GENERIC SHORT COURSES PROVIDED BY EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
– THE BEST WAY TO TRAIN SUPERVISORS TO MANAGE
Many companies have realised the benefit of hiring managers from inside. Moving a supervisor up to manager is good for both the company and its employees. It gives the company a manager who has knowledge and understanding of how things are done at the firm, someone they know and already trust, and someone who has already shown he or she is a good worker. The employees feel rewarded by the company when they get promoted, and are more likely to get on with the person promoted. The problem many firms face, though, is how to train these promoted managers. The skills required to be a good worker are different from those required to be a good supervisor. Neither of those positions has the same skills as those needed to be a good manager. However, training can be expensive and time-consuming for the company. In response, many companies are turning to outside firms’ generic short courses to train upcoming supervisors how to be managers.
The responsibility of developing supervisors into potential managers is shared. On one hand, the company leadership is responsible for the future of the company. By providing management development for up-and-coming supervisors, leadership is making a good investment in the firm’s future. This type of development increases employee morale and helps the company ensure it is prepared for the future (Wightman and McAleer 1995). The supervisor is also responsible for preparing to move up into management. All employees should be looking for ways to better themselves as workers and as individuals. Since supervisors are already demonstrating an ability to manage people, they should be actively going after training opportunities to be ready for that next step (Wightman and McAleer 1995).
As far as paying for the training is concerned, the costs should generally be covered by the company if the company sees the supervisor as management potential (Wilson 1993). The problem with too much company investment, however, is that this training makes the supervisor more attractive to the company’s competition (Plimmer 2004). While helping the supervisor to be more effective and prepared, this is a waste of the company’s money. A better solution is to provide minimal training at the firm’s expense before the supervisor is promoted, and then more extensive training after the supervisor is promoted (Wightman and McAleer 1995). If the supervisor wants additional training before being promoted, he or she can foot the bill.
One effective way to provide training, regardless of who is paying, is the generic short course. Short courses are typically less than a year long, and do not lead to a formal award. The average full-day short course is one to three days long; the average evening or part-day course is four to six weeks (Perdue, Ninemeier, and Woods 2002; Anon 2005). Short courses are typically offered by Universities, private training firms, and by the company itself. Comparing external providers, University courses tend to be longer than those offered by private training companies, which the Universities claim makes for better, more thorough instruction (Anon 2005). Others believe short courses offered in-house are most effective.
Courses developed and offered by external organisations have several advantages over in-house training programmes. First, only the largest companies can employ full-time in-house trainers. Other companies rely on managers in the department or human resources staff to provide training. As they have management training as only a part of their duties, they cannot devote the time and resources a good training programme requires. In addition, they are not as experienced at providing such training as a full-time trainer (Odiorne 1970).
In addition, the materials and curriculum in a typical in-house training programme is inferior to that provided by an external organisation (Perdue, Ninemeier, and Woods 2002). The external training provider, whether a University or private firm, specialises in education and instruction. This makes them much more able to offer the best quality of training, based on sound learning theory and knowledge base needs. Many management-training studies take their assumptions on a famous study by Carroll et al in 1971. The problem is that this study was done on the knowledge and effectiveness for training managers in manufacturing, and the skills needed to be a good manager are broader than that presented in this one study (Perdue, Ninemeier, and Woods 2002). A University or private training company is more likely to be informed and to take this into consideration. They are more likely to design their training to cover broad, general management issues, and are therefore more likely to present relevant training (Harding 1991).
While some organisations have short courses tailor-made for their company, the majority of short courses are generic, and include training that can be used by most managers. This is actually better than tailor-made courses. Tailor-made courses assume a certain prior knowledge of management that the supervisor may not have. The supervisor may also be afraid to reveal that he or she does not have this knowledge or skill, making the training less effective. Employees are more likely to ask external instructors such questions (Thompson 2004). External courses have also been found to be more effective at sensitivity training, a key part of management preparation. Sensitivity training prepares managers to be culturally aware and improves their soft skills like communication. This training was found to be especially needed and valued by managers (Harding 1991). Sensitivity training, and other management training areas for that matter, that are presented by outside instructors allow the person attending the training to step outside the culture and norms of their own firm and look a the bigger picture. This is a strong benefit to external training (Humphreys et al 1995).
External organisations can generally offer management training more efficiently. Even for short courses, training offered by companies themselves can be interrupted or bumped when other events conflict with the training (Odiorne 1970). This is particularly hard on manager trainees. Employees training to move into management positions and managers who had moved up in their companies were surveyed extensively by Carolyn Harding in 1991. Ms. Harding found that managers themselves felt training was most effective delivered in small chunks, spread over a period of time. Frequency and regularity of training were important, as was the training chunks building on each other. If these trainings are side-lined for other priorities or disrupted by emergencies or other events in the company, the supervisors may not be getting their training in the best way. Training is less likely to be disrupted if the company is paying an outside group to come in and provide it, and even less likely to be disrupted if the employee is going off site to take course work (Humphreys et al 1995).
Financially, external short courses are one of the most economical ways to provide training for all but the largest firms. It would cost small and medium sized businesses far too much per person trained to hire an in-house trainer and develop a management-training programme. In addition, tailor-made training solutions developed by outside companies are also too expensive, and not practical for firms only training a few managers each year (Anon 2003). Because short courses are offered to a broad student group, they can provide quality trainers at a lower cost. Larger companies could also realize cost savings by using external generic courses (Spearhead 2005).
A potential disadvantage of external courses is that the instructor will go too broad and much of the information will not be seen as relevant by the supervisors taking the training. Studies have shown that managers must link managerial concepts and real-life situations to have the greatest understanding of what they are learning (Odiorne 1970). Opponents of external training say it would be hard, for example, to train a hotel manager and a manager of a steel mill simultaneously. However, studies of the basic components for effective management in both industries are the similar (Harding 1991). It is how those basic concepts and techniques are applied that is different. There is a body of knowledge and skill needed by all managers (Odiorne 1970). A good instructor can therefore teach students from a variety of industries.
Other critics argue that in-house training is better than training from the outside because it has more accountability. The person leading the course is right there in the company, and students can ask him or her follow-up questions at any time. Also, the instructor can check up on things, or provide individual training or mentoring to one or two trainees who have problems with a certain part of the training. This is a valid consideration, and certainly if the company has the financial and staff resources, training combined with follow-up and mentoring is very effective. Few companies have these kinds of resources, however.
The University of Warwick and Spearhead ))) are two examples of successful external training providers. The University of Warwick offers short courses in a large number of subjects, not just in business. They have found these short, intensive courses are an effective way to provide training and academic instruction (Anon 2005). The Spearhead company offers an intensive three-day training seminar suitable for the newly promoted manager or those soon to assume a management role. The programme is intended to be an introduction to a lot of management concepts, and covers topics from communication to decision-making to goal setting (Spearhead 2005).
That these organisations and ones like them offer generic courses is also a plus. The most effective managers work in more than one area during their careers. This diversification allows them to have a broad understanding of how the company works, and to make better decisions based on the good of the firm as a whole, not just their department (Wightman and McAleer 1995). This also means, however, that managers need a broad base of knowledge and training that can serve them from area to area. Generic courses have students from a wide range of companies and industries. Students in the courses are then exposed to many ways of handling issues and many types of management situations. This broadens their perspectives on management and gives them more ideas of how to be effective (Odiorne 1970).
Companies are more likely to send employees to generic short courses. These courses are also often the only type of training available to individuals wishing to improve their management skills and knowledge. Many UK managers receive no training of any kind, and those that do receive less than one day each year (Harding 1991). This is important because 97% of the same group that reported little or no training said that training for managers was very important (Harding 1991). This leaves a disturbing gap between what companies and managers think should be happening and what they are actually doing. The Wales Management Council found that there was a lack of training for small and medium-sized businesses in crucial management areas. Company leadership was seeking a simple training solution, but few were available (Anon 2003). In addition, companies were more likely to invest in training when things were going well, and quick to cut training in when business was down (Thompson 2004). This shows that organisations say they value training, but not as much as other things. Generic courses provide training with no long-term investment required by the company. The company can send supervisors for short courses, as they are able, without committing to hiring a trainer or developing a specialized, tailored course. Generic courses also allow supervisors to seek out and work on management training on their own, regardless of what the company is doing.
If a firm had unlimited funds, staff, and training resources, generic short courses wouldn’t be their first pick for management training. Some organisations have been able to develop very effective mentoring programmes, where senior employees meet and work one-on-one with up-and-coming managers (Odiorne 1970). These programmes offer very valuable training methods. The problem, however, is the work required to run an even, effective mentoring programme. The company must have senior managers with the time, desire, and aptitude for mentoring. Training these leaders as mentors would be another hurdle. Then there needs to be someone in charge of the mentoring program, who keeps everyone on track and makes sure each mentored person learns what he or she needs to know. Overall, one-on-one training is the most effective and preferred training method for new managers, but the one companies are the least able to provide (Harding 1991). Aside from a few very large or very cash-rich companies, this is not a realistic option for management training.
Other companies have successful computer-based training programmes. These programmes require a significant investment in hardware and software, someone to maintain the computers, and someone to handle questions that arise during training, whether about the concepts being taught or about how to work the computers (Humphreys et al 1995). Similar to generic courses, the content of these programmes is standardized. They can offer a variety of training experiences, including simulations, role-play, quizzes, and other learning aids (Hoch 1994). One of the best things to recommend computer-based management training is that each person can go through it at their own pace. If one person doesn’t understand a concept, they can repeat it as much as they like without making everyone else wait. However, computers cannot truly replace the interaction one has with other people. Since people skills are such an integral part of management, this is a significant drawback (Hoch 1994).
Tailor-made programmes are perhaps the most effective group training method, but are prohibitively expensive for most small and medium-sized companies. These programmes are usually based on a generic course, but adapted to a specific company by a private training firm (Humphreys et al 1995). Managers prefer these to other training courses. However, they are costly and must be updated with changes to the organisation, which makes them cost even more. In addition to costing less to begin with, generic courses allow changes in management theory and instruction to be spread over many companies and students, making updates less expensive. Supervisors being promoted into management already know many things about their companies as well. This makes tailor-made programmes less needed than if the firm was hiring mangers from the outside.
Finally, many companies today still use the sink or swim method, just throwing their new managers in and hoping for the best (Plimmer 2004). They combine whatever on-the-job training they can muster with the resourcefulness of the newly promoted manager, and hope for the best. They and their managers would be far better served by a reasonable investment in training (Odiorne 1970). The most effective method of training for the pound is generic short courses. They may not be the absolute best in every area, but they are a viable choice that the average business can afford and should take advantage of. Generic short courses, offered by external organisations, are the best way overall for organisations to train supervisors to be managers.
REFERENCES
Anon 2003. Wales must gear management training to small enterprise needs. Financial Times Information – Europe Intelligence Wire [online]. Available at www.emeraldinsight.com, accessed 12 March 2005.
Anon 2005. Short Course Unit. University of Warwick [online]. Available at www.warwick.ad.uk, accessed 12 March 2005.
Harding, C., 1991. Training for middle management in education and industry. School Organisation, vol. 11, issue 1, March 1991 [online]. Available at www.emeraldinsight.com, accessed 12 March 2005.
Hoch, A., 1994. Computer-aided interactive-multimedia manager training and computer-based training. European Education, vol. 26, issue 1, Spring 1994 [online]. Available at www.emeraldinsight.com, accessed 12 March 2005.
Humphreys et al 1995. Customer-focused management development: a case study. Journal of European Industrial training, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 26-32 [online]. Available at www.emeraldinsight.com, accessed 12 March 2005.
Odiorne, G., 1970. Training by objectives: an economic approach to management training. Macmillan, London.
Perdue, J., Ninemeier, J., Woods, R., 2002. Training methods for specific objectives: preferences of mangers in private clubs. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 114-119 [online]. Available at www.emeraldinsight.com, accessed 12 March 2005.
Plimmer, G., 2004. Back to the workshop management training: School of hard knocks has its uses after all. The Financial Times, London, Professional Development, pg. 3, October 11, 2004.
Spearhead 2005. Introduction to Management. Spearhead training [online]. Available at www.spearhead-training.co.uk, accessed on 9 12 March 2005.
Thompson, J., 2004. Unlocking potential: management training and recruitment are back on the agenda as the industry recovers. Reed Business Information, November 1, 2004 [online]. Available at www.airlinebusiness.com, accessed 12 March 2005.
Wightman, S., McAleer, E., 1995. Management development: the neglected domain. Journal of European industrial Training, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 3-10 [online]. Available at www.emeraldinsight.com, accessed 12 March 2005.