In the world of training in large companies, a new buzzword began to sound in the 90s: the “corporate university”. I remember that at that time, perhaps the declining of the management by objectives, sounded many other postulates among the professionals of human resources: excellence, leadership, teamwork, competency management, process reengineering, benchmarking, the learning organization, knowledge management, customer orientation… E-learning still did not sound because we were in the off-line stage, but the "corporate university" seemed somewhat different, contributing to the alignment and synergy of dedicated efforts, and also to give solidity and meaning to large training departments.
I started reading about corporate universities in the mid-90s, and I remember that it was spoken, among others, of Motorola or Disney.
I got to publish a small column in March 98 about this trend, and I immediately received a call from an old friend, who worked in the training area of a large company, in Madrid. I suppose it was only a pretext to greet us periodically, but she told me that my column had helped to clarify her ideas a little, in relation to her company's corporate university (UC) project; What can be believed is that at that time there was some initial divergence, typical of the beginnings of these projects of change.
Of course, I couldn't have improvised much more than two hundred words in 1998.
He said in one of those paragraphs: “In large organizations, with different and distant workplaces, ensuring the profitability and efficiency of dedicated efforts requires well-orchestrated solutions. Some companies have incorporated the university model: they have started their own university. The model aims at recognizing faculties or disciplines in accordance with the company's productive activity and with its management style or business culture, and establishes careers tailored to the present and future needs of the jobs. ” And added:
"These corporate universities also have selection and assessment centers, and sometimes carry out a research activity that allows them to offer technical advice and even management consulting to the rest of the company's departments." But later it seemed to me that the label was perhaps used with some generosity; that, to speak of a corporate university, it might be enough to have a sufficiently important training department, to which new technologies (ICT) were incorporated.
In effect, the virtual campuses and the on-line stage of training in large companies arrived, and the corporate unions were able to acquire a differential form, so that they seemed more than just hot air.
Today different meanings are given to this signifier, as by the way happens with the so-called e-learning; but perhaps that of a corporate university can sometimes seem like a mere label. I suppose that the large training departments (of the companies that have them) could do the same without labeling themselves like this, even if they really copied the university model for the orchestration of professional careers, and even if they could dedicate efforts to research in the field of human Resources. If the label is imposed, it must be useful…; although it would be necessary to know, in each case, what is exactly behind it.
I have read that these UC come to try to cover the distance between the academic and business world, since the university students do not get sufficiently trained to the companies…
I have also read on the Internet what supposedly distinguishes a traditional training area from a modern UC… The truth is that I did not seem to find anything that did not correspond to a training area of our day (although it would not have been to the label), but I have also seen great awards and prizes awarded to the best corporate universities, so there must be exemplary ones.
It is true - or it seems to me - that something new had to be done in companies to ensure the high performance of their people.
In theory, a large company would equip itself with a corporate university to improve the human resources ("professional" intelligence) of its human resources (workers and managers), with the best use of investment, so that the organization would advance towards excellence. and prosperity; But of any of the UC's of which I have any information, I would say that they surpass the companies they serve in image and social prestige. For example, one of them talks about (well) often when doing so about e-learning, but the company has seen its past brilliance disappear in our country, and has suffered a brutal collapse of its actions.
In another case, the UC receives awards and recognitions - without a doubt it constitutes a reference - but the company has damaged its image before the public. And in another case different from the previous ones, the company seems to hesitate between expressly talking about a corporate university and avoiding doing so (choosing to speak about a learning institute…), but it also seems to show off its training efforts.
We would all agree that we can be more effective, and even happier, individually and collectively, in companies, and that training could do something about it. But, in addition to thinking about reengineering of the large training departments, perhaps it would certainly be necessary to think about reengineering of continuous learning.
This is complex, but if you have learned to learn (this is an important metalearning), perhaps you only need a good library (which was already available in large companies in the 70s and 80s, if not before) and be connected to the Internet… All this depends on many things and is certainly much more complex, but I have seen that there is talk of "independent lifelong learning" for when university students arrive in the world of work; What I would add is that, beyond knowledge, we would have to be aware of what other competencies we have to cultivate and develop.
At a consulting firm I worked with, I had a boss who claimed to be the one who knew the most about competency management, and he even set out to write an article titled "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Competency Management" (or something like that).
Of course, he knew a lot about the tools and methodology of system support, and I learned from him myself; But I think that if the continents are not filled with really useful and valuable content - if a useful description of the necessary competencies and an effective design of the solutions for their development is not made - then what are the continents for? That is where it seems to me that we may be failing: in the content; in what we have to learn. And something like this could be happening with corporate universities: if - beyond the awards and recognitions received by their managers - they did not contribute to the excellence and prosperity of their companies, through the professional development of their people, what would they be contributing to? ?
Good for the UCs that work well, surely taking full advantage of ICT, although the effort to show off striking labels seems suspicious… If a corporate university contributes decisively to improving the competence profiles of people, it undoubtedly deserves to be distinguished from those others that do not contribute as much; but the mere attribution of the prestigious label probably does not work miracles in this sense (although it can do other miracles).
Reengineering of learning
This reengineering of lifelong learning that we were talking about would undoubtedly go through the proactivity of the individual, through their self-knowledge, through the competency movement and through e-learning…, at least. But, if an individual were not aware of the weaknesses of their professional profile and did not want to improve it, we could already have a nice building in an attractive place, with many acres of land, that the individual would hardly learn; We could already have a good e-learning platform, which would not be well used…
And if, suspecting perhaps that it was not going to be widely used, we filled the platform with mediocre content, although establishing a system of extrinsic motivation through credits or points, then what we could generate is some rejection of the method by users. Conclusion: if a UC has (material) resources to do so, perhaps it should start by preaching the mantra of self-knowledge and the lifelong learning mantra (learning throughout life).
Undoubtedly, e-learning is especially suitable (as a method), both for the assumption of protagonism of the student, and for the harmony with the idea of lifelong learning and the knowledge worker: one could speak of lifelong e-learners. But we are talking about organization and learning methodology with the help of ICT; need to talk about goals to achieve with it.
Then we will also talk about pursued objectives; But before, if we look for a moment two or three decades ago, it seems that, in some cases, training was distributed among employees and managers as a kind of benefit to be distributed…: "There is so much budget, we are so many, we play so much… ”. Even today, when I see a master program for "Training Directors", I sometimes suspect that "budget managers" are being prepared, and not so much "training consultants"… Let me make this daring reflection, to provoke yours.
You may have once wondered like me: "But what does it depend on for a knowledge company - a company that uses information and knowledge as an essential or unique raw material - to do well and prosper?" I tell myself that very often it depends on the decisions made by the Management; that if things go well, everyone is happy and the training is orchestrated, in general, by precision, and also as a reward for managers and workers… But I think that if things go wrong, training budgets are at risk.
Now I remember -because it seemed striking to me- that, last year, at the Expomanagement´2004 in Madrid, before an audience of executives and managers, Tom Peters said: “We all talk about the importance of people, but 98% lie… " I remember it now because if Senior Management did not believe in the importance of people, they would not believe in training either.
Of course, I kept thinking that the guru of business excellence - perhaps the most brilliant as a lecturer, although there were quite a few and very good - deliberately exaggerated; but here, as in everything, the reader will have his own opinion. Perhaps this paragraph is not so digressive, after all: what happens then with company training? How does Senior Management see it?
In this regard, I reproduce a statement to Expansión y Empleo (July 2004) from the first executive of a Spanish consultancy, José Ignacio Díez, of FYCSA, on training in companies: «Training departments are not well positioned, they do not have internal power. Above them there is no interest in the matter, they are concerned about sales and the bottom line. Furthermore, neither the CEOs nor the following levels have time to set an example by attending training activities ”.
In the report, this and other leaders of training consultants indicated that companies buy training courses and services for price, and not for quality. We don't have to fully agree with these providers, but they must be telling us something.
Actually and except for aids or bonuses, training seems to be a good time and reduced in skinny cows; so that its relation to the prosperity of the company can be formulated in two ways.
On the one hand, well-educated people are said to contribute to prosperity, and corporate universities, training departments, e-learning providers, training consultancies, other industry players, and individuals themselves seem to adhere to that. But, on the other hand and in practice, perhaps it is prosperity that contributes to the training of people, because there is more training in good times; In other words, in bad times businessmen cut the budget because cost savings seem to them a priority. Do you perceive it that way?
To the extent that the corporate university operated on the margins of the company's current situation, with a guaranteed budget, this could constitute a solid advance against the traditional model. But if this were not the case, we would have to believe that UC are a luxury of the good times, and perhaps a burden on the bad. Is training in the company vital or not vital? I believe that what is vital is learning, both for the company and for the individual; because if you know a lot they can't let go of you, and if, despite this, they do, then you leave with your knowledge and professional development.
The learning objectives
I had invited them to talk about this - about the learning objectives - but if it has seemed too much, you can leave it here, I will not take it into consideration. They may be UC supporters or skeptics about it, but the real debate, current in the 21st century, would perhaps be in lifelong learning, proactively led by the individual, even if they receive means, support and tutelage for it. But what should we learn? The question can initially be formulated in another way: what profile do the new times require of us for professional practice?
If you reached high and your future is resolved, you may succumb to the belief that you already know enough; Even so, he could learn for the satisfaction of doing it, or to show off his knowledge, or for collective benefit. But almost all of us have to learn to prolong our value in the job market, despite the passage of time. In this regard, let us now recall concretely what an ideal worker consists of, in the knowledge economy. More or less, the profile of the new knowledge worker that Peter Drucker draws for us:
1. You have already reached a visible degree of personal and professional development.
2. Fluently handles ICT.
3. Has sufficient informational skills (search, interpretation, evaluation, etc.).
4. You know what is missing and missing in your professional profile.
5. He is proactive in learning, and in this regard uses the means at his disposal.
6. You enjoy a certain degree of autonomy in your work.
7. Also practice team learning, in physical and virtual environments.
8. It offers the best performance of your competence profile.
9. Pursue improvement and innovation.
10. Subordinate your particular interests to the groups.
If this list does not convince you - a daring improvisation of worker "10" -, modify it and, above all, extend it; but do not miss the opportunity to continually examine yourself against the desirable profile. To the extent that a corporate university, or a training department, or an open continuous training program meets some of your needs, take advantage of your opportunities; But don't let anyone star in your professional development: do it yourself. Seek support, advice, guardianship; But you have your goals (coincident or compatible with those of your company) and pursue them. Now let's go back to point 4.
We must, of course, follow the advance of knowledge in our field, and even contribute to this advance if the organization contemplates R&D activities. In reality, we should all be a small and intimate R&D center, trying to make things better every day, and contributing to the community when we discover that some change really works.
But if knowledge provides us with the capacity to act -this foundation of the so-called knowledge management-, let's not forget that to act well, with high performance, to be a star performer, we need more than knowing more. We need technical and functional skills, cognitive and emotional intelligence, personal strengths, self-control… But we must not only have the good and positive, we must also neutralize the bad and negative. In the end, sometimes things go wrong without there being a lack of intelligence or training; There may be a pernicious presence of professional disorders and perversions that we have not neutralized, perhaps because we are not aware of them.
Take, for example, a narcissistic individual: a real danger, especially if he is an executive. Now look at someone greedy or thirsty for power: another serious danger in organizations. Now look at a boss with a presumption of infallibility. Now remember those meetings in which we were going to make decisions by consensus and in the end we made them out of exhaustion… Do corporate universities attend to these things, to which we attribute more resources than to a traditional training department? Do corporate universities serve terra incognita (a kind of hiatus) between the competency profile and high performance? Are they always corporate universities, or sometimes large academies?
Do they cater to collective learning, beyond individual ones? Do they cater to the intelligence of the organization, according to the model of Chun Wei Choo, or Senge, or Nonaka, or others? Do they have their own model? Are these concerns, or more important ones, present in the genesis of corporate universities? What effectiveness objectives (Kirkpatrick) do UC set? If so, do they choose training providers based on quality, and not so much on price? Let us trust that all these answers will be satisfactory in all cases, and we welcome all the initiatives aimed at improving the productivity and competitiveness of organizations.
