SECTIONAL TRANSACTIONS.—F*. 411 
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATION (F*). 
Thursday, September 5. 
AFTERNOON. 
Discussion on The Universities and business (2.45). 
Dr. J. A. Bow1e.—The case for more intimate co-operation. 
This paper assumes that the case for university education for business has 
been accepted, and proceeds to discuss the types of organised contacts that 
might be established. ‘This raises the question of the occupational oppor- 
tunities in business for university men, and the merits of general, as con- 
trasted with specialised, training. ‘The question is discussed as to the 
relative importance of scholastic tests and personal traits in the light of the 
qualifications necessary for successful business careers. The great variety 
of careers is emphasised and the necessity for ‘ job analyses.’ 
Questions relating to curricula are raised with reference to the place of 
Economics and kindred subjects. In view of the purpose of business 
education, the problem of teaching methods is discussed, the working 
relations that should exist between the school and the world of business, 
and the qualifications that are desirable in the teaching staff. 
The paper concludes with a consideration of the methods at present in 
use for selecting, training, and promoting managerial staff, and some 
recommendations are made for regularising procedure. 
Prof. P. SARGANT FLORENCE. 
Industrial-educational films (5.0). 
Friday, September 6. 
AFTERNOON. 
Discussion on Probable future trends of scientific management in Great 
Britain (2.45). 
Mr. HARGREAVES PARKINSON.—Industrial management and _ the 
investor. 
Modern investment machinery—capital market, Stock Exchange, issuing 
houses, financial press, etc.—presupposes complete differentiation of function 
between investor and management. In practice, ‘ sleeping partnership ’ 
conception undesirable and unworkable. Réle of industrial management 
in investment sphere. Where should its boundaries be drawn? Réle of 
investors in management. Every public company a ‘ constitutional 
oligarchy.’ Directors, as fountain-head of management, removable by 
majority vote of shareholders. How are latter’s ‘ constitutional’ powers 
exercisable ? How far are results satisfactory in practice? Defects of 
present position. Consequences, from viewpoint of management and 
investors respectively, of modern trend towards (a) large industrial units, 
and (6) widely diffused shareholdings. Suggested reforms, as regards 
