Search results

Responds to Bob Mansfield′s critique of the author′s earlier work. Examines the criticisms put forward by Mansfield of the analysis of competence and competence‐based NVQs published in earlier issues of the Journal of European Industrial Training by Stewart and Hamlin. Provides an academic and practice‐oriented response and argues against the points expressed by Mansfield. Concludes that the original critical analysis of competence and NVQs remains valid and that Mansfield′s critique is not sustainable.

Argues that functional analysis has been misrepresented and misinterpreted. Refutes the idea that functional analysis claims to be objective, empirical or reductionist. Suggests rather, that it is based on a process of “interpretative understanding” of best practice and future requirements. Disputes the criticism that functional analysis ignores the importance of process in favour of simply describing the tangible results of system activity, and that it is solely concerned with the technical component of work performance, ignoring its social context.

This paper focuses on the dismissal of two Australian managing directors/CEOs after a relatively short tenure in office. Despite the fact that one was an insider and the other was an outsider, they were both selected to lead two of the largest corporations in Australia. Power and political influence played a vital role in their dismissal. Both CEOs attempted to take charge of their organizations, but failed to take the power and influence of the board into account. Implications and recommendations for executives are outcomes of the paper.

The former Soviet economies have, for the past 12 years, looked to the advanced economies in the west for help in reforming their systems of vocational education and training. These “transition” economies still bear much of the legacy of the previous system and culture – academic in orientation, firmly supply led and implemented through vocational schools which are in economic crisis. They are offered the western “consensus” – competence‐based training systems and the introduction of common or “core” skills. However, in introducing these methods, approaches and concepts, fundamental flaws appear, flaws that have not been seriously addressed in their countries and cultures of origin. This paper tries to address the problems in dealing with concepts like “competence” and “core skills”, and suggests that we need a coherent, grounded concept of occupational competence to replace the relatively unquestioned “deficiency model” which these concepts represent.

Provides a contribution to the debate in the UK on the appropriateness of competence‐based qualifications. Identifies a number of weaknesses in the competence philosophy as currently defined, and a number of operational problems in implementing a national scheme of competence‐based vocational qualifications. Argues that the change to competence qualifications is unlikely to bring benefits commensurate with the required investment, and that the approach will be unworkable for higher level professional and managerial jobs. The first in a series of three, which is intended to stimulate critical debate within the education and training professions. The series will end with recommendations on a way forward within the established NCVQ framework.

Are you certain that your judgements are unbiased and your decision‐making as unclouded as it should be? If not it may be due to a comparatively unknown phenomenon called cognitive dissonance which may have lessened your ability to manage.

In 1989 a new head teacher was appointed to the Garibaldi School in Mansfield. Even before taking up his new position, he was aware of the need for changes — the school had a bad reputation locally, the staff were unmotivated and the finance available through local authority funding was not sufficient to provide the quality of education he would wish. He developed a three and a five year plan incorporating a change of internal culture, the organisational structure, the perceived value of Garibaldi to all its stakeholders, the quality of educational experience for the youngsters and means of generating revenue for the school. The case looks at cultural change, flattening of hierarchies, the ‘bobbing cork’ organisational archetype, the entrepreneurial strategic management system, the marketing of the school and the hugely successful raising of finance, £56,000 in 1992. By early 1993 the objectives of the initial forward plans had all been met and even surpassed whilst the new head teacher had become recognised by many — including the awarders of the title ‘East Midlands Company of the Year 1992’ — as a successful entrepreneur. But can such entrepreneurial activities coexist with the values and ethics society impresses on the educators of our children? Can such innovatory management and leadership be sustained over time without cost to the effective operation of the institution, educating children?

This paper involves an examination of public sector managers attitudes and reported behaviour, based on a longitudinal UK study, which broadly corresponds with the so‐called ‘Thatcher Years’. In Britain, the ‘Thatcherite critique’ of public enterprise has been fundamental in its consequences with ideological, economic and industrial relations components which are interrelated but which have had varying priorities attached to them at particular points in time. Above all, public ownership has been opposed because it has been seen to involve the government in economic functions which were considered properly to lie with individuals in the private sector. More specifically, too, public sector enterprises have been seen as inherently bureaucratic, as ‘crowding out’ enterprise, as being inefficient and costly and because of their monopolistic position (and consequent insulation from market and performance pressures) as being the seedbed of trade union power.

Will Hutton is chief executive of The Work Foundation, an independent, not for dividend research‐based consultancy that is an influential voice on work, workplace and employment issues in Britain. Will began his career as a stockbroker and investment analyst, before working in BBC TV and radio as a producer and reporter. Prior to joining The Work Foundation, Will spent four years as editor in chief of The Observer.Will has written several best‐selling economic books including The World We're In, The State We're In, The State to Come, The Stakeholding Society, On The Edge with Anthony Giddens and The Writing on the Wall. In addition, he won the Political Journalist of the Year award in 1993. Other roles that Will performs outside The Work Foundation include: Governor of the London School of Economics; Honorary Fellow, Mansfield College, Oxford; Visiting Professor, Manchester University Business School and Bristol University. He is also a member of the Scott Trust and a Fellow of the Sunningdale Institute.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate students’ perceptions of the value, impact, benefits and disadvantages of in-house, university-based work experience vs off-campus work experience.

Three focus groups, one consisting of students who had undertaken work experience off-campus at an employers’ workplace (n=6), one consisting of students who had undertaken work experience in-house with a university-based employer (n=6), and a third mixed group (n=6, consisting of students who had undertaken both types), were formed. Focus group data were supplemented by interviews (n=3). Data were transcribed and analysed thematically.

Based on student perceptions, both types of work experience were thought to: enhance future employment; provide career insight; enable skill/experience acquisition and application; and be useful for building relationships. Work experience that occurred in-house was, in addition, perceived to be cost effective; enabling students to be more closely supervised and supported; good for relationship building between and within students/staff; beneficial for increasing student attainment; and enabling students to see the link between theory and practice more clearly. In-house work experience was, however, deemed to be restricted in terms of variety, and links with and perceptions of external stakeholders.

The study is limited in that it is based on the perceptions of students undertaking unique types of integrated work experience within one faculty at one university.

When deciding on whether in-house or off-campus work experiences are offered, consideration should be given to level of support, supervision, observation, and travel and time costs.

Original views of students regarding in-house work experience have been gathered, which can be used to inform in-course workplace practices.