Management Development Program

This case is analyzed in the context of two questions. These questions are as follows:

1. Are the arguments stronger for a programme designed and conducted by university professors or for a programme designed and conducted by company employees?

2. What is the likelihood that the management development programme described in the case will attain its stated goals?

Responsibility for Designing and Conducting the Programme

One strong argument favoring a universitydesigned and conducted management development programme is that the university professors involved have had considerable successful experience in designing and conducting such programmes. The company in this case, Parker Hannifin, had only limited experience in the design and conduct of a management development programme. In fact, the most recent company experience in this context was some 10 years ago.

A second strong argument favoring a universitydesigned and conducted management development programme lies in the fact that company growth has produced an organization that is far more diversified than it has been even in the recent past. The diversity of the contemporary organization argues in favor of a group, such as the university professors, who have successful experience in dealing with diverse organizational types. A company designed program, in the present circumstances, might well produce a management program that doe

. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Parker Hannifin, Parker Hannifin's, PROGRAM Introduction, management development, management development programme, Conducting Programme, development programme, company personnel, programme participants, Stated Goals, universitydesigned conducted management, conducted management development, attain stated, goal programme, argument favoring, conducted management, universitydesigned conducted, programme designed, programme attain stated, favoring universitydesigned conducted,
Approximate Word count = 1111
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page)