Developing Managers in Further Education Part 1: the extent of the task |
| |
| Abstract: | Abstract This article is the first of a two‐part article on the development of managers in further education (FE). It reports on research which surveyed all general FE colleges in England and two case study colleges, Peterborough Regional College and Leicester South Fields College. The framework for analysing organizational maturity, devised by Pedler et al. (1988), is used to suggest that colleges had not progressed very far pre‐incorporation, in terms of their ability to embed the development of managers within the organization's growth. The article explores the implications of the range of differing percentages of managers, particularly at first‐line level, in the responding colleges, and the differing self‐perceptions of managers at different levels in the case study colleges. The article concludes that there is a discrepancy between the perceptions of senior and first‐line managers as to who is a manger and what constitutes management activity, and that there is a need to build a shared perception and self‐perception of the nature of a management role. The responsibility for the development of managers and the extent of development activity is also analyzed. The article reports on an increase in the numbers of managers undertaking development activities, but explores the variations between colleges and the fact that development is still disproportionately being resourced at middle and senior, rather than first‐line manager levels. Finally, the very varied arrangements for allocating the responsibility for the development of managers is described, leading to questions on the viability of line managers undertaking this role. The article concludes by directing the reader to the second part, which will explore the process of selection of development activity, the links between this process and the strategic plan, the profile of development activities as reported by responding colleges, and finally returns to Pedler et al. ‘s (ibid.) framework to assess the progress of colleges. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
