This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 01 December 2014, At: 18:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

American Journal of DistanceEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

Speaking personally—withJeanne MeisterShirley Smith Hendcick aa Associate Dean for Continuing and DistanceEducation, The Smeal College of BusinessAdministration , The Pennsylvania StateUniversity , 409 Business Administration Building,University Park, PA, 16802Published online: 24 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Shirley Smith Hendcick (1996) Speaking personally—withJeanne Meister, American Journal of Distance Education, 10:3, 72-74, DOI:10.1080/08923649609526942

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923649609526942

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

37 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATIONVol. 10 No. 3 1996

INTERVIEWSpeaking Personally—with JeanneMeister

Jeanne C. Meister is president of QualityDynamics, Inc., a New York City-basedhuman resources consulting firm. Ms.Meister, a frequent public speaker andcontributor to TRAINING magazine andThe Wall Street Journal, is the author ofCorporate Quality Universities—Lessonsin Building a World-Class Work Force.Jeanne Meister was interviewed byShirley Smith Hendrick, the AssociateDean for Continuing and Distance Edu-cation of The Smeal College of BusinessAdministration at The PennsylvaniaState University.

Shirley Hendrick: What are corporateuniversities, and why are their numbersincreasing?

Jeanne Meister: Corporate universitiesprovide a state-of-the-art model for inno-vative workforce training and a key forcultural change. Forces that have beensignificant in this phenomena include theflattened, flexible organization; thebroadening of worker's roles; and theneed to incorporate a more diverse andmobile labor force into the organization.Education and training have become akey vehicle for creating a competitiveadvantage. The "university" designationrefers to the attempt to promote the con-cept of lifelong learning that one finds ina traditional university.

Corporate universities have increasedfrom an estimated 400 in 1988 to 1,000in 1996, the year in which we surveyed100 of these institutions. The potentialmarket for these 100 corporate universi-ties alone is almost 5 million students,compared to 14 million students at 3,600

universities in the United States, asreported recently in the Chronicle ofHigher Education. The average budgetof a corporate university is $10 million,and ranges from $2 million to $200 mil-lion.

Corporations recognize that theentrepreneurial organization has replacedthe corporate hierarchy, thereby creatinga need for employees to work with moreambiguity, fewer boundaries, and morerapid communications within the organi-zation and with suppliers and customers.Corporations also have fewer managersto oversee workers, and employees areseeing their roles expanding. To beeffective in the expanded roles requiresCORE workplace competencies, the spe-cific skills or knowledge employees needto successfully operate in today's chang-ing workplace.

While each company's training pro-gram differs in its specific courses, thereis a set of common themes, which I referto in Corporate Quality Universities(Meister 1996) as the University COFIEcurriculum: corporate citizenship, con-textual framework, and core workplacecompetencies. The workplace competen-cies include learning skills, basic skills,interpersonal skills, creative thinking andproblem-solving skills, leadership andvisioning skills, and self-developmentand self-management skills.

SH: What relationships do you seebetween corporate universities and tradi-tional higher education institutions?

JM: Colleges and industries are increas-ingly becoming partners as they bothfocus on how to prepare their constituen-cies for working in a competitive,rapidly changing work environment.

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

37 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

INTERVIEW

Approximately half of the Directors ofCorporate Universities—or "corporatedeans"—we surveyed reported that theyalready have partnerships with highereducation institutions. Partnerships aretaking a variety of forms as needs areidentified and as both the corporationsand the higher education institutionsevaluate how collaboration can be ofmutual benefit. The most important crite-rion identified by corporate universitiesin selecting an educational partner was"flexibility in customizing programs,"with "responsiveness" being the secondmost important. Other important criteriawere shared vision, proximity, and usesof technology. Interestingly, "prestige ofthe university" was rated very low as acriterion for developing partnershipswith higher education institutions.

SH: What part do you see distance edu-cation playing in the delivery ofcorporate university courses or pro-grams?

JM: One key finding in the survey was awidespread reliance on technology forlearning. We also found a surge of inter-est in using technology in the delivery ofeducation. In 1996, approximately halfof the respondents reported believingthat by the year 2000, 50% or more ofcorporate education will be delivered bytechnology. As a comparison, only 11%of the respondents reported that 50% ormore of current educational programsare delivered by technology.

In only one year—from 1995 to1996—the percentage of respondentswho reported plans to useInternet/Intranet technologies in the nexttwo or three years for learning increasedfrom 61% to 90%. Approximately 25%of the respondents reported having ahome page. "Ideal uses" mentioned for ahome page include on-line registration,

course listings, and links to other train-ing resources.

Dr. Steve Eskow, President of theElectronic University Network, sharedsome interesting thoughts on the corpo-rate university at a recent symposium,"Corporate Universities Enter the 21stCentury." At this symposium, held inSeptember 1996 at Motorola University,Dr. Eskow noted that the courseware andsystems that currently allow college pro-fessors to teach courses at a distance canwork equally well for corporate and job-specific training. Also, training programsdeveloped for in-house use by one com-pany can be useful to other companies.Dr. Eskow stressed that college coursescan be organized and taught so that theyapply general principles and practices,while simultaneously providing opportu-nities for employees to undertakeprojects and activities directly related tothe work they do. Finally, freeing learn-ing from traditional constraints of timeand place has implications for the cost oftraining; training can be scheduledaround individual work schedules, out-side working hours, and even inemployees' homes or their hotel roomswhile they travel.

The portability of training is impor-tant, as is understanding how to usetechnology most effectively. Thereshould be a decision-tree process for theplanning of training or education inwhich technology choice is a criticaldecision. Sometimes, a low-tech, "self-paced" workbook is the most effectiveand efficient means for the employee tolearn a skill.

SH: What issues relate to the quality ofprograms offered at a distance?

JM: Using the appropriate technologyfor the training is, of course, an issue.Another important concern—developing

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

37 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

consistent measurements for evaluatingthe effectiveness of training—is applica-ble to both face-to-face and distanceeducation delivery of programs or cours-es. Also important is a commitment toteaching students or employees not onlythe competencies they need for tomor-row's jobs, but also the skills forlearning to learn and adapting to unfore-seen changes in technologies and jobfunctions.

SH: What are the challenges and oppor-tunities facing corporate universities?

JM: This question focuses on several keyfindings from our 1996 survey. The firstis the reliance on technology for learn-ing, which we have already talked about.This phenomenon presents both a chal-lenge in identifying the appropriate waysto use technology for education andtraining and an opportunity to be moreeffective and efficient. Another findingrelates to the increasing number of busi-ness-higher education alliances, whichwill require the continuing development

of criteria for such partnerships. Dia-logue between corporations and highereducation institutions is necessary toexplore ways to work together mosteffectively.

Another key finding focuses on theemergence in many corporations of a"chief learning officer," which is a lesta-mony to the importance that corporationsare placing on education and training.This recognition allows education andtraining to be "at the table" during cor-porate strategic planning and decisionmaking, a development that reinforcesthe importance of these universities intoday's corporations.

Shirley Smith Hendc ick

Reference

Meister, J. 1996. Corporate Quality Uni-versities—Lessons in Building aWorld-Class Work Force. BurrRidge, IL: Irwin Professional Pub-lishing.

Call for Submissions

The 1996 Charles A. Wedemeyer andElizabeth Powell Awards

The Independent Study Division of the University Continuing Education Association(UCEA) has established two awards to recognize significant contributions to research inindependent study and distance education. Publications qualifying for the WedemeyerAward are books, theses, and dissertations. Those eligible for the Powell Award are pub-lished articles or written versions of papers presented at professional meetings orconferences. Submissions must have been published during 1996.

AH submissions must be received by January 16,1997. Applicants should submit sixcopies of each manuscript for consideration. Photocopies are acceptable. Entries shouldbe sent to

Jere Mayfield, Texas Tech UniversityDivision of Continuing Education, Box 42191

Lubbock,TX 79409-2191

74

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

37 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014