Issues in the the development of competencies: motivation?

I have been busy navel gazing about what constitutes an academic librarian. Based on the variability in possible responses and lack of capacity to benchmark to one standard, this led me to the concept of competencies and the ultimate (?) question: why are competencies developed (and for whom)?

There is the organizational perspective: Alvesson and Willmott (2002, 619) look at “how employees are enjoined to develop self-images and work orientations that are deemed congruent with managerially defined objectives.” These authors cite Tompkins and Cheney (1985, cited in Barker, 1998, p.262) stating “’Organizational identification’, they note, effectively acts to ‘reduce the range of decision’ as choice is, in principle, confined to alternatives that are assessed to be compatible with affirming such identification (Alvesson and Willmott 2002, 620).” Scarey. Someone is telling me who I can be, professionally?

Let’s see how some people expands on this, just because for me, it is so interesting in how it takes the debate on competencies to a more visceral level [and life is all about me]. Finch-Lees et al cite Alvesson and Wilmott (Finch-Lees, Mabey, and Liefooghe 2005, 1190) saying these authors “present a triadic/dialectic model of nine distinct ways in which discursive practices may be used, intentionally or otherwise, in an attempt to accomplish organizational control via practices of identity regulation. The nine practices are: 1) defining the person directly; 2) defining a person by defining others; 3) providing a specific vocabulary of motives; 4) explicating morals and values; 5) constructing knowledge and skills; 6) group categorization and affiliation; 7) hierarchical location; 8) establishing distinct rules of the game; and 9) defining the context. The model is triadic/dialectic in the sense that the above practices of identity regulation both prompt and are informed by identity work (i.e. agential interpretive activity) which in turn both re-works and is induced by self-identities (i.e. precariously positioned narratives of the self) which in turn are accomplished through, but also responsive and/or resistant to, identity regulation.” The authors attempt to present a comprehensive list of motivations from an organizational perspective.

So how about perspectives on motivation that are not generated by management? For example, how does one explain SLA’s development of competencies? They themselves state “[SLA], an organization of dynamic and change-oriented IPs [information professionals], has long been interested in the knowledge requirements of the field. The Association’s members have explored and shared their vision of the competencies and skills required for specialized information management in many forums over the years. The first edition of the competencies document published in 1997 attempted to synthesize and build on earlier work in the light of ongoing social, technological and workplace change (2003, p. 1).” This implies a groundswell of need they finally encapsulated in a working document.

Also, note the statement about change and the need to deal with change. Also note that Special Librarians tend to be “solo” librarians, making benchmarking yourself difficult unless you have a consensual document against which to measure your performance, to make sure you are meeting your professional obligations [and I assume here their need was one of benchmarks]. I suspect it is the “solo” aspect of special librarians and teacher librarians that has resulted in numerous articles on their competency. Academic articles, mostly on Information Literacy, are now becoming more prevalent as change and the impact of change becomes more difficult to define.

My impression is competencies, regardless of their genesis, are ultimately designed to define a path for a specified category of individuals or person(s) to follow.

And who actually gets to define these competencies, as applied in academic libraries??

Alvesson, Mats, and Hugh Willmott. 2002. IDENTITY REGULATION AS ORGANIZATIONAL CONTROL: PRODUCING THE APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUAL. Journal of Management Studies 39, (5) (07//): 619-644.

Finch-Lees, T., C. Mabey, and A. Liefooghe. 2005. 'In the name of capability': A critical discursive evaluation of competency-based management development. Human Relations 58, (9) (SEP): 1185-1222.

Special Committee on Competencies for Special Librarians. Competencies for Information Professionals of the 21st Century. Revised edition. S.l.: Special Libraries Association, 2003. Accessed 22 February, 2006: http://www.sla.org/content/learn/comp2003/index.cfm