The impact of technology on the changing world of work

tech work
The Guardian. Photograph: Blutgruppe/Corbis                                                                            


A recently published report by Deloitte challenges the assumption that technology is replacing human work. The authors suggest that:

“The dominant trend is of contracting employment in agriculture and manufacturing being more than offset by rapid growth in the caring, creative, technology and business services sectors,” 

“Machines will take on more repetitive and laborious tasks, but seem no closer to eliminating the need for human labour than at any time in the last 150 years.”

Deloitte looked at census data of the number/percentage of workers in different jobs sectors since 1871 and found that while manual work had decreased (which we can assume is partly due to technology) there was an increase in caring (e.g. teaching, social care and welfare) and knowledge professions (e.g. medicine, education and professional services).

The question, of course, is whether some sections of society are adversely affected by these changes. The overall number of jobs is only part of the picture.

Read the Guardian article on the report here.

Succession Planning

(on behalf of Kelly, Mandeep and Rebecca)

According to the CIPD (2015) succession planning is the process of identifying and developing potential future leaders or senior managers, as well as individuals to fill other business-critical positions, either in the short- or the long-term.  Thus in broad terms, it is a process through which companies plan for the future in case any CEOs or top management decide to leave the company (Jacobs, 2006).   However, succession planning should not be confused with replacement planning, replacement planning is used to help reduce the risk of unplanned loss of key personnel (Wolfe, 1996; Rothwell, 2001). Whereas, succession planning entails a longer term and more extensive approach towards the training and replacement of key individuals within the organisation (Jacobs, 2006).

CIPD (2015) acknowledge the similarities between succession planning and talent management. Talent management covers a wide range of activities designed to recruit, retain and develop talented individuals – with a focus on attracting external talent as well as nurturing internal talent.

Succession embraces the preparation of losing a leader, i.e. the retirement or departure of a leader, ideally significant steps would have been taken to replace the employee prior to them leaving; this attempts to prevent a lack of handover, in the hope of a smooth transition (Sylivia, 2015).   For all of these reasons, most organisation have come to the conclusion that succession planning makes logical business sense. Organisations have started to realise that having a good leader and good leadership matters, succession planning can have a direct impact and can help strengthen the corporate structure (Barnet & Davis, 2008).

In conclusion, succession planning appears to be a tool utilised in HR to identify future talent, the role within HR would be to provide those individual employees with a clear guide of next steps, and support in pointing them towards training courses.


Image: Taylor (2014:252)


CIPD. (2015). Succession Planning . Available: Last accessed 29/11/2015.

Sylvia, E, (2015) “Succession planning and staff development – a winning combination”, The Bottom Line: Managing library finances, Vol. 28 Iss: 3, pp.95 – 98

Jacobs, B, (2006),”Business succession planning: a review of the evidence”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 13 Iss 3 pp. 326 – 350

Wolfe, R. (1996), Systematic Succession Planning: Building Leadership from Within, Crisp Publications, Fredericton.

Barnett & Davis, (2008), ‘Creating greater success in succession planning’. Vol.10, Iss. 5, pp.721-739


Work Flexibility

(Posted on behalf of Klaudja)

Work-Place Flexibility (2010),defines a ‘flexible working arrangement as any one spectrum or work structure that alters the time/and or place that work gets done on a regular basis. Peterson and Wiens-Tures (2014) argue that the concept of work flexibility is interpreted differently by employers and employees. The UK has, an explicit, multidimensional family policy, allowing carers and parents the opportunity and entitlement to flexible working practices (Kossek et al, 2010).

Some scholars argue ‘work flexibility’ seems to be the reward most wanted by the majority of the working generations. On one hand, Warren et al, (2009) suggest such policies are part of societal and organisational change, where a level of support and choice are available to create a view that being a parent and employee is just. However, other scholars argue that this does not just apply to families, but also the younger working generations, which aim to achieve success not only in the work place but also in their personal life, therefore preferring a successful ‘work-life’ balance in order to venture in outside of work activities.

Studies suggest that techniques used to implement work life balance have had unsteady results, thus, explaining why some organisations are reluctant to adopt some techniques in their workplace. Some organisations have implemented remote working practises in order to allow employees to work from home, this could be beneficial for a healthy work life balance, (De Menezes and Kelliher, 2011). On the contrary, some employees prefer to have less working hours but want to spend them in the office as they are likely to get more work completed, Kurkland and Bailey, 1999). However, other studies have shown that employees who remote work tend to be more productive than their colleagues who work in the office, (Dubrin, 1991 and Kurkland and Bailey, 1999).

Therefore, academic research needs to explore why organisations implement work flexibility differently and what strategies are working more successfully. A future practical implication would be that all organisations need to explore different methods in ensuring a work-balance for employees in order harvest the benefits of embellished work place flexibility and work life balances.


Work Place Flexibility. (2010). Flexible Work Place Solutions for Low Wage Hourly Workers. Available: Accessed; 9th Nov 2015.

Peterson, J., and Wiens-Tuers, B. (2014). Work Time, Gender, and Inequality: The Conundrums of Flexibility. Journal of Economic Issues. 48 (2), 387-394.

Kossek, E. E., Lewis, S., and Hammer, L. B. (2010). Work–Life Initiatives and Organizational Change: Overcoming Mixed Messages to Move from the Margin to the Mainstream. Human Relations; Studies towards the Integration of the Social Sciences. 63 (1), 3-19.

Warren, T., Fox, E., and Pascall, G. (2009). Innovative Social Policies: Implications for Work–Life Balance among Low‐Waged Women in England. Gender, Work and Organization. 16 (1), 126-150.

De Menezes, L. M., and Kelliher, C. (2011). Flexible Working and Performance: a Systematic Review of the Evidence for a Business Case. International Journal of Management Reviews. 13 (4), 452-474.

Kurkland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E.  (1999). The Advantages and Challenges of Working Here, There Anywhere, and Anytime. Organizational Dynamics. 28 (2), 53-68.

DuBrin, A. J. (1991). Comparison of the Job Satisfaction and Productivity of Telecommuters Versus in-House Employees: A Research Note on Work in Progress. Psychological Reports. 38 (3), 1223-1234.


Managing Employee Performance

(Posted on behalf of Nigel)

Does your Performance Development Review improve your performance?

“At its best, performance management is a holistic process that ensures employees’ performance contributes to business objectives. It brings together many of elements of good people management practice, including learning and development, measurement of performance, and organisational development. For this very reason, it’s complex and often misunderstood.” – CIPD Factsheet (2015)

With a CIPD definition including an array of influencing factors to reflect upon the holistic definition, at best this would provide a list of factors for HRM practitioners to consider when looking to implement/design a culture of performance management within an organisation. If the methods adopted by HRM practitioners are fairly standard can a one size fits all approach be adopted.

Huselid (1995) reflected upon the impact of human resource management practices where a high performance culture is adopted and indicated that whilst utilising formal PDR (Performance Development Review), the impact upon behaviours can be vastly different. In considering the relationship between HRM practices and performance, Guest (2011), supported the notion that there is an association between HRM and performance but indicated that there was no evidence that HRM was a direct cause of performance improvement.

Not only should the relationship between HRM and the performance be considered but the relationship between the appraiser and appraisee should be taken as a key factor to improving performance. Kunen at al (2012), summerised their findings by suggesting that employees work harder when feedback on levels of performance is expected. This it is argued has an increased effect upon productivity where a reference group is used, due to the need to rank at the top of the hierarchy. The PDR is just one tool in the HRM practitioner’s handbook to assess employee performance against organisational objectives.

The PDR is extensively used throughout organisations in the UK as a tool to reflect on the year past and plan for the year/s ahead. However when the reviewer is your line manager, do you ever ask, what skills do they have to review me? Will anything change for me or my role? Is this just a tick box exercise? How will my performance improve?

Reference List

CIPD Factsheet: Performance Management: an overview – Resource summary

Huselid, M (1995) “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Volume 38, Issue 3, pages 635 – 672

Guest, David E (2011) “Human Resource management and performance: still searching for some answers, Human Resource Management Journal, Volume 21, Issue 1, pages 3-13

Kuhnen, CM, Tymula, A (2012), “Feedback, Self Esteem, and Performance in Organizations”, Management Science, Volume 58, Issue 1, pages 94-113

Issues Related to Workplace Diversity

(Posted on behalf of Boriana and Si)

The topic of diversity at the workplace has become increasingly important to organizations since the early 1990s as changing workforce demographics and increased global competition have become a reality (Cox, 2010). Workplace diversity means a workforce made up of individuals with different human qualities (e.g. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation) or who belong to various cultural groups (Daft, 2008).

In a Deloitte report (2004) diversity was consistently reported to be one of the least important issues that leaders are dealing with compared to other HR matters. Furthermore, SHRM (2010) confirmed that amongst Fortune 1000 companies, barely one-fifth of survey respondents indicated their organizations have structured and formal diversity policies. However, diversity is becoming increasingly important with the rapid globalization of the world so companies are rebuilding their diversity programs in order to keep up-to-date. Forbes Magazine (2015) reported that the five trends driving workplace diversity are: CEO’s are forced to address inclusion issues, diversity is imminently tied to innovation, diverse thinkers (able to critically analyse and solve problems) are emerging, increasing awareness, and introducing diversity technology (e.g. blind interviewing and more inclusive job descriptions). All those trends are closely related to the issue of awareness and lack of training that employees are experiencing. Other issues are age-related prejudices, same-sex workplace, cultural differences, and communication problems.

Diversity Awareness Training

One way of targeting diversity issues is by providing training for all employees as it is a critical component of systematic diversity initiatives. Furthermore, diversity training may include: increasing awareness levels, tackling legal issues, developing skills and improving organizational environment as well as culture. A successful implementation of diversity training can reap potential rewards (e.g. increased productivity and candidate pool, positive company image, and a reduction in lawsuits), whereas poor planning and execution may create problems that take years to overcome (e.g. resistance to change, ineffective implementation, and poor communication). Hite and McDonalds (2006) emphasised that training should be accompanied by commitment from upper management, including diversity initiatives in the strategic plan, identifying training needs before development, and using trainers with appropriate qualifications. Cox (2010) argued that incorporating those factors in diversity training are predictors to large-scale diversity change. An issue with awareness is that it has to be accompanied by the right training because individuals need to gain the skills to implement what they have learned (Ely and Thomas, 2006).

The future of diversity management

“The quest for ethical and responsible leadership is not only a response to recent business scandals and subsequent calls for more ethical managerial conduct, but also a result of the changes and new demands in the global marketplace”

(Schneider et al., 2014:292).

In the future, we all will work together and become one civilisation. Globalised citizenship would be the key word and diversity should be embedded in our everyday life that we should be able to feel the connection between people (Golmohamad, 2008; Reyson and Miller, 2013). It means a new universal principle:

1)whereby nations and cultures become more open to influence by each other, 2) whereby there is recognition of identities and diversities of peoples in various groups and ethnic and religious pluralism, 3) whereby people of different ideologies and values both cooperate and compete but no ideology prevails over all the others, 4) where the global civilization becomes unique in a holistic sense, while still being pluralist, and heterogeneous in its character, and 5) where increasingly these values are perceived as shared despite varying interpretations, such as we currently see for the values of openness, human rights, freedom and democracy”

(Perlmutter, 1991:898).


Cox, T. (2010) Creating the Multicultural Organization: A Strategy for Capturing the Power of Diversity San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Daft, R. (2008) The Leadership Experience, 4th ed., London: Thompson

Ely, R. & Thomas, D. (2006) “Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, Iss. 2, pp. 229-273

Golmohamad, M. (2008) “Global citizenship: From theory to practice, unlocking hearts and minds” .In M. A. Peters, H. Blee, & A. Britton (Eds.), Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 521–533). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers

Hite, L. & Mc Donald, K. (2006) “Diversity training pitfalls and possibilities: An exploration of small and mid-size US organizations”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 9, Iss. 3, pp. 365-377

Reysen, S. and Miller, K. (2013) “A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 48, Iss. 5, pp. 858- 870

Schneider, S., Barsoux, J. and Stahl, G. (2014) Managing Across Culture, London: Pearson

Employee Engagement

(Posted on behalf of Charlotte, Manista, Bianca and Chinwe)

Employee engagement is a topic which is generating considerable interest in both practitioner and academic arenas (Kular et al., 2008). Definitions of employee engagement proliferate, and some conflate engagement itself with the antecedents and outcomes of engagement, but there is an underlying theme among the various definitions which can be expressed succinctly as “being positively present during the performance of work” (CIPD, 2013). This positive presence pays huge dividends for the employer: in purely practical, business terms, arguably the most important outcome of employee engagement is discretionary effort, and there is a considerable body of research which demonstrates that engaged employees are productive employees (e.g. Gallup, 2013).

Engagement is a relatively recent construct, first conceptualised in William Kahn’s 1990 work “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, but it has connections to earlier motivational theory.

Frederick Herzberg’s 1959 Dual Theory proposes that workers are influenced by two sets of factors: those that impact motivation and what he termed “hygiene” factors – basic requirements that influence job satisfaction. Motivation factors include stimulating work, recognition, accomplishment and responsibility. Satisfaction factors consist of pay and benefits, supervision, working conditions, and job security. These satisfaction requirements, if unmet, lead to job dissatisfaction, but their influence on productivity and performance is limited beyond a certain baseline level. Motivation factors, on the other hand, influence how an employee performs. Combined, satisfaction and motivation factors lead to engagement (Herzberg 1959, cited in Rogel 2014).

This distinction is reflected in the work of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, whose research identified a difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. Employers can ‘buy’ a certain level of motivation (similar to Herzberg’s hygiene-satisfaction) with extrinsic incentives, for example performance-related pay, which has proved effective in some situations, particularly where jobs involve routine tasks (Pink 2010). Engagement is more closely related to intrinsic motivation – that is, the satisfaction derived from the task itself (Deci & Ryan, cited in Pink 2010), which, according to the researchers, is dependent upon the factors of autonomy, competence and relatedness.


CIPD (updated 2013) “Employee engagement” [online] Available at

Gallup (2013) The State of the American Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for U.S. Business Leaders, Washington: Gallup

Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Killham EA and Agrawal S (2009) “Q12 Meta-Analysis: The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes”, Gallup

Kahn WA (1990) “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4 pp. 692-724

Kular S, Gatenby M, Rees C, Soane E and Truss K (2008) “Employee engagement: A literature review”, Kingston Business School

Pink DH (2010) Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us, London: Canongate Books. Digital edition

Rogel C “Employee Satisfaction vs. Motivation and Employee Engagement” [online] Available at

Sorensen S (2013) “Don’t Pamper Employees — Engage Them”, Gallup [online] Available at

Wagner R and Harter J (2008) “The problem with pay”, Gallup [online] Available at

Social Media and Selection: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

(posted on behalf of Regina)

In recent years there has been a fundamental shift in the way we communicate with each other in our personal and professional lives as well as in the way in which we conduct business.  Many attribute these changes to the unprecedented rise of what we often refer to as ‘social media’ (Qualman, 2011).  To no real surprise, businesses are increasingly using social media as a part of their decision making process when hiring and similarly, candidates are using social media as a means of selecting potential employers.  As a result, businesses as well as job seekers, have to be more conscientious of how their brand is perceived on social media or risk jeopardising the image of the company ( CIPD, 2013). Jobseekers can use this platform to reach a vast number of people both nationally and internationally equally for business and their personal lives to report their experiences as a job seekers.

One in seven UK employees have looked for a role or been approached about potential employment through social media (CIPD, 2013).

Therefore, an individual’s opinion could have a far reaching impact for an organisations reputation especially if the person has a large social media presence or following.

Research conducted by ACAS and the Institute for employment studies in 2013 revealed that 45 per cent of employers are already using social media tools in their recruitment process with a further 16 per cent stating that there are plans in place to implement social media tools into their recruitment practices in the future.  Given this recent uptake, there are clearly some benefits of engaging potential recruits through social media, however this needs to be carefully weighed against the potential drawbacks.  Some of the benefits as published by ACAS in 2013 include:

  • Cost Savings: By targeting specific candidates online, employers are able to reduce costs associated with agencies or non-web advertising outlets, as most social media platforms are free.
  • Reach:  With social media presence comes global awareness enabling employers to have a wider brand reach for both active and passive job seekers. Traditional hiring methods have their limitations but when combined with the use of social media, allows for a broader scope.
  • Engagement: Presences allows increased engagement with target audience so that employers and candidates can easily identify whether a good cultural ‘fit’ for the organisation exists.

Despite these known advantages for both parties, there are some definite drawbacks to using social media for recruitment purpose. These disadvantages range from the trivial, such as the candidate’s online profile being slightly outdated to potential legal and ethical infringements and implications.

Fairness surrounding the screening procedures used and the perception of the invasion of privacy are some of the main points surrounding these more serious disadvantages. This can not only diminish the organisation’s brand reputation but also have severe legal implications. Research conducted in the US shows that certain states are passing social media privacy laws to dictate some limitations for social media use during recruitment. As an example, it is now illegal for employers to request social media credentials for applicants. These restrictions could possibly have further reach both in the United States and internationally.

It is clear that the use of social media in recruitment shows no signs of diminishing. Both potential candidates and employers use social media platforms through-out the recruitment process but must continue to be mindful of some of the legal and ethical repercussions continued usage may have.

Some questions which may spur further discussion include

  • Should employers disclose their social media recruitment practices?
  • When is it appropriate to use social media – before or after a face-to-face interview?
  • What are employers looking for exactly when they review someone’s social media pages?
  • With LinkedIn, why are recruiters using multiple, and in some cases 10 year old, social media platforms (e.g. Myspace, Hi5, Xanga)?


Allen G.D, Ontondo F. R and Scotter R. J, (2004) “Recruitment Communication Media: Impact on Prehire Outcomes”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57, Issue 1, pg 143 – 171

Qualman E (2011) “Socialnomics: How social media transforms the way we live and do business”

Social Media and Recruitment: Information Policy for Everyday Decisions – Wayne State University

CIPD (2013) Social Technology, Social Business, December 2013,,

“What we look for in employers” by 20-30 year olds

The World Economic Forum has published a report based on a survey of more than 1,000 20 to 30 year old people in 125 countries.

The top 3 ‘important factors’ that they would look for from an employer were:

  • Career advancement (48%)
  • Company culture (38%)
  • Training & development (32%)

Interestingly, 91% also said that they would consider relocating to a different country for a job.

The World Economic Forum (and HR press) have suggested that this tells us something about so called ‘millenials’ (people growing up around the turn of the 21st century).

What do you think? Is this really unique to ‘millenials’? Is it about age, or life stage?

What implications does this report have for resourcing?

Reported by HR Grapevine here:

The Rise of E-Recruitment

(Posted on behalf of Lawrence)

Internet technologies have introduced profound changes in both our professional and domestic lives (Reynolds & Weiner, 2008). At home we use internet technologies to plan our travel, shopping and exploring our interests, while at work internet technologies are ideally suited for sharing information, recruitment and communication. More and more companies are now switching to online recruitment, but is this the most effective way to attract the best candidates? Can this tool be seen as discriminatory tool due the fact that older generation tend to be less computer literate?

The e-recruitment benefits for companies include being able to reach candidates from  the ‘wider net’, the life of recruitment data is much longer and lower recruitment cost. However the pitfall for online recruitment is that companies cannot reach job seekers who do not have access to internet (mostly older generation) and the competition for the candidates increased, it is easy for other candidates to approach the same candidates (Puck & Paul, 2009).

Nevertheless, Smith and Rupp (2004) suggest the benefits of utilising far outweigh the drawbacks. They rationalise that e-recruitment is less laborious than its alternatives, and promote productivity due to less lag time between open positions being filled and thus having less of an impact on other employees. They go on to highlight long-term return on investment due to decreased dependency on job advert boards, and printed adverts. Finally, it would be reasonable to assume that as the brand grows, and online presence increases the reliance upon recruitment agencies to fulfil specialised roles would decline in tangent.

The uptake of e-recruitment cannot go unnoticed with an increase of 60% of utilisation over an 8 year period (1998-2006), this utilisation of this recruitment method shows no signs of slowing down with half of the UK workforce utilising e-recruitment (Nigel Wright Recruitment 2010), this is further supported by a study conducted by JobSite in 2012 highlighting that those utilising social media for Job Searches are favouring networks such as LinkedIn (93%), Facebook (66%), and Twitter (54%). Whilst the uptake of e-recruitment cannot be denied, it is stated that e-recruitment is predominately better served to graduates, skilled workers, managers and executives (Joos, 2008), which supports the aforementioned statement of alienated certain sections of the labour market.

However, Parry and Tyson (2008) are having doubts if e-recruitment could replace other traditional recruitment methods. As many organisations are using online recruitment tools, many are still dependent on employment agencies. However, after seeing the changes in recruiting landscape it is essential that traditional recruiters to do not fall behind (Jeffery & McKee, 2011). Finally, Autor (2001) suggests that telecommunication and face-to-face interactions are complements rather than substitutes, and therefore telecommuting and physical commuting may rise in tandem.

Reference List

Autor, D. H. (2001). Why do Temporary Help Firms Provide Free General Skills Training? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1409-1448.

Jeffery, M. & McKee, A. (2011). A Guide to Recruitment 3.0. Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership, 6(5), 12-34.

Parry, E. & Tyson, S. (2008). An Analysis of the Use and Success of Online Recruitment Methods in the UK. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(3), 257-274.

Competency Frameworks

“A ‘competency framework’ is a structure that sets out and defines each individual competency (such as problem-solving or people management) required by individuals working in an organisation or part of an organisation.” – CIPD Factsheet (2015)

Spot the difference

The CIPD provide an explanation of the difference between ‘competences’ and competencies’ which is both amusing and useful.  Amusing because the spelling and pronunciation are so similar that if heard rather than read, they may be mistaken as a repetition of the same word. Useful as the CIPD provides an understanding that Competences (competence) deals with what is actually required to do the job, whereas Competencies (competency) refers to the “behaviour that lies behind competent performance”. (CIPD, 2015)

We can deduct then that, competency is describing the human attributes linked to performing a role, while competence described what needs to be done to perform the job itself. For example, a manager may need to chair meetings which is a competence, and the attributes they require in order to do this successfully may be good communication skills, which is a competency.

Why use a Competency Framework?

Whiddett and Hollyforde note that competency frameworks allow for a set of criteria which can be applied across the workforce within an organisation. (1999). The text expands upon this by explaining the use of Behaviour indicators to evidence the demonstration of competency, how competency titles can be reinforced with summaries or descriptions that set the competency apart from all others, and explains that groups of similar competencies can form Competency Clusters. (1999).

Miller et al (2001) note that a cultural change can be instigated through competency frameworks, as greater import can be placed on desired behaviours. Miller et al (2001) cited Research conducted by Wustemann (1998) which demonstrates that employers believe that competency frameworks “provide a means of articulating corporate values and objectives” but perhaps most importantly the use of the competency frameworks in “…appraisals, training and other personnel management processes help to increase individual performance”

Do you believe using competency frameworks adds value to the individual employees and/or your organisation?

Where do we start?

A Competency Framework job analysis would analyse the person performing the job and not the job itself, and establish the key characteristics (or behaviours) required to achieve optimal performance within a predefined role (Taylor, 2014).  A realistic starting point may be to look at which behaviours a predecessor possessed or for a new role, look at the key behaviours in equivalent or similar roles.

Do you think that matching characteristics and behaviours of previous staff may lead to an ‘attack of the clones’ situation?

How similar are your behaviours and characteristics to an equivalent colleague within your organisation?

Reference List

CIPD Factsheet: Competence and Competency Framework

(Accessed 15 Oct, 2015)

Miller, L. Rankin, N and Neathey, F. (2001) Competency Frameworks in UK Organisations. London: The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Taylor, S. (2014) Resourcing and Talent Management.  CIPD.  6th Edition

Whiddett, S and Hollyford, S. (1999) The Competencies Handbook. London: The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Wustemann, L. (1999) “The way that UK employers are paying for competencies” Competency & Emotional Intelligence Annual Benchmarking Survey 1999/00. p46