Fun Toy Company

351 Words2 Pages
The HR director of Excellrate argued that they should adopt the same training program used by Fun toy. The apprentice program used by fun toys was really successful, it aims at assigned senior employed paired with fresh employees, and thus senior employ will teach fresh bird one by one, therefore achieving the same result as training do . The director suggest using the new program, will not only save our time but time, since the old training program is time consuming and expensive. The argument made by the HR director is not persuasive in several aspects. First of all, there is no evidence to indicate the apprentice program used in fun toy will fit in our company. It brought success to the fun toy company might because it just design to fit their typical organizational structure. Perhaps, it is the most efficient and effective way to train their new comer since it is a toy company that requires one by one coaching. Therefore, unless any further information to indicate the fitness the program matches our company, the argument is not persuasive. Second, according to the argument one of the big reason that we should use the new program is because the old one was time consuming and expensive. However, with no other data or information to compare with, we are not sure whether the old program is costly or not. On the other hand, we don’t know how much will it cost the new program, and it could be more costly than the old one. Moreover, we can not sure if the apprentice program will bring us the same effectiveness as our old program due. Thus, the argument is not desirable unless we could find more information. In conclusion, the argument has failed to demonstrate the fitness the apprentice program in our company. To strengthen the argument, on one hand, the HR director need to make further analysis to insure the fitness of the new program; on the other hand, historical
Open Document