Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
Competencies of process managers
*
Matej Jevscek
Faculty of Organisation Studies Novo mesto, Novi trg 5, 8000 Novo mesto, Slovenia
matej .jevscek@t-2.net
Abstract:
Research Question (RQ): Effectiveness of managers differs in implementation of the process approach. Which competencies affect performance effectiveness of managers in the process approach?
Purpose: The aim of the research is to specify a set of competencies which affect performance effectiveness of managers in the process approach.
Method: The theoretical part examines the current state and terminology from the field of processes and competencies. The empirical part is based on a quantitative research. An online survey questionnaire was used for data collection. The survey was conducted among auditors of management systems worldwide.
Results: The research indicates that there are significant differences between influences of different competencies on performance effectiveness of managers in the process approach. The studied competencies are presented in an array from the most to the least influential. Organization: The research directly affects the development of the HR function in organizations in practice. It enables an easier and more oriented personnel selection process and development of managers in the field of process performance.
Society: The research enables easier orientation in competencies development that can improve
the social order as well as social responsibility and the environment indirectly.
Originality: The research originally offers a set of competencies that are relevant to process
management.
Limitations/Future Research: The research is restricted to the population of auditors. Future studies could examine the research question from a point of view of other professional groups.
Keywords: competencies, personal traits, process approach, business process management, management.
1 Introduction
The process approach is as a modern organizational and management strategy and has been for some time now, but its actual prevalence and development in organizations is still relatively weak. There are many reasons for slow adoption of the process approach in performance of organizations; however the focus of this research is personality traits of managers as they directly affect the organizing and managing of organizations. Our presumption is that there is a connection between certain personality traits of managers and the development and process approach implementation in an organization. This raises a question - which are these personality traits and how do they affect the development of the process approach?
* Correspondence author
Received: 02. 02. 2016; revised: 05. 02. 2016; accepted: 18. 02. 2016
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
The aim of this article is to present which personality traits are important in managers for a positive approach to the development and implementation of the process approach in an organization.
The research is important as it gives an insight into the current situation and serves as a starting point for further research of managerial competencies that influence the development of the process approach in organizations and, indirectly, the efficiency of organizations.
2 Theoretical framework
2.1 Process Approach
The process approach (Business Process Management, Business Process Orientation) is a modern approach to organization management that is based on business processes carried out in an organization and not on business functions (organizational units) as structural units of an organization. A business process is defined as interconnected activities that add value by transforming input to output. Process outputs are products that are intended for clients or as inputs to other processes (Davenport & Prusak, 2000; Hammer & Champy, 1993; Harmon, 2003; Verle & Markic, 2012).
Processes in organizations have been discussed by many authors. The process approach became the subject of intensive research in the 1970s simultaneously as the demand for product, service and process quality (Spanyi, 2006). In 1993, Hammer and Champy advocated for radical transformation of business processes, cost reduction, and quality improvement (Hammer & Champy, 1993). The emphasis in transformation is optimization of certain business processes and not their integration in a whole value chain of an organization as a whole. Frequently, processes are described as »workflow« - a sequence of activities that run perpendicularly through a classical organizational structure. Processes intersect and connect organizational units at the same time.
The process approach became widely used after 2000 when it was used as one of the output elements in the ISO 9000 family standards. The standard ISO 9001:2015 states requirements for organizations to adopt the process approach (CEN, 2015). Consequently, over 1,200,000 ISO 9001 certified organizations worldwide use the process approach.
The use of the process approach is also endorsed by other models of national and transnational performance excellence awards: EFQM, Deming prize, Malcolm Baldrige Award and others (Conti, 2007).
The process approach diminishes the ruling hierarchy and the number of leaders, it reduces bureaucracy and takes some pressure off employees, yet it enhances cooperation, improves the knowledge of the organization's aims, it is informative and motivational, and it establishes one's own worth which raises job satisfaction (Ostroff, 1999).
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
2.2 Competencies
The term »competencies« has various interpretations (Jevšček & Gorenc, 2015, pp. 58-60). In contemporary social science, the term was founded by David McClelland (McClelland, 1973) who studied approaches to testing of individuals and proved that one's success is not dependent on one's intelligence but on one's competencies which are expressed in one's behavior. McClelland did not specifically define the term in his research, however, he did make a distinction between »traditional competencies«: reading, writing, arithmetic, and the likes, and »other competencies« that include what were commonly known as personality traits: communication, patience, goal-setting, etc.
Due to an extensive diversification of competencies, they are structured and joined in different ways, commonly in competencies profiles (Bliss, 2014; Changnian, Jie & Faxin, 2015, pp. 95-102; Vervenne, 2009).
Special fields are research of leadership and management competencies (Moradi, Maleki, & Pilehrod, 2015, pp. 1864-1870; Council on Foundations, 2006) and research and development competencies (Paquett, 2007; Chai et al., 2012).
Study of competencies is the subject of current research in many fields with an emphasis on valuation. Due to the fuzzy nature of the notion of competencies, fuzzy logic is frequently used. (Houe, Grabot & Tchuente, 2011 pp. 651-655; Macwan & Srinivas, 2014, pp. 975-980; Suleman & Suleman, 2012, pp. 323-338).
McClelland's studies have become a successful business model (McClelland, 1976). Twenty years of successful research and practice have been summarized by Lyle and Signe Spencer who also formed an elaborate definition of the term competency (Spencer & Spencer, 1993, pp. 9-15):
»A competency is an underlying characteristic of an individual that is causally related to criterion-referenced effective and/or superior performance in a job or situation.«
An »underlying characteristic« refers to a person's general behavior and mindset in a certain situation over a long period of time. In this sense, Lyle and Signe distinguish five characteristics: motives, traits, self-concept, knowledge and skill. »Causal relationships« refer to connections between motives, traits and self-concept that define the manner of skill or knowledge implementation and they consequently affect the result. Competencies always have intent, whereas behavior does not define a competency per se.
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
INTENT	ACTION	OUTCOME
PERSONAL		BEHAVIOR	->	JOB
CHARACTERISTICS	->			PERFORMANCE
MOTIV, TRAIT	KNOWLEDGE
SELF-CONCEPT	SKILL
Figure 1. Competency causal flow model. Adapted from Competence at work: models for superior performance (p. 13), from L. Spencer & S. Spencer, 1993, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
In the definition of competency, »criterion-referenced effective and/or superior performance« is critical. A competency must predict a differentiating content in reality. If it does not predict success, it is not a competency. In this sense, the criteria »effective performance« and »superior performance« were used, where »effective performance« denotes the minimum acceptable work level, namely the lowest value below which a person is not competent for work; whereas »superior performance« is statistically defined as standard deviation above average. Roughly, this level is achieved by one out of ten individuals in a specific situation.
In 20 years of research and practices, Lyle and Signe Spencer (Spencer & Spencer, 1993, p. 20) gathered data from 286 competency models, which included 760 separate types of behavior and 360 of which were used to form 21 competencies to account for 80 - 98 % types of behaviors recorded in the competency models. Spencer & Spencer elaborately described these 21 competencies and set criteria and scales for their identification and valuation:
1.	ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION
2.	ANALYTICAL THINKING
3.	CONCEPTUAL THINKING
4.	CONCERN FOR ORDER, QUALITY AND ACCURACY
5.	CUSTOMER SERVICE ORIENTATION
6.	DEVELOPING OTHERS
7.	DIRECTIVENESS: ASSERTIVENESS AND USE OF POSITIONAL POWER
8.	FLEXIBILITY
9.	IMPACT AND INFLUENCE
10.	INFORMATION SEEKING
11.	INITIATIVE
12.	INTERPERSONAL UNDERSTANDING
13.	ORGANIZATIONAL AWARENESS
14.	ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
15.	RELATIONSHIP BUILDING
16.	SELF-CONFIDENCE
17.	SELF-CONTROL
18.	TEAM LEADERSHIP
19.	TEAMWORK AND COOPERATION
20.	TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL/MANAGERIAL EXPERTISE
21.	OTHER PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
The competencies are listed in alphabetical order except the last two which are intentionally listed at the end. Number 20 represents a group of professional competencies and expertise, whereas number 21 represents all other undefined competencies. The research includes only the first 19 behavioral competencies; the remaining competencies were not included in the research.
2.3	Process approach and competencies of managers
In process-oriented organizations, managers are called process managers. Several authors (Hafner, 2006; Hitringer, 2011; Womack & Jones, 2003) observe that managers in organizations do not have an overview of how their organization is developing, how it produces, sells and supplies their products because they are preoccupied with the traditional functional mindset and performance. Spanyi (2006) observes that managers are still focused on cutting down expenses and on individual, separate business processes, e.g. the process of sales, supply, production and logistics, and not on the whole business process of an inter-functional organization. He suggests that top managers cannot, will not and do not take responsibility for the whole process which is what adds value for clients. The responsibility is delegated to individual organizational units (Jeston & Nelis, 2008 in Verle, 2012, p. 3). The expected behavioral competencies of process managers are expected from modern process managers. The research includes a selection of behavioral competencies that we gathered based on a literature review. The selection was used to create a profile of behavioral competencies in process managers.
2.4	Research question
The article explores which behavioral competencies of process managers have a positive impact on the development and implementation of the process approach in organizations they manage. The research question is which competencies affect performance effectiveness of managers in the process approach.
3 Method
Data was collected by surveying experts who tackle the problem of implementing process approach in practice on a daily basis. The participants are assessors and auditors of quality management and professional excellence models. Theirs email addresses were obtained from The International Register of Certificated Auditors - IRCA. The base contains 5499 email addresses, to 4805 of which a survey questionnaire was successfully administered. In some cases, email addresses were invalid and in others, problems occurred on mail servers, mainly in China and India.
The survey questionnaire was created electronically in »Google documents« and it consists of two sections. In the first section, 19 competencies are listed in the same order as in chapter 2.2. For each competency, synonyms were added for a better understanding of each described competency and a scale of competency development descriptions which was adapted from the model by Spencer & Spencer. The scale consists of textual descriptions that ascend from the
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,	Article
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
lowest to the most developed level of competency. The statement that a competency is not relevant for process management is always given first.
ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION
Also: Results Orientation, Efficiency Orientation, Concern for Standards, Focus on Improvement, Entrepreneurship
□	Not relevant for process managemenl
□	Focused on the Task, Works hard, but gives no evidence of a standard of excellence
□	Wants to Do the Job Well
□	Works to meet a standard set by management
□	Improves Performance
□	Sets Challenging Goals
Figure 2. An example of the »Achievement orientation« competency in the survey questionnaire with possible answers.
In the second section of the survey questionnaire, the questions concerned the respondent: age, world region the respondent is most active in, audit status and audit subject field. An empty field was added for possible comments. The survey questionnaire is enclosed in Appendix.
The data model of the empirical part of the research consisted of the following steps:
Figure 3. Research data model.
The survey questionnaires were returned by 126 respondents, namely the response rate was 2.62% which is a sufficient sample for a simple statistical analysis. A demographic breakdown of the respondents is shown below.
The age of respondents is shown in Table 1. The majority of respondents are 50 or above, which was expected considering a high level of professionalism and experience that are required for IRCA membership.
Table 1. Age		
Age	Number of responses [n]	Proportion [%]
under 30	4	3.2
between 30 - 40	32	25.4
between 40 - 50	39	31.0
above 50	51	40.5
42
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
The region in which the respondents work is shown in Table 2. Most answers came from Europe which was expected considering the established traditional auditing and assessing methodology of organizations.
Table 2. Region
Region	Number of responses [n]	Proportion [%]
Europe	38	30.2
Asia	30	23.8
International	21	16.7
America	20	15.9
Africa	9	7.1
Australia	2	1.6
Note: uncompleted data on region in 6 returned questionnaires, the total number of responses was 120.
The status of auditors is shown in Table 3. Most auditors work as 3rd party, namely they implement independent audits in accredited certification organizations. This was expected considering the high membership requirements in IRCA and the association's mission. It is surprising that the number of assessors is very low.
Table 3. Status
Status at audits/assessments	Number of responses [n]	Proportion [%]
Auditor - 3rd party	79	62.7
Auditor - 2nd party	27	21.4
Internal auditor	12	9.5
EFQM assessor	8	6.3
The field of assessing is shown in Table 4. The majority of assessors work in big companies which was expected considering a high level of professionalism and experience are required for IRCA membership.
Table 4. Field
Field of auditing / assessing	Number of responses [n]	Proportion [%]
Economy - big companies	62	49,2
Economy - small companies	11	8,7
Public administration	15	11,9
Other	38	30,2
Note: no respondents work in healthcare or education.
Reliability and validity of acquired data is assessed as very high. This is confirmed by the population of auditors with a high level of professionalism, understanding of the topic and experience, as well as a high number of elaborate comments added in the questionnaires which was the basis for a professional correspondence later on.
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
4 Results and discussion 4.1 Responses
The responses received in 126 returned questionnaires are shown in Table 5. Numbers in columns represent competencies in the same order as they are listed in chapter 2.2. In the first column of Table 5, weight (U) is stated in accordance with the model by Spencer & Spencer. In this model, each response on the scale has a modified whole number value from 0 to 9. In the survey questionnaire, the weight values were not given.
Table 5 shows the number of received responses for each competency and each response in the scale of every competency as in example in Figure 1.
Table 5. A review of number of responses
Weight U	1	2	3	4	5	Competencies 1 -6 7 8 9				19 (cf. list in chapter 2.2) 10 11 12 13 14					15	16	17	18	19
*	4	3	3	1		1	7		13	2	3	6	1	4	10	9	4	1	
0	1				2			14											2
1	7	49	16	8			17			8		2	10	19	6	13	0	6	20
2	20	11	15	9	59	16	32	26	5	17	20	44	4	21	73	43	18	3	
3		37	4	5	8	9	20	35	7	20	18	12	54	65	24	18	9		13
4	65	19	58	8	6		38	37	46	14		34		14		35	43	59	
5	29	7	17							25	60	28	44			8	48	18	55
6				81		58		14	6				13	3			4	23	29
7			13	14	30	16	9		8	40					5			16	7
8						5			41		25				8				
9					20	21	3												
CHK	6	6	7	7	7	7	7	6	7	7	5	6	6	6	6	6	7	7	7
Note. * - competency is not relevant for process management
The last row of Table 5 is control data (CHK) which indicates the number of possible answers for each competency. The number of possible answers was between 5 and 7. Weight is different with each possible answer, so the scales must be standardized before calculating the results.
4.2 Standardization
Each possible answer in the first section of the survey questionnaire responds to a whole number value (U) in the model by Spencer and Spencer that determines the level of development of each competency. The scales have been standardized due to various numbers of possible answers and weight values with each answer.
Standardization is used when the aim is for each of the variables to have the same influence and weight on the new, mutual rating. Standardization of variables is a process in which the values of the variables are transformed by subtracting the arithmetic mean (U) from each value of the variables (Uj) and then the difference is divided with standard deviation (s). The result is a standardized value of the variable (uj) on the same level of measurement. The arithmetic mean of a standardized variable is U = 0 and the standard deviation is s = 1.
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,	Article
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Ui-U
A standardized value indicates the position of a certain value from the point view of the group. A negative standardized value indicates that the value is below the average, and a positive standardized value indicates that it is above average.
Standardization was performed in open source software R. Results are shown in Table 6.
Ui =
s
Table 6. Standardization
Weight						Competencies 1 -		19 (cf. list in chapter 2.2)		
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7 8 9	10 11 12 13 14 15 16	17	18 19
Ui	0	1	1	1	0	2	1 0 2	12 11111	2	1 0
U2	1	2	2	2	2	3	2 2 3	2 3 2 2 2 2 2	3	2 1
U3	2	3	3	3	3	6	3 3 4	3 5 3 3 3 3 3	4	4 3
U4	4	4	4	4	4	7	4 4 6	4 8 4 5 4 7 4	5	5 5
U5	5	5	5	6	7	8	7 6 7	5 NA 5 6 6 8 5	6	6 6
U6	NA	NA	7	7	9	9	9 NA 8	7 NA NA NA NA NA NA	NA	7 7
ui	1,16 1,26 1,22 1,26 1,23 1,08 1,38 1,34 0,94 1,27 1,23 1,26 1,16 1,14 1,03 1,26 1,26 1,31 1,37									
U2	0,68 0,63 0,79 0,65 0,77 0,76 1,02 0,45 0,57 0,85 0,77 0,63 0,68 0,62 0,71 0,63 0,63 0,95 0,94									
U3	0,19 0,00		0,36 0,35 0,31 0,43 0,06 0,00 0,19 042 0J1 0,00 0,19 0,10 0J9 0,00						0,00	0,24 0,07
U4	0,77	0,63	0,07 005		0,15	0,11 0,42 0,45 1,32		0,42 0,15 0,63 0,77 0,42 0,90 0,63	0,63	0,48 0,36
U5	1,25	1,26	0,94	0,86	0,62	0,87	0,78 1,34 NA	0,85 0,62 1,26 1,25 1,46 1,22 1,26	1,26	0,83 0,79
U6	NA	NA	1,37	1,46	1,54	1,52	1,14 NA NA	1,27 1,54 NA NA NA NA NA	NA	1,19 1,22
Note. NA - scale has no value. Negative values are underlined.
The top section of the Table represents non-standardized weight scales, whereas the below section represents standardized sections (u).
4.3 Result calculation
To rank individual competencies in the results of calculation, we multiplied all the received responses (O) by respective standardized weights (u) and calculated the standardized
competency rating (SOK):
*
SOK = O X -2 + Oi*Ui + O2xU2 + O3XU3 + ... + O6*U6
where Oi is an individual response from the questionnaire and ui is a corresponding standardized weight of a response. The answer »Not relevant for process management« (O*) was also included in the process of calculation. This answer was not standardized but it was assigned a negative value -2 due to its large weight. The results are shown in Table 7.
42
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
Table 7. Results
Competencies 1 - 19 (cf. list in chapter 2.2)
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19
O*x -2	-8	-6	-6	-2	-2	-2	-14	0	-26	-4	-6	-12	-2	-8	-20	-18	-8	-2	0
Ol*ui	-1	-62	-20	-10	-3	-22	-18	-19	-6	-10	-19	-3	-12	-22	-6	-16	-5	-8	-3
Ö2XU2	-5	-7	-12	-7	-39	-9	-24	-12	-6	-13	-10	-28	-3	-13	-52	-27	-11	-3	-19
O3XU3	-4	0	-1	-2	-3	3	-9	0	-19	-6	11	0	-10	-7	-9	0	0	-4	-3
O4XU4	50	12	9	1	0	7	-4	17	3	2	79	8	42	27	22	11	6	21	6
O5xu5	36	9	10	76	26	4	8	19	7	15	NA	43	55	20	6	44	54	14	46
Ö6XU6	NA	NA	20	19	29	24	5	NA	52	62	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	28	34
SOK	69	-54	1	75	9	5	-57	5	4	46	56	8	70	-2	-59	-6	36	46	62
Rank	3	16	13	1	9	11	17	11	12	6	5	10	2	14	18	15	8	7	4
Note. NA - scale has no value. Values are rounded to a whole number.
Ranking is a process of editing data in an array. In Figure 4, competencies are listed in an array based on the calculated standardized rating of competencies in a descending order from the highest to the lowest.
100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80
75
70 69
61
55
46 46
36
12345678
9 8
n n
5 5 4
1 -2 -6
~i — I — I	11—111 p
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18
19
-54
-57 -59
Competency number
1.	CONCERN FOR ORDER, QUALITY AND ACCURACY
2.	ORGANIZATIONAL AWARENESS
3.	ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION
4.	TEAMWORK AND COOPERATION
5.	INITIATIVE
6.	INFORMATION SEEKING
7.	TEAM LEADERSHIP
8.	SELF-CONTROL
9.	CUSTOMER SERVICE ORIENTATION
10.	INTERPERSONAL UNDERSTANDING
11.	DEVELOPING OTHERS
12.	FLEXIBILITY
13.	IMPACT AND INFLUENCE
14.	CONCEPTUAL THINKING
15.	ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
16.	SELF-CONFIDENCE
17.	ANALYTICAL THINKING
18.	DIRECTIVENESS: ASSERTIVENESS AND USE OF POSITIONAL POWER
19.	RELATIONSHIP BUILDING
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
Results of the research show standardized ratings of various managerial competencies based on the importance of each competency for the process performance of a manager. In relation to value 0, the distribution has an indentation to the right with a very flat middle part. Such a distribution is reasonable as many competencies are considered key with all types of leadership. The first eight competencies visibly stand out (see Figure 4). We believe these eight competencies to be of key importance for process orientation and they can be gathered in a competency profile of process managers. On the other hand, the last three competencies have significantly low ratings. We deem these three competencies not important for process managers; it can be even concluded that they have a negative influence on the efficiency of process managers.
We believe the research is a good representation of how individual behavioral competencies affect the efficiency of managers in implementation of the process approach, and that the distribution is as expected.
5 Conclusion
The results of the research show significant differences in ratings of effect of individual examined behavioral competencies on process orientation of managers and their efficiency in the sense of implementation of the process approach. The implemented ranking of competencies serves as a source of information about key competencies for efficient process management. This information is new to the field and can be directly used in further research in the field of competencies and process approach as elements of business excellence. In the field of human resources in organizations, the results can be used in employee selection and process approach oriented managerial education guidance. The research also helps the community at large with guiding the development of competencies that can indirectly improve the social order, social responsibility and the environment.
The research was limited to a population of auditors of different management systems who undoubtedly have a high level of professionalism and a good insight in the process performance of managers. However their role is that of external observers of organizations.
Further research is possible by examining the research results through the eyes of internal observers in organizations, for example internal auditors.
References
1.	Bliss, H. (2014). What is a competency profile? WiseGEEK. Retrieved from www.wisegeek.com/ what-is-a-competency-profile.htm
2.	Chai, K. H., Wang, Q., Song, M., Halman, J. I. M. & Brombacher, A. C. (2012). Understanding Competencies in Platform-Based Product Development: Antecedents and Outcomes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(3), 452-472. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00917.x
3.	Changnian, L., Jie, F. & Faxin, C. (2015). The Empirical Research on Independent Innovation Competencies of Enterprise R&D Departments. Asian Social Science, 26(11), 95-103. doi: 10. 5539/ass.v11n26p95
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
4.	Comite Europeen de Normalisation. (2015). EN ISO 9001:2015: Quality management systems -Requirements. Bruxelles: Author.
5.	Conti, T. (2007). A history and review of European Quality Award Model. The TTQMMagazine, 19(2), Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi 10.1108/09544780710729962
6.	Council on Foundations, (2006). Competencies for CEOs ofprivate foundations. Washington DC: Author.
7.	Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
8.	Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation. New York: Harper Business.
9.	Harmon, P. (2003). Business process change. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
10.	Hintringer, S. & Nemetz, M. (2011). Process driven Competence Management: A Case Study at Hilti Corporation. Conference: 6th Conference on Professional Knowledge Management: From Knowledge to Action, February 21-23, 2011 in Innsbruck, Austria.
11.	Houé, R., Grabot, B. & Tchuente, G. (2011). Fuzzy logic in competence management. EUSFLAT Conference (651-656).
12.	Jeston, J. & Nelis, J. (2008). Management by process. Oxford: Butterworth-Hinemann.
13.	Jevscek, M. & Gorenc-Zoran, A. (2015). Kompetenca ali kompetentnost? HRM: strokovna revija za ravnanje z ljudmipri delu, 67, 58-60.
14.	Macwan, N., & Srinivas, S. P. (2013). Performance Appraisal using Fuzzy Evaluation Methodology. International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology. 3: 324-329.
15.	Macwan, N., & Srinivas, S. P. (2014). A Linguistic Fuzzy Approach for Employee Evaluation. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering. 1: 975-980.
16.	McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist, 1(28), 1-14.
17.	McClelland, D. C. (1975). A competency model for human resource management specialist to be used in the delivery of the human resource management cycle. Boston: McBer.
18.	Moradi, M., Maleki, M. & Pilehrod, H.A. (2015). Leadership competency evaluation by integration of fuzzy Shannon's entropy and VIKOR methods. Global journal of advanced research, 2(12), 1864-1870.
19.	Ostroff, F. (1999). The horizontal organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.	Paquette, G. (2007). An ontology and a software framework for competency modeling and management. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 1-21.
21.	Spanyi, A. (2006). More for less: the power ofprocess management. Tampa: Meghan-Kiffer.
22.	Spencer, L. M. & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: models for superior performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
23.	Suleman, A., & Suleman, F. (2012). Ranking by competence using a fuzzy approach. Quality & Quantity, 46(1), 323-339. doi: 10.1007/s11135-010-9357-1
24.	Verle, K. & Markic, M. (2012). Model vpliva kompetenc managerjev na sodobne oblike organiziranosti in dodano vrednost (Doktorska disertacija). Univeza na Primorskem, Fakulteta za management, Koper.
25.	Vervenne, L. (2009). Proposed draft standard for a competency model and its instantiation as a competency profile. TenCompetence Creative Commons. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/ 1820/2299
26.	Womack, J. P. & Jones, D. T. (2003). Lean thinking. London: Simon and Schuster.
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
Appendix: Questionnaire
We are interested in your personal evaluation of competencies, which are important for Business process management within the organizations you have been auditing or assessing. Within following 19 competencies please select the most appropriate descriptions which suit for excellent Process Managers. If you find some irrelevant items, mark them "Not relevant for process management".
1.	ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION
(Also: Results Orientation, Efficiency Orientation, Concern for Standards, Focus on Improvement, Entrepreneurship)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Focused on the Task, Works hard, but gives no evidence of a standard of excellence
•	Wants to Do the Job Well
•	Works to meet a standard set by management
•	Improves Performance
•	Sets Challenging Goals
2.	ANALYTICAL THINKING
(Also: Practical Intelligence, Analyzing Problems, Reasoning, Planning Skill)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Breaks problems into simple lists of tasks or activities
•	Sees Basic Relationships
•	Sees Multiple Relationships
•	Makes Complex Plans or Analyses
•	Makes Very Complex Plans or Analyses
3.	CONCEPTUAL THINKING
(Also: Use of Concepts, Pattern Recognition, Insight, Critical Thinking, Problem Definition, Ability to Generate Theories)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Uses Basic Rules
•	Recognizes Patterns
•	Applies Complex Concepts
•	Simplifies Complexity.
•	Creates New Concepts
•	Creates New Models
4.	CONCERN FOR ORDER, QUALITY, AND ACCURACY
(Also: Monitoring, Concern with Clarity, Desire to Reduce Uncertainty, Keeping Track, Monitoring and checking work or information, Insisting on clarity of roles and functions, Setting up systems of information)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Keeps an Organized Workspace
•	Shows a General Concern for Order and Clarity
•	Checks Own Work
•	Monitors Others' Work
•	Develops Systems to organize and keep track
•	Puts new, detailed, complex systems in place to increase order and improve quality
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
5.	CUSTOMER SERVICE ORIENTATION
(Also: Helping and Service Orientation, Focus on the Client's Needs, Partnering the Client, End-User Focus, Attention to Patient Satisfaction)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Gives Minimal Required Service
•	Maintains Clear Communication with Client Regarding Mutual Expectations
•	Takes Personal Responsibility for customer service problems
•	Makes Self Fully Available to Customer
•	Uses a Long-Term Perspective in addressing client's problems
•	Acts as Client's Advocate
6.	DEVELOPING OTHERS
(Also: Teaching and Training, Assuring Subordinates' Growth and Development, Coaching Others, Realistic Positive Regard, Providing Support)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Gives Detailed Instructions and tells how to do the task
•	Gives Reasons or Other Support
•	Does Long-Term Coaching or Training
•	Creates New Teaching/Training
•	Delegates Fully
•	Rewards Good Development
7.	DIRECTIVENESS, ASSERTIVENESS AND USE OF POSITIONAL POWER
(Also: Decisiveness, Use of Power, Use of Aggressive Influence, Taking Charge, Firmness in Enforcing Quality Standards, Classroom Control and Discipline)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Gives Basic, Routine Directions
•	Gives Detailed Directions
•	Speaks Assertively
•	Demands High Performance
•	States Consequences of Behavior
•	Fires or Gets Rid of Poor Performers
8.	FLEXIBILITY
(Also: Adaptability, Ability to Change, Perceptual Objectivity, Staying Objective, Resilience)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Always Follows Procedures.
•	Flexibly Applies Rules or Procedures
•	Adapts Tactics to Situation
•	Adapts Own Strategies, Goals, or Projects to Situations
•	Makes large or long-term adaptations
9.	IMPACT AND INFLUENCE
(Also: Strategic Influence, Impression Management, Showmanship, Targeted Persuasion, Collaborative Influence)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Takes a Single Action to Persuade
•	Takes a Two-Step Action to Persuade
•	Calculates the Impact of One's Action
•	Takes Two Steps to Influence
•	Three Actions or Indirect Influence
•	Uses complex influence strategies tailored to individual situations
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
10.	INFORMATION SEEKING
(Also: Problem Definition, Diagnostic Focus, Customer/Market Sensitivity, Looking Deeper)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Asks Questions
•	Personally Investigates.
•	Asks a series of probing questions
•	Calls or Contacts Others
•	Does Research
•	Involves Others
11.	INITIATIVE
(Also: Bias for Action, Decisiveness, Strategic Future Orientation, Seizing Opportunities, Being Proactive)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Addresses Current Opportunities or Problems
•	Is Decisive in a Crisis
•	Anticipates and prepares for a specific opportunity or problem
•	Anticipates situations years ahead and acts to create opportunities or avoid problems
12.	INTERPERSONAL UNDERSTANDING
(Also: Empathy, Listening, Sensitivity to Others, Awareness of Others' Feelings, Diagnostic Understanding)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Understands either present emotions or explicit content, but not both together
•	Understands Both Emotion and Content
•	Understands Meanings
•	Understands Underlying Issues
•	Understands Complex Underlying Issues
13.	ORGANIZATIONAL AWARENESS
(Also: Playing the Organization, Bringing Others Along, Awareness of Client Organizations, Using the Chain of Command, Political Astuteness)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Understands Formal Structure
•	Understands Informal Structure
•	Understands Climate and Culture
•	Understands Underlying Organizational Issues
•	Understands Long-Term Underlying Issues
14.	ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
(Also: Business mindedness, Mission Orientation, Vision, Commitment to the Command's Mission)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Active Effort
•	Models "Organizational Citizenship Behaviors"
•	Sense of Purpose—States Commitment
•	Makes Personal or Professional Sacrifices
•	Sacrifices Own Unit's Good for Organization
15.	RELATIONSHIP BUILDING
(Also: Networking, Use of Resources, Develops Contacts, Personal Contacts, Concern for Customer Relationships)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Accepts Invitations
•	Makes Work-Related Contacts
•	Makes Occasional Informal Contacts
•	Makes Home and Family Contacts
•	Makes Close Personal Friendships
16.	SELF-CONFIDENCE
(Also: decisiveness, Ego Strength, Independence, Strong Self-Concept, Willingness to Take Responsibility)
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Presents Self Forcefully or Impressively
•	States Confidence in Own Ability
•	Justifies Self-Confident Claims
•	Volunteers for Challenges
•	Puts Self in Extremely Challenging Situations
17.	SELF-CONTROL
(Also: Stamina, Resistance to Stress, Staying Calm, Being Not Easily Provoked)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Resists Temptation
•	Controls Emotions
•	Responds Calmly
•	Manages Stress Effectively
•	Responds Constructively
•	Calms Others
18.	TEAM LEADERSHIP
(Also: Taking Command, Being in Charge, Vision, Group Management and Motivation, Building a Sense of Group Purpose, Genuine Concern for Subordinates)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Manages Meetings
•	Informs People
•	Promotes Team Effectiveness
•	Takes Care of the Group
•	Positions Self as the Leader
•	Communicates a Compelling Vision
19.	TEAMWORK AND COOPERATION
(Also: Group Management, Group Facilitation, Conflict Resolution, Managing Branch Climate, Motivating Others)
•	Not relevant for process management
•	Neutral, passive
•	Cooperates
•	Expresses Positive Expectations
•	Empowers Others
•	Team-Builds
•	Resolves Conflicts
OTHER PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES (if you have any additional proposals) PERSONAL INFORMATION For easier data analysis we would like to know the following:
Your age:
•	under 30
•	between 30 - 40
•	between 40 - 50
•	above 50
Your status at audits and assessments procedures:
•	Auditor - 3rd party (auditor in accredited certification house)
•	Auditor - 2nd party (supplier auditor)
•	Internal auditor
•	EFQM, Deming Prize, M. Baldrige National Quality Award, ... or similar Assessor
Your field of auditing and assessments:
•	Economy - big companies
•	Economy - small companies
30
Journal of Universal Excellence,
March 2016, year 5, number 1, pp. 13-29.
Article
•	Health
•	Public administration
•	Education
•	Other
Region of auditing and assessments:
•	Europe
•	America
•	Asia
•	Africa
•	Australia
•	International
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!
***
Matej Jevšček graduated at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in Ljubljana. He has worked in several senior positions in his career. In the past ten years, he has been working in the field of system management and business excellence in the automotive industry. He is the leading auditor of quality management system by ISO 9001 standard and environmental management system by ISO 14001 standard. He is also the leading assessor of business excellence by EFQM model and an ECQM assessor. He is also a lecturer at the Faculty of organisation studies in Novo mesto.
***
Kompetence procesnih menedžerjev
Povzetek:
Raziskovalno vprašanje (RV): Uspešnost menedžerjev pri udejanjanju procesnega pristopa je različna. Vprašanje je, katere kompetence vplivajo na uspešnost delovanja menedžerjev v smeri procesnega pristopa.
Namen: Namen in cilj raziskovanja je določitev nabora kompetenc, ki vplivajo na uspešnost delovanja menedžerjev v smeri procesnega pristopa.
Metoda: Teoretični del zajema pregled stanja in izrazoslovja na področju procesov in kompetenc. Empirični del temelji na kvantitativni raziskavi. Za pridobivanje podatkov je bil uporabljen spletni anketni vprašalnik. Raziskava je bila izvedena s svetovnimi presojevalci sistemov vodenja. Rezultati: V raziskavi so ugotovljene so signifikantne razlike med vplivi različnih kompetenc na uspešnost delovanja menedžerjev v smeri procesnega pristopa. Raziskovane kompetence so urejene v ranžirno vrsto od najbolj vplivnih do najmanj vplivnih.
Organizacija: Raziskava ima neposreden vpliv na razvoj kadrovske funkcije v praksi organizacij. Omogoča lažje in bolj usmerjeno kadrovanje in razvoj menedžerjev v smeri procesnega delovanja. Družba: Raziskava omogoča lažje usmerjanje v razvoj kompetenc, ki lahko izboljšajo urejenost družbe, posredno tudi socialno odgovornost in okolje.
Originalnost: Raziskava izvirno podaja nabor kompetenc, ki so pomembne za procesno menedžiranje.
Omejitve/nadaljnje raziskovanje: Raziskava je omejena na populacijo presojevalcev. Zanimivo bi bilo raziskati poglede drugih strokovnih skupin na raziskovalno vprašanje.
Ključne besede: kompetence, osebnostne lastnosti, procesni pristop, menedžment poslovnih procesov, menedžiranje.
30