A comparison of in-company and university training programs as a means of attaining the objectives of executive development. - Page 139 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 139 of 192 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
131
people, organizational structure, policies, functional
inter-relationships, practices, objectives, and. business j
philosophy. In fact, Mr. Kemble, in correspondence with I
the writer, states that an objective of the General Electrict
program is to gain a common understanding among top manage ' I - j
f
ment people of the General Electric managing philosophy; jI
an objective which could not possibly be attained through |!
participation in any outside course. !!
Some companies have a firm conviction that their j1
particular firms are somehow different, that their problems
are unique, and that skill in handling them can only be
(developed among their own management group. Whether this
assumption is true or not can only be conjecture, however.;
it still remains a strong belief in the minds of many
individuals. As Mr. Kemble has further observed, it would
hardly be appropriate to expect an outside course to make
much of a contribution with regard to General Electric’s
h
particular choice of a managing philosophy.
Ability to offer training to larger numbers in a
shorter period of time. Each of the four in-company pro-s
grams reviewed in this study: the General Electric Company,
^Melvin Anshen, ’’Executive Development— In-company vs. University Programs," Harvard Business Review. Vol.
XXXII No. v, September-October, 195%, "p*
^In correspondence with the writer.
Object Description
Description
| Title | A comparison of in-company and university training programs as a means of attaining the objectives of executive development. - Page 139 |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 131 people, organizational structure, policies, functional inter-relationships, practices, objectives, and. business j philosophy. In fact, Mr. Kemble, in correspondence with I the writer, states that an objective of the General Electrict program is to gain a common understanding among top manage ' I - j f ment people of the General Electric managing philosophy; jI an objective which could not possibly be attained through |! participation in any outside course. !! Some companies have a firm conviction that their j1 particular firms are somehow different, that their problems are unique, and that skill in handling them can only be (developed among their own management group. Whether this assumption is true or not can only be conjecture, however.; it still remains a strong belief in the minds of many individuals. As Mr. Kemble has further observed, it would hardly be appropriate to expect an outside course to make much of a contribution with regard to General Electric’s h particular choice of a managing philosophy. Ability to offer training to larger numbers in a shorter period of time. Each of the four in-company pro-s grams reviewed in this study: the General Electric Company, ^Melvin Anshen, ’’Executive Development— In-company vs. University Programs," Harvard Business Review. Vol. XXXII No. v, September-October, 195%, "p* ^In correspondence with the writer. |
