The Development of Management and Leadership Capability and its ...

Outcomes in the voluntary sector are even more difficult to assess than in other sectors. This
is a specialised area and one where additional research is needed. The Kellogg report (2002)
found in the USA that community leadership outcomes are the most difficult to evaluate.
Community programmes usually have little prior assessment of capacity and find it difficult
therefore to determine whether there has been any impact. Similarly, in the UK, more work
is needed to identify the development needs of voluntary organisations and to look at how
their effectiveness could be assessed.
5.9 Size of organisation
A significant body of literature indicates that the management development needs of small
firms are different to those of large firms. Details of some of the literature on this topic are
given in Perren (2003) (see Appendix A). The literature he review suggests that SMEs find
management development too ‘supply led’, that informal approaches to management
development are highly valued, that ‘learning through doing’ may often be the most
appropriate for SMEs, and that there are unique features of business support required by
small firms. This evidence is largely based on the views and perceptions of small business
people themselves. Whether they would benefit from more formal development if they were
willing and able to use it is an open question but the reality is that they do not use them very
much, and this is not for the lack of them being on offer. The practicalities of being away
from work for significant periods, and costs in many cases, are barriers, and it certainly
appears that small business people tend to have developed the learning strategy and style of
learning by doing and seeking informal support and advice from those that they know and
trust in their personal social and business networks. In addition for many (but not all) small
business people the attractions of gaining qualifications in management and leadership are
less than for managers in larger organisations where formal qualifications may be more
important for getting selected for jobs and career progression within organisations. The
CEML conclusion was to offer more support for approaches that ‘go with the flow’ of
informal support for learning and learning by doing (see CEML 2002). Following up the
initiatives that are known to have followed from this would be a useful future evaluation
research activity.
Overall, the literature suggests that the best approaches to management development for
small firms will lie in the short course or individual business coaching models. It has been
known for some time that it is difficult to get SMEs to engage in management development
(see for example Stanworth and Gray 1991). Henderson et al (2000) in a small descriptive
study found that time rather than cost was the limiting factor for SMEs in undertaking
management development. Other writers have suggested (Thomson et al 1997) that SMEs
would undertake management development if they saw the value of it and if it served their
interests. An interesting case study of an initiative involving business coaching found that
this was an effective way of gaining the interest of SMEs. These findings showed that the
key factor was trust and that where a relationship of trust was built up between the company
and the coach, effective change and learning did take place (Devins and Gold 2000).
It has also been found that managers of SMEs have different needs to those of other firms.
Gibb (1983) showed that owner/managers have very different attitudes to development from
those of managers in larger firms. The owner/manager is unlikely to view development as a
personal gain, or as career development. He or she is not looking for the same kinds of
rewards or returns from development as a manager in a larger firm. Rather, development is
71