What Are The Arguments Against Leadership Competency Framework

Hollenbeck & McCall (2006) provide the arguments against the leadership competency framework. They state that there are for (4) basic and problematic assumptions underlying leadership competency models. These assumptions are: 1. One set of qualities and behaviors describes effective leadership; which seems to be going back to the “great man” theory. 2. The more characteristics one has, the better leader one becomes. This also implies that effective leaders are the sum of its parts. Leaders have both strengths and weaknesses. The effectiveness is dependent on the situations they encounter. The focus should be on how effectively a person uses his knowledge & skills to get the job done; and not on the number of competencies. 3. Because senior management

Almost everything in HR is based on competency – training, selection, compensation – they look scientific & therefore, are effective. In the leadership ranks, these may not be so. In a survey of U.S. Fortune 500 companies, “competent global leader” was rated by 85% of respondents; indicating that they did not have enough of them (Gregorson, Morrison, & Black, 1998). In essence, organizations are still looking for better leaders. On the other hand, Silzer (2006) argues for the usefulness of leadership competency models, both for the individual and the organization. Competencies are helpful for individuals because (a) they provide a guide to effective behaviors (b) they offer a tool that can help the individual in his self-development efforts, and (c) specify a range of useful leader behaviors. For the organizations, competency models (a) openly communicate which leader behaviors are important, (b) help differentiate individual performance, (c) link leader behaviors to strategic goals of the business, and (d) provide a leadership framework applicable across many positions and leadership situations. According to Silzer (2006), the leadership competency is a guiding framework and not the end in