Exploring skills development within the interface of public and private sectors

Designed to be in line with the then government's apartheid policy, the manpower training system created a highly polarised national skills development system characterised by huge socio-economic inequalities, and an unemployment and poverty problem that was defined along racial lines (McGrath, 1996). The defeat of apartheid in the 1990s meant that the new government desperately needed to address these socio-economic challenges. It needed to do so while also trying to catch up with a rapidly globalising world economy characterised by rapid change, unprecedented competition, new technology, fast-growing emerging markets, workforce diversity, and a demand for new skills. The Draft 1997 Green Paper on Skills Development Strategy for Economic and Employment Growth in South Africa advocated for a state-driven national skills development system in partnership with firms, labour and a range of public and private training providers (Republic of South Africa, 1996: 62). The Green Paper led to the promulgation of a number of skills development legislations including the Skills Development Act (SDA) (No. 97 of 1998). The SDA envisaged Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) to act as key agencies in the delivery of skills development and workplace experience seen as essential in addressing the triple challenges of inequality, unemployment, and poverty (Republic of South Africa, 1998). Despite this new bold vision, SETAs have been relentlessly criticised for failing to respond to the demand for medium and high skills in an inclusive manner because of a crisis in governance and administration, poor planning, and corruption (Marock, Harrison-Train, Soobrayan & Gunthorpe, 2008; Barclay, 2012; Scott & Shuttleworth, 2007). SETA Boards tend to be riven with conflict as a result of their often opposing expectations and mandates, and the infighting spills over to executive managers and to the rest of the organisation. Boards that are preoccupied with internal power struggles are wont to lose focus on their fiduciary duties which revolve around the implementation of the National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS) (Scott & Shuttleworth, 2007). Even though optimum value can be derived from having institutional arrangements that are geared to the implementation of projects supporting organisational strategy, one in three of all strategy implementations fail as there is often a major rift between strategy (as designed by principals) and the actual projects (as implemented by agents) (Buys & Stander, 2010). Levy (2014) theorised that where the public is linked to service delivery nodes via politicians and policymakers who are in turn linked to service delivery providers, it is crucial to align the goals of agents with that of their principals. The SETA arrangement is, nonetheless, unique in that Board members are appointed by the Minister of Higher Education and Training in their capacity of representing a particular constituency such as a union or a business association. Even so, stakeholders must work together to optimise joint benefits and minimise their temptations to otherwise shirk, free ride or pursue selfish goals