« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER SIX: PROGRAMME'S SUSTAINABILITY
LtD in comparison to other Leadership Programmes
6.1 This section of the report discusses the relative positioning of Leading to Deliver against a number of leadership programmes currently operating. This information was collated by undertaking a review of relevant literature as well as telephone interviews with key providers of alternative leadership and management programmes in the UK. The review looked at the following three categories:
- national models - those funded by national level organisations in Scotland, and/or delivered from a single location (See Table A6.1 in Appendix 6);
- local models - those funded by local/regional level organisations in Scotland, and/or delivered from multiple locations (See Table A6.2 in Appendix 6);
- commercial/other UK models - those run for commercial gain, or within the UK outside Scotland (See Table A6.3 in Appendix 6).
Relative Costs And Reach Of Delivery Method
6.2 In broad terms, there are three main methods used to deliver leadership training, i.e. residential, non-residential, or by distance learning/e-learning. Analysis of the data collated on the relative costs of the three main methods suggests that:
- residential courses are the most expensive option, generally £4,000 per participant and above, and in spite of the higher cost, not all provide a qualification;
- non-residential courses and distance learning/e-learning courses commonly range between £1,000 and £2,000 per participant;
6.3 These figures support previous data collated by AuditScotland 23. Further analysis also suggests:
- commercial models are generally more expensive than commissioned models;
- blended learning models are common, allowing costs to be adjusted by mixing different delivery methods;
- qualifications generally add cost;
- local/regional partnership approaches appear to offer good value, even where a high level qualification is provided, e.g. Fife Community Planning Leading and Learning Programme. Organisations may have saved on costs by using in-house facilities or staff at their own organisation, or those of partner organisations;
- there are few courses which attempt to provide training to a large number of participants in one location at the same time;
- distance learning/e-learning offer the ability to reach a large number of participants at one time.
Models of interest
6.4 Several courses have interesting features which could in theory be applied to Leading to Deliver:
- variable charging for different sectors - e.g. the Social Care Leadership Development programme is offered free to user-led and community organisations, but paid for by other organisations. This may help pass the costs onto the organisations perceived to be most able to afford it;
- contribution towards costs - e.g. the Scottish Enterprise Rural Leadership Programme seeks a contribution towards costs from participants. This may help promote commitment from those involved;
- different levels of qualification - some courses offer a choice for participants. This may help participants get training to the most appropriate level for their own skills, and offer pathways for further development, e.g. the West Lothian Health and Social Care Management Programme, and the Edinburgh Council Leadership Matters programme;
- involvement of service users - e.g. Leading to Change is unusual in involving service users in improvement project meetings.
Market Positioning of Leading to Deliver
6.5 Leading to Deliver is unusually positioned as a ' luxury' leadership training course by both participants and line managers, reflecting the impact of significant funding which it initially received and has continued to receive, from the Scottish Government. As previously highlighted, it attempts to provide high quality residential training, bespoke for the sector, annually revised, and with a high level qualification, to a large cohort at one time.
6.6 In terms of cost, Leading to Deliver is in the lower range of other largely residential-based courses and significantly lower cost than commercial courses, e.g. the CIH Leadership programme for Housing. It can be seen to offer reasonably good value considering its relative cost, perceived impact and the provision of a high level qualification, focusing on leadership in a social services context.
6.7 In terms of reach, Leading to Deliver is rare in being a course which attempts to deliver training to a large cohort, but is not unusual in being a sector specific course.
Employee and Employer Perception of LtD in comparison to other Programmes
6.8 Both participants and line managers were asked to give their view on Leading to Deliver in comparison to other programmes they had either attended or were aware of. 6.9 The majority of line managers rated the programme favourably in comparison (72% combined excellent/very good and good) as illustrated in Figure 6.1.
6.10 Around six in ten (62%) of participants rated it in a similarly favourable light, while almost one in three were not in a position to provide their opinion (21% don't know; 8% not applicable).
Figure 6.1 Leading to Deliver in comparison to other Leadership Programmes
LtD is 'a very different animal' - the teachers aren't all academics, they may not have the same academic background but are excellent in delivering leadership and management training. (Male, Cohort 4, LA)
Benefits of continuing Roll Out of LtD in the Future
6.11 The majority of participants and line managers believe that there is an on-going need for a programme of this nature and a need for continued investment in Social Services as it is felt that leadership should continue to be a significant priority in the public sector.
Anything that develops the skills and experience of managers in a shared environment is helpful and worth the investment. People need to feel valued. You still need to feel you can make a difference and it does reinforce that. (Female, Cohort 4, LA).
The future of Social Services is bleak without LtD (Female, Cohort 2, National charity).
6.12 Consequently, many hope that the programme is sustained in the future. Line managers realise that sustainability means that someone has to pay for it. Many maintained that if the costs were passed onto individuals and employers, 'there aren't many that could afford to do it'.
6.13 The level of funding made available to some employers has been an important factor in deciding whether to place employees on the programme. If those employers who had been reliant on funding had to pay for it, this would impact on their ability to place employees on the programme.
6.14 The training is very cost effective because of the returns to the employer, particularly in relation to the impact on employee behaviour and in the way they work. It was suggested, however, that it could possibly be more cost effective, for example, suggesting that instead of one large cohort, there were a number of smaller cohorts held on a more localised basis. There would, however, be huge challenges in delivering the programme in this way. Potential alternative design options are considered overleaf.
6.15 The consensus among both participants and line managers is that the benefits accrued to both employee and employer far outweigh any costs incurred, i.e. whether this is in relation to ensuring cover is in place to enable organisations to release employees to study, or in recompensing them for expenses, etc. There is a growing responsiveness to continued professional development among employers and as such there is also a recognition that they need to meet those costs.
6.16 Although Leading to Deliver is perceived to have been beneficial for Social Services in Scotland a few think that organisations should now be looking at continuing to develop leadership capacity internally. Indeed, some have already commissioned their own versions of the programme independently which is delivered in-house.
Potential Future Design Options
6.17 Participants and line managers were provided with a selection of alternative design options, e.g.:
- re-organise the location of face-to-face components to regional or local centres such as a local college;
- more content delivered through distance learning ( e.g. study packs; e-learning) but with more local tutor support;
- re-organise the structure of the face-to-face components ( i.e. hold fewer residential components but longer blocks of study).
6.18 Some participants and line managers did not select any of the options (20% and 12% respectively), while around one in ten (9%) of both groups were unable to comment as illustrated in Figure 6.2.
6.19 Of those who did select an alternative design option, both participants and line managers clearly favour the first option (41% and 44% respectively). This was followed by having a programme with more content delivered through distance learning (19% and 26% participants and line managers respectively).
Figure 6.2 Perception of Potential Future Design Options
6.20 Both participants and line managers alike were least likely to opt for re-organising the structure of the face-to-face components by holding fewer residential components but longer blocks of study (12% and 9% respectively).
6.21 Both admitted that although distance learning may suit some people, there are many for whom this is not a suitable learning style. It was felt that the nature of the programme would become almost impossible for some people if it was done by distance learning.
6.22 In order to reach a wider workforce, it was suggested that the course might be redesigned to offer more ' discrete stand alone units'. These also could be accredited and would allow people to build up a bigger accreditation, or just do one or two.
6.23 It was also suggested that aspects of the course could be packaged so that individual organisations could perhaps bring elements of it into their own organisation as part of their own training programme but delivered by external providers.
6.24 The programme currently costs circa £4,300 per person which is wholly funded by the Scottish Government. Line managers were asked if, in order to ensure that employees within their organisation were able to participate in the programme in the future, they had to fund the programme, how much, if anything, would their company be prepared to contribute. As Figure 6.3 illustrates, the degree to which line managers felt their organisations would be willing to pay varied considerably, i.e. from nothing up to the full amount. Around two in five (44%) were unable to provide a view on this.
Figure 6.3 Contribution Organisations are willing to pay in the Absence of Full Funding
Key Issues for consideration for the Future
6.25 Figure 6.4 illustrates the elements which line managers felt it was imperative to retain in any programmes delivered in the future. The two elements which stand out include both the facilitators and the accreditation (95% and 91% respectively).
Figure 6.4 Importance of Retaining Different Elements of the Programme in the Future
6.26 In view of the commentary surrounding participants' usage of the e-learning elements of the programme which line managers will no doubt be aware off, it is no surprise that line managers were less inclined to feel that this should be included than the aforementioned items. Less than half (47%) felt it important to retain the residential elements.
6.27 Although many think it is less important to retain the residential element in any future design options, it is key that whatever method is adopted it still enables participants to form syndicate groups. This is particularly important for those who rely on this for support in the absence of an appropriate mentor or in the event that line managers are not in a position to support employees to the degree to which it is perhaps needed. A major strength of the programme ensues from participants being together and in talking with ' other people who understood you and you wouldn't want to lose that'.
6.28 In addition, the benefits of the residential segment were that it enabled participants to meet with a diverse range of people, i.e. from both a sectoral and geographical basis. It was felt by some that one of the reasons that some of the syndicate groups worked so well was due to the fact that participants felt able to share information with each other which may be perceived as confidential and that having more locally based delivery would be restrictive to some as they would be less able to discuss freely the difficulties they face, e.g. in dealing with and in implementing change within their own respective organisations.
6.29 Delivery in a centralised location was viewed as a barrier for some and being away for three days, as the current design entails, did create issues also. It was agreed that ' localising it' and embedding delivery across a number of universities in the country is a possible way in which any problems incurred previously may be somewhat alleviated in the future.
6.30 However, one has to take cognizance of the fact that any fundamental shifts in design may have a detrimental effect on the perception of the programme overall. For many, the residential aspects were seen as being a key motivator in participating. Without the residential segments, many 'would have perhaps run out of steam a lot quicker'.
6.31 It will be difficult to develop a programme which suits everyone as the degree to which any design is regarded favourably will depend on the level to which it suits individual learning styles which will vary significantly among a potentially diverse group.
« Previous | Contents | Next »