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

If one is forced to cut 30 per cent of the education budget, which learning population should be “hit” and which should not?

Kim Taylor-Thomson: Chief Learning Officers (CLOs) are facing this precise question on a daily basis. But I would suggest that the dilemma is not whether a particular learning population will take the ”hit”. Rather, the question is ”how can I take 30 per cent out of the budget in a way that is responsible and continues to utilise learning strategically?” That question too often is not guiding the choices that are being made and so learning populations may suffer.

If we look carefully at learning curricula at companies around the globe, we see that these programs have developed over time. But many have lost coherence and connection to the business. Recent concerns with cost have led to random cost cutting and delays of programmes but no one has stepped back and said, ”What are we trying to do here and is it working?” or ”How might this be done in a different way that is more effective both in terms of cost and engagement?” or ”How have our strategic priorities changed and what capabilities do we now need to develop and how and where we develop them?” When those questions are asked and when programs are examined against a learning architecture with a clear vision of the objectives the company is looking to achieve, the CLO can often find ways to cut 30 per cent out of the education budget without harming a population that will need learning to enable the company to meet its business and strategic goals.

Rory Simpson: No company should have such a blanket approach. This is the time to invest in people, it is right now that companies need to count on and develop their most valuable asset. If a company’s approach to executive education is coherent then no one population should be especially hit.

What are your views on the value of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) credits for the industry – will they become compulsory for bankers in the future? Mike Kirkman, London

KTT: I am not sure whether such credits will become compulsory. As is often the case, when there have been significant problems in an industry, there is an effort to regulate the conduct within that industry.

RS: Schools should work closer with professional industry bodies so that learning is better aligned with the requisites of that sector. However they also need to maintain an element of freedom of thought so that they avoid becoming “rubber stamp” facilitators and thus lose their creativity and status of innovation generation centres.

What is in your opinion the role of e-learning, if any, for senior executives?

KTT: Technology has changed how everyone thinks of learning. Particularly as companies cut back on travel, they recognise that they still need to reach an audience that can be globally dispersed. So finding technology that can be blended with face to face interventions or can engage and connect participants in a meaningful way becomes all the more important.

Looking back at the 1990s, we saw that many companies invested heavily in e-learning with little uptake or return. Today, they are asking ”Can learning via technology really get people engaged, change behaviours and produce results or is this more of the same?” We believe that technology can enable corporate education, provided you understand what needs you are trying to address, what audience you are looking to engage and you have a good understanding of how to create a meaningful connection virtually.

Senior executives often prefer face to face engagement. But, that said, we are beginning to see more senior teams blend virtual learning methodologies with face to face meetings. Face to face can be effective for particular types of outcomes, but senior teams are finding ways to engage virtually and I believe we will see an increased role for technology-enhanced learning for top teams.

RS: Business Schools need to move on from their ”once bitten twice shy” attitude to e-learning and completely grasp all aspects of new media. Millions were spent over the past ten years on e-learning but it is still miles away from its potential. Nobody has cracked it, and certainly not the so-called online universities. It could be wonderful, but we still see poorly designed and executed initiatives and massive fallout rates, especially when referring to senior executives. Of course ”new media” refers to much more than e-learning. I’m talking about all aspects of social networks, and the use of technology to connect people. We need to use it not just for learning but in the way we go about our business: how we manage our operations, market, educate, and ourselves learn.

How is the global market of online Executive Education segmented in terms of total market capitalisation, main players (business schools), number of students, education programs customisation and FT rating? Viktor O. Ledenyov, Kharkov, Ukraine

Della Bradshaw: I actually defy anyone to answer this question – I have spent years trying to piece together the landscape. The biggest question to begin with is how do you define executive education? Who provides this – business schools, training companies, management consultancies? What percentage of a programme involves online learning – 5 per cent? 20 per cent? 100 per cent? It’s really impossible to put accurate figures on this.

RS: It all depends on definitions. Some believe that if they are in the business of truly ”executive education” then those massive players and online universities are in fact another segment. They cannot educate executives in such a way.

So, if you are exclusively online then you are probably not a mainstream business school. Cynics would say you are merely an online certificate/diploma provider. None of the large scale online providers are in the FT ranking of Executive Education. That doesn’t mean they don’t have millions of students and are not making money!

Given the anticipated decline in corporate sponsorship, are you shifting your marketing efforts to focus more on the individual (B2C) vs. the corporation (B2B)? Ron, New York

KTT: Your answer to Q1: Duke CE will continue to market customized corporate education to corporations. While talent development has taken a back seat to survival in many organisations, it has not gone away as a key issue for CEOs. The demographic trends have not changed. The global challenges of developing talent in emerging economies have not changed. The multigenerational nature of the workforce has not changed and may be even more of an issue as baby boomers work longer.

So, we are still seeing a large number of companies around the globe choosing to invest in learning because they value it as a strategic lever. What these companies are recognising is that while they may need to be more cost conscious, they also need to continue to develop their talent so that their leadership teams (and those with the potential to be the next set of leaders) will be prepared to navigate beyond the downturn. Consequently, our marketing will still focus on corporations, and our work with those corporations will be to design and deliver the kind of learning interventions that can enable the organisation, the team and the individual to meet the company’s strategic goals.

RS: Both are obviously very important. The relationship is the key, whether it be with just one independent individual or an individual within a corporation. Its not unlike a marriage and when the pressure is on its more important to be there for eachother. Through the downturn especially we feel it is very important to maintain those relationships, to learn from each other and to be there even when we know learning and development budgets are being reduced.

We need to speak to and understand the individual, but we also need to understand and empathise with groups of individuals that make up the corporation, and we need to relate to the corporation as a whole. All this means that we need to engage with and market to all.

How can the executive education online add value to the business development strategy in long term perspective? Viktor O. Ledenyov, Kharkov, Ukraine

DB: At the FT we seem to have been writing about online learning for years as a potential force in executive education, but it only really seems to be taking off now. To date, successful implementations have been in skills training for lower level employees, divorced from the corporate strategy. Increasingly these days there is a sense that online materials can help support individuals in various aspects of their jobs as they implement the business development strategy.

The problem with most online learning is that it is a standard sets of materials to suit all learners. I think the next step has to be in tailoring the programmes to individual learning styles. So, someone who learns best through reading texts could have that option; others could use audio or video; and so on. This could well involve building in personality assessments at the beginning of the programme. Should be fun!

RS: First of all let me say that executive education online doesn’t always work and it depends on the context. Online learning certainly doesn’t replace everything else and to get any value out of it there has to be a massive emphasis on design.

Online learning can add to the richness of the mix but especially for senior level interactions and the development of high brow discussions, learnings, interactions and strategies etc it offers no catch-all panacea.

For compliance, or lets say, health and safety information, or if one wants to gain a certificate or qualification without really learning and engaging too much then it is a useful tool. However, if one desires the multi faceted learning experience that touches all 5 senses and thus embeds the learning and thus changes behaviours then ”online” is not the solution.

During an economical downturn, budgets for education gets cut. How do you ensure that the participant level is still very high and how do you avoid filling available spaces with people who are just not up for the course? Daniel Meile, Switzerland

KTT: I suspect this question may have been intended for schools that provide open enrolment programmes. But Duke CE has found that when the learning programme is geared to the business, is relevant to the line and focuses on real business outcomes, there is often considerable demand for the programme without any dilution in the quality of the attendees.

RS: First of all we would rather postpone a course than run it with few participants or with reduced quality of participants. So much of the learning is through peer interaction and a global diversity of participants from multiple sectors. If we cannot guarantee such an environment we would rather delay a course until we could.

We need to be in the business of running courses that are so relevant and topical that even as budgets get cut, the courses are seen not as a luxury but as a necessity. Budgets have been cut but spending on our courses has not reduced throughout the downturn so far!

What is the global energy industry trend/s in these financial challenging times for upgrading the skills of leaders? What are some of the techniques being used for greater engagement of the workforce? Caesar Mitchell, Trinidad & Tobago

KTT: CEOs are looking for ways to engage their senior teams to focus on the challenges they are seeing in this environment. Leadership summits that help senior teams grapple with strategy execution and translation are becoming more in demand. We are engaging thought leaders in those summits to work directly with the senior teams to begin identifying how they can be more agile, read weak signals in this environment and, innovate even in the midst of uncertainty and change. We are also seeing companies finding ways to increase their investment in the development of high potential populations (the next generation of leaders) by engaging them in problem based learning.

RS: We actually have seen a growth of engagement from our clients in the energy sector. Also, its not just about oil and gas, but also a real emergence of interest from alternative energy companies and from nuclear.

Its not about technical training but about leadership and sustainability. Its not about being the bad guys, more about finding solutions for the 21st Century.

What are the newest trends in Executive Education? Celeste Messina, France

RS: We have seen a move from technical training to leadership training, from functional specifics to a much broader life behaviour sort of thing.

Schools must use their award winning eminent faculty and research as a key element of what they offer but there is also so much more: coaching, mentoring, engagement with NGO’s and charity’s, ”discovery expeditions”, working with competitors, gaining a deeper understanding not just of management but also of the environment, geo-politics, philosophy, macro-economics and even the universe! Participants are demanding learning events, not programmes.

Another trend is the move towards, and the importance of, the specific need of the individual. There’s an analogy in medicine where we see drugs and diets specifically designed for individuals, not whole communities. Schools need to realise its not about their content its about the clients needs.

Also, as the buyer is so much more sophisticated now s/he rightly demands so much more. Schools need to up their game to be relevant. Many can live off vast endowments but the danger is that if they don’t become more market oriented they will eventually die.

Similarly, research is increasingly important, but it needs to be highly relevant and practical. Clients will not be impressed with or even fobbed off in the classroom with business anecdotes or irrelevant academic studies. Business School research needs to be translated into the classroom and the classroom needs to be translated in to the research. Schools that don’t deliver research are mere providers and will never be leaders in the executive education field. There will always be a place for high brow academic and even philosophical thought that pushes frontiers of knowledge, we need that too, but schools need to deliver something practical on a daily basis: its like catwalk fashion and stuff we all buy and look good in!

KTT: Some of the newest trends that we are seeing are listed below:

a) Learning integrated into work. Companies are looking for different ways to accelerate learning and create capability in their business. They recognise the opportunity cost of taking people out of their jobs for extended periods of time. So, they are looking for ways to embed learning in the business rather than keeping it separate from the business. They want to engage their own leaders in the development of others. They want to reduce their carbon footprint – and costs – through reduced travel. Companies have heard the 70-20-10 rule of learning (that individuals learn 70 per cent on the job – 20 per cent through coaching/mentoring – 10 per cent on formal learning, typically including programs).

So they are looking for ways to engage their people in the course of work and to integrate learning into the work that they do. We have been working around the globe to help companies find ways to increase the learning at the team level and to introduce techniques that blend coaching and development into the actual work that teams do.

b) Gaming. Many companies realise that Generation Y learns in a different way from the Boomers and even Generation X. So, they are looking for different ways to engage Gen Y learners to accelerate their development and channel their energy particularly in times of change. Most companies lack a place for their people to practice new behaviors or new strategies. They announce their intentions to the organization and then expect behavior to change or work to be done a different way. Gaming provides a place for employees to practice new ways of working and to receive immediate feedback. This accelerates strategy execution. Gaming is also a good way for new virtual teams to practice working together around the globe. This is particularly relevant to companies that are experimenting with new global sourcing strategies.

c) Social networking. People are connecting every moment of the day to solve problems, meet new people, express their opinions and generally be visible in a virtual world. This goes well beyond the 1990s’ notion of communities of practice. At that time companies struggled to find a reason and way for people to connect and learn. Today these communities are naturally pulling others in because people want to be part of them. This is a natural part of the knowledge economy that requires a multidisciplinary perspective to solve new, complex problems. One particularly interesting trend involves seeing education as a means to bring folks together to create and apply new knowledge rather than learn ”what is already known”.

d)Leadership in a world where the rules have changed. The need for leadership education is greater than ever before. Companies will need to lead their organisations in a world with new rules where systemic thinking is more important than ever before and problems cannot be solved without reaching outside the organization to pull in stakeholders and leaders from other countries, communities and domains. In some cases their positions have shifted from one of dominator to orchestrator or another seat at the table. And as they sit at that table they will look across and see faces they have never seen before from governments, quasi government organisations and non government organisations from around the world. In other cases they must rapidly learn to be a player – a leader that can influence and form partnerships with other stakeholders. In both cases they must lead and develop their organisations to compete in this world and this has to happen quickly. So the need for forums in which these conversations can occur, bringing consortia of business together for learning and engaging them in discussions within and across industries.

e) Accelerating the return on knowledge management. Companies have invested substantially over the last several years in systems to capture and share knowledge. The return on those investments has in many cases been disappointing because their people do not access what is available or do not enter their new insights or learnings into the system. CEOs are frustrated that the money they invested to accelerate learning, improve customer service and stimulate the sharing of best practices is not delivering the expected returns and they are realizing that telling people to share and use the knowledge in the system is not the answer. The flaw in most knowledge management strategies is that they focus on the authoring of knowledge and the development of technology to capture it. Knowledge sharing is a social act not a technology. So, a trend that we are seeing is that companies are increasingly looking for ways to accelerate the return on knowledge management, to orient staff to the usefulness of knowledge management systems and to embed their use in the day to day learning and work of the organisation.

In a climate of ongoing cost cutting and ensuring return on investment, how do organisations ensure that their top executives are supported to manage change, improve leadership and grow confidence to deliver shareholder value? Sian Hession, London

RS: If there is no coaching and mentoring then you are missing a crucial element. It’s like fish and chips without salt and vinegar, or snails without garlic sauce, if you prefer! Business Schools are getting much better at weaving-in coaching and mentoring into their offering, and they should do. If companies have to spend less on the overall picture of executive development they should not be merely eliminating one critical link in the chain of learning.

KTT: Coaching and mentoring remain critical components of the learning process. Many top executives will want to engage new skills, push their own thinking and the actions of their teams, and change their behaviors. But they will often need to have support and coaching to enable these changes. When coaching is connected to the business and focuses on business outcomes, organizations are willing to make the investment that will support the implementation of these new actions. When the coaching seems disconnected from the business, then cost-cutting is likely to result.

But how can companies determine whether they should invest in coaching and mentorship? If these statements sound familiar:

* People used to learn here through apprenticeships. That’s gone now. There are too many people and we have nothing to replace it.

* We keep telling people what to do rather than helping them learn how to do it

* A lot of our really experienced people will retire soon and we don’t know how to pass on what they know.

* Our people are good at getting tasks done but I’m not sure they are learning the business

* Our young people are frustrated that they are not given more responsibility

These are clues that an investment in coaching and mentoring needs to occur. That said, there are new ways to embed coaching into work so that it becomes a part of the work rather than an afterthought. Through some of the team based learning methodologies that we are using, we are helping executives become better coaches and mentors through work so that development continues to take place and to cascade in the organisation.

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