Developing Executive Education: Think twice!

“Executive Education that delivers true thought leadership has indeed become a key priority for many business schools. Many schools, however, fall short of the challenge to meet today’s executive education needs. Classical organisational structures-often based on functional disciplines; hierarchy and the tenure tradition-can impede a business school’s ability to adapt quickly to the new and emerging requirements of leading corporations. Many business school professors and leaders, as well as the administrative staff that support them, feel the conflict between the “old” ways of creating academic value, based on disciplines and set axioms, and the “new” ways of creating academic value, where professors and practitioners work together in a give and take mode, as learning partners. However, it is the new mode of academic value creation-a “lead and be led” mode-that is the most likely to prevail. If so, this will have a profound impact on how the business school of the future is organized and managed.” (Peter Lorange, Preface, When thought leadership meets business, Cambridge 2008)

?

?

In the last thirty years Business Schools went through main strategic moves.

?

Qualification of the faculty, including research outputs, and internationalisation of all the institution are among the most important. Some schools started by the faculty, some by the internationalisation and some tried both at once. The end results were not exactly the same, as when the faculty is there, it is usually to last, and if the internationalisation has not started it is often more difficult to implement with a national/local faculty. The accreditation pressure was a strong motivation for such moves. But there was still another important change to deploy: the shift in the client perspective. Were students the only clients, or were corporations also relevant? Some schools did stick to their traditional knitting, and kept a more academic positioning and an organisation focused on teaching and students. Some started to move and offered services to corporations and in the process had to deal with a change in faculty profile and in the school organisation.

Peter Lorange’s previous remarks sum up the challenges!

In these hard times of budget balancing, how comes that Business Schools do not think more about developing complementary revenues through new activities like executive Education? Many rankings or accreditation processes considerably value this activity, and the best ranked schools are strong in Executive Education. This is a clear-cut differentiation factor with schools not engaged in Executive Education.

In fact, many schools are trying to do so, and most encounter difficulties. Not only because clients are difficult to convince or competition is tough, but because going Exec Ed calls for a systemic approach, somehow a true organisational development, hard to implement in rather conservative academic institutions.

?

Business models vary with a mix ranging from “mostly ?integrated Exec Ed” (IMD, Insead, Duke, Cranfield, Ashridge) to “marginally Exec Ed” (most schools). Each model has a specific strategy, portfolio, organisation, faculty profile and faculty management.

Level of integration of Executive Education in the institution

Portfolio

Organisation and staffing

Key success factors

Specific challenges

Marginal (15% of revenues)

Open short programmes (basic)

Degree programmes

MBA full time

Programme managers under an academic supervision

Department within the Business School

Quality/price ratio

Taught by external faculty except for degree programme

Double tier faculty

Developed ( 30% of revenues)

Open short and long programmes

Degree programmes with executive mode (part-time)

Executive MBA

Customised degree programmes

Strong exec Ed division with leadership, plus Key Account Management and Programme Managers

Quality of Marketing and relationship with clients

Image of the institution

Commitment of the faculty

Fight for internal resources

?

Mostly Executive Education (60% of revenues and over)

Executive MBA

Highly customised

Sectorial or cross functional open programmes

Consulting services

Corporate Universities

On line delivery and services

Main division of the Business School

Most faculty are experienced in corporate life

Dedicated research

Faculty are working cross functional

Partnership with corporations

Getting the right faculty

?

?

1.?????The real benefits: learning from the clients

Aside the supposed increased revenues or a better ranking position, the real benefits of Exec Ed for a school are manifolds:

·??????It brings in the school a new type of client and forces the institution to think differently:?what added value can the school bring to corporations? Is it pure axiomatic knowledge, new expertises, some kind of consulting services, plain technical qualification, leadership or organisational development (Peter Lorange, op.cit)

·??????What does the school bring back from this activity: revenues, or image? Or is it beneficial also for the faculty in terms of understanding corporate preoccupations and objectives, and does the faculty develop and bring back new learning material?

·??????Will it give the institution a new positioning and a new research agenda, more focused on corporate problems and not on pure academic issues?

·??????Will it change academic posture, publications and careers?

·??????Will it change degree programmes design and content?

·??????What are the benefits from the traditional student body in terms of skills, knowledge, recruitment and career opportunities?

·??????How corporations can be more associated to the school strategy, programme design, research agenda, lecturing, internships and governance?

·??????Does it make the school globally more responsive and reactive?

The economic dimension is often not the only one, and certainly not the more important, as the necessary partnership with client corporations brings a lot more.

?

2.?????What are corporations looking for in Executive Education

As shown in the chart, corporations are less looking for pure professional qualification when looking for Executive Education. They are willing to invest to develop performance, solve problems, grow leaders, implement strategy, create new business models, be innovative, exchange good practices, share common vision and culture, help transversal networking, create communities of knowledge. If qualification comes with it??“Tant mieux”! If not, who cares! Training, as such, might be dead but real learning is well and alive.

(This slide from Corporate University white book Dufour-Wargnier)

From teaching to learning.

The left side of the chart is mostly training and qualification. Bottom left is essentially training and can cover open programmes, degree programmes (clients are mainly Training Officers), while top left is more on internal processes and some kind of customisation (clients HR services and Business Unit Heads).

The right side is mostly what corporations are looking for either for individual or teams and is mostly customised (clients are CEOs and Executive Committees –top right,?and career development officers for bottom right).

Depending on the position of HR as a Business Partner, HR can be or not associated with all or part of the decision process in sourcing Executive Education.

3.?????Changing the target

The primary market of schools is the student market, with a “B to C marketing”.

When one tries to attract students the marketing mix is made of web sites, brochures, fairs, rankings and accreditations, a good selection process, open?days, strong alumni association, and interviews of Deans and of famous successful alumni in Business papers or Education journals.

Marketing to corporations, is very different, it is pure B to B, and does not require the same marketing ingredients. The image of the school is dominant, unless the school looks for a commodity market of basic open programmes. B to B means a much focused marketing on potential clients that know the institution and needs its expertises. Brochures are less important than a deep knowledge of the client, its organisation, its decision process and actors, its learning culture, its main preoccupations, its competitors and their strategy.?The main marketing investment is made of knowing and understanding the client. Mass marketing is of little use, mailings and e-mailings not really matter. Dedicate meetings with small numbers of clients, invitation to top conferences with school experts, long term commitment and exclusive dedicated services create loyalty and “intuitu personae”. Trust is a key word. Marketing is relationship based. An organisation sells to another organisation, and it is complex.

For sophisticated and highly customized programmes any small problem can disrupt the relationship. A change in the persons in charge can break the delicate setting. In the school the organisation is of a Key Account Management Type, which means that the number of clients per KAM is limited. In many cases, a formal meeting is organized for the signature of the first consequent contract and requires the active presence of the Dean of the Business School, as the client wants the partner to be committed. It may not be the only time the Dean gets in contact with the client as such contracts usually last for some time.

The marketing of Open Programmes needs a good CRM( with a large base of hundreds of thousands of names) allowing for a relevant segmentation of clients, as one does not sell the same marketing programme to finance officers or marketing staff. It requires brochures, but trying to market too many programmes through a huge catalog appears to be costly and less successful to-day than before. The drop in registration forces programmes to open with fewer participants, to cancel or to postpone openings, generating dissatisfaction of clients and bad image, not mentioning that price competition is tough in this business. One way to avoid the commoditisation effect is to develop cross-functional programmes, sectorial or problematized topics as IMD, or other Schools like Cranfield does (Orchestrating Wining Performance, Growing Businesses, Project, Programme and Change Management) .

In some cases marketing approaches have to mix B to C and B to B as for instance Executive degree programmes whose clients may be both individual and corporations.

Maintaining a good CRM and qualifying those in charge of the learning decision making within corporations takes time. In many corporation staff looking after learning and development are located in HR and not in operations. They look at schools as traditional suppliers with whom they have to negotiate prices and conditions and not as strategic organization to partner with. This ends often with a tough encounter with the Purchasing officers in a tender like situation, where expertises and sophisticated content or faculty have not much to say. A very frustrating experience.

?

?

4.?????Marketing expertises or marketing programmes

Marketing expertises is different from marketing programmes. In the first case, it is often the marketing of the expert by the expert himself, in the second case it is the marketing of the whole institution.

Usually experts do their own marketing, through books, publications, conferences, articles, interviews…but the institution can help and offer the substratum to facilitate and promote. When the number of experts in a domain is large enough, the expertise will stick to the image of the school and stay even if some experts leave or are not full time.

For a medium size institution, to start an executive education activity, it is sometimes easier to promote a few differentiating expertises than a full range of open programmes with a large catalog.

Easy to say, but difficult to implement as the first thing to do will be to identify these expertises and have the support of the relevant faculty to promote them. It is reverse marketing first, meaning that the school has to sell the project internally before going to visit clients with the experts. Not all faculty members are ready to do so for reasons that will be discussed later.

?

?

?

?

5.?????New faculty and Dean profiles: Deciding or not for an academic career in a Business school.

The choice of an academic career versus a corporate one is not an innocent one. Both careers require efforts and personal investments, but not identical. Rewards and risks are also different, not only financial, but also in terms of recognition, life style, and professional development. Experts are seldom good managers except for themselves. Notorious cases of??good researchers becoming poor managers of research are common academic literature ?(see Argyris: Organisation and Innovation Dorsey Press). The Dean and Heads of Department in a Business School are often rotating position because the job is not always considered as a real promotion or a way to enhance its own academic career. It usually distracts from publishing and researching, as well as lecturing, and the academic recognition and career may suffer.

Often when accepting a Deanship, applicants know that they end up their academic career and opt for a management one, moving from one institution to the other at the end of their mandate. Very few can go (back) to industry as corporations do not think that their academic experience in school is relevant for a managerial position in operations. The move from industry to academia is also quite infrequent. This means that few individuals within schools are bound to have a natural corporate mindset and knowledge.

Frequently schools have a hard time recruiting Executive Education Officers within the faculty. And if they recruit externally the new comer will have difficulty working with the faculty as he will not be considered by them as legitimate (unless full PhD) to understand and sell their own expertises.

Deans have also to be exemplary to demonstrate salesmanship and marketing skills in front of corporate clients. Not all of them are ready to do it, while it should be around 25 to 30% of their time that should be spent with senior executives of corporations either to gather funding resources or promote their institution, or just understand their business and projects.

When some faculty members are ready to go for Executive Education the next step is to make sure they understand the required posture in front of executive participants. Some keep to the teaching posture while the role expectations are more on facilitating learning or even consulting/ counseling than lecturing. It is even more difficult for young faculty members that have little experience and examples to share with participants, and are more on the theoretical side.

Corporate clients seldom care for theory. They like sharing with peers, ??importing solutions, quick wins, performance enhancement, results, sometimes just recipes. When dealing with Executive Officers from the school they expect “draft propositions” during the first meeting, like those they would get from consultants. Executive Education officers should be good at designing and architecting proposals on spot.

Time out of the office attending seminars is often seen by bosses as time lost, if not vacations, and at least not with the clients.

?

?

?

?

6.?????Dedicating the organisation, changing the rewards and the “main stream” effect

All these shifts in profiles, not mentioning rewards calls for a change in the organisational setting. First when recruiting new faculty the profile must be screened not only on academic criteria but also on corporate knowledge and experience. The different teaching/learning posture, the consulting skills must be assessed, the will to cooperate in Executive Education as well. Formal recognition and benefits must come with. The fit with the rest of the faculty is important to avoid a two-tier faculty situation and all the internal debates with it.

Specific learning material production has also to be assessed, even if there is no “star” effect attached to it. EFMD does promote such efforts with Cases competition or Excellence in practice awards.

When managing their department schedule and teaching load, classroom time allocation, research outputs, programme management, Heads of Department must take into account time spent for Executive Education and value it differently from traditional tasks.

At the institution level the division of Executive Education has to be staffed properly. If possible the Director of the division, or the Dean for Exec Ed must have full recognition, and should sit on the board, participate and give his/her voice in the decision making process, including recruitment, as the outcome of his/her activity is of importance for the school positioning, and budget.

Chart from Bill Shedden , Presentation to ABS November 2011 with the author authorisation

?

?

?

?

?

?

7.?????Redesigning the resource based strategy and selecting the appropriate portfolio with the client perspective in mind

Bill Shedden for ABS

Often observed the first move towards Executive Education, is the launch of an Executive MBA programme. This is a good way to test the capacity of the faculty to adapt to a more senior level of participants. Those who succeed there in front of participants might be ready for the next move in customised programmes. A step in between initial degrees and the Executive MBA can be MSc programmes where the facilitation skills can be observed on specific domains of expertises, allowing a lower risk position for young or less experienced faculty. Promoting expertises leads very quickly to something which is more strategic consulting than pure qualification. And not all clients react well to these new provisions of services.

Some corporate traditional training centers and their staff have difficulties in dealing with issues that are more strategic than purely training. They are internal course providers while they should be internal consultants and business partners. Qualifying the staff of corporate training officers and coaching them to deal with company challenges is often the first obstacle to overcome before providing programmes or seminars. Helping same to sell the school proposal to their boss or internal clients is the next, as they are not usually client minded.

With the authorisation of Bill Shedden same source as previously.

8.?????Implementing the project

As any project it starts with a project manager and a dedicated team with a clear command from the board.

?

Executive Education Project Management scheme

?

T.L: team leader for each sub group

?

Working parties parallel groups

Who participates

Deliverables

Benefits

Difficulty

1.??????Defining partner clients and identifying their needs

T.L

External relations officers

Executive education officers

Some faculty members

Some clients

Who are the closest clients, what are they looking for

What is the delivery mode they are interested at what price

Business Schools often underestimate what they can bring to their clients.

This work bring confidence and trust?

The first contacts with clients are uneasy

It takes time to work out the first meetings and interviews

2.??????Defining crucial expertises

T.L

Head of faculty

Head of research

Some faculty members, some clients

What are the strategic differentiating expertises, who owns them, how can they be packaged and marketed

Business schools?underestimate or do not know all the expertises within their faculty

Defining what are strategic expertises and where they are.

Time to read all faculty production to spot expertises

3.??????Working out the organisation, the governance, the budget system

T.L

HR, deans

Faculty members

Definition of the organisation within the school, relation with functional departments and administration,

Budget and control

Management processes

The impact of Executive Education can improve the global management of the school

Natural reluctance of academic?staff to define efficient organisation

4.??????Marketing approach and CRM

T.L

External relations officers

Marketing services

Information System officers

Some clients

?

Preparation of the marketing actions

Definition of needed tools and documents

Qualification of the Key account managers

This brings new input on the overall marketing of the school

B to B very different from B to C.

5.??????Getting faculty on board, managing the faculty, research agenda redefinition

T.L

Dean of faculty

Dean of research

Department Heads

Faculty members

Profile of faculty

Qualification of faculty

Working load definition

Rewards

Process of evaluation

Recruitment of new faculty

Design of a new spirit for a new venture, beneficial for all

A very classic situation for all Business Schools, how to get faculty involved in something which is not teaching or publishing

Steering committee

All T.L plus the Project Manager, and most of the board, some trustees

Project development control

Final decision

Allocation of resources

Everybody starts looking in the same direction and commit himself

Hard decisions on allocation of scarce resources (people, space, money, power)

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

The first thing for group 1 to do is to work out a multiple spreadsheet list. The first column is the list of the corporations that can be qualified 5 or 4 stars for the institution. Those not only with which the school is in contact, but also recruit from the alumni and graduates, send participants to programmes, fund research or learning material, sit on board of trustees, participate in conferences or job fairs, help with donations for endowments or chairs etc..

The second column is made of the name of the “gate person” the school can call to have a close understanding of the company challenges.

The third list is a summary of what the company is longing for in terms of skill development, with the name of those in charge.

The next column is the to-do list with visit priorities, or complementary investigations.

Often a good way to start is to launch a pseudo survey on corporations on a specific question in which the school has some expertise: e.g. “Enhancing performance, what are the main challenges?” The faculty and other executive education officers will administrate interviews, work out the results and design a conference, distribute the survey conclusions, where they will invite clients, prospects and alumni. The outcome is the promotion of the school and its portfolio of services. Most large consultancy firms do it.

?

Group 2?has to list all the school specific expertises, by degree of importance, be it functional or sectorial, or both. This is more difficult to list as it requires a good knowledge of all faculty publications, research and works. There is no short cut to this knowledge as the school can only sell what it has in “intellectual inventory”, and the selling is often also done together with the experts themselves. Frequently recently appointed Executive Education Officers bring back orders from clients that no one in the school wants to deliver, either because they do not have the expertise, do not know the company enough, or just because this will distract them in terms of research field.

The same methodology applies more or less to other groups with specific tasks.

But if the school is not yet ready for such a structured approach, a more modest pilot track can be implemented.

This alternative route can start with a pilot group of?5 to 7 faculty willing to develop Executive Education and ready to visit corporations they know to promote their expertises and listen to the clients’ needs. This can be a good way of testing the institution openness and readiness to start this new venture and eventually to decide for a more structured approach if the first feedbacks are positive.

The organisation of such a new department and the positioning of the dean or director in charge are of importance. If he/she is not on the board, some decisions (recruiting the right faculty, investing in facilities or catering, marketing budget of the school and CRM, partnerships, portfolio of the school, research orientations…), will be irrelevant and counterproductive for the development of Executive Education.

?

.

?

6.?????Key factors of success

They can be quickly listed as they are common to many projects:

·??????Commitment of the board and the Dean

·??????Image of the institution

·??????Support of the faculty, through specific?steering committee

·??????Integration of the activity in the mission of the faculty with appropriate appraisals, recognitions and rewards

·??????Relevance of the faculty expertises for the clients base

·??????A dedicated exec education Dean with a strong knowledge of the faculty, and good salesmanship, supported by KAM, and sitting on the Board of the school.

·??????Good facilities and services, easy to access

·??????Relevant CRM and IS

·??????Opportunity?and skills to blend a varied mix of learning approaches, and to partner with other providers including NITC

?

In conclusion, the challenges of developing Executive Education are many. The opportunity cost is high, as well as the transaction costs internally and externally. It may not appear as such when having a quick look. Executive Education calls for reactivity, adaptation, relevance, innovation, efficiency and effectiveness, not always seen on campuses. Underestimating the changes to implement as well as the risks is a must. Not every institution can succeed.

As one can see it will take time before what looks like an opportunity becomes a benefit.

But the question is of importance when the time of accreditations comes, as the relevance of Business Education is more and more within Business and the quality of the Executive Education provision is the “moment of truth” when highly valued by corporations.

When thinking about Executive Education Schools must take into account that sometimes a no-go decision is better than a ”soft consensus” one where nobody is fully committed, or ready to implement the various and difficult changes/investments associated to it.