- Email: [email protected]
Management development programs can pay off
Management Development Programs Can Pay Off Management development programs are not a waste o f money. But research is still needed, and business organizations can help academicians measure and evaluate the programs'effectiveness.
WILLIAM j. KEARNEY
William J. Kearney is a faculty member in management at the University of Cincinnati.
In 1966 the Wall Street Journal reported that 500,000 American managers attended some form of management development p r o g r a m about twice the number in 1961. Very likely, over 1 million American managers are similarly involved today. The amount of m o n e y that American industry spends on management development is not known precisely, but one source estimates that it is more than several billion dollars. 1 While there are more managers today, the reason for this increased activity is an implicit belief in the benefit of such pro~ams. There may be occasional interruptions in this trend, yet the upswing in expenditures is likely to continue. J o h n Miner's recent study for the Bureau of National Affairs brings home again an important point concerning management taIent for the next fifteen years: it will be in short supply. Managerial talent for middle and upper level positions normally includes persons in the 35-54 age range. Because of the 1. Thomas Bray, "Obsolete Executives," Wall Street Journa~ January 24, 1966, p. 1. Fred E. Fiedler, Leadership (Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1971 ), p. 17.
APRIL 1975
low birth rate during the Great Depression, there will be fewer in this group. Miner suggests that more pressure to meet this shortage will fall on management development efforts. Women, blacks, and other minorities heretofore not in this group will be available and seeking development opportunities. Moreover, there may have to be a reduction in the lower age limit of persons to be considered for these positions. This shortage will further intensify the need for accurate identification and expeditious development of managerial talent, z Because rising costs are likely in the foreseeable future and the shortage of managerial talent is growing, businesses are rightfully concerned about expenditures for management development efforts. More concern is surfacing these days on what employers really get for development dollars. Must such expenditures be considered simply a demonstration of interest in employees, a means of rewarding loyalty and building morale, a m e t h o d of improving job satisfaction, a device to encourNe employees to work hard for advance-
2. J o h n B. Miner, The Human Constraint: The Coming Shortage of Managerial Talent (Rockville, Maryland: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1974), p. 4 and pp. 143-54.
81
WILLIAM J. KEARNEY
ment? Or is managerial performance improved? The evidence that is marshaled is
82
often weak. Sometimes the evidence ultimately leads to a simple declaration of faith in employee efficacy. To be convincing, judgments need to be based on more than the opinions of the participants of such programs, the opinions of their superiors, or the opinions of organizational third parties. Even differences in participants' performance rankings may not be enough. While it is true that we do not know a great deal about the effectiveness of management development programs, we do know more than some of our popular notions would suggest. Such evidence that we have, at least in some instances, is more convincing than that commonly cited (participant opinions, supervisory opinions, or expert judgment). That is, the picture is not as bleak as it is often thought to be. Yet, we do need to know and learn more about the impact of management development efforts. Business organizations can do something to provide the answers and, in so doing, help themselves.
RESEARCH REVIEWS Two separate major reviews and critiques of research studies on management development effectiveness exist at the present time. In the f i r s t - b y Miner--the reviewer's focus is on the rigor of the research design and classification of studies using experimental and control groups, with before-and-after measurement at one extreme of a continuum. Those using no control group with before-and-after measurement are at the other extreme. The change variables, however, do not always focus on managerial effectiveness. In some cases they are measured by standard tests or supervisory rankings. 3 The second review was conducted b y J. P. 3. John B. Miner, Studies in Managerial Education (New York: Springer, 1965).
Campbell, M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler, and K. E. Weick. The authors very carefully arrange the research studies on a continuum ranging from those utilizing a very rigorous research design (experimental and control groups with before-and-after measurements) to those using only an after-measurement. 4 Similarly, indications of managerial effectiveness range from the more definitive results or job behavioral factors to imprecise items like supervisory opinions or rankings. Each of these reviews contains some reports of studies that meet the more stringent requirements of research design, although these studies are not in the majority. Miner examined thirty-eight research studies dating from 1948 to 1963. Over half of those cited were conducted in the five years prior to 1964. A variety of management development techniques were represented in these thirty-eight studies. In presenting his findings Miner states: C o n t r a r y t o - w h a t a reading of m u c h of the literature on m a n a g e m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t seems to imply, there has n o t only been a considerable a m o u n t of research done in the field, b u t the results have almost w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n b e e n positive. Practically every published report indicates that some change has occurred, although generally some of the pretestposttest comparisons do n o t reveal a reliable difference. Even if we agree that studies p r o d u c i n g negative results are less likely to be published, the evidence for the positive effects of m a n a g e m e n t e d u c a t i o n is impressive. Many of the studies suffer f r o m m e t h o d ological differences, b u t these differ f r o m investigation to investigation. A n d there are a n u m b e r of well-designed evaluations. Inadequacies of m e t h o d , therefore, can hardly be used to explain away the over-all trend of the findings. There can be little question as of 1964 that these techniques represent a major source of change, s
With respect to particular management development techniques, Miner feels that no one technique is most effective: "Lectures, discussion techniques, role-playing, case analyses and T-groups all have been shown to
4. J. P. Campbell, M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler 11I, and K. E. Weick, Jr., Managerial Behavior, Performance and Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970). 5. Miner, Studies in Managerial Education, p. 38.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
Management Development Programs Can Pay Off
have an i m p a c t . H o w e v e r , c o m p a r a t i v e studies have i n d i c a t e d s o m e s u p e r i o r i t y for certain p r o c e d u r e s in specific instances. ''6 M i n e r s u m m a r i z e s his findings and conclusions w i t h a v e r y positive o u t l o o k on the i m p a c t of m a n a g e m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t e f f o r t s o n m a n a g e r i a l effectiveness. Y e t , he believes this i m p a c t also p o s e s a p r o b l e m : Viewing the research as a whole it is difficult not to become optimistic, perhaps even enthusiastic, about the potential of management education. We are apparently only beginning to recognize what can be accomplished, especially in areas such as motivational and emotional development . . . . The possibilities for the misuse of social influences in this area are at least as great as those existing in the field of advertising, and probably greater, since the subject is less free to escape from the influence attempt . . . . We are now clearly beyond the point where we can brush the problem aside, contending that the techniques "really don't work, anyway." There is every reason to believe, at least in the case of management education, that they do work. 7 T h e s e c o n d and m o r e r e c e n t m a j o r review o f e m p i r i c a l studies was p e r f o r m e d b y C a m p bell, D u n n e t t e , L a w l e r , a n d Weick. I n addition to s o m e r e v i e w e d b y Miner, studies c o n d u c t e d b e t w e e n 1965 and 1970 w e r e included. T h e a u t h o r s u s e d a f o r m a t o f discussion w h i c h distinguishes the studies o n the basis o f the research design. T w o categories w e r e used. Studies having " s o m e cont r o l " w e r e d e f i n e d as t h o s e using experimental and control groups with pretesting and p o s t t e s t i n g or a p o s t t e s t o n l y . T h o s e identified as having " f e w c o n t r o l s " w e r e d e f i n e d as using p r e t e s t s a n d p o s t t e s t s b u t no c o n t r o l groups. A n i m p o r t a n t a d d i t i o n to this f o r m a t , w h i c h was n o t e x p l i c i t l y b u i l t into the Miner review, was the classification o f t h e studies i n t o t w o a d d i t i o n a l groups: t h o s e w h i c h a t t e m p t to d e m o n s t r a t e s o m e change in behavior r e l e v a n t to the training itself a n d t h o s e w h i c h are d i r e c t l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h changes in j o b b e h a v i o r . In the f o r m e r c a t e g o r y are such 6. Miner, Studies in Managerial Education, p. 40. 7. Miner, Studies in Managerial Education, p. 48.
APRIL 1975
criteria as a t t i t u d e m e a s u r e s , tests of decision m a k i n g ability, a n d general o p i n i o n s c o n c e r n ing w h e t h e r the training was successful. T h e s e are internal criteria t h a t m e a s u r e e f f e c t indirectly. E x t e r n a l criteria c o n s t i t u t e the l a t t e r c a t e g o r y and include such o b j e c t i v e m e a s u r e s o f a m a n a g e r ' s p e r f o r m a n c e as t u r n o v e r or grievances in the m a n a g e r ' s u n i t a n d ratings o f j o b p e r f o r m a n c e b y superiors, peers, or subordinates. In the latter case an a t t e m p t has b e e n m a d e to d i r e c t l y e s t i m a t e the e f f e c t s o f training in actual j o b b e h a v i o r . In regard to the f o r m e r j u d g m e n t , it r e m a i n s to b e d e m o n s t r a t e d w h e t h e r the b e h a v i o r changes observed have a n y t h i n g to do w i t h m a n a g e r i a l effectiveness. C a m p b e l l , D u n n e t t e , L a w l e r , a n d Weick a d d e d a t h i r d classification s c h e m e to the studies t h a t t h e y r e v i e w e d o n the basis o f p r o g r a m c o n t e n t : (1) general m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m s ; (2) general h u m a n relations programs; (3) p r o b l e m solving and decision m a k ing; (4) T - g r o u p and l a b o r a t o r y p r o g r a m s ; and (5) specialty p r o g r a m s . Overall, 73 studies in these categories using e x t e r n a l or internal criteria w e r e r e v i e w e d . Briefly, their findings are as follows: First, about 80 percent of the general management and human relations programs showed results on most of the criteria used. The authors concluded that these types of programs do, in fact, lead to results in a variety of settings. Yet, twenty-nine of the thirty-five studies in these categories used internal criterion measures. Over one-half of these were concerned with particular attitudinal content rather than job behavior. Thus, one cannot say for sure that an attitudinal change is accompanied by a change in job behavior. Second, the authors found that T-group training and laboratory methods do produce behavioral change in the work environment but that it is difficult to identify the nature of the changes. Furthermore, these changes are not easily related to actual job effectiveness. Third, generally negative results were indicated in the studies on programs to improve problem solving and decision making, but because there were so few of these studies the authors drew no conclusion. Fourth, too few studies comparing two or more development methods or techniques were available to make any generalization as to the superiority of one technique over another (each having the same intent or change goal).
83
WILLIAMJ. KEARNEY
84
C a m p b e l l , D u n n e t t e , Lawler, and Weick c o n c l u d e their review o f research studies b y c o m m e n t i n g t h a t the e m p i r i c a l literature available to t h e m d o e s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e conclusively t h a t w h a t is learned in a training p r o g r a m m a k e s an individual a b e t t e r m a n ager. T h e s e a u t h o r s are clearly n o t as o p t i m i s tic as Miner c o n c e r n i n g the i m p a c t o f m a n a g e m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t training p r o g r a m s on m a n agerial effectiveness. Y e t t h e y are n o t pessimistic either. Research on the effects of management development has demonstrated significant effects, and it has made a contribution to knowledge. It will undoubtedly continue to do so. However, what we have tried to make clear is that the problem is much more complex than the efforts to attack it to date would seem to imply. Trying to assess the effects of management training on an organization by'administering a narrow range of criteria before and after a relatively shortterm teaching effort made up of a number of techniques which are not differentially understood can convey only so much information. It is not that management development research has been of no value; rather there simply has not been enough of the varying kinds of efforts it will take to map out a significant number of the relationships in the system. ~ H e r e i n lies the c r u x o f the q u e s t i o n raised earlier and the c o n t r i b u t i o n t h a t business o r g a n i z a t i o n s can m a k e in answering it. We have seen t h a t s o m e e v i d e n c e exists c o n c e r n ing the effectiveness of m a n a g e m e n t developm e n t p r o g r a m s . This evidence suggests t h a t p r o g r a m s d o h a v e an i m p a c t b u t precisely to w h a t e x t e n t we are n o t sure. T h e q u e s t i o n n o w b e c o m e s , W h a t can a c a d e m i c i a n s and b u s i n e s s m e n do to clarify the p i c t u r e ? M o s t o f the available e m p i r i c a l evidence is a p r o d uct o f a c a d e m i c r e s e a r c h - t h a t is, research p e r f o r m e d b y a c a d e m i c i a n s using as subjects m a n a g e r s w h o are p a r t i c i p a t i n g in m a n a g e ment development pro~ams t h a t t h e researchers m a y b e offering. It is p r o b a b l e t h a t m u c h of the research in the f u t u r e will c o n t i n u e to b e p e r f o r m e d in this m a n n e r
8. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick, Managerial Behavior, pp. 287-88 and p. 326.
b e c a u s e o f a c a d e m i c i a n s ' interest in such m a t t e r s and the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r research p r e s e n t e d b y such situations. Yet, m u c h m o r e can be a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h the e f f o r t s o f b u s i n e s s m e n themselves.
First, businessmen can encourage research on the effectiveness of all management development programs offered to their managers. Second, the study must be based on an adequate research design to insure confidence in the findings. Third, the research must attempt to focus on and use clear-cut, direct indicators of managerial effectiveness rather than global measures or purely results measures. Fourth, every effort should be made to publish the findings of all such research in appropriate business journals so that others may share in this information. We should keep in mind that positive and negative research findings are equally valuable. Given the r o u g h e s t i m a t e of c u r r e n t s p e n d i n g for m a n a g e m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t p r o grams, research covering even a small p e r c e n t age of these p r o g r a m s w o u l d result in a s u b s t a n t i a l gain of i n f o r m a t i o n . B u t this will o n l y o c c u r t h r o u g h the help of b u s i n e s s m e n .
RESEARCH DESIGN W h e n e v a l u a t i o n research is to b e c o n d u c t e d , t w o crucial m a t t e r s are o f central i m p o r t a n c e in d e t e r m i n i n g the q u a l i t y o f the findings a n d u l t i m a t e l y the c o n f i d e n c e t h a t can b e p l a c e d in t h e m . T h e first is the research design. T h e s e c o n d is the selection o f criteria f o r m e a s u r ing m a n a g e r i a l effectiveness. I f these issues are h a n d l e d p r o p e r l y , the c o n c l u s i o n s d r a w n f r o m the research e f f o r t s will n o t be suspect. A m i n i m a l l y a c c e p t a b l e research design is a m u s t . T h e p r i m e c o n c e r n is to insure t h a t a n y changes in m a n a g e r i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s can b e traced conclusively to the p r o ~ a m itself or to s o m e o t h e r variable. M a n y p r e v i o u s studies o f effectiveness do n o t m e e t this s t a n d a r d and, as a result, are n o t a c c e p t e d w i t h c o n f i d e n c e . T a b l e 1 p o r t r a y s several research designs t h a t m i g h t b e used. T h e y range f r o m t h o s e t h a t are i n a d e q u a t e and are u n a c c e p t a b l e to t h o s e t h a t are m o r e t h a n a d e q u a t e a n d are
BUSINESS HORIZONS
Management D eveloprnent Programs Can Pay Off
TABLE 1 Research Designs Design
Pretest
I. Experimental group II. Experimental group
Stimulus
Program ~/
III. Experimental group Control group
Program
~. X/
Program No program
V. Experimental group Control group 1 Control group 2
X/ Xf, X/
Program No program Placebo
VI. Experimental group Control group 1 Control group 2 Control group 3
~¢, ~/, ~
Program No program Placebo No program
r
X/ ~/, ~
Program No program Placebo No program
acceptable. Those labeled inadequate are so designated because it is not possible to attribute with any degree of certainty the results of the posttest to the impact of the development program. Research design IV (see Table 1) is an acceptable design and the one most likely to be widely used. This design more clearly ascertains the impact of the program b y examining the state of the experimental and control groups, which are alike in all important respects--before the program as well as after the program. Any changes in the posttest can then be traced with more certainty. Research designs V, VI, and VII provide for progressively greater control and correspondingly increase the confidence merited b y the findings and conclusions. Design V provides a check for greater motivation that might be induced in the subjects b y the research situation. In addition, design VI checks the possibility of the subjects learning
APRIL 1975
Period T2 Posttest
x/ 4
Adequacy o f Research Design
Inadequate design (unacceptable)
Program No program
IV. Experimental group Control group
VII. Experimental group Control group 1 Control group 2 Control group 3
Period T1 Posttest
Adequate design (acceptable) ¢
i I
More than adequate design (acceptable)
I
through the pretest those areas of behavior or knowledge that are apparently important to the examiners and for which they might prepare themselves for the posttest. Finally, design VII adds a second posttest to determine the extent of knowledge retention or behavior change at a more distant time. Research design IV, while it does not check for motivation effects and pretest learning, is acceptable. It combines the adequacy of design with the practicality of many business and development program situations. Thus, this design should constitute the minimum for any evaluation research. A recent study of 141 organizations with 1,000 or more employees indicates that only five (3.5 percent) of the 141 firms that evaluate their management development programs use this design. Furthermore, none of these firms report using it as a primary evaluation tool. This would seem to indicate that much remains to be accomplished in doing an adequate job.
85
WILLIAMJ. KEARNEY
MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS The second and more difficult problem surrounding evaluation research is that of defining managerial effectiveness and identifying valid criteria to measure it. At the outset, we must recognize that managerial effectiveness is not determined solely by management development pro~ams. Factors in the organizational environment, selection of managers, and individual differences in ability play important roles here. Likewise it is not to be construed as being synonymous with organizational effectiveness, although it m a y make a significant contribution to it. This is an important distinction when establishing criteria to measure managerial effectiveness, since results-oriented appraisal systems often do not distinguish between the two.
86
A recent trend is to focus on quantifiable results. This helps managers judge what is important and what is expected of them. There are no surprises then at the end of the appraisal period. If goals are mutually set, greater goal c o m m i t m e n t and motivation to perform may result. Not to be overlooked is the change in the supervisor's role from that of judge to counselor and helper. One must recognize, however, that while it appears that there could be nothing more logical than equating managerial effectiveness with the ability of a manager to get results, there are problems with such an equation. Specifically, a focus on results only does not explain which job behaviors are critical to effective performance. These behaviors must be isolated and incorporated into management development efforts for increased effectiveness. Equally important is the fact that managers may get results or fail to get results due to circumstances which are b e y o n d their control and which may not be entirely apparent to all parties. In every job there are some uncontrollable factors. Exogeneous factors in the manager's environment influence profit level, sales volume, and production levels.
Behavior that leads to effective results in one period may not get results later. Yet rewards are dispensed or withheld solely on the basis of results. Getting results is certainly important and the proper focus of m u c h managerial effort. Measurement b y results tells us only how well a manager has performed, but it does not tell us w h y performance is at a particular level. This is usually a matter of inference. Identification of specific job behaviors that can be associated with effective performance is an attempt to r e m e d y this shortcoming.
BEHAVIORAL RATING SCALES Careful job analysis is a key to identifying critical job behaviors. Yet job analysis must be performed with far more care and precision than is c o m m o n l y the case. Such analysis must emphasize actual samples of managerial behavior that d n be observed and measured, and there must be agreement b y the several analysts that such acts are the keys to effective performance. The product of this effort is called a behaviorally anchored rating scale. Construction of the scale is accomplished in the following manner: 1. Determine the job behaviors that distinguish effective from ineffective performance by using the pooled judgment of persons knowledgeable in the job (supervisors). 2. Require supervisors to write several descriptive statements describing actual job behavior ranging from grossly ineffective to highly effective. Later these are to be scaled 1 to 5, 1 to 7, or 1 to 9, depending on the number of statements. 3. Sort the several job behaviors according to some general categories associated with the managerial job. 4. Eliminate any job behaviors where there is little consensus by the analysts that an incident distinguishes effective from ineffective performance. 5. Finalize the descriptive statements of managerial behavior ranging in gradation from grossly ineffective behavior to highly effective and scale these as indicated in step 2. 6. After appraising each manager on the behaviorally anchored rating scale, sum all the scores to obtain the manager's evaluation as an indicator of effectiveness.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
Management Development Programs Can Pay Off
TABLE 2 D e p a r t m e n t Manager J o b Behavior R a t i n g Scale* 2a. F o r assessing sales t r e n d s a n d a c t i n g t o maintain merchandising position Could be expected, after noting that shipment of 60 turtleneck sweaters sold out in two days, to take quick action to order 500 more and to give them space and display emphasis to assure they all sold without a markdown. Could be expected to note competitor's featuring of a particular fashion item, shop a sample of competitors, and select and order a line so that his department would have the right "fashion look." Could be expected to reevaluate his estimates on boys' jacket and secure quick approval on additional purchase to assure higher volume on the item in his department. Could be expected to reorder check-outs promptly and to give full information to Buying Office on results obtained. Could be expected to be aware quickly of a best seller b u t to b u y only a token quantity at the outset with result that it might take several reorders before he built up sufficient quantity. Could be expected to reorder an item only after its demand becomes obvious through frequent requests from customers and sales associates. Could be expected to delay reordering in order "to be sure" even after 70 percent of an initial large volume purchase sells out in two weeks' time. Could be expected to fail to determine the rate of dress shirt sales at Christmas time and come close to running out of them b y early December. Could be expected to develop a seriously overstocked position in his department by arbitrarily doubling the suggested coverage of merchandise without authorization. *Spaces for reviewer's comments have been deleted.
Two examples of a job behavioral rating scale f o r a d e p a r t m e n t m a n a g e r are s h o w n i n T a b l e 2. S u c h a n a p p r o a c h t o t h e c o n c e p t o f m a n a g e r i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s singles o u t b e h a v i o r
APRIL 1975
2b. F o r u s i n g c o m p a n y
systems and follow-
ing through on administrative operations Could be expected always to maintain complete and accurate merchandising records in his area, thereby assuring profitable cleanups and reducing the proportion of markdowns. Could be expected to keep close watch on his invoice file, to notice whenever major items have not been received and to follow up on them to get merchandise in on time. Could be expected to show considerable ability in separating important paper work from less important paper work. Could be expected to be fast and thorough but somewhat inaccurate from time to time in checking his reports and keeping records. Could be expected occasionally to overlook some details because of not making notes of new facts and figures on merchandise. Could be expected to fail to follow through on a customer's special Order of merchandise after delegating the task to a trainee. Could be expected to neglect to make an accurate count of merchandise before a price break, thereby making it difficult to determine the actual sales volume after the price break. Could be expected to neglect checking on a large transfer of goods to another store and let it sit under a table for two months. Could be expected to neglect to fill in bedding stock even after being reminded three times b y merchandise manager.
SOURCE: M. D. Dunnette, J. P. Campbell, and L. W.
Helervik, Job Behavior Scales for J. C. Penney Co. Department Managers (Minneapolis: Personnel Decisions, 1968). Reprinted by permission.
that m o s t o f t e n achieves results. M a n a g e m e n t development programs may then be designed t o b r i n g a b o u t this b e h a v i o r . T h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s u c h p r o g r a m s is t h e n d e t e r m i n e d b y
87
WILLIAMJ. KEARNEY
measuring later j o b performance. With an acceptable research design, this method indicates whether any improvement in managerial effectiveness is due to the program or to some other variable. Again it should be emphasized that an analysis of jobs utilizing behavioral rating emphasizes j o b centered performance. It is an important means of identifying managerial effectiveness and should be a supplement to conventional results measures. The use of behavioral rating means that managers are judged for their performance on job factors over which they have control, which is not always the case under appraisal b y results.
mllihilldl The
88
research reviews of Miner and of Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weick suggest that we do know something about the impact of management development programs on managerial performance and that these programs do have an impact on managerial effectiveness. They are not a waste of money, nor do they have to be undertaken on faith alone. Yet, definitive answers as to how much managers are affected and which methods or programs accomplish the most
cannot be answered b y currently available research. These are important questions that should and can be answered. While academicians will probably continue to perform much of the research on these questions, business organizations can help by: Requiring that all management development programs incorporate an evaluation of their effectiveness Insuring that all evaluation efforts utilize an acceptable research design so that the findings and conclusions merit confidence Recognizing the limitations of some global results-oriented measures in making judgments about managerial effectiveness and supplementing these with behaviorally-anchored rating scales Publishing in appropriate business journals the results of all evaluation research so that tl-/ey may be widely shared and may serve to increase our fund of knowledge.
If only a 10 percent cross section of the various management development programs to be offered in a given year were suitably evaluated, we would be able to answer more precisely questions concerning program impact. Current research suggests a favorable outlook concerning the impact of management development programs on managerial effectiveness. The task n o w is to move to obtain greater precision in our answers.
O0000000000OC~O000OOODOOOOOOOOODOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOC~3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOD
In all organizations the functions of management require great effort and expense. Expense in terms of money, certainly, but also in terms of time and skill. But without this outlay for managerial talent, the organization would be little more than a mob. Quite clearly then, one of the major tasks of the management of any organization is to provide the skills in carrying out the managerial functions needed to keep that organization functioning smoothly. - J a m e s A, Belasco, David R. Hampton, and Karl F. Price
Management Today O0000DOOODOOODDDOOOOODOOOOOOODODOOODDOOODOOOOOOOOOODOODOOODDDOOODOODODO0000
BUSINESS HORIZONS
WILLIAM j. KEARNEY
William J. Kearney is a faculty member in management at the University of Cincinnati.
In 1966 the Wall Street Journal reported that 500,000 American managers attended some form of management development p r o g r a m about twice the number in 1961. Very likely, over 1 million American managers are similarly involved today. The amount of m o n e y that American industry spends on management development is not known precisely, but one source estimates that it is more than several billion dollars. 1 While there are more managers today, the reason for this increased activity is an implicit belief in the benefit of such pro~ams. There may be occasional interruptions in this trend, yet the upswing in expenditures is likely to continue. J o h n Miner's recent study for the Bureau of National Affairs brings home again an important point concerning management taIent for the next fifteen years: it will be in short supply. Managerial talent for middle and upper level positions normally includes persons in the 35-54 age range. Because of the 1. Thomas Bray, "Obsolete Executives," Wall Street Journa~ January 24, 1966, p. 1. Fred E. Fiedler, Leadership (Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1971 ), p. 17.
APRIL 1975
low birth rate during the Great Depression, there will be fewer in this group. Miner suggests that more pressure to meet this shortage will fall on management development efforts. Women, blacks, and other minorities heretofore not in this group will be available and seeking development opportunities. Moreover, there may have to be a reduction in the lower age limit of persons to be considered for these positions. This shortage will further intensify the need for accurate identification and expeditious development of managerial talent, z Because rising costs are likely in the foreseeable future and the shortage of managerial talent is growing, businesses are rightfully concerned about expenditures for management development efforts. More concern is surfacing these days on what employers really get for development dollars. Must such expenditures be considered simply a demonstration of interest in employees, a means of rewarding loyalty and building morale, a m e t h o d of improving job satisfaction, a device to encourNe employees to work hard for advance-
2. J o h n B. Miner, The Human Constraint: The Coming Shortage of Managerial Talent (Rockville, Maryland: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1974), p. 4 and pp. 143-54.
81
WILLIAM J. KEARNEY
ment? Or is managerial performance improved? The evidence that is marshaled is
82
often weak. Sometimes the evidence ultimately leads to a simple declaration of faith in employee efficacy. To be convincing, judgments need to be based on more than the opinions of the participants of such programs, the opinions of their superiors, or the opinions of organizational third parties. Even differences in participants' performance rankings may not be enough. While it is true that we do not know a great deal about the effectiveness of management development programs, we do know more than some of our popular notions would suggest. Such evidence that we have, at least in some instances, is more convincing than that commonly cited (participant opinions, supervisory opinions, or expert judgment). That is, the picture is not as bleak as it is often thought to be. Yet, we do need to know and learn more about the impact of management development efforts. Business organizations can do something to provide the answers and, in so doing, help themselves.
RESEARCH REVIEWS Two separate major reviews and critiques of research studies on management development effectiveness exist at the present time. In the f i r s t - b y Miner--the reviewer's focus is on the rigor of the research design and classification of studies using experimental and control groups, with before-and-after measurement at one extreme of a continuum. Those using no control group with before-and-after measurement are at the other extreme. The change variables, however, do not always focus on managerial effectiveness. In some cases they are measured by standard tests or supervisory rankings. 3 The second review was conducted b y J. P. 3. John B. Miner, Studies in Managerial Education (New York: Springer, 1965).
Campbell, M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler, and K. E. Weick. The authors very carefully arrange the research studies on a continuum ranging from those utilizing a very rigorous research design (experimental and control groups with before-and-after measurements) to those using only an after-measurement. 4 Similarly, indications of managerial effectiveness range from the more definitive results or job behavioral factors to imprecise items like supervisory opinions or rankings. Each of these reviews contains some reports of studies that meet the more stringent requirements of research design, although these studies are not in the majority. Miner examined thirty-eight research studies dating from 1948 to 1963. Over half of those cited were conducted in the five years prior to 1964. A variety of management development techniques were represented in these thirty-eight studies. In presenting his findings Miner states: C o n t r a r y t o - w h a t a reading of m u c h of the literature on m a n a g e m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t seems to imply, there has n o t only been a considerable a m o u n t of research done in the field, b u t the results have almost w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n b e e n positive. Practically every published report indicates that some change has occurred, although generally some of the pretestposttest comparisons do n o t reveal a reliable difference. Even if we agree that studies p r o d u c i n g negative results are less likely to be published, the evidence for the positive effects of m a n a g e m e n t e d u c a t i o n is impressive. Many of the studies suffer f r o m m e t h o d ological differences, b u t these differ f r o m investigation to investigation. A n d there are a n u m b e r of well-designed evaluations. Inadequacies of m e t h o d , therefore, can hardly be used to explain away the over-all trend of the findings. There can be little question as of 1964 that these techniques represent a major source of change, s
With respect to particular management development techniques, Miner feels that no one technique is most effective: "Lectures, discussion techniques, role-playing, case analyses and T-groups all have been shown to
4. J. P. Campbell, M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler 11I, and K. E. Weick, Jr., Managerial Behavior, Performance and Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970). 5. Miner, Studies in Managerial Education, p. 38.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
Management Development Programs Can Pay Off
have an i m p a c t . H o w e v e r , c o m p a r a t i v e studies have i n d i c a t e d s o m e s u p e r i o r i t y for certain p r o c e d u r e s in specific instances. ''6 M i n e r s u m m a r i z e s his findings and conclusions w i t h a v e r y positive o u t l o o k on the i m p a c t of m a n a g e m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t e f f o r t s o n m a n a g e r i a l effectiveness. Y e t , he believes this i m p a c t also p o s e s a p r o b l e m : Viewing the research as a whole it is difficult not to become optimistic, perhaps even enthusiastic, about the potential of management education. We are apparently only beginning to recognize what can be accomplished, especially in areas such as motivational and emotional development . . . . The possibilities for the misuse of social influences in this area are at least as great as those existing in the field of advertising, and probably greater, since the subject is less free to escape from the influence attempt . . . . We are now clearly beyond the point where we can brush the problem aside, contending that the techniques "really don't work, anyway." There is every reason to believe, at least in the case of management education, that they do work. 7 T h e s e c o n d and m o r e r e c e n t m a j o r review o f e m p i r i c a l studies was p e r f o r m e d b y C a m p bell, D u n n e t t e , L a w l e r , a n d Weick. I n addition to s o m e r e v i e w e d b y Miner, studies c o n d u c t e d b e t w e e n 1965 and 1970 w e r e included. T h e a u t h o r s u s e d a f o r m a t o f discussion w h i c h distinguishes the studies o n the basis o f the research design. T w o categories w e r e used. Studies having " s o m e cont r o l " w e r e d e f i n e d as t h o s e using experimental and control groups with pretesting and p o s t t e s t i n g or a p o s t t e s t o n l y . T h o s e identified as having " f e w c o n t r o l s " w e r e d e f i n e d as using p r e t e s t s a n d p o s t t e s t s b u t no c o n t r o l groups. A n i m p o r t a n t a d d i t i o n to this f o r m a t , w h i c h was n o t e x p l i c i t l y b u i l t into the Miner review, was the classification o f t h e studies i n t o t w o a d d i t i o n a l groups: t h o s e w h i c h a t t e m p t to d e m o n s t r a t e s o m e change in behavior r e l e v a n t to the training itself a n d t h o s e w h i c h are d i r e c t l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h changes in j o b b e h a v i o r . In the f o r m e r c a t e g o r y are such 6. Miner, Studies in Managerial Education, p. 40. 7. Miner, Studies in Managerial Education, p. 48.
APRIL 1975
criteria as a t t i t u d e m e a s u r e s , tests of decision m a k i n g ability, a n d general o p i n i o n s c o n c e r n ing w h e t h e r the training was successful. T h e s e are internal criteria t h a t m e a s u r e e f f e c t indirectly. E x t e r n a l criteria c o n s t i t u t e the l a t t e r c a t e g o r y and include such o b j e c t i v e m e a s u r e s o f a m a n a g e r ' s p e r f o r m a n c e as t u r n o v e r or grievances in the m a n a g e r ' s u n i t a n d ratings o f j o b p e r f o r m a n c e b y superiors, peers, or subordinates. In the latter case an a t t e m p t has b e e n m a d e to d i r e c t l y e s t i m a t e the e f f e c t s o f training in actual j o b b e h a v i o r . In regard to the f o r m e r j u d g m e n t , it r e m a i n s to b e d e m o n s t r a t e d w h e t h e r the b e h a v i o r changes observed have a n y t h i n g to do w i t h m a n a g e r i a l effectiveness. C a m p b e l l , D u n n e t t e , L a w l e r , a n d Weick a d d e d a t h i r d classification s c h e m e to the studies t h a t t h e y r e v i e w e d o n the basis o f p r o g r a m c o n t e n t : (1) general m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m s ; (2) general h u m a n relations programs; (3) p r o b l e m solving and decision m a k ing; (4) T - g r o u p and l a b o r a t o r y p r o g r a m s ; and (5) specialty p r o g r a m s . Overall, 73 studies in these categories using e x t e r n a l or internal criteria w e r e r e v i e w e d . Briefly, their findings are as follows: First, about 80 percent of the general management and human relations programs showed results on most of the criteria used. The authors concluded that these types of programs do, in fact, lead to results in a variety of settings. Yet, twenty-nine of the thirty-five studies in these categories used internal criterion measures. Over one-half of these were concerned with particular attitudinal content rather than job behavior. Thus, one cannot say for sure that an attitudinal change is accompanied by a change in job behavior. Second, the authors found that T-group training and laboratory methods do produce behavioral change in the work environment but that it is difficult to identify the nature of the changes. Furthermore, these changes are not easily related to actual job effectiveness. Third, generally negative results were indicated in the studies on programs to improve problem solving and decision making, but because there were so few of these studies the authors drew no conclusion. Fourth, too few studies comparing two or more development methods or techniques were available to make any generalization as to the superiority of one technique over another (each having the same intent or change goal).
83
WILLIAMJ. KEARNEY
84
C a m p b e l l , D u n n e t t e , Lawler, and Weick c o n c l u d e their review o f research studies b y c o m m e n t i n g t h a t the e m p i r i c a l literature available to t h e m d o e s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e conclusively t h a t w h a t is learned in a training p r o g r a m m a k e s an individual a b e t t e r m a n ager. T h e s e a u t h o r s are clearly n o t as o p t i m i s tic as Miner c o n c e r n i n g the i m p a c t o f m a n a g e m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t training p r o g r a m s on m a n agerial effectiveness. Y e t t h e y are n o t pessimistic either. Research on the effects of management development has demonstrated significant effects, and it has made a contribution to knowledge. It will undoubtedly continue to do so. However, what we have tried to make clear is that the problem is much more complex than the efforts to attack it to date would seem to imply. Trying to assess the effects of management training on an organization by'administering a narrow range of criteria before and after a relatively shortterm teaching effort made up of a number of techniques which are not differentially understood can convey only so much information. It is not that management development research has been of no value; rather there simply has not been enough of the varying kinds of efforts it will take to map out a significant number of the relationships in the system. ~ H e r e i n lies the c r u x o f the q u e s t i o n raised earlier and the c o n t r i b u t i o n t h a t business o r g a n i z a t i o n s can m a k e in answering it. We have seen t h a t s o m e e v i d e n c e exists c o n c e r n ing the effectiveness of m a n a g e m e n t developm e n t p r o g r a m s . This evidence suggests t h a t p r o g r a m s d o h a v e an i m p a c t b u t precisely to w h a t e x t e n t we are n o t sure. T h e q u e s t i o n n o w b e c o m e s , W h a t can a c a d e m i c i a n s and b u s i n e s s m e n do to clarify the p i c t u r e ? M o s t o f the available e m p i r i c a l evidence is a p r o d uct o f a c a d e m i c r e s e a r c h - t h a t is, research p e r f o r m e d b y a c a d e m i c i a n s using as subjects m a n a g e r s w h o are p a r t i c i p a t i n g in m a n a g e ment development pro~ams t h a t t h e researchers m a y b e offering. It is p r o b a b l e t h a t m u c h of the research in the f u t u r e will c o n t i n u e to b e p e r f o r m e d in this m a n n e r
8. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick, Managerial Behavior, pp. 287-88 and p. 326.
b e c a u s e o f a c a d e m i c i a n s ' interest in such m a t t e r s and the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r research p r e s e n t e d b y such situations. Yet, m u c h m o r e can be a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h the e f f o r t s o f b u s i n e s s m e n themselves.
First, businessmen can encourage research on the effectiveness of all management development programs offered to their managers. Second, the study must be based on an adequate research design to insure confidence in the findings. Third, the research must attempt to focus on and use clear-cut, direct indicators of managerial effectiveness rather than global measures or purely results measures. Fourth, every effort should be made to publish the findings of all such research in appropriate business journals so that others may share in this information. We should keep in mind that positive and negative research findings are equally valuable. Given the r o u g h e s t i m a t e of c u r r e n t s p e n d i n g for m a n a g e m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t p r o grams, research covering even a small p e r c e n t age of these p r o g r a m s w o u l d result in a s u b s t a n t i a l gain of i n f o r m a t i o n . B u t this will o n l y o c c u r t h r o u g h the help of b u s i n e s s m e n .
RESEARCH DESIGN W h e n e v a l u a t i o n research is to b e c o n d u c t e d , t w o crucial m a t t e r s are o f central i m p o r t a n c e in d e t e r m i n i n g the q u a l i t y o f the findings a n d u l t i m a t e l y the c o n f i d e n c e t h a t can b e p l a c e d in t h e m . T h e first is the research design. T h e s e c o n d is the selection o f criteria f o r m e a s u r ing m a n a g e r i a l effectiveness. I f these issues are h a n d l e d p r o p e r l y , the c o n c l u s i o n s d r a w n f r o m the research e f f o r t s will n o t be suspect. A m i n i m a l l y a c c e p t a b l e research design is a m u s t . T h e p r i m e c o n c e r n is to insure t h a t a n y changes in m a n a g e r i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s can b e traced conclusively to the p r o ~ a m itself or to s o m e o t h e r variable. M a n y p r e v i o u s studies o f effectiveness do n o t m e e t this s t a n d a r d and, as a result, are n o t a c c e p t e d w i t h c o n f i d e n c e . T a b l e 1 p o r t r a y s several research designs t h a t m i g h t b e used. T h e y range f r o m t h o s e t h a t are i n a d e q u a t e and are u n a c c e p t a b l e to t h o s e t h a t are m o r e t h a n a d e q u a t e a n d are
BUSINESS HORIZONS
Management D eveloprnent Programs Can Pay Off
TABLE 1 Research Designs Design
Pretest
I. Experimental group II. Experimental group
Stimulus
Program ~/
III. Experimental group Control group
Program
~. X/
Program No program
V. Experimental group Control group 1 Control group 2
X/ Xf, X/
Program No program Placebo
VI. Experimental group Control group 1 Control group 2 Control group 3
~¢, ~/, ~
Program No program Placebo No program
r
X/ ~/, ~
Program No program Placebo No program
acceptable. Those labeled inadequate are so designated because it is not possible to attribute with any degree of certainty the results of the posttest to the impact of the development program. Research design IV (see Table 1) is an acceptable design and the one most likely to be widely used. This design more clearly ascertains the impact of the program b y examining the state of the experimental and control groups, which are alike in all important respects--before the program as well as after the program. Any changes in the posttest can then be traced with more certainty. Research designs V, VI, and VII provide for progressively greater control and correspondingly increase the confidence merited b y the findings and conclusions. Design V provides a check for greater motivation that might be induced in the subjects b y the research situation. In addition, design VI checks the possibility of the subjects learning
APRIL 1975
Period T2 Posttest
x/ 4
Adequacy o f Research Design
Inadequate design (unacceptable)
Program No program
IV. Experimental group Control group
VII. Experimental group Control group 1 Control group 2 Control group 3
Period T1 Posttest
Adequate design (acceptable) ¢
i I
More than adequate design (acceptable)
I
through the pretest those areas of behavior or knowledge that are apparently important to the examiners and for which they might prepare themselves for the posttest. Finally, design VII adds a second posttest to determine the extent of knowledge retention or behavior change at a more distant time. Research design IV, while it does not check for motivation effects and pretest learning, is acceptable. It combines the adequacy of design with the practicality of many business and development program situations. Thus, this design should constitute the minimum for any evaluation research. A recent study of 141 organizations with 1,000 or more employees indicates that only five (3.5 percent) of the 141 firms that evaluate their management development programs use this design. Furthermore, none of these firms report using it as a primary evaluation tool. This would seem to indicate that much remains to be accomplished in doing an adequate job.
85
WILLIAMJ. KEARNEY
MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS The second and more difficult problem surrounding evaluation research is that of defining managerial effectiveness and identifying valid criteria to measure it. At the outset, we must recognize that managerial effectiveness is not determined solely by management development pro~ams. Factors in the organizational environment, selection of managers, and individual differences in ability play important roles here. Likewise it is not to be construed as being synonymous with organizational effectiveness, although it m a y make a significant contribution to it. This is an important distinction when establishing criteria to measure managerial effectiveness, since results-oriented appraisal systems often do not distinguish between the two.
86
A recent trend is to focus on quantifiable results. This helps managers judge what is important and what is expected of them. There are no surprises then at the end of the appraisal period. If goals are mutually set, greater goal c o m m i t m e n t and motivation to perform may result. Not to be overlooked is the change in the supervisor's role from that of judge to counselor and helper. One must recognize, however, that while it appears that there could be nothing more logical than equating managerial effectiveness with the ability of a manager to get results, there are problems with such an equation. Specifically, a focus on results only does not explain which job behaviors are critical to effective performance. These behaviors must be isolated and incorporated into management development efforts for increased effectiveness. Equally important is the fact that managers may get results or fail to get results due to circumstances which are b e y o n d their control and which may not be entirely apparent to all parties. In every job there are some uncontrollable factors. Exogeneous factors in the manager's environment influence profit level, sales volume, and production levels.
Behavior that leads to effective results in one period may not get results later. Yet rewards are dispensed or withheld solely on the basis of results. Getting results is certainly important and the proper focus of m u c h managerial effort. Measurement b y results tells us only how well a manager has performed, but it does not tell us w h y performance is at a particular level. This is usually a matter of inference. Identification of specific job behaviors that can be associated with effective performance is an attempt to r e m e d y this shortcoming.
BEHAVIORAL RATING SCALES Careful job analysis is a key to identifying critical job behaviors. Yet job analysis must be performed with far more care and precision than is c o m m o n l y the case. Such analysis must emphasize actual samples of managerial behavior that d n be observed and measured, and there must be agreement b y the several analysts that such acts are the keys to effective performance. The product of this effort is called a behaviorally anchored rating scale. Construction of the scale is accomplished in the following manner: 1. Determine the job behaviors that distinguish effective from ineffective performance by using the pooled judgment of persons knowledgeable in the job (supervisors). 2. Require supervisors to write several descriptive statements describing actual job behavior ranging from grossly ineffective to highly effective. Later these are to be scaled 1 to 5, 1 to 7, or 1 to 9, depending on the number of statements. 3. Sort the several job behaviors according to some general categories associated with the managerial job. 4. Eliminate any job behaviors where there is little consensus by the analysts that an incident distinguishes effective from ineffective performance. 5. Finalize the descriptive statements of managerial behavior ranging in gradation from grossly ineffective behavior to highly effective and scale these as indicated in step 2. 6. After appraising each manager on the behaviorally anchored rating scale, sum all the scores to obtain the manager's evaluation as an indicator of effectiveness.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
Management Development Programs Can Pay Off
TABLE 2 D e p a r t m e n t Manager J o b Behavior R a t i n g Scale* 2a. F o r assessing sales t r e n d s a n d a c t i n g t o maintain merchandising position Could be expected, after noting that shipment of 60 turtleneck sweaters sold out in two days, to take quick action to order 500 more and to give them space and display emphasis to assure they all sold without a markdown. Could be expected to note competitor's featuring of a particular fashion item, shop a sample of competitors, and select and order a line so that his department would have the right "fashion look." Could be expected to reevaluate his estimates on boys' jacket and secure quick approval on additional purchase to assure higher volume on the item in his department. Could be expected to reorder check-outs promptly and to give full information to Buying Office on results obtained. Could be expected to be aware quickly of a best seller b u t to b u y only a token quantity at the outset with result that it might take several reorders before he built up sufficient quantity. Could be expected to reorder an item only after its demand becomes obvious through frequent requests from customers and sales associates. Could be expected to delay reordering in order "to be sure" even after 70 percent of an initial large volume purchase sells out in two weeks' time. Could be expected to fail to determine the rate of dress shirt sales at Christmas time and come close to running out of them b y early December. Could be expected to develop a seriously overstocked position in his department by arbitrarily doubling the suggested coverage of merchandise without authorization. *Spaces for reviewer's comments have been deleted.
Two examples of a job behavioral rating scale f o r a d e p a r t m e n t m a n a g e r are s h o w n i n T a b l e 2. S u c h a n a p p r o a c h t o t h e c o n c e p t o f m a n a g e r i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s singles o u t b e h a v i o r
APRIL 1975
2b. F o r u s i n g c o m p a n y
systems and follow-
ing through on administrative operations Could be expected always to maintain complete and accurate merchandising records in his area, thereby assuring profitable cleanups and reducing the proportion of markdowns. Could be expected to keep close watch on his invoice file, to notice whenever major items have not been received and to follow up on them to get merchandise in on time. Could be expected to show considerable ability in separating important paper work from less important paper work. Could be expected to be fast and thorough but somewhat inaccurate from time to time in checking his reports and keeping records. Could be expected occasionally to overlook some details because of not making notes of new facts and figures on merchandise. Could be expected to fail to follow through on a customer's special Order of merchandise after delegating the task to a trainee. Could be expected to neglect to make an accurate count of merchandise before a price break, thereby making it difficult to determine the actual sales volume after the price break. Could be expected to neglect checking on a large transfer of goods to another store and let it sit under a table for two months. Could be expected to neglect to fill in bedding stock even after being reminded three times b y merchandise manager.
SOURCE: M. D. Dunnette, J. P. Campbell, and L. W.
Helervik, Job Behavior Scales for J. C. Penney Co. Department Managers (Minneapolis: Personnel Decisions, 1968). Reprinted by permission.
that m o s t o f t e n achieves results. M a n a g e m e n t development programs may then be designed t o b r i n g a b o u t this b e h a v i o r . T h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s u c h p r o g r a m s is t h e n d e t e r m i n e d b y
87
WILLIAMJ. KEARNEY
measuring later j o b performance. With an acceptable research design, this method indicates whether any improvement in managerial effectiveness is due to the program or to some other variable. Again it should be emphasized that an analysis of jobs utilizing behavioral rating emphasizes j o b centered performance. It is an important means of identifying managerial effectiveness and should be a supplement to conventional results measures. The use of behavioral rating means that managers are judged for their performance on job factors over which they have control, which is not always the case under appraisal b y results.
mllihilldl The
88
research reviews of Miner and of Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weick suggest that we do know something about the impact of management development programs on managerial performance and that these programs do have an impact on managerial effectiveness. They are not a waste of money, nor do they have to be undertaken on faith alone. Yet, definitive answers as to how much managers are affected and which methods or programs accomplish the most
cannot be answered b y currently available research. These are important questions that should and can be answered. While academicians will probably continue to perform much of the research on these questions, business organizations can help by: Requiring that all management development programs incorporate an evaluation of their effectiveness Insuring that all evaluation efforts utilize an acceptable research design so that the findings and conclusions merit confidence Recognizing the limitations of some global results-oriented measures in making judgments about managerial effectiveness and supplementing these with behaviorally-anchored rating scales Publishing in appropriate business journals the results of all evaluation research so that tl-/ey may be widely shared and may serve to increase our fund of knowledge.
If only a 10 percent cross section of the various management development programs to be offered in a given year were suitably evaluated, we would be able to answer more precisely questions concerning program impact. Current research suggests a favorable outlook concerning the impact of management development programs on managerial effectiveness. The task n o w is to move to obtain greater precision in our answers.
O0000000000OC~O000OOODOOOOOOOOODOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOC~3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOD
In all organizations the functions of management require great effort and expense. Expense in terms of money, certainly, but also in terms of time and skill. But without this outlay for managerial talent, the organization would be little more than a mob. Quite clearly then, one of the major tasks of the management of any organization is to provide the skills in carrying out the managerial functions needed to keep that organization functioning smoothly. - J a m e s A, Belasco, David R. Hampton, and Karl F. Price
Management Today O0000DOOODOOODDDOOOOODOOOOOOODODOOODDOOODOOOOOOOOOODOODOOODDDOOODOODODO0000
BUSINESS HORIZONS