The Development of Professional Management

Training, Consultancy, and Management Theory in Industrial History

John F. Wilson, Ian Jones, Steven Toms, John F. Wilson, Ian Jones, Steven Toms

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000441994
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Betriebswirtschaft
• Subtopic: Wirtschaftsgeschichte

This shortform book presents key peer-reviewed research selected by expert series editors and contextualised by new analysis from each author on the development of professional management.

With contributions on consultancy and the training of consultants, Taylorism and its appeal to socialists, the social position of managers, and the growth of the managerial class, this volume provides an array of fascinating insights into industrial history.

Of interest to business and economic historians, this shortform book also provides analysis and illustrative case studies that will be valuable reading across the social sciences.

1 Models of management education and training
The ‘Consultancy Approach’^*

Michael Ferguson

DOI: 10.4324/9781003206996-1

The long term objective of all management consultancy is education. The only complete management consulting job is the management consulting job that leaves the client’s managerial staff re-educated, alive, educating themselves.¹

In 1986, the National Economic Development Council, the Manpower Commission and the British Institute of Management together sponsored research into management education and training. The purpose of the research was to examine what was going on within competitor countries as a comparator with the provision of management education and training in Britain at that time. The competitor countries reviewed were the United States, Japan, France and West Germany, with the output of the research being an official publication entitled ‘The Making of Managers’.² The information obtained through the research was subsequently published in a book in 1988 under the title ‘Making Managers’.³ Within the book, each of the countries was examined in turn. As far as the British experience was concerned, the author of the chapter, Charles Handy, developed the notion that there were three models of management education and training: the ‘Corporate Approach’, the ‘Academic Approach’ and the ‘Professional Approach’.⁴ The findings of both the report (official publication) and the subsequent book related to the situation that existed by the mid-1980s. There was no attempt to map the progression of management education and training within Britain, other than through a short historical sketch of some of the main events that had occurred within these fields. The purpose of this article is not to challenge the notion of models or the situation described within both documents in relation to the mid-1980s. The purpose is to put forward the position that there was a fourth model, the ‘Consultancy Approach’. This model was both inextricably linked with the historical situation of the other three and important, in its own right, with regard to the progression of management education and training in Britain in the twentieth century.⁵ In addition, this article will indicate that the progression of management education and training, certainly with regard to the Consultancy Approach, is linked with the notion that management was not a subject for which a formal occupational education was applicable. It was only through changes to this dominant position over time that the peculiar situation within Britain with regard to the education and training of managers evolved more positively.

In order to provide a coherent argument, this article is broken down into a number of sections. The first section examines in outline the historical progression of management education and training in Britain during the twentieth century through to the period preceding the time frame concerned with ‘The Making of Managers’ study. Handy’s findings, specifically the make-up of his three models, are examined in the second section. The third section examines the input of the management consultant through two distinct forms of role: the ‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’ roles. The difference between the two largely relates to their immediacy of impact. There is then a conclusion that attempts to bring together the various themes and highlight the notion that there was in fact a fourth model of education and training, the Consultancy Approach. This is achieved through reviewing Handy’s three models and the work of the consultants. This review will highlight that not only was the Consultancy Approach distinctive in its own right, but that elements of it were present in each of the other three models.

I. Management education and training in the twentieth century to the 1980s

The development of management education and training, encompassing all inputs into the process of improvement through both direct and indirect instructions, was not a dynamic process in the first half of the twentieth century. Keeble charts this lack of progress, describing a grim situation in which the only available avenue for continuing education was ‘after-work study’.⁶ Such an education could be obtained through the mix of courses on offer at the technical schools, leading to a multiplicity of qualifications, or through the universities where courses were on offer at degree and pre-degree level. This may be a general statement of the situation, but it does, nonetheless, provide a backdrop for developing an understanding of what was going on up to that time. Ultimately, she describes an un-coordinated approach nationally, with the ability to choose a defined path to assist in career development hampered by an ad hoc array of courses with no defined progressive output.⁷ However, she does qualify this statement, somewhat, by stating that ‘Many (institutions) offered courses leading to qualifications of (some of) the professional institutes’.⁸ The point being made here was that there was a common element, ‘management’, but this element was treated differently, by and large, by the various bodies and providers. However, obtaining such qualifications was hampered by the necessity to acquire them in a manner that provided an additional burden for the student. ‘They studied for them outside of working hours – via correspondence courses, or evening classes in schools, technical colleges, and universities’.⁹ Having said this, this particular regime of training may not have been totally unwelcome by businesses at that time as it was both relatively costless to them and it enabled an identification of those individuals who were demonstrating a willingness to improve their employability and knowledge.

The 1945 General Election witnessed the arrival of a new Labour Government with a large majority following a campaign that was dominated by the concept of full employment.¹⁰ The primary objectives of the government were rooted in the experiences of the past, specifically the unemployment situation of the 1930s.¹¹ Consequently, the Government’s objectives were centred on the birth of the Welfare State that had as its central feature the National Health Service. In addition, the nationalisation of major industries and services, including coal mining, railways and the major utilities, was a central tenet of government policy. In support of the government’s aims, there was an emphasis on industrial productivity. Three major initiatives were launched in the immediate post-war period:

1. The Privy Council Committee on Industrial Productivity, which had as its chairman Sir Henry Tizard. This was set up in December 1947 to find the ways and means for the government to improve industrial productivity.
2. An approach to the United States Economic Co-operation Administration, the body that administered Marshall Aid (European reconstruction), that led to the establishment of the Anglo American Productivity Council in 1947.
3. The 1944 Education Act, implemented in 1948, raised the compulsory school leaving age to fifteen. This resulted in a general raising of the standard of education and prevented young people from entering the labour market for a further year.

The first two initiatives were concerned with management, a subject that was beginning to take centre stage in the Government’s concerns.¹² In parallel with those initiatives, and immediately before them, two further initiatory movements were in train. The first of these was the Ministry of Education (Urwick) Committee on education for management. The purpose of the Committee was to advise the Minister on the requirements to initiate training for managers. This had organisation studies as a particular emphasis.¹³ The second movement was the formation of the Baillieu Committee to advise on the creation of a central institute of management. Government had already made up its mind that a central institution would be formed and that a programme of management education would take place; the purpose of both committees was to detail how those initiatives would be implemented. However, these initiatives were not interrelated and this was a weakness in the whole approach. At the same time, in the post-war period, much the same as in the interwar era, the general situation remained. There still existed confusion in terms of a clearly defined and universally recognised progressive route for management education and training. Once again, this was reflected in an ad hoc array of courses available within both technical schools and universities, resulting in a wide range of qualifications, with no clearly defined path or focus in terms of management. This situation was confirmed by Silberston, who considered that the majority of courses on offer contained subjects that were only loosely related to the field of management, a point made by Handy in the following section.¹⁴ Within such courses, with the exception of the Certificate and Diploma in Management Studies, later revised in 1961, the subject of management was not the central theme.¹⁵ For example, at university level, the Commerce degree tended to be the main course, with management as a subject effectively being relegated to modular status within the overall course structure. As an aside, the base literature for these higher-level education courses at that time tended to have originated in the United States. This was because whilst there was a growing literature base in this country, the majority of books were written for a business audience. In other words, in the main, they were practical guides for improvement rather than meeting the exacting academic standards required for use in the universities and other educational institutes. They were, however, used quite extensively within the Certificate and Diploma courses in the technical and commercial colleges.

A more detailed review of the post-war situation supports the generalised contention described above, because while there were movements within academic circles and a recognition of the need for developing an educational platform for managers, this was hampered by attitudes both within businesses and academia in general. For example, many within business either believed that management was a practical subject that could only be learnt on the job, partly steeped within the tradition of ‘managers are born, not made’, or that it was a subject that could not be defined and taught.¹⁶ To that end, it was argued that the ability to manage was an in-bred quality and individuals simply required some form of ‘grooming’ to make them effective within the firm. Within academia, a similar situation occurred in that, according to Wilson, academics were slow to take up the opportunities afforded by developments within management itself.¹⁷ This was with the exception of those involved in the formation of the Foundation for Management Education in 1960.¹⁸ This catastrophic combination meant that Britain was not on a progressive path to developing a definitive solution for the education and training needs of Britain’s managers.¹⁹

This fragmented situation is confirmed within a series of publications produced by the British Institute of Manageme...