Concentración de Medios de Comunicación

The theory of Van Horn and Van Meter described above will be used for the purpose of analysis/discussion in this research work. Divergent variables can be discerned from this theory; the independent variable, the dependent variable and the intervening variable. In this study, the HRD policy for academic staff will be the independent variable. The policy standards and objectives, the resources and incentives made available, the quality of inter-organizational relationships, the characteristics of the implementation agencies, the economic, social and political environment and the disposition or response of the implementers which will be used in the analysis/discussion chapter will be the intervening variable while the effectiveness of academic staff development will be the dependent variable. The intervening variable will in the end explain the difference/s in the level of effectiveness of HRD for academic staff in the case study Polytechnics. The figure below shows a diagrammatic representation of the variable involved in this research work.

79 Figure 3. 2 Variables Effectiveness of Academic Staff development HRDPolicy

Independent Variable Intervening Variable Dependent Variable

The variables presented in Figure 3.2, will be operationalised in the paragraphs below.

3.10.1 Policy Standards and Objectives

The starting point for the analysis of the implementation processes is the objectives of the HRD policy in place. A well-articulated HRD Policy standards and objectives play an important role in staff development. Pressman and Wildavsky (1973: xiv) amplified this position when he noted that “implementation cannot succeed or fail without a goal against which to judge it”. Generally, when the objectives for staff development are clear and unambiguous, it makes it easier to implement than when they are complex and contradictory. Having a clear set of objectives and a defined policy for training development is considered a strategic imperative for organisations in the light of the fact that training and development increases the level of individual and organisational competence (Armstrong, 2000; Hernard, 2012). Van Horn and Van Meter (1975) show that policy standards and objectives apart from elaborating on overall policy goals and the means for achieving them provide objective standards for measuring performance. Wali, (2010) while making allusions to the work of Sabatier (1986:3), emphasized that defining policy standards and objectives assist in solving the problems of mistaken

 Policy standards and objectives,  The resources and incentive,  The quality of inter-organizational

relationships,

 the characteristics of the implementation agencies,

 The economic, social and political environment and

 The disposition or response of the implementers., the economic, social and political environment andthe disposition or response of the implementers

80

perception of the policy that could arise if the policy standard s and objectives have not been clearly stated.

3.10.2 Policy Resources

Availability of sufficient resources is crucial to the effective implementation of HRD policy. Greer (2005) notes, that successful policy implementation rely partly on the availability of financial and other resources. The availability of funds is considered an imperative for the effective implementation of policy (Van Horn and Van Meter 1977; Edwards and Sharkansky, 1978). Agreeing, Makinde (2005) assert that where implementation orders are clear, consistent and accurately transmitted, the absence of adequate resources will result in implementation problems. Policy resources include both the human and material such as adequate number of staff who are well equipped to carry out the implementation, relevant and adequate information on implementation process, the authority to ensure that policies are carried out as they are intended, and facilities such as land, equipment, buildings, etc. as may be deemed necessary for the successful implementation of the policy. Commenting further, he submits that without adequate resources, it will be almost impossible for policy implementers to function.

In Nigeria as well as in other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, funding is considered a bane to policy implementation. A study for the World Bank by Ziderman (2003) found out that virtually all training systems in sub-Saharan Africa have to deal with the reality of diminishing government funding for public sector training. The situation in Nigeria is so glaring that funding of education and more specifically Nigerian Polytechnics funding (Yabani, 2009) have not received adequate attention, thereby leading to the on-going crisis of the education sector. Most of the strike action embarked upon by academic staff of Nigerian Universities and Polytechnics revolve around issues of funding (Arikewuyo, 2009). The required training and utilization of human resources in the Polytechnic education sub-sector have not been effectively placed and used even where appropriate human resource development is regarded as the most fundamental instrument in determining the rate of transformation of any economy. At present, the amount of money Nigeria devotes to education is far lower than the 26% of government total expenditure as recommended by UNESCO. In respect of Polytechnics, the situation has

81

assumed a worrying dimension due to poor funding and insufficient pedagogical resources (Yabani, 2006). This situation according to Yabani, (2006) has given rise to poor quality of education at this level

3.10.3 Inter-organisational communication and enforcement activities

O’Toole, (2012) notes that recognising the different inter-organizational pattern is one- step towards effective implementation. Continuing, he emphasised the need for skilful implementation managers to find ways of working together towards policy success. O’Toole, (2003:237) asserts “generating successful policy implementation means inducing cooperation, and perhaps even coordination, among interdependent actors in the face of impediments”.

In Nigeria, the administration and organisational system is such that the Polytechnic education sub-sector is statutorily required to collaborate with the Federal Ministry of Education (FME) and the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE). The Federal Ministry (FME) is the organ of Government charged with policy formulation, monitoring of implementation, setting, and maintenance of standards within the nation’s education sector while NBTE is the supervisory body, which coordinate the activities of the Polytechnic education sub-sector. It is also involved with the funding of Polytechnics owned by the Government of the Federation of Nigeria (FME, 2003). The level of synergy and collaboration between these agencies of government remains perhaps a critical determinant of the success or otherwise of the implementation of HRD Policy. Yet, as Gyang (2011) noted, the failure of most programmes and policies in Nigeria is due to absence of inter-agency as well as governmental collaboration. The views expressed by Gyang (2011) is supported by the position expressed in the Federal Government document titled “4 Year Strategic Plan for the development of the education sector 2011- 2015” (FME 2012:5) which states categorically that “it appears that the education sector faces the challenge of inadequate communication between the Federal Ministry of Education, its parastatal and stakeholders”. To attenuate the incidence of programme and policy failures due to lack of inter-agency collaboration, Okolocha (2012) assert that the effective implementation of policies and programme requires proper coordination, integration and cooperation among the stakeholders of education. Van Horn and Van

82

Meter (1975:471) amplified this position when they opined “the agency’s formal and informal linkage with the “policy-making” or “policy-enforcing” is an imperative for successful policy implementation.

The foregoing notwithstanding, the HRD policy implementation process is not just about the policy makers’/implementers relationship, another critical factor in the implementation process is the way and manner policies are communicated from one level of implementers to another. Corroborating, Buse et al., (2012) assert that good coordination and communication remains a prerequisite for effective policy implementation.

3.10.4 Characteristics of the implementing agencies

Wali (2010) notes that the characteristics of the implementing agencies, notably the nature of the communication network, the degree of hierarchical control, leadership style, and the agency’s formal and informal ties to the policy making or policy enforcement body is critical to effective implementation. One characteristic that have been highlighted in the literature is the importance of leadership in the implementation process given their influence over the allocation of staff and selection of other resources (Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1979:494 - 495). Political and managerial skill is also considered as an important element in the implementation process. According to Sabatier and Mazmanian, (1979: 495), political skill involves the ability to develop effective working arrangements, while managerial skill involves the development and maintenance of efficiency, maintaining morale and managing internal dissent. These, they maintained are critical to the successful implementation of policy.

3.10.5 The economic, social and political environment

Different societal actors influence the realisation of policy. These factors according to Rosenthal, (2001; 100) does not fall directly under the control of the policy makers. These factors, which could be manifest in the economic, socio-cultural and political environment, could have either negative or positive effects on the implementation process. In the analysis/discussion chapter of this research work, the economic, socio-

83

cultural and political factors which could influence the implementation of HRD for academic staff in Polytechnics, will be explored.

3.10.6 The disposition or response of the implementers

The concept of disposition as used here refers to the measure of desire that the implementer of the policy exhibits in carrying out the goals and objectives of the policy. For policy implementation to be successful and effective, those who are in charge of policy implementation must take responsibility for it. Mazmanian and Sabatier (1981:19- 20) note, that the commitment of the implementers to policy implementation is the variable that mostly affect the realization of policy goals. Brynard (2000) maintained that governments could enunciate the best policy imaginable but if implementers are unable or unwilling to implement a policy, it will not happen. In this respect, Makinde (2005) and Ikelegbe (2006) contend that the passion with which bureaucrats implement policy in Nigeria is a function of how they see the policy as affecting their personal, ethnic, political, religious or organizational interests and that positive effects will encourage enthusiastic implementation while the contrary will mean the policy either being thwarted or sabotaged.

Roh (2012) also observed that when implementers fail to implement policies because they do not agree with it, slippage occurs between policy decisions and performance. In such cases, it is glaring that the implementers have simply exercised their discretion to hinder the implementation of policy. As stated earlier, the Van Meter and Van Horn’s theory as an analytical tool appear more valuable in analysing top-down approach to policy implementation. Since this research is focussed on academic staff, I have found Lipsky's (2010) observation about the tendency of front-line bureaurcrats' operating as policy-designers and/or implementers as a useful analytical tool in contextualising the dilemmas faced by academic staff of Nigerian Polytechnics in the implementation of HRD policy.