The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.

com

Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,6 502

Personal development for managers getting the process right

Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, UK
Keywords Personal development plans, Management development, Individual behaviour Abstract The success of contemporary structures relies on the personal competence of managers. This can imply a significant change in the attitudes and behaviour of individual managers. Personal development, a process that aims to help individuals learn about and change their style and approach, has consequently become an important feature of management development for many organisations. But personal development does not always achieve lasting and significant change. Development with ambitious objectives demands a particular process incorporating four essential prerequisites: a focus on the development of meta-abilities; a period of discomfort, where inappropriate behaviours can be examined and ``unlearned''; a focused ``transition'' which moves the individual towards the most pertinent of objectives; an understanding of how these abilities are used in the context of an organisational agenda. A process used on programmes at a leading European business school based on these components is described.

Reflections
Sally Atkinson

Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 6, 1999, pp. 502-511. # MCB University Press, 0268-3946

Introduction It is widely acknowledged that the need for change in management practice has never been more stark. Flatter, leaner organisations require managers who can operate effectively in fast-moving, and uncertain environments. The move from hierarchical bureaucracies which embodied longevity and certainty has demanded a radical rethink of the individual skills and behaviours associated with ``competent'' management. These changes have been described as the removal of the ``crutch of unchallengeable authority'', requiring the ability to ``juggle'' differing constituencies, seek co-operation and exert interpersonal and social influence (Kanter, 1989; Bragg, 1996). It is frequently the quality of individual managerial contributions that is critical to the success of contemporary organisational forms. Moreover the efficacy of management development processes is often greatest at the individual level. It therefore seems appropriate to target individual attitudes and behaviours as the starting point for organisational development interventions. Indeed, it is now strongly argued that the starting-point for organisation development must be with the individual (Butcher et al., 1997). Yet the starting-point for many such interventions is still the organisational level. In other words, the focus is on changing established cultural and social relationships and practices. Recent evidence suggests that the preparation managers typically receive within organisations before external personal development programmes is patchy (Atkinson and Meldrum, 1998). It is quite clear that despite having invested significant amounts of money and time, many organisations do not provide support for managers on their return to the workplace. Indeed, a major

research study showed that it is very much the norm for participants not to Personal receive developmental support, or even much organisational interest, in what development for they have done (Harvey and Butcher, 1998). This finding is particularly managers striking since sponsors were actively encouraged to contribute to the ongoing developmental process of the programmes to which the study refers. This paper seeks to set out a clearer understanding of the outcomes and 503 processes required for personal development that is ambitious. In other words, for development where the outcomes are stretching and complex and the change must be significant and lasting. It describes a model used on the general management programmes at a leading European business school which is designed to achieve ambitious development. The characteristics of an ambitious personal development process Although much recent attention has been paid to the creation of management competencies, less seems to have focused on the practical process of their development (Brewis, 1996). Specifying personal development outcomes that match complex organisational needs has been problematic. What is more, a development process that delivers these outcomes must match their ambitions if progress is to be made. The critical question is how to ensure such a match. A process which seeks to achieve complex and demanding outcomes is necessarily special in nature and focus. Research evidence, theoretical writings and practical experience suggest that it has four essential prerequisites: (1) focus on meta-abilities; (2) personal transition; (3) focused transition; (4) organisational relevance. 1. Focus on meta-abilities Specifying the outcomes required of personal development for managers is no easy task. It has, of course, been greatly influenced by the increasingly widespread focus on competencies. In an attempt to pin down precisely what elements of knowledge, skills and attitudes managers need, much effort has been made to create detailed lists. As yet there is no ``super list'' or model of competence to which all managers should aspire nor should there be (Brewis, 1996). The very existence of a model implies that there is a ``one right way'' to manage. And by suggesting that such competencies are indispensable, an exclusionary perspective is created. It could be assumed that effective management does not happen without the skilled accomplishment of each and every competency. Experience suggests that this is clearly not the case (Brewis, 1996). Yet this lack of clarity has led to a fragmented view of the key competencies that an organisation needs to emphasise in order to use personal development for managers most effectively. However, perhaps the greatest problem of the competency movement has been the reduction of the practice of management to a set of technical competencies. This fails to incorporate critical

Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,6 504

dimensions of the nature of contemporary managerial work, and hence limits the usefulness of the outcomes thereby obtained. Recognition of the social and relational role of management is often left out (Wilmott, 1994), as is the capacity to question existing relationships and assumptions. As a consequence, it has been suggested that processes which rely on such competencies may not be effective in producing managers who have the ability to learn how to develop, and who are better able to understand and adapt to their rapidly changing environment (Salaman and Butler, 1990). A recent development in defining personal development outcomes for managers, with less of the problems of the competency approach, is the concept of meta-abilities (Harvey and Butcher, 1998; Harvey, 1997). The concept of meta-abilities builds on the ideas of several writers (Burgoyne, 1988; Schroder, 1989; Pedler et al., 1994; Goleman, 1995). It is grounded in the idea that a manager's effective performance is inextricably linked to his or her psychological development or maturity. Management is a social process, managerial action being a sum of the entire complex human being, acting in concert with other human beings. It has become clear that merely training individuals in skills or competencies is no guarantee that they will use them effectively. Nor can the ability to judge when and how skills should be used be easily described or quantified. A meta-ability is defined as ``an underlying learned ability which plays an important role in enabling a wider range of management knowledge and skills to be used effectively''. It describes a group of psychological factors which are prerequisites for the performance of more specific competencies. The approach takes the already widely held assumption that competence is not just a function of knowledge, but the effective use of that knowledge in action. Four meta-abilities are generically applicable to the effective performance of a contemporary management role: (1) cognitive skills; (2) self-knowledge; (3) emotional resilience; and (4) personal drive. Cognitive skills are defined as ``the key thought processes required to `read' situations and which can be used to understand and resolve problems or issues''. They consist of five main elements: (1) cognitive complexity to take in multiple and integrated perspectives; to recognise and hold conflicting concepts in mind; (2) cognitive flexibility to shift perspectives, remain open-minded and consider possibilities; (3) visionary ability to take a long-term perspective and envisage a strategic direction;

(4) gaining clarity to use information effectively; to sort, prioritise and Personal analyse data; development for (5) perceptual acuity to notice and interpret what is happening in managers interpersonal interactions. Self-knowledge includes self-awareness and the awareness of one's own impact on others. Emotional resilience includes four major elements: (1) to exert self-control and self-discipline; (2) to manage emotions appropriately; (3) to be personally resilient in coping with pressure and adversity; (4) to have a balanced view of the self. Personal drive is defined as ``personal achievement orientation and motivation''. It includes personal ambition for responsibility, the ability to motivate oneself and others, and to take personal risks. The contribution of the concept of meta-abilities is that it provides clarity and insight into what managerial `competence' might represent for organisations which are ambitious about both their business and management development strategies. It suggests a generic model, whilst allowing for the contextual interpretation of that model by the individual and the organisation. The development of meta-abilities is therefore the first prerequisite. 2. Personal transition Meta-abilities cannot be developed significantly without self-insight and change. The importance of such a process has long been acknowledged (Brouwer, 1964). This goes way beyond just ``finding out interesting things'' about oneself. Its basic tenet is that in order to achieving lasting changes in behaviour, managers are required to ``unlearn'' some of the skills and assumptions which had hitherto served them well. The crucial role of unlearning cannot be overstated. It demands a special process of personal change which is significantly different from the cumulative or incremental learning often associated with training. This includes a ``transition'' phase, when old habits and their underlying rationale are challenged, critically appraised and ``unlearned'', as appropriate (Adams et al., 1976). This process is typically discontinuous, where progress is not achieved in logical steps. In order to trigger transition, the insight must have significant personal meaning. Individuals need to respond emotionally, requiring the ability to resist defensiveness and to experience a level of discomfort in order to see themselves in a different light. The process must allow individuals to face the consequences of their actions and habits and to determine those aspects with which they are uncomfortable. In fact, the level of discomfort frequently needs to be significant enough to produce a reaction, so as to make change a personal imperative (Brouwer, 1964). The possibilities for change are acknowledged in

505

Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,6 506

the psychological literature. It now seems generally accepted that the individual is capable of changing their self-concept, which is seen as ``a dynamic interpretative structure that mediates most significant interpersonal processes . . . active, forceful and capable of change'' (Markus and Wurf, 1987). It is these possibilities which create the second prerequisite a development process which guides the manager through a personal transition, crucially involving the discomfort of an unlearning phase. 3. Focused transition This is not to say that personal change involving transition is sufficient in itself as a precondition for management development. For the changes need to be targeted on aspects of the individual's behaviour, or on a personal frame of reference, that are inappropriate or limiting in a managerial context. Managers need to be able to situate the use of meta-abilities in terms of an agenda which is vivid and real. Ambitious development cannot afford to be bland or wishywashy, nor can it afford to result in irrelevant transitions. In other words, there should be a focused transition. For example, objectives of ``communicating better'' or ``becoming more efficient'' are vague enough to allow the individual to pretend to make changes, without actually improving their managerial performance. Clearly the focus of the transition must be to the most pertinent meta-abilities for that individual. The idea of focused transition, therefore, is the third prerequisite for the personal development process. 4. Organisational relevance Arguably all development processes can be said to attend to the behavioural strategies of an individual in their own right, in whatever context they find themselves. Yet management development must deliver just that effectiveness in a managerial role. And the logic for personal development for managers is that managerial effectiveness is inextricably linked to organisational effectiveness. This is, after all, the clear rationale for engaging individuals in the difficult process of transition. If there are other benefits such as greater self-confidence or feelings of less tension, as are common, these are naturally desirable. However, the focus of the process must clearly reflect its primary purpose: developing and enhancing the use of meta-abilities in the performance of managerial work in an organisational setting. This therefore provides the final prerequisite for the development process and distinguishes it from processes which allow the individual to proceed in whatever developmental direction they wish. A working model of ambitious development It is clear that not all development processes currently used are able to incorporate these prerequisites in their design. Strong criticism has been levelled at some approaches in terms of both the outcomes they intend and the processes they employ (Williams, 1996). For example, processes involving profiling instruments have been used in a number of capacities. Typically

participants complete a self-report questionnaire, possibly supplemented by Personal other inputs. The instruments are then scored and a profile produced as development for feedback. This feedback may be accompanied by a personal interview by an managers expert interpreter of the instrument. The participant is then encouraged to see how these findings, framed in the language and style of the particular model of behaviour upon which the instrument is based, fit in with their self507 observations. The insights provided are then used in further practical skill application or development, leading to the creation of a personal list of future actions. Such instruments, constrained by the need to apply rigour to what is naturally a highly subjective area, inevitably tend to force complex behaviours into simplified dimensions or matrices. There are criticisms of the outcomes which may be produced by such a process. For example, the feedback which emerges for each participant cannot be taken as reflective of the real self. At best, it is a reflection of the self seen through the categories suggested by the instruments (Brewis, 1996). The scoring process can also lead to conclusions based on what may be insubstantial behavioural indicators and spurious quantification (Williams, 1996). This criticism is, of course, often levelled at the application of scientific methods to areas typified by subjectivity. And there are naturally questions about the usefulness of self-reporting instruments in development. These include the ability of participants to read the scoring system or to answer in ways that are deliberately different from their natural responses. It is clear that there are situations where such an approach would be relevant. They may, for example, provide a common language or understanding of personal style. But they are not appropriate for ambitious personal development, focused transition and the development of meta-abilities. Unfortunately, few critiques of personal development processes offer a comprehensive alternative. One business school has developed a possible approach for its general management programmes. The model is based on the principle that managers who are seen as key players now or in the future of their organisations, require and desire meta-abilities to optimise their performance. They have already demonstrated some level of psychological maturity through their performance. Achieving meaningful personal insight requires a process which is as natural and close to the reality of the individual participant as possible. It must also be engaging, to incite the curiosity of participants who might be distracted by self-aggrandisement or defensiveness. The personal challenge is to see the value of understanding what is more and less effective about current behaviours and to discover what more could be achieved through alternatives. Leaving the development process entirely to the individual participant is unlikely to achieve the type of challenging insight required. Research has shown that if this is so, most people will naturally choose interaction partners who see them as they see themselves (Swann et al., 1991) and that self-serving biases often affect the strategies individuals use to access, construct and

Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,6 508

evaluate self-knowledge (Kunda, 1990). The model emphasizes the role of the facilitator in ensuring that such distractions do not get in the way of the development process. The process is close to managerial and individual reality. It has to avoid what Williams (1996) describes as ``psychobabble'' by using the natural insights of individual programme participants. Clearly the use of theoretical frameworks and language is only justified if they will assist a change in managerial performance. The objectives of the business school process are to develop meta-abilities, constantly requiring a focus on the context of management. The relevance of each meta-ability for that individual must be identified in terms of their own role. The process used has several key stages. First, participants are encouraged to build personal ``pictures'' of their habits and strategies. This is initially through uncontrived interactions, e.g. opportunities where individuals have seen each other's behaviour where the focus has not been on improvement. This early part of the process concentrates on building up personal observations and feedback; later, the accent moves to experimenting with new behaviours. The acquisition of self-knowledge alone, however, is not sufficient to ensure real personal meaning. The process then includes a pivotal interim phase where evidence of ineffectiveness is brought sharply into focus. Here, experiential projects are used, specifically to test the managerial skills and meta-abilities of participants. These projects are varied in style, some being close to the operational role of the managers involved, others being more removed. This allows for breadth of close personal and social interaction opportunities. The role of the facilitator is also important here, in helping to identify each individual's personal agenda for change and ensuring that commitment to that agenda is reached. It is usually at this point that an affective response to the process is expected. The latter part of the process relies on the maintenance of that clear agenda in moving into a period of experimenting. The extent of experimentation is clearly dependent on a number of factors: the ability to picture precisely what the new behaviours will look like; the ability to move beyond a defensive reaction; the ability to spot opportunities; the ambition of the individual. Experimentation that does take place successfully within the context of the peer group environment on the programme remains a powerful force for enduring change once back in the workplace. This idea has been noted by other writers (Tice, 1992). At no point is the individual expected to match up to any set of abstract dimensions. The success of the individual's development is entirely measured in the social context, as is managerial performance. Nonetheless, the climate encourages challenge and critical debate, from which no presenters or facilitators are exempt. Whilst knowledge acquisition plays a part in the overall programme, the development of relevant meta-abilities in an environment free from the hidden agendas often experienced in the workplace is the main

imperative. The final part of the process requires the participants to present an Personal ambitious personal action plan as a commitment to action to the peer group on development for the programme. managers The nature of transition means that individuals will normally return to work having passed through the period of discomfort and ``unlearning'' into a phase of experimentation. The design guides individuals through a focused transition 509 and into early experimentation. But whilst an external programme provides a good environment for personal transition and unlearning, it is not possible or appropriate to try to replicate the participant's personal managerial context. The experimentation phase is key to learning which new strategies are most effective and to building up confidence in using enhanced meta-abilities. But it requires recognition from the organisation and most particularly, the individual's sponsor, of the characteristics of the experimentation phase. Typically individuals at times feel highly successful and confident, and at other times vulnerable and sensitive; they are highly aware of the impact that others are having on interpersonal situations, and critically weigh up this impact; they question strategies and wish to make an impact personally on their sphere of influence within the organisation. The potential role of the sponsor as mentor, guide and provider of feedback in such a phase is crucial. It is different from what might follow a typical training course. There, the course starts in the experimentation phase, progressing towards greater skill levels. Thus the visible changes in the participant's behaviour are likely to be quite different. To experience and participate fully in such a development process requires openness, enthusiasm, personal resilience, and the willingness to take personal risks. It involves mental and emotional energy, unlike other forms of training or skill development. Participants frequently note that it requires more of them than the performance of their typical managerial role. But such a development process cannot suddenly stop upon return to the workplace, if it is to be truly effective. There is not enough time or opportunity to test and challenge new behaviours so that they are integrated into the individual's natural style during the programme. This is perhaps obvious, yet evidence suggests that on their return, managers are frequently left to their own devices. Managers who are able and willing to challenge and support in a developmental capacity, as mentors for example, appear scarce. Some seem threatened by returnees who are now more confident and visibly competent. Having invested time, money and energy in aiming to develop the key players of the future, this is a strange situation. Conclusion The previous discussion has touched on the sheer difficulties encountered in designing and delivering an ambitious and meaningful personal development process. The prerequisites for such a process are frequently absent in part or in whole. This has wider consequences than just the development of particular individual managers, for many organisations fail to recognise and capitalise on the critical role that individual development plays in organisational

Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,6 510

development. If it happens at all, it is usually at a later stage of the process. But it could be more powerfully used as the starting-point for organisational development. Managers are in the midst of a transformation of the organisational world. New challenges and pressures driving the emergence of new organisational forms are consequently changing the nature of organisational development. The appropriateness of development as corporately controlled, organisationwide change is in question. There is a fundamental shift in emphasis towards the contribution of individuals and above all managers. The reality is that change is created through the establishment of ``pockets of good practice'' achieved through individual vision, commitment and enthusiasm. The ability to do this is emerging as an important aspect of contemporary management work. Individuals who are capable of doing this need underlying learned abilities which underpin their use of managerial knowledge and other skills: meta-abilities. Such abilities cannot be developed through acquisitive incremental leaning, but rather through a process of personal transition which involves gaining self-insight and unlearning old habits in the face of new management challenges.
References Adams, J., Hayes, J. and Hopson, B. (1976), Transition: Understanding and Managing Personal Change, Pitman Press, London. Atkinson, S. and Meldrum, M. (1998), ``Don't waste money on management development'', Organisations and People, Vol. 5 No. 4, November. Bragg, M. (1996), Re-inventing Influence: How to Get Things Done in a World without Authority, Pitman Publishing, London. Brewis, J. (1996), ``The `making' of the `competent' manager: competency development, personal effectiveness and Foucault'', Management Learning, Vol. 27 No. 1. Brouwer, P. (1964), ``The power to see ourselves'', Harvard Business Review, NovemberDecember, pp. 156-67. Burgoyne, J. (1988), ``Competency approaches to management development'', Paper given at IMP Conference, Harrogate. Butcher, D., Harvey, P. and Atkinson, S. (1997), Developing Businesses through Developing Individuals, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield. Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury Publishing, New York, NY. Harvey, P. (1997), ``Unlocking the potential of meta-abilities'', Management Skills and Development, September. Harvey, P. and Butcher, D. (1998), ``Those who make a difference: developing businesses through developing individuals'', Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 30 No. 1. Kanter, R. (1989), When Giants Learn to Dance, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. Kunda, Z. (1990), ``The case for motivated reasoning'', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 480-98. Markus, H. and Wurf, E. (1987), ``The dynamic self-concept: a social psychological perspective'', Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 299-337. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1994), A Manager's Guide to Self-Development, McGrawHill.

Salaman, G. and Butler, J. (1990), ``Why managers won't learn'', Management Education and Development, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 183-91. Schroder, H. (1989), Managerial Competence: The Key to Excellence, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. Swann W., Stein-Seroussi, A. and Giesler, R. (1991), ``Why people self-verify'', Journal of Pers. Social Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 392-401. Tice, D. (1992), ``Self-concept change and self-presentation: the looking-glass self is also a magnifying glass'', Journal of Pers. Social Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 435-51. Williams, S. (1996), A Balloon Waiting to Be Burst? Pseudomanagement Training, Research Report 22, The Social Affairs Unit, London. Wilmott, H. (1994), ``Management education: provocations to a debate'', Management Learning, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 105-36.

Personal development for managers 511