24/7 Customer support here

Is learning on-the-job enough to create an efficiently working manager?

   Learning on the job is a great tool that can be effectively used if the staff being hired is capable of learning of course. The way people learn is usually through reinforcement: the person gets feedback from their boss when they do something that either shows that this was appropriate or not. They will learn to do the same again or avoid the things that cause reprimand.

   The person carries out a task and afterwards thinks about what they have done, perhaps realizing they could do it differently or better. They work out a plan to try out the next time.

   Whatever the method, we see the potential outcomes to this informal learning as:
People take a long time to learn what to do in order to perform their jobs to an acceptable level.

People may not learn the right things.
People may get inappropriate feedback that encourages them to do their jobs in ways the organization does not intend. People often cannot find ways of doing things differently.
People are often unaware of this informal process and are unable to explain how or what they have changed in their job.

   I don’t agree with above assertion. Encouraging training in small firms has been in the policy since early 90’s. Organizations become successful by developing new markets or Improving on what they already do. Either way, significant, sustainable gains can only be made through people. Even technology has its limits. It doesn’t matter how fast the microprocessor becomes if your operations are constrained by systems or people. People are the only means of sustained business development; people are the only means of making your systems work better. (Norrie, 1997) You have probably been frustrated at one time or another by the apparent inability of your systems-take for example, your information technology system-to produce what you think it might be capable of. Investing in a more powerful, more sophisticated package will be a waste of money without investing in the skills and abilities of your people to use it more effectively.

Skills that managers should develop
A manager’s job is varied and complex, managers need certain skills in order to perform the duties and activities associated with being a manager. Research by Robert L. Katz found that managers need three essential skills or competencies: technical, interpersonal and conceptual. He also found that the relative importance of these skills varied according to the manager’s level within the organisation. It could be described as follow: for top management, conceptual skills and human skills are the most important, technical skills less required; for middle management, human skills is the most important, conceptual and technical skills are less important; for lower-level management, both human skills and technical skills are important, less conceptual skills required.
Conceptual skills are the ability to think and to conceptualise about abstract and complex situations.

   Human or Interpersonal skills represent the ability to work well with other people individually and in a group. Managers with good interpersonal skills are able to get the best out of their people. They must know how to communicate, motivate, lead, and inspire enthusiasm and trust.

   Technical skills include knowledge of and proficiency in a certain specialised field, such as engineering, computers, finance or manufacturing.

Could these skills be learned through real work?

What is a fully capable manager

Learning needs in Modern business environment
Positive
Taking on new people
New products
New customers
New equipment
Requests from managers
Appraisal interviews

Negative
Customer complaints
Accident records
High turnover of new recruits.
Loss of customers
Decreases in productivity

External
New legislation
Changes to legislation
Customer requirements
Competitor activity
Supplier activity
Professional body regulations

Training:
Perhaps the most predictable benefit of the standard, given the emphasis on evaluation of training and development as a part of the IIP process, was in training. All the organisations noted changes in this area: in documentation if not in delivery. Three organisations explicitly identified more directed spending on training, leading to cost savings, one company said that the most important direct financial benefit was the reduction in the cost of training, another set out with this in mind. This last company identified unexpected benefits in fuel cost reductions, for example, through training for new technology, while their HGV drives became more efficient in their operation, allowing more journeys per week. One company, itself involved in the training environment, commented that:
There had never been a problem in recognising the benefits of training as being a good thing, but we saw the need to be more “systemised” and formalised across the company and monitor what is happening.

Staff development systematised, linked to appraisal system.
More directed training means cost savings, more individually focused; reflects better communications and evaluation, people with flair are identified and trained in specific areas.

Helped in making training more efficient and cost effective because of better evaluation and targeting
Unable to offer large salaries, training and education offered instead
Transport more efficient. Plant fuel costs reduced. Training budget more directed.

Communication and employee responsibility

There were benefits to be derived from IIP through improvements in communication flows within their organisations. This was manifested by an increased openness to provide suggestions, highlight problems, even simply in asking managers and supervisors what to do to effect a solution if a problem arose.

   Increased staff awareness of role, staff self-sufficiency, savings of 8-9 per sent “archieved by passing the decision-making process to a point closer to the customer”, “every member of staff has a voice”.
Staff now take more responsibility for their work, each member of staff understands financial responsibility, systematic communications systems introduced.
More employee awareness of financial aspects of role, higher levels of cost consciousness, communication improved; staff meeting and newsletter, more openness.
“all the people in the organisation can effect change- even a placement student can have an impact, more rigour and openness”
More teamwork. Problems are now highlighted. Up to date staff improve service.
Improved motivation among “blue collar” staff. Reduced maintenance needs
Employees more open and questioning
Employee relations improved

Reduced labour costs
Staff productivity increased, reduction of staff by one sixth.
Company was more robust, staff levels reduced by 50 per cent, productivity increased although “bottom line not changed”.
Absenteeism lower: staff “more into the company, and have more confidence”
Improved productivity: staff reduced by a third in one area
“vastly improved” absenteeism

Other
Very positive on business benefits (cost savings), perceived improvement in competitive advantage, increase in innovation/suggestions
Increase in client care, but did not specifically ascribe business performance directly to IIP.
“No discernible impact on business performance”
Staff valued in external labour market, organisation perceived as quality player
The process added 20 per cent to net profit, employee awareness has reduced errors and returns
Gained at least one customer through strong training procedures
Good for marketing: when customers ask about ISO 9000, IIP generally satisfies them.
 

BACK TO BUSINESS