A process evaluation of a supervisory development programme

Abstract

Orientation: An important evaluation function is to assess the adequacy of the programme process, including the extent to which the appropriate people participate in its activities.Research purpose: The study aimed to provide information about coverage, service delivery, organisational resources, and medium-term outcomes for a supervisory development programme (SDP) in the hospitality industry.Motivation for the study: The primary motivation was to assist programme staff to understand their programme and also to generate information that the programme staff could use to reflect on the programme’s performance and future direction.Research design, approach and method: A mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods was employed, namely: a literature review; personal interviews; and internal programme documentation, such as e-mail correspondence, financial statements, attendance registers, and personnel records. Personal interviews were conducted with two stakeholders, namely the programme manager and programme administrator. The programme data of 69 participants in the SDP were utilised for the evaluation.Main findings: The evaluation’s main finding concluded that the ‘implemented programme’ was not congruent with the ‘planned programme’.Practical/managerial implications: It is recommended that programme activities and theory should be re-evaluated, as the programme is used mainly as a training programme for new appointees, rather than a management development programme to create a pool of potential supervisors. Programme uptake and output should also be closely aligned. The length of time that people in the pool of potential supervisors had to wait before they were appointed should also be reduced.Contribution/value-add: By explicating the basic programme theory and studying programme implementation, this evaluation serves as a starting point for future evaluations of the SDP.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.