Implementing MD and Selecting Managers for Development

The way an organisation chooses to interpret and respond to competitive pressures and the performance gaps they expose will naturally play a key role in determining management development priorities and policies (Pettigrew et al. 1988). Purcell (1995), however, argues that an organisation’s business strategy is best geared to its current capability given the state of flux in the internal environment. Either way, it has been consistently theorised that the means by which a firm develops its managers in the long- term and addresses skills gaps in the short term are key determinants of its market performance (Butler et al., 1991; Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Tichy et al., 1985).

According to Mabey (2002 p. 1142) the central elements of this typically include

“priority given to manager development at a strategic level; senior endorsement via a written management development policy; systematic mechanisms for accurately diagnosing group/individual training needs; evaluation processes to ensure training remains high quality and business-focused; and serious attention given to the implementation of training activities”.

This interplay of competing and contested views, together with the influence of external environmental forces, will shape the pathway of training strategies and implementation in a given organisation (Thomson et al. 2001) but it is not surprising that investment in management training does not automatically translate into improved performance. The reasons for this might include

“…a poor matching of training provision to managers’ requirements; a failure to understand the situational factors that shape behaviour; mixed motives on the

94

part of senior management for investing in management development; collusion between what the organisation thinks it wants in the way of management development and what external/internal providers actually deliver”

Thomson et al. (2001 p.100)

Additionally there may be resistance from existing authority structures; and difficulty in developing appropriate levels of trust, mutual support and collaboration all of which are essential for effective learning to take place (Thomson et al. 2001).

The reality of management is that it is very often relatively disorganised, subject to short bursts of activity, not subject to neat discrete boxes of content or attention, not highly responsive to organised planning, and using a variety of half conscious network processes to get things done (Mumford 1987). Therefore to be effective MD needs to take these realities aboard not only in terms of the content of the managerial activities which it is trying to get managers to do more effectively, but in terms of the nature of the processes which development encompasses (Gold et al.2010) .To rely on the design and implementation of neat formal structures of management development, which are then supposed to operate in a quite different form of managerial world, must now be seen as both unintelligent and irresponsible (Mumford 1987).

There are many writers who have noted that different management tasks are inherent in different organisation strategies (Kotter 1982; Tichy et al., 1982; Gupta, 1984). More specifically, it is suggested that the required managerial knowledge and competencies, and indeed the personality traits, particularly of top managers, differ according to the competitive stance and developmental status of the organisation in strategic terms. Galbraith & Kazanjian (1986) argue that the effectiveness of an organisation’s strategy implementation is based, at least in part, upon attaining a good match between the skills, attitudes and behaviours of managers and the competitive settings they face. The strategic importance of MD lies in its ability as a function to establish and maintain this match. Woodall (2005 p. 274) relates that

“…much of existing theory fails to guide the implementation of HR best practices because it does not recognize how introduced practices interact with existing practices in the firm”.

95

There are two main approaches offered in relation to the implementation of best practice: ‘replication’ and ‘recreation’. The former implies a mechanistic process of organisational change towards a fixed, externally given endpoint, while the latter opens up the possibility for emerging local practices and outcomes. The most dominant perspective in current literature is ‘replication’, but there is an argument that undesired consequences are less likely when implementation is guided by the assumptions underlying the ‘recreation’ perspective (Woodall 2005).

Perhaps the most significant change in MD over the last twenty years has been the recognition that it is most effective, “when it matches the strategy or mission of an organisation, and indeed is developed and implemented in order to facilitate the implementation and success of that strategy”, Mumford & Gold (2004 p. 12). The idea that an organisation ought to establish a clear statement of where it wants to get to and how it needs to get there is still fundamental to good management. Despite the logical appeal of creating and harnessing individual skills and competency around business strategies, this can be problematic for a number of reasons, (Mabey & Finch-Lees 2008). Namely the initial clearly articulated intent of the MD strategy can take sometime to come to fruition and by then and the original strategy may have shifted in focus and some of the design features may have become outmoded. However even though, “the evolution of corporate strategy; and by implication management development strategy is likely to be messy and overtaken by unpredictable events”, Mabey & Finch-Lees (2008 p. 159). The simple act of having designed and implemented a strategy, gives those responsible for deriving such strategies, “some sense of control and direction in the midst of chaotic and unpredictable reality” Pattison (1997 p. 30-31). Unfortunately in some situations were organisational objectives have been stated, these may bear little resemblance to the actual intentions and values of those initiating and sponsoring the development (Lees 1992). Mabey & Finch-Lees (2008 p. 159) conclude that, “it seems that linking corporate and management development strategy is an unfulfilled aspiration for most organizations”. This pragmatic view is by no means new as twenty years ago, Woodall & Winstanley (1998 p. 23) held the view that, “the implementation of a common management development strategy or achievement of coherence among different business unit policies may be difficult”. Furthermore they pointed out their belief that, “the modern multidivisional organization may well be creating obstacles to the very goal it is seeking to achieve: focused management development” Woodall & Winstanley (1998 p. 23).

96

More recently it has been argued that when companies do manage to create a strategic role for management development, the performance benefits can be impressive, (Mabey & Gooderham 2005). Furthermore because of globalisation, there is now, a simultaneous pursuit of global coordination and multinational responsiveness which creates a natural learning agenda for many organisations (Mabey & Finch-Lees 2008). This agenda involves the, “the sharing of information and the joint implementation of strategy through an integrated network where resources, products, information and people flow freely between units. According to Mabey & Finch-Lees (2008 p. 163),

“…from a practitioner perspective, multinational corporations (MNCs) undoubtedly play a major role in the dissemination of HR practices, with parent companies often using management development as ‘corporate glue’”.

Branine (1996) dissemination and any attempt to implement management policies and practices produced in Western capitalist societies in other countries are likely to end in failure. For example in the 1990’s even though foreign experts and specialists in different fields were invited to work in China they were only expected to bring new knowledge, new technology and new skills not new policies or their own culture. The Chinese authorities imposed restrictions on foreign experts and created obstacles to the implementation of Western management development programmes in China, (Branine 1996). It was felt important for Western visitors to try to understand the conditions in which the Chinese managers are expected to manage before telling them how to manage their enterprises properly. This indicates that “The potential influence of multinational parent companies over host country management practices is likely to be powerful”, Mabey & Finch-Lees (2008 p. 185), especially in the area of management development because this is typically seen as a way of exerting control and/or inculcating cultural expectations (Kamoche, 2000) and building internationally skilled, high-potential managers who have been identified as vital to the company’s future and survival (Scullion and Starkey, 2000).

Additionally, there is evidence which has established a tendency on the part of some of the subsidiaries, of MNC’s, to adopt parent or ‘best—practice’ norms particularly in more macro-HRD practices like training needs analysis, management development delivery and evaluation procedures, while allowing their subsidiaries considerably greater autonomy in the local implementation of training (Noble, 1997;Tregaskis,

97

2001). Furthermore US-based MNCs have been seen to diverge from their host country counterparts when they attempt to apply their parent company HRM practices to their subsidiaries in Western Europe (Gooderham et al. 2004). Finally, it is well known that the economies of scale associated with MNCs permit access to a richer vein of resources for management development than is possible for many indigenous companies.

Success in managerial work depends on the possession of a range of social skills and innate personal qualities attention therefore needs to be paid to selection in order to guarantee the appropriate managerial pool (Sisson and Storey, 1993). This cadre of top managers act as powerful role models within organisations; attitudes and behaviour throughout an organisation are shaped by the way they are perceived to prioritise matters and the manner in which things catch their attention (Lorbiecki 1993) and these attitudes and values of leaders are crucial factors in determining organisational success. There is therefore a need to examine recruitment and selection policies as they have a critical bearing on MD strategies and the creation of this cadre of managers. In the search for trained managers by subsidiaries of MNC’s it is often quicker and cheaper for them to import specialised managers from other parts of their organisations. However there are dangers inherent in this practice, according to Lorbiecki (1993 p. 8) namely that “organisational success is put at risk by the implantation of foreign managers who may be unable to operate effectively in a strange cultural environment; and additionally as a result of this practice nothing is done to redress the national shortage of managerial talent”. In a country with a national scarcity of experienced managers, action must be taken locally, by governments and national management development institutions, to address the problem and select managers appropriately.

In performance-oriented cultures training needs are determined on the basis of performance outcomes, (Mabey & Finch-Lees 2008), while job performance plays no part in decisions made on who will participate in training in low performance-oriented and high power—distance contexts. In these cultures it is those employees who maintain good relations with higher management who are selected for training programmes as a reward for their loyalty (Sinha, 1997). In collectivist cultures there is in-group favouritism based on kinship or tribal ties Wilkins (2001) and in high power— distance cultures, training needs of the work group are determined by the paternalistic manager in an authoritarian or consultative way. In low power—distance cultures,

98

training needs are usually determined jointly by the employee and his/her superior, Aycan (2005).

Hofstede (2001) sought to apply a cultural lens to work related issues including perceptions of management practice, and management practices themselves and how they differ widely between countries. Some writers have argued that there are differences between countries in relation to HR practices such as selection and development (Laurent, 1986), perceptions of career management (Derr &Laurent, 1989), hiring strategies (Segalla et al., 2001a) and terminations (Segalla, et al., 2001b). Also, Budhwar & Sparrow (1998), using their own five aspects of national culture, note the influence of culture on socialisation of managers in British and Indian organizations, and the role of social relationships and political connections on selection, promotion and transfer decisions. Laurent (1986) investigated what qualities managers from different countries considered essential in order for them to get promoted in their particular work context. In France it was being labelled as having high potential, in Germany being seen as having a creative mind was imperative. Respondents in the UK stated that having skills in interpersonal communications was the key, while in the US having drive and ability were the prerequisites of being selected (Klarsfield & Mabey (2004).

In discussing management development for Polish managers Lorbiecki (1993 p 12), raise two important questions.

“First, how do we offer models of management learning which challenge didactic modes of operating, when a society’s cultural norms expects a management developer to be an expert? Secondly, how do we offer management development to the new market economies when there isn’t even a word for learning, or where career development, if literally translated means self- aggrandisement?”

These examples point sharply towards the need for a deep understanding of the different cultural worlds which managers inhabit, for instance in previously communist Europe according to Woodall, (1994) selection for MD involved the local communist party branch. This committee had control over succession planning, as they constructed lists of incumbents and potential ‘reserves’ for key management jobs. Promotion was based upon ‘connections’ and not assessment of performance or procedural justice (Woodall, 1982). Also, this system left managers little control over the selection of their immediate colleagues, making the concept of team development rather hollow. Central

99

planning and control put considerable pressures on managers who as well as passing on instructions from the central authority, also had to some how motivate employees with the crudely constructed performance-related pay system to deliver to plan targets. Additionally local government and communist party interests needed to be placated (Woodall, 1994).