A comparison of in-company and university training programs as a means of attaining the objectives of executive development. - Page 140 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 140 of 192 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
. . -
the Aluminum Company of Canada, the Monsanto Chemical
Company, and the Bell Telephone System specified this as a
primary advantage inherent in their own programs. Mr. jl t | | Pastene of Monsanto Chemical, for example, states in II
correspondence with the writer that a benefit of their own ji
program, in comparison to outside courses, is that it has ■
made it possible to offer 125 of their men this type of
| training in a single year. This would have been impraetl-
! cal, if not impossible, by reliance on outside courses. j
. Mr. Winn, of the Aluminum Company of Canada, also states
1 in correspondence with the writer that one obvious reason t
; for the establishment of their own course was the inability-to
cover their supervisory staffs at outside courses due
to the large numbers of people Involved and the variation i
which exists in individual courses. j
Almost 11 per cent of the respondents to the
questionnaire stated that a distinct advantage of the incompany
program was the opportunity that it provided them iI
! to offer a greater amount of this type of training to t larger numbers of their management group than would be ii
possible by total reliance on outside courses.
In the questionnaire, participants and graduates
iwere asked to indicate what per cent of their management
i| employees were engaged in or had participated in in-company
and university training programs. Sixty-three per cent of
the respondents indicated that up to 50 per cent of the
Object Description
Description
| Title | A comparison of in-company and university training programs as a means of attaining the objectives of executive development. - Page 140 |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | . . - the Aluminum Company of Canada, the Monsanto Chemical Company, and the Bell Telephone System specified this as a primary advantage inherent in their own programs. Mr. jl t | | Pastene of Monsanto Chemical, for example, states in II correspondence with the writer that a benefit of their own ji program, in comparison to outside courses, is that it has ■ made it possible to offer 125 of their men this type of | training in a single year. This would have been impraetl- ! cal, if not impossible, by reliance on outside courses. j . Mr. Winn, of the Aluminum Company of Canada, also states 1 in correspondence with the writer that one obvious reason t ; for the establishment of their own course was the inability-to cover their supervisory staffs at outside courses due to the large numbers of people Involved and the variation i which exists in individual courses. j Almost 11 per cent of the respondents to the questionnaire stated that a distinct advantage of the incompany program was the opportunity that it provided them iI ! to offer a greater amount of this type of training to t larger numbers of their management group than would be ii possible by total reliance on outside courses. In the questionnaire, participants and graduates iwere asked to indicate what per cent of their management i| employees were engaged in or had participated in in-company and university training programs. Sixty-three per cent of the respondents indicated that up to 50 per cent of the |
