Search results

The boundaries of living in the last millennium have disappeared. Time, distance and space have new meanings and make new demands. Structures which gave purpose and stability to the world of work are losing their relevance. We need to build wind turbines, not shelter walls, if we are to harness the new forces. Against that backdrop, four questions are asked: amidst the changing pressures who are the key people who maintain the outputs and achieve targets, and how are they valued? Despite the teaching of many theorists has money now become the primary motivator? What is the shape of the new organisation? Are you increasing your human capital? This paper seeks to open a door for wide discussion.

The pressures on managers today are increasing and what was current yesterday may be quite different from the uncertainties of tomorrow. Top level leadership may be transient and organisational structures are changing but one element of constancy is probably that most people at work continue to report to a direct manager for task assignment, even if not within the traditional hierarchical patterns. Many managers seem not to be fully aware of the latent power of this human resource and of its potential for strengthening their own positions. Makes the point that the effectiveness of managers in achieving results can be improved significantly by building and developing a closer linkage with those people who actually do the work. Gives illustrative examples and suggests a funnel shape organisation.

This paper describes a management development programme, which aimed to increase staff commitment to tasks by strengthening teamwork. It explores the lessons that can be gained from such training programmes, and concludes that both time and leadership are essential attributes for successful learning experiences.

“Staff training is one of the most effective ways of gaining and maintaining a competitive advantage.” This, from a current text, is a message which has been handed down for many years, but training does not always equate with learning and without supportive coaching subsequent performance may not be maintained. Training per se will not increase productivity – it is the second step in a continuum leading to the achievement of an objective. If a training specialist, however designated, is involved, the outcome of the required contribution should be defined in measurable terms and the accountability be assigned. The direct manager, however, remains accountable for the operational performance and output of employees.

The ingredients of motivation lie within us all. Circumstances and situations will determine the stimulus which will generate response – to drive forward, to withdraw or to wait for a further signal. Once the response is decided, the degree of general purpose enthusiasm evoked will control the momentum. For people in the workplace, their employers set the targets and the strategies for achieving them, provide the resources, including all maintenance and operating costs, and expect the desired results. Compliance will follow, but not necessarily commitment. Commitment is a voluntary response which cannot be mandated, but it will be the outcome of relationships which create a shared purpose.

When there is so much concern today for greater productivity in the private sector and for increased effectiveness in the public sector, it should be patently clear that the training function is being forced into a shape up or ship out situation.

The purpose of this paper is to consider whether secondary school education is adequately preparing young people for entering into the workplace.

The paper seeks to match the expectations of the employee with the qualities which might be expected in school‐leaver appointees.

The paper suggests there are gaps, but accepts that to date this has not been challenged. Recommends consideration of some components for bridging this area.

Implementation would require some new thinking of teaching and presentation, but the benefits could be significant.

Notes that teamwork has long been hailed as the key to operational success but the ceaseless changes in the workplace, triggered in part by the new technologies, are raising questions about the current validity of some of the claims. Teamwork per se is the essence of collective effort but the circumstances and the environment must be wholly supportive. Today these conditions are not always present. Suggests that it is timely to divert some of the attention being given to studying the components and functions of teamwork to the factors which create it. Debate on leadership versus management has blurred the issue and perhaps we need to remember that if the direct manager of a group is not aware of the latent power of a team and is not capable of stimulating, generating and maintaining the climate for its growth, an effective team will not be born.