This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Education Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Scuba diving Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

I had to double-check that I wasn't on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Someone needs to brush up on Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. "The R136 road in Dublin. Newly opened dual-carriageway with inner lane reserved for buses but none provided so the authorities erect roadblocks in the bus lane rather than allow cars to use it! Classic combination of Irish political correctness and gross incompetence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.126.253 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose . This entry is entirely off beam. I am preparing a new entry.
• Oppose . Competence is far more than aptitude. It is a clear demonstration of skill supported on a strong base of knowledge of which attitude is a part, with the whole being quality controlled by Generic Competencies.

• Oppose There is a world outside of HR folks (!) - assessing aptitude is useful for helping unskilled or underemployed people find out what they "could do" - competence refers more to what you "can do" - very different. I vote that someone take this Merge with Competence reference off of this page.-Reevasso
• Oppose The psychology stages might not be worth expanding (?); but the HR meaning has a big set of implications to be developed, including links to remuneration and careers (eg modernisation changes in UK public sector including Agenda for Change) --Mereda 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Too different a focus. -Quiddity 02:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose aptitude makes it easier to gain competence -Bevort 10 Aug 2006

Oppose. Expert's field of reference is wider than this article.LukeSurl 16:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. The topics are not very well related. EEG biofeedback is a substantial field which requires its own scholarly article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George von Hilsheimer (talk • contribs)

Oppose. The topics of ADR and human rights are distinct from one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Morris (talk • contribs)

"EEG biofeedback"? "ADR and human rights"? Excuse my confusion, but what page/pages are you guys coming from? Ewlyahoocom 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. Different on various levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja Joey (talk • contribs)

Oppose. Merging 'expert' and 'competence' will lead to no further clarification of either term. Further, the usefulness of the term 'competence' is entirely lost if merged with expertise, as a 'competence' is basic, underlying skill, NOT a highly specialist knowledge per se. J.Reeve (England) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.208.107 (talk • contribs)

I regard this as a consensus and will remove the tags. LukeSurl 12:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to remove the tags, please do so. But don't use this bizarre assortment of comments as justification. Ewlyahoocom 08:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone has replaced the entire text of this article. Maybe rightly, maybe not. Anyway, here is the deleted text:

Competence is a standardized requirement for an individual to properly perform a specific job. It encompasses a combination of knowledge, skills and behavior utilised to improve performance. More generally, competence is the state or quality of being adequately or well qualified, having the ability to perform a specific role.

For instance, management competency includes the traits of systems thinking and emotional intelligence, and skills in influence and negotiation. A person possesses a competence as long as the skills, abilities, and knowledge that constitute that competence are a part of him, enabling the person to perform effective action within a certain workplace environment. Therefore, one might not lose knowledge, a skill, or an ability, but still lose a competence if what is needed to do a job well changes.

Sorry, but this is not my area and I don't feel competent enough to judge what should be in this article :-) – gpvos (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha. Yeah, that shouldn't have been deleted. Wikipedia is sadly very deficient in organisational studies material, and it doesn't help when people try to push their own theories ahead of the standard understanding of concepts. 193.128.127.33 09:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The latter is very true, unfortunately. This article is seriously defective in two ways: first, it says almost nothing about Boyatzis who really invented the modern fashion for competence/competency, and second it does not engage with either of two important debates about it - (i) whether (as Boyatzis argued) competencies are only or primarily behavioural, or encompass skills and knowledge as well, and whether (as Boyatzis argued) there is a single general set of competencies or whether it is appropriate to have a different list for every role or job. Deipnosophista (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not an expert in this area but it appears to be a very similar topic. --Comaze 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition of competence as "It encompasses a combination of knowledge, skills and behavior utilized to improve performance." shoud be "a combination of knowledge, skills and attitude" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.231.216.123 (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Competence/Competences" vs "Competency/Competencies"

Can the experts give us a view on "Competence/Competences" vs "Competency/Competencies"? This article jumps back and forward between the two. To me, there is no added meaning in the term "Competency" beyond the meaning of "Competence", so we should keep it simple and stick with "Competence" and "Competences". Unless I hear any objections, I will edit this article to reflect this.

I'm fine with the consistency you are proposing, with either term. For what it's worth, in the U.S., "competency" is by far the more commonly used term, in the context of human resources. Libcub (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some in the human resources and management literature distinguish the two terms: e.g. [1]. Though personally I think this is spurious,[2] it might warrant mentioning. – Kaihsu (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There could at least be a section on terminology, or a reference to some discussion of terminology that covers this distinction (or not). In my own recent experience, competence is taken to refer to the attribute of a person (or occasionally a team or organisation), while competency is any component of competence, including knowledge, skill, etc. Simon Grant (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Competence (human resources). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140423044926/http://www.argonautenterprise.com/ to http://www.argonautenterprise.com/
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.shrm.org/templatestools/toolkits/pages/leveragingemployeecompetencies.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why the template about underwater diving? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GS-216.1993 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For an article this long, there is almost no useful information in it. The intro states some dubious definition and then goes on to say there is no agreed definition, and then goes on to give a whole bunch. And then there is an overview with similar problems. The body is full of jargon and esoteric terms designed to make the subject matter seem complex when it is actually very simple. An idiotic article of no value whatsoever.--Cuthbert Bargepole (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]