Achieving management excellence: a survey of UK management development at the millennium

Citation

(2001), "Achieving management excellence: a survey of UK management development at the millennium", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd.2001.02620fab.001

Achieving management excellence: a survey of UK management development at the millennium

Achieving management excellence: a survey of UK management development at the millennium

For more than a decade there has been much discussion and debate about the skills of managers, and their education and training. In 1987 reports by Charles Handy and by John Constable and Roger McCormick concluded that Britain's managers lacked the training and development opportunities of their overseas competitors; that the pattern of provision was fragmented, and that the majority of executives received no formal training.

The results of research carried out in the mid-1990s, most notably Management Development to the Millennium (1994) and A Portrait of Management Development (1996) were, however, more upbeat, suggesting organisations were responding to the challenge. The surveys pointed to the great increase in numbers of those taking management qualifications and the recognition among managers of the need for developing themselves. Furthermore, management development was generally seen to be achieving its objectives, and to be having an impact within organisations.

The Achieving Management Excellence project of the year 2000, therefore, provides a unique longitudinal perspective. It enables comparisons to be drawn from previous surveys, and highlights progress and change from the 1996 research project in particular.

It was designed to achieve the following key objectives:

• •

  To establish current levels of management development activity and practice in the UK.

• •

  To establish the management knowledge and skills needs of organisations now and in the future in order to define market demand.

• •

  To establish the current supply of management development, including modes and methods of delivery.

Background

There were three separate parts to the project:

1. 1.

   In-depth personal interviews were carried out with senior board members from 20 leading organisations by an independent research company (Benchmark Research) in late 1999. The objective of the qualitative research was to evaluate attitudes to, and practices in, management development; to examine what drives investment in this area, and to identify what skill sets are needed of managers, now and in the future. The results informed the design of the subsequent quantitative study.

2. 2.

   Telephone interviews were carried out during 2000 by the market research agency Makrotest with a total of 1,000 managers from organisations with more than ten employees in order to provide a "reality check". Almost half were the same organisations as had been interviewed in 1996. A total of 500 HR managers with responsibility for management development took part in a 30-minute telephone interview. Their views were compared and contrasted with a further 500 managers who were interviewed in their role as "consumers" of management development; two-thirds of these were in the same organisation as the HR managers.

3. 3.

   A postal survey to members of the Institute of Management and a group of other managers was also carried out in early 2000. Around 1,300 replies were received.

Key findings

Levels of management development activity. The dominant message of the study has been the significant progress made in both the quantity and quality of management development in the UK. The progress that has been tracked relates to certain key areas of management development activity, namely:

• •

  the time (days per year) spent on development activity;

• •

  the existence of an explicit policy relating to management development;

• •

  a system of structures and processes that support development activity;

• •

  some measure of the results and impact of management development.

In 2000 the overall average number of days per manager allocated to formal training, e.g. courses, seminars, conferences, external qualifications, was 6.5 days in large organisations, and 6.4 days for those with fewer than 100 employees (and defined as small for the purposes of the project). This represents a significant increase of 18 per cent and 25 per cent respectively from 1996.

The survey also tried to gauge a measure of informal development within organisations e.g. job shadowing, mentoring, coaching. While nearly one in five HR managers could not give an answer and nearly a third reported it as ongoing, the average was eight days for large, and 8.5 for small organisations.

There has also been an increase since 1996 in the number of large companies with a written policy statement (up from 43 to 51 per cent). This suggests, but does not guarantee, that more coherent consideration is now being given to management development. However, still less than half (49 per cent) of organisations with over 100 employees have an explicit budget for management development in 2000.

Current and future skills needs. The skills associated with bringing out the best in people and teams emerge as those most in demand by employers both now, and over the next two to three years, although functional and technical expertise is still rated important.

It is demonstrable excellence in those people skills that are often described as "soft" (but which in many ways are the hardest to deliver), that will continue to define the successful manager of the future. Managing people, teamworking, leadership and customer focus dominate the current and future list of priorities, while the exploitation of e-commerce is seen as gaining in relative importance in the short term.

Managers in the survey were, however, happier with the functional skills of their senior management team rather than the softer interpersonal ones.

Management development practice and methods. Estimating company expenditure on management development was a considerable problem for the HR managers in the 2000 survey, with the majority either unable, or unwilling, to provide an answer. Of the 41 per cent who did reply, the average amount spent per year per manager was just over £1,000.

There has been an important shift since 1996 from informal to formal methods of development. Four years ago 40 per cent of organisations overall reported considerably more informal than formal development, while by 2000 these figures were reversed (40 per cent reporting more formal than informal).

Formal methods are associated with the presence of a strong policy framework for development, while planned on-the-job development remains the most popular informal approach in organisations of less than 100 employees. Job rotation and job shadowing are also used more than in 1996, but the most striking gains are in the use of mentoring and coaching in small organisations.

In companies with a strong policy framework, company strategy is the main driver of management development, but time pressures are almost universally reported as the main inhibiting factor.

In the past, and now reconfirmed by the HR managers survey of 2000, inherent ability/personality has been considered the most important contribution to the making of a good manager, followed by job experience. Only after these indicators do factors such as in-company training, education after starting work and formal qualifications come into play, which puts management development into a broader context.

Evaluating and measuring impact. A substantial majority of organisations (72 per cent) are now making at least some attempt to review the management development activities they are undertaking, an increase from 67 per cent in 1996.

When asked how the impact of management development was measured in organisations, HR managers reported that a number of criteria were used including whether business objectives and targets were achieved (71 per cent), improved staff motivation (64 per cent) and noticeable change in an individual's performance (63 per cent).

Finally, one of the most interesting findings of this study relates to the link between management training and development and the financial performance of organisations – whether or not training has an impact on the bottom line.

The 2000 survey enabled an analysis to be undertaken of a core of companies (223) that were the same as those studied in 1996.

In these cases, those organisations that reported improvements in management development and a more consistent approach to policy, planning and implementation issues, also reported increases in benchmarked financial turnover compared with others in their sector.

Conclusions

There has been a substantial move forward compared with the situation in 1996, most noticeably greater amounts of development in terms of days training per year, more formal methods, and a movement up the hierarchy of policy initiation. Progress is most evident in the small and medium companies.

Broad perspectives and practices of management development have changed little since 1996. Thus, views as to what makes a good manager remain almost identical to what they were, with inherent ability/personality and job experience well ahead of other factors, followed by in-company training.

Existence of a written management development policy, rather than size of organisation, appears to be the primary determining factor in management development, and this is linked with a range of processes, outputs and outcomes within the organisational system.

The perceived success of management development in achieving its objectives has stayed fairly level since 1996. Nearly half of large organisations rated the overall impact of management development as high, or very high four years ago. This has now dropped slightly to 42 per cent, and can be seen against a background of increasing expectations.

It does also strongly suggest a need to improve both the linkages between development and performance, and organisations' ability to understand the relationship.

Recommendations

These are outlined at two levels – organisational and national policy level – based on the findings from the telephone surveys.

Actions at the level of the organisation

• •

  Managers throughout the organisation need the right tools to improve measurement of the investment in, and value delivered by, management development.

• •

  Priority now needs to be focused on developing and implementing models to establish the relationship between management development and successful business performance.

• •

  To maximise the value of management development, employers must identify the particular skills and knowledge they are seeking to foster throughout the organisation.

• •

  Organisations are encouraged to develop their own written management development policy, as a reference point to monitor its strategic impact.

• •

  People skills are key, and concerted attention needs to be given to the best way of acquiring the interpersonal skills associated with leadership, customer care and teamworking.

• •

  Ensure that developers are developed, especially mentors, and line and project managers are skilled in managing the development of their staff.

• •

  Good organisational intentions at the strategic level must be followed through at the operational level with good practice such as transparent funding arrangements, skills/competency frameworks and fair and effective diagnostic processes.

Actions at national level. Many of the recommendations above suggest actions which require considerable analysis and reflection. But this is easier said than done, especially for the many small and medium-sized companies which have only limited resources. They need guidance, and the rather broader recommendations in this section are therefore pointed at those national level organisations which can provide or contribute to guidance: Government through the DfEE and the DTI; the Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership (CEML); the relevant NTOs and Industry Lead Bodies; the Institute of Management (IM) and other professional institutes in the areas; and the research community, mainly comprising the research councils and the business schools. Although all these bodies can contribute, an indication of where a lead might come from is given:

• •

  Exemplars of good practice in management development in companies of all sizes should be identified and case studies publicised (CEML).

• •

  Recognition of what is contained in a comprehensive management development policy (CEML).

• •

  Identification of a range of roles and responsibilities in management development, especially for line managers (CEML).

• •

  Creation of a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of management development, including the identification of costs (the research community).

• •

  From this, how to focus on the quality of management development and the identification of appropriate methods for particular development objectives (the research community).

• •

  Building a competence framework for individual companies, using the national management standards as a starting point (Government, IM, Industry Lead Bodies).

• •

  Creation of patterns of continuing professional development (CPD) as opposed to short-term job related training (IM and other professional institutes).

• •

  How to make use of new technology in delivering development (Government, the research community).

The report is available price £25 to IM members and Corporate Partners and £50 to non-members, from the Public Affairs Department, the Institute of Management, 2 Savoy Court, Strand, London WC2R 0EZ. Tel: +44 (0)20 7497 0580; Fax: +44 (0)20 7497 0463; Web site: http://www.inst-mgt.org.uk; E-mail: public.affairs@imgt.org.uk