Quality management within training in the South African Army

Abstract

Quality management is essential to ensure the quality of systems and processes within organisations. The monitoring and evaluation of training interventions through quality management enable organisations to make timeous and appropriate adjustments for the improvement of training. Although quality management will be investigated within the context of corps training units within the South African Army, this study is also conducted within the field of human resource development. A convergent parallel mixed-methods research design was used to investigate leaders’ perceptions regarding, attitude towards, and commitment to quality management of training in corps training units in the South African Army. Instruments used to collect quantitative data were developed and included a Leader Perception, Attitude and Commitment Scale. These scales were distributed simultaneously to the whole target group of 229 respondents (sample size). Forty-nine participants indicated their willingness to partake in the focus group interviews for the qualitative part of the study. Quantitative findings revealed that most respondents’ perceptions were similar to quality management literature. Respondents’ attitudes towards quality management of training indicated that most of the respondents agreed that leaders at corps training units demonstrated sufficient support and enthusiasm, but felt that the attitudes of level 3 (top management) are tending towards negative. Respondents also tended to disagree that the commitment of leaders at corps training units to quality management of training was adequate. A structural equation model indicated that attitudes had a significant effect on commitment, while perceptions did not have a correlation with attitude and no effect on commitment. Qualitative findings revealed that most participants’ perceptions were in line with the quality management literature. In contrast to the QM literature, some participants perceived that a quality management system consists of certain activities and that a specific section should be responsible for the quality of training, rather than quality being the responsibility of everyone. Participants indicated, with appropriate examples, that quality management systems in most cases were established. Participants indicated that leaders demonstrated a lack of focus concerning quality management of training that adversely affected quality management of training. These attitudes adversely affected participants’ commitment to quality management of training. Findings from both datasets confirmed that most leaders in corps training units in the SA Army perceived QM of training similarly to QM literature. The merged findings also suggested that attitudes towards quality management had an adverse effect on the implementation of QM. In addition, the merged findings indicated that junior leaders’ (at corps training units – level 4) attitudes towards quality management of training were also affected by organisational and individual factors. The merged findings concerning commitment revealed that leaders at levels 3 and 4 within the South African Army are not adequately committed, which resulted in difficulty for leaders in corps training units to manage quality management of training effectively. A framework for effective implementation of quality management within training in the South African Army was developed and proposed to address the merged findings ensuing from this study, namely to address leaders’ attitudes at a national, organisational and individual level to improve commitment to quality management of training. In addition, this framework may increase the effectiveness of the implementation of quality management within training by means of suggested organisational and individual interventions/strategies. This study contributes to the quality management national and international literature, particularly quality management of training within a military context.