How do we produce successful managers? Joy van Biljon Koue Bokkeveld Training Centre

1. How do we produce successful managers? Joy van Biljon Koue Bokkeveld Training Centre

2. Motivators • Shortage of managers • BEE • Massive expansion • Example of occupational based learning • DG’s speech : - excellent street sweepers - Ministers of thinking

3. System • 20 students every 2 years • “Juniour management” (Plant Production NQF 4) • Strict selection criteria • Strong workplace emphasis

4. But are they successful? • Observe stress problems - debt - affairs - alcohol • At work - problems with details - struggle with final responsibility • Outsiders more status + promotion

5. What do we need to do differently?

6. B) THE LEARNERSHIP The learnership consists of 5 components: Course work (i.e. modules) Practical assignments (relating to farm operations) ‘Field days’ (i.e. visits to farms in the region for the sake of practical illustration of the course work, e.g. soil science)

7. 4) Excursion to Cape Town and Stellenbosch 5) The ‘big’ assignment (in which students must demonstrate that they can manage an orchard from beginning to end, i.e. from planning the layout of the orchard to production and marketing)

8. Because it is part of a holistic approach to the learnership, one could argue that there is a 6th component, viz.: 6) ‘Voluit Vrou’: a course designed for the learners’ partners which is intended to assist in ‘managing’ their relationship for the duration of the course and after, when the partner may move into a new managerial role

9. D) PROFILE OF LEARNERS Average age when starting the learnership: 35.4 years

10. SCHOOL GRADE OBTAINED

11. POST-SCHOOL QUALIFICATION OBTAINED AT KBOS

12. POSITION AT START OF LEARNERSHIP

13. POSITION AFTER LEARNERSHIP

14. PROMOTION AFTER LEARNERSHIP Number promoted after completing learnership: 15/20

15. ANY SHORTCOMINGS IN THE COURSE WORK?

16. WHICH?

17. COULD YOU DO THE PRACTICAL ASSIGNMENTS WITHOUT ANY DIFFICULTY?

18. WAS IT EASY OR DIFFICULT TO DO THE ‘BIG’ ASSIGNMENT?

19. WHY IT WAS DIFFICULT

20. HAS THE LEARNERSHIP ENABLED YOU TO GET AHEAD?

21. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO STUDY?

22. F) SUMMARY Most ex-learners did the NQF4 course with the hope of getting promoted and obtaining the kinds of rewards that promotion brings with it: more responsibility, higher income etc. For most of the ex-learners this hope turned into reality after completing the course, although not always immediately Given this outcome, it is not surprising that the majority of ex-learners feel that the sacrifices they had to make, were worthwhile

23. Aspects of the course that stand out and are highlighted by the ex-students are: the orientation the competence of the ‘presenters’ (i.e. lecturers) the field days the excursion and the spirit and solidarity in the class

24. Also noticeable is the fact that most of them did get the support of their immediate superiors and even managers beyond their immediate radius of work The same goes for the support received from their partners; the ‘Voluit Vrou’ course plays a crucial role in this regard

25. Subsequent to completing the NQF4, most of the ex-students have not stopped learning, in the sense that they do short refresher courses from time to time Nevertheless, almost all of them expressed an interest in doing a course that would equip them with higher level managerial competence (e.g. NQF5?) If offered by the KBOS, most of them indicated that they may make use of this opportunity

26. G) MANAGER INTERVIEWS Only 9/20 of the managers were also the superiors (‘hoofde’) of the ex-students when they were doing the learnership As a result, it is only these managers that have been able to witness the ex-learner’s career and development since he/she started the learnership; the other 11 were not in a position to make the ‘before’ and ‘after’ comparison Nevertheless, we were interested in the latter’s views regarding the course and the prospect of ex-learners progressing to a higher managerial level

27. AS THE LEARNER’S SUPERIOR WERE YOU EQUIPPED TO HELP HIM/HER?

28. WAS THERE A NOTICABLE IMPROVEMENT IN THE LEARNER’S MANAGERIAL CAPABILITY AFTER COMPLETING THE COURSE?

29. HOW COULD THE COURSE BE IMPROVED?

30. HOW DOES HE/SHE COMPARE TO OTHER MANAGERS AT THE SAME LEVEL?

31. HOW DO YOU SEE THE PERSON’S CAREER FROM HERE ON?

32. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT SKILL NEEDS OF ‘YOUR’ EX-LEARNER?

33. H) SUMMARY Most of the managers we spoke to, hold senior positions at the farm (e.g. estate, farm or general managers) Most of the 9 ‘long term’ managers referred to above, thought that they were not well equipped to help the learner when the latter started the learnership Nevertheless, most of them did not find mentoring problematic, and did not feel that they had to make significant personal sacrifices

34. Although most of them thought that the farm was making sacrifices, most of them thought that these were reasonable By their own admission, most of the managers are not well informed on the course (modules etc.), and only a handful ever attended lectures or some of the field days Nevertheless, most of them offered suggestions as to how the course could be improved, with an emphasis on the KBOS ‘informing us better, involve us more’

35. The latter is a contentious point: is it a question of the KBOS not properly informing/involving managers (‘hoofde’), or the latter not responding to invitations/information? Only 9/20 managers thought unequivocally that ‘their’ junior manager was better than others in a similar position Only 9/20 were certain that ‘their’ ex-learner would progress to a higher level of management; 3 others thought that ‘their’ ex-learner had the ‘potential’

36. When reflecting on the reasons as to why 5 ex-learners were unlikely to progress, a lack of technical skills was not the most important one; more often it had to do with personality If one accepts this judgement at face value, it raises question as to what the KBOS could possibly do about it? Is it possible to develop even more effective selection procedures?

37. Conclusions • Managers/ farmers are not unwilling mentors, but are inexperienced/ too busy - a huge challenge for OFO model • Factors outside of learnership content must be considered • Funding too little for all recommended services

38. Provider challenges 1. Caught between production needs, seta needs and student ambitions

39. Massive gaps

40. Private providers Market dictates Fast + “no nonsense” Practical Adapt to students Minimum policy + procedures Community perspective No money – no work Dept Dept dictates Burocratic Academic Students must adapt Extensive policy restrictions Individual perspective Work with poorest

41. RESULT: WHEN ?? The client is waiting! Make it easier! Another form? What does it cost? Remember : paper and transport costs money! NO : we can’t change the dates. The minister has suddenly called a meeting and we have to cancel. You still need to fill in form bvjg86785764! We can’t say because we don’t have our budget . That does not apply to our department. USE THE TEMPLATE ! private dept

42. RESULT: I don’t know what they expect me to do! What we are doing makes no sense. The private providers are uncooperative. private dept

43. Private providers What unit standard ? What NQF level is an N level? FET It is not unit standard based. What N level are you talking about?

44. RESULT: We don’t know how to involve FET services although we can see the benefits The private providers don’t understand how things work. private FET

45. Private providers Can this project make a profit? Why should I encourage internships? -The client is king AgriSETA Focus on targets Interns - The Minister is king

46. Ignorence amongst providers e.g. - What exactly must a POE look like? - What does accreditation with Umalusi mean? - How do BEE scorecards calculate training points? • How does RPL work? - When is someone competent?

47. Providers avoiding the real issues - What is die demography where you work? • What is happening to brokers and seasonal workers? • Are real issues being addressed?

48. Agricultural anomolies - Compare to training for Checkers (secondary agric?) • Training for farm manager • Admin role of farmer

49. WSP’s • Disgrace • However : - no OFO code for “general worker” - for most SDF’s first use of OFO codes - big problems with name/bank/business format changes

50. Current attitude? • Unenthusiastic • In need of clear guidance (how-to rather than philosophy)