Meredith Belbin opinion
By Meredith Belbin (August 2006 Issue)
0 Comments 
Article Rating: 
Email to a friend | Print Version
I first met Eunice at Cambridge when we were both new members of the psychology course, and I made sure I sat alongside her. Three years later we married. Our two children led in turn to five grandchildren.
My arrival at Cambridge was much less remarkable than Eunice’s. In spite of her academic promise at school, Eunice left education early to become a typist in the City with a firm of accountants, where to our later good fortune she absorbed all the skills of accountancy. In her spare time she studied Social Science until bombs demolished the classroom. Needing alternative employment, she taught typing at Sidcup Secondary Technical School, rapidly rising to become its deputy head and then head (the youngest in the country).
Compensating for her lack of qualifications, she gained admission to Girton College on submission of an essay (a rarity if ever there was one). Choosing to read anthropology (of which she had not hitherto heard), she took the final exam in one year, gaining First Class honours and the Girton academic prize before transferring to psychology, where she gained her degree and doctorate.
Eunice wrote and delivered many papers, and had a flair for both research and organisation. We combined to write our first book – Problems in Adult Retraining (1969).
While Eunice was a founder member of Belbin Associates, she will probably be remembered by more people, and by posterity, for her work as the director of the Industrial Training Research Unit in Cambridge. During its heyday, under Sir Richard O’Brien, the Unit was the largest research body funded by the Manpower Services Commission.
Arguably, the Industrial Training Act of 1964 made the greatest impact on training in the UK throughout the 20th century, even if only its vestiges remain today. The background to the Act was that the shortage of skilled labour after the War was aggravated by the way in which the training of skilled labour was undermined by systematic poaching. If industry sought skills, it had to make its own training provision. Some firms pursued an alternative strategy. They found it more economic to entice the requisite skilled personnel from other firms, thereby avoiding the actual costs of training. This, in turn, impacted on the training providers, since it now became more difficult to find economic justification for such efforts.
The ITA radically changed the balance of advantages and disadvantages. A training levy was imposed on all firms that neglected training, while other firms that made adequate provision could escape the levy completely. Levy money financed Industrial Training Boards set up for each industry.
The delight of the whole approach was that the ITA was almost entirely self-financing. Training flourished, and the ITBs were able to concentrate on the skills needs of each industry. Eunice played a notable part in bridging communications between industry and government, eventually becoming Chairman of the British Association of Commercial and Industrial Education and gaining the OBE in recognition of her work.
The Industrial Training Research Unit developed many of the methods used by the Industrial Training Boards, which are still used today. If the ITRU had not existed, I do not think we would have discovered team roles. Trainability Assessment, the Discovery Method in Training (adapted for the needs of older workers), psychometric tests devised to take account of job demands and the modification of training to take account of cultural and ethnic differences were all outputs that emanated from the ITRU.
Changing economic and political conditions eventually brought the era of the Industrial Training Act to an end. A major downturn in the economy left employers complaining that they did not need training, and could not afford the levy. The new Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher reacted sympathetically.
Government intervention was replaced by the free reins of the free market. It was not long before the skills gap reopened and foreign labour had to be imported. The flourishing nature of immigration bears current witness to the consequences of this radical change in policy.
The fires that ignited the Industrial Training Act are out, but I believe their ashes are still glowing. Eunice’s spirit is alive and cherished by the many people who knew her.
My arrival at Cambridge was much less remarkable than Eunice’s. In spite of her academic promise at school, Eunice left education early to become a typist in the City with a firm of accountants, where to our later good fortune she absorbed all the skills of accountancy. In her spare time she studied Social Science until bombs demolished the classroom. Needing alternative employment, she taught typing at Sidcup Secondary Technical School, rapidly rising to become its deputy head and then head (the youngest in the country).
Compensating for her lack of qualifications, she gained admission to Girton College on submission of an essay (a rarity if ever there was one). Choosing to read anthropology (of which she had not hitherto heard), she took the final exam in one year, gaining First Class honours and the Girton academic prize before transferring to psychology, where she gained her degree and doctorate.
Eunice wrote and delivered many papers, and had a flair for both research and organisation. We combined to write our first book – Problems in Adult Retraining (1969).
While Eunice was a founder member of Belbin Associates, she will probably be remembered by more people, and by posterity, for her work as the director of the Industrial Training Research Unit in Cambridge. During its heyday, under Sir Richard O’Brien, the Unit was the largest research body funded by the Manpower Services Commission.
Arguably, the Industrial Training Act of 1964 made the greatest impact on training in the UK throughout the 20th century, even if only its vestiges remain today. The background to the Act was that the shortage of skilled labour after the War was aggravated by the way in which the training of skilled labour was undermined by systematic poaching. If industry sought skills, it had to make its own training provision. Some firms pursued an alternative strategy. They found it more economic to entice the requisite skilled personnel from other firms, thereby avoiding the actual costs of training. This, in turn, impacted on the training providers, since it now became more difficult to find economic justification for such efforts.
The ITA radically changed the balance of advantages and disadvantages. A training levy was imposed on all firms that neglected training, while other firms that made adequate provision could escape the levy completely. Levy money financed Industrial Training Boards set up for each industry.
The delight of the whole approach was that the ITA was almost entirely self-financing. Training flourished, and the ITBs were able to concentrate on the skills needs of each industry. Eunice played a notable part in bridging communications between industry and government, eventually becoming Chairman of the British Association of Commercial and Industrial Education and gaining the OBE in recognition of her work.
The Industrial Training Research Unit developed many of the methods used by the Industrial Training Boards, which are still used today. If the ITRU had not existed, I do not think we would have discovered team roles. Trainability Assessment, the Discovery Method in Training (adapted for the needs of older workers), psychometric tests devised to take account of job demands and the modification of training to take account of cultural and ethnic differences were all outputs that emanated from the ITRU.
Changing economic and political conditions eventually brought the era of the Industrial Training Act to an end. A major downturn in the economy left employers complaining that they did not need training, and could not afford the levy. The new Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher reacted sympathetically.
Government intervention was replaced by the free reins of the free market. It was not long before the skills gap reopened and foreign labour had to be imported. The flourishing nature of immigration bears current witness to the consequences of this radical change in policy.
The fires that ignited the Industrial Training Act are out, but I believe their ashes are still glowing. Eunice’s spirit is alive and cherished by the many people who knew her.
We have only displayed above the opening paragraph of this article. If you are a TJ subscriber, login now so you can download a PDF of this article in full, free of charge. For non-subscribers the PDF can be purchased for £9.00 see the "Buy Now" Option above.
Readers Comment
Be the first to comment on this news story
Buy Now
You can download this article free by subscribing and logging in as a Full TJ member
Price: £9.00
Articles from this Issue
- Meredith Belbin opinion
- Peter Honey opinion
- International Opinion
- Tech Trends
- Open all hours
- Blue sky thinking
- Under pressure
- To the lighthouse
- In pursuit of happiness
- Maximise your peak performers
- Sweetening the Pill
- Tips for unlocking middle managers
- Great Thinkers
- Five and a half steps to evaluation
- Town Hall, Manchester and The Whitworth Building, Manchester University
- TJ Archive
- A day in the life of
- Andrew Mayo