CASE ANALYSIS: THE TAILORED 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 university designed 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 university designed 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 does not effectively address the diverse needs of Parker Hannifin as the first exists today.
A third argument favoring a university designed and conducted management development program is the fact that the goals for the programme among Parker Hannifin's top management were "somewhat ambiguous." This situation was quickly identified by the professor involved in designing the programme, and, thus, greater specificity in programme goals were achieved. Had a company group ...