However, one pattern became obvious toward the conclusion of the research process.  Many of the issues cited by the majority of participants were contradicted by those individuals who were the more knowledgeable and sophisticated.  That is, the more qualified / educated / skilled research participants  in the research who were also a minority of leaders and managers often contradicted the larger general population  composed of those who may not have had the benefit of advanced management development.  

The most explicit example of such contradictions was observed on the topic of funding (See also Chapter 5). Funding was the number one issue raised by the majority of survey respondents. And it was invariably claimed that it was the lack of funds available for their organisation/programs that was the basis for the challenges they faced.  However, the more highly competent experts described funding as “elastic”; and they asserted that more than enough funding is available for good programs, projects and organisations.  That is, the real issue is one of management capability and adoption of more professional approaches, not a shortage of funding.

Compounding the lack of management capability is the confusion that arises when general management vocabulary is used.  This confusion arises from unclear / different word-meaning relationships in the field of general management in the sector (See Chapter 9).  Without a common vocabulary stakeholders have great difficulty communicating, and thus cooperating to any meaningful degree.  The lack of common word-meaning relationships is also due, in part, to the lack of professional development and socialisation that occurs through formal and informal management development.

Apart from these issues of capabilities and skills, issues of motivation and intent can also complicate matters.  Many examples described by participants can be explained by a misalignment of interests (See Chapter 10). The absence of objective frameworks / ways of thinking through issues elevates the role of power and rhetoric in decision making, sometimes leading to unjust outcomes.

In the second survey, respondents were asked how they expected a windfall increase in funding would be allocated.  It was disappointing to find that the two items that were least likely to get an increase were staff salaries and senior staff education and training. 

Instead, the majority of respondents would pursue investments and activity that pre-supposes a level of management capability that does not exist!

The problem is even greater with for-profit respondents, of whom 100% said they’d expect to see an expansion of existing programs and over 90% said they’d start new services or projects.  Also, government employees were less inclined to increase salaries.

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)