| I. |
Two
out of three companies are interested in Elite Training. |
| |
64.2%
of companies responded that they were “very interested
in” Elite Training for the senior management prospects,
and it reached 95.5%, if "somewhat interested in"
is included. Therefore most of them showed interest for Elite
Training. Moreover, more than half of the companies, in actual
number 54.3%, responded that they would make “more effort”
for the training in the future. |
| |
|
| II. |
Preferable
presidential inauguration age is 52, younger than current
average CEOs. |
| |
Companies
responded that preferable inauguration age of the president
was 52 years old, showing their preference for younger CEOs
than current. Moreover, they think that Elite Training for
the executive prospects should start at 36 years old. |
| |
|
| III. |
Skill-development
comes first. Weak on management capacity enhancement. |
| |
They
responded that the management skill such as management strategy,
marketing, financial affairs, and human affairs were important
for the senior management training. Our concern was that only
small number of companies valued the education to enhance
the ability of management decision such as history, religion,
philosophy, and corporate ethics. |
| |
|
| IV. |
Prospects
do not have enough time for training. |
| |
As
for the challenge concerning Elite Training, most companies
expressed that "it’s difficult to accommodate enough
time for the training due to the busy day-to-day obligations”,
as such prospects experiencing this time limitation. It looks
like the downsizing is casting a shadow for Elite Training
for future executives. |
| |
|
| V. |
Focusing
Elite Training but insufficient care for non-elites. |
| |
More
than half responded that selections of Elite Training candidates
were done by the human resources department. On the other
hand, less than 10 percent stated that they had a program
for the unselected individuals. Companies are making an effort
for the senior management training but there are still problems
remaining for the general employee development plan. |
| |
|
 |
| |
|
| 1. |
Two
out of three companies are very interested in Elite Training. |
| |
64.2%
of companies responded that they were “very interested
in” Elite Training for the senior management prospects,
and it reached 95.5% if "somewhat interested in"
is included. Therefore most of them showed a positive attitude
toward Elite Training (Figure 2-1).
53.7% of the companies that responded had an actual Elite
Training program and it rises to 81.6% if “planning”
companies are added (Figure 2-2).
Moreover, more than half (54.3%) responded that they would
emphasize more training in the future. It is expected that
Elite Training would become more popular in the future (Figure
2-3). |
| |
|
| Fig.
2-1 Interest in Elite Training (% SA N=134) |
|
 |
| |
|
| Fig.
2-2 Current program (% SA N=134) |
|
 |
| |
|
| Fig.
2-3 Future Elite Training (% SA N=72) |
|
 |
| |
|
| 2. |
Preferable
CEO inauguration age and reality gap |
| |
Companies
responded that their preferable president inauguration age
was 52.0 years old, average. There was not much difference
between 51.8 years of public companies and 52.1 years of private
one (Table 1-1). The youngest suggested age was 40 years old.
The average age of presidents was 58 years and two month old
according to a survey by Teikoku Data Bank of 1,203,429 presidents
in Japan (2003). It has been getting older for 23 years in
a row since 1981, and a big gap exists between in the reality
and the ideal. As seen an average age of CEOs in North America
is 49.1 years old, and 50 years old in Europe (Booze and Hamilton,
2003), it is expected that Japanese companies would elect
younger presidents to compete globally with European and American.
Moreover, 36-year old was preferable to begin the selective
training for the executive prospects including the president.
Many responded that Elite Training was offered above "section
chief" (Figure 1-1). |
| |
|
| Table
1-1 Preferable presidential inauguration age (public/private
average) |
|
| |
|
|
Preferable
age |
|
Total |
52.0 |
| Public/private |
Public
Companies |
51.8 |
Private
Companies |
52.1 |
|
| |
|
| Fig.
1-1 Position for current training (MA N=72) |
|
 |
| |
|
| 3. |
Emphasizing
skills. Not much for the decision-making framework. |
| |
Most
companies valued "management knowledge on management
strategy, marketing, financial affairs, and organization"
(79.4%) for the training of senior management prospects (Figure
3-1).
Although this training could systematically teach an executive
candidate necessary management skills, it is apprehensive
about insufficient knowledge for the formation of an indispensable
management ability such as "decision making knowledge
based on history, religion, and philosophy" or "knowledge
on corporate ethics, risk management, and corporate governance".
|
| |
|
| Fig.
3-1 Emphasizing points (MA N=72) |
|
 |
| |
|
| 4. |
Prospects
do not have enough time for training. |
| |
As
for the challenge concerning Elite Training, most expressed
that "it’s difficult to accommodate enough time
for the training due to busy day-to-day obligations”
as such prospects experiencing the time limitation. It looks
like that the downsizing is casting a shadow for Elite Training
for future executives (Figure 4-1).
The prospects are high-performance employees with busy day-to-day
work; therefore the training is difficult to attend even though
employers want them to.
Companies with no Elite Training programs stated the reason
was that "there was no standard for choosing prospects",
rather than lack of time (Figure 4-2). |
| |
|
| Fig.
4-1 Elite Training challenges (MA N=134) |
|
 |
| |
|
| Fig.
4-2 Elite Training challenges (Program yes/no data MA) |
|
 |
| |
|
| 5. |
Enhancing
Elite Training but insufficient care for non-elites. |
| |
More
than half of companies responded that the prospect selection
was done "by the HR Department" (Figure 5-1). Among
responses of “others”, many stated that the prospects
were chosen by "recommendation by the business section",
and the nomination system has more popularity than the self-applying
system.
Less than 10% of companies, which had the nomination system,
stated that they had a system to care for non-selected individuals
(Figure 5-2). Companies are making efforts for senior management
training but problems still remain for general employee development
plan. |
| |
|
| Fig.
5-1 Candidate selection (MA N=72) |
|
 |
| |
|
| Fig.
5-2 Care for non-selected individuals (SA N=72) |
|
 |
