Research purpose: To craft and validate a comprehensive, integrated global central banker competency model (GCBCM) and to assess whether central banks using the GCBCM for training have a higher global influence.

Motivation for the study: Limited consensus exists globally about what constitutes a ‘competent’ central banker. A quantitatively validated GCBCM would make a significant contribution to enhancing central banker effectiveness, and also provide a solid foundation for effective people management.

Research approach, design and method: A blended quantitative and qualitative research approach was taken. Two sets of hypotheses were tested regarding the relationships between the GCBCM and the training offered, using the model on the one hand, and a central bank’s global influence on the other.

Main findings: The GCBCM was generally accepted across all participating central banks globally, although some differences were found between central banks with higher and lower global influence. The actual training offered by central banks in terms of the model, however, is generally limited to technical-functional skills. The GCBCM is therefore at present predominantly aspirational. Significant differences were found regarding the training offered.

Practical/managerial implications: By adopting the GCBCM, central banks would be able to develop organisation-specific competency models in order to enhance their organisational capabilities and play their increasingly important global role more effectively.

Contribution: A generic conceptual framework for the crafting of a competency model with evaluation criteria was developed. A GCBCM was quantitatively validated.

Before the financial crisis started in 2008 central bankers were often seen as back room technocrats: unelected, unexciting men in grey suits, who adjusted interest rates to keep prices stable on the basis of widely agreed rules. Today, the suits are the same, but not much else. Central bankers have become the most powerful players in the global economy. By providing massive liquidity to the financial system, they saved the world from economic collapse in 2008 (2012, p. 15).

• competencies
• competency models
• competency modelling
• evaluating the effectiveness of a competency model.

For the purpose of this article, a competency is defined as a composite of the knowledge, skills and attributes that lead to worthy job performance. In addition to the term competency, the terms competency cluster and competency domain were also introduced in this study. A competency cluster is defined as a collective name for a set of related competency domains. A competency domain, in turn, is defined as being made up of related competencies.

For the purpose of this study, a competency model was defined as a set of competency domains, with their associated competencies, required by a specific occupational group.

Table 1 indicates that the development of a competency model requires a systematic ten-step process. The first step in the process is to communicate the need for the competency model. Durgin (2006) declares that, before a competency model is developed, it is important for everyone who will be involved to understand fully the purpose of having a competency model and what its benefits would be. The second step is preparing the organisation to accept the competency model and how the model will contribute to talent management.

The third step is to specify the design considerations for the competency model. This depends, according to Parry (1996), on how the competencies will be used in the organisation. The fourth step is to define the requisite levels of work applicable to the organisation. Jaques and Clement (1994) proposed the stratified systems theory, which states that there is increasingly complex, critical work at each successively higher organisational level. The fifth step is to collect information about the key activities performed by an occupational group.

The sixth step is to translate activities into the key knowledge, skills and personal attributes that make a master performer successful (Zemke & Zemke, 1999). The knowledge, skills and personal attributes applicable to various occupational groups must also be determined. This bundle or group of key activities make up a generic competency, not a single activity (Truesdell, 2001). The seventh step is to align the competency model with the organisational strategy, which constitutes its vertical alignment. According to Schippmann et al. (2000), the increased interest in organisational competencies, together with the fast pace of change in the business world, most likely encouraged a concurrent interest in individual competencies supporting the business strategy. An organisation should invest time and resources in developing competency models as a component of a larger commitment to talent management, connected to the overall business strategy (Brown, 2006).

Similarly, it is important to align the competency model with the people management framework, which constitutes its horizontal alignment. This goal is achieved by aligning all the people management functions to the competency model to ensure harmony and consistency (Rothwell & Wellins, cited by Ramlall, 2006). In this way, competency models remove the barriers that often arise between disjointed people management functions. This means that the competencies and their associated behavioural indicators become a common language across all people management functions (Campion et al., 2011).

The eighth step is to officially sign off the competency model, preferably by the CEO, before it is implemented in the organisation. The ninth step is to provide opportunities for employees to obtain the new knowledge, skills and expertise as specified by the compelling model (Brown, 2006). The tenth and final step is to continuously assess the competency model for its relevance and added value.

FIGURE 1: Evaluation criteria for assessing a competency model as constructed by the researchers.

From an ethical point of view, the respondents were given the assurance that their identities will not be disclosed. With regard to the data used, the use and misuse of the data presented were avoided by ensuring not only that the reported conclusions were based on accurately recorded data but also that all relevant observations are reported. A commitment was also given to the respondents that they will receive the generalised results of the study.

FIGURE 2: The blended research approach used in this study.

During Phase 2 of the study, the empirical data collection entailed identifying the key activities that are performed by global bankers, by engaging subject matter experts in multiple functional specialist focus groups (106 participants in 16 focus groups). The focus group were conducted in a single central bank forming part of the high global influence group. The output from the focus groups, in the form of competencies, was used in constructing the survey questionnaires. The draft questionnaires were sent to select persons in central banks globally to review. During Phase 3 of the study, the empirical data collection proceeded by sending the final questionnaires to respondents in central banks from the G-20 countries (i.e. those banks that could be regarded as having a higher global influence), plus other central banks that are not part of the G-20 countries (i.e. those banks that could be regarded as having a lower global influence).

FIGURE 3: Research process employed.

In total, 40 central banks were invited to participate in the study. Thirty banks responded. The fact that 30 out of a potential 40 central banks responded (75%) is deemed an excellent response rate. However, a limitation of the study was that, for various reasons, a number of major central banks decided against participating, namely the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the People’s Bank of China, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan.

The 30 participating central bank training providers per country and G-20 members were: Australia (G-20), Austria (G-20/EU), Botswana, Belgium (G-20/EU), Canada (G-20), Czech Republic, United Kingdom (G-20), France (G-20), Germany (G-20), Italy (G-20), Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Namibia, Netherlands (G-20/EU), New Zealand, Portugal, South African Reserve Bank College (G-20), Seychelles, South Africa (G-20), Slovakia, Spain (G-20/EU), Swaziland, Switzerland, Tanzania, Mauritius, Mexico (G-20), Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Two questionnaires, constructed by the researchers, were used for the measurement and validation of the competency model. The first questionnaire dealt with the functional and professional specialisation competencies within a central bank. The second questionnaire consisted of four sections: (1) enabling competencies, which addressed the knowledge and skills individuals should have to get along well with co-workers and to function effectively in the central bank, (2) leadership or management competencies, dealing with competencies related to leading and managing people, (3) ethical competencies, focusing on ethical and values-related competencies and (4) contextual complexity competencies, addressing increasingly more complex critical competency requirements at each successive organisational level.

The dependent variable referred to the global influence that a central bank has. High global influence was defined as being a member of the G-20. Low global influence was defined as a central bank being not a member of the G-20.

H₀: The presence or not of a comprehensive, integrated central banker competency model does not affect the global influence of a central bank.

H_a: The presence of a comprehensive, integrated central banker competency model does affect the global influence of a central bank.

Hypothesis 2:

H₀: The training offered or not in terms of this competency model does not affect the global influence of a central bank.

H_a: The training offered in terms of this competency model does affect the global influence of a central bank.

The relationship between the study variables and hypotheses is illustrated in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4: Relationship between the study variables.

In general, the assessment of these models against the competency model evaluation criteria showed the following strengths: (1) each competency model formed a meaningful and logical whole, (2) a common language was used throughout to describe the competencies, (3) the models were based on sound theory and best practices and (4) the competencies did not merely constitute a wish list.

The four models, to varying degrees, also have shortcomings in terms of: (1) not supporting specific organisational strategies with their talent requirements, (2) limited alignment to specific organisational cultures and values, (3) having too many competencies, (4) not supporting a specific people management framework and (5) not indicating the level of proficiency required. The shortcomings listed regarding (1), (2), and (3) may not be real weaknesses, but a function of the models claiming to be generic (or universal) models (except for the WHO global competency model), which implies that organisations using any of these models need to customise them to fit their organisations.

As regards the currently available competency models for central banks, two models were reviewed: the European Central Bank (ECB) competency model (Fehlker, 2004) and the unendorsed South Africa Reserve Bank competency model (Gidlow, Ngcobo, Du Plooy & Smal, 2002). The following overall key strengths were identified for these models: (1) a common language was used throughout, (2) the models supported the organisational strategy, (3) the models were comprehensive enough to support the range of competencies making up the functions of a central bank and (4) they matched the requisite complexity of the central banks concerned.

The following overall key weaknesses were identified: (1) due to the comprehensiveness of these models, they could be cumbersome to use, (2) the behavioural descriptions of each competency were not consistently described in an output-based format and (3) there was a need for some form of measurement to distinguish between varying levels of proficiency for each of the competencies.

The literature review of publicly available competency models helped the researchers to develop a proposed central banker competency model. The proposed model comprises four competency clusters with their associated competency domain descriptions, and is given in Figure 5.

FIGURE 5: Phase 1: The competency clusters of the proposed central banker competency model as constructed by the researchers.

This qualitatively expanded central banker competency model comprised the following competency clusters: (1) functional and professional specialisation competency cluster, which was constructed using the information obtained from focus group meetings and from the proposed central banker competency model, (2) enabling competencies, (3) leadership or management competencies, (4) ethical competencies and (5) contextual complexity competencies. Competencies (2)–(5) were all constructed from the information sourced from the generic, publicly available and central bank competency models reviewed. The various competency clusters comprising the qualitatively expanded central banker competency model are given in Figure 6.

According to Figure 6, the levels of work (Jaques & Clement, 1994) provide the context, that is, the contextual complexity competencies, in which all of the other competency clusters are embedded and have to be made specific to the requisite complexity of the respective organisational levels and an organisation’s overall complexity. Personal mastery, one of the two competency domains of the enabling competencies cluster, is central to all four competency clusters, because of the researchers’ view that it forms the basis of all of the other competency clusters.

FIGURE 6: Phase 2: The competency clusters of the qualitatively expanded central banker competency model as constructed by the researchers.

The quantitatively validated global central banker competency model (GCBCM) is, in essence, the same as the qualitatively expanded central banker competency model of Phase 2, with two exceptions: (1) the relevance of the competencies was quantitatively confirmed and (2) the areas in which training was offered by central banks were determined.

With regard to the functional and professional specialisation competency cluster, the profile sample of central bank technical subject matter experts (e.g. economists) who responded was:

• Length of service: 33.3% had 21 years of service.
• Period in current position: 54.0% had been in their current position for up to 5 years.
• Position held: 50.0% were managers.
• Function: 32.0% worked in the bank supervision or financial stability areas.

With regard to the enabling, leadership or management, ethics and values competency clusters, the profile sample of central bank officials (e.g. managers or training officials) who responded was:

• Length of service: 35.0% had between 16 and 20 years of service.
• Period in current position: 65.5% had been in their current position for up to 5 years
• Position held: 38.5% were training and development practitioners or experts and 27.0% managers.
• Function: 48.0% worked in the learning and development area (e.g. training department or institute or corporate university).

The GCBCM, as constructed by the researchers, is diagrammatically displayed in Figure 7.

According to Figure 7 the GCBCM comprised four competency clusters: the functional and professional specialisation competency domain, the enabling competency domain, the leadership or management competency domain and the ethical competency domain. The levels of work provide the context (contextual complexity) in which the critical competencies making up the central banker competency model have to be embedded, and be made specific to each organisational level.

FIGURE 7: Overview of the quantitatively validated GCBCM as constructed by the researchers.

As indicated in Table 2, the Cronbach’s alpha correlation coefficients ranged between excellent and good, with only two coefficients in the good range: national economy and financial stability. George and Mallery (2003, p. 231) give the following rule of thumb in this regard: ≥ 0.9 = excellent, ≥ 0.8 = good, ≥ 0.7 = acceptable, ≥ 0.6 = questionable, ≥ 0.5 = poor and ≤ 0.5 = unacceptable.

Table 3 shows significant correlations between the enabling, the leadership or management and the ethical competency clusters (p ≤ 0.05). No significant correlations were found between the hard and soft competency clusters. One could readily accept that relationships would exist between the enabling, the leadership or management and the ethical competency clusters, because they contain soft competencies, in contrast to the functional professional competencies, which are made up of hard competencies.

The inter-correlations of the contextual complexity domain with the four competency clusters are displayed in Table 4. There was a significant positive correlation between contextual complexity and the enabling and leadership or management competency clusters (p ≤ 0.05).

A five-point Likert response scale was used for assessing the relevance of the central banker competencies. A score of 1 represented very high relevance, and a score of 4 represented very low relevance. In terms of the scale, a competency was regarded as relevant if a response was equal to or smaller than a rating of 2. A cut-off point of 2 was used for reporting the relevancy results. A cut-off of 60% or more was used to indicate in which competencies training was mostly offered. The researchers considered: (1) the distribution of the scores and (2) the category definitions of the response scale when making decisions on cut-off points.

Overall, the competencies were scored as either very high relevance or high relevance. An average of 80% of the respondents scored all of the competencies as most relevant across all four of the competency clusters.

In the case of the functional and professional specialisation competency cluster, the respondents viewed most of the proposed competencies as most relevant, with an average of 91%. In the case of the enabling, leadership or management, and the ethical competency clusters, the respondents viewed most of the proposed competencies as most relevant, with an average of 76%.

The highest percentage of competencies trained in per cluster was 59% (finance and public finance domain of the functional and professional specialisation competency cluster) and 60% (interpersonal and team interaction domain of the enabling competency cluster). Only 17% training was given in the ethics and values domain competencies. Across all competency domains, the average was 31% training (median: 27%), with the corresponding averages being 32% (median: 30%) and 28% (median: 20%) for, respectively, the hard (functional and professional specialisation cluster) and soft competencies (the enabling, the leadership or management, and the ethical clusters in combination).

Table 6 shows that the overall mean scores of the majority of the competency domains fell between 1.50 and 2.00. This indicates that the respondents scored the competency domains mostly as either being of very high relevance or high relevance. On average, none of the domains was scored as having a low relevance or very low relevance. The respondents scored the competency domains macro models, financial stability, bank supervision, legal and bank supervision (analysts) at the highest levels of relevance of all the competency domains. The average mean score for the relevancy of competency domains was 1.46. Regarding the functional and professional specialisation cluster, most of the respondents regarded the proposed competencies making up the respective competency domains as most relevant, with an average of 91% across all of these competencies. Training was provided in, on average, 33% of all of the competencies, not only the relevant ones included in this cluster.

For the enabling competency cluster, most of the respondents (average of 72%) regarded the proposed competencies making up the respective competency domains as most relevant, with an average of 31% of all of the competencies in which training is being offered. The average mean score for the relevance of these competencies was 1.74. In the case of the leadership or management competency cluster, most of the respondents (an average of 80%) regarded the proposed competencies making up the respective competency domains as most relevant. Training was being given in, on average, 26% of all of the competencies. The average relevancy means score was 1.73.

With respect to the ethical competency cluster, most of the respondents regarded the proposed competencies making up the respective competency domains as most relevant, with an average of 75%. The average mean score for the relevance of these competencies was 1.57. All of the respondents (100%) regarded the ‘training least offered’ category as relevant to this cluster.

Table 7 presents the results of the hypothesis testing regarding the presence of a comprehensive, integrated GCBCM in relation to the global influence of a central bank.

Table 7 shows that significant differences in level of global influence were found in the case of two competency domains: (1) bank supervision (analysts) (p ≤ 0.01) and (2) currency management (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 8 shows the results of the hypothesis test of the relationship between the degree of global influence and the training offered by a central bank.

Table 8 shows that significant differences were identified in the levels of global influence of a central bank and the training offered. Higher global influence central banks offer significantly more training in the following competency domains: (1) macro models, (2) financial and public finance, (3) treasury operations (accounting and settlement), (4) reserves management, (5) payment systems (operations), (6) currency management and (7) ethics and values. Bank supervision (legal) was borderline in terms of significance.

Contrary to the two currently available central banker competency models discussed, the GCBCM: (1) indicates the required level of proficiency, (2) clearly links roles, competencies and outputs, (3) shows that the included competencies are meaningful and form a logical whole, (4) defines all of the competencies in behavioural terms, making them measureable, and, because central bankers themselves identified and prioritised the competencies, (5) is a highly authentic model.

With regard to the reliability of the questionnaire used to validate the competencies, the reliabilities obtained were excellent for a newly developed questionnaire. This may be ascribed to the tightly defined or closely related competencies in each of the competency domains, as was confirmed by the focus groups, as well as the high number of items per competency domain.

One could postulate that central banks, due to the increasingly pivotal role they are playing in national and international economies, should, at the governor level at least, operate at Level of Work 6 (corporate citizenship), where the role of the organisation is seen within an international context, and in some cases, like the Federal Reserve System of the USA and the European Central Bank, at Level of Work 7 (global prescience). In this case, the organisation affects a sector’s design and functioning. If central banks at the highest level of work only operate at Level of Work 5 (strategic intent), they would predominantly pursue parochial, national interests, with limited regard for their global impact.

The significant difference in bank supervision in central banks with a higher global influence, however, is in stark contrast to what happened in practice with the bank failures that occurred in the USA and certain European countries during the 2008/2009 financial crisis. One would have thought that, in these countries, adequate and proactive measures through effective bank supervision or regulation would have been taken to counteract bank failures.

As regards currency management, various high-profile global incidents emphasised that it is important for central banks to have carefully considered and tested strategies to deal with shortages of cash due to anything from supplier problems to natural disasters. If central banks do not forecast the demand for banknotes and coins correctly, it could lead to a shortage of cash in circulation.

In conclusion, although significant differences were found between central banks with a higher and lower global influence in terms of relevance in two competency domains, namely bank supervision (analysts) and currency management, one can state with confidence that the competency model is generally valid across all central banks, regardless of their global influence.

Of all the above mentioned competency domains, it is interesting to note that macro models (73%), financial and public finance (59%), and currency management (55%) were the competency domains in which all of the central banks offer most of their training. This means that central banks with both a higher and lower global influence regard these competency domains as critical areas.

What is also interesting is that the competency domain ethics and values is the only soft competency domain appearing amongst the hard competency domains. Central banks have a central position in the economy. Therefore, central banks should lead by example in terms of sound corporate governance and business ethics.

An important implication for central banks with a lower global influence is that they could rightfully ask why central banks with a higher global influence provide more training in the seven competency domains mentioned above.

In summary, firstly, there was no quantitatively validated GCBCM prior to conducting this study. The value of this study is that central banks now have a GCBCM, which could become an aspirational and benchmark model for central banks. Secondly, central banks should make a concerted effort to offer more training to their employees, and also give greater attention to developing the soft competencies. Thirdly, if central banks do not train their employees to meet the complex requirements of levels of work, central banks may not be able to make their expected contribution, nationally and globally.

The study has several strengths. Firstly, through a comprehensive literature review, a sound foundation was laid for the empirical research. Secondly, the blended research design helped the researchers to obtain richer data, because different data sources were used, and, through triangulation, this multi-method approach added to the richness of the study. Thirdly, because the researchers could integrate the data obtained from both qualitative and quantitative research, more reliable and complete competency survey questionnaires with high levels of internal consistency (reliability) could be constructed. Fourthly, because a high percentage of the respondents (33%) had 21 or more years of service in a central bank, good quality data could be collected. Finally, the relatively high level of global participation by central banks makes it possible to generalise the research results to central banks worldwide.

The weaknesses of the study are, firstly, that the classification of central banks into the higher and lower global influence categories was taxing, because information on their global influence and reputation is scanty. The researchers were forced to rely on only two sources of information, although both were reliable. The 20 major economies in the world were used as the primary data source for central banks with a higher global influence. A cross-validation of level of influence through a review of journal articles and the Internet served to corroborate the primary data source. Secondly, the study was limited by non-participation of a number of major central banks. Thirdly, due to the relatively small sample size, the research was restricted to the use of non-parametric statistics, which are less powerful than inferential statistics. Lastly, the researchers did not use an independent panel to assess the GCBCM against the evaluation criteria.

Future research opportunities are as follows: firstly, to conduct an independent evaluation using multiple assessors to determine the extent to which the GCBCM meets the evaluation criteria; secondly, to differentiate the GCBCM in terms of levels of work; thirdly, to select a larger sample so that: (1) factor analysis can be applied to the questionnaires, in order to determine the underlying factorial structure, and (2) a cluster analysis may be performed, to classify central banks in terms of the competency models applied by them, and in this way determine whether it would make sense to differentiate central banks by their degree of global influence, or according to the competency model used by them; fourthly, to assess if the GCBCM can be incorporated into all facets of the people management. If so, whether people management would be done differently; lastly, to investigate why central banks offer so little training in developing competencies, particularly soft competencies.

It is believed that this study has made a significant contribution to providing a GCBCM that could be used by central banks. Additionally, the study contributed to the wider body of knowledge regarding competencies, competency models and competency modelling.

Athey, T. R., & Orth, M. S. (1999). Emerging competency methods for the future. Human Resource Management, 38(3), 215–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199923)38:3%3C215::AID-HRM4%3E3.0.CO;2-W

Bartram, D. (2006). The SHL Universal Competency Framework. Pretoria, South Africa: SHL White Paper 2012.

Brophy, M., & Kiely, T. (2002). Competencies: A new sector. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26 (2-4), 165–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590210422049

Brown, T. (2006). Stop competency blunders. Training and Development, 60(1), 20–22.

Buford, J.A., & Lindner, J.R. (2002). Human resource management in local government: Concepts and applications for students and practitioners. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.

Campion, M.A., Fink, A.A., Ruggeberg, B.J., Carr, L., Phillips, G.M., & Odman, R.B. (2011). Best practices in competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 64, 225–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01207.x

Central Michigan University. (n.d.). Leadership Central. Retrieved September 20, 2012, from http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/leader model/

Dalton, M. (1997). Are competency models a waste? Training and Development, 51(10), 46–49.

Dubois, D.D. (n.d.). What are competencies and why are they important? Career Trainer. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from http://www.careertrainer.com/Request.jsp?nView=PrintArticle&Article=OID%3A11

Durgin, T. (2006, August 8). Implementing a successful competency model. Human Capital Institute, 1–10.

Dutrisac, M., Koplowitz, H., & Shepard, K. (2009). An executive’s guide to RO-based organisational design. In J.L. Gray, J.G. Hunt, & S. McArthur (Eds). Organization Design, levels of work & human capability (pp. 27–52). Ontario, Canada: Gobal Organization Design Society.

Fehlker, C. (2004). European Central Bank competency model. Frankfurt, Germany: European Central Bank.

Fisher, C.D., Schoenfeldt, L.F., & Shaw, J.B. (1999). Human Resource Management. (4th edn.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Gangani, N., McLean, G.N., & Braden, R.A. (2006). A competency-based human resource development strategy. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(1), 127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2006.tb00361.x

Garrett, S. (n.d.). Competency mapping: What is it and how it can be done by individuals. Career Trainer. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from http://www.careertrainer.com/Request.jsp?nView=PrintArticle&Article=OID%3A11

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gidlow, R., Ngcobo, T., Smal, D., & Du Plooy, R. (2002). South African Reserve Bank Competency Model (Unendorsed). Pretoria, South Africa: South African Reserve Bank.

Jaques, E., & Clement, S.D. (1994). Executive leadership: A practical guide to managing complexity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Business.

Jogulu, U.D., & Pansiri, J. (2011). Mixed methods: A research design for management doctoral dissertations. Management Research Review, 34(6), 687–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409171111136211

LaRocca, M. (n.d.). Career and competency pathing: The competency modeling approach. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/ARossett/pie/Interventions/career_1.htm

Lievens, F., Sanchez, J.I., & Corte, W. (2004). Easing the inferential leap in competency modelling: The effects of task-related information and subject matter expertise. Personnel Psychology, 57, 881–904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00009.x

Linde, L.M. (2012). Central bank monetary policy, regulatory and supervisory measures. In 5th International Banking Conference/Grupo Santander (pp. 1–3). Madrid, Spain: BIS central bankers’ speeches.

Mirabile, R. (1997). Everything you wanted to know about competency modeling. Training and Development, 51(8), 73–80.

Montier, R., Alai, D., & Kramer, D. (2006). Competency models develop top performance. Training and Development, 60(7), 47–50.

Moyer, R. (2001). Defining and measuring competencies: An overview of approaches. Click2Learn, August, pp. 2–7.

Parry, S.B. (1996). The quest for competencies. Training, 33(7), 48–56.

Parry, S.B. (1998). Just what is a competency? (And why should we care?). Training, 35(6), 58–64.

Ramlall, S.J. (2006). Identifying and understanding HR competencies and their relationship to organizational practices. Aplied H.R.M. Research, 11(1), 27–38.

Robinson, D.G., & Robinson, J.C. (1998). Moving from training to performance: A practical guidebook. San Francisco, CA: American Society for Training and Development and Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Rothwell, W., & Wellins, R. (2004). Mapping your future: Putting new competencies to work for you. Training and Development, 58(5), 1–9.

Schippmann, J.S., Ash, R.A., Battista, R.A., Carr, M., Eyde, L.D., Hesketh, B. et al. (2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703–740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00220.x

Soderquist, K.E., Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G., & Prastacos, G. (2010). From task-based to competency-based: A typology and process supporting a critical HRM transition. Personnel Review, 39, 325–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483481011030520

Stevens, G.W. (2013). A critical review of the science and practice of competency modeling. Human Resource Dvelopment Review, 12(86), 86–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484312456690

Truesdell, J. (2001, October). Focusing on core competencies. Supply House Times, 44(8), 50–53.

The Economist. (2013). Central banks. Brave new worlds. Rich-world central banks explore more doveish strategies, The Economist, February, pp. 59–60.

Veldsman, T.H. (2010). An organisation-person fit competency model appropriate to a newly emerging world of work. Human Capital Review. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://humancapitalreview.org/content/default.asp?Page_ID=122

Veldsman, T.H. (2011). Crafting and implementing strategic talent management in pursuit of sustainable talent excellence. In I. Boninelli, & T. Meyer (Eds.), Human capital trends. Building a sustainable organisation (pp. 359–390). Johannesburg, South Africa: Knowres.

Vergara, R. (2012). Macroeconomic and financial stability – Challenges for monetary policy. In Annual Conference on ‘Central banking, analysis and economic policies’ (p. 1). Santiago, Chile: BIS central bankers’ speeches.

Verwey, A. (2010). Fulfilling my functional role effectively. Module 5: Operating at the requisite level of work. In Leadership Development Programme (pp. 1–10). Johannesburg, South Africa: University of Johannesburg.

Wells, R. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of competency model use. Herndon, VA: Systems.

World Health Organization. WHO Global Competency Model. Retrieved May 22, 2010, from http://www.who.int/employment/WHO_competencies_EN.pdf

Wynne, B., & Stringer, D. (1997). A competency based approach to training and development. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing.

Zemke, R., & Zemke, S. (1999). Putting competencies to work. Training, 36(1), 70–76.