A comparison of in-company and university training programs as a means of attaining the objectives of executive development. - Page 41 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 41 of 192 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
j of a man. The responsibility rests with the Indi- j
1 vidual, his abilities, his efforts. No business 1
enterprise is competent, let alone obligated, to substitute Its efforts for the self-development efforts of the individual. To do this would not j only be unwarranted paternalism. I foolish pretension.22 It would be ;
I But business enterprise does have a definite J *
II responsibility in that all its managers have a choice of
encouraging the self-development of subordinates or
stifling it. Management should have the specific respon-
| | j sibility of assisting subordinates in .the determination of j
their self-development needs and in directing and applying j
their efforts productively.^^
; The self-development needs of an individual must 1
1i always be f. ocused upon the business requirements of II i 1 tomorrow--what the company's business is going to be in
the future. It Is not sufficient to encourage self-
I|development In order to simply satisfy current requirements.
While the results of what Is done now will not be
jevident for many years, what is done now may well determine
|whether the company survives in the future.
j
j Beginning early in life we are all taught that we
ilean learn from actual experience and that experience Is the
best teacher. Most would agree with this assumption and j i
I further agree that what is learned from personal experience’I
!
■ ^Drueker, oj>. cit., p. 187.
Object Description
Description
| Title | A comparison of in-company and university training programs as a means of attaining the objectives of executive development. - Page 41 |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | j of a man. The responsibility rests with the Indi- j 1 vidual, his abilities, his efforts. No business 1 enterprise is competent, let alone obligated, to substitute Its efforts for the self-development efforts of the individual. To do this would not j only be unwarranted paternalism. I foolish pretension.22 It would be ; I But business enterprise does have a definite J * II responsibility in that all its managers have a choice of encouraging the self-development of subordinates or stifling it. Management should have the specific respon- | | j sibility of assisting subordinates in .the determination of j their self-development needs and in directing and applying j their efforts productively.^^ ; The self-development needs of an individual must 1 1i always be f. ocused upon the business requirements of II i 1 tomorrow--what the company's business is going to be in the future. It Is not sufficient to encourage self- I|development In order to simply satisfy current requirements. While the results of what Is done now will not be jevident for many years, what is done now may well determine |whether the company survives in the future. j j Beginning early in life we are all taught that we ilean learn from actual experience and that experience Is the best teacher. Most would agree with this assumption and j i I further agree that what is learned from personal experience’I ! ■ ^Drueker, oj>. cit., p. 187. |
