Through the B-BBEE legislative framework, it has become imperative in South Africa for a company to have an acceptable level of the B-BBEE status if it is to conduct business with government or its agencies (Ernest & Young, 2013). The B-BBEE legislative framework aims to restructure the economy with a view to empower those who had been historically marginalised by apartheid and its legacy (Department of Trade and Industry [DTI], 2007; Levin, 2011; Rubushe, 2009). From its inception, the B-BBEE policy framework has not been without challenges. For example, in 2007 it became necessary to adopt and implement the Codes of Good Practice in order to deal with some challenges relating to the implementation of the BEE policy, including the lack of uniform framework for the recognition and measurement of BEE, extensive delays in BEE implementation because of differences in interpretation, lack of underlying economic substance to many BEE transactions and fronting due to lack of implementation guidelines (DTI, 2007). In the meantime, there were rating agencies that assisted companies develop their own scorecards reflecting the companies’ level of B-BBEE compliance.

The Codes of Good Practice (Codes) introduced the B-BBEE Scorecard, which measures the degree of compliance to B-BBEE (DTI, 2007). This process would result in the issue of a certificate indicating a company’s degree of compliance to B-BEEE, thereby giving a company a competitive edge in bidding for any kind of business with government or its agencies (Pooe, 2013). No sooner had the Codes been adopted, than some difficulties became evident in the implementation thereof. Lack or absence of common standards and criteria for assessing the B-BBEE status emerged as a major problem (Gomez & Premdas, 2013). In order to overcome this problem, the DTI appointed the accreditation body, South African National Accreditation System to develop a set of accreditation criteria by which would be verification agencies could be assessed (DTI, 2007).

The role of a verification agency is to audit the scorecard with a view to ensure the factual correctness of the information provided to the verification agency (EconoBEE, 2009). Following the release of the first draft of the Codes in 2004, the number of verification agencies increased rapidly (Business Report, 2008), thus necessitating some form of regulation. To this end, in July 2008 the government published the Verification Manual for the creation of universal, transparent and coherent standards applicable in the verification industry. The aim of the manual was to set acceptable minimum standards and ethical codes of conduct underpinning the responsibilities of verification agencies to perform verification and reporting on the B-BBEE Scorecard (DTI, 2008). Furthermore, the manual was to outline the responsibilities of the verification agency to its client in respect of quality control and also set the requirements based on the key measurement principles and calculations of B-BBEE policy (DTI, 2008).

An auditing model was adopted as a framework for the B-BBEE verification process (Jack, 2007). Verification is defined as the confirmation through the provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled (Haeckel & Püntmann, 2001). In the context of B-BBEE, verification means the process and activities conducted by a verification agency to assess, verify and validate that the score awarded to a measured entity is a result of individual scorecard elements supplied by a measured entity and to evaluate B-BBEE transactions in order to provide an indicative B-BBEE score and certification based on the principles of the B-BBEE Codes (DTI, 2008). For the past few years, there has been a growing emphasis within the verification industry of the need to develop and improve the performance of B-BBEE verification practitioners in order to meet the increasing demands placed on the industry by both its clients and government (EconoBEE, 2011). Marais (2012) pointed to the need to enhance the competence of the industry. Developing and improving the performance of the verification industry would require of the industry and government to develop competencies of the practitioners. Table 1 identifies some of the key role players in the verification process.

The B-BBEE-approved registered auditor provides a limited assurance that, based on the work performed, the scores determined for the measured entity’s B-BBEE Scorecard and the resultant B-BBEE status of the measured entity are not materially misstated (Independent Regulatory Board of Auditors [IRBA], 2012). The South African Standard on Assurance Engagements (SASAE) 3502 Assurance Engagement on B-BBEE verification certificates and the ISAE 3000 require that both assurance standards and guidance for B-BBEE verification by all approved registered auditors and professional accountant harmonise with the fundamental principles of auditing in terms of the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) Code. These principles include integrity, objectivity, professional competence, due care, confidentiality and professional behaviour. Furthermore, other pronouncements of the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board set out International Standard on Quality Control (ISQC) to deal with a firm’s responsibilities for its system of quality control for audit and reviews of financial statements and related service engagements (ISQC, 2012). Because B-BBEE verification is considered as a related service engagement, it should be read in conjunction with ISQC (IRBA, 2012).

A quantitative design using the survey approach was adopted for the present study. The survey method was deemed appropriate for the study because it enables data collection from large populations, making it easier to develop and administer the research questionnaire whilst allowing for generalisation of the research findings (Malhotra, 2010). A total of 200 questionnaires were distributed to the verification practitioners employed by a full population of 80 verification agencies in South Africa. Of these questionnaires, 87 were completed and deemed usable for further processing, thereby yielding a response rate of 43.5%. Similar studies (Awad & Alhashemi, 2012; Shetach & Marcus, 2013) were based on samples of 85, 104 and 107 respondents. A list of all verification agencies was obtained from the South African National Accreditation System website. Each survey was accompanied by a cover letter that explained the purpose of the study and also ensured confidentiality of participants’ responses and their right to anonymity. Respondents were reminded of their voluntary participation and that they reserve the right to withdraw from the study at any stage, should they so wish. This was underscored especially considering an inherent risk of common source bias in self-reports. Yet, self-reports were clearly the most appropriate considering the aim of the study. In this regard, Conway and Lance (2010) concur that whilst other types of measures might be appropriate or even superior, self-reports are appropriate for job satisfaction and many other private events. Another argument for using self-reports was advanced by Shalley, Gilson and Blum (2009), who argued that in certain cases, employees are best suited to self-report because they are the ones who are aware of the subtle things they do or need in their jobs. Thus, in the present study self-reports were deemed appropriate because it was about professionals identifying the relative importance of their managerial competencies in the enhancement of their own perceived job performance.

Table 2 presents the sample profile characteristics.

The data indicate that 13.8% of respondents were people aged from 20 to 25 years, 35.6% were aged between 26 and 35 years, another 35.6% were respondents aged between 36 and 45 years, 13.8% were aged between 46 and 55 years and 1.1% were 56 years and above. The number of female respondents (54%) exceeds their male counterparts (46%).

Table 3 presents the professional profile of the respondents.

Table 3 shows that 66.7% (27.6% + 39.1%) of respondents, representing the majority, hold either a degree or a postgraduate academic qualification, with most in possession of the latter qualification. Nearly half [49.4% (35.6 + 13.8)] of the respondents function at a managerial level, whilst the other half function at the technical (21.8%) and verification analyst (27.6%) levels. The sample seems to represent the population of the verification practitioners.

The reliability of the measuring instrument was assessed, and Table 4 reflects the results for each variable. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of at least 0.7 confirms the reliability of the instrument in effectively capturing the variables examined in the study (Chin, 1998). Content and face validity of the instrument were ascertained through the review by three senior B-BBEE verification practitioners deemed to be best qualified to determine baseline competencies for the B-BBEE verification practitioners. Their feedback ensured that the instrument only comprised those questions that would validly capture the aims of the study. Convergent validity of the measurement scale was assessed in two ways. Firstly, the high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, ranging from 0.946 and 0.989 (≥ 0.70) reflect the degree of cohesiveness of the items contained within the variable measures, thereby serving as an indirect indicator of convergent validity (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Secondly, Pearson correlation coefficients indicate the high degree of convergence amongst the constructs linked in the conceptual model. The model provides relatively poor evidence of discriminant validity as a result of fairly high inter-correlation factors. In this regard, Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) caution that a factor correlation that equals or exceeds 0.85 is often used as the cut-off criterion for problematic discriminant validity.

According to Farrell (2010), whenever there are high construct inter-correlations, there is a need to assess discriminant validity, in order to have confidence in subsequent research findings. In this regard, the technique proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981) to assess discriminant validity was used. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), for any two constructs A and B, the average variance extracted (AVE) for A and the AVE for B both need to be larger than the shared variance (i.e. square of the correlation) between A and B. That is, both AVE estimates have to be greater than the shared variance estimate. Hair, Jr., Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham (2006, p. 778) support using this technique for assessing discriminant validity and accordingly note that ‘the variance extracted estimates should be greater than the squared correlation estimate’. At the same time, the factors should have an AVE of more than 0.5 (Chin, 1998). It can be seen from Tables 4 and 5 that the values for AVE all exceed 0.5 and are all greater than their respective shared variance estimates, thereby confirming the existence of discriminant validity of the measurement used in this study.

Pearson correlations were computed with a view to ascertain relationships between the independent variables, namely, technical skills, interpersonal skills, management skills and compliance to standards and ethics on the one hand and the dependent variable, namely perceived job performance, on the other. Table 4 reports on the correlation results between the variables.

As can be seen from Table 4, the relationship between the management competencies (technical, interpersonal, standards and ethics as well as managerial skills) and perceived job performance show significant positive correlations. A strong positive association was observed between technical skills and perceived job performance (r = 0.621; p < 0.05). A positive and strong association was found between interpersonal and perceived job performance (r = 0.830; p < 0.05). Regarding managerial skills, a positive and strong association (r = 0.809; p < 0.01) was also observed between managerial skills and perceived job performance. A positive and strong association was observed between compliance to standards and ethics and perceived job performance (r = 0.801; p < 0.05).

The next step was to determine the extent to which these variables predict perceived job performance. To this end, multiple regression analysis was computed. Table 6 presents the regression model summary results.

Table 6 provides the R and R² values. The R value of 0.897 indicates a high degree of correlation, whilst the R² or adjusted R² value indicates how much of the total variation in the dependent variable, perceived job performance, can be explained by the independent variables (technical skills, interpersonal skills, standards and ethics, and managerial skills). The adjusted R² is a modified version of R² that has been adjusted for the number of predictors in the model (Frost, 2013). In this case, 79.4% of the perceived job performance of the B-BBEE verification practitioners can be explained by the management competencies, which is very large. The other 20.6% of variability of job performance can be explained by other factors not explored in this study.

Table 7 is the analysis of variance table, which reports how well the regression equation fits the data (i.e. predicts the dependent variable).

Table 7 shows that the regression model is statistically significant at p = 0.000 (p < 0.001). This indicates that, overall, the model applied can statistically significantly predict the dependent variable, namely perceived job performance, thereby indicating that the data are suitable for the next step, namely, regression analysis.

Table 8 provides the necessary information to predict perceived job performance from managerial competencies (technical skills, interpersonal skills, standards and ethics, and managerial skills) as well as determine whether independent variables and managerial competencies contribute statistically significantly to the model.

An important assumption of proceeding with multiple regression analysis is to ensure that there is no multi-collinearity, a situation in which the predictor variables correlate too highly (r > 0.9) with each other (Field, 2005). Yet, some of the observed correlations, including correlations corrected for reliability as per Table 4, did not touch the 0.9 mark. That said, the data were considered suitable for regression analysis considering that it was well within the range of tolerance and the variance inflation factor (VIF), which was used to test multi-collinearity. In the present study, tolerance was between 0.167 and 0.288. Field (2009) posits that if the VIF is greater than 10, it implies that the predictor variables are correlated amongst themselves, which makes collinearity a cause for concern. Whilst the data in the present study have not reached these levels, the multi-collinearity is considered to be moderate. The VIF for the four subscales in the current study ranged between 3.472 and 5.987, which indicates no problem of multi-collinearity. Consequently, the ‘enter’ method of regression was applied to the data set with a view to ascertaining whether any correlations exist between the four managerial competencies (independent variables) and job performance (dependent variable).

Furthermore, the Beta values in Table 8 show that managerial skills is the strongest predictor of job performance (β = 0.451; t = 4.863; p < 0.05), followed by standards and ethics (β = 0.384; t = 3.636; p < 0.05) and interpersonal skills (β = 0.245; t = 2.045; p < 0.05). An interesting result is the negative and insignificant predictive relationship¹ (β = −0.148; t = −1.621; p > 0.05) between technical skills and perceived job performance, given that other predictors in the model are held constant.

The finding of the negative and insignificant predictive relationship between technical skills and perceived job performance seems to be consistent with some studies, which found technical skill is unnecessary for managerial performance (Hysong, 2008). The finding is also supported by some models of management, which propose that at best, technical skill is a peripheral competency of management (Boyatzis, 1982) whilst others loosely suggest that technical skill could be a hindrance to good management (Hysong, 2008). This finding could be explained by the fact that, as noted in Table 3, two-thirds [66.7% (27.6 + 39.1)] of the respondents possess degrees and postgraduate qualifications. This figure shows that more than 80% of respondents with diplomas are included, making it an industry with highly qualified technical staff at the moment. Another plausible explanation could be in line with some studies which, having observed activities performed by managers, found a low incidence of activities requiring technical expertise (Beauvais, 1992; Dunning, 1993). This is perhaps the reason why developing themselves in the technical aspects is the least of their concern.

As noted earlier, interpersonal skills emerged as a statistically significant predictor of perceived job performance in the regression analysis, albeit the least significant when compared to managerial skills and compliance to standards and ethics. These findings seem to find alignment with a study by Al-Madhoun and Analoui (2002), which found that of the three skills, namely self-rated (managerial), people skills (interpersonal skills) and task (technical skills), the majority of participants rated in this order managerial skills, interpersonal skills and technical skills as skills they wish to develop. Based on these findings, hypothesis 3 is supported.

As observed in the regression analysis, managerial skills emerged as the most statistically significant predictor of perceived job performance. These findings reveal that the managerial skills are the most important predictor of perceived job performance. Interestingly, of all the four competencies, the study found managerial skill to be the best predictor of perceived job performance by the B-BBEE verification practitioners. In line with these findings, a study by Carmeli and Tishler (2006) found that the ability to lead the organisation to meet its goals rests on the integration of the managerial skills and that managerial skills are positively related to firm performance. Analoui (1990) also found that senior officials who have already gained substantial knowledge and skills about the technical aspects of their job tend to place more emphasis on their own development, thus viewing institutional development as a direct consequence of their own. Furthermore, Tonidandel et al. (2012) found a ‘unique contribution’ made by managerial skills in managerial evaluations. Based on these findings, hypothesis 3 is supported and accepted.

Compliance to the standards and ethics variable also emerged as a statistically significant predictor of perceived job performance in the regression analysis. In fact, the present study found compliance to standards and ethics is the second most important predictor of perceived job performance for the B-BBEE verification practitioners. This finding is noteworthy and shows how important compliance to standards and ethics are in this environment and how much the respondents feel the need for this skill in the execution of the duties. The need for the ethics education could well reflect an observation that a lack of attention has been given to the ethical and professional values of honesty, integrity, objectivity, due care and the commitment to the public interest before one’s own interests (Jennings, 2004; Parker, 2005). In a study by Jackling et al. (2007), professional bodies acknowledged that ethics is capable of being taught other than in the workplace, thus supporting the idea that social and behavioural skills linked to ethics education can be learnt in educational programmes (Earley & Kelly, 2004). Overall, the findings of this study are consistent with the expectations of ethical management theories and the ethical behaviour of managers (Okpara, 2002). The findings are also in line with previous findings in ethics studies (Deshpande, 1996; Koh & Boo, 2001). Thus, hypothesis 4 is supported and is accepted in this study.

Some limitations to the study should be noted. First, the competencies of the managers were self-reported, rather than independently assessed (or assessed by their supervisors). Whilst it has been argued that people are not always good self-assessors (Kevin & Glenn, 2008; Kim & Chiu, 2011), the argument was made why this was deemed appropriate for the present study. As discussed in the Research Method section, whilst every effort was made to mitigate the effects of the common source bias, it could not be ruled out completely. Another limitation of the study is a relatively small sample that was studied. Thus, the findings of the study are limited in that they are restricted to only 87 participants, who are the current cohort of the B-BBEE verification practitioners, thereby limiting the extent to which the findings can be generalised to other cohorts with different profiles. Although discriminant validity was assessed and supported, the relatively high inter-factor correlations remained a cause for concern. Future studies could consider using other more objective measures. Finally, as noted earlier, the study considered only one typology, amongst the many, of managerial competencies. Future studies could consider other typologies with a view to prioritise the skills accordingly. Furthermore, a similar study could be conducted with auditors who are performing B-BBEE verification services to determine if there are similarities or differences with the main findings from this study.

The purpose of the study was to determine the managerial capabilities that are required of the B-BBEE verification practitioners, in order to improve their perceived job performance. The results of the correlation analysis revealed that there were strong and positive associations between technical skills, interpersonal skills, compliance to standards and ethics, managerial skills and perceived job performance. Results of the regression analysis showed that managerial skills, compliance to standards and ethics and interpersonal skills were statistically significant in predicting perceived job performance. However, technical skills were insignificant in predicting perceived job performance.

These findings suggest that whilst the current cohort of verification practitioners have the necessary technical expertise to perform their tasks well, they, however, view managerial skills as the most important area of their work if they are to improve their perceived job performance. This is understandable in light of the fact that, as noted earlier, half of the respondents currently function as technical signatories and verification analysts and not as managers yet. However, many of these might already be performing some managerial functions for which they require training. It is also likely that many who are now managers were promoted into those positions on the basis of their technical competence. These are the ones who seem to feel a strong need to be developed managerially. Just after managerial skills are standards and ethics, which are also strong predictors of job performance. This is also understandable because B-BBEE is the arena for the contestation of business in the form of contracts and tenders. Thus, very likely there might be a tendency for the verification practitioners to find themselves in ethically compromising positions as a result of pressure from the companies to want to attain or maintain competitive B-BBEE ratings. Indeed, whilst the verification practitioners do not want to neglect improving their interpersonal skills, the need to enhance their skills in the areas of managerial skills and standards and ethics would be a matter of priority.

In view of the above, any training and development programme aimed at enhancing the perceived job performance of B-BBEE verification practitioners should be investigated with a view to address the competencies discussed. Managerially, the study has shown the B-BBEE verification industry, that insofar as the technical skills of the practitioners are concerned, it does have suitably qualified staff with the requisite educational qualifications. At the same time, from the present study the industry can now determine the priority skills. The study identified the needed skills as managerial skills, standards and ethics and interpersonal skills, in that order. The allocation of credit for a training and development programme would also need to be in that order.