The Purpose, Processes and Value of MD

MD can have a number of different meanings and different conceptions and focus on individual managers (Harrison 1997). This focus on the individual manager implies a primary concern with individual learning and development, and a purpose for MD being associated with improving individual ability and performance. In contrast to this, management development implies a primary concern with collective learning and development, and a purpose for MD associated with producing shared values and consistency in management style and approach. The focus in this conception of MD is then on the organisation as an entity rather than the individual manager. Each of these suggests varying specific purposes, additionally the broader purpose of MD programmes can also be said to vary, and there are again two broad possibilities.

The first is primarily concerned with changing behaviour, either of individual managers or of the organisation as a whole, as a means of maintaining or improving performance. The second is primarily concerned with ensuring availability of skills and experience to meet future demands. This purpose can be applied to individual managers in the sense

89

of preparing them for future promotion opportunities, or to the organisation as an entity in the sense of ensuring a supply of managerial ability to fill senior management positions as they become vacant.

In both cases, the purpose represents an attempt to manage internal labour markets through interventions in career progression. The conventional view, set out, for example, by both Woodall and Winstanley (1998) and Storey et al. (1997), is that the purpose of MD is always and simply to improve organisational performance and success. However MD has been increasingly adopted as a strategic tool for achieving desired organisational outcomes and effective individual performance (Luoma, 2005; Winterton & Winterton, 1997), as well as a driver and facilitator of organisational change, adaptation, and renewal (Beddowes, 1994; McClelland, 1994; Storey, 1989), even so the MD concept remains ambiguous and under debate. This is evidenced by the coexistence of multiple and even conflicting definitions, underpinning assumptions, and interpretations in the literature.

Traditionally, MD was defined as, “… a formal, planned, and conscious effort in developing management competencies to attain the organization’s competitive advantage or secure its positioning in the future, Wang & Wang (2006 p. 181). But more recent definitions promote a more holistic view and emphasise MD as a generic, continuous, ever-changing process, involving both formal and informal, planned and unplanned education and training (Garavan et al., 1999; Lees, 1992). There are three main themes that Wang & Wang (2006) identify these include, viewing MD as a process aiming to improve the performance of individuals and organisations; identifying the fact that successful MD initiatives require support from all relevant parties at all levels and understanding that MD is an open dynamic system grounded in the complex social, political, cultural, and institutional contexts and, therefore, subject to multiple contextual variables.

Burgoyne & Jackson (1997) suggested a more pluralist understanding of MD is required to appreciate political dynamics and the cultural and symbolic context in which it occurs. Mabey & Finch-Lees (2008 p. 194) point out an additional purpose of MD, in collectivistic cultures is that is used as a tool “…to motivate employees and reward loyalty and commitment”, in fatalistic cultures however managers assume that employees, by nature, have limited capacity that cannot be improved. In cultures where

90

there is a heavy emphasis on performance excellence and quality, there is a large budgetary allocation to and widespread application of training and development activities. In performance-oriented cultural contexts, training and development are primarily geared towards improving individual or team performance (Aycan, 2005). In the UK according to Burgoyne et al. (2004 p. 14) the national Management Standards are now maintained by the Management Standards Centre, part of the Chartered Institute of Management. The current Standards define the purpose of management as “to achieve the organisation‘s objectives and continuously improve its performance.” This concern to attribute organisational benefits to effective management or management development is understandable, because as Mabey & Finch-Lees (2008 p. 75) point out, “Such activities are expensive, time-consuming and often high-profile”. Therefore there is a need to demonstrate that such investments are worthwhile, however this analysis of MD from a functionalist stance is not without its problems and critics.

There have been some doubts about the capability of HR departments to translate business priorities into appropriate HRD goals Huselid et al. (1997) and of achieving timely fit in a turbulent environment Wright & Snell (1998). Others have argued that by placing a focus on inputs and outcomes diverts attention from the important management development processes which include unanticipated outcomes and informal, more covert episodes of learning (Woodall & Winstanley 1998). Three trends appear regarding MD according to Wang & Wang (2006) these include first of all, the tendency even despite the difficulty in finding a causal link between MD and organisational performance (Easterby-Smith, 1994), to increase investment in MD (Beddowes, 1994; Vicere, 1998) as a response to new competitive challenges facing organisations (Luoma, 2005). Secondly, the development of organisations through MD is now seen as only being possible by recognising MD as a driver of change rather than a supportive function in the change process as traditionally perceived (Gavaran et al., 1999). Finally, MD is now being reframed within a more holistic perspective. This will not only challenge fundamental assumptions on which existing conceptions of MD are premised but also lead to the formulation of a broader set of MD policies and strategies that are more strategically aligned with organisational goals and outcomes.

4.3.2. MD, Organisational Strategy and Policy

As major environmental shifts are now demanding a more strategic perspective from those who manage and lead organisations, many organisations are now ‘globalizing’ in

91

their quest for markets that will bring them new opportunities for growth and prosperity. Advances in technology, especially in the field of information and telecommunications, are leading to greater efficiencies, reduced costs and opportunities to launch new products and services. Such changes set new challenges for managers and employees alike, with managers being expected to respond as strategic leaders and perform the role of change agent (Salaman, 1995;Rosenfeld & Wilson, 1999). Their task is to establish a clear mission, linked to a set of strategic business goals that enable organisations to acquire, control and allocate resources to maximise the opportunities available and to minimise any threats to their survival and success. In the bid to equip managers with the knowledge and skills to do this, MD has become a strategic imperative within many organisations (Woodall & Winstanley, 1998; Thomson et al, 2001) because gaining strategic significance ensures the right mix of management competencies to enable the organisation to maintain or shift its competitive position in the future (Buckley & Kemp 1989).

Storey (1989 p. 12) points out that, “… increasingly, the goals and objectives of MD are becoming indistinguishable from the need for organizations to respond effectively to pressures and challenges of change and renewal”. In this sense, MD has become a ‘tool’ in the pursuit of quality, cost reduction and profitability through excellence, by equipping managers for new roles and responsibilities and supporting them in those roles. At the organisational level, there are examples to demonstrate how MD is being used in an effort to facilitate and ‘engineer’ different forms of culture change in both the public and the private sector, often with mixed outcomes (Hopfl & Dawes, 1995; Simpson & Lyddon, 1995; Currie, 1999). Although the key strategic imperative is to use MD as a way of developing individuals and engineering change, there is a concern that a reliance on traditional, conventional approaches may be failing to deliver the anticipated outcomes (Currie 1999).The impression gained is that MD might somehow be ‘failing’ to deliver strategic and operational objectives, this view is not a new one (Doyle, 2001).

Attention is now turning to the significance of managing development as well as conducting development in unique organisational contexts. In practice, this means addressing the wider structural, political, social, and cultural barriers that ‘interfere’ with the organisation’s objectives of changing managerial attitudes and behaviours and improving organisational performance (McClelland, 1994; Molander & Winterton,

92

1994). However, there are also concerns that the formalised and highly structured approaches currently adopted may not be able to cope with the growing complexity and diversity that is becoming a characteristic of modern organisations (Woodall & Winstanley, 1998). What is required is a more contingent, holistic and systemic approach that links management development more firmly to a wider consideration of contextual influences and the unique context in which organisations are embedded (Doyle, 1995; 2000a, 2000b). In order to do this, what is needed is an MD policy.

Designing management development is often a highly systematic approach which often leads to blocks of training and development for managers (and potential mangers) and helps them acquire sets of functional skills (Harrison 2002) organisational life is not entirely rational, ordered or predictable. Simply learning how to perform specific functional tasks is not enough to be effective in management roles because as managers, they have to operate in an environment of complex social and political structures, continuously adapt themselves to changing internal and external pressures along with operating across many internal and external boundaries (Harrison 2002). Consequently MD programmes should be designed in a way that ensure that managers have the adaptability and flexibility of skills and disposition to move through often rapidly- changing managerial roles in order to stimulate a holistic and integrative approach to management tasks. Some managers do not accept that they themselves need to change their attitudes towards MD, which means that they are unlikely to be able to function effectively in a changing world, effectively meaning that MD that does not focus on attitudes will simply perpetuate old practices into new learning (Mabey & Salaman 1995) ultimately negating any new learning in the organisation.

When it fails to produce the anticipated results or exacerbates an existing problem, MD is being undermined and discredited (Roberts & McDonald, 1995; Currie, 1999). It is therefore vital that organisations view MD as a long-term investment as a key part of their human resource, and select an approach that is suited to their specific needs. An MD policy is a working document that can be referred to when an organisation needs guidance on achieving objectives or goals. It is vital that when drafting a policy there is full consultation and involvement with all managers to achieve ownership and commitment to the subsequent development process. Margerison (1991 p.1) points out that “…management development will fail if there is no clear policy”. Managers may not agree with its contents, and like many HR policy statements, it may represent an

93

espoused view rather than actual practice. Nevertheless, as found by Thomson et al. (2001 p. 111), “…organisations which had formal MD policies were likely to provide more management development than those without, since the existence of a policy allows for MD to be accorded priority, for resources to be devoted to it, and for someone to take responsibility for it”. Mabey, (2003), building on these findings, showed that policy contributed to a positive human resource context that took both formal and informal MD seriously. Some organisations will have set and sustained an objective that all top management appointments should be filled by people developed by the organisation itself. Others will have set some target figure for recruitment from outside, or will set different targets for different jobs (Mumford & Gold 2004).