Does executive education really improve business performance?

“Our line-up of essayists is, we believe, as distinguished as ever. It starts with two eminent deans – John Quelch (formerly of London Business School, now back at Harvard) and Xavier Gilbert and Peter Lorange of IMD. Both naturally promote the virtues of management education – Quelch praising the achievements of the MBA, notably in the United States, Lorange and Gilbert explaining how to make the ‘learning’ experience as relevant and effective as possible. Transatlantic differences surface in the Quelch thesis but it is Peter Hagström from the Stockholm School of Economics (CEMS) who sets out to distinguish the Anglo-Saxon model from its European (notably Scandinavian) variants. Then comes an interesting debate on the pros, cons and possibilities of measuring the impact of executive education – a highly sceptical view from Adrian Furnham,a Psychology Professor at University College, London, coupled with an analysis by Cranfield’s Liz Bridge and Andrew Myers of attempts so far. Kelvin Hard of PricewaterhouseCoopers argues that personal and inter-personal skills can be improved by training – with a clear impact on performance – followed by IBM’s Manfred Schnabel putting the case for corporate universities. Two business executives responsible for learning and development in their companies – Knut Asebo of Norsk Hydro and Tony Russell of L’Oréal – describe how they seek to maintain relevance and commercial focus while Insead Professor Gareth Jones’ mix of sceptisim and exuberant enthusiasm will provoke boardroom thought. In addition, Tim Dickson, EBF executive Editor has written an acerbic critique on business school rankings. Finally, EBF conducted an online poll and held an executive workshop. Go to ‘Have your say’ section in the website to view comments.”

Editor’s Note: A follow-up to this debate has been published at:
European Business Forum (EBF)
Subjects: Education, MBA Related
Industry: Education / Training