Managerial competence scale for the public sector
The people management area lacks instruments to carry out valid and accurate diagnoses. Many available tools to measure managerial competencies in the public sector are limited to a public segment or neglect important managerial aspects, or still do not present items in the observable behavior forma...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) |
| Repositorio: | Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
| Idioma: | portugués inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.periodicos.fgv.br:article/85534 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/85534 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Managerial competencies Public sector Scale development Exploratory factorial analysis Confirmatory factorial analysis Competencias gerenciales Sector público Desarrollo de escala Análisis factorial exploratorio Análisis factorial confirmatorio Competências gerenciais Setor público Desenvolvimento de escala Análise fatorial exploratória Análise fatorial confirmatória |
| Sumario: | The people management area lacks instruments to carry out valid and accurate diagnoses. Many available tools to measure managerial competencies in the public sector are limited to a public segment or neglect important managerial aspects, or still do not present items in the observable behavior format (verb + object + criterion or condition), making difficult diagnoses and comparisons. In view of this gap, this study aimed to develop a managerial competence scale for the public sector and present evidence of its validity. The scale was developed based on a literature review, content analysis with a posteriori categorization, evaluation made by judges, pre-test, two data collection from 1,376 subjects, from which 724 were civil servants of different bodies and another 652 specifically of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), besides the validity and trustworthiness verification in three studies: one using exploratory factorial analysis (EFA) and two using confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA). The EFA presented three factors: Processes and Results; Human Relations and Innovation; and Public Interest, with a Total Variance Explained of 83.93%. The CFA, in the general context and in the STJ, had good rates of adjustment after some changes that made the instrument more parsimonious, with 29 items. The reliability analysis showed an average α of 0.953. The factors are backed by the literature and value the singularities of the public sector. From a practical point of view, the study allows diagnoses and research on the competencies of public managers from different Powers, segments, positions, and hierarchical levels, enabling inter-institutional comparisons. |
|---|