reflections on executive education: the user and provider’s perspectives

7/27/2019 Reflections on Executive Education: The User and Providers Perspectives

1/11

Interviews With Julie Harrison, Takako Kawashima, andNick Shreiber

Reflections on ExecutiveEducation: The User andProviders Perspectives

BETTINA BUCHEL

IMD

DON ANTUNES

P&L Executive Education

The University of Warwick

Companies are increasingly recognizing executiveeducation as a crucial tool for developing theirmanagers. The underlying assumption is that itcan improve managerial decision making, by cre-ating and transmitting knowledge, which in turnhas a positive impact on company performance.Since knowledge and capability developed in-house might not avoid the natural evolutionaryrigidities of organizations (Ginsberg, 1988), exter-nal pressures for strategic orientation and change

may make it necessary to incorporate outsidersviews (Ginsberg & Abrahamson, 1991). Thus, col-laboration with outsiders such as businessschools, consultants, coaches and trainers has theclear potential to impact organizational perfor-mance. As cognitive biases can impede the forma-tion of new perspectives in decision making, theuse of outsiders can help mitigate peoples ten-dency to seek information that confirms their ownpreconceptions. By acting as catalysts, outsidersmay serve as agents of change; moreover, if wellmanaged, such partnering can provide value(Ginsberg & Abrahamson, 1991; Poulfelt & Payne,

1994; Buono, 2002).However, the management of these partnerships

has its own challenges. When embarking on exec-utive education processes, users do so with signif-icant expectations. These can include expectationsof transformational experiences involving a com-

bination of developments at the professional, in-tellectual and personal levels. It has been arguedthat programs that combine the cognitive and be-havioral aspects are particularly likely to producehigher quality results (Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge,1997). Such impact can be especially true when thelearning environment allows participants to ex-plore and make sense of their own previous expe-riences (Kolb, 1984; Winnicott, 1990).

The leading providers have to meet these high

expectations. They attempt to excel in faculty recruit-ment and development, on the design and marketingof those programs as well as in the creation of cut-ting-edge research that can be used to support thedelivery. To be a competitive player in this arena, aprovider needs to produce real-world impact forthose involved. If such a combination of excellence issuccessful, it does generate higher income for theproviders themselves and leads to customer satisfac-tion and business retention, thus reinforcing the vir-tuous circle of high reputation (Lorange, 2002).

To shed some light on the views of users andproviders of executive education, we interviewed

three individuals who represent companies withextensive experience with executive education:Julie Harrison (Allianz Group), Takako Kawashima(Hitachi Group), and Nick Shreiber (Tetra Pak).1 We

This manuscript went through an independent review process

overseen by AMLE Editor, James R. Bailey. The authors wish to

thank Sean Meehan, Lindsay McTeague, Karsten Jorsten, and

Karin Oppegaard for comments and suggestions.

1 Unfortunately, due to problems with scheduling we were not

able to have all interviewees in the same conference call as we

originally intended. All interviewees received the same set of

guiding questions and a few questions and comments were

added on as the conversation developed. The questions focused

on the reasons for using executive education, when to use

Academy of Management Learning & Education , 2007, Vol. 6, No. 3, 401411.

........................................................................................................................................................................

401Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders

express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.


2/11

also interviewed nontraditional providers, that is,leading consulting firms now venturing into theexecutive education arena: McKinsey, Mercer Con-sulting, and Monitor Executive Education. Finally,we discuss four themes that emerged from theseinterviews: (1) what users want from executive ed-ucation; (2) the role of research and thought lead-

ership; (3) facilitatorsfaculty or coachesandmethods in delivering a learning experience; and(4) the results and outcomes of executive education.

THE VIEWS FROM THE PROVIDERS

Julie Harrison works at the Allianz Group, by pre-miums, Europes largest insurance company andone of the worlds leading insurers and financialservices providers. It is present in more than 70countries with over 166,000 employees, more than60 million customers worldwide, and total reve-nues above 100 billion. In 2006, she was respon-sible for leadership development at the AllianzManagement Institute, the Allianz Groups corpo-rate university, which targets the top 1,000 manag-ers worldwide.

Nick Shreiber was CEO of Tetra Pak, headquar-tered in Lausanne, Switzerland, between 2000 and2005. A small giant in its field, Tetra Pak is theworlds largest supplier of cartons for milk, soup,fruit juices, and other liquid foods; it also manu-factures machinery used for food packaging andprocessing and has over 20,000 employees aroundthe world. The Tetra Pak Academy, the firms cor-

porate university, aims to provide executive edu-cation for the top 500, but on occasion the top 1,500people in the company.

Takako Kawashima is a senior human resourcescoordinator at the Hitachi Institute of ManagementDevelopment. With more than 350,000 employeesand total revenues close to US$80 billion in 2005,Hitachi was ranked as the second largest companyworldwide in the electronics and electrical equip-ment industrial sector by Fortune magazine. Itmanufactures and markets computers, semicon-ductors, consumer products and power and indus-

trial equipment. The institute aims to develop ex-ecutives for the next generation, and organizeslearning opportunities for Hitachi Group.

Some say that executive education is useless. They

argue that it is simply time off work for individuals,

or that there is no guarantee of a payback for the

company. Others, however, say that without exec-

utive education, companies could not develop the

new capabilities they need or the mind-set neces-

sary to execute a strategy.

Shreiber: Both statements are probably right. Idont think that it is one or the other. I have nodoubt that companies occasionally send people torefresh, to recharge their batteries for motivational

reasons, rather than to close competence gaps. Buton the other hand, I think the majority of what wehave done in executive education is clearly aimedat the second part of the statement.

Harrison: I have worked for Allianz for 2 years. Ihave also worked for a number of companies thatdidnt invest in executive educationand I wouldargue that their leaders were just as successful, with-out investing in executive education. They took dif-ferent approaches to developing new capabilitiesand mind-sets, such as more international assign-ments, on-the-job coaching, training, and mentoring.

At the Allianz Management Institute we target thetop thousand managers of the company. We have abig debate going on at the moment that this is just adrop in the ocean. The people we really need to betargeting are the middle managers.

Kawashima: We have the Management Develop-ment Program (MDP) as a core program in whichHitachi managers can learn Hitachi Basic Valuesand exchange ideas. Managers from diverse busi-ness domains in the Hitachi Group participate inour program, which was set up in conjunction withthe Human Resources Division of Hitachi GroupHeadquarters. They also create a network withinthe Hitachi Group to expand their business in thenear future. However, to compete in the globaleconomy, I think Hitachi future executives shouldalso go to Western executive programs. Actually,selected people in the Hitachi Group have beensent to well-known Western executive programs,such as IMD, Wharton, INSEAD, and Berkeley.There, they can discuss business-related issuesand share problems and solutions, and establish aglobal network. When they go back to the realbusiness world, I believe that they will use theknowledge. Some people say managers can learn

what they need through reading MBA-relatedbooks and reviewing case study materials bythemselves. I dont agree with that. People will nothave a balanced executive education when theystudy by themselves.

Why and when do you choose to use executive

education?

Shreiber: When we set up the Tetra Pak Academywe had a number of reasons. One, of course, was to

executive education, how to use executive education and how

to maximize its value. The transcripts have been submitted to

the interviewees for approval.

402 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education


3/11

close competence gaps at a senior level. One of theprograms is designed as finance for nonfinancialmanagersan example of an off-the-shelf pro-gram. We wouldnt try to develop it within theAcademy. However, the most important reason forsending people to executive education is to helpdrive a process of change both the nuts-and-bolts

of change and the leadership of change. Thesetypes of programs are typically customized in-com-pany programs, developed for Tetra Paks specificneeds. Many of these programs are aimed at driv-ing change. Project leadership, for example, fo-cused on project management and the specificcompetence gaps that we had identified (notenough people knew how to run large projects). Sowe probably ran five or six programs taking 20 or30 people at a time. And using faculty and institu-tions and their knowledge of how to teach aboutprojects, we trained about 150 senior people whobecame general project managers. So I think thatleading change, and instrumenting change, is themost important single reason.

Kawashima: Executive education can give par-ticipants background knowledge through casestudies and discussion. For example, when Hitachistarts Net businesses, cases such as Rakuten andYahoo can give Hitachi people suggestions andhints for developing their business. Especially, dis-cussions in the classroom are useful and helpfulbecause in a short period of time they can getvarious ideas and exchange information.

Harrison: At Allianz, we offer executive educa-

tion to build capabilities in their present posi-tionso gaps have been identified and we try tofill those gaps. Another area where we use execu-tive education is to help people make the transi-tion from one leadership level to the next. We usea completely different approach to executive edu-cation for very senior managers: There we do ev-erything in-house, and we work with the boardmembers to design programs for the senior man-agers. Weve probably got around 150 people goingto this type of program every year in groups of 25 orso. The focus is on strategic issues that are impor-

tant to the board, and on getting people to under-stand the importance of those issues.Shreiber: We had something very similar: a pow-

erful program of executive education, largely in-house, with one facilitator from a leading businessschool, aimed at 150 people, taken in groups of 20.[As CEO,] I attendedand ledall the sessions,which we called Inspiring Leaders. The objectivewas to analyze the strategy of the company and theobstacles to implementation. This was an intimateforum where I and other very senior people couldshare our views with small groups of 20 members

of top management. So it was very much an agentfor change, but along the lines you were saying.

What are the differences for you between having

in-house and using outsiders? In which

circumstances do you use one or another?

Harrison: Our definition is to use outside supplierswhen we want to develop people in terms of theircapabilities or competencies. Our internal pro-grams are more as a platform for sharing knowl-edge. That is how we segregate them.

Shreiber: I think that is a very good way to put it.Because as first my answer was, I dont see anyprograms where we dont use an external per-sonit could be one consultant, it could be a team,or it can be in-house or in the institutions that weare working with. But then when you say, Julie,that you have knowledge sharing, to share bestpractices and other things, you are quite rightthat is executive education in a very good sense.And we do that also, but then it is totally internal.

Kawashima: Executive education at Hitachi ismostly arranged in-house but using outsiderswith guest lecturers invited from leading Japanesebusiness schools and other providersalthoughas I mentioned earlier, we do send some execu-tives to top Western programs.

So how do you choose between the different

executive education providers? When do you

choose to go outside? And who decides?

Harrison: We open it up to the classical beautycontest: We invite what we consider the top busi-ness schools in the field to present their solutions.A key aspect for us is the business schools abilityto understand the business we are in. Also we arelooking for a partnera business school that isprepared to listen to our point of view, design theprogram together with us, and is willing to learnfrom each other. We look for partners that canbring business knowledge to the table and not justacademic knowledge.

Shreiber: An almost one-for-one fit. And I amhappy to hear what you said about real-life expe-riencenot just the academic. We require prag-matism and customization to our needssome-body that will take the trouble to sit down with us,understand what we want, and then run a pilotbefore deciding to roll out the program to a largegroup over multiple sessions. For us, location hasalso been important. What I mean is that whateveruniversity we use should be in an accessible loca-tion. So we dont look for remote places but ratherlocations where we can get in and out easily. But

2007 403Buchel and Antunes


4/11

that comes secondary to all the other consider-ations. In our case, the head of HR and the head ofexecutive education, who are often the same per-son, make most of the decisions. But the Tetra PakAcademy has its own board, and when I was CEO,I was chairman of this board, as is the currentCEO. And all final decisions get made there in

terms of selection of institutions. So the decisionsare really pretty high up in the organization.Harrison: From our side as well. Representatives

from the Allianz Management Institute are in-volved in the beauty contest. We also have ourcore group companies around the world and wealways invite the person responsible for executiveeducation from those companies to come and sit onthe panel as well. By doing that we ensure they areinvolved in the decision process, and that it is notsimply coming from the head office. And that hasbeen very important in terms of consumer buy-inand nominating people from their organizations tojoin the programs.

Kawashima: After choosing some well-knownexecutive education providers, I will review theareas I want to focus on. For example, I will check:How many faculty members have researched thearea? Or does the provider have a better re-searcher in the area? How much is the tuition fee?Then, I will choose an executive provider with bet-ter researchers or a better curriculum. When ourboss makes a decision, I give him data to choosethe best provider and information about why I rec-ommend that institution.

How important is the faculty of these providers

for you?

Shreiber: For us at least, and for all the reasons wehave said, faculty is absolutely crucial. And Iwould go as far as saying they are more crucialthan the institution when it comes to making ourchoice.

Harrison: I would agree with Nicks point, basi-cally. We look for university names to begin with,in the whole selection process. But then our expe-

rience is that it is the faculty that put the programtogether, so they are key. And really our expecta-tion of the faculty is that there is a certain creativ-ity in delivery methods, awareness of differentlearning styles within the group, and connection tothe world of business, through consulting projectsor whatever. We really try to move away from fac-ulty members that just use case studies. There area lot more methods of delivery out thereand weare really looking to professors and faculties thatcan bring creative ideas to the table in terms ofdelivery and helping people to learn.

And really our expectation of the facultyis that there is a certain creativity indelivery methods, awareness of differentlearning styles within the group, andconnection to the world of business,through consulting projects or whatever.We really try to move away from facultymembers that love case studies andtorture participants by using them.

Kawashima: They are very important becausethey can be not only instructors but also referencesand guides for us. Better faculty members can mo-tivate us to be involved in the program. They willbecome our reference points.

How about research? What role does it play in

your choice of providers?

Shreiber: You know, for us, the research in itself isnot so important. It is what can be applied in reallife. It is sort of like the technology of a car: You aredriving a car, and you want the instruments to becorrect, and you want to have certain comfort fea-tures. You dont really care about the research thatwent into it. What you care about is the user-friendliness of the output.

Harrison: Yes, I would agree with that, Nick.However, we do have the expectation that solidresearch has been done to support certain kinds of

theories. We want faculty to be able to call upon itto support arguments. We have some examples ofwhere the faculty has had to draw on it, becausewe had very inquisitive participants. So just thefact that there is this back-up that a professor isfamiliar with . . . I mean, if they have written aresearch paper on it, then it is no problem. If they arepresenting someone elses work it is not so credible.

What needs to happen to support executive

education?

Harrison: We have started to look into this questionmore because we realize that the impact of send-ing individuals to executive education and thenbringing them back into the organization is like afish swimming against the currentthey have atough time coming back into the organization. Per-haps during a program they have started to thinkabout things differently. But they come back andare trying to fight the hoards of people going in theother direction still. We have sent teams to someprograms. We are finding that this has a powerfulimpact on the organization when they get back



5/11

because the team strength is much greater thanthe individual strength. This is where we are ex-periencing real change and change of mind-setstarting to take place.

Shreiber: Team training is also something fairlynew for us. We are seeing that it is better to haveeither entire teams or at least 50% of a team going

to the same training at the same time. Beyond that,one way that helps enormously is to work on spe-cific projects that are related to the company. Sothe project becomes a vehicle for them to bringtheir knowledge back into the company.

Harrison: Team-based projects is one area wherewe have a lot to work on. A team receives a projectto work on over 912 months. They then present tothe boardfindings, ideas, ways forward.

Do you have specific activities to support

executives back from programs?

Kawashima: In our company, a person who partici-pates in an executive program will share the learn-ing with coworkers by writing a report or giving apresentation. However, writing a report is not so use-ful because there is no discussion. On the otherhand, a presentation is useful because the Q&A ses-sions motivate people to learn more in the field.

Harrison: From our side, we have the processesin place but they are not always used. We areworking hard on improving this.

Shreiber: In the case of Tetra Pak, there are somefairly ingrained processes before sending people

for executive education. There is the managementplanning and development, and what we call thecompetence gap analysis. That part of the processis fairly formal and very often the gap analysis iscovered by sending somebody to a formal trainingprogram. But we have very little in the way offollow-up process. This is related to the question ofhow to evaluate the effectiveness of executive ed-ucation. I think both we as a company and theinstitutions we work with do a lousy job of evalu-ating the effectiveness of executive education. Ithink this is a big area of failing that still needs tobe addressed, by companies and by executive ed-

ucation institutions.

I think both we as a company and theinstitutions we work with do a lousy jobof evaluating the effectiveness ofexecutive education. I think this is a bigarea of failing that still needs to beaddressed, by companies and byexecutive education institutions.

Harrison: Recently, we discussed moving moretoward just-in-time development. With the clas-sic process that we have in place at the moment,this is not possible. And now we are discussing,often internally, how we can start to meet theneeds of individuals, but much more using a just-in-time approach.

How do you transfer and use learning from

executive education?

Harrison: At the moment the process in place con-sists of HR people in the responsible company sit-ting down with the participants and asking, OK,what support do you need within the organizationto implement the ideas that you have come upwith? However, this should not only be the re-sponsibility of HR but of the line managers too.

Shreiber: When it comes to individuals going to

courses on their own, we are even less developed.We really dont have much follow up. Action plans,yesbut we dont have the formality of sendingthe action plan to a boss, let alone a board memberor a member of the senior management. So there Ithink is where we are weakest. However, whereyou take on a specific project, as I said earlier, theproject itself becomes the vehicle with which thelearning is taken back to the company. For exam-ple, for a project to launch a new package in Brazil,a senior sales or marketing person from Brazil goesback, and his or her responsibility is to have thatproject launched in the market by a specific time.And for that they will use learning that they got onthe course. So I think that has worked fairly well.And we then have a library of hundreds of theseprojects that have been implemented over theyears, and they are accessible to everybody, sotheres a bit of knowledge sharing. The other waythat we find very powerful is when we come inteams, with a specific topic in mind. We found thatthere is a tremendous amount of learning, but it isnot formalized. So I think it is important to definethe process or the reason you are going to sendsomeone to exec. ed. I think it makes it much easier

to help bring the learning back into the organization.

Weve talked about evaluating effectiveness and

you said it needs more work. What works for you

at the moment in terms of evaluation?

Harrison: For leadership development programs,we found that the use of a 360-degree is verygoodpreprogram and postprogram one year onfor the individual to gauge how others perceivethey have actually developed within that period.



6/11

The other area where we are concentrating is onthe project work for measuring effectiveness.

Kawashima: We, the organizers, evaluate the ef-fectiveness of our executive programs from theparticipants comments and their evaluations.When our company sends individuals for execu-tive education, it will evaluate the effectiveness by

what they contribute to the company. But in factthis is very difficult.Harrison: We also use the classic happy sheets

at the end of a program, and we have played withthings such as calling participants 6 months aftera program to say, OK, from what you learned,what have you actually implemented, etc.? Weare being challenged in terms of how we can mea-sure the return on the investment of development.

Shreiber: As I said before, for us it is an unex-plored areato put it nicelyand I think whenexecutive programs are carried out with an insti-tution, the institution will gain tremendous credi-bility if they are the ones that organize a follow up6 or 12 months later. I am convinced it has to bemeasured well after the program is over, and I amconvinced that it has to be with the line bosses, thedirect bosses or supervisors of the people whowent to the program. Not with the program partic-ipants, or not ONLY with the program participants.Coming back to the happy sheetI love thatnameit serves a useful purpose when we arerunning a pilot for a program, because if the pilotis below 4 on a scale of 1 to 5, we know there areproblems. But in terms of the effectiveness of the

program measured by lasting change inside thecompany, a happy sheet is totally irrelevant. Imust say [evaluation] is an area we have not spenttoo much time on, but certainly a business schoolcould gain a lot of credibility by coming back toTetra Pak 6 months later, talking to the bosses, tothe employees who went, and making a formalassessment of what has changed thanks to thecourse they went to.

Harrison: Yes, I would agree, Nick. I think weneed support in that area. If, for example, a busi-ness school was to come with that support and

those ideas, I think we would embrace it.

Now, what do you see as future trends in

executive education?

Kawashima: I see that the number of Chinese andIndian managers enrolling in Western executiveeducation will increase because they have to com-pete in the global economy. Well-known executiveproviders have actually targeted them. We alsostarted executive programs last year with WhartonSchool targeting Pacific Rim countries. Our needs

are mostly in communicating with overseas people.Harrison: Within the organization weve been

discussing combining development with social re-sponsibility. We are aware of companies such asMotorola that combine leadership developmentwith community projects. It is an interesting con-cept, and the research shows that such an ap-

proach to learning is going to have a big impact.One example of developing a receptive mind-set isof managers on a program being paired up andspending one or two days just observing eachother, and reflecting on how their partner works asa manager, what he does. A couple of companiesthat have used this approach have found it amaz-ingly powerful for getting people to really reflecton what they are doing and to open their minds tomaybe what I am doing is not the right approachat the moment. This is an example of a moveaway from case learning.

Shreiber: Going forward, I think we will look atthree trends. One is the general pressure on ex-penses, productivity, and costsparticularly in thepackaging industry with competitors coming out ofAsiaand alternative packaging materials thatcompete very effectively with cartons. So I thinkthat both the board and senior management willtake a view to spend probably less on executiveeducation in the years ahead. And that will lead toa second consequence: There will have to be pro-grams that are customized to a large extent to whatour company needs. That goes back to designingeither custom programs or participating with two

or three other companies in a very specific type oftraining. But I still see that happening with insti-tutions. And the third area is the pragmatism of theteaching staff, as I call itthe real-life experienceversus the academics. I come back to our earlierdiscussions, where you want people who havebeen there, done that, or at least have a realknowledge of what it takes. And if there is re-search, fineas long as it can be applicable to thepeople when they go back to the office Mondaymorning.

FOUR EMERGENT THEMES

These three executives agree that executive edu-cation can indeed be a partner for change for bothcompanies and individuals. The challenges are onthe design, delivery, and follow up. Of course, theyargue, it does not replace what companies can dointernally to share knowledge to improve their ex-ecutives capabilities, but it supplements this ac-tivity to drive change. In this section, we expandthese interviews with other interviews with busi-ness school professors and consultants from lead-



7/11

ing firms McKinsey, Mercer Consulting, and Mon-itor Executive Development to reflect upon four keythemes: (1) what users want from executive educa-tion; (2) the role of research and thought leader-ship; (3) the role and methods of facilitators; and (4)the results and outcomes of executive education.2

What Users Want From Executive Education

Our interviewees argue that the most importantvalue derived from using outside executive educa-tion partners is to drive change. Executive edu-cation providers can indeed create the awarenessfor the need of strategic change among executivesand thereby strengthen their ability to drivechange once back in their organizations. Increas-ingly, companies ask executive education provid-ers as well as consulting firms to help drivechange by working with their senior executives.

For example a European bank proposal reads:Our bank has a clear and well-communicatedstrategy. The objective of the workshop is not tocreate a new strategy. The main objective of theworkshop is to support the top management withthe translation of the strategy to the daily busi-ness. We need to show results in the 2007 Interna-tional Conference. This shows a customer de-manding not only a stretch of mind-set, skill, andcompetence building to increase effectivenesswhich has been the more traditional focus of exec-utive education in the pastbut also help to effi-ciently implement a set strategy and goals rather

than questioning the strategy itself. However, re-quests that focus on the more traditional capabilitybuilding also remain. Here, a large beverage com-pany recently sent the following program objec-tive: To achieve our future business objectives, weneed to accelerate the development of our seniorleadership pipeline by working on a number ofidentified key attributes and capabilities that ourGeneral Managers will need to develop orstrengthen. Another company, a manufacturingfirm, mentioned: We intend to create a leadershipdevelopment program for our senior management

and fellows. [It] should focus on the strategic think-ing skills, approaches to building organizationalcompetencies, and individual leadership skills re-quired to execute our strategy. These requests forproposals suggest that the services demanded byusers range from skill and competency building tostrategy implementation and change.

However, many business school leaders still see

themselves as educators whose primary goal is toexpand the mind-set of executives and not to helpimplement strategy or drive change. A businessschool leader recently said: I am an educator andeveryone within this organization is an educator.While this might still be true today, there seem tobe two demands emerging from the market: mind-

set expansion and performance enhancement inline with a given strategy. The newer trend forbusiness schools is the demand for services lead-ing directly to performance improvements, byspeeding up capability development or commit-ment to a strategy. This client pressure is alsoreflected in what an insider recently said: Brandis not the defining factor any more . . . companiesare savvy. They dont just blindly go with Harvardbecause its Harvard. As users become increas-ingly aware of what different executive educationcan offer, they become more sophisticated buyers,and competition within the industry is likely todifferentiate the offers further.

The newer trend for business schools isthe demand for services leading directlyto performance improvements, byspeeding up capability development orcommitment to a strategy.

Our interviewees also mention the increase inthe motivation level of executives as another rea-

son for using executive education. This would sug-gest that executive education partners should befocusing on personal development, network ex-pansion, and edutainmenta combination of en-tertainment and education to ensure that partici-pants will leave the program reenergized. Indeed,by meeting people they do not normally interactwith, executives can expand and revitalize theirpersonal business networks. Social network re-searchers have long argued that the density ofexecutives networks and their ability to act as abridge to others outside the department or organi-

zation have a direct influence on individual, andover time, company performance (Burt, 2001).Thus, if company performance enhancement is

increasingly expected from business schools, com-petition with consulting firms is more direct thanpreviously thought, as the latter have traditionallypositioned their services as making an impact oncompany performance. As Colin Price, partner atMcKinsey and responsible for organizational de-velopment, points out: Our bias is to work withmedium to large corporations on performancetransformation where there is an intention to move

2 One of the authors garnered this information from a compet-

itive analysis overview at IMD.



8/11

from one performance level to another perfor-mance level. In the past, strategy consulting firmsprimarily focused on offering solutions to prob-lems. They are, however, increasingly realizingthat to be able to support the implementation ofstrategies, skill and competency development isan integral part. Indeed, Monitor, a boutique con-

sulting firm, now has an extended arm called Mon-itor Executive Development which, according to Dr.Vikas Tibrewala, its executive director, focuses ondesigning and delivering highly customized exec-utive development solutions that make a profounddifference in the way people think and act to driveorganizational results. The same applies to Mer-cer Consulting.

Executives of these leading consulting firms seelearning and education as an integral part of aperformance improvement project. As Colin Pricesays, we aim to do education within the context ofbusiness improvement. The trainer needs to be likea consultant in that they need to have a deepunderstanding of the business context and a realunderstanding of how the learning makes a differ-ence in business performance. This is a relativelynew activity for leading consulting organizations,leading to direct competition between consultingfirms and business schools as both are trying tomake a direct performance impact through skilland competency building.

The Role of Research and Thought Leadership

Regarding research and thought leadership, our in-terviewees distinguish between relevant and rigor-ous research, arguing that rigor is not of concern tothe practitioner, and highlighting that applied learn-ing is of higher importance. The implicit demand isthat research for interventions should be increas-ingly customized and applied. This is in contrast towhat the main focus of business schools has been:The faculty tenure process that emphasizes researchrigor over research relevance and the traditionaldoctoral training that requires students to focus onmethodologies, theories, and teaching and excludes

business practice. In addition, their point that theindividual professor is more important than the in-stitution when choosing an executive education pro-gram challenges business schools marketing cam-paigns that concentrate primarily on sellingprograms or strengthening their institutional brand.3

As a result of these contrasting demands, we

believe research and thought leadership are likelyto become more important dimensions of differen-tiation among providers in the executive educationarena. It may not be enough for business schools torely on recycling basic theoretical frameworks toexecutives, just as it may be insufficient for con-sultants entering into executive education to be

spreadsheet analysts and number crunchers.Thus, the link between executive education teach-ing and research may need to be more clearlyestablished within business schools, and consult-ing firms need to improve the diffusion of the les-sons learned from practices. While traditionalbusiness school competitors must build theirknowledge and expertise in a way that is per-ceived as applicable to an increasingly demand-ing customer, consultants need to ensure that theyhave the intellectual capital to make clients de-mand their services.

In this scenario, idea practitioners may becomea crucial population since they act as linchpins,selecting which ideas the corporation pays atten-tion to. Harvard is commonly cited for such bigideas, but so are magazines such as Fortune andForbes as well as a number of nonacademic bookssuch as Good to Great by Jim Collins. Executiveeducation customers do not want abstract con-cepts, but rather ideas that have been tested by theexperience of others, and through their networkswith these others, the ideas can be implementedalmost in real-time.

In this scenario, idea practitioners maybecome a crucial population since theyact as linchpins, selecting which ideasthe corporation pays attention to.

The Role and Methods of Facilitators in

Delivering a Learning Experience

Interviewees reinforced the need for businessschool academics to deliver their knowledge and

expertise in a way that is applicable to custom-ers. This involves the ability of facilitators to (1)link concepts, models and frameworks to the con-textual world of participants, and (2) translate re-search into the classroom. Traditional teachingmethods such as the use of case studies were crit-icized by one interviewer as too classical. An-other interviewee predicted that 50% of classesbeing taught in case format will not survive. It haslong been argued that business schools need tobecome more innovative and tap into teaching for-mats more in line with companies needs and adult

3 See for instance the heavy emphasis on the advertising of

programs in advertisements of business schools in key trade

publishing outlets for executive education such as Business-

Week, The Economist, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times.



9/11

learning. Companies want learning that allows fornew and more differentiated approaches to spe-cific situational challenges. Experiential learning,action learning, work reviews, personalized feed-back, action plans, and simulations are just someof the methods that could see wider application.

The recruitment and retention of individuals able

to deliver executive education experiences may needto be revisited. The trend of increased competitionbetween different providers of executive educationstrengthens the competition for resources (Antunes &Thomas, 2007). There is a clear shortage of executiveeducation human resources, given that only a selectgroup of faculty can effectively teach executives,as this requires skills such as the ability to facilitatebusiness-level discussion and the utilization of prac-tical application and examples. As one faculty mem-ber from Columbia said, Not everyone is an Exec.Ed. type of person. A Wharton faculty membernoted, My colleagues and I know that only a hand-ful of faculty work well in executive education set-tings. Consulting firms such as Monitor are alsotapping into the same pool. As Vikas Tibrewala says:[W]e have addressed this issue head-on by hiringaccomplished Exec-ed. faculty from the leading busi-ness schools.

In addition, there are a number of gatekeepers.As a Copenhagen Business School faculty men-tioned: [T]here are barriers to entry in terms ofteaching in executive education program. Programdirectors rely on the same faculty with whom theyare comfortable. Providers rarely risk giving a

chance to new faculty. As a Wharton executiveeducation program director said, We tend to drawrepeatedly from the same pool of 2025 FacultyMembers (approximately 10% of our Faculty Pool).

Some consulting firms are taking a different ap-proach. As Colin Price says, We are training con-sultants and educating trainers in consulting. Fiveyears ago we started in Australia as an experiment.The experiment proved wonderfully successful, but ittakes a long time to train these people. Its a 4-monthintensive program where people pass or fail. Weselect our consultants who have a natural leaning in

education. Ten percent of our consultants are gener-ally good at this and we train them. We also found120 people around the world who are not McKinseyemployees who are experienced in the whole train-ing and facilitating approach (4060 years old), andthey are going through performance programs wherewe teach them to apply their training skills to morebusiness specific environments. We combine theMcKinsey consultant who is learning to be a trainerand the trainer who has learned a little bit aboutbeing a consultant, and we put them together andthey make a pretty good team. In addition, there is

an increasing use of external resources such as be-havioral coaches. This would mean that all providershave to take a more strategic approach to resourcemanagement which makes sourcing, rewarding, andretaining key in any executive education providersstrategy to deliver against the users demands orrequirements. As Vikas Tibrewala from Monitor ar-

gues: [T]he combination of top faculty, learning anddevelopment experts, and consultants, all with deepknowledge of the clients context, makes for a verypowerful and effective team.

Results and Outcomes of Executive Education

Another key theme that emerged from our inter-views is the need to invest more time and effort inevaluating executive education outcomes. Com-pany boards challenge the spending of significantamounts of money on executive education, andthere is a clear need to know the value added ofsuch activities. At the team and project level, thevalue added delivered by executive education ismore easily measurable, but the creation andtransfer of knowledge at the individual level islargely unexplored. There is a strong need for newmethodologies to assess individual learning. Thiscalls for further research with empirical evidencethat links executive education inputs to outcomes,most pressingly at the individual level, but also atthe team or company levels.

While repeat business is a measure of successused in some business schools, this may not be

good enough in the future. Other measures cur-rently in use at corporate universities or businessschools are happy sheets filled in by participantsafter each session but, as the interviewees said,they are not enough. Although assessing customersatisfaction can provide initial pointers toward aproper evaluation, is reaction after a learningevent sufficient evidence of results and quality?Kirkpatrick (1996) has long argued that beyond re-action, other elements need to be evaluated too:learning, behavioral change, and ultimately, re-sults. We try to define success as what happens

after the classroom, not just in it, says Vikas Tibre-wala. We would say that the more clarity there isregarding initial learning goals, the greater thelikelihood they will be achieved. Firms want learn-ing to translate into change, and this needs to befollowed up with simple methods such as check-lists, observations, action plans, work reviews, ordashboards. Action learning has become the wayto transfer learning into jobs. It is accepted that ithelps participants focus on their action plans andprovides reminders, but it is insufficient to trulyspread the learning throughout the organization.



10/11

One could argue that if executive education par-ticipants are aware that there will be a follow up tomeasure the success of their learning, they aremore likely to apply what they learned and therebycare more about how they do in their jobs. Thisrequires executive education providers to adopt anew approach to postprogram support, as only

support and accountability will help reinforce thelearning and lead to behavioral and cognitivechanges. Examples of support include recognitionprograms, incentives, and showcasing best prac-tices. Weekly follow-up coaching and requiring in-dividuals to summarize and present their newlearning to senior executives can ensure a greaterlevel of accountability. This requires executive ed-ucation providers and clients to work hand in handover extended periods of time.

Implications and Conjectures

Our interviews and the other sources we consultedhave made us think of some important issues foracademics and researchers who want to be in-volved in delivering executive education experi-ences, and for executives who want to make use ofthis type of education either for themselves or fortheir teams and organizations.

In terms of academics delivering executive educa-tion programs, we highlight the importance of schol-ars having relevant knowledge and experience ofvarious business and organizational contexts as akey success factor in executive education. This

means that academics involved in executive educa-tion need to develop the capacity not only to applytheir own research to the organizational and individ-ual context, but also to create research content thatmatters to practice. Thus, the production and diffu-sion of knowledge should no longer be treated asseparate realms; instead, their capacity to cross-fer-tilize each other should be more widely appreciatedand utilized (Tushman et al., 2007). More journals thatovercome this silo mentality are needed to supportthis. We would also argue that further differentiationwithin business schools between those academics

who conduct research and those who are involved inexecutive education may not be the best solution.Such differentiation is likely to lead to higher barri-ers that would further restrict the smooth transfer ofresearch findings into practice; as a consequence, itwill reduce the wider potential impact of a businessschool. This also has implications for faculty careers;we would say that a tenure process solely focused ontraditional research is unlikely to be conducive tothe capability of delivering quality executive educa-tion.

Among the implications for executives choosing

between different providers, we would highlight thatthey need to be more explicit about what they hopeto achieve with a particular program when decidingwith whom to partner. Business schools, consultants,coaches, and others offer different advantages anddisadvantages. Business schools may have the ben-efits of mind-set expansion and of being more able to

focus on increasing the cognitive and behavioralcomplexity of participants, which should allow exec-utives to develop new mental models or increasetheir behavioral repertoire; their area of weakness,however, is their lack of knowledge of practical ap-plications in specific organizational situations. Con-sultants might be able to gain a deeper understand-ing of the company context, of their problems andissues; however, they may lack the pedagogicalskills needed to deliver lasting change for their cli-ents. Psychologists and behavioral coaches mayhave the advantage of understanding the behavioralrepertoire necessary to improve leadership capabil-ities and individual performance; however, since thisis likely to be primarily focused on individuals, thelarger organizationaland even societaldimen-sions of change might be lacking. So each choiceinvolves trade-offs that may not yet be explicit whenit comes to choosing among different types of exec-utive education providers.

As the executive education industry is still rela-tively fragmented, with no player capturing morethan 1% market share (BusinessWeek, 2007), theboundaries are likely to shift in the future, as theindustry is likely to start undergoing consolidation.

Here, external pressure may also arise from thirdparty organizations and small boutiques able to hirefaculty and coaches at variable costs to run pro-grams for clients using top name academics or con-sultants. As an advantage, they would neither havethe cost structure of large research budgets nor thefixed costs of employees! As a competitive report byColumbia Business School stated: [T]he overall mar-ket will grow, but the major change will be the sharethat third party organizations get. Firms will simplyhire coaches and faculty at variable costs and run23 programs inviting top academics. The losers in

these changing dynamics are likely to be academicsbecause of the lack of relevance as abstract conceptswill no longer be enough to ensure client satisfac-tion.

In this context, the users of executive educationare likely to have a major influence in determiningits future shape. From their point of view, we wouldsay, perhaps the smartest way to use executiveeducation is to appropriate the learning to learnthat should come from having partners such asbusiness schools for an extended period of timeand learning how to design effective programs of



11/11

change. When applying such meta-learning capa-bility inside their own organizations, companiesshould at least be able to create learning champi-ons to instill in others the thirst for learning andchange. Providers, on the other hand, will have todifferentiate their offering further and continuallywork toward delivering the clients perceived

value in order to be able to sustain a lasting com-petitive advantage.

REFERENCES

Buono, A. F. (Ed.). 2002. Developing knowledge and value in man-

agement consulting. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Antunes, D., & Thomas, H. 2007. The competitive (dis)advantages of

European business schools. Long Range Planning, 40(3): in

press.

Burt, R. 2001. Structural holes versus network closure. In N. Lin,

K. Cook, R. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research:

3156. New York: Gruyter.

BusinessWeek. 2007. 2005 Exec Ed Rankings: Real-world training

gets the highest ratings. Retrieved from http://www.business-week.com/bschools/05/exec_ed_rank.htm, January 31.

Ginsberg, A. 1988. Measuring and modelling change in strat-

egy: Theoretical foundations and empirical directions. Stra-

tegic Management Journal, 9: 553581.

Ginsberg, A., & Abrahamson, E. 1991. Champions of change and

strategic shifts: The role of internal and external change

advocates. Journal of Management Studies, 28(2): 173190.

Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. 1997. Leadership com-

plexity and development of the leaderplex model. Journal

of Management, 23(3): 375408.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. 1996. Evaluation. In R. L. Craig, (Ed.), The

American Society of Training and Development handbook.

New York: McGraw Hill.

Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of

learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Long, S. L. 2004. Really . . . why do executives attend executive

education programmes? Journal of Management Develop-

ment, 23(7/8): 701714.

Lorange, P. 2002. New vision for management education: Lead-

ership challenges. Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.

Poulfelt, F. & Payne, A. 1994. Management consultants: Client

and consultant perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Man-

agement, 10(4): 421436.

Tushman, M. L., OReilly, C. A., III, Fenolosa, A., Kleinbaum, A. M.,

& McGrath, D. 2007. Relevance and rigor: Executive education

as a lever in shaping practice and research. AMLE.

Bettina Buchel is a professor of

strategy and organization at

IMD, Switzerland, one of the

leading business schools fo-

cused on executive education.

Her research and teaching fo-

cuses on strategy implementa-

tion and managing change.

Don Antunes is a partner at P&L

Executive Education and associ-

ate fellow at Warwick Business

School. His main interests are in

management knowledge, execu-

tive education, and strategic

learning.

Julie Harrison Nick Schrieber

Takako Kawashima


reflections on executive education: the user and provider’s perspectives

Documents