Management Development - Literature review Example

Running Head: Management Development Management Development [Institute’s Management Development "As an evolving discipline, Management Development (MD) is notoriously ill-defined and there is still much controversy about its purpose and process" (Dalton, 2010) Introduction Multinational enterprises (MNEs) have been increasing in number greatly since the 1990s (Mailick, 1998, pp. 29-46), which has lead to much more attention transferring on international human resource management (IHRM). This indicates the growing realization that international companies should manage their international human resources skillfully, since they have a large bearing on the success of such companies. The field of human resource development is particularly related to organizational learning and transfer of learning, each of which is a significant objective. The last twenty years have yielded a large amount of research about which factors are key influential factors in the process of transfer of learning (Mailick, 1998, pp. 57-68). This has led to the practices of management training becoming highly popular over the past few decades, since its link to increasing aptitude and improved management practices for both middle managers and top managers. However, research (Mumford, 1994, pp. 20-33) shows that most of the substantial resources that companies are allocating to such management training will be wasted, since institutional learning and training hardly transfers into the organization’s workplace. For this reason, the programs have not had a significant impact yet, which leads researchers to further study into such features of human resource management (Ashton et al, 1975, pp. 1-9). The past few decades have been a misguiding era due to the conflicting management beliefs, findings, and practices in the global economy. While there is still much debate about the effectiveness, methodology, and validity of management development (Mumford, 2004, 71-84), companies are still investing millions in executive management education. This does not pertain only to academic training. The corporate training programs are innovatively designed to cater to several needs of the trainees, such as punctuality of delivery, profound information coverage and job relatedness. For this reason, these training sessions provide learning, which is presented in the context of an organizational workplace, administered at the appropriate time, and sized in small and effective doses, which are easy to comprehend. However, these programs have also failed to produce desired results of significant magnitude, which is why the true effectiveness of management development is still in question. Discussion The operations of a business being international in the new global economy (ILO, 1998, pp. 10-28), further complicate the management and technique required for survival far beyond how they would be for a domestic firm. Research (Hill, 2007, pp. 28-51) shows how the strategy of the organization (what to do) is receiving more attention on an international scale than its own implementation (how to do it) or the training of international managers (the people who will do it). The shortage of qualified and capable international managers is a large reason why these companies cannot successfully practice such international strategies, even though the quantity of available research (Rothwell, 2006, pp. 66-79) on the IHRM policies that MNEs practice is insufficient to support this fact. This research is especially limited regarding international markets other than those of the west and their IHRM practices, thus constraining the validity of this discussion. One major criticism that the existing research (Garavan et al, 1999, pp. 191-207) on management development observes is that the core problems that affect the implementation of management have not received sufficient attention. This pertains especially to the academic perspective about management, which tends to restrict its scope particularly in the UK. This does not allow for room to development and analysis of these theories and practices to a full extent. Thus, experts (Cullen & Turnbull, 2005, pp. 335-355) believe that several factors should be explored further, such as the relevance of culture, the importance of managers, and the need for development, each of which has growing and interrelated significance in the new global economy. They now consider management development to be a concept, which hinges on the internal and external influencing factors. Experts (Lees, 1992, pp. 89-105) perceive MD to be an open system, which caters to several complex concepts such as the various needs of different managers, or the several complications that accompany management roles. In addition, since its operations are subjective, the effectiveness relies on the potential, individual differences, management positions and the organizational context itself. This subjectivity also helps explain the degree of vagueness that this subject often has. This makes the analysis of this subject necessary, especially with regards to its essential dimensions, in order to be able to grasp a profound understanding about the terms, “Identifying Development Needs; Development Activities; and Evaluating Development Outcomes” (Cortese, 2005, pp. 87-115). Identifying Development Needs It is common practice for researchers to assume that manager training and development is one the key processes to MD. Boydell (1983, pp. 9-26) presents a framework that recognizes the existence of needs at three different levels: the individual, the occupation, and the organization as a whole. This framework has received support during its implementation in assessing needs during management training, despite the criticism concerning its method of performance appraisal. Organizations can also asses needs using assessment centers that uses a set criteria to rate the manager’s performance and ability, while also observation and feedback techniques. Development Activities Wexley and Baldwin (1996, pp. 277-294) argue that management education, training, and job experience are all vital aspects of MD. Education and training are considered to be different due to their natures, where education refers to a more wide-ranging and developmental and training has a more focused and vocational approach. Woodall and Winstanley (1998, pp. 45-51) highlight that it is not always possible to differentiate between formal and informal education since there exist simultaneous administration of them. Doyle (2004, pp. 14-25) presents a model, which helps separate the formal and the informal MD processes. However, he also admits that such distinction is not always possible, and thus the learning for life ideology is ideal for individuals. Evaluating Development Outcomes An organization must regularly evaluate their MD practices, since they have a significant bearing on the performance of an organization, at both an individual level as well as an organizational level (Mabey, 2002, pp. 1139-60). Furthermore, MD has the ability to boost its perceived value in an organization if it is able to prove its effectiveness. However, the concept lacks development in both research and practical aspects. Organizations often measure MD in practice by calculating the days spent training each manager, the money invested in such training, the establishment of a solid MD policy and its awareness of and compliance with international management standards (Thorpe, 2010, pp. 47-58). Such measures may be too quantitative; however, leaving out the important aspect of how to measure the true effect of the MD. The resources invested and the immediate outputs receive more focus than long-term benefits, thus making it unreliable. The preceding discussion aims to highlight the true complexity attached with studying management development in order to build a theoretical framework for practical application. In addition, the suggestion in several instances of literature (Ashton & Felstead, 2000, pp. 5-21), pertaining to the evaluation of MD, cannot always be acted upon since there is no existing framework in practice yet. Thus, an organization cannot usually link its success to management practices, thus making the concept of MD vague to observe. Apart from the key aspects of MD, management planning and development have also gained increasing importance amongst management techniques, mostly due to the scarce supply of capable managers (Smith, 1993, pp. 20-33). Research continuously highlights the importance of managers in their companies (Mintzberg, 2004, pp. 12-29). Several organizations fail to realize this importance, and continue to keep management planning and development as a low priority. Some consider choose internal managers based on the performance of a person, their business contacts, and their capabilities concerning public relations within the organization. In addition, those companies who do manage a systematic approach towards this have not strategized a sufficiently tactful approach. Those managers expected to take over after a few years will be developed using the concepts of the past. The MPD department does not always have all the necessary information at hand, and thus ends up selecting managers based on available function descriptions, especially in the case of an impending change (Broad, 2005, pp. 28-49). Several such MPD departments give selective importance only to management changes, restrict their focus to a few statistics, and then simply present advice for management training seminars. Their failure to account for the future needs and ambitions of managers often leads to managers quitting their posts. Thus, one can assume that the synchronization of management and corporate planning is necessary in order to avoid lack of commitment and resultant vacant posts in MD. In addition, human resource development (HRD) practitioners (Johnson & Duberley, 2005, pp. 13-30) strive to show how their work is directly related to how successful an organization is in achieving its strategic objectives. This constant need for proof and evidence leads to the common use of a 50-year old theoretical model of evaluation. Kirkpatrick’s (1959, pp. 3-9) model approaches management developments in a systematic and unique manner, which several organizations today still fail to do. It has survived for so long because of its high face validity, since on the surface it indicates that it would yield desired results. This timeliness adds to the papers apt description of MD being a “messy and fuzzy activity, as is the consensus” (Reynolds & Trehan, 2003, pp. 163-180). Evaluation models and practice often advocate the evaluation of management development activities, in order to form an idea about their value to the organization, which then helps determine the return on investment. This methodology, however, makes us view management in a very positivist light, which simplifies complex and intricate results into numbers and mere quantities. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrickesque (1959, pp. 3-9) approaches are highly sought after for research about management, especially concerning the assessment of HRD and MD. However, there is not much helpful literature concerning management development. Several trainers attempt to incorporate Donald Kirkpatrick’s (1959, pp. 3-9) ‘Chain Reaction’ model of evaluation in several different situations. It divides the process of learning and change into five stages, and uses a ‘chain reaction’ sequence in attempt to determine the effectiveness of a learning program (Cox, 1984, pp. 13-36). It bases its method on the assumption that training results in the exhibition of (measurable) reactions through learning outcomes. This manifestation results in managers changing their job behavior, which will then result in organizational change (chain reaction) (Tobin, 2008, pp. 63-88). However, practically, this chain is not as traceable. This is because it is difficult to link such changes to specific instances of training, as the cause-effect relationship is not easily attributable. Thus, ambiguity makes the results of yet another major factor of management development, inconclusive. Thus, the researchers are not always able to determine the true and distinct effect of MD strategies. Currently, however, such aspects need to be studied at an international level due to the new global economy (Thorpe, 2010, pp. 68-84). The research available on management always linked training and MD closely. It highlights four recommended strategies for organizations to be able to develop global managers: international travel, making diversified groups within the workplace, international training, and assigning international assignments to the manager. Each of these strategies branches from expatriation management. They relate to the incorporation of international management training and development strategies (Dixon, 2011, pp. 42-56). The training in this aspect is meant to enhance the skills that the trainees possess currently, while development is meant to equip the trainee with additional abilities that will be useful in future positions. Another important fact to consider is that the new global economy has a continuously evolving environment that necessitates flexible strategies (Shotter & Cunliffe, 2003, pp. 22-33). An organization may not be able to develop strategies without a qualified and trained manager who is well acquainted with international business management. Research (Rigg & Trehan, 2004, pp. 149-165) shows how thorough training programs are very successful in preparing the expatriate for the international economy environment, which in turn increases the chances of success of that company. Thus, international management development now prioritizes the development of new international managers, from identifying and fostering them to promoting and employing them. International management development schemes are amongst some of the major issues regarding this, alongside the different approaches to international management development, the decision criteria for awarding promotions and several other factors, which may affect international management development. Research has analyzed this method to raise several controversies. However, experts (Lewis, 2006, pp. 18-26) still expect that international management development will be a significant influencing factor for MNEs. This is because it helps foster a corporate relationship across borders, which in turn facilitates the operations of the companies concerned. Experts (Lewis, 2006, pp. 37-52) believe that these global firms can take advantage of this fact by creating networks with other international managers from across the world, since this facilitate them greatly due to the information sharing and the bonding that will take place prior to the establishment of such relationships. Conclusion To conclude, one can say that international training and development makes up a crucial pillar or IHRM, without which the structure of this complex concept would crumble. Research has found several advantages attached with effective training and development. The paper further explores this topic, quoting research that highlights how MNEs have still not begun to give international human resource management training and development its due importance, despite all the empirical research that supports it. Furthermore, international management development lacks proper implementation, especially in the form of existing strategic frameworks, and fails to consider individual work experience during its evaluations. Multinationals also fail to see the link between the international experience and international management development, thus resulting in a significant deviation from what international MD theory teaches, and what the MNEs implement in their management operations. Finally, the paper highlights how the reputation Management Development (MD) in the field of management has yet to recover from the unjustified notoriety, which its undefined purpose has brought it. Thus, experts, management trainers and other relevant professionals need to join their efforts in order to reinforce the importance and need of management development in the new global economy. References Ashton, D., & Felstead, A. 2000. “Tracing the Link.” Human Resource Management Journal. Volume 10, Issue 3, pp. 5-21. Ashton, D., Easterby-Smith, M., & Irvine, C. 1975. Management Development: Theory and Practice, MCB Monographs. Boydell, T. H. 1983. A Guide to the Identification of Training Needs. British Association for Commercial and Industrial Education. Broad, M. L. 2005. Beyond Transfer of Training. John Wiley & Sons. Cortese, C. G. 2005. “Learning through Teaching.” Management Learning. Volume 36, Issue 1, pp. 87-115. Cox, Charles. 1984. Management Development. Wiley. Cullen, J., & Turnbull, S. 2005. “A Meta-Review of the Management Development Literature.” Human Resource Development Review. Volume 4, Issue 3, pp. 335-355. Dixon, G. 2011. "Service Learning and Integrated, Collaborative Project Management." Project Management Journal. Volume February 2011, pp. 42-56. Doyle, M. 2004. Management Development. Prentice Hall. Garavan, T. N., Barnicle, B., & O’Suilleabhain, M. 1999. “Management Development.” Journal of European Industrial Training. Volume 23, Issue 4/5, pp. 191-207. Hill, Rosemary. 2007. Management Development. Routledge. ILO. 1998. Management Development. International Labor Organization. Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. 2005. Understanding Management Research. Sage. Kirkpatrick, D. L. 1959. "Techniques for Evaluating Programs." Journal of the American Society of Training Directors. Volume 13, Issue 11, pp. 3–9. Lees, S. 1992. “Ten Faces of Management Development.” Journal of Management Development. Volume 23, Issue 2, pp. 89-105. Lewis, David. 2006. The Management of Non-governmental Development Organizations. Taylor & Francis. Mabey, C. 2002. “Mapping Management Development Practice.” Journal of Management Studies. Volume 39, Issue 8, pp. 1139-1160. Mailick, Sidney. 1998. Learning Theory in the Practice of Management Development. Greenwood Publishing. Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers not MBAs. Pearson Education. Mumford, Alan. 1994. Gower Handbook of Management Development. Gower Publishing. Mumford, Gold Jeff. 2004. Management Development. McGraw-Hill Professional. Reynolds, M., and Trehan, K. 2003. "Learning from difference?" Management Learning. Volume 34, Issue 2, pp. 163–80. Rigg, C., and Trehan, K. 2004. "Reflections on Working with Critical Action Learning." Action Learning. Volume 1, Issue 2, pp. 149–65. Rothwell, William J. 2006. Next Generation Management Development. John Wiley & Sons. Shotter, J., and Cunliffe, A. 2003. Managers as Practical Authors. Sage. Smith, A. 1993. “Evaluation and Effectiveness.” Journal of Management Development. Volume 12, Issue 1, pp. 20-33. Thorpe, Richard. 2010. Handbook of Leadership and Management Development. Gower Publishing. Tobin, Daniel R. 2008. The AMA Guide to Management Development. AMACOM. Wexley, K. N., & Baldwin, T. T. 1996. "Management development." Journal of Management. Volume 12, Issue 2, pp. 277-294. Woodall, J., & Winstanley, D. 1998. Management Development Strategy and Practice. Blackwell Business. Read More