, and size of the organization 
largely affect managerial work and, therefore, also the competencies they require. 
Thus, even if two managers from two organizations of the same industry carry 
the same job title and have the same tasks, the competencies they require may 
be different. As contextual factors vary, it is impossible to make generic lists of 
competencies that are relevant for all managerial occupations (Bartlett and Gho‑
sal 1997). This is important because there is still belief in theory and practice 
that competencies have universal relevance, which implies that if a competency 
leads to higher performance in Company A, it will also improve Company B’s 
performance. This so‑called “reductionist view” on competency fails to consider 
the uncertain and unpredictable nature of managerial work (Bradley 1991). Con‑
sequently, we propose that the context should not be mentioned in the general 
definition of the managerial competence construct but as a scope condition of the 
definition. By recognizing role and context as scope conditions, we contribute to 
literature that studies the importance of context for competence (Antonacopoulou 
and FitzGerald 1996; Burgoyne 1989; Garavan and McGuire 2001; Hayes et al. 
2000; Hoffmann 1999; Kurz and Bartram 2002; Stuart and Lindsay 1997).
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
5.4  Theoretical coherence of managerial competence
Finally—according to the fourth basic element of construct clarity—the construct, 
its definition, its semantic relationships to other constructs, and its scope conditions 
must have theoretical coherence (Suddaby 2010, p. 351). Together, the seven inter‑
related components—role, proficiency, disposition, capability, action, context, and 
effectiveness—form a theoretical coherence of the managerial competence construct 
in which all components must be simultaneously present for it to exist: The person 
in a manager’s role possesses or acquires different proficiencies and dispositions, 
which give him/her a capability to perform actions that are effective in a certain 
context. Hence, we define managerial competence as proficiency and disposition 
that create a capability to effective organizational actions. Its scope conditions are a 
certain role and a certain context, which are structural forms (Poole and van de Ven 
1989) that define the extent of managerial competence. The same person’s mana‑
gerial competence can vary in different contexts or, conversely, different roles can 
change the scope of managerial competence in identical contexts. As an example, 
Fig. 2 illustrates two scopes as it portrays the managerial competence construct and 
its coherence across the seven components.
In addition to the seven theoretical components identified in this study, Fig.  2 
illustrates three different theoretical dimensions that define the relationships among 
these components. First, the X‑axis represents the relationship between agency and 
Fig. 2  The theoretical components of managerial competencies
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
structure. A person in a managerial role is both influenced by the structure—the 
demands of the role tied to the organization’s goals and values as well as the organ‑
izational context—and possesses the agency to take voluntaristic actions that can 
restructure his/her role and organizational context (see Poole and van de Ven 1989, 
p. 570). Second, the Y‑axis depicts the relationship between individual and organi‑
zational levels. A manager’s voluntaristic actions originate at the individual level 
but have an impact on the organizational level. The effectiveness of these actions for 
the organization creates a feedback loop that influences both proficiency and dispo‑
sition. Third, proficiency and disposition together create an ability to act in a cer‑
tain manner. This ability is influenced by the manager’s role and the context of the 
situation. Therefore, we use the term “capability,” which implies that the individual 
not only has the ability but also the circumstances or conditions that enable her to 
achieve something. Both ability and the broader term capability refer to the poten‑
tial to accomplish something. Thus, the third theoretical dimension in Fig. 2 is the 
relationship between potentiality and actuality. Potentiality, illustrated in grey font in 
Fig. 2, is determined by role, context, and capability. Role and context establish the 
circumstances or conditions that are aligned with capability. This alignment creates 
an infinite number of possible scopes that are actualized only through actions.
By demonstrating the theoretical coherence of the seven components of the man‑
agerial competence construct, we contribute to the stream of research that regards 
competence as a multidimensional concept (Burgoyne 1989, 1990; Le Deist and 
Winterton 2005; Winterton 2009). Specifically, we answer calls for a comprehensive 
framework for understanding managerial competence (Cheng et al. 2003; Stuart and 
Lindsay 1997; Viitala 2005; Winterton 2009). As defined in this article, the mana‑
gerial competence construct includes both proficiency and disposition that enable 
managers to do their job effectively— traditionally emphasized in US studies and 
illustrated on the left side of Fig. 2—and the context and roles that set a standard 
for the tasks and duties required from managers, which are traditionally emphasized 
in UK studies and illustrated on the right side of Fig. 2. In the middle of Fig. 2 is 
“capability,” which, as argued above, can be explained with the dimension of poten‑
tiality and actuality. In US studies, capability has traditionally been viewed as an 
ability that enables potential actions, serving as an input from the individual to the 
organizational level. In UK studies, capability has traditionally been viewed as an 
output from the organizational to the individual level, which implies that a manager 
has the potential to meet the required standards (Cheng et al. 2003).
5.5  Research agenda
Table  4 illustrates our research agenda that is structured around the four key ele‑
ments of construct clarity proposed by Suddaby (2010). Each section identifies 
potential research topics and tasks, research questions, and methods.
Apart from the four basic elements of construct clarity that are more theoreti‑
cal, we also propose three additional areas of more practical relevance to study the 
construct of managerial competence. One area can include the measurement and 
operationalization of managerial competence. For example, researchers can create 
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
Ta
bl
e 
4 
 R
es
ea
rc
h a
ge
nd
a r
ela
tin
g t
o S
ud
da
by
’s 
(2
01
0)
 ke
y e
lem
en
ts 
of
 co
ns
tru
ct 
cla
rit
y
El
em
en
t o
f c
on
str
uc
t c
lar
ity
Re
se
ar
ch
 to
pi
c a
nd
 ta
sk
Re
se
ar
ch
 qu
es
tio
ns
Re
se
ar
ch
 m
eth
od
s
 D
efi
ni
tio
ns
 of
 M
an
ag
er
ial
 C
om
pe
ten
ce
 R
efi
ne
m
en
t o
f D
efi
ni
tio
ns
 A
cr
os
s 
C
on
te
xt
s
 In
ve
sti
ga
te 
th
e n
ua
nc
es
 of
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 
co
m
pe
ten
ce
 de
fin
iti
on
s a
cr
os
s d
iff
er
en
t 
in
du
str
ies
, c
ul
tu
re
s, 
an
d o
rg
an
iza
tio
na
l 
siz
es
 to
 en
ha
nc
e u
nd
er
sta
nd
in
g a
nd
 
ap
pl
ica
bi
lit
y
 H
ow
 do
 de
fin
iti
on
s o
f m
an
ag
er
ial
 
co
m
pe
ten
ce
 va
ry
 ac
ro
ss
 di
ffe
re
nt
 
se
cto
rs 
(e
.g.
, h
ea
lth
ca
re
, t
ec
hn
ol
og
y, 
ed
uc
ati
on
)?
 W
ha
t a
re
 th
e c
ul
tu
ra
lly
 sp
ec
ifi
c a
ttr
ib
‑
ut
es
 th
at 
in
flu
en
ce
 th
e d
efi
ni
tio
n o
f 
m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
?
 Q
ua
lit
ati
ve
 in
ter
vi
ew
s w
ith
 m
an
ag
er
s 
ac
ro
ss
 in
du
str
ies
 C
om
pa
ra
tiv
e c
as
e s
tu
di
es
 of
 or
ga
ni
za
‑
tio
ns
 in
 di
ffe
re
nt
 cu
ltu
ra
l c
on
tex
ts
 S
em
an
tic
 R
ela
tio
ns
hi
ps
 to
 O
th
er
 
Co
ns
tru
cts
 E
xp
lo
ri
ng
 In
te
rc
on
ne
ct
io
ns
 w
ith
 
Re
la
te
d 
C
on
str
uc
ts
 A
na
ly
ze
 ho
w 
m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
 
re
lat
es
 an
d d
iff
er
en
tia
tes
 fr
om
 ot
he
r 
co
ns
tru
cts
 li
ke
 le
ad
er
sh
ip
 an
d e
m
o‑
tio
na
l i
nt
ell
ig
en
ce
 W
ha
t a
re
 th
e o
ve
rla
ps
 an
d d
ive
rg
en
ce
s 
be
tw
ee
n m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
 an
d 
lea
de
rsh
ip
 eff
ec
tiv
en
es
s?
 H
ow
 do
es
 em
ot
io
na
l i
nt
ell
ig
en
ce
 in
flu
‑
en
ce
 th
e c
om
po
ne
nt
s o
f m
an
ag
er
ial
 
co
m
pe
ten
ce
?
 S
ys
tem
ati
c l
ite
ra
tu
re
 re
vi
ew
 to
 m
ap
 
re
lat
io
ns
hi
ps
 N
etw
or
k a
na
lys
is 
to
 vi
su
ali
ze
 an
d 
qu
an
tif
y s
em
an
tic
 co
nn
ec
tio
ns
 be
tw
ee
n 
co
ns
tru
cts
 S
co
pe
 C
on
di
tio
ns
 of
 M
an
ag
er
ial
 C
om
‑
pe
ten
ce
C
on
te
xt
ua
l F
ac
to
rs
 In
flu
en
ci
ng
 
M
an
ag
er
ia
l C
om
pe
te
nc
e E
xa
m
in
e 
th
e s
itu
ati
on
al 
fac
to
rs 
th
at 
aff
ec
t t
he
 
ex
pr
es
sio
n a
nd
 in
ter
pr
eta
tio
n o
f m
an
a‑
ge
ria
l c
om
pe
ten
ce
, s
uc
h a
s i
nd
us
try
 
de
m
an
ds
, o
rg
an
iza
tio
na
l c
ul
tu
re
, a
nd
 
tea
m
 dy
na
m
ics
 W
ha
t c
on
tex
tu
al 
fac
to
rs 
op
tim
ize
 or
 
hi
nd
er
 th
e e
ffe
cti
ve
ne
ss
 of
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 
co
m
pe
ten
ce
 co
m
po
ne
nt
s?
 H
ow
 do
es
 th
e n
atu
re
 of
 th
e w
or
kf
or
ce
 
(re
m
ot
e v
s. 
in
‑p
er
so
n)
 in
flu
en
ce
 m
an
a‑
ge
ria
l c
om
pe
ten
cy
 re
qu
ire
m
en
ts?
 M
ixe
d‑
m
eth
od
s a
pp
ro
ac
h c
om
bi
ni
ng
 
qu
an
tit
ati
ve
 su
rv
ey
s a
nd
 qu
ali
tat
ive
 
fo
cu
s g
ro
up
s
 L
on
gi
tu
di
na
l s
tu
di
es
 to
 as
se
ss
 th
e e
ffe
cts
 
of
 ch
an
gi
ng
 co
nt
ex
ts 
ov
er
 ti
m
e
 T
he
or
eti
ca
l C
oh
er
en
ce
 of
 M
an
ag
er
ial
 
Co
m
pe
ten
ce
 B
ui
ld
in
g 
a 
Th
eo
re
tic
al
 F
ra
m
ew
or
k 
fo
r 
M
an
ag
er
ia
l C
om
pe
te
nc
e D
ev
elo
p a
 
co
m
pr
eh
en
siv
e t
he
or
eti
ca
l f
ra
m
ew
or
k 
th
at 
in
teg
ra
tes
 th
e i
de
nt
ifi
ed
 co
m
po
‑
ne
nt
s o
f m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
 an
d 
sit
ua
tes
 th
em
 w
ith
in
 br
oa
de
r m
an
ag
e‑
m
en
t t
he
or
ies
 H
ow
 ca
n t
he
 pr
op
os
ed
 se
ve
n c
om
po
‑
ne
nt
s o
f m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
 be
 
in
teg
ra
ted
 in
to
 ex
ist
in
g c
om
pe
ten
cy
 
m
od
els
?
 W
ha
t t
he
or
eti
ca
l i
m
pl
ica
tio
ns
 ar
ise
 
fro
m
 re
co
nc
ep
tu
ali
zin
g m
an
ag
er
ial
 
co
m
pe
ten
ce
 in
 re
lat
io
n t
o s
tra
teg
ic 
m
an
ag
em
en
t t
he
or
ies
?
 C
on
ce
pt
ua
l p
ap
er
 de
fin
in
g a
 th
eo
re
tic
al 
m
od
el
 E
m
pi
ric
al 
stu
di
es
 to
 te
st 
th
e m
od
el 
in
 
re
al‑
wo
rld
 se
tti
ng
s, 
us
in
g f
ac
to
r a
na
lys
is 
to
 va
lid
ate
 th
e c
om
po
ne
nt
s
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
and validate assessment tools to measure the seven components of managerial com‑
petence by conducting a psychometric analysis of newly developed assessments. 
Potential research questions could be “What are the most effective methods for 
assessing each component of managerial competence?” and “How can the measure‑
ment tools be adopted for different organizational contexts?” Another area could be 
HRM, specifically talent management. Researchers can conduct action research in 
organizations to develop and test talent management practices related to managerial 
competence. They can examine how organizations can design their recruitment pro‑
cesses that are aligned with the seven components or investigate the most effective 
training methods for developing each component of managerial competence. Finally, 
the longitudinal effects of managerial competence on organizational performance, 
employee satisfaction, or innovation is also a potential area to study. For example, 
researchers can develop surveys to measure managerial competence and organiza‑
tional metrics over time or analyze performance data from organizations that have 
implemented development programs for managerial competence. An overview of 
these three areas with research topics, research questions, and methods is presented 
in Table 5.
6  Conclusion
This research presents a significant advancement in the understanding of managerial 
competence by systematically decomposing the myriad definitions of the concept 
found in the literature into foundational components. Through the application of 
semantic decomposition of 31 definitions, we identified seven prime primitives—
role, proficiency, disposition, capability, action, context, and effectiveness—that 
encapsulate the essence of managerial competence. This nuanced analysis not only 
clarifies the often ambiguous and multifaceted nature of managerial competence but 
also contributes to the theoretical discourse in several keyways.
6.1  Theoretical contribution
Overall, our study contributes to organizational and managerial research concerned 
with competence in general and managerial competence more specifically (e.g., 
Asumeng 2014; Qiao and Wang 2009; Ruth 2006). Prior research found no agree‑
ment or consistency regarding the definition of managerial competence, which is 
counterproductive for further theoretical development and empirical testing of the 
concept (Yaniv 2011).
By delineating the core components of managerial competence, our findings pro‑
vide a clearer, more defined framework that researchers and practitioners can uti‑
lize. The identification of these primitives enables a more precise operationalization 
of managerial competence in empirical studies, which is critical for advancing both 
theory and practice in management.
Our systematic decomposition aligns with Suddaby’s (2010) criteria for construct 
clarity by offering a structured approach to understanding managerial competence. 
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
Ta
bl
e 
5 
 R
es
ea
rc
h a
ge
nd
a r
ela
ted
 to
 pr
ac
tic
al 
ar
ea
s o
f m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
Fu
rth
er
 ar
ea
s
Re
se
ar
ch
 to
pi
c a
nd
 ta
sk
Re
se
ar
ch
 qu
es
tio
ns
Re
se
ar
ch
 m
eth
od
s
 O
pe
ra
tio
na
liz
ati
on
 of
 M
an
ag
er
ial
 
Co
m
pe
ten
ce
 D
ev
el
op
in
g 
a 
Ro
bu
st 
M
ea
su
re
m
en
t 
Fr
am
ew
or
k
 C
re
ate
 an
d v
ali
da
te 
as
se
ss
m
en
t t
oo
ls 
to
 m
ea
su
re
 th
e s
ev
en
 co
m
po
ne
nt
s o
f 
m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
 ac
ro
ss
 va
rio
us
 
co
nt
ex
ts
 W
ha
t a
re
 th
e m
os
t e
ffe
cti
ve
 m
eth
od
s f
or
 
as
se
ss
in
g e
ac
h c
om
po
ne
nt
 of
 m
an
ag
e‑
ria
l c
om
pe
ten
ce
?
 H
ow
 ca
n t
he
 m
ea
su
re
m
en
t t
oo
ls 
be
 
ad
ap
ted
 fo
r d
iff
er
en
t o
rg
an
iza
tio
na
l 
co
nt
ex
ts 
or
 cu
ltu
ra
l s
ett
in
gs
?
 P
sy
ch
om
etr
ic 
an
aly
sis
 of
 ne
wl
y d
ev
el‑
op
ed
 as
se
ss
m
en
ts
 P
ilo
t s
tu
di
es
 to
 va
lid
ate
 th
e t
oo
ls 
in
 di
ffe
r‑
en
t o
rg
an
iza
tio
na
l e
nv
iro
nm
en
ts
 H
RM
 an
d M
an
ag
er
ial
 C
om
pe
ten
ce
 A
pp
ly
in
g 
M
an
ag
er
ia
l C
om
pe
te
nc
e 
in
 
Ta
le
nt
 M
an
ag
em
en
t I
nv
es
tig
ate
 ho
w 
or
ga
ni
za
tio
ns
 ca
n u
til
ize
 in
sig
ht
s f
ro
m
 
m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
 to
 im
pr
ov
e 
re
cr
ui
tm
en
t, 
tra
in
in
g, 
an
d d
ev
elo
pm
en
t 
pr
og
ra
m
s
 H
ow
 ca
n o
rg
an
iza
tio
ns
 de
sig
n c
om
pe
‑
ten
cy
‑b
as
ed
 re
cr
ui
tm
en
t p
ro
ce
ss
es
 th
at 
ali
gn
 w
ith
 th
e p
ro
po
se
d c
om
po
ne
nt
s?
 W
ha
t t
ra
in
in
g m
eth
od
s a
re
 m
os
t e
ffe
c‑
tiv
e f
or
 de
ve
lo
pi
ng
 ea
ch
 co
m
po
ne
nt
 of
 
m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
?
 A
cti
on
 re
se
ar
ch
 w
ith
in
 or
ga
ni
za
tio
ns
 to
 
de
ve
lo
p a
nd
 te
st 
tal
en
t m
an
ag
em
en
t 
pr
ac
tic
es
 C
as
e s
tu
di
es
 sh
ow
ca
sin
g s
uc
ce
ss
fu
l 
im
pl
em
en
tat
io
n o
f c
om
pe
ten
cy
 fr
am
e‑
wo
rk
s i
n r
ec
ru
itm
en
t a
nd
 tr
ain
in
g
 L
on
gi
tu
di
na
l I
m
pa
ct 
of
 M
an
ag
er
ial
 
Co
m
pe
ten
ce
 A
ss
es
si
ng
 th
e 
Lo
ng
-T
er
m
 O
ut
co
m
es
 
of
 M
an
ag
er
ia
l C
om
pe
te
nc
e E
xp
lo
re
 
th
e l
on
g‑
ter
m
 im
pa
ct 
of
 m
an
ag
e‑
ria
l c
om
pe
ten
ce
 on
 or
ga
ni
za
tio
na
l 
pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
, e
m
pl
oy
ee
 sa
tis
fac
tio
n, 
an
d i
nn
ov
ati
on
 W
ha
t a
re
 th
e l
on
gi
tu
di
na
l e
ffe
cts
 of
 
de
ve
lo
pi
ng
 m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
 on
 
or
ga
ni
za
tio
na
l o
ut
co
m
es
?
 H
ow
 do
es
 th
e p
er
ce
ive
d e
ffe
cti
ve
ne
ss
 of
 
m
an
ag
er
ial
 co
m
pe
ten
ce
 ch
an
ge
 ov
er
 
tim
e w
ith
in
 te
am
s?
 L
on
gi
tu
di
na
l s
ur
ve
ys
 m
ea
su
rin
g m
an
ag
e‑
ria
l c
om
pe
ten
ce
 an
d o
rg
an
iza
tio
na
l 
m
etr
ics
 ov
er
 ti
m
e
 P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 da
ta 
an
aly
sis
 fr
om
 or
ga
ni
za
‑
tio
ns
 th
at 
ha
ve
 im
pl
em
en
ted
 co
m
pe
‑
ten
cy
 de
ve
lo
pm
en
t p
ro
gr
am
s
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
By formulating an improved definition, analyzing the semantic relationships to other 
constructs, determining the scope conditions in which the construct applies and 
demonstrating how the seven conceptual components form a theoretical coherence, 
we improved the construct clarity of managerial competence. The synthesis of the 
seven identified primitives into a coherent framework facilitated the development of 
a robust theoretical model. This model can serve as a foundation for future theoreti‑
cal explorations and empirical validations, significantly contributing to the evolution 
of management theories. In this regard, our conceptualization of managerial com‑
petence can help to overcome prior definitional challenges and, thus, enable more 
rigorous theoretical and empirical research in the future (Post et al. 2020; Suddaby 
2010).
6.2  Managerial implications
By establishing a clear understanding of the construct of managerial competence 
through the seven prime primitives identified, organizations can create a stronger 
framework for developing, assessing, and nurturing managerial talent. For example, 
the defined components of managerial competence can be integrated into recruit‑
ment and selection processes. This ensures evidence‑based decision‑making, as 
organizations can compare prospective candidates’ self‑perceived competencies 
with evaluations from supervisors or peers. This alignment helps identify individu‑
als who demonstrate strong managerial potential according to the seven primitives, 
which can lead to improved hiring decisions and ultimately result in better organiza‑
tional performance.
Beyond selection, managerial implications can be achieved by combining primi‑
tives with empirical competency gap analyses (Wickramasinghe and De Zoyza 
2009). This can pinpoint areas where managers require targeted development, 
thereby ensuring that training programs address the most critical skill deficits. For 
example, once gaps related to the primitive “context” or “disposition” are revealed, 
organizations can design specific interventions—such as scenario‑based workshops 
or one‑on‑one coaching sessions—to develop resilience and adaptability in line with 
the unique industry or cultural conditions managers face.
Further, understanding the significance of the “context” primitive emphasizes 
the need for managers to adapt their competencies based on specific organizational 
cultures, industries, and market conditions. Therefore, training programs should 
include contextual simulations and scenarios that prepare managers for the intrica‑
cies of their unique environments, thereby fostering adaptability and resilience. This 
echoes Qiao and Wang’s (2009) empirical finding that organizations should account 
for varied cultural and market conditions when refining their competency models.
Lastly, recognizing the importance of the primitives “disposition” and “effec‑
tiveness” in managerial competence can drive organizations to foster supportive 
environments that promote positive attitudes and effective teamwork. Empirically, 
behavioral event interviews with both average and superior managers (see Cheng 
et al. 2005) appear as a practical method for finding the needed competencies. By 
embedding these competencies into the organizational culture—through continuous 
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
feedback loops, mentorship, and leadership development initiatives—companies 
can cultivate an environment that fosters collaboration, motivation, and overall team 
performance.
6.3  Limitations
Our research has a few limitations. First, the study is based on 31 definitions of 
managerial competence identified through a systematic literature review. While this 
number may provide a few insights, it may still be limited in scope and lack repre‑
sentation of all possible definitions across different contexts, cultures, and sectors.
Second, the process of semantic decomposition that we have applied to identify 
the underlying components of managerial competence relies on the interpretation of 
researchers. This introduces potential biases, as different researchers may decom‑
pose the same definition in varying ways, thus leading to inconsistencies in identify‑
ing the major primitives.
Third, a few of the identified prime primitives may conceptually overlap, 
thereby leading to ambiguity in distinguishing among them. This could complicate 
their application in both theory and practice and require further clarification and 
differentiation.
Fourth, managerial roles are multifaceted and can differ significantly across 
organizations and industries. The seven identified components may oversimplify the 
complexities involved in actual managerial practice and behavior.
Author contributions Idea conceptualization and literature search were conducted by Dennis Grenda. 
The data analysis was performed by both authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Den‑
nis Grenda, and Lauri‑Matti Palmunen commented on previous versions of the manuscript and helped in 
structuring the work. Lauri Matti‑Palmunen wrote parts of the introduction and discussion chapter. Den‑
nis Grenda revised all chapters with a focus on conciseness and the overall fit of the paper. Both authors 
read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding Open Access funding provided by University of Turku (including Turku University Central 
Hospital).
Data availability No empirical data was collected for this research. The dataset is based on the articles 
listed in Table 1. All articles with their DOIs are included in the reference lists.
Declarations 
Conflict of interest The authors have no relevant financial or non‑financial interests to disclose.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, 
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long 
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative 
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in 
this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in 
a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and 
your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need 
to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
References
Abdullah AH, Yaman SK, Mohammad H, Hassan PF (2018) Construction manager’s technical competen‑
cies in Malaysian construction projects. Eng Constr Archi Manag 25:153–177. https:// doi. org/ 10. 
1108/ ECAM‑ 07‑ 2016‑ 0176
Akmajian A, Farmer AK, Bickmore L, Demers RA, Harnish RM (2017) Linguistics: an introduction to 
language and communication. MIT Press, Cambridge
Albanese R (1989) Competency‑based management education. J Manag Dev 8:66–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 
1108/ EUM00 00000 001343
Anggraini PG, Sholihin M (2023) What do we know about managerial ability? A systematic literature 
review. Manag Rev Q 73:1–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11301‑ 021‑ 00229‑6
Antonacopoulou EP, Fitzgerald L (1996) Reframing competency in management development. Hum 
Resour Manag J 6:27–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1748‑ 8583. 1996. tb003 95.x
Ashworth PD, Saxton J (1990) On “competence.” J Further High Educ 14:3–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 
03098 77900 140201
Asumeng M (2014) Managerial competency models: a critical review and proposed holistic‑domain 
model. J Manag Res 6:1–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5296/ jmr. v6i4. 5596
Avkiran NK (1999) An improved subordinate appraisal of bank manager’s competence. Int J Hum Resour 
Manag 10:273–286. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09585 19993 40558
Bacharach SB (1989) Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation. Acad Manag Rev 14:496–
515. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 1989. 43083 74
Barrett GV, Depinet RL (1991) A reconsideration of testing for competence rather than for intelligence. 
Am Psychol 46:1012–1024. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003‑ 066X. 46. 10. 1012
Bartlett CA, Ghoshal S (1997) The myth of the generic manager: new personal competencies for new 
management roles. Calif Manag Rev 40:92–116. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 41165 924
Bergenhenegouwen GJ (1996) Competence development—a challenge for HRM professionals: core com‑
petences of organizations as guidelines for the development of employees. J Eur Ind Train 20:29–
35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 03090 59961 01502 82
Bernardin H, Thomason S, Buckley MR, Kane JS (2016) Rater rating‑level bias and accuracy in perfor‑
mance appraisals: the impact of rater personality, performance management competence, and rater 
accountability. Hum Resour Manag 55:321–340. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ hrm. 21678
Boak G (1991) Developing managerial competences: the management learning contract approach. Pit‑
man Publishing, London
Boam R, Sparrow P (1992) Designing and achieving competency. McGraw‑Hill, London
Bolton A, Brown R, McCartney S (1999) The capacity spiral: four weddings and a funeral. J Vocat Educ 
Train 51:585–605. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13636 82990 02000 94
Boyatzis RE (1982) The competent manager: a model for effective performance. Wiley, New York
Bradley J (1991) Competence in managers—some unresolved issues for research. Manag Res News 
14:39–42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ eb028 153
Brown RB (1993) Meta‑competence: a recipe for reframing the competence debate. Pers Rev 22:25–36. 
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EUM00 00000 000814
Brown L, George B, Mehaffey‑Kultgen C (2018) The development of a competency model and its imple‑
mentation in a power utility cooperative: an action research study. Ind Commer Train 50:123–135. 
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ICT‑ 11‑ 2017‑ 0087
Bücker J, Poutsma E (2010) Global management competencies: a theoretical foundation. J Manag Psy‑
chol 25:829–844. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 02683 94101 10891 16
Burgoyne JG (1988) Management development for the individual and the organization. Pers Manag 
20:40–44
Burgoyne J (1989) Creating the managerial portfolio: building on competency approaches to manage‑
ment development. Manag Educ Dev 20:56–61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13505 07689 02000 109
Burgoyne J (1990) Doubts about competency. In: Devine M (ed) The photofit manager. Unwin Hyman, 
London, pp 20–26
Burgoyne J, Stuart R (1976) The nature, use and acquisition of managerial skills and other attributes. Pers 
Rev 5:19–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ eb055 318
Busulwa R, Pickering M, Mao I (2022) Digital transformation and hospitality management competen‑
cies: toward an integrative framework. Int J Hosp Manag 102:103132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. 
ijhm. 2021. 103132
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
Cardy RL, Selvarajan TT (2006) Competencies: alternative frameworks for competitive advantage. Bus 
Horiz 49:235–245. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bushor. 2005. 09. 004
Carson D, Gilmore A (2000) SME marketing management competencies. Int Bus Rev 9:363–382. https:// 
doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0969‑ 5931(00) 00006‑8
Carstens JG, De Kock FS (2017) Firm‑level diversity management competencies: development and initial 
validation of a measure. Int J Hum Resour Manag 28:2109–2135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09585 
192. 2015. 11284 60
Cheetham G, Chivers G (1996) Towards a holistic model of professional competence. J Eur Ind Train 
20:20–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 03090 59961 01196 92
Chen YC, Wu JH (2011) IT management capability and its impact on the performance of a CIO. Inf 
Manag 48:145–156. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. im. 2011. 04. 001
Cheng MI, Dainty ARJ, Moore DR (2003) The differing faces of managerial competency in Britain and 
America. J Manag Dev 22:527–537. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 02621 71031 04784 95
Cheng MI, Dainty AR, Moore DR (2005) Towards a multidimensional competency‑based managerial 
performance framework: a hybrid approach. J Managerial Psychol 20:380–396. https:// doi. org/ 10. 
1108/ 02683 94051 06029 41
Clark WR, Clark LA, Williams RI, Raffo DM (2023) Using a systematic literature review to clarify 
ambiguous construct definitions: identifying a leader credibility definitional model. Manag Rev Q 
73:1–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11301‑ 023‑ 00378‑w
Collin A (1989) Managers’ competence: rhetoric, reality, and research. Pers Rev 18:20–25. https:// doi. 
org/ 10. 1108/ 00483 48891 01334 59
Collin A (1997) Learning and development. In: Beardwell I, Holden L (eds) Human resource manage‑
ment: a contemporary perspective, 2nd edn. Pitman Publishing, London, pp 282–344
Dai G, Liang KC (2012) Competency modeling research and practice in China: a literature review. J Chin 
Hum Resour Manag 3:49–66. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 20408 00121 12205 66
Dale M, Iles P (1992) Assessing management skills. Kogan Page, London
Daouk‑Öyry L, Sahakian T, van de Vijver FJR (2021) Evidence‑based management competency model 
for managers in hospital settings. Br J Manag 32:1384–1403. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1467‑ 8551. 
12434
Debrah YA, Ofori G (2005) Emerging managerial competencies of professionals in the Tanzanian con‑
struction industry. Int J Hum Resour Manag 16:1399–1414. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09585 19050 
02204 65
Dewey J (1916) Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan, 
New York
Donbesuur F, Zahoor N, Al‑Tabbaa O, Adomako S, Tarba SY (2023) On the performance of platform‑
based international new ventures: the roles of non‑market strategies and managerial competencies. 
J Int Manag 29:101002. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. intman. 2022. 101002
Dooley KE, Lindner JR, Dooley LM, Alagaraja M (2004) Behaviorally anchored competencies: evalua‑
tion tool for training via distance. Hum Resour Dev Int 7:315–332. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13678 
86042 00021 0958
Du Gay P, Salaman G, Rees B (1996) The conduct of management and the management of conduct: con‑
temporary managerial discourse and the constitution of the “competent” manager. J Manag Stud 
33:263–282. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467‑ 6486. 1996. tb008 02.x
Ekaterini G (2011) A qualitative approach to middle managers’ competences. Manag Res Rev 34:553–
575. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 01409 17111 11287 24
Fjelstul J, Tesone DV (2008) Golf and club entry‑level management competencies. Int J Contemp Hosp 
Manag 20:694–699. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 09596 11081 08922 45
Gaál Z, Szabó L, Csepregi A (2013) Organizational characteristics and social competences: are there dif‑
ferences within social competences connected with communication and co‑operational skills based 
on the characteristics of organizations? Int J Manag Sci Inf Technol 2:176–193
Garavan TN, McGuire D (2001) Competencies and workplace learning: some reflections on the rhetoric 
and the reality. J Workplace Learn 13:144–163. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 13665 62011 03910 97
Gentry WA, Harris LS, Baker BA, Brittain Leslie J (2008) Managerial skills: what has changed since the 
late 1980s. Leadersh Organ Dev J 29:167–181. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 01437 73081 08525 06
Hales CP (1986) What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence. J Manag Stud 23:88–115. 
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467‑ 6486. 1986. tb009 36.x
Harison E, Boonstra A (2009) Essential competencies for technochange management: Towards an assess‑
ment model. Int J Inf Manag 29:283–294. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2008. 11. 003
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
Hartle F (1995) How to re‑engineer your performance management process. Kogan Page, London
Harvey MG, Richey RG (2001) Global supply chain management: the selection of globally competent 
managers. J Int Manag 7:105–128. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S1075‑ 4253(01) 00040‑0
Hay J (1990) Managerial competences or managerial characteristics? Manag Educ Dev 21:305–315. 
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13505 07690 02100 404
Hayes JL (1979) A new look at managerial competence: the AMA model of worthy performance. Manag 
Rev 68:2–3
Hayes J, Rose‑Quirie A, Allinson CW (2000) Senior managers’ perceptions of the competencies they 
require for effective performance: implications for training and development. Pers Rev 29:92–
105. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 00483 48001 02958 35
Heubeck T (2023) Looking back to look forward: a systematic review of and research agenda 
for dynamic managerial capabilities. Manag Rev Q 73:1–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 
s11301‑ 023‑ 00359‑z
Hoffmann T (1999) The meanings of competency. J Eur Ind Train 23:275–285. https:// doi. org/ 10. 
1108/ 03090 59991 02846 50
Hogan R, Warrenfeltz R (2003) Educating the modern manager. Acad Manag Learn Educ 2:74–84. 
https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amle. 2003. 93240 43
Hund A, Wagner HT, Beimborn D, Weitzel T (2021) Digital innovation: review and novel perspec‑
tive. J Strateg Inf Syst 30:101695. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jsis. 2021. 101695
Hyland T (1997) Reconsidering competence. J Philos Educ 31:491–503. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 
1467‑ 9752. 00070
Iles P (1993) Achieving strategic coherence in HRD through competency‑based management and 
organization development. Pers Rev 22:63–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 00483 48931 00545 15
Jacobs R (1989) Getting the measure of management competence. Pers Manag 21:32–37
Jena S, Sahoo CK (2014) Improving managerial performance: a study on entrepreneurial and leader‑
ship competencies. Ind Commer Train 46:143–149. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ICT‑ 10‑ 2013‑ 0066
Kanungo RN, Misra S (1992) Managerial resourcefulness: a reconceptualization of management 
skills. Hum Relat 45:1311–1332. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00187 26792 04501 204
Kellner A, Cafferkey K, Townsend K (2019) Ability, motivation and opportunity theory: a formula for 
employee performance? In: Townsend K, Cafferkey K, McDermott AM, Dundon T (eds) Elgar 
introduction to theories of human resources and employment relations. Edward Elgar Publish‑
ing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4337/ 97817 86439 017. 00029
Kennedy PW, Dresser SG (2005) Creating a competency‑based workplace. Benefits Compens Dig 
42:20–23
Kurz R, Bartram D (2002) Competency and individual performance: modelling the world of work. In: 
Robertson IT, Callinan M, Bartram D (eds) Organizational effectiveness: the role of psychol‑
ogy. Wiley, pp 227–255. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 97804 70696 736. ch10
Le Deist FD (2009) Compétence: conceptual approach and practice in France. J Eur Ind Train 
33(8/9):718–735. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 03090 59091 09935 99
Le Deist FD, Winterton J (2005) What is competence? Hum Resour Dev Int 8:27–46. https:// doi. org/ 
10. 1080/ 13678 86042 00033 8227
Levenson AR, Van der Stede WA, Cohen SG (2006) Measuring the relationship between manage‑
rial competencies and performance. J Manag 32:360–380. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06305 
280789
Liang Z, Howard PF, Leggat S, Bartram T (2018) Development and validation of health service 
management competencies. J Health Organ Manag 32:157–175. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 
JHOM‑ 06‑ 2017‑ 0120
McClelland DC (1973) Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. Am Psychol 28:1–14. https:// 
doi. org/ 10. 1037/ h0034 092
McLagan PA (1980) Competency models. Train Dev J 34:22–26
Modrak DK (1979) Forms, types, and tokens in Aristotle’s metaphysics. J Hist Philos 17:371–379. 
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ hph. 2008. 0080
Mulder M (2007) Competence—the essence and use of the concept in ICVT. Eur J Vocat Train 40:5–22
Mulder M, Weigel T, Collins K (2007) The concept of competence in the development of vocational edu‑
cation and training in selected EU member states: a critical analysis. J Vocat Educ Train 59:67–88. 
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13636 82060 11456 30
 D. Grenda, L.-M. Palmunen 
Mulder M, Winterton J (2017) Introduction. In: Mulder M (ed) Competence‑based vocational and profes‑
sional education: bridging the world of work and education. Springer, Cham, pp 1–43. https:// doi. 
org/ 10. 1007/ 978‑3‑ 319‑ 41713‑4_1
Mulder M (2011) The concept of competence: blessing or curse? In: I. Torniainen, S. Mahlamäku‑Kul‑
tanen, P. Nokelainen & P. Ilsley (Eds). Innovations for Competence Management. Lahti: Lahti Uni‑
versity of Applied Sciences, pp 11–24
Muzzi C, Albertini S (2015) Communities and managerial competencies supporting SMEs innovation 
networking: a longitudinal case study. R&D Manag 45:196–211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ radm. 
12060
Ngai EW, Chau DC, Chan TLA (2011) Information technology, operational, and management competen‑
cies for supply chain agility: findings from case studies. J Strateg Inf Syst 20:232–249. https:// doi. 
org/ 10. 1016/j. jsis. 2010. 11. 002
ODE (2010) The Oxford dictionary of English, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Pedraza‑Rodríguez JA, Ruiz‑Vélez A, Sánchez‑Rodríguez MI, Fernández‑Esquinas M (2023) Manage‑
ment skills and organizational culture as sources of innovation for firms in peripheral regions. 
Technol Forecast Soc Change 191:122518. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2023. 122518
Poole MS, Van de Ven AH (1989) Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Acad 
Manag Rev 14:562–578. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 1989. 43083 89
Post C, Sarala R, Gatrell C, Prescott JE (2020) Advancing theory with review articles. J Manag Stud 
57:351–376. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joms. 12549
Priem RL, Butler JE (2001) Tautology in the resource‑based view and the implications of externally 
determined resource value: further comments. Acad Manag Rev 26:57–66. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 
259394
Qiao JX, Wang W (2009) Managerial competencies for middle managers: some empirical findings from 
China. J Eur Ind Train 33:69–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 03090 59091 09243 88
Rothwell WJ, Lindholm JE (1999) Competency identification, modelling and assessment in the USA. Int 
J Train Dev 3:90–105. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1468‑ 2419. 00069
Ruth D (2006) Frameworks of managerial competence: limits, problems and suggestions. J Eur Ind Train 
30:206–226. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 03090 59061 06629 59
Sambasivan M, Abdul M, Yusop Y (2009) Impact of personal qualities and management skills of entre‑
preneurs on venture performance in Malaysia: opportunity recognition skills as a mediating factor. 
Technovation 29:798–805. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2009. 04. 002
Sengupta A, Venkatesh DN, Sinha AK (2013) Developing performance‑linked competency model: 
a tool for competitive advantage. Int J Organ Anal 21:504–527. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 
IJOA‑ 05‑ 2011‑ 0488
Shet SV, Pereira V (2021) Proposed managerial competencies for Industry 4.0: implications for social 
sustainability. Technol Forecast Soc Change 173:121080. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2021. 
121080
Siu V (1998) Managing by competencies—a study on the managerial competencies of hotel middle 
managers in Hong Kong. Int J Hosp Manag 17:253–273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0278‑ 4319(98) 
00041‑3
Small AW (1914) The social gradations of capital. Am J Sociol 19(6):721–752
Smith B (1993) Building managers from the inside out: competency‑based action learning. J Manag Dev 
12:43–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 02621 71931 00243 81
Spencer LM Jr, Spencer SM (1993) Competence at work: models for superior performance. Wiley, New 
York
Squire LR (2004) Memory systems of the brain: a brief history and current perspective. Neurobiol Learn 
Mem 82:171–177. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. nlm. 2004. 06. 005
Stone TH, Webster BD, Schoonover SC (2013) What do we know about competency modeling? Int J Sel 
Assess 21:334–338. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijsa. 12043
Stoof A, Martens RL, Van Merriënboer JJ, Bastiaens TJ (2002) The boundary approach of competence: 
a constructivist aid for understanding and using the concept of competence. Hum Resour Dev Rev 
1:345–365. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15344 84302 013005
Stuart R, Lindsay P (1997) Beyond the frame of management competenc(i)es: towards a contextually 
embedded framework of managerial competence in organizations. J Eur Ind Train 21:26–33. 
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 03090 59971 01564 10
Suddaby R (2010) Editor’s comments: construct clarity in theories of management and organization. 
Acad Manag Rev 35:346–357. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 35.3. zok346
Constructing clarity in managerial competence: seven…
Sudirman I, Siswanto J, Monang J, Aisha AN (2019) Competencies for effective public middle managers. 
J of Manag Dev 38:421–439. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ jmd‑ 12‑ 2018‑ 0369
Tate W (1995) Developing managerial competence: a critical guide to methods and materials. Gower 
Publishing, Aldershot
Taylor FW (1911) The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers, New York
Tett RP, Guterman HA, Bleier A, Murphy PJ (2000) Development and content validation of a “hyper‑
dimensional” taxonomy of managerial competence. Hum Perform 13:205–251. https:// doi. org/ 10. 
1207/ S1532 7043H UP1303_1
Tigre FB, Henriques PL, Curado C (2024) The digital leadership emerging construct: a multi‑method 
approach. Manag Rev Q 74:1–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11301‑ 023‑ 00395‑9
Training Agency (1988) Development of assessable standards for national certification. Guidance Note 3. 
Employment Department, Sheffield
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence‑informed man‑
agement knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222. https:// doi. org/ 10. 
1111/ 1467‑ 8551. 00375
Van der Klink MR, Boon J (2003) Competencies: the triumph of a fuzzy concept. Int J Hum Resour Dev 
Manag 3:125–137. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJHRDM. 2003. 002415
Velde C (1997) Reporting the new competence needs of clerical–administrative workers: an employer 
perspective. J Vocat Educ Train 49:21–44. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13636 82970 02000 03
Veliu L, Manxhari M (2017) The impact of managerial competencies on business performance: SMEs in 
Kosovo. Vadyba J Manag 30:59–65
Vial G (2019) Understanding digital transformation: a review and research agenda. J Strateg Inf Syst 
28:118–144. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jsis. 2019. 01. 003
Viitala R (2005) Perceived development needs of managers compared to an integrated management com‑
petency model. J Workplace Learn 17:436–451. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 13665 62051 06200 25
Weinert FE (1999) Concepts of competence. Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research, Munich
Westera W (2001) Competences in education: a confusion of tongues. J Curric Stud 33:75–88. https:// 
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00220 27012 0625
White RW (1959) Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychol Rev 66:297–333. https:// 
doi. org/ 10. 1037/ h0040 934
Whitely R (1989) On the nature of managerial tasks and skills: their distinguishing characteristics and 
organization. J Manag Stud 26:209–224. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467‑ 6486. 1989. tb007 25.x
Wickramasinghe V, De Zoyza N (2009) A comparative analysis of managerial competency needs across 
areas of functional specialization. J Manag Dev 28:344–360. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 02621 71091 
09473 71
Wickramasinghe V, De Zoyza N (2011) Managerial competency requirements that enhance organi‑
zational competences: a study of a Sri Lankan telecom organization. Int J Hum Resour Manag 
22:2981–3000. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09585 192. 2011. 588038
Winterton J (2009) Competence across Europe: highest common factor or lowest common denominator? 
J Eur Ind Train 33:681–700. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 03090 59091 09935 71
Winterton J, Winterton R (1999) Developing managerial competence. Routledge, London
Woodruffe C (1993) What is meant by a competency? Leadersh Organ Dev J 14:29–36. https:// doi. org/ 
10. 1108/ eb053 651
Yaniv E (2011) Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Acad Manag Rev 36:590–
592. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2010. 0481
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps 
and institutional affiliations.