Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Report on the 1999 Survey of the Managerial Competency and ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Report on the 1999 Survey of the Managerial Competency and ...

618

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
618
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Report on the 1999 Survey of the Managerial Competency and Management Training Needs of Managers and Supervisors Committee on Management and Supervisory Training Vocational Training Council
  • 2. Report on the 1999 Survey of the Managerial Competency and Management Training Needs of Managers and Supervisors Table of Contents Section Paragraph Page Executive Summary 0 – 18 i – iii I Introduction 1.0 – 1.4.2 1–2 II Managerial Competency Level 2.0 – 2.3.4.1 3 – 45 III Management Training Practices and Requirements 3.0 – 3.18.3 46 – 64 of Firms Operating in Hong Kong IV Recommendations 4.0 – 4.5.1 65 – 67 Appendices 1 Membership List of the Committee on 68 – 68 Management and Supervisory Training 2 Terms of Reference of the Committee on 70 Management and Supervisory Training 3 Survey Questionnaire 71 – 87 4 Sample Coverage and Sampling Plan 88 – 89 5 Analysis of Results of Enumeration 90 6 The Managerial Competencies and the Descriptive 91 – 93 Task Statements 7 Computation of Average Weighted Score for the 94 Competencies 8 Observations in the Analysis of the Survey 95 – 97 Statistical Tables Tables 3.1a – 3.18 98 – 129
  • 3. Executive Summary The Committee on Management and Supervisory Training (CMST) conducted a sampled survey on companies employing ten or more people in the third quarter of 1999 to study the managerial competency and management development needs of managers and supervisors working in Hong Kong and the Mainland. Skills and Competencies Needed by Managers and Supervisors 2. The core (i.e. regarded as most important) competencies for managers in Hong Kong were found to be: ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Decision Making’ and ‘Stress Management’. Overall, managers were found to have performed at a level between ‘fair’ and ‘good’ in all competencies. There was no pressing need for training in any particular competency area for managers in Hong Kong. 3. For supervisors in Hong Kong, their core competencies were similar to those of their managers, except with the omission of ‘Decision Making’. Their performance in seven competencies (‘Leadership’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Results’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’), however, was rated as ‘less than satisfactory’. When linked to importance, though, there was no urgent need for making up their deficiencies. 4. The core competencies for managers working in the Mainland were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Results’, and ‘Team Building’. Their performance in four areas – ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Results’, and ‘Creativity’ – was rated ‘less than satisfactory’. Taking into account of the discrepancy between importance and performance, the first three competencies were found in need of training. 5. ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Personal Drive’, ‘Leadership’, and ‘Team Building’ were regarded as most important for supervisors working in the Mainland were. They were rated as ‘less than satisfactory’ in eight competencies: ‘Efficiency’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Results’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Coaching & Counselling’, ‘Team Membership’, and ‘Creativity’. Among the deficiencies, ‘Efficiency’ was found with substantial need for improvement. 6. As for general skills and knowledge required by managers and supervisors working in the Mainland, ‘Proficiency in Putonghua’ and ‘Understanding of Mainland customs and culture’ topped the scale, closely followed by ‘Ability to plan for uncertainty’ and ‘Knowledge and skills in people management’. 7. The importance of the managerial competencies ascribed to managers tended to be higher than that of supervisors for all sectors, with the exception of supervisors working in the Mainland in the ‘Restaurants and Hotels’ sector.
  • 4. ii 8. As for performance, managers in the ‘Manufacturing’ sector working in Hong Kong were found lower in competence than other sectors. As for supervisors working in Hong Kong, those in ‘Manufacturing’, ‘Electricity, Gas & Water’ and ‘Construction’ were rated lower in competence than others. For managers working in the Mainland, those employed in ‘Wholesale, Retail, Import/Export Trades’ and ‘Manufacturing’ were ranked lower in managerial competence than their counterparts in other sectors. Supervisors working in the ‘Manufacturing’, ‘Community, Social & Personal Services’ and ‘Wholesale, Retail, Import/Export Trades’ sectors in the Mainland had most competencies rated as ‘less than satisfactory’. 9. Taking into consideration of the importance ascribed to the managerial competencies by the companies surveyed, managers and supervisors working in the Mainland generally had a more pressing need for enhancing their managerial competencies than their Hong Kong counterparts. Mainland managers in the ‘Construction’, ‘Manufacturing’ and ‘Community, Social & Personal Services’ needed reinforcement in almost all competencies. Those in ‘Electricity, Gas & Water’ and those in ‘Wholesale, Retail, Import/Export Trades’ were the next group in high need of competency improvement. Supervisors in ‘Restaurants & Hotels’, ‘Construction’ and ‘Transport, Storage & Communication’ industries needed competency enhancement almost across the board. As for supervisors working in Hong Kong, those in the ‘Electricity, Gas & Water’ sector needed training in most of the competencies. Management Training Provision and Needs 10. The survey found that close to one half of the companies recruited supervisors and managers not having had prior training in management, and that around the same percentage of companies did not provide them with management training after appointment. The Committee is also concerned that almost three-quarters of the companies did not have training plans for their managers, and the situation was even worse for supervisors. 11. Relatively few (around 10%) companies regularly organized management programmes for their supervisors and managers. ‘In-company training’ and sponsoring staff to attend ‘external evening programmes’ were the two most common forms of training provided by companies. Finance (training budget) was the main internal resource available, while external trainers constituted the major source of expertise in implementing management training within these organizations. For those not arranging management training, the main hurdles given were ‘cannot release staff’ and ‘inadequate resources’. 12. The brighter picture, however, was that majority companies were willing to sponsor their supervisors and managers to attend relevant management training programmes, by reimbursing them for the fees paid and/or releasing them to attend training during office hours.
  • 5. iii Management Training Options Desired by Companies 13. Survey findings indicated that companies were looking for management training programmes that may lead to some qualifications. Workshops and seminars were also popular among companies. For shorter programmes, companies preferred ones that lasted within a week, while for longer programmes, they did not expect them to drag on for more than twelve months. The most preferred ‘format combination’ would be one held once a week, on weekdays, after office hours, conducted either in Cantonese or bilingual (Cantonese and English). Recommendations 14. Based on the above findings, the Committee recommends employers, their human resource units and local training providers to incorporate the above- identified core competencies into their management development programmes. For companies considering sponsoring their managers and supervisors to attend external programmes, they should look for ones that help build the specific core and deficient competencies of their respective sectors. 15. The CMST is aware that for Hong Kong to maintain its competitiveness and succeed in the new millennium, organisations need to have their managers and supervisors well equipped new skills and competencies. As organisations get slimmer and the management hierarchy gets flatter, releasing staff to attend traditional classroom-based courses is getting difficult. Consequently, individual learner-centred on-demand type of learning options that offer flexibility in time, place, pace and level matching is in increasing need. To minimise costs, and to effectively and promptly cope with this emerging need, the Committee recommends closer collaboration among local training providers in sharing their expertise and resources and jointly developing courseware. 16. In view of its impartial role, The Management Development Centre of Hong Kong (MDC) is encouraged to take initiative and play a more active role in liasing with local training providers and co-ordinating the proposed collaborations. 17. Training providers and the MDC are also urged to expend resources to promote the importance of management development in enabling companies to maintain their competitiveness, to innovate and to succeed, and to publicise the availability of different options in the market place. 18. Besides continuing on conducting large scale sampled surveys every few years, to closely monitor the fast changing environment and the resultant needs, the Committee will flexibly carry out smaller scale studies employing different methodologies as and when appropriate in the future.
  • 6. PART I : INTRODUCTION 1.0 The Committee The Committee on Management and Supervisory Training (CMST) of the Vocational Training Council is appointed by the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government to be responsible for determining the manpower situation and training needs of managers and supervisors and to recommend to the Vocational Training Council measures to meet the demand for trained personnel. The Committee comprises members nominated by professional bodies, trade associations, education/training institutions and government departments. The membership list and terms of reference of the Committee are listed in Appendices 1 and 2. 1.1 Purpose of the Survey 1.1.1 The Committee conducted this survey in July 1999 with the objectives to assess the managerial Competency and Management training needs of managers and supervisors in all sectors and identify major management concerns encountered and training plans for managers and supervisors. 1.1.2 The survey findings would be used by the Committee for public consultations in formulating courses of actions to tackle the identified management problems and training needs. 1.2 The Data Collection Tool A survey questionnaire consisting of three parts was used. Part I of the questio nnaire recorded the basic reference data of the responding organisation; Part II measured the respondent’s (the officer/manager/owner of the organisation) views on managerial competencies; while Part III studies the current practices and requirements in the areas of supervisory and managerial training and development. The survey questionnaire is at Appendix 3. 1.3 Coverage of the Survey The survey covered about 1 300 randomly selected companies with 10 or more employees in eight major sectors. These sectors are manufacturing; electricity/gas and water; construction; wholesale/import/export; transport/storage/ communication; finance/insurance/ real estates; and community/social services. Companies with less than 10 employees were not covered because from experience of previous surveys, managers and supervisors of such relatively small establishments were mostly owner managers and sole proprietors. The coverage and sample selection plan is at Appendix 4. The survey achieved an effective response rate of 99%. The analysis of responses is at Appendix 5. The survey data have been extrapolated to give an overall picture.
  • 7. 2 1.4 Presentation of Survey Findings 1.4.1 To make it possible to compare with similar surveys conducted by the CMST in previous years and to ensure consistency, only effective responses from firms whose total employment exceeded ten were reported in this report. For the small number of firms whose employment size dropped below the “cut-off” level of ten at the time of the survey, the general situation was a closer resemblance with the characteristics as disclosed amongst smaller-sized firms. 1.4.2 A summary of the survey findings is in Part II and Part III. The Committee’s recommendations are in Part IV.
  • 8. 3 PART II : MANAGERIAL COMPETENCY LEVEL 2.0 Method of Analysis 2.0.1 There were two sections in the questionnaire. Section A focused on the impact of the management competencies on the performance of managers and supervisors, whereas Section B explored how well the managers and the supervisors had performed. 2.0.2 Taking reference of the Managerial Capability Framework published by the Management Development Centre of Hong Kong, a set of fifteen managerial competencies were used in the questionnaire. These competencies covered: ‘Leadership’, ‘Communication’, ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Results’, ‘Personal Drive’, ‘Planning’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Coaching & Counselling’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’. 2.0.3 Instead of listing out the definitions of these fifteen competencies, three task statements describing the necessary actions demonstrating each of the competencies were provided. The same forty-five task statements were used in both Sections A and B. The definition of the competencies and the linkage between each competency and the relating task statements are provided in Appendix 6. 2.0.4 While each of the three task statements was developed primarily in relation to one specific competency, some individual statements however were found relevant for indication of the performance of another one or two competencies as well. Hence, in the computation of the score for each competency, the rating given to any relevant statement(s) was considered in addition to the rating given to the three specifically developed statements. Thus, a weighted average score was worked out for each competency. The computation is illustrated in Appendix 7. 2.0.5 The respondents were asked to rate for each statement from 1 to 6 in ascending order to indicate the importance of each task that impact upon the performance of their managers and supervisors in section A; and in section B about the level of performance that they thought their managers and supervisors managed to achieve. The task statements helped to present the questionnaire in a more user- friendly format as they provided some familiar day-to-day management activity perspectives instead of management terms possibly abstract to the respondents. Other observations in the analysis of the survey are provided in Appendix 8. 2.0.6 The survey asked the respondents using the same scale of 1 – 6 (‘1’ being the bottom and ‘6’ the top of the scale) to rate the task statements reflecting both the importance level of the competencies and the performance level of their managers and supervisors in the competencies. Taking the ratings for the importance level and performance level as comparable, a score disparity was worked out, with the former minusing the latter. A positive figure would indicate a ‘performance gap’, or room for improvement. The larger the score disparity, the greater it reflects the need for improvement in a competency.
  • 9. 4 2.0.7 To make it easy for identifying the ones with major impact on the performance of managers and supervisors, the lists of competencies are tabulated in accordance with the score given to the importance level for each in descending order by location (‘Hong Kong’ and ‘Mainland’) and/or by sector. The competencies with the top five scores are considered the ‘core competencies’ as they were ranked among the top one-third of the fifteen competencies. In cases where there were top competencies carrying equal scores, the list of ‘core competencies’ could be more than five. 2.0.8 Meanwhile, the score given to the performance level and the score disparity are provided in the table to reflect the achievement and the extent of need for improvement in the respective competencies. While majority of the scores given to the importance level were found ranging from 4 to 5, a competency with score disparity at 0.70 or above would be considered substantial and indicates a high need for training. 2.1 Management Competency of Managers and Supervisors in Hong Kong and the Mainland 2.1.1 Management Competencies of Managers in Hong Kong Table 2.1.1: Competency Ranking and Scores for Managers in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.00 4.53 0.47 Crisis Management 4.92 4.24 0.68 Team Building 4.80 4.28 0.52 Efficiency 4.80 4.17 0.63 Decision Making 4.77 4.27 0.50 Stress Management 4.77 4.26 0.49 Results 4.76 4.17 0.59 Leadership 4.73 4.18 0.55 Personal Drive 4.73 4.23 0.50 Managing Change 4.71 4.23 0.48 Coaching & Counselling 4.69 4.23 0.46 Planning 4.68 4.20 0.48 Creativity 4.68 4.09 0.59 Communication 4.68 4.28 0.44 Team Membership 4.59 4.10 0.49
  • 10. 5 2.1.1.1 The core competencies for managers in Hong Kong were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Decision Making’ and ‘Stress Management’. 2.1.1.2 The managers were reckoned to have performed at a level between ‘fair’ and ‘good’, with their competencies earning a score between 4 and 5 on the performance scale, where 4 = fair and 5 = good. 2.1.1.3 No competencies were found with substantial score disparity reflecting the managers had little pressing need for training in any particular competency. 2.1.2 Management Competencies of Supervisors in Hong Kong Table 2.1.2: Competency Ranking and Scores of Supervisors in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 4.74 4.31 0.43 Crisis Management 4.67 3.99 0.68 Team Building 4.65 4.11 0.54 Efficiency 4.65 3.98 0.67 Stress Management 4.63 4.09 0.54 Personal Drive 4.61 4.08 0.53 Decision Making 4.57 4.06 0.49 Planning 4.56 4.05 0.51 Results 4.55 3.99 0.56 Leadership 4.53 3.97 0.46 Managing Change 4.51 3.98 0.53 Creativity 4.47 3.87 0.60 Communication 4.45 4.05 0.40 Coaching & Counselling 4.45 4.03 0.42 Team Membership 4.43 3.94 0.49 2.1.2.1 The core competencies for the supervisors in Hong Kong were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Efficiency’, and ‘Stress Management’. 2.1.2.2 The supervisors were said to have performed ‘less than satisfactory’ with scores less than 4 given to the performance level in seven competencies, i.e. ‘Leadership’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Results’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’.
  • 11. 6 2.1.2.3 No competencies were found with substantial score disparity reflecting little pressing training needs for the supervisors in any particular competency. 2.1.3 Management Competency of Managers in the Mainland Table 2.2.3: Competency Ranking and Scores of Managers in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 4.95 4.33 0.62 Crisis Management 4.72 3.94 0.76 Efficiency 4.71 3.97 0.74 Results 4.66 3.96 0.70 Team Building 4.62 4.06 0.56 Stress Management 4.61 4.05 0.56 Personal Drive 4.59 4.05 0.46 Leadership 4.57 4.00 0.57 Communication 4.57 4.04 0.53 Planning 4.56 4.03 0.53 Managing Change 4.56 4.00 0.56 Coaching & Counselling 4.53 4.05 0.48 Decision Making 4.52 4.03 0.49 Creativity 4.51 3.90 0.61 Team Membership 4.47 4.92 0.55 2.1.3.1 The core competencies for managers working in the Mainland were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Results’, and ‘Team Building’. 2.1.3.2 The managers had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level with scores less than 4 given to four competencies, i.e. ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Results’, and ‘Creativity’. 2.1.3.3 Three competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating the need for training. They were ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, and ‘Results’.
  • 12. 7 2.1.4 Management Competency of Supervisors in the Mainland Table 2.1.4: Competency Ranking and Scores of Supervisors in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 4.68 4.26 0.42 Efficiency 4.68 3.91 0.77 Crisis Management 4.58 3.90 0.68 Personal Drive 4.56 4.07 0.49 Leadership 4.52 4.00 0.52 Team Building 4.52 4.11 0.41 Results 4.50 3.91 0.59 Planning 4.47 4.01 0.46 Managing Change 4.47 3.97 0.50 Stress Management 4.47 4.08 0.39 Decision Making 4.45 3.98 0.47 Coaching & Counselling 4.45 3.97 0.48 Communication 4.41 4.00 0.41 Team Membership 4.35 3.97 0.48 Creativity 4.31 3.82 0.49 2.1.4.1 The core competencies for the supervisors working in the Mainland were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Personal Drive’, ‘Leadership’, and ‘Team Building’. 2.1.4.2 The supervisors had performed at a level ‘less than satisfactory’ in eight competencies i.e. ‘Efficiency’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Results’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Coaching & Counselling’, ‘Team Membership’, and ‘Creativity’. 2.1.4.3 Only one competency i.e. ‘Efficiency’ was found with substantial score disparity indicating training need in the competency for the supervisors working in the Mainland. 2.1.5 Areas of Skill and Knowledge Required for Managers and Supervisors Working in the Mainland.
  • 13. 8 2.1.5.1 Apart from providing comments on management competency in Part II of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked in Part I to indicate the areas of skill and knowledge required for their Hong Kong managers and supervisors working in the Mainland. ‘Proficiency in Putonghua’ was considered by a majority of the respondents as the most essential skill and knowledge, followed by ‘Understanding of Mainland customs and culture’. Figure 2.1.5 shows the findings. Figure 2.1.5: Distribution of Areas of Skill and Knowledge Required (a) Understanding of Mainland customs 72.7% 75.4% and culture 46.9% (b) Understanding of ethical standards 49.1% 63.5% (c) Ability to plan for uncertainty 69.9% 50.1% (d) Ability to analyse training needs 54.1% 54.3% (e) Ability to analyse training needs 55.8% Skill Knowledge 59.8% (f) Ability to coach subordinates 60.0% (g) Knowledge and skills in people 60.7% 63.6% management (h) Knowledge and skills in projector 46.6% management 54.0% (i) Knowledge and skills in time 45.5% management 49.6% 39.3% (j) Report writing skills 43.7% 76.7% (k) Proficiency in Putonghua 78.5% 1.4% (l) Others 1.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% For Supervisors For Managers % of Responding Companies
  • 14. 9 2.2 Management Competency of Managers and Supervisors by Sector 2.2.1 Management Competency of Managers and Supervisors in Manufacturing Table 2.2.1.1: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Manufacturing in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 4.97 4.32 0.65 Crisis Management 4.82 4.12 0.70 Efficiency 4.72 3.93 0.79 Team Building 4.67 4.01 0.66 Decision Making 4.67 4.02 0.65 Results 4.66 3.92 0.74 Personal Drive 4.66 4.06 0.60 Stress Management 4.66 4.01 0.65 Planning 4.65 3.96 0.69 Coaching & Counselling 4.60 4.06 0.54 Communication 4.57 3.96 0.61 Leadership 4.56 3.94 0.62 Managing Change 4.55 3.93 0.62 Creativity 4.55 3.88 0.67 Team Membership 4.44 3.84 0.60 2.2.1.1 The core competencies for managers in Hong Kong in Manufacturing were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Team Building’, and ‘Decision Making’. 2.2.1.2 Given a score of below 4 for the performance level, the managers were thought of having performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level in eight competencies, i.e. ‘Leadership’, ‘Communication’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Results’, ‘Planning’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Managing Change’, and ‘Creativity’. 2.2.1.3 Three competencies i.e. ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, and ‘Results’ were found with substantial score disparity indicating training needs in the three competencies.
  • 15. 10 Table 2.2.1.4: Competency Rankings & Scores of Supervisors in Manufacturing in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Stress Management 4.59 3.89 0.70 Efficiency 4.57 3.78 0.79 Customer Concern 4.53 4.08 0.45 Team Building 4.53 3.73 0.66 Personal Drive 4.50 3.94 0.56 Crisis Management 4.50 3.87 0.63 Planning 4.49 3.90 0.59 Results 4.48 3.80 0.68 Coaching & Counselling 4.48 3.92 0.56 Decision Making 4.45 3.87 0.58 Leadership 4.40 3.77 0.63 Managing Change 4.38 3.77 0.61 Team Membership 4.33 3.87 0.60 Creativity 4.33 3.71 0.62 Communication 4.23 3.78 0.45 2.2.1.4 The core competencies for supervisors in Hong Kong in the Manufacturing sector were ‘Stress Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Personal Drive’, and ‘Crisis Management’. 2.2.1.5 The supervisors were commented to have performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level in all except one competency – ‘Customer Concern’. 2.2.1.6 Two competencies, ‘Stress Management’ and ‘Efficiency’, were found to have substantial score disparity indicating the supervisors had training needs in these areas.
  • 16. 11 Table 2.2.1.7: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Manufacturing in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 4.99 4.46 0.53 Crisis Management 4.85 4.01 0.84 Efficiency 4.84 3.98 0.86 Stress Management 4.74 3.97 0.77 Communication 4.73 3.97 0.76 Creativity 4.70 4.14 0.56 Team Building 4.69 3.95 0.74 Personal Drive 4.69 4.11 0.58 Leadership 4.66 3.77 0.89 Planning 4.61 4.08 0.53 Decision Making 4.60 3.97 0.63 Results 4.57 3.85 0.72 Coaching & Counselling 4.56 3.94 0.62 Managing Change 4.53 3.99 0.54 Team Membership 4.48 3.75 0.73 2.2.1.7 The core competencies for managers working in the Mainland in the Manufacturing sector were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Stress Management’, and ‘Communication’. 2.2.1.8 The managers were said to have performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level in ten competencies, including ‘Efficiency’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Communication’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Leadership’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Results’, ‘Coaching & Counselling’, ‘Managing Change’, and ‘Team Membership’. 2.2.1.9 The eight competencies found with substantial score disparity indicating need for training were ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Communication’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Leadership’, ‘Results’, and ‘Team Membership’.
  • 17. 12 Table 2.2.1.10: Competency Ranking and Scores of Supervisors in Manufacturing in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 4.56 4.05 0.51 Team Building 4.51 3.93 0.58 Efficiency 4.51 3.72 0.79 Planning 4.44 3.92 0.52 Results 4.43 3.85 0.58 Personal Drive 4.43 3.93 0.50 Crisis Management 4.42 3.89 0.53 Leadership 4.34 3.72 0.62 Coaching & Counselling 4.29 3.82 0.47 Decision Making 4.27 3.87 0.40 Managing Change 4.26 3.81 0.45 Stress Management 4.24 3.93 0.31 Communication 4.22 3.77 0.45 Team Membership 4.21 3.76 0.45 Creativity 4.14 3.78 0.36 2.2.1.10 The core competencies for the supervisors working in the Mainland in Manufacturing were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Planning’, ‘Results’, and ‘Personal Drive’. 2.2.1.11 The supervisors had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level (with a score less than 4 given to the performance level) in all except ‘Customer Concern’. 2.2.1.12 There was only one competency, i.e. ‘Efficiency’, found with substantial score disparity indicating a strong training need in this area.
  • 18. 13 2.2.2 Management Competency of Managers and Supervisors in Electricity, Gas & Water Table 2.2.2.1: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Electricity, Gas & Water in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Crisis Management 4.86 4.29 0.57 Leadership 4.84 4.10 0.74 Communication 4.82 4.24 0.58 Decision Making 4.78 4.35 0.43 Managing Change 4.72 4.10 0.62 Results 4.67 4.31 0.36 Efficiency 4.67 4.29 0.38 Planning 4.63 4.21 0.42 Personal Drive 4.62 4.18 0.46 Stress Management 4.62 4.29 0.33 Coaching & Counselling 4.57 4.22 0.35 Creativity 4.52 4.05 0.57 Customer Concern 4.48 4.24 0.24 Team Building 4.48 4.24 0.24 Team Membership 4.48 4.07 0.41 2.2.2.1 The core competencies for the managers in Hong Kong in the Electricity, Gas & Water were ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Leadership’, ‘Communication’, ‘Decision Making’, and ‘Managing Change’. 2.2.2.2 The managers in this sector had achieved a ‘fair’ level of performance with all the competencies given a score of higher than 4 on performance level. 2.2.2.3 One competency – ‘Leadership’ – was found with substantial score disparity indicating a strong training need for managers in this sector.
  • 19. 14 Table 2.2.2.4: Competency Ranking & Scores of Supervisors in Electricity, Gas & Water in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Leadership 4.92 3.79 1.13 Customer Concern 4.81 4.38 0.43 Decision Making 4.69 3.88 0.81 Efficiency 4.67 3.81 0.86 Stress Management 4.62 3.86 0.76 Communication 4.61 4.00 0.61 Team Membership 4.57 3.63 0.94 Personal Drive 4.56 3.93 0.63 Coaching & Counselling 4.55 3.82 0.73 Team Building 4.52 3.95 0.57 Creativity 4.47 3.57 0.90 Managing Change 4.45 3.59 0.86 Planning 4.42 3.90 0.52 Results 4.39 3.86 0.53 Crisis Management 4.34 3.62 0.72 2.2.2.4 The core competencies for the supervisors in Hong Kong in Electricity, Gas & Water were ‘Leadership’, ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Efficiency’, and ‘Stress Management’. 2.2.2.5 All except two competencies, i.e. ‘Customer Concern’ and ‘Communication’, were given scores below 4 to the performance level, indicating the supervisors in the Electricity, Gas & Water sector in Hong Kong had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level. 2.2.2.6 Nine competencies: ‘Leadership’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Coaching & Counselling’, ‘Creativity’, ‘Managing Change’, and ‘Crisis Management’ were found with substantial score disparity indicating training needs in them.
  • 20. 15 Table 2.2.2.7: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Electricity, Gas & Water in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Crisis Management 6.00 4.00 2.00 Communication 5.30 4.10 1.20 Results 5.14 5.00 0.14 Customer Concern 5.10 5.00 0.10 Personal Drive 4.92 4.25 0.67 Planning 4.90 4.60 0.30 Leadership 4.89 3.56 1.33 Coaching & Counselling 4.86 4.14 0.72 Team Building 4.67 4.67 0 Efficiency 4.67 4.33 0.34 Decision Making 4.64 4.00 0.61 Team Membership 4.38 4.00 0.38 Managing Change 4.43 4.14 0.29 Stress Management 4.33 4.33 0 Creativity 4.33 4.00 0.33 2.2.2.7 The views about the impact of the competency on performance and how well the managers in the Mainland had performed were contributed by a respondent from an organisation with over 100 employees. The core competencies suggested included ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Communication’, ‘Results’, ‘Customer Concern’, and ‘Personal Drive’. 2.2.2.8 The managers were said to have performed at a ‘fair’ to ‘good’ level with a score ranging from 4 to 5 given to the performance level of all except one competency. In ‘Leadership’ they were considered to have performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level with a score below 4, where 3 = less than satisfactory, 4 = fair, and 5 = good. 2.2.2.9 Four competencies found with substantial score disparity indicating there existed training needs were ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Communication’, ‘Leadership’, and ‘Coaching & Counselling’.
  • 21. 16 2.2.2.10 Feedback on the impact of the competency on the performance of supervisors working in the Mainland and their achievement of performance were not available. The respondent apparently had not sent any supervisors working in their operation to the Mainland. 2.2.3 Management Competency of Managers and Supervisors in Construction Table 2.2.3.1: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Construction in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.01 4.66 0.35 Crisis Management 4.88 4.17 0.17 Team Building 4.78 4.45 0.33 Personal Drive 4.77 4.33 0.44 Efficiency 4.76 4.07 0.69 Stress Management 4.76 4.25 0.51 Results 4.75 4.23 0.52 Decision Making 4.75 4.24 0.51 Leadership 4.72 4.16 0.56 Planning 4.72 4.22 0.50 Communication 4.69 4.29 0.40 Managing Change 4.69 4.19 0.50 Coaching & Counselling 4.68 4.09 0.59 Team Membership 4.62 4.10 0.48 Creativity 4.57 3.98 0.59 2.2.3.1 The core competencies for managers in Hong Kong in the Construction sector were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Personal Drive’, ‘Stress Management’ and ‘Efficiency’. 2.2.3.2 The managers had performed to a ‘fair’ level with scores at more than 4 achieved on their performance level in all competencies except ‘Creativity’.
  • 22. 17 2.2.3.3 There were no competencies found with substantial score disparity indicating little pressing needs for training in any particular competency. Table 2.2.3.4: Competency Ranking & Scores of Supervisors in Construction in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Coaching & Counselling 4.54 3.87 0.58 Stress Management 4.54 4.00 0.54 Crisis Management 4.54 3.79 0.75 Personal Drive 4.49 3.98 0.51 Planning 4.48 3.94 0.54 Team Building 4.45 4.08 0.37 Efficiency 4.44 3.81 0.63 Decision Making 4.43 3.96 0.47 Results 4.37 3.92 0.45 Customer Concern 4.36 4.17 0.19 Team Membership 4.32 3.77 0.55 Leadership 4.31 3.83 0.48 Managing Change 4.29 3.82 0.47 Creativity 4.24 3.70 0.54 Communication 4.22 3.81 0.41 2.2.3.4 The core competencies for the supervisors in Hong Kong in the Construction sector were ‘Coaching & Counselling’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Personal Drive’, and ‘Planning’. 2.2.3.5 The supervisors had performed at a ‘fair’ level in ‘Stress Management’, ‘Team Building’, and ‘Customer Concern’, but were ‘less than satisfactory’ in the other twelve competencies. 2.2.3.6 Only one competency i.e. ‘Crisis Management’ was found with substantial score disparity indicating a stronger training need in this competency.
  • 23. 18 Table 2.2.3.7: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Construction in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.94 4.76 1.18 Team Building 5.76 4.15 1.61 Crisis Management 5.76 4.29 1.47 Results 5.75 4.19 1.56 Managing Change 5.72 4.11 1.61 Planning 5.70 4.57 1.13 Leadership 5.68 4.47 1.21 Personal Drive 5.68 4.56 1.12 Decision Making 5.68 4.59 1.09 Communication 5.67 4.61 1.06 Team Membership 5.60 4.08 1.52 Efficiency 5.59 4.57 1.02 Coaching & Counselling 5.57 4.73 0.84 Stress Management 5.55 4.12 1.43 Creativity 5.51 3.57 1.94 2.2.3.7 The core competencies for managers working in the Mainland in the Construction sector were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Results’, and ‘Managing Change’. In comparison the competency had a greater impact on the performance of managers in the Mainland than in Hong Kong as the score given to the importance level for the former was higher than the latter in every competency. See the difference between Table 2.2.3.1 and Table 2.2.3.7. 2.2.3.8 Managers in the Mainland were commented to have performed to a ‘fair’ level, with all but ‘Creativity’ earning a performance score of more than 4. 2.2.3.9 All the fifteen competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating the managers in the Mainland were in need of training in all the competency areas.
  • 24. 19 Table 2.2.3.10: Competency Ranking & Scores of Supervisors in Construction in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Coaching & Counselling 5.59 4.64 0.95 Decision Making 5.58 4.88 0.70 Results 5.57 4.68 0.87 Crisis Management 5.57 4.80 0.77 Personal Drive 5.54 4.80 0.74 Leadership 5.41 4.66 0.75 Planning 5.37 4.85 0.52 Customer Concern 5.36 4.89 0.47 Team Membership 5.36 4.26 1.10 Efficiency 5.34 4.65 0.69 Team Building 5.24 4.53 0.71 Creativity 5.22 4.39 0.83 Communication 5.16 4.45 0.71 Stress Management 5.11 4.76 0.35 Managing Change 4.95 4.74 0.21 2.2.3.10 The core competencies for the supervisors working in the Mainland in Construction were ‘Coaching & Counselling’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Results’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Personal Drive’. Similarly the competency had a greater impact on the performance of the supervisors working in the Mainland than in Hong Kong as the score given to the importance level for the former was general higher than the latter in every competency. 2.2.3.11 The supervisors had performed at a ‘fair’ level in all competencies except ‘Creativity’. 2.2.3.12 Ten competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating training needs for the supervisors. They were: ‘Coaching & Counselling’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Results’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Personal Drive’, ‘Leadership’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Creativity’, and ‘Communication’.
  • 25. 20 2.2.4 Management Competency of Managers and Supervisors in Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trade Table 2.2.4.1: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.00 4.49 0.51 Crisis Management 4.93 4.15 0.78 Team Building 4.75 4.20 0.55 Efficiency 4.74 4.10 0.64 Decision Making 4.70 4.20 0.50 Leadership 4.69 4.15 0.54 Results 4.69 4.08 0.61 Managing Change 4.67 4.22 0.45 Stress Management 4.67 4.19 0.48 Communication 4.63 4.25 0.38 Creativity 4.63 4.03 0.63 Personal Drive 4.61 4.15 0.52 Planning 4.60 4.14 0.46 Coaching & Counselling 4.59 4.17 0.54 Team Membership 4.52 4.05 0.50 2.2.4.1 The core competencies for the managers in Hong Kong in Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Efficiency’, and ‘Decision Making’. 2.2.4.2 The managers had performed at a ‘fair’ level in all competencies. 2.2.4.3 Substantial score disparity was found in ‘Crisis Management’ indicating training need in this competency for managers in Hong Kong.
  • 26. 21 Table 2.2.4.4: Competency Ranking & Scores of Supervisors in Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 4.80 4.31 0.49 Crisis Management 4.71 3.91 0.80 Efficiency 4.63 3.94 0.69 Team Building 4.58 4.07 0.51 Personal Drive 4.57 4.01 0.56 Stress Management 4.54 4.02 4.52 Results 4.53 3.98 0.55 Decision Making 4.52 4.02 0.50 Managing Change 4.52 3.99 0.53 Leadership 4.51 3.97 0.18 Planning 4.51 4.02 0.49 Coaching & Counselling 4.47 4.00 0.47 Creativity 4.45 3.84 0.61 Communication 4.41 4.07 0.34 Team Membership 4.37 3.96 0.41 2.2.4.4 The core competencies for the supervisors in Hong Kong in Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Team Building’, and ‘Personal Drive’. 2.2.4.5 The supervisors had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level in ‘Leadership’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Results’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’. The score given to the performance level of these seven competencies were below 4. 2.2.4.6 Substantial score disparity was found in ‘Crisis Management’ indicating that, just as managers, supervisors in Hong Kong had training need in this competency.
  • 27. 22 Table 2.2.4.7: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.03 4.23 0.80 Crisis Management 4.77 3.92 0.85 Results 4.72 3.97 0.75 Efficiency 4.70 3.93 0.77 Team Building 4.66 3.99 0.67 Leadership 4.63 4.01 0.62 Stress Management 4.60 4.02 0.58 Communication 4.59 3.98 0.70 Personal Drive 4.59 3.97 0.62 Managing Change 4.57 3.97 0.60 Planning 4.55 3.93 0.62 Creativity 4.54 3.85 0.69 Decision Making 4.53 3.99 0.54 Coaching & Counselling 4.53 4.03 0.50 Team Membership 4.48 3.90 0.58 2.2.4.7 The core competencies for managers working in the Mainland in Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Results’, ‘Efficiency’, and ‘Team Building’. 2.2.4.8 The Mainland managers had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level with an earned score of less than 4 on their performance in more than two-thirds of the competency areas, including ‘Communication’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Results’, ‘Personal Drive’, ‘Planning’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’. 2.2.4.9 Five competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating training needs for the Mainland managers in ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Results’, ‘Efficiency’, and ‘Communication’.
  • 28. 23 Table 2.2.4.10: Competency Ranking and Scores of Supervisors in Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 4.79 4.18 0.61 Crisis Management 4.62 3.78 0.84 Efficiency 4.60 3.84 0.76 Leadership 4.58 3.97 0.61 Personal Drive 4.53 3.97 0.56 Team Building 4.52 4.00 0.52 Results 4.49 3.86 0.63 Managing Change 4.45 3.88 0.57 Communication 4.44 3.94 0.50 Decision Making 4.42 3.83 0.59 Planning 4.39 3.84 0.55 Stress Management 4.39 3.94 0.45 Coaching & Counselling 4.37 3.86 0.51 Creativity 4.34 3.70 0.64 Team Membership 4.28 3.79 0.49 2.2.4.10 The core competencies for supervisors working in the Mainland in Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Leadership’, and ‘Personal Drive’. 2.2.4.11 The supervisors had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level in thirteen competencies. These included ‘Leadership’, ‘Communication’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Results’, ‘Personal Drive’, ‘Planning’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Decis ion Making’, ‘Coaching & Counselling’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’. 2.2.4.12 ‘Crisis Management’ and ‘Efficiency’ were found with substantial score disparity indicating training need for the Mainland supervisors in these two competencies.
  • 29. 24 2.2.5 Management Competency of Managers and Supervisors in Transport, Storage & Communication Table 2.2.5.1: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Transport, Storage & Communication in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.04 4.61 0.34 Crisis Management 4.98 4.26 0.72 Efficiency 4.93 4.28 0.61 Stress Management 4.91 4.32 0.59 Results 4.89 4.28 0.61 Team Building 4.88 4.20 0.68 Decision Making 4.86 4.32 0.54 Leadership 4.84 4.31 0.53 Personal Drive 4.80 4.31 0.49 Coaching & Counselling 4.80 4.16 0.64 Communication 4.78 4.35 0.43 Managing Change 4.78 4.20 0.58 Team Membership 4.77 4.12 0.65 Creativity 4.74 4.03 0.71 Planning 4.67 4.22 0.45 2.2.5.1 The core competencies for the managers in Hong Kong in Transport, Storage & Communications were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Stress Management’, and ‘Results’. 2.2.5.2 The managers had performed at a ‘fair’ level in all competencies with an earned performance score mostly within the lower half of the 4 – 5 range. 2.2.5.3 ‘Crisis Management’ and ‘Creativity’ were found with substantial score disparity indicating training need for the managers in these two competencies.
  • 30. 25 Table 2.2.5.4: Competency Ranking & Scores of Supervisors in Transport, Storage & Communication in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.02 4.48 0.54 Team Building 4.83 4.13 0.70 Stress Management 4.76 4.26 0.50 Results 4.75 4.10 0.65 Efficiency 4.73 4.14 0.59 Decision Making 4.72 4.16 0.56 Communication 4.71 4.15 0.56 Personal Drive 4.71 4.23 0.48 Crisis Management 4.70 4.06 0.64 Leadership 4.69 4.12 0.57 Coaching & Counselling 4.69 4.05 0.64 Managing Change 4.65 4.03 0.62 Planning 4.61 4.08 0.53 Team Membership 4.57 3.98 0.59 Creativity 4.57 3.96 0.61 2.2.5.4 The core competencies for the supervisors in Hong Kong in Transport, Storage & Communication were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Results’, and ‘Efficiency’. 2.2.5.5 The supervisors had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level with a rated score of below 4 on their performance level in ‘Team Membership’ and ‘Creativity’. Their performance in the other thirteen competencies was at a ‘fair’ level with scores within the lower range of 4 – 5, where 4 = fair and 5 = good. 2.2.5.6 ‘Team Building’ was found with substantial score disparity indicating a higher training need for Hong Kong supervisors in this competency.
  • 31. 26 Table 2.2.5.7: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Transport, Storage & Communication in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Efficiency 4.99 4.40 0.59 Creativity 4.97 4.46 0.51 Customer Concern 4.94 4.68 0.26 Team Building 4.94 4.47 0.47 Managing Change 4.90 4.49 0.41 Crisis Management 4.89 4.28 0.61 Results 4.86 4.38 0.48 Communication 4.84 4.54 0.30 Stress Management 4.84 4.42 0.42 Leadership 4.83 4.49 0.34 Team Membership 4.83 4.38 0.45 Personal Drive 4.81 4.42 0.39 Decision Making 4.81 4.43 0.38 Coaching & Counselling 4.80 4.54 0.26 Planning 4.70 4.41 0.29 2.2.5.7 The core competencies for managers working in the Mainland in Transport, Storage & Communication were ‘Efficiency’, ‘Creativity’, ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Team Building’, and ‘Managing Change’. 2.2.5.8 The Mainland managers had performed generally at a ‘fair’ level with a performance score of more than 4 in all competencies. In general they achieved a higher score than their counterpart in Hong Kong for every competency when comparing the performance scores between Table 2.2.5.1 and Table 2.2.5.7. 2.2.5.9 No competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating little pressing need for training in any particular competency for the Mainland managers.
  • 32. 27 Table 2.2.5.10: Competency Ranking & Scores of Supervisors in Transport, Storage & Communication in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.00 4.00 1.00 Team Membership 5.00 4.00 1.00 Efficiency 5.00 4.00 1.00 Stress Management 5.00 4.00 1.00 Crisis Management 5.00 4.00 1.00 Creativity 5.00 4.00 1.00 Decision Making 4.91 3.91 1.00 Coaching & Counselling 4.86 4.00 0.86 Managing Change 4.86 4.00 0.86 Leadership 4.67 4.00 0.67 Team Building 4.67 4.00 0.67 Personal Drive 4.50 4.00 0.50 Communication 4.40 4.00 0.40 Planning 4.40 4.00 0.40 Results 4.14 4.00 0.14 2.2.5.10 The core competencies for supervisors working in the Mainland in Transport, Storage & Communication were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’. These six competencies were regarded as having a ‘high’ impact on the performance of the Mainland supervisors with a score of 5 ascribed to the importance level. 2.2.5.11 The Mainland supervisors had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level in ‘Decision Making’ and achieved ‘fair’ rating in all other competencies. The scores given to the performance level of all except one competency were at 4. It was probably due to only 1 out of the limited number of respondents provided his or her view. 2.2.5.12 Substantial score disparity was found in nine competencies indicating training need for the supervisors in ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Creativity’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Coaching & Counselling’, and ‘Managing Change’.
  • 33. 28 2.2.6 Management Competency of Managers and Supervisors in Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Business Services Table 2.2.6.1: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Business Services in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.08 4.76 0.32 Crisis Management 5.03 4.53 0.50 Efficiency 4.93 4.39 0.54 Stress Management 4.92 4.51 0.41 Decision Making 4.91 4.48 0.43 Personal Drive 4.88 4.52 0.36 Planning 4.87 4.40 0.47 Managing Change 4.86 4.45 0.41 Creativity 4.86 4.38 0.48 Results 4.85 4.34 0.51 Coaching & Counselling 4.84 4.41 0.43 Team Building 4.83 4.40 0.43 Communication 4.81 4.44 0.37 Leadership 4.77 4.25 0.52 Team Membership 4.76 4.22 0.54 2.2.6.1 The core competenc ies for the managers in Hong Kong in Finance, Insurance, Real Estate & Business Services were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Stress Management’, and ‘Decision Making’. 2.2.6.2 The managers had performed at a ‘fair’ level with a score above 4 earned for their performance in all competencies. 2.2.6.3 No competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating little pressing need for training in any particular competency.
  • 34. 29 Table 2.2.6.4: Competency Ranking & Scores of Supervisors in Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Business Services in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Efficiency 4.82 4.10 0.72 Personal Drive 4.75 4.22 0.53 Stress Management 4.73 4.21 0.52 Planning 4.72 4.10 0.62 Crisis Management 4.72 4.12 0.60 Customer Concern 4.71 4.47 0.24 Team Building 4.68 4.15 0.53 Decision Making 4.66 4.12 0.54 Coaching & Counselling 4.63 4.06 0.57 Communication 4.60 4.08 0.52 Results 4.58 4.03 0.55 Managing Change 4.57 4.07 0.50 Creativity 4.57 3.99 0.58 Team Membership 4.54 3.93 0.61 Leadership 4.52 3.93 0.59 2.2.6.4 The core competencies for the supervisors in Hong Kong in Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Business Services were ‘Efficiency’, ‘Personal Drive’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Planning’, and ‘Crisis Management’. 2.2.6.5 The supervisors had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level in ‘Leadership’, ‘Team Membership’, and ‘Creativity’, with a performance score of below 4, whereas the other twelve competencies were at a ‘fair’ level. 2.2.6.6 ‘Efficiency’ was found with substantial score disparity indicating the Hong Kong supervisors were in need of training in this competency.
  • 35. 30 Table 2.2.6.7: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Business Services in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Efficiency 4.60 4.07 0.53 Stress Management 4.54 4.17 0.37 Planning 4.53 4.35 0.18 Customer Concern 4.52 4.64 -0.12 Personal Drive 4.47 4.32 0.15 Managing Change 4.47 4.11 0.36 Coaching & Counselling 4.45 4.19 0.26 Results 4.37 3.94 0.43 Crisis Management 4.34 3.88 0.46 Decision Making 4.32 4.16 0.16 Communication 4.29 4.27 0.02 Team Building 4.29 4.38 -0.09 Team Membership 4.29 4.07 0.22 Creativity 4.16 3.91 0.25 Leadership 4.14 4.07 0.07 2.2.6.7 The core competencies for managers working in the Mainland in Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Business Services were ‘Efficiency’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Planning’, ‘Customer Concern’, and ‘Personal Drive’. 2.2.6.8 The Mainland managers had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level in ‘Results’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’; but achieved a ‘fair’ level in the other twelve competencies. 2.2.6.9 No competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating little pressing need for training for the managers. The score disparity of ‘Customer Concern’ and ‘Team Building’ was negative, indicating their performance was high in these two less important competency areas.
  • 36. 31 Table 2.2.6.10: Competency Ranking and Scores of Supervisors in Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Business Services in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Stress Management 4.73 4.47 0.26 Managing Change 4.60 4.21 0.39 Efficiency 4.56 4.08 0.48 Planning 4.53 4.42 0.11 Personal Drive 4.45 4.36 0.09 Coaching & Counselling 4.41 4.30 0.11 Team Membership 4.30 4.11 0.19 Decision Making 4.30 4.30 0 Communication 4.27 4.31 -0.04 Team Building 4.24 4.62 0.38 Results 4.24 3.88 0.36 Crisis Management 4.15 3.94 0.21 Leadership 4.13 4.15 -0.02 Customer Concern 4.05 4.64 0.59 Creativity 3.95 4.05 -0.10 2.2.6.10 The core competencies for the supervisors working in the Mainland in Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Business Services were ‘Stress Management’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Planning’, and ‘Personal Drive’. ‘Creativity’ was given a score below 4 to the importance level suggesting it had a ‘less than average’ impact on their performance. 2.2.6.11 The supervisors had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level in ‘Results’ and ‘Crisis Management’; and at a ‘fair’ level in the other thirteen competencies. 2.2.6.12 No competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating little pressing need for training for the supervisors. The score disparity of ‘Communication’, ‘Leadership’, and ‘Creativity’ were worked out in negative, i.e. scores achieved in the performance level were higher than the importance level.
  • 37. 32 2.2.7 Management Competency of Managers and Supervisors in Community, Social & Personal Services Table 2.2.7.1: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Community, Social & Personal Services in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Team Building 4.97 4.46 0.51 Leadership 4.96 4.31 0.65 Crisis Management 4.93 4.29 0.64 Efficiency 4.92 4.31 0.61 Customer Concern 4.91 4.47 0.44 Results 4.91 4.34 0.57 Decision Making 4.89 4.42 0.47 Coaching & Counselling 4.86 4.44 0.42 Stress Management 4.85 4.30 0.55 Communication 4.84 4.50 0.34 Managing Change 4.80 4.33 0.47 Personal Drive 4.76 4.37 0.42 Planning 4.78 4.36 0.42 Team Membership 4.69 4.22 0.47 Creativity 4.66 4.15 0.51 2.2.7.1 The core competencies for managers in Hong Kong in Community, Social & Personal Services were ‘Team Building’, ‘Leadership’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Customer Concern’, and ‘Results’. 2.2.7.2 The managers had performed in general at a ‘fair’ level with the scores given to the performance level were all between 4 and 5. 2.2.7.3 No competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating little pressing need in training in any particular competency.
  • 38. 33 Table 2.2.7.4: Competency Ranking & Scores of Supervisors in Community, Social & Personal Services in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Team Building 4.85 4.29 0.56 Leadership 4.84 4.16 0.68 Customer Concern 4.79 4.24 0.55 Efficiency 4.75 4.14 0.61 Crisis Management 4.75 4.16 0.59 Stress Management 4.74 4.17 0.57 Personal Drive 4.71 4.23 0.48 Coaching & Counselling 4.71 4.21 0.50 Decision Making 4.70 4.21 0.49 Results 4.66 4.15 0.51 Communication 4.65 4.28 0.37 Planning 4.64 4.24 0.40 Managing Change 4.60 4.08 0.52 Team Membership 4.52 4.05 0.47 Creativity 4.48 3.95 0.53 2.2.7.4 The core competencies for supervisors in Hong Kong in Community, Social & Personal Services were ‘Team Building’, ‘Leader’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Customer Concern’, and ‘Results’. 2.2.7.5 The supervisors in Hong Kong had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level in ‘Creativity’; and at a ‘fair’ level in the other fourteen competencies with a score below and above 4 given to the performance level of the respective competencies. 2.2.7.6 No competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating little pressing need in training in any particular competency.
  • 39. 34 Table 2.2.7.7: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Community, Social & Personal Services in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.55 4.74 0.81 Communication 5.18 4.31 0.87 Efficiency 5.15 4.20 0.95 Team Building 5.09 4.32 0.77 Leadership 4.97 4.12 0.85 Crisis Management 4.87 3.96 0.91 Managing Change 4.77 3.91 0.86 Decision Making 4.74 4.32 0.42 Planning 4.69 4.33 0.36 Results 4.65 3.91 0.74 Coaching & Counselling 4.65 4.10 0.55 Stress Management 4.63 4.11 0.52 Personal Drive 4.61 4.28 0.33 Creativity 4.56 3.83 0.73 Team Membership 4.55 4.03 0.52 2.2.7.7 The core competencies for managers working in the Mainland in Community, Social & Personal Services were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Communication’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Team Building’, and ‘Leadership’. The first four had a ‘high’ and the fifth had an ‘above average’ impact on the performance of the managers with a score more than and just below 5 given to the performance level of the respective competency. 2.2.7.8 The Mainland managers had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level in four competencies with a score of less than 4 given to the performance level for ‘Results’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’. 2.2.7.9 Nine competencies, including ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Communication’, ‘Efficiency’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Leadership’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Results’, and ‘Creativity’, were found with substantial score disparity indicating the managers were in need of training in them.
  • 40. 35 Table 2.2.7.10: Competency Ranking & Scores of Supervisors in Community, Social & Personal Services in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.25 4.36 0.89 Leadership 4.44 3.71 0.73 Communication 4.40 3.89 0.51 Efficiency 4.16 3.83 0.33 Team Building 4.05 3.89 0.16 Results 3.67 3.55 0.12 Crisis Management 3.64 3.71 -0.07 Personal Drive 3.61 3.85 -0.24 Team Membership 3.57 3.62 -0.05 Planning 3.55 3.97 -0.42 Decision Making 3.52 3.83 -0.31 Coaching & Counselling 3.46 3.45 0.01 Creativity 3.35 3.58 -0.23 Managing Change 3.19 3.33 -0.14 Stress Management 3.14 3.93 -0.79 2.2.7.10 The core competencies for supervisors working in the Mainland in Community, Social & Personal Services were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Leadership’, ‘Communication’, ‘Efficiency’, and ‘Team Building’. From the scores given where 3 = below average, 4 = above average and 5 = high, and 6 = very high, these five competencies were rated having an ‘above average’ to ‘high’ and the other ten were rated as having a ‘below average’ impact on the performance of the supervisors. 2.2.7.11 The Mainland supervisors had performed at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level with a score given for less than 4 in all except in ‘Customer Concern’. 2.2.7.12 ‘Customer Concern’ and ‘Leadership’ were found with substantial score disparity indicating training need for the supervisors in these two competencies. Eight competencies were found with negative score disparity i.e. the scores given to the performance level was higher than those ascribed to the importance level.
  • 41. 36 2.2.8 Management Competency of Managers and Supervisors in Restaurants and Hotels Table 2.2.8.1: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Restaurants and Hotels in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 5.03 4.61 0.42 Team Building 4.92 4.46 0.46 Stress Management 4.86 4.43 0.43 Crisis Management 4.85 4.33 0.52 Results 4.80 4.30 0.50 Efficiency 4.80 4.26 0.54 Creativity 4.80 4.22 0.58 Decision Making 4.79 4.37 0.42 Managing Change 4.75 4.30 0.45 Personal Drive 4.73 4.17 0.56 Leadership 4.72 4.33 0.39 Coaching & Counselling 4.71 4.32 0.39 Planning 4.65 4.24 0.41 Communication 4.63 4.32 0.31 Team Membership 4.63 4.25 0.38 2.2.8.1 The core competencies for managers in Hong Kong in Restaurants and Hotels were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, and ‘Creativity’. ‘Customer Concern’ among the six was rated having a ‘high’ impact on the performance of the managers 2.2.8.2 The Hong Kong managers had performed in general at a ‘fair’ level with a score of above 4 given to the performance level in all competencies. 2.2.8.3 No competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating little pressing need of training for the managers in any particular competency.
  • 42. 37 Table 2.2.8.4: Competency Ranking & Scores of Supervisors in Restaurants and Hotels in Hong Kong Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 4.91 4.40 0.51 Team Building 4.78 4.26 0.52 Stress Management 4.75 4.26 0.49 Crisis Management 4.68 4.18 0.50 Creativity 4.68 3.99 0.69 Coaching & Counselling 4.67 4.14 0.53 Efficiency 4.66 4.06 0.60 Personal Drive 4.64 4.07 0.57 Decision Making 4.62 4.18 0.44 Results 4.59 4.08 0.51 Planning 4.57 4.14 0.43 Managing Change 4.55 4.05 0.50 Leadership 4.54 4.07 0.47 Team Membership 4.52 4.10 0.42 Communication 4.50 4.14 0.36 2.2.8.4 The core competencies for supervisors in Hong Kong in Restaurants and Hotels were ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Team Building’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’. 2.2.8.5 The supervisors had performed at a ‘fair’ level in all competencies except ‘Creativity’ at a ‘less than satisfactory’ level. 2.2.8.6 No competencies were found with substantial score disparity indicating little pressing need in training for the supervisors.
  • 43. 38 Table 2.2.8.7: Competency Ranking & Scores of Managers in Restaurants and Hotels in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 4.02 5.00 -0.98 Team Membership 4.02 4.99 -0.97 Results 4.02 4.99 -0.97 Decision Making 4.02 5.00 -0.98 Managing Change 4.02 5.00 -0.97 Stress Management 4.02 4.99 -0.97 Crisis Management 4.02 4.99 -0.97 Creativity 4.02 4.99 -0.97 Leadership 4.01 5.00 -0.99 Communication 4.01 5.00 -0.99 Team Building 4.01 5.00 -0.99 Personal Drive 4.01 4.99 -0.99 Planning 4.01 4.99 -0.99 Efficiency 4.01 5.00 -0.99 Coaching & Counselling 4.01 5.00 -0.99 2.2.8.7 The impact of the fifteen competencies on the performance of managers working in the Mainland in Restaurants and Hotels was found to be about the same among each of them. Eight given the same and the higher score were considered core competencies including ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Results’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Stress Management’, and/or ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’. 2.2.8.8 The managers had performed at a very close to ‘good’ level with all the competencies given a score of either 4.99 or 5.00 to the performance level. 2.2.8.9 All the fifteen competencies worked out with a negative score disparity indicating no pressing need in training.
  • 44. 39 Table 2.2.8.10: Competency Ranking & Scores of Supervisors in Restaurants & Hotels in the Mainland Competency Scores for Scores for Score Importance Performance Disparity Customer Concern 6.00 5.33 0.67 Team Membership 6.00 4.25 1.75 Results 6.00 4.00 2.00 Decision Making 6.00 4.45 1.55 Managing Change 6.00 4.00 2.00 Stress Management 6.00 4.00 2.00 Crisis Management 6.00 4.00 2.00 Creativity 6.00 4.00 2.00 Leadership 5.78 4.44 1.34 Personal Drive 5.75 4.33 1.42 Coaching & Counselling 5.71 4.57 1.14 Team Building 5.67 4.67 1.00 Efficiency 5.67 4.67 1.00 Communication 5.40 4.50 0.90 Planning 5.30 4.40 0.90 2.2.8.10 The core competencies for the Mainland supervisors in Restaurants and Hotels were the same as the Mainland managers: ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Team Membership’, ‘Results’, ‘Decision Making’, ‘Managing Change’, ‘Stress Management’, ‘Crisis Management’, and ‘Creativity’. With a score of 6 given to the importance level, the eight competencies were considered having a ‘very high’ impact on the performance of the supervisors. 2.2.8.11 The supervisors had performed at a ‘good’ level in ‘Customer Concern’ and a ‘fair’ level in the other competencies. 2.2.8.12 The Mainland supervisors were found with substantial score disparity in all competencies except ‘Customer Concern’, indicating they had training need in all other competencies.
  • 45. 40 2.3 Analysis of Findings 2.3.1 Core Competencies for Managers and Supervisors in Hong Kong and the Mainland 2.3.1.1 The scores to the importance level for the competencies were all worked out to be more than 4 indicating each of the fifteen competencies had an ‘above average’ impact on the performance of the managers and supervisors in both Hong Kong and the Mainland. The importance impact of each competency was in fact quite close as the four lists of Scores for Importance in Tables 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 all fall within a range of less than 0.50. 2.3.1.2 The core competencies for managers and supervisors for both Hong Kong and the Mainland are summarised in the following table. Four competencies i.e. ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’, and ‘Team Building’ are common as the core management competency for managers and supervisors in both Hong Kong and the Mainland. The fifth one for Hong Kong managers is either ‘Stress Management’ or ‘Decision Making’, for Hong Kong supervisors is ‘Stress Management’, for Mainland managers is ‘Results’; and for Mainland supervisors is ‘Leadership’ or ‘Personal Drive’. Table 2.3.1.2: Core Competencies for Managers and Supervisors in Hong Kong and the Mainland Hong Kong Mainland Managers Supervisors Managers Supervisors Customer Concern Customer Concern Customer Concern Customer Concern Crisis Management Crisis Management Crisis Management Crisis Management Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Team Building Team Building Team Building Team Building Stress Management Stress Management Results Leadership Decision Making Personal Drive 2.3.2 The Core Competency for Managers and Supervisors by Sector 2.3.2.1 The scores given to the importance level for the competencies in every sector were generally higher for managers than for supervisors, as shown in Table 2.3.2.1. It is an indication that the competency had a greater impact on the performance of managers than supervisors in both Hong Kong and the Mainland. The only exception was Restaurants & Hotels in the Mainland.
  • 46. 41 Table 2.3.2.1: Average of Scores Assigned to the Importance Level of the Competencies by Sector Sector Hong Kong The Mainland Managers Supervisors Managers Supervisors Manufacturing 4.65 4.45 4.68 4.35 Electricity, Gas & Water 4.65 4.57 4.84 N.A. Construction 4.74 4.60 5.68 5.36 Wholesale, Retail & I/E 4.70 4.54 4.63 4.48 Trades Transport, Storage & 4.85 4.71 4.86 4.76 Communication Finance, Ins. R Est. & 4.88 4.65 4.39 4.33 Business Services Community, Social & 4.85 4.69 4.84 3.80 Personal Services Restaurants & Hotels 4.78 4.64 4.02 5.82 2.3.2.2 The core competencies identified for each sector are summarised and marked with a ‘v’ in the respective columns in Table 2.3.2.2 with the following legends: Sector Competency 1 = Manufacturing 1 = Leadership 10 = Decision Making 2 = Electricity, Gas & Water 2 = Communication 11 = Coaching & Counselling 3 = Construction 3 = Customer Concern 12 = Managing Change 4 = Wholesale, Retail, Import/Export Trades 4 = Team Building 13 = Stress Management 5 = Transport, Storage & 5 = Team Membership 14 = Crisis Management Communication 6 = Results 15 = Creativity 6 = Finance, Ins. Real Estate, 7 = Personal Drive Business Services 7 = Community, Social & 8 = Planning Personal Services 9 = Efficiency 8 = Restaurant and Hotels The legends will be used for subsequent tables wherever applicable.
  • 47. 42 Table 2.3.2.2: Core Competencies for Managers and Supervisors by Sector Competency Sector Location Position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Hong Kong Manager v v v v v 1 Supervisor v v v v v v Mainland Manager v v v v v Supervisor v v v v v v Hong Kong Manager v v v v v 2 Supervisor v v v v v Mainland Manager v v v v v Supervisor Hong Kong Manager v v v v v v 3 Supervisor v v v v v Mainland Manager v v v v v Supervisor v v v v v Hong Kong Manager v v v v v 4 Supervisor v v v v v Mainland Manager v v v v v Supervisor v v v v v Hong Kong Manager v v v v v 5 Supervisor v v v v v Mainland Manager v v v v v Supervisor v v v v v v Hong Kong Manager v v v v v 6 Supervisor v v v v v Mainland Manager v v v v v v Supervisor v v v v v Hong Kong Manager v v v v v v 7 Supervisor v v v v v Mainland Manager v v v v v Supervisor v v v v v Hong Kong Manager v v v v v v v 8 Supervisor v v v v v Mainland Manager v v v v v v v v Supervisor v v v v v v v v
  • 48. 43 2.3.3 The Performance of Managers and Supervisors by Sector Table 2.3.3: Performance Level of Managers and Supervisors by Sector Number of Competencies Performed Up to the Level of Sector Location Position Less than Satisfactory Fair Good Hong Kong Manager 8 7 0 1 Supervisor 15 0 0 Mainland Manager 10 5 0 Supervisor 14 1 0 Hong Kong Manager 0 15 0 2 Supervisor 13 2 0 Mainland Manager 1 12 2 Supervisor N/A. N/A. N/A. Hong Kong Manager 1 14 0 3 Supervisor 12 3 0 Mainland Manager 1 14 0 Supervisor 0 15 0 Hong Kong Manager 0 15 0 4 Supervisor 7 8 0 Mainland Manager 11 4 0 Supervisor 13 2 0 Hong Kong Manager 0 15 0 5 Supervisor 2 13 0 Mainland Manager 0 15 0 Supervisor 1 14 0 Hong Kong Manager 0 15 0 6 Supervisor 3 12 0 Mainland Manager 3 12 0 Supervisor 2 13 0 Hong Kong Manager 0 15 0 7 Supervisor 1 14 0 Mainland Manager 4 11 0 Supervisor 14 1 0 Hong Kong Manager 0 15 0 8 Supervisor 1 14 0 Mainland Manager 0 7 8 Supervisor 0 14 1
  • 49. 44 2.3.3.1 Managers in Hong Kong had more competencies achieved at ‘good’ and ‘fair’ levels than managers in the Mainland in every sector with the exception of only one, i.e. Restaurants and Hotels. The former was commented as having performed better if not as good as the latter. While the managers working in the Mainland were indeed sent from Hong Kong, their ‘tarnished’ performance could have been caused by the environment they were subjected to. 2.3.3.2 On the other hand, managers had more competencies achieved at ‘good’ and ‘fair’ levels than supervisors in both Hong Kong and the Mainland in all except two sectors, i.e. Construction, and Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Business Services in the Mainland. Managers were commented in general having performed better than supervisors. 2.3.3.3 The performance of the managers and supervisors varied in different sectors. Those in Manufacturing followed by Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades had their performance in most competencies rated at ‘less than satisfactory’ level. Those in Restaurants and Hotels were commented to have performed the best among the eight sectors with the most competencies gaining a score for their performance at ‘fair’ and ‘good’ levels. 2.3.4. Training Needs of Managers and Supervisors by Sector 2.3.4.1 The competencies identified with substantial score disparity in each sector are summarised in Table 2.3.4. This table may be used as training need guidelines for managers and supervisors in respective sectors.
  • 50. 45 Table 2.3.4: Substantial Score Disparity of Managers and Supervisors by Sector Sector Location Position The Competencies with Substantial Score Disparity 1 Hong Kong Manager Crisis Management, Efficiency, Results. Supervisor Stress Management, Efficiency. Mainland Manager Crisis Management, Results, Leadership, Stress Management, Team Building, Efficiency, Communication, Team Membership Supervisor Efficiency. 2 Hong Kong Manager Leadership. Supervisor Leadership, Decision Making, Efficiency, Stress Management, Team Membership, Coaching & Counselling, Creativity, Managing Change, Crisis Management. Mainland Manager Crisis Management, Communication, Leadership, Coaching & Counselling. 3 Hong Kong Supervisor Crisis Management. Mainland Manager All fifteen competencies. Supervisor Coaching & Counselling, Decision Making, Personal Drive, Communication, Creativity, Leadership, Team Membership, Team Building, Creativity, Results. 4 Hong Kong Manager Crisis Management. Supervisor Crisis Management. Mainland Manager Crisis Management, Efficiency, Customer Concern, Results, Communication. Supervisor Crisis Management, Efficiency. 5 Hong Kong Manager Crisis Management, Creativity. Supervisor Team Building. Mainland Supervisor Crisis Management, Customer Concern, Team Membership, Efficiency, Creativity, Stress Management, Decision Making, Managing Change, Coaching & Counselling. 6 Hong Kong Supervisor Efficiency 7 Mainland Manager Customer Concern, Communication, Efficiency, Leadership, Crisis Management, Creativity, Results, Managing Change, Team Building. Supervisor Customer Concern, Leadership. 8 Mainland Supervisor Team Membership, Leadership, Decision Making, Creativity, Managing Change, Planning, Results, Stress Management, Efficiency, Team Building, Personal Drive, Communication, Coaching & Counselling, Crisis Management. (wyl) ---c:SusannaTeresaCMSTWP_Survey1999SurveyEnglishPart2.doc
  • 51. 46 PART III : MANAGEMENT TRAINING PRACTICES AND REQUIREMENTS OF FIRMS OPERATING IN HONG KONG 3.0 Introduction The survey also studied the current practices and requirements in the areas of supervisory and managerial training and development. 3.1 Level of Management Training that Supervisors and Managers Had Received Prior to Being Recruited by Their Current Companies (Table 3.1) 3.1.1 The survey found that close to half (47.9% for supervisors and 49.1% for managers) of the companies reported that their recruits had received no prior management training before they were appointed or promoted to their present level. About one-third (36.9% and 31.5% for supervisors and managers respectively) responded that their recruits had only some prior management training before being appointed. Companies that claimed most of their supervisory and managerial recruits had had prior management training only constituted around 10% (10.1% and 10.9% respectively). Companies whose recruits all had received management training prior to appointment numbered 5.2% for supervisors and 8.5% for managers. Figure 3.1 illustrates the situation. Figure 3.1: Distribution of Companies Recruiting Managers and Supervisors With and Without Prior Management Training 47.9 With Prior Management Training None 49.1 36.9 Some 31.5 10.1 Most 10.9 5.2 All 8.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Supervisors Managers % of Responding Companies
  • 52. 47 3.1.2 Sectoral variation did exist and was considerable. Manufacturers had the largest number of supervisors and managers without prior management training (68.76% for supervisors and 68.12% for managers), followed by Restaurants & Hotels, at 57.9% and 65.97% respectively. Judging from the findings of the last CMST survey on the services sectors that the Hotel sector had the least managers and supervisors with no prior management training, it looked likely that this high percentage was mainly constituted by the Restaurant sector. The Community, Social and Personal Services sector’s supervisors were more qualified in term of prior management training received, with over 70% companies responding that their supervisors having had ma nagement training of some sort (ranging from ‘some’, ‘most’ to ‘all’). The Financial, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services sector had the most prior management trained managers (with over 70% claiming ‘some’ to ‘all’ of their managers having had received management training prior to their appointment/promotion to their present positions.) 3.2 Provision of Management Training to Supervisors and Managers After Appointment (Table 3.2) 3.2.1 The survey revealed that again around half of the companies did not provide any management training to their supervisors and managers after appointment (49.1% for supervisors and 51.5% for managers). Thirty- five per cent of the firms provided some management training to their supervisors after appointment, while 32.7% provided same for their managers after appointment. Around 10% of the companies claimed that most of their supervisors and managers were provided with management training after their appointment/promotion to their present level (9.6% for supervisors and 8.6% for managers). Some 6.4% and 7.3% of the companies reported that all their supervisors and managers respectively were provided with management training after appointment/ promotion to their present level. (See Figure 3.2 below.) Figure 3.2: Distribution of Companies Providing Management Training to Managers and Supervisors After Appointment 49.1 None Management Training Provided 51.5 35.0 Some 32.7 9.6 Most 8.6 6.4 All 7.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Supervisors % of Responding Companies Managers
  • 53. 48 3.2.2 Similar sectoral variation was found among supervisors and managers after they had been appointed/promoted to their present level. Restaurants and Hotels led as the employer group providing the least management training to their supervisors and managers (65.34% and 74.68% respectively did not provide any management training after appointment/promotion). The Manufacturing sector took the second position, at 60.16% and 60.13% respectively. Following the findings of the previous 1996 CMST survey on the services sectors, it would be logical to conclude that it was the catering sector (Restaurants), rather than the Hotels, that constituted the high percentage of non-provision. The Community, Social and Personal Services sector was clearly the champion for provision of management training, with almost 85% providing from ‘some’ to ‘all’ of their supervisors, and over 70% providing same for their mana gers. The Financial, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services sector ranked second, with over 65% providing from ‘some’ to ‘all’ of their supervisors, and close to 75% providing same to their managers. 3.3 Availability of Management Training Plans (Table 3.3) 3.3.1 About 22.3% of the companies had management training plans for their managers and 25.5% for their supervisors. As can be expected, those who were more established tended to be more likely to possess such plans, as shown in Figure 3.3.1 below. Figure 3.3.1: Distribution of Companies Having Management Training Plans for Supervisors and Managers by Year of Establishment 0.3 <1 Yr. 0.2 Year of Establishment 5.7 1-5 Yrs 5.2 19.6 >5 Yrs 16.9 25.5 ALL 22.3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Supervisors % of Responding Companies Managers
  • 54. 49 3.3.2 The Electricity, Gas and Water sector, as expected, all being large and long established utility companies, ranked highest, with 57.1% and 71.4% replying that they had management training plans for their supervisors and managers respectively. Other sectors that followed for supervisors were, in descending order, the Community, Social and Personal Services (40.8%); the Finance, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services (35.8%); and the Construction sector (31.7%). As for training plans for managers, the three sectors that followed after the utilities sector were: the Finance, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services (39.3%); the Transport, Storage and Communications sector (32.8%); and the Community, Social and Personal Services (32%). Figure 3.3.2: Distribution of Companies Having Management Training Plans for Managers and Supervisors by Sector 12.0 Manufacturing 11.4 57.1 Electricity, Gas & Water 71.4 31.7 Construction 28.6 Sector 22.7 Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades 20.1 30.3 Transport, Storage & Communication 32.8 35.8 Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Business Services 39.3 40.8 Community, Social & Personal Services 32.0 19.2 Restaurants & Hotel 14.6 Supervisors 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Managers % of Responding Companies 3.4 Frequency of Arranging Formal Management Training (Table 3.4) 3.4.1 Arrangement of formal management training for supervisors and managers was generally uncommon among companies. Overall, only a small percentage of companies had formal management training arranged regularly (10.5% for supervisors and 9.7% for managers). About a quarter occasionally arranged management training for their supervisors, but only just slightly over one-fifth provided same for their managers (24.9% and 21.1% respectively).
  • 55. 50 3.4.2 The Manufacturing sector was the least active in arranging formal management training for their employees. Only 5.2% of manufacturing companies regularly arranged management training for their supervisors, and 4% of them arranged same for managers. Seventy-seven per cent of manufacturing companies did not arrange any management for their supervisors, while 84.1% did not arrange any management training for their managers. A close match was found in the Restaurants and Hotels sector. Here 76% arranged no management training for their supervisors and 82.3% arranged no management training for their managers. 3.4.3 The Finance, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services sector and the Community, Social and Personal Services sector followed closely behind the Electricity, Gas and Water sector as the more active groups in arranging management training for their staff. Close to 20% of companies in the Finance, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services sector regularly arranged formal management training for their staff. The corresponding figures for the Community, Social and Personal Services sector were 15.8% and 11.3% for supervisors and managers respectively, as shown in Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: Arrangement of Formal Management Training for Supervisors and Managers Manufacturing [S] 77.0 17.8 5.2 Manufacturing [M] 84.1 12.0 4.0 Electricity, Gas & Water [S] 28.6 28.6 42.9 Electricity, Gas & Water [M] 28.6 42.9 28.6 Construction [S] 69.4 18.5 12.1 Construction [M] 61.3 23.1 15.6 Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export [S] 67.8 24.8 7.4 Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export [M] 71.5 21.0 7.5 Sector Transport, Storage & Communication [S] 64.6 20.8 14.6 Transport, Storage & Communication [M] 63.5 14.8 21.8 Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Bus. Services [S] 57.6 23.3 19.0 Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Bus. Services [M] 52.0 28.9 19.2 Community, Social & Personal Services [S] 38.8 45.4 15.8 Community, Social & Personal Services [M] 52.3 36.4 11.3 Restaurants & Hotels [S] 76.0 18.6 5.4 Restaurants & Hotels [M] 82.3 13.8 4.0 Overall [S] 64.6 24.9 10.5 No Arrangement Overall [M] 69.2 21.1 9.7 Occasionally 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Regularly % of Responding Companies
  • 56. 51 3.5 Types of Management Training Organized (Table 3.5) 3.5.1 Responding companies were asked how they organized formal management training for their managerial staff. Four types of management training were identified: (i) In-company management training; (ii) External evening programmes; (iii) External day programmes; and (iv) Overseas attachments or programmes. Of those companies that arranged management training, a high percentage adopted the in- company format (65.1% for supervisors and 68.8% fo r managers). In descending order of preference were external evening programmes; external day programmes; and overseas attachments or programmes. Figure 3.5.1 shows the findings. Figure 3.5.1: Types of Management Training Provided by Companies to Supervisors and Managers 65.1 In-Company Training 68.8 65.7 Attend Ext. Evening Programmes 65.0 Type 54.7 Attend Ext. Day Programmes 52.1 19.8 Overseas Programmes 25.1 1.8 Others 1.5 Supervisors 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Managers % of Responding Companies 3.5.2 The Restaurants and Hotels sector used in-company training most (87.7% for supervisors and 88.9% for managers). This was followed closely by the Electricity, Gas and Water sector, eighty per cent of which that organized formal management training for their managerial staff adopted the in-company option for both their supervisors and managers. The Finance, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services sector exceeded the utilities sector slightly at the manager level (at 80.6%) but at the supervisor level, it was a little bit behind (at 77.4%).
  • 57. 52 3.5.3 The utilities sector led all others in supporting external evening programmes. All of the companies responded that they made arrangement for their supervisors and managers to attend external evening programmes. The Construction sector was the next most supportive, with 89% arranging for their supervisors to attend external evening programmes. For their managers, 78.9% of construction companies arranged to let them attend external evening programmes. 3.5.4 The Community, Social and Personal Services sector and next the Finance, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services sector were amongst the most supportive of external day programmes for their supervisors, at 72.1% and 69.5% respectively. When it came to managers, Construction sector took the lead, with 78.5% arranging to have their managers attend external day programmes. The Manufacturing and the Community, Social and Personal Services sectors took close runner- up positions, at 72.2% and 71.5% respectively. 3.5.5 The Electricity, Gas and Water sector was most supportive to overseas programmes. Sixty per cent sponsored their managers to attend overseas programmes, while for supervisors 40% did so. The Finance, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services sector took second position, with 38% making arrangement for their supervisors to attend overseas programmes, and 41.7% for their managers. Figure 3.5.2: Types of Management Training Provided to Supervisors and Managers by Sector 39.9 44.1 78.9 77.7 Manufacturing 57.2 72.2 4.8 9.6 0.0 0.0 80.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 60.0 Electricity, Gas & Water 60.0 40.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 54.1 55.0 89.0 78.9 61.1 Construction 78.5 21.2 23.2 16.1 13.0 61.8 67.4 67.9 Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export 64.0 41.6 37.0 Trades 17.8 33.9 0.6 0.5 63.2 69.0 48.3 53.1 Transport, Storage & Communication 50.5 47.7 17.2 16.4 0.0 0.0 77.4 80.6 70.9 Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & 77.3 69.5 54.0 Bus. Services 38.2 41.7 0.0 0.0 68.2 65.1 62.0 Community, Social & Personals 63.2 72.1 71.5 Services 19.7 24.2 1.8 2.1 87.7 88.9 29.8 27.7 31.3 Restaurants & Hotels 29.6 9.5 10.4 Sector 0.0 0.0 [S] – Supervisors 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 [M] - Managers % of Responding Companies Others [M] Others [S] Overseas Programmes [M] Overseas Programmes [S] Attend Ext. Day Programmes [M] Attend Ext. Day Programmes [S] Attend Ext. Evening Programmes [M] Attend Ext. Evening Programmes [S] In-Company Training [M] In-Company Training [S]
  • 58. 53 3.6 Modes of In-company Training Provided (Table 3.6) 3.6.1 On-the-job mode was the most popular among the companies surveyed, with over half adopting it. Over forty per cent of companies reported that they employed both on-the- job and off- the-job modes. Very few companies (5 per cent or less) used only the off-the-job mode for training their supervisors and managers, as shown in Figure 3.6.1. Figure 3.6.1: Types of In-Company Management Training for Supervisors and Managers 53.5 On the Job 53.0 Type 4.7 Off the Job 3.6 41.8 By Both 43.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Supervisors Managers % of Responding Companies 3.6.2 The Manufacturing sector claimed it relied most on the on-the-job mode in training their supervisors and managers (both at over 80%). The Wholesale, Retail and Import/Export sector was the next keen supporter of the on-the-job mode, with over sixty per cent using this mode for training their supervisors and managers. Majority of companies in the Restaurants and Hotels sector also adopted this mode (57.3% for supervisors and 61.6% for managers). The Transport, Storage and Communication sector widely adopted on-the- job mode for training their supervisors (at 59.7%), but only 35.6% of them relied on only the on-the-job mode. Rather, companies in this sector more employed the dual mode (both ‘on- the-job’ and ‘off-the-job’ modes) for developing their managers. The sector that most widely relied on the dual mode for developing their managerial staff was Construction (73.4% for supervisors and 78.8% for managers). The Electricity, Gas and Water sector also commonly used both modes for developing their managers (75%). The Transport, Storage and Communication sector followed next, at 60.9%. After Construction, the sector that extensively employed both modes for developing their supervisors was the Finance, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services sector (63.4%), as shown in Figure 3.6.2 below.
  • 59. 54 Figure 3.6.2: Distribution of Modes of In-company Training by Sector Sector Manufacturing [S] 80.6 2.1 17.4 80.7 2.1 17.3 [S] – Supervisors Manufacturing [M] [M] - Managers 25.0 25.0 50.0 Electricity, Gas & Water [S] Electricity, Gas & Water [M] 25.0 0.0 75.0 Construction [S] 17.8 8.4 73.4 13.1 8.1 78.8 Construction [M] Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export [S] 62.5 3.9 33.7 Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export [M] 61.7 7.4 30.8 Transport, Storage & Communication [S] 59.7 1.9 38.4 Transport, Storage & Communication [M] 35.6 3.5 60.9 Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Bus. Services [S] 31.1 5.5 63.4 Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Bus. Services [M] 41.7 4.6 53.7 Community, Social & Personal Services [S] 52.8 2.1 45.1 50.0 2.7 47.3 Community, Social & Personal Services [M] Restaurants & Hotels [S] 57.3 3.0 39.7 Restaurants & Hotels [M] 61.6 2.7 35.7 Overall [S] 53.1 3.6 43.3 Overall [M] 51.3 5.0 43.7 On the Job Off the Job 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Both % of Responding Companies 3.7 Resources for Management Training (Table 3.7) 3.7.1 Companies surveyed were asked to indicate from a list of resources they had for management training. Training budget topped the list as the most frequently mentioned resource provision (69.3% for supervisors and 71.5% for managers). Use of external trainers was the next most common resource mentioned by companies surveyed, with 42.2% employing this for training their supervisors and 47.1% for their managers. Forty per cent of companies indicated they had training departments/sections looking after the training for supervisors and 42.7% had these for overseeing their training for managers. Figure 3.7 shows the findings. Overall speaking, relatively more resources were provided for managers than supervisors.
  • 60. 55 Figure 3.7: Resources for Management Training for Supervisors and Managers Training Budget 69.3 71.5 40.4 Training Section 42.7 19.6 Training Centre 20.7 30.5 Resource Centre 32.1 21.7 FT Training Staff 23.8 18.6 PT Training Staff 20.3 25.4 Joint with Other 25.5 42.2 Use Ext. Trainers 47.1 13.6 In-house 15.4 2.5 Other Training 2.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Supervisors Managers % of Responding Companies 3.8 Reasons for Not Arranging Management Training (Table 3.8) 3.8.1 For companies that did not arranged management training for their staff, the most common reason they provided was that they ‘could not release staff for training due to manpower constraints’ (43.1% for supervisors and 39.8% for managers). The next most common reason was that they ‘did not allocate adequate resources for training’ (38.5% for supervisors and 34.8% for managers). Slightly over thirty per cent of companies responded that they had already ‘had sufficient well-trained staff’. Figure 3.8.1: Reasons for not arranging Management Training for Supervisors and Managers Inadequate Resources 38.5 34.8 Skeptical in Value 12.0 14.5 Manpower Constraints 43.1 39.8 Staff Considered Unworthy 4.4 6.7 Enough Trained Staff 30.5 31.1 Others 8.4 7.9 Supervisors 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Managers % of Responding Companies 5
  • 61. 56 3.9 Sponsorship to Management Courses (Table 3.9) 3.9.1 The survey found that majority of the companies were willing to sponsor their managerial staff to attend relevant management courses. Slightly more companies (61.3%) were willing to sponsor their supervisors than their managers (55.9%). Figure 3.9.1: Willingness to Sponsor Managers and Supervisors to Attend Relevant Management Training 61.3 Yes 55.9 38.7 No 44.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Supervisors % of Responding Companies Managers 3.9.2 The Community, Social and Personal Services sector was the most prepared to sponsor their supervisors to attend relevant management courses (83.5%). While for managers, the Finance, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services sector was most supportive (80.2%). Figure 3.9.2 shows the sectoral picture. Figure 3.9.2: Willingness to Sponsor Supervisors and Managers to Attend Relevant Management Training by Sector 47.8 Manufacturing 45.8 71.4 Electricity, Gas & Water 71.4 60.3 Construction 59.7 60.0 Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export 54.2 Sector 74.2 Transport, Storage & Communication 64.4 77.1 Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Bus. Services 80.2 83.5 Community, Social & Personal Services 73.8 33.8 Restaurants & Hotels 24.1 61.3 Overall 55.9 0 20 40 60 80 100 Supervisors % of Responding Companies Managers
  • 62. 57 3.10 Format of Sponsorship (Table 3.10) 3.10.1 Over half of the companies were willing to both release their staff during office hours and reimburse them for the fees paid for attending relevant management courses. Thirty-seven per cent of companies were willing to only reimburse their supervisors for attending relevant management courses. Slightly more (40.2%) of them were willing to reimburse their managers for attending relevant courses. It looked as if managers were more indispensable to these companies during office hours. Figure 3.10.1: Format of Sponsoring Supervisors and Managers to Management Training 9.4 Release During Office Hours 9.2 37.1 Reimburse Free Only 40.2 53.6 Both 50.6 Supervisors 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Managers % of Responding Companies 3.10.2 The Electricity, Gas and Water sector was most generous, with 80% willing to both release their supervisors and managers during office hours and reimbursing them for the fees paid for attending relevant management courses. The next keen s upporter was the Community, Social and Personal Services sector, at 75.3% and 71.3% respectively for supervisors and managers. The Transport, Storage and Communication sector was most reluctant to release their supervisors and managers during office hours to attend relevant management courses, particularly for the former group (69.8% versus 54.1%). The Wholesale, Retail and Import/Export sector was next reluctant to release their managers and supervisors (50.8% and 45% respectively) during office hours. Figure 3.10.2 shows the picture.
  • 63. 58 Figure 3.10.2: Distribution of Companies in the Format of Sponsorship by Sector Manufacturing [S] 3.7 40.8 55.6 Manufacturing [M] 7.0 37.4 55.6 Electricity, Gas & Water [S] 20.0 0.0 80.0 Electricity, Gas & Water [M] 20.0 0.0 80.0 Construction [S] 5.1 34.2 60.9 C o n s t r u c t i o n [ M ] 1.9 40.3 57.7 Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export [S] 7.1 45.0 47.9 Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export [M] 5.6 50.8 43.7 Sector Transport, Storage & Communication [S] 1.2 69.8 29.0 Transport, Storage & Communication [M] 1.0 54.1 44.9 Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Bus. Services [S] 8.8 37.3 53.9 Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Bus. Services [M] 11.0 43.5 45.5 Community, Social & Personal Services [S] 18.0 6.8 75.3 Community, Social & Personal Services [M] 19.1 9.5 71.3 Sector Restaurants & Hotels [S] 27.7 22.7 49.5 25.6 27.6 46.9 [S] – Supervisors Restaurants & Hotels [M] [M] - Managers Overall [S] 9.4 37.0 53.6 Overall [M] 9.2 40.2 50.6 Release During Office Hours 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Reimburse Fees Only Both % of Responding Companies 3.11 Preferred Types of Management Training (Table 3.11) 3.11.1 The most preferred type of management training indicated by responding companies for both supervisors and managers was “courses leading to formal qualifications”. “Workshops and seminars” were next popular. “Continuing development programmes for maintaining professional qualifications” were least preferred by the companies. Figure 3.11 shows the findings. Figure 3.11: Preferred Types of Management Training for Supervisors and Managers 33.6 Leading to Qualification 34.1 21.0 Refresher/Upgrading 19.5 29.7 Workshops/Seminars 29.8 15.7 CPD Programme 16.6 0.0 Others 0.0 Supervisors 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Managers % of Responding Companies
  • 64. 59 3.12 Preferred Duration of Management Training (Table 3.12) 3.12.1 The two duration groups that were most preferred by responding companies were those lasting for “less than 1 week” and those between “3 and less than 12 months”. Comparing between the supervisors and the managers, on the average companies were more inclined to have their supervisors attending shorter courses (from 'less than 1 week' to 'less than 3 months'). Managers on the other hand tended to be preferred to attend longer courses ('3 to less than 12 months'). However, courses longer than 12 months were least preferred by companies, as shown in Figure 3.12 below. Figure 3.12: Preferred Duration of Management Training for Supervisors and Managers <1 Week 24.0 23.0 1 Week - <1 Month 20.4 19.3 1 - <3 Months 19.4 19.1 3 - <12 Months 21.9 23.6 12 Months & More 14.4 15.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Supervisors % of Responding Companies Managers 3.13 Preferred Frequency of Management Training Meetings (Table 3.13) 3.13.1 The most preferred frequency of meetings of management training programmes was “once a week” (48.3% for supervisors and 48.1% for managers). Almost half of the responding companies chose this frequency. The next preferred option was “twice a week”, opted by some 36% for both supervisors and managers. Figure 3.13 shows the distribution of their preferences.
  • 65. 60 Figure 3.13: Preferred Frequency of Management Training for Supervisors and Managers 8.00 > Twice a Week 8.43 36.48 Twice a Week 36.43 48.28 Once a Week 48.05 7.20 < Once a Week 7.08 Supervisors 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Managers % of Responding Companies 3.14 Preferred Days in the Week for Management Training (Table 3.14) 3.14.1 Slightly more companies preferred their supervisors and managers to attend management training on a combination of weekdays and weekends (39.5% for supervisors and 39.9% for managers). The next preferred mode was “during weekdays” (35.6% for supervisors and 35.1% for managers). The least preferred of the three options, “during weekends”, yet was supported by around a quarter of the companies. Figure 3.14: Preferred Days of the Week for Management Training of Supervisors and Managers 35.6 Weekdays 35.1 25.0 Weekends 25.0 39.5 Combination 39.9 Supervisors 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Managers % of Responding Companies
  • 66. 61 3.15 Preferred Meeting Time for Management Training (Table 3.15) 3.15.1 Most companies preferred their supervisors and managers attend management training programmes “after office hours” (63.8% for supervisors and 63.1% for managers). Yet slightly more than a quarter of the responding firms chose “a combination of both – during and after office hours” as their preferred timing. About one-tenth of companies opted for the “during office hours” timing. Figure 3.15 presents the total picture. Figure 3.15: Preferred Meeting Time for Management Training of Supervisors and Managers 10.7 Office Hours 10.8 63.8 After Office Hours 63.1 25.5 Both 26.0 Supervisors 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Managers % of Responding Companies 3.16 Preferred Medium of Instruction of Management Training (Table 3.16) 3.16.1 “Bi- lingual (Cantonese and English)” and “Cantonese” were the two most preferred media of instruction of management training, with almost equal number of supporters (both versions attracted over 40% of the responding companies). Slightly more companies preferred “Cantonese” as the medium of instruction for their supervisors (46.1% for supervisors versus 43.4% for managers). Even for managers, the “English” only version was selected by less than 10% of the companies (7.8% to be exact). Figure 3.16 shows the distribution of the preferred medium of instruction as chosen by the responding companies.
  • 67. 62 Figure 3.16: Preferred Medium of Instruction of Management Training for Supervisors and Managers 46.1 Cantonese 43.4 0.4 Putonghua 0.6 5.5 English 7.8 42.5 Cantonese and English 43.1 3.3 Putonghua and English 3.0 2.1 Others 2.2 Supervisors 0 10 20 30 40 50 Managers % of Responding Companies 3.17 Effectiveness of Different Learning Approaches for Management Training (Table 3.17) 3.17.1 Responding companies were asked to rate the effectiveness of a range of common management learning approaches on a scale of “1” to “5”. A rating of “5” represented the approach as “most effective”, while “1” represented the approach as “least effective”. Averaging out the responses, “mentoring/coaching” was regarded as most effective (with a score exceeding 3.9 for both supervisors and managers). Close behind it was “small groups training”, with an average score exceeding 3.6. Further down the scale, “action learning through company projects” and “individual tutored learning” each scored between 3.4 and 3.5. “Distance learning” was ranked least effective, with a score of 2.37 for supervisors and 2.45 for managers. The “traditional classroom lectures” method was about middle in the rank order, with a score of 3.17 for supervisors and 3.2 for managers. Detail comparison is shown in Figure 3.17 below. 3.17.2 Nearly all (except marginally 'Mentoring/Coaching') approaches were claimed to be more effective when applied to managers than supervisors, though the difference was not significant.
  • 68. 63 Figure 3.17: Effectiveness of Learning Approaches for Management Training Reading Management Material 2.7 2.9 Traditional Classroom Lectures 3.2 3.2 Small Groups Training 3.6 3.6 Self-Learning Using Company Resource Centre 2.8 2.8 Action Learning through Company Project 3.5 3.5 Distance Learning 2.4 2.5 Computer-Based / Web-Based Learning 2.7 2.8 Individual Tutored Learning 3.4 3.5 Mentoring / Coaching 3.9 3.9 Supervisors 0 2 4 6 Managers Average Rating 3.18 Awareness of The Management Development Centre of Hong Kong (Table 3.18) 3.18.1 Forty-two per cent of responding companies were aware of the existence and services of The Management Development Centre of Hong Kong (MDC). Majority of the companies surveyed (68%), however, were interested to know more about the MDC. 3.18.2 The Transport, Storage and Communication sector was least aware of the MDC, with only 32.3% noting its existence and services. The Construction and the Restaurants and Hotels sectors were also not much aware of the MDC (at 36% and 36.6% respectively). The Community, Social and Personal Services sector was most familiar with the MDC, with over half (52.1%) expressing awareness of it.
  • 69. 64 Figure 3.18.2: Awareness of and Interest to Know More about MDC 46.1 42.9 36.0 41.3 Aware of the MDC 32.3 46.4 52.1 36.6 42.3 55.2 71.4 73.3 68.8 Interest to Know More 64.8 80.0 78.6 55.7 68.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % of Responding Companies Overall Restaurants & Hotels Community, Social & Personal Services Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Bus. Services Transport, Storage & Communication Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Construction Electricity, Gas & Water Manufacturing 3.18.3 The Finance, Insurance, Real Estates and Business Services sector and the Community, Social and Personal Services sector were most interested to know more about the MDC (at 80% and 78.6% respective ly). The Manufacturing and the Restaurants and Hotels sectors were least interested in the MDC compared to other sectors. Despite its low awareness of the MDC, the Construction sector, however, was quite eager to know more about it. Figure 3.18.2 shows the relative responses. (wyl) ---c:SusannaTeresa CMSTWP_Survey 1999Survey EnglishFinalPart3.doc
  • 70. 65 PART IV : RECOMMENDATIONS 4.0 Core Competencies for Management Training Programmes 4.0.1 The Committee recommends to training professionals and programme providers that in the design and development of training programmes for supervisors and managers working in Hong Kong and the Mainland, ‘Customer Concern’, ‘Crisis Management’, ‘Efficiency’ and ‘Team Building’ should be adopted as the “Core Competencies”. For programmes targeted at specific sectors, they may have to take into consideration of the sectoral differences as highlighted in the respective lists for competency importance levels. 4.0.2 While the above four had been identified as the core competencies, the fifth was found different in each sector varying for the managers and the supervisors, and for Hong Kong and the Mainland. For employers considering sponsoring their management staff to take outside programmes and/or designing their in-company programmes, they are recommended to take reference of the findings on their respective sectors in this survey. 4.1 Approaches for Organisations to Enhance Management Competency 4.1.1 The performance of supervisors was generally reckoned as inferior to that of their manager counterparts in both Hong Kong and the Mainland. Employers are encouraged to accord higher priority to the development of their supervisors especially in the competencies found with substantial score disparity. The need is particularly acute in the ‘Manufacturing’; ‘Electricity, Gas & Water’; ‘Construction’; ‘Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades’ sectors. They may make use of Table 2.3.4 as guidelines in planning their training and development programmes. 4.1.2 In addition to mastery of the required competencies, managers from Hong Kong that have to spend work time across the border are recommended to get better equipped in the skill and knowledge required for working in the Mainland, especially in ‘Proficiency in Putonghua’ and ‘Understanding of Mainland Customs and Culture’. 4.1.3 The survey adopts the competency approach with a focus on the behaviours that differentiate effective from ineffective managers and supervisors. Human resource professionals are recommended to conduct similar exercises for their organisations on a regular basis. Information gathered will help to provide up-to-date data for management training need analysis, succession planning, and organisation development.
  • 71. 66 4.2 Provision of Management Training and Development 4.2.1 To help enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong companies in the new millenium, improving the competency level of their managers and supervisors can play a pivotal role. New challenges that are emerging (e.g. e-business) demand new skills and competencies. Continuous life- long learning is becoming a need for maintaining one’s employability and building one’s career. 4.2.2 Findings of the survey clearly indicate that there exists an enormous need for management training among managers and supervisors in Hong Kong. To help convert this need into effective demand, companies’ concern over budget constraints and operational continuity should be attended to. 4.2.3 To ease employers’ concern over budget constraints, the Committee recommends tertiary institutions, professional bodies and training organizations to actively develop training options that are less costly and more cost-effective. Closer collaboration among local training providers in areas such as jointly developing basic modules and sharing their expertise, accumulated cases/critical incidents and other course materials can contribute towards lowering the programme development costs and speeding up the process, responsively meeting emerging needs. As local companies are getting slimmer (with lean staff) and flatter (lesser number of hierarchical levels), the Committee is aware that releasing employees to attend courses during working hours is becoming more and more difficult. To minimize operational disturbance, besides offering more (traditional) training programmes outside normal working hours, other alternatives should be explored. New training options employing advancement in information and telecommunication technologies, such as learning resource centre, CD-based interactive multimedia self- learning, web-based training and videoconferencing, can offer much greater flexibility in terms of time, place, pace and level matching. 4.2.4 Employers are also encouraged to divert more resources towards supporting management training and more actively sponsoring their management staff to attend relevant training or take up relevant self- learning activities. To effectively compete in the new economy, cost- and price-cutting is no longer adequate or possible for Hong Kong companies. As we move up- market towards the high value-added sectors, ‘working hard’ is no longer enough. Organizations have to be ‘smart’ and ‘innovative’, ‘able to learn’ quickly, from competitors, customers and the broad environment, and respond accordingly. So are the cases for their decision-makers: owners, managers and supervisors.
  • 72. 67 4.3 The Management Development Centre of Hong Kong 4.3.1 The Committee recommends that The Management Development Centre of Hong Kong (MDC) should continue to perform its roles in research, development, collaboration and promotion to help improve managerial effectiveness in Hong Kong. In view of its impartial role, MDC can play an active part in liaising and coordinating the local training providers in implementing the Committee’s recommendations mentioned in Para. 4.2.3 above. With sixteen years’ of work concentrating in management development since its founding in 1984, MDC has accumulated much programme development experience and developed a very rich pool of locally relevant resource materials that training providers are highly encouraged to make active use of. 4.3.2 More efforts should be put in promoting MDC’s programmes and services to the individual employers and trade associations to gain increased awareness and better support from the business community. Sectors that had low awareness and yet high interest in the MDC, such as the ‘Construction’ sector and the ‘Transport, Storage and Communication’ sector, should be high priority industries to target at. 4.4 Promotion and Publicity of Management Development and Training 4.4.1 The Committee recommends that providers of management training should promote and publicize individually and collectively their training and development programmes and services among employers and target participants. Emphasis should be placed on the need to maintain and enhance their competitiveness in their respective trades both locally and internationally for survival and prosperity in the face of increasing globalization and technological advancement. 4.5 Future Surveys 4.5.1 The Committee recommends that to assess the mana gement training and development needs of supervisors and managers in the rapidly changing Hong Kong economy, the current practice of conducting manpower and training needs surveys at 2- to 3- year intervals be continued. However, to enable the Committee to closely monitor the fast changing operating environment and quickly advancing technologies, and to respond with timely recommendations accordingly, smaller scale studies employing other methodologies such as focus groups should be carried out from time to time as necessary. -- E N D --
  • 73. Appendix 1 Membership of the Committee on Management and Supervisory Training Chairman: Mr. Stanley C. H. Lau (nominated by the Federation of Hong Kong Industries) Vice-Chairman: Prof. Y. K. Fan (nominated by Hong Kong Baptist University) Members: Mr. O. J. L. Barnham (nominated by the Employers’ Federation of Hong Kong) Mr. Peter Barrett (nominated by the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce) Dr. Patrick Y. K. Chau (nominated by the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology) Mr. Fred Kwan (nominated by the Institute of Training Professionals) Mrs. Kate Michelson (nominated by the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong) Ms. Eva Lau (nominated by the Hong Kong Institute of Human Resources Management) Miss Maria Lau (nominated by the Chinese Manufacturers’ Association of Hong Kong) Ms. Mandy Leung (Principal Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education (Tsing Yi Campus))
  • 74. -2- Dr. Frederick Mak (representing the Executive Director of the Vocational Training Council) Mr. Hiroshi Matsui (nominated by the Hong Kong Japanese Chamber of Commerce & Industry) Mr. Richard C. F. Ng (nominated on ad persona basis) Mr. Y. K. Sze-To (nominated by the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce) Mr. Stanley Wong (representing the Director of the Civil Service Training and Development Institute) Mr. Yuen Mo (nominated on ad persona basis) Mr. C. W. Yung (nominated by the Hong Kong Chamber of Small & Medium Business Ltd.) Secretary: Mr. Alfred Ho (Vocational Training Council)
  • 75. Appendix 2 Terms of Reference of The Committee on Management and Supervisory Training 1. To determine the total manpower and training needs of all sectors of the economy for managerial and supervisory personnel. 2. To investigate the institutional and in-company training facilities available for training of managers and supervisors and to make recommendations to the Council on additional facilities required. 3. To determine and review the strategy and policy of the Management Development Centre of Hong Kong (MDC). 4. To monitor and evaluate the implementation of the MDC work plan and the quality assurance system. 5. To monitor the research and development programmes, training products for managers and supervisors by the MDC, promotion and coordination activities of the MDC. 6. To organize seminars/conferences on management and supervisory training. 7. To liaise with employers, training boards, general committees, training centres, educational and training institutions, government departments on all matters pertaining to management and supervisory training. 8. To prepare annually for submission to the Council: (a) a report on the work carried out in the preceding twelve months; (b) a business plan including financial estimates for the next twelve months; (c) a strategic plan for the next three years. 9. To undertake any other functions delegated by the Council in accordance with Section 7 of the Vocational Training Council Ordinance.
  • 76. Appendix 3 Vocational Training Council Committee on Management and Supervisory Training 1999 Survey of the Managerial Competency and Management Training Needs of Managers and Supervisors in All Sectors Questionnaire Official Use Only Name of Company: Company Address : Name of Contact Person : Position : Telephone No. : Fax No.: Hong Kong Mainland Principal Line of Business : Manufacturing (Please tick one) Electricity, Gas, Water Construction Wholesale, Retail and Import/ Export Trades, Restaurants and Hotels Transport, Storage, Communication Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services Community, Social and Personal Services Others: Total Number of Employees: Total Number of Managers: Total Number of Supervisors: Location of Headquarters : Hong Kong (Please tick one) Mainland USA Europe Japan Other Asian Countries (please specify) Others (please specify) Year of Incorporation in Hong Kong: CMST App3.doc
  • 77. Part I 1.1 Do you think that Hong Kong managers and supervisors working in the Mainland require special knowledge and skills which are not required of managers and supervisors working in Hong Kong. Manager Supervisor Yes No 1.2 Which of the following areas of knowledge and skills should be enhanced for those Hong Kong managers and supervisors working in the Mainland? (You may tick more than one box.) Manager Supervisor (a) Understanding of Mainland customs and culture. (b) Understanding of ethical standards. (c) Ability to plan for uncertainty. (d) Ability to analyse training needs. (e) Ability to counsel subordinates. (f) Ability to coach subordinates. (g) Knowledge and skills in people management. (h) Knowledge and skills in project management. (i) Knowledge and skills in time management. (j) Report writing skills. (k) Proficiency in Putonghua. (l) Others (please specify) CMST App3.doc
  • 78. Part II: Managerial competencies in your organisation There are two sections in this part. Section A is about the managerial competency requirements in your company. Section B is about the performance level of your supervisors and managers. Section A Please go through the following tasks that have an impact on the performance of your managers and supervisors. Use a scale of 1-6 to rate the importance of each task, where 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = below average, 4 = above average, HK PRC 5 = high and 6 = very high. M* S* M* S* (1) Adapt their approach depending on the person they wish to influence. (2) Drive their staff to achieve high levels of performance. (3) Deal with poor performers objectively, discipline or counsel as appropriate. (4) Make sure that people understand what is expected of them and how they are to achieve it. (5) Write clearly and concisely, without unnecessary jargon. (6) Hold meetings effectively. (7) Meet with customers to discuss their needs. (8) Do more than routines to meet customers’ requirements. (9) Reflect customers' views to higher management. (10) Make staff feel that their contribution is important. * M -- Manager; S -- Supervisor CMST App3.doc
  • 79. Please go through the following tasks that have an impact on the performance of your managers and supervisors. Use a scale of 1-6 to rate the importance of each task, where 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = below average, 4 = above average, HK PRC 5 = high and 6 = very high. M* S* M* S* (11) Modify team membership to meet project requirements at different stages. (12) Know the abilities and personality of each staff and how they can best contribute to the group. (13) Identify and control conflict among team members. (14) Ensure that each team member is involved in group decisions. (15) Build strong relationships with other sections/departments. (16) Set difficult but achievable goals and draw up plans to meet them. (17) Acknowledge outstanding performance by their staff to stimulate/ maintain morale for high achievement. (18) Change work methods and procedures to achieve better and timely results. (19) Demonstrate initiative in new tasks/assignments. (20) Willingly take up time-critical assignments and able to meet tight deadlines. (21) Undertake training in their own time/cost to improve work-related skills. (22) Meet with their staff to set priorities and agree work plans. (23) Update their departments' work plans on a regular basis. (24) Achieve planned deadlines for their assignments. * M -- Manager; S -- Supervisor CMST App3.doc
  • 80. Please go through the following tasks that have an impact on the performance of your managers and supervisors. Use a scale of 1-6 to rate the importance of each task, where 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = below average, 4 = above average, HK PRC 5 = high and 6 = very high. M* S* M* S* (25) Actively seek new and more efficient ways of tackling problems. (26) Work for more output from the same resources. (27) Inspire staff to strive for improvement. (28) Make decision within their spheres of responsibility and authority. (29) Examine various alternatives before deciding. (30) Consider ethical issues in making decisions. (31) Tell staff clearly what specific behaviour needs improving. (32) Guide staff to explore options and solutions. (33) Give positive feedback and provide ongoing support. (34) Identify potential opportunities that may arise from change. (35) Explain clearly the rationale for making the necessary change. (36) Tell subordinates about the needed change and inform them where they can fit into the process. (37) Handle emergencies with limited resources comfortably. (38) Work harmoniously with different people on new projects. (39) Always press for outstanding performance. * M -- Manager; S -- Supervisor CMST App3.doc
  • 81. Please go through the following tasks that have an impact on the performance of your managers and supervisors. Use a scale of 1-6 to rate the importance of each task, where 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = below average, 4 = above average, HK PRC 5 = high and 6 = very high. M* S* M* S* (40) Able to recognise the occurrence of a crisis at the early stage. (41) Able to identify the key task(s) to be dealt with in a crisis. (42) Take prompt and decisive action to achieve the key task(s) identified. (43) Produce new and constructive ideas. (44) Encourage innovative ideas from others. (45) Willing to experiment with new ideas. Section B The following list of tasks is the same as the one provided for Section A. But the focus is on performance. Please go through each and indicate with a scale of 1-6 how well your managers and supervisors perform, where 1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = less than satisfactory, 4 = fair, 5 = good and 6 = outstanding. HK PRC M* S* M* S* (1) Adapt their approach depending on the person they wish to influence. (2) Drive their staff to achieve high levels of performance. (3) Deal with poor performers objectively, discipline or counsel as appropriate. (4) Make sure that people understand what is expected of them and how they are to achieve it. * M -- Manager; S -- Supervisor CMST App3.doc
  • 82. The following list of tasks is the same as the one provided for Section A. But the focus is on performance. Please go through each and indicate with a scale of 1-6 how well your managers and supervisors perform, where 1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = less than satisfactory, 4 = fair, 5 = good and 6 = outstanding. HK PRC M* S* M* S* (5) Write clearly and concisely, without unnecessary jargon. (6) Hold meetings effectively. (7) Meet with customers to discuss their needs. (8) Do more than routines to meet customers’ requirements. (9) Reflect customers' views to higher management. (10) Make staff feel that their contribution is important. (11) Modify team membership to meet project requirements at different stages. (12) Know the abilities and personality of each staff and how they can best contribute to the group. (13) Identify and control conflict among team members. (14) Ensure that each team member is involved in group decisions. (15) Build strong relationships with other sections/departments. (16) Set difficult but achievable goals and draw up plans to meet them. (17) Acknowledge outstanding performance by their staff to stimulate/ maintain morale for high achievement. (18) Change work methods and procedures to achieve better and timely results. * M -- Manager; S -- Supervisor CMST App3.doc
  • 83. The following list of tasks is the same as the one provided for Section A. But the focus is on performance. Please go through each and indicate with a scale of 1-6 how well your managers and supervisors perform, where 1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = less than satisfactory, 4 = fair, 5 = good and 6 = outstanding. HK PRC M* S* M* S* (19) Demonstrate initiative in new tasks/assignments. (20) Willingly take up time-critical assignments and able to meet tight deadlines. (21) Undertake training in their own time/cost to improve work-related skills. (22) Update their departments' work plans on a regular basis. (23) Meet with their staff to set priorities and agree work plans. (24) Achieve planned deadlines for their assignments. (25) Actively seek new and more efficient ways of tackling problems. (26) Work for more output from the same resources. (27) Inspire staff to strive for improvement. (28) Make decision within their spheres of responsibility and authority. (29) Examine various alternatives before deciding. (30) Consider ethical issues in making decisions. (31) Tell staff clearly what specific behaviour needs improving. (32) Guide staff to explore options and solutions. (33) Give positive feedback and provide ongoing support. * M -- Manager; S -- Supervisor CMST App3.doc
  • 84. The following list of tasks is the smae as the one provided for Section A. But the focus is on performance. Please go through each and indicate with a scale of 1-6 how well your managers and supervisors perform, where 1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = less than satisfactory, 4 = fair, 5 = good and 6 = outstanding. HK PRC M* S* M* S* (34) Identify potential opportunities that may arise from change. (35) Tell subordinates about the needed change and inform them where they can fit into the process. (36) Explain clearly the rationale for making the necessary change. (37) Handle emergencies with limited resources comfortably. (38) Work harmoniously with different people on new projects. (39) Always press for outstanding performance. (40) Able to recognise the occurrence of a crisis at the early stage. (41) Able to identify the key task(s) to be dealt with in a crisis. (42) Take prompt and decisive action to achieve the key task(s) identified. (43) Produce new and constructive ideas. (44) Encourage innovative ideas from others. (45) Willing to experiment with new ideas. * M -- Manager; S -- Supervisor CMST App3.doc
  • 85. Part III : Training Situation and Requirement in Hong Kong Operation Manager Supervisor 3.1 How many of your existing managers or supervisors had management training before they were appointed/ promoted to this level in your company? None Some Most All 3.2 How much management training your existing managers or supervisors have received after they have been appointed/promoted to this level in your company? None Some A lot All 3.3 Does your company have a management training plan? Yes No 3.4 Does your company (or your parent company)* arrange formal management training? Yes, just occasionally Yes, regularly No (Go to Question 3.8) * Appropriate only if your parent company’s training also caters for your company’s employees. CMST App3.doc
  • 86. Manager Supervisor 3.5 How does your company (or your parent company)* arrange formal management training? (You may tick more than one box.) Organizing in-company management training. Sponsoring management staff to attend external evening programmes. Sponsoring management staff to attend external day programmes. Sponsoring management staff to attend overseas attachments or programmes. Others (please specify) 3.6 If your company (or your parent company)* organizes in-company management training, how is it done? On-the-job Off-the-job By both 3.7 Does your company (or your parent company)* have any of the following resources for management training? (You may tick more than one box) Training budget. Training department/section. In-company training centre. In-company resources centre (e.g. with books, videos etc.) where staff can study in their own or the company’s time. * Appropriate only if your parent company’s training also caters for your company’s employees. CMST App3.doc
  • 87. Manager Supervisor Full-time training staff. Part-time training staff. Joint training programme with other companies. Use of external management trainers. Publishing in-house training newsletter. Others (please specify) (Please go to Question 3.9) 3.8 If your company (or your parent company)* does not arrange management training, it is because your company (You may tick more than one box): does not allocate adequate resources for training. does not believe in the value of management training. cannot release staff for training due to manpower constraints. does not consider staff worth training. has sufficient well-trained staff. Others (please specify) * Appropriate only if your parent company’s training also caters for your company’s employees. CMST App3.doc
  • 88. Manager Supervisor 3.9 (A) Will your company sponsor management staff to attend relevant management courses: Yes No (B) If yes, will your company: Release them during office hours Just pay or reimburse their course fees Do both 3.10 Which would be your preference concerning the following arrangements for management training: (Please tick the most appropriate box in each item.) (A) Type: Courses leading to formal qualifications. Refresher/upgrading courses without leading to formal qualifications. Workshops/seminars Continuing development programme for maintaining professional qualifications Others (please specify) (B) Duration: Less than 1 week 1 week - less than 1 month 1 - less than 3 months 3 - less than 12 months 12 months or more CMST App3.doc
  • 89. Manager Supervisor (C) Frequency of meetings: More than twice a week Twice a week Once a week Less than once a week (D) Days of the week: During weekdays During weekends Combination of the above (E) Meeting time: During office hours After office hours Combination of the above (F) Medium of instruction: Cantonese Putonghua English Bi-lingual (Cantonese/English) Bi-lingual (Putonghua/English) Others (please specify) CMST App3.doc
  • 90. 3.11 Please indicate the effectiveness of the following types of management learning on a scale of 1 to 5: (Please enter a number from '1' to '5' in each of the following boxes.) Effectiveness scale: 1 = least effective 2 = not very effective 3 = just about effective 4 = quite effective 5 = most effective Manager Supervisor Reading management material Traditional classroom lectures Small groups training Self-learning using company resource centre Action learning through company project Distance-learning Computer-based/Web-based learning Individual tutored learning Mentoring/coaching Others (please specify) 3.12 Set up by the Vocational Training Council in 1984, The Management Development Centre of Hong Kong (MDC) is to develop, promote and extend managerial effectiveness in Hong Kong. (A) Are you aware of its existence and services? Yes No (B) Are you interested to know more about the MDC? Yes No - END OF QUESTIONNAIRE - CMST App3.doc
  • 91. THANK YOU CMST App3.doc
  • 92. Appendix 4 1999 Survey of the Managerial Competency and Management Training Needs of Managers and Supervisors Sample Coverage and Sampling Plan Employment Stratum Size of Sampling Sample Branch Size Code Frame Fraction Size 1. Manufacturing 10-19 3 2 398 0.015 37 (MD 3) 20-49 4 1 483 0.020 29 50-99 5 450 0.067 30 100-199 6 197 0.200 38 200-499 7 91 0.250 22 500-999 8 26 0.420 10 1 000 or over 9 11 0.500 5 Sub-total 4 656 - 171 2. Electricity, Gas & Water 10-19 3 4 - - (MD 4) 20-49 4 5 1.000 5 50-99 5 - 1.000 - 100-199 6 - 1.000 - 200-499 7 - 1.000 - 500-999 8 - 1.000 - 1 000 or over 9 3 1.000 3 Sub-total 12 - 8 3. Construction 10-19 3 1 831 0.015 26 (MD 5) 20-49 4 1 110 0.020 23 50-99 5 246 0.077 19 100-199 6 110 0.200 22 200-499 7 56 0.250 13 500-999 8 13 0.430 5 1 000 or over 9 5 0.600 2 Sub-total 3 371 - 110
  • 93. -2- Employment Stratum Size of Sampling Sample Branch Size Code Frame Fraction Size 4. Wholesale, Retail & 10-19 3 11 048 0.015 167 Import / Export 20-49 4 4 673 0.020 94 Trades, Restaurants & 50-99 5 1 311 0.083 110 Hotels 100-199 6 522 0.200 104 (MD 3) 200-499 7 177 0.250 44 500-999 8 52 0.400 21 1 000 or over 9 12 0.500 6 Sub-total 17 795 - 546 5. Transport, Storage & 10-19 3 1 049 0.015 16 Communication 20-49 4 510 0.020 10 (MD 7) 50-99 5 160 0.067 11 100-199 6 82 0.200 17 200-499 7 52 0.250 13 500-999 8 18 0.400 8 1 000 or over 9 20 0.500 10 Sub-total 1 891 - 85 6. Finance, Insurance, Real 10-19 3 2 477 0.015 38 Estate & Business 20-49 4 1 368 0.020 28 Services 50-99 5 432 0.067 29 (MD 8) 100-199 6 224 0.200 44 200-499 7 138 0.250 35 500-999 8 65 0.400 26 1 000 or over 9 40 0.500 20 Sub-total 4 744 - 220 7. Community, Social & 10-19 3 1 664 0.015 23 Personal Services 20-49 4 868 0.020 18 (MD 9) 50-99 5 620 0.052 33 100-199 6 149 0.200 30 200-499 7 87 0.250 21 500-999 8 30 0.400 12 1 000 or over 9 24 0.500 12 Sub-total 3 442 - 149 Total: 35 911 - 1 289
  • 94. Appendix 5 1999 Survey of the Managerial Competency and Management Training Needs of Managers and Supervisors Analysis of Result of Enumeration (Overall) Branch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Result Existing 150 8 77 455 70 172 138 1070 Closed 1 3 1 1 6 Door-locked 1 1 Duplication Merged with other establishments 1 1 2 Moved, address cannot be located / 6 12 19 1 2 40 untraceable No technical manpower 1 2 3 2 8 Non-contact 7 3 16 5 15 2 48 Not engaged in specified trade Not yet start operation Partial response 1 3 2 6 Refusal 4 2 20 3 16 5 50 Registered office 6 16 3 25 Suspending Work Temporary ceased 2 8 18 5 6 1 40 Vacant Total 171 8 111 552 85 220 149 1296 Branch 1 - Manufacturing Branch 5 - Transport, Storage & Communication Branch 2 - Electricity, Gas & Water Branch 6 - Finance, Insurance, Real Estates & Business Branch 3 - Construction Services Branch 4 - Wholesale, Retail & Import/Export Trades, Restaurants & Hotels Branch 7 - Community, Social & Personal Services
  • 95. Appendix 6 The Competencies and the Task Statements 1. The Managerial Competencies are: a. Leadership: Influences others and gets their commitment to perform the desired tasks effectively. b. Communication: Delivers his or her ideas clearly and listens attentively to the comments of others in return. c. Customer Concern: Identifies customers needs and ensures that they receive the service they require; keeps in close contact with customers. d. Team Building: Involves others and builds teams in which others feel valued and which have shared goals. e. Team Membership: Works well in a team, sharing information and seeking the ideas of others. f. Results: Continuously sets himself or herself and those who work for himmor her targets for better performance. His or her performance shows his or her concern for getting things done. g. Personal Drive: Tries to improve himself or herself and actively seeks new challenges. h. Planning: Sets priorities and schedules activities that have an effect on his or her own work efficiency. i. Efficiency: Is always seeking faster ways of doing things using fewer resources. j. Decision Making: Is willing to accept responsibility and make decisions within his or her own authority. k. Coaching & Counselling: Initiates contact with subordinates to improve their performance and helps them with empathy to overcome difficult situations. l. Managing Change: Is sensitive and positive in coping with the changes which impact upon the operation of the organisation. m. Stress management: Efficiently regulates progress of work and maintains a cordial working relationship. n. Crisis Management: Reacts to ineventuality proactively and positively. o. Creativity: Is willing to contribute ideas for improvement of work. 2. For the list of Task Statements, please refer to the questionnaire (Appendix 3).
  • 96. -2- 3. The following table shows the linkage between the competencies and the task statements where ‘X’ refers to the task statement was specifically developed to depict management actions demonstrating the competency; whereas ‘Y’ indicates that the task statement though not specially designed was found to have relevance to the competency. Task Competency Statement a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o 1 X 2 X 3 X Y 4 X 5 X 6 Y X 7 X 8 Y X Y 9 Y X 10 X 11 X Y 12 X 13 Y X 14 Y X Y 15 X 16 X Y 17 X 18 X Y 19 X 20 X Y 21 X 22 X Y 23 X 24 Y X 25 Y X 26 X 27 Y X 28 Y X 29 X 30 X a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o
  • 97. -3- Task Competency Statement a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o 31 X 32 X 33 X 34 Y X 35 X 36 Y Y X 37 Y X 38 Y X 39 Y X 40 X 41 Y X 42 Y X 43 X 44 Y X 45 Y X a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o
  • 98. Appendix 7 Computation of Average Weighted Score for the Competencies 1. Each competency is primarily represented by three task statements. Leadership, for example, is represented by statement (1) through (3). However, a statement, while mainly representing one competency, may also partially reflect other competencies. A matrix of how the forty- five statements relate to the fifteen competencies is shown in a table in Appendix. An ‘X’ in the matrix indicates a primary representation, while a ‘Y’ indicates a secondary representation. In the weighting, a primary representation carries double weight compared with a secondary representation. 2. The following example illustrates how an averaged weighted score for a competency is computed. Competency: ‘Team Membership’ Primary statements: 13, 14 and 15. Secondary statements: 38 and 44. Total number of cases: 10 Under the column of Hong Kong Manager, the following observations were recorded: Statement No. 13 14 15 38 44 No. of cases Ranking as ‘1’ 0 1 0 0 1 ‘2’ 1 2 2 0 1 ‘3’ 2 1 2 2 3 ‘4’ 3 2 2 1 3 ‘5’ 4 3 4 5 2 ‘6’ 0 1 0 2 0 Total Score* 40 37 38 47 34 Weighted Total 40 37 38 23.5# 17# Weighted Average Score for Team Membership = 3.88@ * --- Computed by adding up the products of observations multiplied by the ranking: 0x’1’+1x’2’+2x’3’+3x’4’+4x’5’+0x’6’=40 # --- Computed by multiplying the total score with 0.5 (i.e. half the weight of primary statements) @ --- Computed by dividing the sum total of the weighted scores by ‘N’ (where ‘N’ is equal to the sum total of primary statements and half of the sum total of secondary statements) and the number of cases/ observations (10 in this example), i.e. [(40+37+38+23.5+17)/(3+2x50%)/10]
  • 99. Appendix 8 Observations in the Analysis of the Survey 1. Validity of the Competency Set as an Effective Tool The scores given to the task statements in Section A of the questionnaire were mostly more than 4, reflecting in the view of the respondents the competencies had an above average impact on the performance of their managers and supervisors. As demonstration of the fifteen competencies enabled managers and supervisors performing well in the task described, it indicated that the set was an effective tool for promo ting managerial and supervisory performance. . 2. Percentage of Hong Kong Establishment Having an Operation in the Mainland As the survey was conducted in Hong Kong collecting views expressed by respondents in Hong Kong, the ratings on the competencies about managers and supervisors in the Mainland were indeed for the managers and supervisors of the respondents working in the Mainland. The percentage of rating responses for the Mainland against Hong Kong was about 15% to 12%, using responses given to Leadership for example as illustrated in Table 8.2. In other words, there were about 15% of the establishments surveyed sending their managers and about 12% sending supervisors to work in their operations in the Mainland. Table 8.2: Responses Given to ‘Leadership’ Location/ Importance Ratings Performance Ratings Percentage Managers Supervisors Managers Supervisors Mainland 3,681 2,267 3,666 2,192 Hong Kong 25,806 19,023 25,709 18,926 Mainland/Hong Kong 14.26% 11.92% 14.26% 11.58% 3. The Responses to the Questionnaire The questionnaire was designed to have three task statements providing a comprehensive coverage for each of the fifteen competencies. Some respondents having to go through the array of forty- five task statements in two rounds found it too demanding in time. A few declined to work it through from statements 1 to 45, and some might not have given the necessary seriousness and thoroughness before giving their ratings.
  • 100. -2- 4. Sample Size for Different Sectors in the Mainland 4.1 The survey asked the respondents to give ratings for the task statements on their managers and supervisors in Hong Kong as well as in the Mainland. The sample size providing opinions about the impact of the competency and the performance of the managers and supervisors in the Mainland was dictated by the percentage of the responses with views for both locations compared with views only for Hong Kong. Take the scores for Competence Importance Level on Leadership as example, the percentages were found ranging from 0.60% to 23.79% in Table 8.3 for managers and 0 to 18.65% for supervisors. Table 8.4: Percentage of Responses for Mainland and Hong Kong Managers Supervisors Sector Mainland HKG % Mainland HKG % (a) (b) (a) / (b) (d) (e) (d) / (e) Manufacturing 529 3,382 15.64 332 2,635 12.60 Electricity, Gas & Water 1 7 14.00 0 7 0 Construction 67 1,750 3.83 176 1,360 12.94 Wholesale, Retail, I/E 2,320 9,752 23.79 1,309 7,020 18.65 Trade Transport, Storage & 109 1,569 6.95 70 1,146 6.11 Communication Finance, Insurance, Real 567 3,318 17.09 367 2,574 14.26 Est., Business Service Community, Social & 17 2,842 0.60 10 2,154 0.46 Personal Services Restaurants & Hotels 71 3,186 2.23 3 2,125 0.14 Total 3,681 25,806 14.26 2,267 19,023 11.90
  • 101. -3- 4.2 The feedback gathered for the Mainland in comparison for Hong Kong from several sectors were found to be very low either in the number of responses i.e. less than 100 or in percentage i.e. less than 10%. They are for: 1. Managers and Supervisors in Electricity, Gas & Water; 2. Managers in Construction, 3. Managers and Supervisors in Transport, Storage & Communication, 4. Managers and Supervisors in Community, Social & Personal Services, and 5. Managers and Supervisors in Restaurants & Hotels. 4.3 For Electricity, Gas & Water in the Mainland, the views about the impact of the competency on the performance and how well the managers had performed were contributed by a respondent from an organisation with more than 100 employees. Relevant views on the supervisors were not available. The respondent apparently had not sent any supervisors working in their operation in the Mainland. 4.4 For Transport, Storage & Communication in the Mainland, the comments in relation to the supervisors were all from establishments with 10 – 19 employees. 4.5 For Community, Social & Personal Services only a very few percentage of the surveyed organisations had sent their managers and supervisors to work in the Mainland. The opinions were provided by establishments with more than 100 employees. 4.6 For Restaurants and Hotels again only very few percentage of the surveyed organisations had sent their managers and supervisors to work in the Mainland. The comments about the managers were from establishments with an employee size of 10 – 19 or over 100, whereas about the supervisors were from establishments with more than 100 employees.

×