Justification of the key role of managerial and professional competencies of personnel in the formation of intellectual capital of enterprises

In modern conditions, when many Russian enterprises are forced to operate, experiencing the negative consequences of sanctions restrictions, promising directions and opportunities for their progressive development are largely determined by the presence of intellectual potential and its main components. Depending on the industry affiliation, the main types of production activities, the organizational and legal structure and a number of other factors, the intellectual potential of each enterprise is individual in itself, and its structural components are of greater or lesser importance in its formation. However, paying due attention to the main structural components of intellectual potential, it is necessary, first of all, to dwell on the intellectual capital of the enterprise. In the most general sense, it is usually understood as enterprise personnel who have a certain level of managerial and professional competencies, capable of increasing them and transforming them into the development of the production and economic activities of the enterprise. To successfully resist sanctions restrictions, in addition to attracting and targeted use of financial, material, information technology and other types of resources necessary for organizing produc- tion, the harmonious development of the intellectual capital of enterprises becomes more relevant than ever. It involves achieving optimal correspondence between the levels of development of management competencies of enterprise management and middle managers and the professional competencies of specialists directly involved in the production of products. This circumstance is especially clearly manifested in the example of medium and small modern enterprises engaged in the creation, production and sale of digital economy products. The intellectual potential and development prospects of such enterprises are largely determined by the level of managerial and professional competencies possessed by their personnel and which, in fact, form intellectual capital.

Purpose of the study

The main goal of this study is to substantiate the role of managerial and professional competencies of personnel in the formation of intellectual capital using the example of one of the enterprises in the most dynamically developing area - digitalization of the economy (development, implementation and development of digital economy products). To achieve this goal, in the process of conducting research, the priority tasks of forming and managing the intellectual capital of the enterprise were identified through the transformation of the structure of management competencies based on a dynamic approach. The strengths and areas of development of competencies of middle managers were identified, and recommendations were made for the development of programs for their individual development.

Materials and research methods

The novelty of the proposed approach to the management and formation of the intellectual capital of an enterprise lies not in the presence of a certain level of management competencies among middle-level managers, but in the possibility of developing their potential within the framework of the internal determinant of the formation of the enterprise's intellectual capital. At the same time, the management of the enterprise must create all the necessary conditions for the development of the management competencies of its employees within the framework of the determinant external to them in the formation of the intellectual capital of the enterprise. Thus, the essence of the proposed approach is determined through the combination of these determinants and the use of a dynamic approach to the continuous development and improvement of management competencies, as the most important factor in the formation of the intellectual capital of the enterprise.

As criteria for assessing the management competencies of middle-level managers of our enterprise, the most significant ones were selected from the standard list of competencies in terms of their impact on the performance of each manager and the enterprise as a whole. The following management competencies were included.

• 1.    Result orientation is the desire and ability of a manager to focus his attention and resource provision for achieving established goals (including through quantitatively and qualitatively measurable indicators of the implementation of business processes).

• 2.    Leadership is the ability to lead, inspire and motivate other people to achieve a set goal in such a way that they can show the desired result, while demonstrating standards and quality of work above their usual level.

• 3.    Execution management is the ability to correctly set priorities, effectively plan resources to solve assigned tasks, delegate authority in terms of solving problems and organize a cycle of managing their solution, starting from setting the task, continuing with the organization of work execution, and ending with control of execution.

• 4.    The ability to work in a team is building partnerships with colleagues and subordinates, the ability to create a comfortable working atmosphere in a team, attract professionals to the team who correspond to the values of the enterprise, and also promote the development of professional competencies of specialists and their cohesion to achieve established goals.

• 5.    Stress resistance is the ability to remain calm and highly efficient when problems arise in solving set tasks, to control one’s emotions and respond adequately to possible stressful situations, as well as the ability to effectively recover from such situations.

• 6.    Self-organization is the ability to plan your actions over time, rationally set priorities, use time effectively and achieve set goals within the planned time frame.

To assess the management competencies of middle managers of the enterprise, a three-point scale was chosen with a step equal to “0.25” points, where:

• -    a score of “3 points” corresponds to the level of mastery and assumes a particularly high degree of development of this competence;

Middle managers of an enterprise who have reached this level are able to apply competence in non-standard situations or situations of increased complexity. This level also means that they can take initiatives related to the scope of this competency.

• -    a score of “2 points” corresponds to the level of experience and assumes that the enterprise’s middle manager has fully mastered this competency;

This means that in standard situations he does not make mistakes, and the manifestation of competence skills occurs automatically.

• -    a score of “1 point” corresponds to the level of development and means that the enterprise’s middle manager understands the

importance of this competency and is in the process of mastering it;

This means that competence skills are manifested unstably, mistakes are possible in standard situations, and conscious efforts are required to demonstrate skills.

• -    a score of “0 points” corresponds to the level of incompetence and means that the middle manager of the enterprise does not have the competence, does not understand its importance, and does not try to apply and develop it.

The tools of the Assessment Center (AC) were chosen as the main method for conducting empirical research. The advantages and disadvantages of this method have been quite well studied and described both in fundamental works [1] and in the works of the authors of this article [2]. An analysis of the practice of applying the method in our country and abroad gives every reason to believe that competent organization and adherence to relevant standards and principles when using this method provides the most comprehensive and objective information about the managerial and professional competencies of enterprise personnel [3].

The study sample consisted of 12 middle managers of the enterprise (heads of departments), whose age ranged from 24 to 47 years. Among them were 9 men and 3 women.

To conduct an empirical study using the AC method, all middle managers of the enterprise were randomly divided into 3 minigroups, for each of which the competencies were assessed on a separate day. A separate stage of the AC was, as usual, the creation of AC logistics. At this stage, all movements of participants and observers (experts) during the AC process were determined (several rooms were used), the distribution of managers among observers in each exercise, a de- tailed plan for the AC with all exercises and breaks.

The process of conducting competency assessment using the AC method corresponded to standard technology and contained the following stages [4]:

• 1.    Participants go through AC cases, and observers record behavioral manifestations and statements of participants on an observation form. In each case, a specific observer was assigned to a specific participant(s). In the corresponding cases, the observer also acts as a role player (usually in a managerial AC this is the role of a subordinate with whom the participant needs to negotiate under the terms of the case as a manager). During the interview stage, the assessor conducts the interview and records the candidate's responses. Thus, the tasks of the assessor during the AC were as follows:

• -    monitoring the behavior of participants and recording information;

• -    conducting role-playing games within the framework of cases;

• -    conducting interviews.

• 2.    All information recorded by the observer was processed individually using classification technology (“classification of units of behavior relative to competency indicators” [4]).

• 3.    After the AC, an integration session is held, during which the assessors discuss their assessments and conclusions, and each participant is given a final score for each competency.

• 4.    Then a written report is drawn up for each participant with conclusions about his “strengths” and “growth areas”; which also includes recommendations for development -for the employee and recommendations for managing the employee - for his manager.

It happens like this: the assessor assigns each unit of behavior from the observation form to a specific indicator of a certain competency in a checklist specially prepared for this case. Then, in each such checklist, the observer gives a rating for one or another manager’s competence according to the accepted measurement scale. The result of this stage is a completed checklist for each case for each participant from each observer assigned to this participant in this case. A fragment of the initial checklist for 3 of the assessed competencies is shown in table 1.

Table 1. Fragment of the original checklist for 3 of the assessed competencies

No. p/p	Competence	Behavioral indicators	Observations	Grade
2	Leadership	2.1 Adheres to a partner position in a conversation with a subordinate
		2.2 Inspires the subordinate, takes into account his motives, sets questions about his needs
3	Execution Management	3.1 Delegates the task, taking into account the competencies of subordinates
		3.2 Sets the task clearly and clearly, indicates the desired result, resources, deadlines, forms of control. Checks that subordinates understand the task correctly
		3.3. Assigns points of control (puts control into his daily plan, talks about it to his subordinate)
6	Self-organization	6.1 All tasks are distributed according to time in the plan
		6.2 Sets priorities correctly: plans the most urgent matters for the current day; performs the most important ones himself
		6.3 Effectively plans time: allows for time gaps and travel time; combines several cases based on the principle of place of execution.

Each AC lasted 7 hours and included 6 assessment tools:

• 1)    group simulation case “Additional opportunity”;

• 2)    group simulation case “Preparation for the exhibition”;

• 3)    individual simulation case with the roleplaying game “Time Pressure”;

• 4)    individual simulated written case “Probationary period”;

• 5)    written testing;

• 6)    interview.

The assessment tools were selected based on one of the AC principles that each compe- tency should be assessed using at least two tools [1].

All simulation cases were united by one “legend”. In it, each enterprise manager was asked to imagine himself as an employee of another fictitious enterprise. Each manager was given brief information about the activities of a fictitious enterprise, its history, results and plans. The approach of one “legend” is used when conducting AC so that each manager can immerse himself as much as possible in simulated situations and behave in them as naturally as possible (the same as in real activities).

In the AC “Additional Opportunity” case, all managers acted as heads of one of the divisions of a fictitious enterprise. Their task was to promote their unit and convince others of this decision. At the same time, the common goal facing all participants (in the context of this case – the heads of departments of a fictitious enterprise) was the choice of the final number of promoted divisions, which will be obviously smaller (in our case - 2). Thus, in this case there was a certain conflict between the personal interests of each man- ager and the general interests of the enterprise management, as well as between the interests of individual managers. In this case, the following competencies were observed: result orientation, leadership, teamwork, stress resistance and self-organization.

In the individual case “Probationary Period,” the participant was asked to solve a problem related to the adaptation of a new employee to the workplace. To do this, the manager had to study information about the position the employee entered, his biography and write down for him: goals and a work plan, ways to control him and his motivation, and also prepare a welcome letter for the employee. This case was used to assess competencies: leadership, performance management, self-organization.

The case “Preparing for an exhibition” is also a group task. It has been repeatedly used in different variations of AC [5].

The individual case “Time pressure” was a task where the manager had to sort through the to-do list and draw up a written plan for the day, and then talk with one of the subordinates (the observer acted as the subordinate) in order to delegate to him some of the authority for work. Using the case, the follow- ing competencies were assessed: result orientation, leadership, performance management, stress resistance and self-organization.

The essence of the “Competency Interview” method is that the interviewee is asked questions about his past with a request to give an example of his actions in some situation (it is asked by the interviewer) and describe his behavior in it. For example, “Give me an example of a time when you needed to complete a task that you had not encountered before.” This method is based on the following connection: just as competence was manifested in a person in the past, it is highly likely to manifest itself in the future. Thus, the “Competency Interview” method makes it possible to supplement the understanding of a manager’s competencies by analyzing his behavior in a situation that may actually arise in practice. An example of indicators and interview questions for the “Results Orientation” competency is given in table 2.

Results and discussion

A summary table with the final assessment scores for each competency and assessment for the totality of competencies for each of the 12 middle managers is shown below (see table 3).

Table 2. Example of indicators and interview questions for the “Results Orientation” competency

Result oriented

Sets high goals. Clearly represents the goal and maintains it during the work process. Makes efforts to achieve set goals and achieves results as close as possible to those planned.

Give an example of the 3 most significant achievements over the past 2 years Give an example of failure or failure over the past 2 years

Table 3. Summary table with final scores for the competencies of each participant

№ p/p	Evaluation criterion (competence)	Participants
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1	Result oriented	1,25	2,25	2,0	1,75	2,0	1,75	2,0	2,0	1,5	1,75	0,5	2,0
2	Leadership	0,75	1,5	1,5	2,0	1,5	1,5	1,5	1,75	1,0	1,25	1,0	1,25
3	Execution Management	1,0	2,0	1,25	1,75	1,5	1,75	1,5	2,0	1,5	1,25	1,75	1,25
4	Skill to work in team	1,5	1,0	1,75	1,75	1,5	1,25	1,75	1,75	1,5	2,0	2,25	1,75
5	Stress resistance	1,75	1,5	1,75	2,0	1,75	1,75	1,5	1,5	1,5	2,0	1,0	2,0
6	Self-organization	1,5	1,5	1,5	2,0	1,5	1,5	1,5	2,0	2,0	1,75	1,75	1,75
Final	score for competencies	1,3	1,6	1,6	1,9	1,6	1,6	1,6	1,8	1,5	1,6	1,4	1,7

Quantitative Data Analysis

Before carrying out the correlation analysis, the data in Table 3 was compared with the normal Kolmagorov-Smirnov distribution, and since the distribution we obtained turned out to be non-normal, it was decided to use the nonparametric Spearman test.

First, a comparison of data across competencies was carried out. We were interested in the question of the structure of connections between competencies in the sample. When analyzing the correlation matrix of participants’ responses, an average positive relationship was identified between the competencies “Result Orientation” and “Leadership” (0.601), “Leadership” and “Execution Management” (0.574), “Ability to work in a team” and “Self-organization” (0.440 – almost at the level of the trend).

Then, a correlation analysis of the data was carried out on all the competencies of the participants in order to obtain grounds for the formation of training groups for the subsequent development of the competencies of managers.

The following connections have been identified:

• -    high positive correlation – between participants № 1 and 10 (0.924) (correlation is significant at the level of 0.01 (two-sided), as well as between participants № 10 and 12 (0.886) (correlation is significant at the level of 0.01 (two-sided);

• -    average positive correlation:

between participants № 1 and 12 (0.828) (correlation is significant at the level of 0.05 (two-sided);

between participants № 2 and 6 (0.833) (correlation is significant at the level of 0.05 (two-sided);

between participants № 3 and 7 (0.798) (correlation significant at the 0.05 level (twosided);

between participants № 3 and 12 (0.835) (correlation significant at the 0.05 level (twosided).

Thus, during further training, participants can be grouped into the following groups:

The first one includes participants № 1, 10, 12. A high positive connection was revealed between them. At the same time, participant No. 10 has the largest number of connections, and he claims to be an informal leader in the group.

The second one includes participants № 1, 2, 3, 6, 7. An average positive relationship was revealed between them.

The third one includes participants № 4, 5, 8, 11. A positive relationship was not identi- fied between them. Individual development programs will need to be developed for these managers.

Meaningful data analysis

As can be seen from the final table, for most managers the “Result Orientation” competency is at an average level of development, recognized and actively used by them in practice. In general, we can conclude that most managers clearly understand the tasks assigned to them, are result-oriented, and make every effort to achieve the established goals. Many people tend to be flexible in finding solutions.

The “Leadership” competency for most managers is in the development zone and is generally the weakest competency in the group; most managers, with rare exceptions, do not strive to occupy the position of leader in the group, preferring to occupy the position of an observer and transfer this function to a stronger leader. In communications, managers usually display a partnership style of communication, both among themselves and in situations of interaction with subordinates, which, obviously, is part of the corporate culture of our enterprise.

The “Execution Management” competency is at an average level of development; managers generally understand and apply management tasks in practice. They are able to assign tasks to subordinates and analyze the results of their work. Some managers know about the need and importance of delegating authority, but, as a rule, they do it intuitively, not always understanding exactly what tasks can be delegated to others. Such an important function as operational management also requires special attention: the overwhelming majority of managers who participated in the assessment of their competencies did not show the ability to carry out intermediate control of the work of their subordinates.

The “Ability to work in a team” competency is also at an average level of development. The majority of managers who participated in the assessment of their competencies demonstrated an interest in solving team problems, effective and efficient interaction in a team, the ability to create a comfortable working atmosphere in a team, and a willingness to contribute to the development of potential workers. Many demonstrated skills in motivating subordinates.

A competency such as “Stress resistance” is at an average level of development; during its assessment, managers demonstrated the ability to keep emotions under control, adequately respond to hostile attitudes, remain calm, work effectively in a stressful situation, and also quickly recover from such situations, showing high performance even under longterm loads with a large amount of information.

The “Self-organization” competence is also in the development zone, generally demonstrated in the group at an average level. Managers in general are able to plan their actions in time, rationally set priorities, although they do not always do this effectively, they confuse the concept of urgency and importance of tasks. Most managers they see and track strict deadlines. Some of them know how to plan work throughout the day harmoniously and efficiently. Some know how to work with kairos and group things, but so far there are few of them. Almost all managers talk about the importance of such a resource as tracking time within a business task, but only a small part of managers actually track it and adhere to timing units.

In the sample as a whole, what is noteworthy is the absence of the highest values for all competencies (3 points), which indicates the degree of presence of competencies at the level of experience when they manifest themselves in standard situations. Demonstrating competencies in non-standard, creative situations that require initiative is not typical for managers in this sample.

The following have been personally developed for each AC participant:

• 1 ) an individual report on all competencies, indicating strengths and areas of development;

An example of an individual report on the “Leadership” competency of one of the participants is presented below.

Strengths:

• -    confident communication with everyone, friendly approach, maintaining visual contact;

• -    uses a partner style, shows interest in the position of the interlocutor;

• -    the ability to motivate employees, based on information about their characteristics (in the “Probationary period” case, he indicated that the subordinate has experience in organizing recreation);

• -    shows enthusiasm in solving a problem, emotionally charges employees;

• -    takes on the role of information integrator or procedural leader (in the exercise “Preparing for an exhibition” he asked questions and set tasks: “Collect information”, “I expect information from you”; in “Additional opportunity” – organized a vote, suggested organization book selection process).

Development zones:

• -    I was not able to fully organize the participants in the team; they were not always ready to act in accordance with his coordination (exercise “Preparation for the exhibition”);

• -    chooses the role of being a leader according to the situation, if such a task has not been set from above, he may not take on the role of leader (in an interview for the exercise “Additional Opportunity” he commented that, according to the instructions, all participants were in equal conditions, that’s why he did not choose active leadership);

• -    works primarily to achieve his own goals, considers them a priority over the overall team benefit or the interests of the company (in the “Additional Opportunity” exercise);

• -    sometimes he takes a position “from below” with a subordinate, ingratiates himself (“I would like to ask you for help, I can’t cope with some tasks; I hope you won’t refuse me?” – in a conversation with a subordinate in the “Time Pressure” exercise);

• -    there is not enough inspiration and influence on the part of the participant in the dialogue with the subordinate.

Weak sides:

• -    does not pay due attention to motivating new employees (the letter to the employee in the “Probationary Period” case is of an instructive nature, rather dry, and does not inspire; in terms of plan – it offers to motivate the employee only by the importance of his work, he does not see other ways).

• 2 ) detailed recommendations for training and development of competencies.

Recommendations for the participant on training and development of competencies are presented below:

• -    develop abilities to use modern tools and increase the speed of working with information, as well as time management and selforganization skills;

• -    vary leadership styles in interaction with subordinates;

• -    improve operational management skills -delegation, task setting and control;

• -    when managing subordinates, you should competently alternate between trusting and controlling management styles depending on the employee (his competence and motivation) and the nature of the task being solved (urgency, importance, novelty, etc.).

We recommend integrating the participant into the team and the company’s goals, helping to correlate their tasks with those of the team/company, helping to build relationships of sincere partnership and authority.

It is necessary to give the participant time to understand and understand the task. Otherwise, he will not be able to implement it with the level of quality to which he strives.

Because the participant values his professionalism highly, he is not prepared to engage in tasks that do not correspond to his level of expertise and authority. It is important for him that his manager trusts him, gives him authority, notices and uses his competence.

Conclusion

The following conclusions can be formulated based on the results obtained during the research process.

• 1.    In the course of determining the most relevant competencies for middle managers from the point of view of enterprise manage-

• ment, the following competencies were identified: result orientation; leadership; execution management; skill to work in team; stress resistance; self-organization. AC tools were chosen as the main method for conducting empirical research. A description is given of the logistics, the process of conducting AC, including certain stages and methods of processing incoming information, as well as the tools used, namely: group simulation cases; individual simulation cases with role-playing games; individual mock written cases; interview.

• 2.    In the summary table there are no competency scores higher than 2.25 points for any of the competencies studied. Which indicates the degree of presence of competencies at the level of experience, when competency is manifested in standard situations. Demonstrating competencies in non-standard, creative situations that require initiative is not typical for middle managers of a given enterprise.

• 3.    Among the priority tasks facing the management of the enterprise in the field of managing the formation of its intellectual capital are the training of middle managers of the enterprise and the development of their management competencies.

• 4.    During the AC, data was obtained that made it possible to identify the structure of management competencies of middle managers of the enterprise. Based on the dynamic approach to competencies and the capabilities of the AC method, strengths and growth areas are identified, and areas of competency development are identified. These results can be used in developing programs for individual development of managers' competencies.