Fatima%20Malik%20%28PhD%20Thesis%2c%202016%29-1

Employer engagement within the institutional macro, meso and micro-

perspective training contexts of the UK’s Northwest Bio Region

FATIMA MALIK

Submitted in accordance with the requirements of the degree of PhD

The University of Leeds

Leeds University Business School

Work and Employment Relations Division

(Revised Work according to comments from second Viva)

ii

Publication Statement

I confirm that the work submitted is my own and that appropriate credit has been given

where reference has been made to the work of others.

This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that

no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement.

© 2016, The University of Leeds, Fatima Malik

iii

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors, Professors Mark Stuart and

Christopher Forde from the Centre of Employment Relations, Innovation and Change at

Leeds University Business School for their invaluable guidance and critical feedback during

my work on this thesis. I am also extremely grateful for the University Scholarship that I

received from The University of Leeds supporting my PhD studies. I would also like to

thank the research participants for their time and interest in supporting my research and for

their resourcefulness in providing access. Finally, I thank my children (Haroon and Saffron)

for their patience and understanding during the course of my studies.

iv

Abstract This study centrally utilises the micro-meso-macro-perspective architecture

suggested by Dopfer and colleagues to understand the under-researched nature of

employer engagement between stakeholders characterising the macro(national),

meso(industry) and micro(organisational)-perspective institutional training contexts of

high-skill industries.Thestudyacknowledgesargumentsthatraiseissuewithprominent

employer engagement drivers and barriers influencing the contested relationship

between UK employers, policy organizations and institutions. A single inductive

exploratorycriticalcasestudyanalysis,usingthreeresearchquestionsisconductedusing

twenty interviews with senior individuals with HR roles working across the UK North

West Bio region and its characteristic pharmaceutical, bioscience and biotechnology

sectors. Eighteen convergent interviews are further conductedwith policy stakeholders

responsible in facilitating education and training in response to the needs of high-skill

employers. The first research question explores commonly acknowledged macro-

perspectiveinstitutionalinfluencesaffectingengagementbetweenUKpolicystakeholders

andemployers,extendingtheseexplorationsbyassessingtherelevanceofBrown’s(2001)

unexamined high-skill macro-perspective conditions. Policy stakeholders revealed a

circumscribed employer engagement approach, yet highlighted a renewed previously

unacknowledged emphasis in supporting a high-skill education and training agenda. As

expected, employer engagement with supply-side education and training initiatives

remained contested, although here Brown’s (2001) conditions (e.g. R&D capability;

cooperation–industry-widecoalitions)supportedpolicystakeholderstofacilitatemeso-

perspectiveemployerengagementwithhigh-skilltraininginitiatives.Thesecondresearch

question extends these insights to explore the contribution of the competitive meso-

perspective network condition characterising high-skill industries in fostering

engagement between high-skill employers and their macro-meso-micro perspective

institutional training environments. Here public sector resource efficiencies although

challenged policy stakeholders from meeting the needs of employers, industry-wide

operational efficiencies alternatively facilitated a newfound employer commitment in

raisinghigh-skillR&Dopportunities,usingmeso-perspectiveindustrycoalitions.Research

questionthreeinvestigatestheemployerbarriers ininfluencingmacro,mesoandmicro-

perspective employer engagement. A new conceptual framework here reveals a raised

employer emphasis in industry benchmarking, involvement of the line-management

performance management role and employee voice in fostering engagement between

micro-perspectivehigh-skilleducationandtrainingneedsandmeso-perspectivedecision-

makingandprovision.

v

Contents Acknowledgements (iii)

Abstract (iv)

Table of Contents (v)

Index (ix)

List of Tables (x)

List of Figures (x)

THESIS INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………..1 CHAPTER ONE - CONCEPTUALISING EMPLOYER ENGAGEMENT AROUND THE SUPPLY & DEMAND FOR EDUCATION & TRAINING WITHIN THE UK HIGH SKILL CONTEXT……………………………………………….……………..10 1.1 Towards an understanding of the UK’s macro perspective in engaging employers……....14

1.1.1 Supply-side institutions – macro and meso-perspective employer engagement……….....15

A. Historical Context…………………………………………………….……….…….15

B. UK supply-side institutions & employer engagement…………..…………………..18

C. Moving the employer engagement debate forwards………………………………...23

1.1.2 Macro perspective Government initiatives & meso/micro context unmet employer

demand…………………………………………………………………………………24

A. National Vocational Qualifications………………………………………………..26

B. Higher Education Reforms – The Stem Agenda, Graduate Apprenticeships,

internships and postgraduate training……………………………………………...28

C. Developing Workplace transferable skills…………………………………………29

1.1.3 Macro-perspective strategies in addressing the industry-wide demand for high skill

education & training……………………………………………………………………34

1.2. Meso-perspective employer engagement…………………..…........…………..………......41

1.3 The micro-perspective – employer challenges in realising the demand for education &

training opportunity…………………………………………………………………....….…….47

1.3.1 Micro-perspective factors supporting industry benchmarking & engagement…….....…..48

1.3.2 Understanding the mseo and micro perspective training & development role of the line..51

1.3.3 Divers and barriers characterising the performance role of the line ……………………..53

1.3.4 Employee Voice…………………………………………………………………………..57

1.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….…58

CHAPTER TWO – THE RESEARCH STRATEGY……………………………….....61

2.1 Research Methodology………………………………………………………….…………..61

2.1.1 Conceptual Framework & Methodology…………………………………….…….….…..61

vi

Contents Cont...

A. Research question one & exploratory themes………………………….…….……...61

B. Research question two & exploratory themes…………………………….…….…...63

C. Research question three & exploratory themes…………...…………………….…...64

D. Research ontology & Epistemology……………….………………………………...65

2.1.2 Single Case Study Approach & Units of Analysis…………………………….………….70

2.2 Research Methods…………………………………………………………………………..71

2.2.2 Data Collection – Convergent Interviews………………………………………………...71

2.2.3 Data Sampling – Snowball Sampling……………………………………………………..74

2.2.4 Data Analysis – Thematic Conceptual Matrix Analysis…….……………………………76

2.2.5 Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………………….78

CHAPTER THREE – CONTEXTUALISING THE UK NORTHWEST BIO

INDUSTRY…………………………………………………………………………….79

3.1 Defining The North West English Cluster……………………………………………….…79

3.2 The employer demand for training across the Northwest English Region & Cluster………81

3.3 Businesses involved in the research………………………………………………………...84

3.3.1 R&D Capability of a Large Pharmaceutical………………………………………………84

3.3.2 SMEs……………………..……………………………………………………………….85

3.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..86

CHAPTER FOUR – POLICY STAKEHOLDERS: EMPLOYER ENGAGEMENT

ACROSS THE NORTHWEST BIO REGION……………...…………………………87

4.1 Policy organisations – an overview of employer engagement…………….…………….….87

4.2 Education & training initiatives supported by policy stakeholders………………………..95

4.2.1 Education & training initiatives supporting low and intermediate occupations………….98

4.2.2 Education & training initiatives supporting high skill occupations…...………………...102

4.2.3 Supporting generic and transferable skill shortages …………………………………….106

4.3 Understanding the imacro, meso and micro perspectives in influencing employer

engagement…………………...…………………………………………….………………110

4.3.1 Meso-perspective influence on employer engagement….................................................111

A. Meso-perspective employer engagement and network characteristics……………..111

B. Social and economic barriers and drivers influencing meso-perspective stakeholder

engagement...………………………………………………….……………………..118

4.3.2 Employer engagement strategies adopted by policy stakeholders...................................130

A. Policy stakeholders: barriers constraining micro-perspective

employer engagement………………….………………..………………..………140

vii

Contents Cont....

B. Micro-perspective employer barriers constraining engagement with policy

organizations……………………………………………………………………….143

4.3.3Macro-perspective employer engagement: the relevance of Brown’s (2001) high skill

framework..........................................................................................................................148

A. Consensus, coordination, competitive capacity and cooperation………………….149

B. Closure, Capability and circulation………………………………………………...155

4.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………159

CHAPTER FIVE - THE CASE OF A LARGE UK PHARMACEUTICAL: MACRO,

MESO & MICRO-PERSPECTIVE EMPLOYER ENGAGEMENT IN INFLUENCING

THE UNMET DEMAND FOR EDUCATION & TRAINING……………..….….....166

5.1. Roles & Responsibilities of senior management…………………………….…………...168

5.2 Connecting with the meso-perspective……………………………………………...….173

5.3 The micro (organisational) perspective in influencing meso-industry engagement………182

5.3.1 Organisational-wide decision-making……...…..…………………………………….….185

A. Corporate decision-making……………………………………………………….187

B. Line-management involvement in decision-making (drivers & barrier)..………..189

C. Employee voice in decision-making………………………………..………….…198

5.3.2 Responsibilities supporting corporate decision-making and benchmarking……………202

A. Corporate Leadership - benchmarking…………………………………….…...….203

B. Line-management – monitoring responsibilities……………………….………….206

C. The contribution of Employee Voice in corporate decision-making……………....214

5.3.3 Concluding Remarks – a new conceptual framework……………………….……….….218

5.4 The relevance of Brown’s (2001) conditions in supporting macro, meso and micro-

perspective employer engagement …........................................................................................219

5.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………225

CHAPTER SIX - THE CASE OF HIGH SKILL SMEs……………………………..233

6.1 The roles & responsibilities of the research participants…………………...…………..…234

A. Large & Medium-sized SMEs………………………………………………….…..235

B. Micro-SMEs & small businesses………………………………..………………….237

6.2 Macro and meso-perspective SME employer engagement & the unmet demand for

education & training……………………………………………………………...………...….240

6.2.1 Large & medium-sized SMEs……………………………………………………….…..240

6.2.2 Small and Micro SME businesses……...………………………………………………..246

viii

Contents Cont...

6.2.3 Concluding Remarks………………………………………………………………….…248

6.3 The micro (organisational) perspective employer engagement with the unmet demand for

education & training…………………………………………………………………...…...….249

6.3.1 Benchmarking & monitoring the demand for education and training………..……….…250

6.3.2 Line-management responsibilities in generating information………………..………….255

6.3.3 Employee voice in influencing the unmet demand for education & training…...............263

6.4 Brown’s (2001) conditions in supporting macro, meso and micro-perspective employer

engagement in relation to the institutional training environments of SME…………………...266

6.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………271

CHAPTER SEVEN – CONCLUDING THE THESIS……………..………………...280

7.1 Macro-perspective employer engagement with the unmet employer demand for

education and training………………………………………………………………..……282

7.2 Influence of the macro and meso-level perspectives on employer engagement..……...….286

7.3 The influence of micro-organisational barriers on employer engagement……..…...…290

7.4 The relevance of Brown’s (2001) conditions……………………………………………...297

7.5 Closing Remarks…………………………………………..………………………………226

APPENDICES

AppendixI:Studyconceptualframework…………………………………………………………………..324AppendixII:Adetailedoverviewofthe“ORIGINALITY”ofthestudyconceptual

framework………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...325

AppendixIII:ConceptualisingEmployerEngagementwithstakeholderscharacterisingmacro,mesoandmicroperspectiveinstitutionaltrainingenvironments…...........................326

Appendix IV: Table 2 -Articulation of qualification and occupational standards…………….327

Appendix V: Dataanalysis(themeconvergence,divergenceandelimination)………….…..328Appendix VI: Characteristics of High Skill Employing Organizations……………………….329

Appendix VII: Coding – Research Objectives & Exploratory Themes……………….………330

Appendix VIII: Policy Stakeholders – Individual roles & responsibilities……………………337

Appendix IX: Macro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveEducationandtraininginitiatives

fosteredbypolicystakeholders………………………………………………………………………………….339

Appendix X: Employer engagement in meso and micro-perspective decision-making -

benchmarkingandmonitoringthedemandforeducationandtraining……………………….340

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………...…………..341

ix

Index

ABPI – Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries BIS – Business Innovation and Skills BL – Business Link CoVE – Centres of Vocational Excellence DfES - Department for Skills and Education DIUS – Department of Innovation Universities and Skills FE – Further Education HE – Higher Education IAG – Information, advice and guidance ITB – Industrial Training Boards LSE – Low Skill Equilibrium LSC – Learning Skills Council NSA – National Skills Academies NSTO – Non statutory training Organisations NVQ – National Vocational Qualifications RDA – Regional Development Agency NWRDA – North West Regional Development Agency SSA – Sector Skills Agreements SSC – Sector Skills Councils SSDA – Sector Skills Development Agency SHRM (D) – Strategic Human Resource Management (Development) UKCES – UK Commission for Employment and Skills ULR – Union Learning Representatives VET – Vocational Education and Training

x

List of Tables

Table 1: Articulation of qualification and occupational standards……………………………327

Table 2: CharacteristicsofHighSkillEmployingOrganizations………………………....……..….328

Table 3: Data Collation Phase One: External Policy Stakeholder Interviews…………….……75

Table 4: Data Collation Phase Two: Senior Management Interviews………………….………76

Table 5: Policy Stakeholder Perspectives: Employer Engagement……………………….…..131

List of Figures

Figure1:Studyconceptualframecharacterisingtheliteraturereview……………………...…324Figure 2: A detailed overview of the “ORIGINALITY” of the study conceptualframework………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..325Figure3-ConceptualisingEmployerEngagementwithstakeholderscharacterisingmacro,mesoandmicroperspectiveinstitutionaltrainingenvironments……………………………….326Figure 4: Employer engagement in meso and micro-perspective decision-making -benchmarkingandmonitoringthedemandforeducationandtraining………………………340

Figure5:OccupationalStructure,2008-%ofworkforceemployedperUKregion………..82

1

ThesisIntroduction

The UK’s skill landscape is broadly characterised by the weak and challenging

employer engagement with policy institutions and supply-side education and training

reforms (UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006). This point is consistently emphasised within

scholarly and policy arguments (Keep &Mayhew, 2010a,b; UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006:

Keepetal.2006;Keep1999;Finegold&Soskice,1988).Theseargumentsfurtherindicate

the inabilities of employers in engaging with the UK’s characteristic macro (national),

meso (industry) and micro (organisational) perspective institutional training contexts,

preventingtheircontributioninraisingindustryperformance (Keepetal.2006;Keep&

Mayhew, 1999). Commentators thus indicate that such acknowledgments havemeant a

weak scholarly interest in conceptualising employer engagement while a common

understandingofemployerengagementinexplainingtherelationshipbetweenthesupply

ofanddemandforeducationandtrainingwithindifferentinstitutionalcontexts“remains

elusive”(Payne,2008b;Irwin,2008:66).Thisthesisseekstoexplorethislatterdichotomy

from the perspectives of policy stakeholders and employers, but in utilising a single

criticalcasestudyoftheunder-researchedhighskillindustrycontextanditscharacteristic

macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training environments (Lloyd, 2002;

Milleretal.2002).Thecentralaimofthisthesisisthustoexploretheextentandnatureof

employer engagement within the macro (national), meso (industry) and micro

(organisational)institutionaltrainingcontextssurroundinghighskillindustries.Thisaim

isexploredusingthemicro-meso-macroperspectivearchitectureasanoverarchingstudy

frame articulated byDopfer and colleagues (Dopfer et al. 2004;Dopfer& Pottes, 2004)

anditsconceptualisationofengagementbetweenstakeholderscharacterisingthemacro,

meso andmicro-perspective institutional environments surrounding industries (cluster

industries). The justification behind explorations of the research aim is three-fold. The

study acknowledges the weak scholarly conceptualisation of employer engagement

(Payne, 2008b; Irwin, 2008:66) and the under-researched nature of the institutional

arrangements supporting the training needs of high skill industries (Lloyd, 2002) and

theirindustryclusterfeatures(Finegold,1999).Thestudyaimfurtheraddressesthelack

ofempiricalevidencesupportinganunderstandingofthenatureofemployerengagement

surrounding UK’s characteristic macro (national), meso (industry) and micro

(organisational)perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontexts(Keepetal.2006).

Theresearchissetagainstthebackdropofscholarlyargumentsthatbringtolight

the reasons behind the UK’s low skill equilibrium (LSE) and the failure of the UK’s

institutionaltrainingcontext(Keep&Mayhew,2010a,b;UKCES,2009;Leitch,2006:Keep

et al. 2006; Keep 1999; Finegold & Soskice, 1988). Here the analysis accounts for

2

arguments presented from the perspectives of Government instated supply-side policy

stakeholders and institutionswhich todatehave failed to engage employers. Thisweak

relationshipisfurtherunderpinnedbyhistoricalmarketfailuresandnarrowlydrawnand

ineffective supply-side provision leading to the unmet employer demand for education

and training, a problem all too familiarwith theUK’s vocational education and training

system (Payne, 2008a,b; Ashton & Sung, 2006; Leitch, 2006; Keep et al. 2006; Lloyd &

Payne,2003a,b;Crouchetal.1999;Keep&Mayhew,1999).Commentatorsthusrecognise

the continuation of these historical failures within the UK’s neo-liberal and voluntary

employer training approach in tackling industry-wide skill shortages, further allocating

responsibility to employers in contributing to the UK’s LSE (Keep & Mayhew, 2010;

Ashton & Sung, 2006; Keep et al. 2006, Finegold & Soskice, 1988). Here commentators

raise issue with the weak employer engagement with labour institutions, voluntary

training investments and the lack of high value-added production compromising

investments in competitive high skill labour and development opportunities thus

constrainingthe“theproductiveuseofskill”(Ashton&Sung,2006:16;Green&Sakamoto,

2001:56-89; Crouch et al. 1999:227). Regardless, the ultimate central responsibility in

enhancing “the productive use of skill” at theworkplace level is placed in the hands of

employers(Green&Sakamoto,2001:56-89;PIU,2001).Commentators thusrecommend

thatemployersestablishlabourmanagementstrategiespromotingworkplacesystemsin

the form of industry benchmarking, line-management engagement and employee voice

bettersupportingemployersinrealisingtheneedforcompetitiveworkforcetrainingand

developmentopportunities(Gleeson&Keep,2004).Employerengagementatinstitutional

level supporting work organisation and re-design strategies essential in raising the

productive use of skill (Keep, 2002; Green & Sakamoto, 2001:56-89) is also suggested,

although the likelihood of this, is a viewpoint which is met with scepticism (Keep &

Mayhew,2010,a,b).

Thestudyacknowledgesthecontradictorynatureoftheseargumentsinallocating

responsibility to either or both employers and the supply-side (policy stakeholders) in

failing industry performance to a level that is comparable toWorld Class achievement

(UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006). Moreover, most scholarly accounts, acknowledge the

problemofweakmacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveemployerengagementasa critical

constraining factor, in contributing to the tensions surrounding the above mentioned

employer challenges (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b; Keep et al. 2006). Such arguments

further specify the lack of an employer-led approach in establishing education and

traininginitiativesinresponseshort,mediumandlong-termemployerneeds(Keepetal.

2006:552). A much-preferred demand-driven approach (Keep et al. 2006:553) is also

lacking, one that supports employers in addressing needs through engagement with

3

stakeholders characterising the institutional macro (national), meso (regional, sub-

regional) or micro (organisational) perspective environments supporting the UK’s

nationaltrainingcontext.

These diverse and opposing arguments form the backdrop of the study in

exploring the research aim, which acknowledges that high skill industries (industry

clusters - Lloyd, 2002; Finegold, 1999, 1991; Streeck, 1989), are supported by the very

macro, meso and micro-perspective competitive conditions, which are otherwise

understoodasmajorfactorscontributingtotheproblemsofweakemployerengagement

withintheUK(Keep&Mayhew,2010a,b).Thestudythereforeseekstoexplorethenature

in which these high skill conditions and existing employer engagement challenges

presented by theUK’s supply-side and employers, influence employer engagementwith

themacro,mesoandmicro-perspective institutional trainingenvironments surrounding

highskillindustriesandfromtheperspectivesofemployersandpolicystakeholders.The

thesis thus centrally explores the phenomenon of employer engagement using the

followingthreeresearchquestionsestablishedwithintheliteraturereviewchapter.

1. Whatistheextentandnatureofmacro-perspectiveemployerengagement

withsupply-sidepolicystakeholdersinresponsetotheunmetemployer

demandforeducationandtrainingacrosshighskillindustries?

2. To what extent does the meso (industry)-perspective network form

facilitate employer engagement with stakeholders characterising the

macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training contexts of

highskillindustries.

3. To what extent do micro (organisational) perspective characteristics

facilitate or challenge engagement between high skill employers and

stakeholders characterising the macro, meso and micro-perspective

institutionaltrainingcontextsofhighskillindustries.

These three research questions are encapsulated within three distinctive sections

withinchapteroneoftheliteraturereviewwhichutilisestheanalogypresentedbyDopfer

and colleagues (Dopfer etal. 2004; Dopfer & Pottes, 2004) of the micro-meso-macro

perspective industryarchitecture toestablishanoverarchingstudy frame(Appendix I&

II).AshighlightedinAppendixIandII,thisarchitecturesupportsanunderstandingofthe

nature of engagement between supply-side (e.g. policy stakeholders) and demand-side

(e.g. employers) agents characterising themacro,meso andmicro institutional training

perspectives of high skill industries (Appendix I & II). Section one presents research

question one which seeks to explore the extent and nature of macro-perspective

4

engagement between policy stakeholders and high skill employers in addressing their

unmet education and training needs. The review begins by discussing the macro-

perspective approaches and strategies adopted within the UK in raising industry-wide

growthandperformance.Itisacknowledgedthattheseapproachescentrallyencapsulate

the idea of raising industry-wide skill achievement via necessary employer engagement

with stakeholders representing industry, policy organizations and institutions. Here the

discussions acknowledge similarities between the employer engagement characteristics

supporting these macro-perspective strategies and Brown’s (2001) macro-perspective

high skill frameworkandsevenconditionsnecessary in raising skill achievementacross

high skill economies. Here the review indicates, that despite differences in the national

institutional training environments characterising the UK and high skill economies,

Brown’s(2001)macro-perspectiveframeworkfeaturessimilarcompetitiveconditionsas

highskillindustriesinsupportingthesupplyoftrainedhighskilllabour.Thereviewhere

thus acknowledges theuse ofBrown’s (2001)macro-perspective conditions in research

questiononeasapointofreferenceinexploringtheextenttowhichtheunderlyinghigh

skillemployerengagementfeaturesofsuchconditionssupportorencourageengagement

between employers, policy stakeholders and institutions within the context of UK high

skill industries. Research question one further acknowledges scholarly arguments that

explain the historical institutional failures and drivers influencing supply-side policy

stakeholders and institutions in engaging employerswithin theUK’swider institutional

trainingframework(Payne,2008,a,b;Lloyd&Payne,2003a,b).

Sectiontwooftheliteraturereviewacknowledgesthelimitedexplorationaroundthe

contribution of the meso-perspective network, a competitive condition characterising

under-researched high skill industries (Finegold, 1999) in supporting employer

engagementwithstakeholdersresponsibleforeducationandtrainingwithinmacro,meso

and micro-perspective institutional perspectives surrounding high skill industries

(Finegold, 1991). Here discussions acknowledge the importance that Dopfer et al.’s

(2004) analogy allocates to agents representing themeso (industry) perspective in that

theyareinfluencedbyeachofthemacroandmicro-perspectivesaswellasbytheeffects

ofengagementbetweenthehigherordermacroandmicro-firmperspectives.Thesection

presents a critical analysis of existing theoretical arguments that explain the nature in

which organisational, industry, sector or supply chainnetworks conceptual engagement

between stakeholder networks. These ideas form the basis of research question two

which suggests explorations of the role and contribution of the meso perspective

competitivenetworkconditionsupportinghighskillindustriesinfacilitatingengagement

betweenemployers, stakeholders characterising themacro,mesoandmicroperspective

5

institutional training environments surrounding high skill industries and resulting

educationandtraininginitiatives.

ResearchquestionthreeisalsosupportedbyDopferetal.’s(2004)analogyinthat

hereitisacknowledgedthatagentssupportingthemicroorganizationperspectivearenot

independentbutinfluencedbyrulecarriersocieties.Rulesareimplementedatthemicro-

organisational perspective using micro-organisational structures and systems, often

established in response to engagement initiated by agents characterising the micro

perspective with those supporting the meso and macro-perspectives (Appendix III).

Research question three addressed in section three of the literature review, is thus

established around central arguments which raise issue with the micro-perspective

employerbarriers thatultimately constrainUKemployers fromestablishingor realising

the unmet education and training opportunities. The literature review here alludes to

various micro-perspective employer engagement barriers including the lack of

organisational systemssupporting industrybenchmarking, andweakengagementof the

line and employee voice, in lending to a constrained employer engagement within the

macro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontexts(Keep&Mayhew,2010;

Keepetal.2006;Gleeson&Keep,2004).Researchquestionthreethusacknowledgesthe

tensionsfacingUKemployerssurroundingtraining.Itfurtherseekstoexploretheextent

to which such micro-perspective employer engagement barriers influence engagement

between high skill employers and stakeholders supporting themacro,meso andmicro-

perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontextsofhighskillindustries,(Figure3.AppendixIII).

Chapter two presents the research strategy, suggesting the use of an inductive

exploratoryqualitativesinglecasestudymethodology(Yin,2009:47)underpinnedbythe

realism school of thought (Sobh & Perry, 2005). Here the realism stance supports the

researcher in uncovering a real, true but probable external reality with the purpose of

exploring interacting “structuresandobjects” (Sobh&Perry,2005:1120). The research

participants, namely employers and supply-side policy stakeholders characterise the

“objects”ofthestudy.The“structures”representtheemployerengagementbarriersand

drivers characterising each ofmacro,meso andmicro-perspective institutional training

environmentsofhighskillindustries.Itissuggestedthattheseinteracting“structuresand

objects” create the external reality, exist and are unobservable by the researcher. The

researcher subsequently only partially influences the research by establishing the

conceptual framework and research methodology and in this study uncovers the

unobservablerealityelicitedbytheresearchparticipantsusingtheconvergentinterview

approach (Dick, 1990), subscribing to an inductive exploratory research (Gbrich, 2013).

Snowball sampling (Bryman, 2008:185, 415) further supports eighteen convergent

interviewswithpolicystakeholdersfromsupply-sidepublicpolicyorganisations.Twenty

6

convergentinterviewsareconductedwithseniormanagementfromacrosslarge,SMEand

small high skill businesses form across pharmaceutical, bioscience and biotechnology

businesses located within the North West UK region. Chapter three provides context

aroundthebusinessesinvolvedinthestudyandoutlinescharacteristicskillshortagesand

employment trends influencing theNorthWestBio region justifying the involvement of

businessesfromtheregionasapointofreferenceinconductingasinglecriticalcasestudy

analysis(Yin,2009:47).Chaptertwopresentsthedataanalysisstrategy,justifyingtheuse

of thematic analysis anddata coding (Saldana,2013;Rubin&Rubin,2012) inanalysing

the empirical data, according to the three research questions and further informing the

presentationofnewthemeswithinthethreeempiricalchapters.

Chapterfour,thefirstoftheempiricalchaptersaddressestheresearchquestions

from the perspectives of policy stakeholders. The chapter provides a much-required

comprehensiveoverviewoftheemployerengagementchallengesfacingthevariouspolicy

stakeholders involved in supporting the training needs of high skill industries. The

analysis brings to light the drivers and rationale behind employer engagement further

outlining the newly realised high skill education and training opportunities adopted by

employers. The analysis reveals that the challenging macro-perspective environment

surrounding high skill industries resulted in the adoption of various employer

engagement systems and approaches (e.g. responsive; involvement; engagement).

Regardless, a circumscribed employer engagement approach is evidenced as policy

stakeholdersutilise industry-widebusinessnetworksandbusiness contacts fromacross

the supply chains supporting the high skill industries in question to gain access to

employers. The analysis here specifically points to an emphasis in meeting employer

needs surroundinghigh skill education and training initiatives of relevance tohigh skill

occupations, thus contradicting existing scholarly arguments that otherwise suggest a

greateremphasisonthepartofpolicystakeholdersinsupportinginitiativessurrounding

lowandintermediateskilledoccupations.Section4.3addressesRQ2andRQ3.Heresub-

section 4.3.1 provides new evidence surrounding the nature in which meso-industry

networks supporting high skill industries enabled policy stakeholders in engaging high

skill employers in their industry consultations. The evidence here points to social and

economic factors influencing the employer engagement efforts of diverse stakeholders

involved in industry-specific network consultations, further challenging the efforts of

policy stakeholders in driving forward newly identified andmuch in demand education

and training initiatives. Sub-section 4.3.2 addresses the micro (organisational)-

perspective approaches adopted by policy stakeholders in fostering meso (industry)

perspectiveemployerengagement.Newevidenceherealludes to the inabilitiesofpolicy

stakeholders in facilitating employer engagement due to their awareness of challenging

7

internalised cultures within high skill organizations, further constraining the employer

adoption of education and training initiatives supported by policy stakeholders. The

empirical analysis from sub-sections 4.1 to 4.3 is further utilised in section 4.4. This

section assesses the nature in which Brown’s (2001) conditions underpinned the

employerengagementeffortsofpolicystakeholdersandtheresultingdriversandbarriers

influencing such engagement. Here the analysis reveals that commonly acknowledged

employer engagement barriers characterising the UK’s institutional training context

challenged policy stakeholders from fully acknowledging Brown’s (2001) conditions in

their employer engagement efforts across the region. However, competitive conditions

characterisinghighskillindustries(e.g.highskillR&Dcapabilities;socialcapitalpotential

of industry-wide networks) enhanced the abilities of policy stakeholders in engaging

employers according toBrown’s (2001) conditions. This led to the recognition amongst

policystakeholders for theneedforspecificallyaregionalhighskillagendasurrounding

theiremployerengagementefforts.Thechapterconcludesbydiscussingtherelevanceof

the empirical findings in relation toDopfer et al.’s (2004) framework.Here the analysis

reveals that the challenging macro-perspective environment surrounding high skill

industries supported employer engagement within meso (industry) perspectives to

address the unmet employer demand for education and training needs surrounding

largelyhighskilllabour.

Theanalysisinchapter5addressestheresearchquestionswithinthecontextofa

largemulti-nationalpharmaceuticalandfromtheperspectivesofseniormanagementwith

responsibilitiesincoordinatingtheorganisational-wideadoptionofHRtrainingstrategies

andinitiatives.Section5.1presentsthecaseofthelargepharmaceuticalbyexplainingthe

newstakeholderengagementstructuresadoptedacross itsR&Dcapability in linewitha

new training strategy and philosophy. Later sections further analyse and draw out the

potentialchallengesofthesestakeholderengagementstructuresaccordingtothestudy’s

research questions. The evidence in sub-section 5.1.1 is new in that it contradicts the

notionthatemployersaredevoidoftheneedfornewtraininganddevelopmentinitiatives

and opportunities at the organisation and industry-level. The analysis instead reveals a

newlyestablishedskillstrategyandimpetusfosteringengagementbetweenstakeholders

withresponsibilities insupporting themicroandmesoperspective institutional training

environments surrounding high skill industries. Sub-section 5.1.2 suggests that this

changeinstrategyinvolved:anewleadershipcommitmentindrivingforthneweducation

and training opportunity, industry-benchmarking and organisational-wide decision-

making structures. These structures crucially facilitated engagement between

stakeholders with responsibilities in supporting the micro and meso-perspective

institutionaltrainingenvironmentsofhighskillindustrieswithintheUKandfromacross

8

internationalR&Dcollaborationsandpartners.Sub-section5.2addressesRQ2,focusesin

uncoveringthenatureofengagementinitiatedbyhighskillemployerswithstakeholders

supporting the trainingneedsofhighskill industriesusing theirmeso industrynetwork

connections.Specifically,theanalysisrevealsnewinsightsregardingtheestablishmentof

loose coalitions forged by senior individuals with R&D collaborations, partnering

employers,policystakeholdersandinternationalinstitutions.Theanalysishereaddresses

underlying advantages of these coalitions and the reasons provided by senior

managementbehindtheconsistentweakengagementwithUKpolicystakeholders.Insub-

section 5.3 the analysis discusses the nature inwhich newly established organisational

structures, coalitions and initiatives supported seniormanagement in forging coalitions

withmeso industry networks. This sub-section extends ideas introduced earlier within

sub-section5.1.Itdetailsnewlyestablishedcorporatedecision-makingconsultations,line

management involvement and employee voice mechanisms in facilitating previously

unrealised (a.) organisational-wide decision-making structures and (b.) benchmarking

approacheswhichacknowledgedthecentralagencyperformancemanagementroleofthe

lineanditsdevelopment.Theanalysisresultsinanewconceptualframework(Appendix

X)whichexplainsthecomplexnatureworkingrelationshipsforgedbyseniorindividuals

withkeystakeholdersresponsibleforthemacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutional

trainingcontextssurroundinghighskill industries.Sub-section5.4usingBrown’s(2001)

framework and the analysiswithin previous sections to assess the nature inwhich the

newtrainingphilosophywasunderpinnedbyBrown’s(2001)necessarysevenconditions

in raisinghighskill achievement.Theanalysis specificallyquestions thenature inwhich

such conditions facilitated engagement between employers, policy stakeholders and

stakeholder communities with responsibilities in dealing with education and training

surrounding the high skill organisations in question. New insights are presented

suggestingthatBrown’s(2001)competitivecapability,consensusandcoordinationwere

keyintheestablishmentofmeso-industrytrainingcoalitionsforgedbyseniorindividuals.

These involved stakeholders fromR&D collaborations and partnering employers, policy

stakeholder organisations and international institutions and supported senior

management in addressing the unmet education and training needs across the R&D

capability.Insummarisingthechapter,theconclusionfurtherreflectsontherelevanceof

theempiricalfindingsinrelationtoDopferetal.’s(2004)framework. Seniorindividuals

rarely engagedwithmacro-perspective initiatives supported byUK policy stakeholders,

althoughmeanttheiradoptionofvariouseducationandtraininginitiatives.Thiscontrasts

withtheemployerengagementapproachforgedbypolicystakeholders,wherechangesin

themacro-environmentmeantthatpolicystakeholdersengagedemployersonanadhoc

9

and responsivebasisusing their industryandbusinessnetworks insteadof establishing

targetedemployerengagementapproachesandstrategies.

Chapter 6 addresses the research questions from the perspectives of senior

individuals from SMEs, and reveals subtle differences in relation to the three research

objectivesbasedonSMEsizeandproductionstrategy.Hereseniorindividualsconfirmed

thatpolicystakeholdersinitiatedengagementwiththeirSMEbusinesses,onaninfrequent

ad hoc basis and largely supported education and training associated with low and

intermediate occupations. However the intentions of SMEs in seeking engagementwith

policy stakeholders extended only so far as in facilitating solutions in relation to

sustaining training regulation and establishing newly realised high skill competencies

surroundingR&D job roles in linewithdevelopments across internationalmarkets.The

chapter here further explores the implications of these priorities on existing internal

micro-organisational management decision-making structures surrounding training

regulation,whichweresupportedbythelineinunderstandingthewiderskillsshortages

anddevelopmentneedsofstaff.

Chapter seven, the conclusion, discusses the contribution of the research and

reflectsontheoriginalityofthestudy’sconceptualframeworkandtheempiricalfindings.

Discussions here emphasise the unique nature in which micro organisational decision-

making structures supported high skill employers in addressing new and priority high

skilleducationandtrainingneeds, inlinewithnewlyrealisedcompetenciessurrounding

R&D jobroles.This isachievedusingmulti-levelmanagementstructures that supported

engagementwithandbetweenstakeholderssupportingmicro(organisational)andmeso

(industry) perspective institutional training contexts surrounding high skill industries.

The analysis here points to the establishment of a new conceptual framework derived

from the empirical evidence that incorporates Dopfer et al.’s (2004)micro-meso-macro

perspective architecture. This conceptual framework explains the decision-making

arrangementsandstakeholderengagementstrategiesadoptedbyhighskillorganizations

in addressing high skill education and training needs. Comparisons are drawn between

theseempirical contributionsand those in chapter4which reflecton thecircumscribed

employerengagementapproachadoptedbypolicy stakeholders. It is suggested that the

findings in chapter 4 broadly confirm the employer engagement challenges reflected

within existing scholarly arguments. The analysis however provides a much-required

detailed snapshot of the nature of engagement initiated by various policy stakeholders

within the context of under-researched high skill industries. Specifically, new findings

suggests thatpolicy stakeholders enhanced their reach in engaginghigh skill employers

usingexistingindustrynetworks,recognisingtheneedforaregionalhighsillagenda.The

thesisconclusionalsopresentsimplicationsforfutureresearch.

10

ChapterOneConceptualisingemployerengagementaroundthesupply&demandforeducationandtrainingwithintheUKHighSkill context

The UK’s skill landscape is broadly characterised by the weak and challenging

employer engagement with policy institutions and supply-side education and training

reforms (UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006). This point is consistently emphasised within

scholarly and policy arguments (Keep &Mayhew, 2010a,b; UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006:

Keepetal.2006;Keep1999;Finegold&Soskice,1988).Theseargumentsfurtherindicate

the inabilities of employers in engaging with the UK’s characteristic macro (national),

meso (industry) and micro (organisational) perspective institutional training contexts,

preventingtheircontributioninraisingindustryperformance (Keepetal.2006;Keep&

Mayhew, 1999). Commentators thus indicate that such acknowledgments havemeant a

weak scholarly interest in conceptualising employer engagement while a common

understandingofemployerengagementinexplainingtherelationshipbetweenthesupply

ofanddemandforeducationandtrainingwithindifferentinstitutionalcontexts“remains

elusive” (Payne, 2008b; Irwin, 2008:66). Irwin (2008) thus specifically suggests the

examinationof the conceptof employerengagementasa “sub-setof thebroad rangeof

collaborationsbetweeneducationproviders,privateandpublicorganizations”,withinthe

relationshipof“thedemandsofemployment”and“thesupplyofeducationandtraining”

in meeting these demands (cited in Irwin, 2008:66). The central role of employer

engagementwithinsuchrelationshipsishoweverknowntovarydependingondifferences

in national institutional training frameworks supporting economies, mainly due to

differencesinthe“broaderrelationshipbetweenlabour,capitalandthestate”(Rainbirdet

al. 2004:23). These differences characterise variations in “national production, labour

market and industrial relation systems” (Bosch & Charest, 2008:428) resulting in

distinctive employer engagement frameworks (Raddon & Sung, 2008). The UK here is

noted to characterize a demand-driven perspective inwhich employers are expected to

“either spell out the skills they require or indirectly articulate this demand through

employer associations, representative bodies” or policy organizations (Raddon & Sung,

2006:4).However a key problem surrounding theUK’s employer engagement approach

that also applies to New Zealand, Canada and Australia is that of “voluntary employer

engagement” (Raddon & Sung, 2006:4). Here the expected voluntary employer

representationandmembershipon theboardsofpolicyagencies facilitates involvement

in establishing industry-wide strategies. Such involvement supports employer

engagement in reducing labour market skill shortages, in fostering equal opportunity

initiatives surrounding the training and development of staff or in raising staff

11

performance via the establishment of education and training (e.g. HE and national

occupational standards). Other employer engagement frameworks however allocate

greaterresponsibilitytoemployersinshapinginstitutionaltrainingframeworkssuchthe

“statutoryemployerinvolvement”modelinFrance.Hereanemployertraininglevysystem

and statutory framework is coordinated using an institutional network of Sector

Education and Training authorities, (SETAs). These SETAs support employer

collaborations in embedding workplace-learning cultures using planned investments

surrounding national skill priorities built around the principles of social cohesion and

employment for all. Other employer engagement frameworks include: the “employer-

driven”and“employer-owned”approaches.Theemployer-drivenapproachcharacterises

the employer-led VET system of the Netherlands, where employees have access to a

contractual work-based pathways that incorporates substantial on-the-job training. A

similar approach is evidenced in the US where the US Department of Labour supports

employer partnerships in addressing skill shortages across internal labour markets,

furtherensuringthestandardisationofindustry-specificjobcompetencies.Thisapproach,

according toRaddon& Sung, (2006), further supports a steady supply of skilled labour

and conformance to the principles of social inclusion. The “employer owned” approach,

alternativelyallocatesemployerownershipincoordinatingtheprovisionoftheindustry-

specificdemandforeducationandtraininginitiatives,alongsideindustrialtrainingbodies.

Asdiscussedlater(sub-section1.1.2),thisapproachverymuchresemblesthechallenged

employer-led efforts adopted within the UK between the 1960’s and 1990’s, which

requiredthesupportofIndustrialTrainingBodies(1960s),theIndustrialTrainingBoards

(1980’s) and theNational Training Sector Organizations (1990’s). The employer-owned

modelcentrallyplacesemployersinfacilitatingthecoordinationoftrainingprogrammes,

occupationalcompetencyframeworksandindustry-widetraininglevysystemsalongside

employer associations and Industry training Associations (e.g. Hong Kong). The

“employer modelled” approach alternatively characterises high skill economies (e.g.

Singapore) and is Government-led, where the state is integral in the integration of

structured and coordinated on-the-job certified industry Blueprints in alignment with

strategicindustry-specificbusinesslevers.Employersthusadoptstrategicresponsibilities

inlinewithsuchbusinesslevers,acommitmentsupportedbyindustry-widetraininglevy

system.

Theseemployerengagementmodelsprovideclarityandexplainthevariations in

the nature of relationships between employers, the state and policy institutions,

organizations, agencies and bodies in tackling industry-wide training needs (Raddon &

Sung, 2006:4). Specifically Raddon & Sung’s, (2006) models suggests that studies

examiningthesupplyofandemployerdemandforeducationandtrainingaccountforthe

12

perspectivesofsuchstakeholders,particularlyasGovernmentinstatedpolicyinstitutions

are integral and strategic in supporting national institutional training frameworks,

fulfillingadvisoryorfiscalrolesorinleadingandshapingtheprovisionand/orsupplyof

educationandtraininginitiativesoftenalongside, inpartnershiporincollaborationwith

employers. This thesis acknowledges these conceptualisations alongside Lloyd’s (2002)

observationthatclarityisrequiredaroundtheextentandnatureofengagementbetween

under-researched high skill employers, their self-sustaining institutional training

frameworksandpolicystakeholders inaddressing theunmetdemand foreducationand

training.Towhatextent is this likelywithinmacro(national),meso(industry)andmicr

(organisational)perspectives(Keepetal.2006)?

TheliteraturereviewhereisestablishedaroundDopferetal.’s(2004)analogyof

the macro-meso-micro-level architecture that is used as an overarching conceptual

framework to support explorationsof thenatureofmacro,mesoandmicroperspective

engagement between high skill employers and policy organisations. This conceptual

framework is based on the understanding that interest in industry clusters and their

underlying macro, meso and micro-perspective features is growing (Steinle & Schiele,

2002,p.850;AIM,2005a,b).Despiteunderlyingcompetitiveconditionssupportinghigh

skill industries (e.g. self-sustaining training institutions), detailed studies exploring the

institutional training contexts surrounding high skill industries and are limited to

explorationsof themicro(organisational) trainingperspective(Lloyd,2002;Milleretal.

2002–pharma;aerospace). Ineffect,highskill industriesfeaturecompetitiveconditions

(Finegold, 1999; Streeck, 1989), such as their high value added production systems

generating a demand for high skill labour. Their institutional networks further foster

engagement between public and private institutions supporting self-sustaining skill

formation systems. These characteristics are lackingwithin theUK’swider institutional

training framework (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b), yet commentators recognise the

contributionofsuchcharacteristicsinovercomingtheotherwiseconstrainedengagement

between employers and policy stakeholders, further challenging UK employers from

realisingnewstafftraininganddevelopmentopportunitiesinlinewithglobalcompetition

(Keep&Mayhew,2010a,b;Gleeson&Keep,2004). Yetdetailedexplorationsaroundthe

underlying reasons around whether (if at all) such competitive high skill conditions

contribute in fostering macro, meso and micro-perspective employer engagement with

policyinstitutionsissomewhatspurious(Finegold,1991).

Regardless, scholarly arguments do however point to the necessary engagement

betweenmultiplestakeholdersincludingemployersandpolicyinstitutionsinaddressing

the industry-wide demand for skilled labour and education and training within macro

(national), meso (industry) and micro (organisational) perspectives (Keep et al. 2006;

13

Finegold, 1991). However, these insights do not detail the nature of responsibilities

necessary in fostering engagement between stakeholders representing the institutional

supplyandunmetemployerdemand foreducationand trainingwithin themacro,meso

and micro-perspective institutional training environment surrounding high skill

industries(Finegold,1991).Herethemacro-meso-microarchitectureproposedbyDopfer

andcolleaguesisuseful(Dopferetal.2004;Dopfer&Pottes,2004),inthatitsupportsan

understandingofthenatureofengagementbetweenstakeholdersoragentscharacterising

each of such micro, meso and macro-perspective institutional training contexts

surrounding high skill industries. Like high skill industries, Dopfer et al.’s (2004)

architecturealsoappliestoclusterindustriesandexistswithinan“overarchingeconomy

consisting of complex systems of interconnected rules” and an “evolutionary realism

ontology”(Dopfer,etal.2004;Dopfer&Pottes,2004).Themacro(national)perspective

characterises macro economic conditions and is influenced by the meso (industry)

perspective.Changesinthecompositionofrulesandrulecarrieragentswithinthemacro

perspectivecontributeintheestablishmentofmacro-perspectivepoliciesthatultimately

also influence agents responsible for the meso (industry) perspective. The meso-

perspective is thus influenced by engagement between agents characterising themacro

higherorderandmicro firmperspectives,namelyemployers (Dopferetal,2004,p267).

Thisanalytical frameworkisuseful insupportingexplorationsofthenatureofemployer

engagementwithagentscharacterisingandresponsibleforeducationandtrainingwithin

each of the macro, meso and micro-perspectives institutional training contexts

surroundinghighskillindustries(AppendixI&II).

Thestudyaimisunderpinnedbythreeresearchquestions.Theseresearchquestions

are further set against thebackdropof scholarlydiscussions thatpoint to the employer

engagement challenges and drivers characterising the UK’s wider institutional training

framework (Keep&Mayhew, 2010a,b;Keep et al. 2006). Section one presents research

question one which seeks to explore the extent and nature of macro-perspective

engagement between policy stakeholders and high skill employers in addressing the

unmetemployerdemandforeducationandtraining.Thereviewbeginsbydiscussingthe

macro-perspectiveapproachesandstrategiesadoptedwithin theUK inraising industry-

wide growth and performance. It is acknowledged that these approaches centrally

encapsulate the idea of raising industry-wide skill achievement via necessary employer

engagement with stakeholders representing industry, policy organizations and

institutions. Here the discussions acknowledge similarities between the employer

engagement characteristics supporting these macro-perspective strategies and Brown’s

(2001)macro-perspectivehighskillframeworkandsevenconditionsnecessaryinraising

skill achievement across high skill economies. Here the review indicates, that despite

14

differences in thenational institutional trainingenvironmentscharacterising theUKand

high skill economies, Brown’s (2001) macro-perspective framework features similar

competitive conditions as high skill industries in supporting the supply of trained high

skill labour. The review here thus acknowledges the use of Brown’s (2001) macro-

perspective conditions in researchquestionone as apoint of reference in exploring the

extenttowhichtheunderlyinghighskillemployerengagementfeaturesofsuchconditions

support or encourage engagement between employers, policy stakeholders and

institutionswithinthecontextofUKhighskillindustries.Researchquestiononeisfurther

acknowledges scholarly arguments that explain the historical institutional failures and

driversinfluencingsupply-sidepolicystakeholdersandinstitutionsinengagingemployers

within theUK’swider institutional training framework (Payne,2008,a,b;Lloyd&Payne,

2003a,b).

Section two discusses the establishment of research question two which seeks to

explore thenatureof thecontributionof thehighskillmeso(industry)network form in

fosteringemployerengagementwithstakeholderscharacterisingtheinstitutionalmacro,

meso andmicro-perspective training environments of high skill industries. The section

refers to various theoretical conceptualisations of the network form suggesting their

consideration in exploring research question two. Section three informs the

establishmentofresearchquestionthree.Researchquestionthreeexplorestheextentand

nature in which commonly acknowledged micro-perspective organisational challenges

(Keepetal.2006;Gleeson&Keep,2004)responsibleinconstrainingUKemployersfrom

realisingandengagingwiththeirunmeteducationandtrainingneeds,also influencethe

wider macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training environments

surrounding high skill industries. The final section presents the research questions

drawingoutthecentralconclusionsofthereviewandsuggestingtheirexplorationsfrom

theperspectivesofinstitutionalsupply-sidepolicystakeholdersandhighskillemployers.

1.1 Towards anunderstanding of theUK’s “macro-perspective” in

engagingemployers

Despitethecommonlyacknowledgedvoluntaryemployerengagement(Raddon&

Sung, 2008) characterising the UK’s wider institutional training context, commentators

consistently call for employer engagement in fostering national education and training

initiativesinresponsetolabourmarketskillshortagesacrosslow,intermediateandhigh

skilloccupations.(UKCES,2009;Leitch,2006).Thediscussionsnextoutlinetheemployer

engagement challenges (and drivers) influencing the UK’s largely Government-led

approach in addressing theunmet employerdemand for education and training.Where

relevant, this section reflects on the challenges constraining employer engagementwith

15

Government-instated policy organizations and their supporting initiatives. Sub-section

1.1.2 discusses the employer engagement challenges surrounding macro-perspective

education and training policies and initiatives questioning their relevance within the

contextofUK’shighskill industries.Sub-section1.1.3 furtherquestions theneed for the

central agency employer engagement role in meeting the demand for education and

training context surrounding the high skill industry context and policy stakeholders

responsibleforsupportingtheirself-sustainingtrainingsystems.

1.1.1 Supply-side policy institutions & macro and meso-

perspectiveemployerengagement

TheUK’sinstitutionaltrainingcontexthaslong-sincebeensubjecttotheproblems

ofineffectiveengagementbetweensupply-sidepolicyinstitutionsandemployers(UKCES,

2010;Leitch,2006).Thehistoricalnatureof theseemployer engagement challenges (A)

also characterise theexperiencesofpresentdaypolicyorganisationsandsector specific

agencies(B)whichhavebeensubjecttore-structuringand/orclosure(BIS,2012c;Baker,

2010).Thediscussionsnextreflectthescholarlyargumentsthathighlightthechallenges

anddriversinfluencingengagementbetweenemployersandsuchorganizations,agencies

and bodies. Much of the empirical work to date refers broadly to the employer

engagementexperiencesofpolicyorganisations,bodiesandagenciesinrelationtovarious

UK’s sectors, whilst paying little attention in detailing their industry-specific employer

engagementexperiences.Researchquestiononethusquestionsthenatureofengagement

betweenemployersandpolicyorganizationsinrelationtounmeteducationandtraining

needssurroundinghighskillindustries.Thediscussionsnextfirstlyprovideanoverview

of the historical context (A) surrounding the UK Government’s employer engagement

approach.This is followedbyanoverviewofthecontemporaryyetcontinuingemployer

engagementchallengesfacingUKpolicyorganizations(B).

(A.) TheUK’shistoricalcontext&employerengagement

The history behind Government’s employer engagement efforts within the UK in

raisingindustry-wideskillsacrosstheoccupationsisoneoffrequentchange,reversaland

revision.AcommonstartingpointforthisanalysisistheLabourGovernment’sIndustrial

Training Act in 1964 and inception of Industrial Training Boards (ITBs). ITBs

characterised a reformation of the UK’s voluntary training approach, supporting the

organisationofsocialpartnershipsbetweenemployersandtradeunionsviathetripartite

body,theCentralTrainingCouncil(CTCs)inregulatingindustrialtraining(Senkel,1992;

Woodhall, 1974; Payne, 2007a,c). Thirty sector-level training boards administered an

16

innovativeemployertraininggrantlevysystemtoaddresstheindustry-wideproblemsof

theunmetemployerdemandfortrainingandtodiminishindustryculturesthatfostered

the labour poaching and training underinvestment by employers. However the

consultancy service approach adopted by CTC’s meant their weak power and resulting

piecemealvoluntaryapproachinestablishingtraininginitiativesaroundcriticalindustry-

wide skills gaps and shortages. Regardless, ITB’s supported the employer access of

information, advice and guidance around financial investments supporting the training

demands of employers via the administration of an employertraining levy. ITBs were

howeverdismantledintheearly1980’sduetotheirinabilitiesinfurtherconnectingwith

anddeliveringontrainingsolutionsinresponsetoindustry-specificneeds,particularlyof

relevancetotheSMEsectors(King1993:219).Theirbureaucratic,albeitineffectiveefforts

infacilitatingfinancialsupportaroundanarrowrangeoftraininginitiativesaimedatlow

and intermediateskilledoccupations (Woodhall1974:77) forwhich localprovisionwas

in short supply, further did not sit well with employers. The training levy system

supportedbyITBswaseventuallyreplacedbyalevyexemptionsystemin1973withthe

establishment of the Manpower Services Commission (MSC). The MSC oversaw the

effectivecoordinationofGovernmenttrainingschemessupportingtheskilledoccupations

and in alignment with the long-term strategic employer and industry-wide training

demands. Although the exemption levy system was instated to alleviate consistent

problemsfacingGovernment-ledtraininginitiativesinconnectingwiththeindustry-wide

demandfortraining,theinstitutionallyengrainedproblemsofpooremployerengagement

facing ITBs continued to also influence theMSC. TheMSC seemed to lack the resources

essential incoordinatingmuch indemandindustry-widetraining initiativessurrounding

occupational-specificskill shortagesand inproviding targeted trainingsupportaimedat

the SME and small business sectors. Specific problems included their inabilities in

effectively promoting existing cost-effective and much in demand training for low and

intermediate-levels occupations, and inabilities in connectingwith the unmet employer

demandforeducationandtrainingsupportinghigh-skilloccupations.Despitetheirdemise

acrossthewiderUKsectors,ITBsarestillinoperationtodaysupportingregulatedtraining

acrosstheUKengineeringandconstructionsectors(Payne,2008b:7;Keep,2006:59).

Regardless, theMSC characterised a national impetus around training provision

fostering collective “corporate tri-partitemembership”betweenemployers,Government

education and training initiatives, trade unions and training and employment service

agencies. This unique arrangement of equal membership between these stakeholders

exertedanenhancedinfluenceinthecoordinationofsector-wideandspecifictrainingnot

addressed by ITBs, and further involving key stakeholders such as academics, local

authorities and government appointed individuals on the national executive of theMSC

17

(King,1993).TheMSC’sinfluenceinweakeningthetraininggrantlevysystemgenerateda

newimpetusaroundvocational trainingprogrammeswith theestablishmentof thehigh

profile youth training scheme, the Job Creation programme in 1975 and vocational

education initiatives (Work Experience Programme, 1976) addressing youth and adult

unemployment (Finn, 1984). 1981 saw the termination of remaining ITBs and an

expansionintherolesoftheMSC,althoughweakeningtradeunionsandcollectivismatthe

time challenged the powers of the MSC in representing the interests of labour (King,

1993). This gradual shift in power towards central Government in influencing the

activities of the MSC, meant alignment with the Government’s national agenda in

addressinghighyouthunemploymentforexampleorinsupportingbacktoworktraining

surroundinglowskillattainmentwithintheUK. Theconsequencesofthisshifthowever

detracted efforts in addressing the specific training demands of employers. MSCs thus

developed reputations in facilitating “training of little consequence” whilst new

Government efforts characterised themuch preferred employer-led responsibilities and

agendas in connecting with the employer demand for education and training (Keep,

2006b:51; King 1993:225). This move towards a de-regulated employer-led ideology

surfacedintheestablishmentofTrainingandEnterpriseCouncils(TECs,1989-1990s)and

Non Statutory Training Organizations (NSTOs) in operation between 1987 and 1991

(Keep,2006b:51;Greenlagh,1999).

TECs supported employer-led ideologies and were devolved responsibilities, in

mediating engagement between industry, training providers and services, supporting

access to targeted training initiatives surrounding specific occupational groups and

according to regional demand (Greenlagh, 1999). However, aswith their predecessors,

the ITBs,TECsalso faced resource limitations (e.g. finance; skilled staff) in coordinating

industry-specific training, with employers often unwilling to subsidise training. NTSOs

alsoexperiencedtheirfairshareofproblemsinengagingemployers.NinetyNTSOswere

establishedcontroversiallyencouragingvoluntarytradeunioninvolvementinsupporting

industry-wide training and opposing the training grant levy system. However, their

effectiveness in delivering on the targeted industry-specific training demand (Varlaam,

1987:87-88cited inPayne,2008b:7) stemmedagain frompoor resources (e.g. financial;

staff), but importantly from the weak employer interest in adopting training initaitves.

EmployerswerepoorlyinformedofthestrategicrolesofNTSOs(e.g.providingemployers

with information in accessing sector-level and industry-specific VET; encouraging

employer investments surrounding training initiatives). The popularity of NTSOs rose

betweenthelate1980sandearly1990swithnumbersrisingto123whentheywerere-

introducedas IndustrialTrainingorganizations (ITOs) (Payne2008b). Additional roles

now included: the employer-led development and industry-wide adoption of new

18

competence-basedNational Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) in collaborationwith Lead

Bodiesand theOccupationalStandardsCouncil. Resource limitationscontributed to the

reputations of ITOs in facilitating short-term training initiatives of little significance to

employerswhootherwisesoughtcost-effectivelong-termtrainingmeasures(Jones,1999,

p78citedinPayne2008b).TheinceptionofNewLabourfinallysawthetransformationof

ITOs into76NationalTrainingOrganizations (NTOs) in1998.NTOshoweverpresented

additional challenges in engaging employers (Payne, 2008b), in connecting with trade

unionsand theSMEsectors.Thiscontributed to their ineffectiveness inconnectingwith

industry-specificdemandfortrainingandeducationaproblemthatresurfacedintheUK

Government’slatereffortsinaddressingindustry-specificskillshortages,discussednext.

(B)UKSupply-sideskillinstitutions&employerengagement

RecentGovernmenteffortsinaddressingindustry-wideskillsshortagesmirrorthe

post-warvoluntarismeraof the1960’s,when theUK lagged its competitors in termsof

economicperformancefurtherreflectedinthestate’sineffectivenessininfluencingpolicy.

ThisineffectivenessisreflectedinGovernmenteffortsintheintroductionofanewraftof

institutional skill agencies and quangos directed at supporting employer engagement

within national (macro), regional (meso) and organisational (micro) level contexts,

although it is acknowledged that these reforms emulate past mistakes. These new

initiatives, some of which no longer exist, include: UK Regional Development Agencies

(RDAs), SectorSkillAgencies (SSCs),NationalSkillAcademies (NSAs)andBusinessLink

(BL). However, all have faced restructuring and downsizing since inception. The now

defunct RDAs for example promoted regional competitiveness across cluster industries

using partnerships forged between the public and private sectors (Peck & McGuiness,

2003). Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) (SSDA, 2008) alternatively centrally facilitate

employer engagement, addressing the targeted sector-specific demand for training. The

intermediary agency roles of NSAs (NSAs, 2009) and Business Link (BL) (BIS, 2010,

2009c)furtherstimulateemployerengagement,providingsupportservicesandaccessto

intermediary training providers and grass root interventions. The experiences of these

individual policy organisations in connecting with the wider industry demand for

educationandtrainingisaddressedbyscholarlyargumentsandreports(Sungetal.2009;

Keep et al, 2006; Peck & McGuiness, 2003; Payne, 2008b; NSA, 2009; BIS, 2011b).

However, these insights neglect detail around the nature of employer engagement

facilitated between these policy organizations and specific high skill industries with

existingdiscussionslackingdetailaroundthetypesofinitiativesaddressedbysuchpolicy

organizations specific to the high skill context. Nevertheless, the overarching evidence

suggests,thatdespiteyetanotherwaveofsupply-sideinstitutions,therecurringnatureof

19

unmetemployerdemandandpooremployerengagementwithintheUK’strainingcontext

persists due to challenges presented by both the macro perspective supply-side and

employers.

AkeycriticismofRDAs forexample,sincetheir inception in1999anddemise in

2012,wastheirineffectivenessinraisingtargetedsector-levelcompetitivenessduetothe

broademphasisoftheirmacroRegionalEconomicGrowthStrategiesandclusterpolicies.

RDAswere responsible for the promotion of regional policies encouraging engagement

between employers, industry andHE institutions in establishing long-term strategies in

raisingskillslevelsacrosslocalandregionaltalentpools.Thisincludedtheestablishment

of strategic Centres of Excellence and funded national partnerships between small

business sectors, HEFCE and stakeholders including the then Department of Trade

Industry and the now defunct Learning and Skills Councils. These were deliverable

expectations supported by network collaborations at local and regional levels, driving

business-led improvements in turn raising skill levels and generating employment,

entrepreneurial and business growth opportunities across industry clusters. Although

RDAswereacentraldriveroftheGovernment’snation-widemacro-perspectiveapproach

in generating regional growth (HM Government 2010 a, b), commentators (Keep et al,

2006;Keep,2002;Peck&McGuiness,2003)neverthelesspointtoclearproblemsintheir

abilities in fostering collaborations between key stakeholders with responsibilities in

influencing policy within national (macro), regional (meso) and sector-specific

perspectives. Despite these broadly based observations, empirical evidence supporting

suchobservations is lacking, as is adetailed analysis of targeted education and training

coordinated by RDAs in response to industry demand. Peck&McGuiness (2003:55) do

however criticise the commonly adopted approach of RDAs in “utilising andmodifying

existingstakeholdernetworkstomeettheirclusterpolicyagendas”insteadofapreferred

stakeholder-led approach. Alliances forged with and encouraged between sub-regional

networkpartnersandemployersherearepresumedinsupportingclearerassessmentsof

industry-wide demand. Such arrangements ensure the fair, sector and industry-specific

allocation of financial investments in addressing industry-wide education and training

needs. Commentators do however shed some light on the employer engagement

challenges noted in the lack of consensus and cooperation on the part of employers in

connecting with the policies and associated financial investments supported by RDAs,

(Keepetal.2006;Keep,2002).However,clarityonthetypesofpoliciesthatthisrelatesto

is lacking Regardless these arguments are clear in specifying that the problems of

employerconfidencestemfromthelowdiscretionarypowerofRDAsindrivingaregional

agenda in benefiting employers and obligations to support central Government policies.

Theultimateconsequencesof thisaretheirpoordecision-making inaddressingregional

20

issuescriticalforbusinessgrowthandregionalemploymentincludingthecreationofnew

job opportunities and industry-wide skill improvement strategies (Keep et al, 2006).

However clarity around the types of industry-wide skills strategies or training and

education initiatives that this involves or the nature of employer engagement that this

demandsislacking.

Scholarly arguments surroundingSector SkillsCouncils (SSCs), anothernation-wide

macro perspective Government initiative, are somewhat clearer in emphasising the

challenges and nature of employer engagement, although here studies adopt aUKwide

perspective (Payne, 2008 a, b; Payne, 2007). ). SSCs characterise employer voice, in

collectively raising skill attainment alongside employers and stakeholders (e.g. RDAs)

using licensed Sector Skill Agreements (SSDA, 2008). These skills agencies have

overarchingresponsibilitiesinraisingindustry-wideskillattainmentacrosstheindustry-

specific occupations using licensed Sector Skill Agreements (SSDA, 2008) established

collectively with employers, policy stakeholders (e.g. RDAs) and industry regulators.

Scholarly arguments further point to the constant restructuring of SSCs alongside the

scepticism on the part of employers in relation to the capabilities of SSCs in delivering

solutions according to the demand for sector-specific education and training initiatives

(Sungetal.2009;Payne,2008b).SSCs,itseemsfacesimilarchallenges(e.g.weakfinancial

&staffresources),inengagingemployersaspreviousGovernmentinitiativesbutarealso

criticisedfortheirnarrowapproachinfosteringsolutionsinresponsetowiderindustry-

wideandspecificdemandsforeducationandtraininginitiatives.SSCsherearecriticised

in addressing largely labour market skills gaps influencing low and intermediate

occupations further diminishing employer trust and confidence, particularly across the

SME sectors. Here commentators capture the wider more generic weak employer

engagementexperiencesofSSCs(Luddy,2008;Payne,2008b–unfairandweakallocation

of investment opportunities across industries). Employers too face difficulties in

connectingtheservicesofSSCs,duetoageneralweak interest, inabilities inrealisingor

stimulating the demand for initiatives supported by SSCs (Gleeson & Keep, 2004). A

employer lowconfidence in the services and initiatives supportedbySSCs is evidenced,

although here very little detail exists around the types this of education and training

initiatives these observations refer to (Lloyd & Keep, 2002). Lloyd’s (2007) single case

study of the leisure industry, is the only industry-specific study, which provides such

evidence,astudywhichallocatesresponsibilitiesinengagingwithsupply-sidereformsare

to line-managers. Nevertheless, explanation of the nature of employer engagement

facilitatedbySSCsisbutlimitedtoafewstudies(Luddy,2008;Payne,2008b).

According to Luddy (2008), SSCs adopt data collection roles engaging employers in

conductingprimaryresearchand in informing labourmarket intelligenceon industryor

21

sector-specific employment and education and training needs. Employers are further

involved alongside SMEs in promoting new career structures, employer ambassador

programmes and in conducting sector-specific training case evaluations. Luddy (2008)

furtherhighlights the ineffectivenessofUKSSCs inengagingemployerssurrounding the

developmentorpromotionofindustry-wideequalopportunityprogrammesorinadvising

on employer HR training practice. Alternatively Payne (2008a) specifically explores the

effectiveness of various employer engagement strategies adopted by UK-wide SSCs.

Employer engagement here is examined according to their involvement in the

identification, design, development and adoption of sector-specific skill strategies and

training initiatives.Payne(2008a) furtherexaminesemployerengagement inrelation to

the primary data collection activities and communication strategies adopted by SSCs.

TheseinsightshoweverdonotexplaintheemployerengagementexperiencesofSSCswith

respect to high-skill employers. Specifically, they do not detail the nature inwhich UK

SSCsconnectwitheducationandtrainingdemandsofsuchindustriesorwhethernational

macro-perspective education and training initiatives supported by SSCs are adopted by

high-skill employers. The acknowledgement of the employer engagement roles of

international SSCs in alleviating problems surrounding employment, inequality and the

labourmarketpolarisationofskillhereareperhapsusefulhere(Payne,2007;2008b).

Australian SSCs have been known to coordinate the industry-wide adoption of

Industrial Vocational Educational Policy using industry collaborations between key

stakeholders (e.g. trade unions, organisational management, industry representatives).

SSCshereexperienceddifficultiesininvolvingemployersinmonitoringtheindustry-wide

uptake and effectiveness of VET after inception. Similar problems are evidenced in

instanceswhere SSCs have supported large-scale projects in raising industry-wide skill

attainment levels suchTheFinnishWorkplaceDevelopmentProgramme (Payne, 2008a;

Keep&Payne,2003).Thisnational initiativesought to raiseemployerawarenessof the

benefits of HR initiatives surrounding new work design, organization and skill use

opportunities. Although the programme was largely successful, instances of poor

employer engagement and policy adoption were attributed to weak employer

representation at sector-level networks and poor line-management confidence and

supportintheadoptionofinitiativeswithinmicro(organisational)perspectives.

NationalSkillsAcademies(NSAs)areanothernationalUKinitiative,establishedto

fostertheemployer-ledadoptionoftraininginvestmentsandGovernmenteducationand

training initiatives within sector and sub-sector perspectives. Nineteen UK NSAs are in

various stages of operation, supporting specialist consultancy and intermediary roles in

connecting employers with specialist training providers. NSAs previously operated in

collaborationwithLearningandSkillCouncils(LSCs)untiltheirclosurefosteringmatch-

22

fundedinvestment,inthedeliveryandadoptionofsector-widetrainingalongsidelearning

providers and consultancy support (Coffield, 2007). Empirical evidence assessing the

employerengagementactivitiesofNSAs isplentiful (UKCES,2010;NSA,2009),although

informationhighlighting thenatureof engagement requires clarityasdodetailsof their

contribution in supporting high skill education and training initiatives. UK-wide

evaluationspresentobservationsofvarioustypesofemployerengagementfacilitatedby

NSAsandtheunderlyingchallenges(UKCES,2012:64;NSA,2009;BIS,2011).HereNSAs

experiencedifficulties inengagingwith theSMEsectors,whilstemployerengagement is

not necessarily facilitated by NSAs to benefit employers (BIS, 2011:26) but rather to

enhancetheaccessandrepresentationofNSAofficialsonnationalandregional industry

boards.NSAsfurtherbenefit,fromthepaidemployermembershipandin-kind(financial)

contributions, industry-wide financial investments in their initiatives and strategic

employer involvement in designing educational curriculum or training initiatives.

EmployersbenefitfromtheadoptionoftraininginitiativesendorsedbyNSAs,utilisetheir

servicesandfurtherhaveaccesstothewiderindustrynetworksofNSAs.Theproblemof

weakemployerconfidenceintheeducationandtraininginitiativessupportedbyNSAsis

consistent with the poor reputations of NSAs amongst employers in committing to

decisions at national, regional, sectoral or sub-sectoral boards at which employer

representationisoftennotsupportedbytrainingprovidersandinstitutions.Muchofthe

evaluationsurroundingNSAsthuscallsforashiftfromanemployer-ledtoanindustry-led

partnership approach in supporting education and training (BIS, 2011:27). NSAs have

thus alsobeen linked to education and training collaborations initiatedby SSCs and the

phased out Regional Business Link consultancy and advisory services commonly

acknowledgedinsupportingthebusinessneedsofUKSMEsectors(NSA,2009).

The closure of Regional Business Link in 2011 is now replaced with new on-line

measures reconfiguring access to information, advice and guidance supporting the SME

sectorsandstart-upbusinesses(BIS,2011). Thesenewmeasuressupportemployersby

providing practical guidance on financial matters, labour management and HR advice

regardingGovernment regulation and industry-wide training. This new role encourages

establishedbusinessesfromacrossindustrysupply-chains,inprovidingtailoredindustry-

widementoringsupportandadviceontraininganddevelopmentissues(BIS,2011).

These insights indicaterecurringproblemsofunmetemployerdemandandpoor

employer engagement facing UK supply-side institutions, although exploration of the

extentofengagementbetweenpolicystakeholdersandhighskillemployersisspurious.It

isclearhowever,thatconstrainedemployerengagementisacentralcontentionaffecting

UKsupply-sidepolicystakeholders inconnectingwiththeemployerneedsforeducation

andtraining.

23

C.Movingtheemployerengagementdebateforwards

In themain commentators are somewhat sceptical of the role ofUK supply-side

policy institutions in driving the national skills agenda and in effectively meeting the

unmeteducationandtrainingneedsofemployers(Sung,2010;Payne,2008;SSDA,2007).

Regardlesscaseexampleshighlightingsuccessfulemployerengagementintheadoptionof

educationandtraining initiativesareuseful inmovingthedebate forwards(Sung,2010;

Laczick & White (2009), particularly as commentators further stress the need for

employer-ledanddemand-drivenemployerengagementapproacheswithintheUK(Keep

et al. 2006). Here an employer-led macro-perspective approach requires employer

involvement in influencing the patterns of education and training provision inmeeting

short,mediumand long-termemployerneeds” (Keepet al.2006:552),while a “demand-

driven”systemisoneinwhichthesupplyofeducationandtrainingmatchestheprojected

demand of employers” (Keep et al. 2006:553). Existing case examples although are

conductedwithinvariousinternationalcontexts,neverthelesscriticisetheUK’ssupply-led

approachandfurthersuggestthattherelationshipbetweenthemacro-perspectivesupply

of education and training and employer demand is perhaps sustainable based some

guidingprinciples. Laczick&White (2009) forexampleexplore thenatureof employer

engagement fostered by UK policy stakeholders (i.e. SSCs) in establishing education

diplomasaimedat14-19yearold.Laczick&White(2009)corroboratePayne(2008a)and

suggest that policy stakeholders facilitate training partnerships gaining access to

employers using employer networks, perhaps a useful strategy in facilitating the

engagement of high skill industries in light of their competitive network features

(Finegold, 1999).Theauthors further acknowledge theproblemsof voluntary employer

engagement in policy development and adoption within the UK and suggest that

employers be allocated centre-stage responsibilities using employer incentives (e.g.

financial;reputation/kudos/ownership)securingtheir involvement. This ideaofplacing

the employer centre-stage in policy decision-making concerning national macro-

perspectiveeducationandtraininginitiativesisalsoreverberatedbyothercommentators.

The Sector Skills Development Agency in 2007 (SSDA, 2007) and later Payne, (2008b)

suggesttheadoptionoffivetypesofemployerengagementactivities(seepage18).Sung

(2010) refers to the Dutch VET system, but advocates the underlying features of an

employer-ledsocialpartnershipapproach.Hereemployersareexpectedtoadoptacentre-

stageleadershiprole inthemacro-perspectivepolicyprocess involvingkeystakeholders

(e.g. knowledge centres, regional training colleges) and social partners (workers,

employers and skill agencies). Sung (2010) further emphasises that the successful

implementation of macro-perspective education and training initiatives across sectors

adopting supply-led systems such as the UK, further require funding, and the

24

establishmentofsystemssupportingcollectivestakeholdersinvolvementbutwhichagain

allocatecentralleadershiptoemployers.

Despite these insights, scholarly arguments however generally “underplay the

rolesofemployers”andtheirengagementwiththesupplyofmacro-perspectiveeducation

and training initiatives (Raddon & Sung 2006:4). Regardless, Raddon & Sung’s, (2006)

employer engagement models and frameworks provide clarity around the nature of

engagementbetweenemployers,skillinstitutionsandpolicyorganisationssuggestingthat

studies examining institutional training frameworks acknowledge the perspectives of

employersandpolicy stakeholdersas centre-stage in theseexplorations.Although these

modelsrevealvariations in theextentofemployerengagement,policyorganizationsare

neverthelessstrategicinfulfillingtherangeofadvisory,leadershipsorfiscalroleswithin

varying capacities, contexts and degrees in supporting employer engagement. These

insights thus contextualise research question one. Research question one thus explores

the extent and nature of engagement between supply-side policy stakeholders,

organizationsandinstitutionsandthetrainingneedsofhighskillemployers.Specifically,

researchquestiononequeries thebasisof thisengagementwithin themacro,mesoand

micro-perspective institutional training environments of high skill industries as existing

evidence relates to only the micro-perspective organisational context (Lloyd, 2002).

Lloyd’s (2002) study here points to challenging engagement between UK high skill

employersandtheUK’swiderinstitutionaltrainingenvironmentyetdoesnotaccountfor

theemployerengagementconsiderationshighlightedwithintheabovediscussions.Which

sortsofemployerengagementarrangementsdohighskillindustriesthereforesupportthe

unmetdemandforeducationandtrainingacrosshighskillsindustries,particularlyinlight

of their competitive conditions (e.g. R&D collaborations, network arrangements) and a

dependency on the range of labour working across low intermediate and high skill

occupationsandsupporting(Finegold,1999;Galbraith,1989).

1.1.2 Macro-perspective Government initiatives & unmet employer

demand

Beyond the relatively few studies exploring the training issues facing high skill

employers(Lloyd,2002;Milleretal.2002),comprehensiveexplorationsof thenatureof

engagementbetweentheunmettrainingneedsordemandsofemployersandthemacro,

mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingenvironmentsofhighskillindustriesis

lacking.Regionalinformation(Robertsetal.2010;Wilton,2008;Purcell&Wilton,2004)

providessomecommentaryaroundnationaleducationandtraininginitiativessupporting

high skill occupations and supports comparisons of “academic and vocational

qualificationsattainmentatLevel4andabove,includingprofessionalandnon-accredited

25

continuing professional development qualifications” (Roberts et al. 2010, p1; Wilton,

2008; Purcell & Wilton, 2004). This dynamic relationship between the supply for and

demand of education and training initiatives is contextualised in Becker’s (1964, 1993)

seminal debates onhuman capital theory: “HumanCapital – a theoretical and empirical

analysis”. Here human capital is defined as the interdependent dynamic relationship

betweenemployerinvestmentsinenhancingtheuseofskill,knowledgeandcompetencies

using the range of (in) formal (non) job specific education, training and development

initiatives that are otherwise established within national (macro), industry (meso) or

organisational (micro) perspectives. This dynamic relationship is also mentioned in

Irwin’s,(2008:67)employerengagementframework.Hereemployerengagementwiththe

institutionalsupplyorprovisionofeducationandtraininginitiativesexistsdependingon

the needs of the employer in improving existing skill (re-skilling) or in developing new

skillandbehaviours (up-skilling).There-skillingandup-skillingneedsofemployersare

thus achieved in adopting institutional work-based learning and accredited training

systemsandinitiatives,establishedduetoemployerengagementwithinmacro(national)

ormeso(industry)perspectivesthusharnessingstandardisedandwiderjobcompetency

standardsandprofessionalbehaviours.

Although these frameworks confirm necessary employer engagement, evidence

outliningtheconsistentproblemsaroundtheunmetemployerdemandforeducationand

training within the UK (UKCES, 2010a,b, 2009; Leitch, 2006; Roberts Review, BIS,

2012,ab) and evidential skill lags across UK occupations (Appendix III) is quite

overwhelming(Leitch,2006;RobertsReview,2002;Hoque&Bacon,2008).Thisisnoted

by Leitch (2006) who emphasisesWorld Class Skill Targets for 2020 using supportive

Governmentinvestmentsinemployabilityinitiativestoraiseattainmentinbasic(Level1)

and adult numeracy and literacy attributes. Employer-led engagement and Government

investment is suggested in raising vocational and apprenticeship training, intermediary

(Level 2 and 3) and high-level (level 4 and 5) qualifications attainment. The OECD’s

international comparisonof 30 countries, highlights similar concerns rating theUK11th

forhigh-level,17th for low-leveland20th for intermediate-levelqualificationsattainment

with15%ofadults lacking functional literacyand21%numeracyskill (Hoque&Bacon,

2008). Herequalificationattainmentvariesdependingupon the levelattained(Table1,

Appendix III) according to requiredoccupational standards relative to the rangeof low,

intermediateofhighskilloccupations(Elias&Bynner,1997;Sadler&Smith,1997).These

occupationalstandardscharacterisevariousskillcategoriesincluding:vocational,manual,

cognitive,generic,core/keyandtechnicalwhichemployersexpectindividualstopossess

alongside knowledge competencies, experience and personal and behavioural

characteristics(Elias&Bynner,1997;Sadler&Smith,1997). However,industry-specific

26

evidencedetailing theeducationand training initiativesneedsacross thehighskillR&D

capabilities and supply chain manufacturing activities of UK high skill industries is

somewhat spurious. Reports do however provide an indication of broad regional needs

withintheUK(Robertsetal,2010),althoughthisevidencedoesnotemphasisthenature

of employer engagement involved in mediating high skill (non) certified workplace

learning,trainingandeducationalneeds(Irwin,2006,p.67).Surveyevidencehighlighting

the skill shortages and gaps influencing wider UK industries is nevertheless plentiful

(Felsteadetal.2007;NEES,2007;WERS,2004;Hillageetal.2002;Hogarth,etal.2001),

althoughhereinformationspecifictoUKhighskillindustriesisagainsomewhatspurious.

Regional explorations further emphasise a growing demand for education and training

acrossthehighskilloccupations,althoughheretheresponsibilityofsustainedattainment

acrossUKregionsisagaindependentuponGovernmentsupply-sideinitiatives(Robertset

al, 2010;Wilton, 2008; Purcell&Wilton, 2004).A range ofUK initiatives are presented

next.Thediscussionspointtoaweakemployerengagement intheirdesignanddelivery

resultinginchallengesinmeetingemployerexpectations(Payne,2008a,b;Lloyd&Payne,

2003a,2002a,b)andsuggestingfurtherclarificationoftheseemployerengagementissues

across the under researched high skill industries. These points further inform research

question one, questioning the extent to which the employer engagement issues

surroundingnationalinitiativesalsoinfluenceUKhighskillindustries?

A. UKNationalVocationalEducationtraining

The problems of youth employment within the UK are normally addressed by

Government-led policy reforms (BIS, 2013a – Pathways to Work Programme) (BIS,

2012b),withrecentinitiativessurrounding(Advanced)ModernApprenticeshipsSchemes

facilitating a revival in National Vocational Qualifications. Apprenticeship schemes and

accompanyingNVQshavehistoricallybeenassociatedwithaweakemployerconfidence

largelyduetoissuesaroundtheirworkplacerelevance(Leitch,2006;Robert’sReview,BIS

2012b). These challenges are emphasised within The Robert’s Review that calls for

employerengagementindesigningUKapprenticeshipframeworks.Thereviewrecognises

problems such as the non-relevance of existing apprenticeship frameworks. It also

highlights theweak employer intent in offering trainees the flexibility in attainingNVQ

qualifications that, alongside employer resource limitations have resulted in the low

uptake of apprenticeships. Roberts (BIS, 2012b) thus recommends an employer-led

outcomes-based approach, emulating inception across Europe. Here employer-led

engagement in the design of apprenticeship training secures the alignment of NVQ

qualifications with specific skill, competencies, occupational and career progression

structuresanddistinctiveindustrystandardsaccordingtothespecificneedsofemployers

27

(Brockmann, 2008). European apprenticeship frameworks reflect the social partnership

approach, involvingemployersandunions, facilitatingemployer-leddesign,deliveryand

dual system features in contrast to individualistic and narrow functionalist NVQs

characterisingthewiderEnglishsystem(Brockmann,2008;Rauner,2006).Theadditional

advantageofregulateddualsystemframeworksistheirencapsulationoflife-longlearning

attributesachievedviaparticipationandachievementofvocationaleducation.This form

of VET is integrated into comprehensive education systems and regulated by social

partners ensuring the attainment of workplace relevant and quality skill, competencies

and knowledge (Rauner, 2006). Markets are further structured so as to ensure the

certification of workplace relevant VET and suites of NVQs securing sustained

employabilityandcareerprogressionroutes(Brockmann,2008,p558).

The difficulties surrounding apprenticeships stemming from the UK’s voluntary

employer engagement approach is broadly acknowledged within policy and scholarly

arguments(BIS,2013b;DfES,2004a,b;Fuller&Unwin,2003b;DfEE,2000).Theseinsights

highlight that the lack of worker representation and the UK’s reticent approach in

facilitating the employer-led design and delivery of NVQs have contributed to a weak

workforceconfidence,uptakeandcompletionrates (DCSF/DIUS,p19,2008;Brockmann

etal.2008;Fuller&Unwin2003a;DfEE,2000).Poorcompletionratesareacentralissue

in Fuller & Unwin’s (2003a,b) examination of the Government’s 2003 Apprenticeships

Task force scheme, established to raise level 3 qualifications attainment across sectors

supporting strong apprenticeship traditions (e.g. manufacturing, construction,

engineering). Qualifications attainment was found to remain “stereotypically skewed

across the gendered occupations” although older apprenticeships were further popular

(Fuller & Unwin, 2003a, p.11). The studies report a high employer demand for

apprenticeshipsandNVQattainmentwithinthreeinfourofallnewtechnicalskilledjobs

oracrossjobscharacterisinglevel3equivalentqualificationsattainment.Acumulativefall

in completion rates is however evidenced across Level 3 andLevel 2 attainment. Policy

reports furtherallocate theproblemsofpooroverallapprenticeshipcompletionrates to

again the problems of engaging employers in their design, delivery and adoption

(DCFS/DIUS, 2008a,b; DfES, 2004a,b). Employers view the UK’s apprenticeship

framework as complex and bureaucratic leading to a weak acknowledgement of their

workplace relevance. Resource constraints (e.g. staff supervision; financial investment)

preventsustainedapprenticeshiptrainingandpost-completionemployment,whilstpoor

completionstaffratesareallocatedtoproblemsaroundthelowworkplaceawarenessof

the benefits of NVQ qualifications (i.e. raising technical competencies, theoretical and

appliedknowledge;employability(Fuller&Unwin,2003a,b).

28

NVQswererolledoutin1980inanticipationoftheiremployer-ledandcollective

establishment involving industry-training bodies in establishing industry-specific

“certified”unitsofworkplacecompetencies(DfES,2006:3).Thesequalificationsremaina

central feature of the UK’s VET system reflected in the interest in the study of the

effectiveness of bothUKVocationalEducationalTraining (i.e. VET) andNVQattainment

across the manufacturing sectors (Acutt et al. 2006; Miller et al, 2002; Stevens, 1999;

Matlay, 1999). During initial inception, the popularities ofNVQs rose in anticipation of

their employer-led establishment and easy adoption alongside employer interests in

providingadult learningopportunitieswhichreflected thedemonstrableoutcome-based

achievementofpracticalskill,competencyandknowledge(DfES,2003b,p3).Yet,evidence

supportingtheeffectivenessofNVQsismixed.Studieslongsincerevealthelowemployer

value allocated to vocational qualifications due to constraints in their poor design and

weak delivery, although these refer to their relevance across low and intermediate

occupations (Acutt et al. 2006). Examination surrounding their inception and adoption

across the high skill sectors and industries is but limited to a few studies (Lloyd, 2002;

Milleretal.2002). Theserevealthatemployersdonot ‘actively’recruitcandidateswith

vocational qualifications preferring work experience and alternative skill types. NVQ

attainment is however important in recruiting lower-level management and low skill

occupations. Insights alsopoint to theirweakadoptionacross the lowskill occupations,

yettheirhighachievementacrosshighskillandseniormanagementroles.Inshortthese

broadly-based insights point to tensions, between the challenges of unmet employer

demand and the lack of an employer-led approach in the design and adoption of NVQ

qualifications. Regardless calls for the employer-led facilitation of NVQs in harnessing

realisticachievementanddemand(Lloyd,2002)acrosshighskilloccupationsandsectors

arerequired,althoughdetailaroundhowthismayachievedislacking.

B. Higher Education Reforms - The STEM Agenda, GraduateApprenticeshipsandinternshipsandPostgraduatetraining

SincetheRobertsReview,theUK’ssupportoftheSTEMAgendainraising(post)

graduate levels skills has received criticismwithinpolicy and academic circles.Roberts,

allocates responsibility in ensuring the long-term international competitiveness of UK

highskillindustriestothestateinsustainingapipelineofqualitygraduates.Howeverthis

requires improvements in the quality of HE education (e.g. University facilities and

curriculum)andinstrengtheninglinksbetweeneducationalinstitutions(e.g.universities,

and industry. 1000 academic fellowships and a £150 million investment for Research

Councils (www.vitae.ac.uk/policy-practice/1685/Roberts-recommendations.html#set)

have thus been pledged across UK HE, improving the quality and numbers of STEM

29

graduatesandpostgraduates(Smith,2007).Neverthelesspolicyandscholarlyarguments

havelongsincedebatedthe(in)effectivenessofthesupply-sideinimprovingHEdelivery

withinthesecontextsandstillcall forgreateremployerengagement(Kirkupetal.2010;

Smith,2007,WarryReport,2006). Pooremployerengagement iscitedacentralbarrier

within STEMReview report (Smith, 2007), preventing the effective design of necessary

changes in the UK’s STEM curriculum and the generation of new graduate training and

employment opportunities across high skill sectors (e.g. internships; graduate

recruitment). Various employer engagement frameworks (Bolden, 2009; Wedgewood,

2007) are suggested, although further empirical evidence is perhaps required in

uncovering the effectiveness of these frameworks in shaping supply-side HE provision

according to sector-specific occupational needs. Wedgewood’s, (2007) framework for

example acknowledges the problems around skilled labour cited by Leitch and the

Lambert’sReviewsandbroadlypointtothesocietalbenefitsoftheemployer-leddesignof

HEcurriculumframeworks,researchandteaching.Theseprinciplesarealsoencapsulated

within Bolden et al’s (2009) conceptual framework which highlight the drivers in

sustaining successful engagement between industry and specifically theHE sector. The

framework suggests supply and demand-side employer resources (e.g. funding, staffing,

engagement systems and processes) as critical necessary drivers in securing employer

engagement cultures. Sustained industry/employer engagement is further dependent

uponessentialstrategicpartners,theestablishmentofrelatedpartnerships,systemsand

processes supporting employer engagement in designing education and learning

packages.Beyondthesebroadframeworks,viewsonemployerengagementinshapingHE

policy are mixed as reports (BIS, 2011a:89) confirm frequent and formal engagement

between employers and HE institutions, yet question the nature of engagement and its

effectiveness.Regardless,theproblemsofunmetemployerdemandisinpartallocatedto

employers and their preferences of informal engagement with HE curriculum

developmentprocesses.Thishasmeantagreateremphasistothedesignofbroadadhoc

initiatives around addressing generic issues such as transferable skill or employability

insteadof targeted interventionsupporting improvements intheeducationalcurriculum

orcriticaltechnicalhighskillcompetencies.

SimilaremployerengagementissuesareraisedbyreportsthatcallforGovernment

investmentsinsupportingresearchactivityacrossUKHEinstitutionsandSTEMdiscipline

postgraduate education and development (Warry, 2006). TheWarry Report (2006) for

example reveals significant investments in 2007 (£1.4million) distributed by Research

CouncilsacrossUKHE institutions insupportingcoursedevelopmentand thegrowthof

STEMpostgraduateentrepreneurialskills.Anadditional£22millionwasallocatedtoUK

HEIs,supporting fundedcareerdevelopment, trainingandtransferableskill forresearch

30

students and staff working within R&D roles. However, little empirical information is

available regarding the effectiveness of such supply-side initiatives and the extent of

employer-led involvement in their establishment and uptake. Nevertheless, TheWarry

Report (2006) allocates responsibility to Research Councils and policy stakeholders in

mediating engagement between and with HEIs and employers to better establish the

industry-widedemandforpostgraduateskill.Thereportrecommendsleadershiprolesfor

researchinstitutionsintheirknowledgetransferagendas,toinfluenceknowledgetransfer

cultures within universities and research institutes, but importantly in enhancing

engagementbetweenuniversities and theusersof knowledgenamely, employers. Here

the role of thenow closedRegionalDevelopmentAgencies (RDAs) is cited as central in

mediating engagement between Research Councils, high skill industries (e.g. energy,

sciences) and intermediary brokerage services (e.g. SSCs) particularly associated SME

sectors(Hogarthetal.2007).Theseinsightssuggestfurtherexplorationsofthenatureof

such engagement. These explorations are necessary in line with existing UK-wide

evidence, that points to the success of Research Councils in raising postgraduate level

transferable skill and career opportunities, although which emphasise challenges

concerning the lack of employer-led and user-led involvement in designing training

programmes.Despitetheseconcerns,scholarlyargumentspointtovariousstrategies(e.g.

socialequality)adoptedinensuringthatthedemandforhighskilloccupationsacrossthe

sectors is being met with a steady supply of graduates, although question the reasons

behind their low employment across the high skill sectors (Smith & Gorard, 2011).

Interesthasalsodeveloped in theemployer-led involvement (Kirkupet al. 2010; Smith,

2007)indesigningpopularworkplacerelevantgraduateapprenticeships,internshipsand

transferableskillinlinewiththeGovernment’saiminencouraginggraduateemployment

inSTEMcareers.

UKGraduateapprenticeshipswithinHE

In 2009 the UK Government invested £140 million in apprenticeships

implemented across the public and private sectors (TheGuardian, January 8th, 2009). A

further £500 million employer investment plan, 75,000 training places and employer

incentives were pledged supporting the recruitment and training of individuals

experiencing long-term unemployment (Financial Times, 11th January, 2009). Similar

investments were forecast for 2014, with employers relaying concerns in meeting the

expected high demand for apprenticeship training (e.g.12 applications per vacancy)

(Guardian,5thFebruary,2014).

Studiesexaminingtheeffectivenessofgraduatelevel3andaboveapprenticeship

training are plentiful, with many highlighting challenges in their workplace facilitation

31

(Sadleretal,2010;Ryanetal.2006,Fallows&Weller,2003).However,withtheexception

ofFallows&Weller’s(2003)casestudy,thesestudiesdonotdetailtheextentandnature

ofemployerengagementinthedesignoradoptionofapprenticeships.Thestudyassesses

theadoptionofGraduateApprenticeshipplacementsfacilitatedbyaUKuniversityacross

theSMEandvoluntarysectors,supportingHEgraduatesindevelopingworkplacerelevant

technical competencies (DTI, 1999 and DfEEa, 1999a cited in Fallows & Weller, 2003,

p666).Thesegraduateplacementsuniquelycharacterisedinternalisedsupportnetworks

and monitoring tools (e.g. skill audit personal development plan) established between

employers,workplace supervisors,university tutorsandservicesensuring that students

successfully achieved the necessary pre-defined standards knowledge and technical

competencylevels(Fallows&Weller,2003:668).Ryanetal.’s(2006)studyisalsouseful

in understanding the employer engagement challenges influencing Advanced

Apprenticeship Schemes relevant across the high skill occupations (Level 3 and above)

working across a range of large UK employers including high skill organizations (e.g.

engineering). Employers were left to their own devises in source training surrounding

technician,adultandgraduatelevelapprenticeshipsusingexternaltrainingprovidersdue

tothelimitedsupportonofferthroughtheAASframework.Otherstudiespointtosimilar

employer challenges surrounding apprenticeship training (Kirkup et al. 2010), although

substantiateagrowinginterestacrosstheUKscience,engineeringandtechnologysectors,

anddemandfortheircertifiedemployer-ledfacilitation.

UKHigherEducationInternships

Government initiatives supporting the UK’s internship programme include: The

National Internship Scheme and The Graduate Talent Pool established in 2009 (Long,

2009;DIUS,2009).TheNationalInternshipSchemewasestablishedtoalleviategraduate

unemployment and related problems surrounding the lack of accessible graduatework

experience, thus supportingpaidand temporaryworkplacementsacrosspublic,private

and voluntary sector organizations (Long, 2009). The Graduate Talent Pool was

establishedby theDepartment for Innovation,UniversitiesandSkills (Long,2009;DIUS,

2009), a partnership initiative between the Government and employers supporting

student and employer-led student work placements (BIS, 2011,a,c). During 2010, the

initiative was supported by HEFCE providing £1 million investment for 1,011

undergraduate internships. A further £12 million allocation to 57 UK HEIs supported

graduate internships across Government priority sectors, including high skill and SME

industries (BIS, 2011, p20). The initiatives were established in response to changing

regional and wider UK demand for high skill labour, further ensuring employer

contribution in raising the standard of transferable and job specific competency levels

32

amongst graduates. The growing interest in internships has however brought with it

controversialproblems(e.g.poorlypaid/unpaidplacements)questioningtheirreputation

(CIPD,2013;CIPD,2010).Thishasresulted in thesubsequentestablishmentofcodesof

practice,specialistadviceforums(e.g.Gatewaytotheprofessions–collaborativeforum)

andsupportingpolicyorganizationsincluding:InternsAware,InternsAnonymousandthe

CIPD (CIPD Press Release 25th June, 2010 – Policy Paper calls for the end to unpaid

internships). Despite concerns around the exploitative nature of internships, policy

documents published by support organisations (IPPR, Internocracy 2010), recommend

furtheremployerengagementintheirfacilitation.Employerengagementhereishowever

broadly characterised, although involvesworking in collaborationwith and drawing on

the resources of major private sector employers, charity programmes, and policy

organisations in raising the profile of graduate internships so as to secure formalised

industry-wide adoption. Further research is thus required to better understand the

implications of graduate internships for different workplace settings and their

contributioninfosteringnewemploymentopportunitiesandtransferableworkplaceskills

(IPPR,2010:14).

C. DevelopingTransferableWorkplaceSkills &Competencies

Transferable or generic skills support the transfer of skill and competencies

between educational orworkplace situationsor settings (Fallows et al, 2000:8) and are

essential pre-requisites for employment (Hayward & Fernandez, 2004) and industry

competitiveness (UKCES, 2010a:3). OECD studies (Schneeberger, 2006) define basic

language and numeric skill, group work, communication and computing skills and

continuous learning and entrepreneurial competencies as transferable employment

attributes. Scholarly and policy arguments recognise these skills as educational pre-

requisites developed at school, or during FE or HE (Fallows et al., 2000) further

improvingtheemployabilityofUKschool-leaversandgraduates(UKCES,2010,a,b).1992

sawtheformalrecognitionoftransferableorgenericskillsasaccreditedCoreSkillunitsin

their incorporation in General National Vocational Qualifications (GNVQs), in the

establishment of Key Skills (Levels 1-5) (Dearing Report, 1996). The Qualifications

CurriculumAuthority(QCA,2005),citesKeySkillstoinclude:communication,information

technology, and numeric skill and competencies and additional “soft skills” including:

problemsolving,teamworkingandself-initiatedperformanceandcareerproression.

WorkandEmploymentRelations(Felsteadetal.2007;WERS,2004)andemployer

surveys (NEES, 2007; Hillage et al. 2002; Hogarth, et al. 2001) further emphasise the

employerdemandfortransferableorgenericskillrelativetotherangeofUKoccupations

andUKindustry.Transferableskillshortagesinclude:technicalandpracticalskills(28%),

33

job-specific (15%), information, communication and technological skill (20%) and

customer handling skills (16%) (Hogarth et al. 2001). These surveys highlight

occupational-specific shortages (e.g. IT skills - professional and associate professional

occupations–NEES,2007)andsector-widesoftskillshortageswithemployerscallingfor

programmes and initiatives supporting their development. In 2008, theCIPD employer

survey indicated that40%ofemployersreportedthatstaff lackedcommunicationskills,

20%highlightedweakteamworkingwhile26%indicatedproblem-solvingasaconcern.

Learning andDevelopment Surveys (CIPD, 2008) further reveal that 61% of employers

prefer the integration of broader generic transferable skill achievements in school-level

education, FE, NVQ and HE qualifications. 66% of UK employers had problems with

genericskillshortagesacrossthehighskilloccupationsincludingininterpersonal(66%);

communication (66%); and management and leadership skills (53%) (CIPD,2008). The

analysis of soft skills affecting high skill working environments revealed that 53% of

employers found that new staff lacked an understanding of work ethic; while 48% of

employershighlighted their lackofbusinessacumen,commercialawarenessandcritical

thinking abilities. Graduates also face challenges as employers highlight their poor

attainmentofwiderskill setsand theneed forahigherattainmentacross:practicaland

technical skills, analytical, business awareness and management skills (CBI, 2008).

Alongsidethesecriticalskillshortages,UK-widepolicyreportsagainheretoowitherraise

issuewith or do not address the issue surrounding the nature of engagement required

betweenemployers,HEinstitutionsandsupply-sideinstitutionalpolicyinaddressinglags

transferableskillattainmentinfluencingthehighskilloccupations(BIS,2011a:68).

The discussions here point to the need for further empiricalwork exploring the

relevanceofthewiderproblemsofunmetemployerdemandandineffectiveemployer-led

engagement in the design and/or adoption of macro-perspective supply-side initiatives

within the high skill context. The insights also point to the drivers of various employer

engagementmodels, someofwhich characterise the competitive conditionsofhigh skill

industries (e.g. regulated training frameworks; employer-led engagement between

multiple stakeholders & stakeholder networks). These observations contextualise

researchquestionone,whichexplores thenatureof employerengagementand typesof

high skill education and training initiatives facilitated by policy stakeholders in

accordance to the macro-perspective institutional training environments surrounding

highskill industries.Thediscussionsnextprovidean indicationof thetypesofhighskill

conditions that are likely to influence the macro-perspective institutional training

environments surrounding high skill industries. The discussions thus question their

relevanceininfluencingemployerengagementwithinthemacro-perspectiveinstitutional

trainingenvironmentsandcontextssurroundingUKhighskillindustries.

34

1.1.3 Macro-perspective strategies in addressing the industry-wide

demandforhighskill educationandtraining

Employer engagement is central in supporting the industry-wide adoption of

macro-perspective national strategies established in raising industry-wide performance

within the UK (Keep et al. 2006: Keep 2002). Commentators however question the

effectivenessofsuchstrategiesduetoinherentandpersistentproblemsofvoluntaryand

constrained employer engagement between employers and supply-side UK policy

institutions (Raddon&Sung, 2008). The effectsof this are all too familiar as very “few

cluster regionsexistwhere industrial strategiesandpoliciesareestablishedbasedupon

local institutional and cultural specificities” (Amin, 2004, p53; Rosenfeld, 1997). This

problemalsoappliestotheUK’sapproachinraisingemploymentopportunitiesandskills

across cluster industries, sparking criticism of investments in “disconnected and

disembodied ventures such as university expansions, science park developments or

dispersed training schemes” (Amin, 2004, p53). Little attention is thus aimed at

establishing targeted polices in supporting cluster conditions, essential in promoting

regional competitiveness (AIM 2005a, b) and in sustaining the growth of premature

cluster formations (Finegold, 1999, Streeck, 1989). TheUK’s approach has further been

criticisedforitspoorregionalemphasisinsupportinglessestablished,“lessfavoured”UK

regions which characterise the weaker institutionalisation of industry networks and

engagementbetweenemployersandsupply-sidepolicyinstitutions(Keep,2010;Keepet

al. 2006; AIM, 2005a, b). This has meant the substantial nation-wide allocation of

investmentopportunitieslargelyatoverachievingindustryclusterswithwell-established

infrastructures and institutions (Keep et al. 2006; Amin, 2004; Ketels, 2003).

Commentators further question the UK Government’s central agency approach in

investing in UK industry, calling for a regionalism model, one that supports devolved

targetedindustry-specificclusterinitiativesinaddressingtheuniquelyspecificchallenges

of less established industry regions (Keep et al. 2006; AIM, 2005:16). Regional

frameworksoverseenbytheEuropeanCommissionhavebeensuccessfulinEurope.Here

targeted industry-wide investments have led to initiatives supporting innovation, job

creation, labour mobility and management training initiatives across European World

ClassClusters(EuropeanClusterAllianceBrussels,17thOctober,2008).

AlternativelytheUK‘scentralisedapproachinoverseeingtheprosperityofcluster

industries is however evidenced in the establishment ofmacro-perspective nation-wide

strategies and initiatives (HM, Government, 2010a, b). Their underlying rational is to

generateindustryinvestmentsusingleverswhichinturnfosternewjobsandemployment

35

opportunities,creatingademandfornewformsofeducationandtraininginresponseto

newjobcompetencies(Irwin,2008).Theadoptionofsuchpolicyleversacrossregionsand

clustersishowevercriticallydependantuponengagementbetweenvariousstakeholders

including employers, industry representatives and importantly supply-side policy

stakeholders.Regardless,anunderstandingofthetypesofindustrypolicyleversthatUK

policy stakeholders support in generating the demand for such new industry-wide

education and training remains elusive. Examples of strategieswhich encapsulate such

industrylevershoweverareplentifulandincludethe“PartnershipforGrowth:ANational

FrameworkforRegionalandEconomicDevelopment”(HM,Government,2010a)andthe

“New Industry, New Jobs” (HM, Government, 2010b). These strategies promote the

adoptionof industry-widestructuralmeasures,supportingemployers ingeneratingdata

and informationregarding thedemand fornewemploymentand jobcompetencies, skill

shortages and education and training. The “Partnership for Growth” (HM, Government,

2010a)strategyforexamplesupportscollectiveemployerengagementintheadoptionof

The National Skills Audit in order to capture (meso) industry-wide, sector-specific and

regionaldataon labourandskill shortages.Herecollaborationsbetweenemployersand

UK Higher education (Higher Education Funding Council for England) are essential

solutions in tackling problems around poor STEM recruitment and the education and

training of undergraduates and postgraduates (HEFCE, 2011). Collaborations between

stakeholders including: skill agencies, training boards, industry regulators and regional

development agencies are suggested to further support investments for industry-wide

employment and workforce development opportunities focusing particularly in

developing small businesses. The “New Industry, New Jobs” (HM, Government, 2010b)

strategy alternatively supports industry-wide financial investments and stakeholder

partnershipsraisingskilllevelsacrosstheoccupationsandinnovationacrossUKindustry

including the high skill sectors. This strategy again emphasises engagement between

various stakeholders including: The Department of Innovation Universities and Skills

(DIUS), local authorities, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), Technology Strategy

Boards,HigherEducation andFurtherEducation institutions and employers. “The Skills

forGrowthNationalStrategy”(BIS,2009b)highlightssimilarstakeholderresponsibilities

in tackling the growing employer demand for apprenticeships, technicians and

professional competencies using match-funding investments supported by policy

organisations.Itisclearthatthesemacro-perspectivestrategiesarecentrallydependent

upon critical engagement between employers, industry and particularly policy

stakeholders in fostering the industry-wide acknowledgement and additionally the

acknowledgementofmacro-perspective leversorconditionsessential ingeneratingnew

employmentandeducationandtrainingopportunities.Yet,ourunderstandingofthethese

36

macro-perspectiveconditionsandleversandthenatureoftheirinfluenceonthespecific

employerengagement rolesofpolicyorganisations in facilitatingeducationand training

initiatives requires clarification. In particular, which macro-perspective levers are

responsible in generating the employer or industry-wide demand for new high skill

educationandtrainingopportunitiesandwhatdoesthisdemandlooklike?

HereBrown’s(2002)frameworkandsevenhighskillconditionssupportingthe“skill

formation”systemsofhighskilleconomies,isperhapsusefulinunderstandingthenature

ofmacro-perspectiveleversandconditionsnecessaryinraisinganation-wideemphasisin

raisinghigh-skillattainmentacrosstheoccupations.Brown(2002)suggeststheadoption

of a high skill framework, one that underpins necessary stakeholder engagement

arrangementsincludingbetweenpolicystakeholderswithresponsibilitiesincoordinating

thesupplymacro-perspectiveofeducationandtraininginitiativesaccordingtoindustry-

specific conditions and employers who adopt such opportunities. Brown’s (2002)

overarchingmacro-perspective framework is however perhaps incompatiblewithin the

UK’s wider institutional training environment, due to differences in the “broader

relationshipbetweenthestate,capitalandlabour”(Rainbirdetal.2004:23).Specifically,

unlike the UK, the state characterising high skill economies has a strong historical

involvement in influencing national economic development and facilitates the

coordination of initiatives and investment opportunities in supporting industry-specific

employment, jobandeducationandtrainingopportunitiescontributingtotheregulation

of occupations and careers (Rainbird et al. 2004:24,25; Crouch et al. 2004:110). This

contrasts with the UK’s approach that allocates the responsibility of education and

training to labour(Rainbirdetal.2004:24,25). Despite thesedifferences, thediscussion

next reveals similarities between the underlying employer engagement drivers and

conditionssupportingBrown’s(2002)sevenhighskillmacro-perspectiveframeworkand

the essential competitive conditions supporting high skill industries (Finegold, 1999).

Brown’s(2002)sevenmacro-perspectivehighskillconditions furtherunderpin thevery

features that scholarly arguments suggest constrainUKemployers fromgeneratingnew

educationandtrainingskilluseopportunitieswithintheUK’swiderinstitutionaltraining

context.Theseinsightsarediscussednextandinformresearchquestionone,whichseeks

toexplore thenatureofmacro-perspectiveengagementbetweenemployersandsupply-

side policy stakeholders in response to Brown’s (2001) conditions. In effect, Brown

(2001)suggeststhatsevenmacro-perspectiveconditions,discussednextarenecessaryin

raising the nation-wide achievement of skill attainment across the occupations. The

insightsrevealsimilaritiesbetweentheemployerengagementcharacteristicssurrounding

Brown’s (2001) conditions and the competitive conditions of high skill industries,

37

althoughalsoprovidecontextaroundtheirincompatibilitywithintheUK’swidertraining

context.

Conditiononecirculation (Brown,2001:46), refers to thespeedwithwhichnations,

regions or industry clusters upgrade or raise the attainment of qualifications or

competency-levelsacrosstheoccupationsinresponsetochangesinexternalcompetitive

environments”.HereBrown(2001)recognisestheneedforanengrainedandconsistently

reinforcing ethos amongst stakeholders including employers and policy stakeholders in

“upgrading” and “rejuvenating” skills attainment across the occupations thus securing a

constantsupplyofhigh-skilllabour.Brown(2001)suggeststhattheunmethighdemand

forhigh-skillandtrainedlabouracrossleadingedgebusinesses,R&Dinstitutes,research

centres and universities, is as a consequence of the difficulties or constraints facing the

state in fostering supportive macro-perspective strategies and initiatives ensuring a

steadysupplyofsuchlabour.ThisproblemisparticularlycharacteristicoftheUK,where

“societalnetworksandstateinstitutionsinteracttostiflethedemandandimprovements

in skills” Finegold & Soskice (1988:46). Ultimately, the UK characterises a Low Skill

Equilibrium (LSE) state suggestive of historical market failures and narrowly drawn

provision of education and training strategies leading to the unmet employer demand

(Payne, 2008a,b; Ashton & Sung, 2006; Leitch, 2006; Keep et al. 2006; Lloyd & Payne,

2003a,b;Crouchetal.1999;Keep&Mayhew,1999).Herecommentatorsraiseissuewith

poor engagement on the part of employers with policy and labour institutions, the

voluntaryemployerapproachintrainingstaff,theirlackoftraininginvestmentandweak

interestinhighskillvalue-addedproductionstrategiesallinallcontributingtoweakskill

achievement(Ashton&Sung,2006:16;Crouchetal.1999:227).Yet,theUKisalsohome

to reputableHigherEducation institutions thatarguablysupplyUK labourmarketswith

pipelinesofqualifiedhighskillgraduates,whilst“clustersofhighskill labour”employed

acrossthehighskillsectorsdrivecompetitionbetweenUKemployersintherecruitment

of high skill labour (Brown, 2001:46). Regardless, Brown (2001) suggests inherent

differences in national training frameworks, and recommends uniquely specific nation-

widemacro-perspectiveeducationand training initiatives, supporting theaccess tohigh

skill employment and training opportunities to all sections of the labour market. Here

Brown(2001)suggeststhatoneexampleinaddressingtheproblemoftheover-supplyof

highskill labour is in the formofGovernment initiativessupporting thegrowthofsmall

andmedium-sizedenterprises.

Condition two consensus (Brown, 2001:35), refers to “the extent towhichmajor

stakeholders,governmentsandemployersaresigneduptoacommitmentin“upgrading”

the skill of the workforce”. This refers to the commitment between stakeholders in

38

“coalescing”aroundeducationandtraininginraisingqualificationattainmentacrosslow,

intermediateandhigh-skilloccupations(AppendixIII). Sub-section1.1.1,revealsaweak

commitment in the adoption of such a comprehensive approach within UK’s macro-

perspective institutional training context. It is suggested that distinctive historical

institutional employer engagement weaknesses within the UK challenge policy

stakeholdersand institutions fromadoptinga consensus-drivenapproach in facilitating

the education and training needs of employers, further contrasting state influence in

shaping industrial training initiatives across high skill economies. These differences

furtherinstigatevariationsin“nationalproduction,labourmarketandindustrialrelation

systems” (Bosch & Charest, 2008:428) and in the relationship between employer

engagement training frameworks and supply-side training institutions and initiatives

(Raddon&Sung,2008).ItissuggestedthattheUKstatemustrelinquishresponsibilityin

influencing supply-side provision, if stakeholders (including employers) are expected to

develop capacity as prominent partners in the UK’s E&T system (Keep, 2006:47).

Brown’s(2001)highskillframeworkhoweverplacesparticularemphasisinestablishinga

macro-perspectivenationalimpetusaroundregulatingeducationandtrainingspecifically

around high skill employment including management and professional work. This

commitmentmodelisprevalentacrossUKhighskillindustriesintheirself-sustainingskill

formation systems (Finegold, (1999) and regulation of high and intermediate-level

professional and technical competencies (e.g. engineering, pharma), while primary

responsibility in regulating the high skill professions lies with regulatory policy

organizations.UKhighskillindustriesarefurtherdependenton“centralgovernmentand

itsagenciesinregulatingeducationandtrainingsystems”,insupportingthesteadysupply

of qualified skilled labour, despite criticisms in not meeting employer demand (Keep,

2006:47).

Condition three cooperation (Brown, 2001:47,48), “refers to trust relations

embedded within the institutional fabrics of societies” including between stakeholders

responsible for the establishment of education and training systems. This condition

promotes the idea of “social partnership” stakeholder approach respecting “common

interests and shared goals” and involving labour in decisions concerning education,

traininganddevelopment.Thisconditionisbasedaroundtheprincipleofsocialsolidarity

in establishing labour markets, industrial relations and social welfare, acknowledging

trust relations between stakeholders involved in establishing national education and

training. Here trust principles exist in the social partnership approach characterising

vocationaleducationandtrainingsystemsacross industrynetworks inAustralia (Payne,

2007a). Here industry networks foster trust relations and partnerships between

stakeholders includingemployers,unionsandpolicyorganisations.Linkshavealsobeen

39

drawn between the social community approach and trust, a social glue with network

bindingpropertieswhichsupportsresourcesharingopportunitiesbetweenstakeholders

(Morisini, 2003). Crouch et al’s. (1999) definition of skill agency networks also

characterisestrust,essential insustainingsocialrelations,communitytiesandeconomic

exchangeattributesbetweenstakeholders.Thesepropertiesalsounderpin thenetworks

structuressupportinghighskill industriesand itscharacteristicsharingandexchangeof

resourcesbetweenprivateandpublicinstitutions.Yetlittleisknownaboutthenaturein

whichsuchnetworkfeatures(AIM,2005)contributeinfosteringengagementbetweenUK

stakeholdersinmeetingtheunmetemployerdemandforhighskilleducationandtraining

in spite of existing employer engagement challenges characterising the UK’s macro-

perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontext(sub-section1.1.1).

Brown’s,(2001:39)fourthconditioncapability,suggestsanallinclusiveapproach

inestablishinghumancapabilityinsupportingboththesupplyofandaccesstohighskill

education,trainingandlife-longlearningopportunitiesirrespectiveofsocialclass(gender,

race or ethnicity). The condition human capability thus allocates responsibilities to

stakeholders including employers and policy organisations in providing all-inclusive

opportunities to all aspects of individual development, but also expects employers in

supportingpersonaldevelopmentaspirationsof individuals”.HereUKemployersurveys

evidencemodestemployerexpenditureandinvestmentintraining,althoughalsopointto

skillshortagesacrosslow,intermediateandhighskilloccupations(UKCES,2012;Kersley

et al. 2013; WERS, 2004). Whether UK high skill employers observe “capability”, is

questionable in light of existing evidence which points to prevalent challenges facing

specific workforce groups in accessing employment, job promotion and/or career

developmentopportunities(e.g.femaleseniormanagersorprofessionals–Wynarczyk,et

al.2006;womeninSTEMdisciplines–Smith2011;MacLachlan,2006;ethnicminorities–

Kirkupetal.2010).

Condition five competitive capability (Brown, 2001:36; Finegold, 1999), refers to

“the establishment of high-skill initiatives in supporting and raising the potential of

productive innovations”. Such initiatives include theemploymentofhigh-skill labour in

entrepreneurial and risk-taking activities surrounding new technological and R & D

business ventures, changes in which generate new development opportunities. Brown

(2001:37) suggests that this is best achieved by generating value-added competition

between high skill organizations” and alludes to initiatives essential for competitive

capability, including engagement between employers, institutions and government

agencies in their establishment. Here Brown (2001) mirrors wider arguments which

suggest that competitive capability is built around initiatives that foster innovations in

production andR&D that are also essential employer incentives in generatingnewhigh

40

skillknowledge,jobcompetenciesandstaffdevelopmentopportunities(Keep&Mayhew,

2010a, b). Brown’s (2001) high skillmodel acknowledges that employers are likely to

make higher investment gains in recruiting and developing core competencies around

skilled and qualified staff over labour employed across low and intermediate skilled

occupations. Brown (2001) further suggests that the responsibility in collectively

harvesting“clustersofhighskillstaff”isthereforedependentuponengagementbetween

high skill employers, their local and global R&Dnetworks and (HE) institutions. UKHE

institutionsarehoweveroftencriticisedfortheirinabilitiesinsupplyinghigh-skilllabour

inlinewithchangingemployerdemandacrosshighskill industries.Largemultinationals

characterisinghighskillindustriesareacknowledgedapotentialsolutiontothisproblem

in their access to R&D resources in fostering inward R&D investments across SME

networks and supply chains thus ideally generating a demand for new high skill

employmentandstaffdevelopmentopportunities(Finegold,1999;Streeck,1989).

Condition six,closure(Brown,2001:49) “suggests that “high skill societiesare less

likely to socially exclude individuals in their access to employment and development

opportunitiesbasedonfactorssuchassocialidentityandstatus.Initiativesfosteringthe

education and training of ethnic minorities, women, and individuals from low socio-

economicbackgroundsareencouragedensuringfairaccesstohigh-skilldevelopmentand

employment opportunities akin to elite high-skill labour. This conditionhoweverwarns

against acknowledging “fallacies” (Brown, 2001:49,50) which often otherwise justify

social exclusion. An example of this are the employment difficulties facing under-

representedlabourmarketgroupsinaccessinghigh-skillcompetitiveemploymentdueto

poor recruitment practices, an issue also otherwise explained by the poor employment

opportunities generally available across the high-skill sectors. Yet, the under

representation of women within STEM employment is a consistently contested

UK/European-widephenomenon(Moropoulou&Konstanti,2015;Wynarczyk&Renner,

2006). Moreover, the large numbers of female graduate from the ethnic minorities

qualifying in STEM subjects compared to their low employment is questioned based on

genderandsocialexclusion(Kirkupetal.2010).Concernsarealsoraisedaroundthehigh

numbersof students graduatingwithinkeySTEMdisciplineson theonehandand their

lowemploymentacrosstheSTEMsectors(Barrett&Wynarczyk,2009).Closureisthusa

macro-perspective condition that supports high-skill labour in achieving parity in

employmentanddevelopmentopportunity,irrespectiveofsocialstatusandidentity.

Conditionsevencoordination(Brown,2001:43),suggeststheneedfor“coordination

between the supply of and demand for labour” as Governments tailor nation-wide

education and training systems according to employer needs. This according to Brown

(2001:44, 45), requires “joined up” policies involving engagement between different

41

stakeholder institutions,groupsandcommunitiesresponsible incollectively formulating

andimplementinginitiatives.TheroleoftheGovernmentisthusto“inform,facilitateand

coordinatenetworkcollaborationsbetweenstakeholders”afeaturethatalsocharacterises

competitivehigh-skill industries (Finegold1999).Within theUK such responsibilities in

fostering stakeholder/employer engagement is allocated to centralised Government,

supply-sideinstitutionsandpolicyorganisations(Payne,2008a,b;Leitch,2006)whichas

discussed in sub-section1.1.2, encounter persistent employer engagement challenges in

establishingandfacilitatingeducationandtraining.Yetlittleisknownabouttheextentto

which network arrangements as suggested by Brown (2001:44,45) and characterising

high-skill industries (Finegold, 1999) acknowledge the condition coordination in

facilitatinghigh-skilleducationandtraininginitiatives.

Theseinsightsleadtoandcontextualiseresearchquestionone,whichexploresthe

extent and nature in which such conditions influence macro-perspective engagement

between supply-side policy stakeholders and high skill employers. This question is set

against the backdrop of employer engagement drivers and barriers characterising the

UK’s macro-perspective institutional environment discussed earlier. Section 1.2 next

discusses the nature of employer engagementwithin themeso-perspective institutional

trainingcontextsofhighskill industriesandparticularlyinlightofthemeso-perspective

network condition, a competitive feature characterising both high skill industries and

Brown’s(2001)macro-perspectiveconditions.

1.2Meso-perspectiveEmployerEngagement

Commentators generally compliment industry clusters as local production

systems, consisting of a critical mass of closely connected, interdependent and

complimentary firms and institutions that engage in specialist economic activities (AIM,

2005,p7).These localproductionsystemscharacterisehighefficiency levelsdrawingon

resourcesfromfasterreactingsupportsystemsandnetworkpartnerswithstrongprofit-

maximising andbusiness enterprise capabilities (Porter, 1998, 1990;Ketels, 2003). The

growth of industry clusters is incumbent on resource sharing and exchange between

public and private institutions, while firm closeness fosters inter-firm networks,

knowledge exchange cultures and social learning processes (AIM, 2005 a,b). Cluster

sustainability is furtherdependant on local labour,R&D investments and collaborations

facilitatingresourceexchangesinskill,labour,knowledge,technologyandproduction.

Studies(Steinle&Schiele,2002;Ketels,2003;Morosini,2004;Fromhold-Eisebith

& Eisebith, 2005) focusing on industry clusters detail various meso-perspective

characteristicsimportantinclusterformation.Acommonthemeconnectingthesestudies

istheimportanceallocatedtotheengagementbetweensupplyanddemand-sideagentsin

42

sustainingthedevelopmentandgrowthofindustryclusters.However,evidenceexploring

thenatureinwhichthemeso-networkperspectivefosterscollectiveengagementbetween

suchagents ingeneratingeducationand trainingopportunity in lightof the competitive

network condition supporting high skill industries, is somewhat spurious (Finegold,

1999). Fromhold-Eisebith & Eisebith’s, (2005) literature review for example allocates

importance to regional authorities in adopting a top down cluster policy approach in

coordinating policies across industry clusters and their networks. It is suggested that

regionalstrategiesandpoliciesarenormallycoordinatedatthemesoindustryperspective

to perhaps address the potential problems facing concentrations of firms in accessing

public and private sector support services at the industry level. Fromhold-Eisebith &

Eisebith’s, (2005) however base these observations on European clusters, although

distinguish between top-down (e.g. policies driven by public supply-side agencies) and

bottom up approaches (e.g. policies driven by market failure and unmet employer

demand). The study further alludes to implicit (e.g. cluster-related and regional private

industry initiatives) andexplicit strategies (e.g.macroperspectivepublicdriven cluster,

macro-level) in influencingpolicy institutionalisationmeso(industry)perspectives.Both

bottom-upandtop-downapproachesininstitutionalisingclusterpoliciesarehighlighted,

a viewpoint which generally contrasts with the largely top-down approach commonly

adoptedbyconsecutiveUKGovernments,theirpublicagenciesandinstitutionsindriving

educationand trainingacrossUK industries.Regardless,Fromhold-Eisebith&Eisebith’s,

(2005)allocate importanceto institutionalagents intheircollectiveexecutionofexplicit

top-down and implicit bottom-up influence in the industry-wide institutionalisation of

cluster initiatives. Morosini, (2003:305) alternatively notes that the sustainability of

industrial clusters and economic activity is dependent on demand-side factors. These

demand-side factors characterise social communities in generating and transferring

knowledgeacrossthesocialfabricofindustryclusters.Heresocialfabricrelatestomeso-

perspectivelocalisedfirmnetworks,thevariousorganizationssupportingthesenetworks,

factorsdefiningnetworkmembersandthesocialgluebindingpropertiesofnetworks.

AsinFromhold-Eisebith&Eisebith’s,(2005)study,Morosini,(2003)alsoallocates

importance to agents, although here emphasis is placed on demand-side agents

characterising employer interests. It is suggested that the strength of the social glue

bindingpropertiesof industryclusters is thereforeverymuchdependentupondemand-

side networkmembers and their associated stakeholder engagement capabilities across

networks. These capabilities include their leadership influence, building blocks in

sustaining network relationships (specialist labour; common language; competitive

standards; communication rituals) and their abilities in capitalising on inter-firm

knowledgecharacteristicscriticalinforgingrelationshipswithnetworkmembers.Steinle

43

& Scheile’s, (2002:849) study also allocate importance to the multiple and collective

actionsandcompetenciesofagentscharacterisingboththesupply-sideandthe industry

or employer demand-side in shaping the institutionalisation of local meso-cluster

networks.Such insights informourunderstandingof theunderlying featuressupporting

engagement between agents belonging to the meso-level networks of industry clusters

and the institutionalisation of such engagement (Fromhold-Eisebith & Eisebith, 2005;

Morosini, 2003; Ketels, 2003; Steinle & Scheile, 2002). However detail explaining the

nature of engagement of between supply and demand-side stakeholders or agents, the

types of memberships and affiliations that such agents forge with meso-perspective

networks depending on the purpose of the network formation requires clarification.

Commentatorsdohowevercomplimentthemesoindustrynetworkasanessentialfeature

in sustaining economic competitiveness and growth across high-tech cluster industries

(Finegold, 1999; Streeck, 1989; Saxenian, 1994,1992), yet as discussed next, studies

surrounding cluster industries generally emphasise their labour exchange and resource

sharingproperties.

Nevertheless, Finegold (1999) complimentsUKandUSAnetworks in supporting

the vertical and horizontal exchange of skill, knowledge, product development and

regulatory practice. Here regional and sector-specific networks facilitate partnerships

between universities and industries delivering targeted Government investments for

initiativessupportingbusinessspinoutsandspecialisttraining(Finegold1999).Networks

also characterise global skill agencies (Crouch et al, 1999) and high-tech industries (US

Silicon Valley) (Finegold & Soskice 1994). These explanations refer to (non) traditional

cluster industries and their (in) formal and community networks (Crouch 1999:1634).

Formal networks are institutional in nature. Such networks are evidenced inMarshall’s

industrial districts comprising tightly connected localised industries, the Frenchmilieus

drivenbyregionalinnovationpolicyandtheindustrialdistrictsofItaly,drivenbyflexible

specialisation,costefficiencyandcommunityties(Piore&Sable1984).Formalnetworks

thus support entire industrial supply chains fostering regional prosperity and collective

resourcesharing,production,knowledgeandskillspecialisationcapabilitiesandlearning

processes. Here network structures and processes, support the institutionalisation of

networks, lowering transaction costs and fostering cross-industry “collective goods

competition” (Crouch et al.1999:164,166). Such features also characterise formal

networks supporting national and regional initiatives in raising industry-wide skills

(Payne 2008a, 2007a, Payne & Keep 2003). Examples include the Finnish Workplace

Development project, where formal networks are utilised in raising sector-specific skill

attainmentlevelsacrosstheoccupations(Payne2008a;Payne&Keep2003)andalsothe

Australian Ecosystems Project, where industry networks are utilised to facilitate the

44

regional integration of Vocational Education and Training policy (Payne 2007a). These

formal networks are noted for their diverse membership (trade unions, skill agencies,

organisational senior-management and external specialist/consultants), yet detail

surrounding the nature of engagement between stakeholders or the types of education

andtrainingfacilitatedislacking.

Regardless, interest in formal industry networks has grown resulting in various

conceptualisations. Formal industry networks represent focal platforms in driving

internationalisation across industrial agglomerations, clusters and “intelligent regions”

(Amin&Thrift,1996).Thesenetworksareknownfortheirabilitiesindrivinginnovation

as intense firm-collaborations and social consensus between stakeholders from across

global networks support the institutionalisation of innovative and formalised structures

and processes thus supporting the adoption of initiatives (Amin & Thrift 1996). Global

ProductionNetworks(Hendersonetal2002:449)characterisesimilarfeatures,although

here institutionalised network arrangements are responsible in fostering engagement

between agents. These agents belong to interconnected clusters of firms and diverse

institutionalagencies,associationsandrepresentativebodies(e.g.tradeunions,employer

associations).Theseagentsthuscollectivelysupporttheestablishmentofinterconnected

structures,processesandoperations,institutionalisingengagementbetweentheagentsof

production, often across “international, national and regional territories in producing

goods and services” (Henderson et al 2002:449). Such network arrangements are

distinctive, blurring institutional boundaries as “firm-centred production networks”

harnesstheinstitutionalpowerof itsmembersinhighlydifferentiatedwaystoinfluence

(non) regulatory barriers, local socio-cultural and economic conditions”. Engagement

betweenagentscharacterisingformalnetworks,issupportedbytheinstitutionalisationof

network structures and processes, contrasting with informal networks which support

suchengagementbyinstitutionalisingsocialstructuresandcooperativetrustingrelations

(Crouchetal.1994:66). Informalnetworksareknown forharnessingsocial connections

betweenfirmsorbetweenfirmsandsupportagentsby“embeddingsocialstructuresand

cooperative trusting relations between networks and wider communities developing

banks of “collective goods” (Crouch et al. 1994:66). Here agents belong to community

networks supporting common interests between the social groups belonging to the

communityandtheirspecialistknowledge,interestsandattitudes.Communitynetworks

thus characterise the collective sanctioning of demands (e.g. skilled labour, technical

facilities)andsocialexclusionbehaviours,strengthswhichalsoinfluenceacrossindustry

supplychains(e.g.networkpartnershipsestablishedbetweenJapaneseindustry-suppliers

in exchange for staff training and pay - Sako 1998). Little is however known about

whether such conceptualisations of the network form apply to the meso industry

45

perspectiveofhigh skill industries, their supply chainsand the stakeholderengagement

arrangements characterising the institutional training contexts surrounding high skill

industries.

The study of networks has further contributed towards an understanding of UK

public policy networks, although these insights are limited to the health and education

sectors (Brass et al 2004, Borgatti & Foster 2003). Regardless, these studies refer to

existing conceptualisations explaining inter-firm networks (Powell 1990, Miles & Snow

1992 1986, cited in Brass et al 2004) to formulate an understanding of the drivers,

barriers and conditions supporting effective engagement between stakeholders

responsible forpolicy.Thisbodyofworkhowever,drawssimilarconclusionsas studies

onclusterindustries(Steinle&Schiele,2002;Ketels,2003;Morosini,2004),regardingthe

underlyingdriversofsuchnetworksinfosteringengagementbetweenagentsresponsible

for policy provision (supply-side) and stakeholders characterising adoption (demand-

side). Here it is suggested that networks vary depending on their structure, member

affiliation while their sustainability is dependent on the roles and responsibilities of

affiliatedmembersandtheresourcesoftheorganizationstowhichtheybelong(socialand

economicresourcebenefitsdictatehighfrequencyengagement)(Brassetal2004;Cross&

Cummings 2004). These characteristics in turn dictate the outcomes of the activities of

networks (Brassetal2004,Borgatti&Foster2003, Jonesetal1997).Broadly,network

formation is dictated by market demand, knowledge specialisation and diversity, the

sharing of intangible capacities, while network sustainability is dependent upon levers

(e.g.motives,learning,trust,monitoring)facilitatingitsstructuralembedment.Intangible

network features further secure engagement between network members who are

involved in its value activities. Such features include:member status, power and social

capital that in turn foster trusting, non-hierarchical social relations, norms and

behaviours. These ideas also characterise value-creating networks (Porter 1980),which

feature ideas of stakeholder capitalism,wherenetwork connections are forgedbetween

stakeholders from various points of value chains depending on their ownership of and

access to resources. Here the strength of the network connection depends on the

provision of, use and member access to resources fostered by the network further

affectingthecollectiveeffortsofmembersinco-creatingvalueinrelationtotheactivities

ofthenetwork(Gulatietal.2000,Freeman&Leidtka1997).Thesefeaturesresultinthe

consistent re-interpretation of the value-chain and its activities involving multiple

stakeholders within an evolving growing “value-creating system” (Normann & Ramirez

1993). Value-creating network systems are driven by the blurring of inter-firm and

industry-ecosystemboundariescontinuouslygeneratingvaluecreationbyre-configuring

roles and relationships between stakeholders from different points of the value chain.

46

Miles and Snow (2007) highlight similar network characteristics forged between

managementfromacrossindustrysupplychainsemphasisingtheireconomicsignificance

insustaininginternationalsupplychains. Heremanagementvaluesystemsandnetwork

connections are dependent upon changing strategic capabilities (e.g. product

specialisation), resources (e.g. cost reduction, efficiency) andknowledge (e.g. innovative

collaborations).

This idea of network change or flexibility is also captured in social network

theories that support an understanding of extensive multiple (non) firm networks

(network ‘strength’, ‘connectedness’, ‘density’ and ‘closeness’) characterising cluster

industries (Freeman 1984; Oliver 1991; Rowley 1991; Scott 1991 - cited in Agranoff

2001).Thesetheoriessupportexplorationsoffeaturessuchasnetwork‘flexibility’(Alter

& Hage 1993, Piore & Sable 1994), network ‘power’ (Benson, 1978) and ‘multiplexity’

(Freeman1984;Scott1991;Rowley1977).Networkflexibilityhereisdeterminedbythe

abilitiesofindividualnetworkmembersinovercominginstitutionalbureaucraciesasthey

engage in the activities of the network, further supporting network change/growth

(Agranoff2001,Piore&Sable1994,Alter&Hage1993).Alternatively,networkstructural

characteristics reinforce positive mutually reinforcing stakeholder engagement actions,

behaviours and power (“structural involvement strategies” - cooperative, manipulative,

disruptive authoritative) (Bensons 1978). Such structural characteristics are also

mentionedinscholarlyargumentssurroundingpolicynetworks(Klijn&Koppenjan2006,

Kickertetal1997).

Policynetworkshavealsobeenexamined,fromtwoperspectives–intermsofthe

establishmentof strategicengagementbehavioursofpolicyactorsand in relation to the

underlying institutional structures and processes critical for stakeholder engagement.

Klijn & Koppenjan (2006) for example suggest that the structural features of policy

networks are characterisedby collective institutions and their relianceon the collective

actionsandbehavioursofinstitutionalactorsinshapingpolicy.Policyprocessesarethus

underpinned by the shared acknowledgement of structural rules by policy stakeholders

(e.g. interaction; arena; implementing) and power relationships (actor influencing

position)thatdefinethenetworkstructure(e.g.networkcomposition,actorinteractions).

The empirical study of policy networks is not extensive (Borzel 2005), while Provan &

Milward(2001)andAgranoff(2001)intheirexaminationofpublicsectorpolicynetworks

emphasise the advantages such as diverse network membership in overcoming

institutionalbureaucracies.Policynetworks facilitatesociallyobligingculturepromoting

opennesstochangeandreinforcingsupportiveactionsandagreementinrespectofpolicy

changeoradoption.Thiscollectivestakeholdercommitmentencouragesnetworkgrowth

andenhancesmembershipdiversity.Howeverbarrierslinkedtostakeholdermembership

47

and preventing the effectiveness of policy networks have also been highlighted and

include: a weak accountability amongst members of network decisions and weak

adherence to institutional rules, regulations and legislation, lending to network conflict.

Borzel’s (2005) detailed literature review however compliments policy networks in

transcendingmultiple institutional hierarchies in facilitating policy change andmultiple

stakeholderengagement(e.g.resourcepooling,communications).

Althoughdiverse,theseinsightsprovideanunderlyingbasisinexploringresearch

questiontwo.Researchquestiontwoexplorestheroleofthemeso(industry)-perspective

network form in facilitating employer engagement between stakeholders characterising

the macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training contexts of high skill

industries. The next section addresses the nature in which scholarly arguments

contextualise the micro-perspective employer challenges and drivers influencing UK

employers in realising their education and training needs questioning employer

engagementwithinthemacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontexts

surroundingUKindustries(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Keepetal2006).

1.3 The Micro-perspective - Employer challenges in realising

thedemandforeducationandtrainingopportunity

Policyandscholarlyarguments consistentlyallocate responsibility toUKemployers

in enhancing the “productiveuseof skill” or otherwise in generating ademand fornew

staff development opportunities (Payne, 2008b, Keep et al, 2006:556; Lloyd & Payne,

2002; Green & Sakamoto, 2001:56; PIU, 2001). These insights sit alongside arguments

whichstatethatUKemployersarenotgeneratingthedemandforhigherskillattainment

across theoccupationsdue toamixofbroadlydefinedmicro-perspectiveorganisational

challenges(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Fuller&Unwin,2004;Gleeson&Keep,2004;Lloyd&

Payne,2003;2002,a,b).ItissuggestedthatUKemployerslacktheorganisationalsystems

(Fuller&Unwin,2004;Gleeson&Keep,2004),necessary ingeneratingorrealisingnew

educationandtrainingopportunities(Lloyd&Payne,2003;2002a,b).UKemployersare

further not interested facilitating education and training opportunities or else do not

accommodateorganisationalstrategies,promotingengagementwithsuchpolicydecision-

making at sector, industry, sub-regional, regional and national level even in instances

whereneweducationandtrainingopportunitiesareidentified(Keepetal.2006;Lloyd&

Payne, 2002, 2003). Here “employer-led” and “demand-driven” approaches are further

recommended (Leitch, 2006;Keep et al. 2006, p 552, 553) suggesting greater employer

engagement in influencing supply-side policy particularly within macro and meso

perspective contexts. Studies examining the production systems of US and European

48

manufacturing industries, present useful insights about the nature in which employers

support the use of new types of skill, jobs and training and development opportunities

around these production systems (Finegold&Wagner, 1998:Mason& Finegold, 1996).

Yetempiricaldetailregardingthetypesoforganisationalsystemsnecessaryinsupporting

suchemployerengagementwithin the contextofUKhigh skill industries and theirhigh

skill R&D production systems is lacking. Despite this, commentators call for further

GovernmentsupportwithintheUKinencouragingemployerengagementattheindustry-

leveltoestablishpoliciesthatbetteralignaspectsofworkorganizationandjobdesignto

productionsystems in turn fostering thebetteruseof skill andassociatedgenerationof

neweducationandtrainingopportunity(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Keepetal,2006;Brown,

2001;PIU,2001).UKemployershereareacknowledgedascentralagentsinfosteringnew

skill use and in contributing to the identification of new education and training

opportunities (Green & Sakamoto, 2001:56-89; PIU, 2001) - yet supporting empirical

evidence of the micro (organisational)-perspective implications that this presents for

employersaresomewhatspurious.

Despite this, the argument suggesting need for the necessary engagement between

employersandtheUKsupply-sidepolicycontext,infosteringinnovationsinworkandjob

re-design,isarecurringtheme(Keep&Mayhew2010a,b;PIU,2001).GleesonandKeep,

(2004)alsoacknowledgethisviewpointthatsuchemployerengagementisconstrainedor

lacking due to employer barriers. In effect employers lack the necessary information

supporting decisions around establishing or designing new education and training

opportunities,duetotheirlackofemphasisinestablishingorganisationalsystemsaround

industry benchmarking, line management engagement and employee voice systems

(Gleeson&Keep,2004).Thesearehoweverbroadandsomewhatspuriousobservations,

withexplorationsoftheirrelevancewithinthecontextofindustriessupportinghigh-value

added production environments, generally lacking. Existing scholarly arguments do

however note the challenges that the network characteristics surrounding (high skill)

industryclustersandtheirR&Dproductionsystems(Finegold,1999;Amin&Thrift,1996)

present for employers in managing staff performance and training spanning across

industry and international boundaries (Rubery et al. 2010; 2002; Grimshaw & Rubery,

2002, 2005 Grimshaw et al, 2005). Research question three extends these insights by

exploring the extent to which the above mentioned micro (organisational) perspective

characteristics facilitate or challenge engagement between high skill employers and

stakeholderscharacterisingthemacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutionaltraining

contexts of high skill industries. The remaining of this section addresses these micro-

perspectiveemployerbarriers(anddrivers)examiningtheirrelevanceinfosteringmeso

andmacroperspectiveemployerengagement(AppendixIII).

49

1.3.1 Micro-perspective drivers supporting Industry benchmarking

&engagement

Interest in benchmarking praxis is extensive (Anand & Kadali, 2008; Freytag &

Hollensen,2001).Yetevidenceuncovering theorganisationalmicro-perspectivesystems

and processes necessary in engaging internal organisational stakeholders in industry-

wide benchmarking surrounding decisions surrounding staff development require

clarification (Moriarty & Smallman, 2009). Freytag & Hollensen (2001:25) define

benchmarking as an organisational activity utilised in improving “strategic and

operationalperformance”.Benchmarkingthusassistsinanalysingcompanyperformance,

in identifying weak organisational performance and in supporting activities to re-

configureorenhanceperformance”.Benchmarking involves the “implementationofbest

practices” with the aim of sustaining organisational performance” Camp (1989 cited in

Anand & Kodali, 2008:257). Benchmarking within HRM contexts involves facilitating

improvementsbycomparinga“function’soutcomes,systems,programsorproducts”and

furtherdemandsmanagementcompetencies(Zhenjia&Qiumei,2005:58).Muchworkhas

also evolved around benchmarking information systems supporting the wider human

resourcemanagementfunction(Ostermanetal.2009).

Wider studies exploring benchmarking further highlight the importance of

multiple stakeholder engagement and organisational activities and associated with

benchmarking, including procedures, processes and methods (Zairi, 1994,a,b,1997

Freytag&Hollensen2001;Anand&Kodali,2008).Zairi(1994a,b)forexampledistinguish

between internal, competitive and generic benchmarking. Freytag & Hollensen (2001)

similarly distinguish between competitive benchmarking involving the benchmarking of

theactivitiesofexternalcompetitorsoperatingwithinsimilarmarketsandindustry-level

functional benchmarking activities across wider industries. Benchmarking here is

acknowledged as a continuous improvement and multi-stage organisational strategy

supported by benchmarking performance indicators (KPIs) surrounding benchmarking

activities and benchmarking teams that are ultimately responsible for benchmarking

partnershipsinvolvingexternalindustrystakeholders.Effectiveengagementwithexternal

stakeholders is dependant upon an understanding amongst internal stakeholders of the

purpose and use of KPIs, and acknowledgement of the importance of data collection

systems, processes and activities. Freytag & Hollensen (2001) further highlight the

difficulties associated with obtaining competitor information and in understanding

otherwisecomplexbenchmarkingprocessesutilisedbyexternalindustrycompetitors(e.g.

multi-national firms). Kumar et al. 2006 (cited in Anand & Kodali, 2008:259) outline

similar benchmarking characteristics. Here “benchmarking is the process of identifying,

understanding and adapting outstanding micro-perspective organisational global

50

practices which are subsequently used in supporting organisational performance, goals

andbusiness operations”. Anand&Koli (2008:259, 265) review various benchmarking

models and highlight the organisational drivers that lend to effective industry-wide

benchmarking.Benchmarking for example isonlyeffectiveas a strategicorganisational-

wide and continuous improvement activity, if staff are involved within all aspects of

organisational benchmarking process and is dependant on management support in its

organisational-wide adoption. Anand & Koli (2008, p.267) allocate imporatence to

engagementbetween“benchmarkingsubjects”,“processes”and“partners”.

The studyof industrybenchmarking although is limited, alsodraws attention to

stakeholders relationships and organisational processes supporting meso-perspective

industrybenchmarking(Carpinetti&Oiko’s2008;Poltetal,2001). Poltetal’s.(2001)

study for example identifies good practices in sustaining relations between partners

characterising industry(private-sectorbusinesses),sciencehighereducation institutions

and public sector research establishments across EU countries. The study mentions

stakeholderengagementconditionssurroundingbenchmarkingtoinclude:regulationand

legislation, promotionof programmes and financial resources, intermediary stakeholder

engagementrolesandassociatedinstitutionalstructuresandprocesses.Thestudyfurther

highlights stakeholder activities necessary in fostering engagement between

benchmarking partners and activities adopted by partners as a consequence of

benchmarking(e.g. involvement incollaborativeresearch, facilitationof labourexchange

between firms and public science institutions; new vocational training or graduate

employment and training opportunities). These conditions characterise relationship

building between industry stakeholders involved in information exchange and

benchmarking. Carpinetti & Oiko’s (2008) study alternatively discusses the underlying

strategic, process and product characteristics surrounding benchmarking information

systemsadoptedbyclusterSMEs.ThestudysuggeststhatclusterSMEsare less likelyto

adopt benchmarking systems due to management resistance and limited resources in

establishing otherwise complex benchmarking activities (Cassell et al. 2001). However,

Carpinetti & Oiko’s (2008:294) compliment the use of “collaborative benchmarking”,

facilitated“acrosscountries(Prasad&Tata,2006)orregions(Harmes&Leidtke,(2005)

for the purpose of territorial benchmarking”. Carpinetti & Oiko’s (2008) study

recommendstheuseofprinciples,systemsandprocessessuggestedbythebenchmarking

literatures in developing a benchmarking (industry-wide) database to be used by SMEs

belongingtocluster industries.Thestudyacknowledgesthatwithin largerorganizations

managementareaccustomedtodiverseorganisational-widebenchmarkingprocessesand

practices,whilewithinSMEsadoptionisdependentupondifferentcriticaldrivers.These

include: “management maturity, organisational performance management cultures and

51

the establishment of systematic organisational-wide procedures supporting data

collection and input.” These insights underpin research question three suggesting

explorations of the implications that industry benchmarking (Gleeson & Keep, 2004)

presentsforhighskillemployersintheirengagementwithstakeholderscharacterisingthe

institutionalmacro,mesoandmicro-perspectivetrainingcontextssurroundinghighskill

industries.

1.3.2 Understandingthemesoandmicro-perspectivetraininganddevelopmentroleof theline

Scholarly arguments emphasise the critical role of the line in (Gleeson & Keep,

2004; Payne, 2008a) realising theunmetdemand for education and training. However,

existing research exploring the line-management role largely focuses on their micro

(organisational)perspectiveperformancemanagementandtrainingroleswhileonlysome

broadlybaseddiscussionaroundtheirengagementwithinmeso(industry)perspectivesis

presented.

Here the micro (organisational) perspective strategic training and development

role of the line is widely acknowledgedwithin Strategic Human ResourceManagement

(SHRM)andDevelopment(SHRD)contexts(Manning,2002;McKracken&Wallace,2000;

Horwitz, 1999; Lee, 1996; Garavan, 1999; Garavan et al. 1995; Thornhill, 1991). These

conceptualisations allocate line-managers central roles in facilitating strategic

organisational-wide training and related decisions. The line-management role is also

associated with enhancing staff performance (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Winterton,

1997, 1996), althoughUK employers lag their European counterparts in developing the

line(Mabey&Ramirez,2004).Anunder-investmentofthelineandmiddle-management

training and development responsibilities relative to their expanding HR roles within

large organizations is noted (Renwick, 2003) in view of their limited expertise in

managing HR responsibilities within SMEs (Bacon & Hoque, 2005; Cassell et al, 2005).

Separatetrainingisthussuggestedforthelinedistinguishingbetweentheirtrainingand

staffdevelopmentroleswithinlargeorganizationsandSMEsectors(MSC,2006).

In Europe, the line is devolved authority in decision-making surrounding their

overarchingHRMresponsibilities(payandbenefits;recruitmentandselection;industrial

relations; traininganddevelopment)(Larsen&Brewster,2003).Thiscontrastswith the

UKwherevariationsindevolvedHRresponsibilitytothelineareevidenceddependingon

organisational characteristics (e.g. sizeofHRdepartment;organisational size)and line-

management challenges experienced in adopting HR responsibilities (e.g. limited

knowledge on HR policy, line-management time constraints, poor attitudes in

acknowledging responsibilities) (Watson, et al. 2007; Whittaker & Marchington, 2003;

52

Renwick,2003;Renwick&MacNeil,2002).TheUKlinefurtherfaceswork-intensification

due to a de-layering of organisational-wide management structures (Grimshaw et al.

2001).TheirgrowingHRresponsibilitiesalternativelyrevealskill shortages(Whittacker

& Marchington, 2003; Cunningham & Hyman, 1999), and difficulties in managing staff

developmentdue toweak support from theHR function (Watson, 2007;Thornhill et al.

2000). Confusion associated between the changing roles and purposes of the HRM and

HRD functions (Haslinda, 2009; Whittaker & Marchington, 2003) further negatively

impacts on the performance management and training roles of the line and their

development.

Despitetheseobservations,commentatorsdohoweverallocateimportancetothe

critical involvement of the line in supporting education and training across industry

sectors, clusters and organizations (Payne, 2008a; Payne, 2007;Gleeson&Keep, 2004).

HeregreaterinvolvementoftheUKlineinorganisational-widedecision-makingprocesses

is emphasised in generating new education and training opportunities within meso

(industry)perspectivecontextsalthoughtheseargumentsdonotdetailhowthismaybe

achievedortheorganisationalprocessesthatthisinvolves(Gleeson&Keep,2004;Payne,

2007). Suchobservationsdohoweveremphasise (Payne,2007;Payne,2008a) that line-

management involvement includes and extends beyond themicro-perspective decision-

making remit of employing organizations to drive regional, sector-specific or industry-

wide initiatives via networks forged across industry supply chains. The Australian

Ecosystems Project (Payne, 2007) is one example of this where it is suggested line

managementinvolvementinfacilitatingVETpoliciesacrossindustryclustersisrelianton

their abilities in forging line-management networks and collaborations between firms.

Thesenetworks includemultiplestakeholdersandarecentral inchanneling information

surrounding the adoption of VET policy across industry supply chains and clusters.

Stakeholdersinvolvedinsuchindustry-levelnetworksinclude:employeerepresentatives,

trainingproviders, skillagenciesand tradeunions.TheFinnishWorkplaceDevelopment

programme(Payne,2008a)isyetanotherexamplewhereline-managementinvolvement

isknowntosupport thecoordinationof learningnetworks,promotinggoodHRpractice

acrossindustryclusters.Herelearningnetworkssupporttheindustry-wideproliferation

ofeffectiveHRpractice,adoptionof innovativeworkaspects(e.g.workorganization, job

design) and new education and training opportunities. Also addressed by Rubery and

colleagues(Ruberyetal.2010;Ruberyetal.2002),theselatterobservationsconfirmthe

involvementofthelineinraisingskillattainmentlevelsacrosssectorsandregionsusing

networks forged at th industry-level, although further evidence detailing the micro-

perspectiveorganisationalprocessessupportingsuchactivityislacking.

53

Wider studies however, braodly note the involvement of the line within the

overarching micro-perspective decision-making contexts of the employing organization

(Brewster & Larsen, 2000; Yip et al, 2001;Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990). Here MacNeil,

(2003:294, 295) notes their abilities inmotivating employees, their leadership qualities

andoperationalspecificknowledgecapabilitiesoccupyingpositionsbetweenthestrategic

apexandoperating coreoforganizations”.Yipet al. (2001:13,28) similarlyobserve the

influence that middle and line-managers possess in their “abilities in integrating and

applying both strategic and operational information”. Brewster & Larsen, (2000)

acknowledge power relations between senior organisational management and line

managementinEurope,indelegatingHRMresponsibilitiestotheline.Ineffect(Thompson

1967,citedinMacNeil,2004:96)“line-managersareboththesuppliersof informationto

senior management and recipients of decisions undertaken by senior management”.

Wooldridge & Floyd (1990:466) alternatively suggest that “line-managers mediate,

negotiate and interpret connections between institutional (strategic) and technical

(operational) levels within organisations”, an interpreation that is also encpasulated

withinmanagmentdecision-makingarguments(Kathuriaetal.2007).Hereitissuggested

that sustained organisational performance is dependant upon the strategic vertical

alignment of managment decisions alongside staff perspectives whilst horizontal

alignmentinvolvesthealignmentofallbusinessunits.

Other studies note the problems of role ambiguity between the HRM and HRD

functionsexplicitly identifyingadvantagesandproblemsfor the line(Gilbertetal,2011;

MacNeil,2003;MacNeil,2004;Whittacker&Marchington,2003).MacNeil,(2004:94),for

example compliments their supervisory roles as knowledge facilitators as they enact

strategic roles, despite “political tensions” in communicating staff development

opportuntiesinalignmentwithorganisationalbusinessobjectivesandtheirdevolvedHR

responsibilities. However their strategic positioning at the interface of communications

betweenorganisationalseniormanagementandtheirteams,providestheiraccesstovital

strategic informationonstaffdevelopment, further supporting their trainingandpeople

managment responsibilities. However further detail regarding what this specifically

entailsislacking,althoughMacNeil,(2003)andRenwick(2003)indicatethatthestrategic

positioning and competitive demands of the line-management role introduces time

pressures for their people management responsibilities. Other comentators raise

concerns about the growing devolvement of HRM responsibilities to the line (Martins,

2007; Cascon-periera et al, 2006:132; MacNeil, 2003), whereby devolvement involves

authority decision-making aroundmulti-dimensional HR responsibilities. These insights

howeverarelackinginuncoveringtheresponsibilitiesandnatureofdecisionsundertaken

bythelinearoundthecoordinationofnewstaffdevelopmentopportunitiesandinraising

54

skill attainment levels. Studies do however emphasise the changing nature of the

performance management and training role of the line stemming from their growing

expected adoption of strategic business and HR responsibilities and engagement in

strategicorganisationaldecision-making(Hales,2005;Gibb,2003).Hales(2005:471)for

examplepointtoanenhancementoftheirstaffsupervisionresponsibilitiesalongsideteam

leadershipandbusinessunitmanagementresponsibilities.Thestudyisconductedacross

private,publicandvoluntarysectororganizations,revealingthatthe“supervisorycoreof

the front linemanager is strengthened” in adopting these responsibilities (e.g. business

growth priorities, facilitating external regulatory compliance). Their line-management

role is enlargened and extended to encompass additional mangerial responsibilities

associated with “stewardship, translating strategy into operations and business

management”. These managerial responsibilities are encapsulated within “hierarchical

systems of vertical managerial responsibility and decision-making accountability with

narrow spans of control and participation in operational decisions”. Gibb, (2003)

addresses additional decision-makingpressures facing the line associatedwith sourcing

training intervention, in forgingpartnershipswitheducational institutions, tradeunions,

skill agencies and councils and specialist trainers from technology partnership

organisations.Howeverheredetailedinsightsaboutsuchline-managementdecisionsare

lacking.Thesevariationsintheconceptualisationofline-managementresponsibilitiesand

engagementinstrategicorganisationaldecision-making,howeversitalongsideinterestin

their devolved HR responsibilities and the development implications that such

responsibilities present for the line (MacLeod & Clarke, 2009:70; Bond & McKracken,

2005;Whittacker&Marchington, 2003:250). Here commentators also note the reasons

behind thedevolvementofHR to the line. Devolvementoccurs for example if theHRM

function is ineffective (Whittacker & Marchington, 2003:248), when the HRM function

adopts a priority SHRM role (Torrington & Hall, 1996:80), as a consequence of

organisational-widecost-efficiencies(Larsen&Brewster,2003:231)orsimplyinresponse

toarealisationthatline-managersaresuitablypositionedininfluencingstaffperformance

(Bond&Wise,2003).

These insights address the complex roles of the line, emphasising that their

businessunit responsibilitiesdemand theirmesoperspective engagementwith external

industry stakeholders and regulators as do their expanding HRM and HRD micro

perspective responsibilities in managing staff performance and development. Research

question three, thusexplores thenatureofengagementexpectedof line-management in

linewithresponsibilitiesinsupportingtheeducationandtrainingneedsofstaffrelativeto

the complex network structures and supply chains (Rubery et al. 2010; 2002).

characterisinghighskill industries(Finegold,1999;Streeck,1989).Figure3inAppendix

55

IIIhighlightsthenatureinwhichsuchexplorationsconcerningtheline-managementrole

underpin the study’s conceptual framework. Regardless a central responsibility of the

line-management role is around managing staff performance discussed next (Purcell &

Hutchinson,2007;Milesome,2006;Renwick,2003).

1.3.3 Driversandbarrierscharacterisingtheperformancemanagementroleof

thelineinassessingtrainingneeds

Performancemanagementiscentralinenhancingtheinnovationpotentialofstaff

andinsupportingtheirsustaineduseandapplicationofnewknowledgeandskillwithin

high skill organizations (e.g. engineering and electronic sectors) (Becker & Matthews,

2008; Shipton, et al. 2006; 2005; Laursen & Foss, 2003; Laursen, 2002). According to

Robert, (2001,cited inHartogetal,2004:4),performancemanagement“involvessetting

corporate, departmental, team and individual objectives, and is referred to as policy

deployment or the top down cascading of strategic organisational-wide performance

objectives”. Performance management involves the use of “performance appraisal

systems, training and development strategies and plans, coaching, individual career

planning” and line-management performance management roles central in their

coordination and administration (Armstrong, 2009:9; Garavan, 2007; Hales, 2005;

Glendinning,2002:164;DenHartog&Verburg,2002:160).However,thelineitselfisalso

abarrierofstaffperformancenotleastinitsuseofandengagementwiththeperformance

appraisalsystem,acentralcharacteristicoftheorganisationalperformancemanagement

process (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Milesome, 2006; Renwick, 2003). Purcell &

Hutchinson, (2007:13) note that line-management behaviours contribute to dissatisfied

performanceappraisals,Milesome, (2006) reveals their ineffectivemanagementby line-

managers, while Renwick, (2003:262) notes the line as a weak link in the effective

managementofstaffperformance. Purcell&Hutchinson,(2007)furthernotedisconnects

betweenHRMpolicyestablishedinmanagingperformanceandtheadoptionanddelivery

of such policies by the line. Alternatively studies also note that staff allocate higher

satisfaction and fairness to performance appraisals conducted by the line within

organizations where employees trust senior management” (Farndale & Kelliher,

2013:879).

Theuseof theperformanceappraisal (PAs)supportsconsensusdrivendecision-

making between staff and the line concerning employment issues surrounding work

performance, pay and conditions, career development and in addressing staff training

needs.InformationdrawnfromPAsinformbothmicro(organisational)perspectiveHRM

and HRD strategies concerning workforce management issues (Carlson et al. 2006;

56

Shiptonetal.2006;Clevelandetal,2009).TheformalisedadoptionofPAsfurtherregulate

workforce planning and retention strategies, employee motivation, involvement and

engagement strategies and within wider contexts, improvements in industry and

organisational-wide labour productivity and employer-employee relationships. Here

occupationalpsychologyhighlightsthetypesofinformationthatthelinehasaccesstoin

its use of performance appraisal systems (Fletcher, 2001:474; Fletcher & Perry, 2001).

FletcherandcolleaguesforexampleexaminethePAfromtwoperspectives,namelyform

theperspectives of their content (what is appraised) andprocess (how it is appraised).

Fletcher (2001) suggests that PAs are used to provide contextual information about an

individual’sperformanceandtheirconformancetopre-determinedgoalsasameasureof

individual performance. Information about contextual performance thus relates to the

nature inwhich individualsperformtasksandcoreresponsibilitiesandaccounts for job

specific behaviours. Contextual performance is thus about tapping into job aspects that

motivateindividualsinutilisingandapplyingcognitiveabilitiesandjobspecificskilland

knowledge. Alternatively, individuals achieve “goal orientated performance” by either

pursuing “learning orientated” (developing new skill;mastering problems and tasks) or

“performanceorientatedgoals”(achievinggoalsthroughassessment/feedback)(Fletcher,

2001:476). TheeffectivenessofthePA“process”inachievinggoals(Fletcher,2001:477)

isdependentuponrelationshipsbetweenstaffandtheline,althoughnoonebestapproach

in conducting PAs is highlighted with their use varying depending on organisational

cultures (Fletcher & Perry, 2001). These insights suggest that the line has access to a

wealth of information about the nature inwhich individuals utilise skill and knowledge

attributes in conducting job roles (Fletcher, 2001; Fletcher & Perry, 2001). Yet detail

surrounding how and whether this information is utilised in their engagement with

organisational-wide vertical and horizontal exchanges in alignment with strategic

organisational HRM decisions requires further clarification (Renwick & MacNeil, 2003;

Marchington, 2001). Specificallywhich sorts of education and trainingneeds stem form

suchexchangesbetweenthelineandcorporateorseniordecision-making?

Theseinsights informresearchquestionthree,questioningtheextentandnature

inwhichline-managerscaptureinformationregardingtheuseandapplicationofskilland

newtrainingopportunitiesaspartofperformancemanagementresponsibilities.Towhat

extent if at all does their access to this information support engagement with

organisationaldecision-makingwhich influencesthemicro,mesoandmacro-perspective

institutionaltrainingcontextssurroundinghighskillindustries?Herescholarlyarguments

provide some insight regarding the micro-perspective engagement of the line in HR

partnerships (Larsen & Brewster, 2003; Renwick &MacNeil, 2002), involvement in HR

triads(Jackson&Schuler,2000)(whereHR,employeesandline-managementcollectively

57

resolveHRconcerns)orinhandlingHRworkontheirownwithoutsupportfromtheHRM

or HRD function (Laursen & Brewster, 2003). The line also engages in organisational-

wideconsultationsonHRMandHRDmatters(Hales,2005,p.492)or indecision-making

involving employee voice schemes (Marchington, 2001), while arguments also

acknowledgeapositiverelationshipbetweenemployeevoiceandtheeffectivenessofthe

line-management performance management role (Fenton-O’Creevy, 2001, 1998;

Marchington,2001). Hereresearchquestionthreethereforequestionswhethertheline-

managementperformancemanagementroleisinformedbyemployeevoiceparticularlyin

realisingnewstaffdevelopmentandskilluseopportunity(Gleeson&Keep,2004)Thisis

thefinalthemecharacterisingresearchquestionthreeandisdiscussednext.

1.3.4 Employee participation (voice)

Studies have long since reflected upon the relationship between involving and

representing employees in work-related decisions, specifically around industry-wide or

organisational-specifictraining(Gleeson&Keep,2004;Vickerstaff,1992a,b). Theextent

of involvementorrepresentationofemployees inHRdecisionssurroundingthetraining

anddevelopmentofstaffisalsoameasureofaneffectiveSHRDstrategy(Boudreau,2003,

citedinGaravan,2007:21).Despitetheselinks,existingscholarlyarguments,howeveron

the one hand question the effectiveness of employee involvement or representation

systemswithin theUK insupporting the traininganddevelopmentneedsofstaff,whilst

on the other question whether the demand for new training opportunity exists or is

generated(Gleeson&Keep,2004).Regardless,studieshavelongsincereflecteduponthe

necessary engagement, participation or representation of employees in generating or

establishingindustry-widetrainingneedsoropportunities,andindecisionssurrounding

theirworkcontext(e.g.jobdesign,workorganisation)allinalltofacilitatetheproductive

useofskill thusenhancing jobperformance(Keep&Mayhew,2010,a,b;Gleeson&Keep,

2004; Vickerstaff, 1992a,b). Regardless,wider scholarly arguments exploring the use of

employeeparticipationorvoice systems in supporting industry-leveldecision-making is

howeverplentiful(Dundonetal.2005;Dundon&Purcell,2004;Purcell&Boxall,2003).

These studies indicate that employee engagement or voice is facilitated using either

“representative indirect participation” or “direct participation systems (Armstrong,

2006:810;Marchington,1992,2001;Helleretal,1998).Unlikeindirectorrepresentative

participationsystemsthatnecessitateunioninvolvementinrepresentingtheinterestsof

staff, direct participation systems are largelymanagement-led initiatives, although their

useisalsodependentuponsolidaritycoalitionsforgedbystaff(Dundon&Rollinson,2004

citedinDundonetal.2005).

58

Single studiesexamining theuseof the rangeof employeeparticipationorvoice

present generic insights regarding their use relative to industry, sector, organisational

size, (non) unionisation and international boundaries, although do not distinguish their

usewithinthecontextofhighskillindustries(Dundonetal,2004).Thesestudiessuggest

that representative participation is largely utilised in addressing collective employment

relationsconcerns,althoughtheengagementandinvolvementofline-management,union

representativesandemployeesarealsonecessaryfeaturesofindustriesororganizations

characterising the use of direct participation systems. Regardless, UK-wide studies

addressing non-union workplaces (Dundon et al, 2005; Benson, 2000; Milward et al,

1992),pointtoamanagementresistanceintheadoptionofemployeevoicemechanisms

alongside thegreaterdemand forandexplorationof theengagementorparticipationof

staffindecision-makingsurroundingtheindustryandorganisational-wideadoptionofHR

initiatives (Dundon et al, 2005). Although such studies reveal useful insights, they

characterise wider sectors and industries and do not address the high skill industry

context and the contribution of its characteristic competitive conditions (e.g. high skill

R&Dproduction–Finegold,1999) in influencing theiruse.Regardless studies (Gollan&

Butler,2005;Dundonetal.2005)examiningemployeerepresentationwithinnon-union

workplaces allocate importance to distinctive workforce challenges (e.g. lower worker

power;autonomy)inconstrainingemployeevoicewithinmicro(organisational)andmeso

(industry)perspectives.Moreover,existingstudiessurroundingnon-unionisedindustries

allocatethedismissiveapproachsurroundingemployeevoice inaddressingwiderwork-

related challenges influencing low and intermediate skilled jobs as “ineffective and

inconsequential” (Dundon et al. 2005:307). These insights point to further clarification

regarding the nature in which the use of employee voice systems influence high skill

employers, specifically the line-management role in engagingwith the trainingneeds of

staffworkingacrosstherangeoflow,intermediateandhighskilloccupations.

1.4 Conclusion

Theliteraturereviewhighlightstheambiguitieswithinexistingscholarlyarguments

abouttheextentorthenatureofemployerengagementwiththemacro,mesoandmicro-

perspective institutional training contexts surrounding the under researched high skill

industries.Thekeyconceptthatthethesisexploresisthatofemployerengagementwhich

commentators suggest is an elusive and under-explored phenomenon in explaining the

relationshipbetweenthesupplyofanddemandforeducationandtraining(Payne,2008b;

Irwin,2008:66),duetoitslackofconceptualisation.Thisstudythusestablishesadetailed

conceptual framework around the concept of employer engagement utilising

contemporary scholarly arguments which elicit the barriers and drivers influencing

59

engagement betweenhigh skill industries and theirmacro,meso andmicro-perspective

institutional training contexts. The research aim therefore seeks to “explore the extent

and nature of employer engagement in addressing the unmet employer demand for

education and training within the macro (national), meso (industry) and micro

(organisational)perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontextsofunder-researchedhighskills

industries”.Thisaimisexploredusingthemicro-meso-macroperspectivearchitectureas

an overarching study frame articulated by Dopfer and colleagues (Dopfer et al. 2004;

Dopfer& Pottes, 2004)which defines engagement between stakeholders characterising

themacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutionalenvironmentssurroundingindustries

(clusterindustries).

Sectiononeissetagainstthebackdropofemployerengagementfailuressurrounding

the efforts of consecutive UK Governments in addressing industry-wide training needs.

Brown’s(2001)frameworkandsevenconditionscharacterisinghighskilleconomiesare

thus suggested as a useful framework in exploring engagement between high skill

employers and the institutional macro-perspective training environments surrounding

under-researched high skill industries (Lloyd, 2002). Despite differences in the

institutionaltrainingenvironments,Brown’s(2001)highskillconditionsareconsidereda

useful point of reference in exploring employer engagement as they emulate the

competitiveconditionsofhighskillindustries(Finegold,1999;Streeck,1989)andfurther

characterise the very employer engagement drivers which commentators otherwise

suggest lend to weak engagement between wider industry and the UK’s macro-

perspective institutional training environment. In acknowledges these existing

weaknesses, research question one thus acknowledges the influence of Brown’s (2001)

conditionsinexploringtheextentandnatureofmacro-perspectiveengagementbetween

highskillemployersandpolicyorganisationsandinstitutions.

SectiontwodrawsontheimportancethatDopferetal.’s(2004)analogyallocatesto

agents characterising the meso (industry) perspective in that they are influenced by

engagement agents characterising the higher ordermacro andmicro-firm perspectives.

The review here further acknowledges little exploration around the contribution of the

meso-perspectivenetwork,acompetitiveconditioncharacterisingunder-researchedhigh

skill industries (Finegold, 1999) in facilitating employer engagement with key

stakeholders responsible formacro,meso andmicro perspective institutional education

and training contexts surrounding high skill industries (Finegold, 1991). The section

presentsananalysisofthenatureinwhichorganisational,industry,sectororsupplychain

networksmaybeunderstoodtofosterengagementbetweenstakeholders,advocatingthat

these very ideas may inform explorations of the nature, extent employer engagement

arrangements involvinghigh skill employersandstakeholders characterising themacro,

60

meso and micro perspective institutional training environments surrounding high skill

industriesandresultingeducationandtraininginitiatives.Thisleadstoresearchquestion

twowhich explores the extent towhich themeso (industry)-perspective network form

facilitatesengagementbetweenstakeholders characterising themacro,mesoandmicro-

perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontextssurroundinghighskillindustries.

Section three draws on Dopfer et al.’s (2004) analogy that suggests that agents

supporting themicro (organization) perspective are not independent but influenced by

rule carrier societies. Rules are implemented at the micro (organisational) perspective

using micro-organisational structures, often established in response to engagement

initiatedbythemicroperspectivewiththemesoandmacroperspectives(Appendix III).

Research question three addressed in section three of the literature review, is thus

established around central scholarly arguments which raise issue with the micro

perspectiveemployerbarriers thatultimatelyconstrainUKemployers fromestablishing

orrealisingtheirneedforeducationandtrainingopportunities.Theliteraturereviewhere

alludestovariousmicro-perspectiveemployerengagementbarriersincludingthelackof

organisational systemssupporting industrybenchmarking, andweakengagementof the

line and employee voice, which lend to a constrained employer engagement with the

macro, meso and micro institutional training contexts surrounding UK industries in

general (Keep & Mayhew, 2010; Keep et al. 2006; Gleeson & Keep, 2004). Research

questionthreeinacknowledgingthetensionsfacingUKemployerssurroundingtraining,

thus seeks to explore the nature and extent towhich suchmicro perspective employer

engagement barriers (drivers) facilitate or challenge engagement between high skill

employers and stakeholders supporting the macro, meso and micro-perspective

institutional training contexts of high skill industries, (Figure 3. Appendix III). Specific

emphasisisallocatedtothemicro-perspectiveemployerbarrierscitedbyGleeson&Keep

(2004- industrybenchmarking, line-management involvementandemployeevoice)due

totheirrelevancewiththewiderscholarlyperspectivesandargumentsaroundemployer

engagementdiscussed throughout the literature review(Appendix III).This leads to the

final research question underpinning the study’s conceptual framework. Research

question three thus explores the extent to which micro (organisational) perspective



contextsofhighskillindustries.

61

ChapterTwoTheResearchStrategy

This chapter outlines the research strategy. Section2.1 discusses the conceptual

framework and the research methodology, justifying the use of a single case study

approachandpresentingtheresearchdesign.Section2.2presentstheresearchmethods.

2.1ResearchMethodology This sectionpresents the conceptual framework, researchobjectives and related

exploratory areas of enquiry. The suggested research methodology characterises an

inductive exploratory approach using single case study, qualitative data collection and

analysismethods.

2.1.1ConceptualFramework&Methodology Thisresearchexplorestheextentandnatureofemployerengagementwithinthe

contextof themacro,mesoandmicro-perspective institutional trainingenvironmentsof

under-researchedUKhigh skill industries (Lloyd,2002), from theperspectivesofpolicy

stakeholders and high skill employers. The study is conducted using three research

questions,toanalysethecaseofUKNorthWestBioRegion,andengagementbetweenits

characteristic high skill industries and themacro, meso andmicro-perspective training

environmentssupportingsuch industries. Theseresearchquestionsarepresentednext,

alongsideabriefoverviewofthestudy’srationaleandconceptualframework.Appendices

I, II and III, reveal the three researchquestionswhichunderpin the study’soverarching

conceptual framework and support an understanding of the nature of engagement

between agents characterising the macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional

contextsofclusterindustries(Dopferetal.2004;Dopfer&Pottes,2004).

A.ResearchQuestionOne&exploratorythemes

ResearchQuestionOne:What is the extent and nature ofmacro-perspective employer

engagement with supply-side policy stakeholders in response to the unmet employer

demandforeducationandtrainingacrosshighskillindustries?

This research question is set against the backdrop of scholarly arguments that

draw attention to historical failures and contemporary challenges facing the UK’s

institutional training framework (UKCES, 2009; Keep et al. 2006; Finegold & Soskice,

1988). Section 1.1 begins by providing an overview of the types of macro-perspective

62

supply-side education and training initiatives supported by UK Governments and

supporting policy institutions further questioning their employer uptake, particularly in

lightofthechallengesfacingpolicystakeholderssurroundingemployerengagement.The

various sub-sections supporting sectionone, thus seek todefine thenatureof employer

engagement drivers and barriers facing the macro-perspective institutional training

emphasis adopted by consecutiveGovernments instated policy organisationswithin the

UK.Thediscussionspointtotheemployerengagementissuessurroundingthevarietyof

Government-lededucationandtraininginitiativessupportingthesupplyofskilledlabour

of benefit to (high skill) employers, industry and labourmarkets. The review criticises

theirnarrowfocusandfurtherprovidesadetailedaccountoftheconsistentinstitutional

employerengagementchallengesandfailuresoftheUKGovernmentintacklingproblems

aroundtheunmetemployerdemandforaskilledandtrainedworkforce,furtherpointing

tothevariousemployerengagementstrategiesadoptedbysuchpolicyorganisations(i.e.

bodies, agencies and quangos). The tensions and weaknesses in the UK’s employer

engagement approach are further emphasised, forging comparisons with national

institutionaltrainingframeworks,andtheircharacteristicemployer-ledengagementwith

policy stakeholders. The review here points to characteristic similarities between the

underlying regulatory functions of these institutional arrangementswith self-sustaining

training frameworks characterisinghigh skill industries, suggesting theneed for further

explorationsof thenatureof engagement facilitatedbyUKpolicy stakeholdersandhigh

skill industrieswithin this context and in addressingwider high skill training concerns.

The discussions within this section further address the problems facing the UK

surrounding, industry-wide labourand skill shortages.The reviewrecognises that these

are addressed using centralised macro-perspective national strategies aimed at raising

industry-wide performance across the UK, despite calls for a much needed regional

emphasis.Thesenewlyestablishedstrategiesalsoallocateimportancetothecriticalrole

ofGovernmentinstatedpolicyorganisationsinadoptingaregionalemployerengagement

approach,establishingcollaborations,partnershipsandsupportedbytargetedinvestment

opportunities(e.g.SMEsectors) in tacklingemploymentand labourshortages. Here the

reviewacknowledgestheperspectivesofcommentatorsinrightlycriticisingthefailureof

thesemacro-perspectiveemployerengagementefforts.Howeverthediscussionsquestion

the weak empirical justification surrounding the nature in which these arguments are

relevant within the context of high skill industries, particularly in light of similarities

betweenthecompetitivecharacteristicconditionssupportinghighskillindustriesandthe

employer engagement drivers supporting macro-perspective UK strategies (e.g. self-

sustainingtrainingsystems,employernetworks;R&Dproduction). Brown’s(2001)high

skill framework and its underlying macro-perspective conditions are acknowledged in

63

characterising the very features (drivers) that are lacking within the UK’s context thus

lending to the employer engagement weaknesses within the UK’s institutional training

framework (e.g. Brown’s (2001) conditions include: network arrangements and

engagement between industry, employers, policy stakeholders and stakeholders

communitieswithstakesineducationandtraining).Herethediscussionssuggestthatthe

underlyingemployerengagement institutionalarrangementssupportingBrown’s(2001)

highskillconditionsemulatethecompetitiveconditionsofhighskillindustriesandsoitis

useful to examine their influence in exploring macro-perspective engagement between

employersandpolicystakeholdersandsupply-sidepolicyorganisationsandinstitutions,

andthesubsequentnatureofresultingeducationandtraininginitiatives.

Researchquestiononequestionexploresthenatureofemployerengagementwith

the macro-perspective institutional training environments surrounding high skill

industries, encapsulating the arguments and perspectives presented in section one.

Moreover,whatisthenatureofthisengagementandwhichsortsofeducationandtraining

initiativesresult?

B.ResearchQuestionTwo&exploratorythemes

ResearchQuestionTwo: Towhatextentdomeso-perspectivenetworks facilitateor

constrain employer engagement with stakeholders characterising the macro, meso and

micro-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontextsofhighskillindustries.

Thisresearchquestiondrawsonthemesocompetitivenetworkconditionofhigh

skill industries to explore the nature of employer engagement arrangements between

supply-side policy stakeholders, institutions and high skill employers. The rationale

behind this research question is two-fold. In effect the network form is an essential

competitive condition characterising high skill industries (Finegold, 1999) and a key

driverofBrown’s(2001)highskillconditions.Dopferandcolleagues(Dopferetal.2004;

Dopfer&Pottes,2004)alsocallforclarityinunderstandingtheinfluenceofengagement

betweenmacroandmicroconjectureonthecriticalmesoperspective.Section1.2of the

literature review thus draws on the importance that Dopfer et al.’s (2004) analogy

allocates to agents characterising the meso (industry) perspective in that they are

influenced by engagement the higher order macro-perspective and micro-firm

perspectives. The review here further acknowledges little exploration around the

contribution of the meso-perspective network, a competitive condition characterising

under-researched high skill industries (Finegold, 1999) in facilitating employer

engagement with key stakeholders responsible for macro, meso andmicro perspective

institutionaleducationand trainingcontexts surroundinghighskill industries (Finegold,

64

1991). The section presents a critical analysis of the nature in which organisational,

industry, sector or supply chain networks may be understood to foster engagement

between stakeholders, advocating that these very ideasmay inform explorations of the

nature, extent and type of engagement between high skill employers, stakeholders

characterisingthemacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingenvironments

surroundinghighskillindustriesandresultingeducationandtraininginitiatives.

C . ResearchQuestionThree&exploratorythemes

Research Question Three: To what extent do micro (organisational) perspective



contextsofhighskillindustriesandtheirunmetdemand.

Thisresearchquestionessentiallydrawsonscholarlyargumentsthatsuggestthat

thecentralresponsibilityingeneratingnewworkforcedevelopmentopportunitiesandin

raising the productive use of skill belongs to employers (Keep&Mayhew 2010a,b; PIU

2001). Section1.3of the literature review thus drawsonDopfer et al.’s (2004) analogy

which suggests that agents supporting the micro (organization) perspective are not

independentbutinfluencedbyrulecarriersocieties.Rulesareimplementedatthemicro

organisational perspective using micro-organisational structures, often established in

response to engagement initiated by the micro-perspective with the meso and macro-

perspectives (Appendix III). Research question three, addressed in section three of the

literaturereviewisthusestablishedaroundcentralscholarlyargumentswhichraiseissue

with the micro-perspective employer barriers that ultimately constrain UK employers

from establishing or realising their unmet or demand for new education and training

opportunities.The literature reviewherealludes tovariousmicro-perspectiveemployer

engagement barriers including the lack of organisational systems supporting industry

benchmarking, and weak engagement of the line and employee voice, lending to a

constrained employer engagement within the macro, meso and micro institutional

contexts (Keep & Mayhew, 2010; Keep et al. 2006; Gleeson & Keep, 2004). Research

questionthree,inacknowledgingthetensionsfacingUKemployerssurroundingtraining,

thus seeks to explore the nature and extent towhich suchmicro-perspective employer

engagementbarriersfacilitateorchallengeengagementbetweenhighskillemployersand

stakeholders supporting the macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training

contexts of high skill industries, (Figure 3. Appendix III). Section three provides a

conceptualframeworkaroundthemicro-perspectiveorganisationalbarrierscitedwithin

scholarly argumentswhich in turn constrain employer engagementwith education and

65

training fostered within the context of the macro (national) or meso (industry)

perspective(AppendixIIIwithinthethesis).Specificemphasisisallocatedtothemicro-

perspective employerbarriers citedbyGleeson&Keep (2004 - industrybenchmarking,

line-management involvement and employee voice) due to the relevance of these

argumentswiththewiderscholarlyperspectivesandargumentsdiscussedthroughoutthe

literaturereview(AppendixIII).Thisleadstothefinalresearchquestionunderpinningthe

study’sconceptualframework

D.ResearchOntology&Epistemology

ResearchOntology

This research explores the extent and nature of engagement between high skill

employers policy organizations and institutions and stakeholders characterising the

macro,meso andmicro-perspective institutional training contexts surrounding UK high

skillindustriesandtheirunmettrainingandstaffdevelopmentneeds.Theresearchisset

against the backdrop of scholarly arguments that bring to light the reasons behind the

UK’s lowskillequilibrium(LSE)and the failureof theUK’s institutional trainingcontext

(Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b; UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006: Keep et al. 2006; Keep 1999;

Finegold & Soskice, 1988). The three research questions are explored from the

perspectives of policy stakeholders and senior individuals with responsibilities in

influencingorganisational-widetraininganddevelopmentacrossthehigh-skillindustries

addressed by this study. These research participants are chosen due to their central

responsibilities in influencing the macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional

training contexts (Finegold, 1999, 1991) surrounding the industries in question. whilst

engagementbetweenthem(Dopferetal.2004;Dopfer&Pottes,2004) is“rootedwithin

theirrespectivestratifiedsocial realities”asdefinedby theschoolof realism(Pawson&

Tilley,1997).AccordingtoPawsonandcolleagues(citedinMarchaletal,2012:195),the

schoolofrealismdrawssimilaritieswiththecriticalrealismperspective.Criticalrealism

acknowledges that: “science is anchored in an intransitive domain, in a world whose

autonomous constitution stands independent of the knowing subject…”(Harvey& Reed,

1996:298).“Theintransitivedomaincomprisesofmultiplenestedlayersofrealitieswith

thepurposeofscientificendeavourtopenetrateeverdeeperlevelsuncoveringthecasual

factors behind phenomenon analysed at any one level” (Sanderson, 2000:443). These

“layersofrealitycompriseagenerativenexusofsocialmechanismsorentities…whichare

not immediatelyobservable…butareendowedwithrealcasualpowers, latentcapacities

and slumbering liabilities” (Reed & Harvey, 1992:356). The use of the critical realism

perspectivehasalsobeenacknowledgedwithindifferentresearchcontextsconducive to

66

policy evaluation studies and which ultimately adopt action research approaches

(Priestley&Miller, 2012; Sanderson, 2000). However this research places emphasis in

exploringtheadoptionofparticulartypesofeducationandtraining,thusadoptsarealism

perspectiveanddoesnotadoptapolicyevaluationdimensionwhichstudiesadoptingthe

critical realismperspective tendto focusupon(Priestley&Miller,2012:102;Sanderson,

2000).

Priestley &Miller, (2012) for example consider the critical realism ontology in

their examination of educational policy in implementing curriculum changeswithin the

National Scottish School System. An action research approach synonymous with the

critical realist ontology supports explorations of the impact of policy adoptionwithin a

necessary changing education curriculum. Critical realism influences here are thus

effective in investigating the “social practices involved in facilitating educational policy

change” (Priestley&Miller,2012:102). Thearticleacknowledges that changes inwider

education systems impact schools in their entirety influencing the “stratified society

comprisingofindividualsandsocialgroups(departments)”(Priestley&Miller,2012:102).

Here the critical realism tenant acknowledges that the concept of a stratified society

comprises of emerging stratified properties. Each stratum characterises emergent

properties not possessed by individual entities that collectively form the stratum but

whichconsiderstheirinteractionswiththesocialentitiesrepresentingthestratum.Also

“socialentitiesandtheirpropertiesexistonlyasaconsequenceofourknowledgeofthem,

with their causative influence on social events and actions of individuals” (Archer 1995

cited in Priestley&Miller, (2012:102). The studyhowever also notes the constraints of

criticalrealisminpolicyevaluationresearch.Sanderson(2000)similarlyalsofavoursthe

criticalrealismschoolof thoughtaboveotherontologicalperspectives,againutilisingan

actionresearchapproachtoexaminethepolicyevaluationdimensionofpublicpolicyand

itsimplementation.Herecriticalrealismfacilitatesexplorationsofthe“complex”andthe

“chaotic”, the use of associated multi-dimensional and multi-layer systems in policy

developmentandevaluation.Sanderson(2000)thusacknowledgesthe“intransitiveworld

comprising multiple nested layers of realities” endeavouring the researcher to explore

“everdeeperlevelsuncoveringthecasualfactorsbehindphenomenon”.

The research questions underpinning this study however do not assess the

effectivenessoforevaluationofpolicy. Instead thisresearchexplores theeducationand

training initiatives adopted by stakeholders as a consequence of their “stratified social

realities”(Pawson&Tilley,1997,citedinMarchaletal.2012:195)surroundingemployer

engagementwithmacro,mesoormicro-perspective(Dopferetal.2004;Dopfer&Pottes,

2004) institutional training contexts of high skill industries. In effect, the realism

perspectivehere“doesnotjudgebutseekstoexplainandisdrivenbythequestion:what

67

works forwhom, inwhat circumstances and inwhat respects? The realist perspective

learns fromrealworldphenomenon…itengagesstakeholders systematically–as fallible

experts whose insider understanding needs to be documented, formalized and tested,

providing a principal steer…the realist approach thus has the potential to maximise

learningacrosspolicydisciplinaryandorganisationalboundaries”(Pawson&Tilley,1997,

citedinMarchaletal.2012:195).

Pawson & Tilley (1997) suggest that realist researchers therefore acknowledge

that reality is “generative”whereby actors participating in the research possess agency

rolesinuncoveringphenomenon.Thisperspectivealsoacknowledgesthat“structuraland

institutionalfeaturesexistindependentlyforactorsandresearchersasbothare“rootedin

astratifiedrealityresultingfromtheinterplaybetweenindividualsandinstitutionseach

with their own interests and objectives” (cited inMarchal et al, 2012:195). Within this

contexttherefore,thisstudyacknowledgesthatengagementbetweenpolicystakeholders,

employers and stakeholders supporting the institutional macro, meso and micro-

perspective institutional environments of high skill industries is dependent on the

familiarity andacknowledgmentof the respective institutional culturesandengagement

systems(Gleeson&Keep,2004).Engagementbetweentheseagentsisfurtherdependent

on the social realities constructed around their roles and based on their occupational

backgrounds and experiences in engaging with the institutional training contexts

surroundinghighskillindustries(Gleeson&Keep,2004).

ResearchEpistemology

This research adopts an exploratory qualitative approach in that it

“contextualises”, “explains”, “evaluates” and “generates” (Lewis&Ritchie, 2003:27) new

insights around the central under-conceptualized concept of employer engagement

(Payne, 2008b; Irwin, 2008:66) and its influence in explaining the relationshipbetween

the institutional supply of and demand for education and training. The research thus

establishes a conceptual framework (Appendix I & II) to “contextualise” and “evaluate”

thisdichotomyofengagementbetweenemployers,policystakeholdersandstakeholders

characterising the macro (national), meso (industry) and micro (organisational)

perspective institutional training contexts of high skill industries. This relationship is

explored against the backdrop of arguments that highlight the barriers and challenges

presented by the demand-side (high-skill employers) and supply-side (e.g. policy

stakeholders) within the context of the UK’s institutional training framework. The

research also supports an “explanatory” dimension using the outcomes of explorations

facilitatedbytheresearchquestionsto“explain”thenatureofengagementbetweenthese

twostakeholders,whohavecentralresponsibilityininfluencingtheUK’strainingcontext

68

(Leitch,2006;Finegold&Soskice,1988).Thestudythusexploresandexplainsthenature

in which these stakeholders engage with the “institutional structures and objectives”

supportingeachofthemacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontexts

of high skill industries. The “evaluative” dimension of this research thus supports an

appraisal of the nature and extent to which employer engagement is facilitated in

accordance with the existing scholarly arguments underpinning the research aim and

questions. Alternatively the “generative” dimension supports the emergence or

inducement of newly realised empirical evidence in the application of the research

questions. These characteristics define the qualitative inductive nature of the study

placingtheroleofresearcher inuncoveringthe“sociallyconstructednatureofrealityof

the research participants whilst acknowledging that the relationship between the

researcher andwhat is being studied is influencedby situational constraints that shape

the reality of the research” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:13). The qualitative nature of this

study thus suggests that the researcher is aware of a true reality informed by the

development of a conceptual framework and methodology but is also aware of an

unobserved reality that of the research participants that requires exploration (May,

2002:14;Perryetal.1999,citedinSobh&Perry,2005).

This study thus adopts a realist epistemology. This suggests that reality is real,

truebutprobableduetoacknowledgementofanexternalrealitydefinedbysystemsand

underlying interacting “structures and objects” as the unexplored phenomenon which

characterise employer engagement (Sobh & Perry, 2005:1120). Realism acknowledges

that interacting “structures and objects” are responsible in creating an external reality

whichexists,yetwhich isdirectlyunobservable. It is therefore theresponsibilityof the

researcher who has a partial role in influencing the research, (e.g. establishment of a

conceptual, research methodology), in uncovering the unobservable reality (Grbich,

2013). These insights, inform the study’s realism stance in conducting this research, in

effectacknowledgingtheexistenceofanunobservedexternalrealitythat is independent

oftheresearcher’sunderstandingandwhichonlytheresearchparticipantspossess.The

establishmentofthestudy’sconceptualframeworkonlyguidestheresearcherinsofaras

setting the study boundaries surrounding the research aim and associated conceptual

framework. In order to uncover the unobserved reality therefore, the realism approach

suggests explorations of interactions between “structures and objects” (Sobh & Perry,

2005:1120).Thisstudyaccountsforthisperspectivebyexploringthenatureinwhichthe

study objects, the stakeholders, facilitate engagementwith themacro,meso andmicro-

perspective employer engagement structures characterising the institutional training

contexts surrounding high skill industries (as defined by the conceptual framework

presentedwithinAppendicesI,IIandIII).

69

Placing“partialdependencyontheresearcher”inuncoveringrealityisdistinctive

to the realism epistemological paradigm (Gbrich, 2013:6; Ritchie & Lewis, 2013:11).

Although the researcher’s true reality in conducting the research is informed by the

development of a conceptual framework and its application, it is also dependent on the

researcher’s experience and knowledge regarding the field of study. A drawback of this

perspectiveisthattheresearchermaybiasdatacollectionandanalysisiflackingasound

and thorough knowledge of scholarly arguments surrounding a defined concept (i.e.

employerengagement), thus leading toan ineffectiveconceptual frameworkand in turn

data collection. Here realism also allocates partial responsibility to the researcher in

ensuring that the research participants fully understand and engage with the study

rationale and its underlying themes, established by the researcher (May, 2001:12).

Alternative epistemological paradigms, present contrasting implications for the

relationshipbetweentheresearcherandthestudycontext,theresearchparticipantsand

associated research methodologies, and thus are incompatible with qualitative

exploratorydimensionadoptedbythisstudy.

The positivist paradigm (Guba& Lincoln, 1994 cited in Denzin& Lincoln, 2000,

p.105)forexampleacknowledgesadeductiveobjectivereality.Theroleoftheresearcher

is to examine or test exact and true reflections of realities often acknowledging purely

quantitative or triangulation data collection approaches. This epistemological stance is

effective if the researcher is convinced of the existence of the realties being tested,

otherwise examined via the development of rigorous conceptual frameworks based on

previousempiricalstudiesandtestedtheories.Thisstudyishoweverbasedonconceptual

framework that has an exploratory inductive dimension, - the research questions are

loosely constructed around existing unexplored scholarly arguments, and thus seek to

uncoverpreviouslyunobservedrealitiessurroundingtheresearchparticipantsregarding

the unexplored conceptual dimensions of the study in question. Constructivism

alternatively places the researcher as a “passionate participant” of the research using

participant observation data collection or grounded theory methods in developing the

research conceptual frame. Again, this stance is incompatible with this study as the

researcher here is not an active participant of the data collection process, although is

involvedinguidingtheresearchprocess(sub-section2.2.1).Criticalrealism(Sayer,2000)

alsoplacestheresearcherasanactiveparticipantoftheresearchprocessasobservedby

actionresearchapproachesandthusadoptsatransformative,co-creatingroleinshaping

theresearchoutcomes. Theresearcher’srolewithinthisstudyhoweveraimstoexplore

and uncover an external blurry reality, which is independent of the researcher’s

knowledge of its existence and which is thus established purely by exploring the

experiencesof theresearchparticipants.Thisexternalreality isproduced in the formof

70

empirical data stemming from the application of the conceptual framework and use of

research questions to uncover interactions or engagement between the objects of the

study, the research participants, and the structures surrounding the central concept of

employerengagement (Sayer,2000). The researcher is further responsible inanalysing

theempiricaldata,producing theoutcomes studyoutcomes,basedonknowledgeof the

study’s underlying conceptual framework. The realism epistemological stance is thus

conducive to this research as it supports the researcher in conducting exploratory

qualitativeresearchandinuncoveringpreviouslyunobservedexternalrealitiesasdefined

bythelooselydefinedresearchquestionsandusingthedatacollectionmethodsdiscussed

next.

2.1.2SingleCaseStudyApproach&Unitsof Analyses

Yin(2009,2003)distinguishesbetweenfivetypesofsinglecasestudyapproaches

including the critical, the extreme/unique, representative/typical, revelatory and

longitudinal case study approaches. This research adopts the single critical case study

approach (Yin 1984; 1994; 2009:48). Yin, (2003, cited in Fulcher & Scott, 2008:75)

indicates that a single case study strategy supports researchers to conduct detailed

explorationsofconceptsassociatedwithorganisations,societies,institutionsorgroupsof

individuals. This approach is compatible with the research aim in that it supports

explorations of the under-conceptualized phenomenon of employer engagement within

thecontextoftheinstitutionaltrainingcontextsofhighskillindustries,locatedwithinthe

criticalcaseofthenorthwestUKregion.

TherationalebehindthechoiceoftheNorthwestregionanditscharacteristichigh

skill industries as a critical case study is presented in chapter three. Chapter 3 also

provides context around the participating high skill organizations, which were chosen

based upon the conceptual definitions associated with high skill industries, their

competitive conditions and cluster characteristics (Finegold, 1999; Rosenfeld, 1997).

Scholarlyargumentsindicatethatdifferencesintheunderlyingcompetitiveconditionsof

industryclusterslendtovariationsintheirconceptualisation(Rosenfeld,(1997).Ineffect,

clustersaredefineddependingoncomplexstructuralconditionsinfluencingtheirgrowth,

size and institutionalisation. Rosenfeld’s (1997) conceptualisations here are useful in

understanding that cluster typologies include: “overachieving”, “potential” or “latent”,

eachcharacterisingdifferentstagesofclustermaturitydependingupondifferencesinthe

establishment or maturity of structural conditions (e.g. intra-firm support and

engagement;knowledgenetworks;socialcapital;engagementbetweenprivateandpublic

institutions).This study thus acknowledges variations in the studyoutcomesdepending

uponthechoiceof industry(highskillor lowskill), industryclustersandtheir locations

71

within the UK (AIM, 2005a,b). Chapter 3 thus justifies the choice of a UK region that

supports developing cluster formations to understand the underlying structural

challenges and barriers influencing employer engagement thatmore established cluster

formationperhapsdonotface.Suchexplorationsarejustifiedascommentatorspointto

disparitiesinGovernmentinvestmentswithintheUKaimedatestablishedoverachieving

andpotential clusters (e.g.Oxford, Cambridge)over regions, such as theNorthwest and

theirweakordevelopingclusterformations(Keepetal,2006;AIM,2005a,b;Keep,2002).

Thisstudythusutilisesasinglecriticalcasestudyapproachacknowledgingthatanytwo

clustersarenotsimilarasvariationsintheirexperiencesofexternalinfluences(e.g.global

recession;economicdownturn)distinctivelyinfluencethedevelopmentorestablishment

of cluster conditions and supporting contextual environments (e.g. industry infra-

structures; labour markets). This point is further justified by Bryman’s (2008:54)

explanation concerning “external validityorgeneralisability”.Here it is suggested that a

single case is not representative and does not yield outcomes that are applicablemore

generallytoothercases,despitesimilarunderlyingcasestudyfeaturesorcharacteristics.

UnlikeYin(2009:53)thereforewhosuggeststhatmultiplecasestudyapproachesproduce

robust data, this study satisfies this condition in utilising multiple embedded units of

analyses(Yin(2009:46-48).Further detail concerning organisational access, data collection

and sampling are presented next.

2.2ResearchMethods

This sub-section discusses the adopted data-collection, data-sampling and data-

analysesmethodshighlightingtheirsuitabilityforthisresearch.Ethicalconsiderationsare

alsodiscussed.

2.2.1DataCollection–ConvergentInterviews

Beyond themarketingdiscipline (Carsonet al, 2001;Dreidgeret al, 2006:1146),

theCImethodisrarelyusedwithinbusinessandmanagementorsociologyresearch(Dick,

1990;Carsonetal.2001;Troshani&Rao,2007). InterestinexploringtheCIasastand-

alone specialist qualitative data collection technique is also lacking (Dreidger et al,

2006:1146). However, the few studies adopting the method present useful insights,

outliningitsbenefitsinresearchdevelopmentandanalysis(Carson,Gilmore,Gronhaug,&

Perry, 2001; Dick, 1990; Rao & Perry, 2004; Riege & Nair, 2004; Dreidger et al, 2006;

Troshani&Rao,2007).Asintheuseofotherqualitativedatacollectionapproaches,theCI

researchprocessalsoincorporates“conceptualandmethodologicalresearchdesign,data

collectionandanalysis”stages(Riege&Nair2004:75).Howeverthemethodisdistinctive

inthatit’sresearchprocessinvolvesactivitiesfocusingondataanalysisandinterpretation

72

that importantly contribute to the (re) design of a study’s conceptual framework in

betweenconsecutiveinterviewstages(Riege&Nair2004:75)insteadofattheendofthe

datacollectionprocess,afeaturesupportingquantitativemethodologies(seeAppendixV).

TheCI interviewmethod is thus advantageous in facilitating in-depth, rich anddetailed

explorations of phenomenon as data collection and analysis conducted in between

consecutiveinterviews,supportsrigorinthecollectionofnewempiricaldata(Dick,1990).

Data analysis and refinement is thus conducted in a focused iterative manner as the

researcher simultaneously identifies new themes whilst refining and consolidating

existing themes and lines of enquiry, alongside the need to reaffirm theoretical or

conceptual themes by referring to existing established or newly conducted literature

reviews(Dick,1990).

Commentators thus compliment the method in refining all aspects of the CI

researchprocessincludingtheconceptualframework,datacollectioninstrumentanddata

analysis processes. Data analysis is conducted in between consecutive interviews

supporting the researcher to analyse conceptual ideas in a structured, consistent and

iterativemanner(Carsonetal.2001;Dreidgeretal.2006).Themerefinementthusoccurs

gradually in alignment or in parallel with data collection, a feature that supports the

discovery of new themes or often concepts with origins rooted in otherwise under-

explored conceptual frameworks (Riege & Nair 2004; Dreidger et al. 2006; Troshani &

Rao’s, (2007). Although studies utilising the method explore diverse business and

management concepts, the method is dependent upon the researcher’s in-depth

familiarityoftheliteratures,althoughisthusknowntoreducebiasindataanalysisandin

productionofnewconceptualthemesredefiningexistingconceptualframeworks.

This familiarity supports the researcher to easily identify new lines of enquiry

duringthedatacollectionandanalysisstagesofeachconsecutiveinterview.Acriticismof

the use of the CI however is that it is normally utilised in association with other data

collectionmethods.However,forthepurposesofthisresearch,theobservedbenefitsinits

useoutweighthisdisadvantage,particularlyastheapproachsupportstheuseofasingle

casestudyapproach,necessitatingtheincorporationoftheanalysisofcasestudyevidence

(e.g.companydocumentation;observations)duringdataanalysis.TheuseofCIproduces

advantagesoverotherqualitativedatacollectionmethodsincludingforexamplethefocus

group (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 60). Unlike the focus group, the method allows the

researcher to capturedetailed individualpersonal accounts and experiences of research

participants using different styles of questioning. The analysis of data after each CI

although is labour intensive, supports theanalysisof subsequent interviews focusingon

keyemergingthemesandthusenhancingqualitydepthandrichnessofthedatacollected

during each consecutive interview. The CImethod is therefore chosen as themain data

73

collection method in light of its benefits in capturing rich, detailed and in-depth data

conducivewith theuseof inductive,exploratoryandqualitativestudy inuncovering the

under-conceptualized phenomenon of employer engagement (Payne, 2008b; Irwin,

2008:66) within the macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training contexts

surroundinghighskillindustries.

The researchquestionswereused to establish threekey sectionsof theCI topic

schedule while open interview questions supported explorations of the key themes

underpinningeachoftheresearchquestions.Duringinterviewing,open-endedinterview

questions and where relevant related probes supported the researcher in collecting

unstructured,rich,in-depthanddetailedempiricaldataaccordingtotherequiredcontext,

content and depth of enquiry required (Symon & Cassell, 2012:248). Open-ended

questions supported limitless dialogue with participants while questioning probes

supportedfollow-updiscussionsonrelevantlinesofenquiry.Theresearcher’srelianceon

memoryworkduringinterviewingwaskeyinrecallingfurtherlinesofenquiryorprobes

in instanceswhereparticipantsproduced lengthyresponses toquestions(maxresponse

achieved–11minutes). Researcherlisteningskillsandvigilanceinformingconnections

between participant responses and theoretical perspectives underpinning the project

conceptual frameworkwere important in identifying new enquiry cues and in reducing

researcherbias(Aaker&Day,1990citedinTroshani&Rao,2007:102–researcherbias

due to insufficientknowledge).Commentatorsgenerallyrecommendtheparticipationof

tworesearchersinconductingCIs,withoneconductinginterviewsandtheotherfulfilling

anote-takingrole(Riege&Nair,2004;Dick,1990).Astheresearcherspentconsiderable

timeinconductingtheliteraturereviewpriortocollectingdata,familiarityofandmaking

connectionsbetweennewlyemergingthemesduringinterviewingwasnotaproblem.The

strategy of repeating and re-affirming responses allowed the researcher to confirm

responses, in identifying further lines of enquiry and probes, whilst providing the

researcher with sufficient time in taking notes (establishment of new lines of enquiry

during interviewing). Note-taking strategies (e.g. annotatednotes;mind-mapdiagrams)

ensured that new and relevant lines of enquiry generated during interviewswere fully

addressed. Combined these interviewing strategies supported flexibility in steering

interviewquestionsandinadoptinga“funnellinginterviewapproach”,astheresearcher

graduallyhonedinontopicallinesofenquiryproducingin-depthdetailedinsights(Dick,

1990, cited in Troshani & Rao, 2007:102). Completed interviews were transcribed and

analysed by the researcher enhancing the researcher’s familiarity of the data thus

supportingthedata-analysisandthewritingprocesssurroundingtheempiricalchapters.

The fact that data analysis (sub-section 2.2.3) was conducted in between

consecutive interviews was not a problem as the researcher had sufficient time in

74

analysingdataasinterviewswerescheduledbetweenoneandtwoweeksapart.Eighteen

interviews were conducted with policy stakeholders during data collection phase one,

whiletwenty-onewereconductedwithseniormanagement,duringphasetwo.Interviews

lastedbetween1.30and2.00hours,wereconductedforeachphaseuntildatasaturation

wasachievedandwererecordeduponconsentfromtheinterviewees.Snowballsampling

discussed next, ensured that individuals with relevant expertise were approached for

interview.

2.2.2DataSampling–SnowballSampling

Ritchie & Lewis (2003:62) suggest that research participants are more likely

consent to participating in research provided they are given information about the

purpose, benefits and outputs of research and are further promised anonymity. These

principleswereobservedinaccessingtheresearchparticipantsinthisstudy.Onceinitial

accesstoorganizationswasachievedmainlyusingtheresearcher’spersonalcontact, the

use of snowball sampling provided access to the other research participants. Initial e-

mails were used to request the participation of individuals. These also included clear

guidanceandinformationaroundparticipantconsent,participantanonymity,thepurpose

oftheresearch,itsbenefitsandtheintendeduseoftheoutcomes.Participantswerealso

informedoftheuniversity’sethicalapprovalofthestudy.

Access to senior individuals from institutional policy organizations was initially

achievedusingpersonal contacts in the first instance followedby theuse of a snowball

samplingstrategy.Thereliabilityofsnowballsamplingisquestionedwithintheresearch

methodsliteraturesregardingitsreliabilityinsupportingaccesstoresearchparticipants

representative of the required population for the research (Bryman, 2008:185 & 415).

The use of snowball sampling approach for this study ensured access to the relevant

research participants from both policy organizations and high-skill employers. These

individualswereresponsibleforseniorandmanagement-leveldecisionssurroundingthe

researchareasofenquiry.Eighteen interviewswereconductedwithpolicystakeholders

(seeTable2below).Theseindividualswereresponsibleforwideremployerengagement,

industry-widebenchmarkingandthefacilitationofindustry-wideeducationandtraining

initiatives in linewithmacro-perspectiveGovernmenteducationand training strategies.

Duringandsincetheresearch,somepolicyorganizationsandquangoshaveundergonere-

structuring(e.g.SSCs,BL)andfurther facedclosure(e.g.RDAs). Althoughclosureshave

been unfortunate for the organizations involved, this is not seen to disadvantage the

outcomes of the research. This research outcomes help document and provide amuch-

needed snapshot of their employer engagement activities that scholarly arguments

otherwisedonotdetail.Itmustbenotedthattheresearcherwasunabletoencouragethe

75

participationofsomestakeholderstowhomscholarlyargumentsallocateresponsibilityin

representingorsupportingtheindustryorworkplaceadoptionofeducationandtraining

initiatives (Payne,2008a,b;Finegold,1991).Tradeunionsand theirrepresentativesare

one such stakeholder. Trade union representatives were approached (via e-mail) on

variousoccasionsrequestingtheirparticipationintheresearch.Theseindividualsdidnot

respond, despite their roles as union representatives in representing the interests of

labour in the activities of policy stakeholders (e.g. SSCs, RDAs) or in terms of union

representationonthestrategicboardsofpolicystakeholders(e.g.NSAs).Regardlesstable

2presentsthepolicyorganizationsinvolvedintheresearch.

Table 3: Data Collation Phase One: External Policy Stakeholder Interviews

StakeholderOrganisations Interviews IntervieweeInformation

SectorSkillsCouncils

8

1. PolicyDirector2. Industrialapprenticeshipmanager3. HigherEducationDevelopment4. Researchadvisor5. Industryengagementadvisor6. Product/servicesmanager7. Process/plantskillsmanager8. Specialistscienceadvisor

RegionalDevelopment

Agency

3 9.HeadofSkills10.RegionalBusinessManager11.SectorSkillsManager

NationalSkillsAcademies 2 12.SkillsPolicyAdvisor13.BusinessDevelopmentManager

BusinessLink 2 14.BusinessDevelopmentManager15.RegionalSkillsAdvisor/Broker

NorthWestUniversitiesAssociation

2 16.Sector-specificskillsadvisor17.SeniorPolicyAdvisor

AssociationsofBritishPharmaceuticalsIndustries

1 18.Sector-specificseniorpolicyadvisor

The recruitment of senior individuals (Table 3.) from high skill employing

organizationswasextremelydifficult.E-mailsweresentto60majoremployersinthefirst

instance using a business directory (NorthWest Bio Now cluster directory, 2011) that

provided information on large and SME pharmaceutical, bioscience and biotechnology

businessesandtheirsupplychainaffiliations.Thesee-mailswerefollowedbytelephone

calls also requesting participation in the research. Twenty-one respondents confirmed

their participation. Seven interviews were conducted with senior management from a

R&D capability belonging to a larger pharmaceutical organization. Interviewswere also

76

conducted with senior individuals from bioscience, biotechnology and pharmaceutical

SMEs. These organisations were chosen depending on variations in organisational size,

productionstrategies,theirassociatedHRMandorganisational-widetrainingcontextsand

organisationalsize(AppendixII).Accesstoemployingorganizationsprovedifficultasthe

high-skill industrieswereundergoingre-structuringduringtheresearch.Regardless, the

researcherestablishedagoodrapportwiththeresearchparticipantsduringtheinterview

recruitmentstageandthussecuredtwenty-oneinterviews(Table4).

Table4:DataCollationPhaseTwo:SeniorManagementInterviews

HighskillEmployingOrganisations Interviewees

Interviewee Nos.

LargeOrganizations:

Pharmaceutical–R&DscientificdivisionSMEManufacturingSME1-Pharmaceuticalpackaging-250employeesSME2-Bioscience-250employeesSME3-Pharmaceuticalpackaging-100employeesSME4-Bioscience-100employeesSME5-Biotechnology–50employeesSME6-Bioscience–50employeesSME7-Biotechnology–fewerthan10employeesSME8-Biosciencefewerthan10employees

722222211

1-78-910-1112-1314-1516-1718-192021

2 .2.3DataAnalysis

Allinterviewsweretranscribedwhiledataanalysiswasconductedusingthematic

analysis and data coding approaches (Appendix VII) (Saldana, 2013:175-85; Rubin &

Rubin, 2012:157, 195). Appendix VII reveals the themes produced by the data analysis

process in relation to each of the research questions. The transcribeddocumentswere

thusanalysedusingathematicanalysisapproachthatsuitedtheresearchanditsloosely

defined researchquestions.Here a theme is defined “as an abstract entitywhichbrings

meaning and identity to recurrent (patterned) experiences and their underlying

manifestations, capturing and unifying the nature and basis of experiences into a

meaningfulwholes” (DeSantis&Ugarriza,2000cited inSaldana,2013:175). Ineffecta

“theme is an extended phrase or sentence that identifies what a unit of data is about

and/orwhatitmeans”andmaybeidentifiedwithin“manifest”(directlyobservablewithin

the information) or latent contexts (underlying the phenomenon) (Saldana, 2013:175).

Thematic analysis thus supported the researcher to identify and establish “different arrays of

information” (Yin, 2009:128) during interview transcription relative to exploratory themes

characterising the research questions.

77

This research thus utilised a thematic analysis approach, while the key themes

generatedfromtheanalysisofthetranscriptswereusedtoconstructthematicconceptual

matrices. These matrices supported the cross-comparative analysis of key themes

characterising each of the research questions and additionally in forging connections

between themes fromacross theresearchquestions. These themeshelpedstructure the

discussionswithinempirical chapters four, fiveandsixand the thesisconclusion. Data-

analysiswasconductedusingathematicconceptualmatrixapproach(Miles&Huberman,

1994:131). This approach was advantageous in providing structure in the analysis of

extensive,complexandoften-messyempiricaldataproducedbyeachofthethreeresearch

questions. Matrix analysis thus supports the researcher in “noting patterns” around

“themes”,duringdataanalysissupportingprocessesofthemecomparison,clusteringand

counting(Miles&Huberman,1994:243). Matrixanalysis furthersupportedaprocessof

organisingandanalysingkey themes characterising the researchquestions according to

rows and columns supporting matrix structures. These supported cross-comparisons

acrosscategoriesofvariablesor themesgeneratedby theanalysisof theempiricaldata.

Thiscombinedapproachwaseffectiveinorganising,structuringandanalysingotherwise

messy, yet detailed, thick, rich and insightful data captured from theuse of open-ended

interview questions in an analytical and rigorousmanner. A key advantage of this data

analysis approachwas that it allowed the researcher to forge ‘new’ themes fromacross

theresearchquestions(Saldana,2013:175).Theinductivenatureofthisdatacaptureand

analysis approach compliments this study’s realism philosophical stance, providing

structure in analysing the themes characterising the researcher’s “unobserved reality”.

The approach further allowed comparisons between the thematic data producedby the

matrices,supportingtheemergenceofunanticipatednewthemes.

Data analysiswas conducted in various stages supporting the researcher to sort

and analyse the data. The research questions and their underlying exploratory themes

drawn from the study conceptual framework were firstly coded providing a frame of

reference for the analysis.This frameof referenceand the respective themesand codes

werethenutilisedtoanalysethetranscribedandconsecutiveinterviews.Thissystematic

process of coding helped in also capturing sub-themes and sub-sub themes that were

subsequently reviewed and coded. The process of coding thus helped generate, identify

and name existing and new themes for each interview. These thematic analysis stages

supported the adoption of an analytical approach in sorting and organising the

transcribeddata,whilecodingsystemssupportedtheidentificationofvariouscategories

and clusters of themes, sub-themes and sub-sub-themes (Saldana, 2013:175). This

thematic information supported the cross-comparisons of themes forged across the

researchquestionsusingthematrix thematicanalysisapproach.Transcribed interviews,

78

with policy stakeholders and seniormanagementwere codedmanually usingMicrosoft

Excel as a repository database. Individual vertical and horizontal cells supported the

collection of information on key themes, sub-themes and sub-sub themes while their

respective codes supported the use of a matrix analysis approach (Saldana, 2013:26;

Bryman,2008:54).

2 .2.4 Ethicalconsiderations Ethical approval for the research was formally obtained from the university

(Document code: Area 10-179). This document encapsulates various ethical

considerationssupportingtheresearchincluding:protectionofinformationregardingthe

researchparticipantsduringdatacollationandanalysis,instoringdataandinestablishing

the nature of the research outcomes (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003:68,69). The researcher

ensured that confidentiality and anonymitywere acknowledged in the handling of data

including:duringdatastorage,collection,organizationandanalysisstages.Completionof

consent forms ensured that the participants were aware that their anonymity and

confidentialitywasmaintainedinallstagesoftheresearchusingprecautionarymeasures.

Precautionarymeasuresalsoensured theprotectionofdataatall timesduringhandling

and analysis. Participant details for example were kept anonymous while data was

securely stored on aUSB and a laptop specifically used forwork relating to the PhD to

whichonlytheresearcherhadaccessandwhichwassupportedbyappropriatesoftware.

79

ChapterThreeContextualisingtheUKNorthWestBioIndustry

Thischapter introduces theUKNorthWestEnglishBiocluster that isutilisedby

this research in conducting the single case study. The discussions next present an

overview of the defining features characterising the region’s business activity. The high

skill businesses supporting the Northwest region, key employment trends and skills

shortagesandthebusinessesinvolvedintheresearcharealsodiscussed.

3.1DefiningTheNorthWestEnglishClusterRegion

TheNorthWestEnglishclusterregionsupportsanarrayofbusinessactivityand

investment. It is the 12th largest economy in Europe, housing 230,000 successful

businessesandworth£106billion(BioNow,2010;SEMTA,SSA,2007).Thisisreflectedin

theNorthwestScienceCouncil’svisionthatstatesthat:

“England’sNorthWestremainrenownedasanareaofWorldClassScientificachievement

creatingamagnetfortalentandscienceinvestment,apowerfuldriverforinnovationand

enterprise, and an effective force for delivering benefits to health, the environment and

society.”(SEMTABioscienceSSA,Oct,2007)

In support of this statement, in 2008, the northwest UK Biomedical cluster, one of the

highest exporters of pharmaceutical products, generated £3.8 billion across the multi-

national pharmaceutical and biomedical businesses. According to the Sector Skills

Council, (SEMTA2007), thenorthwestBio cluster is known for far greater competitive

advantageusingbioactivityoverotherUKregionsduetotheextensiveexpertisespanning

across pharmaceuticals, internationally recognized academic and clinical research and

biotechnologyprofessionalR&Dcommunities.ThisbioactivityspansR&Dresearchwithin

pharmaceuticalanddrugmanufacturing,cancerresearchandcare,treatmentofinfectious

diseases, clinical trials and informatics and tissue re-engineering. The North West UK

cluster (BioNow, 2010; NW Skills Priority Sectors, 2006-07) is the 3rd largest with a

30,000 workforce and is home to 160 biomedical, 120 medical device and healthcare

companies. This includes seven major pharmaceutical multi-nationals and ninety-five

corecompaniescollectivelyexportingaround£3.4billion(BioNow,2010).Internationally

renowned research centres of excellence are located across Manchester and Liverpool

(e.g.NationalBioManufacturingCentre)andincludemajorNHSTeachingHospitals.These

support critical research facilities alongside biomedical businesses and clinical R&D

within research institutes at regional levels. Despite the recent move to a more

80

established English cluster (i.e. Oxford), Astra Zeneca has a major presence within the

region, employing 4,500 staff includingworld known research and development teams.

OthermajorcompanieswithinthenorthwestincludeNovartis;EliLillythelargestglobal

provider of the flu vaccine; a US basedmanufacturer of biologics andMedImmune, the

only and largest global distributor of the attenuated live flu vaccine. 2010, saw the

regional business growth of 25,500 newbusiness spinouts (www.ons.gov.uk). In 2011,

the North West supported the third highest UK business birth rate (11.1%; North Eat

11.2% and London, 14.6%) (Business Demography, December 2012; www.ons.gov.uk),

althoughitalsodisplayedhighbusinessdeathrates(10.7%followedcloselybyLondon-

10.4%).Growth is facilitatedacross theregionusingmajorregionalproject investments

supporting R&D strategies and bio-cluster programmes. An example of the latter is

BioNow, established by the now defunct North West Regional Development Agency

(NWRDA)generatinghigh-levelproductivityandsupportinginwardandforeignbusiness

venturesintotheregion.TheregionhasthusboostedahealthyconsistentgrowthinR&D

expenditure(from£1451thousandin2000;£1892thousandin2005;£2260thousandin

2011)comparedtoothermajorUKclusterregions(e.g.London-£810thousandin2000;

£552in2005;£877in2011).

These developments have been complimented by Government infrastructural

supportingeneratingbusinessandenterpriseactivityandskillacrosstheregion.In2001,

the formation of North West Science, supported initiatives and financial investments,

facilitatingregionalgrowthinscientificR&Dandbusinessspinoutactivities.Thisresulted

in The Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus, a £65m investment and 600-acre

development generating 400 new businesses and 1500 new jobs. Further regional

investmentsresultedinthecreationofnewuniversitiesfundedbyTheHigherEducation

Funding Council of England, (HEFCE). Other developments included programmes

(NWRDA,2012) specifically targetingmajor skill shortages across the region (e.g. LEAD

theNorthWestRegion;BusinessMentoring andHigher Level Skills). Althoughnowno

longer in existence, the NWRDA was responsible in coordinating such regional

programmes using business initiatives, grant schemes and venture capital funds, to

providefinancialsupportto3000businesses,strugglingSMEsandnewspinouts.

In 2007, the Office of Life Sciences was established to strengthen strategic

economic growth areas across pharmaceutical, medical biotechnology and medical

technology, in fostering alignment with regional and industrial strategies and thus

enhancingindustrygrowthandproductivity.TheSkillsforGrowthNationalStrategy(BIS,

2009b) and The New Industries, New Jobs, (HM Government, 2010b) are examples of

these strategies. These aimed to improve skills capabilities acrosswider UK industrial

81

regionsandimportantlyacrossregionscharacterisinghigh-skill,high-techandinnovation

orientated industry clusters supporting advanced technologies. These strategies have

since led to regulation across Life Science Industries resulting in the accreditation of

undergraduate bioscience degrees and scientific skills in line with R&D developments

associated with emerging market specialisms (e.g. environment - waste, food &

agriculture). These strategies further elevate the importance of strategic skill

partnershipsbetweenindustriesandHEtransformingthefutureoflife-scienceindustryas

high-techstrategicindustries.Akeyemphasisisinsupportingnationalandinternational

awareness in attracting/retaining specialist high-skill labour and business innovations

acrossUKregions.

TheNorthWestregionhassimilarlywitnessedvarious,albeitwidelyinterspersed

activities aimed at raising industry-wide skill capabilities (ERDF, 2012), further

confirming its suitability in itsuseasacasestudy for this research. Newdevelopments

includeaLifeSciencesclusterorganizationpromotingclusterbusinessmembershipand

engagement, new investments in existing and foreign owned companies into the region

and infrastructural investments supporting bio-pharmaceutical manufacturing (ERDF,

2012). These developments are consistent with the UK Government’s interest in

generatingnewjobopportunitiesacrossUKscienceclusters,majorpharmaceuticalsand

in expanding biotechnology activity within global contexts as emphasised within The

Sainsbury Report (1999), The Roberts (2002) and Lambert Reviews (2003). This

biomedical hub is thus very important to the region. Investment is continuously

encouraged,astheUKgovernmenthassoughttopromoteanddevelopthecluster,using

various macro-perspective strategies that are critically dependent on employer

engagement(sub-section1.1.3). Inspiteofthesedevelopmentshowever,theregionstill

characteriseswide-rangingskillshortagesdiscussednext.

3.2 The employer demand for education and training intervention

acrosstheNorthwestEnglishRegionandCluster

In2008(Robertsetal.2010;Wilton,2008),only25%of the labour forcewithin

the northwest region worked within occupations characterising high skills and

commensurate with a high skill economy, although lagging other UK high skill cluster

regions (e.g. 28% - SouthWest; 33% - North Yorkshire; 38% - London). These reports

foundaveragelevelsofNVQlevel4attainmentwithinthenorthwestregionacrosscritical

age groups (30-39) compared to otherEnglish cluster regions. This included the South

WestregionthatultimatelylaggedotherUKregionsinqualificationattainmentacross16-

19 and 50 plus age groups. Despite this, the northwest region houses the 2nd highest

82

graduateandpostgraduateemployment(within6monthsofgraduating)nexttoLondon.

The region employs similar proportions of labour with Standard Occupational

Classifications(SOC)1-2and3-5attainmentcomparedtomostUKregions,althoughnot

including the southwest and London regions (see Figure 4 below). Here standard

occupational classifications (SOC) (1-2) represent associate professional trades,

administrationandsecretarialandskilledtrades,whileSOC(3-5)representintermediate

and low skill occupations including process and machine operatives and elementary

occupations.However,theregionwasfoundtolagotherUKregionsincludingLondonand

the South West in employing labour working within managerial, service official and

professionalroles.

Figure5:OccupationalStructure,2008-%ofworkforceemployedperUKregion

(adaptedfromRobertetal.2010,p.9)

SOCs NE NW Y&H EM WM EE L SE SW

Managers

Professionals

13.0

11.5

15.0

11.5

14.4

11.7

15.5

11.3

14.7

12.1

17.0

13.1

17.8

17.0

17.6

14.5

16.5

11.9

SOC(1-2) 24.5 26.5 26.1 26.8 26.8 30.1 34.8 32.1 28.4

SOC(3-5) 35.6 37.0 35.4 35.1 36.5 36.9 38.1 36.9 37.6

Although Figure 1 compliments the range of skills in use across the northwest

region, reports furtherwider skill shortages (BioNow, 2010; SEMTA (SSA), 2007;NEES,

2005NWSkillsPrioritySectors,2006-07,NWRDA).Employmentandskillsdatafromthe

NWRDA(2007)revealsthatunemployment(23%)acrossnorthwestEnglandwashigher

than the English average (21%), while severe economic inactivity and low academic

achievement was evidenced amongst underrepresented groups (NW Skills Priority

Sectors,2006-07,NWRDA).

Academic underachievement amongst 16-19 year olds was a problem, while

higher proportions, approximately 10.5% belonged to NEET groupings within the

Northwestcomparedtothenationalcontext(8.6%)(NWSkillsprioritySectors,2006-07,

NWRDA).Similartrendsoflowachievementoflevel2qualificationsamongst16-19year

oldsandlevel3attainmentamongst19yearoldsisevidenced.TheNorthWestwasalso

the only English regiondeliveringTrain toGain provision for level 2 to 4 qualifications

and vocational skills. Employers reported higher incidences of basic skill shortages

comparedtothenationalcontextwith31%ofemployerswithintheNorthWestreporting

literacy and numeric skill shortages compared to 22% of employers national-wide.

Nation-wide, this data corresponds to 2.5 million of individuals with literacy and 3.5

millionwithnumericskillsneeds(DfESSkillsforLifeSurvey,(2003b).Furthermore,The

National Employer Skills Survey (2005) cites higher incidences of generic skill issues

83

acrosslow-skilloccupations(e.g.elementary/operative,customerservices)includingsoft

skills (i.e. communication, team working and presentation skills as well as technical,

practicalandjob-specificskills).Thesedataalsorevealedlowerqualificationsuccessrates

amongstmaleandBMElearnergroups.TheNorthWestfurtherlaggedinHEattainment

compared to the national context, while NESS, (2005) cites recruitment difficulties for

intermediate-level3andhigh-skilloccupations(skilledtrades,professionaloccupations).

NorthWest employers also supported higher levels of training investment than nation-

wide, while clearer articulation of skill shortages and gaps characterising SMEs is

somewhatspurious.

Further explorations of the SME sectors is thus critical as North West English

Region ishometo58%of innovation-orientatedSMEscomparedto57%situatedacross

England. SMEs from the NorthWestwere also subject to lower business survival rates

compared to national-widewith skill shortages evident at level 4 and above (NWSkills

prioritySectors,2006-07,NWRDA).Thedemandforentrepreneurialactivityandbusiness

enterprisestart-upsishigh,atrendreflectingthenation-widepicture(e.g.only11.4%of

new innovation-orientated start-ups across the region in 2006-07 compared to the

national average, 13.4%). Despite this, national figures reveal a growth in R&D

expenditurewithintheUKbetween2010(riseof8%to£174billion)and2011(6%rise)

withsignificantgrowthinR&Dexpenditureacrossmanufacturingsectors(e.g.computer;

car) including the pharmaceutical sector (£169 million rise in 4%). However despite

significant skill shortages across the northwest region it exceeds other UK regions in

producing and investing inR&D (£2260million in 2011) (www.ons.gov.uk),with South

EastEnglishregionsdominatingtheUK(£3638millionin2011).

ThesetrendsreflectthegrowingnumbersofR&Dstaffemployednationwide(i.e.

4000 to158,000between2010and2011 (www.ons.gov.uk). Thenumbersof scientists

and engineers has risen from 87000 to 89000 accounting for 56% of all staff working

within R&D. Employment of technical staff has risen by 20000 to 43000 while

employment of administration staff remained stable (27000 in 2011). The cluster’s

contribution to national employment levels is also significant as the region witnessed

4000 new jobs and a 61% growth in newly established businesses in 2012

(www.bionowcluster-programme). This section justifies the research aim and the

research questionswhich seek to explore skill challenges facing theNorthWest region.

Theseexplorationsareconductedagainstthebackdropofthegrowingdemandforskilled

labour across growing biomedical and bioscience businesses. The next sub-section

providessomecontextaroundthebusinessesinvolvedintheregionfromacrosstheNorth

westregion.

84

3.3 Businesses involved in the Research

The study utilised seven (sub-section 2.2.2, Table 3.) high skill-employing

organisations including two large, two medium-sized and two micro-SMEs, two small

businessesandonelargeR&Dcapabilitybelongingtoa largepharmaceutical. TheSMEs

andsmallbusinessesbelongedtobioscienceandbiotechnologyindustrysectorswiththeir

key production capabilities involved in strategic R&D collaborations across both the

Northwest region, the UK and within international contexts. The anonymous nature of

these businesses hasmeant that selected information is presentedwithin the following

sections.

3.3.1R&DCapabilityofa largePharmaceutical

The large R&D division belonging to the multi-national UK pharmaceutical

operated within both UK and international markets, fostering collaborations involving

research,manufacturingandcommercialisationactivities. Theorganizationisknownfor

its global commitment in fosteringmedical innovations in infection, cardiovascular and

respiratory and inflammation medicines. This commitment in health care is sustained

throughpartnershipresponsibilitiessharedwithvariousstakeholdergroupsincludingUK

and internationalpharmaceutical competitors, regulators,patient groups,NHS clinicians

and the UK Government. This commitment further extends to its local involvement in

supportingthegenerationofnewemploymentandjobopportunitiesandresponsibilityin

improvingskillattainment.

ExamplesincludecharitabledonationsinpromotingSTEMsubjectscharacterising

the National Curriculum for 14-19 year olds. Awareness raising in sustaining jobs

characterising the scientific disciplines and research, is achieved through strategic

collaborations and partnerships with external partners (e.g. universities and academic

centres,hospitalsinvolvedinresearch,biotechSMEs,researchinstitutesandcouncilsand

regulatorybodies).TrainingregulationisfurthersustainedincollaborationwiththeSTEM

Strategy Group, HEFCE, scientific professional bodies and groups and the ABPI. The

organisation further supports the career development of PhD researchers through its

global careers website which additionally provides student placements and bursary

schemesforundergraduates.Internallytheorganizationsupportsthedevelopmentof its

staff working within the UK and on its international collaborations, via flexible

occupational structures (e.g. permanent/temporary) supporting job promotion, career

development and training and development opportunities.

85

3.3.2SMEs

TheeightSMEsinvolvedintheresearch,wereallsituatedwithintheNorthWest

Bioregion,Table3.insub-section2.2.2revealskeydifferencesinorganisationalsizeand

productionstrategies.OneofthelargeSMEssupportedthespecialistmanufacturingofin-

vitro medicinal products and therapies. The other specialised in providing packaging

solutions for the pharmaceuticals sector. Both SMEs faced organisational downsizing

during the research, despite their involvement in international and UK-wide export

activity. Of the twomedium-sizedSMEs,onesupportedbiotechnologyR&Dproduction

whilsttheotherwasaspecialistmanufacturerofmedicinalproductsandtherapies.

The large SME, both medium-sized SMEs and small businesses characterised

similaremploymentandoccupationalstructuresemploying largelyseniorscientificR&D

staff, laboratory technical staff and staff supporting theirmarketing, commercialisation,

manufacturing and production activities. Export markets included: the United States,

Japan,China,EuropeandScandinaviaallowingtheseSMEstosecuresustainedqualityand

global recognition of their manufacturing and production standards. However, the

changing and complex demand for their products within volatile international markets

meantthatthesebusinessesfacedcompetitionfromotherUKproviderssupplyingsimilar

tailored products and services within wide-ranging therapy areas. These SMEs thus

representedcompetitiveR&Dscientificcollaborations,partnershipsandacquisitionsand

drew on new innovations in biotechnologies, nanotechnologies and biomarkers to

penetrate globalmarkets. Clinical trials associatedwith these innovationswere thus in

approved advanced stages. In turn these SMEs provided professional development

opportunitiesforallstaffencouragingknowledgesharinglearningexperiencesviacross-

functional teams, collaboration opportunities and secondment programmes. Supportive

learningcultures,encouragedthecultivationofnewinnovativeideas,whileeasyaccessto

bespoke training and development programmes, performance reward and appraisal

systemscomplimentedcareerdevelopmentandprogression.

Of the two large SMEs, one business supported the mass production and

manufactureofmedicinalpackagingproductsforhealthcare,pharmaceuticalandmedical

device companies, and also provided customer services supporting the use of their

products. This business was a key UK supplier, also exporting products and product

advicetoglobalmarkets.Itfocusinmassproductionandmanufacturingmeantaheavily

regulated shop floor, hierarchical management structures and closely monitored and

standardisedsupervisionof largely lowskill staff involved in large-scaleproductionand

packagingprocesses.TheR&Dfunctionhowevercharacterisedfewerhighskillstaffwho

worked acrossmultiple scientific R&D projects andwho supported the development of

newpackagingsolutions.Thesehigh-skillstaffwerehoweversupervisedbyverticaland

86

horizontal management-level hierarchies, supporting the rigorous management and

standardisationofR&Dprojects,productdevelopment,manufacturingandpackagingand

associated regulated training. Similar management structures supported regulated

trainingstructureswithinlargeandmedium-sizedSMEsandsmallbusinessesinlinewith

the manufacture of biotechnological and bioscience products and solutions. These

businesses employedmanagementwith extensive experience inmanagingR&Dprojects

across their high skill sectors. This furthermeant a high demand formanagement-level

skill,competenciesandassociatedtrainingsupportingqualityassurance,scientificprocess

development methodologies, quality control and analytical development. Within small

businesses however, flatter management structures were supported by senior

managementwithgreaterexperience,networkingcapabilities,andoftenahigherlevelof

specialisationthanthosewithinthelargerSMEs.

3 .4Conclusion

Despiteanemphasisonnationalmacro-levelstrategies(1.1.2and1.1.3)withinthe

UK, this chapter reveals that thenorthwest region characterises loweducationand skill

attainment levels across the occupations. This perhaps explains the questions that

commentatorsraiseabout theUK’scentralisedmacro-perspectivenation-wideapproach

in investing in industry, resulting in the unfair distribution of investments (Keep et al.

2006;Keep,2002).Regardless,despitetheirvarietyandpurpose,commentators(Keepet

al, 2006) further question their effectiveness in engaging lower performing and less

established cluster regions (compared to World Class clusters e.g. Oxford, Cambridge),

although here further supporting empirical evidence regarding the nature of employer

engagement is necessary. This study thus considers the northwest English Bio Cluster,

suggestingthatdespitethesenationalmacro-perspectiveinitiatives,littleisknownabout

theactualnatureor extentof engagementbetween the supply-sidepolicyorganizations

andhighskillindustries.Theempiricalchaptersnextprovidethisevidence.

87

ChapterFour

Policy Stakeholders - Employer engagement across the North

WestBioRegion

ThischapterexplorestheresearchquestionsfromtheperspectivesofUKsupply-

side policy stakeholders. Sections 4.1. to 4.3 address research question one. Section 4.1

introduces the roles of policy stakeholders, provides an overview of their overarching

employer engagement responsibilities and further details the related challenges in

supportingtheemployerneedsaroundeducationandtraininginitiatives.Section4.1thus

provides an overarching perspective of the employer engagement activities of policy

stakeholdersrelative to theGovernment’swiderSkillsAgenda. Section4.2alternatively

explores the employer engagement strategies adopted by policy stakeholders. The

analysis reveals that although the employer engagement activities of individual policy

stakeholdersandtheirorganizationswereunderpinnedbyvisionsofengagingemployers,

therealitiesofengagementvarieddependingontheirvaryingabilitiesindeliveringonthe

unmetemployerneeds foreducationand training.Theunderlying reasonsbehind these

variations are highlighted in section 4.3. Section 4.3 explains the internal and external

tensions facing individual policy stakeholders and their organizations surrounding

employerengagement.Section4.4addressesresearchquestiontwoexaminingthenature

in which the meso-perspective network feature characterising high skill industries

influenced the employer engagement activities of policy stakeholders particularly in

supporting their demands for education and training relative to low, intermediate and

high-skill occupations. Alternatively, section 4.5 focuses on the micro-perspective

employer engagement strategies adopted by policy stakeholders and the associated

challengesexperiencedinoperationalisingemployerengagement.Section4.6utilisesthe

analysiswithinprevioussectionstoassessthenatureinwhichBrown’s(2001)conditions

influenced the employer engagement facilitated by policy stakeholders. The chapter

concludesbydiscussingtherelevanceofthefindingsinrelationtotheresearchquestions.

4.1 Policy organisations – an overview of employer engagement This section extends existing insights presented within the literature review by

presentinganoverviewoftheoverarchingemployerengagementapproachesadoptedby

policystakeholders.Itthereforepointstothewiderchallengesfacingpolicyorganizations

in supporting education and training across the region, providing some background

context around the analysis that follows in later sections. Later sections detail the

88

experiences of individual policy stakeholders and their collective efforts in connecting

withandinfacilitatingtheadoptionoftheeducationandtrainingneedsacrossthehigh-

skillindustriesinquestion.Ineffect,allofthepolicystakeholders(AppendixVIII)involved

in the research worked within leading senior management, directorial and leadership

positions and were responsible for strategic decisions around the adoption of macro-

perspective national education and training across the northwest region. All policy

stakeholders further confirmed the strategic leadership roles of their organizations in

facilitatingtheemployeradoptionofnationaleducationandtraininginitiativessupported

by the UK Government (UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006), within macro (national), meso

(industry)andmicro(organisational)perspectives (Keepetal.2006)(seelatersections

and Appendix IX). As discussed in later sections, policy stakeholders here adopted

employer-ledengagementstrategiessupportingeducationandtraininginitiativesofshort,

mediumandlong-termbenefitacrosstheregion(Keepetal.2006:552)andalsoidentified

witha“demand-drivenengagement”approach,insofarasinvolvingemployersinmacro

(national-level) and meso-level (regional/sub-regional) decision-making (Keep et al.

2006:553;Leitch,2006).

However, the analysis also revealed commonly acknowledged employer

engagement challenges (Payne, 2008a,b; Lloyd & Payne, 2003a,b; 2002) particularly

around supporting the employer adoption of macro-perspective education and training

initiatives. Here policy stakeholders were all too familiar with the employer barriers

constraining engagement with the macro-perspectives initiatives supported by their

organizations (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b; Gleeson & Keep, 2004). All stakeholders for

example identified with a priority commitment in delivering on the UK Government’s

wider National Skill Agenda (Leitch, 2006) in response to broader interview questions

abouttheemployerengagementrolesoftheirorganizations. Theanalysisherehowever

revealed a commitment on the part of policy organisations in supporting the

Government’s National Agenda in raising skill achievement that ultimately challenged

theircapabilitiesinconnectingwiththespecificeducationandtrainingneedsofhigh-skill

employers from the region.Policyorganizations (e.g.RDAs, SSCs,NSAs)with leadership

rolesindeliveringontheGovernment’swiderNationalSkillsAgenda(Leitch,2006)found

thisparticularlydifficult.

“...Governmentpolicyonskillshasbeenfocusedonlowerlevelswhichouremployersdon’ttraditionallysupport...howeveremployerswerewillingtofinanciallysupportinitiativesbecausetheysawitforthegreatergoodpotentiallyfortheirsupplychains...thatgreatergoodisnowgettinglessasthemonthsgoby...someemployersstillbelieveinlong-terminvestmentsinhighlevelskills…”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:21)

89

Individuals from SSCs for example, were involved in coordinating initiatives around

HigherEducation,VETandotherindustry-wideandemployerspecifictraininginitiatives,

supportingtherangeoflow,intermediateandhigh-levelskilloccupationsfromacrossthe

pharmaceutical, biotechnology and bioscience sectors. This wasmainly achieved using

employer-ledengagementstrategiesnecessitatingeithercollectiveorindividualemployer

engagementwiththelatterapproachprovingbeneficialforSSCsinintroducingemployers

to their one-to-one support services (e.g. SkillsMatrix training evaluation tool). Despite

priority commitments in supporting skill shortages around low and intermediate-level

jobs, the analysis revealed a realisation amongst policy stakeholders in establishing

employer-led and demand-driven engagement strategies in connecting with skills

shortages influencing the high-skill occupations (Keep et al. 2006 – HE education

initiatives;management-levelprofessionaldevelopmentprogrammes).

“...puttinganindustryperspectiveonGovernmentpolicy...”(SSC,DirectorofPolicy)

“...level4andbeyondiswherewe’vegottohit...that’swhatwillchangeour

economy...”(SEMTA,HEDevelopmentManager:4)

Thisweakemphasison thepartofSSCs insupportinghigh-skilloccupations isnotedby

existing arguments that bring to light the wider challenges facing SSCs in generally

engagingwiththeUKsectorsorinrealisingtheindustryoremployerdemandforspecific

typesofeducationandtraininginitiatives(Sungetal,2009;Payne,2008b).Theanalysis

within later sections however reveals that SSCs (alongside other policy stakeholders)

werealltoofamiliarwiththerangeofeducationandtraininginitiativesinneedacrossthe

high-skill industries in question. The evidence here thus contradicts existing scholarly

arguments (Payne 2008b; Gleeson & Keep, 2004), which point to the difficulties facing

policystakeholdersinaccessingsuchemployerinformationinpartduetotheinabilitiesof

employersinbenchmarking,realisingorcommunicatingtheircompetitiveeducationand

training needs. This is confirmed in later sections that highlight the wider problems

surrounding the employer adoption of education and training initiatives supported by

SSCs,yettheiruseofsuccessfulemployerengagementapproaches(alongsideotherpolicy

stakeholders). Despite this, theanalysis (later) reveals that theseapproacheswerenot

withouttheirchallenges,andfurthercontributedtothe inabilitiesofSSCs insecuringor

sustaining long-term commitments in delivering on education and training initiatives

specific to theregion.Allotherpolicystakeholderswerealsocriticalof the inabilitiesof

SSCs in effectively meeting employer needs at the regional level unless they were

supportedbythenationalagenda,againduetoprioritiesindeliveringonwiderpriorities

surroundingtheUK’snationalskillagenda.

“...thenationconsistsoftheregion...we’renotblindtotheregion...we’reveryawareoftheclusterswithintheNW...it’sjustthatwe’reobligedtodealwiththenation...”

(SSC,DirectorofPolicy:11)

90

Despite this, the analysis confirmed an acknowledgement by individuals from SSCs in

understanding the skills shortages facing employers at the regional level. This was

achievedusing large-scale national survey audits and (in) formal industry consultations

involvingwide-rangingpolicystakeholders(e.g.NWUA,SEMTAandtheABPI)(seesection

4.3). Employer engagement at the regional level was thus supported by formalised

employer consultations led by SSCs often in response to the identification of meso-

perspective industry-wide training shortages. The analysis revealed that policy

stakeholders recognisedahighemployerdemand for the servicesof SSCs, although this

employer interestwas viewed as stemming from the training issues and skill shortages

across the region and as a consequence of industry-wide re-structuring. Here policy

stakeholders revealed thatmany businesses faced organisational-wide downsizing. This

stemmedfromthenecessityinfosteringnewR&Dcollaborationsacrossglobalmarkets,in

turnresultingintheidentificationofnewjobrolesandskillandcompetencyframeworks

surroundingR&D.Suchissueswerethusaddressedusingformalemployerconsultations

due to the necessity for long-term employer engagement, in establishing initiatives

surrounding new occupational structures and in alignment with the generation of new

R&DproductionandassociatedhighskillR&Djobroles(Keep&Mayhew,2010a,b).This

sortofemployerengagement issupportedbycommentatorswhootherwisecriticise the

UK’sweakemphasisinestablishingorcreatingnewjobrolesandoccupationalstructures

surroundinghighvalueaddedproductioninessenceconstrainingtheuseofnewskillsand

education and training opportunity (Keep & Mayhew, 2010). SSCs, it seems were thus

aware of the strategic significance of such an employer engagement approach in

supportingthesedevelopments.

“...we’vecomeinwithlabourmarketintelligenceinaprettynewway...couplingeducationandqualifications...thetimelagingeneratingskillsthat’saproblemfortheindustry...we’vespentalotoftimeonthenomenclatureofjobs...differentpeopledescribethemindifferentways...producingacommonlanguageispartoftheproblem...”(SSC,SeniorResearchAdvisor:4)

SSCs, in view of their roles in representing the nation-wide voice of employers,

establishedlong-termemployerengagementstrategies. However,unliketheNorthWest

Regional Development Agency (NWRDA), these strategies were not aligned with the

educationandtrainingneedsofhigh-skillemployersacrosstheregion,althoughlikeSSCs,

theemployerengagementactivitiesofRDAswerealsodependantuponthegovernment’s

macro-perspectiveemphasisinraisingskillattainmentacrossUKlabourmarkets(e.g.The

New Industry, New Jobs Strategy; Leitch, 2006). There was therefore a consensus

amongstpolicystakeholders, that theUK’sNationalSkillsAgenda(Leitch,2006)didnot

supporttheNWRDA’sexpectedregionalapproachinsupportingtheemployerdemandfor

thedevelopmentofhigh-skilllabouracrossthenorthwestregion(Keepetal.2006).Here

91

policystakeholderswereoftheviewRDAsfacedproblemsinconnectingwithindustries

andemployersduetotheweakinstitutionalstructuralsupport(e.g.institutionalnetworks

and associated resources) across the region that supply-side institutions belonging to

prosperousUKhighskillclusterregionsotherwisehadaccessto(Keepetal.2006;Peck&

McGuiness2003;Keep,2002).Thisemployerengagementconstraintacrossthehigh-skill

industries furtherundermined the confidenceand trustof individual employers in their

servicesatlocallevelsintacklingchallengesaroundbusinessandenterpriseactivity,high-

skillemployment,high-skill jobroles, careersandassociateddevelopmentopportunities

(Keepetal.2006).Specifically,theirnorthwestregionlackedthecriticalsocialcapitaland

economic support systems essential in sustaining the institutional network structures

crucial in forging (sector) skill alliances or partnerships between public institutions,

HigherEducation,ResearchCentresofExcellenceandhighskillindustry(Finegold,1999).

Theseconcernsarereverberatedbycommentators(Keepetal.2006;Keep,2002),which

do not provide detailed extended explanations of the underlying reasons behind these

infra-structuralconstraints.Thisevidence isdiscussed in latersectionswhereresponses

tomorefocusedquestionsrevealthatRDAsutilisedtheemployerbusinessnetworksand

forgedbySSCsandNSAs inmobilising the interests if employers in engagingwith their

macro-perspective investment initiatives (e.g. job creation and growth across the SME

sectors). This regional emphasis in driving the regional investment agenda using

employernetworkswassupportedbyinvestmentsfromtheSectorFundingAgency(SFS).

According to the research participants (fromRDAs) this collective approach detailed in

later sections furthersupported theirorganizations toconnectwithskills shortagesand

training issues facing high-skill employers using meso (industry) consultations. This

regional emphasis supported the coordination of industry level consultations with

employers, replacing their previous ad hoc and individual employer engagement. This

latterapproach limitedthe industry-wideexposureofcriticalpolicy leverssupportedby

RDAs,challengingtheproliferationofcriticalpoliciesandinvestmentopportunitiesaimed

atattractingnewbusinessventuresandjobcreation.

“...consultationsatthemomentarequitebroad...cuttingacrosssectorsandthey’llprobablybecomesectorspecificaswedeveloptheregionalskillspolicies...”(NWRDA,HeadofSkills:13)“...we’vestartedtodeveloptheregionalskillsstrategywhichpullstogethereconomicspatialandlocksitinwiththeregionalstrategy...theregionalstrategywillhaveatwentyyearview…withanimplementationplanwhichlooksatafiveyeardeliveryspecificallyaroundtheSFAdelivery...sothat’sthe19plusadultlearneremployer

responsivenessofourkeyprioritysectors...”(NWRDA,HeadofSkills:1)

In spite of these developments, the analysis is consistentwith scholarly arguments that

emphasise the difficulties facing RDAs in engaging employers at the regional level in

92

forgingskillallianceswithdiversestakeholdergroups,sectorsandindustries(Keepetal.

2006;Keep,2002;Peck&McGuiness,2003),althoughherepolicystakeholdersindividuals

indicatedtheemployerengagementchallengespresentedbytheregion,detailedlaterdid

notnecessarilyaffectemployerinterestineducationandtraininginitiativescharacterising

the national skill agenda. These initiatives are discussed within the next section,

supported for example the Higher Level Skills Partnership, the STEM agenda and

apprenticeshiptraining.Policystakeholdersinvolvedinpromotingsuchinitiativesacross

thehighskillindustriesfromtheregionincludedtheNorthWestUniversitiesAssociation

(NWUA),TheOfficeofLifeSciences,SectorSkillsCouncils(SSCs)andBusinessLink(BL).

“...Governmentdrivesourpolicy50:50...theOfficeofLifeSciencesaredrivingourinitiativesandit’salsocomingtheotherwayfromindustry...”(Bionow,BiomedicalSectorsSkillsManager:3)“…there’svariouspeopleoutthereknockingondoors...we’retryingtomakeouractivitiesmorecohesivebyreducingthenumberofknocks...sowe’vegotourbrokersoutthere...andproviderstalkingtobusinessesonaregularbasis…TheNationalApprenticeshipservicethey’realsoknockingondoorsandtryingtoengageon...”(NWRDA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:6)

HoweverasinthecaseofSSCs,RDAsalsoraisedissuewiththeirinabilitiesinestablishing

a collective impetus particularly in involving stakeholderswith stakes in education and

trainingatregionalandlocallevels.Thishamperedtheirabilitiesindevelopinginitiatives

in tackling critical shortages surrounding R&D job roles and competencies, but also in

supporting a policy emphasise in raising the productive use of skill (Keep, 2002).

Commentators allocate importance to this latter point and raise issue with the poor

employer engagement and industry involvement within the UK in fostering workplace

initiatives (e.g. redesigning/re-organising work; job (re)design; occupational

(re)structuring) supporting the productive use of skill (Keep, 2002). Yet, the research

revealed the inabilities ofRDAs in connectingwith suchpolicymeasures, corroborating

existingscholarlydiscussions,whichpointtothelowdiscretionarypowersofUKRDAsin

coordinatingtargetedinvestmentsaroundsuchworkplaceinitiativesfurtherconstraining

long-termindustrygrowthanddevelopment(Keepetal.2006).

Other policy stakeholders involved in the research included: National Skills

Academies, Business Link and strategic policy Government quangos (e.g. North West

UniversitiesAssociationandtheAssociationofBritishPharmaceuticalIndustries).Unlike

SSCs and RDAs, National Skills Academies (NSAs), adopted a regional employer-led

approachinconnectingwithemployershortagesineducationandtrainingacrossthehigh

skillsectorsinquestion.Broadly,thisinvolvedconnectingwithemployerswithinregional

and sub-regional contexts mainly utilising existing contacts and connections with

individualemployers,employernetworksandeducationandtrainingproviders.

93

“…there isahigh levelof lead from industry…when it comes to training…butwhen itcomestoqualifications,itsstillverymuchdrivenbytrainingproviders…”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:21)

Although NSAs also supported the National Skills Agenda, their employer engagement

strategies further provided policy organizations (e.g. SSCs, RDAs) involved in their

activities, access to employers. NSAs sought individual and collective employer

engagement (Coffield, 2007), providing employers access to local high-skill training

opportunities and in forging employer partnerships alongside other policy stakeholder

organizations(e.g.RDAs,SSCs)toestablishlocalandregionaleducationalinitiatives.Akey

responsibilityinvolvedtacklinggrassrootsorganisationaltrainingissuesacrosshigh-skill

workplaces. However industry-wide re-structuring facing their high skill sectors and a

significantdecline in financial employer contributionsand subscriptions,meant that the

futuredeliveryofsuchemployerserviceswerequestionable.NSAswerehoweverbetter

placed in sourcing thedemand forotherwisepopular industry-wide trainingneeds than

RDAsandSSCs.HeretheresearchrevealedthatalthoughNSAsalsoexperiencedproblems

in generating employer interest in their activities specifically around sourcing the

provision of education and training initiatives of significance within local or regional

contexts, this was not to the extent highlighted within existing research arguments.

Reports (NSA, 2009; BIS, 2011:26) examining the effectiveness of NSAs, suggest that

employer engagement is mainly initiated by NSAs largely to enhance their self-

representationonnationalandregional industryboardsand inattracting industry-wide

investments surrounding the education and training initiatives they supported (NSA,

2009; BIS, 2011:26). The evidence here encapsulates the perspectives of wider UK

employersanddoesnotcharacterisesectororindustry-specificperspectives.Theanalysis

however revealed that although employer financial contributionswere important, NSAs

werebetterabletoconnectwiththespecificdemandsofindividualemployersandSMEs

due to the establishment of uniquely specific strategic micro and meso-perspective

employer engagement strategies (e.g. regional advisors and industry and employer

consultations),discussedlater.

“...wehaveanemployerdrivenorganisation...ourBoardismadeupofemployers...ourfundingcomesfromemployers...ifwe’renotdoingwhatemployerswantustodowewouldn’texist...”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:8)

“...ourregionalmanagershaveaprimaryfunctiontoengagewithemployers...theyarefront-linetroupeswhoregularlymeetemployers...carryingoutdualfunctions...gatheringinformationbutalsopassingitbacktotheemployersaswellassellingproductsandservices...companiesincludefromextremelysmallcompaniestoextremelylargeones...”(NSA,SkillsAdvisors:2)

94

Regardless,NSAs too facedproblems around generating employer interest around their

supportingeducationandtraininginitiativesthatcharacterisedtheNationalSkillsAgenda

andwhichnecessitatedpartnershipswithFEandHEinstitutions.Despitethisindividuals

from NSAs were of the view that employers were generally interested in initiatives

supported by their organizations, that were supported by collective consultations

involving individual employers from across the region, employer networks and policy

stakeholders (e.g. transferable education and training initiatives). Such employer

consultationsattractedmultipleemployers,replacingtheirpreviousindividualemployers

engagement strategies and involved various stakeholders including policy stakeholders,

trade unions, regulatory bodies and support organizations and agencies including

BusinessLink (BL).Theseconsultationswereeffective in that they facilitatedemployer-

ledengagementaround theestablishmentofhigh-skill educationand training initiatives

(Keepetal.2006:553),surroundingstandardisedtrainingneedsandmajornationalpolicy

initiatives (e.g. Level 4 NVQs; STEM graduate career progression routes; Business

ImprovementTechniques).Allresearchparticipantsthusacknowledgedtheinvolvement

of NSAs and BL in the employer-led and demand-driven engagement activities

complimenting these approaches in connectingwith often hard-to-reach employers and

theirbusinessnetworksfromacrosstheregion.

However here too the analysis revealed an awareness amongst all policy

stakeholders of the resource constraints facingNSA andBL organizations in supporting

thespecificneedsofemployers(e.g.regionalconnections;financialinvestments;network

connections withmajormulti-national high skill employers) which RDAs and SSCs had

betteraccesstoinlightoftheirstrategicrolesindeliveringontheNationalSkillsAgenda

(e.g.NVQs,apprenticeshiptraining,internships).LikeNSAs,BLorganizationsalsofulfilled

intermediary roles in sourcing specialist technical training, connecting high-skill

employers from across the region with public and private education and training

providers andmajor supply chain employerswith specialist technical training facilities.

Access to such employers was often achieved via SSCs, in light of the low employer

interestandconfidenceintheservicesofBLgenerallyacrosstheregion.Accordingtothe

researchparticipants(e.g.RDAs,SSCs,NWUA,NSAs,BL),employerinterestintheservices

of BL was weak due to the stronger emphasis that BL organizations allocated to

Governmentinitiativesovertacklingtheeducationandtrainingdemandsspecifictotheir

highskillsectors(e.g.technicalstandardisedtraininginitiativescharacterisinghigh-value

added R&D production strategies which commentators associate with industry growth

and prosperity - Keep & Mayhew, 2010). However this viewpoint contrasted with the

views of individuals belonging to BL organizations in their confirmation in addressing

employerspecifictrainingneeds:

95

“…we can’t dictate to employers…we can only discuss with them what they thinktheir issues are and propose solutions…they may say they’ve got issues aboutmanagement…andthenwesaythatwe’vegottodosomethingaboutskillshortagesaffectingteamleadersandsupervisors…”(NSA,SkillsAdvisors:12)

Heretheanalysisrevealsvariouslevelsofacknowledgementamongstpolicystakeholders

of the influence of policy organizations in addressing the education and training needs

surrounding the high-skill employers in question. Regardless individuals from BL

organizations were concerned about their inabilities in fully harnessing the collective

commitment of employers from across the region in their initiatives, unlike SSCs, who

received full Government support in coordinating SSAs and or in promoting otherwise

large-scalenationalprojects.OrganizationssuchasNSAsandBLorganisationswerethus

lefttotheirowndevicesoftenresortingtoaknocking-on-doorscultureinengaginglarger

high-skillemployers,SMEsandsmallbusinesses.

“…we can always engage in consultations…because that’s the process…however ifthey’renotwilling to come to the table…weresort toaknockingondoors culture inorder to bring them to the table…I mean the plant manager qualification we’redevelopingwithSSCs…we’rehappywiththis…we’vegotconsultationfromnearlyfiftyemployersfromtheregion…”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:13)

BothBL,NSAsfoundengagementin(in)formalindustry-specificemployerconsultations

(sub-section4.3.1)coordinatedbyleadingpolicyorganizations(e.g.RDAs,SSCs)usefulin

accessinginformationsurroundingemployersneedsthatfelloutsidetheUKGovernment’s

national remit. Individuals from BL however raised issue with the inabilities of their

organizations in generating sufficient employer interest (e.g weak employer contacts;

employerinterest,trust)surroundingtheiroftenpopularindustry-specificeducationand

training demands across the region unlike SSCs and RDAs who received Government

supportandinvestment.

Theanalysiswithinthissectionsetsthecontextforlaterdiscussionsbyindicating

that the employer engagement activities of policy stakeholderswere constrainedby the

pressuresoftheUK’swidernationalskillsagenda,andtheweakemployerinterestintheir

initiatives.Theseinsightscorroborateexistingscholarlydiscussion(Payne,2008a,b;Keep

etal.2006;Lloyd&Payne,2002),whichprovidevariousoverarchingreasonsbehindthe

employer engagement constraints facing individual policy organisations. The insights

within this section however add context to these arguments, by highlighting the

interdependentapproachadoptedbypolicystakeholdersinengaginghigh-skillemployers

from across the region. The analysis further pinpoints the precise nature of employer

engagementconstraintsfacingpolicystakeholders,detailedinlatersections(e.g.financial;

reputation and social capital across high skill sectors). The analysis confirms existing

argumentssurroundingthecommonlyacknowledgedchallengespresentedbyemployers

in engaging policy organisations (e.g. weak employer confidence trust, commitment in

96

engagingwithnarrowpolicyfocus–Keep&Mayhew2010a,b;Payne,2008a,b).Although

theseinsightssupportanunderstandingoftherelevanceofexistingscholarlyarguments

inconstrainingengagementbetweenpolicystakeholdersandthehigh-skillemployers in

question, the analysis also provides clarity around some unexamined ideas. All

participants for example identified with the pressures of the national context in

constrainingtheirabilities infirstlyadoptingaregionalemphasis inengagingemployers

andsecondlyinmeetingtheemployerneedsforindustry-specifichigh-skilleducationand

training initiatives. Interestingly however the analysis reveals an awareness amongst

policystakeholdersof the importance inraising the“productiveuseofskill” (Keepetal.

2006; Keep, 2002; Green & Sakamoto, 2001:56-89). Commentators highlight this as a

necessaryemployercondition inraising industry-wideperformance,which isdependent

uponemployerengagement inmacroandmeso-perspectivedecision-makingsupporting

theestablishmentof initiativestoimprovethenatureinwhichworkisconducted(work

organisation; job design; occupational restructuring). This point is revisited in later

sections (section 4.3) where the analysis provides context around the nature of

subsequentengagementbetweenpolicystakeholdersandemployers.Withinthissection

however, policy stakeholders further reveal a regional employer engagement emphasis

using (in) formal consultations established via existing meso industry-wide networks

specifically to connect with the employer challenges around high-skill shortages. Some

policystakeholdersoverothers(e.g.NSAsunlikeBL)revealedemployer-ledanddemand-

driven regional strategies in connecting with the demand for education and training

supporting high skill R&D job roles,mainly due to connections forged by their regional

advisors with individual high-skill employers, their supporting industry-wide business

networks from across their industry supply chains located across the region. The

underlying drivers and barriers characterising this meso (industry) network feature in

supporting employer engagement is discussed in section 4.3., while the analysis next

highlightsthevariouseducationandtraininginitiativesfacilitatedpolicystakeholdersasa

consequenceoftheiremployerengagementefforts.

4.2 Education & training initiatives supported by policystakeholders

Thus far, the insights reveal that policy stakeholderswere acutely aware of the

influenceofthenationalskillsagendainconstrainingtheiremployerengagementefforts.

Policy stakeholders however also confirmed an affiliation with the new Government

emphasisinsupportingemployer-ledanddemand-drivenengagement(Keepetal.2006),

althoughrecognisedvoluntaryemployerengagementwithintheUKasakeyconstraint.

97

“…intermsoftheSkillsAgenda,Leitchisquiteprevalentinourroadmapinensuringthat industry provision is demand-led rather than supply-led…Leitch is reflected inour Higher Level Skills provisions…we are informed by Government strategies andpolicies like the Higher Ambitions, Skills for Growth…the Life Sciences blueprint…New Industry New Jobs…and others…we are very aware of Governmentpolicies…andliketoensurethatwearealigningourselveswiththosepolicies…”

(NWRDA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:6)“…wedefinitely believe in employerdemand-ledprovisionas opposed to supply-ledand always strive for that…we are pleasantly surprisedwith the provisionwe aredevelopingas there iscertainlyanappetite for it…althoughemployercontributiontotheskillspolicyprocessisvoluntaryandconsideredasin-kindcontribution…”(NWUA,SeniorPolicyAdvisor:17)

The analysis next provides a lens into the employer engagement activities of policy

stakeholders, and amuch-required comprehensive overviewof the types education and

training initiatives supported by policy stakeholders (Lloyd, 2002). The initiatives

discussed are of specific relevance across the pharmaceutical, bioscience and

biotechnologysectorsandacknowledge Irwin’s (2008:67)contextualisationofemployer

engagement, presented in chapter one (page 21). The analysis reveals that policy

stakeholderssupportedinitiativessurroundinggenericandtransferableskillshortages,in

meeting employer needs for standardised training initiatives and in addressing skills

shortages specific to high-skill SMEs and small businesses. Anoverviewof the types of

skillsshortages influencingemployers fromtheregionandtheassociatededucationand

training initiatives facilitated by policy stakeholders is presented in Appendix IX. The

analysisnextfurtherdistinguishesbetweentheemployerneedsforeducationandtraining

which fall under the UK’s national skills agenda, which characterise industry-wide or

specific training demand or which characterise the needs of employers specific to the

micro (organisational) perspective (Keep et al. 2006). During interviewing however,

policy stakeholders emphasised their strategic organisational priorities in aligning their

employerengagementwiththeUK’smacro-perspectiveNationalSkillAgenda.Thismeant

a priority emphasis in developing such initiatives, although the analysis also confirms a

growing interest in addressing skills shortages characterising the high skill occupations

and an awareness, yetweak emphasis in fosteringworkplace initiatives to enhance the

“productiveuseofskill”(Keep,2002;Green&Sakamoto,2001:56-89).

The education and training initiatives discussed next were being addressed by

policystakeholdersduringtheresearchandwereinconsultationstagesofestablishment

in accordance with the employer needs in improving existing skills (re-skilling) or in

accordancewithnewskillandbehaviours(up-skilling)(Irwin’s(2008).Arangeofmacro-

perspective and industry-specific initiatives were established as work-based learning

systems and accredited training surrounding newly realised job competencies and

professional behaviours (Irwin, 2008). The analysis next also addresses the employer

98

engagement challenges facingpolicy stakeholders in their experiences in facilitating the

identification, development and/or employer adoption of these initiatives decisions

surrounding which were mainly addressed during industry consultations (mainly

facilitatedbySSCsorRDAs).AppendixIXpresentsasummarybreakdowndrawnfromthe

analysis,of theskillshortages influencinghigh-skillemployersacrosstheregionandthe

initiativesestablishedbypolicystakeholders,discussednext.

4.2.1 Education & training initiatives supporting low andintermediate-leveloccupations

Policy stakeholders addressed various education and training initiatives

influencing low and intermediate occupations of relevance to the high-skill sectors in

question.Theseincludedinitiativessurrounding:basicskillshortages,VETqualifications,

standardised training and business and management qualifications (NVQs) supporting

intermediate-levelmanagement roles. All policy stakeholders confirmed their collective

involvementinsupportingtheemployeradoptionoftheseinitiativesacrosstheregion.

The interviews here revealed interesting reflections about the employer

engagement experiences of policy stakeholders (e.g. RDAs, SSCs, BL, NSAs) during

employer consultations in identifying the need for the development of education and

traininginitiativesandthechallengesinfluencingindustryoremployeradoption.Ineffect

according to SSCs and RDAs consultations were ‘sufficiently represented’ by high-skill

employers from large pharma and SMEs and small businesses from the bioscience and

biotechnology sectors. ‘Sufficient representation’ heremeant the presence of one large

high-skillemployerandaminimumoffiveSMEsalongsidekeystakeholdersrepresenting

the high-skill workforce (e.g. unions, employee representatives). According to policy

stakeholders,largehigh-skillemployersandlargeSMEs(e.g.pharmaceuticals)supporting

mainlyR&Dproductionstrategiesfromtheregionandsupportingsupplychainemployers

(e.g.medicinalpackaging)weregenerallyreluctantinacknowledgingissuesaroundbasic

skillsshortages.Accordingtopolicystakeholders, thisstemmedfroma lackofemployer

interestandindustry-wideculturesreluctantinacknowledgingstaffexperiencesofbasic

skill shortages and the need for education and training initiatives. Here policy

stakeholders indicated a reluctance amongst staff in seeking support for problems

associatedwithbasic skills,questioning the supportavailable to staff further suggesting

theneed for a heightened greater employer awareness across their high-skill sectors of

theimplicationsofsuchskillsshortages.

“...sometimesthiscanbeanemotivesubjectforemployeeswhohaveperhapsworkedforthecompanyforyearsandhavebeenidentifiedfortrainingthattheyshouldhavefulfilled...”(SSC,DirectorofPolicy:8)

99

Basic literacy and numeric skill shortages influencing low and semi-skilled labour often

went unnoticed, as did skills shortages surrounding anunderstanding of basic statistics

andadvancedmathematics,whichwereessential for staffworkingwithin intermediate-

level management or technical laboratory assistant roles. A key development in

addressing basic skill shortages during the research was the collective impetus

establishedbystakeholders(e.g.SSCs,NSAs,BL)indevelopinganintegratedqualification

intheformofaNVQlevel3Goldstandard.Thisqualificationstandardwasestablishedin

partnershipwith employers and supported career progression routes between low and

intermediate-leveljobroles.Thequalificationwasinadoptionstagesduringtheresearch

andwasinitiatedandestablishedbySSCsinconsultationwithpolicyorganizations,trade

unions, NSAs and high-skill employers supporting manufacturing and R&D production

from across the pharma supply chain. Established in alignment with UK Government’s

National Skill Agenda and industry needs, The Gold Standard supports the range of

vocationalandknowledgeskill,behavioursandcompetenciescommensurateofNVQlevel

3qualifications.

“…we’re in the process of developing our Gold Standard for process technicianroles…level 3 NVQs and also graduate-level Gold Standards for the Graduate plantmanagerrole…”(SSC,PolicyAdvisor:1)

The standard accounts for the development of basic skills, vocational and technical

expertiseandqualificationandprogression into intermediate-levelprocessmanagement

roles. Basic skill elements addressed by the standard include: communication,

mathematicalandwritingskills.

“…if you look at the maths that’s involved with the levels 3 NVQ process operatorrole…our employerswant this level ofmathswhich is part of the process technicianqualification and competency…because its needed for weighing out and quantifyingproducts…its fundamental in recording data…for a process operator communicationandwriting skillsarealso important,beingable to follow instructionsaccording thecomplexprocessesinvolved…”(SEMTA,SkillsPolicyAdvisor:7)

These basic skill pre-requisites supported the low-skill process technician or operator

roles although policy stakeholders here raised concerns that the full suite of UK-based

functional skill levels andminimum educational standards (QCA, 2007 – Level 1& 2 of

English, mathematics, communications & ICT) were not addressed. The Cogent

FoundationDegreeisanotherexampleofaninitiative,initiatedbySSCsandestablishedin

consultation with multiple stakeholders including employers. The much in demand

qualificationfacilitatedthepreviouslyunacknowledgedcareerprogressionroutesforthe

low-skill technician role, accommodating progression in pre-requisite NVQ Level 2

educationalandvocationalskillandcompetencyelements.Theinitiativewasestablished

to alleviate the exploitation of graduate employment within low-level technician roles,

enabling employers to reserve these roles as employment opportunities for low-skill

100

technicianjobrolescharacterisinglower-levelNVQattainment.Policystakeholders(SSCs,

NSAs) here recognised that separate policies were required in facilitating the career

development and progression of graduate scientists and apprenticeship progression

routes. Separate initiatives supporting low and intermediate-level laboratory technician

rolesforSTEMgraduateswerethusbeingestablishedduringtheresearchinaccordance

withthedemandexpressedbyemployers.

“...formanufacturingpharmaindustries...toworkinlaboratoriesit’snotessentialtohavedegrees…however,withinacoupleofyearsofbeinginthoseposts...tolookforprogressiontothenextstageisdifficult...that’swheretheacademyisfullysupportiveofCogent’sFoundationDegree…indevelopingcareerprogressionroutes...”(NSA,SkillsAdvisor:5)“...technicianslotsarenowfilledwithdiscontentedgraduates...they’retoldatuniversitythatthey’reexcellent...theygointoindustry...theygetweigheddownwiththetechnician’sjob...Buttheirexpectationsarehigher...sowhenyoudumptheminalab...theyfindoutthateffectivelythatthey’redoingrepetitiveworkandnotadvancingasfastasperhapsthey’dbeenledtobelieve...theyleave...”(SEMTA,HEDevelopmentManager:12)

Allpolicystakeholdersinvolvedintheresearchrecognisedthegrowingemployerdemand

across pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors for the need formanagement training

initiativessurroundingintermediary-leveltechnicianroles.

“…employersarenowadoptingdistancelearning…we’vejustlaunchedaqualification,asafetyqualification,aimedatlevel2,level3formiddlemanagers…”(SSC,SkillsPolicyAdvisor:8)

Herepolicystakeholdersprovidedvariousexamplesofsuch initiativesemphasising that

theirhighdemandacrosstheregionwasevidencedinthehighemployerpresenceduring

consultationsaimedataddressingindustry-wideskillshortages.Oneexampleofthisisthe

establishmentofaprogressionqualificationorawardinresponsetothegrowingdemand

forthealreadyhighlightednewprocessoperatorrolesemployedwithinsterilepackaging

work environments. Industry consultations further supported the establishment of

standardised and regulated training, associated qualifications and career trajectory

pathways characterising the newly established intermediary-level laboratory technician

role employed within pharmaceutical laboratories. Moreover collective formalised

employer consultations led to theestablishmentofpartnershiparrangementswith local

FEandHEprovidersindeliveringonthegrowingemployerdemandfornewbusinessand

management improvementtechniques(BITs)acrosstheregion.This latter initiativewas

necessary in line with the industry-wide adoption of business cost efficiencies. BITs

programmesacrossthehigh-skillsectorswereessentialinsupportingintermediate-level

managementcompetenciessurroundingprocessmanufacturing,technicalproductionand

R&D capabilities. These programmes included: lean manufacturing and continuous

101

improvementqualitymanagementtechniques(e.g.TQM;Kaizen;SixSigma)andwerealso

muchindemandacrossthemicro-SMEsectors.Accordingtopolicyindividuals(i.e.RDAs,

SSCs), larger employers and some large andmedium-sized SMEs howeverwere able to

support thecriticaldemand forBITS trainingusing their inhouseexpertise (trainedSix

Sigmablackandgreenbelts),althoughthiswasnotaconsistenttrendacrosstheregion.

“...oursectorisbiotechnology,pharmaceutical,medicaldeviceandhealthcareandthere’slotsofmanufacturingwithinthese...soweneedtogetNVQsandBITsentrenchedinthese...itisifyou’rerunningabiotechnologyteamorifyou’rerunningchemicalorbiologicalprocesses...you’llneedawholesetofdifferentskills...skillsaroundprocesscontrol...”(BioNow,BiomedicalSectorSkillsManager:9)“…probablyoneofthebiggestthingsthislastyearhasbeenthebusinessimprovementskillsandtheiruseinprocessesusinginitiativeslikeSixSigmaandleantechnologiesintermsofbuildingtheseintotheprocessoperatorqualifications…”(SSCs,PolicyAdvisor:7)Nevertheless, and although an expensive option, policy stakeholders (e.g. SSCs,

NSAs),alsoadoptedintermediaryroles inconnectingSMEsfacingdifficulties insourcing

suitable and convenient BITS training programmes,with private training providers and

larger employers supporting established training facilities. However these connections

wereforgedbetweenemployersinanadhocmannerusingexistingcontacts,anapproach

whichwasunsuitableinestablishinginitiativesparticularlyaroundstandardisedformsof

regulatedtraining.Standardisedtraininganditsregulationsurroundingintermediaryand

low-skill laboratory technicianroleswerealso incriticaldemandparticularlyacross the

bioscience and biotechnology sectors (e.g. low-skill technical machine operator

manufacturing roles (e.g. packaging of biological solutions) and the intermediary-level

laboratorytechnicianworkingwithinscientificR&Dlaboratoryassistantroles).

“…we are in the process of developing a packaging qualification…because there’s ademand for it in line with product development…and also in line with this we’llprobably end up developing a process operator role working within sterile/asepticenvironments,apackagingqualification…sothere’sademandforthis…”(SSC,ProcessPlantManager:7)

Here policy stakeholders (i.e. SSCs, NSAs) were involved in upgrading and updating

existingtrainingregulationandstandardsassociatedwiththerangeofhealthandsafety,

equipmentoperationalandmaterialhandlingcompetencies,particularlyrequiredofstaff

workingacrosssuchintermediarytechnicianandprocessoperatorjobroles.Thisactivity

was led by policy stakeholders (SSCs, NSAs) using employer consultations and

partnershipsinvolvingsector-specificregulators,staffandemployerrepresentativesinre-

evaluating existing standards and protocols and in establishing new measures in

alignment with the new R&D capabilities across the region. The research thus found a

heightened awareness amongst policy stakeholders in engaging the micro-SMEs,

businesses, organizations thatprovided the regionwith lucrative competitiveadvantage

102

duetotheirnicheinnovationsaroundbioscienceandbiotechnologies.Engagementthese

businesseswasessentialduetoresourceconstraintsinupdatingpoliciesandprocedures

surroundingregulatedtraining(e.g.time,staffexpertise,finance).

“…they’re very different from the large pharmaceuticals and biosciences, who haveseparate staff to perform these responsibilities…SMEswithin these sectors deal withcosts in dealing with these issues whereas larger organizations have projectmanagers...lots of money to throw at big projects on such issues…SMEs struggle inunderstanding what’s available to them…how to link in with supply…knowledgetransfer partnerships around addressing skills shortages are not known tothem…which is why Government funding is needed in this area…”(SSC, ProductDevelopmentManager:4)

4 .2.2 Education & training initiatives supporting high skill

occupations

Initiatives supporting the development of new or improvements in existing

educationand trainingneeds surroundinghigh skill occupationswere establishedusing

variousemployerengagementstrategies.

One such engagement strategy included involvementwith theNorthwestHigher

LevelSkillspartnership(www.nwua.ac.uk/HLSP/aboutHLSP/Default.aspx)which,during

theresearchwasthemainroutethroughwhichpolicystakeholdersaddressedchallenges

surroundingeducationandtraininginfluencingthehighskilloccupations.ThisHLSPwas

establishedbytheHigherEducationFundingCouncil forEngland, ledbytheNorthWest

Universities Association (NWUA), while supporting initiatives were facilitated in

collaboration with the various policy stakeholders also involved in this research (e.g.

NSAs,BL,SSCs-SMETA). Ineffect,policystakeholdersacknowledgedthesignificanceof

The North West HLSP in supporting employer-led provision of education and training

commensurate of Level 4 and above achievement across sectors including thehigh skill

industries(e.g.biomedicalsector).TheprojectranbetweenJuly,2008and31stofMarch

2011, with employer-led engagement in the form of employer partnerships a key

determinant of its success. Here the analysis revealed that policy stakeholders (mainly

SSCs, NSAs), faced challenges in engaging employersmainly due to issues aroundweak

employerconfidenceandtrustintheeffectivenessandrelevanceofrelatedinitiativesand

theweak available funding in theirworkplace adoption. These tensionswere however

somewhat alleviated via the employer consultations established specifically to raise

employer interest across the region around their macro-perspective national strategies

aimed at addressing the consistent problems around graduate recruitment and

development. Amongst the problems addressed were: generally high unemployment

amongst science graduates, low employment of science graduates scientific discipline

roles and often their weak recruitment shortages in non-discipline specific or less

103

qualifiedtechnicianroles.Theseconsultations,initiallyestablishedtoaddressnationalor

industry-specific problems surrounding STEM recruitment, were also effective in

generating employer interest in the industry-level adoption of macro-perspective

initiatives. Examples include: graduate apprenticeship schemes supporting scientific

laboratoryrolesofrelevancetothepharmaceutical,bioscienceandbiotechnologysectors,

althoughhereemployerinterestanduptakewasanissue. Otherdevelopmentsincluded

theformaladoptionofgraduatecareerdevelopmentpathwaysandR&Dcareerpathways

for postgraduates working across scientific R&D roles. Specific skill shortages around

graduate-leveladvancedmathematicswererecurringproblems.

“...insciencewehavenohistoryofapprenticeships...everybodyseemstothinkthatthisisveryelitist...inmyopinionanybodythatgetsafirstdegree...thenthat’stheirapprenticeship...”(SEMTA,HEDevelopmentManager:7)

“...gapshavebeenidentifiedforR&Dinanalyticalphysicalchemistryandbio-scientificmolecularbiology...interestinglyenoughin-vivoskillshaven’tbeenaddressed...whichisaneyebrowraiserandthereareissuesaroundtheexvivostuff...beingabletohandleblood...”(NWUA,BiomedicalSpecialistSkillsAdvisor:10)“…themostcommonlyrepeatedissueisaroundmathematicalskillsamongstthegraduatepopulation…becausemostoftheworkwithinR&Drequiresthedesignofexperimentsandstatisticalanalysis,contributingtoanunderstandingofproducingproducts…”(SSCs,SEMTA,Specialistscienceadvisor:8)“we are focusing on the apprenticeship programme, in creating and funding newpositions…we’verunanapprenticeshiproadshow…thefundingisthere…forlargeandsmallemployers…itsbasicallyaboutknockingondoors…”(SSC,PolicyAdvisor,6)

Otherinitiativesforwhichtherewasahighemployerdemandincluded:internship

programmes, high-skill management level NVQs (Level 4) and Continuous Professional

Development programmes. Here however policy stakeholders revealed challenges

surrounding their own capabilities in supporting the employer adoption of these

initiatives.Colleagues(e.g.SSCS,NSAs,BL)wereawareofthebenefitsthatplacementsand

internships presented for undergraduate students (e.g. vocational experience; potential

route into employment) and employers (e.g. low cost and short term project support;

reputation).Yetthisawarenesswasoflittlesignificanceinlightofconsistentproblemsin

accessing information on the various funding mechanisms supporting the necessary

industry-wideadoptionoftheseinitiatives(BIS,2011;Long,2009;DIUS,2009).However,

access to such funding was necessary in light of the low existing employer confidence

acrosstheregionintheHLSPinitiative,yetaclearawarenessamongstpolicystakeholders

of the£1million investment supportedbyHEFCEaimedatgraduate internshipsand the

following £12 million investment allocation to 57 UK HEIs supporting their adoption

across priority sectors (including high-skill SME sectors). Policy stakeholders thus

104

expressedconcernsregarding thepoor involvementof theirorganizations insupporting

their industry-wide adoption, particularly in advising employers and mediating their

supportaroundeffectivelyutilising these investmentopportunities.Theanalysis reveals

that this was a particular issue for policy individuals with strategic leadership

responsibilitiesinsupportingengagementandcollaborationsbetweenemployersandHE

institutions(e.g.RDAsSSCs)addressingissuesaroundtherecruitment,developmentand

establishment of educational and training initiatives surrounding high-skill labour.

Despitetheirbestefforts,infacilitatingengagementbetweenhighskillemployersandHE

institutions in the adoption of such initiatives, their reservations of slow or weak

employeruptakeacrosstheregion formost initiativesremained. Ineffect theemployer

engagement efforts of policy stakeholders were often overshadowed by the weak

employerinterest,particularlyacrossthelargenumbersofSMEsfromacrosstheregion,

whoweregenerallydisinterestedintheirefforts.

“...BigPharmaofferplacementsforthethirdyearstudents...thebigplayersoffereightmonths’placements…it’saproperplacementwhereaswithasandwichdegree,it’sjustinbitsandpieces...butintermsofinternships,graduatesorpre-graduatesgettinginthereit’svirtuallyimpossible..”(BioNow,BiomedicalSectorSkillsAdvisor:10)

“...we’redesperatelytryingtofindextramechanismsthat’llallowmoretakeupsothatthirdyearstudentscanhaveayearinindustry...youcantalktothelecturers,tostudentsandcompanies...andI’vespokentoallinthelast4to5yearsandeverybodywantsit...”(SEMTA,HEDevelopmentManager:8)

Similarproblemswereexperiencedinthelowemployerinterestandslowuptakeacross

the SME sectors in establishing the growing demand for various types of standardised

management-level competencies. Examples of such initiatives include: continuous

professional development programmes aimed at senior management and level 4

qualifications characterising middle management competencies underpinning scientific

R&D and laboratory-based pharmaceutical and bioscience production environments.

Developmentsofrelevanceacrossthelargeandmedium-sizedSMEsectorsincluded:bite-

sized training modules aimed at middle-management and essential in sustaining R&D

production surrounding the growing demand for advanced biotechnologies in light of the

growing interest across the emerging Bio markets. Here policy stakeholders revealed plans

in establishing continuous professional development programmes in partnership with HE

institutions for middle-management positions for which there was a growing demand

particularly across large and medium-sized SMEs.Priorexperienceofpolicystakeholders

revealed that despite the high demand for suchmanagement initiatives, HE institutions

were not effectively tapping into such markets. Similar engagement challenges were

experiencedwithregardstoLevel4NVQqualificationssupportingthedevelopmentand

career progression of management-level graduate competencies for STEM discipline

105

technical roles. Similar issues influenced the need for advanced management

competencies in supporting individuals with existing intermediate-level qualifications

workingacrossbiotechnologymanufacturingenvironmentsandwithcareeraspirationsof

movingintoseniormanagementpositions.

“...CPDisnotsomethingwhichIfindinworkingwithuniversitiesthatthey’re(SEMTA,HEDevelopmentManager:15)“...NVQslevel5...thereneedstobemoreawarenessthere…theonlywayforexample...agraduatechemistcangetontotheanalyticalchemistregisteristodothatNVQ...becauseit’snotjustaboutwhatyoudidatcollegeoruniversity...it’sabouttheskillsyoulearnthroughapplyingwithintheworkplace...andsomeofthevocationalqualificationsathigherlevelarenotused...they’reallgoodqualifications...”(NSA,SkillsAdvisor:16)

Herepolicystakeholdersfurtherpointedtodifficultiesexperiencedbytheirorganizations

and staff in fully committing to ensuring the industry-wide adoption of such initiatives

partlyduetoemployerchallenges.Policystakeholders(fromSSCs)forexampleidentified

with the challenges raised in earlier studies (Acutt et al, 2006; Miller et al, 2002)

surrounding theweak employer interest inNVQs. Policy stakeholders (SSCs, NSAs here

were also aware of the issues that employers raised regarding the suitability of NVQ

qualificationsforhigh-skillstaffandworkingenvironments,andalsoquestionedwhether

staffwerelikelytoallocatevaluetothesequalifications:

“...individualsmightnotseethevalueofdoingNVQsfortheirowncareer...insomeaspectsitsintellectualsnobbery...they’renotseenasvalidasqualifications...it’spartofthehistoryofNVQs.Someintheearlyninetiesweremodifiedandstillhaveasteadyturnover...andtherearestillagroupofcompaniesthatvalueandusethem...andthesearecompanieswithgoodreputations...(NSA,SkillsAdvisor:16)“…Idon’tthinkthatemployersarewellinformedaboutNVQqualifications…theydon’tunderstandthecomplexitiessurroundingtheneedforreforms…thestructuresaroundthe qualification are too complicated for them… they don’t understand the differentvarietyofqualifications…”“…the reasons behind the qualifications reform…towards bite-sized, credit-basedlearning which hasn’t come in nationally yet…so to pick up learning as you goalong…buttheissuewithemployersisalsothefundingaspect…willitbefunded?”(SSC,ProductDevelopmentManager:4)

Prior experience of policy stakeholders also revealed that these views were not

representativeofallhigh-skillemployersfromtheregion,althoughemployersfacedmajor

obstacles around the costs associated with the organisational-wide adoption of NVQs,

their coordination andmanagementwithin employing organisations and staff time and

commitment required in achieving these qualifications (Sadler et al, 2010; Kirkup et al.

2010;Ryanetal.2006,Fallows&Weller,2003).Policystakeholders(SSCs,NSAs,BL)thus

suggested the need for industry-wide employer awareness regarding the value added

benefitsofNVQsinsupportingthedevelopmentofpracticalandtechnicallaboratoryskills

106

that graduatesworkingwithin high skill technical roles lacked. In stark contrast to the

historicallylowemployervalueallocatedtoNVQs,theemployerengagementexperiences

of policy stakeholders here suggested that high-skill employers alternatively

acknowledged the benefits of NVQs particularly in developing management-level

competencies. These viewpoints contrast with Lloyd’s (2002) study that suggests that

high-skillemployersallocatealowvaluetoaccreditedqualificationsandNVQsintraining

management.

4.2.3SupportingGenericandtransferableskill shortages

Policy stakeholders generally utilised the terms “generic’ and “transferable skills”

interchangeably during interviews,while somewere unaware of these terms (e.g. SSCs,

NSAs).

“…genericskills?...whenyousaygenericskills…”(SSCs,ProcessPlantManager:7)

“can you please explain…we do business improvement and also basically functionalbehavioural skills, management skills, we engage with college provision deliveringcourses toaddress therequirementsof science-basedanalytical skills,but they’renotavailable everywhere...a big eye opener for me was that here are no local collegesdelivering these skills…there isn’t local provision for specific skill types for plantoperatorsroles…”(SSCs,ProcessPlantManager:7)

Theanalysishoweverrevealsconsensusamongstpolicystakeholdersaroundvariousand

distinctive types of transferable skill shortages across the region necessitating the

development of a vocational training qualifications around technical process and plant

operatorsrolestheprovisionofwhichwasnotsupportedbytheregion.

“…I’ve specifically been involved in the plant operatormanagement role…which hastransferable skills elements incorporated into it…everything form the businessperspective, relationship management, practical technical skills, although these arelikely to be learnt in the work environment… scientific literacy is essential inunderstanding product development and basic literacy and scientific numeracy…ITskills is incorporated in terms of abilities around planning and forecasting whilstanalyticalbioscienceskillsareviewedascoretechnicalskills…”(NSAs,BusinessDevelopmentManager:13)

Theuse of e-learning approacheswashowever viewed as an alternative solution to the

problems surrounding weak regional provision of related qualifications, whilst the

problemofalackoftechnicaltrainingfacilitiesremained:

“…e-learningisanotherwayofprovidingaccesstolearningthatemployersotherwisewouldnotreleasestafftoorforwhichthereisnolocalaccess…there’sahypearoundthismethod…Iknowthatthenuclearindustryusesitandsodoprocessindustries…thepolymerssectors…”(SSC,ProductDevelopmentManager:4)

107

Policyindividuals(e.g.RDAs,SSCs,NSAs)furtherindicatedthathigh-skillemployerswere

aware of various types of transferable skill shortages, although also pointed to a weak

employer commitment and interest in investing in their development,which ultimately

becameapparentduringemployerconsultationsheldaspartoftheiradvisoryroles.

“…theadvisoryboards…theresearchskillscouncils…theNSAsfortheprocessindustryhad two day meetings…where everyone form the sector, employers included wereinvitedandkeytransferableskillsissueswerediscussed…”(SSC,PolicyAdvisor:8)

This weak employer commitment was further evidenced in the infrequent employer

attendanceandinvolvementinconsultationsaroundtheidentificationoftransferableskill

shortages and development of related initiatives. Policy stakeholders (e.g. SSCs, NSAs,)

also faced difficulties inmobilising employer interest around establishing policies or in

sourcing initiatives in response to transferable skill shortages. Further difficultieswere

experiencedbypolicystakeholdersincommittingtotheestablishmentofinitiativesdueto

challengesoutwiththeircontrol.Forexample,alackofregionalprovisioncontributedto

problems in establishing solutions around technical and practical skill shortages

underpinningthelow-skilltechnicianjobrole.Persistentdifficultiessurroundingthelack

of HE engagement and employer-led consultations in addressing critical challenges

surrounding ineffective laboratory training facilities, study programmes and modules

further meant regional shortages in graduate-level technical and practical skills. This

problem of graduate-level transferable skill shortages across high skill sectors was

howeverfurtherattributedtotheweakinterestinindustryinternshipsacrosstheregion.

“…practicalskillsareprobablythesinglebiggestissuewegottocontendwith…becauseofmoney constraints a lot of courses have reduced their practicalwork and rely ondemonstrations…ofcoursesomeuniversitieswillbebetterthatothers…”

(SEMTAHigherEducationpolicyAdvisor:6)

The reasons provided by policy stakeholders justifying their inability in coordinating

initiatives around raising transferable skill attainment across the regionwere similar to

those highlighted within STEM Review reports and studies (Kirkup et al. 2010; Smith,

2007; Warry, 2006). These existing insights point to the necessity for employer-led

engagement and consultation between HE institutions and industry employers in

establishingSTEMstudyprogrammes,studentplacement,workprogrammeandgraduate

employmentopportunities. Policystakeholders(e.g.SSCsNSAs)hereviewedtheirroles

asintermediariesinconnectingtheemployerdemandfortransferableskillsofrelevance

to graduate and postgraduate-level employment with the collaborative initiatives

established by their policy organizations (e.g. ABPI, RDA, SSCs) involving theHE sector

(i.e.NWUA). Employerconsultationsrevealed thatoftenemployerswerenotawareof

suchengagementasapotentialrouteinaddressingtransferableskillshortages,whilstHE

108

institutionswhere not fully aware of the significance of transferable skill for graduates

seeking employmentwithin STEM disciplines. This combined lack of awareness further

hamperedtheeffortsoftheirpolicyorganizationsinmediatingemployer-ledengagement

in any developments that they coordinated across the high skill region. The analysis

however revealed an example of a successful partnership initiative coordinated and

launched by the North West Universities Association, which involved employer

consultation and engagement with various policy organisations (RDAs, SSCS, NSAs),

leading to the establishment of transferable skills module for graduate-level study

relevantacrossSTEMandscienceHEdisciplinesandinitiativessurroundingpostgraduate

researchers.

“…theuniversities ofX, YandZ (anonymous)aredeveloping twoprojects toaddressthisvery issuearoundtransferableskills…oneproject is lookingatgraduates in theirfirst year of employment…and the second is looking at the Continuous ProfessionalDevelopment ofmature researchers workingwithin companies whowish to developtheir skills further. Another university is also looking at transferable skills for afoundation degree for the bio-processing industry around apprenticeshipdevelopment…”“…I mean its fantastic that the Roberts Funds supports transferable skills for postdoctoral researchers…although I don’t think that there are policies or initiativesaddressingthisneedacrossthesesectors…”(NWRDA,HeadofSkillspolicy:9)

These consultations addressed the module development and establishment stages,

drawingontheexperiencesofvariousstakeholdersincluding:skillagencies,majorHEand

highskill employers from the region,onlyone localHE institutioneventually supported

adoption of the module. Further measures were anticipated in establishing initiatives

surrounding transferable management-level competencies supporting the experienced

scientistworkingwithinR&Djobroles.Thesewerenewlyemergingskillsets(e.g.project

management skills; advanced statistics) ultimately re-conceptualised the meaning of

transferable skill for their high skill sectors, and were identified in response to the

growingdemand for internationalR&Dcollaborations forgedby largepharmaand large

andmedium-sizedSMEsbelongingtothepharmaceuticalandbiosciencesectors.

“…we need more than just lab skill…so its entrepreneurship skills, businessskills…runningandsettingupyourownbusiness…softermanagementskillsandthat’sgoingtobedeliveredfromnotjustfromuniversities…butwearegoingtosendpeopleouttotheregions…”(BioNow,SectorSkillsManager:14)“…ofinterestareSMEs…spinouts…whereyouhaveacademics…soyou’vegotPhDs…andthey’re off on some stem cell thing…really up market…so they need entrepreneurialsupport…sotheystartateamaroundpeoplerecognisingthattheyneeddifferentskillsets than themselves which include leadership and management, working withinteams, so its networking, managing creativity and entrepreneurial skills…its whatspecialistgroupsrequire…”(NWRDA,HeadofSkillspolicy:9)

109

According to policy stakeholders, this position of unmet employer demand and low

employerengagementwasnotdue to improveascuts in theGovernment’sallocationof

researchfundingtotheHEsectorwereduetolimittheveryresources(e.g.teachingstaff;

laboratoryfacilities)requiredinraisinggraduateandpostgraduate-leveltransferableskill

attainmentacrosstheirscientificdisciplines.

Addressingtheproblemofweakemployerengagement

Theinsightsaboverevealaconsensusamongstpolicystakeholdersintheiracute

awarenessoftheeducationandtrainingneedsinfluencingthepharmaceutical,bioscience

andbiotechnologysectorsfromtheregion.However,allviewedattributedtheproblemof

weak employer engagementwith their consultations to their inabilities in tackling skill

shortagesacrosstherangeoflow,intermediate,high-leveloccupations.Inresponsepolicy

stakeholders presented various solutions to address the recurring problem facing their

organizationssurroundingweak,inconsistentorlackofemployerengagementacrossthe

region.Onesolutionwastherecognitionof theneedtoestablishbettercommunications

across the region, specifically around raising employer awareness of the presence and

purposeoftheirorganisationsinsupportingemployer-ledanddemand-driveneducation

and training (Keep et al. 2006). According to policy stakeholders, employerswere fully

awareoftheirskillshortagesandtheassociatededucationandtraininginitiativesthatthis

necessitated,althoughwerenotinterestedinformallycommittingtoactioninestablishing

initiatives in partnership with policy stakeholders. This meant the need on the part of

policystakeholders inraising theprofileof their initiativesacross theregion(e.g.better

advertising the proceedings and outcomes of employer or industry-level consultations;

advertising outcomes of case studies evidencing adoption of initiatives). Policy

stakeholders further attributed theweak employer engagementwith their initiatives or

consultations to a poor employer confidence across the region in their support services

around establishing or adopting training provision. Here the analysis revealed an

awareness amongst policy stakeholders of the ineffectiveness of their services in

addressing theeconomicconstraints facing thehigh-skill sectors, in instanceswhere the

industry-wide adoption of education and training was necessary. The establishment of

formalised consultations specifically focusing on economic resources supporting the

employer access to national, industry or sector-specific (e.g. SMEs) investment

opportunitieswasapotential solution to thisproblem.Here,policy stakeholders (RDAs,

SSCs) acknowledged their own shortfalls in providing employers with guidance and

supportinaccessinginformationonavailablelocaleconomicresources(e.g.funding)and

the types of education and training initiatives that these resources supported. This

shortfall in service was attributed to the lack of expertise of their organizations in

110

identifying and accessing the economic support on offer for national education and

training initiatives (e.g. apprenticeships) and regional business opportunities (e.g.

investment opportunities for SMEs). Policy stakeholders here also pointed to the issue

aroundtheweakemployerengagementintheintermediaryrolesoftheirorganizationsin

providing information around the access to the range education and training provision

across the region (e.g. internships, graduate placements schemes, graduate and

postgraduatetransferableskills,specialisttraining-BITS).

In conclusion, although policy stakeholders identified with the commonly

acknowledged employer engagement constraints influencing UK employers, they were

able to better connect with the development needs of high-skill labour. However, the

analysis revealed a weak emphasis around industry-wide or workplace initiatives

supporting the better “productive use” of skill (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b; Green &

Sakamoto,2001:56-89),contradictingtheempiricalfindingsintheprevioussection.This

is a criticalunexamined conjecture that although is consistentlyhighlighted in scholarly

arguments,perhapsremainsunaddressedbypolicyorganizationswithresponsibilitiesin

raisingindustry-wideskillattainmentandperformance.

4.3Understanding thenatureofMacro,mesoandmicro-perspective

employerengagement

This section addresses research question two by exploring the extent to which

meso-perspective network arrangements, a competitive condition supporting high-skill

industries, influenced engagement between policy stakeholders, their supporting

institutionaleducationandtraininginitiativesandhigh-skillemployers.Theanalysisnext

acknowledges the role of the network form and its influence in supporting employer

engagement within meso-perspectives as conceptualized by the micro-meso-macro

architecture proposed by Dopfer and colleagues (Dopfer et al. 2004; Dopfer & Pottes,

2004).The insightsandanalysesnextarepresentedaccording to thestudy’sconceptual

frameworkthatutilisesthisarchitectureasanoverarchingstudyframe(presentedwithin

AppendicesIandII). Sub-section4.3.1presentstheanalysisexplainingthenatureofthe

influenceofthemesonetworkarrangementinsupportingtheemployerengagementroles

of policy stakeholders around addressing the industry-wide demand for education and

training.Theseinsightsarebaseduponsuggestions(Dopferetal.2004;Dopfer&Pottes,

2004) that articulate that the establishment of rules and structures coordinatedwithin

and by the meso-perspective are influenced separately by the macro and micro-

perspectivesandalsobytheaffectsofengagementbetweenthem.

The influence of themicro (employer) perspective on the employer engagement

activitiesofpolicystakeholdersisdiscussedfurtherinchapters5and6.Theanalysisnext

111

(sub-section 4.3.1) however confirms that policy stakeholders faced barriers in

operationalisingeducationand training initiativeswithinmeso-perspectivecontextsdue

structuralsocialandeconomicconstraintsinfluencingtheemployerengagementeffortsof

institutional stakeholders. Sub-section 4.3.2 further provides an overview of the

organisationalemployerengagementsystemsadoptedbypolicystakeholders,whilesub-

section 4.3.3 highlights themacro-perspective barriers constraining policy stakeholders

fromfacilitatingemployerengagementwiththemacroandmeso-perspectiveinstitutional

trainingcontextssurroundingthehighskillindustriesinquestion.

4.3.1Meso-perspectiveemployerengagement Themeso-perspectivecharacterisinghigh-skillindustriesissupportedbynetwork

arrangements, which commentators identify as the competitive conditions of high skill

industriesandindustryclusters(Finegold1999;Streeck,1989).Theanalysisherereveals

the influence of meso-perspective network arrangements in supporting the employer

engagementeffortsofpolicystakeholders.Theanalysisisfurtherbasedontheimportance

allocated to the meso (industry) perspective in facilitating engagement between the

macro-higherorderandmicro(organisational)perspective(Dopferetal.2004;Dopfer&

Pottes,2004),adistinctionalsovisibleintheanalysisthatfollows.Previoussectionspoint

to the range of education and training initiatives supported by policy stakeholders and

their relevance in relation to various low, intermediate and high-skill occupations

supportingthehigh-skillindustriesinquestion.Herepolicystakeholders,attributedtheir

difficultiesaroundemployerengagementtothemicro(employer)perspective(e.g.weak

employer trust, commitment, interest) in constraining the employer adoption ofmacro-

perspective education and training initiatives and employer involvement in identifying

anddevelopinginitiativesaccordingtotheneedsofhigh-skillemployersfromacrossthe

region. The analysiswithin this section however reveals that the employer engagement

role of the meso-perspective is critical and visible in the industry consultations

establishedbypolicystakeholders. Industryconsultationssupportedpolicystakeholders

in forging engagement between themicro (employer) andmacro-perspective leading to

the adoption of education and training initiatives supported by the institutional policy

stakeholders involved in this study. In effect the analysis reveals that industry

consultations were supported by (in) formal network arrangements and it is these

arrangements that largely supported the employer engagement efforts of policy

stakeholdersinconnectingwiththemesoorindustry-levelinstitutionaltrainingcontexts

of the high skill industries in question (A). The effectiveness of such engagement was

however influenced by individual members involved in the meso-perspective industry

consultations established by policy stakeholders and the abilities of these members in

112

connectingwiththestructuralsocialcapitalpotentialsurroundingtheirnetworks(B).The

network arrangements and features discussed next characterise a previously

unacknowledged understanding of employer engagement initiated and facilitated by

policy stakeholders in accordance with the meso-perspective institutional training

environmentssurroundinghighskillindustries.

A. Meso-perspectiveemployerengagementnetworkcharacteristics

Policy stakeholders referred to both (in) formal network arrangements when

alludingtherolesof industryconsultations inengaginghighskillemployers fromacross

pharmaceutical, bioscience and biotechnology industries. These network arrangements

supported their identification of skills shortage, the establishment of education and

training provision of relevance within the macro (national), meso (industry) or micro

(organisational) institutional perspectives surrounding high skill industries (Keep et al.

2006) and the involvement of relevant stakeholders. Typical examples of stakeholders

involved in these industry consultations included: policy organizations; intermediary

support organizations (e.g. professional associations), HE and FE institutions and large

and SME employers including individuals from their business networks. However the

analysisrevealedtheadoptionofanadhocapproachbypolicystakeholdersinrecruiting

and in sustaining the long-term involvement of employers, which although prove cost-

effectiveintheshort-term,reducedtheirlong-termvisibilityinaddressingskillsshortages

across the region. Individual employerswere for example recruitedat regional industry

andbusinessnetworkingeventsandconferencesencouraging their involvement in their

industry consultations. Various communication strategies (sub-section 4.3.2) helped

sustain the commitment and involvement of network members although as discussed

later,theiradoptionalthoughadhocinsomerespects,varieddependingondifferencesin

employer engagement remits of policy organizations. Regardless, themajority of policy

stakeholders (e.g. RDAs,NSAs, BL,ABPI) reflected on the effectiveness of their industry

consultations and supporting (in) formal network arrangements in enhancing their

employer engagement efforts and connectingwith education and training needs across

theregion.

However, some policy stakeholders (e.g. SSCs, RDAs) had extensive reach in

engaging high-skill employers and their business networks from across their supply

chains.Herehowever,theeffectivenessofemployerreachwashoweverdependentonthe

strategicvisionsofpolicyorganizations,theextenttowhichthesevisionsweresupported

by Government investment, factors which were ultimately a measure of the leadership

capabilitiesoftheirorganizationsinsuccessfullyharnessingsupportforinitiativesacross

theregion.SSCsforexamplewerenotedfortheirleadershipqualities,industry-widevoice

113

insupportingemployersandthereforeinfluenceininvolvingotherpolicyorganisationsin

their (in) formal network consultations (RDAs, NSAs, BL). Despite the employer

engagement challenges noted in sections 4.1 and 4.2, industry-level consultations

established to addressmajor challenges around (un)employment or labourmarket skill

shortages were led mainly by policy organizations with leadership roles due to their

extensive(in)formalnetworkconnectionsacrosstheregion.Duringtheresearch,SSCsfor

exampleledinformaladvisorynetworkconsultations(i.e.workshops),heldonabi-annual

basis,forthepurposesinraisingemployerawarenesssurroundinginitiativessupporting

STEM graduate employability skills. This initiative later evolved into the Government’s

macro-perspectiveagendainraisinggraduateemploymentacrossUKhigh-skillsectors.

“wealsorunadvisorycouncilswhereemployersare invited….forexamplethenuclearskills advisory council or the polymers advisory council. Chemicals/pharmaceuticalsareusedforthispurpose…”“…Icansendyou theworkshopminutesof thepharmaceuticalsworkshop thatwe’vebeen involved in, they can also be found on the website …there’s also a combinedchemicals/pharmaceuticals advisory council, basically we had a pharmaceuticalmeeting…wehelditintheABPO,TheassociationofBritishPharmaceuticalsinLondon,invited the major players…not everyone turned up…Ok…but we had the regulatorthere…”“…theNSA for theprocess industryhada twodaymeeting last yearwhereeveryonefromthesector,employersincludedwereinvitedandkeyissuestobeaddressedwerediscussedatthearena…”(SSCs,PolicyDirector:1)

Such informalconsultationswere thusstrategic in initiating ideas,agendasandworking

groups that later transitioned into formalised partnerships that supported major

investmentssurroundingnationalGovernmentinitiatives(e.g.apprenticeships).

“…we’ve managed to get everyone along to the advisory council consultations…inpromoting apprenticeships for example to raise awareness regarding fundingroutes…so the benefit there is the importance of communication...informationflow…but by knocking on doors we can get the message across of the availablefunding…share the costs in getting that message across…in explaining the route toprovision for theprocessoperatoror technicianapprenticeships…sobygettingeveryone attending our advisory council meetings and consultations…everyone is beinggalvanised into realising what’s available…and from thereon its word ofmouth…betweenemployers…”(SSC,ProductDevelopmentManager:4)

Formal industry consultations involved a wider networks of policy organisations and

stakeholdergroupsincluding:seniorindividualswithtrainingresponsibilitiesfromacross

the high skill sectors, private training providers, industry regulators, trade unions (e.g.

Working Higher Skills project) and individuals from Research Skills Boards and from

clusterbodies(e.g.BioNow).Despitetheexposureandvisibilitythatinitiativesstemming

from formal consultations facilitated across the region, policy individuals further noted

the effectiveness and strategic nature of specifically informal network consultations in

114

facilitatinginitiativesaroundgrassrootsissuesorintargetingverynicheskillsshortages

(e.g. technical training – regulation) influencing the SME sectors for example. SMEs it

seemedpreferredtheinformalnon-committalandvoluntaryengagementaspectsofsuch

consultations, although these forms of employer engagement meant that policy

stakeholderswereunableinsecuringthelong-termcommitmentofparticularlythemicro

SMEandsmallbusinesssectorsintheiractivities(e.g. identifyingeducationandtraining

surrounding high-skill shortages; securing employer support in bids/applications for

Governmenttraininginvestments).Advisorycouncilsandworkshopswerethusafurther

effectivemeans in informally connectingwith the hard-to-engage SME sectors, an issue

that consistently influenced their activities across the region in spite of the extensive

background experience of policy stakeholders (Appendix VIII). Informal industry

consultationswerethusviewedasacosteffectiveapproachininitiatingtheinvolvement

of SMEs and in supporting policy stakeholders to identify and rally employer support

aroundpopularmuchinneedhigh-skilleducationandtraininginitiatives.

“…wecanalwaysconsultbecause that’s theprocess…if they’renotwilling tocometothe table…we knock on doors…I mean the plant management qualification…theconsultation involved nearly fifty employers…using our different contacts form theregion…gettingemployerstoconnect isdifficult…thekey issue isgettingthemtogivetimeinourconsultations…”(SSC,PolicyAdvisor:1)

Adrawbackof informal consultationswas that lesspopularemployer initiativesdidnot

receive formalised support (i.e. establishment of bids),while the stakeholders involved,

largely served advisory roles, drawing on the voluntary, informal interest and

commitmentofSMEemployers.Thesearrangementswerehoweversuccessfulinengaging

the SME and small business sectors in distributing employer advice through advisory

workshops on available training support (e.g. investments for training regulation) from

theregion.Althoughconsultationsbasedoninformalnetworkarrangementslargelydrew

on the expertise of policy stakeholders in providing such support, the success of policy

stakeholders(e.g.SSCs,RDAs)inleadingformalisedconsultationswasfurtherdependent

on the engagement of individuals belonging to professional groups, associations and

associatednetworks.

“...we’vegottheassociations…weparticipateinthechemicalindustriesnetwork,...chemicalsNWforums,sothereisinteractionwiththeLSCforinstance,meetingswithBISandallstakeholdersareinvolvedinthese...”(SSC,PolicyAdvisors:5)

“...AssociationofBritishPharmaceuticalIndustries,therearetradebodies,theindustryalsotargets...KnowledgeTransferNetworks,whichissetupfromchemistryrightthroughtohealthsciences...there’sthelifesciencesitself...Sothey’vegotlinkswithBioNowwhichisaRDANetwork,aclusterbody,wenetworkthroughquiteavariedsetofpeopleandorganisationstogettoemployers...”“…there’sBIZ...theorganizationthatdealswithethicsandtheregionalskillsboardsaffiliatedwiththeseoragnisations…”

115

(SSC,SpecialistScienceAdvisor:7)Formalisedconsultationsthereforealsoservedstrategicpurposesincoordinatingsector-

specificstrategygroupmeetingsandconsultations,industry-levelconsultativeboardsand

skillsallianceandsectorskillgroupmeetings.Thesearrangementsinvolvedlocalprivate

trainingproviders,FEandHEinstitutions,variouspolicystakeholders(e.g.SSCs(Cogent,

SEMTA), LSCsBIS,UKCES,ABPI), including individuals from theNWRDA, their industry

clusterbodies(BioNow,NW,BGQ)andstrategicorganizationsresponsible inoverseeing

industry-levelnetworks(e.g.OfficeofLifeSciences). Akeycharacteristicsofformalised

consultations was that the education and training initiatives addressed by formalised

consultations drew on the expertise of individuals from formalised industry-wide

networks and were allocated higher priority in receiving financial investments,

guaranteeingtheirformaladoptionacrosstheregion.

Here the analysis revealed drivers responsible in securing the strength of

engagementbetweentheformalisedconsultationsestablishedbypolicystakeholders,the

members(includingemployers)attendingtheseconsultationsandtheirbusinessnetwork

connections.Formalisedconsultations,forexamplewereestablishedcollectivelybypolicy

stakeholders (e.g. RDAs, SSCs, NSA, NWUA, BIS), although were not necessarily led by

theseorganizations,onceconsultationactivitieswereformallyestablished.Thelevyingof

status and power amongst and between the network members attending these

consultations further determined the nature of decision-making surrounding the

establishmentofagendas inestablishingneweducationor training initiativesacross the

regionandinachievingconsensussurroundingleaddecision-makingresponsibilities.The

natureofconnectionsforgedbetweenpolicystakeholdersandhighskillemployersfurther

influenced their success and sustainability. Formalised long-standing relationships

established by policy stakeholders with large employers (e.g. pharmaceuticals) and the

SMEs sectors withstood the test of time contributing to the success of formalised

consultations and evidenced in the frequent presence of large employers in their

formalised consultations. Alternatively, policy stakeholders revealed loose, informal

connections characterising weak engagement and low-level multiplexity with the SME

sectors, largely due to persistent challenges in connectingwith these sectors (Agranoff,

2001;Freeman,1984).However,weakSMEengagementwaslargelyattributedtothelack

of awareness amongst senior management working particularly in medium-sized and

micro-SMEs of the benefits in engaging with their formalised industry consultations.

Stronger connections characterising frequent engagement between major policy

organisations (e.g. regulatorybodies,RDAs)and intermediaryorganisations (e.g.private

training providers; BL, NSAs) from the northwest regionwas thus the norm. Here the

strengths of connections were denoted by the frequencies of engagement between

116

networkmembersorbetweentheorganizationstowhichnetworkmembersbelongedand

werealsoameasureofthesustainabilityoftheirformalnetworkconsultations(Brasset

al.2004;Borgatti&Foster,2003).

Policy stakeholders however also reflected on the challenges during the initial

formationstagesofformalnetworkconsultationswhichcompromisednetworkharmony

andsustainability.Networkflexibilitywasforinstanceoftencompromisedduetoalackof

consensus between networkmembers in the allocation of lead responsibility or due to

competition between individual policy stakeholders in their levying for Government

funding which in part was dependent on their access of resources (e.g. knowledge;

expertise;experience) fromtheorganizationstowhichtheybelonged(Brassetal.2004;

Cross&Cummings,2004).Akeyadvantageherewasthattheoverlapintheskillsagendas

oftheirpolicyorganizations,whichalthoughcausedconflictduringconsultations,didnot

compromisetheabilitiesofformalisednetworkconsultationsinforginginitiativesacross

theregion.

“...they’veallgottheirownagendas.Sothat’sjustoneofthosethings...they’veallgotadifferentpullwithregardstoregionalpoliciesbutwhentheygettogethertheynormallywork...ifthere’sacommonground...”(SSC,DirectorofPolicy:8)

However, various factors compromised the overarching decision-making activities of

industry consultationswhich formalised network arrangements. Overlapping resources,

member expertise and the varying abilities of policy stakeholders in engaging high-skill

employers in initiating formal industry consultations challenged the later allocation of

clearly defined responsibilities to network members. This resulted in divided loyalties

particularly amongst policy stakeholders resulting in their preferences in operating

independently.Furthercompetitionbetweenmembersbelongingtopolicyorganizations

(e.g. ABPI, RDAs, SSCs) in leading on initiatives of strategic importance to their

organizations, further compromised the reputation of their industry consultations and

employerconfidenceintheiractivities. ForexamplepolicyindividualsworkingforNSAs

and BL indicated that their access to the SME sectors meant their effectiveness in

identifyingor connectingwithgrass rootsproblemsor SMEspecific training challenges.

These activities underpinned their organisational portfolios, further supporting their

strategic roles in forging engagement between the SME sectors and private and public

sector training providers. However more than often lead responsibility in progressing

suchinitiativesacrosstheregionwasplacedwithpolicyorganizationsduetotheiraccess

to Government funding (e.g. SSCs; ABPI). Formalised industry consultations therefore

characterised a levying of power and control between networkmembers in supporting

initiatives, although their success in leading on these initiatives across the region very

muchdependedupontheorganisationalvisionsofthepolicystakeholdersinvolved.

117

“...they’veallgottheirownagendas.Sothat’sjustoneofthosethings...they’veallgotadifferentpullwithregardstoregionalpoliciesbutwhentheygettogethertheynormallywork...ifthere’sacommonground...”(SSC,DirectorofPolicy:8)

The level of authority and employer interest that formalised industry consultations

generated in supporting the adoption of education and training across the region

therefore very much depended upon the leadership roles, organisational visions and

agendas of the policy organizations to which the network members belonged (Klijn &

Kppenjan,2006).

Althoughthese(in)formalindustryconsultationswereanewdevelopment,itisclear

that according to policy stakeholders, industry networks play a major role in fostering

employer engagement across the region. The discussions here therefore progress and

provide context around existing arguments exploring the role of networks, their

underlying drivers and barriers influencing effectiveness, but within the context of

exploring engagement between policy stakeholders and employers (via industry

consultations). It is clear that since the research further study here is required in

capturing the nature in which (in)formal network arrangements support industry

consultations in fostering or coordinating education and training policy or initiatives,

further adding context to existing scholarly arguments regarding policy networks

(Borzel’s 2005; Klijn & Koppenjan 2006) and public policy networks (Provan & Milward,

2001). These insights progress existing criticism regarding the lack of a regionalism

approach within the UK in supporting industry clusters or industries characterising

clusters (Keep et al. 2006). These insights although focus on the perspectives of policy

stakeholders, further add context to wider studies which allocate importance to the

collective actions of both supply (policy stakeholders) and demand-side (employers) in

supporting themeso-perspective institutionalisation of policy across industry networks

(Fromhold-Eisebith & Eisebith, 2005; Steinle & Scheile, 2002). In establishing industry

consultations, policy stakeholders thus reveal both top-down and bottom-up (employer

engagement) approaches (Fromhold-Eisebith & Eisebith, 2005) in delivering on the

industry-wideneedsforeducationandtraining.Furthernetworkvaluecreationactivities

(Gulatietal.2000;Normann&Ramirez,1993)areobservedasnewanddiverseemployer

and stakeholder membership contributes to network growth and sustainability

particularly in the transition from informal to formal industry consultations. Network

features including: power relations and conflict between network members and

additionally network composition, resource availability and access are further seen to

constraintheflexibilityandgrowthoftheirformalisedindustryconsultations(Brassetal.

2004;Cross&Cummings,2004;Borgatti&Foster2003).Thesecharacteristicspresenta

useful basis in conducting future explorations of the nature in which features such as

network dynamics, governance structures and policy decision-making systems foster

118

education and training across regions (Henderson et al. 2002). Such explorations are

essentialastheanalysisrevealedanawarenessamongstpolicystakeholdersofthesocial

andeconomicdriversandbarriersinfluencingtheabilitiesofstakeholdersincommitting

totheactivitiesoftheir(in)formalindustryconsultationsdiscussednext.

B. Socialandeconomicbarriersanddriversinfluencingmeso-

perspectivestakeholderengagement

This section highlights the perspectives of policy stakeholders regarding the

underlyingsocial,economicandstructuraldriversandbarriersinfluencingtheirnetwork

membersfromengagingwithindustryconsultationsthuschallengingtheirsustainability

andflexibility.Policystakeholdersindicatedthatsuchfactorsinformedtheirdecisionsin

involving key stakeholders including employers in their meso-industry consultations

supporting certain types of education and training initiatives and also in generating

employerinterestinrelatedconsultationactivitiesacrosstheregion.Ineffectthebarriers

reflectmanyoftheemployerengagementweaknessescharacterisingtheUK’sinstitutional

training context presented in section 1.1 (chapter one). This evidence suggests that

although these weaknesses still exist, on a positive note, policy stakeholders are very

muchawareoftheircollectiveinfluenceontheirmeso-perspectiveemployerengagement

efforts. The evidence here is useful in that it provides a previously unacknowledged

insight into the extent to which policy stakeholders were aware of the employer

engagement barriers presented by the key supply and demand-side institutional

stakeholdersinvolvedintheirconsultations.

Employers

The analysis revealed that policy stakeholderswere of the view that theirweak

resourcecapabilitieschallengedtheirresponsibilitiesinleadingonindustryconsultations

(top-down regional influence - Fromhold-Eisebith, 2005) and in forging meaningful

working relationships around addressing training issues with the variety of employers

participating in industry consultations. Here participants highlighted various reasons

behind the weak employer engagement in their industry consultations, corroborating

existingstudies(Sungetal,2009;Payne2008b),althoughunliketheevidenceherethese

existingdiscussionsemphasisetheproblemsaroundtheemployerengagementeffortsof

individual policy stakeholders (e.g. SSCs – Sung et al, 2009; Payne 2008b), and do not

account for the collective perspective of policy stakeholders nor do they specifically

addressthehighskillcontext.Asalreadyevidencedwithinprevioussectionstheanalysis

confirms a consensus amongst policy stakeholders, regarding the weak employer trust

andconfidenceintheirsupply-sideinitiatives. Employerswerefurthernotawareofthe

119

benefits of engagement in the meso (industry) perspective consultations facilitated by

policy stakeholders otherwise supported by the evidence within the previous sections

which points to the necessity of policy stakeholders in adopting a knocking on doors

employerengagementapproach.Theevidence further suggests that, according topolicy

stakeholders,industryconsultationsprovidedemployerswithaccesstothesocialcapital

potential of members involved in industry consultations and their access to resources

across their business networks across the region in establishing education and training

initiatives. These business networks were thus useful in providing access to high-skill

employers, including SMEs, their expert training facilities and competitive information

surrounding standardised training (Fromhold-Eisebith, 2005 – bottom-up influence;

Ketels,2003;Morisini,2003;Crouchetal.1999:164,166–crossindustrycollectivegoods

competition).

Theanalysisalsorevealedanequalawarenessamongstallresearchparticipantsof

the employer challenges contributing to the weak employer engagement with industry

consultations. Employers for example experienced difficulties in connecting with the

relevantchannelsofcommunicationsprovidingtheiraccesstoinformationregardingthe

activitiesoftheirindustryconsultations.Ineffectpolicystakeholdersalsorecognisedthat

employers viewed that their consultations weremore beneficial to their as ameans in

generating competition between policy stakeholders in “selling” their initiatives across

theirsectors.

“…the employers we are accessing through our networks, don’t necessarily see thebenefits…theyseeusasselling…youknowtheyseeusasorganizationscompeting fortheir timewho also separately contact employers…the Skills Agenda is very complexand addressed by various organizations all competing for employer time…there’sSector Skills Council, National Skills Academies, Business Link, the NationalApprenticeships Service, the Chambers of Commerce and training providers…there’shundreds of them all competing for employer time and engagement…” (NSA, PolicyAdvisor:12)“…they’re happy to engage, but its difficult to pin them down in a steering groupcommitteeoraworkingadvisorygroupmeeting…andthenumbersof steeringgroupcommittees-therehaveonlybeenoneortwoandonlythreeemployersattended…”(NWUA,Sector-specificSkillsAdvisor:18)

On a further note almost all policy stakeholders recognised that employers from across

the region relied on their in-house organisational-specificHRdata collection systems in

understanding their education and training needs further relying on internal in-house

trainingsystemsinmeetingtheseneeds–employersthusdidnotallocateimportancenor

did they consider engaging with their industry consultations a necessity, a viewpoint

whichparticularlyappliedtotheSMEandsmallbusinesssectors.

“…youcanengagewithtwocompaniesoperatingunderthesamebrandanddeliveringthe same product with different T&D infrastructures and they haven’t adopted auniversalT&Dstructureorpolicy…itcanbebysectorororganization…Iampresently

120

working for two companies and they have different T&D corporate values…it’s achallenge for us when we have two companies with one adopting a superior E&Dinfrastructure….”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:13)“…they will have someone with training responsibilities…although may not havemethods of validating training…so our responsibility is to ensure that trainingprocessesareadoptedsothatsuchinformationiscaptured…”(NSA,PolicyAdvisor:12)

Regardless, this latter point contradicts Gleeson & Keep, (2004) who suggest the

employersdonotrealisetheirskillshortagesortrainingdemandandit isthisissuethat

constrains their employer engagementwith institutional decisions surrounding training

and education of relevance within meso (industry) and macro (national) perspective

contexts(Keepetal.2006).Herepolicystakeholdersthusconfirmedthatemployerswere

further not willing to invest in formalised network activities and consultations or in

committing to the activities established by their informal network consultations, due to

micro (organisational) perspective resource limitations (detailed in sub-section 4.3.2),

stemmingfrombusinesscost-cuttingefficienciesandindustry-widere-structuringfacing

the high-skill sectors. Large employers and particularly the SME sectors experienced

difficulties in accessing funding thus constraining their involvement in network

consultations, but also in supporting the employer adoption of education and training

policy stakeholders. There seemed tobe confusionamongst employers fromacross the

regionoftheireligibilityinaccessingfundingsupportingtrainingadoption.

“...there’sfrequentlypotsofmoney...butitchanges...there’spotsofmoneyhereandthenitbecomesapotofmoneyoverthere...forasmallcompanythat’sthewholepointofskillsbrokerstohelppeoplewithwhattheycanhaveaccessto...you’llgetsomeverysavvyemployers...andtheyou’llgetsomeknowingnothingaboutitandthenyougetridiculousrestrictions...you’llgetthefundingbutonlyifyouliveinacertainarea...there’snationalfunding,there’sregionalfunding...there’slocalfundingthroughlocalauthoritieswhohavesomepotsoffunding...”(SSC,DirectorofPolicy:17)“…where are employers supposed to get information about the availability offunding?...it’s very difficult for employers to find this funding…and it’s only someemployerswho believe they should go looking for it…thosewho believe training is avaluableasset…ifyou’reamulti-billiondollarbusinessyoudon’treallythinkthatthefunding is for you…employers don’t think that they benefit from funding…also themessagedoesn’tgetthrough…fundingisavailable…butemployersarenotaware…”(SSC,ProductDevelopmentManager:4)

Regardless,policystakeholders(SSCs,RDAs,NSAs),alsopointedtotheemployerbenefits

oftheirnetworkindustryconsultations.Employersfoundtheirconsultationscosteffective

(e.g.financial;time),inprovidingaccesstoindustry-widecontacts,up-to-dateinformation

onnewandpopulareducationandtraininginitiativesandtheiradoptionacrossthehigh-

skill sectors.Employerswerehoweverhesitant inadoptingsome initiativesoverothers.

For example policy stakeholders noted a higher frequency of engagement of large

employers and large SMEs pharmaceuticals and employers from their manufacturing

121

supply chains, in formalised industry consultations held around VET initiatives and

apprenticeships. Alternatively, formalised consultations supporting education and

trainingconnectedtotheSTEMdisciplinesreceivedweakemployerinterestmainlydueto

time and economic constraints surrounding their adoption. Policy stakeholders (SSCs,

NSAs)alsoexpressedconcernsregardingtheweak-employerinterestintheHigherLevel

Skills Partnership, particularly around initiatives supporting the development of

postgraduates working within R&D job roles, which during the research were in

consultationphase.Amajorproblemherewas theweakemployer involvement in these

(in) formal consultations, which policy stakeholders attributed to the weak employer

confidence in the abilities of policy stakeholders in delivering on HE initiatives and

priorityallocatedtoinitiativessupportingthelowandintermediateoccupations.

“...Governmentpolicyonskillshasbeenfocusedonlowerlevelswhichouremployersdon’ttraditionallysupport...howeveremployerswerewillingtofinanciallysupportinitiativesbecausetheysawitforthegreatergoodpotentiallyfortheirsupplychains...thatgreatergoodisnowgettinglessasthemonthsgoby...someemployersstillbelieveinlong-terminvestmentsinhighlevelskills…”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:21)

SMEengagementwasaparticularconcernandheresomepolicystakeholders(e.g.SSCs)

confirmed healthy SME engagement in their consultations around newly realised high-

skilltraininginitiatives,duetotheflexibilityonthepartofpolicystakeholdersinsecuring

theengagementofmicro-SMEsandsmallbusinesses.

“…in setting up provision we have draw in more than a million pounds fromemployers…we’velookedatdifferentfundingmodelsforsmalleremployers…itsmixedsuccess at themoment in getting asmany employers on board…but it gives them achancetotestourservices…”(SSC,DirectorofPolicy:8)

Onthewholehowever,policystakeholdersconfirmedtheweakengagementofthehigh-

skillSMEsectors, in their industryconsultationsmainlydueto thealternativestrategies

adopted by these businesses in addressing labour or skill shortages. Large SMEs for

example did not realise the long-term economic (e.g. cost effective intervention

development)orsocial(e.g.accesstoknowledge&expertise;networkcontacts;sourcing

newinterventions)benefitsofengagingintheirindustryconsultations.Basedonfeedback

fromSMEspolicystakeholdershererevealedtheirpreferencesinrecruitingskilledlabour

from local labour markets or in poaching staff from local businesses as a preferred

strategy instead of adopting the education and training initiatives supported by their

consultations. This issue around cost-effectiveness in engagingwith policy stakeholders

wasfurtherexacerbatedduetothevoluntaryredundanciesandstructuraldownsizingof

R&D capabilities that large high-skill employers and large SMEs, (e.g. pharmaceuticals)

facedasadirectconsequenceofvolatilitiesinglobalmarkets.

122

“…there have been lots of redundancies across these sectors...its not just therecession…it’stheglobalpicture…intermsoftheimpactofgrowingeconomiesacrosstheglobal…whereLifeSciencesisagrowthsector…anintenseshifttowardsdevelopingbespoke manufacturing and drug development…there’s a lot of downsizing in a bigway…businesseswith labour shortagesarenot training individuals butpicking themupfromotherbusinesses…atsomepointwe’regoingtohaveabigproblemof labourshortagesonourhands…”(NSA,PolicyAdvisor:12)

LossesinexistingR&Dcapabilitieswerecompensatedbylargehigh-skillorganizationsin

theirestablishmentofpartnershipsandalliancesand inward investments in Intellectual

Capital fosteredwith thehigh-skill small business sectors and their expansion intonew

product development areas. This type of growth in social capital surrounding newly

realised global R&D collaborations was also evidenced across the medium-sized SME

sectors, and was a popular strategy also adopted by small SMEs and small businesses.

Althoughthesechangesacrosstheregionchallengedtheiremployerengagementefforts,

policy stakeholders were confident in their collective capabilities in keeping pace with

establishing education and training initiatives according to changing employer needs

across the region. In effect they reflected on a growing demand in their services in

responsetonewtrainingopportunityfacilitatedbyindustryre-structuring,technological

innovations in industrialR&Dproductionchangesnecessitatedbyglobalmarketsacross

theirpharmaceuticalsupplychains.

“…weseeourselvesasbeingdriversofchange…inbringingonboardassociates…inlinewith advancements in production technologies…new technologies within thebiotechnology industries for example…the training is normally available…” (NSA,PolicyAdvisor:12)“…the pharmaceuticals are way behind in terms of basic manufacturing…somanufacturing of drug ingredients…the basic manufacturing is way behind...sotraining is poor...the big pharmaceutical companies…although they sound as thoughthey are on top of their R&D…they’re not very good with their manufacturing andthat’sbecause they’veneverhad tobe…they’vealwaysmadegoodmoneyandprofitswithout actually having to train staff…that’s affecting them now...some are nowoutsourcing…”

“…we’vebeeninvolvedinasuccessfultoexpandourservicestoaddressinnovationsinproductionacrossthebiotechnologysector…high-skillsectorsarenowmovingawayfromrepetitivemanufacturingtoinnovativeproductionandprocesses…lookingforhigher-levelskills…levels3and4insteadof2and3…andadifferentapproachindeliveringthese…itshappening…processintensification…processimprovement…newproductdevelopmentnewdrugs….”(SSC,Process/plantskillsmanager:7)

Thisregionalshiftwasreflectedintheiremployerfeedbackthatrevealedtheinfluenceof

theseissuesontheSMEsectors.Suchsectorswhichfacedproblemsinsourcingintraining

provision,andinadoptingneweducationandtraininginitiatives,duetoweakorlacking

HR systems, weak project management capabilities around establishing sector-specific

initiativesanddifficultiesinaccessingfundingindevelopingtrainingcapacityaroundsuch

responsibilities. Medium-sized and micro-SMEs were particularly susceptible to these

123

issues. These were widespread challenges facing SMEs across the region, despite the

support advertised by policy stakeholders via their awareness raising campaigns in

raising employer awareness of the benefits of industry consultations, particularly in

accessinglong-termtraininginvestments/funding.

“...onceyougetthemtostartdiscussingskillsitthebecomeseasiertogetthemtoengage...buttheyhavesmallbudgets...theydon’tstrategicallythinkfiveyearsinto

thefuture...”(NSA,SkillsAdvisor:12)

“…how you embed communications within an organization is verydifficult...particularlywhenyouhaveonepointofcontact…howdoyoumakesurethatthey are disseminating the information…its about knowledge transfer…employersdon’t necessarily have the systems or capabilities…” (NWUA, Sector-specific SkillsAdvisor:18)

Regardless policy stakeholders shared a consensus in the confidence of their industry

consultations in benefiting high-skill SMEs from across the region. (In) formal

consultations for example provided information on new national, industry and sector-

level training initiatives, and additionally information on funding opportunities and on

industry-level consultations held around training initiatives in demand across the high-

skill sectors (Steinle & Scheile, 2002). Employer engagement in industry consultations

provided SME employers access to other high-skill businesses, their specialist technical

production facilities and theirnetworks fromacross the region.Apprenticeship training

supporting high-skill medium-sized and micro-SMEs is an example of such a policy

innovationestablishedduringindustryconsultationsbuiltaroundsuchemplyernetworks.

Here informal employer partnership agreements between localised high-skill SME

networks from the region, where viewed as useful in supporting an annual rotational

system in coordinating apprenticeship training across SMEs over a fixed period of

employment (Crouch et al. 1999). Such agreements were useful in addressing the

commonlyacknowledgedresourceconstraintssurroundingapprenticeshiptrainingfacing

individual SME employers (e.g. cost constraints; lack ofmentoring and training support

andsuitablehigh-skillproductionenvironmentsinsupporttechnicaltraining).

“…SMEs don’t need to employ a new apprenticeship every year...its not viable…andthat’s where our academies networks are useful in encouraging employers inestablishing employer clusters and employing eight or ten apprenticeships providingtrainingsupportonarotationalbasis…”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManagement:13)“…we need more graduate-level apprenticeships in science-based industries…moreapprenticeshipprogrammes,particularlyforlaboratorytechnicianapprenticeshipsorprocesstechnicianapprenticeships…”(NSA,SkillsPolicyAdvisor:12)

Importantly, however industry consultations were also useful in forging employer

partnershipsinitiatedbypolicystakeholdersandinvolvingotherpolicyorganizationsand

training providers, around critical education and training initiatives influencing the

region.

124

“…businesspartnerships…wegoinandbecometheoutsourcedtrainingdepartmentforthebusiness or small company that doesn’t have a training department…so that’s about alsoconnectingbusinesswithprovidersandfundingopportunities…(SSC,Industryengagementadvisor:5)

HEandFEinstitutions

The success of formal industry consultations was also dependent on the

connections that policy stakeholders forged with public and private education and

training providers. These included: private training providers, centres of vocational,

excellence(CoVE),centresoftrainingandlearningexcellence(CETLS-CentreforEffective

Learning in Science), the networks of local HE institutions and policy organizations

representing them (e.g. NWUA). All policy stakeholders here identified with the

advantages of such stakeholder engagement in industry consultations, although some

morethanothers(e.g.RDAs,SSCs)alsorecognisedthebarriersthattheirinvolvementin

formalised consultations presented in securing the sustained employer interest in their

high-skilleducationandtraininginitiatives.Policystakeholderswereverymuchawareof

the problems around the weak employer confidence in the capabilities of HE and FE

institutionsinsupportingsector-specificeducationandtrainingneeds. Theinvolvement

of training providers in their industry consultations was however viewed in a positive

lightdue to theircontribution in informingdecisionssurroundingnewhigher-levelNVQ

qualificationsindemandacrosstheregion.However,reservationsaboutlocalaccessand

provisionwere shared by policy stakeholders. The involvement of CoVE (e.g. Gentoom;

CATCH in Stalinborough; CETLS in Nottingham, Bristol) for example provided policy

stakeholdersandemployersattendingindustryconsultationswithinformationregarding

the availability of trained apprentices from across the region. Further information

surrounding the regional access to vocational training, their cost implications were

important in supporting employer decision-making about qualification routes and the

relevance of vocational aspects of apprenticeship training relative to high-skill

manufacturing. However, all policy stakeholders here were aware of the commonly

acknowledgedproblemsthattrainingproviderspresentedforemployers(e.g.costissues;

local employer-led provision), and emphasised their low popularity amongst the small

businesssectors,medium-sizedandmicro-SMEsaswellaslargeSMEsduetoanemphasis

onin-houseapprenticeshiproutesandgraduateapprenticeshipprogrammes.Despitethis,

policy stakeholders emphasised their adoption of regional employer-led engagement

approachintheirconsultationswithprivateFEtrainingproviders,althoughthiswasnot

alwaysachievedduetocriticalregionalshortages inprovidersandtheweak intereston

the part of training providers in their consultations. In part this tenuous relationship

between training providers and policy stakeholders was influenced by competition

betweentheirabilitiesinmeetingthetrainingneedsofhigh-skillemployers.

125

“…ournumberonepriorityisengagingwithemployers…ournumbertwopriorityisengagingwithtrainingproviders…withinandacrosstheregion...aregionalemphasis…”“…training providers are very commercial and financially strapped in developingnew initiatives…I mean its difficult to get he to do anything around long-terminitiatives…soitsshortterminismthat’stheproblem…”(NSAs,BusinessDevelopmentManager:13)“…I’ve had one or two instances where we tried to get training providersinvolved…aroundapprenticeshipinitiatives…nothingcameofit…costissues.”(NSAs,SkillsPolicyAdvisor:12)

“…we’reincompetitionwithtrainingproviders…althoughwewouldsaythatweweren’t…basicallywe’reheretosupportthetrainingprovisionoftrainingproviders...butclearlywe’reincompetition…withthoswhoarenotinterestedinouractivitiesortheaccreditedtrainingprovisionweestablish…”(SSCs,Process/plantskillsmanager:7)

Engagement with local HE institutions and associated umbrella organizations were

viewed as valuable employer resources, particularly in addressing training issues

influencingmicro-SMEsand thesmallbusinesssector.Herepolicystakeholders (NWUA,

SSCs,NSAs)adoptedintermediaryroles,mediatedengagementbetweensmallSMEs,small

businesses and potential education and training project initiatives supporting the

development of R&D job roles from the HE sector. Here again policy stakeholders

emphasisedtheemployerbenefitsofsuchengagement(e.g.accesstoprojectmanagement

resources and capabilities), yet weak SME engagement. This weak SME engagement

challengedpolicystakeholdersinaccessingcriticalinformationsurroundingthechanging

regional demand in postgraduate training opportunities and high-skill labour shortages

whichtheirextensivesurveysoftendidnotcapture.Despitethis,engagementoflocaland

regionalHEinstitutionsdidhoweverleadtothesuccessfuladoptionofvarioushigh-skill

education and training initiatives across the region. These included: Continuous

Professional Development programmes facilitated in partnershipwith the University of

Lancaster and high-skill employers. Partnerships forged between the Universities of

Manchester and Liverpool, John Moores University supported by various policy

organizations (e.g. LSCs, SSCs,NSAs,NSAs,BL) resulted in generic and transferable skill

initiatives (e.g. leadership and management competencies). These developments were

initiated by NSAs via formalised industry consultations with training providers, and

involvingHE institutions and theirHE networksmany ofwhichwere accessed through

SSCsandregionalclusterorganizationssupportingthehigh-skillindustries(e.g.NWRDA–

Bionow).

“...whattheacademydoesisthatitgoesouttothenetworkofprovidersaskingthemwhattheyhavetoofferspecificallyforourindustries...sowenowhaveamoreinformednetwork...ouremployershighlightatraininganddevelopmentneedandweputthattoournetworksiftheycanfulfilit.Soinsteadofhavingoneemployergoingtoaspecificprovider...wenowhaveabankofemployersspeakingtoanetworkoftrainingproviders...”(NSA,SkillsAdvisor:7)

126

“…our sectors are quite broad…am ix of largemultinationals and SMEs…we have averygoodnetworkacrossthenorthwest…thecompaniesareverywellconnectedtoHEinstitutions…developedthroughourclusterorganization,Bionow…sowedevelopedaquestionnaire toassess theneed forprovision involvingour industry contactswithXuniversity(anonymous)acrosstheregionandgotresponsesfrom30businesses…whichis good…there aremany different engagementmodels that are being utilised at themoment…”(NWUA,Sector-specificSkillsAdvisor:18)

Policy stakeholders were also aware of the specific challenges surrounding private

trainingprovidersandHE institutions furtherpreventingemployers fromengagingwith

industryconsultations,andcontributingtoaweakemployerconfidenceintheiractivities

across the region. Their regional or local FE and HE provision did not support the

changing needs of employers. The region for example lacked accessible private training

providers with relevant technical training facilities capable of supporting the changing

employer demand for vocational and technical competencies across intermediate and

high-skill employment supporting their high-skill manufacturing and production (e.g.

advanced and emerging technologies; biotechnology and bioscience R&D production -

postgraduate R&D competencies). This problem was exacerbated in the constrained

supply of trained (post) graduates as HE institutions and STEM delivery faced cuts in

research budgets compromising research activity and suitably equipped scientific R&D

facilities producing training scientists. However, despite awareness of these regional

constraints, the analyses revealed that industry consultations did not support policy

initiatives or connect with the activities of Research Councils in address critical labour

shortages surrounding trained postgraduates (RCUK, 2008, Warry, 2006). The

involvementof largeemployers in theirconsultationsrevealedthat theseskillshortages

were particularly dominant around R&D job roles supporting R&D innovations in the

exploration of carbon composite materials and new emerging biotechnologies. A weak

engagement of micro-SME sector in the networks of employers supporting such

developments furthermeant that thebiotechnologysectorwas left to itsowndevices in

addressing postgraduate-level technical skills shortages, often dealt with in the

recruitmentofskilledlabourfromacrosstheirinternationalR&Dcollaborations.

Similarchallengeswereevidenced in theFEprovisionofNVQssurrounding low,

intermediate and particularly high-skill occupations. Here policy stakeholders revealed

that a regional employer interest in theadoptionofNVQs,meant their establishmentof

consultationssurroundinglevels2and3NVQprovisionsurroundingtechnicallaboratory

competenciesandlevel4NVQssupportingmanagement-leveltrainingaimedatadvanced

andseniorscientistrolesinvolvedinR&D.

“… the translation of university or laboratory experimentation training into anindustrialenvironmentsisquitepoor…”(NSA,SkillsPolicyAdvisor:12)

127

“…our sector is biotechnology, pharmaceutical, medical devise and healthcare andthere’slotsofmanufacturingwithinthese…soweneedtogetNVQsentrenchedacrossthese sectors…it sis if you are running a biotechnology team or if you are runningchemical processes within biological things going on…you’ll need a whole set ofdifferentskills…skillsaroundprocesscontrol…”(BioNow:RegionalPolicyAdvisor:10)“…individuals may not see the value of doing NVQs for their own careers…in someaspects its intellectual snobbery…they’ve perhaps not been seen as validqualifications…itspartofthehistoryofNVQs…someintheearlyninetiesweremodifiedandstillhaveasteadyturnover…therearestillagroupofemployersthatvalueandusethem…these are businesses with good reputations…” (NSA, Business DevelopmentManager:12)

Here the analysis revealed a consensus amongst policy stakeholders of the employer

barriers(e.g.weakemployerinterest–Acuttetal.2006)influencingtheirengagementin

consultations surrounding NVQs. They further recognised that this weak interest

stemmed from employer difficulties in accessing NVQs in light of weak regional FE

provision. Existing provision, funding streams and processes supporting employers in

accessing NVQs were incompatible with their high-skill demand. These challenges

constrained working relationships between employers, FE and training providers

presenting difficulties for policy stakeholders in mediating solutions around NVQ

provisionanddeliveryduringindustryconsultations.Employerswerefurtherexpectedto

demonstrateeligibilitytostatefundinginadoptingofNVQtraining,NVQprovisionaimed

at low and intermediate occupations was oversubscribed by large high-skill employers

and large SMEs, while medium-sized and micro SMEs with a higher demand for state-

funding and critical high skill provision lost out. Despite the challenges, industry

consultations were viewed an effective employer engagement means by policy

stakeholders(e.g.SSCs,NSAs,RDAs)involvedinleadingindustryconsultationsaroundthe

employerdemandforFEandHEeducationandvocationaleducationinitiatives.

“…I can be an individual employer or a group of employers expressing a need…we’llfirstly look to theprovidernetwork thatwe’ve establishedand consider…one canwefulfil this requirements, two isadditional funding requiredand three canwedo itatall…ifwesatisfyonethenwewillworkontheemployerrelationship…if two, thenwelooktowherewecangetsupport…anemployermaywantatrainingprogrammethatdeliversacrossaprivateprovidercollegeanduniversity…itsnotanaturalrelationshipforthesethreeproviderstomeetinthinair…weprovidetheenvironmentforthemtomeet…”(NSA,SkillspolicyAdvisor:12)

TradeUnions

Here policy stakeholders pointed to a growing need for union representation in

their industry consultations in line with the anticipated rise in employment relations

challenges facing high-skill industries subsequent to the industry-wide restructuring,

business cost-cutting efficiencies and downsizing affecting the region. Of particular

concern were work-related issues influencing labour working across low and

128

intermediate-level occupations (e.g. redundancy, re-training, career progression, pay

cuts),althoughpolicystakeholders justifiedunion involvement in industryconsultations

inrecognitionof theemployerneeds fornewR&Dpostgraduate-level trainingofcritical

significancefortheirstrategicR&DcapabilitiesacrosstheregionandsurroundingtheHE

SkillsAgenda.Theestablishmentofconsultationsbetweenpolicystakeholders,employers

and importantly unions were thus critical, in understanding the affects of new R&D

collaborations(e.g.newemergingtechnologies)onworkingconditions,newjobrolesand

competenciessurroundinghigh-skillR&Dmanufacturing.Policystakeholderswereofthe

consensusofarequiredshiftintherolesofunionsandinULRinvolvementinaddressing

thehigh-skillagenda,replacingtheirexistingweakengagementinissuessurroundingthe

development of high-skill staff. Here the analysis revealed various levels of union

engagementintheirindustryconsultationsthatfocusedonhigh-skillshortages.

“...we’reworkingwithtradeunionindustryrepsandwiththeNWUAaroundlookingathigh-levelskillsissues...someofthelearningrepsaremorefocusedinlookingatthelowandintermediatelevelsskillsissuesasopposedtohigher-levelskillsissues...sowe’relookingathowtocapacitybuildinthatarea...”(NWRDA,BiomedicalSkillsAdvisor:12)

“…trade unions already have an advisory role on our boards and are invited to theadvisory councils and our consultations…so they’re involved.. they’re included on theminutes…I’mprettysurethatmycolleagueshavehadunionsinthebuildingthisweekin linewithconsultationson theWorkingHigherEducationSkillsproject…I’mprettysurethatwehaveaunionlearningofficerinvolvedinthatproject…”(SSC,SkillsPolicyAdvisor:8)

Furtherworkininvolvingunionswashoweverrequired,particularlyincoordinatingtheir

supportinthewiderresponsibilitiesoftheirindustryconsultations.Theregionalissueof

sustaining regionalmuch-in-demand talent pools of postgraduate scientists in linewith

local and regionalHE provision across their changingmanufacturing supply chainswas

one such issue. However, here the success in raising the profile of unions across the

region very much depended upon buy-in from and engagement of employers in the

adoption education and training issues supported by unions,which at timeswasweak.

Nevertheless, employer feedback confirmed a demand for union involvement extending

beyond their traditional roles, to support formalised sustainable activities in addressing

employerneedsaroundhigh-skill labour.Akeychallengefacingpolicystakeholderswas

that unions viewed their formalised involvement in their industry consultations as a

meansinexpandingsector-widemembership.Regardless,theanalysisrevealsthatpolicy

stakeholders (SSCs,NSAs)didanticipateunionengagement in consultations ledbySSCs

surrounding the regional adoption of entry-level and graduate apprenticeships. The

analysis however revealed that this viewpoint in involving unions in establishing high-skill

apprenticeship training is perhaps not consistent across all policy stakeholders due to

variations in their perceptions around the need for high-skill apprenticeships.

129

“…insciencewehavenohistoryofapprenticeships…everybodyseemstothinkthatthisisveryelitist…anyonewhoachievesadegree…thenthat’stheirapprenticeship…”(SEMTA,SpecialistScienceAdvisor:8)“…toensurethatthebareminimumofcandidatescomingintoindustriesarethroughthebestqualityroutesthroughthehigherqualitytechnicalapprenticeshipandqualityproviders…”(NSA:BusinessDevelopmentManager:9)

“…there is definitely a need…I would say that everybody involved in the advisorycouncilrecognisestheneedforpromotingapprenticeships…”(SSC,Policyadvisor:7)

This is further evidenced in industry consultations ledby theNWRDA,where voluntary

union involvement, was found to support industry-level consultations in identifying

critical training shortages across the region, although here policy stakeholders faced

problems around sustaining union involvement in the development and adoption of

educationandtraininginitiatives.

“…wehaveamemberonourboard…wewillengagewiththemformallyonourboardsor informallythroughournetworkstructures…wearereviewingtheir involvement inourformalboardstructureswhichIdon’tthinkwork…wedoengagewithunionpeopleandcapturetheirperspectives…”(NSA,SkillsPolicyAdvisor:12)

Alternatively, formalised consultations led by NSAs were utilised to facilitate ULR

involvement in the workplace adoption of initiatives (e.g. apprenticeships) and/or in

capturing informationonworkplace training issuesandculturesacross theregion.Here

therolesofNSAswerecriticalinsecuringtheengagementoftheSMEsectorsparticularly

in industry consultations that were supported by unions and which involvedmultiples

stakeholders with influence in the industry-level adoption of education and training

initiatives. Here the formalised engagement of ULRs, secured the access of these

stakeholders,includingNSAstodataandinformationcriticalininformingtheactivitiesof

industryconsultations.

“...SMEsthathaveactiveunionmembershiptendalsotohaveULRs...AMICUShasembracedULRsonabigscalesomeofthemwillbewithinSMEsbecausecompanieswithintheregionthathavedownsizedmorethatoftenwillfindthattheyaretrueSMEsnow...wedohavegreaterinsightthroughULRswithrespecttowhattheissuesineducationandtrainingare…”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManagers:9)

TheevidenceheresuggestsagrowinginterestinunionandULRinvolvementinthemeso

industryconsultations facilitatedbypolicystakeholders,particularly insupportinghigh-

skill education and training specific to the high-skill industries in question. Unions and

ULRs were strategic in supporting the renewed high-skill emphasis supported by their

industry consultations further providing policy stakeholders access to the social capital

surroundingtheiractivitiesacrosstheregion(e.g.ULRknowledgeandexpertise;shared

dataresources;employercontacts).Howeverpolicystakeholderswerealsoawareofthe

130

problems surrounding a weak employer trust in the motives and roles of unions in

organisingsupportaroundhigh-skillinterventions,andconsideredthisaconstraintinthe

engagementofhigh-skillemployersintheirconsultationsinvolvingunions.

Concludingremarks

The insights here reveal that policy stakeholders were verymuch aware of the

social andeconomicdrivers andbarriers influencing the abilitiesof key stakeholders in

committing to the activities of their (in) formal industry consultations. These barriers

further constrained employer engagement in industry consultations, and characterised

existingweaknessesaroundtherolesofinstitutionalstakeholdersininfluencingtheUK’s

wider institutional training context (sub-section 1.1.1). The success of industry

consultationsinengagingemployerswashoweverinfluencedbytheeconomicchallenges

surrounding the UK’s macro-perspective training environment in the provision of

employer needs. Employer engagement herewas however also influenced by employer

interests in accessing the social capital potential of individual stakeholders and their

organizationsinvolvedinindustryconsultations(e.g.trainingprovidercontacts;specialist

employer training facilities) (B). Regardless, policy stakeholders recognised that

structural macro-perspective changes (e.g. industry-wide re-structuring, downsizing)

influencing the region’s high-skill industries, generated a new unrealised employer

demand surrounding high-skill education and training initiatives. This necessitated the

facilitation of stakeholder-led industry-level meso-perspective consultations (e.g. SSCs,

NSAs),whichdrewontheexistinglocalandregionalbusinessnetworksofhigh-skillSME

and small business sectors, policy stakeholders and their contacts with FE and HE

institutionsandwithunionsandtheiractivitiessurroundingULRs.However,theproblem

of the voluntary engagement of these stakeholders and particularly employers were

viewedasmajorbarriersinfluencingfuture(in)formalindustryconsultation,althoughas

evidenced in the analysis next a variety of employer engagement strategies and

approacheswereemployedtoaddressthetensionsofweakemployerengagementinthe

activities of policy stakeholders. These were however specific to their individual

organizationsalthoughalsoinformedtheemployerengagementactivitiesoftheirindustry

consultations. Regardless, the analysis next is based on the collective and individual

perspectives of policy stakeholders regarding the employer engagement strategies

adoptedbypolicystakeholders.

4.3.2Employerengagementstrategiesadoptedbypolicystakeholders

The discussions here explore the employer engagement strategies adopted by

individual policy stakeholders in facilitating engagement with high-skill employers and

131

their training needs according the meso or micro-perspective institutional training

contexts surrounding high-skill industries. (Dopfer et al. 2004; Dopfer & Pottes, 2004).

The analysis reveals that policy stakeholders adopted three distinctive employer

engagement strategies in securing and sustaining employer interest in their activities

(Table 4 – involvement, informational, response). Employer involvement strategies

supported formalised two-wayengagementandcommunicationbetweenemployersand

policystakeholdersandwereuseful inmeso-perspective industryconsultations fostered

by policy stakeholders. These strategies led to employer engagement in consultations

involving the assessment of existing or development and/or adoption of newly realised

education and training initiatives. Responsive employer engagement strategies also

facilitated two-way communications between employers and policy stakeholders,

althoughplacedagreateremphasisinobtainingfeedbackfromemployers,inresponseto

theadoptionofeducationandtraininginitiatives.Theseengagementstrategiessupported

policy stakeholders in collecting employer feedback surrounding the meso-perspective

industry-wide ormicro (organisational) perspective adoption of education and training

initiatives. Alternatively, informational one-way employer engagement strategies also

influenced education and training within meso (industry) and micro (organisational)

perspective contexts, although informed employers of new education and training

developmentsorinitiatives.

Table4:PolicyStakeholderPerspectives:EmployerEngagementTypesofemployerengagement

Employerengagementstrategiesinvolvementstrategy(twoway)

informationalstrategy(oneway)

responsestrategy(twoway)

MESO-perspectiveindustry,clusternetwork&regionallevels

strategicpolicy-making/advisorycouncils/committees,collaborations,sectorskillsalliances,industryboards,SectorSkillsAgreements

website,newsletter,e-communications,datacollationsurveys,informalliaisonsatnetworkingevents,conferences,industryboards/associations

policyactionfeedback,surveys,conferences,networkingevents,sectorstrategygroups,skillsalliances

MICRO-perspectiveorganizationallevel

Skillsdiagnostics,skillspartnerships,SectorSkillsAgreements

Introductiontonewskillspolicy/training,informalconsultations

Feedbackonspecificpolicyactionatworkshops,networkingevents,reportdissemination

Theanalysisnextandabovedrawsontheconsensusresponsesofpolicystakeholders,and

specifically highlights the barriers surrounding the employer engagement strategies

highlighted in table4and theresultingeducationand training initiatives facilitated.The

analysis thusaddsnewcontext surroundingexistingarguments regarding theemployer

132

engagement strategies adopted by individual UK policy stakeholders (see the literature

review-sub-section1.1.1),furtherpositioningtheanalysisinaccordancewiththemicro-

meso-macro perspective architecture suggested byDopfer and colleagues (Dopfer et al.

2004;Dopfer&Pottes,2004).Theanalysishoweverrevealssimilarities in theemployer

engagement strategies and systems highlighted table 4 with existing arguments which

adoptwidercross-industryperspectivesunlike thediscussionnextwhicharespecific to

thehigh-skill industrycontext. Existingargumentsdohoweverallude toamixofmicro

and meso –perspective employer engagement approaches (gathering employer-specific

and labourmarketwide intelligence; employer awareness raising training case studies;

employerambassadorprogrammes;supportivefinancialassistanceprogrammes–UKCES,

2010;NSA,2009;Payne,2008a;Luddy,2008).

SSCs for example facilitated employer engagement using: employer workshops,

industry-level consultations (e.g. advisory skills councils; sector skills groups), skills

conferencesandnetworkingeventsall inall tosupport the industry-wideandemployer

adoption of national education and training initiatives (Payne, 2008a). Furthermore,

websitesandmagazines,industrymarketintelligence,theestablishmentofCRMdatabase

and web-based tools and products (e.g.: Skills Passport & Skills Match) supported

information sharing with employers (informational strategy). Such informational

strategies were often used to initiate formalised employer involvement. As highlighted

withintheprevioussub-section,(in)formalnetworkconsultationsweretheprimemeans

of employer engagement facilitated by SSCs due to their social capital benefits (e.g.

reputation;access to information;businessnetworks)and thuspotential inencouraging

themuch-required involvement of stakeholders with responsibilities surrounding high-

skillinitiatives(e.g.OfficeofLifeSciences,NWUA-HEqualifications;ABPI,NSAandBL–

training regulation). Employer participation and representation at such consultations

althoughvoluntary,resultedintheirsuccessfulyetadhocadoptionofnationaleducation

and training initiatives in response to information of labour market skills shortages

collatedbySSCs(Luddy,2008)(e.g.levels4NVQs;graduateapprenticeship).However,as

evidenced within previous sections, these initiatives were also in demand across the

supplychainsofhighskillindustries,alongsideagrowingdemandforindustry-wideand

sector-specificstandardisedtraininginresponsetonewR&Dcollaborationsnecessitating

newmanagementcompetencies (seechapters5and6). Herepolicystakeholders(SSCs,

RDAs,NSAs)emphasisedemployerparticipationinthedesign,planning,developmentand

adoption of initiatives led by SSCs during their meso-industry consultations. A similar

employer engagement approach was adopted in response to the employer demand for

apprenticeships to be implemented across high-skill manufacturing production and

supply chains (e.g. conversion of SOC qualifications to apprenticeships). Employer

133

engagement here, although was dependent upon in-kind employer contributions (e.g.

financial contributions; consultation time), the employer demand for such initiatives,

meantthatemployerwerewillingtocontribute,whilepolicystakeholdersviewedthisas

anopportunityinsecuringsustainedemployerinvolvementintheindustry-wideadoption

ofthisandotherinitiatives.

Theanalysishererevealedchallenges forpolicy stakeholders in instanceswhere

employers were involved in the activities of industry consultations led by SSCs. Often

employers willingly participated in industry-wide consultations, but were hesitant in

adoptinginitiativesestablishedbySSCsunlesssupportedbyGovernmentmatchfunding.

“…we’llgetGovernmentmoney…youknowwe’llaskemployersthatatthemomentwehaveanapprenticeshipmanagementprogrammewhichismatchfundedbyemployersandtheGovernment…sowe’llmakeitreadilyavailabletoemployers…”(SSC,ProductServicesManager:6)

Moreover the employer adoption of initiatives did not guarantee their participation in

evaluating the effectiveness of initiatives further limiting SSCs from improving or

supporting the industry-wide adoption of their initiatives. Employer trust in the

consultation activities led by SSCs and their promotion of initiatives was thus eroded,

across the region. This problem was due to intensify in light of the re-structuring and

downsizingfacingSSCsstemmingfromwide-spreadpublicsectorbudgetarycutsaffecting

their skills sector. Budgetary cuts also presented pressures on resources (e.g. staff,

administration systems; advertising) supporting their employer engagement strategies

and systems presenting problems for SSCs in raising employer awareness across the

regionoftheirproductsandservices(e.g.IndustrySkillsMatrix;SkillsPassport).

“...thepressingissuesarearoundhowdowemakeemployersawareofourproductsandqualifications...howdoweseethattheinformationismoreeasilytakenup...howcanwebestdeploythemthroughouracademies...whatdoweneedtobesayingtoemployers...Imeanbetweenusandthemthere’snotverymanyofus...Iwouldsaythatthepressingthingforusis...makingtheinformationavailable...”(SSC,Product&ServicesprojectManager:3)

The analysis revealed similar concerns around RDAs, NSAs, and BL organizations. RDAs

for example utilised the strategies and systems presented in table 4 to facilitate meso and

micro-perspective employer engagement and using a mix of involvement, informational and

response strategies. Unlike SSCs, a main aim of the NWRDA was to generate regional

awareness in raising skill attainment levels, but under the auspices of Government instated

policies in raising regional industry-wide growth and performance(HMGovernment2010

a,b). Employer awareness surrounding education and training initiatives supported by the

NWRDA and of relevance to the high-skill industries was thus generated using industry

consultations. However individual employer engagement strategies were also utilised in

communicating their regional visions around raising skill attainment levels and importantly

in fostering investments in supporting new job opportunities across the high skill sectors.

134

This latter approach in engaging employers on an individual basis, although put pressure on

their resource capabilities (e.g. staff time and responsibilities), further supported RDAs in

developing new employer connections and relationships, supporting employer database of

use in coordinating (meso) industry consultations. RDAs thus employed various employer

engagement systems in securing the long-term employer commitment in their visions

around education and training needs which were relevant across the high-skill industries

and addressed within meso (e.g. industry advisory councils) and micro-perspective contexts

(e.g. employer partnerships). The analysis here reveals that this strategy in gradually

building capacity in engaging employers from across the region using an individual

employer engagement approach prove effective, to an extent contradicting existing

scholarly arguments which question whether RDAs sufficiently engage employers in

decision-making within regional, sub-regional and sectorcontexts(Keepetal.2006;Keep,

2002). This approach was particularly effective in harnessing the involvement of large

pharmaceuticalsandtheSMEsectors,althoughconnectionsforgedwithmicro-SMEsand

smallbusinessesremainedanissue.

“…I think its worse for SMEs…what normally happens is that we go after the bigcompanies…because they’re the ones who have time to talk…and they will tell youwhattheywant…isyougoaftertheSMEs…theycomeinone’sandtwo’s…youwon’tgetthe traction…butofyougoafter thebigone’s, theSMEs follow…” (NWRDA,HeadofSkills:9)

This latter point however confirmsPeck&McGuiness’s (2003:55) viewwhich criticises

the commonly acknowledged employer engagement approach of RDAs in “utilising and

modifying existing stakeholder networks to meet their cluster policy agendas”.

Regardless, theanalysishere furtherreveals thereasonsbehind thisapproach. Ineffect,

theadoptionofthepreferredone-to-oneemployerengagementapproachinengagingwith

micro-perspective training challenges facing high-skill employerswas largely driven by

their Business Development managers. These individuals were responsible for the

allocationof investments in alignmentwith strategic business improvement and sector-

specific performance indicators, established by RDAs in alignment with Government-

instated regional investment targets and which also included investment opportunities

around education and training. It seems that the analysis confirms reservationswithin

existingarguments(Keepetal.2006;Peck&McGuiness,2003;Keep,2002)whichpointto

theineffectivenessofRDAsinfacilitatingemployerandindustrycollaborationsintackling

business issues, justified in their need to approach employers on an individual basis.

Despite this, the analysis revealed successful investments across the region around

various long-term education and training initiatives harnessed in using an individual

employer engagement approach, which over time transitioned into the collective

employer representation and contribution in industry consultations (developing

135

qualifications for science graduates – HLSP; VET initiatives – graduate apprenticeships;

adoption of National Occupational Standards). In spite of the difficulties or weak

commitmentonthepartofRDAsinengagingtheSMEsectors,theireffortsinutilisingthis

combinedapproachinconnectingwithindustry-specificandorganisationaleducationand

trainingissuesmeanttheiradoptionoftherangeofsystemspresentedinTable4.While

meso-perspectiveengagementwaslargelycharacterisedbytheirinvolvementinindustry-

level consultations, advisory councils and committees, often led by RDA members,

engagement with individual employers around micro-perspective initiatives largely

involved employer partnerships (e.g. standardised training), which drew upon the

servicesofBusinessLink(BL).Policystakeholdersthusindicatedthebetterabilitiesofthe

NWRDA in facilitating employer partnerships than SSCs. However these were mainly

forgedwithlargehigh-skillemployers,whilstSMEs,duetotheirunawarenessofthelong-

termeconomicbenefitsofengagingwithpolicyorganizations,lostout.

“…we’vegotvoice…fairlyjoinedupintermsofthedifferentvoicesandtheirinfluenceat the regional level…through business link…the business relations team…and thoselinkagesbetweentheemployercluster–we’vegotagoodlinkage…whenitscomestoSSCs…that’sonanationalplatformandinevitablytheyspeaktolargeremployersandtrytogetrepresentationofSMEs…whetherthathappensisopentoquestion….”

(NWRDA,RegionalBusinessManager:10)

“…I think that there is a continuum…some employers are very well tuned in andunderstandthelinkbetweenskillsandproductivity…areveryswitchedonandtakefulladvantageofpublicsectorsupportwhilstothersarehardertoreachandhaven’treallygotit…”(NWRDA,HeadofSkills:9)

Business Link organizationswere usefulmediators for theNWRDA in forging employer

partnerships surrounding for example the provision of technical training facilities, or

coordinating the establishment (design, development) or adoption of education and

training initiatives across the region. Such partnerships were established between

individuallargeemployers,SMEsorSMEnetworksandlocalproviders(e.g.privatehigh-

end training providers; HE institutions). With support from BL organizations, RDAs, it

seemswerethusable tosecurestrategicand fundedemployerpartnershipswhichwere

problematicforSSCs(Luddy,2008,Payne,2008a)despitetheiraccesstoextensivelabour

market intelligence and employer reach across the region. However these employer

partnerships were very much dependant on the employer information collected by

Business Link organizations regardingpriority skill shortages andproblems in sourcing

education and training. Here BL advisors possessed a wealth of employer information

whichbenefitedorsupportedtheirabilities in forgingor initiatingtrustingrelationships

with high-skill employers and their regional business networks (e.g. social capital

encouraging employer engagement - extensive SME business connections; in depth

136

knowledgeregardinggrassrootstrainingissuesandskillshortages;workingrelationships

withlocalFE,HEproviders,accesstolocalfinancialinvestments).

“…sometimesyougoandthinkthatyou’regoingtotalkaboutone issue…but bythetime you have the conversation you realise that you are not talking about the bigissue…butthatthereareactuallybiggerissuessomewhereelse…”(BL,BusinessDevelopmentManager:14)

RDAs, were thus able to forge closer employer connections and relationships further

generatingemployerinterestintheirregionalstrategicprioritieswithgreatereffectthan

SSCs and their nation-wide emphasis. Industry-level advisory councils and systems

supportingengagementwithpolicystakeholderswithindustry-wideinfluencewerethus

utilised here to collect data on industry-wide and specific education and training

challenges (Table 4.). Although the individual employer engagement approach, seemed

effective in securing employerpartnershipswith large employers (e.g pharmaceuticals),

the analysis revealed the need to connect with micro-SMEs and small businesses from

acrosstheregionwasoftenoverlooked.

“...Ithinkwe’vegotacontinuum...someemployersareverywelltunedinandunderstandthelinkbetweenskillsandproductivity,someveryswitchedonandtakefulladvantageofpublicsectorsupportandothersarehardertoreachandhaven’treallygotit...”(NWRDA,HeadofSkills:6)“...wenormallygoafterthebigcompaniesbecausethey’retheoneswhohavetimetotalkandtheywilltellyouwhattheywantandwillprobablyputsomeworkyourway...ifyougoaftertheSMEs...they’llcomeinonesandtwos...andyouwon’tgetthetraction...butifyougetthebigones...thenyoucansometimespulltheSMEsinafterwards...”(BioNow,BusinessDevelopmentManager:3)

Here the analysis further revealed a shared views amongst policy stakeholders (RDAs,

SSCs,BL,NSAs),suggestingthatSMEengagementwasnotamajorconcernforNSAsand

BLorganisations,astheoverarchingstrategicvisionsoftheseorganizationswerealigned

toemployerneeds, supportingone-to-oneemployerengagementapproachand financial

contributionsfromemployerswillingtosupporttheiractivities.

Although like SSCs and RDAs, NSAs and BL organizations also utilised industry

consultations as a main employer engagement approach (i.e. industry-level steering or

advisory council committees), these organizations facilitated individual employer

engagementonamorefrequentbasisthanRDAsorSSCs.Employerengagementwasthus

coordinated by BL organizations and NSAs, with the aim in supporting employers to

identify skills shortages but also in providing support around sourcing provision or in

establishing new education and training initiatives. Both BL and NSAs thus adopted

involvement and responsive employer engagement strategies providing their access to

individual employers and their collective representation in addressing industry-wide

137

training issues (largely around training regulation, its management and grass roots

trainingproblems).Thesestrategise forexamplesupportedNSAs inconnectingwith the

collective education and training demands of high-skill SME sectors, of individual large

employers(e.g.pharma)andlargeSMEsduetotheintermediaryrolesofNSAsinsourcing

andconnectingemployerswithlocalFE,HEorprivatetrainingprovision.

“…it canbean individual employeroragroupof employers expressinganeed…we’llfirst look to theprovidernetwork thatwe’ve established…to see ifwe can fulfil theirrequirements…”(NSA,SkillPolicyAdvisor:12)

The use of both involvement and responsive strategies were thus critical in extending

their reach across the region in encouraging critical strategic two-way employer

engagement. NSAs encouraged also industry-wide engagement across the region using

informational strategies which supported employer engagement in the use of

organisationalwebsites, regionalbusinessdirectories comprising informationon cluster

organisations,quarterlynewsletters,andusingtheirnationalskillworkshops,networking

eventsandconferences.

“..they’re engaged in the strategy...in our business plan...in productdevelopment...practicallythedaytodayrunningoftheacademy...wehaveatwolayermodel...sowealsohaveregionalboards...soiftheregionalboardsfindsomethingthatthey thinkweshouldbe focusingon ...that’swhatwehave todo...ifwedisagreewithouremployersthenwe’reoutofbusiness...”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:13)

The required high frequency of engagement between NSAs and individual high skill

employers, employer networks and connections from across their supply chain were

furthermaintainedusing theirCustomerRelationshipManagementdatabase systems to

which individuals from SSCs also had access. This closer relationship was further

sustaineddue to thecommitmentofNSAs inprovidingemployerswithvalue formoney

regarding their services in view of a dependency on employer subscription fees and

financial (in-kind) contributions. NSAs, like BL were thus attuned to employer needs

particularlyacrosstheSMEsectorsduetotheiraccesstoemployerbusinessfacilitatedby

theircloseworkingrelationshipsandaccesstotrainingprovidernetworks.

“…it canbean individual employeroragroupof employers expressinganeed…we’llfirstly look to our established provider network…one, can we fulfil this employerneed…two,doweneedadditionalfundingandthreecanwefulfilthisatall…ifwehaveone, then we will work on that relationship….if two we look to see where we canprovide support…anemployermaywantaprogramme thatdeliversacrossaprivateprovider, college and university...its not a natural relationship for three providers tomeet...we provide the environment for them to meet…” (NSA, NSA, Skill PolicyAdvisor:12)

Howevertheuseof theseemployercontactsandaccumulationofsocialcapital(e.g.new

employer relationships, employer knowledge & expertise) depended very much on the

employer demand for particular types of education and training. During the research,

however their extensive activity across the region in addressing the growing employer

interestaroundregulatingvarious typesofeducationand training initiativesmeant that

138

theseengagementstrategieswereinfulluse.Theanalysisforexamplerevealedtheuseof

allthreeemployerengagementstrategies(Table4.)incoordinatingemployerengagement

further establishing and ensuring the formalised adoption of apprenticeship and

internships programmes, in establishing bite-size training modules and career

progression routes for graduate and middle-management in collaboration with policy

stakeholders andemployers (i.e. (in)formal industry consultations) andonaone-to-one

consultationbasiswithemployers.

During the research, industry-wide restructuring and downsizing further

necessitatedengagementbetweenNSAsandmedium-sizedSMEs inpartnershipprojects

overseeingthefacilitationofgrassrootsinitiativesthatprovidedemployerswiththetools

in assessing heir organisational-wide training needs and skill shortages. Here NSAs

oversawthedesign,development,adoptionandevaluationsstagesofneworganisational

trainingskillsdiagnosticstoolsandeducationandtraininginitiativesinpartnershipwith

SME employers. However, employer feedback revealed perceptions of poor economic

benefitsandvalueoftheirservices, leavingpolicyindividualsquestioningthereputation

andvalueoftheinformation,adviceandguidanceprovidedbyNSAs(oftenalongsideSSCs,

RDAs).A furtherproblemhinderingemployeradoptionwas the inconsistentandadhoc

approachadoptedbyNSAsinsustainingcontactwithindividualemployersonceinitiating

newcontact,againdiminishingthereputationalvalueoftheirservices.

Inlightoftheeconomiccontributionsfromemployers(e.g.employersubscriptions;

employer commitment in establishing interventions), NSAs further adopted response

strategies(Table4.)toinitiateemployerfeedbackregardingtheirservices.Thisfeedback

revealed thatemployers forexamplewereconcernedabout therangeof initiatives, that

NSAs supported often alongside other policy stakeholders (e.g. SSCs) at any one time

acrosstheregion,preventingcosteffectivedecision-makingonthepartofemployers.

“...some employers will pay while others cannot...we’re trying to sell so much toemployers at themoment....apprenticeships, internships, we’re trying to encouragethemto send their staffonTrain toGain, toget themto fundacademies, SSCsandnowwe’retryingtogetthemtojointheschemethatBISannouncedlastyear...toputuplargesumsofmoneyforaGovernmentpartnershipforeducationandtraining....”

“...we need to have a clear concept of what the programme actually is and knowaboutthevaluethatitdeliverssowecansellittoemployers...we’renotgoingtogetinto all employers...butwe speak to employers on a regular basis...if we see addedvalueinsomethingitgetsourfoot inthedoor...theymightnotneedapprentices...sowe’ll speak to themabout internships...abouthowgraduatescanaddvalue to theirbusiness...”(NSA,SkillsAdvisors:13)

However,theseemployerconcernswereaddressedbypolicystakeholdersintheiruseof

(in) formal industry consultations, which provided employers with clarity around the

nature inwhichvariouseducationand training initiativeswere ledbydesignatedpolicy

139

stakeholders and their employer engagement approaches. The analysis revealed

somewhat similar employer engagement challenges facing BL organizations, although

here policy stakeholders reflected on their capabilities in coordinating more frequent

employerengagementthanNSAs.Thiswasachievedintheiruseofasite-to-siteemployer

engagementsupportedbyanextensiveemployerdatabasesystem,andproving tobean

effective approach in engaging the SME sectors. Here too industry-wide employer

engagementwasfurtherachievedusinginformationalstrategiesinthefirstinstance(e.g.

informal workshops, networking events, advisory council meetings; company website),

which laternecessitatedtheuseof two-waystrategiesdependingontheskillsshortages

andemployerneedsforeducationandtraining.

“...sometimesyougoinandthinkthatyou’regoingtotalkaboutoneissuebutbythetimeyouhavetheconversation,yourealisethatwhatyou’reactuallytalkingaboutisnotthebigissueandthereareactuallyotherbiggerissuessomewhereelse...”(BL,BusinessDevelopmentManagers:14)

This site-to-site employer engagement approach was necessary in connecting with the

criticalproblematicofgrassrootstrainingissuesinfluencingtheirhigh-skillemployers,in

addressingthedemandforstandardisedtraininganditsmanagement,inaddressingskill

shortagesaroundhigh-skilllabourandbusinessimprovementtechniques.Thesewerethe

keyemployerchallengesthatBLwascommittedtoduringtheresearch.

“…so we’re tasked to providing an environment for businesses in the region…tothrive…to network…to partner on major training issues…we’re running events…wesupportcompaniesingainingaccesstofunds...throughthepublicsector…throughourinvestors…”“…itsaboutprovidingassistanttobusinessesinupskillingexistingtechnicianstoreallyengagewithhigherskillsandreallyit’sthesameacrossuniversities…itsaboutourroleinunderstandingwhatbusinessesactuallywantfromtheirgraduates…”(BL,RegionalSkillsAdvisor:15)

This approach provided economic benefits for SMEs too, in light of their often rather

limited HR expertise and low specialist knowledge leading to the establishment of

partnerships approaches in best tackling the above highlighted challenges. Partnerships

were thusmediatedbyand involvingpolicy stakeholdersbetween individual employers

andlocaltrainingproviders,thussupportingtheestablishmentofbespokesolutionsand

diagnostics.PolicystakeholderssuchasBL(andNSAs)were thusable tobetterconnect

withthesmallandmicro-SMEbusinessesfromthebioscienceandbiotechnologysectors

morereadilythanSSCsandRDAs,alsoduetotheiraccumulationofsocialcapitalaround

localemployerfundingopportunities.

These unique employer engagement attributes in connecting with the SME

sectors by BL andNSAs necessitated their involvement in regional steering committees

supporting HE policy, the HLSP and high-skill strategies supported by the North West

ScienceCouncilacrosstheregion.Thesesteeringcommitteeswereledandcoordinatedby

140

theNorthWestUniversitiesAssociation(NWUA),anumbrellaorganizationrepresenting

local universities with committee members also present at (in)formal industry

consultations led and supported by policy stakeholders (RDAs, SSCs, NSAs). Steering

committees thus supported consultations between the Skills Alliance, industry sector

panels involving skills agencies (LSC/SFA, SEMTA, Cogent), cluster policy organisations

(BioNow),educationalinstitutions(HE/FE)andthehighskillSMEsectors.Theoutcomes

of steering committees were shared as information by the various policy stakeholders

involved in this research, in line with the use of the employer engagement strategies

highlighted in table 4. These insights demonstrate, that policy stakeholders utilised

various forms of micro and meso-perspective employer engagement strategies to also

contribute and progress the high skill agenda across the region, thus extending beyond

their existing roles in raising skill attainment levels across low and intermediate

occupations. Policy stakeholders utilising both micro-perspective andmeso-perspective

employer engagement approaches (e.g. BL, NSAs)were better able to connect with the

SME sectors, thus accumulating social capital essential in sustaining their regional

emphasis in raising skill attainment levels (Keep et al. 2006, Keep, 2002). These social

capital characteristics enhanced their employer engagement resources including:

knowledge and information attributes (e.g. specialist service provision – training

solutions; diagnostics) and reputational capital (e.g. access to employer business

networks; funding streams; local private training providers; policy successes). The

analysis thus generated new insights, about the underlying problems challenging

individualpolicy stakeholdersand theirpolicyorganisations fromeffectively connecting

withemployersandtheiremployernetworks. Basedontheirexperiences inconnecting

with high-skill employers, policy stakeholders also identified factors influencing heir

access to employers (A.) and barriers preventing high-skill employers from connecting

withtheiremployerengagementefforts(B).

A. Organisational barriers influencing policy stakeholders from

engagingwithemployers

Policy stakeholders referred to both external and internal factors directly

influencing theresourcesof theirorganizations inengagingemployers in theiractivities

and also in accessing employer organizations. These insights add context to existing

argumentsthatpointtotheirwiderchallengesofemployerengagement(Payne,2008a,b;

Keep et al.2006; Lloyd&Payne, 2003a,b; 2002;Keep, 2002). External limitationswere

mainly linked to changes in the supply-side institutional environment surrounding their

sector, the re-structuringandbusiness costefficiencies facing theirorganizations.These

critical changes influenced their access to resources vital in supporting employer

141

engagement, thus contributing to diminishing trust amongst employers in their

capabilities inaddressingmajorskillsshortagesacrosstheir industries.Amajorconcern

for policy stakeholderswas themarket competition that such changeswere generating

betweenpolicyorganizations,furthererodingemployertrust.

“…it’sahardestjobgoing…gettingintoacompanyisreallydifficult…youcallthemandthey dowant to talk…butmost times they don’twant to talk because there’s lots oforganisationsout there trying toget their time…so its veryeasy foremployers tohitthe delete button…all of our products are employer-led…but employers don’t seeit…whattheyseeisanotherorganizationcompetingfortheirtime….”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:13)

Here policy stakeholders (e.g. SSCs, NSAs, BL) acknowledged that employers were

howeveracutelyawareofthere-structuringimpactingtheirskillsectorandtheassociated

implications for their funding structures and organisational goals in taking on major

training projects relevant to their high-skill sectors. Constraints around funding for

traininginitiativessourcedthroughtheirorganisationsforexamplepresenteddifficulties

for large employers in establishing partnerships with high-skill SME sectors and in

sustaining their existing (in) formal employer networks. Here policy stakeholders also

identified internal factors influencing their individual roles and responsibilities in

engagingoraccessingemployers,suchasissuesaroundaweaktrainingemphasisacross

theirsectorinsupportingtheirrolesandworkintensificationasadirectconsequenceof

organisational downsizing and resource limitations. Resource limitations, in particular,

challenged their individual abilities and roles in effectively harnessing the social capital

potential surrounding their activities across the region, furtherpresentingdifficulties in

harnessing the potential of existing employer, training provider and business networks

and forging new connections and working relationships (e.g. employer connections;

connections with training providers; industry-wide awareness of policy initiatives).

Resource constraints also raised competition between policy stakeholder organizations,

furthercompromisingtheircollectiveeffortsinrepresentingemployerneeds.

“…I think that our aim is in building working relationships with employers…inmaintainingmomentumaroundtheserelationships…itsnotaboutgoinginandsayingthat we can do this or that for you…you know sign on the dotted line…its aboutbuilding relations…so at the first meeting we normally don’t get too much detailsaround training problems…because they might talk about one or two things in ageneralway…Inormallycallthembackafterthemeeting…presentingsolutionsintheform of an assessment system for example or in introducing business improvementstechniques or in proposing a potential partnership opportunity…” (NSA, Skills PolicyAdvisor:12)“…we do exchange information…but we face competition…if you speak to mycolleaguestheywilltellyouthatorganizationXareengagingininitiatives…they’renottellingusabout…”(SSC,PolicyDirector:1)

Theseinsightsaddcontexttoexistingbroadlybasedargumentsthatonlybrieflyreferto

thechallengespresentedbytheimmediateworkingenvironmentsofstaffworkingwithin

142

skill agencies (Payne, 2008a, b - SSCs). Here policy stakeholders recognised that their

seniormanagementdidnot fully acknowledge the critical implications that the growing

demandforhigh-skill jobrolesandskillssurroundingR&Dproductionacrosstheregion

andstructuralshifts inHEdeliverypresented for their individualuniquelyspecificroles

and responsibilities (Appendix IV). in addressing regional shortages surrounding high-

skilllabour

“…there’s lots going on around the HE sector…and the promotion of STEMindustries…you’ll know that HEFCE have issued another pot of money for stemissues…ifwedon’tpromotenow…getemployersengagingwithHE…there’sadangerthatinanother15yearstimewellbelookingatlabourshortages…”(NWRDA,RegionalSkillsBusinessManager:10)

Policy stakeholders (NSAs, BL) thus questioned their individual capabilities, existing

knowledge and experience in sufficiently leading and coordinating meso (industry)

perspectiveconsultationsaroundestablishingthedemandforinitiatives,workinggroups,

and partnership projects surrounding the need for new occupational structures,

competencyframeworksandpostgraduatetrainingneedsaroundR&Djobroles.Various

new development needs surrounding the transitioning roles of policy stakeholders

towards addressing the high-skill context were identified which their existing

development systems did not necessarily address (up-to-date knowledge surrounding

currentdevelopmentchallengesandskillshortagesinfluencingtherangeofhigh-skilljob

roles connected to changing high-skill R&D production characterising the high-skill

sectors.Heresomepolicystakeholders(SSCs)morethanothers(NSAs)anticipatedtheir

organizations to address this issue around their transitioning employer engagement

responsibilitiesinaccordancewiththechanginghighskillcontext.

“…our budgets are based around our staff costs…we have career pathways whichdepict our career roles and which will hopefully grow the qualifications and skillsmarketsaroundhighskillindustriesgrow…”(SSC,ProcessPlantsSkillsManager:7)

Furtherdifficultieswere identified inconnectingwith therapidlychangingandcomplex

(e.g. weak transparency) funding structures characterising their high-skill sectors, with

problemsaroundthenon-relevanceofexistingfundingconstrainingnewinitiatives.

“I think changes in technology surrounding production in its forms…everything ismovinginsuchafastpaceasyourtrainingneedsnowwillbecompletelydifferent intwelve to eighteen months time…so we as an organization are aware of thefuture…there’s various pockets of support available but it meeting future employerneedsandengagementthat’sdifficult…”(SSC,ProductServicesManager:6)

Accesstorelevantfundingstreamswascriticalinlightoftheirexpectedadoptionofnew

and changing responsibilities (see sub-section 4.3.2) in connecting employers and their

networks, in leading regional industry-wide consultations surrounding the high skill

context and in forging connections with policy stakeholders and provider networks

aroundnewlyidentifiedcompetenciesandskillshortagessurroundingR&Djobroles.

143

“...wedon’thaveahugeteam...Ithinkthat’showitmanifestsitself...ifwewerebiggerwewouldgetthingsdonefaster...workandconductparallelinvestigations...wehavemultipleresponsibilities...bringingincorefunding,bringinginextrabusiness,extraresearchandprojectsandindevelopingtheorganisationasabusiness...”(SSC,SpecialistScienceAdvisor:18)

Thisinvolvedmultipleresponsibilities,andsopolicystakeholdersquestionedconstraints

facing their organizations surrounding existing knowledge competencies, organisational

resources and available time surrounding their individual roles in satisfactorily

addressingnewly emerginghigh-skills shortages across the region.Work intensification

was of particular concern due to the anticipated downsizing of their operational

capabilities to the effect that responsibilities staff were allocated responsibilities in

addressingmultipleeducationandtraininginitiativesinsteadoftheirpreviouslyadopted

team-based approach where responsibilities around single initiatives were addressed

collectively. This meant the adoption of multiple employer engagement roles per staff

member for each initiative and involved responsibilities around harnessing employer

support and ensuring employer representation during identification, development and

adoption stages of each initiative. Alongside these shared concerns, policy stakeholders

eluded to the additional leadership problems who viewed investments in staff

development an unlikely proposition for their organizations particularly when training

costswere likely to undermine business growth priorities during a particularly difficult

periodfacingtheirsector(i.e.publicsectorscuts,restructuringanddownsizing).

“…the training across the sector for us is generally poor…we’ve had few trainingprogrammes…an away day here…an away day there….a training package here…itsforceduponus…wehaven’tbeenaskedwhatweneed…lotsoftrainingaround…sellingand in commercialisingour services...I think that itsbecauseof the funding situationtoo…alsobearinginmindthat ittakesawhiletodevelopthosetrainingculturesandmanagementsystems…”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:13)

Stakeholderswere acutely aware of the irony of this situation. Cuts in training budgets

meantconstraintsintheircapabilitiesinsupportingemployersacrosstheregion,inspite

of the efforts of their sector and individual organisations in re-aligning their services

accordingtothechangingneedsofhigh-skillemployersacrosstheirregion.

B. Micro-perspective employer barriers & drivers influencing

engagementwithpolicyorganizations

Policystakeholdersalsorevealedtheirindividualexperiencesinengagingwithor

in negotiating contact with high-skill employers on a site-to-site basis. Here they

expressed views regarding the barriers that employers presented further constraining

employer engagement with their policy organizations and preventing employers from

acknowledging or adopting the education and training initiatives that they promoted

144

acrosstheregion.Asalreadyhighlighted,liketheirskillssectors,high-skillindustriestoo

facedindustry-widerestructuringanddownsizingnecessitatingtheestablishmentofnew

corporate business strategies around diversifying R&D production into international

markets. This further generated high-skill employment opportunities and competency

frameworks around R&D job roles and subsequent skill shortages for their region. The

involvementofpolicystakeholders(i.e.RDAS,SSCs,BL,NSAs;NWUA)intheestablishment

ofthesecompetencyframeworkswassomewhatpremature(sub-section4.3.1),although

herepolicystakeholderswerealsooftheviewthatemployershadsufficientHRcapacity

inaddressing relatedskills shortages surrounding theirnewR&Dcapabilities. Here the

analysis revealed that such new competency frameworks were discussed at informal

industry consultations led bypolicy stakeholders (i.e. SSCs (SEMTA),NWRDAs, Cogent),

althoughtheirformalisedinvolvementinemployer-ledindustryconsultationsurrounding

their establishment was lacking. Here policy stakeholders presented various reasons,

largely employer barriers, behind their inabilities in engaging with such developments

that in their view were competitive drivers of regional performance (Brown, 2001;

Finegold,1999).

Acommonlyacknowledgedproblemwastheweakemployerinterestinengaging

with their organizations, services and initiatives (Payne 2008a), although here policy

stakeholders (i.e. SSCs; NSAs; NWUA) also attributed partial responsibility to the

ineffectiveness of their own employer engagement approaches. Although policy

individuals employed various employer engagement strategies and communication

approaches(Table4.),theseweremainlyusefulinsustainingemployerengagement,once

contacthadbeenestablished.Morethanoftenadhoccold-callingmethodswereemployed

toinitiateengagementinthefirstinstancewithnewemployersfromtheregion.

“…basicallyface-to-facemeetingsusingourindustrydatabasethatwebuildandrefineaswedevelop our employer networks…ourCRM system…obviouslywehave our ownnetworksaswell…andgoouttonetworksandregional…nationalevents…giveoutourcontactsandthengetintouch…there’stwoapproaches…anationaltelephoningsystemandourownappointmentsystem…”(NSA,

Despite challenges, thismethodwasuseful in connectingwith thevarietyof individuals

with responsibilities in managing staff development responsibilities within high-skill

employing organisations. These individuals included: CEOs, financial directors, HR

managers and professionals, team leaders, trainers and varying levels of management

seniority involved innational, regionalor industry steeringgroupsandadvisorycouncil

networks. Connections forged by policy stakeholderswith these individuals thus varied

depending on organisational size, production capabilities (e.g. micro-SMEs; small

businesses–CEO;largepharma–HRmanagers),althoughdifficultiesinsustainingcontact

wereconsistentlyexperiencedirrespectiveoforganisationalsize.

145

“...wellthefirstproblemistryingtogetinthroughthedoor,pastthegatekeeperusuallythereceptionistortheHRmanager...sowetryandgetthroughtothemostseniorpersononsitewhich-theoperationsdirectorortheexecutive...wetalktotheminageneralistway...’wewouldliketotalktoyouabouttheskillsofyourbusinessandhowwecanhelpyou’...andthentryandintroducesomeoftheproductsandservices...”(NSA,SkillspolicyAdvisor:12)

“...Ithinkit’sverydifficulttoknowwhotoliaisewith...itisn’ttheCEOs...theyaremostlikelytositonsomethingliketheNWScienceCouncil...buttherearesomekindofhigherlevelmemberswhohaveattendedsteeringgroupsbutitsdifficulttosay...”

(NWUA,Sector-specificSkillsAdvisor:16) Policy stakeholders revealed a shared consensus that they generally took longer in

securing the interestof largeemployersparticularlyas subsequentmeetingswereoften

conductedwith different senior individuals. Oftenmultiple visits and/ormeetingswith

different individual points of contactmeant that employers lost track of developments.

Policystakeholders(RDAs,SSCs)generallyattributedthisproblemtoseniormanagement

and the challenges experienced in internally communicatingbut harnessing the interest

andwillingnessofemployermanagement-levels(e.g.senioroperationsmanagement;line-

management) inacknowledgingorconsidering thebenefitsof theirproposed initiatives.

Thisviewhowevervarieddependingonthenatureofworkingrelationshipsforgedwith

employers(e.g.NSAs–frequentindividualemployerengagement).

“...thepersonatthetopmightthinkitsbrilliantbutiftheyhaven’ttoldthepersonatthebottom...thenitsquitedifficult...Iwouldsayitsabouttalkingtotherightpersonandtalkingtomorethanone....youhavedifferentconversationsdependingonwho

you’retalkingto...”(SSC,IndustrialApprenticeshipManager:2)

“…wellwegettalkingtotheseniorpersonon-sitewhoismorelikelytocommunicateordelegate downwardswithin the organization…only thenwill you get ameetingwiththerightperson…otherwiseyourprobablywon’tgetameeting…” (NSA,SkillsPolicyAdvisor:12)

Policy stakeholders (SSCs, RDAs) thus identified with the problems of a disconnect

between organisational management-levels in the organisational-wide adoption or

integration of education and training initiatives and a lack of leadership and senior

leadership ofmanagement support. Policy stakeholders here however shared the view

that high-skill employers were further not connecting with the education and training

initiatives that their policy organizations supported, in light of theirweak awareness of

their benefits. This weak awareness further stemmed from their lack of formalised

communication channels with policy stakeholders and in integrating with internal HR

decision-makingprocesses.

“...wearedevelopingprovisionforemployers,howtheyembedthesesortsofcommunicationswithintheorganisationisverydifficultbecauseyouhaveonepointofcontact...whowillthengobacktotheirorganisation...andwhomayormaynotcommunicatethatinformation...howwidelyitisdisseminatedwithintheorganisation...difficulttotell...”(NWUA,SpecialistSkillsAdvisor:6)

146

Similarchallengesarecommonlynotedwithinexistingscholarlyargumentssurrounding

the conflicting relationship between the HR training function and management-level

training responsibilities within employing organizations (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007;

Manning, 2002; McKracken & Wallace, 2000). The analysis here indicates that policy

stakeholders too identified with such issues although attributed the disconnect to the

problemsofmanagementattitudesinaddressingtrainingshortagesoverdueprocess.To

address this problem around the weak management interest in their initiatives, policy

stakeholders here suggested line-management involvement during initial and later

meetings and consultations as a possible solution in assessing the beneficial value of

initiatives suggested by policy stakeholders but also in supporting discussions in

identifyingcriticalskillsshortagesandtrainingneeds.

“....usuallyitsHRmanagers,productionpeople,directors,productionmanagers...itsacrosssection...sometimesyougetabetterfeelofthingslowerdownthechainbytalkingtopeoplethatarehandsonthanifyouweretalkingtosomeoneinHRresponsibleforthoseskillsissues...”(SSC,PolicyDirector:1)

There was a shared consensus of the line’s ability in having a detailed insights of the

organisational-wide challenges constraining the adoption of training initiatives and in

identifyingthenature inwhichstaffbenefitedfromtraininginrelationtodaily jobroles

and responsibilities (Hales, 2005; MacNeil, 2003; Renwick, 2003). The line was also

recognisedasahindrance.

“…HRgenerally hold the purse strings...we do support the line-manager and provideadvise around our initiatives…although we had a case where a new line-managercalled a halt to a contracted initiative adopted by an employer just because theycouldn’tseethevalue…”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:13)

However in lightof theaccessof the linetoawealthof information,policystakeholders

(e.g. BL, NSAs, SSCs), thus emphasised the benefits of formalised line-management

engagement in their industry consultations, particularly in the establishmentof training

partnerships between high-skill employers, FE, HE provision and policy stakeholders

(Gibb, 2003). Engagement in these network arrangements also benefited the line,

supporting access to up-to-date information on industry-wide education and training

developmentsandtheirassociatedfundingstreams(Martins,2007;Cascon-perieraetal.

2007). Policystakeholderswerehoweververymuchawareof the limitations facingthe

lineinpreventingsuchengagement.

The line for example faced challenges around work intensification, limited time

(Macleod & Clarke, 2009) and insufficient resources in committing to external

partnerships (Hales, 2005; Gibb, 2003; McKracken & Wallace, 2003). The prior

experiences of policy stakeholders (e.g. NSAs, BL) of engaging with line-management

revealedtheirhesitancy insharingcompany information,reserved for internalcompany

use only, around competitive job roles and competencies, regulated training systems,

147

although this information was often utilised by senior management for industry

benchmarking purposes where information-sharing was necessary. The analysis thus

revealed that the experiences of individual policy stakeholders in connectingwithhigh-

skill employers varieddepending on the information anddata that high-skill employers

chose to or were willing to share. Company cultures around sharing training and

development information however also very much depended upon the openness of

employersinadoptingindustry-benchmarkingapproaches.

Here policy stakeholders highlighted differences in the use of industry

benchmarking depending upon organisational size, production capabilities and

benchmarking cultures noting that these variations influenced information sharingwith

their organisations. Largehigh-skill employers andSMEs for example employedvarious

internal data collection methods informing their benchmarking, supporting their

assessmentofskillshortagesandorganisational-widetrainingneeds.Policystakeholders

werethusawareofvarioussystemsbeingemployedbyhigh-skillemployersthatinformed

their meetings with senior individuals (e.g. bi-annual organisational-wide staff surveys

andconsultationsconductedbetweenseniorHRdirectorsandsenior-levelcorporateand

business development management teams). The analysis revealed that based on their

experiences, policy stakeholders understood that within large organisations, this

information was used to benchmark training with competitors. However policy

stakeholdersobserveddifferences inmanagementawarenessof thebusinessbenefitsof

benchmarking within large high-skill organizations and large and medium-sized SMEs,

despite its use in sustaining regulated training. Variations in awareness were noted

between larger organisations and SMEs, and between SMEs varying in size as well as

according to management levels within SMEs. The weak importance allocated to

benchmarkingwithin somehigh-skill organizations (medium-sizedandmicro-SMEs) led

toinconsistenciesinsustainingregulatedtrainingandthedevelopmentofhigh-skillstaff

workingwithinR&Droles.Theseobservationswereimportant,astheysuggestedtopolicy

stakeholders the extent to which high-skill employers were likely to share vital

competitive information on training and its use. However the main source of shared

informationwas drawn from organisational surveys. According to policy stakeholders,

suchinformationdidnotadequatelyrepresentthetraininganddevelopmentaspirations

of staff particularly within large and medium-sized SMEs. Other forms of rigorous

benchmarkingsystemswereutilised,althoughagaintheselargelysupportedmanagement

in sustaining regulated training. Stakeholders (SSCs,BL,NSAs)were thusof theview

that information shared by SME employers during consultations was not an accurate

representationof their trainingneeds. Employers thus requiredsupport inestablishing

148

employee involvement systems ensuring that their development aspirations were

represented,aserviceofferedbytheirorganizations(e.g.BL,NSAs).

“...weworkwiththemtotryandencouragethemtoformalisesomeoftheirtrainingprocessesandtorecordwhereverpossiblerightdowntothelowestleveloftrainingthat’sdeliveredtoensurethateverythingiscaptured...employeesgettrainedandre-trainedunnecessarily...”(NSA,SkillsPolicyAdvisors:12)“...howhavepeoplebeentrained,whattraininghavetheyreceived…arepeoplequalityassured,safetyassured...isthetrainingfitforpurpose...theyneedtoconstantlymonitorandevaluate...”(SSC,SpecialistScienceAdvisor:8)

“...companieswitharound250employeeswhotendstilltobeturningoverhighqualitygoods...theywillhaveatraininginfrastructure...someonewithtrainingresponsibility...responsibleforthetrainingofpeople...whattheydon’tnecessarilyhaveisamechanismforvalidatingwhat’sdone...theycarryoutthetrainingbuttheydon’tnecessarilycheckwhetheritstakeneffect...”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:13)

Theempirical evidenceprovides context around theemployerengagementbarriers and

drivers influencing policy stakeholders in initiating employer contact on an individual

site-to-sitebasis. Interestinglypolicy stakeholders here too confirm the lack of employer

trust in their service provision, a commonly acknowledged phenomenon characterising the

UK’s historical institutional training context (chapter one, sub-section 1.1.1) (Payne,

2008a,b; Keep et al. 2006). Policy stakeholders were however faced with the problems of a

lack of employer trust in sharing competitive information, although further point to

employer inconsistencies and challenges across the region in better understanding and

benchmarking their training needs, particularly around newly developing R&D capabilities

(e.g. line-management involvement; industry benchmarking; employee representation –

Gleeson & Keep, 2004; Fuller & Unwin, 2004).

4 .3.3Macro-perspectiveemployerengagement:therelevanceof

Brown’s(2001)highskill framework

The discussions next underpin research question one and explore the nature in

which the employer engagement efforts of policy stakeholders were characteristic of

Brown’s (2001) high skill conditions. Here the analysis refers to the literature review

(section 1.1) that highlights that Brown’s (2001) conditions characterise macro-

perspective employer engagement drivers, which commentators suggest are further

necessaryalthougharelackingwithintheUK’swiderinstitutionaltrainingcontext(Keep

& Mayhew, 2010; Keep et al. 2006). The analysis next however acknowledges that

Brown’s (2001) conditions relate to high-skill economies and do not underpin theUK’s

institutional training environment (Rainbird, et al. 2004), although resemble the

149

underlyingcompetitiveconditionsofUKhighskillindustries(Finegold,1999,1991–R&D

production, meso-industry networks). In view of this similarity, the discussions next

analyse the nature in which Brown’s (2001) seven conditions underpin or support the

employer engagement activities fostered by policy stakeholders within the context of

high-skill industries and their competitive cluster conditions. The analysis next thus

extendsexistingscholarlyarguments(Lloyd,2002)thatpointtothechallengespresented

by the UK’s institutional training environment in meeting the education and training

needsofhighskillorganisations.Specificallytheanalysesindicatesthenatureinwhichthe

competitive conditions characterising the high-skill industries in question, supported

policy stakeholders in fostering meso (industry) perspective employer engagement in

addressingtheneedforanunmethigh-skilleducationandtrainingagenda.Theanalysisis

based upon new empirical data and existing analysis from previous sections and

addresses Brown’s (2001) conditions including: consensus, competitive capacity,

capability,coordination,circulation,cooperationandclosure.

A. Consensus,coordination,competitivecapacityandcooperation

The condition consensus questions whether “major stakeholders, governments

andemployersarecommittedin“upgrading”theskilloftheworkforce”(Brown,2001:35).

This commitment requires that stakeholders “coalesce” around raising skills across low,

intermediate and high skill occupations. A nation-wide consensus amongst competing

interest groups is expected generating a “high skills” commitment, one that facilitates

institutionalpolicychangeinrelationtolabourmarkets,industrialrelationsoreducation

and training interventions. The analyses within previous sections reveal the lack of a

consensus-driveapproachintheemployerengagementfacilitatedbypolicystakeholders.

Thisfindingmoreorlesscorroboratestherangeofexistingscholarlyargumentsthatpoint

to the various employer engagement barriers which have long-since faced supply-side

policy stakeholders and institutions (see sub-section 1.1.1). The analysis is however

distinctiveinthatprovidesalensintotheparticularcaseofhighskill industries,notably

providing previously unrealised insights of a renewed emphasis on the part of policy

stakeholders inengagingemployersat the(meso) industry-level.Althoughthisrenewed

commitment was supported by a much-criticised national emphasis, driven by central

Government, a series of new developments are nevertheless evidenced. Arguably

thereforethesedevelopmentsrevealthecommitmentandeffortsofpolicystakeholdersin

connecting with employers, although, as the analysis reveals these efforts are not

reciprocatedbyemployers.

Heretheanalysiscorroboratesthealltoofamiliaremployerissuesconnectedwith

theirweakengagementwith individualpolicyorganizations, suchas theweakemployer

150

trustandconfidenceintheservicesprovidedbypolicy-stakeholders.Ofparticularinterest

herewasthatpolicystakeholders identifiedshortcomings in theirorganisationalservice

provisions,although theanalysis furtherreveals theiradoptionofprogressivestrategies

in connectingwith employers. An example of this awareness is their recognition of the

lackof financial supportandservicesavailable toemployers, critical for fundingaround

employertrainingpartnerships(e.g.BITStraining;privatetrainingproviders)thatpolicy

stakeholders(BL,NSAs)oftenmediated.Apotentialsolutionwasidentifiedintheformof

theestablishmentof industryconsultationsspecifically inaddressingthefinancial issues

facing employers, but also in establishing education and training initiatives around job

roles, competency frameworks and training regulation surrounding newly established

R&Dproductionacrosstheregion.Thisproblemwasparticulartotheirweakengagement

with the SME sectors (small-to-medium-sized enterprises, micro-SMEs and small

businesses), although here again a potential solution was identified in extending their

services to meet the demands of the SME sectors using their newly established meso

(industry)-perspectiveengagementstrategies(sub-section4.3.1).Herefurtherformalised

channelsofcommunicationswererequiredacross theregiontodistinguishbetweenthe

distinctiveness of the services of individual policy stakeholders, further alleviating the

confusionthatemployersfacedduetotheiroftenoverlapinserviceprovision.

Despitethisawarenessaroundtheexperiencesofemployers,policystakeholders

werehoweveralsooftheviewpointthattheirweakemployerengagementstemmedfrom

thelackofemployerawarenessoftheavailablesupportthattheirservicesofferedspecific

to the high-skill industry for which there was a growing demand (e.g. high-skill NVQs;

apprenticeships; training evaluation methods (e.g. Skills Matrices) and also grass roots

organisational training initiatives (e.g. skills diagnostics – useful for the evaluations of

jobs, competencies and skill). Sub-section 4.2 provides the much-required supporting

evidence of the range of education and training initiatives facilitated by policy

stakeholdersresultingfromsuccessfulemployerengagement.Ofparticularinterestisthe

growing emphasis around high-skill initiatives supporting professional management

competenciesofrelevanceacrossjobsinvolvedinR&Dproductionoremploymentacross

the high skill occupations (e.g. graduate apprenticeships). The analysis here thus

contradictsexistingunderstandingoftherolesofpolicyorganizationsinonlysupporting

low and intermediate-level occupations, further revealing shared views amongst

stakeholders of anticipated establishment of consensus-driven strategies in connecting

andprogressing thehigh skill agendaacross the region. Theaffectsofpublic sector re-

structuring facing their skill sector was thus viewed an opportunity by some policy

stakeholders(e.g.NSAs,BL)althoughnotall,inre-evaluatingtheiremployerengagement

strategies, so as to enable a focused regional employer-led emphasis in their education

151

and training provision. These developments were established in the wake of financial

pressures and cuts in resources, testing the abilities of their policy organisations in

pooling resources connected to front-line staff with lead responsibilities in engaging

employersatacrucialtimeforthehigh-skillsectorsfromacrosstheregion.Pressuresin

internationalmarkets(globalfinancialmeltdown),meantthatthesesectorstoofacedre-

structuringalthoughgeneratedopportunitiesforpolicystakeholdersinestablishinghigh-

skill initiatives.Theseopportunitiesstemmedfromagrowingdemandfornewhigh-skill

R&DjobrolesandcompetencyframeworkssupportingR&Dproductionacrosstheregion

addressed via their meso (industry) consultations. These characteristics underpin

Brown’s(2001:46,48)condition“cooperation”.

“Cooperation”(Brown2001:46,48) isdependentuponthe“embedment”of“trust

relations” into “societal fabric” and thus characterises a “social partnership approach”

bound by “common interests and shared goals” in raising skill attainment. Here the

analysisrevealedelementsoftrustbetweenpolicyorganizationsintheircollectiveefforts

inconnectingwith theeducationand trainingneedsofhigh-skillemployersat themeso

(industry)level.Elementsoftrustwherealsoevidencedintheirengagementeffortswith

high-skillemployers intheiradoptionofmeso(sub-section4.3.1)andmicro-perspective

(sub-section 4.3.2) employer engagement strategies (Table 4, p.121). The analysis

revealedthattrustwasintegralinthevarietyofemployerengagementstrategiesadopted

bypolicystakeholders(employerengagementstrategies–Table4).

Theanalysis insub-section4.3.1forexamplerevealssimilarities inthegoalsand

visions of policy organizations, particularly surrounding the UK Government’s macro-

perspectivevisioninraisingindustry-wideskillattainment,yetvariationsintheirabilities

inengagingorinfluencingemployersacrosstheregion.Accordingtopolicystakeholders,

this influence largely depended on the overarching strategic visions of their policy

organizations, their leadership roles in representing the Government’s vision around

education and training across the high-skill sectors and importantly their access to

Government investments and support. So here RDAs, SSCs and policy organizations

responsible for training regulation, aligned their employer engagement activities across

theregionwithGovernment’smacro-perspectivenationaltrainingagendaandlarge-scale

macro-perspectiveprojects.TheseeffortswerefundedbycentralGovernmentduetotheir

leadershipinfluenceinengagingemployers.Thiscontrastedwiththeapproachadoptedby

NSAsandBLinitiativeswhoalthoughwerealsodependentuponemployercontributions

and Government investment, extended their regional employer reach in their

accumulation of social capital around their services using their individual employer

engagement strategies and their intermediary roles in connecting employers (including

SMEs) to training provider and employer networks from across industry supply chains.

152

However,despitetheoftencollectiveeffortsofpolicystakeholders,employersallocateda

higher value to the individual site-to-site engagement facilitated by NSAs and BL

organizationsthanpolicyorganizationsandagencieswithahigherleadership(e.g.RDAs,

SSCs,ABPI-regulation)influenceacrosstheregion.

“...itsalllinked...intermsofthenationalpolicypublicationsandhowweworkwithBIS...toensurethatitdoesaccuratelyreflectwhat’srequiredintheregion...aswellasthenationalpicture...soit’sworkingwiththemandthenrespondingtonationalpolicyasitemerges...sofortheSkillsforGrowth...theHigherAmbitions...there’slotsaroundlowcarbonrecentlyaswell...NewIndustriesNewJobsandhowthatthenlocksintowhatwe’redoingintheregion...”(NWRDA,BiomedicalSectorsSkillsManager:13) “...ourworkoverlapswithskillsbrokersbutweworkveryhappilyinconjunctionwiththemwherewecangivethemveryhighqualityinformationonaspecificpartoftheindustryratherthanthemoregenericneeds.Wecanalsohighlightthemostappropriatequalifications...insomeinstancesskillsbrokersdon’tknowwhat’snew...relevant.OurrelationshipwithCogenthelpsusstayaheadofthegame...”(NSA,BusinessDevelopmentManager:15)

The analysis in sub-section 4.3.2 explains the relevance of Brown’s (2001) condition

cooperationincharacterisingthemeso-perspectiveemployerengagementeffortsofpolicy

stakeholders via their industry consultations and characteristic (in)formal network

arrangements. Herepolicy stakeholdersmanaged sufficient employer representation at

these industry consultations despite the wider employer engagement issues across the

region, centring largely around the weak employer trust in their initiatives and

subsequentweakemployeradoption. Informalmeso-perspective industryconsultations

were however effective in engaging the SME sectors, due to the lack of expected

formalised commitment from employers. Such consultations were thus effective in

harnessingemployerinterestinmajorinitiativessupportedbypolicystakeholdersfurther

providing information on niche and narrow specialist education and training issues

affectingSMEs(e.g.trainingregulation;nicheR&Dcompetencyframeworks).Thiswasan

effectiveapproach inaccessing informationasnew initiatives identifiedduring informal

consultations often led to formalised projects and partnerships, the successful

establishmentofwhichhoweverdependeduponaccesstolocalandregionalpublicsector

investment.Formalisedindustryconsultationshoweverdrewontheexpertiseofavariety

of stakeholders including: employers (large pharmaceuticals, bioscience and

biotechnologysectors), tradeunionrepresentatives,policystakeholdersandprivateand

publiceducationandtrainingproviders.Theireffectivenesswas largelydependentupon

trust in their collective efforts and resource sharing in addressing key education and

trainingchallengesaffectingtheregion.Theanalysishoweverrevealedthattheflexibility,

sustainabilityandgrowthofformalconsultationswascompromisedduetothestructural

economic and social constraints characterising the networks to which individuals

153

attending these consultations belonged. Economic constraints for example prevented

individual members including employers from accessing resource-sharing capabilities

(e.g. administration; staff time) from their organizations and networks (e.g. financial

investments;knowledgecapabilities)ofbenefittotheirformalisedconsultations.

“…investments fromprivatesourcesparticularlywithinthebiotechsectorhavedriedup…due to the very long lead times, high risk investors have been reluctant toinvest…thissectorhasbeenhotquitehard…”(BioNow,SectorSkillsmanager:11)

Inturntheeffectsofsucheconomicchallengespresentedstructuralsocialconstraintsfor

the range of stakeholders (policy stakeholders, employers, FE and HE providers; union

representatives) involved in formal consultations further preventing their abilities in

drawinguponthesocialcapitalpotentialofthenetworkstowhichthemembersinvolved

in formal consultations belonged. Regardless, although such challenges compromised

employer trust and in turn employer engagementwith their consultations, the analysis

however demonstrates the success of both (in)formal networks arrangements in

supporting industry consultations around the employer adoption of various initiatives.

These initiatives supported the range of low, intermediate-level occupations and

importantly includedhigh-skilloccupations(section4.2). These latterobservationsalso

characterise Brown’s (2001) conditions “competitive capacity” (Brown, 2001:36) and

“coordination”(Brown,2001:43).

Competitive capacity (Brown, 2001:36; Finegold, 1999) acknowledges that the

demand foranddevelopmentofhigh-skill labour involved in innovativeproductionand

technological and R&D business ventures, is best achieved by generating value-added

competition between high skill organizations” and engagement between employers,

institutions and government agencies. Brown (2001:37) suggests that this is best

achieved by generating value-added competition between high skill organizations” and

alludestovariousfeaturesessentialforcompetitivecapability,theestablishmentofwhich

necessitatesengagementbetweenemployers,institutionsandgovernmentagencies.Here

Brown(2001)mirrorswiderargumentswhichsuggestthatcompetitivecapabilityisbuilt

aroundinnovationsinproductionandR&Dthatarealsoessentialemployerincentivesin

generatingnewhighskillknowledge,jobcompetenciesanddemandforstaffdevelopment

opportunities (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a, b). Brown’s (2001) high-skill model however

acknowledgesthatemployersarelikelytomakehigherinvestmentgainsinrecruitingand

developing core competencies around high-skill qualified staff over labour employed

across low and intermediate-level occupations. Based on their employer engagement

activities across the region, policy stakeholders here reveal the employer need for

education and training initiatives surrounding high-skill jobs and intermediate-level

154

occupations over low-skill occupations (sub-sections 4.2.1). Employers were however

acutelyawareof theproblems inaccessingprovision surrounding initiatives supporting

intermediate-level occupations, and so here the analysis reflected their constrained

engagement with policy stakeholders within this context (i.e. withdrawal of funds for

popular training initiatives – NVQs; technical training course – sub-section 4.2.1). The

analysisinsub-section4.2.2alsorevealsanemphasisbypolicystakeholders(NWRD,SSC)

on initiatives supporting high-skill occupations surrounding the establishment of newly

realisedR&Djobroles,competenciesandstandardisedregulatedtraining,althoughhere

engagement ofmedium-sized andmicro-SMEs around these initiativeswas a consistent

problem (4.2.2). This issue is however addressed by the intermediary roles of

stakeholders(NSAs,BL–sub-section4.3.2)inmediatingemployerpartnershipsbetween

SMEsand their trainingproviderandbusinessnetworkswhich included largehigh-skill

employerswithspecialist technical trainingfacilitiescharacterisinghigh-skillproduction

and manufacturing. Regardless, here policy stakeholders identified with the problems

facing the small business and micro-SME sectors across the region around the lack of

leadership and senior management experience in nurturing talent and their lack of

resources in identifying future talent development and business growth opportunities.

Accordingtopolicystakeholdersthisissuestemmedfromtheadoptionofweakandquick-

fixrecruitmentstrategiesinaddressingskillshortagesandthelackofemphasisacrossthe

region in nurturing entrepreneurial, business and enterprise competencies amongst

senior scientistswhooften adoptedCEO responsibilities. Policy stakeholders (NSAs, BL,

NWUA)hereidentifiedopportunitiesfortheirservicesinaddressingtheseissues.

“…obviouslythequalityoftheintellectualpropertythatisbeingdeveloped…butthemanagementteamresponsibleforthiscanbeexecutivedirectors…nowsomeofthemostsuccessfulcompaniesobviouslyattracttherealhighcalibremanagerswithexperience…thisiswherethisregionislacking…incomparisontosayOxfordorCambridge…withabiggertalentpoolofexecutives…whocangenerateinvestment…andspinit’sIPoutsuccessfully…”(BusinessLink:BusinessDevelopmentManager:14)

Theanalysisinsub-section4.3.2thusrevealsthatpolicystakeholdersidentifiedwiththe

opportunityinestablishinghigh-skillagendaacrosstheregion.Thismeantharnessingthe

support of other stakeholders (e.g. NSAs, ABPI & NWUA networks, trade unions)

specificallyinraisingskillattainmentlevelssurroundingthehigh-skilloccupationsinthe

context of high skill manufacturing supply chains (SME sectors) for which there was a

growing demand. The analysis here characterises Brown’s (2001) suggestion in

collectively harvesting “clusters of high-skill staff” by encouraging engagement between

high-skill employers, their production networks and R&D collaborations and (HE)

institutions.

155

“…theroleisevolvingobviouslybecauseofournewresponsibilities…aroundlookingatthebalanceinthelabourmarketandskills…theSTEMAgendawillalwaysbecritical…”(NWRDA,RegionalBusinessManager:10)“…largerSMEsthathaveactiveunionmembershiptendalsotohaveULRs…AMICUShasembracedULRsonabigscale…wedohavegreaterinsightthroughULRswithrespecttowhattheissuesineducationandtrainingare…”(NSA:SkillsPolicyAdvisor:12)

Theactivitiesofpolicy stakeholders in section4.2, also characteriseBrown’s, (2001:43)

condition “coordination” which, as the term suggests, emphasises the establishment of

education and training systems by the supply-side according to employer needs. This

according to Brown (2001:44,45), requires “joined up” policies involving engagement

between the variety of stakeholders, stakeholder groups and communities with

responsibilities in collectively formulating and implementing policies. The role of the

Governmentisthusto“inform,facilitateandcoordinatenetworkcollaborationsbetween

stakeholders” a feature that also lends to the competitivenature of high-skill industries

(Finegold 1999). The analysis here demonstrates a shift towards this ideology in the

meso-perspective employer engagement activities of policy stakeholders in their use of

training provider and employer networks and connections forgedwith businesses from

across the supply chains of high-skill industries. Such arrangementswere however not

withouttheir limitationsaseconomicconstraintschallengedtheiraccumulationofsocial

capital around their employer engagement activities and thus in forging regional

partnershipswith individualemployers, employerand trainingprovidernetworks.Here

policy stakeholders also expressed reservationsover theeffectivenessofbodies suchas

HEFCE insupportingHEpartnershipswith industry (sub-section4.2.3). Regardless, the

analysis however evidences examples of successful HE partnerships between regional

universitiesinitiatedandsupportedbypolicystakeholders(e.g.NWUA,LSCs,SSCs,NSAs,

NSAs,BL)and resulting in theestablishmentof a regional initiativearound transferable

skills(e.g.leadershipandmanagementcompetencies;graduate-levelgenericskills).

B. Closure,capabilityandcirculation

ThereisadegreeofoverlapinBrown’sconditionscapability,closureandcirculation

inthattheycharacterisetheideasofestablishingandadoptingallinclusiveeducationand

training initiativeswith the aim of benefiting all society irrespective of social class (e.g

gender, race or identity) or social status (e.g. low, intermediate or high occupational

status).Capability(Brown,2001:39)referstohumancapabilityintheprovisionofanall-

inclusiveapproachinthesupplyofandworkforceaccesstohigh-skilleducation,training

and life-long learning opportunities to all sections of the labourmarket irrespective of

socialclass(gender,raceorethnicity).Humancapabilitythusallocatesresponsibilitiesto

156

stakeholders including employers and policy organisations in providing all-inclusive

opportunities to all aspects of individual development, but also expects employers to

observe thepersonaldevelopment aspirationsof staff`”. Closure (Brown,2001:49) also

accounts for “social inclusion” within the labour market, suggesting that “high skill

societies:are less likely tosociallyexclude individualsonthebasisof forexamplesocial

identityandstatus. Educationandtraininginitiativesaimedatlabourcharacterisingthe

ethnic minorities, women, and individuals from low socio-economic backgrounds are

encouraged ensuring fairness in accessing high-skill development and employment

opportunities alongside existing groups of elite high-skill workers within the labour

market. Finally, circulation” (Brown, 2001:46) encapsulates the idea of the abilities of

nations, regions or industry clusters in responding to changes in external competitive

environments”thussupportingaccesstohighskilltrainingopportunitiestoallsectionsof

thelabourmarket. Thisconditionthusalsoencapsulatestheideaofsocialinclusiveness.

The discussions next assess the extent to which the employer engagement activities of

policy stakeholders underpin these conditions based on the analysis within previous

sectionsandthepresentationofnewempiricalevidence.

Theanalysisrevealedmixedviewsregardingtheneedforinterventioninensuring

the principles of social inclusion in their individual and meso-perspective (industry)

employer engagement efforts. Individuals from NSAs for example indicated that issues

concerninginequalitysurroundingtraininganddevelopmentandcareerprogressionwere

not raised during their steering committees and industry consultations, so perhaps

inequality was not a major concern across their high skill industries. Although this

evidencecontradictsexistingscholarlyargumentsregardingtheinequalitiesacrossSTEM

based on gender and social class (Moropoulou & Konstanti, 2015; Kirkup et al. 2010;

Wynarczyk & Renner, 2006), policy stakeholders (RDAs) further confirmed that

discussions around gender inequalitywere likely to gainmomentum at future industry

consultations. SSCs however acknowledged largely gendered disparities in the high

employment of male employees compared to their female counterparts across STEM

industries.PolicystakeholdersbelongingtoNSAsandBLrevealedthattraininginequality

wasnotanemployer issueacross theirhigh-skill sectorsdue to the commitmentacross

these industries in upholding the principles of fairness and equality and practices in

consistentlyre-evaluatingtrainingpolicies.Staffrepresentationintrainingdecisionswas

encouraged whilst industry-wide cultures necessitated access to staff development

opportunitiesbasedon individualmerit, achievement andperformance.Also theirhigh-

skill sectors characterised regulated training environments and so wider training and

development policies and procedures were updated alongside the necessity in

maintaining standardised training according to regulatory requirements, thus ensured

157

equality and fairness in all aspects of training and development. However the problem

with suchanapproachwas that thegreateremphasis inadhering to training regulation

compromisedwiderstaffdevelopmentopportunities. Moreover,there’swasanindustry

whichwas supported by amanufacturing supply chain that also largely employed low-

skill labour whilst accommodating intermediate-level occupations. Policy stakeholders

herewerethusalltoofamiliarwiththeproblemsofweaktrainingprovisionandaccess.

“…therearesomestaggeringdisparities…fromthedataIrememberseeingacrosstheindustries…certainlyintermsofgender…Imeantherearehighskillsectorsthataretraditionallymaledominated…andthosefiguresstackup…”(SSC,ResearchAdvisor:4)“…basedonmyexperience…theytakestaffbasedonmerit…”(NSAs,SkillsPolicyAdvisor:12)

“...we’reupagainstanageingworkforceatatimeoflowrecruitment...ascompaniesalsolooktowardsthelower-skilledpeople,headroomfortrainingbecomeslessandlesssointocompliancetraining,mandatorytechnicaltrainingandsolessgoesintopersonaldevelopment,managementandleadership,teamworking...highskilldevelopment…”(NSA,SkillsAdvisor:9)“…intermsofbasicmanufacturingsupportingthemanufacturingofdrugingredients,ofactivepharmaceuticalingredients…ourbasicmanufacturingprocessesarewaybehindglobalcompetition,sothetrainingispoor…thebigdrugcompanies….theygrowtheirR&D,butthey’renotverygoodwiththeirmanufacturing…sotheirtrainingispoor…Icanseethemanufacturingbeingoutsourced…”(NWRDA:RegionalBusinessmanager:10)

Despitethesemixedviewpoints,theanalysisrevealedafairamountofactivityinraising

employerawarenessoftheimportanceofequalityanddiversitysurroundingtrainingand

development opportunities across the region. Policy stakeholders for example were all

familiar with the activities of the NWRDA in raising employer awareness of the

importanceofacknowledgingtheprinciplesofequalityanddiversityinmanagingstaffin

theirestablishmentemployernetworks. Indrawingondata fromnational industry-wide

surveys (i.e. Skills Oracle), such networks aimed to specifically share good practice on

issues such as the low-level female participation in STEM employment or the need to

supportSTEMentrepreneursfromBMEgroupsacrosstheregion.Thesenetworksserved

consultation roles advising, informing employers and in establishing projects on

inequality issues influencing the high-skill industries (e.g. collaborations with ULRs to

deliverawarenessraisingworkshops).Thesecollectiveactivitiesfurtherinformedpolicy

stakeholders of the workforce groups most susceptive to training and development

inequalities across their high skill sectors (entry-level graduates; older apprentices

workingacrossmanufacturingsupply-chains).

“…there’salwayschallengesintermsofgendertogetwomentoengageinandworkinSTEM…aroundminoritygroups…asanagencyweofcoursepromoteequalityanddiversitythroughourwork…we’vegotaleadershipandmanagementmentoringprogrammeforemployersregardingequalityand

158

diversity…we’vegotfocusspecificallyontheBME…youknowsupportingBMEfemalebusinessesfromdeprivedareastoo…”(NWRDA,HeadofSkills:9)“...Ithinkcompaniesarenottrainingenoughpeople…mostcompanieshaveahigherprofileofover40s…anditslookingathowtheyreplacetheirskillsinthefuture...itmightbeabsolutelybrilliantifyoucouldstoptheretirementageforsomecompanies...buttheproblemisthatlookingrightacrosstheboardthere’snotenoughcominginatthebottomendtoreplacethoseleaving…”

(SSC,ResearchAdvisor:9)“...we’vegotasignificantsciencebasesodemographyissuesarepertinentwithintheNWespeciallybecausewe’vegotreducingcohortsofyoungpeopleandageingworkforceswithinthesesectors...theskillsissuesiscompoundedbydemographywithintheNW...thefutureworkforce...that’soneofthekeyareasoffocus...”(NWRDA,RegionalBusinessManager:10)

However, it seemed that initiatives surrounding equality and diversity were also

established on an ad hoc needs-led basis across the region, much like their ad hoc

approachinestablishingthearrayofeducationandtraininginitiativesaffectingtherange

of low, intermediateandhighskilloccupations (capability). Thisapproachaccording to

policy stakeholders was ineffective in light of the inequalities in training opportunities

evidencedbytheirlarge-scaledatacollectionsefforts(e.g.SSCs–OracleSkillsSurvey).A

potential solution to this issuewas the need for an overarching policy approach across

their high-skill industries advocating equality and diversity in training access,

development and career progression opportunities largely due to the evidential weak

employer awareness across the region. The analysis however revealed that social

inclusivenessprinciplesalongsideBrown’s (2001) conditioncirculation in thevarietyof

deliverymethods supporting the education and training initiatives discussed in section

4.2,aimedattherangeof low, intermediateandhighskill jobrolesworkingacrosstheir

highskill industriesandsupplychains.Theseinitiativeswereestablishedonaneeds-led

basis and included: bite-sized HE modules supporting laboratory technical training for

middle-management process operator roles; management modules for middle-

management scientists. Further qualifications reforms supported the delivery of

standardised training (i.e.NVQs) for intermediate-level and high-skill job roles whilst

wider personalised staff development and e-learning opportunities were being

popularised in supporting intermediate-level senior management roles (e.g. developing

technicalandregulatorytrainingsystemsandprocesses).Howeverthevarietyoflearning

approaches here were not without their constraints (e.g. issues around monitoring

learningoutcomes;assessingrelevanceofdelivery)andsoherepolicystakeholders(e.g.

SSCs,NSAs)werefurther involvedinemployerpartnerships inestablishing initiatives in

supportingtheemployeradoptionoftheirdiverseprovisionacrosstheirindustries.

“employersandstaffseethebenefitsoftrainingandnotnecessarily

159

qualifications…theyseequalificationsasaconstraint…it’sapackageforaspecifiedamountoflearning…theymayonlywantsmallbitsofthislearningexperience…sowearemovingtowardsprovidingbite-sizedlearning…oneofthereasonsbehindourqualificationsreformandalsomovingtowardsthiscreditssystem…itsnotcomeinnationallyyet…buttheintentisthatyoupickuplearningasyougoalongaccordingtoyourneedsandthenyougetyourqualification…”“…ourproductssupportindividualsinmakingdecisionsabouttheirdevelopment…makingtrainingaccessible…ourSkillspassportforexamplewasdevelopedwiththeacademies…andthenwehaveaSkillsMatchwhichisabouttogolive…whichison-lineandopenaccessforstaff…theSkillsPassportisreallyandon-linepersonalisedtrainingrecordthatincorporatesbenchmarksagainstjobroles…”(SSC,ProductServicesManager:6)

The analysis here indicates that policy stakeholders adopted an ad hoc and needs led

employerengagementapproachacross the region.However theiremployerengagement

activitiesweresupportedbytheprinciplesofsocialinclusivenessaroundBrown’s(2001)

conditionscapability,closureandcirculation.

ConcludingRemarks

The analysis above assesses the extent and nature in which Brown’s (2001)

conditions influence the employer engagement activities of policy stakeholders. The

analysis reveals that commonly acknowledged employer engagement challenges

characterisingtheUK’sinstitutionaltrainingcontextchallengedpolicystakeholdersfrom

fully acknowledging Brown’s (2001) conditions in their activities across the region .

However competitive conditions characterisinghigh skill industries (e.g. high skillR&D

capabilities; social capital potential of industry-wide networks) were integral in

supporting employer engagement according to Brown’s (2001) conditions and further

contributedtoasharedrecognitionamongstpolicystakeholdersoftheneedforaregional

highskillagenda.

4.4ChapterConclusion This chapter presents an analysis of the nature of employer engagement (Irwin,

2008;Payne,2008b;Keepetal.2006)facilitatedpolicystakeholderswithinthecontextof

themacro,meso andmicro-perspective institutional training contexts surrounding high

skill industries (Lloyd, 2002) and in response to the employer needs for education and

training. In utilising the NorthWest UK Bio region as a single case study analysis, the

chapter thus presents new knowledge contribution in line with the study’s conceptual

frameworkandresearchobjectives (Appendix I& II).Theanalysis thusaddscontext to

existing conceptualisations of micro-meso-macro perspective architecture suggested by

Dopferandcolleagues (Dopferet al.2004;Dopfer&Pottes,2004) indicating thatpolicy

stakeholders aligned their macro (national) employer engagement efforts in

accommodating engagement between the institutionalmeso andmicro (organisational)

160

perspectives training contexts surrounding high-skill industries. The analysis is set

against the backdrop of commonly acknowledged institutional employer engagement

weaknessesthathavelong-sincecharacterisedtheUK’ssupply-sideinstitutionaltraining

context (section 4.1). Section 4.1 thus begins by examining the relevance of these

arguments,whilst also examining the nature inwhich policy stakeholders aligned their

employerengagementeffortswiththeUKGovernment’smacro-perspectivenationalSkill

Agenda and the resulting affects on their efforts in meeting the unmet education and

trainingneedsordemandofemployers. Ineffect theanalysisherecorroboratesexisting

scholarly discussions (Payne, 2008a,b; Lloyd & Payne, 2002), which point to the

overarching employer engagement difficulties facing individual policy organisations.

Policy stakeholders here identifiedwith specific challenges in engaging the SME sectors

and largehigh-skillemployers fromacross theregion.Weakemployerengagementhere

stemmedlargelyfromthelowemployerinterest,confidenceandtrustintheeffectiveness

of their service provision, particularly in supporting education and training provision

around the demand for niche, specialist technical competencies not readily available

through local FE or HE provision. Here policy stakeholders reflected on problems of

supportingtheunmetemployerdemandfornewlyrealisedstandardisedtrainingorhigh

skilleducationandtraininginitiativesintheirindividualengagementwithemployers(e.g.

insourcingprovision;employerfundingsupport). Weakemployerengagementwasalso

attributed to a weak employer visibility of and interest in the initiatives supported by

policyorganisations.Policystakeholders thusemphasisedthe futureneed foremployer-

led efforts in improving regional employer accessibility andvisibilityof their initiatives.

Regardless, the researchrevealed theadoptionofa circumscribedapproach inengaging

individual employers and the unmet employer demand for education and training

initiatives in alignmentwith their commitment in supporting theNational SkillsAgenda

(Leitch,2006),while littleemphasiswasplaced in supportingworkplace initiatives (e.g.

newjobdesign;workorganisation)inimprovingproductiveuseofskill(Keep&Mayhew,

2010; Keep et al. 2006; Keep, 2002). The ad hoc nature of employer engagement here

perhaps suggests a need for future research in exploring the effectiveness of education

andtraininginitiativesfacilitatedbypolicystakeholdersandsuccessfullyadoptedbyhigh

skill employers alongside further study in understanding the challenges facing policy

stakeholders in supporting initiatives surrounding standardised training and its

regulation and surrounding the establishment of new R&D competencies underpinning

newlyrealisedR&Djobroles.

Regardless, the analysis also reveals new insights indicating that policy

stakeholders utilised an interdependent collective approach in fostering employer

engagement across the region, usingmeso (industry)-perspective consultationsdrawing

161

on their existing employer and training provider networks and their resource sharing

benefits (e.g. financial; reputation and social capital acrosshigh skill sectors). However

the shared view that their commitment in aligning their employer engagement efforts

withtheUKGovernment’snationalSkillsAgenda,ultimatelypresentedconstraintsintheir

abilities in addressing wider education and training initiatives in demand across their

high-skill industries (UKCES,2009;Leitch,2006).Despite this, sub-section4.1.2 reveals

theestablishmentofvariouseducationandtraininginitiativesaccordingtoskillshortages

influencing the range of low, intermediate and high skill occupations across their

industries.Section4.2 furtherreveals thatpolicystakeholdersrecognised theneed fora

regionalemphasisinaddressingthegrowinginterestinskillshortagesaffectingthehigh

skill occupations in line with their new emphasis in connecting with employers using

meso(industry)perspective(in)formalconsultations.Herehoweverpolicystakeholders

shared the view of the pressures of the UK’s wider institutional training context in

constrainingtheiremployerengagementeffortsspecificallysurroundingtheprovisionof

highskilleducationandtraininginitiatives,apointwhichisre-visitedinlatersections.

Sub-section 4.2 provides a much-required lens into the employer engagement

activities of policy stakeholders. A comprehensiveoverviewof the types education and

training initiatives (Irwin, 2008:67) fostered by policy stakeholders is presented in

response to the skills shortages characterising the range of low, intermediate and high

skill occupations (Lloyd, 2002 - Appendix XI). The analysis suggests that the initiatives

mostly characterised the macro-perspective national skills agenda but were also

facilitated in alignmentwith the industry-wide demand specific types of education and

trainingprovisionsurroundingwork-basedlearningsystemsandaccreditedstandardised

forms of training supporting specific job competency standards and professional

behaviours.Theevidencehoweverrevealsthatalthoughmanyoftheinitiativesfacilitated

bypolicystakeholderswereestablishedinalignmentwiththeUKGovernment’sNational

Agenda, industry consultations supported improvements in existing or adoption of new

previouslyunrealisedinitiatives.Agrowingemphasisonthepartofpolicystakeholdersin

facilitating initiatives characterising the high-skill occupations is thus evidenced (e.g.

transferableskillcharacterisingSTEMgraduatesandSTEMR&Dpostgraduates;NVQlevel

4management competencies; graduate apprenticeships, internships). This is perhaps a

new insight that contradicts existingargumentswhichpoint to thegreater emphasison

thepartoftheUKGovernmentanditsinstitutionsintacklingskillshortagesaffectinglow-

skill and intermediate-level occupations (UKCES, 2009; Leitch, 2006; Lloyd & Payne,

2003a,b).Theanalysishowevercorroboratescommonlyacknowledgedchallengesfacing

policy stakeholders in their employer engagement efforts as suggested within existing

scholarly insights which largely relate to skills agencies (Payne, 2008a,b, 2007). Here

162

policy stakeholders (NSAs,BL,NWUA) reflectedon theproblems surrounding theweak

employerawarenessacrosstheregionandhighskillindustriesandofthebenefitsofthe

intermediarystrategicrolesoftheirorganizations,particularlyinsupportingtheircritical

unmet demands around high-skill education and training. Their coordination of large-

scale industry-widesurveys furtherrevealedtheweakemployerawarenessand interest

inengaginginemployer-ledinitiativesandsolutionsfacilitatedbypolicystakeholdersin

response to critical industry-specific skill shortages. Problems around limited employer

resources (e.g. financial and staff time costs) further affected employer confidence in

engagingwithmeso(industry)consultationsfacilitatedbypolicystakeholders.

Unlike existing studies (Payne, 2008a,b; Luddy, 2008; Lloyd, 2007; Peck &

Mcguiness,2003),theanalysisherepointstothecollectiveemployerengagementefforts

ofpolicystakeholdersandtheresultingconstraints,correspondingwithexistingscholarly

argumentswhichalsohighlighttheconstraintspresentedbyemployersinengagingwith

policyorganizations(e.g.weakengagementwithSMEsectors;weakemployerconfidence

trust, commitment due to narrow focus of supply-side initiatives – Keep & Mayhew

2010a,b;Payne,2008a,b). HoweverwiththeexceptionofSSCsandBL,widerawareness

amongst policy stakeholders of employer barriers (demand-side barriers) commonly

associatedwith the weak employer engagement inmacro, meso andmicro-perspective

institutional decision-making surrounding training was generally low (Keep &Mayhew

2010a,b;Keep,etal.2006;Keep,2002). Ofparticularconcernwas theweakawareness

amongst policy stakeholders of the need to raise the “productive use of skill” by

establishing initiatives supporting improvements in the nature in which work is

conducted(workorganisation; jobdesign;occupationalrestructuring–Keep&Mayhew,

2010a,b; Green & Sakamoto, 2001:56). Regardless, the analysis revealed an

acknowledgementoftheNationalSkillsAgendaintheemployerengagementstrategiesof

allpolicystakeholders,althoughsomeoverothers(e.g.NSAs(unlikeBL)werebetterable

toconnectwithemployer-ledanddemand-drivenregionalstrategies,duetoconnections

forgedbytheirregionaladvisorswith individualemployersandtheSMEnetworks from

acrosstheregion(Keepetal.2006). Somepolicystakeholders(e.g.NWRDA;NSAs)here

emphasised that the UK’s National Skills Agenda (Leitch, 2006) was also incompatible

withtheirpreferredregionalapproach,particularlyinsupportingemployersaroundtheir

high-skilleducationandtrainingneedsacrosstheregion.Thesepolicystakeholdersthus

drew upon formalised meso (industry) perspective consultations in establishing

initiatives characterising new occupational structures and associated education and

trainingneeds inalignmentwithnewhighskill jobrolescharacterisingR&Dproduction

being generated across the region (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b). This is a positive

163

development which commentators (Keep & Mayhew, 201a,b) support, but which is

otherwiselackingwithintheUK.

Regardlesstheanalysisinsections4.1and4.2pointtotheemployerengagement

constraintsfacingpolicystakeholders,thatinturnunderminedemployerconfidenceand

trust in their services, particularly in supporting impetus in generating high-skill

employmentandrelatedstaffdevelopmentopportunities.Specifically, thenorthwestBio

regionlackedthecriticalsocialcapitalandeconomicsupportsystemsinfacilitatingsuch

initiatives,andessential in(sector)skillalliancesorpartnerships forgedbetweenpublic

institutions, Higher Education, Research Centres of Excellence and high skill industry

(Finegold, 1999). Policy stakeholders also raised issue with the inabilities of RDAs in

establishing a collective impetus in harnessing the resources of themany stakeholders

with responsibilities supporting the regional or local-level provision of education and

training. This problem particularly hampered their abilities in tackling critical skill

shortages surrounding high-skill R&D job roles, but also in facilitating workplace

initiatives across the region supporting the productive use of skill (Keep, 2002). This

againconfirmsexistingscholarlycriticismswhichraiseissuewiththeweakemployerand

industryengagementwithin theUK in fostering targeted investmentsaroundworkplace

initiatives necessary in supporting the productive use of skill (e.g. redesigning/re-

organisingwork;job(re)design;occupational(re)structuring)(Keep,2002).Howeverthe

analysispointstotheshifttowardsmeso(industry)-perspectiveemployerengagementas

a positive step in facilitating the collective involvement of skill agencies, quangos and

organizations(e.g.RDAs,BL,SSCs)inemployerpartnershipsaroundsuchinitiatives.

Research question two explores the extent and nature in which the network

competitive condition supporting high-skill industries facilitated or constrained

engagement between the research participants and stakeholders characterising the

institutional macro, meso andmicro-perspective institutional training contexts of high-

skill industries. TheanalysisheredrawsonDopferet al’s (2004)analogy, evidenced in

sub-section4.3.1,where theanalysis reveals thatDopfer’s articulationof the roleof the

meso-perspective is visible in interactions between policy stakeholders and high skill

employers,althoughonlysofarasinaccommodatingandfacilitatingconnectionsbetween

themicro andmacro-level perspectives (discussed in sub-sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3). The

analysisinsub-section4.3.1revealsthatboth(in)formalindustryconsultationssupported

policy stakeholders in connecting with individual stakeholders representing themacro,

meso and micro-perspective institutional training environments of high-skill industries

and their networks. Informal industry consultations were particularly effective in

facilitatingthevoluntaryengagementofhigh-skillSMEsectorsduetotheirnon-committal

naturealthoughherepolicystakeholdersre-emphasisedproblemsinengagingsuchhigh-

164

skillemployersintheirformalconsultations(Payne,2008a,b;2007).Theeffectivenessof

industry consultations however very much depended upon the resource capabilities of

policy stakeholders and also the social capital resource potential of individual network

members and their respective organizations (B). The collective accumulation of social

capital and network potential supporting industry consultations meant that policy

stakeholdersherewereabletosupportthefacilitationofeducationandtraininginitiatives

ofrelevanceacrossawidevarietyof low, intermediate,high-skilloccupations(Appendix

XI). Meso-perspective industry consultations were thus effective in addressing various

types of education and training initiatives of relevance within national, regional, sub-

regionalcontexts(Keepetal.2006,Keep,2002).Theireffectivenesshoweververymuch

depended upon economic challenges presented by the UK’s macro-perspective

institutional training environment but also due to micro-perspective organisational

barriers linked to the social capital potential of individual members (and their

organizations)(B).Regardless,policystakeholdersrecognisedthestrategicimportanceof

theirmeso(industry)consultationsinlightofthechangingemployerneedsforhigh-skill

education and training initiatives being generated across in response to the affects of

macro-perspective influences affecting both their skills sector (e.g. public sector cuts;

sector-wide re-structuring) and high-skill industries (e.g. re-structuring of R&D

production). This necessitated the future involvement of unions, FE andHE institutions

and specifically high skill employers (including SMEs) in their (in)formal industry

consultations, although the voluntary involvement of these stakeholders was viewed a

majorbarrierintheireffectiveness.

Despite these challenges sub-section 4.3 demonstrates, that policy stakeholders

utilised various employer engagement strategies to further connect with the high-skill

agenda across the region, extending beyond their existing expected roles in addressing

skill shortages across low and intermediate-level occupations. Here various

communicationstrategiesintheformofinvolvement,informational,responseapproaches

are adopted (Table 4.) to engage employers on an individual and collective basis

(industry-wide engagement). Policy stakeholders utilising both micro and meso-

perspectiveemployerengagementapproaches(e.g.BL,NSAs)werebetterabletoconnect

with the SME sectors, due to advantages in accumulating social capital around their

service delivery thus supporting their regional emphasis in addressing employer needs

(Keep et al. 2006, Keep, 2002). Such social capital resources included: knowledge and

information (supporting specialist service provision in developing bespoke training

solutions and business diagnostics) and reputational capital (e.g. access to employer

businessnetworks;fundingstreams;localprivatetrainingproviders;initiativesuccesses).

The analysis also generated new insights regarding the underlying problems that

165

constrainedindividualpolicystakeholdersandtheirpolicyorganisationsfromeffectively

connectingwithindividualemployersandtheiremployernetworksthusaddingcontextto

existing wider arguments surrounding the employer engagement experiences of policy

stakeholders. These insights are presented in sub-section 4.3.2 and highlight the

challenges facing policy stakeholders in gaining access to individual employers (A.) and

the challenges presented by individual employers in connecting with the employer

engagement efforts of policy stakeholders. Here too, policy stakeholders confirmed the

lackofemployertrustintheirserviceprovision,acommonlyacknowledgedphenomenon

characterising theUK’shistorical institutional training context (chapterone, sub-section

1.1.1-Payne,2008a,b;Keepetal.2006).Policy stakeholders were however faced with the

problems of a lack of employer trust in sharing competitive information, although further

point to employer inconsistencies and challenges across the region in better understanding

and benchmarking their training needs, particularly around newly developing R&D

capabilities (e.g. line-management involvement; industry benchmarking; employee

representation – Gleeson & Keep, 2004; Fuller & Unwin, 2004). These relevance of these

perspectives are furtherexploredlaterchapters4and5.

Finally section 4.3.3 assesses the extent and nature in which Brown’s (2001)

conditions underpinned the employer engagement efforts of policy stakeholders in

supporting the education and training needs of employers. The analysis reveals that

again commonly acknowledged employer engagement barriers characterising the UK’s

institutionaltrainingcontextchallengedtheinfluenceofBrown’s(2001)conditionsinthe

employer engagement activities of policy stakeholders across the region (e.g. collective

stakeholder approach in raising skill attainment, employer engagement challenges

affectingindividualsstakeholdersinvolvedinmeso-perspective(industry)consultations).

However competitive conditions characterisinghigh-skill industries (e.g. high skillR&D

capabilities; social capital potential of industry-wide networks) were essential in

supportingtheirfutureemployerengagementinaccordancetoBrown’s(2001)conditions

andinsupportingtheanticipateddemandforahigh-skillagendaacrosstheregion.

Since the research, some policy organizations have either faced closure or re-

structuring.Nevertheless,theempiricalevidenceinthischapterpresentsamuch-required

snapshot of the employer engagement experiences of policy stakeholders in connecting

with high-skill employers. The analysis however suggests that policy stakeholderswere

notinvolvedinfacilitatingemployerinitiativesaroundtheproductiveuseofskill.Thisisa

critical unexamined conjecture highlighted within both scholarly arguments (Keep &

Mayhew, 2010a,b) that is still not fully addressed by the very policy organizations

allocated responsibility in addressing challenges facing employers in raising skill

achievement.

166

ChapterFive

TheCaseofaLargeUKPharmaceutical–Micro-perspectiveengagementininfluencingtheEmployerdemandforEducationandTraining

This chapter draws on the micro-meso-macro framework articulated by Dopfer

andcolleagues(Dopferetal.2004–AppendixI&II)toexaminetheextentandnatureof

engagement between a key stakeholders characterising the micro (organisational)

perspectiveandmeso(industry)andmacro(national)institutionaltrainingcontextsofa

largeR&Dcapabilitybelongingtoamulti-nationalpharmaceutical.Theanalysisdrawson

scholarlyargumentsthatraiseissuewiththeemployerbarrierspreventingtheemployer

demand for new training and development opportunities and in facilitating the

“productive use of skill”, thus lending to the lack of employer engagement with key

institutionsandpolicystakeholdersresponsiblefortheprovisionandsupplyofeducation

and training (Keep & Mayhew, 2010; Gleeson & Keep, 2004; Keep et al. 2006). The

empirical evidence is drawn from seven convergent interviews conducted with senior

managementwho,duringtheresearch,wereinvolvedintheextensivere-structuringand

downsizingof theirR&D functiondue to industry-wide re-structuringacross the region.

ThisresultedintheestablishmentofseveninternationalR&Dcapabilitiesandadoptionof

anewR&DStrategicDevelopmentAgendaandtrainingphilosophytoexpandtheirglobal

reachincompetitiveR&Dmarkets.Theresearchisthussetagainstabackdropofbusiness

cost-cuttingefficienciesimplementedacrosstheR&Dcapability,andtheestablishmentof

a Centre of Excellence Development Capability, encapsulating their new strategic HRD

emphasisandtrainingphilosophyinlinewiththenewsevenR&Dcapabilities.

“…sothereisahighdegreeofcommitmentnow…we’vegonethroughamajor-re-structuring…sooneofthemajorareasthatwe’vere-structuredaroundisdevelopment…partofthere-organizationswe’regoingthroughisaboutfocusingonoursevencapabilities…whichwebelievewilldifferentiateus…”(SeniorR&Dprojectmanager:5)

This chapter thus presents an insight into the organisational-wide systems and micro,

meso andmacro-perspective stakeholder engagement approaches supporting their new

trainingphilosophyandthuspositionstheanalysisinthecontextofscholarlyarguments

that allocate responsibility to employers in generating a demandor need forworkforce

education and training opportunities (Keep&Mayhew, 2010; Payne, 2008b;Keep et al.

2006; Lloyd & Payne, 2003, 2002). Section 5.1 therefore introduces the research

participants(i.e.seniormanagement)andtheirnewtraininganddevelopmentrolesand

responsibilities in line with structural changes characterising their new HRD training

philosophyandadoptionofnewR&Dcapabilities.Thissectionthereforesetsthescenefor

the analysis in later sections. Section 5.2 draws attention to the macro and meso-

167

perspective barriers their organization faced in supporting their changing demand for

traininginlightoftheorganisational-widere-structuringthattheirR&Dcapabilityfaced.

Unlike the evidence in chapter 4, where policy stakeholders were making headway in

engaging employers, the analysis here reveals poor engagement on the part of the

researchparticipantsandtheirorganisationinconnectingwithpolicystakeholders,their

institutions and initiatives. Section 5.3 presents the barriers and drivers characterising

the adoption of new organisational-wide decision-making arrangements in response to

these employer engagement challenges and in line with their newly revised training

philosophy. Brown’s (2001) high skill framework is addressed in section 5.4, drawing

attentiontothenatureinwhichBrown’s(2001)sevenhighskillconditionsunderpinned

their new organisational-wide training philosophy. The conclusion (section 5.5)

encapsulates the analyses in these sections to present a new stakeholder engagement

framework,onewhichsuggests thatdespite theconstrainedemployerengagementwith

policy stakeholders, the competitive conditions characterising high skill industries

(Finegold, 1999; Streeck, 1989 - meso-networks, R&D collaborations), supported their

senior and corporate individuals to forge engagement with meso (industry) policy

networks across international boundaries inmeeting their unmet demand for R&D job

competencies much like the features of global production networks (Henderson et al

2002:449). Such coalitions were essential in facilitating engagement between agents

working across their interconnected R&D organizations, institutional agencies,

associationsandrepresentativebodies(e.g.tradeunions,employerassociations)andhad

thepotentialinsupportingtheirconsensus-drivenengagementandaccesstoestablished

and interconnected education and training structures, processes and operations

(Hendersonetal2002:449).Diagram1providesanoverviewofthenewframeworkand

stakeholder engagement concepts (drivers) introduced within this chapter. Unless

otherwisestatedtheanalysespresentednextrelatestotheperspectivesofallparticipants

andisbasedondatasaturation.

Diagram1–Newoverarchingmicro-perspectivestakeholderengagementemphasis

5.1. Roles&Responsibilitiesof seniormanagement

NewHRDPhilosophy(SeniorManagementRoles&responsibilities)

Leadershipcommitmentinunderstandingtrainingdemand

Micro-perspectiveOrganisationaldecision-making(Multi-level,top-down&bottom-up)

Meso-perspectiveIndustrybenchmarkingapproaches

Linemanagementandemployeeinvolvementsystems

168

Thepurposeofthissectionistodescribeandexplainthestructuralchangesacross

theR&DcapabilitysupportingtheirinternationalR&Dstrategythussettingthescenefor

thedetailedanalysisinlatersub-sections.Thissectionthereforeintroducestherolesand

responsibilities of senior management, the research participants, highlighting where

relevant their involvement in supporting corporate and HRD strategic changes across

theirR&Dcapability in linewith theirnew trainingphilosophy.Thesectionreveals that

senior management were not reliant on the UK’s wider institutional training contexts

(Lloyd, 2002) in addressing skill shortages, and alternativelywere supported by newly

established internalised lines of responsibility in facilitating top-down and bottom-up

stakeholderengagementanddecision-makingarrangements.

This fitswith Strategic Human ResourceManagement (SHRM) (Thornhill, 1987;

Huselid & Becker, 1997; Horwitz, 1999; Lee et al. 2000) and development (SHRD)

(McKracken&Wallace,2000;Lee,1996;Garavanetal.1995)argumentsthatsupportthe

adoptionofstrategicprinciplesinfacilitatingorganisational-widechangesintheirtraining

philosophy. These include: leadership commitment in securing the organisational-wide

adoption of training policy, ensuring training policy alignment with strategic business

objectivesandinaligningassociatedbenchmarkingsystemswithbusinessobjectives.The

development and support of the line in the organisational-wide adoption of training,

employeeinvolvementintrainingdecisionsandasupportivestafftrainingcultureisalso

essential. Here the research revealed that the research participants were extensively

involved in theorganisational-wideadoptionof theseprinciples inmediatingchanges in

training cultures across their R&D capability to essentially support industry

benchmarking to assess their training demand and line-management involvement and

employeerepresentationindecisionssurroundingstaffdevelopmentandtraining(Keep&

Mayhew,2010;Gleeson&Keep,2005). Thisneworganisational-wide commitmentwas

furtherobvious fromthechangingrolesandresponsibilitiesofsenior individuals in line

with changes in their training structures tobe implementedacross theirR&Dcapability

(Diagram1).Thesechangesincluded:theirestablishmentoforganisational-widedecision-

making structures and arrangements, supportive the benchmarking approaches, a

renewed emphasis in engaging the line and employee representation in decisions

concerningtheirchangingdemandforR&Djobrolesandcompetencies.

Variousseniorindividualswereinvolvedintheresearchincluding:educationand

training policy advisors, a senior R&D project manager and director, a senior

organizationalchangedirectorandseniorHRbusinessandtalentmanagers.Thesesenior

job roles meant that these individuals were extensively involved in ensuring the

coordination of corporate and HRM decision-making consultations initiated by their

corporate leadership to facilitate decisions around identifying of new training and staff

169

developmentopportunities in linewith theirchangingR&Dcapabilities. Involvement in

corporate and HRM decision-making meant that their senior individuals (including the

research participants) had a direct involvement in shaping decisions surrounding their

changingtrainingculture,inunderstandingtheirchangingdemandforR&Dcompetencies,

newstaffdevelopmentopportunitiesandinsecuringresourcesinmeetingthesechanging

demands.New responsibilities further included negotiating agreements with line-managers

on policy issues around implementing new staff development initiatives and in supporting

new ways in applying skills. The line-managementrolewas thuscentral inensuring the

adoption of strategic senior decisions regarding staff development and performance at

operationallevels(MacNeil,2004:96,Brewster&Larsen,2003).

The research participants adopted various responsibilities in mediating these

changes in their underlying training philosophy across their R&D capability. The

overarching responsibility in facilitating what was a cultural overhaul of their existing

organisational-wide training, for example belonged to the senior organisational change

director in ensuring the coordination and facilitation of decision-making and

benchmarkingstructuresandsystems.

“…myrolehasbeencoordinatingandleadingateam…toactuallybuildorganisationalcapability…sowhat’sthatabout?...wellitsabouthavingskillsinplace,whethertheybein-houseorexternalacrossourglobalcapacity…itsabouthavingaprogrammetosustainthoseskills…itsabout…havingtheassociatedprocesses…therightorganisationalinfrastructure…therightcommunication…” “…IthereforereportintotheR&Dleadershipteamonamonthlybasis…Iprovideamonthlyreporttoourseniorexecutiveteam…Iwillgetcalledintoprovideanupdatearoundensuringthatwearedelivering…ontheareasofinvestment…accordingtothebusinesscaseswe’vedeveloped…asnowwearedeliveringourchanges…”(OrganisationalChangeManager:1)

Thismeantworking in collaborationwith the other research participants ensuring that

they understood the nature in which changes highlighted in diagram 1) affected their

roles. One such internal stakeholder included: senior Education and Training Policy

Advisors. These individuals supported responsibilities in benchmarking new education

andtraininginresponsetotheexpansionofnewglobalR&Dcapabilities.Responsibilities

thus included: establishing and sustaining the effectiveness of skills audits and training

benchmarkingsystemsandprocesses incollaborationwithexternal stakeholders.These

benchmarking aspects supported their capabilities in identifying the demand for new

educationandtraining, infacilitatingnewrelatedpoliciesusingtheir in-houseresources

or in sourcing interventionsby connectingwith externalpolicy stakeholders (Freytag&

Hollensen2001;Anand&Kodali,2008).

“…soafewyearsago,theindustrywasconcernedaboutdifficultiesinbringinginnewproducts…about what was happening in Europe…and came up with an “overallstrategic agenda…so I am involved in European activities...where the industry as a

170

wholeworkstogetherincollaborationwithacademicgroupandotherstakeholderstobenchmark the training needs within the industry….and then individual companiessuch as ours also benchmarkandaccess someof those courses…I lead theEuropeanMedicinesEducationandTrainingNetworkforexample…so…theresearchandtrainingweestablishedfiveyearsagoisnowtakingplace…”(Education&PolicyAdvisor:2)

Theirsuccessinfulfillingtheseresponsibilitieshoweverdependedontheiraccumulation

of(in)tangiblesocialcapitalfrompriorexperienceofworkingwithinsimilarrolesacross

the high skill sectors. Here tangible social capital attributes included for example their

knowledgeandexperienceaccumulatedbyworkingalongsideprofessionalorganizations

andnetworksincoordinatingtrainingpartnerships.Theseexperiencesfurthermeantthe

accumulationofintangibleattributesincludingconnectionswithindustry-wideemployer

networks, policy stakeholders and related resource capabilities. Informal associations

with senior individuals fromacross theirR&D capability and industrywereparticularly

useful in fulfilling these responsibilities particularly in relation to establishing internal

decision-makingandbenchmarkingstructuresdiscussedinlatersections.

Other research participants included: seniorprojectmanagersanddirectors with

overarching responsibilities in overseeing R&D projects according to their newly

established seven internationalR&D capabilities. Their responsibilities included raising

awarenessacrosstheirmanagement-structuresinidentifyingandbenchmarkinghighskill

R&D shortages across existingUK, European andnew internationalR&D collaborations.

Here both R&D project managers and directors were responsible in progressing their

“overarching strategic R&D Training Agenda and Philosophy” by connecting with

Europeaninstitutionsandtheirpolicynetworks.

“…my title is talentanddevelopment lead forR&D…so thereare four leadsand Iamoneofthem…XlooksafterEnablingFunctions,YlooksafterGlobalCommercialisation,Z look s after Operations and I look after the talent and skills around R&D…so weassimilate and identify the demand for talent and provide the resources for itsdevelopment…to support our people strategy…we work with our clients and theirnetworks and work out the deliverables in resourcing their talent…” (Senior R&DProjectManager:5)

Thisemphasis in forgingnew internationalR&Dcollaborations furthermeantadditional

responsibilitiesfortheirpolicyadvisors.Theiraccesstointangible forms of social capital

werecrucialtotheirabilitiesinforgingrelationships,andinnegotiatingpartnershipswith

internationalbut largelyEuropeannetworksandtheir institutionalmembers(e.g.senior

individuals representing multi-national pharma; educational institutions and academic

andresearchcentresofexcellence).Thiswasanewfoundcommitmentunderpinningtheir

strategic R&D Training Agenda in building global R&D skills capacity around newly

identified research capabilities that UK HE often failed to deliver upon. These new

arrangementswerenecessaryastheircurrenttraininganddevelopmentstrategieswere

incompatible with the long term demand being generated for new high skill labour,

171

alternativelycurrentlybeingmetusingadhocquick fixHRrecruitmentapproaches(e.g.

secondmentopportunities;fixedshort-termR&Demploymentcontracts).

“…wearelookingtoincreasetheskillwithinourorganization…toactuallyinvestinanddevelopourexistingstaff…soweretainstaffandactuallyincreasetheirskills...wealsolookacrosspeoplewhohavetheskills…andsayhowdoweactuallyneedtoinvestinyou…wellthat’salong-terminvestment…andwealsobuytrainingcontracts…theseareboughtfromtheemergingmarkets…whereskillsarerecognisedandvalued…”(Education&PolicyAdvisor:2)

New connections forged with European policy networks supported policy advisors in

connectingwithnewR&Dstaffdevelopmentstrategies,furtherinformingtheirseniorand

corporate decision-making. This new approach in engagingwith established European

training networks and in benchmarking their demand for newly established R&D

competencieswaswelcomedbyseniormanagementinlightoftheproblemsexperienced

inmobilisingengagementwithUKsupply-sideinstitutions(e.g.UKuniversitiesandtheir

academic centres, research centres of excellence, UK research institutes and councils)

(section5.2).Thesepointscorroborateexistingscholarlyargumentswhichhighlight the

inabilitiesofthesupply-sideinmeetingtheemployerdemandforeducationandtraining

as the underlying reasons behind the lack of engagement between UK employers and

supply-side policy stakeholders (Sung et al. 2008; Payne, 2008b; Lloyd& Payne, 2002).

DespitethisUKpolicystakeholderssupportedtheiraccesstovariousmembershipgroups,

including:theSTEMStrategyGroup,HEFCE,scientificprofessionalbodiesandgroupsand

policy organizations overseeing training regulation. Policy advisors however also

consulted with supply-side policy stakeholders to address problems surrounding the

employmentanddevelopmentofentry-levelSTEMgraduates,post-graduateresearchers

andadoptionofnationaltraininginitiativesofrelevanceacrosshighskillsectorsandtheir

supplychains(e.g.apprenticeshiptraining,Level4NVQs).

“…wehavestrongtieswithcentres,wehavestronglinkswith…theChristies’sisone…wehaveanumberofresearchcollaborationswithmajorinstitutionsandareinvolvedinestablishingtrainingmechanismsforpostgraduatesandpost-docs...we’vealsosponsoredpost-graduatestudentsasindustrialsponsors…wesupportschools,industrialgraduateplacements…andsoareinvolvedininitiativesthatsupportthese…”(OrganisationalChangeManagers:1)

Otherseniorindividualsinvolvedintheresearchandalsoinvolvedintheadoptionoftheir

training philosophy included: senior talent managers and HR Business partners. These

individuals were collectively responsible in commercialising the activities their R&D

collaborations,relatedjobs,competenciesandexpertisetoexpandtheirglobalreach.

“…somyroleisinlinewithourCentreofExcellenceHRMFrameworkandwhatitsdoeswhich is not just talent development…but also recruitment, strategic workforceplanning aroundR&D, leadership development and organisational effectiveness andchange…”(SeniorTalentManager:6)

172

HRBusinesspartnerswerethusresponsibleinoverseeingthecoordinationandalignment

ofnewthedevelopmentandestablishmentofR&DcompetencieswiththeirHRfunctions

(e.g. training and development, performance management; recruitment and selection

strategies).Alignmentwas furtherachieved in linewithresponsibilitiesalsoallocatedto

seniortalentmanagersintheirestablishmentofdecision-makingarrangements(Diagram

1)supportingthecollectiveinvolvementof internalstakeholderswithstaffdevelopment

ortrainingresponsibilities.Thesenewdecisionmakingarrangementsinformedtheirtop

down and bottom up decision-making covering various issues surrounding new staff

development initiatives, systems, or processes. These were new arrangements that

replaced their existing leadership decision-making framework andwhich supported the

top-downcoordinationoforganisational-widetrainingbasedonthecollectivedecisionsof

mainlyleadership,seniortalentmanagersandHRbusinessPartnersinsteadof involving

wider internal stakeholders as a collective. Their new approach now supported

engagement between multiple internal stakeholders in training decisions at various

organisational decision-making levels (i.e. corporate R&D leadership, HR business

partnersandline-managementlevels).Consultationsheldatthesedecision-makinglevels

supported their senior management to also address wider staff development issues

around: international labour mobility, performance management, UK recruitment,

workforceplanningandleadershipdevelopment.

“…sowehavecorporateleadership,ourcorporateHRfunction....thatsitsacrossourorganization…acrossR&D,commercialisationandmanufacturing…andtheyhavetheirownHRgroups…whichincludesfromthelinetocorporate…whicheachhavetheirownplanninggroupsanddecisiongroupsandstructures…whowouldthencascade…sotheseindividualsareinvolvedinleadershipteammeetings…ourgroupsoflinemanagers…sotheycometogetherasleadershipteamsthatwouldbepartofleadingandmanagingthedevelopmentoftheirteams…”(SeniorProjectManager:5)

Althoughthisnewdecision-makingframeworkproducedadditionalHRDresponsibilities

for talent managers, it improved their abilities in building working relationships with

other key and wider internal stakeholders responsible for staff training. This new

frameworkalsosupportedseniorindividualsinconnectingwiththedifferentperspectives

of staff working across their UK R&D and global R&D collaborations (e.g. HR Business

partners, trainers). In effect, talent managers were now able to readily collect and

benchmark data as a consequence of these decision-making arrangements particularly

surrounding their new international R&D collaborations. This new decision-making

framework was specifically beneficial in supporting their awareness of the challenges

experiencedby the line inencouragingstaffparticipation in traininganddevelopmental

opportunities. Senior individuals were thus also able to collaborate with the line in

tacklingcriticalissuesaroundsourcingororganisingstaffdevelopmentopportunities.

173

This sub-sectionhighlightsnew responsibilities adoptedby senior individuals in

linewith theirnewmicro (organisational) perspective strategic stakeholderengagement

emphasis across their R&D capability. This new philosophy seemed to underpin the

employerbarrierswhichcommentatorsotherwisesuggestconstrainUKemployerswithin

fromunderstandingorgeneratingtheirneedfornewstaffdevelopmentopportunitiesor

in addressing their unmet demand for training (e.g. poor benchmarking & line-

management involvement in trainingdecisions -Gleeson&Keep,2004;Fuller&Unwin,

2004).Theanalysisinsection5.3thusprovidesadetailedanalysisofthestrategicnature

inwhichtheneworganisational-widetrainingphilosophyfacilitatedtheiradoptionofthis

stakeholderengagementframeworklargelyinsupportingtheirchangingtrainingdemand.

As detailed in section 5.3, this framework was necessary in facilitating their access to

education and training opportunities which were otherwise not supported by the UK’s

wider macro (perspective) institutional training environment (Lloyd, 2002), discussed

next.

5 .2Connectingwiththemeso-perspective

Theanalysisinthissectiondrawsonthemicro-meso-macroframework(Dopfere

al. 2004), acknowledging that the engagement structures adopted by agents or

stakeholders characterising themicro (organisational)-perspective are influenced by or

adoptedinresponsetoengagementwiththemesoandmacroperspectives.Theanalysis

in this section draws on Dopfer et al’s. (2004) micro-meso-macro framework to

understand the nature in which the meso (industry) perspective characterised by the

competitive network arrangements of high skill industries (Finegold, 1999), supported

seniormanagement in connectingwith education and training initiatives in response to

their newly realised training demand across their R&D capability. The analysis in sub-

section 4.3.1 revealed that themeso-perspective facilitated engagement between policy

stakeholdersandhighskillemployers,onlysofarasinaccommodationwiththemicroand

macro-level perspectives. The analysis here however reveals that senior individuals

forged coalitionswith international policy networks, specifically at themeso (industry)

level. These developments arose largely in response to the challenges their senior

individuals faced in connecting with UK’s macro institutional training environment in

responsetotheirgrowingdemandforhighskilleducationandtrainingconnectedtotheir

R&D jobs and competency frameworks supporting their newly established R&D

capabilities.Theanalysisnext thusdetails the specificbarriers anddriversbehind their

engagementwithmacro-perspectivesupply-sideeducationandtrainingandinternational

meso-perspective(industry)networks.

174

Macro-perspectiveEngagement

HereallseniormanagementrevealedalowinterestintheadoptionofGovernment-

led macro-perspective education and training initiatives across their organization and

thusarecognisedtheweakinfluenceoftheUK’smacro-perspectiveSkillAgendaontheir

workforcedevelopmentneeds.Seniorindividualsthereforespecifiedrelianceontheirin-

house established organisational training structures and systems and provided similar

reasonsbehindtheirweakengagementwithnationaleducationandtraininginitiativesas

those cited by policy stakeholders in chapter 4. The analysis revealed that senior

management rarely acknowledged the external macro-level skills policy sector and its

initiatives in addressing their specific training needs and thiswas further confirmed by

their lackofreferencetosuchinititiativesduringtheinterviewprocess,unlessraisedby

the interviewer. Regardless, the analysis revealed that based on their organisational

surveys their management-levels held mixed, largely negative views regarding the

benefitsofnationaleducationandtraininginitiatives,moreorlesscorrespondingwiththe

viewsofpolicystakeholdersinchapter4whoalsopointedtoalackofemployerinterest

ineducationandtraininginitiativessupportedbytheirorganizations.

Despite this, the interviews revealed that senior management were aware of the

rangeofinitiativesthatthenationalcontextsupportedincluding:apprenticeshiptraining,

internships and NVQ training opportunities addressing the variety of technical

competencies across the intermediate-skill occupations (e.g. laboratory technicians)

supporting their sector and supply chains. Conversations around these initiatives were

duringinterviewswererareandintermittentas intervieweesveeredtowardsdiscussing

thestrategicconcernsoftheirchangingR&Dcapabilityeachtimequestionssurrounding

these initiatives were raised, further justifying a low interest in such initiatives. The

analysis did however reveal that senior management allocated importance to certain

nationaleducationandtraininginitiativesoverothersbasedonthegrowingeconomicand

reputational value allocated by their senior and corporate leaders. Here the analyses

revealed a growing interest in the support behind apprenticeship training and in

sustaining the future and long-term generation of technical laboratory competencies

aroundtheirnewinternationalR&Dcapabilities.Muchworkwasstillrequiredhowever,

inraisinginterestacrossmanagement-levelsofthebenefits(e.g.economic;reputation)of

othermajornational initiatives thatweregaining the interestof their corporate leaders

(e.g.graduate internships;NVQs),butwhichweremetwithchallenges in theiradoption

acrosstheirmanagementlevels, largelyduetoapooraccesstoinformationsurrounding

their adoption (e.g. training pre-requisites; funding). These empirical findings also

correspond with the barriers highlighted by policy stakeholders in sub-section 4.3.1,

175

althoughseniormanagementhereidentifiedwiththepoorattitudesandinterestoftheir

managementastheunderlyingreasonsbehindthepooradoptionoftheseinitiatives.

TheircommitmentinconnectingwiththeNationalSkillsAgenda,viatheirCorporate

Social Responsibility Strategy however seemed to compensate theweak interest across

their management levels in connecting with National Agenda and Government-led

investmentsinsupportingthedevelopmentofstaff.Thiscommitmentextendedtowards

supportingtheSTEMAgendaandinitiativestacklingwidersocietalproblemsaroundpoor

educationalachievementofunder-representedsocio-economicgroupswhocharacterised

weakeconomicperformanceandproductivity.ExamplesofsuchCSRinitiativesincluded:

their regional involvement in raising STEM entry and exit graduate numbers and in

supporting local high-skill female entrepreneurs across the NorthWest. It seemed that

senior individuals viewed their CSR engagement efforts in connectingwith theNational

SkillsAgendaassomehowalsocompensatingthelowcommitmentoftheirorganizationin

engaging with policy stakeholders, their institutions and their various channels of

engagement with HE to address critical and newly realised high skill competencies.

However engagement with such initiatives were largely initiated by their corporate

leadership via their attendance at regional steering committees alongside the range of

policystakeholders(e.g.RDAs,NWUA,SSCs,NSAs)witharegionalinterestinreducingthe

disparities in skill achievement across the high skill occupations (see chapter 3) and

under-representedgroups.

“…therearecolleagueswhoareinvolvedinUKacademiccentresofexcellence…whoworkinpartnershipwiththesecentresandtheprofessionalbodiesindealingwithskillsshortagesconnectedtospecificscienceareas…”“...we operate at a high level because Government’s define the policy and theguidelines within which we operate from a corporate responsibility perspective...”(SeniorHRDirector:6)

“…wedosupportschools…asanationalactivity…wesupportschoolvisits,whetheritsforaday…theydoindustrialplacements…inarangeofdisciplines…notjustscience…”(SeniorR&DProjectManager:5)“ourCEO is involved inadiversityand inclusion regional steeringcommitteearoundtheadvancementofwomen…itsallarounddiversityandaverygoodwayincementingthiswithin the organization…weget really big around some of the communityworkwhichinvolvestraininganddevelopingindividuals…soaninitiativewe’reinvolvedinisaround‘HealthConnectsusAll’…”(SeniorTalentManager:6)

The hanging demand for regulationwas another growing problem thatwas notmet by

local and regional private training providers, policy stakeholders and regulatory

organisations. Their existing internalised regulated training structures and systems

adopted across the R&D capability were in-effective in addressing this new regulatory

demand for specialist technical competencies surrounding new R&D job roles and

176

competency frameworks due to challenges around poor expertise and resources, poor

access to Government funding in sustaining existing and establishing new training

regulationandcriticalshortagesinregionaltrainingfacilities.Thisproblemofthelackof

resourcesorsupportinUKprovisionalsoextendedtotheiraccesstoskilled,qualifiedand

trained graduates in line with demand for specialist STEM disciplines being generated

acrosstheirinternationalR&Dmarkets.Hereseniorindividualsstressedtheneedforthe

establishment of employer-led engagement with HE institutions in addressing such

concernsalthoughpresentlytheseshortageswereraisedatHEFCE-ledconsultations(e.g.

HLSP industry consultations) that were attended by their senior individuals. These

howeverlargelyaddressedpre-existingtechnicalskillsshortagesfacingSTEMrecruitment

whichforyearshadnotbeenmet.

“…we’recurrentlylookingatskillsshortagesaroundmathematicalmodellingandcomputersimulationsofbiologicalsystems…”(OrganisationalChangeManager:1)‘’…Ican’tsayspecificallywithintheUK...butcansaythatwehavegapsthatareglobal…oneofourcapabilitiesthatwearebuildingskillsaroundisthatofpredictivescience…predictivetechnologiesareusedwidelywithinmanyindustries…thescienceisreallyenablingustogetbetteratbiologicalsciences…universitiesdon’tturnpeopleoutwiththeseskills…theyeitherturnpeopleoutwithmathematicalskillsorbiologyskills…andtheonlyplacethesepeoplecometogetheriswithinahandfulofcentresofacademicexcellence…Europehasoneortwocentres…butnotacrosstheboard…”(OrganisationalChangeManager:1)

“…soweworkwithdifferentcompaniesandprivateprovidersastheregiondoesnotsupportit…wewanttogrowourownexpertiseinhouse…sowedon’trelyonexternalproviders…sowearegoingtohavetocatalyzethatbybringinginexperiencedpeopleandprovidingthemwithcareers…andintrainingourownstaffinternally…”(Education&PolicyAdvisor:2)“…notsurewhetheritdoesitintermsofaregionalemphasis…aregionalcluster…certainlythereareelementsnationallytoseetheskillsgapsintermspfscience,educationandtraining…sothatledtosomeworkwiththevariousskillscouncils…andgroups…thesocietyofbiology…indevelopingaccreditedcourses…addressingthepracticalskillsthatgraduatesarelackingacrossourindustryandinestablishingmastersmodules…sothathashappenednationally…butnotregionally…”(SkillsPolicyAdvisor:5)

As in chapter 4, senior management here too identified with problems experienced in

accessing resourcesacross the region,particularly funding investments foroften critical

educationand training initiatives surrounding their strategicdemand forhigh skillR&D

skills and competencies. Here senior management were aware of the work of policy

stakeholders (meso-industry consultations), although did not or were not willing to

engage.Hereseniorindividualswereoftheviewthatpolicystakeholdersdidnotmobilise

sufficient interest across their sectors or encourage their collective representation in

HEFCE-led consultations supporting critical R&D skill shortages. While this was the

177

majority viewpoint amongst all stakeholders, individuals responsible for policywere of

theview theirorganizationsoperatedas independent entitieswithin theUK region, but

wereproactiveinestablishingtheirpipelineofcompetitiveskilledlabourviaothermeans

discussed next which diminished their dependency or reliance upon local or regional

talentpools.

“…wehaveanumberofresearchcollaborationswithanumberofresearchinstitutionswhoarelinkedintopolicyintheNorthWest...youinsupportingpost-gradsandpost-docs…sothereareindustrialsponsorsandmoneygoinginthere…”(Education&PolicyAdvisor:2)

“…Iactuallydon’tthinkthatweareaglobalisedorganization…Iactuallythinkthatwe’rearegionalisedinternationalbusinessthatwantstobecomeglobal…”(SeniorTalentManager:6)

“…wehavethepotentialinestablishingtheseskillsinthefutureandtheabilitytolineupourskillsportfoliosinareallyconsistentwaywithagreatbrandacrosstheglobe…autonomouscompaniesfindthatverydifficulttodoandthereasonisthattheirorganisationaldesignsdonotencouragethecollective…sotheywillhavetheirowntrainingprogrammes…makingitverydifficulttoconnectwiththeregion…”(Education&PolicyAdvisor:2)

Meso(industry)perspectiveEngagement

Here the analysis revealed that senior management established working

relationshipsandmeso(industry)coalitionswithseniorindividualsresponsiblefortheir

international R&D collaborations to address critical skill shortages notmet by the UK’s

institutional education and training systems. These meso-perspective coalitions were

largely initiated by members from their senior leadership team, also involved in the

organisational-wide adoption of their new strategic R&D training philosophy and Skills

Strategy. This leadership team comprised of senior individuals including corporate

leadership responsible for corporate strategy, their HRM and HRD directors and also

senior individuals involved in the research (e.g. education and trainingpolicy advisors).

These working relationships and coalitions were strategic in informing their

organisational policies and related decisions on various capacity building issues

characterising their R&D capabilities. As already indicated, one such issue was around

harnessing education and training initiatives supporting their newly realised skill

shortages inR&D forwhichglobal shortageswerealsoevident.These relationshipsand

coalitions were thus crucial in building capacity around their strategic global R&D

collaborations and served multiple functions. Coalitions for example supported their

seniormanagement in forging linkswith international researchcentresof excellence; in

identifyinginternationalstaffsecondmentopportunitiestoenhancetheR&Dtechnicaland

178

knowledge competencies of their UK staff or in supporting project management or

regulatorycompliancecompetenciesacrosstheirexistingR&Dcollaborations.Despitethe

somewhat premature inception of these coalitions, senior individuals viewed them as a

vital resource that led to theirengagement inoroftenestablishmentofmeso (industry)

partnerships supporting new R&D competencies and further providing access to policy

stakeholders working across European multi-national pharmaceuticals and their policy

networkswithresponsibilitiesinoverseeingeducationandtraininginitiativesacrosstheir

highskillsectors.

“...Europe for example…we are collaborating with academia, other pharmaceuticalcompanies and external bodies…an example...is around payers to understand anddefine what should pharma be providing tomeet these customer needs...that’s Pan-European...its pharmaceutical companies...its academia and payers workingtogether...we’ve also got lots of collaborations which would bring in Governmentpolicy-makers...academia...andindustryacrossdifferentdisciplines...”

“..it’s a global gap...one of the capabilities thatwe’re looking to build is around ourpredictivescienceandtechnologiesusedwidely...thescienceisreallyenablingustogetbetter in biological sciences...we are growing and every other pharmaceuticalcompany is growing in this area...no university turns people out with biological ormathematical skills…the only place that they are probably brought together is in ahandful of centres of academic excellence at a postgraduate or post-doc level...sothere’s a lack of those skills...we’re starting to plug the gap in the emergingmarkets...China,Russia,India...nottheUK…oneortwocentresinEuropenotacrosstheboard...”(SeniorEducationPolicyAdvisor:2)

These working relationships were further crucial in organising and generating interest

around the development of newly identified critical shortages in R&D skills and

competencies within the UK (e.g. national; industry level). Here however senior

management viewed their disconnect with Government agencies as hampering such

developments, although here engagement with and connections forged with policy

stakeholdersfromacrossEuropeinturnstrengthenedtheirUKcaseinraisingcriticalR&D

competenciesthat theUKHEsectordidnotsupport. Regardless,examplesof initiatives

established using connections with international (European) policy networks included:

competencyframeworkscharacterisingR&Djobroles(e.g.predictivesciences,emerging

technologies) and additional complimentary education and training opportunities

supporting postgraduate R&D competencies (e.g. mathematical biological modelling).

Overarching responsibilities in initiating engagement with individual European

stakeholders and their policy networks rested with their education and training policy

advisorsmainlyachievedusingavarietyofmean. This involvedattendanceat industry

consultations, in initiating collaborations around establishing high skill educational

initiatives and in establishing partnership agreements with pharmaceutical around

training provision. Membership of policy networks was quite diverse and included:

specialistprofessionalEuropean(cross)disciplinarynetworks,societiesandprofessional

179

groups, European training and research excellence centres, infrastructure organisations

and senior individuals responsible for education and training policy from as many as

twenty-five major pharmaceutical companies. Involvement in policy networks further

provided access to resources that were otherwise not easily available within the UK’s

widerinstitutionaltrainingframework.Soforexampleindividualmembersbelongingto

policy networks and their consultations provided in-kind contributions critical in

establishing partnerships. These included: expertise and knowledge accumulated from

their involvement in establishing policies supporting the development of postgraduates

andoccupationsstructuressupportingthecarerprogressionofscientificR&Droles.This

information in turn supported the activities of senior management in establishing and

formulatingpoliciesaroundnewcareerdevelopmentstructuresandrelatedcompetency

frameworks characterising their strategic R&D capabilities. The diversemembership of

policynetworksfurtherprovidedindividualmemberswithaccesstoinformationaround

sourcingandinitiatingcontactwitheducationandtrainingprovisionnotfullysupported

within the UK, and ultimately characterising the features or drivers of value creating

networks (Miles & Snow 2007). Value creating networks are effective in generating

relationshipsbetweenstakeholders fromdifferentpointsofagiven industryvaluechain

anditssupplychainnetworks. Thesefeaturesthussupportedtheirseniorindividualsin

sustaining connections with policy stakeholders from across their international supply

chainswith responsibilities in establishingor connectingwithnational training systems

and providing senior management access to strategic information around their skill

formation activities (e.g. policy collaborations in supporting specialist R&D competency

frameworks)andaccesstoresources(e.g.policyknowledgeandexpertise;funding).

“...I’minvolvedinEuropeanactivities...wheretheindustryasawholeworkstogether...incollaborationwithacademicgroups...toaddresseducationandtrainingneedswithinthepharmaceuticalindustry...soverymuchmorebroadlythanwhatanyindividualcompanyisdoing...andthenindividualcompanieswilleitheraccessthesecoursesandtrainingoptions...morethanothers...soIweartheInnovativeMedicinesInitiativeEducationandTraininghat...oneofthosenetworkswhichiscalledtheEuropeanMedicinesandtrainingnetwork...isonewhichIlead...nowwearenottalkingaboutanindividualcompany...butthepharmaceuticalindustryasawhole...”

“...it’sacollaborationbetweentheEuropeanPharmaceuticalcompaniessoEuropeanFederationandwhatwasoriginallytheEUcommission...sotheEUdecidedthatthiswasworthwhiletoprotectresearchinEurope…we’regoingtoputinfundingforit...andtheycreatedaseparategroup-theIMI...andbasicallythat’sabillionEurosforthelifetimeoftheproject...theEUfunditandindustryputsinamatchingamountandin-kindcontribution...andsupport...itsthebiggestpublic-privatepartnershipinbiomedicalresearchinEuropeandaddressessafety,efficacy,knowledgemanagementandeducationandtraining…theindustryassuchiscommitteditselfintermsofdevelopingtheseprogramsandsendingpeoplefromcompaniestothoseprogramsaspartoftheirin-kindcontribution…”(Education&PolicyAdvisor:2)

180

“...thereareorganizationsinEuropecalledinfrastructuresthey’rethetraditionalsinglescientificdisciplines...sotheroyalsocietyofBiologytheyhavemembers...workingacrossdisciplines…forexampleBio-bankingfortissuestranslationalmedicine...Bioinformatics...awholeseriesoftheseinfrastructures...sooneofthethingswe’velookedatistogetthesegroupstogether…professionalscientificbodies...theinfrastructurestheemployers...andsayOKcanyoucomeupwithsomesortofframeworkguidancethatgivesindividualsinthisareaanideaofnecessaryskills...youthenfocusintermsofwhat’srequiredinthenexttwelvemonths...forthatparticularjob...andfindamechanismfordeliveringthatwhereindividualscangoonthosecoursesandifitsnotavailablethensomeoneneedstofillthegap…youthenclosethatloopattheendsothateachindividual...hasthisportfolioofcompetencieswhichtheydevelopwithinputfromthevariousstakeholderssotheydeveloptherightsortsofskillstohelpthemintheirscientificdiscipline...anevolvingcompetencyframework...”(SeniorR&DProjectManager:6)

These formsof engagementwithEuropean stakeholders and theirpolicynetworks thus

supportedtheircorporateleadershiptoformulatepoliciesaroundtheirhealthandsafety,

their R&D knowledgemanagement capabilities, but importantly around developing and

establishingcareerprogressionanddevelopmentopportunitiesfortheirhighskilllabour

working across their newly established R&D production collaborations. These network

arrangements further provided access to readily available data informing their R&D

projectmanagersof theexpected futuredemandforcompetitiveR&Dcompetenciesand

R&Dproduction. These approaches in tackling their otherwise unmet demand for skills

and competencies connected to their R&D collaborations althoughwere relatively new,

were nevertheless viewed by seniormanagement as useful in addressing their training

andstaffdevelopmentneedscomparedtotheirnon-existentengagementwithUKpolicy

stakeholders.Asalreadyhighlightedseniormanagementdidnotinitiateengagementwith

UKpolicystakeholdersandtheirorganizations,althoughhighlightedtheirinvolvementin

their industry-wide data collection activities (e.g. Sector Skills Agreements - SEMTA;

industry-widenationalSkillsOracleSurvey–Cogent).Theirseniorleadershipteamswere

alsootherwisereliantontheservicesofpolicystakeholders inestablishingpartnerships

withlocalUKuniversitiesandtheirsupportingcentresofexcellence.Thelackofavailable

provisionof industryspecific trainingneedsacross theregionhowevermeant that such

demandsweremetthroughpartnershipsinitiatedbytheirpolicyadvisorswithindividual

centresofexcellencebasedinEurope.

“...soskillsformationisnotaregionalfocushere...thereisn’taregionalfocusedactivityassuchintheNorthWest...”

“...regionallyitsalmostfocusedonparticularneeds...thoughforexampleintranslationmedicineheretherewasclearlyaneed...wewereinterestedindoingsomethingaboutit...didn’twanttosetupallthecoursesandprograms...butthendiditincollaborationor in coordination with the University of Manchester so they set up some of theresearch masters...for translational medicine not just for us…so where there is aprovidernearbyliketheuniversityitmakessensetodothat...similarlyifyoulookedat

181

someofourSwedishcentrestheKaraLinskainstitute...theysetupprogramsdirectedattheneedsoftheindustrysoitsnotonaregionalbasis...itsusuallywithanindividualacademiccentrethathastheabilitytodothatandwemakesomeofthosebridges...”(Education&PolicyAdvisor:6)

The analysis here is somewhat broad due to the premature inception of these (meso)

industryperspectivecoalitionsforgedwithEuropeanstakeholders,theirpolicynetworks

and institutions,butalsoassenior individualsdidnotwishtodetail further information

surrounding their establishment. Regardless, this approach in extending beyond theUK

region in meeting demand contrasts with the regional approach utilised by policy

stakeholders (chapter 4) in forgingmeso-perspective industry consultations using their

existingbusinessandemployernetworksfromacrossthenorthwest.Networkcoalitions

forgedacrossEuropeanpolicynetworkswerehowevercriticalinestablishingtheirfuture

demandfornewlyrealisedskillandcompetencyframeworkssurroundingnewlyevolving

postgraduatescientificjobrolesandinalignmentwiththenewstrategictrainingagenda

oftheirR&Dcapability.Theseformsofnetworkcoalitions,arrangementsortiesforgedby

theirseniormanagementacrossnationalboundariesareperhapsnotanewphenomenon

(Borzel, 2005; Provan &Milward, 2001; Agranoff, 2001), although have previously not

been discussed in understanding the adoption or establishment of policy initiatives

surroundingnewtrainingsystemsorjobcompetencyframeworks.Regardless,theviews

ofseniormanagementverymuchconfirmexistingscholarlyargumentswhichcompliment

policy networks in transcending multiple institutional hierarchies (Borzel, 2005) in

facilitating policy change and multiple stakeholder engagement (e.g. resource pooling,

communications) due to diverse network membership and its support in overcoming

institutionalbureaucracies(Provan&Milward,2001;Agranoff,2001). Thesocialcapital

potential of these arrangements were thus particularly effective in generating policies

surrounding high skill R&D competencies and career structures characterising newly

realisedR&Dproductionstrategies,featuresthatcommentatorssuggestarenecessaryin

raisingtheproductiveuseofskillwithintheUK(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Keepetal.2006).

Theuseof thesenetworkarrangementswerenewdevelopmentswhichperhapsrequire

further research, progressing existing scholarly arguments that call for the analysis of

policynetworks (Klijn&Koppenjan,2006;Borzel, 2005). Regardless senior individuals

supportedtheircontinuedfutureuseinmeetingtheirchangingdemandforhighskillR&D

labour. The next section examines the nature in which the realisation of this changing

demand and engagement with meso (perspective) industry network arrangements

influencedtheactivitiesoftheR&Dcapabilityinestablishingitsneworganisational-wide

training philosophy (Diagram 1.) The analyses here emphasises the establishment of

micro-perspective organisational-wide decision-making and benchmarking (Gleeson &

182

Keep, 2004) structures and arrangements in influencing their engagementwithinmeso

(industry)perspectivesinmeetingtheirnewlyevolvingtrainingdemand.

5.3 The micro (organisational) perspective in influencing meso

(industry)engagement

The following analysis draws on the micro-meso-macro framework suggested by

Dopfer and colleagues (Dopfer et al. 2004) to inform an understanding of the nature in

which engagementwith themeso (industry) perspective highlighted in section 5.2,was

supported by a new micro-perspective organisational-wide training philosophy in

response to the changingdemand for high skill labour. The analysis here acknowledges

that this training philosophy accounts for the employer barriers that commentators

suggestpreventUKemployersfromgeneratingtheirdemandfornewhighskill jobroles

andcompetenciesthusloweringindustry-wideperformance-levelsrelativetoWorldClass

competition(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Keepetal.2006;Leitch,2006;Keep,2002). These

employer barriers are discussed in section 1.3 and infer that the problems of weak

employerengagementinmacro,mesoandmacroperspectivedecision-makingwithinthe

UK,areexacerbateddue toa lackof industrybenchmarkingandweak line-management

engagement and employee representation in supporting organisational decision-making

(Keepetal.2006;Gleeson&Keep,2004).Theanalysesherehoweverdrawsattentionto

the fact that senior management were very much aware of these employer barriers in

their adoption of their new training philosophy evidenced in their facilitation of

organisational-wide decision-making and benchmarking (Gleeson & Keep, 2004)

structures and arrangements which further supported their meso-perspective network

coalitionsdiscussedwithinsection5.2. Thesemicro-perspectiveorganisationalchanges

wereadoptedinalignmentwiththeirnewHRDstrategy(McKracken&Wallace,2000;Lee,

1996; Garavan et al. 1995), their Centre of Excellence Framework and new training

philosophyindevelopingstaffusingnewformsofeducationandtraininginitiatives.The

analysisthuspointstoaseriesoforganisational-widestructuralchangessupportingtheir

meso (industry) perspective stakeholder engagement activities and newly realised

demand for new R&D competencies. Central to these structural changes was their

leadership commitment in securing a strategic stakeholder engagement framework

comprising organisational-wide decision-making consultations supporting engagement

between internal and external stakeholders, the adoption of industry benchmarking

approachesandarenewedemphasis in theperformancemanagementroleof the line in

connectingwiththeirchangingtrainingdemandandstaffdevelopmentneeds(Gleeson&

Keep, 2004). The analysis thus revealed a renewed training philosophy, one that

acknowledged the employer constraints highlighted within wider scholarly arguments

183

whichpointtoalackofemployerawarenesswithintheUKingeneratingthedemandfor

new staff development and training opportunities (Keep & Mayhew, 2010; Gleeson &

Keep,2004). Later sectionsdetail thebarriers that senior individuals faced inadopting

these structural changes, although the analysis also provided supporting evidence of a

renewed and previously lacking leadership commitment in their organisational-wide

training emphasis. Their seniorHR leaderswere thus committed in supporting training

and development of all staff, above and beyond the skill shortages identified in their

organisational-widesurveysthuscharacterisingtheadoptionofneworganisational-wide

values.Thesenewvaluesunderpinnedtheirnewskillsstrategyandtrainingphilosophyin

theformof“threeCs”tobeimplementedbyleadershipacrosstheR&Dcapability.

“...we’vegotwavesofcultureinitiativesthisyear...we’vegotaninitiativecalledthethreeC’showdowecreatecourageousleadership...greatercollaborationacrosstheorganizationandcreativityandwe’reinstallingthoseastenantsofouroperatingmodel...”(OrganisationalChangeManager:1)“…thethreeC’s...oneofthethingswe’reencouragedtodoisformcollaborationsaroundskillsandthisabsolutelytalksaboutinternallyandexternally…theessenceofthethreeC’s…“(SeniorTalentManager:6)

The first “C” characterised “courageous” leadership values to be adopted across

management-levels with responsibilities in managing or leading the training and

developmentofstaff including:corporateandHRseniormanagement, line-management,

supervisor and R&D project management roles. Here “courageous” leadership

encapsulated values which encouraged management to stretch beyond their existing

training roles taking risks if necessary in fostering innovations in working practices to

specifically generate or accommodate staff development and progression opportunities

(Keep&Mayhew,2010a,b).Theideaofrisk-takingisalsoencapsulatedinnewleadership

values “collaboration” and “creativity” in fostering new training opportunities. So here

management were encouraged in leading training collaborations by facilitating

inter/intra-organisational forms of engagement between their range of internal

stakeholders with staff development responsibilities with external policy stakeholders

characterisingtheirUKorinternationalmeso(industry)perspective(Dopferetal.2004).

These much-required structural arrangements were considered effective solutions by

theirleadershipinfosteringcreativetrainingcollaborationsandinsupportinganewfully

funded training philosophy which subsequently replaced their previous ad hoc staff

developmentapproachinsupportingstafftrainingonlyinresponsetoinfrequentstrategic

shiftsincompetitivebusinessenvironments.

“wegetpeaks...soifyou’regoingthroughre-organizationthenittendstobesomethingthatisdiscussed...yougetnewmanagerscomingin...newstrategiesbringingtrainingtothefore...wethenneedtoreviseourstrategies,toseewhattheskillsgapis...itthenhappensforalittlewhileandthensometimesitflattensoutsohavinghadapeakofactivityitthentailsoff...untilsomethingelsestimulatesit...so

184

yesthereiscommitmentbutitgoesupanddown...”(Education&PolicyAdvsior:2)

“...we’vegottotalcommitmentfromtheCEOdownthroughtheR&Dpresidentthroughhisreports...we’vedoneplentyofchangeprogramsinthepastandthey’vefailed...fourreasonswhythistimeitsdifferent...we’vegotleadershipcommitmentneverseenbefore...totalalignmentrightthewaythroughtobusinessgoals...numbertwo...we’reactuallyputtingmoneybehinditthistime...that’scomingoutofthecorporatebudget...itwaspartoftheR&Dstrategyandthat’srunningintooverahundredmilliondollars...thethirdisthattheworkisreallyalignedtobusinessproblems...we’vegotactualcasesstudiesthatareimportantwhenitcomestotraining...we’vegotalignmentwithrealbusinessproblems...”(SeniorHRDirector:3)

Although later sections detail the barriers surrounding these structural changes, senior

individuals nevertheless confirmed that such changes were necessary in ensuring

consistencyintrainingstaffacrosstheirorganization.Thisconsistencywasunderpinned

bysecuringtheirleadershipcommitmentinimplementingthesechangesinlinewiththe

establishment of corporate leadership team, leadership competences in managing staff

training and corporate benchmarking systems led by leadership all in all supporting a

betterorganisational-wideunderstandingof theirchangingtrainingdemand in linewith

theirnewstrategicR&Dcapabilities(Gleeson&Keep,2004).Theseleadershipattributes

underpinned their new training philosophy, Skills Strategy and overarching Centre of

ExcellenceHRCapability(CEC)thatsupportednewformsofworkingrelationshipsforged

betweenseniorHRindividuals,theirseniormanagementandthelinefromacrosstheR&D

capability. These working relationships complimented their training philosophy and

characterised collective stakeholder engagement in multi-level organisational decision-

makinginaddressingstafftrainingconcerns.Variousinternalstakeholderswereinvolved

including corporate and R&D leadership, talent managers, HR Business Partners, line-

managersandR&DprojectmanagersandtheirseniorHRmanagement.

“...Ithinkitsworthsayingquicklythattalentisanewlyformedfunctionwithinourorganization...previouslywewereunderthecorporateHRbannerwherewehadrecruitment,talent,strategicworkforceplanningandlearningandorganizationaldevelopmentandtheywouldhavehadtheirownhead,teamandownbudget...theywouldhavepartneredwiththeclientbaseinaprobablyslightlydifferentway...we’vebroughtallthosefunctionsunderonebanner,oneumbrellaorganizationfromlotsoftraditionalsilosofHR...”(OrganisationalChangeManager:4)“…wehaveflagshipleadershipsprogramswhichseniorindividualsarenominatedtoautomaticallyandthenweconductaneeds-ledanalysisforotherrelevantneeds..”(SkillsPolicyAdvisor:5)“…therearefiveleadershiplevels…level1isleadingyourselves,level2isleadingothers,level3isleadingotherleaders,level4isleadingfunctionsandlevel5isleadingenterpriseandcollaborations…oneoftheofferingsis,isthatifyouarenowmakingtoatoline-managementrole,thenthemanagingandleadingthedevelopmentofindividualsiscrucial…”(SeniorTalentManager:5)

185

Theanalysesnextprovidescontextanddetailaroundtheseideas,byexplainingthenature

inwhichthesenewstructuralarrangements,supportedengagementbetweenthedemand

generatedwithinmicro(organisational)contextsandsolutionsinaddressingthisdemand

withinmeso(industry)perspectivecontexts.Specificallytheinsightsnextdrawattention

tothedriversandbarrierssurroundingtheirorganisational-widedecision-making(5.3.1),

supportingbenchmarkingandline-managementresponsibilitiy(5.3.2)infacilitatingsuch

engagement(Gleeson&Keep,2004).

“…beforeweweresofocusedindoingthingsourownwaythatwehadforgottenaboutourcompetitorsandindustry…andsowe’veliterallyhadtoliftpeople’sheadfromthebench and say look outside the walls of our organization…to our competitors andalreadymorebroadlyatwhatotherindustriescantellus…sothere’sbeenasignificantshift towards benchmarking…towards partnering more creatively in developing ourstaffthanpreviously…”(SeniorTalentManager:4)

The empirical insights presented next are based on the responses of all seven-research

participantsandthusaddcontexttoexistingscholarlyargumentsthatpointtochallenging

industryandorganisational-wideculturesas thekeyreasonsbehindtheweakemployer

engagementwithmicro,mesoandmacro-perspectivedecision-making(Keep&Mayhew,

2010a,b;Gleeson&Keep,2004).

5.3.1Organisational-widedecision-making

Theanalysishererevealstheadoptionofcorporateorganisationaldecision-making

and additionally multi-level organisational decision-making arrangements. This new

approachsupportedthecollectiveengagementbetweeninternalandexternalstakeholders

from across their R&D capability, UK and international R&D collaborations and their

supporting institutionalnetworks thus facilitatingengagementbetweendecision-making

takingplacewithinmicro(organisational)andmeso(industry)perspectives(section5.2).

The analysis here contradicts existing scholarly arguments which point to the poor

employerengagementindecisionstakingplacewithinindustry,sub-regionalandregional

perspectives asoneof the reasonsbehind their inabilities in realisingor generating the

demand for new training opportunities within the UK (Keep et al. 2006). This new

emphasis in engaging multiple stakeholders including external policy stakeholders and

industry leaders in decision-makingwas thus instrumental in raising awareness across

theirorganizationofkeystaffdevelopmentissuesaffectingtheirorganizationorregarding

the adoption of new industry-wide training initiatives. These decision-making

arrangementsthusservedmultiplefunctions. Theyensuredthattrainingwasaddressed

inacomprehensivemanner,thatkeyinternalandexternalstakeholderswereinvolvedin

decision-making and that the organisational-wide adoption of training initiatives was

186

coordinated in a cost-effectivemanner.However amajor issueduring the researchwas

around developing high skill labour and in seeking external policy support in

understanding the various channels through which their senior leadership could

contributeinsecuringtheestablishmentofnewlyemerginghighskillR&Dcompetencies

around theirnewlyestablishedR&Dcapabilities (Keep&Mayhew,2010a,b–highvalue

addedproduction).

“…national level, yes again the company isworking in this country,with our industryorganizationwhichistheABPI,soinpartnership…itsbigintermsofR&D…soinlinewithourindustrywedogetinvolvedinnationalGovernmentdecisions…fromschoollevelallthewaythroughtoPhDlevel…internationally itsdifferent…we’rebenchmarkingourneedsmore inAmerica…inSweden…soourpeopleareinvolvedintheireducationcentresandnetworks…”(SeniorEducation&policyAdvisor:2)

These decision-making was conducted via consultations which supported their senior

individuals in identifying, formulatingandre-evaluatingHRpoliciesaround:establishing

existing and new career structures, career progression routes and training and

developmentinitiatives,informationwhichwasstrategicintheircoalitionsestablishedby

their senior leaders at the industry-level (section5.2). Consultations taking place at the

strategicdecision-makinglevels(corporate,line-management)acrosstheirR&Dcapability

were thus an effective means in maintaining two-way communications, specifically in

supporting the top-down and bottom-up flow of critical information for which major

decisions were required (i.e. R&D leadership-level – corporate and strategic HRM

consultations;line-managementconsultationsandemployeerepresentation-operational-

levels).

“...communicationsarecascadeddowntheorganizationthroughlinemanagers...atthemomentbecausewe’restillearlyinourchangejourney...we’redrivingthisthroughourseniorleaderssopeoplearesayingwow...they’retakingthisseriously...becausetoooftenwe’vecomeinatamid-level...cutoutsomeofthesenior-line-managersinanorganizationandthenyou’venothadthatmomentumforchange...sorightnowwearegettingseniorleadersvisiblydemonstratingtheircommitmentandsupporttotheprogramsoalotofthemessagesarebeingdriveneitherontheirbehalfordirectlyfromthem...”

“…Imeanthere’sarealblurringsometimesintermsoftraininganditscommunications…thewholeofA&Z’sR&Dsayaboutnineortenthousandpeople..wewantthemtobeawareofwhat’shappeningsothere’slotsofcommunicationsthatweareplanningwhichisaboutraisingawareness…toexplainwhywearemakingthisinvestment…whatwillitdeliver…whatarethevariousissues…acrosstheorganization…where’stheevidence…we’llhavegroupsoftargetsatvariouslevelswithintheorganization…we’llhavetheexpertsandprojectteamswho’lldeliverthesetargetsattheselevels…andwe’llhavetrainingfortheseindividuals…”(SeniorHRDirector:7) Thesestrategicmulti-organisationaldecision-makingconsultationswerecharacterisedby

various features discussed next. Although the discussions next also highlight the

challengeswhich seniormanagement raised in their adoption of these decision-making

187

arrangements, of particular importancewas the critical intermediary role of the line in

ensuring the flow of information between decision-making facilitated by corporate

leadership and the line. HR decisions stemming from corporate consultations were

further supported by their new leadership training commitment, their organisational-

wide training philosophy promoting industry benchmarking and line-management

engagementdiscussednext(Leeetal.2000;Harrison2005;McKracken&Wallace,2000).

A.Corporatedecision-making

Decision-makingconsultationstakingplaceatcorporateleadershiplevelsinvolved

seniorindividualsfromtheircorporateandstrategicHRMandHRDleadershipteamsand

includedtheresearchparticipants.Theseconsultationswereutilisedbyseniorindividuals

inchannellingtwo-waycommunicationsinrelationtotheirnewtrainingphilosophyand

commitmentinrealisingandgeneratingtheirdemandorneedfortrainingacrosstheR&D

capability. Such consultations thus also involved corporate leadership and senior

management roles, individuals with specialist knowledge on skills shortages and with

responsibilities in aligning corporate and staff development strategies and policies

stemmingfromtheirnewstrategicR&DcollaborationswiththeirexistingHRMandHRD

strategies.Corporateconsultationswerethusstrategicinthisrespectinestablishingand

confirmingnewjobrolesbasedontheirassessmentofexistingR&Dcompetencies.

“…there is then the opportunity of this group, of these HR education and trainingspecialiststotalktotheircolleaguesandcomparewhat isgoingon…tofindawayofdealingwithnewR&Dcapabilities…and thatmightbe averycomprehensiveway interms of doing a full capacity profile and then looking at gaps, a formal mappingexercise…lookingatourneedsandwhatwealreadyhave…ratherthantohavetodoitseparately…”“…with the re-structuring there will be clearer definitions of what will be requiredwithin those roles…sometimes its about getting people in externally with those skillsets…butoften itsabout lookingtodevelopthoseskillssetsourselves…yesandthat ishappening at all sorts of levels within our organization with the re-organization...because therewasaneed…moreofa focus inaddressing theskillsandcompetencies…”(SeniorEducation&PolicyAdvisor:2)

Outcomes of such decisions formulated at corporate leadership consultations further

informed their new corporate benchmarking systems, a new ideology adopted by

managementacrosstheR&Dcapabilityinmanagingthetrainingandperformanceofstaff

working across their UK and global R&D capabilities. As discussed later in sub-section

5.3.2, corporate benchmarking supported their senior management in connecting with

and accessing competitive industry-wide information regarding the global demand for

education and training initiatives supporting R&D collaborations. The analysis here

revealed that senior management were all too aware of new R&D skill shortages

188

surrounding the predictive science disciplines, health technologies, stratified medicine

andbiologicalmodelling.

“…working in the predictive sciences…health technologies…stratified medicine andbiologicalmodelling…theseare the toponhour lists…because theyare recognisedaspartofthatchangingenvironment…identifyingthosegapsandsomehowtryingtofindawaytplugthe…it’sthedirectiontheindustryismovingin…notthesciencethatyoulearntwhenyouweeatuniversity…itsaboutgenericskillsthataredevelopedontopofyourparticularexpertise…”(SeniorHRDirector:7)

Policydecisions facilitatedatcorporateor leadership levelwerethusgivenpriority,and

included decisions around establishing new job roles, new education and training

initiatives, performancemanagement practices and in addressing staff concerns around

training, career development and progression. Despite the overarching consensus

amongst the research participants of the priority role of their corporate consultations,

some had reservations regarding their effectiveness (resources), in representing or

addressingtheirwidertrainingdemands.Regardless,corporateconsultationswereuseful

in supporting access to specialist training providers and particularly external HR

resources and consultants in instances where their HR faced difficulties in establishing

educationandtraininginitiativessurroundingtheirR&Djobroles.

“…it varies...some of the skills development will be driven by HR, but involving ourcorporate leadership…its coming from the leadership teamswhousually have seniorHRsittingwith them…andthen if theyneedto theywill link inwithourHRBusinesspartnersorexternallyforguidanceorwaysofdeliveringtraining….theHRpartnerwillalso support this process…a lot of our activities are now done with the support ofexternalconsultantsandevenoutsourced…asanexample,awhileagoweidentifiedaneed…and our HR partner linked us up with a group of providers…who they hadworkedwith…”(SeniorEducationPolicyAdvisor:2)

Consultations involvingcorporate leadershipandseniorHRindividualswereutilisedfor

multiple decision-making purposes. For example lead authority in signing off major

investment decisions in training staff broughtwith it other responsibilities surrounding

theirorganisationaldecision-makingarrangementssuchasassessingtheeffectivenessof

corporate and line-management consultations using newly established performance

indicators. Here performance indicators and objective measures were used to assess

decisions surrounding the need or demand for training across theirR&D capability, the

cost effectiveness of new training initiatives and measures which assessed the

effectiveness of existing training initiatives and working practices in supporting staff

performance.Corporatedecision-makingwasfurtherresponsibleincommunicatingand

informingtheirmanagementlevelsonchangesin jobsrolesandoccupationalstructures,

onskillshortagesandconcerningtheadoptionofneweducationandtraininginitiatives.

This also included information regarding decisions concerning the adoption of new

communication systems and processes (e.g. employee feedback groups, collective line-

managementteambriefs)andthenecessary involvementofkey internalstakeholders in

189

theirvariousorganizationaldecision-makingarrangements(i.e.corporatestrategy,talent

management/HR,R&Dline-managementandoperational(employee)representation).

The effectiveness of corporate consultations however was also dependent on the

criticalcollectiveengagementbetweentherangeofinternalandexternalstakeholdersin

facilitating decisions on major training issues, particularly in fostering their meso

(industry) training coalitions and resembling the meso-level informal social trust and

resource sharing network features (Henderson et al 2002:449; Amin & Thrift 1996).

Corporate consultations however were established around engagement between the

communities of stakeholders from across their UK and international R&D collaborators

and partners and from their policy networks, engagement that was essential in

determiningnewoccupational structures and education and training connected to their

newly establishedhigh skill R&D roles.Anothernewdevelopmentdiscussednext is the

essential involvement of the line in their corporate consultations, and in supporting

engagement between the micro (organisational) and meso (industry) perspectives in

largely in addressing the need for the development of the R&D job role. Senior

managementhoweveridentifiedcriticalchallengesassociatedwithline-managementrole,

in its involvement in corporate decision-making and in supporting meso-perspective

engagement,discussednext.

“...communicationsarecascadeddowntheorganizationthroughlinemanagers...atthemomentbecausewe’restillearlyinourchangejourney...we’redrivingthisthroughourseniorleaderssopeoplearesayingwow...they’retakingthisseriously...becausetoooftenwe’vecomeinatamid-level...cutoutsomeofthesenior-line-managersinanorganizationandthenyou’venothadthatmomentumforchange...sorightnowwearegettingseniorleadersvisiblydemonstratingtheircommitmentandsupporttotheprogramsoalotofthemessagesarebeingdriveneitherontheirbehalfordirectlyfromthem...”(SeniorHRDirector:7)

A. Line-managementinvolvementinDecision-making

The analysis revealed that senior individuals allocated a strategic importance to

theengagementof line-managers fromtheirUKand internationalR&Dcollaborations in

supporting the adoption of their revised organisational training philosophy and

commitment. Specifically this meant the strategic engagement of the line in corporate

decision-making, a raised emphasis in making training decisions as part of the

performancemanagementroleofthelineandtheinfluenceofthelineininvolvinglabour

indecisionsconcerningtraininganddevelopment.Thistypeofmulti-levelorganisational

influence by the line is mentioned in existing scholarly insights (MacNeil, 2004, 2003;

Renwick,2003).Theseinsightshoweveronlypointtotheirlikleystrategicpositioningat

the interface of communications between organisational senior management and their

teams supporting their access to vital strategic information. The analysis here however

190

somewhatprogresses theseexisting insights, bybringing to light theunderlyingdrivers

behindline-managementinvolvementininformingcoporatedecision-making,specifically

in light of new training and performance management responsibilities allocated to the

line.Onafurthernotetheanalysisrevealsthatseniormanagementforesawchallengesin

relation to these line-management responsibilities, although uniquely points to the

advantages of such engagement in supporting their engagement with meso (industry)

perspectivesinmeetingtheirdemandforeducationandtrainingnotaddresedbytheUK’s

instutional trainingenvironemnet. Involvement indecision-making furthermeantnewly

devolvedHR line-managementresponsibilities,which,althoughweresupportedbytheir

HRstrategy,neverthelessfurtherinitiatednewlyrealisedline-managementcompetencies

forboth theexisting lineandadditionally theirR&Dprojectmanagersand team leaders

whowere now also expected to adopt the performancemanagement responsibilities of

theline(Manning,2002;McKracken&Wallace,2000;Horwitz,1999;Lee,1996;Garavan,

1999; Garavan et al. 1995; Thornhill, 1991). R&Dprojectmanagerswere also viewed a

vital resource in providing access to unique information surrounding the training and

performance management policies and procedures utilised by their international R&D

collaborators and partners further informing their decision-making taking place at UK

corporate levels and at the level of the UK line. Together with the existing line, R&D

project managers were thus critical levers or drivers in securing their organisational

trainingphilosophyand insupporting theirdecision-makingarrangements.Theanalysis

nextthusdrawsattentiontothedriversandbarriersinconnectionwith,whatseemedto

be a notable strategic shift in line-management performance management and staff

traininganddevelopment responsibilities. The insightsdohowever coincide somewhat

with yet extend existing scholarly arguments that emphasise a greater devolvement of

broader HR responsibilities (Watson et al. 2007; Renwick, 2003; Renwick & MacNeil,

2002) to the UK line, and additionally the challenges the line faces in managing staff

performance and training responsibilities across organisational (micro-perspective) and

industry(meso-perspective)boundaries(Ruberyetal.2010).

Line-managementdriverssupportingmicroandmeso-engagement

The analysis here interestingly contradicts existing scholarly arguments, which

althoughaccountforperspectivesoftheline,neverthelesspointstoitspoorinvolvement

or contribution in wider HRM decisions surrounding staff training and development

(Larsen&Brewster,2003).Insteadtheanalysisherealternativelyhighlightsthedriversor

new developments in the form of line-management performance management and

monitoring responsibilities that further informed and supported their engagement in

corporate decision-making, a point that is not fully addressed within existing scholarly

191

discussions. Specifically, these newly devolved responsibilities meant that the line now

had access to a wealth of information from across the organization. This information

encapsulated issues specifically around the unmet demand or need for training and

resulting staff performancewhich corporate decision-making nowhad access to though

the formalised engagement of the line (Brewster & Larsen, 2000; Yip et al, 2001;

Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990). These insights corroborate existing scholarly arguments

which compliment the central information sharing role of the line, their abilities in

ensuringtheverticalandhorizontalalignmentofmanagementdecision-making(Kathuria

et al. 2007), although the analysis here points to clear drivers supporting these line-

management chracteristics. So here these drivers or new line-management

responsibilitieswhichprovided the lineaccess to such information included: formalised

responsibilities in managing staff performance which included and extended beyond

performance appraisal responsibilities, and which also encapsulated responsibilities in

managing the training needs of staff. As discussed in later sections, this furthermeant

involvingstaffinwork-relateddecisionsaroundforexampleinnovativewaysofworking

toensuretheeffectiveuseofskillandcompetencies.Thesenewresponsibilitieswere in

starkcontrast to theexistingnarrowperformancemanagement responsibilitiesadopted

by the line, which involved monitoring performance based on rigid performance

objectives and collating informationon skills shortagesand trainingneedsusingmainly

performanceappraisalsandinformalteambriefings.Theseresponsibilitiesalsorequired

thelinetowhererequiredsourceeducationandtraininginitiatives.

“...line-managerswillhelpindividualsaccessskillsortoapplyskills...insomecasestheymightsetitupandbringitin-house...anddothatwithexternalprovidersaswell...youpayanexternalprovidertocomeanddoitforus…tailormadedelivery...itisaroleofline-managerstoaddresstheeducationandtrainingneedsofindividuals...”(SeniorTalentManager:7)“…performanceappraisaldiscussions…objectivesettingindividualplans…identifyingeducationandtrainingneedsandcompetencydevelopment…connectingwithouracademiestosewhetherthereareavailableprogrammes…solookingfairlycomprehensivelyatwhatisrequiredwithinspecificareas…notallgroupsarefullysetupwithintheserespectssowehavetoevaluateourneeds…”(SeniorR&Dprojectmanager:6)

However the narrow nature of their performance appraisal responsibilities meant that

thisinformationoftenremainedwiththelineandwasonlyoccasionallysharedwiththeir

internaltrainingacademies/functionsorreleasedtotheHRfunctiononaneeds-ledbasis.

These functions in their current environment however relied on annual organizational-

wide skills surveys in assessing the effectiveness of their organisational training and

performancemanagementsystems.Seniormanagementthereforewelcomedtheirnewly

adopted formalised and extended line-management responsibilities around managing

192

performanceandmonitoringtraininguse,demandandeffectivenessalongsidethenewly

instated involvement of the line in corporate and HR decision-making. These changes

furtheralleviatedexistingproblemsassociatedwiththeperformancemanagementroleof

theline(e.g.dissatisfiedperformanceappraisals;disconnectwithHRMpolicy-Purcell&

Hutchinson, 2007; Milesome, 2006; Renwick, 2003). Line-management consultations,

anotherdriver informing theirengagement incorporatedecision-making,alsoalleviated

existingtensionssurroundingtheperformancemanagementandstafftrainingroleofthe

line. In effect the linewas now better able to collectively and formally align efforts in

monitoring and assessing industry-wide skills/training needs in line with their new

trainingphilosophyinconnectingwiththemeso(industry)perspectivefurthersuggesting

the extension of the performance management role of the line across organisational

boundaries.Theaimherewastosupporttheiraccesstoinformation,dataandresources

aroundeducationandtrainingandperformanceraisinginitiativesutilisedbytheirUKand

international R&D partners and further informing their engagement in decision-making

characterising horizontal and vertical lines of authority across their UK organization

(Hales, 2005; Gibb, 2003). Inter/intra-organisational training collaborations forged

betweentheirUKlineandfromacrosstheirinternationalR&Dpartnerswasyetanother

driver which, although during the research was not fully acknowledged across the

organisation,wasneverthelesskey in informing the involvementof the line indecision-

making. In drawing on the expertise of various stakeholders from across their

international R&D networks, these training collaborations supported the collective

sharingofinformationanddataandinformalisingdecisionsaroundtheadoptionofnew

or innovativeeducationandtraining initiativesadoptedby theirglobalR&Dpartnersor

collaborators as well as involvement in partnership projects around facilitating career

developmentpathwayssurroundingR&Djobroles.

“…we’vegotvariousstakeholders involved…fromthescientificcommunity…employerspolicyindividuals…soforexampleofyou’reatoxicologist…firstlythereisadefinedsetof skills that you must have…we consider life-long learning…consider CPD…and thevalidationofyourtraining…that’stheenvironmentthatclosestheloopeffectively…anditstakenallthosepartiestodefinewhatisnecessary…toputinplacethemechanismsfordeliveringit…thisdoesn’thappeninmostcases…andthewaytodoitistobringallstakeholders together rather than relying on individual managers…” (Senior HRDirector:7)

Thiswasanewdevelopment in thatpreviously the linehad little formal involvement in

decisionsassociatedwithestablishingor facilitating theorganisational-wideadoptionof

newlyrealisededucationandtraininginitiativesorinformulatingpoliciessupportingthe

careerdevelopmentandprogressionopportunitiesofhighskillstaff.Seniormanagement

thusviewedthesenewarrangementsasanalternativesolutiontotheworkintensification

pressuresthattheirlineotherwisefacedinconnectingwiththeUK’sinstitutionaltraining

193

environment in addressing high skill shortages and education and training needs (e.g.

sourcingtraining,inforgingpartnershipswitheducationalinstitutions,tradeunions,skill

agencies,councilsandspecialisttrainers–Gibb,2003).

“…therearecolleagueswhohavebeeninvolvedinUKacademiccentresofexcellence…althoughthisisnotfrequent…centresofexcellencewhoprovideuswithaccesstoparticularskillssets…workingwiththemintermsofpartnerships…eitherintermsofresearchpartnershipsorindevelopingeducationalinitiatives…liketheRoyalSocietyofChemistry…thisisanareathatisquitestrong…

Interestingly the analysis revealed that senior individuals acknowledged the commonly

cited barriers that existing arguments associated with the devolvement of HR

responsibilities to the line (Watson et al. 2007), although viewed their new drivers

supporting the line in decision-making as alleviating these tensions. Notably their

involvementorengagementincorporatedecision-makingalleviatedthepoliticaltensions

andambiguitythatthelinepreviouslyexperiencedinadoptingperformancemanagement

responsibilities (Haslinda, 2009; MacNeil, 2004), instead transferring vertical

accountability and control in decision-making to the line alongside corporate decision-

making(Hales,2005:247).

“…communicationsarecascadeddownteorganizationthroughourine-managers…we’redrivingthisthroughourseniorleaders…they’retakingthisserioulsyasperviouslywe’vecomeinatthemidlle-levelcutoutsomeofthelineandseniormanagers…sorightnowwearegettingseniorleadersvisiblyinvolvingtheline…”(OrganisationalChangeManager:1)

The analysis revealed that line-management training collaborations and consultations

further alleviated the political tensions that vertical accountability and engagement in

corporate decision-making otherwise presented for the line not least in addressing the

issueofthenarrowspansofcontrol.Thesedecision-makingarrangementsandhorizontal

training structures alternatively provided the line with access to meso (industry)

perspective decision-making further supporting their access to social capital attributes

highlightedinsection5.2andsubsequentlyalsoinformingtheirengagementincorporate

decision-making. Inter/intra-organisational training collaborations were particularly

effectiveinalleviatingtheexistingdecision-makingpressuresfacingtheirlineinsourcing

education and training initiatives or in forging partnerships (Gibb, 2003) with UK HE

institutionswithintheUK’schallengingtrainingenvironment(e.g.poorengagementdue

toweakresourcesandexpertise). Theseinsights,althoughencapsulatetheperspectives

ofseniorindividuals,highlightline-managementdriverscharacterisingtheirengagement

in corporate decisions and further draw attention to the nature inwhich these drivers

support engagement between micro (organisational) and meso(perspective) decision-

making.Onafurthernote,theseinsightsthusextendexistingargumentsthataddressthe

194

complexitiesthatindustrynetworkstructurespresentinmanagingthestaffperformance

and development (Rubery et al. 2010; 2002).While further research encapsulating the

perspectives of the line is thus required here, the analysis here too revealed that these

line-managementdriverswerenotwithouttheirchallenges.

Line-managementbarriersinfluencingmicroandmeso-engagement

Somealthoughnotall senior individuals (e.g.organisationalchangemanager;R&D

projectmanager)anticipatedbarriersfacingthelineinadoptingtheirnewresponsibilities

supportingtheirengagementincorporatedecisions.Akeyissuehighlightedwasaround

whetherthelinewassuitablyqualifiedandskilledintakingonresponsibilitiesoutlinedin

theprevioussection.

“...itdependsonwhetheryouareaskillsline-managerorjustaline-manager...insomepartsof thebusinesswehave line-managerswhoare skillsmanagersbut they’renottheline-managerfortheindividuals...”(SeniorHRDirector:7)

“...historicallymost people in R&Dwill have a long service...looking at about twentyyearsorplusasastandardservice...probablywe’vehadanorganizationalculturethatsays...being a good scientist...turning up and just being a scientist isn’t enough...asopposedtoreallyleadingscienceexcellenceanddevelopingpeople...”

(OrganisationalChangeDirector:1)

Seniormanagementthushighlightedaseriesofskillsshortageslargelyhighlightedintheir

annualskillssurveysinfluencingtheadoptionofnewlydevolvedHRresponsibilities(e.g.

performance management monitoring role; line-management collaborations), but also

influencingtheireffectivenessincontributingtocorporatedecisions.

“…Each yearwe do respond to our Global Focused Surveywhich really does go intodeptharoundourlinemanagersandemployeesandwhatisrightorwrongaboutourpeoplemanagementstrategyintermsofdevelopment…”“it’s a survey aimed at all staff…we can cut across understanding the graduateview…the line-manager view…the HR view…we can loo at it from a leadershipperspective…froma broad perspective…sowe take an aggregate of the developmentneeds so out of 10500 staff…say 3500 need development in influencing skills…750require leadership skills…and in effective decision-making…and we also haveleadershipprogrammes…youknowhighimpactleadershipskills…”(SeniorR&Dprojectmanager:6)

The skills shortages highlighted here corroborate existing scholarly arguments which

raise issuewiththegrowingdevolvedHRresponsibilities,yetskillsshortagesacrossthe

UKlineinmanagingtheseresponsibilities(Watsonetal,2007;Whittaker&Marchington,

2003) an issue that is further exacerbated by the underdevelopment of the UK line-

management role (Mabey&Ramirez,2004;Renwick,2003). Specifically skills shortages

evidenced across their line thus included: leadership skills critical in leading training

collaborations or partnerships and decision-making and influencing skills in supporting

their performancemanagement responsibilities and involvement in corporate decision-

195

making. The analysis here revealed the adoption of a series of line-management

developmentprogrammetoaddress theseskills shortages including thedevelopmentof

leadership competencies and further programmes supporting knowledge competencies

aroundpeoplemanagementskills;coachingcompetenciesandinunderstandingthehigh

skill policy landscape). Here senior management placed emphasis in formalising their

people management competencies supporting the line-management role particularly

around understanding and delivering upon the development needs of individual staff.

Leaderships competencies further supported their abilities in coaching individuals and

groups, inmanaging training collaborations facilitatedat the level of the line, in leading

teams of high skill individuals working across R&D projects and in understanding and

leadingoncorporatetrainingdecisionsacrossthebusiness.

“…Ithinkwhetheryoucallittalentmanagement,performancemanagementorfranklycoachinganddevelopment…itdoesn’treallymatter…Imeanwe’realltalkingaboutthesamething…wewanttohavelinemanagersmakingadifferenceinaformalwayindevelopingtheirowncompetenciesandinhavinginformal,morefrequentconversationswithusabouttalent,coachinganddevelopment…whatdoesthatlooklikeforthereceivingindividual…orfortheline-manageringettingintothatinteraction…sowewantthemtogetreallyempoweredincreatingthespaceforthesereflections…”(SeniorTalentManager:5)“…we’reexpectingtoimproveourline-managementcapabilitiesreallyinanumberofareas…theabilitytospottalent…toengageinreallyhumanconversationsaroundperformancetocareeraspirations…ourlineleadersthereforehavetobeskilledinhavinghonestconstructiveconversationsratherthanpayinglipservicetoprotocol…soitsreallygettingundertheskinofourperformancemanagementsystem…sothattheyactuallyunderstandtheDNAoftheirteams...howtoreallygetthebestoutofthem…weexpectthemtoengageonintellectualandemotionallevels…weexpectthemtokeepabreastofnewdevelopmentinitiativesandinprovidingabsoluteclarityanddirectiontostaffregardingtheirdevelopment….”(OrganisationalChangeDirector:1)“…wearedevelopingadefinitiveleadershipcapability…whichfeedsintoline-managementcapabilities…leveloneisleadingyourself…leveltwoisleadingothers…levelthreeisleadingprojects…levelfourisleadingfunctionsandlevel5isleadingbusiness…”(SeniorTalentManager:7)“…wewantline-managersmakingadifferenceininformalways…hugelyfrequentconversationsaroundtalent,coachinganddevelopment…sowewantthemtogetreallyempoweredincreatingthespacearoundwhatdosegooddevelopmentlooklike,isabsolutelywhatwewantthemtograsp…andthistakesashiftinmind-set...thattakesthemawayfromtheireverydayjob…”(OrganisationalChangeDirector:1)

These insights corroborate existing arguments that acknowledge the necessity of line-

management leadership qualities and abilities in supporting and encouraging staff

development in line with strategic training priorities of their organisations (MacNeil,

2003:294,295). Theanalysishereaddscontext to theseexisting insights insuggesting

further line-management competencies, as necessary drivers in supporting the

engagement or involvement of the line in corporate decision-making. These skills

196

shortages were particularly prevalent across their team leader roles who had

responsibilitiesinleadingtheirUKandglobalR&Dcollaborationsandwhowereexpected

toadoptadditionalline-managementresponsibilitiesinalignmentwiththeirnewtraining

philosophy. According to senior individuals, these were highly skilled and qualified

individualsemployedacrossspecialistR&Dscientificroles,withaccumulatedknowledge

expertise and experience in managing and leading teams of highly skilled scientists.

Questions were thus raised regarding their existing competencies, qualifications and

traininginadoptingtheline-managementroleasrequiredbytheirnewlyadoptedtraining

philosophy.Hereseniorindividualsraisedissuewiththeirexistingknowledgecapabilities

intacklingwiderperformanceandstaffdevelopmentissuesandtrainingneedsrelativeto

differentjobrolesandoccupationallevelsandinalignmentwithexpectedadoptionofnew

line-management responsibilities presented within the previous section. These skills

shortageswerealsoprevalentacrosstheirexistingline,manyofwhomlackedbasicline-

managementtrainingbutwhoalsolackedspecificexperienceinmanaginghighskillstaff

employed across their scientific R&D projects and also knowledge surrounding the

policiessupportingtheirdevelopment.

“...wewantline-managersmakingadifferenceininformalways...hugelyfrequentconversationsaroundtalent,coachinganddevelopment...sowe’relookingforthemtogetreallyempoweredincreatingspacearound,whatdoesgooddevelopmentreallylooklike,isabsolutelywhatwewantthemtograsp...thistakesashiftofmindsetawayfrom...thatthisissomethingthattakesawayfromthedayjob...thisispartofyourpaiddayjob...that’sthekindofmindsetshiftthatweareaimingfor,alotofpeopleseeitasbeingveryintuitive...somedon’tgetitaseasilystrugglingwith–‘wellthat’swhatHRdodon’tthey?’...”(SeniorTalentManager:7)

Other barriers surfaced around the poor attitudes and disinterest of the line and team

leadersinacknowledgingtheseadditionalresponsibilitiesaboveandbeyondtheirexisting

rolesinconductingperformanceappraisalandreviewsystems.Anadditionalbarrierwas

around concerns of their disinterest and work intensification issues in acknowledging

multipleresponsibilitiesaroundtheirnewperformancemanagementresponsibilities.

“...youcan’thaveaneffectivegroupiftheydon’thavetherightskillsset...thathasalwaysledtocoachingmentoringmanagerinsteadofwhataretheskillsgapsandyou’vedonesomethingaboutitandevenwhenyou’vedonesomethingaboutitthejobdoesn’tstop...becausenowisthisindividualcapableofsomethingthattheyweren’tabletodobefore...andsomebodyneedstoassessthat...sogoingdowntheroutetheeducationalsupervisor...butagainline-managersvary...someareinterested...somearen’t...somearegoodatitsomearen’t..”(SeniorEducation&PolicyAdvisor:6)

These findingscorrespondwithscholarlyarguments thatattribute thedisinterest in the

adoptiondevolvedHRresponsibilitiestoworkintensificationthatcomeswithgreatertask

responsibility,autonomyandauthorityindecision-making-Martins,2007;Cascon-pierra

et al. 2006; MacNeil, 2003). It seems however their leadership programmes were

197

sufficientlyaddressed thesebarriers,althoughperhapsexplorationsof line-management

perspectives are required. Regardless senior individuals were well aware of the

consequences the lack of line-management engagement with their newly established

decision-making arrangements in their blocking or of vital information concerning

performanceissues,thedemandfornewtraininginitiativesandrelatedpolicies(Watson,

etal.2007;Whittaker&Marchington,2003;Renwick,2003).Workintensificationaround

identifying,sourcing,developingandparticularlyinfacilitatingtheadoptionofinnovative

workplace learning and development or education and training initiatives across their

organizationwasalreadydulyrecognised.

Thefuturerepresentationorparticipationofemployeesdiscussednextatcorporate

leadership-level decision-making consultations was thus a potential solution to this

problem and also supporting the newly revised performance management roles of the

line. This initiative alongside the new developments supporting the line and its

engagementincorporatedecisionsimprovedtheflowofvitalinformationacrossthelines

of authority characterising their corporate and line-management decision-making. In

effect thesesolutionswere implemented toaddress theexistingproblemsofadhocand

disjointed communications between corporate leadership and the line, ultimately

providingthelinewithgreaterauthorityandcontrolinfacilitatingdecisionsinalignment

with corporate leadership. These changes also ensured line-management conformance

andconsistencyinmonitoring,andcommunicatingthedemandfororuseofnewworking

practices anddevelopmentprogrammes in efforts in improving existing skill use across

their R&D capability (Gleeson & Keep, 2004). Their recently adopted leadership

development programme supporting their line and team leaders in managing staff

performance and development is an example of an initiative facilitated by their new

decision-makingstructureandarrangements.

wewereabletodotheassessmentsthatwassomethingthatwedevelopedatourlevel…itwasn’tsomethingthatcamedown...sothepolicy-levelstuffdoesn’tseemtocomedowninquitethesamewayassomeoftheotherthingscomedown...soit’smoreabout...findingthebestwaystomanageskillstypes...sowhenwe’vegotbigsetsofskillstypes...wedoskillsgapsassessmentsfromtimetotimebutIthinkthatthat’sdoneacrosstheorganization...butit’snotatapolicy-level...it’snotcorporatesayingthatyoumusthaveskillsanalysis...”(SeniorHRBusinessPartner:4)“…wearepartneringwithaUSleadershipcurriculum…tolookatthearchitectureofintermsofwhattheassessmentprocesslooklikewhenyouhavedevelopedsomeone…howdoyouvalidatetheirachievementofcompetencies,…sowearedevelopingacomplimentarysetofmodulesindevelopingR&Dleadership…operatingontwolevels…onehelpsthemunderstandwhatisrequiredintermsofskillfortheirpipelinestrategy…drugdiscoverydevelopment…marketing…finance…externalisation…oncewehaveidentifiedthecompetencieswethenputtheseintomodules…we’relookingatmodulesonauthenticleadership…globalisation…emergingmarketsanddecision-making…”(SeniorEducation&PolicyAdvisor:6)

198

Thenewdevolvedline-managementresponsibilitiesmentionedintheanalysisherewere

not previously formally acknowledged across their R&D capability. It is however clear

thatthesenewresponsibilitiesraisedthecontributionofthelineincorporatedecisions,at

thelevelofthelineandwithinmeso(industry)perspectives.Thelinewasthusacentral

agent in supporting the generation of education and training initiatives in linewith the

demandfornewly realised high skill job roles and competencies surrounding their revised

R&D capabilities. These insights further inform existing scholarly arguments which

question whether the demand for education and training is generated or exists within UK

employing organizations (Stuart, 2008a; Gleeson & Keep, 2004).

C.EmployeevoiceinDecision-making

In addition to the central role of line-management engagement in supporting their

new training philosophy, the analysis here revealed that senior management also

allocatedarenewedimportancetoemployeevoiceindecision-makingarrangements.This

renewedemphasis insupportingtheirnewtrainingcommitmentwas initiated largelyto

better understand the training needs of high skill staff and in addressing wider skills

shortages across the occupations. The use of employee voice systems thus supported

theirorganizationinencapsulatingtheideasofsustainedimprovementsintheuseofskill

across high skill R&D roles but also across low and intermediate occupational groups.

Hereseniorindividualsthusemphasisedtheirrenewedstrategiccommitmentininvolving

employees (Boudreau,2003, cited inGaravan,2007:21) in linewith theirnewdecision-

making arrangements thus replacing their previously low emphasis in involving staff in

decisionsconcerningtheiruseofexistingorneweducationandtraining initiatives. The

analysisrevealedthatthisstrategicemployeevoicecommitmentwasevidentintheiruse

of various strategies detailed in subs-section 5.3.2 supporting the involvement and

representation of employees in decision-making at multiple organisational-levels.

Information drawn from the use of employee voice systems and the attendance of

employeerepresentativesforexampleinformedcorporatedecision-makingconsultations

involving various internal stakeholders including: line-management, internal trainers,

HRD business partners, HRM senior management and directors and R&D corporate

leadership.Accordingtoseniormanagement,thisformofvoicesupportedtheircorporate

senior management and leadership to connect with the specific demand or need for

education and training generated at operational levels, thus accounting for the

perspectives of employees (also of line-management – see previous discussions). All

seniorindividualsinvolvedintheresearchhoweverexpressedscepticismabouttheextent

andnatureinwhichthisrenewedemphasisinemployeevoicewaslikelytoinfluencetheir

corporatedecision-making.Soforexample,amajorconcernwasthatinformationfromthe

199

use of both (in)formal employee voice systems (see sub-section 5.3.2) were only

acknowledgedinsofarastheyledtotheformulationandorganisational-wideadoptionof

educationandtraininginitiativesinalignmentwiththeirrenewedR&Dcapabilities,while

widertrainingconcernsofstaffperhapswentunnoticed.Regardless,variousformsof(in)

formal employee voice systems were adopted across their UK R&D capabilities further

informing decision-making consultations held at corporate leadership and line-

management levels, and replacing theirprevious largely somewhatunstructuredandad

hoc approach in utilising information drawn from their use of employee voice systems.

Previously, decisions surrounding training issues were largely based on information

drawnfromorganisational-widesurveys,andtheiruseofadhocandinformalemployee

voiceapproaches(informalteambriefsorteamdiscussions).

“…there’s the strategic forum for employees where its more about the long-termstrategy…where employees are encouraged to contribute to long-term strategies…tobe able to sort of hear about it and thenmake a contribution… and then there aremoreoperationaltypeforumsinvolvingtheline…”(OrganisationalChangeManager:1)“…wehaveakindofopendoorpolicy…which is fedback toexecutivevicepresidentsand corporate leadership…if youhavean ideaof concernandwant to raise it as anissue then you tick a box and highlight this the on-line system...so the facilityexists…although as you know this also depends on the cultures whether individualsparticipate…”(SeniorHRBusinessPartner:4)

Thestrategicemphasisinincorporatingemployeevoicesystems(Boudreau,2003,citedin

Garavan, 2007:21) and in essentially involving employee representatives in corporate

consultationsandat the levelof the line, legitimised the importanceof includingstaff in

training decisions across their organization and influence in top-down and bottom-up

decision-making (Armstrong, 2006:810; Marchington, 1992, 2001; Heller et al, 1998).

Moreover the analysis revealed that during interviews senior management associated

their renewed strategic use of employee voice systems in mainly raising the skill

attainmentofstaffworkingacrosstheirhighskillR&Dcapabilities.Thisaddscontextsto

existing studies exploring the use of employee voice systems within non-unionised

workplaces (Dundonet al. 2004,2005;Benson,2000),which largely associate theiruse

with the manufacturing industries and low and intermediate occupations and not

specifically the high skill context. The insights here which provide context around the

nature in which the use of employee voice systems are adopted within the decision-

making contexts of largely under-researched high skill industries (Lloyd, 2002), is

thereforeperhapsarelativelynewphenomenontothisareaofresearch.Specificallytheir

use supported their access to information surrounding the training and development

experiencesofstaffworkingwithinR&DjobrolesacrosstheirUKR&Dcapabilityandtheir

UK and international R&D partners or collaborators. Employee voice systems adopted

across theirUKorganisationresembled thoseofnon-unionisedworkplaceand included:

200

occupational-wide surveys, focus groups, e-communications, and away days, use and

complimented their use or organisational-wide surveys, providing context around staff

perspectivessurroundingtheeffectivenessofeducationandtraining initiatives(Dundon

etal,2005;Benson,2000;Milwardetal,1992).Informationdrawnfromtheiruselargely

informed corporate leadership decision-making, and involved senior individuals from

across their R&D capability and UK and international R&D collaborations, including

employeerepresentativesandtheline.

“…forexamplebecausewe’vesaidthatcreativityisamajordrivergoingforward…we’vegotaseriesofinitiativesinR&D…”calledinspiretoinnovate”,anumberofinitiativesrungloballythattouchedalltenthousandstaffwithintwoweekslikeideafarms…wherethey’dbeliterallypatchesofsoilputintobuildings…wherepeopleputlittleplantlabelsinthesoil…withtheirideasforsuggestions…leadershipsessionswherepeoplewillstandupinopenareas…withpost-itnotestohaveinteractivesessionsandengagewithpeople...inspiretoinnovateevents…”LeapingHurdles”…wherepeoplebrainstormsolvingparticularissues…”(SeniorHRBusinessPartner:4)

The analysis however revealed the adoption of a selective approach in their use of this

informationinsupportingcorporatedecision-making,althoughheredecisionswerevery

much dictated by their access to corporate information and the use of employee voice

systems by their international R&D partners. For example, trade union representation

wasacommonfeaturecharacterisingtheemployeeparticipationsystemssupportingtheir

R&D partners in Sweden, specifically in tackling HR issues surrounding training and

development and the recruitment of high skill staff. Corporate andHR decision-making

consultationsconductedat theirUKR&Dsite thusoften featuredorutilised information

from collective bargaining negotiations affecting their Swedish R&D partners. This

approach was particularly useful in informing and ensuring consistency in corporate

decisionsacross theirR&Dcapabilityand internationalR&Dpartnersandcollaborators.

To date this approach had supported HR and corporate decisions around HR issues

surrounding the establishment or adoption of education and training initiatives or

recruitment policies and specifically in their adoption of training regulation dictated by

theirnewandchangingR&Djobrolesandcompetencies.

“…specificallyinUKandSwedenwehaveformalcommunications...soinSweden...wehavetoconsultwiththeSwedishTradeunions...wehavetotakeproposalstothem...aheadoftimeandtheyhavetosignthatoff...intheUKwehavemoreofanopenconsultation...sowehaveemployeerepsmeetingonaregularbasis...andagainwetakebusinessproposalstothem...theygetanopportunitytotakethatbacktotheirconstituency...andtheythenprovidefeedback...whatwefindthrougheffectivepartnershipsisthatthey’reactuallyabletospotissues...alotearlier...”“...intheUSit’salotlessregulated...youknowtheydon’thavethesamelegislative...consultativerequirements...butwhatwedo...toensurethatwe’vegotUK,USendSwedishrepresentationbecausewe’vebeentraditionallyHubbasedsothatwe’ve

201

gotcoveragefromthethreeregionsbutmoreandmorenowbecauseouremergentmarketsaregrowingattwentypercentplusannually...wearetryingtomakesurethatnowfromanHRagendaperspectivewecomeoutwithsolutionsthatarebuiltonceforapanaudience...irrespectiveofthelocationaroundtheglobe...weneedtomakesurethattheyworkinChinaandIndiaaswellasCanada,FranceandGermany...”(SeniorHRDirectorandPolicyAdvisor:6,7)“…yeswehavebothformalandinformalapproaches…sofromaformalperspective…ifthere is any kind of changes in employment relations at all…where HR and staffinfluence is concerned within the UK…US and Sweden, particularly within Swedenwhere trade unions are involved…we adopt those discernible changes across ourorganizations…wetheoftenadoptaninformalgroupmethodologyapproachtoassessmajorchangesinperformancemanagementpractices…employeepropositionsaroundtrainingorissuesaroundredundancy…”(SeniorTalentManagers:4)

According to the research participants, the acknowledgement by senior leaders of the

significance of employee participation in informing training demand across their

international partners and collaborators secured their commitment in utilising their

existing informal employee voice systems in informing training decisions. However

beyondunion representation at their corporate consultations, lowunion engagement in

their establishment employee voice systems meant that their use was established as

management-led initiatives. Various research participants (Organisational Change

Manager; Senior Education and Training Policy Advisor) however questioned their

legitimacy and effectiveness in influencing corporate decision-making. These insights

corroborate existing scholarly arguments that point to the use of largely upward and

downwardproblemsolvingemployeevoiceapproacheswhichultimatelycharacterisesa

weakemployeeengagementinHRdecision-makingacrossUKworkplaces(Dundonetal.

2005;Benson, 2000).However their new strategy in acknowledging informationdrawn

from theuseof employeeparticipativepractices influencingR&Dpartners, in corporate

decision-makingwasaneffectivemeansinconnectingwiththenewtrainingdemandand

R&DcompetenciescharacterisingtheirnewlyrevisedR&Dcapabilities.Thisallowedtheir

R&D capability tomove beyond their existing ad hoc employee voice approach in only

informing their HR on a need-to-know basis. Their renewed strategic emphasis in

supporting employee voice, now meant a commitment focused agenda in raising the

profileofemployeerepresentativesinsupportingstaffissuesaroundcareerdevelopment,

theuseofexistingworkingpracticeandtrainingandperformancemanagementsystems.

Beyondthe insightspresentedabovehowever,senior individualsdidnotcomment

on the nature in which employee representatives from across their UK R&D capability

were to be supported by their organizations in their engagement in decision-making

arrangements and in specifically around their roles in representing staff development

concernscharacterising theirhighskillR&D jobroles. Thiswas in starkcontrast to the

traininganddevelopmentof theperformancemanagement roleof the line-management

202

role and its involvement in decision-making highlighted in previous sections. Senior

managementinsteadallocatedgreaterimportancetotheirrelianceoninformationdrawn

fromtheuseofmeso(industry)employeeparticipativesystemsintheirdecision-making

arrangementsacrosstheirUKR&Dcapability.Thislevelofemployeevoicecommitmentit

seemed was sufficient in addressing existing problems around low staff influence in

training decisions (Gollan & Butler, 2005; Dundon et al. 2005) in part using and

benchmarking this information against that available from their international R&D

capabilities.

“…soinSwedenanythingthatwedothatisnew,wehavetoconsultwiththeSwedishtrade unions…so we have to take the proposals to them…we have to bring them inaheadoftimeandtheyhavetosignthatoff…withintheUKwehavemoreofanopenconsultation…sowe have employee repswhomeet on a regular basis and againwetakebusinessproposalstothem…theygettheopportunitytotaketheproposalsbacktotheirconstituencies…whothenprovidefeedback…thelinewillsometimesseethisasanunnecessaryhurdle…”(SeniorEducation&PolicyAdvisor:6)

Here the analysis pointed to a raised agenda in the use of industry benchmarking

approaches alongside the enhanced performance management role of the line in

connectingorengagingwiththedemandgeneratedwithinmeso(industry)perspectives.

Assuggestedbytheirnewlyrevisedstrategicemployeevoiceapproach,suchengagement

was necessary in addressing the need for education and training across their UK R&D

capabilityinalignmentwiththeirrenewedemphasisinunderstandingR&Djobrolesand

competencies being generated by their UK and international R&D collaborations. The

insightspresentedherealsoaddcontexttoexistingscholarlyargumentswhichpointtoa

generallowemphasiswithintheUKintheadoptionemployeevoicesystemsparticularly

within non-unionisedworkplaces (Dundon et al. 2004; 2007; Benson, 2000) andwhich

also question their UK adoption in understanding the demand or need for new staff

development opportunities and job and career roles and structures (Keep & Mayhew,

2010a,b; Gleeson&Keep, 2005). The analysis next extends these discussions to better

understandthenatureinwhichtheraisedemphasisincorporateindustrybenchmarking

wasfurthersupportedbythecentralagencyperformancemanagementroleofthelineand

itsaccesstoinformationdrawnfromemployeevoicesystems.

5.3.2 Responsibilities supporting corporate decision-making &benchmarking

ExistingscholarlyinsightsgenerallyraiseissuewiththeweakimportancethatUK

employersallocate to industrybenchmarking inassessingexistingor inestablishing the

potentialdemandforneweducation,traininganddevelopmentopportunities(Gleeson&

Keep,2004). Such insightssitalongsideobservationswhichpoint toa lackofemployer

engagement in macro, meso and micro-perspective decision-making as the underlying

203

reasons behind their inabilities in adopting comparative competitive occupational

structures, high skill job design features and working practices necessary for the

“productiveuseofskill”(Keep&Mayhew,2010a,b;Keepetal.2006;Keep,2002;Green&

Sakamoto,2001:56).Theanalysispresentedsofarsuggeststhatthiswasnotentirelythe

case for their R&D capability. New coalitions being forged across their meso industry

supported by corporate decision-making arrangements and in turn informed by line-

management consultations and EI strategies. The analyses next adds context to these

insightsbyanalysingthenature inwhichtheraisedemphasisof industrybenchmarking

Anand & Kodali, 2008; Freytag & Hollensen 2001; Zairi, 1994,a,b, 1997) in informing

corporatedecisionssupportedtheirengagementwithmeso-perspectivedecision-making

taking place across UK and international R&D partners and collaborations. Particular

emphasis is allocated to the nature in which the raised emphasis in corporate

benchmarking and decision-making was underpinned by central agency performance

managementroleoftheline(Zhenjia&Qiumei,2005:58)andadoptionofEIstrategiesin

alignmentwith theirnewstrategicR&Dtrainingagendaandphilosophy. These insights

are significant in view of with the importance allocated within existing scholarly

discussions to the line-management role in monitoring performance (Garavan, 2007;

Purcell&Hutchinson,2007;Hales, 2005) and industrybenchmarking, line-management

and employee involvement strategies in better understanding the training and

developmentneedsofstaff(Gleeson&Keep,2004).Theanalysisnextisbasedoninsights

whichalloftheresearchparticipantscorroborated.

A. Corporate leadership

Seniormanagementwereverymuchawareofthecompetitivebenefitsconnectedto

theadoptionofstrategiccorporateindustrybenchmarkingapproachesinaddressingskill

shortages and training issues across theirR&D capability and in seekingneweducation

andtrainingopportunitiesadoptedbytheirinternationalR&Dpartnersandcollaborators

(Anand & Kadali, 2008; Freytag & Hollensen, 2001). This awareness stemmed from a

realisation that their abilities in sustaining their R&D competitiveness depended on their

internal capabilities in assessing new staff development opportunities or training needs and

but also in externalising this demand by “Bringing the Outside In” (senior policy advisor).

Outcomes from their use of benchmarking activities thus informed their corporate decision-

making consultations engaging various internal stakeholders (Anand&Koli2008:267)from

their UK R&D capability but also external stakeholders from UK and international R&D

collaborators and partners stakeholdernetworks(section5.3).

“...athemeforthenewleadershipteamsbroughttogetherlastyear...allhadaseniorteamkickoffeventpartneringwithdevelopmentconsultants…thethemefortheeventwasabout“BringingtheOutsideIn”becausepartofourproblemhasbeenthatwe’vebeensoinwardlyfocusedatdoingourownthingthatwe’ve

204

forgottentolookatnotonlyourcompetitorsbutatwhatotherindustriesaredoingsowe’veliterallyhadtoliftpeople’sheadsfromthebench...andsaylookoutsidethewallstoourcompetitorsbutalsotowhatotherindustriestellus...”(OrganisationalChangeManager:1)

The analysis revealed that various industry benchmarking approaches informed their

corporate decision-making addressing challenges surrounding various types of skill

shortages and training issues. For example root cause analysis supported their R&D

teams in understanding and benchmarking against industry competitors the skills

shortages responsible for the time lags surrounding completion and commercialisation

rates of their R&D projects. Industry-wide case studies that utilised key industry

performance indicators to monitor the project completion rates and effectiveness of

regulatedtrainingwerefurthersupportedthebenchmarkingoftrainingcompletionrates

andeffectivenessoforganisational-specificeducationandtrainingsystems.

“…sointhepastwe’vehadproblemsaroundgettingdrugstomarket…sowe’vedoneabigrootcauseanalysisofwhat’sdeficient…andassessedourskillsgaps…withincertainareas…sotheseskillssets,wefoundwereveryparticulartothedevelopmentstagesofdrug development…and so we found that our drugs fail in the first stage ofdevelopmentanddon’tgetbeyondthisstagewhichwasthereasonforthetimelag…orthey fail in the clinical stages…or they fail in stage three the testing stage…which iscatastrophic…so we’ve now understood why they’ve failed and using our root causeanalysisandcomparingthisinformationwithwhat’sgoingonexternally…”“…wellwe’renotaloneinhavingdonearootcauseanalysis…otherpharmacompaniesare doing the same thing…and developing cases around particular problems…we’foundthatwe’recompetingexternallytoaddressthesamesortsofissueswithourR&DandthereforecompetingforthesametypesofskillsandR&Dcompetencies…sowithinthis context…our understanding of what the demand for such skills is probablyemployer-ledorsector-ledbecausemostoftheskillsgapsI’mreferringtohereisveryspecific to our industry…so our specific projectmanagement skills and competencieswhichwearelackingarespecifictoourpharmaceuticalsector…andnotdefenceor..”(SeniorR&DProjectManager)“…weuseaseriesofmethods…wehaveregularglobal leadersconferences…wellonaquarterly basis…sowe’remaking sure thatwe are on the agenda there…we cascadeour case studies and we use audio pod casts to cascade and share case studyinformation…”(Seniortalentmanager:4)

Information drawn from the use of benchmarking approaches was thus critical in

informingpolicydecisionsundertakenby theircorporatedecision-makingand involving

corporateleadership,theirHRseniordirectorsandbusinesspartnersinrollingouttheir

newstrategictrainingagenda.The use of new innovative benchmarking approaches were

also planned. An example is their industry benchmarking partnerships, established in

assessing the changing global demand for regulated training and competitive R&D job

rolesandcompetenciesinlinewithinternationalR&Dcollaborations.

“…it continues to change…andwill continue to do so…whether its new science…newprocesses…itsneverstatic…that’swhyyouneedprocessestomonitorthis…whetheritssome of these areas…the predictive sciences…health technologies…stratified

205

medicine…modelling…those are top on people’s lists…recognised as part of thechanging environment…which suggests that you need to have mechanisms foridentifying the skills gapsand somehow find theopportunity toplug thesegaps…wedon’tnecessarilyalwayshavethesolutionswithintheUK…”“…we are a heavily regulated industry generally and sometimes that works to ouradvantage…in accessing related industry information…they have knowledge thatwedon’thave….adviceonhowtoaddressissuesaroundregulationandtraining…”

(SeniorEducation&PolicyAdvisor:6)

Howeverconcernswererelayedabouttheresources(e.g.administrationcosts)andwork

effortrequiredinre-aligningtheirexistingbenchmarkingpartnershipssurroundingtheir

R&D collaborations in line with their newly established R&D capabilities and strategic

training agenda. Of particular concernswere the long term cost implications associated

with sustaining such partnerships particularly in view of the business cost-cutting

efficiencies influencing their R&D capability (e.g. affecting trusting relations forged

betweenUKand international industry stakeholders and theirnetworks -Anand&Koli

2008;Poltetal.2001).Theanalysisrevealedthatallseniorindividualswereoftheview

that presently the advantages in forging benchmarking partnerships with industry

stakeholders far outstretched the economic cost savings associated with cutting these

activities.Ineffectbenchmarkingpartnershipsprovidedaccesstocompetitorinformation

on specific global R&D skill shortages affecting their industry, the nature in which

employer-led solutions around the development of such skills were being facilitated

acrosstheirindustryandtheinstitutional,industryandemployernetworksandresources

available in establishing education and training initiatives these critical skills shortages

affectingR&Djobroles.Herehowever,seniormanagementexpressedtheneedtore-align

these partnerships with their newly adopted values, behaviours and objectives

characterising their newly revised R&D strategic training philosophy. Nevertheless,

benchmarking partnerships supported their leadership in accessing difficult to obtain

competitor information (KPIs), in embedding corporate benchmarking processes and in

aligning these with internal benchmarking and monitoring processes utilised by HR

stakeholderswithperformancemanagementresponsibilities(Freytag&Hollinson,2001).

Industry benchmarking activities therefore provided their corporate decision-making

structures(consultations)accesstoavarietyofinformation,whichinturnsupportedtheir

corporate and HR leadership in forging working relationships (e.g. R&D training

collaborations&partnerships)withstakeholderswithin(meso)industryperspectives.All

of the researchparticipants thus supported thedecisionsundertaken at their corporate

consultations in establishing benchmarking partnerships in supporting their access to

often difficult to obtain competitor information. These provided their access to

information surrounding KPIs characterising the training efforts of competitors

competitive benchmarking approaches utilised by industry competitors and concerning

206

R&D performance measures and performance management processes utilised in

managingperformanceacrosstheirindustry(Freytag&Hollinson,2001).Itisclearfrom

herethatindustrybenchmarkingsupportedtheiraccesstoanarrayofinformationcritical

in sustaining growth across their newly revised R&D capabilities. A reduction in their

benchmarkingactivitiesinfuturewasthereforenotanoptionparticularlyinviewoftheir

critical yet strategic immediate organisational-wide commitments in establishing new

R&DcompetenciesinlinewithrevisedcompetitiveR&Dcapabilities.Akeydevelopment

area supported by industry benchmarkingwas their re-assessment and development of

the performance role of the line particularly inmanaging the training anddevelopment

andperformanceofhighskillR&Dstaff. Changes intheperformancerolesofthe line in

monitoringtrainingarediscussednext.

B. Line-management drivers supporting corporate decision-making &benchmarking

The analyses next highlight the nature of the changes in the performance

managementresponsibilitiesofthelinethusraisingitsengagementincorporatedecision-

making.Theinsightsthusaddcontexttoexistingscholarlyargumentswhichemphasisea

broadly defined challenges and drivers or responsibilities facing the performance

managementroleoftheline(Purcell&Hutchinson,2007;Garavan,2007;Milestone,2006:

Hales, 2005). In effect seniormanagement emphasised that their raised organisational-

wide emphasis around industry-wide benchmarking meant additional formalised line-

management performancemanagement responsibilities for their existing line (andR&D

project managers) particularly in monitoring and assessing their existing and expected

organisational-wide training provision versus the staff training and development needs

relative to industry performance benchmarks. The insights next are thus significant as

theyaddcontext,yetalsocontradictexistingscholarlycontributionswhichmainlypoint

to a lack of line-management engagement in corporate or strategic organisational

decision-makingsurroundingstafftraininganddevelopment(Gleeson&Keep,2004).

The decision in raising or formalising the performancemanagement role of the

line was largely undertaken by their corporate and HR leadership in response to the

acknowledgement of pre-existing challenges facing the line, some of which corroborate

existingstudies(Purcell&Hutchinson,2007;Fletcher&Perry,2001). Hereaccordingto

seniorindividuals,performanceappraisalswerethemainstrategicsystemutilisedbythe

line in assessing staff performance, yet their organisational-wide staff surveys revealed

staff views which suggested that performance appraisals and reviews were often

considered a chore by the line, while their prioritisation in meeting objective staff

performancemeasureslinkedtoR&Dresultsandproductivity(e.g.newR&Dinnovations)

207

meant that thedevelopment aspirationsof staff took a back seat. Performance reviews

and appraisals were thus conducted in a tick box manner only monitoring staff

performanceagainsttargetedobjectivejobmeasuresandtasksandreflectingshort-term

deterministic performance goals over preferred long-term aspirations linking in to the

careerprogressionaspirationsofstaff(Purcell&Hutchinson,2007).Littleemphasiswas

placed during performance appraisals in understanding the nature in which skills and

competencieswereutilisedbyindividualstaff,orinunderstandingthenatureinwhichthe

linesupportedstaff inbetter improvingcritical jobcompetencies. Staffwerethusofthe

view that a greater emphasis was required in monitoring the nature in which existing

trainingprovisioncontributedtothelong-termdevelopmentaspirationsandnotjustthe

businessprioritiesconnectedtojobroles(Fletcher&Perry,2001).Moreover,thelackof

line-managementcommitmentinadoptingperformancemanagementresponsibilitieswas

amajorconcerninfluencingresponsibilitiesassociatedwithmanagingtheperformanceof

highskillR&Dtalent.

“…we need to ensure that are line-managers have an interest in this area ofwork…whowillinglytakeontherole…thedelegationofresponsibilitiessothattheyare doing the identifying…the coaching… mentoring…assessing individualdevelopment needs…doing the educational supervisor part of it…so we have aworkforce with an increasing level of competency...it’s not unrealistic to expectthis…alsoyoucan’texpectthattheseresponsibilitiesarepartoftheirskillssets…”“…soitsabout…doline-managersgetitordon’tthey…dotheygetthefact…thateverysingleinteractiontheyhavewiththeiremployee…thatthere’sapeopledimensiontoit…andhowitisthattheycanbe…reallycompelling…intermsofpeoplemanagementdevelopment...recruitmentandperformancemanagement…”

(SeniorTalentManager:6)

“…we’vegotsomeexceptionalline-managers…absolutestars….andIthinkthatwealsofind some who are just not performing…but I think that we are going to find that

spectrum...and I’m hoping that people who are the real stars get recognised andperhapstheoneswhoarenotperformingcanlearnfromthem…”

“…weneedtobeawareofwhereournextglobaltalentpooliscomingfrominternallywhere within our company...well the big agent here is the line-manager…becausefrankly unless they’re in a position to spot and develop that talent within our ownconfines…itreallydoesallbeginandendwith the line-manager…andunless theyaretakingwhatIcallsensiblejudgmentcalls…it’salittlebitlikethatHackneyphrasethatsays…’thestuffthatgoesintothesystemisonlyasgoodasthestuffthatcomesoutofthesystem…’”(SeniorHRDirector:5)

Therecognitionofthesechallengesalongsidearenewedemphasisininvolvingthelinein

corporate decision-making were highlighted as the main reasons behind the line’s

expectedraisedcontributionintraininganddevelopmentdecisionbothatthelevelofthe

lineandincorporatedecision-making.Suchinsightsextendexistingscholarlyarguments

regarding the nature in which training needs or demand is met within the under-

researched micro-perspective of the high skill organisation (Lloyd, 2002) and broader

208

observations around line’s role in mediating or leading negotiations between the

operationalandseniordecision-makinglevels(Yip,2001;MacNeil,2003;2004;Kathuria

et al. 2007). The analysis thus reveals a number of changes to the performance

managementroleof the line insupporting theircontribution indecision-makingbothat

line-management and corporate levels. These changes were largely expected around

responsibilities in conducting performance appraisals and reviews but also extended to

include awarenessof the line inmonitoring staff performance at thework environment

level. New responsibilities were thus orientated around ensuring a greater formalised

line-managementaccountability inmonitoringstaffperformance largelybyensuring the

establishment of supportive working environments, in developing closer working

relationships with individual staff and teams and in utilising formalised systems to

monitorandcapturedataandinformationregardingthetrainingneedsandperformance

of staff (e.g. bi-annual performance appraisals; frequent staff/team briefing; improving

line-managementaccessibility).

“…sowhatwe’vetriedtodoisinvolvethelineindefiningwhatgreatlookslikegivingthetoolstonowhavethedifficultconversationsortheeasyconversationswiththeirstaff and then working with them to make sure that they have the trainingmechanismstoreallymoveon…”(SeniorEducation&PolicyAdvisor:6)“…we’re expecting to improve line-management capabilities really in a number ofareas…theywill include the ability to be able to spot talentwithin their teams…toengageinreallyhumanconversationsaroundeverythingfromaroundperformancetocareeraspirations…todevelopmentrequirements…youknowmobility…wheretheyseetheircareergoing…aretheyhappytodosecondmentsinanothercountry…thosetypesofdevelopmentopportunities…soweneedourlinemanagers…ourlineleadersreallytobeabletobemuchmoreskilledinhavinghonestconversation…withpeopleratherthanpayinglip-service…weexpectthemtoreallyengageonanemotionalandintellectuallevelwithstaff…weexpectthemtokeepabreastofdevelopmentswithintheorganization…weexpect themtoprovideclarity,directionandpurpose…andatthe same timebalance thebusinessneedswith thedevelopmentof their individualstaff…harvestingthebestofboth…”(SeniorTalentManager:4)

Theperformanceappraisalwashoweverthemainmeansofmonitoringstaffperformance

and in formally gauging the training anddevelopment expectationsof staff.Here senior

individuals alluded to a greater emphasis to be placed by the line in monitoring and

capturinginformationaroundthenatureinwhichstaffmettheperformancecriteriaand

competencylevelscharacterisingtheirjobresponsibilitiesandthenatureofnewwaysof

working and new development opportunities were required in response to weak

performance. The line thus now acknowledged coaching and mentoring roles advising

staff on development issues, their career progression aspirations and in supporting

conversations around difficulties experienced in fulfilling daily job roles and

responsibilities,perhapsduetoalackofskill,experienceorcompetency.Thiswasanew

initiative to be formally integrated in their performance review process, further

209

generatingstaff interest intakingownershipoftheirownself-developmentandlearning

(Fletcher2001:474; Fletcher&Perry, 2001) and in realising thebenefits of seekingout

work opportunities (e.g. secondments; job-sharing) supporting the use of existing and

developmentofnewR&Dknowledgeandtechnicalcompetencies.

“...they’vedonetheirownthingpreviously...we’renowconvergingthemunderoneumbrellaagreement...called“OneR&DandWaysofWorking…we’retellingastoryinanintegratedwaystatingthattodoyourjobeffectively...youneedtoconsiderthehealth,well-beinganddevelopmentofyourteams...thesearethemechanismsthatwe’llprovidetoenableyoutodothat...andacapabilityupliftinaknowledgerequirementstohowyoubringthattolight...whatwe’lldoisprovidetheframeworks...thetools...andthestoryforyoutounderstandit...ratherthanbeforewhatit’sbeen...’doyourjobasaline-leader...andthenperiodicallywe’llinterruptyou...it’soh...reward-time...doalltheseactivitiesaroundtherewardcycle...itsperformancemanagementtime...doyourend-of-yearappraisal...they’veseenitasacentrally-driveninterruptiontotheirjobratherthananintegralpartoftheirjob...it’sthatconversionthatwe’retryingtoaddress...”(OrganisationalChangeManager:1)

Closerworkingrelationshipsingaugingthestaffperformanceprovidedthelineaccessto

detailed rich information around the challenges staff experienced in fulfilling job

responsibilities. This supported the line to better understand and make informed

decisions around the need or demand for new staff development opportunities and

enhanced their contribution both in corporate decisions and facilitated at the line (e.g.

line-managementcollaborations).Thesenewline-managementapproachessupportedthe

access to a wealth of information particularly regarding skill shortages and training

demand drawn directly from the work context or environment and often as andwhen

experiencedbystaff. Thiswasanewapproach in thesense thatpreviously,beyondthe

use of information drawn from performance appraisals and reviews, information

capturingtheday-to-daytraininganddevelopmentexperiencesofstaffwaslargelydrawn

from commonly acknowledged organisational-wide monitoring and data collection

systems (e.g. annual staff surveys; occupational surveys). Although these systemswere

established, designed and adopted largely by the HR function, they provided limited or

insufficient information for the line inmaking informed decisions about the underlying

reasons behind skills shortages or training challenges experienced by staff, the reasons

behindtheirtrainingexpectationsandcareerprogressionaspirations.

“…we have a global focused survey…which gets the perspective of the line andemployeesabouttherightandwrongaboutourpeoplesstrategyineverydayterms…and this provides information for the line…feeds into our HR strategy…our seniorexecutive team…ourexecutivecommitteeandseniormanagement teams around thedifferentareas…wehaveaprettygoodsteeraroundourgeneralbusinessdrivers…”(SeniorTalentManager:6)

Accordingtotheresearchparticipants,theuseofthesedatacollectionsystemssupported

access to vital information from across cross-sections of the workforce regarding the

210

effectivenessofwider staffdevelopmentopportunitiesandparticularly concerning their

regulatorystandardisedtraininginitiativesandsystems(e.g.informationsurroundingthe

challenges staff experienced in accessing or utilising existing training or staff concerns

around a lack of training opportunity). The analysis however revealed that the

formalisationoftheabovementionedline-managementresponsibilitiesmeantadditional

administration work for the line and issues around work intensification again adding

contexttoexistingbroadlydefinedscholarlydiscussionssurroundingthedevolvementof

general HRM and HRD responsibility to the line (Watson, et al. 2007; Whittaker &

Marchington, 2003). Here senior individuals related to the precise nature of work

intensification facing the linearoundresponsibilities incollecting information inviewof

new performance management responsibilities and engagement in senior or corporate

decision-making. This included formalised responsibilities in collecting and logging

information around staff development expectations and needs in line with revised

performance appraisal systems. This also included responsibilities in documenting the

proceedings of performance appraisals, of review interviews andmeetings and in using

formalised systems to log information regarding staff development and training needs,

expectations andprogress.As thesewerenew responsibilities, the linewas expected to

reflectontheirabilitiesinsupportingormeetingthetrainingneedsofstaffintheiruseof

these responsibilities and additionally there use of data collection systems supporting

theirperformanceappraisals(e.g.Skillsmatrix;settingobjectivemeasuresinfacilitating

improvementsinlinewithidentifiedtrainingandstaffdevelopmentissues).

“…in terms of the performance appraisal discussions...objective setting, individualplans…identifying what staff might need...the actual courses they might attend…fortraining,furthereducationandcompetencydevelopment...somegroupshaveaccesstotraining academies for specific types of competencies…so they’ve looked at it fairlycomprehensively…butsomegroupshaven’t…notallgroupsareatthesamestagewhichiswhywearere-organising…Iwouldlovetotellyouthatthereismatchbetweenwhatindividualsrequireintermsoftrainingandthenforthattrainingtobeavailable…”“…where individualshave identified skillsgaps the line-managerswillbeprovidingacoaching and mentoring role…they won’t be providing the training…but will helpindividuals access those sorts of skills or coach them into applying those sorts ofskills…in some cases they might set it up and bring it in-house…and with externalproviders…so it is now the role of line-managers to fully address the training andeducationneedsofstaff…certainlyinmostpartsoftheorganisation…”(SeniorEducation&TrainingAdvisor:2)

Theanalysishereislargelyareflectionofthemeasuresadoptedacrosstheorganizationin

supporting corporate decisions providing the better access to information generated at

the line-management level.While further researchencapsulating theperspectivesof the

line is perhaps required to assess the effectiveness of thesemeasures, the analysis did

howeverhererevealthatfurtherline-managementdevelopmentmeasureswereadopted

211

in supporting these distinctive performance management competencies that extended

beyond previously adopted narrowly defined performance monitoring responsibilities

mainly in conducting annual performance interviews, reviews and appraisals. New

distinctive line-management performance management competencies now included for

example:mentoring responsibilities in guiding staff onperformance issues around their

use,applicationanddevelopmentofjobresponsibilitiesandcompetencies,inestablishing

performance goals and targets around individual training needs, and in nurturing and

coaching long-term staff progression over the course of employment in line with job

promotionandcareerprogressionprospects.

“…themessagewe are trying to get across at themoment is thatwewant our linemanagerstomakeadifferenceinformalandinformalways…inhavinghugelyfrequentconversationswithstaff…wewantthemtounderstandwhatmentoringandcoachinganddevelopmentlookslikeforthereceivingindividual…”“…HRarenowrealisingthatwehaveupuntilnowbeenfocusingontheemployee–linerelationshipasweshouldhavebeen…attheline-managementleveliswhereweshouldbeunderstandingthetrainingneedsofstaff…”(SeniorTalentManager:5)“…wehavegroupsofHRandeducationandtrainingspecialistswhoknowoftheskillsdemands…whoinformourdifferentareasandfunctions…butwithinourfunctions,ourmanagersalsotendto…dealwithitinafairlycomprehensiveway…intermsofdoingacomplete capabilityprofile in termsofwhat’s required for each individual…and thenlookingat thegaps…a formalmappingexercise…toseewhosegotwhatandwhetherthey fit on the skills matrix for the role profile…and also for the individual tounderstand their skills gaps and how they are going to address that in terms of thetheir development plan…and if those gaps were evident for the group then themanagerwouldhavetoprovidethedevelopmentforthegroup…”(SeniorEducationandtrainingPolicyAdvisor:2)“…we’ve got the individual development plan…but that’s also about thinking andbuilding skills for the next role…it’s not just to do with the current role…its abouthaving those conversations about progressing…and that’s in linewith our new R&Dcapabilities…it’s about doing a skills gap and aligning you with these” (Senior R&DProjectManager:3)“…I’ve always seen it’s as amajor part of a line-managers responsibilities…you can’thaveaneffectivegroupifthegrouporindividualswithinitdon’thavetherightsskillsset and that has always led to the coaching mentoring manager...the educationalsupervisor…but again linemanagers vary…some are interested…some are not…somearegood…somearenot…whichiswhywearedevelopingthesecompetencies…”(SeniorTalentmanager:5)

Theanalysisfurtherrevealedaconsensusamongstseniorindividualsoftheneedforthe

development of specific mentoring competencies surrounding the performance

management role of the line and additional knowledge competencies supporting their

contribution and involvement in corporate decision-making and that at the level of the

line. The establishment of line-management mentoring competencies thus specifically

included:anacknowledgementbythelineoftheimportanceofandinunderstandinghow

212

toestablishstrategiesandpracticessupportingopenconversationswithstaff,negotiating

immediate, short and long-term personal development staff plans and supporting

behavioursandvalues. Thesementoringresponsibilitieswerehoweverdependentupon

additional line-management knowledge competencies in understanding the policy

contexts surrounding thevariouseducationand training initiatives relevantacross their

highskilloccupationsandthevarietyofmeansinsourcingorprovidingstaffwithaccess

to such initiatives. These were thus significant new competencies aligned to the

performance management role of the line and specifically supporting their decision-

makingresponsibilitiesandinvolvementincorporatedecision-making.Seniorindividuals

howeverdidnotviewthesecompetenciesas immediatechallenges for the line,asmany

wereaddressedbyexistingline-managementdevelopmentprogrammes.

“…they’veallgoneoffanddonetheirownthing inthepast…andwe’renowbringingthem back to converge under an umbrella agreement or arrangement which we’recalling“OneR&Dwaysofworking”andwe’retellingthemthatinordertodoyourjobproperlytherewillbeacapabilityupliftinknowledgerequirementsinhowyoubringthat to light…and we’ll provide you with the tools, the framework and thedevelopment…”(SeniorTalentManager:4)“….there is a transition point that says that if you are now going to be leadingpeople…there’sasuiteoflinemanagerofferings…eachonehasatriggerpoint…there’sassessment and validation…a line-management curriculum…providing support toenableyoutobeagoodline-leader…”(OrganisationalChangeManager:1)

“…I’vemanagedagroupof fifty people…so thepeople I hadpeoplewithinmygroupwhoneeded tobeproficientR&Dprojectmanagers….somy capabilities inmanagingthis groupweredependentuponmyprevious experience…sowas I equipped...Imeanthatwouldbepatofmyjobdescription…butwealsohavetrainingcourseswhichhelpyou understand your roles and responsibilities as line managers…so there’s lots sosupport available…if you’remanaging large groups of people…the role is somethingthatyoubolton…so Iwas judgedomycapabilities Imanaging thedevelopmentandperformance ofmy group aswell asmy other job responsibilities…if anymember ofgroupdoesnot deliver on their projectmanagement responsibilities, then that ismyaccountabilityasaline-manager…”(SeniorR&DProjectManager:3)

Thelinefurtherhadtothewealthofpolicyinformationsurroundingintheirinvolvement

inmicro(organisational)andmeso(industry)perspective(in)formalcoalitionsforgedto

in address the skills shortages characterising their revised R&D capabilities (e.g.

inter/intra organisational line-management training collaborations; communities of

practiceand in-houseor industry-wideskillsacademiesprovidingaccess to information

on high skill education and training initiatives characterising R&D job roles and career

progressionroutes).

“…andwithourinternalacademieswefocusonspecificcompetencies…andthismeantthatyoudidn’thaveindividualline-managers…scratchingtheirheads…andsayingwellhowdoIaddressthisskill issue…andsotheacademyisamuchmoreeffectivewayinsupportinglargergroupsofstaff…inclusters…soyesourline-managersareinvolvedinsettingthoseup…aninternalmechanismforline-managersindeliveringtraining…and

213

themessagethereisthathavethatstructureinplacemakessurethat line-managersdealwithtraining issuesasacollectiverather than individual linemanagersdealingwithitseparately…amuchmorecost-effectiveway…”(SeniorEducation&TrainingPolicyadvisor:2)“…we have our leading and managing people committees made up of our line-managers…who are leaders in managing people…who come together to discussperformancemanagementissues…”(SeniorR&DprojectManager:4)“…line-managers are absolutely responsible for the development of their staff…overandaboveinthattheyhaveaccountabilityindevelopingtoptalent…thelinemanagerhasakeyroleinfirstlyidentifyingthattoptalent…inlinewithournewR&Dbusinesscapabilitiesand the steering their journey in linewith these…our linemanagersalsohaveresponsibilitiesinmanagingentirecapabilitiestheysitin…forexample…ifyou’rea linemanager for a group of chemists…youhave responsibility alongside other linemanagersindevelopingthatentirecapability…”(SeniorTalentManager:5)

These are new insights revealing that the line had access to information and decision-

making undertaken at the meso (industry) context in supporting their performance

managementandmentoringresponsibilities,althoughagain furtherresearchspecifically

encapsulating the perspectives of the line is perhaps required here to explore the

effectiveness of such engagement. On a further note, the insights presented here to an

extentaddressorprogressexistingargumentswhichallocateresponsibilitytothelinein

not effectively communicating training issues and thus contributing to the disconnect

between strategic training HRM context and its organisational-wide delivery (Purcell &

Hutchinson,2007;Milsome,2006;Renwick,2003).Instead,theanalysishererevealsthat

seniorindividualsresponsibleforHRandcorporatestrategyviewthelineasinstrumental

incapturingthetrainingneedsofstaffattheoperational-levelandinensuringthebottom-

upalignmentof this informationwithcorporateandHRMdecision-makingand industry

benchmarking.Thisnewideology in involvingthe linesupportedanorganisational-wide

emphasis in a comprehensive approach in engaging stakeholders involved inmicro and

meso-perspectivedecision-makingparticularlysurroundinghighskillR&Dlabour.

“…we have recognised the need for the input from various stakeholders in actuallydefining what is required…in terms of the scientific community…otheremployers…institutions…industry leaders…so if you’re a toxicologist for example…it’sabout understanding...the defined skills sets…but to also understand life-longlearning…a demonstration of continuous professional development…and thenunderstandingthedevelopmentneedsofroles…weneedtherelevantpartiestodefinewhat’snecessaryandputthemechanismsinplacefordeliveringit…inmostcasesthishasnotbeenhappeningwithinourorganization…andsothewaytodoitistobringallthosepartiestogetherinourdecision-making…ratherthanrelyingonindividual line-managers…”(OrganisationalchangeManager:1)

Theanalysisalsorevealedthatemployeevoicestrategies,discussednextfurtherprovided

the line access to vital information supporting their performance management

responsibilitiesandinvolvementincorporatedecision-making.

214

C. The contribution of employee voice in corporate decision-

making

Ashighlighted in theprevioussection,changes in theperformancemanagementrolesof

the line were strategic in providing corporate leadership consultations access to vital

informationsurroundingthetraininganddevelopmentchallengesfacingR&Dstaff. This

sectionpresentstheperspectivesofseniormanagementregardingfurtheremployeevoice

measures which enhanced engagement between corporate decision-making, the

performancemanagementroleof the lineandstaff trainingneedsat the functional level

(Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990). One such measure was the formalised involvement of

employee representatives at corporate leadership and HRM decision-making

consultations. According to the research participants, this was a major development

facilitating the involvement of staff in decision-making and supporting their access to

information around education and training initiatives and resources which their UK

provisionotherwiselacked.Theseconsultationsfurtherensuredemployeerepresentation

in the wider training decisions facilitated by leadership which otherwise also involved

externalpolicystakeholders,leadershipandHRdirectorsfromtheirUKandinternational

R&D collaborators andpartners. The access to information from their use of employee

engagementstrategies(MacNeil,2003;2004;Yipetal,2001;Wooldridge&Floyd,1990)

bythelinefurthercomplimentedbytheroleofthelineinitsinvolvementinconsultation

andincentrallynegotiatingthedemandsorneedsfortrainingoftheirhighlyskilledstaff

between strategic, operational and functional decision-making levels. The necessary

centralagencyroleofthelineinnegotiatingdecisionshowevertookpriorityparticularly

inlineoftheirweakunionisationandevidentialadoptionoflargelytop-downandbottom-

up direct EI participative systems (Dundon et al. 2004; Benson, 2000 – down ward

problem-solving–management–employeeconsultations; teambrief; twowayemployee

suggestion schemes; upward problem-solving - employee attitude surveys; employee

projectteams).

“…there are normally consultations…which are groups made up of employeerepresentatives….who make face-to-face decisions…but these have been replacedwithin the last 18 months with employee consultations…which involve line-managers…there’sthestrategicforum…whereitsmoreaboutemployeeinvolvementinlong term business decisions…then there are the more sort of operational types offorums…we’renotveryunionised…verysmall…ofaboutevery6000employees400aremembersofunions…”“employeeconsultationsareminutedandwehavetwowaycommunicationsbetweenour employee representatives and senior executive and leadership committeeconsultations…”(SeniorR&DProjectManager:3)“…sotherearevariousways…onafunctionalbasisemployeeshavealine-manager…sotheyhaveregulardiscussionsata functional levelandat thegroup level…andsothe

215

trainingneedsthataren’tmet…they’vegottheopportunitytodrivethemupthroughthe line…butalso through their employee representative…” (OrganisationalChangeManager:1)“…we have an ongoing dialogue…that identifies issues that are fed straight into theline…sotheyhaveanunderstandingof…ifthisisn’tworking…howdowecorrectit…wesurvey about sixty percent of the entire population every year…using our annualsurvey…whichgets reported to the seniorexecutive team…and theresultsare sharedwithglobalmobility…ourinternationalpartnersandtheirline…itisbenchmarked…soweadoptacontinuousimprovementapproachbasedontheperspectivesofourstaff…”(SeniorTalentManager:4)

Hereseniorindividualsreflectedupontheirpreviousadoptionofsuchdirectparticipative

systems on a needs-led basis and so the formalisation of employee representatives in

corporate decision-making was necessary. Formalisation secured their commitment in

ensuring that employees were fully and consistently represented in all decisions

concerning their development, including decisions influencing their international R&D

partners. Here senior individuals indicated that downward problem solving employee

voice systemswereparticularly effective in involving staff indecisions leading topolicy

formulation around their new training culture and in initiating feedback around their

consultations.Howeverstaffsurveysindicatedthatstaffhadconcernsabouttheirlackof

involvement or little influence in final decision-making leading to the establishment of

major policy agreements around tackling critical staff development issues (e.g. line-

managementtraining;R&Dprojectmanagementcompetencies;globalcommercialisation

skills; graduate recruitment; re-structuring of R&D job roles). On a further note,

information valuable drawn from staff attitude surveys informed their corporate

consultationsandteamsinmonitoringandmakingdetailedevaluationsofskillsshortages

and gaps across the occupations and relative to the effectiveness of their training and

performancemanagementsystems.However,hereseniorindividualswereoftheopinion

that this information was not utilised effectively particularly in supporting their

assessmentssurroundingthewiderdevelopmentexpectationsandaspirationsofallstaff.

Instead this information informed policies surrounding their strategic business and

production priorities such as the emphasis in sustaining regulatory training, the

commercialisation of products, the re-structuring of occupations connected to newly

revisedR&Dcapabilitiesandspecificallyintacklingthetraininganddevelopmentofhigh

skillR&DstaffworkingacrosstheirUKR&Dcapabilitiesincludingindividualsworkingin

leadershipandseniormanagementpositions.

...becausewearesuchaheavilyregulatedindustry...weallgothroughregularcompliancetrainingtomakesurethatwereallyunderstandwhat’srequiredofushowthatsitsalongsidelocalorglobalregulation...”(SeniorHRDirector:6)“…sowithinGlobalcommercial,wearereallyaddressingourtechnicalcompetenciesaroundsalesandmarketing...whichofcourseisthecoreofour

216

business…wehaveaprofessionalacademyaroundsalesforceexcellence…soIguessourneedsarearoundthetechnicalelementaswellasthissuiteofstuffaroundthedevelopmentofaglobalmanagerandleader…”(SeniorTalentManager:5)

The newly initiated performance management role of the line was thus viewed as a

solutiontotheproblemoftheirnarrowemphasisinrepresentingthewiderdevelopment

expectations of staff mediating negotiations between corporate decision-making and

training needs or demand generated at the functional-level. Regardless, employee voice

systemswerenevertheless integral to theirdecision-makingarrangements,althoughthe

analysis revealed preferences in adopting both complimentary (in)formal systems.

Formal employee voice approacheswere a convenient resource for corporate decision-

makingasdatafromtheirusewaseasilyaccessiblefromHRandanalysisof information

frompopular employeevoice systems that staff readily connectedwith.These included:

organisational-wide and occupational specific staff attitude surveys, internal e-

communicationsand focusgroupactivities. Informalapproacheswerealsopopularwith

staffrevealingperspectivesonotherwisesensitiveissueswhichstaffwerenototherwise

prepared to formally disclose. Popular informal employee voice approaches included:

employeeawaydays,groupworkandbrainstormingexercises,supportingthegeneration

of ideasaroundnewlearninganddevelopmentopportunities, theassessmentofexisting

performance enhancing working practices and staff views on working practices

supportingexistingandintheiruseanddevelopmentofnewcompetencies.

“…Yeswehave both formal and informal processes…so froma formal perspective…ifthere is any kind of change at all to our business…where our HR and peoplemanagement processes are concerned…then given the UK, US andSweden…particularlySweden…andthetradeunions…wewouldneedtoputdiscerniblechanges to our people processes...to these processes and through them, theunions…particularly around redundancy…restructuring…or people development…sothey exist and in terms of informal…whenever we are doing huge pieces ofchange…whether its employee propositions or performance management issues…wewouldalwaysemployafocusgroupmethodologytoinvolveemployees…”(SeniorTalentManager:5)“…if it’saunionisedcountry likeSweden…then there’salways that channel…butherewe would involve employees in our executive decisions…using kind of an open doorpolicy…ifyouhaveanideaorapolicyconcern…theyou’lltickalittleboxandtypeupyoursuggestion…thatfacilityexists…butwhetheritissafe...anemployeecansometimesfeel stretchedoutof theircomfortzone…whenusing it…” (OrganisationalChangeManager:1)“...becausewe’vesaidthatcreativityisamajordrivergoingforward...we’vegotaseriesofinitiativesinR&D...called“inspiretoinnovate”...anumberofinitiativesrungloballythattouchedalltenandhalfthousandpeopleintwoweeks...likeideasfarms...wherethere’dbeliterallypatchesofsoilsputintobuildings...wherepeopleputlittleplantlabelsinthesoil...withtheirideasforsuggestions...leadershipsessionswhereleaderswouldstandinopenareas...withpost-itnotestohaveinteractivesessionsandengagewithpeople...inspiretoinnovateevents“LeapingHurdles”wherepeoplebrainstormsolvingparticularissues...”(SeniorR&DProjectManager:4)

217

we survey about sixty percent of the entire population every year…using our annualsurvey…whichgets reported to the seniorexecutive team…and theresultsare sharedwithglobalmobility…ourinternationalpartnersandtheirline…itisbenchmarked…soweadoptacontinuousimprovementapproachbasedontheperspectivesofourstaff…”

(SeniorTalentManager:4)Senior individuals indicated that these employee voice systems were sufficient in

informing their corporate decision-making consultations, although the analysis further

supports theirawarenessof thedifficulties facingstaff ineffectivelyvoicingconcernsor

alternatively in initiating the desired outcomes expected from their engagement with

employee voice systems (e.g. staff refraining from fully disclosing concerns in engaging

withformalemployeevoice;informationdrawnfromemployeevoicesystemsnotraised

as priority during decision-making consultations). Regardless, information drawn from

theuseoftheirUKemployeevoicesystemswasutilisedintheirindustrybenchmarkingas

was information drawn from corporate benchmarking partnerships with their

international R&D partners and their underlying employee representation systems. In

effect, their unionised R&D partners supported higher-levels of union activities,

supportingtheformalisationofactivitiesaroundunionlearningrepresentativesandtheir

involvement in representative employee participative practices (e.g. joint consultations)

that ultimately supported employment relations negotiations around various staff

concerns. This included staff concerns around training, career development and

progression and changes in working conditions (e.g. pay structures) resulting from

occupational re-structuring. Future engagement in benchmarking partnerships with

international partners was thus viewed in a positive light in view of the wealth of

informationthattheirseniormanagementhadaccesstoininformingandsupportingtheir

decision-makingwithintheUK.Here,althoughcorporatedecision-makingwithintheUK

wasonly informedbyboard-levelunion involvementanddirectemployeeparticipation,

benchmarking partnerships forged with international partners supported their senior

management in connecting with the outcomes of union activities and use of employee

participation in tackling workplace development issues. The anticipated use of these

employeerepresentativesystemswerefoundtobeparticularlyusefulinprogressingand

supporting the adoption of their new performance management approach, specifically

involving the lineacross their internationalR&Dsitesand in supporting their corporate

leadership within the UK in raising skill achievement in alignment with staff working

across internationalR&Dcapabilitiesandcollaborators. Anultimateadvantageof these

developments was the access to information in UK corporate decision-making around

education and training opportunities andworkforce development initiatives utilised by

internationalR&Dpartnersandcollaborators,andwhichwasotherwisedifficulttoaccess

218

in termsofwiderUKHEprovision (e.g. engagementwithUK supply-sidepolicymakers

andinstitutions).

“…if you lookat it froma functionalbasis…each individualhasa linemanager…theyhave regular discussion with their line manager on their performance but alsocollectively at a group level…and if training needs aren’t met, then they’ve got theopportunitytodrivethatupthroughtheline…inadditiontothat,wehavemechanismsacross sites….so I’m now thinking about training that runs across sites acrossdisciplines and is supported by employee representation measures, so there is thatoption…whichsupportsourdevelopmentintheUK…”(SeniorTalentManager:4)“…in the UK and Swedenwe have the sort of formal communications…so in Swedenanythingwedothatisnew…wehavetoconsultwiththeSwedishtradeunions…sowehavetotakeproposalstothem...wehavetobringtheminaheadoftime…tosignthemoff…within the UK we have a more of an open consultation…so we have employeereps…thatmeetona regularbasis…andagainwe takeproposals to them…they thenprovide feedback…the line often see this as an unnecessary hurdle…that preventsprogress…but through partnership agreements between the line in the UK and ourinternationals sites we are able spot issues and solutions…it’s a quicker…thetranslation is easier…in theUS it’sa lot less regulated…youknowyouhave the samelegislative consultative requirements…but what we do is that we’ve got UK, US andSwedishendrepresentation…becausewe’vebeentraditionallyHubbasedsothatwe’vegotcoverageoverthreeregions…butmoreandmorenowasouremergentmarketsaregrowing at twenty percent each year…we try andmake sure from aHR perspectivethatwehaveHRandtrainingsolutionsthatarebuiltforapanaudience…irrespectiveofourlocationacrosstheglobe…sowehavecomeupwiththisapproachandwehavetomakesurethatitworksinChinaandIndia…aswellasinCanadaandGermany…sowe use this approach…this has never happened before…so in terms of our newperformancemanagement template…therearecurrently somanydifferent templatesout therewithinourorganisation…but they’llallbecustomised for localmarkets…sowe use these approaches to change these…to say that there is now one globalperformancemanagementframeworkandtemplate…”(OrganisationalChangeManager:1)

5.3.3Concludingremarks–anewconceptual frameworksupporting

macro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveemployerengagement

Theanalysesthusfarsupportstheestablishmentofanewconceptualframework

presentedinAppendixX. Thisframeworkultimatelyexplainsthenatureofmacro,meso

andmicro-perspectiveengagement(Keepetal.2006;Dopferetal.2006)facilitatedbythe

high skill R&D capability in response to a new training philosophy. The conceptual

framework underpins key observations presented within existing scholarly arguments

(see chapter one) which explain the macro, meso and micro-perspective employer

engagementdriversandchallengespresentedbyUKsupply-sideinstitutionsanddemand-

side stakeholders (e.g. employers; organisational management; line-management; staff

involvement)characterisingtheUK’sinstitutionaltrainingcontext.

It is clear fromtheanalysis thatengagementbetween themicro (organisational)

and meso (industry) perspectives is facilitated by internal stakeholders in response to

219

corporate decision-making consultations and supporting benchmarking in establishing

and source the changing yet unmet demand or need for education and training around

largely regulatory training; of high skill staff employed across R&D capabilities and the

performance management role of the line. The establishment of both (in) formal

engagement forged with external UK (e.g. supply-side policy organisations) and

internationalstakeholders(e.g.internationalmeso-perspectivepolicynetworks;industry

benchmarking partnerships; line-management collaborations) further informed newly

established organisational-wide micro-perspective decision-making arrangements,

characterising a newly revisedHR strategic training philosophy. These decision-making

arrangements are characterisedby top-down corporate consultations (AppendixX –A);

thecentralagencyrole,performancemanagementanddecision-makingresponsibilitiesof

the line (Appendix X – B) and the acknowledgement of UK EI systems and employee

representativesystemsadoptedbytheirR&Dsites,partnersandcollaborators(Appendix

X – C). The analysis further suggests that the conceptual framework is based upon

underlying competitive conditions (e.g. R&D production; industry networks; training

regulation)insupportingengagementbetweenthemicroandmeso-institutionaltraining

contexts of high skill industries. In acknowledging similarities between the competitive

conditions characterising high skill industries (Lloyd, 2002) and Brown’s (2001)

framework,thenextsectiondrawsontheanalysespresentedthusfarandnewempirical

insights to explore whether Brown’s (2001) seven conditions contribute in supporting

macro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveemployerengagement.

5.4 The relevance of Brown’s (2001) high-skill conditions in

supporting macro, meso and micro-perspective employer

engagementwithinthecontextof a largepharmaceutical.

The analyses next explore the extent to which the underlying conditions

supportingBrown’s (2001)high-skill framework contributed in facilitatingmacro,meso

and micro-perspective employer engagement in the adoption of a new organisational-

wide trainingphilosophy across the largepharmaceutical inquestion.The analysisnext

acknowledges that although Brown’s (2001) conditions characterise the institutional

trainingframeworksofhighskilleconomies(Rainbird,etal.2004)theyalsocharacterise

features underpinning the underlying competitive conditions of UK high skill industries

(Finegold, 1999, 1991 – R&D production, meso-industry networks). In view of these

similarities, the discussions next thus extend existing yet limited scholarly evidence

surrounding high-skill industries (Lloyd, 2002) that generally point to the challenges

presented by the UK’s national training environment in meeting the education and

trainingneedsofhigh-skillindustries.Theanalysisnexthoweveralternativelyrevealsthat

220

the adoption of organizational decision-making structures and arrangements,

characterising the new training philosophy of the large pharmaceutical characterised

Brown’s (2001) conditions consensus, competitive capability, coordination, circulation,

cooperationandclosure.

The condition consensus questions the commitment of “major stakeholders,

governmentsandemployersandin“upgrading”thenation-wideskillachievementacross

the occupations” (Brown, 2001:35), one that facilitates institutional policy change in

relation to labour markets, industrial relations or education and training initiatives.

Chapterfourrevealstheadoptionofaconsensusdrivenemployerengagementapproach

facilitated by policy stakeholders around specific types of high skill initiatives (NVQ

qualifications, training regulation), although these were not without their challenges.

Senior individuals did not readily engage with the activities of policy stakeholders

involving the formulation, development or industry-wide adoption of education and

training initiatives, although national initiatives were prioritised (NVQs, apprenticeship

training).Theunderlyingdemandforknowledgeandtechnicalcompetenciesacrosstheir

specialist science disciplines and undergraduate recruitment was also often unmet

althoughheretherepresentationofseniorindividualsatHEFCE-ledconsultationsmeant

their engagement with new policy initiatives around the STEM disciplines. Despite this

levelofengagement,thenewdemandforspecialistR&Djobrolesandcompetenciesbeing

generated in response to newly revised R&D capabilities were often not supported.

Brown’s (2001:43) condition coordination which emphasises the supply of national

educationandtrainingsystemsinresponsetodemandhereisthusnotsatisfiedduetothe

challenging engagement between senior individuals responsible for education and

traininginitiativesandUKpolicystakeholders.

“…it’saglobalgap…butparticularlywithintheUK…oneofthecapabilitiesthatwearebuildingisaroundthepredictivesciences…predictivetechnologies…inscienceandthebiological sciences…now that’s an area that we’re getting better at and sopharmaceutical companies are growing…no university turns people out with theseskills though…they either turn people out with the biological skill or mathematicalskill…the only place these skills are probably developed is in a handful of centres ofexcellenceatpostdoc leveland in industry…now in theplacesweare starting to seetheseskillsgettingdevelopedandinpluggingthegapisinplaceslikeChina...Russia…inIndia…not in theUK…sowe’vebeen talking topeople inother industries…abouthowtheyaredevelopingjobrolestoplugtheseskillsgaps…andsowearepreparedtosendour staff to these areas to develop these skills…because its not something thatacademiaischurningout…”(SeniorEducation&PolicyAdvisor:2)we do a very small number of apprenticeships…but its tied into ourworking in thecommunity programmes…we don’t engage much with policy organizations…I don’tthink…Xmightbeabletoshedmorelightonthat…ournewcapabilitiesthatwehaven’tgot…sowearerecruitingexternally…forthesespecialistcapabilities…weknowtheweneedtodeveloporrowthesecapabilitiesourselvessomehow…”(SeniorR&DProjectManager:4)

221

According to Brown (2001:44,45), coordination requires “joined up” policies involving

engagement between various stakeholder groups and communities collectively involved

formulating and implementingpolicies. The analysis here reveals a lackof engagement

withpolicystakeholderscharacterisingtheUK’smacro-perspective institutional training

context. CriticalshortagesacrosscompetenciessupportingscientificR&Djobroleswere

alternatively addressed using recruitment strategies and importantly a commitment in

addressing or coordinating the unmet demand for R&D competencies using internal

corporate decision-making structures and arrangementswhich encouraged engagement

between various communities of internal stakeholders supporting the micro and meso

perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontextsofthelargepharmaceutical(sub-sections5.3.1

& 5.3.2). These arrangements were informed by the central agency performance

management role of the line and supported engagement with the meso (industry)

perspectiveinaddressingtheunmetdemandforR&Dcompetenciesandfurtherproviding

access to a range of stakeholders including industry-wide training leaders, policy

stakeholdersandsupportingpolicynetworks.Thisformofmeso-perspectiveengagement

was initiated and led by corporate leadership and senior management supporting

consensus-driven access to high skill education and training initiatives which were

otherwise not supported by the UK’swider institutional training environment. Detailed

analysis explaining these employer-led developments, and the underlying drivers and

barriers influencing such meso (industry) perspective engagement are presented in

section 5.2. These insights contradict the supply-led approach suggested by Brown’s

(2001:46) condition circulation in raising industry-wide skill achievement across the

occupationssupportinghighskillindustries.HereBrown(2001)recognisestheneedfor

an engrained and consistently reinforcing ethos amongst stakeholders including

employers and policy stakeholders in “upgrading” and “rejuvenating” skill attainment

acrosstheoccupations,thussupportingaconstantsupplyofhighskilllabour.Theanalysis

reveals that the UK’s characteristic challenges in supporting such supply (Crouch et al.

1999;Keep&Mayhew,1999;Finegold&Soskice,1988:46),constrainedtheiraccesstothe

much-requiredsupplyofspecialistR&Dcompetencies,whichseniorindividualsotherwise

addressed using meso (industry) perspective (consensus-driven) engagement (e.g.

corporatedecision-making&benchmarking;line-managementcollaborations)

This form of consensus driven engagement is also encapsulated in Brown’s

(2001:47)conditioncooperationthatassumes“hightrustrelationswovenintothefabric

ofsociety”andisaboutthe“degreeofdiscretion,individualempowermentandcollective

commitmentinupgradingskill”.Cooperation”(Brown2001:46,48)isdependentuponthe

societal “embedment” of “trust relations” and “social partnerships” bound by “common

interestsandsharedgoals”amongst stakeholders in raisingskill attainment levels. Such

222

ideasofsocialtrustrelationsareaddressedbyscholarlyargumentsthatdrawattentionto

the resource sharing attributes of local production systems characterising cluster

industries (Ketels, 2003; Porter 1990). Links have also been drawn to the “social

communityapproach”,andtrustascomprisingsocialglueandnetworkbindingproperties

connecting communities, in supporting resource-sharing opportunities between

stakeholder members (Morisini, 2003). Trust is also a critical ingredient in sustaining

socialrelations,communitytiesandeconomicexchangeattributesinCrouchetal’s(1999)

skillagencies.Ineffecttrustensuresverticalandhorizontalinstitutionalexchangeacross

networks in high skill industries (Finegold, 1999) and supports regional flexible

specialisation(Piore&Sable,1984).Theanalysisinsection5.2howeverrevealsalackof

trustbutalsointerestonthepartofseniorindividualsinnationaleducationandtraining

initiativessupportedbyUKpolicystakeholders.Criticalskillshortagesconnectedtotheir

newlyestablishedR&Dcapabilitieswerethusalternativelyaddressedvialoosecoalitions

forged with European institutional stakeholders and their policy networks supporting

educationandtrainingoflabourworkingacrosstheR&Dcollaboratorsandpartnersofthe

large pharmaceutical organisation. As explained in sub-section 5.2, this form of meso-

perspective engagement characterised high trust relations and the generation of social

capital in their future negotiations and consensus in facilitating education and training

initiatives across the R&D capability for mainly R&D, jobs, skill and competency

frameworks. These developing meso-perspective arrangements further supported their

senior management in engaging in policy formulation around newly realised R&D

competitive job roles, career structures and competency frameworks identified at their

corporatedecision-makingconsultations. Despitethebarriersthatengagementinmeso-

perspectivepolicynetworksfacilitated(sub-section5.2),theirmicro-perspectivedecision-

making arrangements and associated industry benchmarking activities supported

engagement between diverse internal and external stakeholders from their UK and

international R&D collaborations and partners in addressing critical shortages in

competencies associated with R&D job roles. Of critical importance were the central

agencyperformancemanagementresponsibilitiesofthelineinsustainingacommitment

in raising high skill achievement across their R&D capabilities. The analyses however

revealed a greater emphasis in raising capacity around high skill R&D jobs and

competencies characterising newly revised R&D capabilities over other occupations

largely achieved using their meso (industry)-perspective engagement. This feature is

encapsulatedbyBrown’s(2001)conditioncompetitivecapability.

Competitivecapacity(Brown,2001:36,37;Finegold,1999)acknowledgesthatthe



223

competition using initiatives facilitated collectively by employers, institutions and

government agencies.Theanalysishere reveals anacknowledgmentof this condition in

the establishment of newR&D capabilities across the largepharmaceutical.Here senior

individuals here raised questions regarding their inabilities inmeeting the demand for

highskilllabourinlightofskillsshortagesacrosstheirexistingstaffemployedacrossR&D

job roles and in view of the pre-existing challenges surrounding engagement with and

weaknesses in provision supported by UK high skill HE institutions. The analysis here

revealsanacknowledgmentofthisconditionintheestablishmentofnewR&Dcapabilities

across the large pharmaceutical. Senior individuals here questioned their inabilities in

meeting thedemand forhigh skill labour in lightof skills shortagesacrossexisting staff

employed across R&D job roles and in view of the pre-existing challenges surrounding

engagementandweaknessesinprovisionsupportedbyUKhighskillHEinstitutions.The

analysishoweverrevealsevidenceofBrown’s (2001)widerarguments that recommend

innovations inR&Dproduction as essential employer incentives in generatingnewhigh

skillknowledge,jobcompetenciesandstaffdevelopmentopportunities(Keep&Mayhew,

2010a, b). This is evidenced in the adoption of benchmarking and decision-making

structures, specifically to understand and realise the demand for high skill R&D

competencies surrounding high-skill R&D job roles. This new emphasis in raising high-

skill competencies across theR&D capability, although involved various communities of

organisational and industry stakeholders nevertheless revealed a narrow focus and

commitmentinraisingwiderskillachievementlevelsacrosstheoccupations.

These characteristics suggest the weak influence of Brown’s (2001)

comprehensive approach in supporting staff training and in addressing skills shortages,

alsopointingtoaweakorlackofacknowledgementofBrown’s(2001:39,49)conditions,

closureandcapability.

Closurefacilitates“socialinclusion”(Brown,2001:49)inaccessingemploymentand

developmentopportunitiesandinreducinginequalitiesonthebasisof identityorstatus

across under-represented groups (e.g. women, ethnic minorities; low socio-economic

status).Capabilitysimilarlysuggestsanall-inclusiveapproachinthesupplyandaccessof

high skill education, training and life-long learning opportunities to all sections of the

labour market irrespective of social class (gender, race or ethnicity). Capability thus

allocatesresponsibilitiestostakeholdersincludingemployersandpolicyorganisationsin

providing all-inclusive opportunities to all aspects of individual development, although

also allocates responsibilities to employers in observing and meeting the personal

development aspirations of staff. In retrospect, the analysis within previous sections

indicates an ad hoc approach in fosteringwider staff development opportunities across

the R&D capability, a focus in facilitating regulated training and in developing and

224

strengthening capacity around staff working across scientific R&D and senior

managementroles.Thisemphasisindevelopingthecapacityofhighskilllabourhowever

was not facilitated as a consequence of their engagement with UK supply-side

stakeholders and institutions but rather due to meso (perspective) engagement with

internationalR&Dcollaborations,indevelopingcriticalR&Dandleadershipcompetencies

andtheperformancemanagementroleoftheline.Thesewereperhapspriorityinitiatives

largelyinitiatedasaconsequenceofthecrucialnatureofchangethatthepharmaceutical

facedduringtheresearch.Beyondthesedevelopmentshowever,othercriticalSTEMand

graduateskillsshortagesalthoughwerementioneddidnotreceivepriorityattention.As

highlightedinsection5.2,suchissueswerehoweveraddressedbytheirrepresentationat

wider nation-wide consultations facilitated by HEFCE, HLSP and attended by policy

stakeholders (e.g. SSCs, RDAs; NWUAs; regulatory organizations). Beyond these

developments, the analysis reveals that senior individuals further connected with the

National Skills Agenda using their corporate social responsibility strategy, supporting

involvementinnationalandlocalcommunityinitiativesandspecificallytacklingproblems

aroundlowSTEMachievementorweakemploymentofunder-representedgroupsacross

highskilljobrolesandsectors.Hereseniorindividualsassumedthattheirinvolvementin

national and regional initiatives (HEFCE; RDAs; SSCs) in supporting the educational

achievement and career progression of women working within science R&D roles into

seniormanagementpositions (Moropoulou&Konstanti,2015;Smith2011;MacLachlan,

2006;Wynarczyk & Renner, 2006), automatically demonstrated that their organization

adhered to thewider principles of social inclusiveness in developing itsworkforce. The

analysisthussuggestsadegreeofseniororcorporate-levelawarenessofsuchprinciples.

However, further analysis capturing the perspectives of the variety of stakeholders and

communitygroupsisperhapsrequiredheretofullyunderstandthenatureofengagement

between them in facilitating initiatives supporting the principles of social inclusiveness

and the effectiveness of such initiatives in raising skill achievement across under-

representedorunderachievinggroupsworkingacrosssuchhighskillorganizations.

“…ourgroupCEOischairingadiversityandinclusionsteeringgrouparoundtheadvancementofwomen…itsallaboutdiversity…andIthinkthatisaverygoodwayofcementing…relateddevelopmentprogramswithintheorganization…”

(OrganisationalChangeManager:1)

“…as an industrial sponsor…we support science in schools…and from time totime…we’llseechildrenfromschoolcominginwhetheritsfordayvisits…intheirGCSEyears…we support their industrial placements…andwe support these across awholerangeofdisciplines…notjustscience…”(SeniorR&DProjectManager:3)

Insummary,theanalysisheresuggeststhatcertainlywithinthecaseoftheR&Dcapability

someofBrown’s(2001)conditions(e.g.circulation,consensus)areperhapsnotmet,due

225

to the problems of weak engagement between key stakeholder groups (e.g. policy

institutions,employers,unions),moreorlessconfirmingexistingargumentssurrounding

theUK’sinstitutionaltrainingframework(Keepetal.2006;Leitch,2006;Finegold,1988).

The analysis however also suggests an acknowledgement of Brown’s (2001) principles

(e.g. cooperation, closure), although here the analysis is somewhat consistent with

existing arguments which confirm a weak engagement between UK supply-side HE

provision or the efforts of policy organizations in meeting the employer demand for

particularly high skill R&D job roles and competencies. Based on the analysis within

previous sections, it is thus clear that the UK’s institutional education and training

environmentwasunabletosupportthedemandforhighskillR&Dcompetencies,thatwas

alternativelymet via their engagementwithmeso (industry) perspectiveR&Dpartners,

collaborators and their policy networks and frameworks. While Brown (2001) rallies

behind the idea that industry clusters support the necessary conditions (e.g. R&D

production;networks) inupgradingorraisingskillachievementacross industryregions,

theseconditionsarealsodependantuponstateinvestments,which,withintheUK’spolicy

framework are understood to be unfairly allocated or distributed across UK industry

clusterregions(Keepetal.2006;Peck&McGuiness2003:55;Keep,2002).Regardless,the

analysis reveals that despite institutional employer engagement weaknesses, the

competitiveconditionscharacterisinghighskillindustries(Finegold,1999;Streeck,1989_

meso-networks,R&Dcollaborations),supportedconsensus-drivenengagementwithmeso

(industry) policy networks stretching across international boundaries in meeting the

unmetdemandforR&Dcompetencies(Hendersonetal2002:449).Suchengagementwas

essentialinfosteringcoalitionsbetweenagentsworkingacrosstheirinterconnectedR&D

organizations, institutional agencies, associations and representative bodies (e.g. trade

unions, employer associations) and supported consensus-drivenengagement andaccess

to established and interconnected education and training structures, processes and

operations (Henderson et al 2002:449). This consensus-driven engagementwas further

supportedbyanorganisational-wideimpetusaroundtheperformance-managementrole

of the line in raising skill achievement across theirUK andR&Dpartners. The analysis

withinthischapterthuscontradictsexistingscholarlyargumentsthatraiseissuewiththe

lowemployer interestwithin theUK in generatingor raising ademand forWorldClass

Skills(Keep&Mayhew,2010;UKCES,2010;Leitch,2009).

5.5Conclusion

This chapter explores the extent and nature of employer engagement between

seniorindividualswithinalargepharmaceuticalandthemacro(national/regional),meso

(industry) and micro (organisational) perspective institutional training contexts

226

surrounding high skill industries (Keep & Mayhew 2010a,b; Payne, 2008b; Keep et al.

2006;Gleeson&Keep, 2004). The analysis specifically drawson themicro-meso-macro

frameworkarticulatedbyDopferandcolleagues(Dopferetal.2004–AppendixI&II)to

examinethenatureofengagementbetweenstakeholderscharacterisingthemacro,meso

andmicro institutional education and training environments of a large amulti-national

pharmaceutical.Theanalysisthusaddsnewknowledgecontributiontoexistingscholarly

argumentsonanumberoflevels.

Firstly itpositionstheanalysisaroundtheunder-researchedcontextofhighskill

industries (Lloyd, 2002; Finegold, 1999). Dopfer et al.’s (2004) micro-meso-macro

framework(Dopferetal.2004)isutilisedtoexplorethenatureofengagementfacilitated

betweenseniorindividualscharacterisingthemicro(organisational)trainingcontextwith

stakeholdersresponsibleforthewidermeso(industry)andmacro(national)institutional

training environments characterising high skill industries (Finegold, 1999). Here the

analysis provides new insight revealing that newly adoptedmicro-perspective decision-

making structures and arrangements adopted across the large pharmaceutical R&D

capabilitysupportedtheirseniorindividualsinfosteringengagementwithspecificallythe

meso(industry)context. Thesenewlyestablisheddecision-makingstructuressupported

anew trainingphilosophyandvalues inunderstanding, establishinganddeveloping the

changing demand for R&D job roles and competencies surrounding newly established

R&Dcapabilitiesinresponsetocompetitiveglobalmarkets.Heretheanalysisparticularly

focuses in detailing the barriers and drivers shaping the central agency performance

management role of the line in fostering engagement between the various micro

(organisational) decision-making arrangements and training structures, but also in

informing corporate decision and its engagement with the meso (industry) training

context. The analyses here thus adds new knowledge contribution to existing scholarly

insights surrounding the performance management role of the line (Hales, 2005; Gibb,

2003)andalso the influenceof the line in informing corporate strategic,HRMandHRD

decisions(Kathuriaetal.2007;MacNeil,2004;2003;Yipetal.2001).Thesecondscholarly

contributionunderpinsthenetworkconditionsupportinghighskill industries(Finegold,

1999)tounderstanditsfacilitationofmeso(industry)perspectivenetworkcoalitionsand

engagement in addressing a newly realised demand for competency frameworks

associatedwithR&Djobroles.Asinchapterfourthe,analysisheretoodrawsonnetwork

theories to understand the nature of these coalitions. The third scholarly contribution

involves theuseofpreviouslyunderexploredBrown’s (2001)highskill frameworkand

seven conditions in understanding the nature of engagement facilitated by senior

management and their demand for education and trainingwith the institutionalmacro

andmesoperspectivetrainingenvironmentsorcontextsofthelargeR&Dpharmaceutical

227

organization. Here the research justifies the use of Brown’s (2001) framework in

acknowledging that although Brown’s (2001) seven conditions are based on the

institutional training systems of high skill economies, these also characterise the

conditionsofhigh skill industries (e.g.highvalueaddedR&Dproduction; industry-wide

networks–Finegold,1999;Streeck,1989). Thesescholarlycontributionsunderpin the

analysiswithinfoursections.

Section 5.1 introduces the roles and responsibilities of senior individuals, the

research participants in securing their micro-perspective organisational commitment

surrounding the new R&D training philosophy in response to their changing R&D

capabilities.Thesectionelicitsthenatureoftheseresponsibilitiesinembracingtheirnew

training philosophy and in response to a changing demand for critical competencies

characterisingR&D job roles. These responsibilities included facilitating the adoptionof

internal organisational decision-making and benchmarking arrangements and systems

and in accommodating closer working relationships between internal stakeholders

responsible for staff performance and development. Further responsibilities included

raisingthecontributionoftheperformancemanagementroleofthelineandinensuring

employeerepresentationininformingtheircorporateleadershipdecision.Inlightoftheir

extensive prior expertise inmanaging strategic training responsibilities across the high

skill sectors (Appendix VIII) and thus access to accumulated (in) tangible social capital,

thesenewresponsibilities supported their facilitationof theverymicro (organisational)

structural drivers that commentators indicate are lackingwithin UK organizations thus

constraining new training and staff development opportunities (Gleeson & Keep, 2004;

Fuller & Unwin, 2004). Later sections (5.3) however present a detailed analysis of the

subsequent barriers (and drivers) influencing these structural changes around the

changingdemandforhighskillcompetenciesandtrainingsupportingR&Djobroles.

Section 5.2 draws on the acknowledgement that the engagement structures

adoptedbyagentsor stakeholderscharacterising themicro (organisational)perspective

are influenced by or adopted in response to engagement with the meso and macro

perspectives. As acknowledged in existing scholarly arguments surrounding high skill

industries(Lloyd,2002), theanalysishere tooconfirmsweakengagementbetweenhigh

skillemployersand theUK’swidermacro-perspectiveeducationand training initiatives.

However the growing demand for new R&D competencies is realised due to the

establishment of their micro (organization) decision-making, and resulting in meso

perspective coalitions forged with stakeholders from across international R&D

collaborations,partnersandsupporting internationalpolicynetworks.Specifically, these

coalitions were initiated by senior of corporate leadership teams responsible for the

organisational-wide adoption of a new training philosophy andwhich involved various

228

individualsresponsibleforcorporateandHRMandHRDstrategy, includingtheresearch

participants.Thesecoalitions,necessaryinbuildingcapacityaroundtheirstrategicglobal

R&D collaborations, servedmultiple functions and supported their senior individuals in

forginglinkswithinternationalresearchcentresofexcellence;inidentifyinginternational

staff secondment opportunities, thus enhancing the R&D technical and knowledge

competencies of their UK staff or in supporting the project management or regulatory

compliance of their existing R&D collaborations. However these meso-perspective

coalitionswere key in supporting education and training initiatives andpolicies around

thenewlyrealiseddemandforhighskillcompetenciesandcareerstructuressurrounding

global innovation in R&D production (Keep &Mayhew, 2010; Keep et al. 2006). These

coalitions were further useful in harnessing the social capital potential of various

stakeholders involved inestablishinghigh skill competenciesandcareer structures thus

providinganalternativemeansinaddressingtheunmetdemandforhighskilllabourand

competencies surrounding the specialist scientific disciplines which the wider UK

institutionaltrainingenvironmentotherwisedidnotsupport.

The establishment of these collations reflected a weak interest and awareness

acrosstheirorganisationalmanagement-levelsinconnectingwithnationaleducationand

training initiatives, although here the representation of senior individual on HEFCE-led

consultations surrounding the national STEM Agenda and CSR commitment supported

engagement with skills shortages surrounding the National Skills Agenda (e.g. STEM

underachievement; gendered career progression). The premature nature of coalitions

withinternationalstakeholders,institutionsandpolicynetworkshoweverwereviewedas

opportunities in expanding into futuremeso (industry) training partnershipswith R&D

collaborators, partners and high skill employer from across the supply chain (Miles &

Snow, 2007). The network coalitions, arrangements or ties forged across national

boundariesareperhapsnotanewphenomenon(Borzel,2005;Provan&Milward,2001;

Agranoff, 2001), although have previously not been explored in understanding the

adoption or establishment of initiatives surrounding new training systems or job

competencyframeworks.Theinsightsherethusextendexistingscholarlyargumentsthat

call for furtherexplorationsofpolicynetworks(Klijn&Koppenjan,2006;Borzel,2005).

Although senior management indicated their continued use, further explorations in

understandingtheunderlyingdriversandbarriersandthenatureofactivitiessupporting

networksustainabilityareperhapsrequired.

Section 5.3 draws on Dopfer et al.’s (2004) micro-meso-macro framework to

inform an understanding of the nature in which engagement with the meso (industry)

perspective in section5.2, is supportedbyanewmicro-perspectiveorganisational-wide

trainingphilosophy in response to the changingdemand forhigh skill labouracross the

229

R&Dcapability.Theanalysishereacknowledgesthatthistrainingphilosophyaccountsfor

theemployerbarriersthatcommentatorssuggestpreventUKemployersfromgenerating

new high skill job roles and competencies thus lowering industry-wide performance-

levelsrelativetoWorldClassskillachievement(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Keepetal.2006;

Leitch,2006;Keep,2002).Theseemployerbarriersarediscussedinsection1.3andinfer

that theproblemsofweakmacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveemployerengagement in

decisions concerning training within the UK, are exacerbated due to a lack of industry

benchmarking and weak line-management engagement and employee representation

withinemployingorganizations(Keepetal.2006;Gleeson&Keep,2004). Theanalyses

heredrawsattentiontothefactthatseniormanagementwereverymuchawareofthese

employer barriers in the adoption of a new training philosophy and underpinning

organisational-wide decision-making and corporate benchmarking (Gleeson & Keep,

2004) structures and arrangements further supporting the meso-perspective network

coalitions discussed in section 5.2. Central to this decision-making was a leadership

commitment,underpinningleadershipvalues,thecentralagencyperformanceroleofthe

line in informing corporate decision-making and corporate benchmarking and decision-

makingdriversensuringcost-effectiveandcomprehensivedecision-makingwithinmeso

(industry)perspectives.

Sub-sections5.3.1and5.3.2provideadetailedanalysisof these ideasexpanding

existing scholarly arguments around theperformancemanagement and strategic roleof

the line in informing corporate decision-making. Specifically the analysis details its

previouslyunder-researched responsibilities in informing corporatedecisions regarding

aroundthetraininganddevelopmentofhighskilllabourandsupportingengagementwith

meso(industry)perspectivenetworkcoalitions.Sub-section5.3.1thusdetailsthedrivers

andbarriersbehind the strategicorganisational-widedecision-making linesof authority

supportingengagementbetweencorporateandHRMleadershipandthelineinfacilitating

a new organisational-wide training philosophy. Here corporate decision-making

arrangementsdrewonthecommunitiesofstakeholderswithresponsibilitiesinmanaging

staff performance and training across their UK and international R&D partners,

collaboratorsandtheirpolicynetworks(Hendersonetal2002:449;Amin&Thrift1996)

and were largely effective in addressing their training demand and need for the

establishment of new competency frameworks surrounding R&D job roles and

competencies. Corporate decision-making was however critically dependant on the

engagementofthelineandheretheanalysisrevealsthevariousdriverssupportingsuch

line-management engagement (e.g. inter/intra organisational line-management training

collaborations & consultations; additional performance management & training

responsibilities). Line-management engagement in corporate decision-making around

230

training and performance management issues thus alleviated the political and role

ambiguity commonly associated with the line in its involvement in vertical decision-

making(Hales,2005).Horizontalline-managementarrangements(trainingcollaborations;

consultations) further alleviated the political tensions that vertical accountability and

engagement in corporate decision-making otherwise presented for the line (Haslinda,

2009;MacNeil,2004;Gibb,2003–narrowverticalspansofcontrol).Thesearrangements

alsoprovidedthelineaccesstomeso(industry)perspectivedecision-makingandtosocial

capital attributes highlighted in section 5.2 further enhancing engagement in corporate

decision-making. These insights perhaps suggest the need for further research to

encapsulatedetailedperspectivesinunderstandingthesedevelopmentssurroundingline-

management responsibilities. The analysis nevertheless provides an overview of the

drivers supporting the line-management performance management role in facilitating

engagement between micro and meso-perspective decision-making and necessary in

addressingtheunmetdemandforeducationandtraining.

Sub-section 5.3.1 highlights the barriers influencing line-management

engagementincorporatedecision-makingincludingissuesaroundline-managementskills

shortages. Here the analysis reveals the need for line-management development

programmes surrounding the performance management responsibilities of the line

furtheraddingcontexttoexistingscholarlydiscussionswhichlargelyraiseissuewiththe

under-development of the UK line (Mabey & Ramirez, 2004; Renwick, 2003). Line-

management development programmes here specifically addressed leadership and

performancemanagementskillsshortagesandtheneedforline-managementknowledge

competencies in understanding the UK and global skills landscape. These competencies

were equally relevant across their team leaders with responsibilities in leading R&D

projects.Otherbarriersaroundworkintensification,thepoorinterestofthelineandthe

pressuresofaccountabilityinadoptingadditionalperformancemanagementanddecision-

making responsibilities are also evidenced (Martins, 2007; Cascon-pierra et al. 2006;

MacNeil,2003).Additionalworksurroundingtheidentificationandsourcingofworkplace

learninganddevelopmentor educationand training initiativeswasalreadyan issue for

the line. Enhanced employee representation or participation in line-management and

corporateleadershipdecision-makingconsultationswasthusviewedapotentialsolution

inproviding the lineand leadershipaccess to informationsurrounding thedevelopment

needsofstaff.Heretheanalysisrevealsarenewedstrategiccommitmentintheadoption

ofemployeevoicesystems(Boudreau,2003,citedinGaravan,2007:21)inlinewithnew

decision-makingarrangementsandreplacingthepreviouslowemphasisininvolvingstaff

indecisionsparticularlyaroundneweducationandtraininginitiatives.Theanalysishere

informs existing scholarly arguments that mainly associate the use of employee voice

231

systems across low and intermediate manufacturing sector industries (Dundon et al.

2004; 2007; Benson, 2000). Here beyond union and employee representation at

corporate consultations, a low union engagement in the establishment of employee

participationsystems(informalupwardanddownwardproblemsolving)meantthattheir

useweremore or less established asmanagement-led initiatives corroborating existing

insights alluding to the weak employee participation in HR decision-making across UK

workplaces(Dundonetal.2005;Benson,2000). Howevertheuseof informationdrawn

fromcollectivebargainingnegotiationsaffectingtheirR&DpartnersinEuropewasviewed

analternativestrategythatcompensatedtheissueofweakunionengagementintheUK.

This approach enhanced engagement with training demand or R&D competency

frameworksgeneratedwithinmeso(industry)perspectives,althoughdidnotdetractfrom

the low importance allocated during interviews in developing the role of employee

representativesfacilitatingengagementincorporatedecision-making.

Sub-section 5.3.2 further highlights the nature in which a raised emphasis in

corporate benchmarking and decision-making, underpinned the central agency

performancemanagement role of the line (Zhenjia&Qiumei, 2005:58) and adoption of

employee participation strategies in alignmentwith new strategic R&D training agenda

and philosophy. Various industry benchmarking approaches are evident here (e.g. root

cause analysis; case study analysis; KPIs characterising industry training effectiveness -

Anand&Kadali,2008;Freytag&Hollensen,2001).Theuseof industrybenchmarkingin

corporatedecision-makingthussupportedtheaccesstovitalotherwisedifficulttoobtain

competitor information (KPIs), surrounding industry benchmarking processes and their

alignment with internal benchmarking and monitoring processes utilised by HR

stakeholderswithperformancemanagementresponsibilities(Freytag&Hollinson,2001).

Of critical importance is their access to competitive information around training and

competencies supporting newly established R&D job roles, KPIs supporting training

regulationand theperformancemanagementroleof the line.Thiswasnecessary in line

with existing issues around the performance management responsibilities of the line

(fulfillingobjectiveperformancemeasuresoveraddressingwiderdevelopmentneedsand

aspirationsofhighskillstaff-Purcell&Hutchinson,2007;Fletcher&Perry,2001).New

monitoringresponsibilitiesthusprovidedthelineaccesstocriticalinformationotherwise

notobtainedusingperformanceappraisalsandwhichinvolveddevelopingcloserworking

relationships with staff (e.g. mentoring). Despite additional work intensification,

monitoring responsibilities further enhanced access to information vital in their

contributionincorporatedecision-making(Yip,2001;MacNeil,2003;2004;Kathuriaetal.

2007).Theuseof largely (in) formalupwardanddownwardproblemsolvingemployee

involvement (EI) strategies further provided the line access to vital information

232

supportingtheirperformancemanagementresponsibilitiesandinvolvementincorporate

decision-making. In effect, the analyses presented within this chapter supports the

establishmentofanewconceptualframework(AppendixX).Thisframeworkexplainsthe

nature of engagement facilitated between themeso andmicro perspective institutional

trainingcontextssupportinghighskillindustriesandfurtheraddressesexistingscholarly

arguments that raise issue with a perhaps non-existent or weak training demand

generatedbyUKemployers(Stuart,2008a;Gleeson&Keep,2004).Thechapterendsby

exploring the nature in which the revised training philosophy underpinned Brown’s

(2001) conditions in raising skill achievement levels across the R&D capability. The

analysis revealed conformance around Brown’s (2001) high skill conditions which

supportedconsensus-drivenengagementbetweenstakeholderssupportingthemicroand

meso-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingenvironmentsofhighskillindustriesinaddressing

skillshortagescharacterisingnewlyrevisedR&Dcapabilities.Theseskillsshortagesledto

the facilitation of various initiatives surrounding the establishment of new competency

frameworks supporting R&D job roles, new associated training regulation and newly

established responsibilities underpinning the performancemanagement role of the line.

Themicro(organisational)perspectivecommitmentinaddressingtheseskillshortagesis

supported by underlying corporate decision-making arrangements, industry

benchmarking and line-management performance management responsibilities which

additionally facilitated engagement between stakeholder communities with

responsibilitiesinaddressingworkforcedevelopmentissuesacrossUKandinternational

R&D capabilities, partners and associated policy networks. A priority commitment in

addressing skills shortages connected to high skill labour is however facilitated while

engagementwithwiderindustryskillshortagesareaddressedusingalternativestrategies

(e.g. CSR) further supporting where necessary engagement with relevant community

stakeholders(e.g.STEMAgenda;genderissuessurroundingfemaleemployment).Detailed

insights surrounding these are presented within section 5.4 indicating an

acknowledgment of Brown’s (2001) conditions including competitive capability,

cooperationandclosureintheadoptionoftheirtrainingphilosophy.

233

ChapterSixTheCaseofHighSkillSMEs

This chapter explores the research questions from the perspectives of senior

individuals responsible for training and development within high skill SMEs,

characterising the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and bioscience sectors and located

across thenorthwestUKregion.The insightspresented in thischaptercontribute to the

existinglimitedempirical insightintothereasonsbehindtheweakengagementbetween

(high skill) SMEs and the UK’s institutional supply-side training context, specifically its

policyorganizations(Payne,2008a,b;2007;Lloyd,2002). Existing insightsarehowever

clearabouttheunderlyingskillsshortages(WERS,2004)andwiderchallengesfacingUK

SMEsectorsinconnectingwithwidertrainingsupplyorprovision(Vickerstaff&Parker,

1995;Vickerstaff,1992a,b;1985).HereGovernmentstrategiesestablishedtoraisewider

industry-wideperformanceareviewedaspotentialsolutionstotheseproblemsas these

reflect the very nature of challenges constraining the growth of SMEs sectors and thus

facilitate targeted improvements in raising skill achievement, technology capacity and

entrepreneurial activity (Keep et al. 2006). Such strategies include: The New Industry,

New Jobs Strategy (HM Government, 2010b); Partnership for Growth: a National

Framework forRegional andEconomicDevelopment strategy (HMGovernment, 2010a)

and the Further Education New Horizon strategy aimed at Investing in Skills for

sustainableGrowth(BIS,2010b).Thesuccessof thesestrategies ishoweverbasedupon

regional partnerships and collaborations between industry/employers and policy

stakeholders (e.g. RDAs, Technology Strategy Boards, local authorities and The

DepartmentofInnovationandSkills),whichunderpintheprinciplesofemployer-ledand

demand-driven engagement (Keep et al. 2006; Keep, 2002) in generating new

employment and development opportunities. The effectiveness of such strategies is

however a test of time particularly in light of existing criticisms surrounding the

ineffectiveness of the UK’s institutional training context and supply-side initiatives in

connectingwith theSMEsectors (Payne,2008a,b;2007;Keepet al. 2006).This chapter

provides the much required empirical evidence in understanding the nature of this

disconnectbyexploring theextentofSMEengagementwith themacro,mesoandmicro

institutionaltrainingcontextssurroundinghighskillindustries.Thechapterparticularly

focusesonuncoveringtherelevanceofthemicro-perspectivecharacteristicsdiscussedin

section1.3ininfluencingsuchengagement.

Despite variations in SME characteristics, the research participants (sub-section

2.2.3)wereofsimilarbackgroundsandinthatallsupportedseniorHRMrolesandrelated

234

policy responsibilities surrounding the organisational-wide coordination of training and

development, performancemanagement and recruitment and selection. The extent and

natureoftheseresponsibilitieshowevervarieddependingonorganisationalsizealthough

allindividualshadresponsibilitiesinoverseeingstafftraininganddevelopmentwithsome

overlapintheirHRMandHRDroles.ResponsibilitiesassociatedwithHRMandHRDroles

includedthedevelopmentandorganisational-wideformalisationandadoptionoftraining

polices and education and training anddevelopment initiatives including trainingplans,

budgets and benchmarking supporting their training and development systems. Section

6.1 thus details the roles and responsibilities of the research participants highlighting

theirsignificanceinrelationtothecommonlyacknowledgedmicro-perspectivechallenges

responsible for the disconnect between the micro, meso and macro-perspective

institutionaltrainingcontextssurroundingUKindustries(Gleeson&Keep,2004–section

1.3). Section 6.2 provides the much-required empirical evidence surrounding the

underlyingchallengesfacingSMEsthatconstrainengagementwiththeinstitutionalmacro

and meso perspective training contexts surrounding high skill industries. Section 6.3

utilisestheanalysiswithintheseprevioussectionstofurtherunderstandwhetherandthe

extent to which micro-perspective influences presented in section 1.3 supported the

trainingneedsordemandsofSMEs(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Keepetal.2006;Gleeson&

Keep,2004;Keep,2002).Thechapterendswithsection6.4,questioningwhetherBrown’s

(2001)highskillframeworkunderpinstheanalysispresentedwithinthesesections.

6.1Therolesandresponsibilitiesof theresearchparticipants

This section reflects on the changing training structures within high skill SMEs

outlining their affects on the training and development responsibilities of the resercah

participants. The individuals included: CEOs and managing directors from small

businesses employing a maximum of 10 employees and HR Directors and Chief

Operational Directors from micro-SMEs employing a maximum of 50 employees.

Researchparticipants frommedium-sizedand largeSMEsemployingamaximumof100

and 250 employees respectively included: HR Business Partners, HR Learning and

Development Managers and Senior Operational Managing Directors. The analysis next

reflects upon changes in theHRMstrategies arounddeveloping staff particularlywithin

largeandmedium-sizedhighskillSMEsbecauseoftheirexperiencesofthevolatileglobal

market climate during the research (section 3.3). As was the case of the large

pharmaceuticalwithinchapterfive,SMEstoothusfacedbusinesscost-cuttingefficiencies,

the subsequent downsizing of strategic R&D production capabilities and the re-

organization and re-structuring of high skill job roles. The analysis next thus reveals

subsequentchangesinthetrainingcontextsoflargeandmediumsizedSMEsyetminimal

235

affectswithinmicro-SMEsand small businesses in thenature inwhich these SMEs thus

addressedskillshortagesandthesubsequentneedforeducationandtraininginitiatives.

The influences of these changes on the roles and responsibilities of the research

participants are introduced next, providing the context underpinning the analysis that

followsinlatersections.

A. Largeandmedium-sizedSMEs(insertquotes)

The analysis revealed the adoption of two overarching HR strategies adopted

within both of the large andmedium-sized SMEs in response to the challengingmarket

environments. The first involved organisational-wide downsizing administered using

organisational-wide voluntary redundancy strategies but which led organisational re-

structuring, flatter hierarchical management structures and a reduction yet

redevelopment of the line-management role in managing staff training. The second

strategy involved the downsizing and re-organisation of largely their high skill labour

working across R&D production, presenting implications in identifying new R&D

competencies and new staff development priorities. These structural changes brought

with them new responsibilities for the research participants. This meant clearer

demarcations around new/additional responsibilities in: sourcing new education and

training initiatives, in assessing their organisational-wide adoption and effectiveness.

Further benchmarking responsibilities were aligned with responsibilities ensuring that

performance management approaches were underpinned by systems that monitored

criticalskillshortagesandstaffdevelopmentexpectations. However,aswithinthe large

pharmaceutical, the analysis here reveals similarities in the responsibilities of senior

individuals in facilitating changes in theperformancemanagement and training roles of

line-management. Heretooseniorindividualswereresponsibleinensuringthattheline

wasallocatedaraisedautonomyinallaspectsofmanagingthetraininganddevelopment

ofstaff,butwithouttheaddedresponsibilityinensuringtheirinvolvementinseniorlevel

HR or corporate decision-making. This meant new responsibilities for the research

participantsinfacilitatingchangesintheline-managementperformancemanagement(i.e.

performance appraisal) and training role in alignment with changes in their own HR

responsibilities in better connecting with skills shortages stemming from their

organisational re-structuring. Within large SMEs, this was achieved through shared

responsibilitiesinvolvingtheresearchparticipants(e.g.HRMDirectors)andHRtrainers,

HR talent management, business development partners, operational directors and

importantlyininvolvingtheline.Withinmedium-sizedSMEs,suchchangeswereadopted

throughsharedresponsibilitiesbetweenHRDirectors,ChiefOperationsOfficers,HRtalent

managers and HR trainers, talent management and the line. These responsibilities

236

underpinned a strategic emphasis around instating the line with transformational

performance management responsibilities (Garavan, 2007:23). Irrespective of

organisationalsize,howevertheanalysisrevealedarenewedexpectedline-management

autonomyandauthorityintransformingperformancemanagementasastrategicpractice.

Thismeanttheadoptionofnewline-managementresponsibilitiesinraisingawarenessof

thetraininganddevelopmentexpectationsofstaff, in formallymonitoringandassessing

such expectations and in facilitating the adoption of new training initiatives often

accordingtostrategicoperationalprioritiessetbyseniormanagement.Furtheradoption

ofdecision-makingresponsibilitiesnormallyfacilitatedbyseniormanagementassociated

withsourcingandestablishingnewtraininganddevelopmentinitiativesinalignmentwith

staffexpectationswereexpectedhere.Thisautonomousroleofthelinewasquiteunlike

the approach adopted within the large pharmaceutical where decisions in sourcing

educationandtraininginitiativesweresharedwiththecorporateandHRdecision-making

(Hales, 2005) and further supported through engagement with the meso (industry)

perspective(Dopferetal.2004).

Specifically however here the research participants acknowledged responsibility

in ensuring the organisational-wide adoption of newly realised line-management

responsibilities connected to their transformational performance management role

(Garavan, 2007:23). Irrespective of organisational size, this meant line-management

responsibilitiesinraisingawarenessofthetraininganddevelopmentexpectationsofstaff,

informallymonitoringandassessingstaffexpectationsandinacknowledgingownership

infacilitatingtheadoptionofnewtrainingneedsordemandsinlinewithandaboveand

beyondstrategictrainingprioritiessetbyseniormanagement.Theformalisationofsuch

line-managementresponsibilitiessurroundingspecificallyperformancemanagementand

trainingandtheadditionalstrategyinallocatingdevolveddecision-making,autonomyand

ownership in adopting such responsibilities, it seems addressed the commonly

acknowledged challenges previously facing the line surrounding wider devolved HR

responsibilities (Martins, 2007; Cascon-periera et al, 2006:132; MacNeil, 2003). These

new developments replaced their existing performance management and staff

developmenttrainingstructures,whichallocatedprioritytolargelytopdownsenior-level

decision-makinginfacilitatingtrainingopportunitiesandperformancemanagementgoals.

Akeyconcernhoweverwasthepriorityemphasisinsustainingmandatorytrainingover

widerstaffdevelopmental.

A key finding of the research revealed new responsibilities adopted by the

researchparticipantsinreshapingtheroleandcontributionofthelineinmanagingstaff

performanceandtraining.Thelineforexamplenowoversawpreviouslyunacknowledged

responsibilitiessupportingtheirperformancemanagementandtraininganddevelopment

237

roles.Theseincludedresponsibilitiesinmonitoringandsourcingneweducation,training

anddevelopmentinitiatives,inconductingposttrainingassessmentsandevaluationsand

in formallymentoring staff supporting their access to the short,mediumand long term

career and development opportunities. These responsibilities extended to sustaining

trainingcharacterisingtheirregulatorycompliancewiththeemphasishereinsupporting

provision (Gibb, 2003). Here line-management responsibilities includedmonitoring and

assessingstaffparticipation inregulatorytraining, in identifyingnewtrainingneedsand

insourcingregulatedtraininginitiatives.Thisnewapproachindevolvingresponsibilityto

the line was considered cost-effective, efficient and less complex as meaningful

relationshipsbetweenstaffandthelinenowreplacedtrainingresponsibilitiespreviously

administeredbyHRmanagement,butimplementedbymultipleinternalstakeholders(e.g.

internaltrainingcoordinators,trainingauditors,projectmanagement).

In summary, the analysis revealed thatwithin large SMEs, research participants

werelargelyinvolvedincoordinatingtheorganisational-wideformalisationofthesenew

line-management responsibilities. As detailed in later sections, this meant the

formalisation of line-management benchmarking andmonitoring roles, in line with the

renewed commitment across SMEs in internally connectingwithnew staff development

needs and facilitating the provision of these needs as new training and development

opportunities, alongside responsibilities in sustaining their existing compliance of

regulatory training. The analysis revealed similar changes, within medium-sized SMEs

irrespective of differences in production strategies. Here, anticipated skills shortages

surrounding R&D capabilitieswere expected in light of the short supply of skilled R&D

labour across the region. This meant additional responsibilities for the research

participants and the line in recruiting high skill labour, in sourcing staff development

opportunities adopted by international competitors and partners and in generating

awareness of such high skill labour or skill shortages through engagement with UK

supply-sidepolicystakeholders.

B.Micro-SMEsandSmall Businesses Here research participants included CEOs and managing directors. These

individuals were responsible for principal decisions surrounding performance

management and training and development including decisions concerning the

organisational-wide adoption of education and training initiatives and of systems and

processesensuringtheiruptake.Theseindividualswerealsofoundingbusinesspartners

with extensive experience andknowledge in establishing, developing and sustainingUK

and international R&D collaborations. This extensive experience supported their

familiarity of skills shortages and education, training and development initiatives or

relevance or in demand across their sectors, although also meant that they allocated

238

importance toprofessional relationships in sourcing initiatives. Unlike their largerSME

counterparts, these individuals relied of professional relationships forged with SME

employers, policy stakeholders and providers including external training consultants,

supporting engagement in industry steering committees organised by Government

quangosandagencies(i.e.RDAs,SSCs)andinvolvinglocalHEandumbrellaorganisations

(e.g.NWUA).

Despitetheseconnections,andaswasthecasewiththeirlargerSMEcounterparts,

these businesses too experienced problems around sourcing education and training

initiatives in response to skills shortages and of relevance across their SME sectors.

Furtherdifficultieswereexperiencedinaccessinginformationaroundlocaleducationand

trainingprovidersandpolicystakeholderswiththecapabilitiesinmobilisingsupportand

training funds on a needs-led basis. Unlike their larger SME counterparts, here the

analysis revealed that such issues were addressed by consultations initiated by the

research participants, and involving operational directors and business development

managers, individuals who also supported line-management responsibilities. Like their

large SME counterpartshowever, these individualswere collectively responsible for the

facilitation of mandatory training supporting regulation through established and

formalisedinternaltrainingstructuressupportinghorizontalandverticaldecision-making

lines of authority. These structures, according to the research participants, ensured

consistency in sustainingmandatory training, its benchmarking and the organisational-

widecomplianceofregulatorystandardsandstandardoperatingproceduresacrosstheir

organisationalfunctions.

“…thestructureofthecompany…myself...wehaveaUKsalesmanagerandhehasfourUKsalesrepresentatives...healsoworkswithinEuropewiththedistributors...therearethreepeopleinUKadministration...exportadministrationandthenaccountsadministration...wehavearegulatoryaffairsmanagerbecauseweconformtotheIBDdirectivetheISO13485...internallyaswellasexternally...wehaveanoperationsmanager...helooksafterproductionscheduling...andpurchasingandofeverythingfromthepackagingtotherawmaterialsandthenworkingwiththeoperations...therearethreepeopleinwhatwecallwarehousingandfinishingsotheyhandlethingscominginandoutandtherearetwopeopleinproductionwhoworkfull-timeinthelab...”

(SME8,L&DManager:2)

“...ISO13485wehavefullimplementationoftrainingprograms...everythingisgovernedbystandardoperatingprocedures...tohowwemakeaparticulartechnicalproduct...eachrolehasaspecificjobdescriptionandtherequirementsfromaqualificationeducationpointofview...eachemployeehasaninitialtrainingprogram...thereisonewhichcoversgenericthingslikeHealthandSafetyprocedures...ourcompanygoalsinaccordancewithISO13485firechecks,hazardsaroundthebuilding...andCOSH...wethenidentifythestandardoperatingprocedurethattheyhavetobefamiliarwith...soifitssomebodyworkingwithinthewarehousetheyhavetofollowproceduresforbookinggoodsinandoutofthe

239

buildingthesameonthecomputerstockcontrol,packagingrequirementseverythinghasitsownrequirement...thetechnicalsideofthetrainingobviouslyforthepeopleinthelaboratory...thetechnicalpeopleandthesalespeopleisveryhighanditsconstantlymonitored...thesalesteamarequalifiedmicro-biologistswere-visittheirtrainingfile…”(SME5SeniorOperationalDirector:2)

Unlike their larger SME counterparts these businesses, allocated priority in sustaining

mandatory training and its compliance over other forms of staff development

opportunities.Howevertheassociateddecisionstructuressupportingmandatorytraining

further enabled communications and decisions concerning priority skills shortages

otherwiseaffectinghighskilllaboursupportingtheircompetitiveR&Dcollaborationsand

production.Theanalysisherethusrevealedconcertedeffortsinengagingwithpolicyand

industrystakeholdersandtheirnetworksin sustaining the growing and changing demand

for mandatory training and regulatory compliance. This, alongside involvement in wider

national STEM policy industry-specific forums and meetings at which new business

development,highskillemploymentopportunitiesandhighskillcompetenciessupporting

R&D collaborations were discussed, contrasted with the weak engagement evidenced

withinlargeandmedium-sizedSMEs.

“...wearedeficientinmanyareas...butwedon’tknowwhattheyare...becausewejusthaven’tgotthetime...tothinkabouthowweshoulddevelopindividuals...we’retoobusydoingbusiness...Ithinkifwefelt...thatitwasdamagingourabilitytogeneratenewclientsandinbringinginincome,thenIwouldseeitashighpriority...butIdon’tthinkthatthat’sthecaseatthemoment...Ithinkthatthereisalwaysroomforimprovement...butkeepingthemoneyflowingasasmallbusiness...ismostimportant...”(SME8,CEO:3)

Thenature inwhich these characteristicswere influencedby themicro (organisational)

perspective drivers and challenges (section 1.3) necessary in facilitating employer

engagementwith themicro,meso andmacro-perspective institutional training contexts

surrounding high skill industries are discussed in the analysis next. In summary, this

sectionrevealsthat,althoughSMEswereawareoftheimportanceingeneratingnewstaff

developmentopportunities(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Keep,etal.2006),prioritywasplaced

in addressing skill shortages characterising competitive R&D production and

collaborations and in sustaining regulatory compliance. Thismeant aweak emphasis in

addressingwiderstaffdevelopmentparticularlywithinsmallbusinessesandmicro-SMEs.

Regardless, the insights reveal new priority responsibilities adopted by the research participants

in raising high skill achievement in alignment with their business growth strategies. Within

large and medium-sized SME, this involved growing responsibilities in supporting industry

benchmarking in addressing skills shortages surrounding high skill labour, specifically

competencies supporting R&D jobs generated by international competitors and partners (Keep

& Mayhew, 2010a,b; Keep et al. 2006). Here changes in the internal performance management

and training cultures characterised closer working relationships between the line and staff

240

specifically in supporting the identification of new development opportunities to be addressed

internally. This contrasted with the approach within small and micro-SMEs where the

realisation of the changing demand for high skill competencies supporting R&D job roles and

mandatory training surrounding R&D production took priority necessitating engagement with

national policy forums, regional UK industry networks and policy stakeholders. The

discussions next further add context to this latter point by exploring the extent of the influence

of the UK’s national macro (perspective) institutional training environment influenced skills

shortages within SMEs. The analysis further explores whether these businesses sought support

from industry networks (meso-perspective engagement – Dopfer et al. 2004) in addressing the

demand for competencies supporting R&D job roles or in facilitating mandatory training

initiatives.

6.2 Macro and meso-perspective SME-engagement surrounding theunmetdemandforeducationandtraining

The analysis within this section addresses the nature of macro and meso-

perspective engagement facilitated by SMEs in response to the unmet demand for

educationand training.Thissection furtherprovidescontextaround theanalysiswithin

later sections that mainly explain the underlying micro (perspective) characteristics

supportingsuchSMEengagement.Sub-sections6.2.1and6.2.2addresstheseexplorations

withinthecontextoflargeandmedium-sizedSMEsandsmallandmicro-SMEbusinesses.

6.2.1Largeandmedium-sizedSMEs

Theanalysisherereveals thatSMEengagementwiththeUK’smacro-perspective

national institutional training context was supported by the competitive conditions

underpinninghighskillindustries(Finegold,1999)(e.g.highskillindustrynetworks;high

value added R&D production). Large andmedium-sized SMEs however did not readily

connectwithpolicy stakeholders and their educationand training initiatives supporting

theUK’swiderinstitutionaltrainingcontext.Hereseniorindividualsfurtherindicatedthe

inabilitiesof thesupply-side in supporting thenewly realiseddemandsurroundinghigh

skill labour within SMEs specifically characterising their R&D collaborations and

associatedmandatorytrainingneeds.Theseinsightssupportexistingscholarlyarguments

thatcorroborateaweakemployerengagementbetweenSMEsandpolicystakeholdersin

theireffortsinsupportingtheUK’sNationalSkillsAgenda(Payne,2008a,b).Theanalysis

however confirms, yet also contradicts these existing scholarly insights in explaining

largely the weak SME engagement within the context of the high skill industries in

question (i.e. unmet demand for and weak supply of education and training; weak

engagement initiated by policy stakeholders; weak policy emphasis in generating new

employmentandtrainingopportunities).Bothlargeandmedium-sizedSMEsforexample

241

didnot readilyengagewithpolicy stakeholdersor theirmacro-perspective initiatives in

addressing skill shortages, while engagement with policy stakeholders was mainly

initiatedbyindividualpolicystakeholdersandnotSMEsontherareoccasioncontactwas

established in promoting education and training initiatives (e.g. RDAs, SSCs –

apprenticeship training; leadership competencies). Despite this senior individuals

identified with the potential benefits of such engagement in addressing skill shortages,

supporting their efforts in raising awareness across their organisational management

levelsofthepotentialbenefitsoftrainingstaff.Engagementwithpolicystakeholdersalso

supported their access to information surrounding available local and regional funded

training opportunities and of education and training initiatives unknown to their

management. The reasons behind their lack of engagement with policy stakeholders

resonates with existing scholarly insights which point to a weak or a lack of employer

engagementonthepartofpolicystakeholdersinengagingwiththewiderSMEsectorsin

general (e.g. Sung et al, 2009; Payne, 2008a, b; Payne, 2007 – SSCs; Keep et al. 2006 -

RDAs).Theanalysisherehoweverdidnotconfirmalackofinterestonthepartofsenior

individuals as suggestedwithin existing scholarly arguments (Payne, 2008a; Keep et al.

2006), but rather attributed the weak SME engagement with policy stakeholders to

resource issues (e.g. financial support, management time; knowledge capabilities;

expertise).Alternatively,therewasageneralconsensussurroundingthenon-relevanceof

initiatives supported by policy stakeholders in supporting critical high skill shortages

surrounding R&D production. Although such skills shortages were ultimately identified

through the involvement of their organisations in large-scale data collection initiatives

supportingSectorsSkillsAgreements,policysolutionsoftenwentunnoticed. Regardless

seniorindividualsheresoughtsupportfrompolicystakeholdersinsourcingeducationand

trainingprovision,usingtheirservicesasmediatorsinconnectingwithlocalcollegesand

universitiesorspecialistprivatetrainingproviders.

The analysis thus revealed interest in or the adoption of various education and

training initiatives by these SMEs, alongside the potential challenges constraining a

sustained interest. An example of this is their engagement with policy stakeholders in

establishing Level 4NVQs, supporting advanced technical competencies andmandatory

regulatedtrainingsurroundingthelaboratorytechnicianroles.Difficultieswerehowever

experienced in sourcing local, cost-effective and sustained training provision, while the

barrierscharacterisingtheweakemployerengagementexperiencesofpolicystakeholders

werealsoapparenthere(Sungetal,2009;Payne,2008a,b;Payne,2007;Keepetal.2006).

Senior individuals identifiedwith theweakengagementwithpolicystakeholdersmainly

due to their lack of awareness of and access to information regarding their service

provision. This led to challenges in accessing information surrounding education and

242

compulsory sector-specific education and training initiatives, (e.g.mandatory, regulated

training, high skill STEM competencies supporting R&D job roles), their funding and

regional shifts in provision supporting the in-house training provision of SMEs. Despite

the interest in the initiatives supported by policy stakeholders, and the challenges

constrainingtheirengagementwithpolicystakeholdersandtheir initiatives,heresenior

individuals stressed their reliance on recruiting skilled labour and their self-reliance in

sustainingtheirin-housetraininginaddressingskillsshortages.

“...we set requirementsand then seewhat’s availablewithin themarketplace...that’stheonlywaywework...althoughexternallyitsunlikelythatwewouldtakesomeoneinwho needs training up...youwould need someonewho has a particular bed of skillswho we may be looking to develop into a role...we would then promote theminternally...asmyjobIsitontheuniversityadvisoryboard...advisingonskillssetsandthe course syllabus...providing the rights sets of skills for chemicals andpharmaceuticalindustries…”(SME1,L&DSeniorManager:3,4)

In-house training programmes were often established in collaboration with local SMEs

and international collaborators supporting access to cost effective and up-to-date

information and support (e.g. expert knowledge; global connections and access to

initiativesfromacrossindustrysupplychain).In-housetraininginitiativeswerealsooften

facilitatedincollaborationwithlocalemployers,trainingproviders,FEorHEinstitutions.

Theanalysishererevealedthatengagementwithlocalprovisioninestablishinginhouse-

training initiatives very much depended upon the production strategies characterising

these SMEs businesses, a difference evident in the approach adopted by medium-sized

SMEs in their coordination of apprenticeship training. For example, SMEs supporting

productionstrategieslargelycharacterisingR&Dcollaborationsutilisedvariousstrategies

in supporting the technical training of their engineering apprenticeships including

secondment training opportunities coordinated with their networks of local SMEs and

international R&D collaborators. Here the nature of high-skill shortages (e.g. graduate

technical laboratory skills)were not supported by the UK’s institutional high skill (HE)

context, while access to local and regional training provision (i.e. local FE training

providers) in supporting largely technical skills shortages surrounding low and

intermediate-leveloccupationswasweakandineffective.TheseSMEsfacedissuesaround

fundinginsupportinglocaltraininginitiativeswhilelocalproviderslackedtheresources

indevelopingtechnicalvocationaltrainingsystemssupportingthedemandforvocational

qualifications surrounding high skill job roles. Private training providers were thus an

effectiveresourceinsupportingtheestablishmentofbespokein-housetraininginitiatives

(e.g.mandatorytraining).

“...weworkwithasmallnumberofpartnerproviders...definingveryclearlywhat

243

weneed...wehaveourprocurementdepartmentinvolvedinpartneringwithexternalsand...weshareourbusinessmodelswiththem...theyintegratetheirapproachwithourvalues,behavioursandrules,ourtechnicaltrainingandourjobmodels...we’venowgotafewreallygoodproviders...whotailortheirworktous...inseveralareas...softskillsthatareactuallythemostdifficultskillstobuild...wehaveanumberofconsultingbusinesseswho...buildbe-spokeprogramsforus...theyalsoprovideourgraduatetraining...andthetechnicalsidewhereweuseafewwellknownpharmaceuticaltrainingproviders...likeDavidBegg...”

“…funding...itappearsthatthereissomeavailablebutitsprettydifficulttogetyourhandsonit…itchangesrapidly...sooneweekitmightbeonethingandthenthenextweekitsanother...soifyouwanttograbsomethenyouhavetoreallygetintherequitequickly...”(SME3:L&DManager5,6)

ThiscontrastedwiththeapproachadoptedbySMEssupportingthelarge-scalepackaging

of medicinal solutions, businesses which relied on local and regional access to FE

provision, but which also anticipated high skill shortages surrounding their R&D

capabilities in line with global market pressures in the production of innovative

packaging. The interest in apprenticeship trainingwashowever viewed as a solution to

theanticipatedlong-termskillsshortages,althoughtheanalysisrevealedanawarenessof

the challenges facing management commonly associated with apprenticeship training

withintheUK(Sadler et al, 2010: Ryan et al. 2006 – resources – access to technical training

facilities; economic & time costs).Regardless,thegrowingneedforparticularlyhigh skill

graduate apprenticeships far outweighed the problems cited by senior individuals within

SMEs supporting the mass manufacturing of packaging solutions (Kirkup et al. 2010;

Fallows & Weller, 2003). However such problems were ameliorated within SMEs

supporting high skill R&D production environments due to the collective employer

approach in accessing training facilitating from across regional SME networks and industry

supply-chains.

“...wehavetwoinengineering...we’dliketohavemorebutwehaveactuallymanagedtokeepthatsteadyoverthelastfewyears...ourengineeringpopulationhavequitealotofpeopleintheoverfiftygroupsowe’rereallykeepingthatsmallsupplyofpeopletorefreshourneeds...butwehavemanagedtokeeprecruitingoverthelastthreeyearswhentherehavebeensignificantcostpressures...sobasicallyourapprenticesandgraduatetraineesareoverourheadcountnumbers...butwe’repreparedtocarrythoseinordertofeedourpipelineinfuture...”(SME1,L&DManager:7)

“...wehave just takenonanumberofwhohave completed theirapprentices...they’renow fully fledged maintenance technicians so they’re multi-skilled because they’vebeentrainedacrosstheorganization...Ithinkthatitisuptotheindividualcompaniestodeveloptheirowntrainingpoliciesbecausethereisnobodyelsetosupportthemsoasasitewehavetohavetohaveatrainingpolicythataccountsforourcompetitor...sowehavetohaveabusinessviewtoassesswhatourfutureneedisgoingtobetodriveourtraining...ittakesfouryears...forapprenticeshipstobetrainedandqualifiedsoyou

244

needtohaveaviewoffouryearsinadvance...weneedtogetnewblood...weneedtobeabletotransfertheskillsofpeoplewhoareretiring...”(SME3,SeniorOperationsManager:5)

The analysis further revealed a general awareness and interest in the industry-wide

consultations facilitatedbypolicystakeholders(chapter4) inresponsetoeducationand

traininginitiativesindemandwithinmacro(national)andmeso(industry)contexts.

“...wearepartofSEMTAandCogent...broughttogetherinameetingcalledtheCIENmeeting...Idon’tunderstandwhatCIENstandsforbutthemakeupofitisoflearning,developingandtrainingpeoplefrompharmaceuticalandchemicalprocessingindustries...withintheNorthWestthisincludesCogentandSEMTA,theNWDevelopmentAgencyandtheSkillsAcademy...there’sagoodmixofpeoplethere...wemeeteverythreemonths...thingslikeGovernmentFunding...NVQs,theGoldStandard...andSkillsOffersfromtheSkillsGrouparenormallyontheagenda...”(SME3,SeniorOperationsManager:6)

However, of the large andmedium-sizedSMEs involved in this study, all SMEs revealed

awareness whilst a further three (2 large and one medium-sized SME) indicated their

attendance at consultations supporting various technical mandatory training issues.

Research participants here were however unable to comment on the participation or

affiliation of their senior colleagues with these consultations. Regardless, instances of

infrequent engagement largely resulted from a low confidence in the effectiveness or

relevanceof initiatives supportedbypolicy stakeholders. This low confidence reflected

weak affiliations between the research participants and policy stakeholders, their

organizations and consultations involving their business and industry networks of

education and training advisors and stakeholders representing the meso(industry)

perspective institutional environments of SMEs. For example attendance at industry

consultations provided SMEs with access to the wider services supported by policy

stakeholders(e.g.NWUA,ABPI,NWRDA,SSCs)andinvolvementintheadoptionofvarious

national and industry-specific initiatives (e.g. graduate employability; NVQs supporting

processoperatorandhighskillR&Djobroles;designing industry-widetrainingsurveys;

apprenticeship training). In addition to addressing issues surrounding the employer

adoptionoforaccesstoinitiatives,consultationsalsoservedawareness-raisingpurposes

of the rangeon initiativesonofferand theirdevelopment stages (e.g.postgraduate skill

shortages, level 4 NVQs; apprenticeships, internships; business and management

competencies supporting scientific R&D job roles). The analysis however revealed a

scepticism amongst the research participants surrounding the effectiveness of industry

consultations in supporting high skill education and training initiatives, that stemmed

fromexisting concerns around the limited capabilities of policy stakeholders andwhich

led to their preferences in forgingpartnershipswith localHE institutions and specialist

privatetrainingproviders.

245

“...wehavetargetedapproacheswithuniversitiesintermsofcollaborations...soJohnMooresdevelopedaprogramwithus...weweregoingtosetupacleanroomfacilitywiththembutthatdidn’thappenintheendandwepeopleinvolvedinspecialiststudieswithlocaluniversities,FEcollegessomostofourHRteamhasbeenthroughCIPDtraining...”(SME3,SeniorOperationsDirector:7)

“...weusedtohavetechnicalcolleges...therewasoneinAltrincham...inCrewe...technicalcollegesfacilitatingallsortsofoccupationsandthentheydisappeared...butthepeoplethatworkinourmanufacturingareathatfixthelineswhenitsdown...theyneedaHNC,aHNCaCityandGuilds....sotherehasgottobeashiftIthink...andtheanalyststhatItakeoninthelaboratories...we’vealwayssaidneedadegreebuttwentyyearsago...wewouldtakeonanumberofA-levelstudentsandwe’dsendthenondayreleasetodoaHNDinchemistryandthen...we’dfundthemtodoadegree...ondayrelease...wehaven’tdonethatforyears...butI’mactuallylookingatlocalprovidersandlookingatgoingthatway....fornextyear...”(SME1,SeniorHRManager:5)

ConcludingRemarks

The analysis reveals that although large andmedium-sized SMEs, acknowledged

theimportanceofmacro-perspectivenationalinitiativestheydidnotreadilyengagewith

policystakeholdersorfullysupportemployer–lededucationandtraininginitiatives(sub-

sections 1.1.1 & 1.1.2). This weak engagement stemmed from views concerning the

ineffectivenessofpolicystakeholders insupporting thedemandsofhighskillemployers

andinabilitiesinconnectingwiththeirhighskillSMEsectors(Payne,2008a). According

tosenior individuals,policystakeholders focused inaddressingskillsshortagesaffecting

largely low and intermediate occupations, although lacked the capacity or resources in

addressingcriticalhighskillshortagescharacterising theirR&D jobrolesandassociated

mandatory training and its regulation. The demand for technical training needs

surrounding high skill R&D job roles were thus addressed by SMEs using partnerships

forged through regional employer networks and across industry supply chains. The

analysis corroborates existing arguments presented in sub-section 1.1.2 explaining the

weak engagement between employers and the UK’s macro-perspective institutional

training environment and its policy stakeholders (Sung et al, 2009; Payne, 2008a, b;

Payne, 2007; Keep et al. 2006). However, the empirical evidence contradicts existing

argumentsthatquestiontheinterestsofUKemployersingeneratingorseekingnewstaff

development opportunities (Keep & Mayhew, 2010; Keep, 2002). The analysis here

revealsthatSMEsacknowledgedthecompetitiveimportanceofgeneratingneweducation,

training and development opportunities surrounding high skill apprenticeships and in

responsetonewlyidentifiedR&Dskillshortages.Hereemployernetworks,althoughwere

not fully utilised, were viewed as opportunities in tackling skill shortages surrounding

intermediate-level laboratory technician and high skill R&D job roles. These networks

246

furtherprovidedtheirhighskilllabourwiththeopportunityinenhancinganddeveloping

existing competencies through their usewithin different local SMEwork environments.

However, as these findingsaredistinctive to theSMEsample involved in this study, the

analysishereperhapssuggeststheneedforfurtherwiderexplorationsofwhether(large

andmedium-sized)high skill SMEsacknowledge importance ingeneratingdevelopment

opportunitiesthroughpartnershipsforgedbetweentheSMEsectorsandtheirnetworksin

sustainingthefuturecompetitivenessofR&Dproduction(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Gleeson

& Keep, 2004). The analysis next explores the relevance of these arguments and ideas

withinthecontextofmicro-SMEsandsmallbusinesses.

6.2.2Micro-SMEsandsmallbusinesses

Heretheresearchparticipantspresenteddistinctiveinsightsexplainingtheirlack

of engagementwith the policy stakeholders. As in the case of large andmedium-sized

SMEs,seniorindividualsheretoowereawareoftherolesofpolicystakeholdersinraising

industry wide skill achievement levels, although did not engage with their supporting

education and training initiatives. Here too senior individuals attributed their weak

engagementtotheineffectivenessofpolicystakeholdersinsupportingthetrainingneeds

of their small business and micro-SME sectors and importantly their inabilities in

establishing critical business growth initiatives in harnessing the interest of their

businesses (Payne, 2008a,b). The analysis herehowever revealed attendance by senior

individuals at industry consultations, on an infrequent basis, largely initiated by policy

stakeholders(e.g.SSCsNSAs)andwhichledtotheestablishmentofinitiativessupporting

labour working across low and intermediate occupations across their sectors. These

consultations focused on skills shortages surrounding: leadership, business and

management courses; STEM jobs, Level 2 NVQs aimed at administrations roles and

managementcoursessupportingtrainingregulationstandards.Asinthecaseoflargeand

medium-sized SMEs, here too senior individuals attended consultations, necessitating

their involvement in the activities of policy stakeholders in raising industry-wide skill

achievement(e.g.industry-wideskillssurveys).

“...itwasalargescalesurvey...itwasaskillsgapanalysisfortheLifeSciences...andweactuallyhadveryextensivecoveragethroughthesurvey...weidentifiedskillsareas...particularlycompaniesthatweredeliveringdrugs...orsolutions...particularlybio-manufacturing...”(SME7,CEO:7)

Beyond this, senior individualsexpressed thatengagementwithpolicystakeholdersand

theirorganizationswasunnecessarywhilstacommitmentinengagingwiththeactivities

ofpolicystakeholderswasnotsupportedbytheirorganisationalresources(i.e.stafftime,

finances). Alternative labour management and recruitment strategies thus supported

247

their access to skilled labour from local labourmarkets,which benefited from a steady

supplyofskilledlabourstemmingfromtheindustry-widere-structuringanddown-sizing

affectingtheregion.

“...previouslywehad,AZ,Novartis,EliLilly...fightingforthesamegenepool...itwasdifficult...weusedtospendlotsofmoneyinrelocatingskilledindividualsfromdownsouth...andthey’dwanttocomeupNorth...sowedidalwaysattractpeoplebutquiteoftenforpeopletowhomwe’dpayre-locationexpenses...thesedaysbecauseeverybodyislayingoff...Ihaven’thadtopayrelocationexpenses...forthelastfourorfiveyears...”(SME6,SeniorOperationalDirector:6)

This approach in connecting with skilled labour was quite unlike the reliance on

established HRM strategies and internal in-house training systems evident within their

larger SME counterparts. Small and micro-SME businesses alternatively lacked the

additional resource constraints (e.g. administration costs; management time; HRM

expertise)furthercontributingtotheirlowrelianceontheservicesofpolicystakeholders,

although here attendance at industry consultations and additional industry events

provided access to information on skills shortages affecting their sectors. Attendance at

industry consultationsorganisedbypolicy stakeholders (SSCs,RDAs,ABPI) for example

provided their CEOs and senior individuals information on critical skill shortages

characterisingSectorSkillsAgreements. Such informationwasalsoavailableat industry

conferencesatwhichsector-specific labourmarket trendsand forecastswerepresented

anddiscussedbykeystakeholders(e.g.CBI,ABPI,BIS,academics)inlinewithinnovations

inR&Dacross leadingglobalmarkets. Sucheventsprovidedtheiraccess to information

regarding mainly innovations in industry-wide R&D but also surrounding new

developments in promoting STEM careers, development opportunities for staffworking

across their high skill sectors, innovations in working practices and additionally were

viewedasheadhuntingopportunities.Similarlyattendanceatinternationalbusinessand

scholarly academic conferences provided access to information on innovations in R&D

across their SME sectors and importantly the underlying R&D competencies that these

generated,furtherenhancingtheirreachinforginginternationalR&Dcollaborationsand

vitallinkswiththeacademiccommunities.

“...werunaquarterlynetworkdesignedtobringtogetherindustrypeopleasmuchaspossiblefromuniversities...weliketoseetheprofessorsthere...andtrytoencouragestudents...postdocs..toattendsothattheycanunderstandopportunitiesforcareersinresearch...itsquitesimple...afterworkevent...webringinaguestspeaker…forexample..thechiefexecutiveoftheBiotechPLC...weactivelyencouragenetworkingattheseevents...fromthelastonewepickedupayoungguywantingtodevelopabusinessandhe’smeetingtheR&Ddirectorofthecompanywhodealswithhisarea...”“...wegototheinternationaltradefair...inLifeSciences...nowthereisagreatonecalled...Medika...inGermanyeveryyear...hugeeventforthemedicaltechnologycompanies...myviewisthatyouwalkaroundtheEuropeanCompany

248

stands...particularlyGermanyandFrance...youseedevicesandproductsandtechnologiesthatareincrementalimprovements...onexistingproducts...whenyoulookattheUKstuffitsusuallyastepchangeinimprovement...andIthinkpartofthatisthestrengthoftheUK...IthinktheproblemwithintheUKisthatwedon’trecognizethatanddon’tproperly…encouragepeopletohaveanethosofthinkingoutsidethebox…”(SME7,CEO:10,11)

SuchengagementsupportedthesebusinessesinraisingtheprofileofinnovationsinR&D

and their reliance on the uniquely specific competencies of highly skilled labour. Here

however,senior individualswereof theviewthat theworkingenvironmentssupporting

theirsmallandmicro-SMEsectorswereanuntappedresourceintermsoftheinnovative

productionenvironmentsaspotentiallearningandcollaborativeopportunities.However

the lackof investmentopportunities, supporting thegrowthof theirbusinesses coupled

withtheinternalisedculturesadoptedacrossthesmallandmicro-SMEbusinesssectorsin

protectingintellectualpropertyandlabourpoaching,constrainedtheirwiderengagement

andinformationsharingwithcompetitors(andpolicystakeholders)acrosstheregion.

6.2.3ConcludingRemarks

Theanalysishere corroboratesexisting scholarly insightsexplaining the reasons

behindtheweakemployerengagementwithpolicystakeholderswithintheUK(Sungetal,

2009;Payne,2008a,b;Payne,2007;Keepetal.2006.Thediscussionsherehoweverpoint

to subtledifferences in theunderlyingreasonsbehind thisweakengagementwithin the

context of large andmedium-sized SMEs andmicro-SMEs and small businesses. Senior

individuals within large and medium-sized SMEs for example revealed a general

awareness of the industry-wide macro-perspective education and training initiatives

supported by policy stakeholders, evidenced in their adoption of initiatives supporting

lowand intermediate-level occupations. Engagementwithpolicy stakeholdershowever

varieddependingontheproductionstrategiesoftheseSMEs.SMEsemployinglargelyhigh

skilllaboursupportingproductionstrategiesaroundR&Dcollaborations,mainlyengaged

withtheactivitiesofpolicy-stakeholders(e.g.SSAs,industryconsultations)accessingvital

information surrounding STEM labour shortages, while engagement (e.g. partnerships)

with SMEs from across the industry supply chain prove useful in supporting vocational

training and apprenticeship opportunities. Senior individuals here understood the

implicationsofgeneratingnewemploymentanddevelopmentopportunitiesinsustaining

the competitiveness of their production capabilities supporting their global R&D

collaborationsbycreatingnewandimprovedhighskillvocationaleducationandtraining

opportunities, although these applied to largely labour working across R&D roles and

labourwithresponsibilitiesinsupportingmandatoryregulatedtraining.Smallandmicro-

SMEbusinessesalternativelyreliedonrecruitmentstrategies inattractingskilled labour

anddidnotadoptthemacro-perspectiveeducationandtraininginitiativessupportedby

249

policystakeholders,althoughotherwiseengagedintheactivitiesofpolicystakeholdersin

raising skill achievement across their high skill sectors. These businesses however

experiencedproblemsofunderexposureatthemeso(industry)levelpartlyinstigatedby

their inward looking cultures, preventing information sharing surrounding their IP and

supportinghighskill labourandcompetencies.ThismeantthattheseSMEswerevictims

of their own success particularly in generating interest of their innovative production

environments and the potential high skill employment, learning and development and

collaborative opportunities that these generated for high skill labour across the region

(Finegold,1999;Keep&Mayhew,2010a,b).

The next section explores themicro (organisational) perspective characteristics

discussedinsection1.3,whichexistingarguments(Gleeson&Keep,2004)suggestlendto

theweakengagementbetweenemployers,policystakeholdersandtheirmacroandmeso-

perspectiveinstitutionaleffortsinraisingskillachievement.

6.3 Micro (organisational) perspective employer engagement withtheunmetdemandforeducation&training

The analysis in this section addresses research question three, by exploring

whether or the nature in which micro (organisational) perspective characteristics

discussedinsection1.3,contributetotheweakengagementofSMEswiththewidermacro

andmeso-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontextssupportinghighskill industries.The

explorations here thus extend the analysiswithin previous sub-sectionswhich revealed

that irrespective of organisational size, SMEs did not initiate engagement with macro-

perspective education and training initiatives supportedbypolicy stakeholders (UKCES,

2009; Leitch, 2006). Engagement with meso-perspective industry-consultations

alternatively resulted in a selective approach in the adoption of various education and

training initiatives althoughhigh skill labour shortages critical in sustaining globalR&D

collaborations across their high skill sectors remainedun addressed. The analysis thus

reveals that wider education and training initiatives aimed at low and intermediate

occupations and supported by the macro (national) or meso (industry) perspective

employerengagementeffortsofpolicystakeholders(Dopferetal.2004;Dopfer&Pottes,

2004) were acknowledged by mainly large and medium-sized SMEs. However, the

demandorneedforhighskilllabourandeducationandtrainingacrossallSMEs,criticalin

sustaining meso (industry) competitive R&D capabilities, (Finegold, 1999 – R&D

capabilities)werenotmetbypolicystakeholders.Theanalysisthusrevealslargelyweak

engagementbetweenSMEsandthemacroormesoperspectiveinstitutionaleducationand

training initiatives supported by the employer engagement activities of policy

stakeholders in particularly addressing shortages around R&D roles. The analysis next

250

thus assesses whether or the nature in which micro (organisational) perspective

characteristics discussed in section 1.3, contribute to the weak engagement of SMEs

evidencedwithinsub-sections6.2.1and6.2.2withthewidermacroandmeso-perspective

institutionaltrainingcontextssupportinghighskillindustries.

As in chapter 5, the analysis here too revealed that the organisational-wide

restructuringaffectinglargeandmedium-sizedSMEsnecessitatedtheneedtobenchmark

and monitor the changing demand for skilled labour and potential training and

development, coordinated using existing regulatory training structures. These insights

thus add context to existing arguments concerning the lack of awareness amongst UK

employers in generating job opportunities, occupational structures and related training

opportunities(Keep&Mayhew,2010a,b),partlyduetotheweakemployerengagementin

associated decision-making (Keep et al. 2006), but also due to micro (organisational)

perspectiveconstraints(Gleeson&keep,2004).Theanalysisnextthusrevealsthenature

in which the use of existing training structures within large and medium-sized SMEs

supported new benchmarking approaches alongside line-management engagement

strategies.Thediscussionsdetailvariations in theseapproachesdependingonSMEsize.

Strategic benchmarking (Freytag & Hollensen, 2001) approaches for example are

evidencedwithin large SMEs, and ultimately underpin corporate andHRM strategies in

connecting with the changing needs or demand for training and staff development

opportunities. Benchmarking howeverwas not a strategic activitywithinmedium-sized

SMEs,althoughitsacknowledgmentwithinlargeSMEscontradictsexistingargumentsthat

pointtoamanagementresistancetowardsbenchmarkingwithinSMEs(Carpinetto&Oiko,

2008). The analysis is thus significant in highlighting the importance allocated to

benchmarkingasanessentialemployeractivity(Anand&Koli,2008)inlinewithchanges

in organisational-specific performance management responsibilities and industry-wide

training needs. The analysis also draws attention to the dependency of benchmarking

within SMEs on the support of the line and employee involvement and participation

(Gleeson&Keep,2004). Theanalysisnextaddressestheunderlyingdriversandbarriers

characterising the benchmarking systems, line-management engagement and employee

voice (Dundon et al. 2004, 2005; Benson, 2000) approaches adopted within SMEs in

response to the changing demand for specifically high skill labour and associated

educationandtrainingneeds.

6.3.1Benchmarkingandmonitoringeducation& trainingneeds (insertquotes)

The analysis here extends existing arguments that point to a resistance by

managementinadoptionindustrybenchmarkingwithinSMEs(Carpinetto&Oiko,2008).

251

Instead the analysis here draws attention to the different types of benchmarking

approaches acknowledgedwithin SMEs in response to changing training needs and the

underlying barriers and drivers influencing their adoption. The analysis here however

corroborates the insights within chapter 5 in relation to the types of benchmarking

systems adopted within SMEs, although variation in their adoption is evidenced

dependingonSMEsizeandproductionstrategy. Asindicatedwithinchapter5,heretoo

benchmarking was considered a necessity in view of the industry-wide restructuring

facing their high skill SME sectors. However, the adoption of wider industry

benchmarking systems (Freytag & Hollensen 2001; Anand & Kodali, 2008) were

prominentmainlywithinlargeSMEs,althoughthisnecessitatedtheinvolvementofwider

internal stakeholders (Anand & Koli 2008:267; Polt et al’s. 2001) and further raised

questions as to whether such stakeholders possessed the necessary management

competencies supporting their benchmarking activities (Polt et al. 2001). The analysis

thusrevealedtheseattributesascriticaldriverscharacterisingtheirbenchmarkingwithin

large (and medium-sized) SMEs supporting R&D production strategies, as senior

managementfurtheracknowledgedsimilaritiesinthebenchmarkingapproachesadopted

by international R&D partners, collaborators and UK policy stakeholders (Carpinetti &

Oiko’s2008:294).

Various systems were utilised in benchmarking their training systems, but

importantly skills shortages and changing training needs including: industry-wide

surveys, on-site organisational-wide staff development surveys, case study analysis and

occupational skill evaluation measures. The adoption and coordination of such

benchmarking approaches and related activities were discussed using consultations

facilitated by their corporate and senior HR management which involved stakeholders

fromacrosstheirUKandinternationalR&Dcollaborators(Carpinetti&Oiko’s2008:294)

andalsoUKpolicystakeholderswhohadalreadyforgedbenchmarkingconnectionswith

theirseniormanagement.

“…we’reinvolvedinindustry-widesurveys…wedidtheOracleSkillsSurvey…we’realsopartofanindustrygroupwithintheNorthWest…thetwosectoragencieswhicharerelevanttous….CogentandSEMTA…”(SME2,HRManager:3)

Internal stakeholders involved in such consultations included: corporate leadership, HR

directors, senior HR management, training managers and HR management with

responsibilities for various education and training initiatives. Involvement in

benchmarkinghoweververymuchdependedupon the abilitiesof these stakeholders in

satisfying various benchmarking competencies (Polt et al. 2001). These included their

abilitiesinforgingindustryconnectionswithbenchmarkingpartnersfromacrosstheirUK

and international R&D collaborations and partners, including UK policy stakeholders

252

(SSCs). Such connections were necessary in securing cost-effective and innovative

benchmarking approaches that were coordinated by international partners the use of

which were dependent on the abilities of senior individuals in forging benchmarking

partnerships, providing access to resources necessary for benchmarking and the

formalisationandregulationofbenchmarkingactivities(Poltetal.2001–benchmarking

activities – coordination of consultations addressing – establishing key performance

indicators&resources;datacollection; informationsharing).Theanalysisherehowever

revealedconcernsraisedbyseniorindividualswithinbothlargeandmedium-sizedSMEs

surroundingthepriorityuseofbenchmarkinginsupportingmandatoryregulatedtraining

needs over the provision ofwider staff development opportunities, althoughduring the

research emphasiswas alsoplaced inbenchmarking the trainingneeds supportinghigh

skill labour working within R&D job roles. Regardless, this raised emphasis in

benchmarking training needs was necessary in light volatilities within existing global

markets, the establishment of new R&D collaborations and in response their access to

preciseandtimelyinformationsurroundingpreviouslyunrealisedhighskillcompetencies

supportingR&Drolesbeinggeneratedacross theirhighskill sectors. This information

was not available within their existing involvement in supporting the industry-wide

benchmarkingactivitiesfacilitatedbyUKpolicystakeholdersthatatmostfacilitatedtheir

involvementinestablishingnationalindustry-widesurveys.

Beyond these insights, the research further revealed similarities and subtle

differencesintheactivitiessurroundingthedatacollectionsystemsadoptedwithinlarge

and medium-sized SMEs in supporting the raised emphasis in benchmarking, further

adding context to arguments that question benchmarking within SMEs (Carpinetti &

Oiko’s 2008:294). These data collection systems included annual organisational-wide

trainingsurveysalthoughherebenchmarkingwascruciallyreliantuponthe information

collected by internal stakeholders such as organisational trainers, HR business partners,

operations directors and quality management trainers. These individuals were responsible

forthecoordinationofexistingtrainingstructures,characteristicauditingsystemsandon-

linetrainingneedsanalysissystemssupportingthemonitoringofmandatorytrainingand

its regulation. As indicated in section 6.1, these internal training structures facilitated

horizontal and vertical decision-making lines of authority using on-line training needs

analysissystems,coordinatedandmanagedbyseniorindividualsandwhichwereutilised

in conjunction with on-line Skills Matrix Systems supporting the performance

managementroleoftheline(subsection6.3.2).

“...wehaveatrainingneedsanalysis,alivedocument...we’vejustdonethebudgetfor2012,weneedallthetrainingthateverybody’sgoingtoneedonthissystem...I’vegota2012versionofthisandittellsmehowmanyhourseachpersonisgoingtoneedandhowmuchitsgoingtocost...wekeepthatuptodate...it’samanualjob...we’vejust

253

gone live in May with a new learn tool called Cyber LMS...its for managing thetraining...its a training management tool its a Cyber management System...”(SME1L&DManager:3)

These systemswere overseen by senior individualswith issues raised concerning their

use addressed at auditing consultations at which the outcomes of training audits and

effectiveness of auditing processes were also discussed. Individuals involved in these

consultations included: HR managers, senior operational directors, senior trainers and

quality assurancemanagers. Unlikewithin large SMEs, external policy stakeholders and

agencies were not involved in establishing auditing consultations within medium-sized

SMEs.Howeveragreateremphasiswasplaced in involving internal stakeholderswithin

both large and medium-sized SMEs, in auditing consultations including the line and

employee representatives from UK and international businesses supporting their R&D

collaborations. These auditing consultations therefore served various purposes, in for

example, devising strategies around sourcing, establishing and adopting mandatory

training needs and its regulation and in discussing and addressing labour and skill

shortages across R&D job roles in line with their raised organisational benchmarking

responsibilities.Theseexistingstructures,accordingtotheresearchparticipants,ensured

consistencyinsustainingmandatorytraining,butnowadditionallysupportedtheirraised

emphasis inbenchmarkingstrategic(e.g.R&Dlabourshortages)andwiderstaff training

needsofstaff.HereseniorindividualreferredtotheuseofSkillsMatricestodemonstrate

the types of information informing their training needs analysis and further

benchmarking. This information included data that supported explanations of existing

skillsshortages,theuseandeffectivenessofexistingeducationandtraininginitiativesand

reasons supporting the adoption of or demand for new initiatives. Detailed information

aroundforexampletrainingparticipationrates,associatedcosts,theoutcomesoftraining

assessments, future training intentions and needs and detail surrounding the processes

and activities involved in producing such information and data, which ultimately

supportedinformeddecisionsinfluencingthemanagementoftrainingatgrass-rootslevel

andtheleveloftheline.Regardless,hereseniorindividualsidentifiedwiththechallenges

associatedwithsustainingsuchon-linesystems,anddrewsimilaritieswiththedifficulties

experienced in managing the complex and extensive information informing their

benchmarking systems (e.g. consistently updating information; accessibility issues -

diverse key internal stakeholders with performance management and training

responsibilities).

“...wehaveatrainingneedsanalysis,alivedocument...we’vejustdonethebudgetfor2012,weneedallthetrainingthateverybody’sgoingtoneedonthissystem...I’vegota2012versionofthisandittellsmehowmanyhourseachpersonisgoingtoneedandhowmuchitsgoingtocost...wekeepthatuptodate...it’samanualjob...we’vejust

254

gone live in May with a new learn tool called Cyber LMS...its for managing thetraining...its a training management tool its a Cyber management System...”(SME1L&DManager:3)

While large-SMEswere flexible in adopting awider rangeof benchmarking approaches,

changes in the competitive environments of medium-sized and micro-SMEs, meant a

higher awareness in connectingwith the industry benchmarking activities. The analysis

however revealed concerns over the reliability of information informing benchmarking

processesparticularlywithinmicro-SMEs,whichwerealsorelevanttooneofthemedium-

sized organizations (e.g. manufacturing of packaging for biological solutions). In effect,

these SMEs mainly relied upon information and data drawn from the level of the line

informing their strategicbenchmarking.Within largeSMEs, this informationwas largely

drawnfromtheuseofvarious(in)formalperformancemonitoringsystemsutilisedbythe

line,althoughcentrallyperformanceappraisalandreviewsprovidedtheirbenchmarking

systems with wide-ranging and diverse information characterising the perspectives of

staffspecificallyregardingtherangeoftraininganddevelopmentandwork-relatedissues

affecting performance. Medium-sized and micro-SMEs utilised similar systems ranging

fromformalisedone-to-oneperformanceappraisalsconductedbytheline,informalopen

door policies and informal employee involvement systems informing the line of work-

related issues affecting staff. However, concerns were raised by senior individuals

regardingthewillingnessofthelineindisclosingorsharingsuchinformationduetothe

additional responsibilities and perhaps limited expertise of the line in using systems

essentialforthecollectionofsuchinformation(workintensification–Watson,etal.2007;

Whittaker & Marchington, 2003; role expansion – Renwick, 2003; limited expertise in

managingHR responsibilitieswithin SMEs - Bacon&Hoque, 2005; Cassell et al, 2002).

However,assuggestedinsub-section6.2.3,apotentialsolutiontothisinformationsharing

problemassociatedwith the line, particularlywithin large andmedium-sized SMEswas

theanticipatedline-managementinvolvementinbenchmarkingconsultationsandtraining

audits.

“...we’vegotthiswebbasedtrainingsystem...whichisreviewedannually...wedoithalfwaythroughayear...myselfandthequalitymanager...actuallyreviewthewholetrainingmatrixtofindoutifthereareanygaps...doweneedanycross-trainstaffdoweneedtoupanyskillshavewegotmandatorytrainingthatneedsdoing...andwedothatonceayearandmakesurethat...itsusuallydoneoppositeendoftheyeartotheperformancedevelopmentreviewsothatitscheckedtwice...”(SME4SeniorOperationsManager:10)

“...beforeIstarted...HRwasveryformalanditwasverystandoffish...andI’minthisoffice..itsmuchmorehandsonnow...Igodownandtalktothegirlsandfindoutwhat’sgoingon...andtheydocomeandtalktomesoIdotendtofindoutaboutissuesearlyon...”(SME6,SeniorOperationsDriector:12)

255

Regardless,thecombineduseofthese(in)formalsystemssupportedthelineincapturing

information informing their organisational benchmarking activities, which otherwise

formalised corporate data collection systemswere unable to capture (e.g. staff surveys,

training audits). Specifically this information encapsulated detailed staff perspectives

concerning their job roles, associated skills shortage and problems experienced in

accessing and participating in training. The empirical analysis here reveals a raised

emphasis in the use of industry benchmarking within SMEs, supported by the wider

engagement of internal stakeholders and organisational structures characterising

regulatorymandatory training.Althoughtheanalysisherehighlightsconcernsabout the

types of information (e.g. limited to training regulation) that such structures generated,

thecomplimentary trainingroleof the line,discussednext,wasnecessary insupporting

theirindustry(meso-perspective)benchmarkingactivities.

6.3.2 Line-management responsibilities in generating information(insertquotes)

The analysis here highlights the nature in which changes within existing

performance management and training responsibilities of the line contributed to the

raisedemphasisinbenchmarkingwithinSMEs(Garavan,2007;Hales,2005;Glendinning,

2002). This raised benchmarking emphasis was largely necessitated in response to the

influenceofthevolatileglobalmarketclimatesurroundingR&Dcollaborationssupporting

the SME sectors. Within large SMEs, this meant a formalised reinforcement of the

performancemanagement role of the line, in its engagement in organisational decision-

making and additional responsibilities in collecting strategic information supporting

benchmarking. Although the nature of these responsibilities varied depending on SME

size,senior individualsexpressedreservationsintheadoptionofaselectiveapproachin

utilisingsuch informationforbenchmarkingpurposeswithin largeSMEs(Cassell,2002),

althoughsuchissueswerenotamajorconcernwithinmedium-sizedandmicro-SMEs.

Asinthecaseofthelargepharmaceutical,heretooseniorindividualsrecognisedthe

criticalroleoftheperformancemanagementresponsibilitiesofthelineinaccessingvital

information surrounding specifically the training and development and performance

experiencesofstaff.Unlikethecaseofthelargepharmaceutical,wheresuchinformation

informed corporate and senior consultations, within SMEs various data collection

methodswere evidenced supporting the performancemanagement and training role of

the line, with the ultimate aim in informing their vital engagement in industry

benchmarkingactivities(sub-section6.3.1).Asdiscussedpreviously,thesedatacollection

methods ranged from informal team briefs and open door policies to formalised team

performanceassessments,individualperformanceappraisalsandultimatelydepartmental

Skills Matrices that provided detailed information supporting their training needs

256

analysis.Thecombinationofthesemethodsprovidedaccesstoup-to-dateandextensive

information collected by the line on: training completion rates, staff training requests,

trainingcosts,thedifferentmeansthroughwhichtrainingwasdeliveredandinformation

on training assessment andoutcomes.The adoptionof these variousmethods, although

providedthelinewiththeflexibilityincapturingotherwisedifficulttoaccessinformation

and data, responsibilities underpinning the data collection role of the line were not

without challenges, particularly in light of theirnecessary engagement inbenchmarking

consultations. Here senior individuals identified twooverarchingchallenges influencing

the role of the line in its contribution in informing benchmarking decisions, namely

surroundingtheperformanceappraisalroleofthelineandcomplexitiessurroundingon-

linedatacollectionresponsibilities.

The analysis here revealed that senior individualswere familiarwith the challenges

experienced by the line in conducting performance appraisals, as acknowledged by

existing scholarlydiscussions (Hutchinson,2007;Milsome,2006;Renwick,2003). Here

concernswere expressed about the ineffective nature in which performance appraisals

wereconductedleadingtodissatisfiedstaff(Renwick,2003;Milesome,2006;Hutchinson,

2007) and the hesitancy of the line in bringing information surrounding critical work-

related issues, specifically around training and development to the attention of HR

(Hutchinson, 2007; Milsome, 2006). These challenges were evidenced within all SMEs,

although formalised solutions in addressing such challenges were largely evidenced

within SME businesses supporting production characterising the employment of largely

R&D job roles. Here the analysis revealed that although the existing line had extensive

experienceinmanagingtheperformanceofstaff,notallweresuitablytrainedaccordingto

theirin-housestandardtrainingrequirements.Furtherbehaviouralorattitudinalchanges

were required within large and medium-sized organizations in supporting the line in

adoptingperformancemanagementresponsibilities,particularlyinconductingindividual

performance appraisals (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Milesome, 2006; Renwick, 2003).

Training measures thus addressed issues around poor line-management attitudes and

interestinadoptingsuchresponsibilities,althoughagaintheseappliedmainlytolargeand

medium-sizedSMEs.Acentralaimofthewastoraiseline-managementawarenessofthe

valueaddedbenefitssurroundingtheperformanceappraisalprocessanditsrelevancein

informingseniorHRdecision-making,furtherusingincentives,inraisingtheexistinglow

interestof the line inadoptingperformanceappraisal responsibilities. These incentives

included:agreaterauthorityandautonomyinmanagingdecisionssurroundingindividual

staff development, a greater involvement in senior-level decision-making based on the

wealthofinformationpossessedbythelineandinvolvementinestablishingguidelinesto

257

raiseandimprovetheeffectivenessofthelineinconductingperformanceappraisalswith

aviewtocollectingrelevantinformationsupportingtheirbenchmarking.

“…we’veintroducedanewperformancemanagementssystem,wherestaffareexpectedtounderstandthedefinitionoftheirrolesandunderneaththistheexactskillsandcompetenciesneeded…foreachrolethereisasetofvaluesandbehaviourswhichstaffareexpectedtorelateto…soeachpersonisexpectedtoengageinwhatwecallabase-lineconversation…aboutwheretheirskills,valuesandbehavioursareinrelationtotheirrole…withafollowupwheretheywillhavetoworkonthosethatarebelowtherequiredlevelthefollowingyear…”(SME2:SeniorHRManager)Theseguidelineswereconsideredasupportingresourcefortheline,improvingtheir

effectiveness in conducting performance appraisals (i.e. procedural aspects; building

effective working relationships - Fletcher, 2001). Moreover the development of the

performancemanagementroleofthelinewasnecessaryinviewofexpectationsoftheline

in conducting rigorous performance appraisals supporting the collection of precise,

informative and relevant information (Fletcher, 2001:474; Fletcher & Perry, 2001).

Specifically, this meant the development of procedural competencies surrounding data

collection responsibilities underpinning the performance appraisal and supporting the

collection of relevant information also of critical for benchmarking purposes. This

information ranged from staff expectations around their access to and participation in

trainingtoinformationthatsupportedtheassessmentoftheuseoforlackofattainment

of particular skills types and competencies relative to job roles. This information was

availabletothelineintheircoordinationofperformanceappraisalsbutalsodrawnfrom

self-evaluations conducted by staff using formalised personal development plans. Here

accesstosuchdetailedindividualassessmentsandself-reflectionsofthenatureinwhich

staffutilisedskillsandcompetenciesrelativetogoalorientatedperformanceandtraining

needs, introducedrigour in theperformanceappraisalprocess (Fletcher&Perry,2001).

This constructive data collection approach informing the line-management performance

management role, supported the collection of rich and detailed insights surrounding

changesintheuseofskillsandcompetenciesinrelationtonewjobrolesandtasksandthe

assessment of new training needs. These were new features characterising the

performance appraisal, which further supported or motivated staff in adopting or

developing performance enhancement, self-learning and personal development

behavioursthroughtheself-reflection,self-evaluationofexistingornewcompetenciesin

responsetochangingperformancegoals(Fletcher,2001:467,477-cognitivelearningand

masteryinunderstandingskilluseinresponsetojobroles,tasksandperformanceusing

goalorientated feedbackapproaches).Senior individualswithin largeandmedium-sized

SMEs welcomed these data collection activities which produced distinctive information

whichonlythelinehadaccesstoandwhichcriticallyinformeddecisionssupportingtheir

258

industrybenchmarkingaroundassessingtrainingneeds inresponseto jobre-evaluation

processes.

“...we are just going through a process of...a job evaluation exercise…we areredefiningthelevelsofoccupationalrolesattheoperatorlevel…thereasonitsgotthejobevaluationlabelisbecauseweareactuallyre-evaluatingtheminthemarketaswell...but there’s the whole process of going through it with each individual andunderstandingwheretheirskillsareinrelationtonewdefinitionsofjobs...whichthenturnsintoapersonaldevelopmentplan…acomprehensiveapproach...linkedtovaluesandbehavioursaswell...”(SME2,SeniorHRBusinessPartner)

“…wehavetheskillsside…andthevalues,behavioursandcompetencies…sothe

skillssidewillbereviewedonanongoingbasisensuringthatindividualshavethefullsetforaparticularrole…whichisre-evaluatedeverysixmonths…andthisishowweevaluatethegaps…”(SME1:SeniorHRBusinessPartner)

Asinthecaseofthelargepharmaceutical,theanalysisheretoothereforerecognisesthe

critical contribution of the performancemanagement role of the line, but in supporting

industry benchmarking activities and decisions around job-revaluations, organisational-

wide training needs and performance management issues. While these trends were

particularly prevalent within large and medium-sized SMEs, the analysis however

revealed challenges for the line, particularly around the use of on-line systems in

supporting the collection of extensive and complex information based on their

performancemanagement roles. The line for examplewas not accustomed inmanaging

responsibilities involving the use of on-line HR systems, and was known to experience

difficulties in facilitating decisions (e.g. costing/requesting/sourcing training initiatives)

based on information drawn from complex on-line HR systems. Further difficulties in

logging or updating information attained during performance appraisals, which was

previouslymanagedbyHRbutwhichwasnowdevolvedtotheroleofthelinewerenoted,

alongside newly identified work intensification issues in managing, coordinating and

collectingrelevantinformationdrawnfromindividualself-reflectionsencapsulatedwithin

staffPDPs(Purcell&Hutchinson,2007).

yes line-managers are going to needmore hands on training...therewill still be abusiness partner on site...because obviouslywe’re still having tomanagegrievancedisciplinary related issues...but the line-managers are going have to be a lotmoreself-sufficientthantheyarenowandthey’regoingtobeperhapsbealittlebitmoresavvy on the newHR IS system..? At themomentwe don’t have any employee-linemanagerinterface...wedoitallinhere...inHR...”(SME2,SeniorHRManager:10) “...alotofthepeoplethatwehirearemanagedbypeoplewhohavenevermanagedpeople...we have lots of inexperienced people and supervisors...particularly themanagement…”(SME4,SeniorOperationsDirector:3)

Despite the challenges, the use of on-line systems in the performance appraisal process

neverthelesssupportedcloserworkingrelationshipsbetweenthelineandstaff,providing

thelinewitheasieraccesstoconsistent,up-to-dateanddetailedinformationonindividual

259

performanceandprogress.Seniormanagement thuspointedto thebenefitsof theseon-

line systems in replacing the previously selective approach adopted by the line in

collecting information on training issues during performance appraisals, which mainly

focusedonconformancetomandatorytraininginsteadofwidertrainingissues.

“…so the guideline is that staff have an ideal training plan which is reviewedannually and within their work area…so the monitoring happens…we don’t runthatcentrally…itshappensatthelinelevelandinteams…andwealsohavetheroleof the qualitymanager as the role of the line…with responsibilities ofmandatoryand technical elements of training…and so that ismonitored here…we do closelymonitorthemandatorytraining…”(SME1:SeniorHRManager)

Theeffectivenessoftheuseoftheirnewinformationsystemswashoweveratestoftime.

These insights add context to existing arguments that indicate a line-management

hesitancy, lack of interest and willingness in adopting performance management

responsibilities, although further study accounting for the perspectives of the line is

perhapsrequiredhere.Nevertheless,asinchapter5,seniormanagementwithinlargeand

medium-sized SMEs here too attributed this general lack of interest to the priority

commitment expected of the line in upholdingprocedural responsibilities in supporting

mandatory training. Some line-managers also placed priority in upholding team leader

responsibilities over establishing closer working relationships with staff vital for their

organisationalperformanceappraisalapproach.

“…probably themostdifficult issue is re-positioning the team-leader’s role to includeline-management responsibilities, because traditionally within this environment,they’ve been technical managers…not people managers…so it’s a big transition…sotraditionallytheirjobinvolvessolvingtechnicalproblemsintheirfields…”(SME1:SeniorHRManager)

So here procedural mandatory training responsibilities included: participation in

mandatory training audits, coordinating and monitoring training budgets, sourcing

external mainly mandatory training provisions in accordance with new training needs,

supportingtheorganisational-wideadoptionofnewtrainingsystemsandoverseeingstaff

participation in mandatory. These procedural responsibilities were similarly prevalent

withinmicro-SMEsandsmallbusinessenvironmentswherebenchmarkingwassupported

by the need to sustain organisational-widemandatory training in response to changing

sector-specificdemand,althoughhereactivitiessurroundingbenchmarking(e.g. training

audits;consultations)wereconductedonaneeds-ledbasis(Bacon&Hoque,2005;Cassell

etal,2002).

“...as a companywe struggle...there needs to be consistency...I can go back and seehowbudgetsarespent...Iseethatsometeamsspendbetterthanothers...wellitstodowiththatbusinessisn’tit...itsaboutyouseeingwhereyourjobandbusinesspriorities

260

are...with some of the issues of today...you then put off some of the training...butclearlythatyoumakeadisciplineofmakingthenecessaryinvestment…”(SME5,HRDirector:6)

Thepiecemealbenchmarkingapproach(Casseletal.2002)adoptedwithinthesesmaller

businesseswashoweveralsounderpinnedbytheline-managementroleanditsaccessto

vital informationsurroundingperformancemanagementandtraining.Herehoweverthe

line,lackedthesupportofon-linedatacollectionsystemscharacterisingtheperformance

managementand trainingrolesof the linewithin largeandmedium-sizedSMEs, instead

relyingontheiraccesstoinformationdrawnfromtheircoordinationofandinvolvement

in induction, recruitment and selection processes as senior business development and

operationalmanagementanddirectors(Hales,2005;Gibb,2003).AswithinlargerSMEs,

however,heretooperformanceappraisalsalsosupportedthelineincollectingawealthof

information surrounding the training demands or needs of staff, skill shortages and

performance issues, whilst the challenges affecting large and medium-sized SMEs

surrounding performance appraisals also influenced micro-SMEs (e.g. work-

intensification, tick-box approach in conducting performance appraisals, disconnect

between the lineandwider staff traininganddevelopment issues). According to senior

individuals, this was less of an issue within small businesses, although here the use of

informal performance appraisals, a practice discouraged within existing scholarly

arguments, provided access to ample information supporting their benchmarking

activities. Although such practice facilitated closer working relationships between staff

andtheline,workintensificationsurroundingtheline-managementrolehoweverwasstill

an issue, largely stemming from the daily job and additional performancemanagement

responsibilities that senior individuals supported (Martins, 2007; Cascon-periera et al,

2006:132; MacNeil, 2003). This feature in supporting closer working relations and

interface between staff and the line emulated the formalised performance appraisals

characterising largeandmedium-sizedSMEs.Howeverwithin smallerbusinesses senior

individualssubstantiateditseffectivenessinsustainingtheirprioritymandatorytraining,

itsregulationandinensuringtheassessmentofcompetenciesofstaffworkingacrossR&D

jobroles.Widerstaffdevelopmentexpectationsandaspirationswerethusnotconsidered

apriority,althoughstaffownershipandresponsibilityinupdatingpersonaldevelopment

plansthatwerecloselymonitoredbyline-managementwasanothersourceofinformation

for the line. Here shifting responsibility from the line to staff in self-evaluating training

needsandperformancewasacompetitivestrategyencouragingcompetitivedevelopment.

This approach fittedwellwith theorganisational-wide cultureswithin small andmicro-

SMEs, where staff were encouraged to think creatively around improving job-specific

knowledge and competencies through their participation in and negotiation of job

swapping and secondment opportunities facilitated across their R&D collaborations.

261

Informationsurroundingtheseexperienceswereaccessedbythelineduringperformance

appraisals whowithin small businesses andmicro-SMEs, were also responsible for the

coordination and management of benchmarking within their organizations in addition

theirjobroles.

“...I’veseenpeopledevelop...inawaythatreallycontributestosomething...youknowdeveloping on their own...it’s not always through the training...as long as its issupported through the process...I guess that its really on the job...its not becausethey’vebeenonacourseoronaprogram...itsbecausetheyhaveactuallyhadtofacethe challenge...of doing something that’s taken them into a new area...forindividuals...skills are monitored using development plans...looking at wheresomebodywantstogo...intheircareer...whatstepsareneededtogetthere...andwhatare the opportunities that we can provide for them...its not just about training itmightbeworkingonanotherjob...workingwiththequalitygroup...job-shadowing...”(SME6,SeniorOperationalDirector:5)“...weencouragepeopletothinkoutsidethebox...tothinkaboutthingscontinuouslysothatwhenwehaveourcatchupmeetings...orevenwhenacommentisjustthrownacross the floor within the office...you know its about...we’re always encouragingpeopletothinkcreatively...”(SME4,L&DManager:12)

Beyondtheseinsights,theanalysisalsorevealedadditionaldiscretionaryresponsibilities

characterising theperformancemanagementroleof the linewhichwererelevantacross

all SMEs, although adoption varied depending on organisational size. These

responsibilities included: ensuring the registered use of Skills matrices (relevant only

within largeandmedium-sizedSMEs),ensuringthatstaffcompletedmandatorytraining

and satisfied personal development plans and goals, in sourcing external mainly

mandatory trainingneedsand insupporting theirorganisational-wideadoption.Despite

thesewide-rangingdiscretionaryresponsibilitieshowever,theanalysisrevealedalackof

line-management authority within medium-sized SMEs in adopting new training

initiatives without formal approval from senior management. According to senior

individualsthiscontributedtothesubsequentline-managementresistanceinengagingin

decision-making surrounding training (MacNeil, 2004), although line-management

involvement inbenchmarkingconsultations isasolutiontothisproblem. Withinmicro-

SMEs and small businesses, however closer working relationships and frequent

consultations held between senior individuals with line management responsibilities,

although were conducted to address wider work-related and business issues also

supporteddecision-makingsurroundingtrainingandstaffdevelopmentissues.

Smallbusinessesandmicro-SMEs largelyutilisedperformanceappraisals,where

informal discussions on performance between line-managers and staff centred around

personaldevelopmentplans.Thiswasunliketheapproachwithinlargeandmedium-sized

SMEswithinwhichformalisedperformancemanagementmethods,supportedthe line in

collecting information surrounding the training and work-related experiences of staff.

Regardless, informal performance appraisals supported the line in collecting and

262

monitoring wide-ranging information mainly surrounding the variety of competencies

utilisedbystaffinconductingjobroles,onthecompletionofmandatorytrainingandstaff

expectations regarding further development and progression. Here however, closer

boundarylessworkingrelationshipsbetweenline-managementresponsibilityandsenior

decision-making levels meant frequent and thus quicker decision-making, unlike

formalised decision-making within large and medium-sized SMEs. Such consultations

wereoftenheldweekly,butmostlythrice-a-monthdependingonthenatureoftheissues

discussed, and involved onsite business development leaders, senior and operational

directors and senior project managers, with line-management responsibilities. Such

consultations were useful in fostering decisions surrounding benchmarking and in

monitoringexistingstaffcompetenciesandmandatory trainingneeds, indiscussingnew

recruitmentopportunities and the adoptionofnewworkingpractices (e.g. secondment

opportunities,collaborations)ineffortstoenhancestaffperformanceandproductivity.

ConcludingRemarks Thissub-sectionrevealssubtledifferencesinthenatureinwhichtheperformance

management role of the line supported the much-required raised emphasis in

benchmarkingwider trainingneedswithinSMEs.Thisraisedemphasis inbenchmarking

mainly characterised the changing demand in R&D competencies across SMEs although

wassupportedbyexistingtrainingstructuressupportingtheirmandatorytrainingneeds.

Heretheanalysisrevealedvariationsintheuseofdatacollectionsystemssupportingthe

performance management roles of the line within SMEs, ranging from on-line training

systems,(in)formalperformanceappraisalandtheuseofformalisedPDPs.Thesesystems

werecriticalinfurthersupportingtheengagementofthelineinformalisedbenchmarking

consultationswithin large andmedium-sized SMEs and (in)formal consultationswithin

micro-SME and small businesses. This new association and closer communications

betweenthelineandseniorleveldecision-makingisevidencedinallSMEs,inrecognition

ofthewealthofinformationavailabletotheperformancemanagementresponsibilitiesof

theline(Purcell&Hutchinson,2007;Milesome,2006;Renwick,2003).Theanalysishere

furtherrevealsademandforthetraininganddevelopmentofthelineinresponsetowork

intensification issues and challenges around data collection and performance appraisal

responsibilities,largelywithinlargeandmedium-sizedSMEs.Aparticularconcernmainly

withinmedium-sizedandlargeSMEswastheresistanceofthelineinadoptingadditional

HRresponsibilitiesandinwithholdingvitalinformationotherwisecriticalforsenior-level

decision-making, challenges that were otherwise addressed using line-management

incentives. These challenges were not as prominent within micro-SME and small

businesseswhere (in)formalapproaches inmonitoring trainingneedsat the levelof the

line and in connectingwith senior decision-making revealed better communication and

263

information flow. However, the analysis revealed variations in line-management

engagement in decision-making surrounding benchmarking within SMEs depending on

organisational size, a characteristic that is also influenced by differences in the use of

employeevoicesystems,discussednext.

6.3.3 Employee voice in influencing the unmet demand for educationandtraining

The analysis here reveals variations in the adoption of employee voice systems

withinSMEsandintheircontributionininformingthebenchmarkingactivities.Variations

intheadoptionofinformalemployeeinvolvementandformalisedemployeevoicesystems

were noted when comparing large and medium-sized SMEs. Moreover although

formalisedapproacheswerenotedtolargelyaddresstheconcernsofstaffregardingwider

workandemploymentissuesincludingchallengessurroundingtraining,thesesystemsdid

not support staff engagement or participation in major decisions surrounding the

orgnisational-wideadoptionofeducationandtraininginitiatives.

“…wehaveuniontrainingrepresentativesonsite,butitsnotontheAgendafromacollectivediscussionpointofview…normallydiscussionscentrearoundhoursandrewardspay…”(SME2:SeniorHRManager)Regardless,theseapproacheswereusefulininformingbenchmarkingconsultationsledby

senior individuals, particularlywithin large andmedium-sized SMEs, although here the

analysis revealed clear trends in theuseof formalisedemployeeparticipationpractices.

These insightsdiscussednext extendexistingarguments thatpoint to theuseofmainly

direct participative practices within non-unionised workplaces (Dundon et al. 2005;

Benson,2000),andthetypesofinformationthatinformedbenchmarkingconsultationsor

associateddecision-making.

A mix of employee involvement (Wright, 2003; Edwards & Wright, 2001) and

directemployeeparticipationandrepresentativeparticipationapproaches(Dundonetal.

2004, 2005, Benson, 2000) were evidenced within large and medium-sized SMEs,

althoughthesewereutilisedtocollectingdifferenttypesofinformationfurtherinforming

senior-level consultationsanddecision-making. Staff expectations regarding theuseand

effectiveness of existing training initiatives and systems were obtained using direct

participative approaches (e.g. annual training surveys) and informal employee

involvement systems including: open door policies and team discussions involving

employee representatives, the line-managers and senior management. Employee

suggestionschemesorganisedduringawaydaysortheuseofe-suggestionschemeswere

strategic, involving employees in decision-making concerning staff development.

Employeesuggestionschemesorganisedduringawaydays(e.g. teamdiscussions;group

activitiesortheuseofe-suggestionschemeswerestrategic ingaugingstaffperspectives

264

concerningwiderwork-related challenges (e.g. difficulties in accessing training) or as a

means in facilitating employee contribution in decision-making surrounding staff

developmentandtraining.

“…we’recollectinginformationinaslightlydifferentway…notjustfocusedontraining…sowe’vehadouremployeesurveyresultsback…andbytheendofOctoberwe’llberunningtactteamsessionstoallowstafftocontributeandtalkaboutwhat’sworkingforthemandwhat’snot…andthisincludesconversationsabouttrainingandotherworkissuesacrossthesite…sowewillhavebottom-upfeedback…”(SME2:SeniorHRManager)

Such approaches provided their senior-management with otherwise difficult to obtain

informationandaccesstonewlyemergingissuesandchallengespriortotheirevolvement

intomajororganisational-wideissues.

Large SMEs based senior level decision-making by accessing such information

surrounding workforce training and development challenges and associated solutions

fromtheoutcomesofrepresentativeparticipativemechanismsinfluencingEuropeanR&D

partners and collaborators. The analysis however reveals that low union membership

within large SMEs, further characterised the full support the of activities of employee

representatives, allowing timeoff inparticipating inwider trainingorganisedbyunions

and in supporting thework concerns of staff. Thiswas achieved through attendance at

employeegroupmeetingsandatsenior-levelconsultationsandcommitteesfacilitatedUK

andEuropeanpartnersandcollaborators.

“...wehaveanumberof committees....that lookat communications....wealsohaveaemployeeforum...whichfeedsintotheUKemployeeforum...andtheEuropeanworksCouncil...we’ve got union reps...we’ve got staff reps...and then we feed a unionizedstaff rep into theUK committee...and then they feed a union and staff rep into theEuropeanCommittee...”(SME2,SeniorHRManager:2,3)

Similar trendswereevidencedwithinmedium-sizedSMEs,althoughhereconcernswere

raised surrounding the cost implications (e.g. economic, management time, effort)

associated with supporting direct employee representation (e.g. down-ward problem

solving (management-led consultations – Dundon et al. 2005).While senior individuals

complimented such organisational-wide efforts in representing or negotiating staff

interestsandconcerns,theanalysisalternativelyrevealedageneralweakstaffinfluencein

senior-level decision-making an issue which was exacerbated due to the management

discretion that dominated in resolving the concerns raised by staff. This was a major

concern, within large and medium-sized organizations, which, according to senior

individuals further constrained their benchmarking activities and decision-making (e.g.

benchmarking consultations) from accessing reliable information. Despite this,

management consultations were effective in drawing on the participation of various

stakeholdersrepresentingtheissuesraisedbystaffandtheinterestsofmanagementwith

265

training and performance-management responsibilities (e.g. line-management; quality

managers, trainers,HR business partners). Beyond these insights the analysis revealed

common trends relevant to large and medium-sized SMEs that highlight the types of

training and work-related issues addressed largely due to a recognition and

acknowledgement of employee voice mechanisms within these organizations. Senior

individuals within large and medium-sized SMEs for example recognised a greater

acknowledgement of an equal opportunities approach in supporting staff training and

development as a consequence of the acknowledgement of employee voice. However,

heretheprecedenceinsustainingmandatorytrainingoftenovershadowedwidertraining

challenges facingstaffwhichalthoughweresignificantstaffconcernswerenotraisedas

collective issues through the appropriate channels. Here senior individuals were of the

view that the nature of training issues faced by staff were either resolved as a

consequence of information retrieved from their use of direct participation approaches

(upwardproblem-solving–suggestionschemes,staffattitudesurveys)orelsewererarely

of a criticalnatureprompting thenecessityofmanagement consultations andemployee

representation (down-ward problem solving – Dundon et al. 2004, 2005). Regardless,

suchemployeevoicemechanismswerehoweverusefulinaddressingworkrelatedissues

stemmingfromnewlyrealisedR&DcapabilitiesandR&Djobrolesandcompetencies.Such

issues, according to senior management, generated a higher appreciation of employee

voicemechanismswithinbothlargeandmedium-sizedSMEs,inlightoftheemployment

relationsconcernsvoicedbystaffregardingtheeffectsofoccupationalrestructuringand

new jobevaluationmeasuresonworkingconditions (e.g.workinghours; timeoffwork)

andindividualcareerprogression.

“...everybodygetsequalopportunities....obviouslypeoplesometimescomeinandaskforthings...wellactuallynoyoucan’thavethat...youknowitsgotabsolutelynothingtodowiththeirjob...andactuallythat’snotwhereweseeyourfuture”...itsnotreallygoing to be of business benefit...you can’t say yes to everything...the fundamentalquestionisthatisthereabenefittothebusiness..?”(SME4,L&DManager:3)

“...Iwouldsaythatemployeeswouldsaythatwe’rereasonablygood...fromatrainingand development point of view...there are always frustrations...its not really everbrought up as a collective issue…recently there were a lot of negotiationsaround...the new job evaluation structure and our annual hours processwherewehavecorehoursforpeoplewhichareonshiftandthenwehaverosteredhours...butIthinkthatthethinkingcurrentlyisthatweshouldrosterinregularhours...tocovertraininganddevelopmentactivity...becausethemaincomplaintIhearmostoftenisaboutreleasingpeoplefordevelopmentactivities...”(SME1SeniorHRDirector:7)

The analysis here reveals the adoption of various direct participative practices

commensurate of non-unionised workplaces within large andmedium-sized SMEs. The

research participants here however pointed to a management resistance despite an

acknowledgment of their use in complimenting or informing the raised emphasis in

266

industry benchmarking activities. Industry benchmarking activities (e.g. benchmarking

consultations) were further aligned to the outcomes of union activities and employee

representativesystemssupportingR&DcollaborationswithinEurope.

ConcludingRemarks

The discussion presented here within section 6.3 adds context to existing

arguments which attribute the lack of industry benchmarking, line-management

engagementandemployeevoicetotheweakemployerengagementwiththedemandfor

new education and training opportunities generated or realised within micro

(organisational)ormeso(industry)perspectives(Gleeson&Keep,2004;Keepetal.2006).

The analysis alternatively reveals a demand for industry benchmarking activities

particularlywithinlargeandmedium-sizedSMEsinlinewithexistingmandatorytraining

structures, and importantlynewlyestablishedR&Dcapabilities andassociateddevolved

performancemanagement responsibilities of the line in informing the benchmarking of

wider staff training needs. As in the case of the large pharmaceutical (chapter 5), the

analysisheretoorevealsdistinctiveline-managementresponsibilities,associatedbarriers

andpotentialsolutionsparticularlyinutilisingvariousapproachesincollectingvitaldata

and information surrounding existing staff performance and training efforts and new

trainingdemandsorneeds.Heretheanalysisalludestochallengessurroundingtheuseof

on-line data collection methods, supporting the range of new data collection

responsibilitiesexpectedof the line inconductingperformanceappraisals –Farndale&

Keller, 2013; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Fletcher, 2001; Fletcher & Perry, 2001). The

enhancedemphasis towardsemployeeparticipation (Dundonet al. 2004,2005;Benson,

2000–directparticipation)withinlargeandmedium-sizedSMEswasviewedasolutionin

addressing potential problems surrounding line-management discretion in sharing vital

information surrounding training and performance issues (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007;

Milesome, 2006; Renwick, 2003). Such challenges were not particular to line-

management responsibilities within small businesses and micro-SMEs, where close

working relationships between the line and senior-level decision-making and

benchmarking were supported by formalised performance management and appraisal

systemslinkedtoexistingmandatorytrainingstructures.

6.4TheinfluenceofBrown’s(2001)conditionsinsupportingmacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveemployerengagementinrelationtotheinstitutionaltrainingenvironmentsofSMEs

Theanalysisnextutilisesexistingempiricalevidence fromprevioussectionsand

newevidencetoexplorewhetherBrown’s(2001)sevenconditionsexplainthenatureof

engagement between SMEs and their macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional

trainingenvironments.

267

The literature review (section 1.1) highlights that Brown’s (2001) conditions

characterise macro-perspective employer engagement drivers in raising national skill

supporting necessary engagement between supply-side stakeholders, their institutions

and industry (employers). Scholarly arguments consistently emphasise the problems

around the weak employer engagement within the UK’s wider institutional training

context (Keep & Mayhew, 2010; Keep et al. 2006). The analysis next however

acknowledges thatBrown’s (2001) conditions relate to high skill economies anddonot

underpintheUK’sinstitutionaltrainingenvironment(Rainbird,etal.2004),althoughdo

resemble the underlying competitive conditions of UK high skill industries (Finegold,

1999, 1991 – R&D production, meso-industry networks). The discussions next

acknowledge these similarities and question whether Brown’s (2001) seven conditions

underpin the macro, meso and micro-perspective employer engagement activities

fosteredbySMEswithinthecontextoftheinstitutionaltrainingenvironmentsofhighskill

industries. Assuchtheanalysisextendsexistingscholarlyarguments(Lloyd,2002)that

pointtothegeneralchallengespresentedbytheUK’sinstitutionaltrainingenvironmentin

meetingthedemandforeducationandtrainingofhighskillorganisations. Theanalyses

next alternatively highlights that the essential competitive conditions (e.g. R&D

collaborations, institutional training structures) characterising the high skill industries

(Finegold,1999;Lloyd,2002)inquestion,supportedprioritiesinraisingskillachievement

levels within SMEs around Brown’s (2001) conditions: competitive capacity and

cooperation.TheanalysisherehoweverrevealsalackofengagementbetweenSMEsand

stakeholderscharacterisingthemacro-perspective institutionaltrainingenvironmentsof

UKhigh skill industries in fulfilling these conditions. Theanalysishowever revealedan

emphasis in addressing high-skill shortages surrounding labour employed across R&D

production and job roles in supporting engagement between the micro and meso-

perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingenvironmentssurroundingtheSMEsinquestion.

Competitivecapacity(Brown,2001:36,37;Finegold,1999)acknowledgesthatthe



competition between high skill organizations” and engagement between employers,

institutions and government agencies. The analysis here too revealed a conformance of

competitive capacity evidenced in the acknowledgment within SMEs of the need to

address the demand for high-skill labour and competencies surrounding their newly

realised R&D production. This commitment in raising the capacity and development of

high-skill labourwithin SMEs (large andmedium-sized SMEs) is supportedbydecision-

making and training structures in line with a priority commitment in sustaining

mandatorystandardisedtrainingneeds.Theanalysisthusrevealedaraisedcommitment

268

within SMEs irrespective of size in a re-evaluation of existing collaborations and new

business ventures or innovations surrounding R&D production and thus raising value

addedcompetitiverivalryacrosstheirsector. Asinthecaseofthelargepharmaceutical,

this raised emphasis was initiated in line with cost-cutting business efficiencies, the

resultant restructuring of management-levels and subsequent devolvement of

performancemanagementHRresponsibilitiestotheline.Theanalysiswithinsub-sections

6.3.1and6.3.2thusrevealedaraisedemphasisinestablishingcorporateandsenior-level

industry training benchmarking activities supporting their benchmarking of the micro-

perspectiveorganisationaldemandforeducationandtrainingwiththeprovisionofmeso-

perspectiveindustry-wideinitiatives. Heretheanalysisrevealedarecurringthemealso

evidentwithinthecaseofthelargepharmaceutical(chapter5)inthatbenchmarkinghere

too within large and medium-sized SMEs is informed and supported by the use of

employeeparticipationstrategiesandperformancemanagement,specificallyperformance

appraisal role of the line in accessing vital and otherwise difficult to obtain detailed

information surrounding the training experiences of staff and potential difficulties in

fulfillingdailyworkresponsibilities.Similarline-managementengagementstrategiesare

also evidenced within small and micro-SME businesses in alignment with a priority

commitment in sustaining mandatory training needs, although here representation of

senior individuals in industry and national policy consultations and forums supported

their benchmarking and access to information surrounding new developments in HE

policy.

Thiscontrastswiththelackofengagementfacilitatedbylargeandmedium-sized

SMEs with the employer engagement activities and macro-perspective institutional

initiatives supported by policy stakeholders responsible for the education training

contextsofhighskillindustries.HereBrown’s(2001:35)conditionconsensusisthusnot

acknowledged, evidenced in the lack of collective engagement between wider key

stakeholders includingGovernmentpolicy stakeholdersand institutions, employers, and

tradeunionsinraisingskillachievementslevelsrelativetolabouremployedacrosslarge

and medium-sized SMEs involved in the research. The evidence in section 6.1 does

howeverpoint toengagementbetween largeSMEsandmedium-sizedSMEs (supporting

the mass production of biological solutions packaging) and policy organizations in

responsetothedemandformacro-perspectiveinitiativesalthoughlittleornoengagement

in the context ofmedium-sized andmicro-SME businesses supporting R&D production.

Engagement between large SMEs and policy stakeholders resulted in the facilitation of

initiativessupportingtheSTEMAgenda(e.g.competenciesunderpinningR&Djobroles),

highskillLevel4NVQqualificationsandapprenticeshipssupportingtechnicallaboratory

job roles. The raised emphasis in benchmarking supported benchmarking partnerships

269

with international R&D collaborators thus supporting engagement between training

demand influencing large andmedium-sized SMEs and themeso (industry) perspective

education and training initiatives. Such benchmarking characteristics resemble the

collectivestakeholdercommitment,resourceandinformationsharingfeaturesrequiredin

raising skill achievement (across specifically R&D job roles) suggested by Brown’s,

(2001:47)conditioncooperation.

Cooperation suggests high “trust relationswoven into the fabric of society” and

characterisesa“degreeofdiscretion,individualempowermentandcollectivecommitment

amongst stakeholders in upgrading skills”. Cooperation” (Brown 2001:46,48) is thus

dependent upon the societal “embedment” of “trust relations” and “social partnerships”

bound by “common interests and shared goals” amongst stakeholders in raising skill

attainment levels. Such ideas of social trust relations are addressed within scholarly

arguments that draw attention to the resource sharing attributes of local production

systems characterising cluster industries (Ketels, 2003; Porter 1990). Links have also

beendrawnbetweenthe“socialcommunityapproach”,andtrustascomprisingsocialglue

andnetworkbindingpropertiesconnectingcommunities,insupportingresource-sharing

opportunities between stakeholder members (Morisini, 2003). Trust is also a critical

ingredient in sustaining social relations, community ties and economic exchange

attributes inCrouchet al’s (1999) skill agencynetworks. In effect trust ensuresvertical

andhorizontal institutional exchange across networks in high skill industries (Finegold,

1999)andsupportsregionalflexiblespecialisation(Piore&Sable,1984).Theseideasof

sharedgoalsandinforgingtrustingrelationsareevidencedinsections6.2and6.3.Here

the analysis points to the potential establishment of meso-perspective training

opportunities between large and medium-sized SMEs in supporting apprenticeship

training. Similar network characteristics are evidenced in supporting training

benchmarking partnerships forged by large andmedium-sized SMEswith organizations

supporting theirR&Dcollaborations.Unlike their largerorganisational counterparts the

analysis in section 6.2 however reveals that senior individualswithin small andmicro-

SMEbusinessesweremoreopentotheideaofforgingrelationshipsandconnectionswith

their professional networks, with academic scholars from local HE institutions and

research centres and particularly with employers from across their supply chain in

sourcingandaccessingtrainingopportunities.Suchopportunitiesincluded:practicaland

vocationaltechnicalexperiencesupportinghighskillR&Djobroles,lowandintermediate-

levellaboratoryjobrolesandassociatedmandatorytrainingrequirements.However,the

analysis in section 6.2 also reveals that unlike large and medium-sized SMEs, senior

management within small and micro-SME businesses were reluctant in engaging with

widertrainingopportunitiesbeyondtheirimmediatebusinesscirclesandR&Dnetworks

270

mainlyduetothelackofavailablefinancialsupportacrosstheregioninsupportingsuch

engagement.Theanalysishoweverrevealedanappreciationamongstseniorindividuals

from large, medium-sized and micro-SMEs, of the valuable learning opportunities that

productionenvironmentsofmicro-SMEbusinesses fromacross theregionpresented for

their SME sectors. This appreciation stemmed from an awareness of the inabilities of

supply-sidepolicystakeholders,publicandprivatetrainingprovidersandHEinstitutions

insupportingthenewlyrealiseddemandforhighskillR&Dcompetenciesandassociated

mandatorytrainingneedsinfluencingtheirsectors.Theanalysisherethereforesuggestsa

lackofacknowledgementorconformanceofaconsensus-drivenapproachinraisingskill

achievement levels involving engagement between the demand for high skill education

and training initiatives within SMES, policy stakeholders and their characteristic

institutional environments responsible for the provision of such initiatives. Section 6.3

thusrevealsthattheacknowledgementoftheverynatureofsuchchallengeswithinlarge

andmedium-sizedSMEsresulted in theadoptionofalternativestakeholderengagement

strategies in understanding predominant skills shortages and supporting education and

training needs characterising largely changing R&D capabilities (e.g. senior-level

benchmarking; line-management performance-management/appraisal responsibilities;

employee participation strategies). This new approach alleviated existing challenges

surrounding the over-emphasis in sustaining mandatory training within SMEs and

subsequent limitedemphasis in supportingwider staffdevelopmentopportunities tobe

addressed by renewed performance appraisal responsibilities underpinned the

performancemanagementroleoftheline(e.g.closerworkingrelationshipsbetweenstaff

andtheline).Howeverhereinconsistencieswereevidencedinthenatureinwhichsenior

individualsacknowledgedconformancetoBrown’s(2001:49)conditioncapability.

Capabilitysuggestsanall-inclusiveapproachinthesupplyandaccessofhighskill

education,trainingandlife-longlearningopportunitiestoallsectionsofthelabourmarket

irrespectiveof social class (gender, raceorethnicity–Brown2001:49). Capability thus

allocatesresponsibilitiestostakeholdersincludingemployersinsupportingtheaccessof

all-inclusive opportunities to all aspects of individual development, including employer

responsibilities in observing andmeeting thepersonal development aspirations of staff.

Theanalysiswithinprevioussectionshoweverindicatesanadhocapproachinfostering

widerstaffdevelopmentopportunitieswithinallSMEs,apriorityemphasisinfacilitating

mandatory training and in developing and strengthening capacity around staffworking

across scientific R&D and senior management roles. Although here senior individuals

acknowledged that training and development was underpinned by the principles of

equality and diversity, the analysis alternatively pointed to the development of labour

working across high skill and scientific R&D job roles. These findings correspond with

271

Brown’s (2001:49) assertions surrounding the condition “closure”. Here it is suggested

that economies that are dependent upon high value added production tend to place a

priority emphasis in the supply and development of elite high skill labour, thus often

compromisingonefforts in reducing training inequalities influencingunder-represented

labourworkforcegroups(e.g.women,ethnicminoritiesandindividualsfromlowsocio-

economicbackgrounds).Despitetheemphasisinraisingskillachievementofonlypriority

occupational groups within the SMEs, and the existing broader challenges surrounding

under-representedUKlabourinaccessingSTEMemploymentopportunities(Moropoulou

& Konstanti, 2015; Kirkup et al. 2010; Wynarczyk & Renner, 2006), the research

participants did not however acknowledge Brown’s (2001) underlying conditions

capability or closure as influencing their SME sectors. The contradictory nature of this

evidence,perhapssuggestsaneedfor furtherexplorations inunderstandingthereasons

behind these perspectives andwhether the employment inequalities affectingwiderUK

STEMindustriesalsoapplytohighskillSMEsectors.

In summary, the analysis here reveals that the competitive conditions (e.g. R&D

collaborations, institutional training structures) characterising high skill industries

(Finegold, 1999; Lloyd, 2002) in question, supported an acknowledgement of Brown’s

(2001)conditions:competitivecapacity(e.g.highskill,R&Dcapabilities)andcooperation

(e.g. meso-perspective trust relations) within the context of SMEs. These conditions

however are characterised by a lack of engagement between SMEs and stakeholders

characterisingthemacro-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingenvironmentssurroundingUK

high skill industries. Alternatively the analysis reveals that these conditions (Brown,

2001) are dependent upon engagement between stakeholders representing the micro

(organisational) andmeso (industry) perspective institutional training environments of

the SMEswith an emphasis in addressingpriority skill shortages surroundinghigh skill

labouremployedacrossR&Dproductionandjobroles.

6.5ConcludingChapterSix

This chapter explores the extent and nature inwhich commonly acknowledged

micro-perspectiveemployerbarrierswithintheUK,influenceemployerengagementwith

the macro (national/regional), meso (industry) and micro (organisational) perspective

trainingenvironmentssurroundinghigh-skillindustries(Keep&Mayhew2010a,b;Payne,

2008b;Keepetal.2006;Gleeson&Keep,2004). Theanalysis thusdrawsonthemicro-

meso-macro framework articulated by Dopfer and colleagues (Dopfer et al. 2004 –

Appendix I & II) to examine the nature of engagement between stakeholders

characterising the macro, meso and micro-institutional education and training

272

environments of SMEs. As in chapter five, the analysis here too adds new knowledge

contributiontoexistingscholarlyarguments,althoughherefocusesonthecaseofSMEs.

This chapterpositions the analysis around theunder-researched context of high

skillindustriesfocusingspecificallyonSMEs(Lloyd,2002;Finegold,1999).Dopferetal.’s

(2004)micro-meso-macroframework(Dopferetal.2004)isutilisedtoexplorethenature

of engagement facilitated between senior individuals characterising the micro

(organisational)trainingcontextsofhighskillSMEswithstakeholdersresponsibleforthe

wider meso (industry) and macro (national) institutional training environments

characterising high skill industries (Finegold, 1999). The analysis here provides new

insight revealing that the realisation and understanding of skills shortages and training

needswithin(large&medium-sized)SMEsmainlycentredaroundsenior leveldecision-

making based on their engagement in industry benchmarking activities (e.g. industry

benchmarking partnerships - Anand & Kadali, 2008; Freytag & Hollensen, 2001). As

withinchapter5,heretoosuchseniordecision-makingissupportedbytheperformance

managementroleoftheline(Hales,2005;Gibb,2003).Theanalysisherereveals,agreater

dependency placed on line-management responsibilities surrounding the performance

appraisal in collecting information surrounding skill shortages and training and

development needs influencing wider occupational levels using existing training

structures established tobenchmarkandmonitormandatory training and its regulation

within SMEs. The analysis here distinguishes between the performance appraisal

responsibilitiesof the linedependingonorganisational size.Theanalysisherebrings to

lightdistinctions in line-managementbarriersanddrivers(Martins,2007;Cascon-pierra

et al. 2006; MacNeil, 2003) influencing their contribution in informing senior level

benchmarking within SMEs (Cassell, et al. 2002) alongside the use of employee voice

systems(Boudreau,2003;Garavan,2007).

Section6.1reflectsonthechangingtrainingstructureswithinhighskillSMEsand

outlines their affects on the training and development responsibilities of the research

participants. These changing responsibilities stemmed from the subsequentdownsizing

ofstrategicR&Dproductioncapabilities,yetre-organizationandre-structuringofexisting

high skill job roles and demands for new R&D job roles. The analysis in later sections

buildsonthesechangingresponsibilitiesrevealingmajorchangesinthetrainingcontexts

of large and medium sized SMEs, yet minimal affects within micro-SMEs and small

businesses in the nature in which these SMEs addressed skill shortages and the

subsequent need for education and training initiatives.Within large andmedium-sized

SMEs, this meant clearer demarcations around new/additional responsibilities in:

sourcing new education and training initiatives, in assessing their organisational-wide

adoption and effectiveness. Further benchmarking responsibilities were aligned with

273

responsibilities ensuring that performance management approaches were underpinned

by systems that monitored critical skill shortages and staff development expectations.

However, as within the large pharmaceutical (chapter 5), the analysis here reveals

similarities in the responsibilities of senior individuals in facilitating changes in the

performance management and training roles of line-management. Here too senior

individualswereresponsibleinensuringthatthelinewasallocatedraisedautonomyand

devolved responsibility in all aspects of managing staff training and development, but

withouttheadditionalresponsibilityintheirinvolvementinseniorlevelHRorcorporate

decision-making.Theanalysisthusrevealedsimilarresponsibilities,withinmedium-sized

SMEs irrespective of differences in production strategies. Anticipated skills shortages

surroundingmainlyR&Dcapabilitieswereexpectedinlightoftheshortsupplyofskilled

R&D labour across the region. This meant additional responsibilities for the research

participants and the line in recruiting high skill labour, in sourcing staff development

opportunities adoptedby international competitors andpartners, but also in generating

sector-wide awareness of such high skill labour or skill shortages through engagement

withUKsupply-sidepolicystakeholders.Thislatterobservationisalsoevidencedwithin

small businesses andmicro-SMEswhere the research participants additionally adopted

line-management responsibilities surrounding performance management and training.

These individuals were however founding business partners with extensive experience

and knowledge in establishing, developing and sustaining UK and international R&D

collaborations. Unlike the line within larger SMEs, this extensive experience thus

supported their familiarity of skills shortages and the associated demand for education,

training and development initiatives across their sectors, although here the research

participantspointed to thebenefitsof establishedprofessional relationships in sourcing

initiatives.Thisexperienceisinshortsupplywithinlargeandmedium-sizedSMEs,where

thelineisexpectedtosourceandfacilitatetraininginitiativesaspartoftheirperformance

management responsibilities, although requires further development in adopting such

responsibility.

Section6.2extendsexistingscholarlyarguments thatpoint toaweakmacroand

meso-perspectiveemployerengagementbetweenpolicystakeholdersandtheSMEsectors

(Payne,2008a,b;eetal.2006)infosteringtheeducationandtrainingneedsofemployers,

but which are lacking in providing detailed insights surrounding such employer

experiences. This section thus addresses the nature of macro and meso-perspective

engagementfacilitatedbySMEsinlinewiththeunmetdemandforeducationandtraining,

distinguishingengagementrelativetoorganisationalsize.

Subsection6.2.1confirms,yetalsocontradictsexistingscholarlyarguments,which

largely point to the wider weak employer on the part of UK policy stakeholders in

274

connectingwith the training needs of employers particularlywith the SME sectors and

furtheraddscontext to the insightspresented inchapter5 (e.g.Sungetal,2009;Payne,

2008a,b;Payne,2007–SSCs;Keepetal.2006-RDAs).Theanalysisherethusdoesnot

confirmalackofinterestonthepartofseniorindividualsassuggestedbywiderscholarly

arguments(Payne,2008a;Keepetal.2006),inengagingwiththeinitiativessupportedby

policy stakeholders, but rather attributes theweak SME engagement to resource issues

(e.g.financialsupport,managementtime;knowledgecapabilities;expertise).Theanalysis

thus reveals an interest, particularly within large and medium-sized SMEs in various

education and training initiatives targeted at a range of occupational levels, although

points to potential challenges constraining the sustained interest of SMEs in connecting

with theeducationandtraining initiativessupportedbypolicystakeholders. Here large

andmedium-sizedSMEsforexamplefacedchallengesinsourcinglocal,cost-effectiveand

sustained training provision, while barriers characterising the weak employer

engagement experiences of policy stakeholderswere also apparent here in constraining

SMEs from initiating engagement with policy organisations (Sung et al, 2009; Payne,

2008a,b;Payne,2007;Keepetal.2006).Regardless,SMEengagementislargelyinitiated

by policy stakeholders, resulting in the adoption of Level 4 NVQs and establishment of

initiativessupportingadvancedtechnicalcompetenciesandmandatoryregulatedtraining

surroundinglaboratorytechnicianroles. SMEsfacedchallengesinaccessinginformation

surrounding their demand for compulsory sector-specific education and training

initiativesandsupportingfundingopportunities,challengesthatwereexacerbateddueto

shifts in regional provision (e.g. mandatory, regulated training, high skill STEM

competencies supporting R&D job roles). The analysis here thus contradicts existing

argument that questions employer interest within the UK in supporting new staff

developmentopportunities(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Keep,2002),andalternativelyreveals

that SMEs were in acknowledgment of the competitive importance of generating new

education,traininganddevelopmentopportunitiessurroundinghighskillapprenticeships

(e.g. intermediate level technical laboratory & graduates roles) and specifically in

responsetonewlyidentifiedR&Dskillshortages.Employernetworksarethusviewedas

opportunities in tackling skill shortages surrounding intermediate-level laboratory

technician and high skill R&D job roles, specifically in provided their high skill labour

accesstoopportunitiesinenhancinganddevelopingexistingcompetenciesthroughtheir

usewithindifferentlocalSMEworkenvironments.Howeverthesefindingsaredistinctive

to theSMEsample involved in thisstudy,perhapssuggestingtheneedfor furtherwider

explorationsof thepotentialofpartnerships forgedbetween theSMEsectors (largeand

medium-sized)andtheirnetworks ingeneratingcompetitivedevelopmentopportunities

insustainingR&Dproduction(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Gleeson&Keep,2004).

275

A similar acknowledgement of the benefits and untapped potential of SME

business networks is evidenced within small and micro-SME businesses (sub-section

6.2.2).Theresearchparticipantsattributedthistolargelytheregionalunder-exposureof

theirbusinessnetworks.Thiswaspartlyduetothelackofresourcesavailabletothesmall

business and micro-SME sectors in developing such opportunities but also due to the

limitations that their internalised business cultures supporting the protection of

intellectual property and labour poaching, prevented their sharing of competitive

information across the region. Regardless, the analysis here reveals that SMEs were

aware of the meso (perspective) employer engagement efforts of policy stakeholders,

evidencedintheattendanceof theresearchparticipantsat industryconsultations,albeit

onaninfrequentbasis.Engagementwaslargelyinitiatedbypolicystakeholders(e.g.SSCs

NSAs) and led to the establishment of initiatives supporting low and intermediate

occupations(e.g.leadership,businessandmanagementcourses;STEMjobs,Level2NVQs

aimed at administrations roles andmanagement courses supporting training regulation

standards). As in the case of large and medium-sized SMEs, micro-SMEs and small

businesses too attended consultations facilitating their involvement in the activities of

policy stakeholders (e.g. establishing industry-wide skills surveys;UK-wideSTEMpolicy

initiatives). Beyond this level of engagement, involvement in the activities of policy

stakeholders was considered unnecessary and not supported by their organisational

resources (i.e. staff time, finances). Instead attendance at industry consultations and

eventsprovidedaccesstoinformationonskillsshortagesandrelatedhighskillinitiatives

affectingtheirsectors.Researchparticipantswerealsooftheviewthatindustry-widere-

structuring and downsizing supported their access to a steady supply of skilled labour,

thusalleviatingskillsshortages.

Section 6.3 assesses whether or the nature in which micro (organisational)

perspective characteristics discussed in section 1.3, contribute to theweak engagement

betweenSMEswiththewidermacroandmeso-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontexts

supportinghighskillindustries(evidencedwithinsub-sections6.2.1and6.2.2).

Asinchapter5,theanalysisheretoorevealedthattheorganisational-widerestructuring

affectinglargeandmedium-sizedSMEsnecessitatedtheneedtobenchmarkandmonitor

the changing demand for skilled labour and potential training and development, using

existingtrainingstructuressupportingtheirmandatorytraininganditsregulation.Large

and medium-sized SMEs thus revealed a greater emphasis in involving internal

stakeholders in training and benchmarking (sub-section 6.3.1) auditing consultations

including the line (sub-section 6.3.2) and employee representatives from UK and

internationalbusinessessupportingtheirR&Dcollaborations.Theseinsightsaddcontext

to existing arguments that highlight the lack of awareness amongst UK employers in

276

generating job opportunities, occupational structures and related training opportunities

(Keep&Mayhew,2010a,b),partlyduetotheweakemployerengagementinmacro,meso

and micro-perspective decision-making (Keep et al. 2006), but also due to micro

(organisational) perspective constraints (Gleeson & keep, 2004). The analysis thus

reveals variations in the nature in which the use of existing training structures within

SMEs supported industry benchmarking alongside the adoption of line-management

engagementandemployeeparticipationstrategies.Sub-section6.3.1forexamplereveals

that unlike medium-sized SMEs, strategic benchmarking (Freytag & Hollensen, 2001)

withinlargeSMEssupportedcorporateandHRManddecision-makinginconnectingwith

thechangingneedsordemandfortrainingandstaffdevelopmentopportunities.Herethe

acknowledgmentofindustrybenchmarkingcontradictsexistingargumentsthatpointtoa

management resistance towards benchmarking within SMEs (Carpinetto & Oiko,

2008:294). The analysis here further extends insights surrounding the necessary

involvement ofwider internal stakeholders (Anand&Koli 2008:267; Polt et al’s. 2001)

and further raises questions the necessary competencies supporting the adoption of

benchmarkingactivities (Poltetal.2001).Theanalysis is thussignificant inhighlighting

theimportanceallocatedtobenchmarkingasanessentialemployeractivity(Anand&Koli,

2008) in line with changes in organisational-specific performance management

responsibilitiesandindustry-widetrainingneeds.LargeSMEswereflexibleinadoptinga

wider range of benchmarking systems aligned to existing training structures and

supporting mandatory training and its regulation. These internal training structures

facilitatedhorizontalandverticaldecision-makinglinesofauthoritysupportedbytheuse

of on-line training needs analysis systems and managed by senior individuals in

conjunctionwithon-lineSkillsMatrixSystemssupportingtheperformancemanagement

roleoftheline.However,changesinthecompetitiveenvironmentsofmedium-sizedand

micro-SMEs meant a higher awareness in connecting with industry benchmarking

activities,althoughheretheanalysisrevealedaraiseddependencyonthelineinproviding

informationinsupportingbenchmarking,despiteconcernsoverinformationreliability.

Sub-section6.3.2thusfocusesonchangestotheHRroleofthelinewiththeaimin

facilitating closer working relationships and conversations with staff around their

performance and training expectations (e.g. weak performance due to skills shortages;

problems in accessing andparticipating in training). The analysis thus furtheruncovers

that the problems surrounding information reliability within SMEs, although varied

depending on organisational size, largely resulted from changes in the performance

management and training responsibilities of the line, specifically around their use of

performancemonitoringsystems.WithinlargeSMEs,thisinformationwaslargelydrawn

fromtheuseofvarious(in) formalperformancemonitoringsystemsutilisedbythe line,

277

although centrally performance appraisal and reviews provided their benchmarking

systemswithdiverseinformationonstaffperspectivesspecificallyregardingtherangeof

training and development and work-related issues affecting performance. Within large

SMEs,aformalisedreinforcementoftheperformancemanagementroleofthelineisthus

evidenced in its engagement in organisational decision-making and additional

responsibilities in collecting strategic information supporting benchmarking. Medium-

sized and micro-SMEs utilised similar performance monitoring systems ranging from

formalisedone-to-oneperformanceappraisalsconductedbytheline,informalopendoor

policies and informal employee involvement systems informing the line ofwork-related

issuesaffectingstaff.Theanalysishowever reveals concernsacrossall SMEsaround the

willingnessof the line insharingsuch informationdue to theadditional responsibilities,

effortandperhapslimitedexpertiseincollectingsuchinformation(workintensification–

Watson, et al. 2007; Whittaker & Marchington, 2003; role expansion – Renwick, 2003;

limited expertise inmanaging HR responsibilitieswithin SMEs - Bacon & Hoque, 2005;

Cassell et al, 2002). In response, the need for the development of the line (Purcell &

Hutchinson,2007)isevidencedwithinmainlylargeandmedium-sizedSMEsinlinewith

challenges largely surrounding their information collection responsibilities and use of

performanceappraisalandreviewsystems(Hutchinson,2007;Milsome,2006;Renwick,

2003-dissatisfiedstaff;ineffectivementoring,supportandadvice).Theremainingofsub-

section 6.3.2 draws attention to variations in line-management data collection and

performance appraisal responsibilities depending on organisational size. A particular

concernwithinmedium-sizedand largeSMEswas the resistanceof the line in adopting

additionalHRresponsibilitiesand inwithholdingvital informationotherwisecritical for

senior-level decision-making (Martins, 2007; Cascon-periera et al, 2006:132; MacNeil,

2003), challenges that were otherwise addressed using line-management incentives.

These challengeswerenot as prominentwithinmicro-SMEand small businesseswhere

(in)formal approaches in monitoring training needs at the level of the line and in

connecting with senior-level decision-making revealed better communication and



organisationalsize,acharacteristic,alsoinfluencedbydifferencesintheuseofemployee

voicesystems.

Sub-section 6.3.3 adds context to existing scholarly arguments surrounding

employee involvement (Wright, 2003; Edwards & Wright, 2001) and direct employee

participationandrepresentativeparticipation(Dundonetal.2004,2005,Benson,2000).

The analysis specifically addresses existing perspectives that indicate a management

resistancetobenchmarking(Casselletal.2002)andemployeevoicewithinSMEs(Gleeson

278

&Keep,2004),bysuggestinganSMEdependencyupontheuseofemployeeparticipation

andinvolvementsystemsinsupportingbenchmarkingsystemsanddecisions.Distinctive

trends are noted justifying the enhanced emphasis towards employee participation

(Dundonetal.2004,2005;Benson,2000–directparticipation)withinlargeandmedium-

sized SMEs compared to smaller business counterparts.Within large andmedium-sized

SMEsemployeevoice characterisedvariousdirectparticipativepractices commensurate

of non-unionised workplaces. Senior individuals however had access to information

concerning training issues influencing through their international R&D collaborations

their supporting participative representation through meso-perspective industry

benchmarking. The adoption of such systems were viewed as a solution in addressing

potentialproblemssurrounding line-managementdiscretion insharingvital information

on training and performance issues for benchmarking purposes (Purcell & Hutchinson,

2007; Milesome, 2006; Renwick, 2003). Such challenges were not particular to line-


workingrelationshipsbetweenthelineandsenior-leveldecision-makingandapiecemeal

benchmarking approach (Cassell et al. 2002)was supportedby formalisedperformance

managementandappraisalsystemslinkedtoexistingmandatorytrainingstructures.

Ineffect theanalysis above confirmsexisting scholarlyarguments that suggesta

weak employer engagement with the wider macro-perspective institutional training

context (Keepetal,2006;Payne2008a). Theanalysisreveals thataraisedemphasis in

industrybenchmarkingandline-managementengagementwithinlargeandmedium-sized

SMEs, supported engagement and benchmarking between micro-perspective education

and training needs largely connected to R&D production and high skill job roles with

widermeso-perspectiveindustry-wideeducationandtraininginitiativesanddevelopment

opportunities (Dopfer et al. 2004; Dopfer & Pottes, 2004). Micro-SMEs and small

businessesalternativelyreliedoninternalisedcultures inconnectingwitheducationand

training needs, drawing on information from professional and industry networks in

sourcingandrecruitingskilledlabour.Thefinalsection(6.4),drawsontheseinsightsand

further new empirical evidence to explore whether Brown’s (2001) seven conditions

explain the nature of engagement between SMEs and their macro, meso and micro-

perspective institutional trainingenvironments inaddressing theeducationand training

needs of SMEs. As within chapter 5, the analysis in chapter 6 too reveals that the

competitive conditions (e.g. R&D collaborations, institutional training structures)

characterising high-skill industries (Finegold, 1999; Lloyd, 2002) supported a

conformance of Brown’s (2001) conditions competitive capacity (e.g. high skill, R&D

capabilities) and cooperation (e.g. meso-perspective trust relations) in the engagement

facilitated by SMEswith theirmacro,meso andmicro-perspective institutional training

279

environments.Theseconditionsarehowevernotfullysupportedbyengagementbetween

SMEs and stakeholders representing the macro-perspective institutional training

environments surrounding UK high-skill industries. However SME engagement with

stakeholders representing the micro (organisational) and meso (industry) perspective

institutional training environments of the SMEs sectors supported management to

address priority skill shortages surrounding high-skill labour employed across R&D

productionandjobroles.

Chapter seven next presents the thesis conclusion and provides a comparative

overviewoftheempiricalfindingsinchaptersfour,fiveandsixaccordingtotheresearch

questions.Thediscussionsfurtheraddressthethesiscontributionandhighlightpotential

areasoffurtherresearch.

280

ChapterSevenConcludingtheThesis

This study centrally explores the extent and nature of employer engagement

within the context of the macro, meso and micro perspective institutional training

environments of high skill industries from the perspectives of policy stakeholders and

high skill employers. The study is conducted using three research questions used to

analysethecaseofUKNorthWestBioRegion, itscharacteristichighskill industriesand

macro, meso and micro-perspective training environment. The study’s conceptual

frameworkisunderpinnedbythreeresearchquestionsandisbasedonthemacro-meso-

micro-perspectiveanalogypresentedbyDopferandcolleagues(Dopferetal.2004).This

analogy highlights the interdependent nature of necessary engagement between

stakeholders(supply&demand-side)characterisingeachofthemacro,mesoandmicro-

perspectives and supporting the institutional architecture of cluster industries. The

researchquestionsthuscentrally focusontheunderexploredphenomenonofemployer

engagement(Payne,2008b;Irwin,2008:66)andarepresentednextalongsidediscussions

focusing on their analysis, the contributions of the thesis and potential areas for future

research.

The first research question explores the extent andnature ofmacro-perspective

employer engagement with supply-side policy stakeholders in response to the unmet

employer demand for education and training across high skill industries. This research

question acknowledges the importance of Dopfer et al.’s (2004) macro (national)

perspective in fostering the supply of education and training initiatives in response to

demand generatedwithinmeso (industry) perspectives. This research question thus is

underpinned by scholarly and policy arguments that draw attention to historical and

contemporary supply-side challenges facing the UK’s institutional training context in

meetingindustry-widetrainingdemand.Theseargumentsultimatelysuggestconstrained

employerengagement leading to ineffectiveemployer-ledanddemand-driveneducation

andtraininginitiativeswithintheUK(UKCES,2009;Keepetal.2006;Finegold&Soskice,

1988).Heretheresearchacknowledgesthatexistingscholarlyevidencedoesnotaddress

thecollectivenatureofengagementbetweenemployersandtheinstitutionalstakeholders

characterising the macro, meso and micro (organisational) institutional perspectives

surrounding high skill industries. Further explorations are required of the types of

education and training initiatives facilitated and whether the establishment of

institutional supply-side education and training initiatives account for the barriers

presentedbyemployersinrealisingtheirunmettrainingdemand(Gleeson&Keep,2004).

The research further proposes explorations of the uniquely specific competitive

281

conditionsofhighskill industries inunderstandingsuchengagementandheredrawson

Brown’s (2001) high skill framework in view of similarities between the features

characterisingitssevenconditionsandthecompetitiveconditionsofhighskillindustries

(e.g. engagementbetweensupplyanddemand-sidestakeholders;adoptionofhighvalue

added production). In effect despite differences between the institutional training

environments characterising the UK and high skill economies, research question one

acknowledges these similarities and thus proposes consideration of Brown’s (2001)

macro-perspectiveconditionsinexploringmacro-perspectiveemployerengagementwith

supply-sidepolicystakeholders.

ThesecondresearchquestionacknowledgesDopferetal.’s(2004)call forclarity

in understanding the role of the meso (organisational) perspective in influencing the

macro-meso-micro perspective architecture characterising industry clusters. This

researchquestionalsoacknowledgesthatthefewstudiesexploringthetrainingcontexts

ofhighskillindustrieslargelyexplorethemicro(organisational)perspective(Lloyd,2002;

Miller et al. 2002), while the meso (industry) perspective is ignored. Here the study

suggests explorations of meso (perspective) employer engagement with stakeholders

characterisingthemacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutionalenvironmentsofhigh

skillindustries(Finegold,1991),drawingonwidernetworktheoriestoexploretheroleof

thecompetitivemeso(industry)networkconditionofhighskill industries in influencing

such engagement. The second research question thus explores the extent to which the

under-researched meso (industry)-perspective network form facilitated engagement

between stakeholders characterising the macro, meso and the micro-perspective

institutionaltrainingcontextsofhighskillindustries.Researchquestionthreeisbasedon

Dopferetal.’s(2004)analogythatsuggeststhatagentssupportingthemicroorganization

perspectivearenot independentactorsbutare influencedbyrulecarriersocieties.Here

rulesareimplementedatthemicroorganisationalperspectiveusingmicro-organisational

structures and processes which in turn support engagement with stakeholders

characterising the meso and macro-perspective institutional industry architecture

(Appendix III). Research question three is thus established around scholarly arguments

whichraiseissuewiththemicroperspectiveemployerbarriersthatultimatelyconstrain

UKemployersfromestablishingorrealisingtheunmetdemandforeducationandtraining

opportunities. The study here alludes to various micro-perspective employer barriers

including the poor use of organisational systems in supporting industry benchmarking,

line-management engagement and employee voice in organisational and industry-level

decision-making (Keep & Mayhew, 2010; Keep et al. 2006; Gleeson & Keep, 2004). In

drawing on these conceptualisations research question three thus questions the nature

and extent to which these micro perspective constraints facilitate or challenge

282

engagement between high skill employers and stakeholders characterising the macro,

meso and micro-perspective institutional training contexts of high skill industries

(AppendixIII).Theseresearchquestionsthusencapsulateastudyconceptualframework

that is explored using the under-utilised convergent interview data collection method

(AppendixV).This isanewmethodologicalcontributionsupportingeighteen interviews

withpolicystakeholdersandtwentyinterviewswithseniorindividualsresponsibleforthe

facilitation of education and training initiatives across high skill organizations to

understand the institutional macro-meso and micro training context across the

institutionalarchitectureofclusterindustries.

Basedontheresponsesof theresearchparticipants, thediscussionsnextexpand

the theoretical contributions of the study outcomes according to each of the research

questions and further highlight areas of further research. Section 7.1 explores the

relevanceofthebarriersanddriversinfluencingsupply-sidemacro-perspectiveeffortsin

facilitatingemployerengagement inviewoftheunder-exploredmacro,mesoandmicro-

perspective institutional conditions surrounding high skill industries which sets them

apartfromconstraintssurroundingtheUK’swiderinstitutionaltrainingcontext.Section

7.2 further draws on wider scholarly arguments surrounding the meso (industry)

perspective to explore the contribution of the meso network competitive condition

supporting high skill industries in facilitating engagement between stakeholders

characterising themacro, meso andmicro-perspective institutional training contexts of

highskillindustries.Section7.3focusesonexploringthemicro-perspectiveorganisational

barriersanddriverscommonlyacknowledgedasinfluencingUKemployersinconnecting

with the unmet demand for education and training opportunities. Here discussions

particularlyfocusonthemicro-perspectivestructuralarrangementsanddriversadopted

byhighskillemployersinsupportingengagementbetweenthedemandforeducationand

training facilitated within micro (organisational) perspectives and its engagement its

meso(industry)perspectivesupply.Section7.4culminates

7.1 Macro-perspective employer engagement with the unmet

employerdemandforeducation&training

Existing scholarly arguments and studies consistently reflect on the employer

engagement challenges facing supply-side policy organizations in facilitating macro-

perspective Government-led education and training initiatives (UKCES, 2009; Leitch,

2006: Keep et al. 2006; Lloyd & Payne, 2003). However, these existing studies largely

refer to the employer engagement challenges facing the centralised roles of individual

skillsagencies(e.g.SSCs–Payne,2008a,b;2007;SSDA,2008)ortheregionalemphasisof

Government-instatedquangos(RDAs–Keepetal.2006;Peck&McGuiness,2003)anddo

283

not address the collective influence of the range of policy organisations in facilitating

macro-perspectiveeducationandtraininginitiativesacrosstheinstitutionalmacro,meso

andmicro-perspectivetrainingcontextscharacterisinghighskillindustries(Lloyd,2002).

Theanalysisherecorroboratesexisting insights thatpoint to thechallengesanddrivers

affecting employer engagement facilitatedbypolicy stakeholders. It further revealsnew

empirical insights surrounding their efforts in connecting with skills shortages and

education and training initiatives of relevance across the high skill job roles and

occupationssupportingthehighskill industriesaddressedbythisresearch. Ineffectthe

analysisherecorroboratesDopferetal.’s(2004)analogyinthatitdemonstratesthatthe

macro (national) perspective employer engagement efforts of policy stakeholders

accommodated themeso (industry) andmicro (organisational) perspective demand for

education and training. Policy stakeholders here identified with specific challenges in

engaging the SME sectors and larger high skill employers fromacross the region.Weak

employerengagementherestemmed largely fromthe lowemployer interest, confidence

and trust in the effectiveness of their service provision, particularly in supporting

education and training provision around the demand for niche, specialist technical

competencies not readily available provided by local FE or HE institutions. Here policy

stakeholders reflected on problems in supporting the employer demand for regulatory

trainingorhighskilleducationandtraininginitiativesintheirindividualengagementwith

employers (e.g. in sourcing provision; employer funding support). Weak employer

engagement was attributed to the poor employer visibility and interest in their policy

organisations and initiatives. Policy stakeholders thus emphasised future employer-led

efforts in improving regional employer visibility and accessibility of their services (e.g.

regional communication strategies). The research however revealed the adoption of a

circumscribed approach in engaging individual employers and in addressing the unmet

employer demand for education and training initiatives in alignment with their

commitmentinsupportingtheNationalSkillsAgenda(Leitch,2006),withlittleemphasis

placed in supporting workplace initiatives (e.g. new job design; work organisation) in

improvingproductiveuseofskill(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Keepetal.2006;Keep,2002).

The ad hoc nature of employer engagement here perhaps suggests a need for future

research in exploring the effectiveness of education and training initiatives successfully

adoptedbyhighskillemployersalongsidefurtherstudyinunderstandingthechallenges

facing policy stakeholders in facilitating initiatives not supported by local or regional

provision(e.g.regulatorytrainingandhighskilljobrolessupportingR&Dcompetencies).

These problems facing individual policy stakeholders in facilitating individual employer

engagement were however addressed using the variety of employer engagement and

communication strategies (facilitating involvement, informational and responsive

284

communications). Alternatively new employer engagement developments in utilising

meso(industry)consultationsdiscussedinsection7.2,supportedarenewedemphasisin

facilitating the collective involvement of wide-ranging stakeholders characterising the

macro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontextsofhighskillindustries.

Chapters 5 and 6 further corroborate existing studies that do not relate to the

experiences of high skill industries or SMEs butwhich report on the employer barriers

and drivers influencing engagement between employers and the services of policy

stakeholders (Payne, 2008a,b; Payne, 2007). The analysis here too corroborates these

insights further justify the lack of employer engagement with macro-perspective

educationand training initiatives supportedbypolicyorganizationsdue to the inherent

weak interest across their management levels in their adoption. Regardless senior

individuals here reflectedon their engagementwith theUK’sNational SkillsAgenda via

the representation of senior individuals on HEFCE-led consultations surrounding the

national STEM Agenda and the CSR commitment in supporting skills shortages

surrounding the National Skills Agenda (e.g. STEM underachievement; gendered career

progression). In chapter 5 the analysis thus reveals a reliance across the large

pharmaceutical on micro (organisational) perspective decision-making structures and

arrangementsinestablishingorrealisingunmeteducationandtrainingneedswhichwere

ultimately met by provision facilitated via the engagement with meso (industry)-

perspectivenetworkstructures,discussedinsection7.2.Theanalysisherethusconfirms

a lack of employer engagement with policy stakeholders and their supporting macro-

perspective national educational and training initiatives, although reveals efforts on the

part of senior management in facilitating the organisational-wide awareness of STEM

initiatives (e.g. graduate apprenticeships and career progression pathways, internships;

level 4 NVQs supporting management competencies). This further stemmed from the

involvementofpolicystakeholdersintheircorporatetrainingconsultationsalongsidethe

range of stakeholders characterising the meso (industry) and micro (organisational)

perspective institutional training environments supporting their organization. The

analysis here thus supports Dopfer et al.’s (2004) analogy confirming engagement

between stakeholders involved in establishing the micro (organization) perspective

demand for education and training initiatives with stakeholders involved in the meso

(industry)perspectiveprovisionorsupplyofinitiatives.

Chapter6revealstrendssurroundingtheexperiencesof largeandmedium-sized

SMEs and their engagement with the policy stakeholders. The insights here although

corroborate wider existing generalisations explaining weak engagement between UK

employers and Government-led policy organizations, provide the much required

supporting empirical evidence surrounding SMEs which is lacking within existing

285

discussions(Sungetal.2006;Payne,2008a,b;Payne,2007;Keepetal.2006).Theanalysis

indicates that largeandmedium-sizedSMEbusinesses rarely initiatedengagementwith

policy stakeholders, although senior individuals were aware of the benefits of such

engagement on the rare occasion that this was initiated by policy stakeholders (RDAs,

SSCs,-supportingapprenticeship&businessandmanagementcompetencies;BSAs,NSAs,

intermediary roles in connecting with HE and FE training provision; information

surrounding funding opportunities). Training costs were a major concern for these

businessespreventing their interest in the initiatives supportedbypolicyorganizations,

an issue exacerbated by a poor access to funding information and training investments

and constantly changing regional training provision which largely addressed skills

shortages surrounding low and intermediate-level occupations. These issues led to a

reliance in recruitment strategies within SMEs in sourcing skilled labour often using

industry-specific business networks that were also strategic in establishing training

provision.Thetypesofeducationandtrainingprovisionestablishedusingthesenetworks

howevervarieddependingupontheproductionstrategiesofSMEs(e.g.in-housetraining

collaborations/programmes with local SMEs supporting the mass manufacturing of

packaging for biological solutions – apprenticeship training; technical competencies

supporting biotechnology and bioscience R&D production – international secondment

programmes).Likelargeandmedium-sizedSMEs,micro-SMEsandsmallbusinessesalso

revealedaweakrelianceintheservicesofpolicystakeholders.Seniorindividualshowever

possessedup-to-dateknowledgeaboutdevelopmentsaffecting theirhighskill industries

duetotheirrepresentationontheboardsofpolicyorganizationsandinvolvementintheir

facilitation of industry-wide consultations in addressing skill shortages and gaps across

local talent pools.However, these consultations largely tackledpolicy initiatives of little

consequence to their small business and micro-SME sectors, whilst skill shortages of

critical significance to their business growth strategies went unnoticed (e.g. executive

management competencies – commercialising intellectual capital; generating capital

investment funds; sourcing talent). These insights underpin research question one and

extend existing insights which broadly draw attention to the challenging employer

engagementwithUKGovernment-ledsupply-sidepolicystakeholders,byassessingtheir

relevancewithinthecontextofthemacro-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingenvironments

surrounding high skill industries. The analysis of employer experiences corroborates

existing insights justifying their lack of engagement with policy stakeholders and

education and training initiatives. Employer involvement in industry consultations,

conferences and industry events justified their awareness of critical skill shortages

influencing their high skill sectors and of supporting education and training initiatives

facilitated by policy stakeholders. This contradicted policy stakeholders who attributed

286

their weak employer engagement to the low employer awareness across the region of

theirsupportingservicesandeducationandtraining initiatives.Regardless, theresearch

evidencedarenewedimpetusamongstpolicystakeholdersinsecuringregionalemployer

engagementusingindustryconsultations.Thesedrewontheirregionalbusinessnetworks

andthesocialcapitalpotentialofsupportingnetworkmembersincludingemployersand

further complimented future regional activities in supporting theUK’s high skill agenda

(i.e.raisingtheprofileofSTEMdisciplines). Theanalysisherehoweversuggestsfurther

researchsurroundingthesedevelopments.

7.2 Meso-perspective employer engagement with the unmet

employerdemandforeducationandtraining

The analysis revealedmajor differences in the nature inwhichmeso (industry)

networks, a competitive conditions of cluster industries (Finegold 1999; Streck, 1989)

supported policy stakeholders and employers in engaging with the macro, meso and

micro-perspective institutional training contexts surrounding high skill industries.

Chapter 4 reveals that industry networks supported policy stakeholders in connecting

with the industry-wide and employer-specific demands for education and training

initiatives.TheanalysishererevealsthatDopferetal.’s(2004)mesoperspectiveanalogy

is visible in the employer and industry engagement facilitatedbypolicy stakeholders in

accommodatingandfacilitatingengagementbetweentheemployerdemandforeducation

andtraininggeneratedwithinmicro(organisational)perspectivesandmacro-perspective

provisionsupportedbytheirorganizations.Chapter5revealsthatthiscontrastswiththe

approach adopted by employers as here the network condition supported engagement

between the demand for education and training generated within the micro

(organisational) perspective with provision largely supported by the meso (industry)

perspective(Dopferetal.2004).Inthecaseofpolicystakeholders,theestablishmentof

(in)formalindustrynetworkssupportedtheirregionalreachinengagingemployersfrom

across the pharmaceutical, bioscience and biotechnology sectors, particularly SME

businesses. The insights next here acknowledge that these are newly established and

somewhat premature activities, hence the broad nature of discussions in places. This

suggests the need for further detailed research surrounding these forms of employer

engagement further to the embedment of their underlying network features. Informal

industry consultations were nevertheless useful in facilitating the engagement of SME

businessesthatformalconsultationsdidnotreadilyattract. Informalconsultationswere

thusstrategicininitiatingideas,agendasandworkinggroupsthatlatertransformedinto

formalised network partnerships supporting major national funded Government

287

initiatives (e.g. employability skills supporting STEM graduates). Formal consultations

althoughfaceddifficultiesinengagingSMEs,involvedwiderstakeholdergroupsandtheir

associated business networks thus benefiting from the wider exposure and regional

visibility of education and training initiatives stemming from consultations. Informal

consultations however facilitated around grass roots issues or in targeting very niche

skillsshortages(e.g.technicaltraining–regulation)characterisingtheSMEsectors.SMEs

it seemed preferred the informal non-committal and voluntary engagement aspects of

suchconsultations,althoughherepolicystakeholderswereunabletosecurethelong-term

commitmentofparticularly themicroSMEandsmallbusinesssectors in theiractivities.

Although (in)formal industry consultations were a new development, it is clear that

according to policy stakeholders industry networks play a major role in fostering

employerengagementacrosstheregion.Thediscussionsherethusprogressandprovide

context around existing arguments exploring the role of networks, their underlying

driversandbarriersinfluencingnetworkeffectiveness,butwithinthecontextofexploring

engagementbetweenpolicystakeholdersandemployers(viaindustryconsultations).Itis

clear that since the research further study is required in capturing the nature inwhich

(in)formal network arrangements support industry consultations in fostering or

coordinatingeducationandtraininginitiativesacrosshighskill industriesfurtheradding

contexttoexistingscholarlyargumentsregardingpolicynetworks(Borzel’s 2005; Klijn &

Koppenjan 2006) and public policy networks (Provan & Milward, 2001). These insights

alsoprogressexistingcriticismregardingthelackofaregionalismapproachwithintheUK

in supporting industries characterising clusters (Keep et al. 2006). These insights

although focus on the perspectives of policy stakeholders, further extendwider studies

which allocate importance to the collective actions of both supply (policy stakeholders)

anddemand-side (employers) in supporting themeso-perspective institutionalisationof

policy across industry networks (Fromhold-Eisebith&Eisebith, 2005; Steinle& Scheile,

2002). In establishing industry consultations, policy stakeholders thus reveal both top-

downandbottom-up(employerengagement)approaches(Fromhold-Eisebith&Eisebith,

2005) in delivering on the industry-wide needs for education and training. Further

network value creation activities (Gulati et al. 2000; Normann & Ramirez, 1993) are

observed as new and diverse employer and stakeholder membership contribute to

networkgrowthandsustainabilityparticularly in the transition from informal to formal

industryconsultations.Networkfeaturesincluding:powerrelationsandconflictbetween

networkmembersandadditionallynetworkcomposition,resourceavailabilityandaccess

are further seen to constrain the flexibility and growth of their formalised industry

consultations(Brassetal.2004;Cross&Cummings,2004;Borgatti&Foster2003).These

characteristics present a useful basis in conducting future explorations of the nature in

288

which features such as network dynamics, governance structures and policy decision-

making systems foster education and training across regions (Henderson et al. 2002).

Such explorations are essential as the analysis revealed an awareness amongst policy

stakeholders of the social and economic drivers and barriers influencing the abilities of

stakeholdersincommittingtotheactivitiesoftheir(in)formalindustryconsultations.

Chapters 5 and 6 alternatively analyse employer perspectives with respect to

researchquestiontwo.Chapter5revealstheestablishmentofinter/intra-organisational

networkcoalitionsinaddressingtheunmetdemandforskillshortagesconnectedtonewly

realised unmet job roles and competencies supporting R&D production that the UK’s

wider high skill institutional training context otherwise did not support. Here senior

individualsandleadershipfromthelargepharmaceuticalforgedinterandintra-network

coalitions with senior stakeholders from across international R&D collaborations,

partners and supporting international policy networks. These meso-coalitions

characterisearenewedemphasisintheestablishmentofcorporateandline-management

micro-perspective decision-making structures and arrangements underpinning a new

training philosophy in response to revised global R&D capabilities. Intra-organisational

network coalitions were necessary in building capacity around strategic global R&D

collaborations,servedmultiplefunctionsandsupportedseniorindividualsinforginglinks

with international research centres of excellence; in identifying international staff

secondment opportunities, thus enhancing the R&D technical and knowledge

competencies of their UK staff or in supporting the project management or regulatory

complianceoftheirexistingR&Dcollaborations.Criticallyhowever,thesemeso(industry)

coalitionswere useful in harnessing the social capital potential of various stakeholders

involvedinestablishinghighskillcompetenciesandcareerstructuressurroundingglobal

innovation inR&Dproduction(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Keepetal.2006), thusproviding

an alternative means in addressing the unmet demand for high skill labour and

competencies surrounding the specialist scientific disciplines which the wider UK

institutional training environment did not otherwise support. The network coalitions,

arrangements or ties forged across national boundaries are perhaps not a new

phenomenon (Borzel, 2005; Provan & Milward, 2001; Agranoff, 2001), although have

previously not been explored in understanding the adoption or establishment of

initiativessurroundingnewtrainingsystemsorjobcompetencyframeworks.Theinsights

herethusextendexistingscholarlyarguments thatcall for furtherexplorationsofpolicy

networks(Klijn&Koppenjan,2006;Borzel,2005).Althoughseniormanagementindicated

their continued use, further explorations in understanding the underlying drivers and

barriers and thenatureof activities supportingnetwork sustainability are thusperhaps

required.

289

Chapter6alternativelyrevealsawarenesswithinlargeandmedium-sizedSMEsof

themeso(industry)consultationsfacilitatedbypolicystakeholdersintacklingeducation

andtraininginitiativesaffectingtheirhighskillsectorsorinotherwisepromotingmacro-

perspective initiatives (e.g. apprenticeships; NVQs). Not all SMEs, particularly those

supporting R&D production strategies sought engagement with such meso-perspective

industryengagement, largelyduetotheweakaffiliationofseniorindividualswithpolicy

stakeholders, their organizations and networks and aweak employer confidence in the

abilitiesofpolicystakeholders infacilitatingsupply-side initiatives inaccordancetoskill

shortagesunderpinningR&Dproductionsstrategies. Regardless, suchmeso-perspective

industryconsultationswereeffective inproviding largeandmedium-sizedSMEs further

access to various individual stakeholders (e.g. NWUA, ABPI, NWRDA, SSCs) involved in

facilitating various education and training initiatives supporting skills shortages

characterising thenational skillsagendaand thoseunderpinning the regulatory training

framework surrounding high skill industries. Consultations facilitated by policy

stakeholders were further effective in identifying critical shortages characterising R&D

and senior management competencies although were noted for their ineffectiveness in

facilitating policy intervention. SMEs thus preferred individual engagement with local

universities and specialist trainingproviders, althoughhere too, as in their engagement

with individual policy stakeholders, weremetwith resource constraints faced by these

stakeholders(e.g.staffingknowledge,facilitiesandtechnicalexpertise).Theanalysishere

reveals a reliance by large and medium-sized SMEs on their SME business networks

withintheUKinsupportingapprenticeshiptraining,thedevelopmentoftechnicalskillsor

regulatorycompetencies in linewithmassproductionmanufacturingenvironments (e.g.

packagingofbiologicalsolutions).Thestudyherehoweverheresuggestsfurtheranalysis

in exploring the nature of the underlying drivers and barriers characterising such SME

business networks in influencing these initiatives. The analysis reveals similar trends

concerning the engagement of small businesses and micro-SMEs, in the lack of

engagementwithmeso(industry)consultationsfacilitatedbypolicystakeholdersandthe

adoption of labour management strategies, recruiting labour from UK-wide and local

talent pools, a preferable effective strategy for their businesses particularly in light of

experiences of higher economic resource constraints facing their SME sectors (e.g.

administration costs; management time; HRM expertise). In effect the competitive

regional business networks supporting small and micro-SME businesses were critical

drivers in raising the profile of their competitive R&D production and specialist R&D

competencies. Here however senior individuals recognised that the regional

underexposure of their businesses meant that these competitive conditions often went

unnoticedbytheverypolicystakeholderswithresponsibilitiesintacklingskillshortages

290

acrosstheregion.Theanalysishereconfirmsaweakengagementfacilitatedbyhighskill

employerswithUKpolicystakeholders in theirmeso-perspective industryconsultations

and an alternative employer reliance on micro (organisational) perspective labour

management strategies within SMEs and decision-making arrangements and structures

withinthelargepharmaceuticalinaddressingparticularlyskillsshortagescharacterising

their high skill occupations. These are further discussed next in section 7.3. This

contrasted with the approach adopted by policy stakeholders who facilitated employer

engagement usingmeso (industry) perspective industry consultations, addressing skills

shortages and the associated employer demand for education and training initiatives

across the region using their macro-perspective policy initiatives (Dopfer et al. 2004).

Further research is perhaps required here in understanding the precise nature of

underlyingnetworkdriversandbarrierssurroundingtheemployeradoptionofinitiatives

facilitatedbymeso(industry)consultations.

7.3 Micro-perspective employer engagement with the unmet demand

foreducationandtraining

Thefinalresearchquestionexploresemployerperspectivesregardingthenature

of influence ofmicro (organisational) perspective barriers and challenges in facilitating

their engagement with the macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training

contexts characterising high skill industries and their unmet training and staff

development needs. The analysis here reveals some interesting distinctions in micro

(organisational) perspectives systems adoptedbyhigh skill employers in fostering such

engagement. Thesedistinctionsaremainlybasedonororientatedaround theextent to

whichhighskillemployersallocatedimportancetoengagementwiththemeso(industry)

perspectiveinmeetingtheunmetdemandforeducationandtraininginitiatives.

Chapter 5 reveals that the growing emphasis in fostering meso (industry)

coalitions in meeting the demand for new R&D competencies within the large

pharmaceutical, reflected the adoption of micro (organisational) decision-making

structuresandarrangementssupportingsuchengagement.Ashighlighted insection7.2,

here senior individuals and leadership forged inter and intra-network coalitions with

senior stakeholders from across international R&D collaborations, partners and

supportingpolicynetworksconnectingwiththeireffortsinaddressingthenewlyrealised

demand for competency frameworks supporting newly realised R&D collaborations.

Thesemeso-coalitionsfurthercharacterisedarenewedemphasis intheestablishmentof

corporate and line-management micro-perspective decision-making structures and

arrangementsunderpinninganewtrainingphilosophyacrossthelargepharmaceuticalin

291

responsetorevisedglobalR&Dcapabilities(AppendixIII).Theanalysisfurtherdetailsthe

underlying barriers and drivers supporting the central agency role of the line in

contributing to organisational-wide decision-making and its engagementwith themeso

(industry) institutional training context. The analysis further provides supporting

evidence of the involvement of UK policy stakeholders in corporate and leadership

decision-making consultations. Alternatively the analysis in chapter 6 reveals that

irrespective of organisational size, SMEs did not engage with the meso (industry)

consultations facilitated by policy stakeholders and their macro (national) perspective

education and training initiatives. Such SMEs therefore adopted internal systems in

connecting with their unmet training demand although here SMEs supporting R&D

production strategies faced difficulties in sourcing provision. The analysis here and

withinchapter6revealsadisconnectbetweenthehighskillshortagesandtrainingneeds

ofSMEsandtheirprovisionwiththeirengagementwiththemacroandmeso-perspective

institutional training contexts surrounding high skill industries. While Dopfer et al’s

(2004)architecturedoesnotsupporttheskillsshortagesandtrainingneedsofhighskill

SMEs, the framework does however explain the nature of engagement between

stakeholderscharacterisingthemacro,mesoandmicroinstitutionaltrainingcontextsof

thecaseofthelargeR&Dcapability.Heretheanalysisrevealsanewtrainingphilosophy

in the establishment of micro (organisational) decision-making systems and

arrangements,line-managementinvolvementresponsibilitiesandarenewedemphasisin

drawing on employee voice mechanisms in supporting engagement between unmet

training demand generated within micro (organisational) contexts and its supply or

provisionwithinmeso(industry)perspectives.Theanalysishereacknowledgesthatthis

training philosophy accounts for the employer barriers that commentators suggest

prevent UK employers from generating new high skill job roles and competencies thus

lowering industry-wide performance-levels relative to World Class skill achievement

(Keep & Mayhew, 2010; Keep et al. 2006; Leitch, 2006; Keep, 2002). These employer

barriersarediscussedinsection1.3andinferthattheproblemsofweakmacro,mesoand

micro-perspectiveemployerengagement indecisionsconcerning trainingwithin theUK,

are exacerbated due to a lack of industry benchmarking and weak line-management

engagement and employee representation within employing organizations (Keep et al.

2006;Gleeson&Keep,2004).

Based on the analysis in chapter 5, the study thus presents a new conceptual

framework (Appendix X) that accounts for Dopfer et al.’s (2004) macro-meso-micro-

perspective. This framework supports an understanding of the employer engagement

facilitated by the large pharmaceutical within the macro, meso and micro-perspective

institutional training contexts surrounding high skill industries and their underlying

292

employer engagement barriers and drivers as discussed in the various sections within

chapter 5. Specifically the framework encapsulates engagement between the micro

(organisational)andmeso(industry)perspectivethat isbaseduponapreviouslyunder-

researched phenomenon, namely that of the central agency performance management

role of the line (Zhenjia & Qiumei, 2005:58) in supporting newly established

organisational-wide decision-making structures and arrangements. As highlighted in

section5.3,thesedecision-makingstructures(e.g.corporateleadershipconsultationsand

line-management involvement drivers) ultimately support employer access and

engagementwith international stakeholders involved in facilitating high skill education

andtraininginitiativeswithinmeso(industry)perspectives.Corporatedecision-makingis

howeverfurthercriticallydependantontheengagementandcontributionofthelineand

here the analysis reveals the various drivers supporting such line-management

engagement (e.g. inter/intra organisational line-management training collaborations &

consultations;additionalperformancemanagement&trainingresponsibilities).According

totheanalysis,thisraisedemphasisofthelineanditsengagementincorporatedecision-

making around training and performance management issues was further beneficial in

alleviatingpoliticalandroleambiguitytensionscommonlyassociatedwiththe line in its

involvement in vertical organisational decision-making (Hales, 2005). Horizontal line-

managementarrangements(trainingcollaborations;consultations) furtheralleviatedthe

political tensions that vertical accountability and engagement in corporate decision-

making otherwise presented for the line (Haslinda, 2009; MacNeil, 2004; Gibb, 2003 –

narrow vertical spans of control). These arrangements also provided the line access to

meso (industry) perspective decision-making and social capital attributes (section 5.2)

associated with the networks that such decision-making supported, further supporting

theirperformancemanagementandtrainingroles.Theanalysisheresuggeststheneedfor

further detailed research, in understanding these new line-management responsibilities

andthedecision-makingresponsibilitiesthatthesesuggestedfortheline.

Theanalysisinsub-section5.3.1furtherrevealsarenewedstrategiccommitment

in theadoptionof employeevoice systems (Boudreau,2003, cited inGaravan,2007:21)

andtheirengagementinnewdecision-makingarrangementsandinvolvementofthenew

performanceroleoftheline.Collectivelythesecharacteristicsultimatelyreplacedaprior

weak emphasis in involving staff in decisions particularly around new education and

traininginitiatives.Inaddressingemployeevoicewithinthehighskillcontext,theanalysis

here informs existing scholarly arguments whichmainly associate the use of employee

voicesystemswith lowandintermediatemanufacturingsector industries(Dundonetal.

2004; 2007; Benson, 2000). The analysis reveals that beyond union and employee

representationatcorporateconsultations,thelowunionengagementintheestablishment

293

ofemployeevoicemeantthattheuseofrelatedsystems(informalupwardanddownward

problem solving) were more or less established as management-led initiatives

corroborating existing insights alluding to the weak employee voice in HR decision-

making across UK workplaces with weak union representation (Dundon et al. 2005;

Benson, 2000). However the use of information drawn from collective bargaining

negotiations influencing their R&D partners in Europe was an alternative strategy that

compensated the issueofweakunionengagement in theUK. Thisapproach thusbetter

supported engagement with training initiatives or R&D competency frameworks

generated within meso (industry) perspectives, although did not detract from the low

importance allocated towards developing the role of employee representatives in their

engagementincorporatedecision-making.Regardless,thesedevelopmentsencapsulatea

newconceptual framework(AppendixX).This frameworksupportsanunderstandingof

engagement between stakeholders involved in establishing micro (organisational)

perspectiveeducationand trainingneedswith those involved in their facilitationwithin

meso and macro institutional training contexts of high skill SMEs (Dopfer et al. 2004;

Dopfer&Pottes,2004). Theanalysisconfirmsyetprovidesthemuchrequiredempirical

evidence supporting existing insights that point to challenging engagement between

stakeholders characterising high skill education and training needs within the large

pharmaceutical and itsmacro-perspective institutional training environment (Dopfer, et

al.2004;Dopfer&Pottes,2004;Lloyd,2002).Alternativeengagementwithstakeholders

characterising themeso (industry) perspective supported decision-making surrounding

highskillinitiativescharacterisingchangingR&Djobroles.

Chapter6 thus reveals that volatilemarket environments surrounding large and

medium-sized SMEs presented similar challenges in addressing the need for R&D

competencies facilitating a higher level line-management ownership and autonomy of

performance-managementandtrainingresponsibilities.Asinchapter5,theanalysishere

too revealed that the organisational-wide restructuring affecting mainly large and

medium-sized SMEs necessitated the need to benchmark and monitor the changing

demandforskilledlabourandpotentialtraininganddevelopment,usingexistingtraining

structures supporting organisational-wide mandatory training and its regulation. Large

and medium-sized SMEs thus revealed a greater emphasis in involving internal

stakeholders in training and benchmarking (sub-section 6.3.1) auditing consultations

including the line (sub-section 6.3.2) and employee representatives from UK and

internationalbusinessessupportingR&Dcollaborations.Theseinsightsaddcontexttothe

analysisinchapterfiveandexistingargumentsthathighlightalackofawarenessamongst

UK employers in generating job opportunities, occupational structures and related

training opportunities (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a,b), partly due to the weak employer

294

engagement inmacro,meso andmicro-perspectivedecision-making (Keepet al. 2006),

but also due to micro (organisational) perspective constraints (Gleeson & keep, 2004).

Theanalysis further reveals variations in thenature inwhich theuseof existingmicro-

perspectivetrainingstructureswithinSMEssupportedindustrybenchmarkingalongside

theadoptionofline-managementengagementandemployeeparticipationstrategies.

Unlike within the large pharmaceutical a greater dependency upon industry

benchmarking within SMEs is characterised by strategic benchmarking (Freytag &

Hollensen, 2001) within medium-sized SMEs (sub-section 6.3.1). This contrasted with

largeSMEswhereinindustrybenchmarkingsupportedcorporateandHRManddecision-

making in connecting with the changing needs of training and staff development

opportunities. The acknowledgment of industry benchmarking here contradicts existing

arguments that point to a management resistance towards benchmarking within SMEs

(Carpinetto&Oiko, 2008:294). The analysis here further extends insights surrounding

thenecessaryinvolvementofwiderinternalstakeholders(Anand&Koli2008:267;Poltet

al’s. 2001) and further raises questions the necessary competencies supporting the

adoptionofbenchmarkingactivities (Polt et al.2001).Theanalysis is thus significant in

highlighting the importanceallocated tobenchmarkingasanessentialemployeractivity

(Anand & Koli, 2008) in line with changes in organisational-specific performance

managementresponsibilitiesandindustry-widetrainingneeds.LargeSMEswereflexible

inadoptingawiderrangeofbenchmarkingsystemsalignedtoexistingtrainingstructures

andsupportingmandatory trainingand itsregulation.These internal trainingstructures

facilitatedhorizontalandverticaldecision-makinglinesofauthoritysupportedbytheuse

of on-line training needs analysis systems and managed by senior individuals in

conjunctionwithon-lineSkillsMatrixSystemssupportingtheperformancemanagement

roleoftheline.However,changesinthecompetitiveenvironmentsofmedium-sizedand

micro-SMEs meant a higher awareness in connecting with industry benchmarking

activities,althoughheretheanalysisrevealedaraiseddependencyonthelineinproviding

information to support benchmarking, despite concerns over the reliability of such

information.

Sub-section6.3.2thusfocusesonchangestotheHRroleofthelinewiththeaimin

facilitating closer working relationships and conversations with staff around their

performance and training expectations (e.g. weak performance due to skills shortages;

problemsinaccessingandparticipatingintraining).Theanalysishereextendsthemuch

required wider explorations of the line-management performance-management and

training role within high skill organizations which to date is limited to large high-skill

organizations (Lloyd, 2002). The analysis thus reveals that the problems surrounding

information reliability within SMEs, although varied depending on organisational size,

295

largely resulted from changes in the performance management and training

responsibilities of the line, specifically around their use of performance monitoring

systems.Within largeSMEs, this informationwas largelydrawn from theuseofvarious

(in) formal performance monitoring systems utilised by the line, although centrally

performance appraisal and reviews provided their benchmarking systems with diverse

information on staff perspectives specifically regarding the range of training and

development and work-related issues affecting performance. Within large SMEs, a

formalised reinforcement of the performance management role of the line is thus

evidenced in its engagement in organisational decision-making and additional

responsibilities in collecting strategic information supporting benchmarking. Medium-

sized and micro-SMEs utilised similar performance monitoring systems ranging from

formalisedone-to-oneperformanceappraisalsconductedbytheline,informalopendoor

policies and informal employee involvement systems informing the line ofwork-related

issuesaffectingstaff.Theanalysishowever reveals concernsacrossall SMEsaround the

willingnessof the line insharingsuch informationdue to theadditional responsibilities,

effortandperhapslimitedexpertiseincollectingsuchinformation(workintensification–

Watson, et al. 2007; Whittaker & Marchington, 2003; role expansion – Renwick, 2003;

limited expertise inmanaging HR responsibilitieswithin SMEs - Bacon & Hoque, 2005;

Cassell et al, 2002). In response, the need for the development of the line (Purcell &

Hutchinson,2007)isevidencedwithinmainlylargeandmedium-sizedSMEsinlinewith

challenges largely surrounding their information collection responsibilities and use of

performanceappraisalandreviewsystems(Hutchinson,2007;Milsome,2006;Renwick,

2003-dissatisfiedstaff;ineffectivementoring,supportandadvice).Theremainingofsub-

section 6.3.2 draws attention to variations in line-management data collection and

performance appraisal responsibilities depending on organisational size. A particular

concernwithinmedium-sizedand largeSMEswas the resistanceof the line in adopting

additionalHRresponsibilitiesand inwithholdingvital informationotherwisecritical for

senior-level decision-making (Martins, 2007; Cascon-periera et al, 2006:132; MacNeil,

2003), challenges that were otherwise addressed using line-management incentives.

These challengeswerenot as prominentwithinmicro-SMEand small businesseswhere

(in)formal approaches in monitoring training needs at the level of the line and in

connecting with senior-level decision-making revealed better communication and



organisationalsize,acharacteristic,alsoinfluencedbydifferencesintheuseofemployee

voicesystems.

296

Sub-section 6.3.3 adds context to existing scholarly arguments surrounding

employee involvement (Wright, 2003; Edwards & Wright, 2001) and direct employee

participationandrepresentativeparticipation(Dundonetal.2004,2005,Benson,2000).

The analysis specifically addresses existing perspectives that indicate a management

resistancetobenchmarking(Casselletal.2002)andemployeevoicewithinSMEs(Gleeson

&Keep,2004)bysuggestinganSMEdependencyupontheuseofemployeeparticipation

andinvolvementsystemsinsupportingbenchmarkingsystemsanddecisions.Distinctive

trends are noted justifying the enhanced emphasis towards employee participation

(Dundonetal.2004,2005;Benson,2000–directparticipation)withinlargeandmedium-

sized SMEs compared to smaller business counterparts.Within large andmedium-sized

SMEsemployeevoice characterisedvariousdirectparticipativepractices commensurate

of non-unionised workplaces, and suggestive of similarities within the large

pharmaceutical (chapter 5). Senior individuals however had access to information

concerning training issues influencing through their international R&D collaborations

their supporting participative representation through meso-perspective industry

benchmarking. The adoption of such systems were viewed as a solution in addressing

potentialproblemssurrounding line-managementdiscretion insharingvital information

on training and performance issues for benchmarking purposes (Purcell & Hutchinson,

2007; Milesome, 2006; Renwick, 2003). Such challenges were not particular to line-


workingrelationshipsbetweenthelineandsenior-leveldecision-makingandapiecemeal

benchmarking approach (Cassell et al. 2002)was supportedby formalisedperformance

managementandappraisalsystemslinkedtoexistingmandatorytrainingstructures.

Insummary,chaptersfiveandsixaddressandextendexistingarguments(Gleeson

&Keep,2004) thatallocateresponsibility tomicro-perspectiveorganisational influences

in constraining UK employers from realising their education and training needs. The

analyses alternatively highlights new potential areas of enquiry based upon a renewed

impetus surrounding line-management involvement and employee voice systems in

supportingengagementbetweenstakeholderstacklingeducationandtrainingwithinthe

micro(organisational)andmeso(perspective)institutionaltrainingcontextssurrounding

high-skillindustries.Thefindingsalsoaddcontexttotheexistingconceptualisationofthe

micro-meso-macro-perspective frameworkarticulatedbyDopfer and colleagues (Dopfer

etal.2004;Dopfer&Pottes,2004). It issuggestedthat industrybenchmarkingandline-

management engagement within large andmedium-sized SMEs, supported engagement

betweenthemicro-perspectivehighskilleducationandtrainingneeds(e.g.R&Djobroles)

and the wider supply or provision of meso-perspective education and training

opportunities(Dopferetal.2004;Dopfer&Pottes,2004).Thiscontrastswiththeanalysis

297

in chapter four where the meso-perspective is responsible in influencing engagement

betweenthetrainingneedsofemployersandmacro-perspective(national)educationand

traininginitiativesfacilitatedbypolicystakeholders.

Thenextandfinalsection(7.4),drawsontheanalysisfromtheempiricalchapters

to highlight the nature in which Brown’s (2001) framework explains the employer

engagement facilitated by the research participants with the macro, meso and micro-

perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingenvironmentssupportinghighskillindustries.

7.4 The relevance of Brown’s (2001) conditions in facilitating

macro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveemployerengagement

The analysis here reveals variations in the nature in which Brown’s (2001)

conditions supported engagement between the various research participants and the

macro (national), meso (industry) and micro (organisational) perspective institutional

training contexts surrounding their high-skill industries. In effect commonly

acknowledged employer engagement barriers characterising the UK’s institutional

training context challenged the influence of Brown’s (2001) conditions in the employer

engagement activities of policy stakeholders across the region. However competitive

conditions characterising high-skill industries (e.g. high skill R&D capabilities; social

capitalpotentialofindustry-widenetworks–Finegold,1999)wereessentialinsupporting

employerengagementinaccordancetoBrown’s(2001)sevenconditionsandparticularly

in supporting the growing demand for a high skill agenda around the high-skill

occupations.Alternatively,theadoptionoforganizationaldecision-makingstructuresand

arrangements, characterising the new training philosophy of the large pharmaceutical,

facilitated engagement between the micro and meso-perspectives institutional training

contexts surrounding high skill industries. This in turn supported Brown’s (2001)

conditions consensus, competitive capability and cooperation unlike constrainedmacro

andmeso-perspective employer engagement within SMEs. Engagement between SMEs

and themacro, meso andmicro-perspective institutional training contexts surrounding

high-skill industries were only influenced by Brown’s (2001) conditions competitive

capacityandcooperation.Thesetrendsarediscussednext.

As within chapters 4 and 5, the analysis in chapter 6 too reveals that the

competitive conditions (e.g. R&D collaborations, institutional training structures)

characterising high-skill industries (Finegold, 1999; Lloyd, 2002) also evidenced in

Brown’s (2001) conditions competitive capacity (e.g. high-skill R&D capabilities) and

cooperation(e.g.meso-perspectivetrustrelations),influencedengagementbetweenSMEs

andtheirmacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingenvironments.

298

In effect, competitive capacity (Brown, 2001:36,37; Finegold, 1999)

acknowledges that the demand for and development of high-skill labour involved in

innovativeproductionandtechnologicalandR&Dbusinessventures, isbestachievedby

generating value-added competition between high skill organizations” using initiatives

facilitated collectively by employers, institutions and government agencies.The analysis

here reveals an acknowledgment of this condition in the establishment of new R&D

capabilities across the large pharmaceutical. Senior individuals here questioned their

inabilities inmeeting thedemand forhigh skill labour in light of skills shortages across

existing staff employed across R&D job roles and in view of the pre-existing challenges

surrounding engagement and weaknesses in provision supported by UK high skill HE

institutions.Theanalysishowever reveals evidenceofBrown’s (2001)widerarguments

that recommend innovations in R&D production as essential employer incentives in

generating new high skill knowledge, job competencies and staff development

opportunities (Keep & Mayhew, 2010a, b). This is evidenced in the adoption of

benchmarkinganddecision-makingstructures,specificallytounderstandandrealisethe

demandforhighskillR&Dcompetenciessurroundinghigh-skillR&Djobroles.Thisnew

emphasisinraisinghigh-skillcompetenciesacrosstheR&Dcapability,althoughinvolved

variouscommunitiesoforganisationalandindustrystakeholdersneverthelessrevealeda

narrow focus and commitment in raising wider skill achievement levels across the

occupations.

The analysis reveals a similarities in the influence of Brown’s (2001) condition

competitivecapacitywithinSMEsalsointheneedtoaddressshortagesaroundhigh-skill

labourandcompetenciessurroundingnewlyrealisedR&Dproduction.Thiscommitment

in raising the capacity and development of high-skill labour within SMEs (large and

medium-sizedSMEs) is supportedbyorganization-specificdecision-makingand training

structures in line with a priority commitment in sustaining mandatory standardised

trainingneeds.TheanalysisthusrevealedaraisedcommitmentwithinSMEsirrespective

of size in a re-evaluation of existing collaborations and new business ventures or

innovations surrounding R&D production in efforts to raise value added competition

acrosstheirsectors.Asinthecaseofthelargepharmaceutical,theseeffortsinraisingthe

competitive positioning of their R&D capabilities was initiated in line with cost-cutting

business efficiencies, the resultant restructuring of management-levels and subsequent

devolvement of performance management HR responsibilities to the line. The analysis

within sub-sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 thus reveal a raised emphasis within SMEs in

establishing corporate and senior-level industry training benchmarking activities

supporting their benchmarking of the micro-perspective organisational education and

trainingneedsinlinewithmeso-perspectiveindustry-wideinitiatives.Heretheanalysis

299

revealed a recurring theme also evident within the case of the large pharmaceutical

(chapter 5) in that benchmarking here too within large and medium-sized SMEs is

informedandsupportedbytheuseofemployeeparticipationstrategiesandperformance

management, specifically around theperformance appraisal role of the line in accessing

vital and otherwise difficult to obtain detailed information surrounding the training

experiences of staff and potential difficulties in fulfilling daily work responsibilities.

Similar line-management engagement strategies are also evidenced within small and

micro-SMEbusinessesinalignmentwithaprioritycommitmentinsustainingmandatory

training needs. Here however the representation of senior individuals in industry and

national policy consultations and forums supported their benchmarking and access to

informationsurroundingnewdevelopmentsinHEpolicy.

Thiscontrastswiththelackofengagementfacilitatedbylargeandmedium-sized

SMEswithR&Dproductionstrategieswiththemacro-perspectiveinstitutionalinitiatives

supported by policy stakeholders surrounding their high skill industries. The lack of

engagementwiththepolicystakeholdersandtheirinitiativesisalsoevidencedwithinthe

large pharmaceutical organization. This suggests that Brown’s (2001:35) condition

consensushaslittleinfluenceduetothelackofcollectiveengagementbetweenwiderkey

stakeholdersincludingGovernmentpolicystakeholders,theirinstitutions,employers,and

tradeunions inaddressingtheeducationandtrainingneedsof the largepharmaceutical

andoflargeandmedium-sizedSMEs.Theevidenceinsection6.1doeshoweverpointto

engagement between large SMEs and medium-sized SMEs (supporting the mass

manufacturingofbiologicalsolutionspackaging)andpolicyorganizations inresponseto

thedemand formacro-perspectivenational initiatives (e.g apprenticeships) and little or

no engagement within the context of medium-sized and micro-SME businesses. Here

engagement between large SMEs and policy stakeholders resulted in the facilitation of

initiativessurroundingtheSTEMAgenda(e.g.competenciesunderpinningR&Djobroles),

highskillLevel4NVQqualificationsandapprenticeshipssupportingtechnicallaboratory

job roles. The growing interest around industry benchmarking however supported

benchmarking partnerships between SMEs and their international R&D collaborators,

further facilitating engagement between the training needs of large and medium-sized

SMEs and their meso (industry) perspective education and training provision. Such

benchmarkingcharacteristics resemble thecollectivestakeholdercommitment, resource

andinformationsharingfeaturesrequiredinraisingskillachievement(acrossspecifically

R&Djobroles)suggestedbyBrown’s,(2001:47)conditioncooperation.

Cooperation suggests high “trust relationswoven into the fabric of society” and

characterisesa“degreeofdiscretion,individualempowermentandcollectivecommitment

amongst stakeholders in upgrading skills”. Cooperation” (Brown 2001:46,48) is thus

300

dependent upon the societal “embedment” of “trust relations” and “social partnerships”

bound by “common interests and shared goals” amongst stakeholders in raising skill

attainment levels. Such ideasof social trust relationsunderpin scholarlyarguments that

draw attention to the resource sharing attributes of local production systems

characterising cluster industries (Ketels, 2003; Porter 1990). Links have been drawn

between the “social community approach”, and trust as comprising social glue and

network binding properties connecting communities, in supporting resource-sharing

opportunities between stakeholder members (Morisini, 2003). Trust is also a critical

ingredient in sustaining social relations, community ties and economic exchange

attributes inCrouchet al’s (1999) skill agencynetworks. In effect trust ensuresvertical

andhorizontal institutional exchange across networks in high-skill industries (Finegold,

1999)andsupportsregionalflexiblespecialisation(Piore&Sable,1984).Theseideasof

shared goals and characteristic trusting relations forged between stakeholders across

networks representing the macro, meso and micro- perspective institutional training

contextsofhigh-skill industriesareevidenced inallempiricalchapters,albeit tovarying

degrees.Theanalysisherereveals that thecompetitiveclusterconditions(e.g.networks

characteristics; R&D production) were integral to the success of the network

arrangements supporting the employers engagement activities of the various research

participants.Chapter4revealsthatpolicystakeholdersutilisedtheirexisting(in)formal

business networks and connections with high-skill employers to facilitate meso-

perspective industry consultations further drawing on the social capital potential of

networkmembersinsupportingtheemployerneedsforeducationandtraining.However,

structural and economic barriers characterising the employer engagement efforts of

stakeholders (e.g. FE, HE providers; unions) influenced the effectiveness of meso-

perspective industry-consultations, although substantiated the need for a regional

impetus surrounding high-skill education and training. Chapter 5, alternatively reveals

that the weak employer interest in engaging with the macro-perspective institutional

training environments surrounding high-skill industries, meant a lack of procedural

emphasis within the large pharmaceutical surrounding the education and training

initiativessupportedbypolicystakeholders.Regardlessheresection5.2howeverreveals

a lack of trust but also interest on the part of senior individuals within the large

pharmaceutical in national education and training initiatives supported by UK policy

stakeholders.CriticalskillshortagesconnectedtotheirnewlyestablishedR&Dcapabilities

were however alternatively addressed via loose coalitions forged with European

institutionalstakeholdersandtheirpolicynetworkssupportingeducationandtrainingof

labour working across the R&D collaborators and partners of the large pharmaceutical

organisation.Asexplained insub-section5.2, this formofmeso-perspectiveengagement

301

characterised high trust relations and the generation of social capital in their future

negotiations and consensus in facilitating education and training initiatives across the

R&DcapabilityformainlyR&D,jobs,skillandcompetencyframeworks.Thesedeveloping

meso-perspectivearrangements furthersupportedtheirseniormanagement inengaging

in policy formulation around newly realised international R&D competitive job roles,

career structures and competency frameworks identified at their corporate decision-

makingconsultations.

sections6.2and6.3.

Here the analysis points to the potential establishment of meso-perspective

training opportunities between large and medium-sized SMEs in supporting

apprenticeship training. Similar network characteristics are evidenced in supporting

training benchmarking partnerships forged by large and medium-sized SMEs with

organizations supporting their R&D collaborations. Unlike their larger organisational

counterparts the analysis in section 6.2 however reveals that senior individuals within

smallandmicro-SMEbusinessesweremoreopentotheideaofforgingrelationshipsand

connections with their professional networks, with academic scholars from local HE

institutionsandresearchcentresandparticularlywithemployersfromacrosstheirsupply

chain in sourcing and accessing training opportunities. Such opportunities included:

practicalandvocationaltechnicalexperiencesupportinghighskillR&Djobroles,lowand

intermediate-level laboratory jobrolesandassociatedmandatorytrainingrequirements.

However,theanalysisinsection6.2alsorevealsthatunlikelargeandmedium-sizedSMEs,

seniormanagementwithin small andmicro-SME businesseswere reluctant in engaging

with wider training opportunities beyond their immediate business circles and R&D

networks mainly due to the lack of available financial support across the region in

supportingsuchengagement. Theanalysishoweverrevealedanappreciationamongst

senior individuals from large, medium-sized and micro-SMEs, of the valuable learning

opportunities that production environments of micro-SME businesses from across the

regionpresentedfortheirSMEsectors.Thisappreciationstemmedfromanawarenessof

theinabilitiesofsupply-sidepolicystakeholders,publicandprivatetrainingprovidersand

HEinstitutionsinsupportingthenewlyrealiseddemandforhighskillR&Dcompetencies

and associated mandatory training needs influencing their sectors. The analysis here

therefore suggests a lack of acknowledgement or conformance of a consensus-driven

approach in raising skill achievement levels involving engagementbetween thedemand

forhighskilleducationandtraininginitiativeswithinSMES,policystakeholdersandtheir

characteristicinstitutionalenvironmentsresponsiblefortheprovisionofsuchinitiatives.

Section6.3thusreveals that theacknowledgementof theverynatureofsuchchallenges

within largeandmedium-sizedSMEsresulted in theadoptionofalternativestakeholder

302

engagement strategies in understanding predominant skills shortages and supporting

educationandtrainingneedscharacterisinglargelychangingR&Dcapabilities(e.g.senior-

level benchmarking; line-management performance-management/appraisal

responsibilities; employee participation strategies). This new approach alleviated

existing challenges surrounding the over-emphasis in sustaining mandatory training

within SMEs and subsequent limited emphasis in supporting wider staff development

opportunities to be addressed by renewed performance appraisal responsibilities

underpinned the performance management role of the line (e.g. closer working

relationshipsbetweenstaffandthe line). Howeverhere inconsistencieswereevidenced

in the nature in which senior individuals acknowledged conformance to Brown’s

(2001:49)conditioncapability.

Capabilitysuggestsanall-inclusiveapproachinthesupplyandaccessofhighskill

education,trainingandlife-longlearningopportunitiestoallsectionsofthelabourmarket

irrespectiveof social class (gender, raceorethnicity–Brown2001:49). Capability thus

allocatesresponsibilitiestostakeholdersincludingemployersinsupportingtheaccessof

all-inclusive opportunities to all aspects of individual development, including employer

responsibilities in observing andmeeting thepersonal development aspirations of staff.

Heretheanalysisrevealedthatpolicystakeholdersweremoreawareofthisconditionin

their employer engagement activities, although they revealed an ad hoc emphasis in

establishing the array of education and training initiatives affecting the range of low,

intermediate and high skill occupations (capability). This approach according to policy

stakeholderswasineffectiveinlightoftheinequalitiesintrainingopportunitiesevidenced

bytheirlarge-scaledatacollectionsefforts(e.g.SSCs–OracleSkillsSurvey). Apotential

solutiontothis issuewastheneedforanoverarchingpolicyapproachacrosstheirhigh-

skill industries advocating equality and diversity in training access, development and

careerprogressionopportunitieslargelyduetotheevidentialweakemployerawareness

across the region. The analysis however revealed that social inclusiveness principles

alongside Brown’s (2001) condition circulation in the variety of delivery methods

supporting the education and training initiatives discussed in section 4.2, aimed at the

range of low, intermediate and high skill job roles working across their high skill

industriesandsupplychains.Theseinitiativeswereestablishedonaneeds-ledbasisand

included: bite-sized HE modules supporting laboratory technical training for middle-

management process operator roles; management modules for middle-management

scientists.Furtherqualificationsreformssupportedthedeliveryofstandardisedtraining

(i.e.NVQs) for intermediate-level and high-skill job roleswhilstwider personalised staff

development and e-learning opportunities were being popularised in supporting

intermediate-level senior management roles (e.g. developing technical and regulatory

303

trainingsystemsandprocesses). Howeverthevarietyof learningapproachesherewere

notwithouttheirconstraints(e.g.issuesaroundmonitoringlearningoutcomes;assessing

relevance of delivery) and so here policy stakeholders (e.g. SSCs, NSAs) were further

involved inemployerpartnerships inestablishing initiatives insupporting theemployer

adoptionoftheirdiverseprovisionacrosstheirindustries.

Chapters fourand fivehoweverreveal thatemployershoweverallocatedgreater

priority towards the development of high-skill labour,while Brown’s (2001) conditions

circulation and closure had varying influence in the engagement that this necessitated

with the macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional training environments

surroundinghighskillindustries.Thiscontrastedwiththeadhocandneedsledinitiatives

facilitatedbypolicystakeholdersaroundthesesinitiativesviatheirengagementwiththe

high-skillemployers inquestion.Circulation” (Brown,2001:46) encapsulates the ideaof

theabilitiesofnations,regionsor industryclusters inrespondingtochanges inexternal

competitiveenvironments” thussupportingaccess tohighskill trainingopportunities to

all sections of the labour market. Closure (Brown, 2001:49) also accounts for “social

inclusion”withinthelabourmarket,suggestingthat“highskillsocieties:arelesslikelyto

socially exclude individuals on the basis of for example social identity and status.

Education and training initiatives aimed at labour characterising the ethnic minorities,

women,and individuals from lowsocio-economicbackgroundsareencouragedensuring

fairness in accessing high-skill development and employment opportunities alongside

existinggroupsofelitehigh-skillworkerswithinthelabourmarket.

Policy stakeholders revealedmixedviews regarding theneed for intervention in

ensuring the principles of social inclusion in their individual and meso-perspective

(industry)employerengagementefforts.IndividualsfromNSAsforexampleindicatedthat

issues concerning inequality surrounding training and development and career

progressionwerenotraisedduringtheirsteeringcommitteesandindustryconsultations,

soperhapsinequalitywasnotamajorconcernacrosstheirhighskillindustries.Although

this evidence contradicts existing scholarly arguments regarding the inequalities across

STEM based on gender and social class (Moropoulou & Konstanti, 2015; Kirkup et al.

2010; Wynarczyk & Renner, 2006), policy stakeholders (RDAs) further confirmed that

discussions around gender inequalitywere likely to gainmomentum at future industry

consultations. SSCs however acknowledged largely gendered disparities in the high

employment of male employees compared to their female counterparts across STEM

industries.PolicystakeholdersbelongingtoNSAsandBLrevealedthattraininginequality

wasnotanemployer issueacross theirhigh-skill sectorsdue to the commitmentacross

these industries in upholding the principles of fairness and equality and practices in

consistentlyre-evaluatingtrainingpolicies.Staffrepresentationintrainingdecisionswas

304

encouraged whilst industry-wide cultures necessitated access to staff development

opportunitiesbasedon individualmerit, achievement andperformance.Also theirhigh-

skill sectors characterised regulated training environments and so wider training and

development policies and procedures were updated alongside the necessity in

maintaining standardised training according to regulatory requirements, thus ensured

equality and fairness in all aspects of training and development. However the problem

with suchanapproachwas that thegreateremphasis inadhering to training regulation

compromisedwider staffdevelopmentopportunities.Moreover, there’swasan industry

whichwas supported by amanufacturing supply chain that also largely employed low-

skill labour whilst accommodating intermediate-level occupations. Policy stakeholders

herewerethusalltoofamiliarwiththeproblemsofweaktrainingprovisionandaccess.

The insightshereproducedbypolicystakeholdersareconfirmedbyemployer in

their ad hoc approach in fosteringwider staff development opportunities within SMEs.

SMEs(irrespectiveofsize)revealedapriorityemphasisinfacilitatingmandatorytraining

andindevelopingandstrengtheningcapacityaroundstaffworkingacrossscientificR&D

and senior management roles. Although here senior individuals acknowledged that

traininganddevelopmentwasunderpinnedbytheprinciplesofequalityanddiversity,the

analysis alternativelypointed toapriority in thedevelopmentof labourworkingacross

highskillandscientificR&Djobroles.ThesefindingscorrespondwithBrown’s(2001:49)

assertions surrounding the condition “closure”, where it is suggested that economies

dependent upon high value added production tend to place a priority emphasis in the

supplyanddevelopmentofelitehighskill labour, thusoftencompromisingonefforts in

reducing training inequalities influencing under-represented labour work force groups

(e.g. women, ethnic minorities and individuals from low socio-economic backgrounds).

Despitetheemphasisinraisingskillachievementofonlypriorityoccupationalgroups,and

the existing broader challenges surrounding under-represented UK labour in accessing

STEM employment opportunities (Moropoulou & Konstanti, 2015; Kirkup et al. 2010;

Wynarczyk & Renner, 2006), the research participants did not however acknowledge

Brown’s (2001) underlying characteristics of the conditions capability or closure as

influencingtheirSMEsectors.Thecontradictorynatureofthisevidence,perhapssuggests

a need for further explorations in understanding the reasons behind these perspectives

andwhethertheemploymentinequalitiesaffectingwiderUKSTEMindustriesalsoapply

tohighskillSMEsectors. Theanalysishoweverrevealedafairamountofactivityonthe

partofstakeholdersinraisingemployerawarenessacrosstheregionoftheimportanceof

equality and diversity surrounding training and development opportunities. Policy

stakeholdersforexamplewerealltoofamiliarwiththeactivitiesoftheNWRDAinraising

employer awareness of the importance of acknowledging the principles of equality and

305

diversityinmanagingstaffintheirestablishmentemployernetworks.Indrawingondata

from national industry-wide surveys (i.e. Skills Oracle), such networks aimed to

specifically share good practice on issues such as the low-level female participation in

STEMemploymentortheneedtosupportSTEMentrepreneursfromBMEgroupsacross

theregion.Thesenetworksservedconsultationrolesadvising, informingemployersand

in establishing projects on inequality issues influencing the high-skill industries (e.g.

collaborations with ULRs to deliver awareness raising workshops). These collective

activitiesfurtherinformedpolicystakeholdersoftheworkforcegroupsmostsusceptiveto

training and development inequalities across their high skill sectors (entry-level

graduates;olderapprenticesworkingacrossmanufacturingsupply-chains).Theanalysis

herereveals thatunlikeemployers,policystakeholdersrevealedamixedawarenessand

inconsistenciesaround thenature inwhich theprinciplesof social inclusivenessaround

Brown’s (2001) conditions capability, closure and circulation influenced their employer

engagement.

To summarise the analysis reveals variations in the influence of Brown’s (2001)

conditions on the nature of engagement between high-skill employers and policy

stakeholders. The study however acknowledges that further research is required in

examining the reasons behind the weak or lack of influence of Brown’s (2001) conditions

on the employer engagement efforts of the research participants, further accounting for the

engagement of more diverse stakeholders, communities and societies.

7 .5Closingremarks

This study explores the concept of employer engagement which commentators

suggest is an elusive and under-explored phenomenon in explaining the relationship

between the supply of and demand for education and training (Payne, 2008b; Irwin,

2008:66) due to its lack of conceptualisation. This study thus establishes a detailed

conceptual framework around this concept utilising contemporary scholarly arguments

whichelicitthebarriersanddriversinfluencingengagementbetweenhigh-skillindustries

andtheirmacro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveinstitutionaltrainingcontexts.Theresearch

aim therefore seeks to explore the extent and nature of employer engagement in

addressing the unmet employer demand for education and training within the macro

(national),meso (industry) andmicro (organisational) perspective institutional training

contextsofunder-researchedhighskillsindustries(Lloyd,2002).Theanalysisrevealsthat

in spite of their employer engagement withinmeso-industry network perspectives, the

UK’s wider macro-perspective institutional training environment challenged policy

stakeholdersinengagingwithhigh-skillemployersandinaddressingtheireducationand

306

training needs. Regardless the emphasis in establishing social capital around their

employer engagement activities within meso (industry) perspectives, meant a growing

emphasis in connecting with the education and training needs across high-skill

occupationsparticularly in connectionwith thenewly realisedR&D job rolesacross the

region. High skill employers however sought alternative stakeholder engagement

strategies, in forgingcoalitionswithstakeholders fromacrossnationaland international

boundaries in efforts to harness the demand for new R&D jobs and competency

frameworks being realised in response to global volatilities in production supporting

scientificR&D.ThesecharacteristicssuggestanewlyrealisedphilosophyadoptedbyUK

high-skill industries in connecting with or harnessing the demand for high-skill

competitive labour and new development opportunities. Perhaps further questions

around the Governments role in encouraging such industry innovations are required

further supporting theproductiveuse of skill and in raising industry-wideperformance

(Keep&Mayhew,2010;Keep,2002).

307

APPENDICES

AppendixI:Studyconceptualframework

Figure1:Studyconceptualframecharacterisingtheliteraturereview

StudyAim:to“exploretheextentandnatureofemployerengagementinraisingskillslevelswithin,macro(national),meso(industry)andmicro(organisational)perspectives”.(overarchingconceptualframeworkadaptedfromDopferetal’s.2004macro,meso-micro-levelarchitecture).

Macro-perspective–agentscharacterisingthemacro-levelenvironmentareresponsibleinfosteringthemacro-levelsupplyofeducationandtrainingduetoengagementwithdemandgeneratedwithinmesoindustryperspectives.

Meso-perspective–agentscharacterisingthemeso-perspectiveareinfluencedbyagentscharcaterisingandfacilitatingengagementwithbetweenthehigherordermacroandmicro-firmperspectives.

Micro-perspective–agentssupportingthemicroperspectivearenotindependentactorsbutareinfluencedbyrulecarriersocieties.Rulesareimplementedatthemicro-perspectiveusingmicroorganisationalstructuresandprocessesofteninresponsetoengagementwiththemesoandmacroperspectives.

ORIGINALITY:Dopferetal’s(2004)frameworkcallsforclarityinunderstandingtherolesofthemacroandmicroperspectivesininfluencingthemesoperspectivethatthisthesisprovides.

308

AppendixII–Figure2:Adetailedoverviewofthe“ORIGINALITY”ofthestudyconceptualframework.

StudyAim:to“exploretheextentandnatureofemployerengagementinraisingskillslevelswithin,macro(national),meso(industry)andmicro(organisational)levelcontexts”.ThisaimisderivedfromcentralargumentsthatsuggestthatUKemployersarenotengagingwithmacro-mesoandmicro-levelpolicydecisions(Keepetal.2006).Onafurthernote,

employersdonotinvestinstaffdevelopmentnordotheygeneratethedemandintraininganddevelopingstaff.Thisresultsasemployersdonotencouragethebetteruseofskill,aproblemthatisdeemedtolowerindustry-wideproductivitylevelsbutwhichcanberesolvedbyredesigningjobs,occupationalstructuresandworkre-organisation.Thislatter

observationisonlyachievableifemployersengagewithUKmacro-levelsupply-sidepolicy.ORIGINALITY:Dopferetal’s(2004)analogyofthemicro-meso-macroarchitectureisutilisedtounderpintheresearchaimpresentedonpage7ofthethesiswithintheintroductionoftheliteraturereview.Thisanalogyencapsulatestheoverarchingstudyframehighlightinghowweunderstandthenatureofengagementbetweenstakeholderscharacterisingthemacro,meso

andmicro-perspectives.

Macro-perspective–agentscharacterisingthemacro-perspectiveareresponsibleinfosteringmacro-levelengagementwiththedemandforeducationandtraininggeneratedwithinmeso-industryperspectives.ORIGINALITY–Brown’s(2001)conditionsaresuggestedtoexploretheextenttowhichtheyfacilitateengagementbetweenpolicystakeholderscharacterisingthesupplyofeducationandtraining(Governmentinstitutions)andthehighskillemployerdemand-side.Brown’sconditionscharacterisinghighskillseconomiesperhapsdonotfullyapplywithintheUKcontextalthoughresemblethecompetitiveconditionsofhighskillindustries.AccordingtoBrown(2001),theseconditionsareonlymetprovidingthereisengagementbetweenmacroperspectivepolicystakeholdersandtheemployerdemand-side.TheliteraturereviewacknowledgesthelackofempiricalevidencearoundthenatureinwhichBrown’sconditionsmaybeunderstoodtofosterengagementbetweenemployersandpolicystakeholders.TheliteraturereviewalsoexplainstheextentandnatureinwhichemployerengagementwiththeUKsupply-sidehasbeencontextualisedtodate,emphasisingthebroadnatureofargumentsandlackofrelevancetothehighskillcontext.

Meso-perspective–agentscharacterisingthemeso-perspectiveareinfluencedbyagentscharcaterisingandfacilitatingengagementwithandbetweenthehigherordermacroandmicro-firmperspectives.ORIGINALITY-littleexplorationaroundthecontributionofthemeso-perspectivenetwork,acompetitiveconditionofunder-researchedhighskillindustriesinfosteringengagementbetweensupply-sideinstitutions,highskillemployersandstakeholders.Hereanindepthcriticalreviewofnetworktheoriesispresentedexploringhowtheyhave/havenotbeentodateutilisedinexploringindustrynetworksandtheircontributioninraisingskills.Itissuggestedthattheseexistinginsightsbeusedtounderpinamorecomprehensiveexplorationofthenatureinwhichengagementbetweensupply-sideinstitutions,UKhighskillemployersandstakeholdersfosterneweducationandtraining.

ORIGINALITY:Dopferetal’s(2004)frameworkcallsforclarityinunderstandingtherolesofthemacroandmicro-perspectivesininfluencingthemeso-perspectivewhichthisthesisprovides.

Micro-perspective–agentssupportingthemicro-levelarenotindependentactorsbutareinfluencedbyrulecarriersocieties.Rulesareimplementedatthemicroperspectiveusingmicro-organisationalstructuresandprocessesofteninresponsetoengagementwiththemesoandmacrocontexts.ORIGINALITY-theagentsofthemicro-perspectiveareemployers,yetthereislittleexplorationofwhatthesemicroorganisationalemployerstructuresorprocesseslooklike.Amicro-perspectiveconceptualframeworkisthusestablished.Thisframeworkisbasedonargumentswhichhighlightthemicroorganisationalbarrierspreventingemployersfromestablishingorrealisingtheirdemandfornewstaffdevelopmentopportunities(educationandtraining).

309

AppendixIIIFigure3-ConceptualisingEmployerEngagementwithstakeholderscharacterisingmacro,mesoandmicroperspectiveinstitutionaltrainingenvironments

StudyAim:to“exploretheextentandnatureofemployerengagementinraisingskillslevelswithin,macro(national),meso(industry)andmicro(organisational)perspectives”.(overarchingconceptualframeworkadaptedfromDopferetal’s.2004macro,meso-micro-levelarchitecture).

Macro-perspective–agentscharacterisingthemacro-levelenvironmentareresponsibleinfosteringthemacro-levelsupplyofpoliciesduetoengagementwithdemandgeneratedatthemesoindustryperspective.

Meso-perspective–agentscharacterisingthemeso-levelperspectiveareinfluencedbyengagementwitheachandbetweenthehigherordermacro-levelandmicro-firmperspectives.

Micro-perspective–agentssupportingthemicroperspectivearenotindependentactorsbutareinfluencedbyrulecarriersocieties.Rulesareimplementedatthemicro-perspectiveusingmicroorganisationalstructuresandprocessesofteninresponsetoengagementwiththemesoandmacroperspectives.

Employerengagementsystemscharacterisingindustrybenchmarking,line-managementinvolvement&employeeinvolvementsystems

310

AppendixIVTable1:Articulationofqualificationattainmentandoccupationalstandards

Qualificationlevelsandoccupationalstandards

Occupationallevels

References

Level1Level2Level3Level4

NVQs5goodGCSEsNVQ/GNVQ;HNC/HND;2ALevelsDegree,cert/diploma,HEorvocationalqualifications

ElementaryoccupationsClerical,secretarial&salesoccupationsAssociateprofessionals,officemanagers&technicaloccupationsProfessionaloccupations,managers&administrators

Elias&Bynner,(1997)

Basicskills&Level1Level2Level3Level4Professionalawards

Literacy&numeracyNVQs5goodGCSEsNVQ/GNVQ;HNC/HND;2ALevelsDegree,cert/diploma,HEorvocationalqualifications

Low-leveloccupationsLow-level intermediary& intermediaryoccupationsHigh-levelintermediary & highleveloccupationsHighest-leveloccupations

Miller, et al,(2002); Leitch,(2006)

311

AppendixV–Dataanalysis(themeconvergence,divergenceandelimination)

InterviewDataAnalysis

Newtheme(s)&Newquestion(s)

Re-evaluationofexistingquestion(s)

DatasaturationORIdentificationofNonrelevantQuestion(s)&themes

Alterquestion(s)basedonnewdataprobe(s)

Eliminatetheme(s)&question(s)

312

AppendixVITable2:CharacteristicsofHighSkillEmployingOrganizations

Organisationalcharacteristics

OrganizationalTypeI OrganizationalType2 OrganizationalType3

Organizationsize,structure&type

largepharmaceuticalorganization&correspondingbiotechdivision

SMEspecializinginmanufacturingandpackaging

SME specializing indeveloping biosciencetechnologies

Human resourcemanagementperspective

EmphasisontheincorporationofHIWP/HCWP/HPWPsinconjunctionwithbureaucraticcontroltodriveorganizational&HRleveloutcomesviastrategicproductionandbusinessprocessalignmentwithsystemictrainingandflexibleworkplacelearningmechanisms

Emphasisinnovativeproductionandbusinessprocessesguidedbymarketcompetitionandcustomerorientation.Requirementofarangeofworkforcespecialismsanddiverserangeofskillstypesandlevelswithworkforcemanagementpractices.Theseresemblepost-Fordistmass-productionworkingenvironmentsbutalsoentrepreneurialinnature

Emphasisonlongtermprojectsuccess,criticallyreliantonR&Dinvestmentandcollaborativeandsocialnetworkinginter/intraorganizationallearningmechanisms.Dynamicallychanging,innovationorientatedcreativeandtechnologicallyadvancingteam-workingenvironmentshypotheticallydependentmainlyonhighlyspecializedworkforceexpertise

HRTrainingandworkforcedevelopmentrole

DevolvedtrainingresponsibilitytothelinewithrelianceonHRDstrategies.Thelineis‘ideally’expectedinconjunctionwithHRfunction/HRDspecialismaschangeagentsandtoadministerstrategictrainingandencourageworkplaceTDinalignmentwithshiftingorganizationalstrategicpriorities.Diverselinemanagementskills/competenciescriticalduringrestructuring.

Relianceonhumancapitalasacorecompetency,withemphasisonlearningorganizationalcharacteristics,althoughhypotheticallytheseincreaseasSMEsbecomemorereliantonstakeholderresources(largerorganizations,SMEscentresofexcellence,etc)andspecialistskillsinviewofvaryingproducttomarketstrategiesandtheformationofalternativemeansofworkplacelearningmechanismssuchascommunitiesofpracticeacrossdiverseoccupationallevels&intheformofprojectpartnerships&collaborations.Managementskillsandcompetenciesarethereforecriticalinformingsuchhumancapitalandworkforcelearningstrategiesthroughstrategic(in)formalnetworksbetweenbusinessenterprisesandinformingcollaborations,communitiesofpracticearoundspecializeddevelopmentareas.

313

APPENDIXVIIAppendixV–Coding-ResearchQuestionsandExploratoryThemes1.Coding

Codingofobjects

Supply-sidepolicystakeholders(SPS)

Demand-sideEmployerStakeholders(DSS)

Codingofthematiccategories

Supply-sidechallengesfacingpolicystakeholders(SSC)

Demand-sideemployerchallengesconstrainingemployerengagement(DSC)

Highskillconditionsordrivers(HSC)

Brown’s(2001)highskillconditionsordrivers(BS)

Macro-perspective(Ma-p)

Meso-perspective(Me-p)

Micro-perspective(Mi-p)

2.ResearchObjectiveOne

Whatistheextentandnatureofmacro-perspectiveemployerengagementwithsupply-

sidepolicystakeholdersinresponsetotheunmetemployerdemandforeducationand

trainingacrosshighskillindustries?

To what extent do institutional policy stakeholders and employers accounts for the

macro-perspectiveemployerengagementdrivers(andchallenges)stemmingfromUK’s

macro-perspective institutional training framework surrounding high-skill industries

and/orduetoBrown’s(2001)conditions?

(This researchquestionaccounts for the interdependent influenceofkey themes that

underpin research questions two and three. The research accounts for the following

possiblethematicpermutations)

ExploratoryenquiryA–towhatextentdoinstitutionalpolicystakeholdersaccountfor

the macro-perspective barriers constraining the UK’s institutional training context in

addressing the unmet employer demand for education and training according to the

followingthemes:

1. Narrow focus surrounding supply-side macro-perspective growth

strategiesinsteadofregional,industryorsector-specificstrategies

314

2. Narrow focus surroundingsupply-side macro-perspective education &

traininginitiativessurrounding:

• Low-skilloccupations

• Intermediate-leveloccupations

• High-skilloccupations

3. Voluntary employer approach and weak employer investment in new

educationandtrainingopportunities

4.Weakengagementbetweenpolicystakeholdersandhigh-skillemployersas

• employersdonotreadilyengagewithpolicystakeholders

• employersubscriptionfees

• employersdonotrealisetheirunmeteducationandtrainingneeds

employerslackcapabilitiesinrealisingneeds

• lackofemployertrustandconfidenceinpolicystakeholders

• weakemployerawarenessofthesupportingcapabilitiesofpolicy

stakeholders

• weakinvestmentinindustryspecificeducationandtraining

–skillagenciesdonotsubsidiseeducationandtraining

5.unmetemployerdemandconstrainingemployerengagementas:

• employersdonotreadilyengagewithpolicystakeholders

• employersdonotrealisetheirunmetneeds

• employerslacktheresourcestoaddresstheirunmetdemandfor

educationandtraining

• employers do not generate demand - do not align work

organisation & design with skill use and thus constraining new

educationandtrainingopportunity.

6. ineffective supply of education & training not aligned to unmet employer

needsdueto:

a. BarriersconnectedtoGovernmentpolicyinstitutionsdueto:

i. Emphasisonnation-widefocusoverregionalapproach

ii. Resourceproblems(staffing;financialresources)

iii. Bureaucracy,redtapeandcomplexprocesses

iv. Lowemployerconfidenceandtrust

v. WeakrepresentationofSMEsectorsandsmallbusinesses

vi. Lackofemployer-ledintervention

vii. Weakemphasisinsupportingsectorspecificdemand

viii. Weakemphasisinfacilitatingoccupationalspecificdemand

315

b. BarriersconnectedtointermediaryEducationalandtrainingproviders

dueto:

-Emphasisonnation-widefocusoverregionalapproach

i. Resourceproblems(staffing;financialresources)

ii. Bureaucracy,redtapeandcomplexprocesses

iii. Lowemployerconfidenceineffectivenessofintervention

iv. PoorprovisionrelevantforSMEsectors&smallbusinesses

v. Lackofemployer-ledintervention

7.otherfactorsinrelationtoeachoftheabovenotencapsulatedbythe

conceptualframework

ExploratoryEnquiryB–supply-sideinstitutionalpolicystakeholdersareawareofthe

employer problems constraining employer engagement accordance to the following

themes:

Employers experience problems in generating the demand for education and training

opportunitydueto:

1.Lackofawarenessin:

• fosteringthebetterproductiveuseofskill

• fosteringneweducation&trainingopportunities

• fostering new education and training opportunities stemming from

adoptionofhighvalueaddedproductionstrategies

• fostering new education and training opportunity by aligning work

organizationanddesignwithhighvalueaddedproductionstrategies

2. Limited employer engagement in decision-making within macro, meso and

microperspectives

3. limited employer engagement in fostering new education and training within

macro/mesoandmicroperspectivesinrelationto:

• Fosteringthebetterproductiveuseofskill

• fosteringthenewresultingeducationandtrainingopportunities

4. limitedacknowledgementof the influenceofmacro,mesoandmicrohigh skill

contextsinsupportingthegenerationofeducationandtraining

5. lack of awareness of employer involvement in industry-level benchmarking

activities

316

6. lackofawarenessofline-managementandemployeeinvolvementinfosteringin

generatingneweducationandtrainingopportunitieswithinthecontextofhigh

skillemployingorganisations

7. employersdonotadoptengagementstrategiestoengagepolicystakeholders

8. employersdonotadoptstrategicHRMandHRDsystemstorealisetheirunmet

demandeducationandtrainingoringeneratingnewopportunities

Exploratory Enquiry C – Brown’s (2001) macro-perspective conditions influence

engagement between institutional supply-side policy stakeholders and employers

(addressing the unmet demand for education and training and in generating new

opportunities).

3.ResearchObjectiveTwo

To what extent do meso-perspective networks facilitate or constrain employer

engagementwith stakeholders characterising themacro,meso andmicro-perspective

institutionaltrainingcontextsofhighskillindustries.

(Explorationofthisresearchquestionaccountsfortheinterdependentinfluenceofkey

themesthatunderpinresearchquestionsoneandthree.Theresearchaccountsforthe

followingpossiblethematicpermutations)

Exploratory Enquiry D – meso perspective network conditions foster engagement

betweeninstitutionalsupply-sidepolicystakeholdersandemployersinresponsetothe

influence of the macro-perspective institutional training environment and Macros-

perspectiveconditions(Brown,2001).

1.Thefollowingmacro-perspectivefactorsinfluenceemployerengagementfosteredby

policystakeholderswithinmeso-perspectivecontexts:

• Macro-perspectivestrategiesfacilitatedbyGovernmentsinraisingindustry

wideproductivity,innovationandperformance

• Brown’s(2001)macro-perspectiveconditions

• National/Governmentmacro-perspective educationand training strategies

supporting: a. low, intermediate and high skill occupations; b.

317

initiativesaimedatraisingtheproductiveuseofskillandrelated


2.Thefollowingmacro-perspectivefactorsfosteredbyemployersinfluenceengagement

betweenemployersandpolicystakeholdersatthemesoperspective:

• Macro-perspectivestrategiesfacilitatedbyGovernmentsinraisingindustry

wideproductivity,innovationandperformance

• PartialacknowledgementofBrown’s(2001)macro-perspectiveconditions

• National/Governmentmacro-perspectiveeducationand training strategies

aimed at: a. low, intermediate and high skill occupations; b.

initiativesaimedatraisingtheproductiveuseofskillandrelated


Exploratory Enquiry E – supply-side policy stakeholders and employers account for

the influence of the meso-perspective network condition in also generating new

education and training opportunities according to themes characterising research

questionthree:

• infosteringorganisationaldecision-makingstructuresandprocessessupporting

employersinmacro,mesoandmicroperspectivedecision-making

• employer engagement within macro, meso or micro-perspectives fostering

decisions around the productive use and generation of skill surrounding the

adoptionofhighvalueaddedproductionstrategies

• supportingtheestablishmentofindustry-levelstrategiesaimedataligningwork

aspects (job design, occupational re-structuring;work organization)with high

valueaddedproduction

• supportingorganisational-wideSHRMandSHRDstrategiesanddecision-making

processes to address the unmet employer demand for education and training

surroundinghighvalueaddedproductionwithinmeso-perspectivecontexts

• devising strategies and processes to foster employee/line-management

involvementwithinmesonetworkperspectives

Networks facilitated within the meso-perspective involving key institutional

stakeholders(supply&demand),areinfluencedbyBrowns’(2001)suggestionsaround

raisingskillsachievementlevels.

The effectiveness of meso-perspective networks in meeting the employer needs for

educationandtrainingaredependantuponthenetworkcharacteristicsoutlinedwithin

theliteraturereview.

318

4.ResearchObjectiveThree

Research Question Three – To what extent do micro (organisational) perspective


stakeholders characterising the macro, meso and micro-perspective institutional

trainingcontextsofhighskillindustriesandtheirunmetdemand.

(Explorationofthisresearchquestionaccountsfortheinterdependentinfluenceofkey

themes that underpin research questions one and two. The research accounts for the

followingpossiblethematicpermutations).

ExploratoryEnquiryF–stakeholderscharacterisinghigh-skillemployersengagewith

institutional policyholders to address the employer demand for new education and

training opportunities in acknowledgement of the following micro-perspective

organisationaldriversandchallenges:

1. Employer engagement with supply-side stakeholders relative to macro, meso

andmicroskill,educationandtraining.

2. Adoption of organisational systems reflecting Browns’ (2001) conditions in

raisingskillattainment.

3. Adoptionof organisational systemsensuring thathigh skill employers account

for the employer (demand-side) constraints when engaging with policy

stakeholders.Demand-sideoremployers limitations includea lackofadoption

of:

a. organisationalstrategicpracticestoensuretheorganisational

consensus-drivencommitmentinaddressingemployerneeds

• employerengagementwithpolicystakeholdersarounddecision-making

surroundingmacroandmeso-perspectivetraining

• SHRM&SHRDstrategiesandsystemsbyemployersinensuringthe

alignmentofworkaspects(e.g.jobdesign/occupationalstructures;work

organisation;performanceimprovingworkaspects)withtheuseofhigh

valuedaddedproductionstrategies

• employer systems that scholarly arguments suggest constrain employers

fromrealisingeducationandtrainingneeds

• line-managementinvolvementensuring:

- theirparticipationinorganisational-widedecision-making

- theirinvolvementinperformancemanagement

319

- theiradoptionofperformanceappraisals

- organisationaladoptionofemployeevoice

- organisational adoption of industry benchmarking

approaches.

320

AppendixVIII:PolicyStakeholders–Roles&Responsibilities

Organization Interviewees Background Roles/responsibilitiesRegionalDevelopmentAgency(NWRDA,BioNow)

HeadofSkills SkillsDirector(advice/supportsector)

-responsibleforoverarchingskillspolicydriveacrossNWRegion

BusinessDevelopmentManager

Extensive/variedexperiencewithinindustry

-managingstrategicrelationsusingkeyaccountstoaddressimprovementsinskills,qualificationsandregulation

BiomedicalSectorSkillsManager

Workedextensivelywithinbiomedicalresearch(PhD)

-strategicpolicy-makingtoimproveengagementbetweenemployingclusterorganizationsregardingbusinessissuesincludingskills/training

SectorSkillsCouncils(Cogent,SEMTA)

PolicyAdvisor-Process/plantmanagement

PhD/scientificpharma/chemical

-formationofadvisorycounciltoaddressqualificationsstandards

IndustrialApprenticeshipManager

FE(teaching,management) -Designing/developingfitforpurposeframeworkacrossclusterindustry

HEDevelopmentManager

PhDPharma–technicalmanagement

-Strategicpartnerships–employer/HEengagementacrosssector

ResearchAdvisor

-researchscientificbackgroundinpharmaceuticalindustry

-nationalleveleducation&qualificationsresearchtoaddressnational,regionalandindustrysectorlevelskillsissues.Developingnationalskillsaudits,invitingemployerparticipation

Product/servicesProjectManager

-basicskillspolicyforunemployed;involvedinskillsresearch

-developmentofon-lineservices:aligningindustrytrainingstandardswithoccupationalrolesanddevelopingskillsevaluationproducts(SkillsPassport;SkillsMatch).

SpecialistScienceAdvisor

-researchdirector,specialistadvisor/directorforTechnologyTransferOffice,UniversityofSheffield

-coordinationofSectorSkillsAlliancesandinvolvementinactivitiestofacilitateemployerengagementthroughtheSectorStrategyGroup

DirectorofPolicy -extensiveindustryexperiencewithinadviceandstrategy

-toworkcloselywithstakeholderstoensurethatemployerdemandforskillsandtrainingaremetandthatemployervoiceisclearlyarticulated

321

AppendixVIII-PolicyStakeholders–Roles&ResponsibilitiesContinued

Organization Interviewees Background Roles&responsibilitiesNationalSkillsAgenciesNWNSAs

BusinessDevelopmentManager

-chemicalmanufacturingindustry,advisoryroleQAScotland

-coordination,designanddevelopmentofproducts&servicessupportingemployerstobetteraddresstrainingpolicyissues.Ensuringbusinessalignmentofindustryregulationsandskillspoliciesthroughbusinessevaluationsconductedonasite-to-sitebasis.

SkillsAdvisors -managementoftechnicalandproductionoperations;HRtrainingrolewithinrelatedindustrycluster.

-Consultancyrolethataimstoimproveengagementbetweenemployersandtrainingprovidersthroughthedevelopmentofpartnershipstoaddressdiversityofkeyregionalskillshortages.

BusinessLinkBL

SkillsAdvisor/Broker&BusinessDevelopmentManager

-PhDtechnical/scientificandresearchexperienceindevelopingindustrylevelskillspolicy

-representationonindustryskillsboards&committees;sourcingfundinganddevisingsolutionstoaddressingtheemployerdemandfortraining;involvedinactivitiesthatalignnationallevelskillspolicieswithindustriesandinactivitiesthatfacilitategreateremployerengagement.

NorthWestUniversityAssociation(NWUA)

BiomedicalSpecialistSkillsAdvisor(HigherLevelSkillsPartnerships)

-technical&managementexperiencewithinmicrobiologyindustry

-developmentofpartnershipsprojectsbyinvolvingemployers,HE&FEinstitutionsandtrainingprovidersinlinewithHigherLevelSkillsPartnershiptoaddressregionalskillshortages.

AssociationofBritishPharmaceuticalsIndustry(ABPI)

Education&SkillsManager

-extensiveindustryexperiencewithinstrategicadvisorymanagementrole

EstablishingandleadingpartnershipprojectsaimedatidentifyingcriticalskillsshortagesacrossUKpharmaceuticals.Involvedinnationalmacro-levelpolicyformulation.

322

AppendixIX–Macro,mesoandmicro-perspectiveEducationandtraininginitiativesfosteredbypolicystakeholders

Intervention LargePharma LargeSMEs&MediumsizedSMEs SmallSMEs&Micro-SMEs

Priorityinitiatives

characterising

low/intermediate

leveloccuptaions

Limitedcareerprogressionroutesforlowerleveltechnical/laboratorystaff.Solution:technicalstaffcareerprogression(CogentFoundationDegree)

Graduate (scientific literacy/numeracy) skillsgaps; advanced mathematical, statistical andpractical skills issues & scientific datainterpretation. Solution: Collaborationswith localcolleges networks mediated by skill agencies(NSAs;BL)

Sterileworkingenvironments(intermediatelevelskills - biomedical) – requirement for processoperator qualifications and primary productionroles (packaging). Solution: Collaborations withprivate training providers mediated by skillsnetworks(SSCs;NSAs).

Constrained career progression ratesbetween intermediate level occupationsandhigheroccupationallevels.Solution:level5qualification-plantmanagers

Business Improvement Techniques (BITS) –demand across occupational levels - extensiveindustry re-structuring; business processefficiency/effectiveness. Demand forapprenticeships. Solution: Collaborations withprivate training providers mediated by skillsnetworks (SSCs;NSAs). Formationof cluster SMEnetworksnot.

Sterileworkingenvironments(intermediatelevelskills-biomedical).Solution:Policyformulation-process operator qualifications and primaryproductionroles(packaging).

Priorityinitiatives

characterisinghigh

skilloccupations.

Constrainedgraduatecareerpathways -shortages of graduate careerpathways/training schemes. Solution:graduate science/lab-basedapprenticeships - STEM graduateretention.

Gaps in in/ex vivo competencies – Skills gapsacross industry for physical chemistry & bio-scientific molecular biologists and specialistlaboratory based technical skills (in/ex vivo).Solution: Educational Policy development (led bySectorSkillsAgreements-SSCs)

Project management skills issues particular toSMEs – e.g.: managing KTPs partnerships,collaborations. Solution:No intervention – skillspoaching.

Generic&

Transferableskill

priorityinitiatives

Business & management skills –limited cognitive skills,finance/budgeting, cost-efficiencies,timemanagement,projectmanagementgaps (graduates). Solution:CollaborationswithNorthWest Englishuniversities(moduledevelopment)frommediatedbyskillsagencies/quangos.

CPD–specialistsciencetraining,modulesformiddlemanagementtraining;bitesizedmanagementcoursessuitableforSMEs.Solutions:Collaborationswithlocalcolleges/universitiesmediatedbyskillagencies(SSCs).

Business&enterpriseskills–networking,communicationsandpeoplemanagementskillsbusinessinfluencingsurvivalandgrowth.Solution:skillspoaching.

Priorityinitiatives

supportingSMEs

N/A Apprenticeships/internships – cluster SMEnetworks not available within largerorganisationaltaskspecificjobroles.

Project management skills issues particular toSMEs – e.g. managing KTPs partnerships,collaborations.Solutionskillspoaching.

323

AppendixX

Figure4.Employerengagementinmesoandmicro-perspectivedecision-making-benchmarkingandmonitoringthedemandforeducationandtraining

CorporateLeadershipsdecision-making–seniormanagementcorporatecross-site&organisationallevelconsultations(InvolvingCorporateLeadership,HRDirectors,R&DLeadership,Talentmanagement,Quality&OperationsDirectors,tradeunions/employeereps,UK/European-basedexternalstakeholders(e.gSSCs,academics,trainingproviders,regulatoryBodies))(A)

IndustryBenchmarking(involvingsimilar&otherindustrysectorsthroughdatacollation&consultations)

Monitoring&EvaluationthroughOrganizational-wideSurveys,rootcauseanalysis

Linemanagerscross-operational,organisationalandindustry(in)formaldialogueusingappropriatecommunications(informationondemandforskillsformationssharedwithotherline-managersoperations&qualitymanagers,employeerepresentatives&externalstakeholders(e.g.privatetrainingproviders,FE,HE)(B)

Externalmonitoring&Evaluation(involvingUK/Europeanstakeholdersusingnetworks)

Monitoring&evaluationusingHRfunctionalresponsibilities(performanceappraisals,inductionprocessesteammeetings,skillsmatrix,internalskillsacademies–largerorganisationsonly)

EmployeeInvolvementusing(in)formalparticipativepractices(informationofdemandforskillsformationsharedwithallstakeholdershighlightedinBoxesAandB(C)

Monitoring&evaluationconductedacrossorganisationandUKbasedsitesusing(in)formalparticipativepractices

Monitoring&evaluationconductedacrossUKandEuropean-basedsitesusing(in)formalparticipativepractices

OperationalCapabilities

324

ReferencesAgranoff,R.(2001).“BigQuestionsinthePublicNetworkManagementResearch.” JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory.Vol.11(3),Pp.295-326.Alagaraja,M.(2013). “Mobilisingorganisationalalignmentthroughstrategichumanresourcedevelopment.”HumanResourceDevelopmentInternational,Vol.16(1).Pp.74-93.Armstrong,M. (2006). “AHandbookofHumanResourceManagementPractice.” CambridgeUniversityPress.(10thEdition).Armstrong,M.(2009).“Armstrong’sHandbookofPerformanceManagement.”London:KoganPage(4thEdition).AIM.(2005a).HowClusterpoliciescanmaketheUKmorecompetitive.”AdvancedInstituteofManagementResearch.Amin A. and Thrift N. (1992). “Neo-Marshallian nodes in global networks” InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch,16(4):571-587.Amin,A.(2004).‘Aninsitutionalperspectiveonregionaleconomicdevelopment.’InReadingEconomicGeography(Chapter3)byBarnes,T. J.,Peck, J., Sheppard,E.,Tickell,A. BlackwellPublishingLtd.AminA.andThriftN.(1996).“Globalization,institutionsandregionaldevelopmentinEurope.”OxfordUniversityPress.USA.Anand,G.andKodali,R.(2008),“Benchmarkingthebenchmarkingmodels”,Benchmarking:AnInternationalJournal,Vol.15No.3,pp.257-91.Ashton,D.N.(2004).‘Theimpactoforganizationalstructureandpracticesonlearningwithintheworkplace.’InternationalJournalofTrainingandDevelopment,Vol.8(1),pp.43-53.Ashton, D., Green, F. (1996). ‘Education, Training and the Global Economy.’ Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.Ashton,D.N.,Sung,J.(2002).‘SupportingWorkplaceLearningforHighPerformanceWorking.’InternationalLaborOrganization:GenevaAshton,D.,Sung, J. (2006). ‘HowcompetitiveStrategyMatters?UnderstandingtheDriversofTraining,LearningandPerformanceattheFirmLevel.’SKOPE.ResearchPaper66.Ashton,D.,Sung,J.,Raddon,A.(2005).‘ACasewheresizematters:apreliminaryinvestigationintotheinstitutionalizationofskillformationandfirmsize.’SKOPE.Ashton,D.,Sung,J.,Turbin,J.(2000).‘TowardsaFrameworkfortheComparativeAnalysisofSkillFormation.’InternationalJournalofTraining&Development.Vol.4(1),pp.8-24.Ashton,D.,Sung,J.,Raddon,A.,Riordan,T.(2008a).‘Challengingthemythsaboutlearningandtraininginsmallandmediumsizedenterprises: implicationsforpublicpolicy.’ InternationalLaborOffice;EmploymentSector.

325

Ashton,D., Sung, J.,Raddon,A.,Riordan,T. (2008b). ‘Challenging themyths about learningandtraininginSMEs.’InternationalLaborOrganization.Bacon, N., Hoque, K. (2005). ‘HRM in the SME sector: valuable employees and coercivenetworks.’TheInternationalJournalofHumanResourceManagement,Vol.1(11),pp.1976-99.Baker, K. (2010). Sector Skills Councils still face closure despitemajority passing licensingreview. Personnel Today. Online HR publication of the year. Available atwww.personneltoday.com/hr.(accessed02/02/2014).Barrett,R.,Mayson,S.(2007).‘HumanResourceManagementingrowingsmallfirms.’JournalofSmallBusinessandEnterpriseDevelopment,Vol.14(2),pp.307-20.Barrett,R.,Wynarczyk,P. (2009). “Building thescienceand innovationbase:workskillsandemploymentissues.”NewTechnology,WorkandEmployment.Vol.24(3),pp.210-214.Becattini, G. (1990). “TheMarshallian Industrial Districts as a Socio-economic notion.” In F.Pykeetal.(eds.).IndustrialDistrictsandInter-FirmCo-operationinItaly.Pp.37-51,Geneva.Becker,G.S.(1964).‘HumanCapital.’Chicago,Il,TheUniversityofChicagoPress.Becker, G. S. (1975). ‘Human Capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with specialreferencetoeducation.”(2ndEdition)NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Becker, K.L., Matthews, J.H. (2008). Linking HRM and innovation : formulating the researchagenda. In22ndANZAMConference2008 :Managing in thePacificCentury, 2 – 5 December,Auckland,NewZealand.Benson, J. (2000). “Employee voice inUnion andNon-unionAustralianworkplaces.” BritishJournalofIndustrialRelations,Vol.38(3),pp.453-59.BIS, (2005). “Realizing the potential: A review of the further roles of FE colleges.” By SirAndrewFoster.Availablefromwww.bis.gov.ukBIS (2009a). “Higher Ambitions: the future of universities in the knowledge economy.”Availablefromwww.bis.gov.ukBIS(2009b).“SkillsforGrowth:TheNationalSkillsStrategy.”Availablefromwww.bis.gov.ukBIS, (2009c). “Early assessment of Business Link Health Checks.” By Marc Cowling and JoyOakley.InstituteforEmploymentStudiesandDepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills.BIS(2010a).“InternationalizationofInnovativeandHighGrowthSMEs.”BISEconomicPaperNo.5BIS(2010b). “FurtherEducation–NewHorizon. Investing inSkills forSustainableGrowth.”DepartmentforBusinessInnovation&Skills(BIS).BIS (2011). “Bigger, better business: Helping small firms start, grow and prosper.”DepartmentforBusinessInnovation&Skills.BIS, (2011). “Stem Graduates and Non-Stem Jobs”. BIS Research Paper Number 30.DepartmentforBusinessInnovationandSkills.London.BIS (2011a). SupportingGraduateEmployability:HEIPractice inother countries.”ResearchPaper40.DepartmentforBusinessInnovationandSkills.

326

BIS (2011b). Evaluation of National Skills Academies. Research Paper Number 39.DepartmentforBusinessInnovation&Skills.BIS (2012a). Skills Funding Statements (2012-15). Department for Business, Innovation &Skills.SkillsFundingAgency.BIS(2012b). RichardReviewofApprenticeships: improvingthequalityof furthereducationandskillstraining.IndependentReport.DepartmentforBusinessInnovationandSkills.BIS (2012c). Closing the RDAs. Lessons from the RDAs transition and closure Programme.DepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills.BIS, (2013a). Rigour & responsiveness in Skills. Department of Education. Department forBusinessInnovationandSkills.BIS(2013b).ApprenticeshipEvaluation:Learners.ResearchPaperNumber124.(availableatwww.gov.uk/ibs).BioNow(2010).“BuildingaMoreIntegratedLifeSciencesIndustry.”(presentationbyDrGeoffDavidson).NorthWestRegionalDevelopmentAgency.Blakeley,R.(2009).‘Learning&SkillsPolicyUpdate’TUC.Bolden, R., Connor, H., Duquemin, A., Hirsh, W., Petrov, G. (2009). ‘Employer engagementwithinHigherEducation:defining,sustainingandsupportingHigherskillsprovision.’AHigherskillsResearchReportfirHERDASouthWestandHEFCE.Bond,S.(2004).“Organizationalcultureandwork-lifeconflictintheUK.”JournalofSociologyandSocialPolicy.Vol.24(12),pp.1-24.Bond,S.andMcCracken,M.(2005).“TheimportanceoftraininginoperationalisingHRPolicy.”JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining.Vol.29(2),pp.246-60.Bond,S.,Wise,S.(2003)."Familyleavepoliciesanddevolutiontotheline",PersonnelReview,Vol.32(1),pp.58–72.Borgatti, S. P., Foster, P. C. (2003). ‘The network Paradigm in Organizational Research: AReviewandTypology.’JournalOfManagement,Vol.29(6),Pp.991-1013.Borzel, T. A. (2005). “Networks: Rectified Metaphor or Governance Panacea.” PublicAdministration.Vol.89(1),pp.49-63.Brass, D.J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., Tsai, W. (2004). “Taking stock of networks andorganizations:amulti-levelperspective.”AcademyofManagementJournal,Vol.47(6),Pp.795-817.Braverman, H. (1974). ‘Labor and Monopoly Capital. The Degradation of Work in theTwentiethCentury.’NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.Brewster,C.,Larsen,H.H. (2000). HumanResourceManagementinNorthernEurope:Trends,DilemmasandStrategy.1stedition.BlackwellPublishers:Oxford.Brockmann, M., Clarke, L., Winch, C., (2015). ‘Knowledge, skills competence: Europeandivergences in vocational education and training (VET) – the English, German and Dutchcases.’OxfordReviewofEducation,Vol.34(5),547-567.

327

Brown,P.(2001).“SkillsFormationintheTwenty-FirstCentury.”InHighSkills:Globalization,competitivenessandSkillsformation.ByPhilipBrown,AndyGreenandHughLauder.OxfordUniversityPress.2001.Bryman,A.(2008).‘SocialResearchMethods.’OxfordUniversityPress.ThirdEdition.Bynner,J.,Parsons,S.(2001).“Qualifications,BasicSkillsandacceleratingsocialexclusion.”JournalofEducation&Work.Vol.14(3).Pp.279-291.Bynner, J., Parsons, S. (2005). ‘NewLight onLiteracy andNumeracy:Results of the Literacyandnumeracyassessment.Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Macedo, P. (2010). “A conceptual Model of value systems incollaborativenetworks.”JournalofIntelligentManufacturing.Vol.21(3).Pp.287-99.Calveley, M., Healy, G., Shelley, S., Stirling, J. and Wray, D. (2003) ‘Union LearningRepresentatives–aForceforRenewalor“Partnership”?’.UniversityofHertfordshireBusinessSchoolWorkingPaper,No.10.Carpinetti, L.C.R., Oiko, O.T. (2008). ‘Development and application of a benchmarkinginformation system in clusters of SMEs.’ Benchmarking: an International Journal, Vol. 15(3),pp.292-306.Carlson, D.S., Upton, N., Seaman, S. (2006). “The Impact of Human Resource Practices andCompensationDesignonPerformance:AnAnalysisofFamily-OwnedSMEs.” JournalofSmallBusinessManagement,Vol.44(4),pp.531-543.Casco´n-Pereira,R.,Valverde,M.,Ryan,G.(2006). Mappingoutdevolution:anexplorationoftherealitiesofdevolution.”JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining,Vol.30(2),pp129-151.Cassell,C.,Nadin,S.,Gray,M.,Clegg,C. (2002). “Exploringhumanresourcepractices insmallandmedium-sizedenterprsise.”PersonnelReview,Vol.31(6),Pp.671-92.Cedefop,(2000).Glossaryin‘MakingLearningVisible.’Luxemburg,Cedefop.Clarke,L.,Winch,C.(2008).‘AEuropeanSkillsFramework?–Butwhatareskills?Anglo-SaxonversusGermanconcepts.’JournalofEducationandWork,Vol.19(3),pp.255-69.CBI.(2003).‘TheCBI’sresponseto‘thefutureofhighereducationwhitepaper.’Availableatwww.cbi.org.ukCBI.(2008).‘TakingStock.CBIeducationandskillssurvey.’Availableatwww.cbi.org.uk.CIPD.(2005).“EmploymentLaw:Burdenorbenefit?”CIPD.(2008).‘AnnualSurveyReport–LearningandDevelopment.’CIPD. (2009). ‘Labour Market Outlook – Focus: coping with the credit crunch.’ QuarterlySurveyReport,Winter,2008-09.CIPD.(2013).Internshipsthatwork.AGuideforEmployers.CharteredInstituteforPersonnelDevelopment.Coffield,F.,Steer,R.,Hodgson,A.,Spours,K. (2005). “ANewLearningandSkillsLandscape?ThecentralroleoftheLearningandSkillsCouncil.” JournalofEducation,Vol.20(5),Pp.631-56.

328

Coffield, F. (2007). ‘Running ever faster down the wrong road: an alternative future foreducationandskills.’InauguralLecture,InstituteofEducation.London.Crouch,C.,Finegold,D.,Sako,M.(1999).AreSkillstheanswer?OxfordUniversityPress.Cunningham, I., Hyman, J. (1999).’Devolving human resource responsibilities to the line:beginningoftheendoranewbeginningforpersonnel.’PersonnelReview,Vol.28(1/2),pp.9-27.DfEE. (2000). ‘Modern Apprenticeships: exploring the reasons for non-completion in fivesectors.ResearchReport217(Nottingham,DepartmentforEducationandEmployment).DeCoulon,A.,Marcenaro-Gutierrez,O.,Vignoles,A.(2007).ThevalueofbasicskillsintheUKlabormarket.’CentrefortheEconomicsofEducation,LondonSchoolofEconomics.Den Hartog, D.N., Boselle, P., Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance Management: A model andresearchagenda.”AppliedPsychology,Vol.53(4),556-569.DfES(2003a).‘14-19:opportunityandexcellence.’London.DepartmentforEducation&Skills.DfES(2003b).‘21stCenturySkills:Realizingourpotential.’London.DepartmentforEducation&Skills.DfES(2004a),Twenty-firstCenturyApprenticeships:EndtoEndReviewoftheDeliveryofModernApprenticeships.London:DepartmentforEducationandSkills.DfES(2004b).ApprenticeshipsTransformed.London:DepartmentforEducationandSkills.DfES(2006). PerceptionsandtheuseofNVQs:AsurveyofEmployersinEngland. ByPhilipRoe,JuneWiseman,MaryCostello.BMGResearchReport714.DepartmentforEducationandSkills.DIUS(2008a).“AbsorptiveCapacity&RegionalPatternsofInnovation.”DIUS.(2008b).‘TimetoTrain–ConsultationonthenewrighttorequesttotrainforemployersinGreatBritain’.Availableatwww.dius.gov.uk.DIUS (2009). ˙New internships will boost opportunitiesforgraduatesthissummer.28thApril,2009(availablefromwww.gov.uk/government).DTI(2003),CompetingintheGlobalEconomy:TheInnovationChallenge,DTIInnovationReport.DTI(2008).‘Science,engineeringandtechnology.’DTIEconomicsPaper16.Denzin,N.K.,Lincoln,Y.S.(2000).“HandbookofQualitativeResearch.”SAGEThousandsOaks.Dick,B.(1990).Convergentinterviewing.Brisbane,Australia:Interchange.Dopfer,K.,Potts,J.(2004).“Evolutionaryrealism:anewontologyforeconomics.”JournalofEconomicMethodology.Vol.11(2),pp.195-212.Dopfer,K.,Foster,J.,Potts,J.(2004).“Micro-meso-macro.”JournalofEvolutionaryEconomics.Vol.14.Pp.263-79.

329

Dundon,T.,Wilkinson,A.,Marchington,M.,Ackers,P. (2004).“Themeaningsandpurposeofemployeevoice.” InternationalJournalofHumanResourceManagement.Vol.15(6),pp.1149-70.Dundon,T.,Wilkinson,A.,Marchington,M.,Ackers,P. (2005). “Themanagementofvoice innon-unionorganizations:manager’sperspective.”EmployeeRelations,Vol.27(3),pp.307-19.Edwards,P.,Wright,M.(2001).“High-involvementWorksystemsandperformanceoutcomes.Thestrengthofvariable,contingentandcontextboundrelationships.”InternationalJournalofHumanResourceManagement.Vol.12(4),568-85Elias, P., Bynner, J. (1997). ‘Intermediate Skills and Occupational Mobility.’ Policy Stidies,Vol.18(2),101-124.Fallows, S., Steven, C. (2000). Integrating Key Skills in Higher Education: Employability,transferableskillsandlearningforlife.London:KoganPageLimited.Fallows, S., Weller, G. (2003). “Transition from Student to Employee: a work-basedprogramme for graduate apprentices’ in small tomediumenterprises.” JournalofVocationalEducationandTraining.Vol.52(4),pp.665-85.Farndale,E.,Kelliher,C.(2013). “Implementingperformanceappraisals:exploringemployeeperception.”HumanResourceManagement.Vol.52(6),pp.879-97.Felstead,A.Gallie,D.,Green,F.(2002).‘WorkSkillsinBritain:1986-2001.’DfES:Nottingham.Felstead,A.,Gallie,D.,GreenF.,Zhou,Y.(2007).‘SkillsatWork:1986-2006’SKOPE.Fenton-O’Creevy,M.(1998).“Employeeinvolvementandthemiddlemanager:evidencefromasurveyoforganizations.”JournalofOrganisationalBehaviour,Vol.19(1),pp.67-84.Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (2001). “Employee involvement and the middle manager: Saboteur orscapegoat?”HumanResourceManagementJournal,Vol.11(1),pp.24-40.Finegold,D.(1991).‘InstitutionalIncentivesandSkillscreation:pre-conditionsofahighskillsequilibrium.’ in International comparisons of vocational education and training forintermediateskillsbyP.Ryan.Routledge.Finegold, D. (1999). ‘Creating self-sustaining high skills ecosystems.’ Oxford Review ofEconomicPolicy.Vol.15(1),pp.Finegold,D. (2006). ‘TheRoleofEducation&TrainingSystems in Innovation’ in Innovation,Science and Institutional Change by Jerald Hage, Marius, T. H. Meeus and Charles Edquist.OxfordUniversityPress.Finegold,D.,Soskice,D.(1988).TheFailureofTraininginBritain:Analysis&Prescription.OxfordReviewofEconomicPolicy.Vol.4(3),pp.21-43.Finegold,D.,Wagner,K.(1998).“TheSearchforflexibility:skillsandworkplaceinnovationintheGermanPumpindustry.”BritishJournalofIndustrialRelations.Vol.36(3),pp.469-87.Fletcher, C. (2001). “Performance Appraisal and Management: The developing researchAgenda.”JournalofOccupationalandAppliedPsychology.Vol.74,pp.473-87.Fletcher, C. and Perry, E. (2001), “Performance appraisal and feedback: a consideration ofnational culture and a review of contemporary research and future trends”, in Anderson, N.,

330

Ones,D.,Sinangil,H.andViswesvaran,C. (Eds), InternationalHandbookofIndustrial,Work&OrganizationalPsychology,Vol.1,Sage,London.Flyveberg, B. (2006). ‘Five misunderstandings about Case Study Research.’ QualitativeEnquiry,Vol.12(2),pp.219-45.Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach. Marshfield, MA:Pitman.Freeman, E., Liedtka, J. (1997). “Stakeholder Capitalism and the Value Chain.” EuropeanManagementJournal.Vol.15(3).Pp.286-96.Freytag, P.V., Hollensen, S. (2001). “The process of benchmarking, benchlearning andbenchaction.”TheTQMMagazine,Vol.13(1),pp.25-34.Fromhold-Eisebith, M., Eisebith, G. (2005). “How to institutionalise innovative clusters?Comparingexplicittop-downandimplicitbottom-upapproaches.”ResearchPolicy.Vol.34,pp.1250-68.Fuller,A.,Unwin,L.(2003a).Creatinga‘ModernApprenticeship’:acritiqueoftheUK’smulti-sector,socialinclusionapproach.’JournalofEducationandWork,Vol.1691),pp.5-25.Fuller, A., Unwin, L. (2003b). ‘Learning asApprentices in the ContemporaryUKworkplace:creatingandmanagingexpansiveandrestrictiveparticipation.’JournalofEducationandWork,Vol.16(4),pp.407-426.Garavan,T.N.(1991).‘Strategichumanresourcedevelopment.’JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining,Vol.15(1),pp.17-30.Garavan,T.N.(2007).“AStrategicperspectiveonHumanResourceDevelopment.”AdvancesindevelopingHumanResources.Vol.9(1),pp.11-30.Garavan, T. N., Costine, P., Heraty, N. (1995). ‘The emergence of strategic human resourcedevelopment.’JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining,Vol.19(10),pp.4-10.Garavan, T. N., Barnicle, B., Heraty, N. (1993) ‘The training and development function: itssearchforpowerandinfluencewithinorganizations.’JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining,Vol.7(7),pp.22-32.Guardian(2014). TwelveapplicationsaresubmittedforeveryUKapprenticeship.Postedonthe5thofFebruarybyKatieAllen(accessedon23rdFebruary,2014at10.44am).Gennard,J.,Kelly,J. (1997).‘Theunimportanceoflabels:thediffusionofthepersonnel/HRMfunction.’IndustrialRelationsJournal,Vol.227-42.28(1),pp.27-42.Gibb, S. (2003). Linemanager involvement in learning and development: Small beer or bigdeal?"EmployeeRelations,Vol.25(3),pp.281-293Gilbert,C.,DeWinne,S., Sels,L. (2011). “AntecedentsofFront-linemanagers,perceptionsofHRrolestressors.”PersonnelReview,Vol.40(5),pp.549-69.Gleeson,D.,Keep,E.(2004).‘Voicewithoutaccountability:thechangingrelationshipsbetweenemployers, the State andEducation inEngland.’ OxfordReviewofEducation.’ Vol. 30(1), pp.37-63.Glendinning, P.M. (2002) Performance Management: Pariah or Messiah.” Public PersonnelManagement,Vol.31(2),pp.161-178.

331

Grbich,C.(2013).QualitativeDataAnalysis:AnIntroduction.”SAGE:London.Green, F., Machin, S., Wilkinson, D. (1999). ‘Trade Unions and training practices in BritishWorkplaces.’IndustrialandLaborRelations.Vol.52(2),pp.179-195.Green,F.,Ashton,D.,Felstead,A.(2001).‘Estimatingthedeterminantsofsupplyofcomputing,problem-solving, communication, social and team-working skills.’ Oxford Economic Papers,Vol.53(3),pp.406-Green,A.,Sakamoto,A. (2001). “ModelsofHighSkills inNationalCompetitionStrategies.” InHighSkills:Globalization,competitivenessandSkillsformation.ByPhilipBrown,AndyGreenandHughLauder.OxfordUniversityPress.2001.Green,F.,McIntosh,S.(2002).‘Isthereagenuineunder-utilizationofskillsamongsttheover-qualified?’SKOPE.Grimshaw, D., Rubery, J. (2005). Inter-capital relations and the network organization: re-definingtheworkandemploymentnexus.”CambridgeJournalofEconomics.Vol.29.Pp.1027-51.Grimshaw, D., Ward, K. G., Rubery, J. (2001). “Organizations and the transformation of theinternallabourmarket.”Work,Employment&Society.Vol.15(1),pp.25-54.Grimshaw,D.,Beynon,H.Rubery, J.,Ward,K. (2002). ‘The re-structuringof careerpaths inlarge service organizations: ‘’de-layering’, up-skilling and polarization.’ The SociologicalReview,Vol.50(1),pp.89-116.Grimshaw,D. Willmott,H.,Rubery, J. (2005). “Inter-OrganizationalNetworks:Trust,PowerandtheEmploymentRelationship.”InFragmentingWork:blurringorganizationalboundariesand disordering hierarchies.” By Mick Marchington, Damian Grimshaw, Jill Rubery, HughWilmot.OxfordUniversityPress.Gulati, R. Nohria, N., Zaheer, A. (2000). “Strategic Networks.” StrategicManagement Journal.Vol.21(3).Pp.203-15.Harrison,R(2005)LearningandDevelopment,2ndEdition.CIPD:LondonHM Government. (2005a). ‘Skills: getting on in business, getting on at work (Part Two).’HMSO;DWP;DTI.HM Government. (2005b). ‘Skills: getting on in business, getting on at work (Part Three).’HMSO;DWP;DTI.HMGovernment.(2008).‘InnovationNation:DepartmentforInnovation,Universities&Skills’HMGovernment(2010a). “Partnerships forGrowth:ANationalFramework forRegionalandEconomicDevelopment.”BuildingBritain’sFuture.HMGovernment.(2010b).“NewIndustry,NewJobs–OneYearOn.”BuildingBritain’sFuture.HM Treasury. (2005). “Globalization and the UK: Strength and opportunity to meet theeconomicchallenge.”London,HerMajesty’sTreasury.Hales,C.(2005). “Rootedinsupervision,branchingintomanagement:continuityandchangeintheroleofthefirstline-manager.”JournalofManagementStudies.Vol.42(3).Pp.471-506.

332

Harrison,J.S.,StJohn,C.H.(1996).ìManaging&PartneringwithExternalStakeholders.îTheAcademyofManagementExecutive,Vol.10(2),pp.46-60.Hartog, D.N.D., Boselie, P., Paauuwe, J. (2004). “Performance Management: A Model andResearchAgenda.”AppliedPsychology,Vol.53(4),pp.556-69.Harvey,D.L.andM.Reed(1996)‘SocialScienceastheStudyofComplexSystems’,inL.D.Kieland E. Elliot (eds) Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications. AnnArbor,MI:UniversityofMichiganPress.Haslinda,A. (2009). “Evolving termsofHumanResourceManagement&Development.”TheJournalofInternationalSocialResearch.Vol.2(9).Pp.180-86.Hayward,G.,Fernandez,R.M.(2004). “Fromcoreskills tokeyskills: fast forwardorbacktothefuture?”OxfordReviewofEducation.Vol.30(1),pp.118-45.HEFCE(2011).Strategicallyimportantandvulnerablesubjects.TheHEFCEadvisorygroup’s2010-11report.HigherEducationFundingCouncilofEngland.Henderson,J.,Dicken,P.,Hess,M.,Coe,N.,Yeung,H.W.,(2002). Globalproductionnetworksandtheanalysisofeconomicdevelopment.ReviewofInternationalPoliticalEconomy,Vol.9(3),436-64.Heffernan, M.M. and Flood, P.C. (2000), "An exploration of the relationships between theadoption of managerial competencies, organizational characteristics, human resourcesophistication and performance in Irish organizations", Journal of European IndustrialTraining,Vol.24(2,3,4).Pp.128-36.Heller,F.,Pusic,E.,Strauss,G.,Wipert,B.(1998).OrganizationalParticipation:Myth&Reality.OxfordUniversityPressInc.NewYork.Heyes, J., Stuart, M. (1994). ‘Placing Symbols before reality.’ Re-evaluating the low-skillsequilibrium.’PersonnelReview.Vol.23(5),pp.35-49.Hillage,J.,Regan,J.,Dickson,J.,Mclaughlin,L.,(2002).‘EmployersSkillsSurvey’availablefromwww.dcsf.gov.ukHogarth, T., Shury, J., Vivian, D. & Wilson, R. (2001) Employer skill survey 2001 (London,DfES).Hoque, K., Bacon, N. (2008). “Trade unions, Union Learning Representatives and Employer-providedtraininginBritain.”BritishJournalofIndustrialRelations.Vol.46(4).Pp.702-31.Horwitz,F.M.(1999).‘Theemergenceofstrategictraininganddevelopment:thecurrentstateofplay.’JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining,Vol.23(4/5).Pp.180-90.Hollinrake,A.,Antcliff,V.,Saundry,R.(2008).“Explainingactivityandexploringexperience–findings from a survey of union learning representatives.” Industrial Relations Journal, Vol.39(5).Pp.392-410.IPPR(2010).WhyInternsneedafairwage.ByKateLawton,IPPR,DomPotter,Internocracy.Irwin, P. (2008). “Competencies and Employer Engagement.” Asia Pacific Education Review,Vol.9(1),pp.63-69.

333

Jones, C., Hesterley, W.S., Borgatti, S. P. (1997). “A general theory of network governance:exchangeconditionsandsocialmechanisms.”AcademyofManagementReview,Vol.22(4),Pp.911-45.Keeble, D., Wilkinson, F. (1998). ‘Collective Learning and Knowledge development in theevolutionofregionalclustersofhightechnologySMEsinEurope.’RegionalStudies,Vol.33(4),pp.295-303.KeebleD.,LawsonC.,LawtonSmithH.,MooreB.andWilkinsonF.(1998),“Internationalizationprocesses and local embeddedness in technology-intensive small firms” Small BusinessEconomics11(4):327-42Keeble, D., Lawson, C., Moore, B., Wilkinson, F. (1999). “Collective Learning processes,Networking and ‘Institutional thickness’ in the Cambridge Region.” Regional Studies. Vol.33(4).Pp.319-22Keep, E. (2002). “The English Vocational Education and Training Policy Debate – Fragile‘technologies’ or Opening the ‘Black Box’: Two competing visions of where we go next.”JournalofEducationandWork.Vol.15(4).Pp.457-79.Keep,E(2006).“StatecontroloftheEnglishEducationandtrainingsystem–playingwiththebiggesttrainsetintheworld”.JournalofVocationalEducationandTraining,Vol.58(1),pp.47-64.Keep,E.(2010).“Greatexpectations:ananalysisofUKSkillsPolicybyProfessorEwartKeep.”Availableathttp://intl-wes-sagepub.comKeep,E.,Mayhew,K.(1999).‘TheAssessment:knowledge,skillsandcompetitiveness.’OxfordReviewofEconomicPolicy.Vol.15(1),pp.1-15.Keep,E.,Mayhew,K.(2010a).“SomecommentsonSkillsforGrowth.”SKOPE,IssuePaper21.Keep,E.Mayhew,K.(2010b).“MovingbeyondSkillsasaSocialandEconomicPanacea.”Work,Employment&Society,Vol.24(3),pp.565-77.Keep, E. Payne, J. (2002). ‘Policy interventions for a vibrant work-based route – or whenpolicyhitsrealitiesfan.’ In ‘WorkingtoLearn:transforminglearningintheworkplace. ByK.Evans,P.Hodkinson,L.Unwin.(Routledge).Keep,E.,Mayhew,K.,Payne,J.(2006).“FromSkillsRevolutiontoproductivityMiracle–notasEasyasitsounds?”OxfordReviewforEconomicPolicy.Vol.22(4).Pp.539-59.Keogh,W.,Stewart,V. (2001). Identifying theSkillsrequirementsof theworkforce inSMEs:Findings from a European Social Fund Project.’ Journal of Small Business and EnterpriseDevelopment,Vol.8(2),pp.140-9.Kersley,B.,Alpin,C.,Forth,J.,Bryson,A.,Bewley,H.,Dix,G.,Oxenbridge,S.(2013).InsidetheWorkplace:Findingsfromthe2004WorkplaceEmploymentRelationsSurvey.Routledge.Ketels,C. (2003). ‘Thedevelopmentoftheclusterconcept–presentexperiencesandfurtherdevelopments.’NRWconferenceonclusters,Diuisberg,Germany.Kickert,W.J.M.,Klijn,E.H.,Koppenjan,J.F.M.(1997).‘Managingcomplexnetworks:strtagiesforthepublicsector.’SAGE.

334

King, D.S. (1993). ‘The conservatives and Training Policy 1979-1992: from a tripartite to aNeoliberalRegime.’PoliticalStudies,Kirkup, G., Zalevski, A., Maruyama, T., Batool, I. (2010). “Women and Men in Science,EngineeringandTechnology:TheUKStatisticsGuide2010.Bradford.UKResourcesinScience&Technology.TheUKResearchCouncil.Klijn, E.H., Koppenjan, J.F.M. (2006). ‘Institutional design: Changing institutional features ofnetworks.’PublicManagementReview,Vol.8(1),pp.141-160.Krugman, P. (1995). Development, economic geography and economic theory. MIT Press,Cambridge(Mass).Laczik, A., White, C. (2009). Employer engagement within 4-19 Diploma Development.ResearchinPost-compulsoryEducationVol.14(4),pp.399-413.Laursen, K. (2002). The importance of sectoral differences in the application ofcomplementary HRM practices for innovation performance. International Journal of theEconomicsofBusiness,9(1),139.Laursen, H. H. , Brewster, C. (2003). “Line-management responsibility for HRM: what ishappeninginEurope?”EmployeeRelations.Vol.25(3),pp.228-44.Lawler,E.(1986).“HighInvolvementManagement”.SanFrancisco,Jossey-Bass.Lee,R.(1996),"Whatmakestrainingpay?",IssuesinPeopleManagement,No.11,InstituteofPersonnelandDevelopment,London.Liebeskind, J. P., Oliver, A. L., Zucker, L., Brewer,M. (1996). ‘Social networks, learning andflexibility: sourcing scientific knowledge in New Biotechnology firms.’Organization Science,Vol.7(4),pp.428-43.LeitchReviewofSkills.(2006).‘ProsperityforallintheGlobalEconomy–worldClassSkills.’ExecutiveSummary&Foreword.HMSO.Lewis, J.,Ritchie, J. (2003).QualitativeResearchpractice:AGuideforSocialScienceStudentsandResearchers.”SAGEPublications.Lloyd,C. (2002). ‘Training&Developmentdeficienciesinhighskillsectors.’HumanResourceManagementJournal,Vol.12(2),pp.64-81.Lloyd, C. (2007). ‘Qualifications and employer-led system: recruitment practices in the UKfitnessIndustry.’ ResearchPaperNo.75.Skills,KnowledgeandOrganizationalPerformance,(SKOPE),UniversityofCardiff.Lloyd,C.,Mason,G.,Mayhew,K.(2008).“LowwageworkintheUK.”NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.Lloyd,P.,Payne,C.(2002a–inserted11/10/10).“Onthe‘PoliticalEconomyofSkill’:assessingthepossibilitiesforaviableHighSkillsprojectintheUnitedKingdom.”NewPoliticalEconomy,Vol.7(3),pp.367-95.Lloyd,P.,Payne,C.(2002b).‘Insearchofahighskillssociety:somereflectionsonthecurrentvision.’SKOPE.ResearchPaperNo.32.UniversityofWarwick.Lloyd,C.,Payne,J.(2003a)'Thepoliticaleconomyofskillandthelimitsofeducationalpolicy',

335

JournalofEducationPolicy,Vol.18(1),pp.85-10.Lloyd, P., Payne, J. (2003b). ‘What is a ‘High Skills Society? Some Reflections on CurrentAcademicandPolicyDebatesintheUK.’PolicyStudies,Vol.24(2/3),pp.115-133.Lloyd,C.,Payne,J.(2007).“TacklingtheUKSkillsProblem:canunionsmakeadifference?”in‘Learning with Trade unions: a contemporary agenda in employment relations.’ By SteveShelley;MoiraCalveley.Lloyd,C.,Mason,G.,Mayhew,K.(2008).“LowwageworkintheUK.”NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.Long, R. (2009). Graduate Internships. Social Policy Section. House of Commons. StandardNoteSN/SP/4976.Loretto,W.,Vickerstaff,S.,White,P.J. (2005). “Olderworkersandoptions for flexiblework.”EqualOpportunitiesCommission.Manchester.Lowe,J(1992).Locatingtheline:Thefront-linesupervisorandHRM,inBlyton,P.andTurnbull,P.(Editors).ReassessingHumanResourceManagement.London:Sage,pp148-68.Luddy, D. (2008). SSC IAG Project 2007/08 StrandOne. Recommendations for the careersinformationservicescoreofferbySectorSkillsCouncils.SkillsforBusiness.MSC,(2006).‘Management,LeadershipsandEnterpriseLearning&QualificationsStrategy.’ByTrevorBoutall&RebeccaFreeman.TheManagementConsultanciesStandard.Mabey, C., Ramirez, M. (2004) ‘Developing Managers: A European Perspective.’ CharteredManagementInstitute.MacLachlan A.J. (2006). The Graduate experience of women in STEM and how it could beimproved. InRemovingbarriers:Women inAcademic Science, Technology, Engineering andMathematics,byJillM.Bystydzienski,Sharon,R.Bird.MacLeod,D.,Clarke,N.(2009).Engagingforsuccess:enhancingperformancethroughEmployeeEngagement:AreporttoGovernment.[http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file52215.pdf]MacNeil,C.M.(2003).Thelinemanagerasafacilitatorofteamlearningandchange.InLee,M.(ed),HRDinaComplexWorld,Routledge,London,pp.218-30.Marchal,B.,VanBelle, S.,VanOlmen, J.,Hoeree,T.,Kegels,G. (2012). “Is realistEvaluationkeeping its promise” A review of published empirical studies in the field of health systemsresearch.Evaluation.Vol.18(2),pp.192-212.Manning, S. (2002), Resource Base of a Research Project Cluster Related to Human ResourceDevelopmentinEurope,Document,Document12,WIFOResearchForum,Berlin.Marchington, M. (1992). “A Review & Critique of Research on developments in JointConsultation.”BritishJournalofIndustrialRelations,Vol.25,pp.339-52.Marchington, M., Goodman, J., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P. (1992), "New developments inemployeeinvolvement.”EmploymentDepartmentResearchSeries,HMSO,London.Marchington,M.,Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P. and Dundon, A. (2001). “Management Choice andEmployeeVoice.”CIPD,London.

336

Martins, L. P. (2007). “A holistic framework for the strategic management of first tiermanagers.”ManagementDecision,Vol.45(3),pp.616-41.Martin,B.,Riemens,W.,Wajcman,J.(2000).‘Managerialandprofessionalcareersinaneraofre-structuring.’JournalofSociology,Vol.36(3),pp.329-44.Martin,B.(2005).‘Managersaftertheeraoforganizationalre-structuring:towardsasecondmanagerialrevolution.’Work,Employment&Society.Vol.19(4),pp.747-60Mason,G. (2005). ‘EnterpriseProductStrategiesandEmployerDemandforSkills inBritain:EvidencefromtheEmployersSkillsSurvey.ResearchPaperNo.50.SKOPE.Mason,G.,Finegold,D.(1996).“Productivity,machineryandskillsintheUnitedStaesandWesternEurope:precisionEngineering.”ManagementResearchReview.Vol.19(4/5),pp.42-43.Matlay, (1999). 'Employers' perceptions and the implementation of S/NVQs in Britain: acriticalreview.'InternationalJournalofTrainingandDevelopment.Vol.3(2),pp.132-99.McCann, L.,Morris, J., Hassard, J. (2008). ‘Normalized Intensity: TheNew Labor Process ofMiddleManagement.’JournalofManagementStudies,Vol.45(2),pp.343-71.McCracken,M.,Wallace,M. (2000). ‘Exploringstrategicmaturity inHRD&hyphen;rhetoric,aspirationorreality.’JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining,Vol.24(8).Pp.425.McKracken,M.,Wallace,M.(2000).“Towardsare-definitionofstrategicHRD.”JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining.Vol.24(5),pp.281-90MacNeil, C. M. (2003). ‘ Linemanagers: facilitators of knowledge sharing teams.’ EmployeeRelations,Vol.25(3),pp.295-307.MacNeil, C.M. (2004), “Exploring the supervisor role as a facilitatorof knowledge sharing inteams”,JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining,Vol.28(1),pp.93-102.Marchal, B, Van Belle, S., Van Olmen, J., Horee, T., Kegels, G. (2012). “Is realist evaluationkeeping its promise? A review of published empirical studies in the filed of health systemsresearch.”Evaluation,Vol.8(2),pp.192-212.Milesome,S.(2006).“DevolvingHRresponsibilities:Aremanagersreadyandable?IRSEmploymentReview,No.842,March.Miles, R.E., Snow, C. C. (1986). “Network Organizations: new concepts for new forms.CalifornianManagementReview.Vol.28(3).Pp.62-73.Miles, R.E., Snow, C. C. (1992). “Causes of failure in network organizations.” CaliforniaManagementReview.Vol.34(4),Pp.53-72.Miles, R.E., Snow, C. C. (2007). “Organization Theory and supply chain management: anevolvingresearchperspective.”JournalofOperationsManagement.Vol.25(2),Pp.459-63.Miller,L.,Acutt,B.,Kellie,D.(2002).'MinimumandpreferredentryqualificationsandtrainingprovisionforBritishworkers.' InternationalJournalofTraining&Development,Vol.6(3),pp.163-82.Moriarty,J.P.,Smallman,C.(2009). ‘Enroutetoatheoryofbenchmarking.’Benchmarking:aninternationalJournalVol.16(4),pp.484-503.

337

Morosini, P. (2003). “Industrial clusters? Knowledge integration and performance.” WorkDevelopment.Vol.32(2).Pp.305-26.Moropoulou,A.,&Konstanti,A. (2015). “Womenrole inengineeringeducation in innovationteamsintermsofscientificandgenderdiversification.”43rdAnnualSEFIConferenceJune29-July2,2015Orléans,FranceNESS,(2007).NationalEmployersSkillsSurvey,2007.Availablefromwww.semta.org.ukNSA. (2009). “Evaluation of National Skills Academies.” Institute for Employment Studies.Brighton.Normann,R.,Ramirez,R.(1993).“Fromvaluechaintovalueconstellation.”HarvardBusinessReview.Vol.71(4),Pp.65-77.Ostermann, H., Staudinger, B., Staudinger, R. (2009). “Benchmarking Human ResourceManagement Systems.” in “Encyclopaedia of Human Resources Information Systems:challengesine-HRM”byTeresaTorres-Coronas.IGIGlobalParker,R. (2001).‘Notesand issues.TheMythof theentrepreneurialeconomy:employmentandinnovationinsmallfirms.’Work,Employment&Society,Vol.15(2),pp.373-84.Payne,J.(2000)‘Theunbearablelightnessofskill:thechangingmeaningofskillinUKpolicydiscourses and some implications for education and training.’ JournalofEducationalPolicy,Vol.15(3),pp.353-69.Payne,J.,Keep,E.(2003).“Re-visitingtheNordicapproachestoworkre-organizationandjobre-design:lessonsforUKskillspolicy.”PolicyStudies,Vol.24(4),pp.205-25.Payne, J. (2007a). “Skills in context:what can theUK learn fromAustralia’s skills ecosystemproject?”SkillsKnowledge&OrganisationalPerformance.ResearchPaperNo.70.Payne, J. (2007). ‘Skills ecosystems: a new approach to vocational education and trainingpolicy.’IssuePaper14.SKOPE.Payne, J. (2008a). “Divergent skills policy trajectories in England and Scotland after Leitch.”ResearchPaper82.SKOPE.Payne,J.(2008b).‘SectorSkillsCouncilsandemployerengagement–deliveringtheemployer-ledskillsagendainEngland.’JournalofEducation&Work,Vol.21(2),pp.93-113.Payne,J.,Keep,E.(2003).“Re-visitingtheNordicapproachestoworkre-organizationandjobre-design:lessonsforUKskillspolicy.”PolicyStudies,Vol.24(4),pp.205-25.Pawson,R.,Tilley,N.(1997).RealistEvaluation.London:Sage.Pawson,R.,Greenlagh,T.,Harvey,G.,Walshe,K. (2005). “Realist review– anewmethodofsystematic review designed for complex policy interventions.” Journal of Health ServicesResearch&Policy,Vol.10(S1),pp.21-34.Peck, F., McGuiness, D. (2003). Regional Development Agencies and Cluster Strategies:EngagingtheKnowledge-baseintheNorthofEngland.LocalEconomy,Vol.18(1),pp.49-62.PIU (2001). “InDemand:Adult Skills in the21stCentury.”Performanceand InnovationUnit.London:UKCabinetOffice.

338

Piore,M. J., Sabel, C. F. (1984). “ The Second IndustrialDivide: Possibilities for Prosperity.”NewYork:BasicBooks.Pollert,A.(1988).“The‘flexiblefirm’:fixationorfact?”Work,Employment&Society.Vol.2.Pp.281-316.Polt,W.,Rammer,C.,Schartinger,D.,Gassler,H.,Scibany,A.(2001).‘Benchmarkingindustry–sciencerelations:theroleofframeworksconditions.’ScienceandPublicPolicy,Vol.28(4).Porter,M.(1990).‘TheCompetitiveAdvantageofNations.’NewYork.TheFreePress.Porter,M.(1998).‘ClustersandtheNewEconomicsofcompetition.’HarvardBusinessReview,Vol.15(2),pp.373-384.Powell,W.(1990).‘Neithermarketnorhierarchy:networkformsoforganization.’ResearchinOrganizationalBehavior,Vol.12,pp.295-336.Priestly,M.,Miller,K.(2012).“EducationalchangeinScotland:policy,contextandbiography.”CurriculumJournal,Vol.23(1),pp.99-116.Provan, K.G.,Milward, H.B. (2001). “Do Networks Reallywork? A framework for evaluatingPublicSectorOrganizationalNetworks.” PublicAdministrationReview. Vol.61(4).Pp.414-23.Purcell, J.,Hutchinson,S. (2007). ‘Front-linemanagersasagentsinHRM-performancecasualchain:theory,analysisandevidence.’HumanResourceManagementJournal,Vol.17(1),pp.3-20.QCA(2007).FunctionalSkillsStandards.Qualifications&CurriculumAuthority.Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA, 2005). Key Skills Standards. (Available atwww.qca.org.uk/603.html).Rainbird, H. (2005) ‘Assessing Partnership Approaches to Lifelong Learning: ‘A New andModernRolefortheTradeUnions?’,inM.StuartandM.MartinezLucio(eds)PartnershipandModernizationinEmploymentRelations,pp.46–62.London:Routledge.Rao, S., & Perry, C. (2003). Convergent interviewing to build a theory in under-researchedareas: Principles and an example investigation of Internet usage in inter-firm relationships.QualitativeMarketResearch:AnInternationalJournal,6.4236-247.Raddon,A.,Sung,J.(2006).Theroleofemployersinsectoralskillsdevelopment:internationalapproaches.CentreforLabourmarketStudiesworkingpaper,No.49.Richie, J.,Lewis, J.(2013).“QualitativeResearchpractice:AGuideforSocialScienceStudentsandresearchers.”SAGEPublications.Reed,M.andD.L.Harvey(1992)‘TheNewScienceandtheOld:ComplexityandRealismintheSocialSciences’,JournalfortheTheoryofSocialBehavior22(4):353–80.Renwick,D. (2003). ‘LinemanagerinvolvementinHRM:aninsideview.’EmployeeRelations.Vol.25(3),pp.262-80.Renwick,D.,MacNeil,C.M.(2002).‘Linemanagerinvolvementincareers.’CareerDevelopmentInternational,Vol.7(7),pp.407-14.

339

Riege,A.M.&Nair,G.(2004).Thediversityofconvergentinterviewing:Applicationsforearlyresearchersandpostgraduatestudents.MarketingReview,Vol.4,pp.73-85.Roberts, I. (2001). “Reward and Performance management.” In I. Beardwell & L. Holden(editors) Human ResourceManagement: a contemporary approach. 3rd Edition. Pp. 506-58.EdinburghPress.Roberts,G.G.(2002). ‘RobertsReview:Technology,engineeringandmathematicsskills’.HMTreasury.Romero D., Galeano N., Molina A. (2007). “A conceptual model for virtual breedingenvironmentsvaluesystems.”In:Camarinha-MatosL.M.,AfsarmaneshH.,NovaisP.,AnalideC.(eds) Establishing the foundation of collaborative networks. International Federation forInformationProcessing(IFIP)(vol.243).SpringerPublisher,NewYork,pp43–52Rosenfeld, S. A. (1997). ‘Bringing business clusters into the mainstream of economicdevelopment.’EuropeanPlanningStudies,Vol.5(10),pp.3-23.Rowley,T.J.(1997).“Movingbeyonddyadicties:anetworktheoryofstakeholderinfluences.”AcademyofManagementReview,Vol.22(4),pp.887-910.Rubery, J., Earnshaw, J., Marchington, M., Cooke, F. L., Vincent, S. (2002). “ChangingOrganisationalformsandtheemploymentRelationship. JournalofManagementStudies. Vol.39(5),pp.645-72.Rubin, H.J., Rubin, I.S. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data.” SAGE:London,(3rdEdition).Rubery,J.,Grimshaw,B.,Marchington,M.(2010).“Praxis:Blurringboundariesanddisorderinghierarchies Challenges for employment and skills in networked organizations.” UKCommissionforEmployment&Skills,(UKCES).Ryan, P., Gospel, H., Lewis, P. (2006). “Large Employers and Apprenticeship training inBritain.”DepartmentofManagement.King’sCollegeLondon.SocialScienceResearchCentre.ISSNNr:1011-9523.SSDA. (2008). ‘The Sector Skills Agreements: The State of Play.’ Sector Skills DevelopmentAgency.SEMTA,(2007).“BioScienceSectorSkillsAgreement”.Availablefromwww.semta.co.uk.Sadler, T.D., Burgin, S.,McKinney, L., Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning Science through researchapprenticeships:acriticalreviewoftheliterature.’JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,vol.47(3),pp.235-256.Sadler-Smith, E., Sargeant, A., Dawson, A. (1997). Higher-level skills training: meeting theneeds of small businesses.’ International Journal of Training and Development, Vol.1(4),pp216-229.Sako, M. (1992). “Prices, Quality and trust: inter-form relations ion Britain and Japan.”CambridgeUniversityPress.Sako,M.1996.Suppliers'associationsintheJapaneseautomobileindustry:Collectiveactionfortechnologydiffusion,CambridgeJournalofEconomics.Vol.20(6),651-71.

340

Sako,M., Helper, S. (1998). “Determinants of Trust in supplier relations: Evidence from theautomotive industry in Japan and the United States.” Journal of Economic Behavior &Organization.Vol.34(3).Pp.387-417.Saldana,J.(2013).ThecodingManualforQualitativeResearchers.Sage:London.Sanderson, I. (2000). “Evaluation in complexpolicy systems.”Evaluation. SAGEPublications:London,Vol6(4),pp.433-454.Saundry,R., Jones,C.,Antcliff,V. (2011). “Discipline, representationanddispute resolution–exploring the role of trade unions and employee companions in workplace discipline.”IndustrialRelationsJournal.Vol.42(2),Pp.195-211.Saxenian, A. (1991). “The Origins and dynamics of production networks in Silicon Valley.ResearchPolicy.Vol.20.Pp.423-37.Saxenian, A. (1992). Contrasting patterns of business organization in Silicon Valley.EnvironmentandPlanning.Vol.10,pp.377–391.Saxenian, A. (1994).Regional advantage: Culture and competition in SiliconValley andRoute128.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPressSayer,A.(2000)RealismandSocialScience,London:Sage.Schmitz,H.,Musyck,B. (1994). “IndustrialDistricts inEurope:PolicyLessons fordevelopingcountries.”WorldDevelopment.Vol.22(6),Pp.889-910.Schneeberger, A. (2006). ‘Skills for knowledge and service society.’ European Journal ofVocationalTraining,Vol.38(2),pp.6-23.Schuler, R. S., Jackson, S. E. (1987). ‘Linking competitive strategies with human resourcemanagementpractices.’TheAcademyofManagementExecutive,Vol.1(3),pp.297.Scott,J.(1991).“SocialNetworkAnalysis:AHandbook.”SagePublications.Shipton,H.,West,M.A.,Dawson,J.(2006).‘HRMasapredictorofinnovation.’HumanResourceManagementJournal,Vol.16(1),pp.3-27.SectorSkillsDevelopmentAgency(SSDA)(2007).EmployerEngagementActionPlanningGuidance.Wath-upon-Dearne:SSDA).Shipton,H.,Fay,D.,West,M.Patterson,M.,Birdi,K.(2005).‘Managingpeopletopromoteinnovation.’CreativityandInnovationManagementJournal,Vol.14(3),pp.118-128.Sobh,R&Perry,C2005,‘Researchdesignanddataanalysisinrealismresearch’,EuropeanJournalofMarketing,vol.40,(11/12),pp.1194-1209.Smith E. (2011). Women in Science and Engineering? Gendered participation in highereducationSTEMsubjects.BritishEducationalResearchjournal,Vol.37(6),993-1014.Stake,R.(1995).‘Theartofcaseresearch.’Newburypark,CA:SagePublications.Steinle, C., Schiele, H. (2002), “When do industries cluster? A proposal on how to assess anindustry's propensity to concentrate at a single region or nation.” Research Policy. Vol. 31,Pp.849-58.

341

Stevens,M. (1964). ‘ATheoreticalmodelofon-the-job trainingwith imperfect competition.’OxfordEconomicPapers,Vol.46.Pp.537-562.Stevens, M. (1996). ‘Transferable training and poaching externalities’ in Acquiring Skills:MarketFailures,theirsymptomsandPolicyResponses(eds).CambridgeUniversityPress.Stevens,M.(1999).‘HumanCapitalTheoryandUKvocationaltrainingpolicy.’OxfordReviewofEconomicPolicy,Vol.15.Pp.16-32.Streeck,W.(1989).‘Skillsandlimitsofneo-liberalism:theenterpriseofthefutureasaplaceoflearning.’Work,EmploymentandSociety,Vol.3(1),pp.89-104.Stuart, M. (2007). “Introduction: The Industrial Relations of Learning and Training: A NewConsensusoraNewPolitics?”EuropeanJournalofIndustrialRelations.Vol.13(3).Pp.269-80.Stuart, M. (2008). ‘It’s time to talk training: How to develop a dialogue on the skills at theworkplace.’BERR,CBI,TUC,DIUS.Stuart, M. Robinson, A. (2007). “Training, Union recognition and collective bargaining:Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Realtions Survey. Research Paper No. 4.CentreforEmploymentRelations,InnovationandChange.Stuart, M. Wallis, E. (2007). “Partnership approach to Learning: a seven Country Study.”EuropeanJournalofIndustrialRelations.Vol.13(3).Pp.301-21.Symon, G., Cassell, C. (2012). “Qualitative Organisational Research – Core Methods andcurrentchallenges.”London:SAGEPublicationsLimited.Sung, J. (2010) Vocational Education and training & employer engagement: an Industry-ledsectoral system in the Netherlands. International Journal of Training and development.Vol.14(1),pp.16-31Sung, J., Ashton, D. (2005). “Acheiving Best Practice in your Business. High PerformanceWorking Practices: linking strategy and skills to performance outcomes.” DTI in assocaitionwithCIPD.Sung, J., Raddon, A., Ashton, D. (2006). ‘Skills Abroad: a comparitive assessment ofInternationalpolicyapproachestoskillsleadingtothedevlopmentofpolicyrecommendationsfortheUK.’SectorSkillsDevelopmentAgency.ResearchReport16.Thornhill, A., Saunders, M. N. K. (1998a). ‘What if line-managers don’t realize they’reresponsibleforHR.’PersonnelReview,Vol.27(6),pp.460.Thornhill,A.,Saunders,M.N.K.(1998b).Themeanings,consequencesandimplicationsofthemanagementofredundancyanddownsizing:areview.’PersonnelReview,Vol.27(4),pp.271-95.Thornhill, A., Lewis, P., Millmore, M. and Saunders, M. (2000). Managing Change: A HumanResourceStrategyApproach,London:FinancialTimes/Prentice-Hall.Torrington, D., Hall, L. (1996). Chasing the Rainbow: how seeking status through strtagymissesthepointoftheHRFunction.EmployeeRelations,Vol.18(6),pp.79-96.TUC.2006.“2020visionforskills:prioritiesforLeitchReviewofSkills”,London:TUC.

342

Trigilia, C. (1990). “Work and Politics in the Third Italy’s Industrial Districts.” In F. Pike, G.Becattini, W. Sengerberger (Eds.) Industrial districts and Inter-firm coo-operation in Italy.InternationalInstituteforLabourStudies,Geneva.Troshani, I., Rao, S. (2007). Drivers & Inhibitors to XBRL: a qualitative approach to build atheoryinunder-researchedareas.TheInternationalJournalofE-Businessresearch.3(4).Tyson,W., Lee, R., Borman, K.M. (2007). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics(STEM)pathways:HighschoolscinecandmathscourseworkJournalofEducationforStudentsplacedatRisk.Vol.12(3)UKCES, (2008). ‘Simplification of Skills in England: expert advice to government onsimplificationoftheEnglishPostcompulsoryskillssystemsforemployers.’London:UKCES.UKCES,(2009).‘Ambition2020:WorldClassSkills&JobsfortheUK’.London:UKCES.UKCES, (2012). “UK Commission’s Employer Skills Survey: UK Results.” UK Commission forEmployment&Skills.IFFResearch.Van Reenan, J. (2002). ‘Economic issues for the UK biotechnology sector.’New Genetics &Society,Vol.21(2),pp.109-30.Vickerstaff, S. (1985). “Industrial Training in Britain: The Dilemmas of a Neo-corporatistPolicy.”OrganizedinterestsandtheState.Ed.A.Cawson.London.SageVickerstaff, S. (1992a). “The training needs of small firms.” HumanResourceManagementJournal.Vol.2(3),pp.1-15Vickerstaff, S. (1992b). “The management of training in the smaller firms.” ManagementDevelopmentReview.Vol.5(4),p.32.Vickerstaff,S.,Parker,K.T. (1995). ‘Helpingsmall firms: thecontributionofTECsandLECS.’InternationalSmallBusinessJournal.Vol.13(4).Pp.56-72WERS,(2004).‘SMEs:findingsfrom2004WERS.’ByForth,J.,Bewley,H.,Bryson,A.Wallis, E., Stuart,M. andGreenwood, I. (2005) ‘“Learners of theworldunite!”’: an empiricalexaminationof theUKtradeunion learningrepresentative initiative’.Work,EmploymentandSociety,Vol.19(2).Pp.283-304.WarryReport(2006).IncreasingtheEconomicimpactofResearchCouncils.(Availableform:http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file32802.pdf)Accessedon27thMarch,2014at9.39am.Watson, S., Maxwell, G., Farquharson, L. (2007). ‘ Linemanagers views in adopting humanresourceroles:thecaseofHilton(UK)Hotels.’EmployeeRelations,Vol.29(1),pp.30-49.Wedgwood, M. (2007). ‘Higher Education for the workforce: Barriers and facilitators toEmployerEngagement.’DepartmentforInnovation,UniversitiesandSkills.Whittaker, S., Marchington, M. (2003). ‘Devolving HR responsibility to the line: threatopportunityorpartnership?’EmployeeRelations,Vol.25(3),pp.45-61.Wilton,N.2008.Businessgraduatesandmanagementjobs:Anemployabilitymatchmadeinheaven?JournalofEducationandWork,Vol.21(2),pp.143–.5

343

Winterton,J.,Winterton,R.(1996).‘TheBusinessBenefitsofCompetence-BasedManagementDevelopment.’DfEE.ResearchStudiesR516,HMSO.London.Winterton, J., Winterton, R. (1997). ‘Does Management Development add Value?’ BritishJournalofManagement.Vol.8(1),pp.65-76.Winterton,J.,Parker,M.,Dodd,M.,McKracken,M.,Henderson,I.(2000).‘FutureSkillsNeedsofManagers.’DfEE.ResearchBriefNo.182Woodhall,M. (1974). “Investment in IndustrialTraining:anassessmentof theeffectsof theIndustrial Training Act on the Volume and Costs of Training.” British Journal of IndustrialRelations.Vol.12(1).Pp.71-90.Woodridge, B., Floyd, S.W. (1990). “The strategy process, middle management involvementandorganisationalperformance.”StrategicManagementJournal,Vol.11(3),pp.231-241.Wright, P.M., Gardner, T.M. and Moynihan, L.M. 2003. ‘The impact of HR practices on theperformanceofbusiness’.HumanResourceManagementJournal,Vol.13,21-36.Wynarczyk,P.,Renner,C.(2006)."The“gendergap”inthescientificlabourmarket:Thecaseofscience, engineering and technology‐ based SMEs in the UK", Equal OpportunitiesInternational,Vol.25(8),pp.660–673.Wynarczyk, P., Wilson-Kovacs D.M., Ryan, M., Haslam, A. (2006). “The glass-cliff: women’scareerpathsintheUKprivateITsector”,EqualOpportunitiesInternational,Vol.25(8),pp.674-687.Yin,R.(1984).‘CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods(1stedition).BeverleyHills,CA:SagepublishingYin,R.(1993).‘Applicationsofcasestudyresearch.’Newburypark,CA:SagePublishing.Yin,R.(1994).‘CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods(2ndEdition).ThousandsOaks,CA:SagePublishing.Yin,R.K.(2009).‘CaseStudyResearchDesign&Methods’SagePublications(2ndEdition).Yip,F.,Kwong,W.,Preim,R.L.,Cycyota,C.S.(2001).Theperformanceeffectsofhumanresourcemanagersandothermiddlemanagersinvolvementinstrategymakingunderdifferentbusinesslevelstrategies:thecaseinHongKong.”InternationalJournalofHumanResourceManagement,Vol.12(8),pp.1325-46.Zairi,M.(1994a).“Benchmarking:thebesttoolformeasuringcompetitiveness”,BenchmarkingforQualityManagement&Technology,Vol.1No.1,pp.11-24.Zairi,M.(1994b).MeasuringPerformanceforBusinessResults,Springer,NewYork,NY,pp.62-3.Zairi,M.(1997).“Benchmarking:towardsbeinganacceptedmanagementtoolorisitonitswayout?”,TotalQualityManagement,Vol.8Nos2/3,pp.337-8.Zhenjia,Z.,Qiumei,F.(2005).“BenchmarkinginHumanResourceManagement.”CanadianSocialScience,Vol.1(1),pp.57-61.

Date post:	19-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	fatima-malik
View:	105 times
Download:	0 times

Fatima%20Malik%20%28PhD%20Thesis%2c%202016%29-1

Documents