Rayner and Adam-Smith (eds): Managing and Leading People – Tutor notes
Answers are going to depend on the nature of the organisations that students work for,
so some prior knowledge here will be helpful.
Larger companies will be more likely to have a dedicated training and development
function but the degree of devolution of this activity to line managers might vary. This
has been the trend as has the shift towards the employee taking a more proactive role in
identifying his/her own developmental needs and planning for appropriate development
with the assistance of a skilled helper – whether that is the line manager or someone
else such as a mentor or member of training staff.
However, the extent to which external organisations are used to deliver training might
well blur the divide between larger and smaller companies. Both might use outside
agencies – especially for specialist training – but who decides which supplier to use,
and how are they evaluated?
The final question is a good one by which to explore the issue of responsibility for
developing necessary skills and knowledge. If a dedicated function does not exist, does
it then become the responsibility of HR or does it shift to line managers? But if there is
no function, how do needs get identified (usually by appraisals) and then met? How are
line managers developed to engage in this activity?
The main features of NVQs and the Apprenticeship programme are outlined on the
web. Check before running this activity because they can change. Requisite websites
are: http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_6640.aspx and http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/ .
In terms of assessing contribution, students will have to do some research into
completion and success rates on NVQs and Apprenticeship schemes. Given that the
Leitch Review of skills urged that the balance of intermediate skills shift from level 2
to level 3, this might be a helpful yardstick when making an evaluation. He also
recommended that the number of Apprentices be increased to 500,000 – which is
nearly double their current number – so again, this might work as a helpful benchmark.
Also, evaluating the success of schemes such as this is often quite difficult, but the
government usually provides information on how many people are in its various
schemes, even if it is more difficult to ascertain the level at which they are enrolled or
achieving. And this might be an important learning and discussion point in its own
right.
This activity is aimed at getting students to think about where skills shortages and gaps
might be occurring within their own industry and organisation – as well as thinking
about why they might exist. They then need to think more carefully about how those
gaps and shortages might be overcome. There are no ‘right answers’ here, but they
might focus on how they would assess training needs more accurately and then
progress with thinking about design and delivery issues before making a definitive
choice.
But if government schemes are rejected in favour of in-house options or options
developed by the industry, it is very important that the reasons why these schemes have
been jettisoned is explored. Where are the schemes failing? And what would have to
change before they would considering adopting them?
This activity is designed to tease out whether or not a shift from training to
development has occurred within the organisations students work for. The literature has
made much of this shift, but is it being witnessed across the broad sweep of UK
organisations, and if it is being seen, in relation to what kinds of organisations and how
is it manifest?
Students will have to be aware of the different delivery methods used where these
interventions are concerned, so some preparation time is required because they may
well need to do some research. They will also have to be quite clear what is meant by
the terms ‘training’ and ‘development’ in order to make their classification.
Finally, it is more likely that mass delivery will be associated with ‘training’ modes and
more individually focused interventions with ‘development’, but there might be cases
where development and training initiatives blur and are also delivered across large
cohorts. An example of this can be seen in management development programmes in
universities or larger organisations where aspects of the programme are often
developmental and others use a training style. Students might come up with alternative
such examples.
It is hard to overstate the importance of learning transfer but, like evaluation, this can
be an area of activity that falls off the training and development agenda. It is often left
to the individual to work through on their own with little support from the function or
from their line manager.
There are a number of methods that can be used to facilitate learning transfer and it
could be argued that within any training and development intervention, a substantial
amount of time and care should be spent on this activity and structuring next steps so
that the learning occurring through the process is enhanced through relevant workplace
activity or activities found outside work. Transfer methods are only limited by
imagination, budget and the nature of the job. Otherwise, the parties involved should be
encouraged to think creatively as well as practically.
Having a skilled helper is often a factor in ensuring transfer, so one of the first steps
might be to locate someone who will assist in this process and has the skills and time to
do so. It is also important to discuss any transfer plans with the line manager, who can
be a gatekeeper where resources are concerned, and who is often the person who can
facilitate job enlargement or enrichment activities that might be required to ensure that
learning is transferred.
Because students might not be aware how training is evaluated in their company, this
might be an activity that is given as ‘homework’ with a debrief occurring within the
following session.
What is sought is a discussion on whether evaluation even occurs, for evidence
suggests that this can be a neglected element of the systematic training cycle.
If evaluation does occur, then at what levels? Remember that organisations tend to
evaluate at the reaction and learning end of the Kirkpatrick model. How many students
can say that their company evaluates beyond that, and if it does, how is it done?
Also tease out the extent to which a return on investment (ROI) is sought within the
evaluation process or whether organisations use different assessment methods
concerning the impact of training on the organisation.
In virtually all schemes there will be an element of assessment as to what the learner
can already do and the skills, knowledge and attributes they possess, as well as an
evaluation of trainee weaknesses, so training needs analysis is often a foundational
element.
Where NVQs are concerned, this can mean that unnecessary training or activity is
avoided and credit can be awarded for skills that the trainee already has while also
ensuring that he/she is being assessed in an appropriate unit at the correct level.
The New Deal Gateway process will also want to uncover the same information in
order to ascertain whether further skills are required before the trainee can be placed
within an organisation – with the process offering a period of time devoted to gaining
them and preparing for the job-hunting process.
Where the processes of design and delivery are concerned, students might like to
consider how these are embedded within the schemes. Although they are not so evident
in New Deal because the four options are either work-based with learning occurring
experientially or via college provision (and thus embedded in course design/delivery),
they are more visible in NVQs and Apprenticeships. This is largely due to the latter two
programmes being skills-oriented pathways leading to an award, whereas New Deal is
not.
Finally, the schemes themselves are regularly evaluated either by academics through
their studies or by the government. For the individual on a scheme, his/her performance
is assessed and, if successful, he/she is awarded a relevant qualification. Where New
Deal is concerned, the success of the scheme and the individual will lie in the extent to
which those who go through the programme become more consistently employable and
are able to remain in work.
The movement from training to learning and development arguably reflects the
different ways in which organisations are having to compete and the kinds of skills and
knowledge they need to be able to do so in an increasingly global market.
So one aspect of student responses should tie in with the knowledge economy and the
ways in which the government has been urging organisations to compete on the basis of
innovation, knowledge and higher-order skills. Such a strategy will require sustained
development in human capital and be underpinned with some training – that need will
remain – but where the kinds of more complex skills and knowledge are concerned, it
is unlikely that training interventions will suffice; hence the greater interest in how to
build knowledge and intermediate and higher-order skills. Rather than identify the
industries where these developments are occurring, it is probably easier (and more
interesting) to think about where they are not, and why.
More innovative approaches to development and learning are more likely to stimulate
creativity because they aim to provoke and stimulate the learner – often by providing
them with exposure to new and different environments, simulations, exercises, and so
on. Some of these might be facilitated through different workplace-based activities,
others through different methods, but the general aim is to inspire innovative thinking
through exposure to innovative and different experiences or modes of learning.
Any evaluation of such a scheme will have to be clear as to the objectives set for the
programme. Where a management development programme is concerned, it is likely
that the objectives will focus on the requirement to create an internal cadre of managers
to meet the organisation’s present and future management and leadership needs. It
might also set objectives in relation to specific skills, knowledge and personal
attributes. So one area of evaluation that stands outside the framework of the models
would be to find out if this cadre has been created.
Where the evaluation models are concerned, you should make an assessment of which
levels students think it is appropriate to evaluate at and the extent to which they can
actually make evaluations at Phillips’ level 4 and Hamblin’s higher levels which try to
evaluate the impact of an intervention on the business. If students think that it is
important to do this with a programme concerned with management development, then
they should be stimulated to think about how they make this assessment: what tools
would they use? How precise would these assessments actually be – can you make an
easy correlation between a programme and organisational change?