Link httpwww.coursesmart.comSR64824879781285492858413.docx

Link :
http://www.coursesmart.com/SR/6482487/9781285492858/413?
__hdv=6.8
They offer free trials which may be more helpful than just
having this excerpt. ISBN# is 9781285492858
Chapter 13 excerpt : Management Development
For at least the past seventy years, managers have been viewed
as a dynamic
and important element of business organizations. Given the
turbulence in today’s
environment, an organization must have a high-quality, flexible,
and adaptive
management team if it is to survive and succeed. 1 This is true
even for organiza-
tions that have chosen to restructure (e.g., with flatter
hierarchies, and fewer per-
manent employees) and empower employees to be more a part
of organizational
decision making. It is managers who are ultimately responsible
for making the
decision to change their organizations’ strategies and structures,
and it is managers
who must ensure that these new approaches are implemented,
modified, and
executed in a way that achieves the organizations’ goals. While
they may do
this in a different way than they have in the past (e.g., less
command and control, more leading and coaching), managers
still play a critical role in organizations’
adaptation and success. 2 In essence, using fewer managers in
an organization

makes it more important that each manager is effective.
It should be noted that, even though popular press reports
suggest that the
number of managers is shrinking, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics estimated that
the category of “management, business, and financial
occupations” contained
approximately 15.7 million people in 2008. Furthermore, this
category is expected
to show a net gain of 1.7 million jobs between 2008 and 2018,
for a projected 10.6
percent increase.3
Management development is one major way for organizations to
increase
the chances that managers will be effective. While many
believed that the ability
to manage (like the ability to lead) is primarily an inborn
capability, the current
prevailing view is that most of the KSAOs (knowledge, skills,
abilities, and other
characteristics) required to be an effective manager can be
learned or enhanced.4
Efforts to recruit, retain, and assess managerial talent are
discussed elsewhere.5
Management development is a very popular HRD activity.
Management
development has been defined in many ways. 6 For the purposes
of this chapter,
the following definition captures the essence of management
development as it
can and should be practiced in organizations:
An organization’s conscious effort to provide its managers (and
potential
managers) with opportunities to learn, grow, and change, in
hopes of
producing over the long term a cadre of managers with the skills

necessary
to function effectively in that organization.7
First, this definition suggests that management development
should be seen as
specific to a particular organization. Although there appear to
be roles and compe-
tencies that apply to managing in a variety of settings, each
organization is unique,
and its goal should be to develop individuals to be more
effective managers within
its own context.8 Second, management development consists
of providing
employees with opportunities for learning, growth, and change.
All of the issues
pertaining to learning—and especially adult learning come into
play as we seek to assist managers in “learning how to learn.”9
While
there is no guarantee that particular individuals will take
advantage of, or profit
from, these opportunities, management development cannot
occur unless oppor-
tunities are at least provided.10 Third, management
development must be a con-
scious effort on the part of an organization. Leaving
development to chance greatly
reduces the likelihood that the organization will achieve the
kinds of changes it
needs and desires. Fourth, management development (like all
HRD activities)
should be directly linked to the organization’s strategy, that is,
it must meet the
organization’s business needs if it is to be a sound
investment.11 While many cur-
rent management development programs do not conform to this
definition, we
think this serves as a benchmark to which such programs can

and should aspire.
Management development can be described as having three
main components:
management education, management training, and on-the-job
experiences.12
Management education can be defined as “the acquisition of a
broad range of con-
ceptual knowledge and skills in formal classroom situations in
degree-granting
institutions.”13 As we will describe later, the “formal classroom
situations” to which the definition refers include a wide range
of activities, with the classroom setting
increasingly being used to bring together and process the results
of outside activities
to draw conclusions about what has been learned. Management
training focuses
more on providing specific skills or knowledge that can be
immediately applied
within an organization and/or to a specific position or set of
positions within an
organization (e.g., middle managers).14 On-the-job experiences
are planned or
unplanned opportunities for a manager to gain self-knowledge,
enhance existing
skills and abilities, or obtain new skills or information within
the context of day-
to-day activities (e.g., mentoring, coaching, assignment to a
task force).15
In this chapter, we will discuss a number of management
development activities
that are used within each of these three components.
DESCRIBING THE MANAGER’S JOB:
MANAGEMENT ROLES AND COMPETENCIES
Given that almost all organizations employ managers, the
scrutiny under which

managers operate, and the vast literature on management and its
subfields, one
would expect that we would have a clear idea of what managers
do, the KSAOs
necessary to do those things effectively, and how to identify and
develop those KSAOs. Unfortunately, there is not an extensive
research literature concerning
what managers do, how they learn to do it, and how they should
be developed.18
While it is true that popular conceptions of a manager’s role and
development are
available, scientific research has yet to provide a clearly
supported and accepted
model that can be used to guide management development. Even
among the
best empirical studies in this area, such as the Management
Progress Study con-
ducted over a thirty-year period at AT&T, there are significant
limitations (e.g.,
small sample sizes, analysis of only one organization) that make
it difficult to con-
fidently conclude what most or all managers do and how they
develop.19
The changes that have occurred in organizations in the past two
decades have
only complicated this picture. Many of the research studies
from the 1970s
and earlier looked at management in hierarchically structured
organizations that
operated in relatively stable environments. As we have pointed
out many times,
organizations must respond to environmental challenges to stay
competitive, and
the structures and strategies they use change over time. The role
of management
has changed in most organizations as well. It is likely that the

established views of
the management job may be more relevant for some
organizations than others.
This is not to say that what we learned in the past is useless.
But we do need
to know which aspects from the past are still relevant and
descriptive of manag-
ing at the present time. This underscores the need for HRD
professionals to
identify what the management job is (and needs to be) in their
own organization
before they can design and deliver management development
processes and pro-
grams that will meet the needs of their own business and
contribute to its com-
petitiveness and effectiveness. In this section of the chapter, we
briefly describe
several approaches to conceptualizing the management role to
suggest a starting
point in designing a reasonable management development
program. As indicated
in the definition of management development presented above,
meaningful
management development is likely to differ among
organizations, considering
the context and challenges facing each particular organization.
Designers of
such programs should begin their efforts by obtaining a clear
understanding of
an organization (including its external environment, goals,
strategic plan, culture,
strengths and weaknesses) and the characteristics of the target
population (man-
agers and managers-to-be). 20 The research available on what
managers do, how
they do it, and how they develop the needed capabilities can

provide a useful
base from which to begin the needs assessment process. It is
unrealistic, however,
to expect such research to provide the blueprint for any
particular organization’s
management development strategy.
Approaches to Understanding the Job of Managing
Researchers who have examined the job of managing have done
so from at least
three perspectives: describing the characteristics of the job as it
is typically performed,
describing the roles managers serve, and developing process
models that show how
the various components of managing relate to each other.21 The
characteristics
approach involves observing the tasks managers perform and
grouping them into
meaningful categories. McCall, Morrison, and Hannan review
the results of a group of observational studies and conclude that
ten elements of managing are con-
sistently present.22 These elements indicate that the
management job involves long hours of work (primarily within
an organization), high activity levels, fragmented
work (e.g., many interruptions), varied activities, primarily oral
communication,
many contacts, and information gathering. In addition, managers
tend not to be
reflective planners (given the variety of tasks and fragmented
nature of the work)
and do poorly in accurately estimating how they spend their
time.
While these observations may be interesting, they do not
provide much assis-
tance in describing specifically what managers do, how they do
it, and how they
should be developed. A common conclusion from such studies is

that important
questions about the job remain unanswered (e.g., the
relationship of the activities
to each other) and that “knowing that the managerial job is
varied and complex is
not particularly helpful in the identification and/or development
process.”23
A second approach to describing the managerial job is to
identify the roles that
managers are typically assigned. This can be accomplished by
using either an observa-tional approach or an empirical
approach. The observational approach is typified by
Fayol’s five management functions (planning, organizing,
commanding, coordinat-
ing, and controlling) and Mintzberg’s managerial roles:
interpersonal (figurehead,
leader, liaison), informational (monitor, disseminator,
spokesperson), and decisional
(entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and
negotiator).24 While
these categorizations are quite popular, they too do not
adequately describe what
managers do. They also lack specificity.
The empirical approach relies on a descriptive questionnaire
(e.g., the Man-
agement Position Description Questionnaire) that is completed
by managers them-
selves, and/or by others who work with them.26 However, even
this approach has
failed to provide practical, meaningful descriptions of the
job.27 Taken together,
the observational and empirical approaches to categorizing the
managerial role
have not proved very useful as a definition of the managerial
job or as a guide to
developing managers.

One way researchers try to overcome the limitations of previous
approaches
is to develop process models that take into account the relevant
competencies and
constraints involved in performing the management job. Two
process models we
highlight are the integrated competency model and the four-
dimensional model.28
The integrated competency model is based on interviews of over
2,000 managers in
twelve organizations. The model focuses on managerial
competencies, that is, skills
and/or personal characteristics that contribute to effective
performance, rather than
the roles managers perform.29 The model identifies twenty-one
competencies that
are grouped into six categories: human resource management,
leadership, goal and
action management, directing subordinates, focus on others, and
specialized knowl-
edge.30 Table 13-1 shows the specific competencies included in
each cluster. The
human resources, leadership, and goal and action clusters are
seen as most central to managing.
A major contribution of this model from Boyatzis and
colleagues is its attempt
to describe the managerial job in terms of the competencies that
contribute to
performance and the relationships among these competencies.
The integrated
competency model is an example of a competency-based
approach to manage-
ment development. Competency-based approaches have become
very popular,
not only as the basis for management development programs,
but for other train-

ing and development programs and HR programs as well.
A weakness of the integrated competency model is that the
model is based
on a narrow range of measuring devices, which are not likely to
represent or
reveal all of the traits, skills, and knowledge needed for
managerial perfor-
mance.32 In addition, the method by which the competencies
are identified has
been criticized. The instrument used, called the Behavioral
Event Interview
(BEI), asks managers to describe three job incidents they feel
were effective and
three job incidents they feel were ineffective. Barrett and
Depinet argue that this
method is inappropriate for measuring competencies as
Boyatzis describes
them.33 That is, Boyatzis describes a competency as “an
underlying characteristic
of a person in that it may be a motive, trait, skill, aspect of
one’s self-image or
social role, or a body of knowledge he or she uses” (p. 21), and
says competen-
cies may be unconscious and that an individual may be “unable
to articulate or
describe them” (p. 21). 34 The validation process used to
support this model (and
other competency models) has been challenged. 35
The second process model of the managerial job that can
contribute to
designing management development efforts is the four-
dimensional model.36
Based on various information sources (e.g., managerial
diaries, interviews, performance evaluation documents,
observation), this model depicts the manage-
rial role as having the following dimensions:

1. Six functions—forecasting and planning, training and
development, persuasivecom-
munication, influence and control, expertise/functional area,
and administration
2. Four roles—innovator, evaluator, motivator, director
3. Five (relational) targets—peers, subordinates, superiors,
external, and self
4. An unspecified number of managerial styles (attributes that
describe the image
and approach of the manager)—examples include objectivity,
personal impact,
leadership, energy level, and risk taking
The four-dimensional model states that managers interact with
various tar-
gets (e.g., subordinates), carrying out an assortment of
functions by performing
specific roles (i.e., the roles that exist within each of the
functions). The way
they perform these functions and roles is consistent with their
managerial style.
For example, in performing the training and development
function with a sub-
ordinate (the target), the manager may have to direct the
subordinate, motivate
him or her during training, and evaluate progress (all roles
contained within the
training and development function). The manager may do this
by using a par-
ticular style (e.g., objectivity, which involves evaluating and
responding to the
subordinate in an unbiased manner).
The four-dimensional and integrated competency models
include similar skills,
roles, and activities and provide a solid basis for describing the
managerial job and
designing management development programs (see Schoenfeldt

& Steger for a dis-
cussion of the relationships among the models).37 These models
provide a conceptual
basis to view the role of managers within a specific
organization and the competen-
cies managers need to perform effectively. However, these
models do not have a
sizable body of empirical research to support their validity. Just
as importantly, these
models should not be viewed as substitutes for a thorough needs
assessment.
Managers As Persons: A Holistic View
of the Manager’s Job
The approaches we have presented to describing the manager’s
job all have one
thing in common: they attempt to describe the manager’s job by
identifying its
elements. This approach has its risks and limitations, according
to authors such as
Henry Mintzberg and Peter Vaill.38 Mintzberg describes the
problem as follows:
If you turn to the formalized literature, you will find all kinds
of lists—of
tasks or roles or “competencies.” But a list is not a model …
and so the
integrated work of managing still gets lost in the process of
describing it.
And without such a model we can neither understand the job
properly
nor deal with its many important needs—for design, selection,
training,
and support … We have been so intent on breaking the job into
pieces
that we never came to grips with the whole thing.39
Vaill raises this concern in light of the turbulent environment in

which man-
agers must manage. 40 While he believes that naming the
functions that managers
must perform can “define the territory that leaders and
managers are concerned with” (p. 114), the list-of-functions
approach leaves out something essential: the
performing of the managerial job. Vaill explains the problem
this way:
The list of functions approach forgets that action taking is a
concrete process
before it is anything else. Furthermore, it is a concrete process
performed by a
whole person in relation to a whole environment populated by
other whole
persons (that is, not other lists of functions). This whole process
is embedded
in time and is subject to the real time of its operation and to all
the turbulence
and change that surround it, that indeed suffuse it, because the
turbulence
and change are within action takers as much as they surround
them. Simply
to name the function to be performed as though it were the
action ignores all
of this richness of the actual action-taking process, and worst of
all, ultimately
masks the richness and leads to an empty model of what the
action-taking
process is [emphasis in original].41
Vaill uses the metaphor of “managing as a performing art” to
show that the job
of managing is more than the sum of its competencies, roles,
and functions, just as,
for example, a jazz band or dance troupe performance is more
than the pieces or
knowledge and skills that make it up.42 He criticizes the

competency movement,
arguing that it is based on a set of assumptions that may not be
true, in effect “pre-
suming a world that does not exist, or that is at least quite
improbable.”43
In response to these deficiencies, Mintzberg developed a model
of the man-
ager’s job that attempts to bring together what has been learned
about managing
in a more holistic or integrated way.44 His goal is to develop a
model that reflects
the richness and variety of styles individuals use in carrying out
the managerial
job. The model represents the manager’s job as a framework of
concentric cir-
cles, in what he calls a “well-rounded” job. Figure 13-1 shows
a diagram of
Mintzberg’s well-rounded model. The words in the model refer
to the seven
interrelated roles Mintzberg sees as making up the managerial
job: conceiving,
scheduling, communicating, controlling, leading, linking, and
doing.
At the center of the model is the person in the job. The person
brings to the
job a set of values, experiences, knowledge, competencies, and
mental models
through which he or she interprets environmental events. These
components
combine to form the individual’s managerial style, which drives
how the person
carries out the job. The next circle contains the frame of the
job, which is the
“mental set the incumbent assumes to carry it out” (p. 12). The
frame includes
the person’s idea of the purpose of what he or she is trying to

accomplish as well
as the person’s approach to getting the job done. Working
within this frame
involves the role Mintzberg calls conceiving. The heavy line
curving around
the frame of the job is meant to depict everything in the
organization that is
under the manager’s control, that is, his or her span of control.
The next circle contains the agenda of the work. The agenda is
made up of the
issues that are of concern to the manager and the schedule (i.e.,
allocation of time)
used to accomplish the work. Dealing with the agenda of the
work involves the
role of scheduling. The frame of the job and agenda of the work
are surrounded
by the actual behaviors that managers perform, both inside and
outside of the unit they
manage. Mintzberg sees three levels of action: managing
through information
(which involves the roles of communicating and controlling),
managing through people (which involves the roles of linking
and leading), and managing through
direct action (which involves the role of doing tasks).
Mintzberg’s central argument is that “while we may be able to
separate the
components of the job conceptually, I maintain that they cannot
be separated
behaviorally … it may be useful, even necessary, to delineate
the parts for pur-
poses of design, selection, training and support. But this job
cannot be practiced
as a set of independent parts” (p. 22). He points out that the
manager’s job will
vary, depending on what is called for by the work and the
particular approach or

style a manager uses. The manager’s style will affect his or her
work through the
roles he or she favors, the way in which the roles are performed,
and the rela-
tionship that exists among the roles. Mintzberg states that
interviews with man-
agers he has met bear out his ideas of the variety and richness
of the managerial
job. Like the other approaches to describing the manager’s job,
Mintzberg’s
model should be seen as a work-in-progress, awaiting further
development and
validation through research. 45 Recently, Scott Quatro and
colleagues proposed a
framework for developing holistic leaders that emphasized four
domains, i.e.,
analytical, conceptual, emotional, and spiritual domains of
leadership practice.46
What can HRD professionals take away from the ideas presented
by Vaill
and Mintzberg? We think the main contribution is that they
remind us that the job of managing is a complex, multifaceted,
and integrated endeavor. While
competency models and lists of KSAOs are useful in identifying
what it takes
to do the job and as focal points for management development
programs,
HRD professionals should not think that management
development is only
about developing roles and competencies. We need to remember
that managers
are people who perform work, not collections of competencies
or KSAOs. Some
practical implications of this are that HRD professionals should:
1. Recognize that one of the goals of management development
is to develop

the whole person, so that he or she can manage effectively
within the con-
text of the organization and external environment.
2. Design programs and processes that go beyond the one-shot
event, and
include ongoing activities that provide the opportunity to
reinforce and
refine what has been learned in the context of performing the
work.
3. Build into programs and practices a recognition of the
interrelationships
between the “components” of managing, so that participants
can see and
feel how what they are learning can be integrated into the whole
of the
management job.
4. Implement programs and processes in a way that recognizes
and takes advan-
tage of the values, knowledge, and experiences that participants
bring to the
management experience.
5. Consider what the person brings to the job of managing when
dealing with
learning and transfer of training issues.
6. Include recognition of these issues when conducting needs
assessment and
evaluation activities for management development programs.
Importance of Needs Assessment in Determining
Managerial Competencies
As we stated in Chapter 4, needs assessment provides critical
information in
determining the conditions for training, where training is
needed, what kind of
training is needed, and who needs training. Given the fact that
research on the
managerial job has left many unanswered questions, the

importance of conduct-
ing a thorough needs assessment before designing a
management development
program is amplified.47 Despite this, many organizations fail to
conduct proper
needs assessments. According to a survey of 1,000
organizations by Lise Saari
and colleagues, only 27 percent of respondents reported
conducting any needs
assessment before designing management development
programs. 48 A review of
forty-four studies where needs assessment was discussed found
that 36 percent
analyzed organizational-level needs, with lower percentages for
assessment of
process, group, or individual-level needs.49 A survey of quality
managers in
three European countries found a reliance on supervisory
opinion as the primary
basis for needs assessment, rather than any of the more formal
assessment meth-
ods presented in Chapter 4.50 Ronald Riggio recently lamented
the relative lack
of needs assessment efforts prior to the implementation of
leadership develop-
ment programs, despite the billions of dollars per year spent on
such programs. Cumulatively, these studies suggest that many
organizations are likely wasting
critical resources on inadequately focused management
development efforts.
Some organizations are doing a good job of needs assessment
for management
development and as a result have a clearer idea of the
competencies and issues their
development programs should address. For example, Aeroquip-
Vickers have top

managers identify the top twenty-five competencies that
managers need for future
success. This is then used to form a managerial success profile
that guides subsequent
management development efforts in this organization.52 As a
second example, the
Ritz-Carlton hotel chain based their award-winning leadership
training program
on both the organizational mission and a needs analysis.53
Similarly, the Blanchard
Valley Health Association, a healthcare system in Findlay,
Ohio, used needs assess-
ment to formulate its Leaders for Tomorrow program. This year-
long program
includes classroom learning, small-group discussion, computer
learning modules,
and an “action learning” component, where managers work on
job-related pro-
jects.54 Finally, the State of Idaho completed an intensive needs
assessment before
implementing its Certified Public Manager (CPM) program for
state managers.55
We hope these examples illustrate the value of conducting a
thorough investigation
of the competencies needed to perform effectively before
designing a management
development program.
The Globally Competent Manager
The advent of the global economy has led to recommendations
that organiza-
tions create management development programs that supplement
international
assignments in producing globally competent managers. 5 6
Organizations such as
Corning Glass, 3M, ITT, and General Electric have incorporated
this perspec-

tive into their management development programs. We present
three examples
of how the competencies needed to be an effective global
manager have been
conceptualized.
Bartlett and Ghoshal argue that to succeed in a global
environment, organi-
zations need a network of managers who are specialists in
global issues, and that
organizations do not need to globalize all managers.57 They
suggest four catego-
ries of managers are needed:
1. Business Managers—this type of manager plays three roles,
serving as “the
strategist for the organization, the architect of its worldwide
asset configuration,
and the coordinator of transactions across national borders” (p.
125).
2. Country Managers—this type of manager, who works in the
organization’s
national subsidiaries, also plays three roles, serving as “the
sensor and interpreter
of local opportunities and threats, the builder of local resources
and capabilities,
and the contributor to active participation in global strategy” (p.
128).
3. Functional Managers—these managers are functional
specialists (e.g., in engineer-
ing, marketing, human resources) who “scan for specialized
information world-
wide, ‘cross-pollinate’ leading-edge knowledge and best
practice, and champion
innovations that may offer transnational opportunities and
applications” (p. 130).
4. Corporate Managers—these managers serve in corporate
headquarters and

orchestrate the organization’s activities, playing the roles of
leader and talent scout (i.e., by identifying potential business,
country, and functional man-
agers) and developing promising executives.
Bartlett and Ghoshal illustrate these roles by using case studies
of managers at
Procter & Gamble, Electrolux, and NEC.58 They suggest that
organizations need
to develop management teams capable of performing these
functions in concert
to achieve the organization’s goals. While this categorization
provides some sense
of how these roles inter-relate, further research is needed to
determine whether
this approach can be a useful basis for developing global
managers.
Adler and Bartholomew present a second point of view.59 These
authors
identify seven transnational skills that they believe are
necessary to managing effec-
tively in a global environment: global perspective, local
responsiveness, synergistic
learning, transition and adaptation, cross-cultural interaction,
collaboration, and
foreign experience. They argue that transnationally competent
managers need a
broader set of skills than traditional managers. Adler and
Bartholomew state that
an organization’s human resource management strategies must
be modified in
order to manage and develop such managers, and they conclude
from a survey
of fifty North American firms that these organizations’ HRM
strategies are less
global than their business strategies.60 These authors provide
recommendations

for how HRM systems can be modified to become more global—
for example,
developmental activities should prepare managers to work
“anywhere in the
world with people from all parts of the world” (p. 59). Follow-
up work on global
career paths has been presented by Cappellen and Janssens.61
These two views of the globally competent manager differ in at
least two
ways. First, Bartlett and Ghoshal adopt a role-oriented view,
whereas Adler and
Bartholomew focus on the competencies managers need.
Second, Adler
and Bartholomew suggest that all managers become
“globalized,” while Bartlett
and Ghoshal argue that global management requires a team of
managers who per-
form different functions and roles (and who require
significantly different sets of
competencies). 62
Spreitzer, McCall, and Mahoney offer a third point of view on
international
competencies. 63 They argue that it is important to focus on
future challenges that
may require different competencies than those required today.
Therefore, Spreit-
zer and colleagues emphasize competencies involved in learning
from experience as a
part of the set of competencies used to identify international
executive potential
and develop effective international managers. Spreitzer et al.
identify fourteen
dimensions that can predict international executive potential.
The list includes:
• Eight end-state competency dimensions—for example,
sensitivity to cultural differ-

ences, business knowledge, courage to take a stand, bringing
out the best in
people, acting with integrity, insight, commitment to success,
and risk taking
• Six learning-oriented dimensions—for example, use of
feedback, cultural adven-
turousness, seeking opportunities to learn, openness to
criticism, feedback
seeking, and flexibility
These authors developed an instrument, called Prospector, that
rates managers
on these dimensions to identify which managers have the
greatest potential to be
effective international executives. Using over 800 managers
from various levels of six international firms in twenty-one
countries, Spreitzer and colleagues pro-
vide evidence of the validity and reliability of the Prospector
instrument as a way
to predict international executive success.
The value of the approach taken by Spreitzer and colleagues is
that it (1) gives
HRD professionals ideas about what dimensions international
management devel-
opment programs should address, as well as possible ways to
select which managers
should participate in and most benefit from these activities, (2)
reminds HRD pro-
fessionals to consider future challenges managers may face that
may take them
beyond the competencies that have been needed in the past, and
(3) provides an
excellent model for how HRD professionals can take a scientific
approach to iden-
tifying and generating supporting evidence for the sets of
competencies they will
use as the basis of management development.

Our purpose in raising these three points of view is not to
suggest which is
“correct” or would make the better foundation for describing the
managerial job
and the development of managers (although the method used by
Spreitzer and
colleagues would seem to be the most worthy of emulation). 64
These models (as
well as other ideas about achieving global competency) require
further research,
testing, and modification.65 These approaches illustrate how the
global environ-
ment can impact the approach taken to developing an
organization’s managers.
In addition, they underscore the need to consider an
organization’s business strat-
egy and environment as foundations for management
development efforts.
What Competencies Will Future Managers Need?
Just as Spreitzer and colleagues include consideration of
learning-related dimen-
sions to address competency areas that international managers
will need in the
future, other researchers are trying to estimate the competencies
managers will
need to navigate their careers in the twenty-first century. 66 For
example, Allred,
Snow, and Miles argue that new organizational structures
demand new sets of
managerial competencies.67 Based on a survey of managers, HR
executives, and
recruiters, Allred and colleagues conclude that five categories
of KSAOs will be
important for managerial careers in this new century: (1) a
knowledge-based
technical specialty, (2) cross-functional and international

experience, (3) collabo-
rative leadership, (4) self-management skills, and (5) personal
traits, including
integrity, trustworthiness, and flexibility.
We mention this example to encourage HRD professionals to
consider the
question of what future competencies managers will need. It is
important that man-
agement development activities prepare managers for the future.
Estimates will have
to be made and should include trends and industry-specific
issues that will likely
affect the businesses that managers will have to manage. Most
of all, this means that
management development should be seen as a long-term
process. Management devel-
opment programs and the development process should not be
seen as finished pro-
ducts, but as organic works in progress that are regularly
evaluated and modified as
trends, strategies, and conditions warrant. This approach is
already being used in
many organizations, including 3M, General Electric, TRW, and
Motorola.68
Having explored the nature of the management job and the
competencies
that managing requires, we turn our attention to the issue of
making manage-
ment development strategic.
MAKING MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC
We have noted that management development should be tied to
an organiza-
tion’s structure and strategy for accomplishing its business
goals. Recall that this
point was made back in Chapter 1, as we discussed the learning

and performance
wheel coming out of the ASTD study.69 Before we describe the
management
development practices organizations use, it is useful to examine
how these activ-
ities can be framed and delivered in a way that ensures that this
strategic focus is
maintained.70
Seibert, Hall, and Kram suggest that three desired linkages
should exist
between an organization’s strategy and its management
development activities:
(1) the link between the business environment and business
strategy, (2) the
link between business strategy and the organization’s
strategy, and (3) the link between the management development
strategy and
management development activities.71 Based on an examination
of management
development practices at twenty-two leading organizations,
Seibert et al. con-
clude that these organizations pay attention to the first and
last links, but the
middle linkage between the business strategy and the
strategy is weak. They suggest that this linkage is weak because
the HRD func-
tion has too often focused on itself rather than its customer, has
been unable to
respond rapidly enough to meet customer needs, and has a
tendency to see a
false dichotomy between developing individuals and conducting
business.
Seibert and colleagues find that some organizations, such as 3M
and Motor-

ola, do make this link, by making sure that strategic business
issues drive man-
agement development, ensuring that HRD professionals
provide a timely
response to business needs, and by integrating management
development as a
natural part of doing business. Based on their review, they
propose four guiding
principles that can help HRD professionals make the necessary
strategic links:
1. Begin by moving out and up to business strategy—this
involves viewing the
HRD professional’s role primarily as implementing strategy,
and secondarily
as a developer of managers. Practical suggestions include
becoming inti-
mately familiar with an organization’s strategic objectives and
business issues,
using these as a starting point for identifying management
behaviors and
competencies, and looking for developmental opportunities
within the
activities needed to accomplish strategic objectives.
2. Put job experiences before classroom activities, not vice
versa—this involves using job
experiences as the central developmental activity, with
classroom activities play-
ing the role of identifying, processing, and sharing the learning
that is taking
place on the job. This assumes that on-the-job experiences will
be actively man-
aged to ensure that learning will take place and strategic needs
will be addressed.
3. Be opportunistic—ensure that management development is
flexible and open to
respond to the business needs and issues an organization is

facing and will likely
face. This involves moving away from elaborate, rigid programs
to programs that
can change and are built to be responsive to the organization’s
changing needs.
4. Provide support for experience-based learning—this involves
creating a culture
that expects, supports, and rewards learning as a part of
day-to-day challenges and that reinforces individuals for taking
control of their own
development as managers.
5. Burack, Hochwarter, and Mathys offer another approach to
strategic manage-
ment development.72 Using a review of so-called “world-class”
organiza-
tions, Burack et al. identify seven themes common to strategic
management
development: (1) a linkage between management development
and business
plans and strategies; (2) seamless programs, which cut across
hierarchical and
functional boundaries; (3) a global orientation and a cross-
cultural approach;
(4) individual learning focused within organizational learning;
(5) a recogni-
tion of the organization’s culture and ensuring that the
management develop-
ment design fits within and creates or supports the desired
culture; (6) a
career development focus; and (7) an approach built on
empirically deter-
mined core competencies.
The ideas offered by these authors highlight the strategic issues
and offer
common practices used in respected organizations. 7 3 They are
not time-tested

blueprints for success. Furthermore, the “best practices” and
“leading organiza-
tions” approach to identifying principles and actions should be
viewed with
some caution. What is found is determined by whom the
researchers have cho-
sen to include in their sample and what they were able to
discover. As was the
case with organizations profiled in the best-selling book In
Search of Excellence,
not all organizations that meet the criteria for inclusion when
the study is done
continue to meet the criteria in later years. 7 4 The environment
we live in is too
turbulent for any set of principles to hold true in particular
organizations for
too long.
Finally, the recommendations offered in such studies should be
viewed as sug-
gestions and should not be copied unthinkingly.75 Other
research along these lines
has been done, and continues to move our understanding
forward concerning stra-
tegic management development.76 The authors of the studies we
cited remind
readers that it is the practitioners’ responsibility to ensure that
what is done within
their organizations should be based on needs assessment and a
thorough knowl-
edge of the organization and its environment.
Behavior Modeling Training
Behavior modeling training is a popular training technique that
has been used pri-
marily to train people to perform manual, interpersonal, and
cognitive skills.184

The technique is based on Bandura’s social learning theory,
which is a central the-
ory for HRD. 185 Goldstein and Sorcher were the first to apply
social learning the-
ory to supervisory training.186 The underlying rationale for this
form of training is
that people can learn by observing other people (models)
perform a task provided
they are shown clearly what the components of the behavior are,
remember what
the behavior is, actually perform the behavior, and are
motivated to use what they
have learned.187
Behavior modeling typically involves five steps: modeling,
retention,
rehearsal, feedback, and transfer of training. Modeling is
critical, and during the
modeling phase, trainees are often shown a video clip in which
a model performs
the behavior to be learned. 188 The desired behavior is broken
into a series of
discrete learning points, or key behaviors that make up the
overall behavior.
For example, if supervisors are being trained to handle
employee complaints,
the video shows a supervisor handling complaints in the desired
manner. The
learning points for this behavior might include:
1. Listen openly
2. Do not speak until the employee has had his or her say
3. Avoid reacting emotionally (do not get defensive)
4. Ask for the employee’s expectations about a solution to the
problem
5. Agree on specific steps to be taken and specific deadlines
189
In the retention phase, trainees perform activities to enhance the

memory of
what they have observed. These activities include reviewing the
learning points,
discussing the rationale underlying each point, and talking over
the behaviors the
model performed to illustrate those points. In the rehearsal
phase, each trainee
role-plays the desired behavior with another trainee. For
example, each trainee
learning how to handle employee complaints gets an opportunity
to role play
resolving a complaint from another trainee representing the
complaining
employee. During the feedback phase, each trainee receives
feedback on his or
her performance based on what was done well and what should
be improved.
Finally, in the transfer of training phase, trainees are
encouraged to practice newly learned behavior on the job. In
some behavior modeling programs, trainees
regroup later to discuss problems and successes in using their
newly learned skills.
Two examples of behavior modeling training applied to the
mastery of com-
puter software programs are reported by Gist and colleagues,
and Simon and
Werner.190 In the Gist and colleagues study, trainees observe a
videotape in
which a model illustrates the steps involved in performing each
task to be
learned. The video also reviews key learning points and shows
trainees the
responses to expect from the program on the computer monitor.
Following a
demonstration of each step, the trainer stops the videotape to
allow trainees to

perform it, with the responses from the program on the
computer monitor pro-
viding feedback as to the correctness of the trainee’s
performance. In the Simon
and Werner study, Navy personnel are trained to use a new
computer system
using three different approaches: a lecture approach (using
Microsoft Power
Point™ slides), a self-paced approach (using individual
workbooks), and a
behavior modeling approach, where the instructor demonstrates
(“models”) the
correct procedures on a computer display viewed by all trainees.
Both learning
and behavioral retention were significantly higher for trainees
who received
the behavior modeling approach than for those trained using the
other two
approaches.
Strong research evidence supports the effectiveness of behavior
modeling
training.191 Burke and Day’s meta-analysis of management
training found that
behavior modeling was one of the most effective management
training techni-
ques for learning and behavioral change. 192 Other meta-
analytic research finds
similar effects for learning and behavioral change, and also
sizable effects from
behavior modeling interventions on various results measures
(from productivity
changes to increased free-throw shooting accuracy for a
women’s basketball
team).193 One of the reasons for the effectiveness of behavior
modeling is that
it increases a trainee’s feelings of self-efficacy, which is one’s

belief in his or her
capacity to perform a particular task. 194 Individuals with high
self-efficacy tend to
perform better than individuals with low self-efficacy. 195
Research has suggested how behavior modeling works and how
it can be
improved. 196 For example, a series of studies demonstrates the
importance of
learning points in the process. Learning points keyed to
important behaviors and
demonstrated by the model result in greater recall and
performance of those
behaviors.197 In addition, learning points generated by trainees
lead to better per-
formance than learning points generated by “experts.”198
Baldwin examined two ways such training may be improved: by
providing
multiple scenarios during training and by exposing trainees to
both positive and
negative models.199 Baldwin suggests that providing multiple
scenarios may
increase the chances trainees will generalize the skills they
learn to apply them
to other situations. He also theorizes that providing negative
models as well as
positive models will help trainees not only learn new behaviors
but unlearn
prior, ineffective behaviors. Baldwin reports two significant
findings: (1) that pro-
viding both positive and negative models leads to greater
generalization than
using positive models only, but (2) that viewing only positive
models leads only
to greater reproduction of a behavior. These results
suggest that different
approaches to using models in behavior modeling training may

be needed, depending on the goals of the training (e.g.,
reproducing a behavior in a partic-
ular type of situation or being able to use the behavior in a
variety of situations).
Behavior modeling is not without its critics. Parry and Reich
argue that the
technique can have several weaknesses, including the following:
1. Modeling uses simplistic behavior models.
2. Trainees may not get explanations of the theory underlying
the need for the
behaviors being taught. For example, suppose the training
session focuses on
handling abusive customers. If trainees are told they should let
the customer
vent his feelings, they should be told why.
3. The classes may be boring because they follow a similar
format and have all
trainees in a session perform the same role playing.
4. Examples of incorrect behavior are seldom used, even though
they provide
opportunities for learning.
5. If verbal behavior is being taught, then the use of film or
video may interfere
by adding extraneous stimuli. Written models may be better for
these cases.
6. Many trainees engage in improvisational acting rather than
true role playing.
7. While focusing on behaviors rather than underlying attitudes
may be effective in
the short run, it is important to change attitudes as well.
Otherwise, employees
will not stick with the newly learned behaviors over the long
haul.200
Parry and Reich believe the technique can be effective if these
limitations
are overcome. Rosenbaum replied to Parry and Reich’s

criticisms by suggest-
ing, among other things, that models serve as points of
reference, rather than
purporting to show the only way to handle a situation, and that
modeling con-
forms to the tenets of adult learning. 20 1 This type of debate,
combined with
research on ways to improve modeling training, should lead to
better ways of
using behavior modeling to help managers (and others) improve
their interper-
sonal (and other) skills. 20 2 Pescuric and Byham note that
behavior modeling
training is also amenable to an interactive, computer-based self-
study format. 2 03
They suggest that classroom-based delivery, the traditional
approach to behav-
ior modeling training, is only one of four options that can be
used. The other
three include classroom training augmented by on-the-job
practice under the
guidance of a coach; self-study of the principles, model, and
application com-
ponents followed by practice in a classroom setting; and self-
study followed
by on-the-job practice. Those wishing to use the technique
should consult
Goldstein and Sorcher, Decker and Nathan, Silberman, and Fox
for specifics
on how to develop such a program.

Link httpwww.coursesmart.comSR64824879781285492858413.docx

Link httpwww.coursesmart.comSR64824879781285492858413.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Link httpwww.coursesmart.comSR64824879781285492858413.docx

Similar to Link httpwww.coursesmart.comSR64824879781285492858413.docx (19)

More from SHIVA101531

More from SHIVA101531 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Link httpwww.coursesmart.comSR64824879781285492858413.docx