Servidor Web

8.1 Qualifications as indicator of status

The level of qualifications demanded of a role can be taken as an indicator of its professional status (Mclaughlin & Webster, 1998). In the case of the HRD/Training job advertisements more than half (60.4%) of them specified a qualification requirement. Overall, of those that stipulated a qualification, nearly half (47.2%) specified an HR/HRD professional qualification and just over a quarter (26.5%) asked for an academic qualification (table 4.10). However, it is important to note that not all the advertisements included professional qualifications as an essential requirement. Some stated it was preferred, desirable or that the candidate could be working toward one. The figure of 47.2% includes all of these variations. To this extent, the value of this data is limited in that it does not show exactly how many of those recruited to the posts analysed actually held a

Table 4.10: Numbers & Types of Qualifications Overall

The data in Table 4.11 was examined to determine if there was any significant difference in the qualifications stipulated in the job advertisements for the two time periods. The result of a chi-squared test (p= 0.00032, 0.00032< 0.05) suggest that there was a significant difference between the two time periods for qualifications demanded. The main change appears to be that the demand for professional qualifications HR/HRD increased from 44.1% in 1996-7 to 52% in 2003-4 while the demand for academic qualifications decreased from 30.2% in 1996-7 to 20.7% in 2003-4. Qualifications Type n. % HR/HRD/CIPD 360 47.2 Academic 202 26.5 Sector specific 24 3.1 Management 11 1.4

Table 4.11: Public & Private Sector Qualifications Compared 1996-7 & 2003-4

8.2 Reporting Line as indicator of status

The data indicated that there were a variety of reporting lines. The list given in Table 4.12 identifies the main reporting lines identified and does not include minor variations to the designations listed. The problem with this category was that most of the advertisements did not actually specify the reporting line, and thus, 'Not Stated' had the largest frequency with 80.7% of the posts not specifying the reporting line. This might limit the value of this data.

Of the advertisements that did include a reporting line, most specified 'Head of HR/Personnel' (44.9%), followed by 'Training and Development Manager' (21.8%). Only 0.4% reported to the CEO and 0.3% to the Board. The total percentage frequency of Heads of HRD/Training reporting to high level position – even when the number reporting to a CEO, the Board, the Group CEO, Managing Partner, and Directors are added together - still only amounted to 11.5%.

Public Sector Private Sector 1996-7 2003-4 ± 1996-7 2003-4 ± Sector/ Period/ Qualification n. % n. % % n. % n. % % HR/HRD/CIPD 70 56.5 97 60.6 7.3 204 44.1 57 43.5 -1.4 Academic 21 16.9 28 17.5 3.6 140 30.2 31 23.7 -21.5 Sector specific 3 2.4 5 3.1 29.2 13 2.8 6 4.6 64.3 Management 4 3.2 2 1.3 -59.4 8 1.7 0 0.0 -100

Table 4.12: Reporting Line Data for All HRD/Training Post

9.

Summary & Concluding Comments

In summary, the data analyses showed that there were no significant differences between the HRD/training tasks in the public and private sectors however there were significant changes in the tasks between the two time periods. There were also no significant differences in expertise/experience required for the two sectors but there were strong changes in the expertise/experience required between the two time periods. It is important to note that due to the data groups collected there is no evidence to suggest that the changes have happened over the time period (1996/7 – 2003/4), the analysis simply concludes that there is a difference between the two time periods.

Reporting Line

Designation n. %

Not stated 616 80.7

Head of HR/Personnel 66 8.7 Training and Development Manager 32 4.2 Managing Director 8 1.0

Head of HRD 6 0.8

CEO 3 0.4

L&D Relationship Manager 3 0.4 Group Financial Director 3 0.4

Board 2 0.3

Group CEO 2 0.3

Business Director Corporate Services 2 0.3 Regional Director 2 0.3 Learning & Development Director 2 0.3 Director Change Management 1 0.1 Director of Service Delivery 1 0.1 Head of Workforce Development 1 0.1 Development Manager 1 0.1 Director Education and Leisure Services 1 0.1 Managing Partner 1 0.1 Quality and Training Manager 1 0.1 Industrial Relations Manager 1 0.1 Director of Education and Training 1 0.1 Establishment Officer 1 0.1 MD Poultry Division 1 0.1 Director of Operations 1 0.1 Director of HR and Quality 1 0.1 Divisional Director 1 0.1

Centre Manager 1 0.1

Management Development Director 1 0.1

Further, data analyses of the tasks and qualities defined as having a strategic element suggest that while there appeared to be a significant difference in the strategically oriented tasks, closer scrutiny of the data suggested that this in itself was not conclusive evidence that HRD/Training role had become strategic. In short, the data analysis suggested that although there clearly has been some change in terms of how the HRD/Training role is represented, at least in the set of HRD/Training advertisements examined, it is not possible to say if the role has become strategic.

Also, the status of qualifications was interesting. For example, it was surprising to note the lack of emphasis on academic qualifications within HRD/Training posts (academic qualifications usually serve as a baseline qualification in many professions) and the fact that there has been comparatively modest increase in the demand for professional qualifications from 1996-7 to 2003-4.

Finally, accepting the limitations of job advertisements as brief and impressionistic, they data analysis has provided some useful insights into the role and status of the HRD/Training function within UK organisations. However, it would have been useful to have drawn on more than a single source of data – People Management magazine – and complemented the advertisements data with an analysis of more detailed HRD/Training job descriptions.

Chapter 5

Data Analysis: Pre-Survey Focus Groups & Interviews

“In the focus group…group interaction will be productive in widening the range of responses, activating forgotten details of experience, and releasing inhibitions that may otherwise discourage participants from disclosing information…the benefits…synergism, snowballing, stimulation, security and spontaneity.” (Catterall & Maclaran 1997 p.1)

1. Introduction

In addition to the job advertisements analysis, and prior to the survey, a number of focus group meetings and individual interviews with managers and human resources specialist were held. These were designed to explore the changing context of the public service and the role of HRD/training within this context. To reiterate, these were not intended to serve as the primary source of data but rather to provide contextual information. This chapter is to present and discuss the findings of the pre-survey focus group meetings and interviews.

As a reminder, a total of six focus groups sessions were conducted. Of these, one session was with HR/Personnel practitioners, two of the sessions were with HRD/training specialists, and the remaining three sessions were with line managers (of which two were with graduate fast track civil service managers and one was with general managers). All the participants worked in civil service departments. In addition to the focus groups, and

as a further means of understanding some of the contextual issues and challenges facing practitioners, seven HRD/Training practitioners were interviewed, four from civil service organisations and three from local government organisations.