For almost a decade I have been a student of

British developments in industrial relations

and industrial training. During the same period
I have been involved in these fields in the
a look at
the
United States, particularly in California.
California has been expanding at a very rapid
rate in the areas of general education, higher
education, and technical and vocational

industrial
education. Consequently m y point of view is
that of a Californian as well as an American.
We have many 'Scotlands' and 'Wales' in
the United States: the quantity and quality of

training
industrial training varies tremendously from
one part of the country to the next. This makes
it very difficult to say without considerable
qualification what is being developed in

act
America. However, there is a growing
movement to establish an effective national
manpower policy including industrial training
and because of this what is being
done in Britain is of considerable interest
to those in the United States who have
responsibilities in this area. by HERBERT PERRY

Readers were introduced to Dr Perry in our first issue when

he wrote about the new structure of craft training in the
construction industry. This article is his second and last in
the present series: he has now returned to California.

AS ONE W H O HAS BEEN CONCERNED W I T H TRAINING IN T H E
manual skills I have long been aware that craftsmen trained
in northern Europe and Great Britain are generally held in
high regard in the United States; indeed, Europe was the
main source of supply for the American labour market for
many years. Even as recently as two years ago efforts were
being made to recruit bricklayers from Great Britain to
work in a building boom going on in the mid-western part
of the United States. The best craft training in Britain is
excellent but it is available only to a minority. Most work
done in many so-called skilled areas is done by people with
very little training or inadequate training. As a visitor to
Great Britain and a short time resident, I have become
acquainted with the poor quality of service the consumer
receives in many areas of the retailing and service
industries. There is a large number of very young people
from age 15 to 20 who are employed in jobs where it is
necessary to deal with the public. I have noted that most of
these young people seem to be very poorly trained and have
very little knowledge about their job. Examples are found
in most service stations where youngsters man the petrol
pumps. In many of the local department stores and food
shops it is common to run into people who cannot even
make change properly or are not able to give information
which they should know. There is too a tremendous contrast
from the beautiful work being done in some public buildings
with that shoddy type of work so common on new housing
estates and in council housing. I have seen more shoddy
work here in the construction industry than in the United
States. Then again, the lack of professionalism in the field
of management is still quite noticeable even though things
are changing rapidly in this area. I find that many people
in managerial or supervisory jobs are very poorly informed
about their firm or their department and in many cases do
not even seem particularly concerned about anything
beyond their own narrow area of responsibility. There

77
the industrial training act
seems to be a generous sprinkling of amateurs involved in
policy-making positions not only in private firms, b u t also
in public enterprises and non-profit institutions. M a n y
people seem to have arrived at their positions purely on the
basis of connections, the old school tie and nepotism while
a few have risen from the shop floor into managerial positions.
T h e r e are too few who have chosen to become professional
management workers and who have h a d proper training. I
know all this is being changed but it is still very evident to
one who comes from a country where professionalism has
long been the hallmark of modern and successful m a n a g e -
ment.
While I m a y be critical in my appraisal, this does not
mean that I do not appreciate the positive values of the
British way of life and the high level of civilisation which
has been achieved here in Great Britain. I would not be
studying here and spending time working in Britain if I
did not feel that there was something to learn from the
British approach to the problems of the industrial society.
However, Britain has to compete in a world where other
countries have done quite a bit more in developing a
practical a n d professional approach to solving m a n y of the
problems inherent in managing a complex industrial
economy. I believe the British can become much more
efficient without having to give u p those values which make
Britain a strong yet compassionate nation. T h e r e are still,
unfortunately, many trappings left over from the era of
empire a n d government by an hereditary elite. British
pragmatism, however, will sort these things out in good
time, no doubt. But it will be in the best interests of Britain
to step u p this sorting out process and get on with the j o b
of bringing about greater efficiency and quality of opportu-
nity in this society.
Assessment of training
Excellent craft and technical training has been available to
m a n y Britons for a long time. However, I have found that
there is an elitist approach to training of this type very
much as there is in general education. Technical colleges
vary considerably in philosophy, quality of facilities and
faculty and their ability to change with the times. M a n y of
the colleges I have visited during my year here in Britain,
and on previous occasions, are very much concerned with
training an elite to a City & Guilds standard. I n doing so it
appears to me that they have become considerably estranged
from the day-to-day needs of the industries which they
claim to serve. I realise that colleges are also concerned
with the welfare of the individuals who attend them, but in
many cases there is more concern for the welfare of teaching
staff. Any institution where there is a mixture of the
academic a n d the technical seems to end u p with the
academically-orientated staff and departments having the
78
highest status. T h e technical a n d craft-orientated departments
and staff try to attain a similar status and they usually
attempt this by making craft or technical courses more
academic than practical. It is also much easier in a college
situation to teach theory a n d related technical information
than it is to give practical training, particularly in manual
skills. City & Guilds requirements lend themselves to this
approach because, until very recently, practical training
was not emphasised a n d usually the testing was on the basis
of producing a so-called 'masterpiece' or a model a n d seldom
based on the actual work done in a shop, in a factory or on a
construction site. There are exceptions to this, of course. In
certain areas there are technical colleges, colleges of further
education and other specialised technical colleges which
have developed good rapport with industry in the area they
serve a n d which have successfully produced programmes
relevant to the needs of both industry and apprentices and
trainees. T h e y are, unfortunately, the exception rather than
the rule.
T h e City & Guilds of London Institute, which has long
served a need, b u t served it short of what industry required,
has tried to deal with change. However, their very cumber-
some committee approach has shortcomings. Their concern
with training has been limited to a small n u m b e r a n d it
depends very heavily on part-time workers to d o much of
the work that is carried out. In the case of both technical
colleges a n d the City & Guilds of London Institute, however,
there is a ferment developing as a result of the Industrial
Training Act which in my opinion can lead only to beneficial
change. T h e r e is going to be considerable institutional lag
but another five years will see both the technical colleges
and City & Guilds operating with a different philosophy and
doing much more to serve industry on a broader scale than
has been the case in the past.
T h e government training centres, which started out in
the post World W a r I I period with a considerable m a n d a t e
and then lost out because of certain economic a n d political
developments, are now coming back on to the scene and
they as well will probably be developed to serve industry
better. I see them well set u p to expand in the area of adult
training, an area which has long been neglected in Great
Britain. T h e greater need for retraining in the future in all
areas of manual skills will provide tremendous challenges
which the GTCs, if properly programmed, should be able
to meet. As for on-the-job training, this of course is still the
largest sector where training takes place. Almost everyone
receives some sort of training on the j o b . Some is very
effective but most is inadequate. And very little is systematic
or established as the result of good work study practice. This
is an area where the Industry Training Boards should give
greater attention. Every employer generally has to do a
considerable a m o u n t of on-the-job training but in many
cases he is not aware of the fact that he could probably do it
a lot better if h e knew more about how to train effectively.
I know little about commercial, distributive a n d service
trades training except that there is not much evidence that
it is being done systematically and it appears that much of
the learning of new jobs is still done on the basis of 'sitting
with Nellie'.
Irrelevant studies
There seems to be a considerable amount of controversy as
to where formal education leaves off and industrial training
begins and I will not attempt to deal with the subject in
any depth except to say that there is a tremendous a m o u n t
of irrelevant education given to many, both in the United
States and in Great Britain, on the basis that it is helpful to
those learning a skill or a vocation. In the American con-
struction industry the pipe trades employers and unions have
pulled out of most of the college and high school pro-
grammes where related technical instruction was given to
their apprentices a n d have set u p over 120 of their own
training centres. T h e y did this mainly because they felt
there were too many 'garbage courses' as they are called
being given to their apprentices, taking valuable time away
from the necessary related technical instruction and practical
training. I t is my belief that the educational institutions
should concentrate at the secondary and g r a m m a r school
level on preparing young people better in the basics of
English, mathematics, general science, and social sciences,
keeping in mind that most of these youngsters will have to
work in more than one occupation during their lifetime.
This type of education should not be tagged on to craft or
technical training. Only that education which is absolutely
necessary to do the j o b in hand in the most efficient manner
should be a part of the curriculum of any industrial training
course. I appreciate the fact that m a n y educationists are
trying to get another crack at the boy or girl with whom
they failed in secondary school but generally their effective-
ness is not very great and there is a tendency more to alienate
the youngster who wants to learn a skill.
While much has been done for a minority of those learning
craft, technical a n d professional skills there has been a
dearth of systematic formal training for those at the
management and supervisory level and those at the so called
semi-skilled or unskilled level. I t is only in recent years that
universities, technical colleges and poly-technical colleges
have concerned themselves with the establishment of
79
the industrial training act
professional schools in the area of management studies.
Indeed, with the advent of the training boards there has
been the problem of a proliferation of management courses,
m a n y of them not particularly relevant but reflecting the
jump-on-the-band-wagon approach of many colleges and
employer organisations. It is my opinion that in the colleges
or other institutions concerned with professional training the
approach should be very basic and general, educating
people in the philosophy of management and developing a n
awareness of management skills and techniques b u t not
being too specialised. T h e firms employing management a n d
supervisory personnel should assume more responsibility for
setting u p the specialist management training courses which
are relevant to their particular industry. T h e colleges and
universities are generally not suitable for the specific
management training which is needed by m a n y individual
firms or in the highly specialised industries of today's world.
T h e r e is truly a need to take an inventory of what has been
developed so that there is not just an expansion of so-called
management training courses without assurance that the
scarce resources which can be applied to this type of training
are applied in the most effective and relevant m a n n e r . This
may be a task which the boards could handle. At the present
time however it seems that most of them are concerned with
the numbers game and are not actually set u p to evaluate
the needs of the various sectors of industry as regards the
type of management training which should be established.
Industrial Training Act
T h e r e is one point which I would like to make before
discussing what I feel are the problem areas and the
contributions of the Training Act. As I see it the establishment
of the Industrial Training Act was partly the result of a
failure on the part of industry a n d the technical educationists
to meet the needs of an industrial economy faced with rising
competition in the outside world. M a n y of the people whom
I have met both in industry and in technical training
institutions have referred to the Act as just another
unnecessary governmental intervention. I n my opinion
there is plenty of evidence that the Act came about after
much effort was m a d e to get industry voluntarily to improve
its approach to training for the modern industrial world.
Fortunately for the British economy the Industrial T r a i n i n g
Act was passed and is having an effect. It has h a d some
problems.
O n e problem as I see it has been a result of the fact that
the various training boards h a d to be established by civil
servants from the Department of Employment and
Productivity who recruited large numbers of ex-colonials for
their initial staff. T h e y were of course faced with a shortage
of qualified staff in the face of expanding demand for people
with training experience and administrative and executive
80
skills. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they were picking those
who have served well in another a r e a : administrators with
a flair for adapting themselves to the kinds of situations faced
in the empire days. These are people, however, who have
not been trained in a professional approach to industrial
management in the modern situation. T h e result has been
that many of the boards have started out in a very bureau-
cratic manner. Their first task was to set up a levy system and
a grant system which tends to create an image to industry
of another governmental agency out to collect money from
some and dole it out to others. W h e n industry people began
to come into the boards, men who had a background of
professional industrial management, there was a clash of
philosophies and much time was wasted while these various
groups fought to get their policies established. This situation
still exists to some extent. T h e danger as I see it is that those
who have a tendency for the bureaucratic approach may
have greater staying power than those who have more of a
competitive industry-orientated approach. T h e positive side
of this is that the m a n d a t e of the Act is to bring about change
and increase awareness of what is needed in training through-
out industry. If industry supports the more dynamic elements
they will prevail.
T h e Industrial Training Act does not require that a grant
system be established. However, most boards seem to have
gone that route. T h e grant system is a form of bribery and
does not always have the desired effect. There is a lack of
equity in the system that is being developed because the
more successful firms who are probably already training
effectively are able to recover a great proportion of their
levy while m a n y of the smaller firms are not equipped to
engage successfully in the game of grantsmanship. In the
construction industry in the United States there is a levy
system operating through collective bargaining and it works
effectively with no grants given out to employers. It would
seem to me that, if evidence is shown that effective training
is an advantage to an industry or an employer, participation
and support for training programmes would come without a
grant designed to get people to do what they should be doing
anyway. T h e administration of the levy and grant system
abounds with possibilities for inequities and creates a
considerable amount of continuing dissension within the
industries where the system prevails.
Most of the boards seem to be saddled with a host of
advisory committees which unfortunately tend to operate
as if they have a right to veto and set policy rather than to
advise. This puts the board chairmen and staff in a position
where they generally have to make compromises on the
basis of political necessity rather than on sound training
principles. Often those who have been involved in establish-
ing these many committees have been used to systems
whereby committees have a lot to do with setting policy.
Unfortunately they have become well entrenched a n d in
many ways are a handicap to the boards rather than a n aid.
This situation makes for mediocrity and slowness in
implementing necessary change.
Another problem area is that of the small firm. This is an
area where the training boards can help more by directly
training people who will be employed by these firms rather
than trying to get them to train, particularly when they
usually have inadequate facilities or staff to do such a j o b . It
is also a problem because effective training is a part of the
arsenal of those engaged in competitive commercial warfare.
Those who train effectively usually are more progressive,
successful and profitable firms a n d it is understandable that
they may not be too keen on sharing their techniques with
those with w h o m they have to compete. There is no doubt
that the methods used by the most progressive can probably
be used to show the way to the less progressive but some
firms m a y be reluctant to co-operate.
In summing u p the impact of the Industrial Training Act
I would include the following:
• T h e most important impact has been a recognition of
the value of the h u m a n factor of production in the British
economy. T h e h u m a n element has long been neglected in
Britain probably because in the past there was a large empire
to exploit and there was not a recognised need to develop
the home population in the same way as those countries of
northern Europe which did not have access to such vast
overseas provinces. Countries like Switzerland, G e r m a n y and
the Scandinavian states have long felt a much greater need
for investing in their population in order to be more pro-
ductive and compete successfully in world markets. T h e
Industrial Training Act is a recognition that Britain can no
longer waste its resources, particularly its h u m a n resources
within its own boundaries.
• T h e Act has created a greater awareness of the value
of proper training and I emphasise the word proper.
• It also supports and spreads the idea that work study,
modern selection techniques, better allocation and more
efficient use of labour can be of value to industry a n d is
necessary for economic survival.
• It extends the idea that systematic training can be
beneficial to top level management and lower level workers
as well as to the skilled craftsman and technician. It should
be common knowledge that there really is no such thing as
an unskilled worker. Every worker has to develop some skills
to carry out his j o b effectively a n d there are very few cases
where new workers cannot benefit from a systematic
approach which shows them how to do the j o b properly.
• A big impact has been the development of a professional
approach to both training and management in place of the
previously widely used gifted-amateur approach in various
sectors of British life.
• T h e Act marks the first time that a framework has been
provided for an effective national system of industrial
training that can stay up-to-date in meeting the needs of a
very rapidly changing, technologically-orientated, world.
This first five-year period has been one of considerable
controversy, agonising growing pains and much rear-guard
action by those trapped by misguided self-interest and
traditional values. There have been effective changes: the
apparatus for modernising and co-ordinating the British
approach to training has become established. T h e next five
years should see a decline in the numbers of old-line
employers, trade unionists and educationists who d o not go
along with the m a n d a t e of the Act. As they disappear from
the scene along with m a n y of the useless appendages to the
British industrial structure, such as time-serving apprentice-
ships and hereditary management hierarchies, change will
probably begin to take place at a more rapid rate than has
been the case in the recent past. Five years from now there
will be m a n y more professional training officers in the field
and the staffs of the various Industry Training Boards will
themselves have become more professional a n d have
developed more co-operative relationships with industry and
training institutions throughout the country.
Because the Industrial Training Act represents a n attempt
to establish an effective national industrial training policy
the Americans will watch closely. T h e r e is recognition in the
United States also of a need to have a national manpower
policy which includes industrial training and a co-ordination
of the activities carried on throughout the nation.
There is no possibility that at the end of any five-year
period from now on, that we will be able to say we have
reached the summit and everything is downhill from here on.
There will be a continuous listing of the problems which have
yet to be solved as well as an inventory of progressive steps
which have been taken. O n e of the most important impacts
of the Industrial Training Act should be, and I hope will be,
that people will realise that the needs of an advanced
industrial society are going to change constantly and even
more rapidly than has been the case in the past and this has
to be met by a training philosophy which is both flexible and
relevant. M a n has now reached the moon and only 60 years
after he first learned to fly. Anyone who studies the
tremendous organisation that has been set u p in the last
decade in the United States to send a m a n to the moon and
the training involved in developing the h u m a n resources
necessary to carry out such a task will realise that industrial
training today has to be carried out on a much more
dynamic level than has been the case in the past. Britain has
to make the Industrial Training Act work if it is to prosper
in the space age. *
81