Abstract
Executive development programs (EDPs) have undergone significant change since their introduction in the early 20th century. As an adjunct or alternative to traditional education, EDPs are considered an efficient means of imparting critical, functional, and social-behavior skills to current and future organizational leaders. Consequently, such programs have undergone tremendous expansion in terms of breadth, the role they play in workforce education, and particularly the instructional strategies they employ. This article reviews the historical evolution of EDPs with particular attention to recent and future pedagogical trends. The author cites contemporary examples from participant observations with EDP in the public sector.
Keywords
“The Criticality of Executive Leadership has Never Been More Apparent. Consequently, the Sheer Volume of Edps Has Dramatically Increased and the Nature has Fundamentally Shifted.”
Conventional wisdom held the road to success is paved with traditional degrees from institutions of higher learning. Yet, concerns over the time, relevance, and cost of degree-focused formal education have consistently moved industry to search for workforce development alternatives. The result has been an evolution of non-degree executive education platforms intended to serve as an adjunct, or even alternative, to traditional university study (Conger & Xin, 2000; Crotty & Soule, 1997; Wuestewald, Wilds, & Hogard, 2002). Since their introduction in the early 20th century, executive development programs (EDPs) have undergone significant growth in both volume and breadth. Perhaps more importantly, the instructional methods of these programs have significantly evolved in pedagogical orientation. In recognition of the advanced career standing of executive students and the dynamic environment in which they operate, EDPs have increasingly come to embrace foundational principles of adult learning. Pedagogies based in adult learning are rooted in an abiding respect for the life experiences and knowledge adult students bring to the learning environment, an appreciation for adult students’ internal motivation and self-directness, as well as their goal-orientation and preference for relevant and practical learning outcomes (Knowles, 1990).
One driving force behind EDPs has been a search for educational relevance. This brief examination will illustrate, by and large, EDPs have been successful in this regard. Continued growth in depth and breadth testify to their educational relevance for private and public enterprise as well as individuals. How might the instructional pedagogies of these programs have contributed to this? What pedagogies might be indicated for EDPs in the future? As defined here, EDPs are courses of relatively short duration intended to develop the capabilities of current or future organizational leaders, carried out by companies in-house or in concert with external training resources (Hura, 2013). The purpose of this article is to examine historical trends in EDPs with particular attention to their evolving pedagogies. The examination begins with a look at the origins of EDPs in the 1920s and follows their progression through the postindustrial period and into the digital age. The analysis reveals an early reliance on cognitive instructional methods, but notes a steady shift toward adult-oriented learning strategies. The article concludes with a look at what pedagogies may be on the horizon for these specialized executive education programs.
Executive Development in the Industrial Age
During the early industrial age, degree-focused collegiate study came to be criticized for its sluggish pace, high cost, and relatively generic content (Crotty & Soule, 1997). These criticisms intensified during the postindustrial era, which witnessed the beginnings of a globalized economy. In response, universities such as Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) launched short duration non-degree executive education programs during the 1920s and 1930s (Crotty & Soule, 1997). Essentially, these programs excerpted from existing MBA curricula. The advent of World War II accelerated and refined this process beginning with the Harvard Business School’s involvement in wartime production courses, which prepared civilian managers for transition to wartime production (Crotty & Soule, 1997), and the National Defense Advisory Commission, which implemented the training within industry program as part of the war effort.
Following the war, similar re-training courses were developed to aid in re-orientation of the economy to civilian applications. Typically, these residential courses ran from 1 to 5 weeks in duration and were tailored to meet the needs of particular industries (Crotty & Soule, 1997; Spearly, 2006). Such short-term and focused trainings garnered favor with industry leaders for their relevance and immediacy; however, they were expensive.
In an effort to control human resource development (HRD) costs, many larger companies, such as IBM, GE, and Motorola, instituted in-house EDPs in the mid- to late 20th century (Crotty & Soule, 1997). In this context, in-house industry experts generally designed and delivered EDP courses focused on company-specific issues. Eventually, external training consulting firms evolved to offer off-the-shelf and tailor-made EDPs. These various forms of university-based, consultant-based, and in-house EDPs primarily concentrated on developing individual managers and equipping them with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to manage personnel, budgets, and technologies for strategic purposes (Spearly, 2006). As the 20th century drew to a close, the information and digital explosion radically altered the landscape for business, education, and executive development.
Executive Development in the Digital Age
The advent of the digital age, in Thomas Friedman’s (2005) term, “flattened” (p. 8) the world. Today, leaders of public and private enterprise must understand and manage global competition, mass migration, diversity, information transfer, interconnected networks, mass media, empowered knowledge workers, interdisciplinary teams, flattened organizational hierarchies, infinite technological advancement, and complexity on an unprecedented scale (Cross, 2007; Friedman, 2005; Williamson, 2013). Furthermore, the speed with which many of these novel challenges present themselves allows for only a very narrow response window with correspondingly high stakes (Cross, 2007). The criticality of executive leadership has never been more apparent. Consequently, the sheer volume of EDPs has dramatically increased and the nature has fundamentally shifted (Berzin, 2013; Brotherton, 2011).
The Association for Talent Development (ATD; formerly known as American Society for Training and Development [ASTD]) estimates U.S. companies spent US$156 billion on human resource (HR) training in 2011 (Miller, 2012). More than half this total (56%) was spent internally, while less than half (44%) was spent for external training and tuition reimbursement. EDPs comprised a significant portion of this investment. Although investment in human capital at all levels is important in a globalized economy, senior executive training is the critical linchpin to corporate strategy, coordination of effort, crises management, and change capacity (Brotherton, 2011; Conger & Xin, 2000; Crotty & Soule, 1997).
EDPs began a strong shift toward more learner-centered and company-centered approaches in the 1980s and 1990s (Conger & Xin, 2000; Crotty & Soule, 1997). Cohort programs that recast strategic visions and shared executive team mental models became more prevalent. This shift necessitated closer ties between company leadership and trainers (whether university-based, consultant-based, or in-house). Customized EDPs provided corporate entities with tailor-made HR solutions linked to organization-specific problems, culture, and strategy (Conger & Xin, 2000; Crotty & Soule, 1997; Spearly, 2006; Wuestewald et al., 2002). In some cases, pairing university-based instructors with in-house corporate trainers helped overcome internal cultural barriers to change initiatives (Conger & Xin, 2000; Steinheider, Wuestewald, & Percher-Verdorfer, 2012). The benefits of these custom built EDPs were not lost on universities (Hura, 2013). Most major private and public universities operated some sort of business outreach function for steady revenue streams and good community relations (Spearly, 2006; Wuestewald et al., 2002). In fact, Spearly (2006) reported, as of the early 2000s, enrollment for custom designed university EDP training exceeded open enrollment programs.
Beginning in the 1990s and accelerating since, smaller companies within the same industry have banded together into consortiums to engage private and university training resources for custom EDPs (Conger & Xin, 2000; Crotty & Soule, 1997; Spearly, 2006; Wuestewald et al., 2002). This approach shares the cost across all participant companies and introduces networking opportunities between organizations resulting in new relationships, exchange of ideas, and shared common problems.
As the 20th century drew to a close, organizational learning became a hot topic and has continued to the present time. The intersection of individual and organizational learning has been heavily researched and identified as a prime factor for strategic success in the knowledge economy (Cairns, 1998; Conger & Xin, 2000; Spearly, 2006). Organizations of all types have come to value the ability to collect, process, disseminate, and utilize collective knowledge to facilitate adaptive change. Consequently, a significant organizational development aspect has been incorporated into EDP curricula. In this conception, EDPs may now incorporate a vertical slice of an organization, bringing students from different hierarchical positions, functions, and disciplines together for intensive interactive development training. This introduces an interdisciplinary feature to the programs, which can result in creative problem solving and innovation (Johansson, 2004; Raelin, 2000). EDPs have experienced significant thematic evolution over time, but what about delivery?
Pedagogical Trends in Executive Development
Just as EDPs have grown and evolved in content and structure, the associated pedagogies have similarly evolved. The early days of executive education, whether formal degree-seeking or short-term non-degree-seeking, displayed a marked preference for cognitive instructional approaches (Conger & Xin, 2000; Crotty & Soule, 1997; Spearly, 2006). Although these teaching methods continue to have value and relevance in the knowledge era, experiential pedagogies with roots in a bygone era perhaps have greater relevance. This section continues with the expansion of EDP instructional methods from cognitive and case-based approaches to various adult learning strategies and offers my personal perspective.
Cognitive and Case-Based Learning
The cognitive learning model assumes optimal learning occurs when information is logically presented in a preplanned sequence of modules, whereby information can be assimilated into the learner’s preexisting mental framework. Cognitive learning is marked by an orderly, linear progression of subject matter leading to mastery of a body of knowledge (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2006). With roots in Gestalt psychology, cognitivist learning theory assumes all intellectual sense-making is an internal process in which the learner assimilates new information into their preexisting experience, knowledge, and worldview (Ausubel, 1968). As played out in early EDP renditions, sequential lectures from subject matter experts would impart functional skills, that is, knowledge specific to the technical aspects of management theory: budgeting, line and staff operations, leadership and organizational change theories, industry-related knowledge, and so forth (Daniels & Preziosi, 2010).
In addition, traditional EDPs have liberally employed case-based study. Case-based learning is a form of contextualized learning that draws material from actual case studies and circumstances in the workplace, providing students with a rich set of variables, issues, and options for applying knowledge and skills (Garvin, 2007). As commonly utilized in business, law, and medical schools, case studies typically present relevant data, history, and circumstances of an actual case. Students then identify pertinent issues and solutions during out-of-class preparation followed by in-class discussion. The instructor’s role is to guide students toward relevant data and options (Christensen, 1987). Many case studies do not present an outcome; the process of problem and option identification is more important than the result.
The cognitivist approach and case-based learning are effective pedagogies and continue to be relied on as EDP pedagogies. Importantly, cognitive instructional methodologies emphasize the process of learning or learning how to learn (Merriam et al., 2006), a critical skill in a digital age where information is instantly accessible and learning is increasingly self-directed (Cross, 2007; Williamson, 2013). Although cognitive teaching methods may be effective with regard to functional knowledge, they may be less effective for grooming “social-behavioral skills” (Daniels & Preziosi, 2010, p. 46), the soft skills of communication, emotional intelligence, team building, collaborative problem solving, and transformative leadership (Beechler, Ciporen, & Yorks, 2013; Conger & Xin, 2000; Crotty & Soule, 1997). Appreciation for these softer skills has helped generate new pedagogical approaches in EDPs.
Adult Learning Strategies
In an effort to better engage senior leaders and provide a more nuanced learning experience, executive development trainers are utilizing instructional philosophies that, although not new in themselves, are relatively new to EDPs. Various forms of adult and experiential learning have made their way into executive education that are believed to be effective approaches for transferring knowledge to the work context (Conger & Xin, 2000; Crotty & Soule, 1997; Suutari & Viitala, 2008).
Generally, EDPs have moved toward more humanist, adult-oriented, and experiential learning strategies. Humanist learning philosophy stresses the affective, self-directed, and experiential nature of learning as a process of self-discovery and self-actualization (Merriam et al., 2006; Rogers, 1969). Adult learning, or what Knowles (1990) termed andragogy, is a product of this humanist orientation. Compared with preadult students, Knowles noted adults bring experiential knowledge to the classroom, are prepared to learn based on a self-recognized need, are highly task- and goal-oriented, and have internal and external learning motivations. These attributes offer educational opportunities that can fundamentally change classroom dynamics. As Knowles (1990) noted, the emphasis tends to shift from content to process: The difference is not that one deals with content and the other does not; the difference is that the content model is concerned with transmitting information and skills whereas the process model is concerned with providing procedures and resources for helping learners acquire information and skills. (p. 120)
Humanist and experientially based adult learning strategies have significantly expanded EDP pedagogies with particular relevance for individual leadership development (Conger & Xin, 2000; Crotty & Soule, 1997; Spearly, 2006).
Early in the 20th century, John Dewey (1916) became convinced the most valuable form of education was experiential in nature. Furthermore, practical interaction with the environment facilitated continuity between the classroom, work, and society, and “all genuine education comes about through experience” (Dewey, 1938/1998, p. 13). Many education theorists have since echoed Dewey’s (1916) theme of “learning by doing” (p. 217; for example, Bandura, 1969; Knowles, 1990; Kolb, 1984; Rogers, 1994), which laid the foundation for a number of experiential learning paradigms, including problem-based learning, simulations, action learning, social and team-based learning, learning communities and networks, reflective learning, and service learning to name a few. Many of these pedagogies have made their way into executive development curricula and have proven useful for grooming the soft skills valued in modern organizations.
Problem-based learning is probably the most widely adopted experiential learning method within EDPs. Originally developed in medical schools, problem-based learning shares many commonalities with case-based study: real-world, contextualized cases or problems, student-directed exploration of issues and potential solutions, use of tacit learner knowledge, out-of-class preparation, and in-class discussion. However, problem-based learning typifies some significant differences. First, the problems may or may not be real, tend to be far messier and more complicated, and generally are not amenable to formulaic solutions (Brown, Garnjost, & Heilmann, 2011). Furthermore, the approach relies more heavily on the social aspects of problem solving, characterized by small study group collaboration. Rather than relying on teacher–student interaction to distribute information, problem-based learning is rooted in experiential and social learning theory (Bandura, 1969). By incorporating hypotheticals and business simulations, self-directed study, and collaboration with peers and experts, problem-based learning is thought to approximate real-world problem solving and stimulate critical thinking (Brown et al., 2011; Hall & Ko, 2014). Problem-based learning is also believed to improve transfer of learning to actual workplace performance (Austin, Weisner, Schrandt, Glezos-Bell, & Murtaza, 2006).
The concepts of action learning and communities of practice closely relate to problem-based learning. Action learning is “an educational strategy, used in a group setting, that seeks to generate learning from human interaction arising from engagement in the solution of real-time (not simulated) work problems” (Raelin, 2000, p. 66). Like problem-based learning, it draws on group interaction and dynamics to examine real-world problems, but generally occurs within the actual workplace context (Conger & Xin, 2000; Crotty & Soule, 1997; Raelin, 2000). Action learning is a more literal application of Dewey’s (1916) learning by doing experiential concepts. As a team-based approach, action learning often leads to communities of practice because it fosters the development of problem-solving teams and networking (Beechler et al., 2013; Raelin, 2000). A community of practice is established when people united in a common undertaking develop shared values, beliefs, language, and practices (Raelin, 2000; Wenger, 1998). Communities of practice are well suited to a digital, networked environment in which project teams and learning may be widely dispersed.
A recent addition to EDP curricula includes the adoption of reflective learning practice with elements of executive coaching (Buckley & Monks, 2008; Hibbert, 2013; Quinn, 2013). Reflective learning emphasizes individual self-development through reflection on personal behavior and assumptions. This pedagogy’s typical methodologies include journaling, self-reflective assignments, personality inventories, 360 evaluations, and classroom discussions. Executive coaches and mentors can assist this process by engaging in dialogue with program participants to surface and challenge attitudes, values, and practices that can affect workplace decision making and leadership style (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009; Kimsey-House, Kimsey-House, Sandahl, & Whitney, 2011).
Finally, and probably most significantly, technology is playing an increasingly important role in education and training (Cross, 2007; Miller, 2012; Williamson, 2013). Berzin (2013) indicated a near explosion in distance education and technology-facilitated training. Employees increasingly want training to include internet-based instruction offering flexible, interactive, self-paced study that is socially networked. A best practice is to link technology to experiential learning and tailor technology to the working environment (Miller, 2012). Furthermore, training is incorporating mobile devices and social networks in many respects (Berzin, 2013; Cross, 2007; Miller, 2012).
The foregoing pedagogical trends in executive development reflect across a wide range of public and private industries (Conger & Xin, 2000; Spearly, 2006; Suutari & Viitala, 2008). My personal experiences with EDPs come from the public sector, first as a student and later as an instructor and curriculum developer for various law enforcement executive education programs. Although the American police are seldom cited for innovative educational practices, the fact their EDPs heavily rely on adult-based learning suggests the pervasiveness of these methodologies.
A Personal Perspective
As a participant observer in several law enforcement EDPs, I noted heavy reliance on adult pedagogies of nearly every description. For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has operated its National Academy (FBINA) since 1930 with the stated mission of professionalizing law enforcement. This 10-week residential course in Quantico, VA, for police executives of federal, state, and local agencies, as well as foreign nations, employs problem-based learning, case and scenario studies, simulations, and role-playing, as well as reflective journaling, self-directed research, small group discussions, and field applications. However, the FBINA is probably best known for extensive use of networking to build technical and cultural information exchanges. This is accomplished through shared living quarters, group activities, social media, and frequent networking socials and cultural events. The FBINA is a model for community of practice learning.
The Police Executive Research Forum, a criminal justice research foundation and think tank, operates a similar, but perhaps more academic, program. Called the Senior Management Institute for Police (SMIP), this 3-week residential program serves state and local police executives. Perhaps owing to a heavy representation of Harvard Kennedy School and MIT faculty, the SMIP makes greater use of cognitive and lecture-based pedagogies than other discussed EDPs. However, SMIP’s foundation is in small group learning, case-based learning, and problem-based learning simulations in a flipped classroom format that combines extensive self-study and group work outside the classroom with in-class application, scenario modeling, and detailed debriefs. The SMIP exemplifies an effective mix of cognitive and adult learning approaches.
University of Colorado–Denver’s Rocky Mountain Leadership Program is an example of an interdisciplinary public sector program. Taking a retreat motif, the 10-day residential program, typically conducted in a scenic locale, brings together public sector managers from a variety of disciplines to exchange views on leadership, management, organizational change, HR practices, and contemporary social problems. Instructional strategies include reflective journaling, small group discussions, scenarios, role-playing, team learning and problem-based learning, as well as social media networking. In recognition of the interconnectedness of today’s problem-solving efforts, the interdisciplinary nature of this program is probably its hallmark.
As EDPs have evolved, in many respects they have dusted off some basic educational principles. After all, it was nearly 100 years ago that John Dewey (1916) advised, “That education is not an affair of ‘telling’ and being told, but an active and constructive process”(p. 38). At present, executive development reflects these active and constructive learning processes, but what might EDPs look like in the future?
The Future
In a recent MacArthur Foundation report, Williamson (2013) posited education has left behind the “factory-education” (p. 17) of the 20th century for the “centrifugal schooling” (p. 7) of the 21st; an age in which “learning is centrifugally dispersed and cybernetically distributed into society through new technologies, communication networks, the informal pedagogies of media, and emerging social practices of interest-based, peer-to-peer, just-in-time participatory learning” (p. 7). Compared with the past, it will be increasingly difficult to define a body of knowledge as we have understood it. Curriculum and learning in the future are likely to be a messy interdisciplinary amalgam of ideas and knowledge, networks and social media, information and experience, communication and compromise (Williamson, 2013). Learning is becoming thoroughly self-directed through the available mass of networks, media, and digital data, while knowledge is becoming increasingly cybernetic, applied, and informal (Cross, 2007; Williamson, 2013).
In the early days of executive development, the emphasis was on rapid delivery of technical knowledge, hard job skills, and applied abilities as demanded by an industrial and postindustrial society. Prewar and postwar retooling required very specific knowledge, skills, and abilities. Twentieth-century EDPs filled the bill with timely lessons delivered primarily via cognitive methodologies (Daniels & Preziosi, 2010). However, challenges wrought by a global economy and a digital revolution have elevated the need for softer HR skills based in teamwork and adaptive leadership. For this, adult learning strategies seem better suited. This does not imply adult educators should abandon cognitive instructional methods, only that the toolbox should be diverse, interactive, and flexible. EDP design for the future must be fluid to accommodate executive students ready to take greater control over their educational goals, learning pace, information networks, and preferred pedagogies.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Biography
Todd Wuestewald is an assistant professor for the College of Liberal Studies at the University of Oklahoma where he teaches administrative leadership and criminal justice courses to adult practitioner students. Prior to entering academia, he retired from a 30-year career in the police where he worked on a variety of assignments, including holding the rank of chief of police. His research interests include workforce development in policing, police organizational climate, participative management, and practitioner research collaborations.