Gregory,
Hi. You seem to have been given a job most people would give their eye
teeth for - a defined management development program aimed at meeting
in-house needs. Good luck.
As a suggestion, you seem to be developing the program around a whole bunch
of theories (Theory of Leadership, Situation Leadership. Theory X/Theory Y
etc.) mixed with a number of training sessions (ie, "You will be taught how
to: set goals, management self and time..." etc. etc.).
Have you asked how much of these are actually based on what each individual
supervisor, middle and senior manager actually needs in the workplace? For
example, if your people all use Lotus Notes is there much point in covering
half (or more) of what is normally contained in the typical time management
program?
Also, how do you plan to 'split' a theory? For example, Situational
Leadership really only lends itself to one level - how do you plan on
contextualising it for supervisors, middle managers and senior managers? In
my experience it can't be done. So, try to get away from theory and go for
function - what is the function to be filled by the students on their
return to the workplace? In this case you have: "Supervisor", "Middle
Manager" and "Senior Manager". What do they do? Well, a supervisor
supervises staff in the performance of tasks, a middle manager manages
supervisors while they supervise staff, and a senior manager manages middle
managers who are managing supervisors who are supervising staff. A bit
simplistic but you get the picture.
Therefore, in leadership, at the bottom level you have supervisors
providing leadership to staff undertaking staff and at the top you have
senior managers providing leadership to other managers. A whole bunch of
different skills and knowledge sets don't you agree?
Situational Leadership is, in my opinion, pretty good - in theory. In
nearly every respect it concentrates on leadership through the interaction
between the leader and the follower (note, follower - singular). Try
another theory called Functional Leadership. This actually concentrates on
the function the leader must fulfill in meeting the needs of the task (ie,
the job the team were brought together to achieve), the maintenance of team
cohesion and integrity, and the individual. Situational Leadership is best
taught under the latter.
Like other competencies, the skills and knowledge needed to lead others
(sorry, to perform the function of leader) can be taught and aligned at any
level of management. However, this only happens if you identify exactly
what skills and knowledge the people need on their return to the workplace
and concentrate your training around them.
Secondly, are you aiming to provide skills and knowledge that prepare
people for their role or are you looking to give people the tools whereby
they can apply the necessary skills and knowledge to the job they are
either currently doing or will be doing in the future? And have you
considered that many will already have most of the necessary skills and
knowledge (teamwork, corporate 'ethos', basic planning and organising etc.)
but not necessarily gained them from either formal or informal training and
education?
This is an area I believe we too often overlook because simply 'giving'
them skills and knowledge (in other words, 'preparing' students for their
job) may see you going over old ground (especially important for the more
experienced staff) and as a result boring the heck out of them (or, worse
still, turning them against what you're trying to do). On the other hand,
identifying first of all what skills and knowledge they need to competently
do the job they are doing/are going to do, then identifying what skills and
knowledge they already have (and measured against those that they need)
will give you 'the gap' which becomes the focus of your training - or, as I
prefer to call it, the management of the learning they gain to do their job.
Combining the above two points, are you aiming the training at the goals
and objectives of that part of the organisation in which each student
works/will work (and, indirectly, at the goals and objectives of the
organisation as a whole) or simply at meeting the training objectives? In
the case of the former it wouldn't surprise me if in doing this you
generated a whole heap of happiness throughout the organisation (and
especially at the top) while in the case of the latter I'm sure you and
your fellow trainers will be the only ones who are satisfied.
The bottom line is that management will want you to deliver training that
first and foremost meets the needs of the organisation. And what are these
needs? Simply put, the need for staff who can perform their function to the
standard that meets - or even exceeds - the goals and objectives of the
organisation. These goals might include shareholder return, market
increase, or getting to the moon (and back - thanks JFK), but they are
organisational goals. If you want to teach theory you will be aiming at
meeting the needs of the theorists - and as far as I could see none of them
are working for your organisation.
Aim to give people the skills and knowledge that they need to do their job.
After all, when they get back to work, if the skills and knowledge are
wrong, or they don't apply them, then they will be the ones getting the
kick in the tail, not you. Secondly, aim to measure these by the needs of
each person in his/her workplace and in his/her environment. After all,
that is where he/she will be being assessed and appraised over the longer
term - and it may be that his/her longer term opportunities are based on
what he/she does there.
The skills and knowledge you help each person either achieve or apply
should be those that first of all meet the organisational goals and
objectives, support (and in turn are supported by) the internal performance
appraisal system, are the basis for all recruitment and succession
planning, and are those that help each person be better at whatever job
he/she has now or in the future. Don't settle for rotating everyone through
the same tired programs nor try to measure everybody by what some external
agency says they must have or must be measured by. Develop your own
measurement criteria and use that as the basis for your training or
learning exercises. Try a Functional Analysis of the three levels you've
identified or get hold of the competency standards from the Management
Charter Initiative of the UK (I can give you an address if you like) and
contextualise them to your needs. You'll be surprised how much fun you can
have while making all training far more cost-effective and
organisationally-centred.
Have fun
Phil Rutherford
At 09:52 20/04/98 -0500, Wilkie, Gregory wrote:
>I have been asked to develop the next level of management development
>course for personnel. I am hoping that other listserve readers will
>have ideas from the corporate and academic worlds that could assist me
>in developing a course that is on the leading edge of mid-level
>management.
etc
------------------------------------
P D Rutherford & Associates Pty Ltd
Competency-based systems specialists
61 2 6230 4823
robnphil@ozemail.com.au