Volume 2, Number 2, Spring 2002

Dependable Correlates of Effective Professional Development of Technical Personnel

Hamid Khan
Northern Kentucky University
Master of Technology Programs
Highland Heights
khanh@nku.edu

Abstract

Barnard  [1] said it so succinctly for the lifetime of management thought, which has become the basis of fine management development thought, “The fine art of executive decision making consists in not deciding those things that are not now pertinent, not deciding prematurely, not deciding those things that cannot be made effective and not deciding those things that others should make.” Management development uses Barnard’s pivotal principle in providing timely management education for their executive development. The purpose of this paper is to develop an effective program evaluation and review technique, which uses correlates and measures effectiveness.

With these criteria in mind, this paper will apply a comprehensive evaluation method to examine the impact of learning in ET managers’ Organizational Leadership ability, Human Resource Development ability, Financial Management ability, Decision Making ability, Strategic Planning ability, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution ability, and Managerial Communication skills ability before and after the program.

Professional Development of Professionals--Literature Review

This study is hopefully timely and comprehensive in identifying and preparing technical personnel for technical management positions. This process of a comprehensive study in organizational development by training has been difficult and time consuming for academics to undertake. This paper presents some applied methods and procedures for the development of such technical personnel by need analysis. Management development function itself is a rather difficult human relations management activity in general and educational activity in particular, which at first glance, may be difficult to envision, but has been the prime mover of a continually learning organization that leads by empowerment. However, a subject of this nature is rather difficult to present thoroughly and concisely, and has not been studied earlier comprehensively. It is imperative that companies have taken the tasks of management development seriously for their knowledge workers as the field has grown beyond bounds and executives’ interests have been directed toward understanding the correlates of effective performance with management development. (I am indebted to the reviewers of the journal for this introductory paragraph, which has been written after their review comments.)

Management Development programs have always been conducted to stimulate changes in ET professionals’ knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors. Cervero [2], Grotelueschen [3], Nowlen [4], Shanker [5],  Tallman [6], Willis & Dublin [7] have all emphasized the importance of ‘quality control’ in management development of ET professionals. They all have proposed accountability, effectiveness and regulation. Grotelueschen [3], in his Quality Assurance in Continuing Professional Education and  Nowlen [4], in his A New Approach to Continuing Education for Business and the Professions: The Performance Model, have demanded performance and accountability as the basic pre-requisite of management development function. This research has been conducted to examine the extent to which management development programs, as designed and implemented, have been effective in meeting these professed ‘quality control and assurance objectives.’ Since professional development of managers is important to ET professionals’ success, and organizational competitiveness, it is imperative that only quality conscious management development programs are offered.”

Consequently, in return, management education must insure quality performance from participating ET professionals also. Tallman [6] says, to help assure management effectiveness, professional educational systems must provide reinforcement throughout the manager's working life. Professional education must continue after the completion of degree programs. According to Willis and Dublin [7], because of the current knowledge explosion and rapid rate of technological change, ET professionals must maintain currency and enhance their competence or face a threat of obsolescence.

The scientific and systems schools of evaluation have attempted to draw direct correlations between training and changes in performance.  Many unexpected outcomes and unintended consequences, which make management development a dynamic activity, have not been taken into account in evaluation. Most management development evaluation is program centered rather than people centered. Smith [8] has explored the limitations of such post program evaluations.

Choosing an appropriate and most effective method of evaluation of management development involves pre-course needs analysis of mangers. Training evaluator Phillip [9] in his research investigation has gathered and synthesized measurement methods used in management development. Smith and Piper [10] have reviewed the benefits of various evaluation techniques of management development of E/ET managers.

Cross's [11] methodology is important to this research. This research explores the effectiveness of a management development program. It collects evidence as a basis for making judgments about the effects of one management development program on managers and organizations. This research will help determine how university-based management development programs may contribute to new directions in management and organizational development. This research attempts to understand how management development program empowers employees to recognize emerging organizational requirements to improve quality and to meet customer expectations. These changes require managers to assume responsibility for applying knowledge gained through continuing education, to career development as required by organizational expectations and opportunities.

In the Harvard Business Review, Peter Drucker [12] wrote about the importance of continuous learning and management development in strengthening managerial effectiveness: Continuous learning must accompany productivity gains. ... Training is only the beginning of learning. Indeed, as the Japanese can teach us, ... the greatest benefit of training comes not from learning something new but from doing better what we already do well.

As Peter Drucker [12] suggests, the management development function is at the forefront of helping organizations that are experimenting with new ways of doing business. Organizations call upon management development to invoke changes in managers by conceptualizing, communicating, and teaching new behaviors. The Executive Development Associate’s 1986 survey highlighted Drucker’s concern that management-training programs were not being effective on strategy, productivity, leadership, and global competition.

·Strategy: Negotiation and Dispute Resolution, Competitive Advantage, change Management, Human Resource Management                                                                 

·Productivity: Design for manufacturability, Human Factors and Ergonomics, Career Management, Decision Analysis

·Leadership: Managerial Communication, Designing Organizations for Teams, The Creative Process, Presentational Speaking

·Global Competition: Global Technology Management, Managing Investment Decisions, Marketing for Technical Managers, Accounting and Finance

Management Development Program Criteria -- Designing for Success

 

The University Professional Development Program was designed to improve the performance of ET professionals (middle managers) and was delivered as a workshop for leadership effectiveness. “The program intended   to generate in participants positive effects by instilling leaning skills, by changing analytical perceptual behavior, and by producing results in a favorable environment as an outcome of leadership dynamics.”

Participants completed self-assessment instruments that provided insight into their learning styles, communication, leadership, decision-making, and conflict resolution styles. Participants exchanged views with other corporate executives, with university professors of management and engineering, with university officials, and with leaders in higher education. Participants were exposed to a variety of reading materials including case studies that enabled them to examine pertinent engineering, personnel, and management issues.

Attention was directed to the uncertainties of the leadership tasks, the diversity of roles, and the conflicts and rewards of leadership. The Management Development Program intended to cause participants to explore topics that are generally ignored in professional and management development workshops. Since the Experimental Program faculty believed that learning effective leadership skills involves practicing effective skills, an experiential learning approach was emphasized. The program continually tried to improve its objectives, methodologies and results through effective evaluation.

In this program development Peter Drucker’s [12] suggestion that, “ The management development function is at the forefront of helping organizations that are experimenting with new ways of doing business,” was deliberately put into practice by designing courses to train in (a) Strategy: Negotiation and Dispute Resolution, Competitive Advantage, Change Management, Human Resource Management (b) Productivity: Design for manufacturability, Human Factors and Ergonomics, Career Management, Decision Analysis  (c) Leadership: Managerial Communication, Designing Organizations for Teams, The Creative Process, Presentational Speaking (d) Global Competition: Global Technology Management, Managing Investment Decisions, Marketing for Technical Managers, Accounting and Finance. This design effectively addressed the professional development by its correlates and criteria. Successful management development for leadership depends on those dependable criteria. Hence the training program measured those correlates and criteria which influences leadership behavior e.g. Organizational Leadership ability, Human Resource Development ability, Financial Management ability, Decision Making ability, Strategic Planning ability, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution ability, and Managerial Communication skills ability.                                   

Research Questions

This research examined management education from a quality assurance perspective, paying special attention  to those measurable ends of education, by which the ET professionals were impacted by the program. Evaluation criteria established from the stated objectives of the program were used as bases for measuring change that occurred in the knowledge skills and attitudes, from before to after the program.

The impact of the training on the managers and their organization was analyzed. The impact was assessed using Kirkpatrick's [13] four levels of evaluation of the training program for effectiveness consisting of (1) Reaction (2) Learning (3) Behavior and (4) Impact or Results.

1. Reaction: Reaction is a measure of how well the participant liked the training program with respect to its content and delivery. Reacting to a program with happiness did not guarantee that learning took place -- so, multiple measures of reaction were used.

2. Learning: This is the next level of measure of effectiveness of the training program. But this learning change does not always produce behavioral change in the participants.

3. Behavior: This is the next level of effectiveness of the program. Effective evaluation should be geared toward determining change in behaviors of the managers. These changes can be measured in terms of changes in scores on decision-making and leadership styles. These behavioral changes are attributable to the program.

4. Impact or Results: This is the final level of measure of effectiveness of the training program that demonstrates how, after the dissipation effect, the residual change is permanent. This measurement was done after about three to four months after the program as a post study.

An effective management development program evaluation and review technique was strategically designed to be inclusive, with respect to assessing reaction, learning, behavior and results accruing due to the program. This program evaluation and review technique used the following instruments for the four-stage evaluation process.

Measures of Reaction: (a) Course and instructor evaluation completed at the conclusion of the program (b) Qualitative and descriptive responses to some open ended questions. and (c) Composite program evaluation

Measure of Learning: Learning was measured by (a) Learning Skills Inventory (LSI). The LSI was administered as pre, post, and analyzed as a comparison.

Measure of Behavior: (a) Change in perceptions of importance and competence of management skills pre, post, and comparison

Measure of Results: (a) Change in leadership adaptability index measured at pre, post and comparison (b) Measure of effectiveness by using a 3-month post survey after the manager returns back to the realities of job situations. The difference between the pre and three-month post scores is the impact of the training program.

Research Methodology

The author was impressed with the classical study of Knudson [14] wherein she explored the effectiveness of leadership development program at Harvard. Knudson’s [14] questionnaire was adopted for this study for collecting the categorical data of managerial effectiveness for this executive training program. The population of this study was ninety-eight engineering managers and corporate specialists from different organizations who attended the intervention program from April 24-April 30, 1995. These ET professionals were either nominated by themselves or were nominated by their superiors to participate in the training program. This was the first time the program reached a participation level of ninety-eight middle managers and senior managers. The faculty of Engineering and Technology selected these managers from a large pool of applicants who met the selection criteria and qualifications.

The above population of managers decided to participate in the program when they received and reviewed the program brochure, which enunciated the philosophy, objectives, benefits and features of the program. Since the program is popular in the industry, the participation was also due to word-of-mouth of past participants' experiences, of nominating supervisors' previous attendance in the program, and of judgments about the effectiveness of the program.

Background information from ninety-eight managers representing a broad spectrum of industry was collected during the program. Information included: level of education, length of management experience, years in present job, type of industry, and gender. Data were collected to know whether or not the training was required as a corporate strategy linking to continuing professional education of managers. For the purpose of comparison, each of the managers attending the program identified a peer who could not attend the program or did not participate because of certain barriers to participation. These non-participating peers responded to all the instruments used with the participants. There were two sets of data collected: pre- and post- for the experimental group, or the participants of the program. Data were also collected from the comparison group nominated by the attending managers. The following reputable learning instruments were used in the pre and post evaluations.

A. Demographic Profiles Inventory of ET professionals

B. Knowledge, Skills, Attitude Instrument (Harvard Study)

C. Kolb Learning Styles Inventory

D. Hersey and Blanchard's Leadership Effectiveness and Attitude Description (LEAD) Questionnaire

Correlates and Variables

Using SPSS, the data have been analyzed with respect to variables associated with participants' (1) key background information, (2) perceptions of managerial skills with regard to importance and competence, (3) leadership adaptability behavior to managerial decision making situations and (4) preferred learning styles.

Twenty-two background variables were summarized and their effect analyzed. Sixteen themes consisting of sixteen courses were collapsed to four major qualities of managerial development: strategy, productivity, leadership, and global competition skills. The managerial skills survey of importance and competence with forty-two items were broken down to the above four major themes. Hersey and Blanchard's Leadership behaviors of the participants were scored and plotted in the relevant quadrants of Telling-Selling-Participating-Delegating. The average leadership profile of participants fell in the primary style quadrant of Selling and the Secondary style quadrant of Participating. Kolb Learning Styles were also plotted to the four quadrants of Diverging-Accommodating-Converging-Assimilating. The average primary style was recorded to be Converger and the secondary to be Assimilator. This agrees with the charts of engineers and managers.

Summary of the ten most important skill items in rank order is given below in terms of pretest importance and competence. This is compared with the posttest program response of importance and competence. Participants’ leadership skill ratings are also stated as comparative pretest of importance and competence. Pretest and Posttest comparison scores are also given with the test of significance at .05 and at .01 levels.

There are forty-two Importance related questions as well as forty-two Competence related questions in the Skills questionnaire. For the sake of meaningfulness of discussion and results and for correct statistical procedures, these forty-two variables have been collapsed to seven major criteria on which results will be reported and quantified. There is purportedly more reliability in having less number (seven) of major groups than more number of outcome level elemental items (forty-two). The management development program had courses designed and delivered in these areas of teaching.

Key Results Area (KRA) of  Program’s Quality

Related Skill-Items in the Questionnaire

Organizational Leadership

1-12  (Twelve Questions)

Human Resource Management

13-19 (Seven Questions)

Financial Management

20-22 (Three Questions)

Decision Making

23-28 (Six Questions)

Strategic Planning

29-33 (Five Questions)

Negotiation and Conflict Resolution

34-40 (Seven Questions)

Managerial Communication skills

41-42 (Two Questions)

Reported below are the results of the analyses for the statistically significant differences at the .05 a‑level.  Some remarks about how the analyses were conducted have been appended for ease and readability. Whenever a mean has been reported, the standard deviation has been given in parentheses after it (e.g., mean of 54.6 (1.235)).  Likewise, when t or F statistics are reported, the degrees‑of‑freedom are reported in parentheses immediately after the type of statistic (e.g., t (34) = 2.12).  The standard‑ error‑of‑the‑difference (SEdiff) is given for all t‑tests and the mean‑square‑error (MSe) is given for all ANOVA's.  All one‑way ANOVA's used Student‑Newman‑Kuhl post‑hoc analyses (SNK) to test for statistically significant differences between groups.  All post‑ hoc analyses are reported at  .05 significance level, also.

Rank Order of Ten Items as Importance of Leadership Skills  (IMPVAR variables) at Pretest of Participants (from possible score of 5)

IMPVAR

DESCRIPTION

MEAN

SD

IMPRE6

Building trust with peers, superiors

4.50

.55

IMPRE25

Establishing priorities, setting goals

4.46

.66

IMPRE31

Writing: expressing ideas correctly

4.42

.79

IMPRE41

Understanding clientele (customer) needs

4.42

.88

IMPRE12

Budgeting my work time

4.39

.69

IMPRE2

Having Flexibility: Varying behavior

4.37

.77

IMPRE42

Making oral presentations: impact

4.36

.99

IMPRE8

Taking initiative to assume responsibility

4.31

.61

IMPRE1

Directing program and project implementation

4.29

1.08

IMPRE19

Delegating, coaching, providing  follow-up

4.27

1.00

Rank Order of Ten Items as Competence of Leadership Skills (COMVAR variables) at Pretest of Participants (from possible score of 5)

COMVAR

DESCRIPTION

MEAN

SD

COMPRE28

Dealing with ambiguity

3.96

.67

COMPRE6

Building trust with peers, superiors

3.91

.89

COMPRE8

Taking initiative to assume responsibility

3.77

.92

COMPRE23

Using computer and information systems

3.74

.84

COMPRE41

Writing: expressing ideas clearly, concisely

3.72

.86

COMPRE2

Having flexibity: varying behavior

3.68

.91

COMPRE5

Demonstrating commitment beyond area

3.62

.87

COMPRE31

Understanding clientele (customer) needs

3.57

.85

COMPRE27

Conducting problem analysis: defining problem

3.50

.80

COMPRE25

Establishing priorities, setting goals

3.50

.72

COMPRE18

Demonstrating interpersonal skills

3.48

.90

Rank Order of Ten Items as Importance of Leadership Skills  (IMPVAR variables) at Posttest of Participants (from possible score of 5)

IMPVAR

DESCRIPTION

MEAN

SD

IMPPST2

Having Flexibility: Varying behavior

4.70

.46

IMPPST6

Building trust with peers, superiors

4.59

.62

IMPPST25

Establishing priorities, setting goals

4.52

.59

IMPPST42

Making oral presentations: ..impact

4.51

.74

IMPPST41

Writing: expressing ideas clearly, concisely

4.46

.62

IMPPST12

Budgeting my work time

4.43

.62

IMPPST27

Conducting problem analysis: defining problem

4.41

.56

IMPPST18

Demonstrating interpersonal skills

4.38

.59

IMPPST31

Understanding clientele (customer) needs

4.36

1.21

IMPPST1

Directing program/project implementation

4.36

1.14

Rank Order of Ten Items as Competence of Leadership Skills (COMVAR variables) at Posttest of Participants (from possible score of 5)

COMVAR

DESCRIPTION

MEAN

SD

COMPST6

Building trust with peers, superiors

4.38

.66

COMPST2

Having Flexibility: Varying behavior

4.26

.54

COMPST8

Taking initiative to assume responsibility

4.23

.56

COMPST41

Writing: expressing ideas clearly, concisely

4.11

.80

COMPST18

Demonstrating interpersonal skills

4.10

.70

COMPST25

Establishing priorities, setting goals

4.08

.69

COMPST23

Using computer and information systems

4.07

.75

COMPST42

Making oral presentations . . . impact

4.02

.81

COMPST27

Conducting problem analysis: defining problem

4.02

.62

COMPST19

Delegating, coaching, providing follow-up

3.95

.88

Participants’ Perception of Leadership Skill Ratings at Pretest of Importance and Competence

IMPVAR        DESCRIPTION                                             MEAN            SD       COMPVAR            MEAN            SD

IMPRE1          Directing program/project implementation          4.29     1.08     COMPRE1      3.48     .93

IMPRE2           Having flexibility: varying behavior to meet        4.37     .78       COMPRE2      3.68     .91

IMPRE3          Communicating enthusiasm                                4.21     .61       COMPRE3      3.27     .74

IMPRE4           Using team building skills                                  4.22     .73       COMPRE4      3.26     .72

IMPRE5          Demonstrating commitment beyond area of       3.95     .77       COMPRE5      3.62     .87

IMPRE6          Building trust with your peers, superiors 4.50     .55       COMPRE6      3.91     .89

IMPRE7          Developing skills for your next               4.16     .67       COMPRE7      3.31     .82

IMPRE8          Taking initiative to assume responsibility            4.31     .61       COMPRE8      3.77     .92

IMPRE9          Identifying weaknesses of self and other            3.88     .74       COMPRE9      3.14     .84

IMPRE10        Persuading: influencing others to accept 4.12     .89       COMPRE10    3.28     .89

IMPRE11        Articulating relationship of role/function  3.64     1.30     COMPRE11    3.10     1.18

IMPRE12        Budgeting my work time                                   4.39     .69       COMPRE12    3.19     .89

IMPRE13        Supervising: overseeing evaluation,                    3.87     1.48     COMPRE13    3.04     1.39

IMPRE14        Shielding your unit from excessive                     3.38     1.38     COMPRE14    3.0       1.26

IMPRE15        Motivating personnel                                         4.22     .99       COMPRE15    3.25     .89

IMPRE16        Facilitating career development of subord.         4.21     .91       COMPRE16    2.96     1.2

IMPRE17        Utilizing committees and task forces                  3.40     1.21     COMPRE17    2.95     1.05

IMPRE18        Demonstrating interpersonal skills                      4.25     .80       COMPRE18    3.48     .90

IMPRE19        Delegating, coaching, providing follow-up          4.27     .99       COMPRE19    3.27     .91

IMPRE20        Acquiring financial resources                             3.38     1.61     COMPRE20    2.69     1.32

IMPRE21        Analyzing and managing budgets                       3.63     1.40     COMPRE21    3.04     1.23

IMPRE22        Conducting quantitative analyses:  using             3.53     1.35     COMPRE22    3.10     1.17

IMPRE23        Using computer and information systems           4.12     .76       COMPRE23    3.74     .84

IMPRE24        Evaluating program impact                                3.59     1.27     COMPRE24    3.08     1.18

IMPRE25        Establishing priorities, setting goals                    4.46     .66       COMPRE25    3.50     .72

IMPRE26        Conducting problem analysis:                            3.37     1.44     COMPRE26    2.69     1.20

IMPRE27        Forecasting: developing what if models          4.19     .67       COMPRE27    3.50     .80

IMPRE28        Dealing with ambiguity and making                    4.03     .94       COMPRE28    3.96     .66

IMPRE29        Planning long range goals for your unit   3.72     1.42     COMPRE29    2.90     1.20

IMPRE30        Establishing a marketing strategy for unit            2.69     1.80     COMPRE30    2.06     1.44

IMPRE31        Understanding clientele (customer) needs          4.42     .88       COMPRE31    3.57     .85

IMPRE32        Conducting institutional/corporate policy            2.31     1.70     COMPRE32    1.95     1.45

IMPRE33        Initiating your own program, policies                 3.55     1.12     COMPRE33    3.11     1.03

IMPRE34        Using political acumen: establishing                    3.95     1.12     COMPRE34    3.08     .98

IMPRE35        Managing labor relations                                   2.81     1.93     COMPRE35    2.13     1.56

IMPRE36        Negotiating, resolving conflict                            4.11     1.08     COMPRE36    3.33     .93

IMPRE37        Working with governing boards             1.54     1.69     COMPRE37    1.41     1.56

IMPRE38        Using public relations skills                                2.84     1.78     COMPRE38    2.28     1.48

IMPRE39        Sharing information strategically             3.11     1.79     COMPRE39    2.47     1.49

IMPRE40        Initiating projects with high visibility                   3.32     1.45     COMPRE40    3.11     1.79

IMPRE41        Writing: expressing ideas clearly,                       4.42     .79       COMPRE41    3.73     .86

IMPRE42        Making oral presentations: favorable                  4.36    .99       COMPRE42    3.30     .91

Pretest Vs. Posttest-- Participants’ Perception of Leadership Skill Ratings of Importance

IMPPRE         DESCRIPTION                                             MEAN            SD       IMPPOST      MEAN            SD

IMPRE1          Directing program/project implementation          4.29     1.08     IMPPST1        4.36     1.14

IMPRE2          Having flexibility: varying behavior to meet         4.37     .78       IMPPST2        4.70     .46**

IMPRE3          Communicating enthusiasm                                4.21     .61       IMPPST3        4.25     .60

IMPRE4          Using team building skills                                   4.22     .73       IMPPST4        4.21     .69

IMPRE5          Demonstrating commitment beyond area of       3.95     .77       IMPPST5        4.16     .69**

IMPRE6          Building trust with your peers, superiors 4.50     .55       IMPPST6        4.59     .62

IMPRE7          Developing skills for your next               4.16     .67       IMPPST7        4.22     .74

IMPRE8          Taking initiative to assume responsibility            4.31     .61       IMPPST8        4.37     .55

IMPRE9          Identifying weaknesses of self and other            3.88     .74       IMPPST9        4.03     .71*

IMPRE10        Persuading: influencing others to accept 4.12     .89       IMPPST10      4.33     .57**

IMPRE11        Articulating relationship of role/function  3.64     1.30     IMPPST11      3.9       1.04*

IMPRE12        Budgeting my work time                                   4.39     .69       IMPPST12      4.47     .62

IMPRE13        Supervising: overseeing evaluation,                    3.87     1.48     IMPPST13      3.83     1.54

IMPRE14        Shielding your unit from excessive                     3.38     1.38     IMPPST14      3.48     1.37

IMPRE15        Motivating personnel                                         4.22     .99       IMPPST15      4.17     .99

IMPRE16        Facilitating career development of subord.         4.21     .91       IMPPST16      3.65     1.55

IMPRE17        Utilizing committees and task forces                  3.40     1.21     IMPPST17      3.55     1.16*

IMPRE18        Demonstrating interpersonal skills                      4.25     .80       IMPPST18      4.40     .59**

IMPRE19        Delegating, coaching, providing follow-up          4.27     .99       IMPPST19      4.35     .80*

IMPRE20        Acquiring financial resources                             3.38     1.61     IMPPST20      3.36     1.51

IMPRE21        Analyzing and managing budgets                       3.63     1.40     IMPPST21      3.59     1.41

IMPRE22        Conducting quantitative analyses:  using             3.53     1.35     IMPPST22      3.70     1.19**

IMPRE23        Using computer and information systems           4.12     .76       IMPPST23      4.31     .74**

IMPRE24        Evaluating program impact                                3.59     1.27     IMPPST24      3.69     1.39

IMPRE25        Establishing priorities, setting goals                    4.46     .66       IMPPST25      4.52     .60

IMPRE26        Conducting problem analysis:                            3.37     1.44     IMPPST26      3.49     1.11

IMPRE27        Forecasting: developing what if models          4.19     .67       IMPPST27      4.43     .56**

IMPRE28        Dealing with ambiguity and making                    4.03     .94       IMPPST28      4.20     .73**

IMPRE29        Planning long range goals for your unit   3.72     1.42     IMPPST29      3.67     1.41

IMPRE30        Establishing a marketing strategy for unit            2.69     1.80     IMPPST30      2.74     1.83**

IMPRE31        Understanding clientele (customer) needs          4.42     .88       IMPPST31      4.38     1.21

IMPRE32        Conducting institutional/corporate policy            2.31     1.70     IMPPST32      2.44     1.58*

IMPRE33        Initiating your own program, policies                 3.55     1.12     IMPPST33      3.71     1.29*

IMPRE34        Using political acumen: establishing                    3.95     1.12     IMPPST34      3.95     1.18

IMPRE35        Managing labor relations                                   2.81     1.93     IMPPST35      2.66     1.88

IMPRE36        Negotiating, resolving conflict                            4.11     1.08     IMPPST36      4.24     .94*

IMPRE37        Working with governing boards             1.54     1.69     IMPPST37      1.98     1.73**

IMPRE38        Using public relations skills                                2.84     1.78     IMPPST38      2.98     1.69**

IMPRE39        Sharing information strategically             3.11     1.79     IMPPST39      3.03     1.87

IMPRE40        Initiating projects with high visibility                   3.32     1.45     IMPPST40      3.56     1.38**

IMPRE41        Writing: expressing ideas clearly,                       4.42     .79       IMPPST41      4.46     .63*

IMPRE42        Making oral presentations: favorable                  4.36    .99       IMPPST42      4.51     .75**  

* Significant at <= .05; ** Significant at p <= .01

Summary of results with significant findings

This management development study attempted to measure those changes that occurred in the knowledge, skills and behaviors of the participants, from before to after the program, in four levels of program effect e.g., reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Responses were gathered using qualitative interviews. Evidence was gathered using Learning Skills Inventory. Behavior was gathered using Leadership Effectiveness and Adaptability Description Questionnaire. Results were gathered using Managerial Skills of Importance and Competence over pretest, posttest and a three-month posttest on the job.

Forty-two management skills criteria were collapsed to identify seven main leadership skills for reliable evidence on the hypotheses tested: Leadership/ Organization, Human Resource Management, Financial Management, Decision Making, Strategic Planning, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, and Managerial Communication. The important results of the study are summarized below.

  1. No significant differences were found in the Importance of each leadership skills: (a) by the type of company's business, (b) by the number of years of employment with the current employer, (c) by the number of years in the industry, and (d) by the type of degrees held. 
  2. Significant Differences were found in the Importance of each leadership skills: (a) by a broad range of titles, (b) by the size of company, and (c) by the number of years in current position.
  3. No significant differences were found in the Competence of each leadership skills:   (a) by the type of company's business, (b) by the size of company, (c) by the number of years in current position, (d) by the type of degrees held by the manager (BS, MS, MBA), and (e) by the number of years in the industry.
  4. Significant Differences were found in the Competence of each leadership skills:  (a) by a broad range of titles and (b) by the number of years of employment with the current employer.

PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL – QUALITATIVE SUMMARY

Conclusions of Management Development Program Quality

Following are the questions and summary of responses to the qualitative questions regarding the effectiveness of the program. Written answers were given by the participants in place of interview as the program administrators felt that interviews may consume too much of the participants' time.

1. What are one or two of the important purposes of the Program?

Five of the responses from eighteen participants reported that sharing concerns and ideas was important. Five of the respondents stated that just the interactions were important. Developing new skills was named twice. Developing confidence and developing leadership were each mentioned once.

2. In your experience, what are some of the most powerful ways to stimulate leadership in your subordinates?

Four respondents of the eighteen stated that one way to stimulate leadership in subordinates was to give subordinates responsibilities. Teaching, challenging and coaching were each suggested three times as ways of stimulating leadership. Setting examples and using motivation were mentioned twice.

3. What are one or two contributions will you make in your position after the Program?

Six respondents to this question were concerned with contribution to team development and empowerment. Two respondents emphasized that they would try to improve communications and group dynamics. Two respondents thought that program taught them creativity and change principles. Two responses were concerned with motivation of employees, leadership and management process.

4. Program uses the following learning activities for professional development: formal classes, cases, readings and assignments, discussion groups, OD/Sensitivity Training exercises, and informal small group activities.

a. What activities had the most desirable learning impact?

Almost all the respondents unequivocally stated that case studies and small discussion groups provided the most desirable learning effect.

b. Why do you think they were the most appropriate effective?

Five respondents said that they shared concerns, interactions and viewpoints. Four said they learned from real life situations of case studies and group activities. Three said that by doing, the level of retention was increased and because they were tangible. The remaining ones did not answer.

 c. How will you benefit from these activities?

Four respondents said they learned new techniques. Three said that program broadened perspectives. Three said they saw new group and team involvement from program.

5. How did the program operate to fulfill its objectives?

Most of the respondents said that the program fulfilled the objectives. Two said that the program gave variety of methods and options in dealing with situations. Two reported that the program was intensive with high learning expectations.

6. How is the program linked to the overall leadership development for your company?

Three said that the program was not linked to corporate strategy. Three said that the program exposed the department heads first to change and implement competitive advantage. Two said that their companies have been sending participants because the program was good.

7.            a. Describe your role in your company implementing some of  the goals of Program.

Three said that they would lead in implementing within their jurisdiction. Two said they would assume responsibility. Two said they would use change methods learned. One said he/she would continue team-building efforts.

                b. Please give an example of ways your goals have changed recently to adjust to changes occurring in Engineering and Management.

Four respondents said that their company's goals have changed to empowered teams and customer service. Two said that such programs enhanced effectiveness and enabled to value programs.

8.           a. What do you think are the strengths of the program?

Most respondents said that interaction was the main strength. Other strengths were varieties in classes, topics, ideas, critical thinking, faculty, and convenient and open format.

              b. What criteria did you use just now, as you identified the strengths?

Criteria were personal learning, opinion, observation, environment, participant backgrounds and rewards of the program.

              c. What do you judge are the limitations of the program?

Most respondents suggested that limitations were time, and not enough course offerings, concerted focus--no reflection in action, frequency of programming, and lack of integration in lectures.

              d. What changes would reduce or eliminate the limitations?

Some respondents said that the program should be practical, with increased teaching time for breadth, precise learning objectives, increased class size, should stretch over longer periods and be more frequent.

              e. What changes could turn them to strengths?

Two said more classes and instructors must be added.  Some suggested split pattern of class with work-learn-work. Others did not know.

9. Please give an example of informal learning situations in which P.U. E/MP participants like you acquired new leadership skills.

Almost unanimously the response was cases and group discussions.

10. What are your goals for implementing the program benefits as they relate to your leadership?

Most respondents stated that they would take leadership roles with more responsibilities and use the knowledge gained. One said develop team communications.

11. Briefly, how did the program address to your Skills, Decision Styles, Learning Styles, and Background Profile for effectiveness?

Each of the seven responses reporting ways the program addressed their management skills were unique. Of the six positive responses, four were strongly positive. One response was somewhat neutral and one response was negative.

12. There is little written about middle managers in industries.

a.  What leadership skills are most important for them?

Most of the responses emphasized importance of communications/ human relations, shared vision, and coaching/motivation. Others were focused on managerial versatility, directing change and problem solving and understanding the customer.

Communication skills/Human Relation skills.

b. In what ways are their roles changing?

Most reported broadening of responsibilities, yet moving from boss to coach. One said they are getting more technical and one said they are reduced or eliminated as the organizations flatten. But most agree the roles have been tougher.

13. Are there further comments you would like to make about the P.U. E/M Program?

Some suggested that weekly class time be extended and Saturday class eliminated. Some suggested the program must have new offerings and needed change.

Summary

(1)        It created a constancy of purpose for personal and professional development by attending executive development program. Many participants wrote in the interview protocol that they would attend future programs. Faculty interview protocol revealed that most faculty also strives for continuous update and improvement of the program.

(2)        Qualitative evaluation revealed that continuous improvement of the quality of the program is the philosophy of the University. These program stakeholders have a philosophy that we must believe in quality as we once believed in progress.

(3)    Qualitative and quantitative evaluations both revealed that the sixteen member program faculty is continuously engaged in improving the process with a firm belief that, Quality comes not from inspection but from improvement of the process. The program faculty do not follow The old way: inspect bad quality out of the program, instead emphasizes The new way: build good quality in to the program.

 (4)          The program did institute leadership in managers as evident in the movement of group's Telling/Selling styles from before the program, to Participating/Delegating after the program. Leadership development is the responsibility of the manager himself or herself, but it is the job of the program faculty to let the participants discover barriers to their development. This has happened in numerous case studies of actual company problems, where participants together strategically solved the case study problems.

(5)        The program emphasized innovation and creativity that eventually simulated cases of fear in company settings. Participants became proactive to problem setting rather than reactive or fearful followers. Various forms of techniques were used for the team to play and eliminate fear of hazy and messy situations. Participants developed confidence in their management skills as evidenced by their perceptions of pre, post and follow up scores on the skills questionnaire.

(6)        Program broke down self-imposed barriers to managers' participation. So much of teamwork was emphasized in the program that participants could feel the impact of synergy in teaming, which they were devoid of in their own organizations. This is clearly stated in their remarks in qualitative evaluations.

(7)        The program was run effectively in an integrated manner, with a view to take action to accomplish transformation of technical personnel by a sequence of case studies and managerial activities of plan, do, check, and act. (PDCA) This technical program had seven main leadership development themes: Organizational Leadership, Human Resource Management, Financial Management, Decision Making, Strategic Planning, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, and Managerial Communication. Every module of the program with its own leadership development theme effectively emphasized and integrated the overarching concept of  plan, do, check, and act” for effective decision making individually and in the group.

Acknowledgements

                The author wishes to acknowledge the financial support made through the Office of Sponsored Research, Ball State University. The author also acknowledges and appreciates the tremendous research support of the Faculty of Purdue University, Krannert Graduate School of Business granted through the Divisions of Executive Education and Continuing Engineering Education. The author appreciates the kind permissions given by the publishers of copyright instruments which were used in his doctoral dissertation study at greater length where detail acknowledgements have been given. The author also acknowledges with gratitude the courtesy of Mary Jane Knudson [14] originally of Harvard University, and now at Digital Equipment Corporation, for permitting her doctoral dissertation questionnaire to be used in this study.

References

[1] Barnard, C. I. (1978). Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press. Revised Edition.

[2] Cervero, R.M. (1988). Effective Continuing Education for Professionals. San Francisco: Jossey Bass 1988.

[3] Grotelueschen,  A.D. (1986). Quality assurance in continuing professional education: occasional papers no.2, Athens, GA: The University of Georgia.

[4] Nowlen, P.M.(1988). A new approach to continuing education for business and the professions. New York: NUCEA, American Council on Education and McMillan.

[5] Shanker, A. (1985). The making of a profession. American Educator, 9, 46, 48.

[6] Tallman, D.E. (1989). An analysis of interdependent relationships in continuing professional education. Athens, GA: unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

[7] Willis, S.L., & Dublin, S. S. (Eds.) (1990). Maintaining professional competence: Approaches to career advancement, vitality and success throughout a work life,  Jossey Bass: San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

[8] Smith, A. (1993). Management development evaluation and effectiveness. Journal of management development,  12, 20-32.

[9] Phillip, A. (1990). Handbook of Training Evaluation and Measurement Methods, London: Kogan

[10] Smith, A. & Piper, J. (1990). The tailor made training maze: A practitioner's guide to evaluation. Journal of European Industrial Training.  14(8).

[11] Cross, K.P. (1981) Adult as Learners: Increasing participation and Facilitating Learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

[12] Drucker, P. (1991). The new  productivity challenge, Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 69-79.

[13] Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1987). Techniques for evaluating training programs, Training and Development Journal, 33(6), pp 78-92.

[14] Knudson, M.J. (1989). Leadership development for the middle managers of higher education: Harvard's management development program., ED.D. Dissertation, Harvard University. Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services.

Hamid Khan

Hamid Khan is an Associate Professor of Technology Management at Northern Kentucky University. He teaches in the Human Resources Management and Technology Management tracks of the Master of Technology Programs. His teaching interests are in Research, Development and Management of Technology. His research interest is in the Management Development of Technical Personnel engaged in Engineering and Engineering Technology. Hamid has a BS in Mechanical Engineering, MS in Industrial Engineering, MBA in Management, and a Doctorate in Education. He has contributed papers to American Society for Engineering Education, and Frontiers in Education conferences, and to Journals of Engineering and Engineering Technology. Dr. Khan is a registered Professional Engineer and has contributed his professional services to TAC of ABET program evaluation for strengthening personnel development in engineering technology, and management curricula.