Search results

Optifit, an international brand of fitness equipment, had entered the Indian market in 2010 and had rapidly opened 45 stores in 8 years in the four metros (NCR region, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata). Jaiveer Roy was identified by Pravin Gupta (South Zone head) and Raghav Mehta (HR head) to join as Optifit's Store Manager for its Alwarpet branch, Chennai, a store that had leadership difficulties from the day it started in May 2018. Roy joined the store in May 2018 and did very well soon after his appointment to the store. However, in less than three months, both Roy's and his store's performance began to suffer and his relationship with Gupta began to crumble. This case highlights issues in people management, especially support for people selected for leadership positions and examines the performance indicators of an individual's performance at a broader level. The case also points towards the mistakes or errors leaders may commit vis-a-vis their own role as a leader and mentor.

National Vocational Qualifications are currently being drawn up across all sectors of industry for both craft and operative workers and for managers and supervisors. At managerial and supervisory level a central concern for this initiative has been the recognition and identification of core transferable managerial skills that are common across industries. Responsibility for identifying these “generic competences” has lain with the Management Charter Initiative (MCI). In Industrial and Commercial Training Vol. 22 No. 5 Roy Canning criticised what he termed “the MCI approach”, and argued that the search for generic competences would not benefit industry. This article explains the rationale behind the competence approach and answers Canning′s criticisms, pointing out that what Canning has taken issue with bears no resemblance to the competence model currently being developed by the MCI and other lead bodies.

Research at Roffey Park has shown that few trainers have a coherent theory base to underpin their practice. Trainers spend most of their time “delivering” training products which are theoretically often superficial and learned in an ad hoc and “seat of the pants” way. Sets out how trainers can strengthen their theory base and integrate it with best practice. Explores the different levels of theory and gives guidelines on how to select “appropriate” theory and, finally, methods on how to build up theory knowledge.

The concept of “competence” and how it is used in management education and development is now at the forefront of debate in the UK. A review of the current literature in the field is given and the issue of whether you can usefully identify and use “generic competencies” is raised. The author argues for a more pragmatic and context‐specific approach to competence based on current good practice. In doing so he also raises questions about the assumptions underlying any management development strategy and makes linkages with other well established learning methods used within the UK.

Based on a pilot research study into customer‐supplier relationships in the training industry, involving a series of interviews and questionnaire sampling of training managers from both private and public sector organizations. The results indicate that suppliers of training services are in danger of becoming uncompetitive and are failing to pass on unit cost reductions to their customers during the recession. Training customers are in turn looking for more “added value” from their suppliers. Argues for a more sophisticated relationship in purchasing training services, which builds on the experience of other industries. Training managers are asked to take on a more collaborative long‐term relationship in dealing with suppliers, which emphasizes productivity, learning and innovation.

Some of the major shifts in interpersonal relationships training in the 1980s are outlined. Covering face‐to‐face communication skills, influencing and assertion, team building and personal awareness programmes, it is argued that a more holistic rather than a reductionist approach is desirable. Change, it is argued, usually involves awareness and small steps, not uprooting what is and replacing it with something different.

Describes a management development programme involving a major UK retail company in 1985. Reports on the aims of the development programme. Examines the main elements of the programme, which comprised six three day workshops, preparatory work, short external courses, individual tutorials and an extended group project. Presents a formal evaluation and validation of the programme which included the outcomes for the individuals attending and outcome for the organization. Concludes that management development is something which is part of the culture of the organization and should be seen as an integral part of how strategic decisions are taken to manage human resource development.

An allegorical reply is given to Linda Miller′s article, “Managerial Competences”. “The translating of easy languages argues neither wit nor elocution”. Yet, competence training remains a laudable exercise.

As a training concept self‐development remains for many a curious, yet insoluble, puzzle. On the one hand, it appears deceptively simple yet can be highly theoretical and general, while on the other, it claims to be specific yet covers everything from Guided Reading to Outward Bound and Action Learning.

The notion that asset diversification reduces risk is ancient and can be traced as far back as the Talmud which states, “A man should always keep his wealth in three forms: one-third in real estate, another in merchandise, and the remainder in liquid assets” (Baba Metzia, verse 42a). Somewhat more recently, in 1738, Daniel Bernoulli observed, “it is advisable to divide goods which are exposed to some small danger into several small portions rather than to risk them all together” (1738/1954, p. 30). Arguably, however, it was not until 1935 that the future Nobel laureate J. R. Hicks offered some early direction for modern portfolio theory. Although his research was more concerned with explaining the demand for money, he points out two important considerations for modeling risk. Hicks writes, “The risk factor comes into our problem in two ways: First, as affecting the expected period of investment, and second, as affecting the expected net yield of investment” (Hicks, 1935, p. 7). Regarding Hicks' first point, both Markowitz (1952) and Roy (1952) emplace their analyses in a one-period investment horizon. Second, and even more relevant to modern portfolio theory, is Hicks' suggestion of using an expected value calculated with subjective probabilities. Hicks continues, “It is convenient to represent these probabilities to oneself, in statistical fashion, by a mean value, and some measure of dispersion” (1935, p. 8). Clearly, Hicks comes very close to articulating a mean–variance solution. Crucially, and unlike Roy or Markowitz, Hicks does not develop this line of reasoning nor does he suggest the particular use of variance or standard deviation as that measure of risk. Nonetheless, Hicks' suggestion anticipates the work of Markowitz and Roy.¹