In this paper we examine and challenge the competency-based models which currently dominate accreditation and development systems in sport support disciplines, largely the sciences and coaching. Through consideration of exemplar shortcomings, the limitations of competency-based systems are presented as failing to cater for the complexity of decision making and the need for proactive experimentation essential to effective practice. To provide a better fit with the challenges of the various disciplines in their work with performers, an alternative approach is presented which focuses on the promotion, evaluation and elaboration of expertise. Such an approach resonates with important characteristics of professions, whilst also providing for the essential 'shades of grey' inherent in work with human participants. Key differences between the approaches are considered through exemplars of evaluation processes. The expertise-focused method, although inherently more complex, is seen as offering a less ambiguous and more positive route, both through more accurate representation of essential professional competence and through facilitation of future growth in proficiency and evolution of expertise in practice. Examples from the literature are also presented, offering further support for the practicalities of this approach. Key PointsThe paper examines limitations in the commonly applied competency method of evaluation for support professions and promotes an alternative, expertise-focused approach.The expertise approach goes beyond the use of competency-based systems, and even the definitions of competence provided in this paper, to evaluate and facilitate capacities for more elaborative and adaptive thinking, judgment and growth.Bodies responsible for professional development and evaluation need to lead a long overdue, widespread shift from competency-driven to expert practice across the spectrum of science and coaching in sport, reflecting the situation already common in medicine.

M I K E D O H E RT Y University of Luton, UKA B S T R AC T Despite the assumption that 'transferable' skills are part and parcel of a graduate's portfolio, there is a lack of information about the extent to which such skills may be perceived by students to be valuable. Although the skills agenda has been at the forefront of Higher Education (HE) provision for some time, contemporary studies focus upon measurement issues and neglect the process aspects of skills learning and development. There is also a lack of research to support methodologies aimed at promoting optimal transfer of skills to work environments. It is apparent that there is a certain lack of clarity about the linkage between the nature of the learning environments that may be provided, and the types of outcomes that are purported to accrue. Accordingly, focusing on this context, the investigation had two objectives: first, to assess students' perceptions of the knowledge and skills acquired during their undergraduate degree programmes; and second, to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of the strategies adopted in respect of learning transfer. At the University of Luton 116 Level Three students completed a questionnaire that covered all the major skill descriptors of the university's skills template. The results revealed statistically significant differences between the two closely related programmes in terms of perceived skills acquisition. Although the findings indicated that students were moderately satisfied with the skills acquired, a potential cause for concern was that one in five students did not perceive any transfer strategies to be effective. K E Y WO R D S : lear ning transfer, skills development, student perceptions, transferable skills active learning in higher education

A framework for the optimum development and transfer of conflict-handling skills via outdoor management development (OMD) programmes has already been presented (Part I, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 7). A qualitative study with ten OMD providers confirmed the framework to be tenable insofar as the concepts represented within it were reportedly utilised as aspects of provision but, crucially, there was little evidence of an underlying rationale or set of principles to optimise effect. Hence, a questionnaire survey was conducted to ascertain perceived provision from the client's perspective and to provide a foundation for assessment of the framework to a wider managerial population. The results suggested that aspects of the framework were identifiable to participants as features of course design but, once again, there was an apparent lack of awareness about how these approaches were best utilised to optimise skills transfer. Results from both studies indicate a common lack of understanding on behalf of both providers and clients as to the pedagogical or philosophical principles underlying the application of particular methodologies to maximise efficacy.

PurposeThis paper aims to discuss a framework for analysing the learning and transfer of conflict handling skills via leadership development programmes. The framework links the role of knowledge in skill acquisition to the process of learning transfer to suggest how different methodologies may influence learning outcomes.Design/methodology/approachIn order to explore the veracity of the framework, content analysis was conducted on 22 UK leadership development programmes. In addition, semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 18 managers acting in leadership roles and ten leadership development providers.FindingsResults confirmed the model to be tenable insofar as providers reportedly utilised both design paths represented in the framework and as managers used the approaches in handling business conflicts.Research limitations/implicationsThe framework remains to be tested longitudinally with a large sample of managers and providers. Given the lack of empirical work to support an expressed link between design and outcome to maximise effect, a mixed methodology examining both approach and rationale would be essential.Practical implicationsIt is suggested that clients question the training provider about the philosophy underlying skills learning and transfer. Due consideration should also be given to the circumstances under which learning transfer may be optimised.Originality/valueIt is proposed that the framework may offer clients an evaluation tool in respect of particular methodologies or course designs and that this may help to maximise the chances of focused learning and subsequent skills transfer.

Despite rapid expansion in provision of outdoor management development (OMD), there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the efficacy of the learning process and crucially, its transfer to the workplace. Prompted by the dearth of research into the linkage between programme aims, the methodologies utilised and outcomes that are purported to accrue, a new framework for analysing the mechanisms of skills transfer is proposed. The framework represents a decision making chain comprised of three factors i.e. the knowledge base, learning approach and practice setting. In order to explore the veracity of the framework, data were gathered about the methodologies used by ten major providers of OMD to promote the transfer of skills in conflict handling. Results confirmed the model to be tenable insofar as the variables represented within it were reportedly utilised as aspects of skills development. Significantly, however, there was little evidence for the application of this framework, or any other process-based decision making, on the design of optimum content or method.