The Kaufmark Optical Company, based in the Midlands, is a medium-sized company engaged in the production of optical precision instruments. Thirty-five years old, the company has a record of steady growth and has expanded rapidly in the last decade. It now employs 6,000 people. After the Second World War the first management trainee scheme was introduced with the object of attracting National Service officers and university graduates who were scientifically qualified. Responsibility for devising and launching a suitable training programme rested largely with the Personnel Officer, Graham Robinson, and his assistant, John Page. Traineeships were advertised in the national press and a short-list of suitable applicants was made. Those short-listed were called for interview before the Personnel Officer and departmental heads or their deputies. The number of traineeships offered was to vary according to the estimated long-term needs of the company. Three were offered for the first year of the pilot scheme. It was decided that the training period should extend over two years. 14 The trainee would spend the first year working in the various departments of the organisation : production, sales, research and development, personnel, general administration. His progress would be reviewed at the end of the first year and he would then be asked to select the area of work in which he Wished to specialise for his final year of training. During this final year it was intended that he should be given increasing responsibility. No real difficulties were encountered in operating the scheme and a small number of traineeships was offered in each successive year. Ten years after the inauguration of the management trainee scheme, plans were drawn up for considerable expansion through the opening of another factory in the north-east of England. Robinson realised that priority must be given to increasing the number of traineeships to meet future needs. At his suggestion John Page, his assistant, was appointed as Training Officer with responsibility for training at all levels throughout the company. Page's first task was to carry out a review of the existing management traineeship scheme and to make suggestions for improving the scheme and increasing the number and quality of trainees. Records showed that twenty trainees had completed the course successfully, of whom twelve were still with the company. Nine were occupying junior management positions and three were in middle management. The remainder had left to work for other organisations. Only one trainee, a graduate, had failed to complete the course: he had withdrawn after six months to go to another company where he could engage in research. Page interviewed trainees and those who had completed the course : no major criticisms were voiced. At shop-floor level the trainees seemed to have been well received, although there was the occasional criticism that they 'got in the way' or 'thought they knew it all'. At a meeting with shop-stewards regret was expressed that the scheme did not allow for the training of particularly able operatives or supervisors who could well make good junior management material. In general Page felt that the scheme was working satisfactorily and therefore recommended that the existing pattern of training should continue. He thought the suggestion of the shop-stewards 15 well worth trying and proposed to extend the areas of recruitment: (a) by providing opportunities for entry by company employees on the specific recommendation of departmental heads, thus opening up an avenue to management from shop-floor level, and also helping indirectly to maintain high morale. (b) by accepting a limited number of arts graduates. The proposal to recruit arts graduates was accepted after considerable debate. Certain members of the Board considered that a scientific or technical training was a prerequisite for all their management trainees. Against this, the view was advanced that a good honours degree in an arts subject was indicative of a trained and liberal mind. Arts graduates should therefore have little difficulty in benefiting from a well-designed scheme. The fact that they had not specialised narrowly in the scientific field might offer certain positive advantages. It was envisaged that they would gravitate to the sales and personnel departments. A further modification was suggested in view of the proposed increase in the number of trainees. This was the introduction of a standard induction course lasting one fortnight when trainees would meet company personnel who would explain the organisation's history, structure, policies, etc. All the proposals were eventually agreed and accepted. As a result of the broadened base of recruitment the next intake comprised eight science graduates, two arts graduates and one exapprentice accepted on the recommendation of his head of department. During the following eight years the scheme was operated as agreed, but Page began to have misgivings towards the end of this period. There seemed to be an increasing restlessness among trainees and too many were being lost by the firm both during training and on completion of training. During the eight-year period fifty-five trainees had been recruited. Seven had left before completion of the course; thirteen had left after successfully completing the course. Page also felt that with the increase in the number of trainees there had been a deterioration in relations between trainees and operatives. He decided that it was necessary to undertake a full-scale review of management training policy and methods. 16 Confining his attention to records over the past eight years, he noted that of the forty-eight successful trainees thirty-four were science graduates, ten were arts graduates, four were exapprentices. Twenty-eight of the science graduates were still with the company as part of the management team. The six lost to the company had moved to larger organisations : five in order to widen their experience or gain earlier and more rapid promotion, one to return to full-time research. Of the ten arts graduates only three remained. Five who had left were in quite different occupations such as teaching and publishing. Two had moved to other firms for better positions as assistants in personnel departments. Of the three still with the company two were in the personnel department and one was in the sales department engaged on market research. The four ex-apprentices were all still with the firm, working in the production department. Of the seven trainees who failed to complete the course, four were recruited from the shop-floor. All four had asked to be returned to their former jobs. Each had been interviewed by Page and Robinson in an attempt to find out why they wished to withdraw, especially as their requests came as a surprise: they had been accepted as a result of personal recommendation and an interview conducted by Page, as Training Officer. None was prepared to particularise as to his reasons for withdrawing: replies were vague and general. A typical comment was 'I don't feel that I'm cut out for management.' Of the three other withdrawals two were arts graduates who never really settled to the course, and one was a science graduate named William Badsey who had chafed under the system of training. He left the firm after being reprimanded for his conduct in arguing violently with a supervisor in front of a number of operatives. This unfortunate incident occurred as a result of Badsey's criticising the supervisor's competence. Tharpe, the supervisor, accused Badsey of deliberately and persistently trying to undermine his authority and show off his knowledge in front of the men. Badsey maintained that Tharpe was hopelessly oldfashioned and out-of-touch. Page suspected that one or two of the operatives deliberately played the two men off against each other. 17 Page had always made a point of intexviewing trainees on completion of the course, as well as seeing those who withdrew from it. He was now conscious of a distinct change in attitude among them. There was not the same readiness to accept that the company knew what was best .for them. Trainees were becoming more critical - particularly graduates who had been on the more recent courses. Only the ex-apprentices seemed to be satisfied with the existing pattern of training. The three major criticisms which were most frequently voiced concerned: 1. The length of the course. 2. The lack of opportunity for trainees to participate in the structuring of the course. 3. The refusal to give real responsibility to trainees. Most graduates felt that the course was too long and that there was too much wasted time- particularly in the first year when they spent a period in each department. Some felt that this time was wasted if a trainee already knew the department and area of work in which he wished to specialise. All felt that if trainees were given properly planned instruction instead of 'sitting next to Nellie', the same course could be completed in one year instead of the present two. Too often they were engaged in routine manual tasks which could in no way be considered as 'training' or were given useless tasks 'to keep them occupied'. Science graduates in particular complained that the scheme was too formal : all had to follow the set pattern even though this might waste the trainee's time; sometimes they knew more about particular aspects of the work than the persons 'instructing' them. They felt that a person's training should be planned in consultation with the individual concerned. Nearly all of the graduates complained that they were not given enough responsibility, if any, during the course- despite the promise of increasing responsibility in the second year. Among other criticisms were complaints that operatives occasionally refused to demonstrate their particular tasks properly, either by making it clear that the trainee was getting in their way and giving only a perfunctory explanation and demonstration, or by demonstrating their dexterity and expertise at lightning 18 speed and making their task appear far more complex and difficult than it was. There were also complaints that certain supervisors and some managers treated trainees like small schoolboys - on one occasion a junior manager had instructed a trainee to collect an item of equipment from the stores and timed how long he took to return with the apparatus. This was particularly resented as the incident took place in front of a number of operatives. The manager concerned had himself been one of the first to go through the management trainee course and had been recruited on completion of a short-service commission in the Army. Foremen and supervisors were invited to comment on the operation of the management trainee scheme. Their remarks seemed to bear out the observation made by Page that there was a change of attitude among trainees. It was felt that some of them were far too impatient and wanted 'to run before they could walk'. Surprise was also expressed at the lack of response by the brighter operatives to take advantage of the opportunity now offered for management training. The opinions of operatives were divided. Much depended on the personality and attitude of the trainee. Some were described as 'arrogant' or 'know-ails', others were well liked and the operaives took considerable pride in 'seeing their man get on'. There were some complaints from those on piece-work that trainees reduced their wages : they felt there should be provision to offset the drop in their earnings which resulted from their having to demonstrate and explain their jobs. Page reported to the Board that the main problem seemed to be reconciling the wish of trainees to get to grips with real problems and to assume early responsibility, with recognition of the fact that the organisation existed primarily to manufacture and sell its products - training could not be allowed to interfere unduly with production. Tim Thorlby, Head of Production, felt that Page did not always stress this point sufficiently to trainees during the induction fortnight. There were two schools of thought as to future training programmes. Some felt that the existing arrangements were basically sound but that the length of the course could be reduced. 19 There was argument as to whether this should be a reduction of six or twelve months. Others wished to abandon the present scheme altogether. They favoured a more detailed standard induction course lasting for ten weeks, followed by assignment of the trainee to a specific job in which he would be carefully trained and given the chance to assume responsibilities at the earliest opportunity. This latter scheme was felt by some to be unsuitable for arts graduates. There was further division of opinion concerning the right of trainees to participate in deciding what was the best scheme of training. Some felt that the trainee was in no position to judge what was best suited to his own needs and those of the company. A remark was made that this might be the new pattern of thought in the universities, but it had no validity in industrial training. Another cause for concern was the loss of men who had completed the training course. Brian Culshaw, Head of Research and Development, observed that if the present loss continued, the company would be spending large sums of money to provide free basic training for other organisations. He wondered whether the future the company offered was painted in too glowing terms at the interview. Page pointed out that there was strong competition for the best men; nevertheless he always tried to give a realistic picture of opportunities afforded by the company. Robinson said that many small and medium-sized companies were in the same position as Kaufmark. Young men benefited from the training facilities and were then lured away by the industrial giants. As the Board knew, there was a management development programme. It was clear that the present review of the management trainee scheme must form part of a larger examination of the whole system of management development. After considerable debate the meeting was adjourned so that John Page could draft specific proposals for modifying the existing scheme in the light of points raised in discussion. 20 PROBLEMS 1. The initial training scheme In planning the pilot scheme, what factors should Robinson and Page have considered? 2. The modified scheme (i) Later developments showed that recruitment from the shop-floor was not a success. Should this have been anticipated? (ii) Was the proposal to recruit arts graduates sound? Was adequate consideration given to their training? 3. The Badsey incident (i) Could this situation have been prevented? (ii) Was the situation handled correctly? 4. The change in graduate attitudes (i) Why should graduate attitudes have changed? (ii) How valid do you consider the graduates' complaints? 5. Trainees and operatives (i) Why should operatives prove unco-operative? (ii) How could the trainee overcome this problem? 6. Trainees and management (i) Comment on the complaints made about managers and supervisors. (ii) Why do you think the 'timing incident' occurred? A. How does one overcome the problem of losing trained personnel? B. What modifications would you suggest to the present system of training? Answer the above, questions as it relates to the case study and show depiction/links from the case study