Six Lessons for the Corporate

Classroom

Harry B. Bernhard and Cynthia A. Ingols

Harvard Business Review

No. 88501

This document is authorized for use only in MBA/Managing & Developing People by Dr. Umesh Bamel, BML Munjal University from September 2016 to March 2017.
 HBR
SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 1988
Six Lessons for the Corporate Classroom
Harry B. Bernhard and Cynthia A. Ingols
This year, U.S. businesses will spend at least $30
billion to provide 17.6 million formal training and
development courses for their employees, and a good
portion of that investment will be thrown away.
Training and development (T&D) can take a variety
of useful forms—from 30-minute welcome sessions
for new hires to two-year MBA programs for fast
trackers. T&D can also be time and money wasted
on programs that entertain where they ought to edu-
cate or that focus on individuals where they ought to
help transform entire organizations. The difference
between productive and useless T&D depends on
how—and whether—the company links its educa-
tional efforts to its overall strategy and vision.
1. Articulate a Vision
In 1985, the CEO of Xerox articulated this basic
corporate strategy: ‘‘Our most important goal is lead-
Authors’ note: We are grateful to Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, George
Wiltsee, Paul R. Lawrence, and Lee Bolman for their help in the
preparation of this article.
From 1981 to 1985, Harry B. Bernhard was program director
of advanced management development at IBM, where he had
worked for 30 years in managerial positions marketing and
human resource management. Now executive-in-residence at the
University of Southern California, he was Harvard-IBM fellow
at the Harvard Business School from 1985 to 1987. Cynthia A.
Ingols has analyzed patterns of executive education in more than
400 corporations. Currently she manages the case writing and
research staff at the Harvard Business School.
Copyright q 1988 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.
This document is authorized for use only in MBA/Managing & Developing People by Dr. Umesh Bamel, BML Munjal University from September 2016 to March 2017.
ership through quality.’’ Faced with the question of
how to implement this vision, how to communicate
the meaning and essence of this goal to every em-
ployee, Xerox turned naturally to T&D. Since 1983,
everyone at the company has taken the same course
in service quality, which is supported and reinforced
by a staff of quality specialists and by quality proj-
ects, quality competitions, and a quality suggestions
program. One middle manager observed that the
course has created a common language among all
employees, improving communication and provid-
ing a shared framework for individual and group ac-
tion.
The following year, another large American multi-
national brought scores of middle managers to the
United States from all over the world to take part in
a T&D exercise meant to instill company values and
reinvigorate a failing sense of common purpose. They
were divided into teams, and for two weeks practiced
corporate conflict in an atmosphere that emphasized
winning and losing, bare-knuckle competition, and
individual rivalry. When it was all over, one manager
remarked only half jokingly, ‘‘Well, I made some ene-
mies for life.’’
Xerox succeeded in linking its T&D to its vision
and strategy, with results that have been significant
for both morale and profits. The other company de-
signed a training program divorced from its corporate
vision and managed only to increase divisions and
animosities.
T&D is not like the classrooms where as children
we learned reading and arithmetic. Second graders
do well or poorly as individuals. Children either pass
or flunk, love school or hate it—which is a great
shame for those who do poorly, but only for those
who do poorly. In business, individuals and the orga-
nization must learn and grow as an integrated whole.
Everyone needs common goals and a shared thrill of
achievement. Unlike elementary school, the corpo-
rate classroom educates the organization, not just
the individual. At their best, T&D programs are tools
to communicate change, implement strategy, and
knit the corporation together. At their worst, they
can fragment a company and stunt its growth.
In studying T&D programs at a variety of corpora-
tions, we have identified some of the characteristics
that successful programs share. We have also studied
some of the most common errors companies make
in the planning and administration of corporate edu-
cation.
Since the purpose of corporate education is to inte-
grate the work force, communicate goals, and accom-
plish change, T&D needs to be as flexible as the
organization itself. Learning how to set up and man-
age effective T&D programs is therefore an active
and continuous process. There are six primary les-
sons to learn and then relearn as the company grows
and changes occur.
1. Articulate a strategic vision. We have already
talked about corporate goals and their central role in
shaping T&D. In a way, we can think of lesson one
as the prerequisite for the five lessons that we take
up next.
2. Analyze strategic priorities and company needs.
3. Distinguish between training and development
and their different uses, structures, and forms of
administration.
4. Choose the right teachers and programs from
inside and outside the organization.
5. Involve top managers at every stage of T&D—
before, after, and especially during the training and
development process.
6. Evaluate T&D’s educational value and cost-
effectiveness.
2. Analyze Needs
Without well-defined corporate goals, T&D lacks
focus and credibility. Some organizations embrace
one new fad after another—management by objec-
tives, management by walking around—without any
overarching sense of corporate priorities. Managers
enrolled in the latest seminar may ask each other,
‘‘What are we doing here?’’ Such confusion can bor-
der on hostility and does not occur when top manage-
4 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September–October 1988
This document is authorized for use only in MBA/Managing & Developing People by Dr. Umesh Bamel, BML Munjal University from September 2016 to March 2017.
ment communicates a precise direction and links
T&D efforts explicitly to it.
Probably the most common mistake in corporate
education programs is to take a scattershot ap-
proach, educating employees in subjects with little
or no relationship to a company’s strategic goals.
Many corporations offer courses on nice-to-know
topics like time management and stress reduction,
for example. These sessions may be popular, but
T&D dollars are better spent on pressing business
concerns. At other companies, T&D consists almost
exclusively of remedial training for a few workers,
instead of educating all employees on issues vital
to the company’s business and growth. In the first
case, T&D is a pleasant but basically irrelevant
add-on. In the second, it is a corrective activity,
not a strategic one.
Another common error is to forget that corporate
education has symbolic as well as practical value.
T&D can send strong messages about how an organi-
zation regards and uses its human resources. In some
companies, managers tapped for development efforts
are recognized as members of an elite corps of fast
trackers. In others, where T&D is used primarily to
fix people, participation in an education program can
be the kiss of death.
In setting the why, when, how, and who of
corporate education, companies must ask funda-
mental questions like: What are our most critical
current problems and needs? Do we have a strong
corporate culture that permeates all levels and divi-
sions, or do we need to develop better ties among
different turfs—for example, after a merger? Do we
need a talent pool for management succession, or
are we coping with a downsizing pinch? Do the
energies of the work force need to be redirected—
toward, say, a customer focus and away from an
emphasis on cost?
A systematic needs analysis is necessary to deter-
mine what kind of T&D to conduct. The analysis
should move from the company’s overall vision (bet-
ter marketing, say, or improved product safety) to the
specific T&D needs of departments and individuals.
Customer-service reps may need one kind of pro-
gram, Midwest offices another, while managers X,
Y, and Z may need executive development.
Our studies indicate that few organizations tie
T&D efforts to their business strategies or human
resource philosophies. Although most CEOs list de-
veloping executive talent as a leading priority, few
use corporate education to help them identify and
develop future managers. In some companies formal
T&D exists only for remedial or punitive purposes;
‘‘good’’ managers are supposed to learn everything
they need on the job.
3. Distinguish Between Training and
Development
We have used the expression T&D as if training
and development were the same thing. In fact, they
have very different profiles, goals, and functions.
Training is of course a short-term activity that
helps people do their jobs better, like product infor-
mation sessions for the sales force and word pro-
cessing instruction for secretaries. It is a coping
strategy.
Development is long-term and future oriented.
Serving the interests of the organization as well as
the affected employees, it is a building strategy.
Training helps people become skilled specialists, but
development broadens people and gives them new
perspectives. It helps them think strategically, even
if their jobs do not call for strategic thinking. Devel-
opment creates generalists and, ultimately, corporate
leaders. It can be called a stretching activity because
it pushes people beyond their present functions. A
marketing director and an engineering manager learn
about the other’s functional specialty, as well as
about finance, strategy, and other aspects of the larger
corporate picture.
In our experience, most companies overemphasize
training at the expense of development. Even those
who purport to believe in management development
often offer only skill-building programs, not true de-
velopmental education.
We believe that training should be decentralized
and development centralized. Individual depart-
ments benefit from employees’ training, so local line
managers should decide who should participate,
when, in which programs. By the same logic, the
department should pay the cost of training. Gener-
ally, the training location should also be decentral-
ized—at or near the place of work, involving as much
of the line operation as possible, and supporting par-
ticular local needs.
In a development experience, on the other hand,
workers are not their department’s ‘‘property’’ but
the company’s. Accordingly, the corporation should
bear the cost, which ought to be reckoned an invest-
ment, not an expense.
Since the purpose of development is to help the
entire business grow and prosper, selection should
be centralized, with middle and upper managers
choosing participants on the basis of perceived poten-
tial. Delivery should also be centralized. Holding
courses away from the workplace in a corporate edu-
cation center or at a university lends prestige to the
experience and takes top workers away from the
pressing demands of their day-to-day jobs.
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September–October 1988
This document is authorized for use only in MBA/Managing & Developing People by Dr. Umesh Bamel, BML Munjal University from September 2016 to March 2017.
Unfortunately, the people who are the best candi-
dates for development often are too busy to interrupt
their work for a lengthy program on a distant campus.
IBM recently asked some 40 executives whether they
believed that attendance at developmental education
courses should be voluntary or mandatory. Re-
sponses were virtually unanimous for centralized,
mandatory programs. The message was: ‘‘If you make
it voluntary, we won’t get around to it. There will
always be some compelling, last-minute problem
that needs our attention.’’
Developmental education ought to be linked to
career progression. One top performer at IBM turned
down the opportunity to participate in an off-site
program three times, always with a good reason.
After the third refusal, his superiors told him, ‘‘Other
people manage to get away for two weeks. Should
we conclude that you aren’t interested in your own
development?’’ The man got the point and found the
time. He was grateful afterward for the push. ‘‘I didn’t
realize how parochial I’d become,’’ he said.
4. Choose the Right Teachers and
Programs
Choosing the participants is often left to chance
and individual preferences. Unfortunately, the
choice of teachers is often just as haphazard.
How a company structures and staffs its T&D ef-
forts says a lot about how it views education. When
executives see it as tangential to the company’s
‘‘real’’ work, they often bring in a T&D director from
outside—frequently a human relations or personnel
specialist who knows little about the company’s
business. But people who have never been on the
company firing line simply cannot teach with the
same relevance or vitality as those who have.
A good choice for T&D director is a respected
member of the organization, someone with line man-
agement experience who understands the company’s
culture and values as well as its business. Having a
talented R&D director or a regional vice president
in that post tells employees that top management
takes education seriously and that everyone else
should too.
For the same reason, put experienced members of
the organization—people in line or field positions
serving temporary, say, two-year terms as instruc-
tors—on the T&D staff. At IBM, 75% of the edu-
cation staff consists of experienced practitioners,
passing through the T&D department as part of their
own career development.
Seasoned company veterans have automatic credi-
5
bility. They embody the company’s culture, know
its procedures, and illustrate by example the quali-
ties and behavior that the organization values.
Newer employees benefit from veterans’ experience,
and the old hands themselves learn much from
switching hats. They master the material they teach,
improve communication skills, and broaden their
understanding of the business by interacting with
students from all areas of the organization.
Using line managers as T&D staff—instead of hir-
ing trainers and creating a bureaucracy to serve
them—is also a flexible approach. As the need for
teachers grows or shrinks, the business can add or
redeploy in-house staff quickly.
Having said this, we need to point out that there
is a place for a small core of experienced, homegrown
teachers who do not get rolled back into other func-
tions after a stint in the classroom. Some permanent
educators are essential to maintain continuity and
provide expertise in adult learning theory and course
development. But they should be trusted and re-
spected members of the organization, not people who
have been put out to pasture on the theory they’ll
do less damage in T&D than elsewhere.
Corporate education presents special challenges
that make such expertise indispensable. Educators
who want to change adult behavior and thinking
patterns must engage their students on many levels.
They need to teach effectively, keep the classroom
lively and varied, and deal with situations that can
enhance or hinder learning.
One seminar intended to improve communication
among the middle managers in a company’s different
divisions yielded just the opposite result. The educa-
tor did nothing to develop a group spirit, with the
result that people who already knew each other stuck
together in the classroom and at social functions.
One participant reported, ‘‘I learned a lot about the
backs of some people’s heads.’’ In another organiza-
tion, a course featuring team competitions intensi-
fied rather than softened friction among managers.
Outside educators and celebrity speakers. Setting
a proper balance between in-house and external edu-
cators is practically a classic make-or-buy decision.
But the decision has symbolic as well as financial
value.
It is perfectly appropriate to hire consultants to
help assess new training needs, to develop a new
curriculum—in quality management, for example—
and to design and teach pilot courses. But if the com-
pany wants to offer the same curriculum to 2,000 or
10,000 employees, in-house staff should take over
the reins. Consultants are expensive for repetitive or
mundane teaching tasks, and employees may see a
6 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September–October 1988
This document is authorized for use only in MBA/Managing & Developing People by Dr. Umesh Bamel, BML Munjal University from September 2016 to March 2017.
program conceived and delivered by outsiders as
something foisted on ‘‘us’’ by ‘‘them.’’
When a business’s legendary systems engineer
teaches systems technology, students trust the
teacher. In-house speakers also impart company val-
ues; they tend to take their teaching seriously, and
after a course has ended, they can continue with
individual coaching.
Still, the average company lacks the people or ex-
pertise for all its T&D needs. Consultants can bring
in specific knowledge and help graft it into the orga-
nization. They can also add variety, humor, and inter-
est—although companies should be wary of the
consultant who is inspiring and entertaining but ir-
relevant. Finally, like in-house temporaries, consul-
tants offer flexibility. Companies can hire them as
they are needed.
On the minus side, good outside speakers are hard
to find, and even the most talented won’t know much
about the company. Overuse of consultants can also
send the message: ‘‘There’s nobody smart around
here.’’ Finally, some subjects are simply best handled
in-house. When trying to create a new core value or
deal with a serious problem, company executives
should probably do the teaching themselves.
Like consultants, celebrity speakers can hold em-
ployees’ attention and generate enthusiasm, but they
too can be misused. Sports and media stars, politi-
cians, best-selling authors—all can generate memo-
rable events. Being able to say ‘‘I had lunch with Dan
Rather’’ is a kind of perk or status symbol for an
employee. But celebrities’ fees are high, and the ex-
pense can be out of proportion to the value received.
Moreover, because expectations are high, a celebrity
bomb is a 20-megaton affair.
An examination of the need is advisable before
hiring someone to provide this dramatic kind of edu-
cational experience. The message should be the right
one from the right person, and the cost per employee
should be reasonable.
Internal versus external programs. The choice be-
tween internal and external programs (such as
university courses for executives) is fairly straight-
forward. Obviously, a company exercises far greater
control over content and format with internal pro-
grams. In-house education is an integrating, socializ-
ing process that teaches organizational norms,
unwritten rules, and desired behavior. Participants
develop friendships and a common language, which
lends consistency to the organization. Large, decen-
tralized companies in particular can benefit from
such integration.
Conversely, employees who attend external
courses gain exposure to other perspectives, both
through the classroom material and interaction with
people from other companies and industries. Some
international companies send managers to American
universities to introduce them to the U.S. business
environment. Advertising, consulting, and account-
ing firms often send managers to business school
programs to learn more about their clients’
industries.
Due to high costs and limited enrollments, compa-
nies use external education mainly to develop indi-
viduals—as preparation for advancement or for more
immediate benefits. If executives want to educate
all middle managers or some other large coalition,
they usually find in-house programs more effective.
One legal services manager who attended Har-
vard’s Advanced Management Program described
how it changed his view of his own role: ‘‘I had
thought the company valued me for my legal exper-
tise. But I realized that what I really did was manage
lawyers. I was valued for my judgment. My title
didn’t change, but my role has. I used to see my
division’s function as putting out fires; now I look
for creative opportunities.’’
Organizations that expose managers to outside de-
velopment programs must be flexible enough to let
them stretch in their roles afterward. Moreover,
briefing and debriefing of participants will reinforce
the educational experience. External education
shouldn’t be just a vacation from the job.
For all their differences, both internal and external
programs can signal membership in the ranks of
‘‘comers,’’ and their shared experiences forge links
among employees.
5. Involve Top Managers
Managers often wonder how they can extend their
impact on corporate education. Earlier we recom-
mended tying T&D to a company’s strategic vision.
Of course, only senior executives are in a position
to design and judge T&D’s role in helping the organi-
zation meet its goals. But top executives need to
involve themselves not only in the planning and
evaluation of T&D; they need to take part in the
educational process itself.
Many executives recognize the value of manage-
ment by walking around but don’t know how to fit
it into their schedules. One way is by participating in
corporate education—speaking to classes, presenting
corporate priorities, answering employee questions.
The results can be dramatic. Employees immedi-
ately see the program as important and understand
better where it and they fit into organizational plans.
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September–October 1988
This document is authorized for use only in MBA/Managing & Developing People by Dr. Umesh Bamel, BML Munjal University from September 2016 to March 2017.
They thrive on two-way discussions, one-on-one
coaching, and direct access to people who know the
company’s situation and prospects.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of executive partic-
ipation, however, is what it does for executives them-
selves. Teaching and discussion groups polish the
same skills they need in other spheres, like stock-
holder meetings or presentations to clients. In addi-
tion, they get feedback from the trenches about
what’s going on at the front, information they might
never get through ordinary channels. Finally, they
develop firsthand knowledge about the quality of
T&D programs and the talents of teachers and parti-
cipants. Their involvement helps ensure that the
company’s education dollars are spent wisely and
effectively.
Training temples. Executives who believe very
strongly in the value of corporate education some-
times try to control every aspect of the T&D process,
beginning with construction of their own corporate
universities. All too often the results are ego
monuments—oversized and underused financial
nightmares.
If a company can justify a T&D center at all, it
should be only big enough to accommodate basic,
ongoing education needs, in good times and bad.
Buffer capacity can always be found externally. More-
over, teleconferencing, touch-screen video, and other
communications technologies have reduced the need
to bring people to a central facility. In an environ-
ment characterized by rapid shifts in corporate priori-
ties, the T&D function should be kept nimble and
elastic. The company that sinks millions into a train-
ing center today may be sorry tomorrow that those
funds aren’t available to hire more educators or de-
sign new programs.
6. Evaluate Effectiveness and Cost
T&D programs can easily become institutional-
ized, a standard set of offerings whose value is never
assessed. In a recent survey, 31% of education direc-
tors at the country’s largest corporations said they
didn’t know how much money their companies spent
on T&D.1 Our own survey shows that 30% of corpo-
rations conduct no formal evaluation of their T&D
programs. Surely no other area of business endeavor
is managed so casually.
1. Lydia des Grosseilliers, ‘‘What Companies Do to Evaluate the
Effectiveness of Training Programs,’’ unpublished report (Gardner,
Mass.: LDG Associates, November 1986).
7
 An appropriate measurement system is essential.
We recommend the use of a five-stage process, begin-
ning with questions of participants and ending with
questions only management can answer.
‘‘What did you learn?’’ comes first. Amazingly,
most companies make no systematic attempt to de-
termine whether the expected learning actually oc-
curred. Written or on-the-job demonstration tests
should follow all programs aimed at developing a
specific competency. Such testing can also identify
and reward top performers, teachers as well as
learners.
A more subtle variation of this question is ‘‘What
else did you learn?’’ What were some of the messages
implicit in the educational experience? What did you
discover about the company’s goals and aspirations?
Were any of the organization’s best people involved
in the course? What did the other participants think?
Was the program more punishing than boot camp,
was the emphasis on coffee breaks and social hours,
or was the instruction positive and appropriately
paced?
At best, corporate education can convey expecta-
tions of high performance, even where local manage-
ment has failed to do so. At worst, it can subvert the
corporation’s good intentions and inadvertently lead
to employee dissatisfaction.
A second area to assess is participants’ emotional
reactions to the learning situation. So-called happi-
ness sheets ask general questions like ‘‘How did you
like the course?’’ and ‘‘How did you like your instruc-
tors?’’ Many companies rely on these sheets alone,
on the theory that if employees enjoyed themselves,
that’s bound to be good for the corporation. But to-
day’s competitiveness and need for improved produc-
tivity render that line of questioning inadequate. The
proper questions are ‘‘How valuable did you find this
course?’’ and ‘‘How well did it meet its objectives?’’
The third, critical question is ‘‘Will trainees use
the new knowledge or skills on the job?’’ This is
a tricky issue for developmental education, which
participants may not use fully for several years, but
it should present no problem in training programs.
Management can take several different approaches,
preferably in combination. A company can simply
monitor individual and group performance. It can
ask supervisors to report on how well participants are
applying the training or ask participants themselves
how they are using what they learned and repeat the
question at six-month intervals. Long-term surveys
of past trainees can also be useful.
8 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September–October 1988
This document is authorized for use only in MBA/Managing & Developing People by Dr. Umesh Bamel, BML Munjal University from September 2016 to March 2017.
The third question usually requires input from
more than just participants. This is especially true
when an entire work group has taken part in a pro-
gram. If all middle managers have attended a three-
day program on performance appraisal, for example,
the company can later look at the number of perfor-
mance appraisals conducted and ask how their qual-
ity compares with earlier appraisals in the eyes of
top management, the appraisers themselves, and em-
ployees being reviewed. A company might gauge the
success of a marketing course not just on the basis
of sales volumes and sales-force self-assessments, for
example, but also on the basis of a customer-satisfac-
tion survey.
Only top management can answer the fourth ques-
tion: ‘‘Was the training or development worth it?’’
Ideally, executives should conduct an annual review,
focusing on educational strategy and effectiveness
by attempting to quantify T&D’s effect on such busi-
ness measures as sales, quality, productivity, and
morale.
Answering the fifth question—’’Should we do it
again?’’—involves a capsule summary of the first
four answers and a formal cost-benefit analysis. Ac-
tivities that move the company toward its goals in
a cost-effective manner should be repeated. Others
should be shortened, revised, or abandoned.
‘‘The great difficulty in education,’’ George Santay-
ana wrote, ‘‘is to get experience out of ideas.’’ The
challenge for corporate education is to get organiza-
tional experience out of individual T&D—to train
and develop employees in such a way that the organi-
zation as a whole will learn, grow, and pull together.
Enabling people to translate classroom learning
into more effective and efficient work demands a
great deal from teachers and even more from manage-
ment. Creative educators must continually provide
new stimuli and relevant, dynamic materials in the
classroom, and they must have the sensitivity to help
employees feel good about themselves and their jobs.
Senior executives must recognize T&D as a forum for
articulating strategic goals and corporate standards.
T&D should be part and parcel of the organization,
not a peripheral activity for corporate stars and
dunces. Corporate education costs money, to be sure,
but the investment can pay off in employee morale
and productivity and customer satisfaction. In to-
day’s business environment, there is one more ques-
tion senior managers can ask themselves: What
would be the cost of no training and development
at all?