PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 15,481494 (1995)

From general training to projectization: implications for learning processes and the roles of trainers

HARRY TAYLOR University of Manchester

SUMMARY

A large component of development aid in the past has been in the form of scholarships for officials and managers to attend short and long training programmes in the west. However, it has increasingly been felt that the impact of such programmes is limited, and hence the donor community is placing increased emphasis on ‘projectized’ training programmes, i.e. training that is geared to specific development projects in a particular country. This shift has implications for the nature of the training, the learning processes involved and the roles of trainers. This article explores these issues, b t l y reviewing the debate between ‘open’ and ‘projectized’ training, and then going on to report on a case study involving a ‘projectized’ learning event run for the Nigerian Civil Service as part of its Civil Service reform programme. The case study explores the main differences between ‘open’ and ‘projectized’ training, demonstrates some of the potential problems with ‘projectized’ learning and, where appropriate, suggests solutions and offers a number of practical suggestions for trainers to consider for operating in an increasingly ‘projectized’ training scene.

I. INTRODUCTION: THE DEBATE

For many years a key element in development aid has been in the area of human resource development. Various aid agencies have awarded large numbers of bursaries and scholarships to Study Fellows in developing countries to study at prestigious institutes of higher learning in developed countries. Because many developing countries lacked even basic educational facilities, this was felt to be the only method of increasing knowledge and skills of key individuals in the short term, whilst the infrastructure of higher education was being developed in less-developed countries (LDCs) in the longer term. Thousands of Study Fellows have attended ‘open’ courses in developed countries, some of which were specifically mounted to satisfy the needs of those in developing countries, and they have taken back to their home countries knowledge and skills that they have attempted to apply, with varying degrees of success, to the economic, social and cultural conditions specific to those developing countries. Whilst this approach has had a considerable impact in developing professional and managerial competences in developing countries, a debate has developed about the effectiveness of such training provision. Donor countries appear to be divided on the merits of ‘open’ versus ‘projectized’ training.

Harry Taylor is a lecturer in Human Resources at the Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Precinct Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.

CCC 0271-2075/95/050481-14 0 1995 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

482 H. Taylor

The latest figures available from the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD reveal that, whilst the number of students and trainees from developing countries attending courses in DAC countries has increased from a total of 105,800 in 1980 to 162,600 in 1992, particular countries show divergent policies. For example, over the same period the UK has reduced its share of the total from 15,507 to 6,737. Germany has recorded a similar but less dramatic reduction. Other donor countries, however, have initiated large increases in student numbers, e.g. Japan increased from 9,342 to 49,745, and Canada increased from 1,723 to 22,494 (OECD, 1995). Whilst the figures do not reveal whether these programmes are ‘projectized’ or ‘open’, the vast majority of overseas training has been of the ‘open’ variety. Those who have retreated from ‘open’ training have identified a number of problems with this approach.

Firstly, there has been a failure, in some circumstances, to ‘contextualize’ the learning. Even where courses are run specifically for Study Fellows from developing countries, the wide variety of experiences and cultural backgrounds, whilst useful in some respects, requires a generalized approach that inevitably overlooks the specific contexts that individual Study Fellows have been socialized into and will operate in. Courses that are run specifically for Study Fellows from developing countries are more likely to take into account the common problems and circumstances of such countries. Nevertheless there are probably as many differences between developing countries as there are between developed and developing countries. For example, Jones in his review of Management Education and Training in Africa draws attention to:

‘a failure to consider “socio-cultural” factors e.g. Western educational strategies which are incongruent with indigenous values, norms and expectations’, (Jones, 1989, p. 74).

Secondly, there is the ‘transfer of training’ problem, well known to trainers (see Robinson, 1988) but particularly acute in this type of situation. On both long and short courses it is possible to assess what Study Fellows have learned. What is more problematical is finding out if, and to what extent, this learning actually enhances job performance once the Study Fellow returns home. National and corporate cultures are often the major stumbling blocks here. For example, on a general management training programme, a Study Fellow may come to appreciate the existence of different managerial styles and come to value the importance in certain circumstances of a participative style of management, as being more likely to engender employee commitment. Whilst this might be seen as a valuable learning outcome ‘per se’, it is unlikely to result in a change in job behaviour or performance if the Study Fellow’s employing organization is rigidly bureaucratic and autocratic and/or where the overall culture is characterized by ‘high power distance’ (Hofstede, 1980). Also, the failure to transfer and actively use knowledge and skills gained often arises because of the somewhat haphazard career systems in some organizations that frequently transfer those returning from overseas study to areas of work unrelated to the training they have just received. It should also be borne in mind that ‘open’ courses are essentially for long-term individual career development rather than immediate organizational benefit. Assessing the contribution of such training to an individual career is beset with difficulties as Muscat has indicated:

Learning processes and the roles of trainers 483

‘As they advance in career, any attempt to ascribe the “portion” of their contribution attributable to the training becomes increasingly fanciful” (Muscat, 1986, p. 82).

A third problem that particularly affects the longer qualification courses is the well-known ‘diploma disease’. In some cultures, paper qualifications are much more highly valued than demonstrable practical experience and competence, and possession of a Master’s degree or postgraduate Diploma is often a pre-requisite for promotion. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that some Study Fellows are more interested in acquiring the ‘ticket’ than they are in utilizing the learning experiences to improve their job performance. Moreover a concern with merely acquiring the ‘ticket’ rather than with the content and process of learning may lead to the perpetuation of courses that have been used through tradition rather than their being a real need for them.

Finally, there is the problem of the nomination process. Iqbal(l989) distinguishes between the theory (Dr. Jekyll) model of nominations for training awards and the actual practice (Mr. Hyde) model. Whilst the former is rational and based on organizational needs, the latter is personal, political and unsystematic:

‘Successful individuals get themselves nominated/selected through patronage, nepotism, favouritism, or even bribery’ (Iqbal, 1989, p. 98).

It is argued that this is more likely to occur when the aims of the training are general rather than specific, in that under a ‘projectized’ training programme the immediate logic of the programme will be more influential in determining who gets trained rather than personal influence.

Given these problems with ‘open’ type courses, it is not surprising that two further trends have accelerated the trend to ‘projectized’ courses. The first of these has been a generally increased concern for the effectiveness of aid finance (Cassen and Associates, 1994). The second has been an increasing recognition amongst donors that ‘institutional development’ is often the key to the success of aid projects and that training of a fairly specific nature is an important part of that process. Thus training is now more firmly established as an organizational investment rather than a personal development. Hulme (1991) suggests that ‘projectized’ training can be more effective in that complementary inputs such as personnel policies and job design can tackle some of the problems of skill application in the workplace and that this type of training is more likely to encourage training groups of co-workers, keeping the training close to the workplace and ensuring the overall relevance of the training. The notion of ‘projectization’ implies:

-that training should be linked to identifiable development projects within a specific country;

-that the provision of training is geared specifically to the need of an organization/project rather than the broader educational needs of individuals. As such it can be integrated into other aspects of the institution building effort, such as the overall policy framework, the financial planning procedures and the management and information procedures;

-the training needs are identified as a result of analysis of the skills required for the delivery and sustainability of the project (i.e. a strategic approach to training).

484 H. Taylor

This more focused approach is seen to be appropriate when it is necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of aid finance in terms of particular outcomes. Whilst it may be possible that an analysis of training needs for a particular project may result in sponsorship for ‘open’ courses, it is much more likely that the analysis will reveal specific skill requirements for which a ‘custom made’ learning event is appropriate.

This is not to say that ‘projectized’ training will necessarily completely take over from ‘open’ courses. Not all desirable training can be incorporated into projects but there may remain a residue that, nevertheless, makes a contribution to the wider objectives of country programmes. Whilst ‘projectized’ training represents a tightening up to make technical co-operation more effective, it can result in reduced individual preference with all that implies for motivation, and also can have the effect of reducing trainee mobility. Cassen and Associates (1994), whilst noting the trend to ‘projectization’, argue that:

‘. . . the merits of free standing training should not be ignored . . . it allows scope for individual choice and mobility which is economically useful for recipient countries and consistent with the values of donors . . . individuals frequently follow a varied career that is more productive than it would have been if they had been institutionally structured and constrained from the start . . . These considerations suggest that the sharp decline in free standing fellowships should be reconsidered.’ (Cassen and Associates, 1994, p. 156).

This brief review of the state of play in the debate about the ‘projectization’ of training reveals that whilst ‘projectized’ training may not come to fully displace ‘open’ training, it will nevertheless be the dominant form of training for the foreseeable future. Hence those involved as providers of training for LDCs need to review their techniques and styles to adapt to the new situation. The remainder of this article reviews a ‘projectized’ learning event mounted for the Nigerian Civil Service under Overseas Development Administration (ODA) funding. Section I1 outlines the main features of the project and the Civil Service reforms from which it stemmed. Section I11 analyses the features of the learning programme that appeared to distinguish it from an ‘open’ type learning programme. Section IV reports on some of the problems encountered with this different approach and, where appropriate, suggests solutions. Finally, Section V, by way of conclusion, offers a number of practical suggestions that trainers involved in ‘projectized’ training should consider.

11. THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORMS, CHANGES IN PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND THE

‘CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME’

Owing to economic difficulties in Nigeria in the late 1970s and early 1980s, not least because of the collapse in oil prices, the World Bank implemented, in 1986, a financial aid package linked to a Structural Adjustment Programme. The S A P included a number of changes-reduction in subsidies and imports, the reduction of foreign exchange imbalances and the introduction of market mechanisms and

Learning processes and the roles of trainers 485

privatization. In addition to these reforms, the size of the public sector was to be reduced and improvements sought in the efficiency of the Civil Service. In consequence, major reforms in the Civil Service were planned.

By 1988 a Presidential Task Force had produced a Main Report and Summary of Recommendations (Government of Nigeria, 1988) on the implementation of the reforms. The restructuring of various ministries was to be based around a general rule that ministry departments should not exceed eight, and should always include three, with strategic responsibility for ‘basic management activities’, i.e.:

- Planning, Research and Statistics - Finance and Supplies - Personnel Management

The intended emergence of personnel management as a high priority activity was particularly reflected in a number of proposed changes:

-the Federal Civil Service Commission emerging as a strong central personnel management agency, offering strong guidance and professional leadership to Ministries, especially relating to matters of appointment, discipline and promotion;

-the creation of a Personnel Management Board for each Ministry; -the professionalization of personnel activities, i.e. “Administrative Officers in

general administration should now specialise in one area of management, e.g. Personnel Management, Planning, Budgeting . . .” (Government of Nigeria,

The strengthening of the personnel function and its professionalization demands new skills, particularly for the newly created role of a Director of Personnel for each Ministry. Several hundred of these posts, at both Federal and State levels, have been created and only a small number of existing civil servants already possess the necessary technical, analytical and social skills necessary to fulfil this role which requires:

-delivering a professional personnel service to the Ministry, in terms of appropriate policy and procedures;

-managing a dynamic relationship between his/her activities, the newly created Personnel Management Boards, and the FCSC; and

-moving towards a strategic role for the personnel function rather than a routine administrative function (Cooke and Armstrong, 1990).

Given such an extensive training need, in terms of both numbers and the breadth and depth of competences sought, it was clear that the training resources necessary were not available within Nigeria to achieve this. Hence, following the involvement of ODA for funding purposes, a consultant visited Nigeria to draw up an Overall Plan of Action for the training of Directors of Personnel. The first stage was the running of a series of 1-week Appreciation Seminars for Directors of Personnel, in order to outline the new thinking on the ‘strategic’ role now required of them and to preview the in-depth training they would subsequently receive. Stage two, and the most crucial stage, was to be the running of a ‘Capability Development Programme’ for members of the two agencies responsible for actually designing and delivering the training programme that the Directors of Personnel would actually receive, i.e. the Administrative Staff College of Nigeria (ASCON) and the Federal Civil Service

1988, pp. 7-8).

486 H. Taylor

Commission (FCSC). Stage three was to be the running of the Directors of Personnel training programmes (expected to be in groups of 20 but adjustable in the light of experience) by the newly trained ASCON and FCSC staff. The final stage was to be a series of follow-up workshops for the Directors of Personnel (DoPs) to exchange views about their training and subsequent experiences, and to establish self-help networks. This article is concerned primarily with the ‘Capability Development Programme’, which was run jointly by the Institute of Manpower Studies (now retitled as the Institute of Employment Studies) at Sussex University and the Institute for Development Policy and Management at Manchester University under ODA/British Council funding. The basic rationale for the inclusion of the Capability Development Programme was that it would not be feasible for the majority of the 250 or so Directors of Personnel to be trained either in the UK or by outside consultants because of:

- c o s t limitations; -the need for the DoPs to perceive the training as locally ‘owned’ rather than

imposed by outsiders; -ASCON and FCSC staff, in designing the programme, would ensure the

‘cultural compatibility’ of training material which would be problematic for outside consultants;

-the competences acquired by ASCON and FCSC staff would have further uses in the development of lower level programmes.

The overall objectives of the programme are outlined in Appendix 1, and the detailed structure of the 4-week programme is outlined in Appendix 2, Here, then, is an example of a ‘projectized’ training programme according to the three criteria laid out in Section I above. The next section examines in detail the main features of this programme that distinguish it from more traditional ‘open’ courses.

111. THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE ‘CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME’

It would not be appropriate to over-emphasize the differences between this project- specific learning programme and general ‘open’ courses, since both are consciously designed, off-job learning events aimed at achieving specified learning objectives. Nevertheless, there are a number of significant differences that have an effect on the learning process and the roles expected of trainers.

Firstly, as Appendix 1 clearly indicates, the learning objectives for the Capability Development Programme are explicitly linked to ‘Operational’ objectives, rather than being only vaguely or loosely connected to improved job performance in the long term, or indeed, seen as merely ends in themselves. Operational objectives show how the learning is intended to make a direct contribution to the project under consideration. The Operational objectives stated are only two of an integrated larger number determined, in the overall project planning process, as being essential to the successful completion of the project.

The linkages between the planning process, the operational objectives, the Capability Development Programme learning objectives, other initiatives and project outcomes are depicted in Figure 1.

Learning processes and the roles of trainers 487

CD Programme

Learning !

! Objectives !

I

i c- Operational !

i b Operational ! -+ Objective No 2 !

w I

Objective No 1 c !

!

-c Aciion Process

* Integration Requirement - Feedback Loops

______-_--_---__---_------

i

I Other Training and i i i-.-.+ Non-Training

i I - - .--)

--c

Figure 1. The linkages between the planning process, the operational objectives, the Capability Development Programme learning objectives, other initiatives and project outcomes

h v I

! ! !

Operational ‘ i I

--P Objective No 4

Operational ! --t Objective No5 !

This may be a somewhat idealized systems view of how projects are run, and the reality may never be quite as neat as is depicted in Figure 1, but, nevertheless, demands for tighter control of projects increasingly demand such a disciplined approach. Thus the learning objectives of the Capability Development Programme are oriented towards an immediate, specific and dynamic reality. As a consequence, the learning objectives are aimed at a range of targets, i.e. a rounded outcome not driven solely by subject matter. In this example, the full range of types of learning was sought, i.e:

- Cognitive (some subject matter); - Skill Development (the Training for Trainers component); - Affective (‘shared values, co-operation’, etc.).

Most projects require not only ‘technical’ competence, but also broader understandings and attitudinal changes. These may be more difficult to evaluate

Initiatives ! !

488 H. Taylor

than technical competence, but that is a general problem for all kinds of training, whether ‘projectized’ or ‘open’ (Bramley, 1991, Ch. 7.). In fact, one would generally expect ‘projectized’ learning to be relatively easier to evaluate than ‘open’ courses because of the explicit link between learning objectives and operational objectives. Even when dealing with attitudes, it must be easier to measure attitudinal change in a specific context (e.g. did the members of this group develop the necessary cohesion and co-operation to work as a team on this project?) than it is to measure general attitude changes (e.g. has this person become a more co-operative person?). Another outcome of the link between learning objectives and operational objectives is that making these links explicit from the start focuses attention and improves motivation of both participants and trainers. Participants were required immediately after the programme to implement something in a professional way, based on what they were learning, so if they asked ‘why are we doing this?’, then the trainer had to have some good answers!

A second major difference between the Capability Development Programme and general open courses was that the objectives were framed in terms of group competence rather than individual competence. Perhaps too often learning is expressed in individual terms. Real change is more likely to occur when a work-group, through training, achieves a ‘critical mass’ to energize change, whereas the training of isolated individuals is often followed by the individual being resocialized into old ways of behaving by the wider work group. In projectized learning events there is more scope for learning at the group level. This, however, implies specialization within the group. Appendix 2 reveals that less than half of the 20 training days of the Capability Development Programme were spent with all 9 participants together, and some of these were geared towards briefing for and reports back from specialized work. Note also that the notion of group competence is potentially very cost effective. Ifit had been thought appropriate for each individual to learn everything covered by the programme, then the programme would have been twice as long and expensive. Although, in general terms, specialization may tend to lead to inflexibility, as long as the group continues to work in a cohesive and co-operative way after the programme, there is every likelihood that members of the group will cross-fertilize ideas and exchange information and learning as and when the need arises.

The third feature of such a programme is that the group has pre-existing structural and inter-personal relationships that would not exist in an open course. This can give rise to problems, as the next section will show. However, little time needs to be wasted on extensive ‘getting to know you’ activities. The group should relatively quickly get on with the PERFORMING stage of group activity, with much less emphasis on the FORMING, STORMING and NORMING phases (Hunt, 1986, pp. 101-102). The participants will talk the same organizational language and know the structure and culture of the organization. Hence some of the benefits of on-job training will be available in an off-job training situation.

The final distinguishing features of the Capability Development Programme arise partly because of the first three factors, and that is, that the trainer(s) has to adopt an extremely flexible mode of operation switching rapidly back and forth between the roles of:

- subject matter expert - coach/skill tutor - facilitator

- organizational analyst/counsellor

Learning processes and the roles of trainers 489

- focus for discontent/tension - challenger of organizational thinking - evaluator - resource finder

This is not to say, of course, that this variety of roles may not occur in ‘open’ courses, but the immediacy and diversity of the learning objectives in this ‘projectized’ programme ensure that these roles are an in-built component of the programme. The next section goes on to examine some of the problems that ‘projectized’ programmes can give rise to.

IV. PROJECT RELATED TRAINING. SOME PROBLEMS

With any learning event a number of problems present themselves to be addressed by the trainers and’participants. Many of these problems are specific and unique to a particular programme and have no relevance or features capable of generalization to other learning situations. The problems presented here are those where there is felt to be some commonality with similar programmes that might be run on a ‘projectized’ basis.

Firstly, the deliberate and explicit link between Learning Objectives and Operational Objectives, coupled with the inevitable time pressures, can impose limits on the learning:

-the participants can become too task-oriented and feel that they have no time to stand back and reflect on fundamentals. They know they have to produce an agreed design or framework in so many days and may be tempted to omit or skimp on the necessary analytical stages;

-there is a reluctance to experiment, engage in free and innovative thinking, or to try out new ideas;

-a learning programme is a dynamic unfolding entity where unexpected learning opportunities present themselves at various points. In such a highly focused programme, there may be little opportunity to pursue learning that could be very valuable, but which was not initially anticipated in the learning and operational objectives. Learning could only go down pre-determined tracks;

-in some cases it induces stress in the participants.

There are some parallels here with criticisms made of the Logical Framework Approach to projects, which can, it has been argued, engender a lack of creativity and flexibility. (‘Projectized’ training programmes may well be a component part of projects expressed through the Logical Framework Approach.) MacArthur (1 993) argues for a ‘process’ approach to Logical Frameworks rather than a ‘static and deterministic blueprint’. Especially with projects centring on the social sector, human development and institutional projects, the Logical Framework should give little more than a general direction, argues MacArthur, and perhaps this approach should characterize the training components of such projects also.

Secondly, the notion of group rather than individual competence can give rise to problems of expectations and equity. Despite explanations, in considerable detail at the outset of the programme, of the rationale of group competence, there was

490 H. Taylor

initial opposition to the idea (which was not repeated on final evaluation) on the grounds that it would be unfair for different people to receive different training. There was a strong view that all participants should receive the same ‘input’. This perhaps reminds us that training opportunities, as well as being seen as an invest- ment by the organization geared towards achieving organizational objectives, are also viewed as a reward by employees/participants (even in a highly focused ‘projectized’ learning programme) in which considerations of equity are an important feature. (For an exposition of training as ‘reward’ rather than invest- ment, see Taylor, 1991 .) Specialization can introduce a potentially distracting tension because relationships could be threatened by issues such as ‘who goes out on placement?, ‘who stays on campus?’, and ‘under what criteria and by whom will these decisions be taken?.

The third problem is that relating to the pre-existing relationships that participants in a projectized programme bring into the learning arena. The previous section highlighted some of the positive aspects of this, but there are also a number of potential difficulties. Much, of course, depends on the nature and quality of such pre- existing relationships. If the relationships are characterized back in the workplace by mistrust, sectional politicking, lack of communication and competition, this would obviously have severe ramifications for a learning programme that is intended to be a joint co-operative venture. Whatever political and personality clashes exist within the organization will be carried over into the learning situation and will, depending on the situation, either enhance the learning possibilities or destroy the programme before it starts, or some outcome between these two extremes. A number of specific points require consideration under this heading:

-seniority is clearly an issue. Juniors often feel inhibited at exercizing leadership on a learning programme where senior officers are present, and conversely, senior officers may feel obliged, or indeed compelled, to try and dominate proceedings so as to reinforce their authority, when in reality, in the context of the learning programme, they are not in the best position to provide leadership;

-if more than one department is involved, there may be rivalry or a difference in perspective, and this may lead the group to fragment along departmental lines, especially where the project outcomes will subsequently alter the status and/or power balance of the various groups. In other words, there may be a ‘hidden agenda’.

If an external trainer is directing the learning (as may be necessary), he or she may either not be aware of, or imperfectly understand, the dynamics of the pre-existing relationships and the power structure and thus may be drawn into making incorrect assumptions.

The final problem relates to the variety of styles that are required of the trainer, as outlined in the previous section. This is difficult to achieve in that no one trainer is likely to possess, in sufficient measure, the full range of those skills, and hence compromises may be necessary. Also, even if one trainer did possess all the necessary skills, it may not be possible to combine them due to ‘behavioural role conflict’. For example, it would be difficult to play the ‘hard’ roles of ‘organizational critic’ and ‘evaluator’ one minute and then quickly switch the next minute to the ‘softer’ roles of ‘coach’ or ‘facilitator’ (Silverfarb, 1985).

Learning processes and the roles of trainers 49 1

V. CONCLUSION

Although a number of the practical implications and lessons of the foregoing may be readily apparent, the following recommendations for trainers, sponsors and their client organizations provide a summary:

-while the notion of tightly focused and linked Operational and Learning Objectives is useful, some degree of freedom needs to be exercized, e.g. whilst the Operational Objectives may be relatively fixed, the Learning Objectives could be framed to offer some degree of flexibility, recognizing that there are different means of learning to arrive at the required Operational Objectives;

--do not strangle creativity by putting too much pressure on participants (and trainers!);

-allow time for unstructured and unanticipated learning (it may be that this type of learning is finally the most valuable in its contribution to achieving the Operational Objective);

-very careful briefing is necessary where group competence and specialization are intended. Equity should be re-defined away from ‘everybody should get the same’ towards ‘everybody should make a contribution according to their talents, interests and preferences’;

-agree the ‘division of labour’ as early as practicable and, where possible, on the basis of consensus;

--one or more of the trainers involved should possess an in-depth knowledge of the ‘pre-existing relationships’ that affect the group;

-recognize that the programme may be as much about developing appropriate links and necessary trust between participants as it is about the assimilation of subject material. Both are crucial to achieving the Operational Objectives;

-at the same time do not expect the programme to resolve long-running disputes or serious structural difficulties within the organization;

--careful selection of participants is important. The criteria for selection might be: (a) ability to learn and co-operate, (b) commitment to the project outcomes, and (c) actually be in a position to influence the outcome on returning to the organization;

-a minimum of two trainers appears to be required, possessing complementary skills, or at least a single trainer who is able to switch easily from a didactic content-based approach to a participative style.

492 H. Taylor

APPENDIX I

OUTLINE FOR CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME FOR FCSC AND ASCON PERSONNEL

Operational objectives

1. To create a nucleus of competence in personnel management, both in terms of content and learning processes, within ASCON and FCSC, in order to provide effective training in strategic personnel management to Directors of Personnel in the Nigerian Civil Service.

2. To demonstrate and develop a sense of cohesion, teamwork and co-operation between ASCON and FCSC personnel to achieve the necessary shared values and mission to give effect to the personnel management component of Civil Service reform.

Learning objectives

N.B. These objectives are not framed in individual terms, but as learning objectives for the whole group of nine people: At the end of the Cweek Capability Development Programme the group should

1. Understand the concept of strategic personnel management and its relation to the formulation of personnel policies, practice and also its relevance to Civil Service reform in Nigeria.

2. Develop competences of policy formulation, advisory guidance and teaching in the following three specialist areas:

(a) employee resourcing (b) employee development (c) employee relations

3. Acquire a practical appreciation (via attachments) of implementing personnel policies at operational level to reinforce the specialist competences (developed in 2. above).

4. Have demonstrated an ability to design an effective learning strategy for the training of Directors of Personnel back in Nigeria.

5 . Draw up a plan of action for implementing the DoPs programme.

Learning processes and the roles of trainers 493

APPENDIX 2

CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME DETAILED TIMETABLE

WEEK 1

9

ntro to brogramme

ltrategic herview

Personnel Management

Qualitative Aspects

Personnel Management

Quantitative Aspects

Developing the PM Programme

WEEK 2

Introduction to Specialisation

3

EMPLOYEE

[NG

Demand forecasting

Establishing recruitment needs

Techniques of reant

Job design

Training needs

Labour market

RESOURC-

3

EMPLOYEE

MENT

Appraisals

Career management

Motivation

Learning

Methods of training

Counselling

Succession management

DEVELOP-

3

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS

Reward systems

Negotiation and bargaining

Representation

Communica- tions

Participation & involvement

9 Plenary Session: Feedback on Specialisation

Briefing for weeks 3 and 4

WEEK 3

3 6

P

R

0

G A

R T

A T

M A

M C

E H

D M

E E

S N

I T

G S

N

WEEK 4

3

P R O D G E R S A 1 M G M N E

6

A T T A C H M E N T S

Integration o Programme

Design & Attachments

Action Planning/ Finalisation of DoP Programme

Review/ evaluation

494 H. Taylor

REFERENCES

Bramley, P. (1991). Evaluating Training Effectiveness: Translating Theory into Practice,

Cassen, R. and Associates (1994). Does Aid Work? 2nd Ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cooke, R. and Armstrong, M. (1990). ‘The search for strategic HRM’, Personnel

Management, December Government of Nigeria (1988). ‘Presidential Task Force on the implementation of Civil

Service Reforms: Main Report and Summary of Recommendations’, Lagos. Hofstede, G. (1 980). Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,

Sage, Beverly Hills. Hulme, D. (1991). A Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Different Approaches in

Training Overseas Of3cers in the Fields of Management. Administration and Social Sciences, British Council, London.

Hunt, J. W. (1986). Managing People at Work: A Manager’s Guide to Behaviour in Organisations, McGraw Hill, London.

Iqbal, S. (1989). ‘Management of training awards: Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?’ Management Education and Development, 20, 67-76.

MacArthur, J. D. (1993). ‘The Logical Framework-a tool for the management of project planning and evaluation’, New Series Discussion Papers No. 42, Development and Project Planning Centre, University of Bradford.

Muscat, R. J. (1986). ‘Evaluating technical co-operation: a review of the literature’, Development Policy Review, 14, 69-89.

OECD Development Assistance Committee. (1995). ‘Development co-operation: efforts and policies of the members of the Development Assistance for 1994, G3 Statistical Appendix- Table 34.

Robinson, K. R. (1988). A Handbook of Training Management, 2nd Edn, Kogan Page, London, pp. 183-184.

Silverfarb, H. (1985). ‘The new facilitative role of the HRD practitioner’, Journal of European Zndurtriaf Training, 9, (7), pp. 17-21.

Taylor, H. (1991). ‘The systematic training model: corn circles in search of a spaceship’, Management Education and Development, 22, (4), pp. 258-278.

McGraw Hill, London.