The first time I became a head of department after I had obtained a qualification in Leadership was when I was the Head of Mathematics at Merton College in the United Kingdom (UK). Prior to that I had been Head of Mathematics at Akrokerri Training College (long before it became a College of Education) and also Head of Teaching Practice at the University of Cape Coast. I must add that the difference between my performance before I obtained a formal Leadership qualification and that after my qualification has always been crystal clear. My post qualification performance has always been superior!
At Merton College, I was also a certified Investors in People (IIP) Assessor and was tasked by the College Senior Management to review my department using the Investors in People Standard, which had just been revised. The original Standard was developed in 1990 by the UK National Training Task Force, in partnership with leading business, personnel, various professionals and employee organisations. The original Standard provided a national framework for improving business performance and competitiveness through a planned approach to setting and communicating business objectives and developing people to meet these objectives. It did set out a level of good practice for the training and development of people in order to achieve business goals. The revised version was more comprehensive than the original Standard and arguably more difficult to meet.
The Mathematics Department was going through a process of change as a result of the structural (and possibly cultural) changes that were being made in the College as a whole. Structural changes are those changes that are concerned with the way functional units are organised to carry out their responsibilities. The focus includes policy and procedure, rules and regulations, management and staffing, facilities and equipment, and human resource practices. Cultural changes, on the other hand, are concerned with the way people interact with each other, both in peer relationships and in superior-subordinate relationships. Since cultural changes are to do with people, it is arguably the more difficult of the two to successfully deal with.
The review of the Department was undertaken in order to find out the extent to which it met the indicators of the Standard in the face of the changes that were being implemented in the College. Since the Department was one the most successful departments in the College prior to the changes, it was hoped that it had taken the structural and possibly cultural changes in its stride and that any identified good practice (with regard to response to the changes) could be disseminated throughout the College.
The review was also indirectly testing the impact of the changes on the College’s Investors in People status, for if the Department did not meet any of the indicators (which it had met in the review before the structural changes), then this would help the College to identify which of the indicators was affected by the changes, considering that the new Standard was not totally different from the earlier one. This would mean finding ways of meeting the indicator(s) before the application for the renewal of the College’s Investors in People status was made. Put simply, the College had acknowledged that the changes could affect the views of staff generally and that it was important to take the on-going changes into consideration in the IIP renewal venture.
The IIP assessment is basically qualitative in nature. It is designed to collect views of people in the organisation about how best improvements can be planned, implemented and evaluated. In the review under discussion, all the 12 lecturers and 7 administrative staff in the Department were interviewed using the IIP assessment framework. During the interviews, I discussed with participants the context of the Department, its aims and objectives, how it was managed and how its processes compared with the evidence requirements of the Standard. All the interviews were conducted within four days, each lasting between 30-60 minutes.
On the fifth day, I met with all the participants to give feedback on the findings of the exercise. This discussion is a key part of every IIP assessment’s value to the organisation by offering staff insights and suggestions about the organisation’s operations which no other professional could provide.
The overall conclusion was that the Mathematics Department did not meet the “new” Investors in People Standard because not all the indicators were met. Specifically, 2 out of the 10 indicators were not met by the Department. These indicators were: “A strategy for improving the performance of the organisation is clearly defined and understood” and “People are encouraged to take ownership and responsibility by being involved in decision-making”.
Lecturers and administrative staff interviewed knew the mission of the College, recalled the main elements of the Strategic Plan and were also able to outline the main objectives of the Department with regard to performance improvement. However, the majority of them did not think they were consulted adequately on the development of the Strategic Plan and did not know how they were expected to achieve the Department’s objectives.
Also, most of the lecturers and administrative staff did not think they were encouraged to take ownership and responsibility for decisions that affected their performance and that of the Department. Some thought I encouraged too much consultation at the College level and this made them feel the Department could not achieve anything without consulting the leadership of the College.
The findings of the review were shared with Senior Management of the College and the real work began in all departments. Based on the findings of the review of the Mathematics Department, every department in the College worked so hard to meet the new Standard – and it paid off!
The External Assessors who did the real review for the renewal of the College’s IIP status concluded that the College achieved accreditation against the revised Investors in People Standard because all aspects of every indicator had been met to a large extent in nearly every department – a very happy ending indeed!!
The moral of the story is that valid self-assessment against appropriate standards in accreditation work!!!
About the Author
Prof. Jonathan Fletcher, FCILG. The Author is the Dean for School of Leadership and Education of University of Ghana. He is a member of the National Executive Council of the Chartered Institute of Leadership and Governance, Ghana Chapter.
Reprint Policy: You may reprint/publish the above article. All we ask is that you keep all links active, make no changes to article and include the author’s bio. Article Resource: CILG Ghana