“Real” managers don’t do NVQs: a review of the new management “standards”
| Date | 01 August 1998 |
| Published date | 01 August 1998 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425459810232833 |
| Pages | 383-403 |
| Author | Irena Grugulis |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
``Real''
managers don't
do NVQs
383
Employee Relations,
Vol. 20 No. 4, 1998, pp. 383-403.
#MCB University Press,
0142-5455
``Real'' managers don't do
NVQs: a review of the new
management ``standards''
Irena Grugulis
Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester, UK
The search for the most effective means of improving the quality of
management practice in Britain has been (and remains) a recurrent theme
in the literature on training and development. Managers, it is argued, may
well represent the critical resource that holds the key to unlocking potential
in the other elements of production (Storey, 1989). Not only do managers
have a significant impact on corporate performance through their own
work, but they also influence the level of training available to others, since
it is often managers who arrange training for their subordinates. Under- or
un-trained managers are unlikely to place a high priority on training those
who work for them (Hyman, 1992). As a result, this occupational group
merits special attention not only because of the direct benefits that better
management might bring, but also for the impact a well-trained population
of managers could have on training and development in general.
This concern has inspired enquiry into the provision of training and
education for managers (Ascher, 1983; Constable and McCormick, 1987;
Handy et al., 1987; Leggatt, 1972) as well as active intervention (MSC/DES,
1986). The most recent of which involved the development, marketing and
institutional support of a series of new, nationally recognised management
qualifications, management NVQs (National Vocational Qualifications) by
the Management Charter Initiative (MCI). NVQs are a radical new form of
vocational education and training, replacing syllabus, curriculum and
tuition with lists of behaviours that competent workers are expected to
display in the workplace. They were heralded, at the end of the 1980s, as
the answer to all Britain's educational ills (Fletcher, 1991; Jessup, 1991).
Yet, despite considerable official support in a variety of forms (formal
recognition; the repeated extension of ``pump priming'' funds; official
grants; tax relief for individuals taking the new qualification and strong
encouragement of public sector employers to take up these new certificates)
the management NVQs, in common with almost every other NVQ, won
surprisingly little support from employers. Few ever adopted the NVQ
framework (Callendar and Toye, 1994; Robinson, 1996). Official reviews of
the NVQ system were all highly critical of the qualification's design,
structure and implementation (Beaumont, 1995; CBI, 1994; DfEE, 1995;
1996a; 1996b).
Employee
Relations
20,4
384
In response to this criticism, the ma nageme nt NVQs we re revised and
re-launched in 1997 (MCI, 1997a; 1997b; 1997c; 1997d). Here, the new
qualifications are revi ewed and some predictions are made of the impact
they will have in the workpla ce. In add ition to t his, thi s articl e attemp ts, by
drawing on the literature on manage rial wor k, to link t he MCI's
management certificates to the wo rk manag ers actu ally do. T his is a
crucially impor tant lin k. The management NVQs, as wi th all other NVQs,
consist of a list of behaviours (known variously as ` `standards'' o r
``competences'') that is intend ed to be an accurate representation of the
behaviour a competent manager of several years standing should disp lay.
Since these qualifications have no sylla bus, no at tendance requirement s
and no supporting tuition , they sta nd or fall by the accuracy of thi s
description of work.
Yet it is not c lear tha t such an att empt to se t out an exact description of
managerial work can ever succeed: a manager ial titl e repres ents a poi nt in
an organisational hierarchy and a s tep in an in dividu al's career rather than
a specific job des cripti on (Wats on, 1994 ). Moreo ver, by fo cusing o n the
functions managers perform and the actions they can be seen to do the MCI
has committed two very serious erro rs. Firs t, it has as sumed th at it is both
possible and desirable to s ynthes ise the work of all managers everywhere.
Yet people operating in different environments with varying
responsibilities may be required to undertake very different tasks.
Second, and more se riousl y, by conc entrat ing only on what managers do,
it neglects to engage in any re flecti on on what management is. This articl e
is an attempt to reme dy that om ission .
NVQs: di fficult ies and di lemmas
To set the scene, the discussion starts with a brief cons iderat ion of som e of
the problems observed in th e ``firs t genera tion'' o f NVQs. First, and most
importantly, it is by no mean s clear that it is either possible or des irable to
distil the essen ce of worker behav iour to a series of se ntence s. Even
apparently simple actions may inv olve far m ore local ``know ledge' ' than is
apparent from a disaggregation of behaviour (Warh urst and T hompso n,
1998) and it is difficult to specify in advance the skills and behaviours that
serve to make up ``competen ce'', in t he broad est sens e. This should come as
no surprise to students an d practitioners of industrial relations. In this
subject area it is w ell know n that, unlike man y other forms of legal
agreement, the employme nt contr act is ``i ncompl ete'' in t hat it is impossible
to state i n advance precis ely what will be required of an individual
employee. Accordingly, descriptions of work ar e consci ously ke pt out of
written contracts and, in p ractic e, the tas ks to be undertaken are negot iated
on an ongoing basis. This is seen as a nat ural par t of the emp loymen t
relationship where worker co-operation and commitment is valued and
To continue reading
Request your trial