Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/63428
In the end, perhaps the extinction of traditional executive education isn't such a disaster, if it means that a new form of the animal emerges, better than before. say that "the Internet changes everything," but the impact of the Internet on executive development is just beginning to be felt. The early focus on the development of online pro- grams is morphing into the adoption of a blended approach, one that combines online pre-work with intersession assign- ments and tools that students can use even after they've fin- ished the program. Although many business schools are now incorporating 3. Face-to-face delivery is moving to blended delivery. It's now passé to blended learning techniques, face-to-face teaching is still the primary delivery system at most leading business schools. The move to blended delivery may be viewed by some as disruptive, but it is essential for business schools to capital- ize on varied learning options. 4. Conceptual teaching is giving way to active learning. In design- ing their key leadership development initiatives, many com- panies are strongly embracing active learning. While con- ceptual readings or expert presentations may be provided at the outset of a course, the focus quickly shifts to collective efforts to solve critical business problems. Increasingly, companies are adopting a blended approach to active learn- ing. This means combining shorter, face-to-face group ses- sions with more extended individual and group work via the Web. The problem with this approach is that it focuses on prob- ment programs rests on three legs: concepts, connections, and credentials. To their credit, good programs do teach par- ticipants much of value. In addition, many participants are attracted by the opportunity to enhance their credentials, build their professional networks, and even identify future job opportunities. Marketing these values to participants, however, repre- Currently, the value proposition of traditional open enroll- lems that face a particular corporate environment. Such an approach is potentially at odds with the generalized case stud- ies that traditionally have been the basis for business school executive programs. Corporations, however, are interested in problems that affect their business, not someone else's. With their generalized approaches, business school curricula may be losing their relevance to the needs of executive leadership development. To keep business school executive education alive and well, a significant shift in approach must occur—a shift from generalized to customized, from programmatic to integrated, and from study to action. Who's the Real Customer? If leading companies cease to rely on business school pro- grams—open enrollment or customized—to develop their people, then what happens? One possible answer is that business schools will increasingly fill their programs with people from non-leading companies or increase internation- al participation in their programs, but this reduces the fac- ulty's ability to learn from participants and stay on the lead- ing edge. Such a situation may create a death spiral for exec- utive education programs from which it may be difficult, if not impossible, to recover. sents a downside to corporations. Networking at a business school executive program can cause a company to lose good people. Likewise, building credentials tends to make people more mobile and more likely to leave for greener pastures. It should come as no surprise that leading companies are recruiting high potential business undergrads more aggres- sively and giving them customized training, rather than hir- ing MBAs who tend to wander. One solution to the problem may simply be an issue of marketing, offering different training programs to the two key customer groups, individuals and companies. For high potential individuals, the networking and credentialization benefits of executive education are at least as important as the substantive content. For corporations, business school programs can emphasize the business impact of a program, rather than networking opportunities; and create integrated programs customized to corporate cultures, rather than general, programmatic curricula. What's Next for Exec Ed The bottom line is that business schools must figure out where they fit in companies' increasingly integrated develop- ment processes and embrace new approaches for corporate training. In the end, perhaps the extinction of traditional executive education isn't such a disaster, if it means that a new form of the animal emerges, better than before. Business schools can create executive education programs that are inte- grated, active, relevant, and customized to the accelerated leadership transitions that companies now must develop to keep their talent and stay competitive. Otherwise, the traditional competitive advantages that business schools offer in corporate training are in danger of becoming obsolete. As a result, business school executive education may simply disappear, replaced by a new breed of in-house corporate training. Business schools will not just lose their edge—they'll lose their status as the true proving grounds for corporate leaders. ■ z Michael Watkins is an associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. BizEd SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2002 35