The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0262-1711.htm
JMD
41,1
24
Received 17 February 2021
Revised 9 June 2021
9 September 2021
19 February 2022
Accepted 1 March 2022
Journal of Management
Development
Vol. 41 No. 1, 2022
pp. 24-50
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/JMD-02-2021-0048
Competencies for superior
performance across management
levels in the provincial government
executive offices
Joe Monang
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung,
Bandung, Indonesia
Iman Sudirman
Graduate School of Management, Pasundan University, Bandung, Indonesia, and
Joko Siswanto and Y. Yassierli
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung,
Bandung, Indonesia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate a set of competencies that are important for superior
performance across three top levels of management in the provincial government executive offices.
Design/methodology/approach – Using the case of the West Java Province Government, Indonesia, a
qualitative approach with document analysis and behavioural event interview techniques were employed. The
results were confirmed using focus group discussions. The Mann–Whitney U test was also conducted to
further analyse the results.
Findings – The authors found 19 competencies grouped into five competency clusters: managing personal,
managing task, managing work unit, managing socio-cultural and functional aspects. The Mann–Whitney U
test results showed that managing work unit and socio-cultural aspects were more important for upper-level
management, while functional aspects were more necessary for lower and middle levels of management. Two
competencies, that is, achievement orientation and innovation, were the main characteristics of superior
performers across all management levels, differentiating them from average performers.
Practical implications – The study suggests the need for the Government of Indonesia to improve the
current competency model. Its implications on educational and training institutions are discussed.
Originality/value – This study considered three different levels of management, grouped into superior and
average performers and thematically analysed their past experiences when performing their jobs. It thus
extends previous competency studies that mostly focus on a particular management level and individuals’
perceptions.
Keywords Competency, Superior performance, Public sector, Competency model,
Human resource management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Employee competence is a critical component of an organisation’s effort to successfully
achieve its desired goals. As a consequence, today’s organisations competitively seek
competent employees and use human resource (HR) practices that improve employee
competencies, to ensure organisational performance. This phenomenon appears in recent
management literature, indicating that besides private organisations, governments
worldwide are increasingly adopting competency-based management as a system to
integrate HR activities. Within this framework, the practice of HR management involves
identifying competencies that are important for employee performance and using them as a
basis in various HR processes such as recruitment, selection, training and development
(OECD, 2011; De Vos et al., 2015; Shet et al., 2019).
 Public-sector reform has been cited as one of the primary drivers for the adoption of a Competencies
competency approach in government organisations (see, e.g. Horton, 2000; Awortwi, 2010; for superior
Belfanti, 2017). Over the last three decades, public-sector reforms have become a common
mantra for urging numerous governments around the globe to confront an ever-growing
performance
number of public-policy challenges. The reforms involve paradigm shift of managing public
sector from a bureaucratic public administration doctrine, characterised by following
excessive procedures, regulations and slow responses, into a more “business-like” public
management approach, which apply management logics borrowed from private sector on 25
public services (Siddiquee, 2010; Paudel, 2013; Monobayeva and Howard, 2015;
Basheka, 2018).
In the case of Indonesia, before the reform took place in the late 1990s, its public sector was
seen as one of the most centralised around the globe (Lewis, 2014) and characterised by “non-
transparent processes, underfunded institutions, an inadequately skilled public workforce,
and institutionalised corruption reflecting a self-serving and opaque administration”
(Synnerstrom, 2007, p. 160). Yet, following the 1997 Asian financial crisis that led to severe
economic recessions and major political transitions, the country embarked on a new era of
public sector reform, known as Reformasi era, aiming to improve public service delivery,
create a good and democratic governance, increase administrative efficiency and
effectiveness and regain sustained, rapid economic growth (Brinkerhoff and Wetterberg,
2013; Turner et al., 2022). Decentralisation, bureaucracy and accounting reforms, amongst
other New Public Management (NPM) practices, have been embraced to achieve the reform
goals (Smoke, 2015; Harun et al., 2015; Prasojo and Holidin, 2018).
However, implementing the reforms are a daunting task and not easy to manage (Analoui,
2009; Naqvi, 2016). Many studies show reform attempts failing to achieve expected goals (see
Yanguas and Bukenya, 2016; Panday, 2019; Botlhale, 2019; Knox, 2019). Several salient
challenges have been identified. Among them is the need for government employees to have
competencies relevant to the situation in which the reform occurs (McTaggart and O’Flynn,
2015; Van der Wal, 2017; Glennon et al., 2018).
Given that our research investigates a set of competencies that are important for superior
performance across three top management levels in the provincial government executive
offices in Indonesia. Within the Indonesian provincial government context, the executive
offices consist of a regional secretariat, a regional council secretariat, a regional inspectorate,
agencies and offices to support the governor in designing and implementing the laws,
programmes, services and policies of the government. The regional secretariat, led by a
regional secretary, is supported by assistants of regional secretary and bureau heads. The
council secretariat, regional inspectorate, agencies and offices are led by a council secretary,
an inspector, agency heads and office heads, respectively. These people, appointed by the
governor, are the upper-level management and supported by division heads – who are the
middle-level management – and subdivision heads – who are the lower-level management.
The study is crucial for some reasons. Firstly, management-level employees, arguably, are
key actors in implementing reform agendas, and their contribution will determine the success
of the reform (Cloutier et al., 2016; Schmidt et al., 2017). Secondly, although public-sector
reform in Indonesia has brought the country certain progress, various evaluations indicate
that several failures are also observable (see, e.g. Kristiansen et al., 2009; Blunt et al., 2012;
Berenschot, 2018). One of the main causes is the lack of government employees’ capacity to
perform new tasks and responsibilities resulting from the reform, especially regarding the
competencies of management-level employees (Berman, 2018). On the one hand, the vast
application of public-sector reform has challenged them to respond to and adopt NPM
principles in their daily work operations, to enhance government service provision. On the
other hand, successfully executing the reform requires specific knowledge, skills and abilities
JMD that are not similar to those used before the reform (McLeod and Harun, 2014; Sahid
41,1 et al., 2016).
Even though several studies of competence for management-level employees in the public
organisation circulate in the management literature, this topic has received little attention in
comparison to those that concern the private sector (Blixt and Kirytopoulos, 2017), indicating
the need for more study in this field. Most previous studies focus on identifying competencies
for a specific management level, in addition to heavily depending on individual perceptions
26 when identifying the competencies. Those findings may limit their application for
practitioners. First, the use of competencies will most probably differ across hierarchies as
organisations are deliberately structured in several different management levels with distinct
functions and responsibilities (Anzengruber et al., 2017; Shum et al., 2018). Moreover, as
individuals’ resources are not limitless, it would be more effective for employees to put their
efforts towards competencies that their jobs most frequently require (De Meuse et al., 2011).
Second, identifying competencies by using the perception of individuals has the drawback
that individuals may recommend competencies that look good but are not important for their
jobs (Marrelli et al., 2005). Hence, overcoming this weakness requires such other data-
gathering techniques as behavioural event interviews (Spencer and Spencer, 1993).
Our study tries to fill the gap by using samples from the Government of West Java
Province, Indonesia (hereafter GoWJP). In particular, our study uniquely involved three
different groups of management that most study samples overlook, to answer the following
research questions:
RQ1. What competencies are important for superior performance at management levels
in the provincial government executive offices, empirically found using the case
of GoWJP?
RQ2. To what extent are the competencies frequently used at different levels of
management and by superior and average performers?
The remainder of this article occurs in four sections. The first section reviews competency
literature. Section 2 presents the research method. Section 3 reports our findings to answer
RQ1 and RQ2. Section 4 discusses the results, with implications and future research
directions. The last section provides concluding remarks.

Competency: some related concepts and recent work in public organisations

There is no consensus on the definition of competency among scholars and practitioners
(Rychen and Salganik, 2001), even for some academics competency is regarded as a “fuzzy
concept” with various sources of confusion (Van der Klink and Boon, 2003; Stevens, 2013).
The term can be interchangeably used with the term competence as they refer to the same
meanings (Salman et al., 2020). For example, Parry (1996) describes competency as a cluster of
knowledge, skill and attitudes associated with performance. By contrast, the same
description has been used by Tannenbaum (1997) to define competence. However, some
studies consider that the notion of competency is different from competence. When it refers to
an output or achievement of expected standards, one should use the term competence. When
it refers to an input or individual underlying characteristics to achieve effective or superior
performance, one should use the term competency (Horton, 2000; Sanghi, 2016). The
difference between competency and competence can also be found in the work of Rychen and
Salganik (2001). Competency is associated with a specific demand that an individual may or
may not be able to fulfil, whereas competence indicates the level of one’s ability in a particular
skill or competency. Another scholar relates competence with authority and responsibility.
Individuals are able to perform certain activities because they have a legal right to do so given
by external entities (Skorkov
a, 2016).
 Understanding of competency concept has become even more complex as the term is put Competencies
forward to describe a source for the sustainability of organisations’ competitive advantage. for superior
Competencies refer to a part of organisation assets, comprising of abilities, processes,
technologies or collections of actions used to support organisation in reaching it ultimate
performance
goals. If the competencies are very hard for other organisations to imitate, they are classified
as distinctive competencies (Bryson et al., 2007). The introduction of competency at
organisational level can be attributed to the use of core competencies term by Prahalad and
Hamel (1997) to represent organisations’ unique resources that can be exploited to develop 27
strategies difficult to mimic by their competitors.
Such other related concepts to competency as capability and motivation are also
circulated in the literature. Even though these constructs seem to be overlapping, to some
extent capability and motivation are different from competency. According to Brown and
McCartney (2004), capability, for some scholars, concerns with potential – an individual’s
capacity to do in the future – and thus, it does not necessarily mean that the individual has
been able to do certain task. Bolton et al.’s work (1999) discusses that capability can refer to
the quality of being capable or a potential of being turned to use. It is a future potential to do
certain task. Hence, capability is future-oriented; by contrast, competency is past-oriented
(Brown and McCartney, 2004).
Motivation is a psychological process that explains a person’s intensity, direction and
persistence of effort to achieve organisations’ goals (Robbins and Judge, 2017). It is an
internal driving force that causes an individual to do something (Harpine, 2008). The
motivation has two distinct dimensions: intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. While
intrinsic motivation arises because of inherent satisfaction of doing the activity, the
extrinsic motivation is related to whether an individual performs the activity due to
external rewards (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Khusainova et al., 2018). Hence, motivation is a
narrower concept than competency because competency may include such motivation as
achievement orientation.
In this study, we use several definitions of competency as a basis to define the concept of
competency. According to Boyatzis (2008, p. 6), a competency is “a set of related but different
sets of behaviour organized around an underlying construct, which is called intent”. The
author proposes that a competency is constructed with two important elements: actions and
intent. Kim and McLean (2015) propose another concept of competency. Their study defines a
competency as an individual’s underlying characteristic that leads to excellent performance.
It should comprise three levels of underlying characteristics: core traits, personal character
and ability.
For El Asame and Wakrim (2018), competency is a quadrangular concept – that is, a
competency should consist of four dimensions, namely generic skill, knowledge, performance
and context. A broader concept of competency is put forward by Marrelli et al. (2005). It can
consist of specific knowledge, a certain skill, a particular personal characteristic or even a
combination of several or all of these dimensions. This article defines a competency as a set of
related knowledge or skills, motives as underlying intent or attitudes, and behaviours, that is,
actions, of management-level employees in the provincial government offices that are
important for superior performance. Our definition follows a multidimensional concept of
competency that previous studies propose.
Because competency predicts individual performance, the concept of individual
performance is essential in a competency study. It will determine the criteria for
individuals selected for a sample, to investigate competencies required for superior
performance in their jobs. On the basis of chosen criteria, individuals are grouped into
superior, average or even poor performers and interviewed or surveyed to identify and clarify
competencies. This approach refers to an inductive method (Boyatzis, 2009).
JMD However, various concepts of individual performance exist in academic literature. For
41,1 example, Caillier (2010) uses the term “job performance” to describe individual performance,
the degree of excellence when individuals perform their work-related duties. Van Loon et al.
(2015) define individual performance – broader than the previous one – as the contribution of
an individual towards attaining organisational missions. According to Anitha (2014),
individual performance is related to the outcomes and accomplishments of an individual in
his or her work, which support organisational success, whether financial or nonfinancial.
28 As there is no consensus around a definition of individual performance (Koopmans et al.,
2013), identifying and determining competencies that lead an individual to achieve superior
performance may raise a crucial issue of defining superior performance. One can also observe
that researchers use different approaches in their studies when measuring individual
performance, to identify competencies of the individual. To differentiate superior from
average performers, Xiao et al.’s (2018) study uses a working-year measurement. Although
using this approach may offer such benefits as ease of obtaining and managing the data, it
lacks a representation of what organisations want individuals to achieve in order to support
the organisation’s mission. Hong and Jung (2011) use academic grades as criteria when
examining competencies needed by the successful distance learner. Those having grades
above average and completing distance courses for a minimum of three semesters are
classified as successful. Other scholars combine management statistics and colleagues’
opinions to select good managers (Wang et al., 2011).
It is no doubt that each organisation most likely has a distinct ideal picture of its employee
performance. However, superior performance can be defined using several ways. Individuals
who have performance scores of one standard deviation above average can be classified as
superior performers (Spencer and Spencer, 1993; Netemeyer et al., 2010; Swailes, 2020). The
percentile criteria can also be used to identify superior performers. Those individuals who
exceed certain referenced value can be categorised as superior performance, for example, top
5 or 20% (Schuler et al., 2011; Kwiek, 2018). Furthermore, according to Boyatzis (2009), the
definition of superior performance can be developed using nominations and output
measurement.
Scholars have also adopted some methods for conducting a competency study. First is the
behavioural event interview (BEI), modified from Flanagan’s critical-incident interview. It is a
sort of semi-structured interview asking individuals to recall, in detail, recent events that they
felt were successful or unsuccessful. Competencies are identified based on the description of
individuals’ behaviour, thinking, motive, feeling and other attributes in dealing with several
critical situations (see Boyatzis, 2011; Wan et al., 2017). Second, one can conduct a survey
using samples to examine competencies that individuals required in certain contexts. This
approach is usually undertaken by generating a list of competencies from other resources,
such as a literature review; then, using the survey to evaluate the importance of competencies
(e.g. Liu et al., 2016). Third, researchers can also apply expert opinions to obtain their
evaluations of the competency list they provide (e.g. Geng et al., 2018). In addition, researchers
can use a combination of these methods in their competency studies to obtain more rigorous
results.
Numerous scholars have researched competencies in various contexts. However, the
study of competencies for management-level employees in public organisation seems to be
limited (Blixt and Kirytopoulos, 2017). Hurd and McLean (2004) conducted a competency
study for the CEO level in US public park and recreation agencies using the Delphi technique.
Vathanophas and Thai-ngam (2007) examined competencies required for the Chief of General
Administrative Sub-Division position level in Thailand’s Department of Agriculture by
applying the BEI technique – but only using sample superior performers. Lan and Hung
(2018) focussed on identifying competencies for leaders in the public sector of Vietnam using
an in-depth interview technique to experts and a survey. Sudirman et al. (2019) investigated
competencies for public middle-management level based on the Indonesian Civil Service Competencies
Agency’s managerial competency dictionary and tried to discover new competencies using for superior
the BEI technique.
Even though those previous works of competency studies have notably contributed to
performance
uncovering competencies for management levels, it is important to notice that most of them
use a certain level of management or a specific position. As a result, they limit the application
of the work to various levels of management and to education and training-programme
institutions that tend to train several distinct management levels and generalists (Shum et al., 29
2018). In addition, some prior studies employed self-report approaches to identify required
competencies. As such, job holders may recommend particular competencies that are not
important in their jobs because they would rather propose “more socially prestigious
competencies than those actually needed” (Marrelli et al., 2005, p. 543).
With the widespread use of competency-based management in the public sector, many
governments around the world have also developed competency models for their
management-level employees. In response to 21st-century challenges in the public sector,
the United States Office of Personnel Management then developed Executive Core
Qualifications (hereafter the ECQ model) for senior executive service positions (USOPM,
2012). To support a civil-service reform plan, the UK government constructed a competency
framework – that is, the UK Civil Service Competency Framework 2012–2017 (hereafter, UK
model) (CSHR, 2012). The Government of Canada developed a Key Leadership Competency
Profile, hereafter, the Canada model (TBCS, 2015), to create dedicated and high-performing
public service leaders.
The Indonesian Government has also developed competency models for its management-
level employees. The National Civil Service Agency of Indonesia issued the Managerial
Competency Dictionary (hereafter the NCSA model) in 2013 (NCSA, 2013). The Ministry of
Administrative Reform of Indonesia has also developed the Civil Service Competency
Standard (hereafter, MAR model), outlining competencies necessary for Indonesian
government employees in response to current public-sector reform challenges (MAR,
2017). Until now, the MAR model has been the primary reference for local governments in
Indonesia to recruit, select and promote employees.
To the best of our knowledge, no related evaluation of the MAR model is in the academic
literature. However, some similarities and differences between the MAR model and other
competency models exist. Analogous competencies are in the MAR model and other models,
such as integrity and service orientation. Some variations are also obviously seen between the
MAR model and other models, particularly in the number of competency clusters and units.
Hence, this paper argues that a new competency model for management levels in the
Indonesian provincial government executive offices still must be explored, to help
management-level employees successfully performing their jobs within current challenges
and to provide the government with information about which competencies should be
prioritised across different hierarchies.

Methods
This article applies a qualitative research approach with document analysis and BEI
techniques and a focus-group discussion (FGD). Combining these techniques in the current
study is notably beneficial; it can provide a means of triangulation to reduce potential bias
and establish credibility (Bowen, 2009). This approach is suitable for our study for several
reasons. First, the study of competence for management-level employees in the context of
government organisations has been conducted by some scholars, but it was scarce. Most of
which focus on one particular management position (e.g. Hurd and McLean, 2004;
Vathanophas and Thai-ngam, 2007), limiting them to provide a comprehensive picture of
JMD competencies required by government employees at different levels of management.
41,1 However, a number of countries experiencing public sector reform have developed
competency models for management-level employees. The models can provide some
beneficial insight to offset the limitation from previous empirical studies. Second, most prior
studies adopt such self-report approach as expert opinions. Although this approach provides
some benefits, for example, quick and efficient in collecting data, it may recommend
competencies that hardly use by the jobholders, leading to bias conclusion. In contrast, the
30 BEI technique can address this issue by using multiple critical incidents to find out
competencies that predict superior performance (Spencer and Spencer, 1993). Moreover,
previous studies are conducted in countries that have different contexts from Indonesia.
Therefore, exploratory research to identify competencies considering Indonesian context is
still needed.
We used the following stages to identify competencies for superior performance in the
present study. In the first stage, we conducted a document analysis to develop our preliminary
competency dictionary. In the second stage, we carried out BEI to improve the competency
dictionary. In the final stage, we hold an FGD to validate the competency dictionary.
The main sources for document analysis include three journal articles from previous
competency work in public-sector organisations at management levels, that is, Hurd and
McLean (2004), Vathanophas and Thai-ngam (2007) and Lan and Hung (2018), and five
documents on public-sector competency models adopted by four governments that have also
implemented public-sector reforms. Table 1 provides a list of competency clusters and units
from the selected journal articles and documents. It shows that these models propose ample
variations, in terms of competency clusters and units, in addition to some similarities. This
study adopted a thematic analysis, using a multi-phase coding process (Salda~ na, 2013) to
integrate these models.
The current study coded each competency cluster listed in the models, using in vivo
coding, which uses the direct words or phrases in the literature or documents as codes. For
example, one of the competency clusters listed in Hurd and McLean’s model was “community
relations”. Using the in vivo coding method, we encoded the cluster with “community
relations”. Next, we applied pattern coding to group similar codes or codes with something in
common and assigned them to a new category of competency clusters. This process may
generate new names of competency clusters (Salda~ na, 2013). For example, as Table 2 shows,
words or phrases in column three were in vivo coded. Using pattern coding, we grouped
business (JA11 and D34), public administration (JA31) and technical areas (D13) into a new
category and labelled it “functional”. We chose this category because each in vivo code shared
the characteristic of having adequate knowledge and skill in a certain functional area.
Afterwards, we applied the same process to coding competency units. Finally, as Table 3
shows, we identified competency units and competency clusters for our preliminary
competency dictionary.
After document analysis, we undertook BEI in order to corroborate findings from
document analysis and improve our preliminary competency dictionary. Most literature in
the document analysis came from other countries; thus, carrying out BEI was invaluable for
developing a competency dictionary relevant to the Indonesian context. The BEI involved a
sample of 50 management-level employees of the GoWJP executive offices: 20 lower-level, 20
middle-level and 10 upper-level. The sample was selected using a nonrandom sampling
method and purposively chosen with a ratio of 3:2, representing superior and average
performers. This number was adequate to support a significant qualitative analysis (Spencer
and Spencer, 1993). For middle-level of management, we utilised the BEI results from
Sudirmant et al.’s study (2019).
Different from most previous studies, to select superior and average performers, this
study used objective measurements of individual performance that were available in the
Journal articles (JA) Documents (D)
JA1 JA2 JA3 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5

Business acumen (no competency clusters) Regional context Managerial aspects Thinking abilityLeading change Strategic cluster (no competency
business, financial service-minded, concern knowledge of local integrity, teamwork, creativity and
thinking flexibility, seeing the big picture, clusters)
management, human for order, quality, and culture, knowledge of communication, result innovation, external
innovation, analytical changing and create vision and
resources management, accuracy, team strategy and policy for orientation, public awareness, flexibility,
thinking, conceptual improving, making strategy, mobilise
technology leadership, achievement local development services, self- thinking resilience, strategic effective decisions people, uphold
Communications and orientation, developing Human resource development and Managing self thinking, vision People cluster integrity and respect,
marketing others, information management developing others, Leading people
adapt to change, integrity, leading and collaborate with
communications, seeking, integrity, building relationship, managing change, conflict management,
persistence, self-control, communicating, partners and
marketing organisational training and developing decision-making organisational leveraging diversity, collaborating and stakeholders,
Community relations awareness, self-control employees, motivating Socio-cultural aspects developing others, team partnering, building
commitment, initiative, promote innovation
customer service, employees unifying the nation building
achievement orientation capability for all and guide change,
community relations Self-development Technical aspects Managing others Result driven Performance cluster achieve results
Leadership and strategic outlook and (no competency units) accountability, customer achieving commercial
teamwork, developing
management thinking, change service, decisiveness,
others, leadership, guiding outcomes, delivering
leadership, management, planning Managing task entrepreneurship, value for money,
management, and organising, problem-solving,
service orientation, managing a quality
interpersonal skills, decision-making, technical credibility
occupational safety, service, delivering at
conflict resolution and communication skill, Business acumen
developing partnership, pace
decision-making, continuous learning, negotiation, financial management,
political and legislative result orientation human capital
entrepreneurship,
acumen Professional management,
information seeking,
Planning and evaluation knowledge of public technology
concern for order, oral
Goals-objective- administration sector, management
communication, written
mission, planning, knowledge of Building coalitions
communication, decision-
evaluation, visioning organisation mission partnering, political
making, organising,
and trends planning, changesavvy, influencing/
Professional practice negotiating
management, quality
experience, knowledge Fundamental
orientation, conflict
of technical areas, management interpersonal skills, oral
professionalism communication,
Managing socio-cultural
aspects integrity/honesty,
written communication,
responsive to cultural
continual learning,
influences, empathy, social
interaction public service
motivation
Note(s): JA1: Hurd and McLean (2004); JA2: Vathanophas and Thai-ngam (2007); JA3: Lan and Hung (2018); D1: MAR model; D2: NCSA model; D3: ECQ model; D4: UK model; D5: Canada model
performance
Competencies
for superior

31

literature and
Competency models
Table 1.

documents
from selected academic
JMD Competency clusters and descriptions Code
41,1 Literature proposed by selected literature In vivo coded Symbol Pattern coded

JA1 Business acumen Business JA11 Functional aspects (Assembly

Communications and marketing Communications JA12 of JA11, JA31, D13, D34)
Community relations Community JA13 Managing personal aspects
relations (Assembly of JA12, JA16, D22,
Leadership and management Leadership JA14 D36)
32 Planning and evaluation Planning and JA15 Managing sociocultural
evaluation aspects (Assembly of JA13,
Professional practice Professional JA16 JA33, D12, D25, D35)
*Note: there is not any description Managing work-unit aspects
related to each competency cluster (Assembly of JA14, JA15,
JA2 no competency clusters - - JA32, D11, D31, D32, D23, D41,
JA3 Regional context: required by Vietnam Public JA31 D42)
public administration context administration Managing task aspects
Human resource management: relation- Relation-oriented JA32 (Assembly of JA34, D21, D24,
oriented role D33, D43)
Self-development: change-oriented role Diversity-oriented JA33
and diversity-oriented role
Professional: task-oriented role Task-oriented JA34
D1 Managerial aspects: lead/manage work- Manage work-unit D11
unit
Social-cultural aspects: interact with a Interacting with D12
plural society in terms of religion, plural society
ethnicity, culture, nationality, ethics,
values, morals, emotions and principles
Technical aspects: relates to technical Technical area D13
areas
D2 Thinking ability Thinking D21
Managing personal aspects Managing personal D22
Managing others Managing others D23
Managing task Managing task D24
Managing sociocultural aspects Managing D25
sociocultural
*Note: there is not any description
related to each competency cluster
D3 Leading change: bring about strategic Bring change D31
change, both within and outside the
organisation, to meet organisational
goals
Leading people: lead people toward Lead people D32
meeting the organisation’s vision,
mission, and goals
Result driven: meet organisational goals Meet organisational D33
and customer expectations goals
Business acumen: manage human, Business D34
financial, and information resources
strategically
Building coalitions: build coalitions Build coalitions D35
internally and with other Federal with others
agencies, State & local governments,
non-profit & private sector
organisations, foreign governments, or
international organisations to achieve
common goals
Fundamental: the foundation for success Fundamental D36
in each of the Executive Core
Qualifications
Table 2. D4 Strategic cluster: setting direction Setting direction D41
Competency clusters People cluster: engaging people Engaging people D42
identification using Performance cluster: delivering results Delivering results D43
pattern coding method D5 no competency clusters - -
Competency clusters Competency units Related journal articles and documents
Competencies
for superior
Managing work-unit aspects Leadership JA1, JA2, JA3, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 performance
Teamwork JA3, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5
Developing others JA2, JA3, D1, D2, D3, D4
Strategic thinking JA1, JA3, D2, D3, D4, D5
Managing conflict D2, D3
Managing change JA1, D1, D2, D3, D5 33
Managing task aspects Service orientation JA1, JA2, D1, D2, D3, D4
Decision-making JA1, JA3, D1, D2, D3, D4
Organising JA3, D2
Information seeking JA2, D2
Analytical thinking D2, D3
Conceptual thinking D2
Concern for order JA2, D2
Occupational safety D2
Managing socio-cultural aspects Unifying the nation JA3, D1, D2, D3
Negotiation D2, D3
Social interaction JA1, JA2, D2, D3
Empathy JA1, D2, D3
Managing personal aspects Integrity JA1, JA2, D1, D2, D3, D5
Communication JA1, JA3, D1, D2, D3
Achievement orientation JA2, JA3, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5
Innovation D2, D3, D4, D5
Self-control JA2, D2, D3
Persistence D2 Table 3.
Organisational commitment D2 Identification of
Functional aspects HRM JA1, D3 competency clusters
Financial management JA1, JA3, D3, D4 and units using a multi-
Technology management JA1, D3 phase coding process

GoWJP and relevant to supporting organisational goals. For lower and middle levels, the
criteria used were employees’ performance appraisal scores and nomination for a Governor’s
Award as an outstanding employee. Those with performance appraisal scores of “A” and
nominated for the award were categorised as “superior”, while others were classified as
“average”. Because nomination for a Governor’s Award did not apply to upper-level
management, we used organisational performance achievement as reported in the
organisation performance reports. As upper-level management employees are the heads of
bureaus/agencies/offices, who make various decisions that have wide impact on
organisations, this criterion distinguished superior and average performers among upper-
level management employees (see Scapolan et al., 2017).
The BEI protocol followed Spencer and Spencer (1993) by using the STAR technique and
conducting face-to-face interviews. The protocol covered three parts. The first part was an
introduction, in which the interviewer explained the purpose of the interview, asked
permission to tape-record the sessions and questioned participants about past and current
positions and responsibilities. The second part (the main part) asked interviewees to select
two successful/effective events and two unsuccessful/ineffective events related to their jobs
during the last 2 years. Some examples of the questions: “What was the situation?”, “What
actions did interviewees take to handle the situation?” and “What were the results?”. The last
part thanked the participants for the interview and told them the session had ended. On
average, an interview lasted about 2 h. Totally 12 superior and 8 average performers at lower-
level management, 12 superior and 8 average performers at middle-level and 6 superior and
4 average performers at upper-level participated in the study. They provided 199 stories
JMD (one participant shared only three stories, i.e. two “successful/effective” stories and one
41,1 “unsuccessful/ineffective” story).
The BEI data analysis used thematic analysis as follows. We initially employed in vivo
coding, conducting line-by-line analysis on verbatim data obtained from BEIs. Then, we
applied the protocol coding method to identify competencies from in vivo coded data, using
our preliminary competency dictionary (see examples in Table 4). Next, we applied the axial
coding method to refine the competency dictionary. Axial coding groups similarly coded data
34 into categories by their properties and dimensions and relate categories to subcategories
(Salda~na, 2013). Then, we eliminated competencies hardly found in the BEI that may have
indicated that the competencies were not important.
Finally, an FGD was held to finalise our competency dictionary. Five experts were willing
to participate in the FGD. They were assessors of the GoWJP with an educational background
in psychology and ample experience in conducting and assessing the competence of
management-level employees in the GoWJP executive offices.
Using our updated competency dictionary resulting from the FGD, we calculated the
frequency of each competency within the stories by adopting the approach of Camuffo et al.
(2009). As the unit of analysis used to count frequency was the story, as many as 199 stories
required analysis to obtain the results. If a certain competency appeared in a story, it was
counted only once per story. Therefore, the maximum number of appearances for each
competency in all stories was 80 for lower-level management, 80 for middle-level and 39 for
upper-level. In addition, to analyse which competency cluster was more frequently found
in the stories across management levels, we averaged the frequency distributions of
corresponding competency units within their respective competency clusters and statistically
compared the results, using Mann–Whitney U test. We employed the same test to compare
the frequencies of competency units across management levels and between superior and
average performers.

Results
Identification of competencies
The goal of this part was to answer RQ1. Employing thematic analysis with a multi-phase
coding process, followed by FGD with experts, managed to identify five competency clusters
and 19 competency units that are important for superior performance across management
levels in the provincial government executive offices. Table 5 illustrates the details of the
competencies.

Excerpt In vivo coded Protocol coded

“ I set a target based on the available budget and the

a a
Set a target Achievement
number of staffs [. . .] bI tried to meet the target b
Tried to meet the target orientation
optimally by starting to determine [. . .] cI wanted to c
Achieve this target
achieve this target”
“aI often confronted with difficulties to provide the data a
Making it more easily to Innovation
[. . .]. I wanted to make it more easily to obtain [. . .] bIn obtain
the past, [. . .] I had to look for the data in various b
Manually, time-consuming,
documents manually [. . .]. It was time-consuming and added more work
Table 4. added more work [. . .]. cSo, my team and I made an c
Made an application
Protocol coding application dso that we can provide the data much d
Provide the data much easier
examples obtained easier. eUsing this application, if my boss asks for the e
Can inform him quickly
from BEI data, I can inform him quickly. fJust click [. . .]” f
Just click
Competencies Definitions Sample of proficiency

Managing personal aspects

Integrity Acts by following the rules, values, norms and/or ethics of the organisation • Refusing to accept illegal money from other parties
Communication Conveys or presents a clear and easily understandable opinion/idea/information on a • Making and conducting a clear presentation to inform a particular
particular subject both orally and in writing group in an internal meeting
Achievement Works well and tries to meet an excellent standard of performance • Trying to update regularly necessary information for stakeholders
orientation as quickly as possible, but no specific standard
Innovation Produces new approaches/methods/processes/systems in order to increase work • Adopting a new application in a small unit to process and provide
effectiveness data more quickly
Managing task aspects
Service orientation Identifies and tries to meet customer needs • Spending some time to listen to a community group representative’s
complaint and try to identify his problems and needs
Decision-making Makes decisions quickly, accurately and carefully • Making routine operational decisions by following the existing
procedure
Organising Coordinates the implementation of the tasks to ensure that it follows the predetermined • Periodically checking the accomplishment of tasks carried out by
plans staffs and asking the difficulty at hand
Information seeking Systematically seeks accurate and adequate information that effectively supports the • Searching for information from trusted references, comparing
completion of the tasks available information, inviting experts and getting their perspectives
Analytical thinking Identifies and comprehends the problems in a systematic way to provide alternative • Figuring out the cause of a recurring problem in the preparation of a
solutions or recommendations budget plan that involves two factors
Managing work-unit aspects
Leadership Inspires, influences and motivates individuals in the work unit to follow and • Taking a warm personal conversation to understand and influence
accomplish organisational work plans and goals and to adopt changes in the an individual’s perspective and encourage him/her to follow and
organisation implement the organisational work plans with adequate help
Teamwork Effectively works together in a team with various parties to achieve organisational • Trying to position oneself as a facilitator: sharing information,
goals soliciting inputs and valuing opinions
Developing others Develops others’ abilities so that they can perform well and properly contribute to the • Openly and objectively providing suggestions for individuals’
organisation improvements in doing their work through mutual discussion
Strategic thinking Formulates visions/mission/goals/priorities/programmes/activities that correspond to • Developing a strategic plan to increase farmers’ income and
organisation’s long-term interests production by properly considering relevant major issues in the
future

(continued )
performance
Competencies
for superior

35

Competencies for
Table 5.

superior performance
 36
41,1
JMD

Table 5.
Competencies Definitions Sample of proficiency

Managing socio-cultural aspects

Unifying the nation Respects individuals’/community groups’ differences and diversity in terms of • Addressing and correcting improper actions taken by others that
cultures/ethnicities/religions/races to support national unity disturb religious harmony
Negotiation Builds and reaches an agreement with other parties • Forming a negotiation team, thoroughly examining the situation
from both sides, and trying to reconcile conflicting interests on
critical issues with few concessions
Social interaction Builds good relationships with diverse individuals/community groups/stakeholders • Holding gatherings with a particular group of entrepreneurs to build
a good relationship twice a year
Functional aspects
HRM Manages HR activities effectively • Mapping current workforce, reviewing organisation’s strategic plan
and identifying the number and qualification of staffs needed
Financial Manages budgets effectively • Calculating budget allocation by considering programme objectives
management and targets using particular techniques
Technology Makes use and develops technology systems effectively • Creating a roadmap for the development of a management
management information system in the organisation
The use of competencies across management levels and between superior and average Competencies
performers for superior
To answer RQ2, we provided descriptive and statistical test results using the Mann–Whitney
U test. We begin by describing the percentages of stories coded for competency among the
performance
levels of management. As Figure 1 shows, the frequency of using competencies was diverse
across management levels. The primary competency cluster reflected in the stories of upper-
level management employees was managing work unit, followed by managing personal
aspects and managing task. Functional competencies had the lowest frequency. For middle- 37
level management employees, the most frequently cited competency cluster was managing
task, followed by managing personal aspects and managing work unit. Managing socio-
cultural aspects had the lowest frequency. Among lower-level management employees, the
managing-task competency cluster had the highest percentage, followed by managing
personal aspects and functional aspects. Managing socio-cultural aspects had the lowest
frequency.
To further statistically examine the differences in frequencies among levels of
management, we conducted a Mann–Whitney U test of the above results, as Table 6
shows. First, we found that managing work-unit competencies was more often used by
individuals at upper-level management than those at other management levels, and it was
statistically significant (z 5
3.274, p ≤ 0.01 for lower-upper difference; z 5
2.408, p ≤ 0.05
for middle–upper difference). This may suggest that this competency cluster was more
important for upper-level management, compared to lower- and middle-level management,
with high frequencies of coded competencies in their stories, including leadership, strategic
thinking and teamwork. The frequency gaps of these three competency units between upper-
level and other levels were also significantly different from zero, except for leadership
competency, which was insignificant between middle- and upper-level management. Second,
managing socio-cultural aspects was also more important for the upper-level than other
levels. Lower-level management employees least frequently used these competencies in their
jobs. Within this cluster, social interaction was the competency that upper-level management
employees most frequently used, followed by negotiation.
Third, managing task competencies was equally used by all levels; its frequency
distributions among levels of management were not statistically different. However, further

100

80

60

40

20

0
Leadership

Analytical thinking

Integrity
Developing others

Service orientation

Unifying the nation

Social interaction

Communication

Innovation
Decision making

Negotiation

HRM

Technology management
Strategic thinking

Organising

Achievement orientation

Financial management
Teamwork

Information seeking

Figure 1.
The percentage of
stories coded for
Managing work-unit Managing task aspects Managing Managing personal Functional respected competency
sociocultural aspects aspects aspects
aspects across management
levels
Lower-level management Middle-level management Upper-level management
JMD Frequency (%) Z
41,1 Lower Middle Upper
Competency (Lm) (Mm) (Um) Lm-Mm Lm-Um Mm-Um

Managing task aspects 55 53 49
0.096
0.863
0.713

Service orientation 19 29 28
1.131
0.990
0.047
Decision-making 38 40 62
0.084
2.155**
1.755*
38 Organising 76 54 23
2.953***
4.288***
3.082***
Information seeking 70 71 62
0.677
0.580
0.906
Analytical thinking 70 71 72
0.057
0.120
0.116
Managing work-unit 35 44 62
1.584
3.274***
2.408**
aspects
Leadership 45 66 82
2.243**
3.072***
1.563
Teamwork 40 43 64
0.280
2.170**
1.866*
Developing others 11 15 21
0.896
1.390
0.581
Strategic thinking 44 54 79
1.074
3.098***
2.697***
Managing socio-cultural 5 18 38
3.374***
4.277***
3.094***
aspects
Unifying the nation 4 8 13
0.471
1.830*
1.430
Negotiation 5 9 33
1.060
3.504***
2.950***
Social interaction 8 36 67
3.924***
4.510***
2.953***
Managing personal 49 50 51
0.247
0.133
0.178
aspects
Integrity 29 30 41
0.276
1.182
1.091
Communication 89 85 85
0.538
0.577
0.098
Achievement orientation 60 61 67
0.028
0.481
0.627
Innovation 20 24 10
0.102
0.972
0.971
Functional aspects 37 35 22
0.657
2.375**
1.680*
Table 6.
Frequency comparison HRM 19 25 18
0.806
0.460
0.399
in competency clusters Financial management 68 55 31
1.865*
2.783***
2.523**
and units across Technology management 24 25 18
0.260
0.262
0.518
management levels Note(s): *p ≤ 0.1 **p ≤ 0.05 ***p ≤ 0.01 (two tailed)

examination revealed that certain competencies in this cluster were found to be more
important for upper-level management than other levels (i.e. decision-making) and others less
important for upper-level management than for those at other levels (i.e. organising, more
important for lower-level management than other levels). Fourth, the frequencies of
competencies in managing personal aspects coded in the stories were statistically similar
across management levels, indicating that this competency cluster was evenly important at
all levels. In this cluster, communication and achievement orientation were competencies they
most frequently used in their jobs.
Fifth, functional competencies were more important for lower- and middle-level
management than upper-level management, indicated by higher frequencies within these
two levels of management compared to upper-level management. However, only financial-
management competency was found to be statistically different in terms of frequency value,
employees at lower-level of management most frequently using this competency.
Our findings also showed that, in general, superior performers more often used the
competencies than average performers, as Figure 2 shows. However, further examination
using the Mann–Whitney U test exhibited some interesting results; not all frequency gaps
were statistically significant. As Table 7 shows, in the case of lower-level management,
competencies that had high frequencies and were statistically more often used by superior
performers than average ones included achievement orientation, leadership, information
seeking, analytical thinking and strategic thinking. Innovation and developing others were
 Technology management Competencies
Financial management
HRM
for superior
Innovation performance
Achievement orientation
Communication
Integrity
Social interaction 39
Negotiation
Unifying the nation
Analytical thinking
Information seeking
Organising
Decision making
Service orientation
Strategic thinking
Developing others
Teamwork Figure 2.
Leadership The percentage of
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 stories coded for
respected competency:
Average Superior Average Superior Average Superior superior versus
Upper-level management
average performers
Lower-level management Middle-level management

also significantly more often used by superior performers. Similar findings were found in the
case of middle-level management, in addition to the significant difference in HR management
frequency between superior and average performers. In the case of upper-level management,
only two competencies were statistically more often used by superior performers than
average ones, that is, achievement orientation and innovation.

Discussion
Our primary finding suggests that 19 competencies grouped into five competency clusters
are important for superior performance across management levels in the provincial
government executive offices. This main finding extends recent public-management
competency studies, such as by Lan and Hung (2018), and updates the latest competency
model for management levels in Indonesian provincial government executive offices, the
MAR model. For example, we particularly identified that management-level employees still
require functional competencies, including financial management, HR management and
technology management, to successfully deal with current circumstances. This is in line with
the ECQ model and Hurd and McLean’s study, which underline the importance of these
competencies for senior leaders. At the same time, it also expands these two models by
pointing out the necessity of these competencies at lower- and middle-level management
as well.
Another important finding of our study conforms with some previous studies in the
private sector that argue that the importance of competencies was dissimilar across
management levels (e.g. Shum et al., 2018). Specifically, our study suggests that managing
work unit and managing socio-cultural competencies are more important for upper-level
management than lower and middle levels. Managing personal aspects and managing task
competencies are equally important for all levels of management. By contrast, functional-
aspect competencies are more important for lower and middle levels than the upper level.
 40
41,1
JMD

Table 7.

average performers
in competency units
between superior and
Frequency comparison
Lower (%) Middle (%) Upper (%)
Competency Superior Average Z Superior Average Z Superior Average Z

Service orientation 23 13
1.132 33 22
0.904 33 20
0.894

Decision-making 44 28
1.334 44 34
0.554 63 60
0.228
Organising 79 72
0.869 60 44
1.398 25 20
0.112
Information seeking 81 53
3.009*** 83 53
2.098** 67 53
0.441
Analytical thinking 77 59
1.657* 79 59
1.854* 71 73
0.115
Leadership 58 25
2.644*** 83 41
3.202*** 83 80
0.244
Teamwork 46 31
1.206 48 34
0.957 67 60
0.707
Developing others 19 0
2.296** 21 6
1.634* 21 20
0.354
Strategic thinking 54 28
1.970** 65 38
2.303** 83 73
0.685
Unifying the nation 4 3
0.222 4 13
0.124 13 13
0.366
Negotiation 4 6
0.870 8 9
0.192 38 27
0.877
Social interaction 10 3
0.774 38 34
0.245 71 60
0.447
Integrity 33 22
1.101 31 28
0.466 42 40 0.000
Communication 90 88
0.537 85 84
0.215 83 87
0.236
Achievement orientation 77 34
2.914*** 75 41
2.616*** 75 53
2.161**
Innovation 31 3
2.714*** 35 6
2.375** 17 0
2.000**
HRM 21 16
0.515 35 9
2.089** 13 27
1.061
Financial management 67 69
0.080 54 56
0.330 33 27
0.111
Technology management 29 16
0.541 33 13
1.311 21 13
0.463
Note(s): *p ≤ 0.1, **p ≤ 0.05, ***p ≤ 0.01 (two tailed)
This is an interesting finding for at least two reasons. First, it extends some previous studies Competencies
that seem to suggest equally important competencies for all management levels. Second, it for superior
provides invaluable information for organisations when prioritising training and
development for each management level. Moreover, these findings may suggest that two
performance
distinct perspectives of leadership skill transition, that is, the continuity perspective and the
discontinuity perspective, can concurrently occur. Although all competencies are important
across organisational hierarchy, some competencies are more important for certain
management level in comparison to other management level, and certain competencies are 41
equally important for all management level. This possibility is also found in the work of
De Meuse et al. (2011).
The statistically significant importance of managing work-unit competencies –
including leadership, teamwork and strategic thinking – and socio-cultural-aspect
competencies – including social interaction and negotiation – for upper-level management
employees is relevant to their current main roles, tasks and responsibilities in the
organisation. Our findings are in line with several prior studies that have also underlined
the importance of leadership competency for successful upper managers. According to
Goleman and Boyatzis (2017), excellence leaders require leadership competency. They are
demanded to inspire and guide others towards organisational visions. More importantly,
our result suggested that in addition to having competency of inspiring others, upper
managers should have the competency of leading changes in the organisations. They are
expected to ensure the success of the reform by leading and inspiring others (Awortwi,
2010). As strategic thinkers, they must anticipate the future and set the entire
organisation’s vision, goals and strategies (Johnsen, 2015). They more often encounter
increasingly complex situations that need collaborative solutions by a team working
together towards common goals and building synergy to avoid redundancy. Involving
multiple parties in the various governmental programmes to make sure that public goals
can be jointly achieved is, thus, unavoidable (Thomas, 2013). Furthermore, upper-level
management employees have an important role in managing upwards (e.g. political
leaders) and outwards (e.g. external party leaders) (Johansen, 2012). They frequently must
interact, build networks and deal with external leaders who impact the organisation
(Meier et al., 2006). There is also a growing need for upper-level management skills at
negotiating and liaising with diverse stakeholders and networks; solving current complex
problems by heavily depending on hierarchical authority is not practical nor feasible
(Head, 2010). The importance of upper public managers to have competencies to
collaboratively work as a team is also underlined in Ramadass et al.’s (2017) study. They
stated that collaboration has become a global movement in public sector as consequence
of public sector reform. Therefore, it is essential for public sector leaders to collaborate
with multiple parties because they face increasingly complex social challenges that
cannot be solved alone by public organisations.
Task and personal competencies were evenly cited in stories across all levels of
management. Both competency clusters were also among those most frequently coded
competencies described by our sample. These findings are consistent with current challenges
faced by them. Public-sector reform – in particular, the adoption of NPM – basically
emphasises results. Accompanied by the implementation of performance management, this
result-based orientation challenges employees at all management levels to focus more
towards achieving high-performance targets that support organisational goals (Arnaboldi
et al., 2015). Consequently, to effectively complete tasks and be credible persons in their jobs
become a major concern at all management levels. They can no longer overly rely on rules and
regulations to solve contemporary public-policy problems, many of which are increasingly
more complex and multidimensional. Relying solely on intuitive reasoning to address the
problems is unreliable; rather, they must obtain sound good-quality and valid information for
JMD developing a well-defined problem and employ analytical reasoning to better devise solutions
41,1 to support task accomplishment, based on the real situation at hand (Isett et al., 2016).
Moreover, to appear as credible individuals who can effectively communicate both verbally
and in writing is now important for government employees in Indonesia, who are more often
confronted with multiple parties from internal and external organisations as the result of
increased public-sector transparency and accountability. As Mishra et al. (2014) underline,
effective communication can make managers the trusted source of information on which the
42 organisation can build its reputation, trust and improved relationships, not only with
employees but also with external stakeholders.
The present study also suggests that all management levels require functional
competencies. The implementation of Indonesian public-sector reform has significantly
changed financial approaches in the budgetary system from input-oriented into performance-
based budgeting. Employees at all levels of management must effectively design budget
programmes aligning with organisational long-term goals. They can no longer just add a
certain percentage amount to the previous year’s budget to determine the following year’s
resource allocation. Furthermore, reform in HR management aims to create a more responsive
bureaucracy managed by competent employees. Management-level employees, for example,
must be able to plan well for staffing needs, based on workload analysis in their work units.
The importance of technology-management competency relates to the rapid pace of
technological advancements, resulting in increased pressure for management-level
employees to radically transform public organisation–citizen interactions. The millennial
generation demands instant responses; thus, they are expected to be able to effectively
manage sophisticated technology to create more value for citizens and increase public-service
performance (Lember et al., 2018). However, this competency cluster is more important at
lower and middle levels than at upper ones. Middle-level management is the translator of
organisational vision and strategies into tactical activities (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1994),
while lower-level management comprises the executors, responsible for ensuring the
implementation of operational plans (Rudani, 2013). Thus, actors at both levels are more
involved than those at upper-level management with operational activities that mostly
require the use of functional competency. More importantly, the findings are consistent with
leadership literature suggesting that as an individual moves up from lower to upper
management level, they will have less interaction with technical activities (Katz, 1955;
Sandwith, 1993).
One last noteworthy contribution is the significant difference in frequency distributions
for some competencies between superior and average performers. This finding supports
previous studies in the private sector that identify the higher frequency of coded
competencies found in superior performers than in average performers (e.g. Xiao et al.,
2018). Our study enriches the research by pinpointing the presence of some competencies that
are statistically more often used by superior performers than average performers, across all
levels of management, namely achievement orientation and innovation. This may suggest
that these two competencies are the main characteristics of superior performers at all levels,
differentiating them from average ones.

Implications
The findings of present study have enriched recent public-management competency
studies by generating a set of competencies that are important for superior performance
at management-level positions in the provincial government executive offices. At present,
empirical competency studies in this context are still limited. Thus, the findings can be
useful for providing a benchmark framework for competency study in the local
government context. Furthermore, unlike previous public-management competency
studies that seem to suggest that all competencies required for superior performance are Competencies
equally important across all levels of management (e.g. Lan and Hung, 2018), we show for superior
that this proposal is not generally true. In our case, we show that some competencies are
more necessary than the others not only at particular management level, but also across
performance
management level.
Our study also proposes several notable implications for government management of HR,
to prepare management-level employees to successfully perform their jobs amid current
challenges. First, it updates the MAR model, the current GoI (Government of Indonesia) 43
competency model. In particular, we recommend that the basic structure of the MAR model
should comprise of five competency clusters: managing personal, managing task, managing
work unit, managing socio-cultural and functional aspects. Accordingly, some new
competencies that are important for superior performers across management levels in the
provincial government executive offices in Indonesia should be added in the model, including
innovation, organising, information seeking, analytical thinking, leadership, strategic
thinking, negotiation, social interaction, financial management, technology management
and HR management.
Second, this research found significant differences in the importance of competencies for
lower-, middle- and upper-level management employees. Considering the issue of budget
austerity in public-sector organisations (Pollitt, 2016), which can result in limited resources
for the organisation to develop all competencies for all levels of management, we recommend
a different emphasis on GoI construction of training and development programmes for
different management levels. Managing work unit and managing socio-cultural
competencies should be prioritised for upper-level management with the focus on
developing leadership, teamwork, strategic thinking, negotiation and social interaction
competencies. By contrast, functional competencies should be prioritised for lower- and
middle-level management by putting emphasis on financial-management competency.
Managing task and managing personal competencies should receive equal priority for all
management levels, but with some exceptions: decision-making competency should be
prioritised for upper-level management, while organising competency should be prioritised
for lower- and middle-level management.
Third, we recommend that the GoI use achievement orientation and innovation
competencies as one of the main criteria for selecting individuals for and promoting to
management-level positions. We find that these competencies are the main characteristics of
superior performers at all levels, differentiating them from average ones. These competencies
are more hidden and difficult to train. As Spencer and Spencer (1993) underline, organisations
benefit in terms of cost by seeking characteristics of these competencies when selecting
individuals.
For educational and training-programme institutions, we recommend developing their
curriculums and courses based on the target management level for which they wish to
prepare their participants. If they plan to target or prepare individuals to occupy positions
at upper-level management, they could highly prioritise developing competencies in
work-unit management in their programmes. In particular, they can focus on designing
courses related to leadership, team work and strategic thinking competencies, as top
priority for investment in upper level of management. However, most competencies in this
cluster are not cognitive in nature; hence, selecting such learning methods as experience-
based in a group/team environment could be consider to ensure the achievement of
learning outcomes (Parente et al., 2012). By contrast, if they plan to target lower-level
management employees, they can stress providing training in the area of managing task
and functional competencies, specifically analytical thinking, information seeking and
financial management competencies, as main priority for investment in lower
management level. They can employ simulation and problem-solving methods for the
JMD learning methods as the characteristic of competencies is cognitive in nature (Shum et al.,
41,1 2018). Furthermore, undergraduate and graduate programmes in public administration
can also use our results. For example, graduate programmes mostly intended for
individuals who plan to pursue middle- and upper-level positions in public organisations
can focus on developing their graduate-degree curriculum towards work-unit
competencies with emphasis on developing leadership, teamwork and strategic
thinking competencies for upper management level and task management
44 competencies with more stress on information seeking and analytical thinking
competencies for middle management level.

Limitations and future research directions

We address some limitations of this study. First, our sample for upper-level management
comprised only ten people, fewer than those for the other levels of management. Even though
this sample was adequate theoretically (Spencer and Spencer, 1993), not to mention that it
provided 39 critical-incident stories, it limited our exploring many more situations that
superior and average performers face in upper-level management. Second, our sample came
from individuals working in provincial government, possibly limiting the generalisability of
our findings. However, our findings can become a basis for others to undertake public-sector
management-competency research.
Some future research could expand our results concerning the role of employee
competencies in public-sector reform. First, similar studies could include samples from the
central government. The findings could enrich our understanding of common and different
competencies across levels of government, thus helping the government to design nationwide
competency standards. Second, quantitative studies could detail our competency model in
relation to proficiency levels required across management levels and between superior and
average performers.

Conclusion
Competent employees are becoming increasingly important for government organisations to
cope with current challenges and, in particular, the widespread implementation of public-
sector reform around the world. In consequence, there is a growing pressure for management-
level employees in the provincial government executive offices to change their work
behaviours and adopt new ways of work to contribute to the successfulness of the reform.
Arguably, they will require a new set of competencies that are somewhat different with those
used before the reform.
Our study has managed to identify which competencies are necessary for superior
performance across management levels in the provincial government executive offices in
Indonesia. We conclude that the competency of these management level employees consists
of five competency clusters and 19 competency units. Managing work-unit and socio-cultural
competency clusters are more important for upper-level management than lower- and middle-
level management. Functional competency cluster is more important for both lower- and
middle-level management than upper-level management. Managing task and personal
competency clusters are equally important at all management levels. In addition, our findings
revealed the primary competencies differentiating superior performers from average ones at
all levels of management, that is, achievement orientation and innovation.

References
Analoui, F. (2009), “Challenges of successful reform: an international perspective”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 489-494.
Anitha, J. (2014), “Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance”, Competencies
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 308-323.
for superior
Anzengruber, J., Goetz, M.A., Nold, H. and Woelfle, M. (2017), “Effectiveness of managerial capabilities
at different hierarchical levels”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 134-148.
performance
Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I. and Steccolini, I. (2015), “Performance management in the public sector: the
ultimate challenge”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Awortwi, N. (2010), “Building new competencies for government administrators and managers in an 45
era of public sector reforms: the case of Mozambique”, International Review of Administrative
Sciences, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 723-748.
Basheka, C.B. (2018), “Public sector management: an introduction”, in Basheka, C.B. and Tshombe,
L.-M. (Eds), New Public Management in Africa: Emerging Issues and Lessons, Routledge, New
York, NY, pp. 1-19.
Belfanti, C. (2017), “Emotional capacity in the public sector – an Australian review”, International
Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 429-446.
Berenschot, W. (2018), “Incumbent bureaucrats: why elections undermine civil service reform in
Indonesia”, Public Administration Development, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 135-143.
Berman, E. (2018), “Leadership and public sector reforms in Asia: an overview”, in Berman, E. and
Prasojo, E. (Eds), Leadership and Public Sector Reform in Asia, Emerald Publishing,
Bingley, pp. 1-7.
Blixt, C. and Kirytopoulos, K. (2017), “Challenges and competencies for project management in the
Australian public service”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 286-300.
Blunt, P., Turner, M. and Lindroth, H. (2012), “Patronage’s progress in post-Soeharto Indonesia”,
Public Administration and Development, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 64-81.
Bolton, A., Brown, R. and McCartney, S. (1999), “The capacity spiral: four weddings and a funeral”,
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 585-605.
Botlhale, E. (2019), “Public sector reforms in Botswana; good seed but bad soil?”, Forum for
Development Studies, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 527-546.
Bowen, G.A. (2009), “Document analysis as a qualitative research method”, Qualitative Research
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 27-40.
Boyatzis, R.E. (2008), “Competencies in the 21st century”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 5-12.
Boyatzis, R.E. (2009), “Competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional intelligence”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 749-770.
Boyatzis, R.E. (2011), “Managerial and leadership competencies: a behavioral approach to emotional,
social and cognitive intelligence”, Vision, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 91-100.
Brinkerhoff, D.W. and Wetterberg, A. (2013), “Performance-based public management reforms:
experience and emerging lessons from service delivery improvement in Indonesia”,
International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 433-457.
Brown, R. and McCartney, S. (2004), “The development of capability: the content of potential and the
potential of content”, Education þ Training, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 7-10.
Bryson, J.M., Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. (2007), “Putting the resource-based view of strategy and
distinctive competencies to work in public organizations”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 67
No. 4, pp. 702-217.
Caillier, J.G. (2010), “Factors affecting job performance in public agencies”, Public Performance and
Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 139-165.
JMD Camuffo, A., Gerli, F., Borgo, S. and Somia, T. (2009), “The effects of management education on careers
and compensation: a competency-based study of an Italian MBA programme”, Journal of
41,1 Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 839-858.
Cloutier, C., Denis, J.-L., Langley, A. and Lamothe, L. (2016), “Agency at the managerial interface:
public sector reform as institutional work”, Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 259-276.
CSHR (Civil Service Human Resources) (2012), “Civil service competency framework 2012–2017”,
46 available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/500767/Civil_Service_Competency_Framework.pdf (accessed 12
September 2019).
De Meuse, K., Dai, G. and Wu, J. (2011), “Leadership skills across organizational levels: a closer
examination”, The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 120-139.
De Vos, A., De Hauw, S. and Willemse, I. (2015), “An integrative model for competency development in
organizations: the Flemish case”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 26 No. 20, pp. 2543-2568.
El Asame, M. and Wakrim, M. (2018), “Towards a competency model: a review of the literature
and the competency standards”, Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 225-236.
Floyd, S.W. and Wooldridge, B. (1994), “Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle management’s
strategic role”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 47-57.
Geng, Y., Zhao, L., Wang, Y., Jiang, Y., Meng, K. and Zheng, D. (2018), “Competency model for dentists
in China: results of a Delphi study”, PLoS One, Vol. 22, p. 13, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194411.
Glennon, R., Hodgkinson, I., KnowlesRadnor, J.Z. and Bateman, N. (2018), “Public sector
‘modernisation’: examining the impact of a change agenda on local government employees in
England”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-221.
Goleman, D. and Boyatzis, R. (2017), “Emotional intelligence has 12 elements. Which do you need to
work on?”, available at: https://hbr.org/2017/02/emotional-intelligence-has-12-elements-whichdo-
you-need-to-work-on (accessed 2 December 2021).
Harpine, E.C. (2008), The Group Interventions in Schools: Promoting Mental Health for At-Risk
Children and Youth, Springer, New York.
Harun, H., Van-Peursem, K. and Eggleton, I.R.C. (2015), “Indonesian public sector accounting reforms:
dialogic aspirations a step too far?”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 28
No. 5, pp. 706-738.
Head, B.W. (2010), “Public management research”, Public Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 5,
pp. 571-585.
Hong, S. and Jung, I. (2011), “The distance learner competencies: a three-phased empirical approach”,
Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 21-42.
Horton, S. (2000), “Introduction – the competency movement: its origin and impact on the public
sector”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 306-318.
Hurd, A.R. and McLean, D.D. (2004), “An analysis of the perceived competencies of CEOs in public
park and recreation agencies”, Managing Leisure, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 96-110.
Isett, K.R., Head, B.W. and VanLandingham, G. (2016), “Caveat emptor: what do we know about public
administration evidence and how do we know it?”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 76 No. 1,
pp. 20-23.
Johnsen,  A. (2015), “Strategic management thinking and practice in the public sector: a strategic
planning for all seasons?”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 243-268.
Johansen, M.S. (2012), “The direct and interactive effects of middle and upper managerial quality on
organizational performance”, Administration and Society, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 383-411.
Katz, R.L. (1955), “Skills of an effective administrator”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, Competencies
pp. 33-42.
for superior
Khusainova, R., de Jong, A., Lee, N., Marshall, G.W. and Rudd, J.M. (2018), “(Re) defining salesperson
motivation: current status, main challenges, and research directions”, Journal of Personal Selling
performance
and Sales Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 2-29.
Kim, J. and McLean, G.N. (2015), “An integrative framework for global leadership competency:
levels and dimensions”, Human Resources Development International, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 235-258.
47
Knox, C. (2019), “Public sector reform in central Asia and the Caucasus”, International Journal of
Public Administration, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 168-178.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., van Buuren, S., van der Beek, A.J. and de Vet, H.C.W.
(2013), “Development of an individual work performance questionnaire”, International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 6-28.
Kristiansen, S., Dwiyanto, A., Pramusinto, A. and Putranto, E.A. (2009), “Public sector reforms and
financial transparency: experiences from Indonesian districts”, Contemporary Southeast Asia,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 64-87.
Kwiek, M. (2018), “High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems:
who are the top performers?”, Scientometrics, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 415-462.
Lan, M.T. and Hung, T.H. (2018), “The leadership competency in Vietnam public administration”,
Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 8-20.
Lember, V., Kattel, R. and T~onurist, P. (2018), “Technological capacity in the public sector: the case of
Estonia”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 214-230.
Lewis, B.D. (2014), “Twelve years of fiscal decentralization: a balance sheet”, in Hill, H. (Ed.), Regional
Dynamics in a Decentralized Indonesia, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Pasir Panjang,
pp. 135-155.
Liu, Z., Tian, L., Chang, Q., Sun, B. and Zhao, Y. (2016), “A competency model for clinical
physicians in China: a cross-sectional survey”, PLoS One, Vol. 11, p. 12, doi: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0166252.
MAR (Ministry of Administrative Reform) (2017), Ministry of Administrative Reform Regulation
Number 38 of 2017 Concerning Civil Servant Competency Standard, Ministry of Administrative
Reform of Indonesia, Jakarta.
Marrelli, A.F., Tondora, J. and Hoge, M.A. (2005), “Strategies for developing competency models”,
Administration and Policy in Mental Health, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 533-561.
McLeod, R.H. and Harun, H. (2014), “Public sector accounting reform at local government level in
Indonesia”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 238-258.
McTaggart, D. and O’Flynn, J. (2015), “Public sector reform”, Australian Journal of Public
Administration, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Meier, K.J., O’Toole, L.J. and Goerdel, H.T. (2006), “Management activity and program performance:
gender as management capital”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 24-36.
Mishra, K., Boynton, L. and Mishra, A. (2014), “Driving employee engagement: the expanded role of
internal communications”, International Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 183-202.
Monobayeva, A. and Howard, C. (2015), “Are post-Soviet republics ready for the new public
management? the case of educational modernization in Kazakhstan”, International Journal of
Public Sector Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 150-164.
Naqvi, I. (2016), “Pathologies of development practice: higher order obstacles to governance reform in
the Pakistani electrical power sector”, The Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 52 No. 7,
pp. 950-964.
JMD NCSA (National Civil Service Agency) (2013), National Civil Service Agency Regulation Number 7
of 2013 Concerning Guidelines of Developing Managerial Competency Standard for Civil
41,1 Servants, National Civil Service Agency of Indonesia, Jakarta.
Netemeyer, R.G., Maxham, J.G. III and Lichtenstein, D.R. (2010), “Store manager performance and
satisfaction: effects on store employee performance and satisfaction, store customer
satisfaction, and store customer spending growth”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95
No. 3, pp. 530-545.
48 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development) (2011), Public Servants as Partners
for Growth: Toward a Stronger, Leaner and More Equitable Workforce, OECD
Publishing, Paris.
Panday, P.K. (2019), “The administrative system in Bangladesh: reform initiatives with failed
outcomes”, in Jamil, I., Dhakal, T. and Paudel, N. (Eds), Civil Service Management and
Administrative Systems in South Asia, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 215-239.
Parente, D.H., Stephan, J.D. and Brown, R.C. (2012), “Facilitating the acquisition of strategic skills”,
Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 1004-1028.
Parry, S.B. (1996), “Just what is a competency? (And why should you care?)”, Training, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 58-64.
Paudel, M. (2013), “Is there new public health management (NPM) in Nepal? Arguments for and
against NPM in Nepal”, Social Work in Public Health, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 702-712.
Pollitt, C. (2016), “Be prepared? An outside-in perspective on the future public sector in Europe”, Public
Policy and Administration, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 3-28.
Prahalad, C. and Hamel, G. (1997), “The core competence of the corporation”, in Hahn, D. and Taylor,
B. (Eds), Strategische Unternehmungsplanung/Strategische Unternehmungsf€ uhrung, Physica,
Heidelberg, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-41482-8_46.
Prasojo, E. and Holidin, D. (2018), “Leadership and public sector reforms in Indonesia”, in Berman, E.
and Prasojo, E. (Eds), Leadership and Public Sector Reform in Asia, Emerald Publishing,
Bingley, pp. 53-83.
Ramadass, S.D., Sambasivan, M. and Xavier, J.A. (2017), “Critical factors in public sector collaboration
in Malaysia: leadership, interdependence, and community”, International Journal of Public
Sector Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 487-502.
Robbins, S.P. and Judge, T.A. (2017), Organizational Behavior, 17th Global ed., Pearson Education,
State University, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Rudani, R.B. (2013), Principles of Management, McGraw Hill Education, New Delhi.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 68-78.
Rychen, D.S. and Salganik, L.H. (2001), Defining and Selecting Key Competencies, Hogrefe and Huber
Publishers, Seattle.
Sahid, A., Rakhmat, R. and Kesuma, A.I. (2016), “Bureaucracy accountability in public administration
at creative economy and tourism Department of Makassar in Indonesia”, Mediterranean Journal
of Social Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 343-348.
Salda~
na, J. (2013), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
Salman, M., Ganie, S.A. and Saleem, I. (2020), “The concept of competence: a thematic review
and discussion”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 44 Nos 6/7,
pp. 717-742.
Sandwith, P. (1993), “A hierarchy of management training requirements: the competency domain
model”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 43-62.
Sanghi, S. (2016), The Handbook of Competency Mapping: Understanding, Designing and Implementing
Competency Models in Organizations, SAGE Publications, Delhi.
Scapolan, A., Montanari, F., Bonesso, S., Gerli, F. and Mizzau, L. (2017), “Behavioral competencies and Competencies
organizational performance in Italian performing arts: an exploratory study”, Academia Revista
Latinoamericana de Administracian, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 192-214. for superior
Schmidt, E., Groeneveld, S. and van de Walle, S. (2017), “A change management perspective on public
performance
sector cutback management: towards a framework for analysis”, Public Management Review,
Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 1538-1555.
Schuler, R.S., Jackson, S.E. and Tarique, I.R. (2011), “Framework for global talent management:
HR actions for dealing with global talent challenges”, in Scullion, H. and Collings, D.G. 49
(Eds), Global Talent Management, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 17-36.
Shet, S.V., Patil, S.V. and Chandawarkar, M.R. (2019), “Competency based superior performance and
organizational effectiveness”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 753-773.
Shum, C., Gatling, A. and Shoemaker, S. (2018), “A model of hospitality leadership competency for
frontline and director-level managers: which competencies matter more?”, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, Vol. 74, pp. 57-66.
Siddiquee, N.A. (2010), “Managing for results: lessons from public management reform in Malaysia”,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 38-53.
Skorkov
a, Z. (2016), “Competency models in public sector”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 230, pp. 226-234.
Smoke, P. (2015), “Rethinking decentralization: assessing challenges to a popular public sector
reform”, Public Administration and Development, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 97-112.
Spencer, L.M. and Spencer, S.M. (1993), Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance, John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Stevens, G.W. (2013), “A critical review of the science and practice of competency modelling”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 86-107.
Sudirman, I., Siswanto, J., Monang, J. and Aisha, A.N. (2019), “Competencies for effective public middle
managers”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 421-439.
Swailes, S. (2020), “Responsible talent management: towards guiding principles”, Journal of
Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 221-236.
Synnerstrom, S. (2007), “The civil service: towards efficiency, effectiveness and honesty”, in McLeod,
R. and MacIntyre, A. (Eds), Indonesia: Democracy and the Promise of Good Governance,
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, pp. 159-177.
Tannenbaum, S.I. (1997), “Enhancing continuous learning: diagnostic findings from multiple
companies”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 437-452.
TBCS (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat) (2015), “Key leadership competencies: examples of
effective and ineffective behaviours”, available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-
secretariat/services/professional-development/key-leadership-competency-profile/examples-
effective-ineffective-behaviours.html (accessed 3 September 2019).
Thomas, J.C. (2013), “Citizen, customer, partner: rethinking the place of the public in public
management”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 786-796.
Turner, M., Prasojo, E. and Sumarwono, R. (2022), “The challenge of reforming big bureaucracy in
Indonesia”, Policy Studies, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 333-351.
USOPM (United States Office of Personnel Management) (2012), “Guide to senior executive service
qualifications”, available at: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-
service/reference-materials/guidetosesquals_2012.pdf (accessed 12 September 2019).
Van der Klink, M.R. and Boon, J. (2003), “Competencies: the triumph of a fuzzy concept”, International
Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 125-137.
Van der Wal, Z. (2017), The 21st Century Public Manager: Challenges, People and Strategies, Palgrave,
London.
JMD Van Loon, N.M., Vandenabeele, W. and Leisink, P. (2015), “Clarifying the relationship between public
service motivation and in-role and extra-role behaviors: the relative contributions of person-job
41,1 and person-organization fit”, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 47 No. 6,
pp. 699-713.
Vathanophas, V. and Thai-ngam, J. (2007), “Competency requirements for effective job performance in
the Thai public sector”, Contemporary Management Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 45-70.
Wan, T.-H., Hsu, Y.-S., Wong, J.-Y. and Liu, S.-H. (2017), “Sustainable international tourist hotels: the
50 role of the executive chef”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 1873-1891.
Wang, X., Gao, J. and Xie, X. (2011), “A study to develop a competency model for Chinese EHS
managers”, Frontiers of Business Research in China, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 580-596.
Xiao, Y., Liu, J. and Pang, Y. (2018), “Development of a competency model for real-estate project
managers: case study of China”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 317-328.
Yanguas, P. and Bukenya, B. (2016), “‘New’ approaches confront ‘old’ challenges in African public
sector reform”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 136-152.

Corresponding author
Joe Monang can be contacted at: joemonang@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com