Management Development

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. Extent of Management Development Activities As mentioned earlier, management development is one of the most commonly offered approaches to HRD. In a 2010 survey, organizations reported using 27percent of their training budgets to providing management development, with an additional 22 percent for executive development. Strikingly, only 26 percent of all training dollars were spent on nonexempt employees, with the rest (25 percent) going to exempt-level, non-managerial employees. The total cost of formal training aimed at management (including executives) was estimated to be almost $26 billion.16 The most frequently cited reasons for developing managers include broadening the individual and providing knowledge or skills.17 Organization of the Chapter Management development comprises such a broad range of issues and approaches that we cannot cover it all in a single chapter. Rather, we will focus our discussion in the following areas: 1. Describing the managerial job, including roles managers must perform and the competencies necessary for performing them effectively 2. Making management development strategic 3. Assessing options available for management education 4. Assessing options available for management training and using on-the-job experiences for management development 5. Providing a description of two common approaches used to develop managers (leadership training and behavior modeling training for interpersonal skills) 6. The designing of management development programs 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.25 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 management development 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 management development 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.