Title:

Training of New Managers: are we kidding ourselves?

Name of Author:

Timothy J Yeardley

Lecturer in Business and Events at the UK Centre for Events Management

Organisation

Leeds Beckett University

Address

School of Events, Tourism and Hospitality

109 Macaulay Hall

Leeds Beckett University

Headingley Campus

Leeds LS6 3QN

Email Address

Stream

7 – Leadership, Management and Talent Development

Submission Type

Working paper

Working Paper:

Title: Development of New Managers: are we kidding ourselves?

Abstract

The assessment of soft skills required by managers does not appear to account for their level of responsibility. Consequently the soft skills which first line managers require are not specifically identified. This working paper contextualises a soft skills framework and applies the framework to 45 private training providers in the UK to measure the extent that soft skillsare taught to first line managers. First, a Pilot study was carried out. Thisresearch was then repeated after a four year interval and this report is a work in progress summary of the research. Itis the first time the findingshave been published. The rationale of the study is to measure thedifferences in soft skills training as compared to the framework and track whether innovative management training paradigms can be introduced on the supply side which can impact first level managerial training. The initial results of both the pilot and repeat research reveal a high degree of variance of the soft skill training undertaken, of which a significant amount fail to teach soft skills appearing on the framework. This results in little commonality or consistency of managerial development between the training providers and suggests that first level managers are only receiving part of the soft skills training they should receive. A vast majority of courses also rely on the command and control management paradigm which is not how modern HR hypothesises are positioned. The study is an insight into an under researched area which gives HR professionals and managers better clarityon the soft skills being taught to first line managers.

1 Purpose

The purpose of this working paper is to provide an update on a longitudinal research study which examines the content delivery of courses provided by Private Training Providers (PTPs) for First Level Managers (FLMs). It measures, against a contemporary soft skill model, the relevance of “off the shelf” training which is aimed at FLMs managerial soft skills, as opposed to “technical” or “hard skill” training. The research has been carried out over three phases. Phase 1 involved investigating appropriate soft skills models for FLMs and producing a framework for FLMs. Phase 2 wasapplying the framework in a Pilot study involving training provider courses and Phase 3 repeated the research in the Pilot study to gauge movements and trends in training. The Pilot study undertaken in 2011 hasbeen repeated during the early part of 2015 by revisiting the PTPs and their FLMs courses, and will form the basis of an article produced later in 2015. The article will fully compare and contrast the results and determine any paradigm shifts in teaching or content of the courses. This research is aimed at Human Resource professionals, training provider companies and their consultants, executive and senior company management. The research is especially aimed at First Level Managers who have team leadership responsibilities i.e. those who have direct reports.

2 Objectives

The aim of the study is to investigate to what extent PTP training courses for FLMs in the UK mirror soft skills models as identified in the literature.The literature on what core soft skills FLMs should learn (particularly those who begin to supervise or manage other people) is limited. Research suggests that students believe hard skills are more important than soft skills (Rainsbury 2002), yet HR organisations see many benefits of soft skill development (CIPD 2010). The key question in this research is: what are the soft skills which FLM need to have, and are they being taught those skills by courses offered by PTPs?

The investigativeobjectives are to:

  • Identify key soft skills models which can contribute to a contemporary model;
  • Develop a soft skills contemporary model which PTP training courses can be measured against;
  • Compare the soft skills learning strands which are being taught by PTPs to the soft skills model for FLMs;
  • Undertake a longitudinal study measuring shifts in training provision and impact of new soft skill development paradigms;
  • Compare and contrast the present provision of these training courses to similar courses provided by the same PTPs;
  • Seek explanations for shifts in FLM training and development provision by PTPs.

3.1Defining key terms

This section willidentify and define the key terms which have shaped the research. The section will briefly introduce and define management, Private Training Providers (PTPs), First Line Managers (FLMs) and the concept of managerial competencies and soft skills. The nature of this working paper means that these substantial topics will only receive an abridged emphasis but the research will explain how these elements contribute to a multi-dimensional approach adopted within a core soft skill framework.

Management gurus from Taylor, Fayol, Boyatzi, Mintzberg (to name but a few) tell us what Managers do, but to define “Manager” is a little trickier. Robbins and Coulter (2014 p31) define Manager as “someone who coordinates and oversees the work of other people so organisational goals can be accomplished” and the Oxford English Dictionary defines Managing as “having executive control or authority”. An issue with this definition is assuming all Managers have the responsibility of “overseeing other peoples work”, as there are many with the title “Manager” with no direct line supervisory responsibilities. Mullins (2010 p425) refers to this as a “liberal use of the title manager” to enhance status and morale and defines a manager as involving others and “exercising formal authority over the activities and performance of other people”.

“The managers most responsible for a company’s success or failure happen to be the ones with whom the CEO spends the least amount of time. The people I’m talking about are frontline managers—shop-floor supervisors, leaders of R&D or sales teams, managers in restaurant chains or call centres”. Hassan (2011)

This research is aimed at First-Line Managers (FLMs)with employee supervisory responsibilities (Hales 2005).Hutchinson and Purcell (as cited by Robson and Mavin 2011) define FLMs as Managers who tend to have employees reporting to them who themselves do not have managerial responsibility.Traditionally the first level of management FLMs, are managers who manage the work of non-managerial employees (Robbins and Coulter 2014). This research is specifically looking at training provided to FLMs who do have direct reports as the literature describes, andpart of their managerial responsibilitiesmeets Hales and Hutchinson and Purcell definitions i.e. they “manage people”. This research will include Supervisors who attend these courses and have employees to manage. In this sense, Supervisors are part of a “supervisory control system” (Delbridge and Lowe 1997) and have colleagues who report to them.

3.2 Training for FLMs

Managementtraining is defined by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells (1989 p14) as “the process by which managers acquire knowledge and skills related to their work requirements by formal, structured or guided means”. Deloitte et al stated there were three modes of training: informal-on-the-job training, formal in-house formal training and external training. This research will look at external training as defined in the literature and the companies providing this external training are described as Private Training Providers(Osborne and Turner, 2002; Gainey, 2005; Harris et al, 2006; Bisscoff,2007). Bisschoff and Govender (2007) define training providers as “individuals, organisations or consultants who provide internal and/or external training to workplace employees” and Private Training Providers (PTPs) as “specialist trainers brought from the marketplace into organisations to build capacity and transfer skills to employees”. The training which is provided by PTPsis “off-the-shelf”, as the training provider designs the training and delivers it to numerous customers with little change in the content programme (Gainey 2005). The training is a standard programme so that each customer who receives the training will get the same materials and content as others attending the course. External training provision is big business. According to the Whitehead Review, £49bn is spent yearly on training in the UK of which nearly £5bn (10%) is spent with (private) training providers (UKCES 2013). This research will be looking at the programmes which PTPs provide to FLMsin an external environment (rather than taking place in-house) and which FLMs can access and attend.

3.3 FLM Competencies, tasks and responsibilities

There is an enormous amount of literature dedicated to Managerial competencies. Boyatzis (1982) studied Managerial competencies and found six competency clusters. Davison (citing Boyatzis 2008) defined the competencies as; motive, trait, skill, aspects of one’s self image, social role, and a body of knowledge. The extent, however, to which the literature describes in detail the role or skills required for a FLM,in particular, is limited.The Competency Domain Model (Sandwith 1993) identified the training requirements of First Line Supervisors.Sandwith’s model was developed in partnership with a business organisation andfound five areas of managerial competency which required training focus for a FLM: technical, administrative, interpersonal, leadership and conceptual. This approach has seldom been repeated as managerial models (or competencies) are designed for Managers regardless where they are on the managerial life cycle. There are, though, noted differences in the competencies of FLMs and CEOs. The literature clearly informs us of this when discussing the elements of leadership and management. On the other hand, a number of leading authors, such as Carmichael (2011) and Mintzberg (2011), have argued that competencies are not relevant for managers as they provide a list of attributes which themselves could be wrong. Mintzberg (2011) promoted a Model of Managing which is theoretical rather than a list of competencies or tasks. After researching 135 UK companies,Hales (2005) concluded that the FLMs main role was “rooted in supervision, stalked to performance” and that “performance-oriented supervision is at the core” (p501). There are technical elements to this role, as listed by Sandwith (1993), such as conducting appraisals, interviews, induction, disciplinary interviews etc. but the literature recognises that the role requires interpersonal and communication competency. This leads to what we know as soft skills.

3.4 Introducing Soft skills

Katz defined managing skills as the “hierarchy of managerial skills” and placed skills into three distinct categories: technical, human and conceptual (Katz 1955). He referred to these as “three basic developable skills” (1955 p34) and defined human skills as those skills required for managing a group of people, including one-to-one interpersonal skills. He described the “human skill is primarily concerned with working with people” (1955 p34). This research will concentrate on these “human skills”, which, more often than not, are referred as “soft skills” today. Soft skills are defined by Hurell et al (2012) as “non-technical and not reliant on abstract reasoning, involving interpersonal and intrapersonal abilities to facilitate mastered performance in particular contexts”. A Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) research report in November 2010 (p15-16 CIPD 2010) provided a helpful list of 23 soft skill definitions taken since the year 1996, which included “worker skills needed for effective and productive interpersonal interactions” (Bacolod 2009, p16 CIPD 2010). Using these delineations will assist the research in narrowing down a relevant soft skill frameworkto be applied to FLMs.

4Model design and methodology

Phase 1 involved developing a multi-dimensional core soft skills framework for professional managers. As the literature did not identify any specific soft skill models for FLMs, a Core Soft Skills Framework was built using three business sector soft skills models (see Table 1). These models were deliberately chosen as they represented a variety of views from industry; a major HR organisation (representing businesses), a non-government body and a PTP. It was the first stage in formulating a rounded soft skills model.

Representing business organisations and HR, the CIPD looked a various industry reports (five in total) and came up with a policy–based soft skills map which noted the most relevant soft skills put forward in other industry reports. The model attempts to define both soft skills and “softer intelligences” and it identified three elements: self, people and task (CIPD 2010). For the purposes of this exercise, the softer intelligences were not considered as they were considered too complex for a FLM audience. The Management Standards Centre (MSC 2014) was a NGO (non-government organisation) which was disbanded in 2007, but the MSC model was still available when the Pilot study started and covers functional areas of management and leadership which are deemed important to FLMs. What is attractive about this skills graph is the directional format that begins with managing self and personal skills and completes with achieving results (No 1 to 6 in Table 1).

The final soft skills model analysed was proposed by a business training consultancy. Crosbie (2005) listed eight soft skills which she felt were important for the role of leadership and management. It was an important model to be included as it represented the PTP view of soft skills training (although not FLM specific). A summary of the three approaches is in Table 1.

CIPD / Management Standards Centre / Crosbie
  • Self –management (1)
/
  1. Managing self and personal skills (1)
/
  • Teamwork (5)

  • Learning
/
  1. Providing direction
/
  • Communication (4)

  • Integrity
/
  1. Facilitating change
/
  • Initiative

  • Communicating (4)
/
  1. Working with people (5)
/
  • Leadership ability (3)

  • Relating
/
  1. Using Resources
/
  • People development,

  • Leading (3)
/
  1. Achieving results (2)
/
  • Personal effectiveness (1)

  • Organising (6)
/
  • Planning and organising (6)

  • Solving problems (2)
/
  • Presentation skills

Table 1: Summary of three soft skill approaches

There was difficulty assimilating the models so there had to be a degree of flexibility when it came to defining terms used in the models. The terminology for soft skills was different within the models and the purpose behind each soft skill had to be taken at face value. There were, however, identifiable trends. On assimilating the models, there was only one attribute covered by all the models and this appeared to be self-management, (also called managing self and personal effectiveness). It could be argued that personal effectiveness is different to managing self. Put another way, however, “individual capability” is an attribute required from employers of which these two attributes fall under the umbrella of. The other skills identified twice (numbered 2-6) are identified in Table 2. Skills only mentioned once, such as providing direction, using resources, initiative etc. were still considered in the Pilot study when data analysis of the PTP course content was undertaken.

The framework incorporated the soft skills models as proposed by the three sectors (see Table 2), but once the pilot research commenced, it became obvious the PTP training courses covered much broader topics than just the key six skills identified in Table 2. Using thematic and coding analysis as the research was being undertaken, many more elements of soft skills training were recorded and these then formed a basis of a soft skill framework for PTP FLM (see Table 3).

1. Self –Management/managing self / 4. Communications
2. Achieving results/problem solving / 5. Teamwork
3. Leadership / 6. Planning and organising

Table 2 – Core Soft Skill Framework

5.1 Findings

The Pilot Study was conducted as desk research using various online and direct marketing channels in researching 45 PTPs in the UK over a period of 2 months during October to November 2011 and then repeated during February and March 2015 (see Table 4). TheFLM course content was examined either online, in brochures or other written collateral in order to get a full view of the PTP FLM offering. This included examining introductory and peripheral literature about the courses to learn more about the FLM courses which PTPs offered. The courses, for example, were called: “First Time Manager Essentials”, “Skills for the New Manager”, “Essential Skills for Managers” and “Starting to Manage a Team”.

Using the soft skill models as identified in Table 2, the following two tables have been produced;the Pilot Study Soft Skills Matrix results are captured in Table 3 and show, of the 45 PTPs, how many times each particular soft skill/managerial activity was covered (in brackets) by the course literature describing the FLM course PTP offering.

1st tier / 2nd tier / 3rd tier / 4th tier
Control – delegation (35) / Communications (30) / Conflict solving (19) / Change (8)
Self Management (32) / Leadership/styles of management (25) / Achieving results (12) / Characteristics/role of managers (7)
Teamwork (31) / Mentoring/coaching (25) / Planning and organising (12) / Self-awareness (*) (2)

Table 3 –Pilot Study Soft Skills Matrix (of 45)

5.2 Phase 2 – Pilot Study

The Pilot study found that not one training course covered all the six core soft skills identified by the framework in Table 2.Between all the PTP courses, the six skills were covered and five other prominent areas of training included by the PTPs were coded (see non-shaded areas in Table 3). The research shows that of the core soft skills identified in Table 2, two appeared at 1st, 2nd and 3rd tiers (shaded areas of Table 3). This tier measurement was introduced in order to track future changes when re-conducting the research. Managerial “Self-Awareness(*)” which is seldom reflected in the literature but is possibly a key component of any “soft skills” training (Whetten and Cameron 2005), especially for FLMs, is only mentioned twice out of 45 PTPs. The extent core soft skills are covered varies greatly with self-management covered by 71% of PTPs to planning and organising being covered by only 12 PTPs (27%). The control and command paradigm (Seldon 2005) was very much in evidence in the Pilot study as control and delegation was the most taught subject for FLMs, appearing on 78% of all courses. “Conflict solving” appears on 42% of courses which suggeststo FLMs that potential colleague interaction is likely to take place with negative outcomes. Should FLMs be introduced to the perils of conflict, or discipline, so early in their training? These are usually awkward and extremely difficult situations to deal with, even for more seasoned managers.