Corporate Universities and Traditional Universities: Partners or Competitors?

I have been asked if corporate universities (CUs) will replace traditional universities (TUs). The answer is clearly "no." In fact, a better strategy is to partner with one or more TUs.

TUs teach a wide range of subjects from the sciences to the humanities. There is no need for a CU to teach any of these subjects (unless, of course, the company's core competences are in the sciences or the humanities). Generally, these subjects are best taught by the TU.

TUs also have business schools. Will corporate universities replace TU business schools? The answer again is "no." And again, I would suggest a better strategy is to partner, not to compete.

Why would a company with a CU send managers to a TU's MBA program? Actually, it's a good idea. I am a faculty member of the University of North Carolina's MBA program in Greensboro, NC. In every class I have students from a wide range of companies and industries in North Carolina. These diverse students bring ideas to the classroom that may be unheard of in other companies and industries. The subjects we cover in the classes are applicable to managers in every organization. A TU's MBA program is an excellent way to obtain general business and management knowledge.

So, what is the value of the CU? The CU adds value by teaching (or facilitating the learning of) company-specific and industry-specific knowledge and skills. This cannot be overemphasized. In an era of knowledge-driven companies, core competencies include knowledge and skills of the organizational members. No longer are physical property and equipment the sources of sustainable competitive advantage.

Let me return to TUs for a moment. TUs conduct research in addition to teaching. Should CUs become research centers? The same strategy again: partner, don't compete. Keep in mind what TUs are designed for.

TUs receive funding to conduct research in a wide range of subjects: everything from the sciences (social and physical) to the humanities. TUs conduct "pure" research. A TU's research adds to our general knowledge. But, it may provide little or no "applied" knowledge for the business community.

Should a CU conduct research? Again, generally speaking, "no." I have academic friends (tenured professors) who are masters at designing and conducting research. Here is my suggestion to corporate clients: If you need applied research (research with specific business applications), consider partnering with a local university. The corporation funds the research; the university conducts the research. A win/win for everybody.

Can you see a consistent strategy here? TUs provide general knowledge and skills required of all managers and professionals. CUs can offer company-specific and industry-specific knowledge and skills. TU's have research designing and conducting expertise. Partner, don't compete!

For more information on CUs read Corporate Universities by Jeanne Meister, or see Chapter 8 of my book, Strategic Organizational Learning.

Succession Planning - A Hot Topic

Succession planning has become a hot topic for several reasons. Times have changed and the workforce has changed. The most comprehensive work on succession planning (SP) has been done by Professor William Rothwell of Penn State University.

In the second edition of Rothwell's (2001) "Effective Succession Planning" he states, "Strategic success is, in large measure, a function of having the right leadership (p. 8)." Rothwell correctly links organizational success and individual success. Many authors have attempted to separate organizational development and individual development. In reality, we cannot separate organizational effectiveness and individual effectiveness.

Organizational effectiveness consultants (like me) and executives (my clients) must never lose sight of the effectiveness of a company's SP. The organization's SP, along with management development and professional development (for attorneys, CPAs, engineers, etc.) programs, must constantly be monitored for relevance and contribution to the implementation of the strategic plan.

Rothwell goes on to comment about how the changing times have changed the importance of SPs. He says, "leaving the development of leadership to chance, and hoping for the best, may have worked at one time (p. 8)." Obviously, leaving leadership development to chance is a mistake. Depending on headhunters to find replacements for key positions is a mistake. Rothwell concludes that we must "ensure that the organization is systematically identifying and preparing high-potential candidates for key positions (p. 8)."

It is important to consider the effects of the wave of downsizing that washed over the corporate world in the 90s. The psychological contract that once implied a secure job in exchange for good work no longer exists. Neither side of the employer-employee relationship can assume any devout degree of loyalty.

The traditional SP was built upon drawing talent from in-house middle-management. But, with fewer people in the middle ranks after the downsizing wave, traditional SP strategies are no longer viable.

Rothwell (2001) believes, "great care must be taken to identify promising candidates early and actively cultivate their development... especially in a seller's market where talented workers can barter their abilities with other companies." (p. 8)

I don't want to give the impression that all companies do SP poorly. One very good example is the SP at BB&T Bank Corporation. BB&T's well-designed and well-implemented SP provided several years of development for its new CFO. I was at BB&T's headquarters the day that its CFO of many years retired. I asked one of the executives if he was concerned. He replied, "No, I am very comfortable. Our new CFO has been well-prepared over the past few years." This speaks very highly of the caliber of BB&T senior management.

For more information on succession planning read Rothwell's (2001) "Effective Succession Planning," or read chapter 6 of my book, "Strategic Organizational Learning."

Join a Community of Practice

Do you belong to a community? I don't mean the community where you "live." I don't mean your home where you spend a few short hours with your family and sleep. As professionals we "live" in our professions. Are you part of the professional community?

All of us professionals need to be part of a community of practice. Yes, all of us. I'm an introvert, so I have never been much of a joiner, but I need a professional community too.

Over the past few years, my professional life has been dramatically improved by the community of practice (CP) that I belong to. A CP as a group of practitioners who meet with peers to share their knowledge and experience.

The CP I belong to is made up of members of National Speakers Association. We do not talk about speaking techniques or platform skills. What we do talk about are practice issues we face: problems, frustrations, new ideas, old procedures that need to be modified, business models, client relations, books we have read, workshops we have attended, technology we use, etc., etc.

Our CP has a core group of members. Bob, Laura, Marcia, Paul, Cam and I rarely miss a meeting. Why? Because we are able to give and take as CP members. We're all basically on the same level professionally so almost everything we discussed is relevant to all of us.

For the guest who visits, three possible things happen:

1. The guest is able to give and take as a peer
2. The guest realizes we are too far advanced for him or her
3. The guest realizes we are at a lower level than he or she is.

If the second or third thing happens the guest simply does not come back. If the first thing happens the guest will see the value of the group and join (no sales pitches necessary). Self-selection is the basis of membership.

CPs are free-flowing, relatively unstructured, voluntary groups. Organizations cannot mandate CPs, but they can provide resources (such as time) for their support. CPs typically have a coordinator, but not a formal leader.

Members join and remain in CP's because the members have a common interest. The members of the CP I belong to share interests in keynote speaking, workshops, and consulting.

Tacit knowledge is the key to CP success. What is shared in a CP is beyond book knowledge. The tacit knowledge that a shared in CP's is the result of many years of professional experience. You can’t get that kind of knowledge from a book.

Find a CP where you can give and take. It will take your career to the next level!

To learn more about communities of practice read "Cultivating Communities of Practice" by Etienne Wenger or Chapter 5 of my book, "Strategic Organizational Learning".

The Talking-Doing Gap

In most organizations I encounter there's a wide talking-doing gap. This gap acts as a black hole where enormous amounts of organizational resources are lost.

In their four-year study of nearly 100 companies, Pfeffer and Sutton (Harvard Business Review, May -- June 1999) found no shortage of know-how. What they did find is disturbing. They found "smart talk" substituting for action. Smart talk is engaged in by knowledge workers who are confident and articulate. Complex or abstract language, and criticism for the sake of criticism, are passed off as work.

I'm not against discussion. Discussion is absolutely necessary to transfer of high-level tacit knowledge.

How did the talking-doing gap gets so wide and what can we do about it?

There are several contributors to the current talking doing gap in today's organization:

1. Business schools reward those who "talk smart" and "write smart." Business school students don't have to do anything.

2. In organizations, people who talk more often and longer are more likely to become leaders (we have researched to support this).

As Pfeffer and Sutton said, "management today revolves around meetings, teams, and consensus building, the more a person says, the more valuable he or she appears." Can you see the pitfalls here? This supports Bernard Bass' "babel and babbler mouth" theory of leadership.

What to do? Focus on execution. Performance evaluation should focus on performance. Reward performance, not talk.

What are your leaders doing? They are role models. Do they hold themselves and others accountable for action?

If you want to develop a "doing" culture in your organization, I recommend a book entitled "Execution" by Bossidy and Charan.