The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER TWO: PERCEPTION OF LEADING TO DELIVER - PROGRAMME OVERALL

Reasons for Attending Leading to Deliver

2.1 There is the view among employers that there is a dearth of quality leadership across the public sector in Scotland and it was felt that there was a need to improve the quality of leadership and management in the sector. It was further thought by employers and stakeholders alike that there has been underinvestment in this area, and a level of cynicism within local authorities on management training just being 'guru speak'.

2.2 The aim of putting people through LtD was to develop people who are competent and confident about leadership, which would strengthen organisations' position. As the programme is about personal development for individuals, there is the realisation that employers may be 'fattening people up' who will then get jobs outside the organisation - although this is still seen as benefiting the sector overall.

2.3 There is the expectation that, in the future, employees will have a better strategic outlook, better understanding of organisational strategy linked to national strategy and also a development of interpersonal skills, e.g. increased confidence, ability to network and to find their way around systems.

2.4 It is felt that if employees are abreast of current trends and issues that should be reflected in how they manage and deliver services by increasing the quality and range of what they do.

2.5 Over half (56%) of participants first became aware of Leading to Deliver through their line managers, while one in four (24%) heard about it through colleagues. Other methods were through word of mouth (14%), the training and development department within their organisation (11%) or via internal publications (8%).

I hadn't had any training in management. From the publicity it looked like an exciting opportunity. Timing was really good for me. (Male, Cohort 1, LA).

2.6 The majority (88%) felt informed throughout the application process, however, a small proportion claimed to be less informed (8%; combined not very informed or not at all informed).

2.7 When asked to cite the main reasons for attending the programme, the majority of participants (88%) maintained that they wanted to become ' better leaders'. Interestingly, those in cohorts 3, 4 and 5 were more inclined to cite this as a reason than those in cohort 1 (65%, 70% and 61% respectively versus 37%). As the table 2.1 illustrates, becoming " better leaders" was also main reason employers cited (91%).

The whole idea of leadership & what it meant appealed to me, how we motivate, manage, develop all staff & services. I always felt that the management training in the social sector was neglected. (Male, Line Manager, LA).

2.8 Over half of participants cited that they took part to help their career progression (56%), to learn about change management (56%), to address specific challenges at work (52%) or to increase their confidence (51%). Those participants employed in local authorities in Social Work Services were more likely to cite that they wanted to learn about change management than those in national voluntary sector organisations (64% versus 43%).

Table 2.1: Reasons for Attending Leading to Deliver

Base: 196 participants. Fieldwork: 6-31 March 2008
Base: 43 line managers. Fieldwork: 25 March-10 May 2008
Source: York Consulting LLP/McCallum Layton

2.9 One in four (24%) maintained it was to help them implement the 'Changing Lives' recommendations. Those in cohort 5 were more likely to cite this as a reason than those in cohorts 1, 2 or 3 (34% versus 10%, 17% and 16% respectively). There is a higher propensity among those employed as senior or middles managers to cite this as a reason for attending than junior managers (31% and 28% respectively versus 9%).

2.10 Relatively few, i.e. less than one in ten (8%) said that the motivating factor was to gain registration through the Scottish Social Services Council. Line managers were also least inclined to cite this as a reason (19%).

2.11 In addition, one of the main reasons for applying is that it gave individuals the opportunity to explore where their strengths and weaknesses are as a manager/leader and enables them to learn how to improve the skills they have and to be able to reflect and learn from other people. The programme is described as being unique by both participants and line managers alike offering them something different from other leadership programmes in the market.

2.12 When deciding whether they would like to attend the Leading to Deliver programme, participants considered various potential barriers to applying. Over half (51%) maintained that they had to overcome barriers to participate on the programme, while just under one in three (29%) disagreed. In particular, those employed in middle management were more likely to disagree than senior managers (24% versus 8%, tend to disagree) as are those employed in larger organisations (> 500 employees) than those in smaller companies (101 - 500 employees) (24% versus 9%, tend to disagree).

2.13 Time is a key barrier in participating in the programme. Managing the course with current work load commitments was extremely difficult for many participants. Many found it difficult managing the job and training simultaneously; however, the majority were willing to accept this as they regarded it as a worthwhile endeavour.

To me there were no unreasonable barriers, it does take a lot of your time; time management for me because I don't have an academic background, like the process of writing essays is daunting to me. (Male, Cohort 4, National voluntary organisation).

2.14 Figure 2.1 illustrates the degree to which potential barriers was perceived as a constraint to participating on the programme, with competing work priorities (79%) at the top of the list, followed by the amount of work the course entails (62%). Interestingly, those in cohort 5 are more likely to cite this latter issue as a constraint than those in cohorts 2 and 4 (75% versus 49% and 55% respectively). Similarly, those in cohort 5 were also more inclined to cite competing work priorities as a barrier than participants in cohort 1 (89% versus 67%).

2.15 Indeed, just under seven in ten (67%) agreed that it was difficult to fit in the course around their competing work priorities. Those employed in LA Social Services were more likely to share this view than those working in national voluntary organisations (34% versus 15%, strongly agree).

2.16 Other potential constraints included the amount of self study (42%) and to a lesser degree the fact that the course was formally assessed and the residential aspects of the course (23% and 22% respectively).

Figure 2.1 Major Issues considered prior to applying for the Programme

Satisfaction with Leading to Deliver as a Programme Overall

2.17 As well as commenting on the different aspects of the programme, respondents were asked to rate the programme overall. The perception of the programme is extremely positive.

The course is a huge asset to the sector at the moment. [Employers] would have to work out what they were expecting from it in the future. We must be close to needing a significant generation change in leadership, in social work generally (Male, Line Manager, LA - Housing).

The name of the course is great because it fits in really well with the whole focus on outcomes that the Scottish Government have been looking at for the last couple of years. The programme is visionary and strengthens the case for having LtD. (Male, Line Manager, National Public Sector Organisation).

2.18 As the chart below illustrates (Figure 2.2), participants were more likely to rate the programme as excellent than line managers (35% versus 12%), however, this may be due to the fact that they are in a better position to have a more informed opinion on this.

2.19 Among participants, middle managers were more inclined to rate the programme overall as 'excellent' than senior managers (39% versus 19%).

Figure 2.2 Perception of Leading to Deliver

Line Managers' Perception of Programme Content & Delivery

2.20 In reviewing different aspects of the programme, line managers were on the whole extremely positive as Figure 2.3 illustrates. In particular, line managers held favourable views of the opportunities for networking across social services, as well as the design of the programme. Of those aspects of the programme under review, line managers were least likely to be positive about the e-learning element of the programme. This view is shared by participants themselves as highlighted later in this section of the report.

Figure 2.3 Line Managers' Satisfaction with Aspects of the Programme

2.21 Overall, over eight in ten (84%) of line managers thought that participating on the programme was a good use of their employees' time, with almost half (47%) strongly agreeing. A similar proportion also thought that having a formal qualification as part of the programme was a benefit to their organisation.

2.22 Around two in five (39%) line managers agreed that having a mentor throughout the programme provided major benefits to them as an employer. Interestingly, around one in three (33%) were fairly ambivalent, neither agreeing nor disagreeing.

2.23 The majority (86%) of line managers agreed that they were aware of the importance of line manager support at all stages of the programme to maximise learning.

Figure 2.4 Line Managers' Perception of Leading to Deliver Programme

Programme Design

2.24 In specifically looking at the way in which Leading to Deliver has been designed, as Figure 2.5 illustrates, the majority (88%) were satisfied with the balance between the different modes of study.

Figure 2.5 Satisfaction with the Design: Balance between Different Modes of Study

2.25 In reviewing satisfaction levels with different aspects of the design of the programme, participants were particularly satisfied with the course materials (57%, very satisfied).

2.26 The information/handbook was regarded as being of ' a very high quality' with participants from previous cohorts still referring to it to this day.

The handouts were good as it gave you the digested theories & you get a broad sense of it without having to read all of it. (Male, Cohort 3, LA).

2.27 One criticism levelled at the programme, however, was in the sheer amount of information which participants had to absorb and the speed in which it was disseminated.

It was very intense - full on for 12 months, on top of a full time job. But it was also lots of fun, very rewarding. (Female, Cohort 3, LA).

2.28 As Figure 2.6 illustrates, the majority (92%) were satisfied with the level at which the training was pitched at, while eight in ten (78%) were satisfied with the briefing prior to the course taking place. Those in cohorts 3 and 5 were more likely to be very satisfied than those in cohort 1 (32 % and 31% respectively versus 10%) with the briefing prior to the course. Similarly, those employed in national voluntary organisations were more inclined to be very satisfied than those working in local authorities in social services (45% versus 15%) as were senior managers over middle management (42% versus 23%).

Figure 2.6 Satisfaction with the Design Programme

2.29 Similarly, high proportions were also satisfied with the content of the modules (83%).

2.30 Some thought it was quite a challenge to pitch the course at the right level as there was such a range of knowledge and expertise amongst the participants, i.e. Some were new managers and others were very experienced. Consequently, at times some participants felt some of the content was a bit basic.

2.31 The inclusion of a mix of local authority and voluntary sector managers from all over Scotland was regarded as a good approach to the programme and one of the strengths of the course as it resulted in practice and information being shared outwith participants' local environment. It made participants very aware of some of the problems that exist within different sectors and it changed how some related to people from other sectors. The course was seen as very practice based which was considered helpful to participants in being able to look at their own individual situations, i.e. in what they were learning and how it applied to the roles that they were employed within.

2.32 There was also some criticism by a few that the programme was designed for the private sector rather than for the public or voluntary sectors and, further that, there was a reliance on American models of learning and very little from a British viewpoint. It is subsequently recommended that in any future cohorts, facilitators explain more fully to participants how these models relate to Social Services, if used.

Some of the content was more for businesses than social care. At the time I was employed in the local authority and a lot of the things that were proposed were never going to work in the local authority context. (Male, Cohort 4, LA).

The input was good quality, some of the materials I felt were not appropriate to the sector that we were working in. A lot of the stuff based on the Harvard Business Review doesn't apply to UK/Scotland or public sector or social care. (Male, Cohort 4, LA).

Some of it was really good, e.g. set pieces on the way organisations work. A lot was based on an American business model, which wasn't relevant to social services ( e.g. analysis of Pepsi, airlines, etc) (Female, Cohort 3, LA).

2.33 It was felt by some that the facilitators were adopting this approach due to the fact that they were less familiar with the public sector, particularly Social Services and the way it operates.

I think it would have been helpful if a more critical, in an academic sense, which bits of it, answered the sectors' needs & which didn't. I felt at times some of the input from Taylor Clark was strong on the bits (sectors) they know. (Male, Cohort 4, LA).

2.34 Conversely, there were those who found this approach to the design of the programme as refreshing.

It was good that Taylor Clark was doing the delivery and they were not a Social Services organisation. It was refreshing looking at things that wasn't necessarily based on Social Services. (Female, Cohort 5, National Voluntary Organisation).

Modules

2.35 In looking at satisfaction levels with each of the modules in turn (Figure 2.7), participants were more inclined to rate modules 1 ( i.e. Changing to Lead) and 2 (Leading and Influencing Change) as ' excellent' (44% and 39% respectively). Participants were least likely to rate module 3 (Change in Service Delivery) as ' excellent' (22%).

Figure 2.7 Rating of the Modules

2.36 Some participants felt that there was a bit of overlap between modules, and that the ' theme' wasn't obvious for all of them. It was felt that some of the assignments for the different modules seemed to cover old ground, i.e. due to the content overlap.

They were all similar. There was a lot that overlapped. For the length of time, there could have been more input on the additional subjects. e.g. finance, how you use the resources to the best effect. The course was on a one track direction. (Male, Cohort 4, National Voluntary Organisation).

The language was a slight barrier and every module having "change" & "leading" in every title, it made you think about what is the purpose of this? (Male, Cohort 1, LA).

Module 1

2.37 Those employed in national voluntary organisations were more likely to rate module 1 (Changing to Lead) as excellent than those in local authorities (58% versus 38%).

2.38 Of those who were still able to recall module one, there were mixed reviews with some finding the introspective exercises ' pretty uncomfortable' and felt it went too deeply into people's personal experiences which they didn't enjoy. Others found it 'really good' describing it as an 'eye opener' about themselves which had a real impact enabling participants to reflect on how they operate as managers and interact with other members of staff. This resulted in increased awareness and in participants changing the way in which they manage their teams.

The first one was really good. It was quite intimate looking at yourself and looking at what your strengths and weaknesses were. The MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) stuff was quite useful, and the 360 degree feedback was really helpful. Doing those things opened up all sorts of discussion. (Female, Cohort 5, National Voluntary Organisation).

In the first module, the focus was on you, that was really important. Everybody really benefited from that; they were all engaged in that process & MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). I think people are always interested about talking about their own style. (Male, Cohort 1, LA).

Module 2

2.39 A similar picture can be seen in relation to module 2 (Leading and Influencing Change) with those in national voluntary sector organisations more inclined to rate it as excellent than those in LA Social Services (53% versus 33%). Male participants were more inclined to rate module 2 as excellent than their female counterparts (51% versus 33%).

2.40 In the main, module two was regarded as useful with some still using the models introduced to them within their workplace.

Leading influence & change - That was quite good, a lot of this is part of the world already. People resist change; there were some helpful pictures that I hadn't come across that structured the change. Some of the models, getting an overview, getting understanding, the way that people's perceptions of the world disintegrate. They emphasise a lot about communication, it has given me some practical thoughts. (Male, Cohort 3, LA).

Module 2 was an interesting way at looking at things. It was presented in an understandable & accessible way. That was some of the best teaching that was coming from models of change. A lot of that sticks in your memory as it's quite visual. (Male, Cohort 1, LA).

Module 3

2.41 There were fairly mixed views with regards to module three (Change in Service Delivery) with participants describing it as 'interesting', 'impressive', 'the hardest and most challenging' and 'quite technical'.

2.42 Of those who had a positive opinion of module three and found it interesting, felt it had made a major impact on how they operate within the workplace. It opened their eyes as to how careful one needs to be in thinking about change and in ensuring that buy in is achieved from those who are responsible for delivering it. It also appealed because of the strategic management aspect and stakeholder influence.

2.43 Although some found it difficult 'to get to grips with', they nevertheless enjoyed learning new theories on change and leadership and once they had overcome the technical difficulties it was described as making 'a lot of sense'. It wasn't just seen as 'management theory'; it was ' management theory in Social Services which was relevant'. Although some participants enjoyed the work on strategy and looking at stakeholder analysis, spending time in tutorial groups and focusing on real examples and how they would use them, others struggled to relate the process to their jobs.

2.44 One other weakness cited was the volume of information about process mapping. It was felt that the course didn't get to grips with process mapping and some didn't feel they had learnt enough about it to use it properly.

2.45 Of those who were more critical of module three, they described it as 'trying to impose a business module on social work' and didn't see how this would fit 'as you are working with people who don't want to change'. Consequently, some struggled with it.

Module 4

2.46 There is a higher propensity among senior managers to rate module 4 (Leading Delivery through Effective Relationships) as very good than among middle managers (58% versus 39%). Around 5% of participants rated module 4 as ' poor'.

2.47 There were mixed views on module four among those who could recall it. Of the participants who were more favourably inclined towards it, they found it useful.

The whole theme of partnership working and collaboration was really helpful (Female, Cohort, National charity).

Module 4 was done in syndicate groups which was really important, people really engaged well. (Male, Cohort 1, LA).

2.48 Of those who were critical, this was due to the fact that they were not involved in partnership working therefore found it less relevant to them.

2.49 The main criticisms levelled at this module were due to participants finding it confusing/unclear and due to the fact that it was perceived as not achieving the stated learning outcomes.

Residential Aspect

2.50 As Figure 2.8 illustrates, participants were highly satisfied with the different aspects of the residential element of the programme. In particular, the pace of the course (84%), length of stay (83%), location (81%), use of the syndicate groups (80%) and volume of work (80%) were all viewed favourably.

2.51 Around seven in ten (71%) of participants were satisfied with the social aspects of the residential elements of the programme.

2.52 Of all of the different aspects under review, the use of evenings and accommodation were ranked lowest overall (60% and 58% respectively).

Figure 2.8 Perception of Residential Element of Leading to Deliver Programme

2.53 Around three in four (77%) agreed that the syndicate groups provided a great support mechanism. Those in cohort 5 were more likely to be very satisfied with the use of the syndicate groups than all of those in cohorts 1 - 4 (72% versus 33%, 37%, 42% and 45% respectively).

2.54 Views among participants were fairly mixed as to whether more people could participate if the course did not have a residential element (32% agree, 33% disagree; 27% neither agree nor disagree).

2.55 Although it was not necessary for everyone to reside within the accommodation provided due to the fact that a good proportion of participants are resident within the central belt, many nevertheless felt the residential aspect of the programme provided an invaluable element to the delivery of the programme overall. Participants found the residential aspects really helpful as it provided them with an opportunity to focus on the course with no distractions. In addition, the majority relished the fact that there was 'down time' at the end of the long days, whereby participants were given the opportunity to relax and see a different side to other course attendees. This 'down time' was seen as particularly important as the residential element of the programme was viewed as 'knackering… it was pretty intensive stuff".

2.56 One of the major strengths of the programme cited by participants was the syndicate groups. However, the degree to which this was deemed a positive and useful experience depended on the successful mix of the individuals within each of the syndicates. Some had very positive experiences with references made to an ' extremely supportive group' while others had a less favourable experience due to individuals not being able to 'gel' with each other.

2.57 Another criticism levelled at this aspect of the programme was the 'sheer number' of people attending the programme. This made it difficult to make meaningful contacts, albeit it was conceded that this probably fared better in cohort five where an attempt was made to bring people together who were working on change projects and to link them with similar projects.

The residential thing worked really well; those syndicates were one of the biggest strengths. Fairly intense in a good way of organising it meant that everybody was fully engaged. All the input directly from Taylor Clark was really good; I came away from it very impressed. (Male, Cohort 1, LA).

The majority of the time was spent in smaller syndicate groups & some of that time wasn't well structured as it could have been (Male, Cohort 4, National Voluntary Organisation).

2.58 As mentioned previously, one of the main negatives cited by participants in relation to the residential aspect of the programme was the accommodation as illustrated succinctly below by one participant.

[The accommodation] was a fairly grotty place to stay and the food was appalling. (Female, Cohort 5, National voluntary organisation).

Delivery

2.59 In looking at different aspects of delivery from both the facilitators and external speakers both were regarded favourably by participants albeit the former were more likely to have considerably higher 'very satisfied' ratings.

Figure 2.9 Satisfaction with the Delivery of the Leading to Deliver Programme

2.60 As Figure 2.9 illustrates, around two in three (60%) participants were very satisfied with the quality of the facilitators' support while a similar proportion (57%) were very satisfied with the amount of support provided by the facilitators. Interestingly, there was a higher propensity among male than female participants to be very satisfied with both the amount of and quality of support provided by facilitators (68% versus 51% and 70% versus 56% respectively). Similarly, those in cohort 5 were more likely to be very satisfied with the latter than those in cohort 2 (70% versus 46%).

2.61 Over half (51%) were very satisfied with the accessibility of facilitators. There was a higher propensity among those in cohort 5 to share this view than those in cohort 4 (64% versus 33%).

2.62 Around seven in ten (73%) of participants were satisfied with the quality of the feedback they received from facilitators in relation to progress. Interestingly, those in cohort 1 were more inclined to be very satisfied with facilitators in this respect than those in cohort 5 (33% versus 8%). Similarly, those employed as junior managers were more inclined to be very satisfied with feedback than those working as senior managers (27% versus 8%).

2.63 The majority (67%) of participants agreed that the facilitators supplied support, if required. Male participants were more inclined to hold this view than their female counterparts (44% versus 22%, strongly agree).

2.64 In comparing participants' views on both the facilitators and external speakers, it is apparent that the latter are not as highly rated as illustrated in Figure 2.10. Around seven in ten were satisfied with the quality of external speakers' presentations, i.e. whether they were from within or outwith social services (70% and 69% respectively). A smaller proportion, i.e. one in ten, was likely to state that they were very satisfied (12% and 13% respectively).

Figure 2.10 Satisfaction with the Delivery of the Leading to Deliver Programme

2.65 As one of the key facilitators delivering the programme, the lead facilitator was highly regarded by the majority of participants, albeit some did concede that his style of delivery may not suit everyone. Among those who were favourably inclined towards his approach, he was described as:

• a charismatic and inspirational presenter;
• superb, very inspirational and a great motivator;
• infectious, enthusiastic and good at making a point;
• challenging, pragmatic, keen on new models, open minded, not overly pompous, very business orientated;
• very dynamic and impressive, and extremely helpful;
• amusing and interesting, and stimulating;
• good public delivery skills, "as if he had a calling to do that".

2.66 Some language used, however, did make participants feel uncomfortable as it regarded as a bit 'airy, fairy'. As previously mentioned, the fact that participants attending had varying levels of responsibility within their respective organisations, meant that the level it was pitched at was regarded as a challenge for some more than others. In particular, the use of 'jargon' by some facilitators was regarded by some participants as challenging.

2.67 The group exercises were regarded as very good - albeit were considered as often being ' embarrassing' by some participants who were not personally comfortable with group work. However, it was felt that ' [the group exercises] threatened you appropriately', i.e. it forced participants out of their comfort zone and therefore worked very well.

2.68 As previously mentioned, the fact that it was apparent that some facilitators may have been more used to working within the private sector and had less experience of the public sector did cause problems for some. Where a facilitator was very unfamiliar with local authority work and it was apparent to participants that they were more used to working in the private sector, a lot of time was spent attempting to put things into context which participants would be better able to understand. This was deemed to be very wearing by some.

E-Learning

2.69 The report ' Leadership and Management Development in Social Services Organisations - A Short Life Study; Scottish Leadership Foundation (2005), highlighted that there was generally no comprehensive usage being made of e-learning resources. Previously a predominately classroom-based model was used, requiring staff to travel to central locations. For organisations with a wide geographic spread this adds to the cost and reduces the number of places for training that can be offered.

2.70 Experience of LtD participants with 'Knowledge Exchange' demonstrated the value of an on-line resource that enabled individual managers to link with colleagues across the sectors to thereby share practise and learning. Thus, there was a real interest in moving the programme forward to fulfil the apparent preference for a "blended approach", i.e. face-to-face interaction and e-learning. It was felt that this approach would now be feasible due to the fact that the lack of availability of technology or lack of basic skills had largely dissipated since the previous report.

2.71 There were mixed views from participants on the e-learning aspect of the programme. A very small proportion, one in twenty (5%) stated that they used it a great deal, while one in five (22%) used it a fair amount. Over half used it just a little or hardly at all (34% and 23% respectively), while one in six (16%) did not use at all.

Figure 2.11 Usage of the E-Learning Resource

2.72 Of those who didn't make any, or very little, use of the e-learning resource this was due to the fact that they didn't feel technologically proficient or computer literate seeing themselves as something of a ' luddite' when it comes to new technology. This was subsequently seen as causing problems in that it wasn't an appropriate learning resource for everyone and didn't suit the learning style of some participants.

I found it quiet complex, I'm not great with computers anyway but I tried to do it. (Male, Cohort 4, National Voluntary Organisation)

2.73 Others simply found it a 'hurdle' to navigate, finding it a complex system. Some found it difficult to come to terms with using a university library system outwith a university setting and consequently felt that this may have been easier if visiting Robert Gordon University. Some found the instructions to access the resource bank and library difficult to understand and consequently regarded this ' more trouble than it was worth'. Some found having to recall yet another username and password ' irksome' and found this method of learning 'alienating.'

It was quite complicated to get started. The remote access to the library catalogues was good, they tried to encourage people to use the learning networks via the RGU website, I didn't get into that and I don't know if many people did. (Male, Cohort 4, LA).

2.74 It was suggested that more engagement with the university was encouraged, e.g. with participants visiting for a day as this aspect was regarded as ' very distant', although those resident in close proximity to the university, of course, have easier access to the library and RGU facilities, in general.

2.75 Others who did not have access to broadband had problems downloading materials and subsequently found this a 'frustrating' method of learning.

2.76 Some thought it would be useful to have syndicate discussions online to which everyone could contribute, i.e. to reflect on issues and discuss elements of the course. In view of the access problems incurred, some had email discussions with other participants outwith the e-learning environment provided by RGU.

2.77 As Figure 2.12 illustrates of those participants who used the e-learning elements (83%), the majority (80%) did access it for journals and books or for guidance notes (67%). However, although just over half (55%) used it as a source for materials, less than one in three (29%) used it as a source for learning.

Figure 2.12 Use of E-Learning Elements

2.78 Of those who had access to the guidance notes, the majority (85%) were satisfied with it. Similarly, of those who had access to the journals and books, the majority (92%) were satisfied with these.

2.79 Of those who considered themselves computer literate, and had never used that type of e-learning process previously, did find the forum useful as it helped to answer questions. Some found the materials that the tutors had posted also useful; however, other participants did not find this a good mechanism for accessing materials maintaining that they had actually purchased learning materials instead spending between £100 - £150 in doing so. This was, in the main, due to the fact that they did not find the e-leaning resource particularly user friendly.

Athens was very useful to get info from. I had more of a sense of overview of the kinds of issues that are relevant. There are forums that you can join online but I didn't. I know that researchers use the reference management software. I would like to use that because I landed up with piles of papers. It would be good to have the manuals online. (Male, Cohort 3, LA).

I was quite impressed with the concept & presentation in the first 3 day programme on E learning. I signed up to virtual campus, I'm reasonably able to use electronic stuff, and I didn't find it a huge benefit. It was beneficial to access stuff through the link instead of going to the library. I expected more directive or Interactive. I didn't find it that helpful to source materials. (Male, Cohort 1, LA).

In terms of e-learning, at the time of the course it was quite 'clunky' e.g. the log in system. It wasn't user friendly but once you were on it was fine. A good feature was looking at the presentation slides. (Male, Cohort 1, National Public Sector Organisation).

Mentoring System

2.80 Just under half (45%) of participants used the mentoring system while on the programme, while one in five (20%) have acted as a mentor since its inception. As one would anticipate, those in former cohorts were more likely to have acted as mentor, particularly those in cohorts 1, 2 and 4 (40%, 29% and 27% respectively). There was a higher propensity among those employed in larger organisations ( i.e. > 500 employees) than those in smaller companies ( i.e. 100 - 500) (25% versus 9%) to have acted as a mentor.

2.81 Not all participants found it easy to ensure that a mentor was in place to assist them throughout the course of the programme.

"It seemed gratuitous to me, asking a lot. It is a difficult job description to fill." (Male, Cohort 3, National voluntary organisation).

The only problem is it's difficult finding someone else to mentor you who does what you do. (Male, Cohort 4, LA).

Hopeless, I think it was set up for your line manager to be your mentor. My line manager didn't have time to devote to it. I had a mentor at work even though he wasn't known as my mentor for the course, he filled that role. (Male, Cohort 4, LA).

2.82 Around three in five participants (59%) maintained that the mentoring system should be a formal structure of the programme in going forward, while one in five disagreed. In particular, those in cohort 5 are more likely to disagree than those in cohorts 1 and 4 (33% versus 13% and 15% respectively). There was a higher propensity among junior than senior managers (70% versus 44%) to think that the mentoring system should be a formal structure.

2.83 The majority of participants who had used a mentor and line managers whose employees had used a mentor thought the mentoring system was useful (84% and 88% respectively) as illustrated in Figure 2.13.

Figure 2.13 Usefulness of the Mentoring System

2.84 Those who had used a mentor did, in the main, find it useful with mentors chosen being totally supportive, providing advice and feedback on assignments prior to submission. Some participants had mentors in place but did not use them seeking advice instead from line managers, or indeed, from other members of their syndicate groups. Others felt that they had chosen the wrong mentor and felt that, on reflection, it might have been more useful to have chosen someone who had attended the course previously as in this way the mentor would have had a better understanding of what was involved.

I had a negative experience prior to LtD. I identified a mentor but I didn't find that it worked particularly well. I didn't have that many sessions with my mentor. I talked to her about what I had learnt rather than getting anything back. The syndicate group was very good & supportive that was the one I was in. The contact between the residential sections had benefits that I might have expected to get from mentoring. (Male, Cohort 1, LA).

2.85 Of those who did not find the mentoring system particularly useful, this tended to be due to the lack of availability, i.e. in terms of their time, of mentors chosen thereby suggesting that perhaps selecting multiple mentors might be the best way forward in the future.

Accreditation and its Relative Importance

2.86 When asked about the relative importance of the course leading to a formal qualification, the majority of participants (92%) regarded it as important with seven in ten (69%) considering it very important as illustrated in Figure 2.14.

Figure 2.14 Importance that the Course leads to an Accreditation/Qualification

2.86 Participants felt that it was important that employees within Social Services had a recognised qualification that they could obtain and that there should be more evidence of lifelong learning within the sector. It was further felt that this had been missing from the sector for a long time and it was good to see that this position had been rectified with the design of Leading to Deliver. However, it was emphasized by some that although the accreditation was deemed important, the absence of this would not have deterred them from participating.

It's essential for the programme to be accredited. If it wasn't it would probably still attract people. It was a huge investment on staff time. People may be less supportive of it if it didn't have that kudos. (Female, Cohort 4, LA).

The accreditation was useful to have but not the driving force for doing the course. (Female, Cohort 2, national voluntary organisation).

2.87 As one would anticipate, line managers similarly thought that the fact that the programme was accredited was important. It's transferable and demonstrates that individuals can obtain certain skills and achieve outcomes, more specifically ' it gives someone the edge over someone who doesn't have it. '

I think in this day in age, of regulation and legislation, I think that it's more and more important to have accredited courses. I think that potential employers would be happier to invest in accredited courses. For instance, if you had to pay, I would pay, I know it's free at the minute but I would pay for staff to go on. I think it would be a good investment for the organisation. (Male, Line Manager, LA).

As an employer, it is important that it is accredited and is used as a currency. The only disadvantage to it being accredited is that it might seem as if it's pitched at too high a level for some people to take part. (Male, Line Manager, LA).

2.88 Line managers think that management and leadership training has to be measured in some way. It was felt important that employers are able to recognise leaders by their behaviour and know that they have some grounding. Line managers felt that if the course wasn't accredited, it would call the content into question, i.e. for the degree of commitment, the length of time and depth of study, it would not have been acceptable for there not to be a qualification at the end.

2.89 As illustrated in Figure 2.15, the perceived benefits of having a formal qualification are due, in the main, to the sense of achievement felt by participants as a result of completing the programme (86%). Interestingly, there was a higher propensity among junior managers than those employed in middle management to regard a sense of achievement as a benefit (93% versus 83%).

2.90 Other important aspects were the impact having a qualification may have on their future career prospects (65%) and the programme's reputation across Social Services (65%).

2.91 Unsurprisingly, those who are aged under 45 years old were more likely to cite future career prospects as a benefit of having a formal qualification than those aged over 45 (79% versus 58%).

Figure 2.15 Benefits of having a Formal Qualification as part of the Programme

2.92 Many thought that a formal qualification as part of the programme was 'a fantastic benefit'. There is a perceived kudos attached to having a formally recognised qualification provided by a university. Further, in terms of employability and transferability of skills it is perceived as a positive learning experience.

The qualification is very important. It gives evidence of skills to market me internally and externally. It's always good to have a bit of paper with a bit of scrollwork on it. Otherwise you need to spend hours evidencing your skills. (Male, Cohort 3, National voluntary organisation).

It has an academic weight to it and that accreditation is recognised (Female, Cohort 4, National voluntary organisation).

2.93 The accreditation was also perceived important to ensure that attendees on the course were motivated and had a higher level of commitment than they would perhaps if it was not accredited.

There is always that anxiety that a piece of work will be assessed at the end of it. People do become focussed because of this. It's the actual process of the accreditation that gets you through. (Male, Cohort 2, LA).

It helped during the programme to ensure that I did the reading that was linked. Without the formal qualification it would be a temptation not to do it. In terms of the longer term, it was helpful to have a qualification. (Male, Cohort 1, LA).

2.94 Conversely, there were some who thought that the fact that it was accredited was a real disadvantage. These felt ' anxious' as they were less academic than some participants and were subsequently concerned as to whether they could pass the assignments.

Organisation of the Programme

2.95 The majority of participants (94%) regarded the organisation of the programme favourably (combined excellent/very good and good) with one in four (23%) rating it as 'excellent'. Those in cohort 5 were more likely to rate it as 'very good' than those in cohort 1 (57% versus 30%). Similarly, those in senior management were more inclined to rate it as very good than those in junior management (64% versus 41%).

Areas for Improvement

2.96 When asked whether they would recommend the programme to others in the future, the majority of both participants and line managers concurred (94% and 88% respectively agreed) as illustrated in Figure 2.16.

Figure 2.16 I would recommend the Programme to others…..

2.97 Although, the majority agree that they would recommend the course, some maintained that one needed to be careful about who to select because it could be potentially ' quite daunting' for some people and ' quite intimidating'. In particular, this is the case for those who don't have academic backgrounds and who may therefore struggle with the learning environment and the commitment involved vis-à-vis completion of assignments.

I would recommend it, but not to everybody. I could imagine people hating it. If someone is not committed to being a manager they may find it difficult to do the programme. (Male, Cohort 4, National Voluntary Organisation).

Essentially you do have to put your life on hold for a year. It is a huge time commitment but valuable. (Female, Cohort 4, LA).

2.98 As to whether it was felt that any improvements should be implemented, almost one in five (18%) maintained that there were no improvements necessary as illustrated in Figure 2.17. Around one in eight (12%) thought that the structure could potentially be improved, i.e. faster pace. Those in cohort 5 were more likely to suggest improving the structure by adopting a faster pace than those in cohorts 1, 2 and 3 (23% versus 10%, 9% and 6% respectively).

2.99 One in twelve (8%) suggested that it could be made more accessible, i.e. opened up to different levels of staff.

Figure 2.17 Suggestions for Improvement

2.100 It was suggested by some that the programme could be improved by ensuring that line managers give more commitment in enabling employees to undertake the programme and to ensure that they have the time to do it in.

2.101 It was further suggested that organisers could reduce the feeling of alienation felt by some by making tutors more accessible. In addition, it was felt that there could be a better range of speakers and that syndicate groups could be planned better. More specifically, the programme could be improved by ensuring that more flexibility exists in the formation of syndicate groups.

2.102 It was also felt that there could be more of a rotation of tutors, i.e. they would ' appreciate having different tutors and swapping round'. This would ensure that those who attended could get a different perspective thereby facilitating a better balance.

Make it cheaper & have fewer speakers & make it more like an Open University course, possible with regional seminars. Something more geographical based might be more useful. (Male, Cohort 4, LA).

2.103 Alternative design options are discussed more fully in section 6.

« Previous | Contents | Next »