Articles archive

Corporate Universities: The Pragmatics of Organizational Learning

Author: Prof. Rob Paton, The Open University Business School.
First published: 2004

For a decade the number of multinational companies with corporate universities (CUs) has been steadily increasing. Areas of the public sector now have their equivalents, too - vide, the Defence Academy, Centrex, the National College for School Leadership, and the potentially colossal NHS University. It is wearing thin to dismiss the trend as just another corporate fad. But the disparate variety of CU initiatives - along with the usual tendencies towards corporate hyperbole - make it difficult to grasp the nature and significance of this development. So what is going on?

A team at The Open University Business School has been investigating this phenomenon for the last two years, carrying out what will be the first in-depth study of. Corporate Universities. In a series of detailed case studies, we have been talking to the full range of stake-holders - from the Board to the line managers who are key customers, to individuals who learn through corporate universities - and not just those whose job is to champion and promote CU initiatives. This chapter summarises some of the key findings to emerge from this work.

So what different about a CU?

Never mind the label - it's the underlying strategies that matter. It makes no difference whether it is called a University or an Academy or a College or an Institute. What we are talking about are a new generation of strategic learning initiatives. Large employers, both private and public, have a long history of undertaking work-place-based and workplace-related training and development (think: the company training schools of the nineteenth century). It was how they ensured they had enough of the skills they needed. As a method of organizing training and development, CUs continue that tradition - but three features make them different.

1. They are corporate-level initiatives in large, highly complex and differentiated settings.

   CU are located in corporate headquarters, linked closely to a Board level sponsor, often distinct from the HR function within business units, and sometimes distinct from HR altogether. A higher level of decision is evident in the management of the initiatives than is common in managing training and development. They aim to deliver on a specific corporate contribution, a 'corporate value added', as one CU manager put it. This means avoiding the replication of what is done well at a local level, such as basic induction or skills training, while seeking to promote corporate consistency in relation to common terminologies and approaches, trans-national working and communication, or the instilling of common corporate values. The scope of such content varies between organizations (and within them over time), but they are given high priority and significant resourcing within all of our case organizations.

2. The pursuit of continuing strategic alignment.

   A fundamental driver for CUs is to control training and development activities more effectively in relation to strategic priorities. Such priorities vary - they may concern post-merger integration, building customer loyalty, cross-cultural working, high-flier retention and development, making training more cost-effective and timely, or developing leadership at all levels. Moreover, such strategic business priorities are constantly evolving. As a result, they frequently have to re-position themselves and re-develop their programmes. Traditional universities are among our oldest and most stable institutions, but everything about CUs is provisional.

3. They attempt to raise standards, expectations and impact as regards training and development.

   This aspect of CUs reflects the strategic priority afforded to learning, and may be seen in: attempts to identify and engage the highest quality providers almost regardless of location; the development of sophisticated frameworks to increase consistency of provision; reinforcement of key messages and competences between levels and across diverse business and cultural settings; innovative programme designs, including much greater attention to pedagogy; the use of ICTs through e- and blended learning and by fostering distributed communities of practice; and rationalising the sourcing of learning services from external providers. This is not to suggest that everything CUs do is new, and that all previous corporate training was non-strategic, unsophisticated, non-innovative, and so on. Nevertheless, what emerges from our case studies is the explicit aspiration of CU managers operating at very senior levels and from within the corporate centre, to more closely manage standards in provision, in alignment with organizational strategy.

These characteristics capture what is distinctive about CUs, compared with more familiar approaches to training and development. But it will already be clear that the notion of a corporate university remains loose and is still evolving. A disparate variety of managerial logics to the initiatives is apparent; and organizational sponsorship and location of the initiative is diverse. Nevertheless, a number of key features, and some underlying trends are apparent.

Diversity - and convergence?

It is useful to think of CUs as varying on two dimensions. The first concerns the nature of the learning: this axis ranges from a narrow training focus (imparting information, developing specific vocational skills), through broader forms of education and professional development (including a socialization into organizational values and practices), and finally on to those that encompass forms of research as well as higher-level teaching and learning.

The second dimension concerns the spatial organization of the CU - whether it is focused on a specific facility that people attend (the campus model), or whether it is primarily distributed - either 'virtual', or employing a mix of media, including print, and providing support locally, perhaps through a network of learning centres.

Combining these two dimensions - and simplifying cavalierly - highlights four different types of CU.

The most familiar type represented here is the classic company training school or college. These have been upgraded recently in various ways to raise the status and profile of training both inside and outside the organization - McDonalds Hamburger U can be seen as an exemplar of this type of CU. They are heavily focused on delivering the skills needed for consistency, quality and efficiency in core operations. Such initiatives are often represented as compensating for the shortcomings of secondary educational systems, as at one of the original CUs, Motorola U.

A second type of CU - one that can be crudely encapsulated as 'Computer-Based Training on the Intranet' - is much more recent, but has been the focus for very considerable investment in particular industries and contexts, and provides the basis for much popular press coverage of CU initiatives. The reason is obvious: whenever large numbers of staff have to be regularly re-trained (to use new software tools, for example, or to comply with new legislation), or updated (for example, on the features and terms of the latest products they sell), the costs of providing such training on a face-to-face basis have been considerable. Hence, by switching to electronically delivered training companies may save enormously on staff travel and accommodation costs, particularly when they are internationally distributed. Managers have also found it easier to provide the training consistently, in a timely manner, and with less disruption to work schedules (sometimes because training takes place outside work time). Debate may continue over the scope for this method of delivery in the longer term - whether and how far it can be used for 'softer' topics less amenable to right and wrong answers; how far it can develop beyond its pedagogic origins in programmed learning. Nevertheless, that there are important contexts in which it can be highly cost-effective is no longer in question. The Shell Open University provides an example of reducing training spend in a highly distributed organization that needs to pass on information quickly; a second is Unipart, where (it is said) you can learn in the morning and apply it in the afternoon - not least because there is a dedicated PC on every shop-floor that links to the Unipart U.

The third type of CU - designated the 'chateau' or 'country house' experience - was also a familiar feature of the corporate landscape before CUs became common. Management, leadership and executive development has traditionally taken place in well-appointed rural locations away from the headquarters, but in recent years such initiatives have had a renaissance. They are now seen as one way of addressing a major corporate challenge -how to promote cohesion across highly differentiated international businesses, especially ones that have often grown through acquisition and merger. The importance, and the difficulty, of building a common understanding and effective management teams out of diverse national and corporate cultures cannot be over-stated. The reinvention of the management college as the incubator of a shared corporate culture, through intense face-to-face development activities and the creation of cross-organizational networks, may be a result of the increased frequency of multinational mergers. Being semi-detached from the pace and pressure of mainstream corporate life, such facilities may also provide a social space where the normal codes are, to a degree, relaxed, and assumptions can be questioned. To this extent they may also have a role as corporate 'think tanks', where senior figures or rising stars can take time out to analyze, debate and think through emerging challenges, in relation both to internal issues faced by the organization, and also in relation to wider concerns over, for example, the natural environment or the location of production. Examples of this sort of CU are the Rüschlikon facility in Switzerland owned by Swiss Re (see http://www.ruschlikon.com) and Boeing's Leadership Development Centre in the US.

Finally, there are the CUs that exist and operate as networked communities. They embrace a wide range of learning (that is, technical and professional as well as business management), supported in diverse ways (combining e-learning with face-to-face elements, mentoring, action learning, placements, and so on). And their form and focus change quite frequently, in response to emerging professional needs or shifting perceptions of strategic priorities (re-structuring being a normal rather than an exceptional occurrence in corporate life). The University of Cap Gemini Ernst and Young has several of these features, having played different roles at different points in the twelve years of its existence. While the campus near Paris remains the hub of the corporate university, CU staff are distributed around the world. Increasing use is made of e- and blended learning, and professional up-dating in a very fast-moving industry is provided through an on-line magazine. Great emphasis is also given to fostering communities and networks among the different sorts of professionals that work in the company.

If there is an underlying trend in the development of CUs, it may be towards this shifting form, based on communities of professional, managerial and technological practice.

Current challenges

Whether CU initiatives have started with a technology (e-learning) focus or have embraced this later, the effective combination of electronic and other elements is now a major challenge. Often in this respect, the development of CUs progresses through three phases or waves. The first is concerned with achieving technological mastery. This means putting an adequate infrastructure in place including the platforms or learning management systems (LMS) that aim to allow ready access, a suitable range of facilities for learners, easy housekeeping, and integration with a company's HR systems. Technological perspectives and issues dominate the agenda, and provision is often supplier-led. E-learning is seen as a way of reducing costs, and making training more timely and consistent - but in a fast-moving field companies with limited experience can easily fall prey to the vendors dazzling demo. All this was accentuated during the 'dot com boom' at the turn of the century. So the one area where interviewees never wanted to be quoted was on the amount of money they had spent on LMS. Suffice to say that anyone who has felt let down by their LMS is in very good company indeed!

Nevertheless, one way or another, this is a stage that has to be endured, and from which companies seem to emerge sadder but also much wiser. Stable and functional platforms take shape; the requirements for learning provision become incorporated in desktop specifications; a range of courses or modules is made available; a body of early adopters prepared to use and persist with e-learning emerges; supporting facilities - competence frameworks, diagnostics, catalogues and links for booking conventional courses; realism about the limits and costs of e-learning develops - a sign that the second wave is now building.

The second wave is concerned with the contexts, styles and preferences of learners, and what is needed to ensure a rich and effective learning experience. This is 'pedagogy' (in Europe) or 'Instructional design' (in the US). All the talk is of 'blended learning'. At first the blends may be just on-line (e-moderating, on-line coaching, virtual learning sets .). But quickly it is recognised that, for example, on-line relationships work best if they build on and extend face-to-face contact. No longer is it just a matter of 'putting courses on the web'; the structure and style of the course has to be fundamentally re-thought, using electronic delivery and communication when it is cost-effective and appropriate, in combination with face to face coaching, paper-based materials, workplace-based projects. or whatever. Many trainers remain sceptical, not to say downright suspicious of the on-line elements, but again, there are early adopters - those training and development specialists who are interested in re-thinking the way they work so as to incorporate technological enhancements.

As the importance of these intermediate users of the technological facilities is recognised, the third wave - concerned with the assimilation and embedding of technologically-enabled learning - begins to gather momentum. The initiative is no longer overwhelmingly in the hands of experts at the centre - collaboration is now seen as unavoidable if high cost elements are to be widely and effectively used. Networked communities of practice start devising and asking for their own solutions, or coming up with unexpected ways of using existing resources. New roles emerge, as 'learning advisers' help individuals recognise and track down suitable ways of continuing their development, and then support and coach them as they do so.

Most CUs are struggling with the issues of the second and the third wave (Paton, Taylor and Storey, 2004). And no doubt there will be further technological waves to cope with in the future as well (think: broadband). What we see in studying the CU phenomenon is large companies and public bodies engaged in learning new ways to learn. For years, business circles have been awash with talk about the learning organization. It is the answer to the punishing pace of change in a knowledge economy. The trouble has been that the pragmatics - how, specifically, you can do it - were in short supply. Indeed, the learning organization has been like the unicorn in medieval times - fascinating, fabled and much sought after. But no-one knew where to find one.

Perhaps we do, now.

References

R Paton, S. Taylor and J. Storey (2004, forthcoming) The Corporate University Handbook. Aldershot: Gower Publishing