See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276398146

Role of Corporate Universities in Higher Education

Article · January 2015

DOI: 10.4018/ijamse.2015010103

CITATIONS READS

9 365

1 author:

Neeta Baporikar
The Namibia University of Science and Technology
175 PUBLICATIONS   435 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Entrepreneurship and Circular Economy View project

Cases for Classroom Teaching View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Neeta Baporikar on 18 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

30 International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015

Role of Corporate Universities

in Higher Education
Neeta Baporikar, Strategic Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Pune, Pune,
India

ABSTRACT
Learning and development has become increasingly challenging, critical, sophisticated and vital in knowledge
based global economy. This trend is now accelerating in the rest of Asia and the Middle East. Corporations
such as Infosys in India, Huawei in China, Singapore Airlines in Singapore and Etisalat in the United Arab
Emirates have well-established corporate universities/learning centers. Other Asian and Middle Eastern cor-
porations, both large and small, are following suit and allocating huge resources to strengthen their learning
and development function. As corporate universities make new waves, the days of viewing them as training
departments with fancy names are gone. Besides, the corporate university movement has become truly global
in scope with them becoming sophisticated and highly visible world over. Using published research and the
author’s own work, this paper explores the current state of the corporate university and role of corporate
university in higher education.

Keywords: Academics, Competencies, Corporate Universities, Development, Higher Education, Learning

1. INTRODUCTION personnel of the parent corporation, they offer

A corporate university is any educational entity
that is a strategic tool designed to assist its
parent organization in achieving its goals by
conducting activities that foster individual and
organizational learning and knowledge (Allen
& Mark, 2002). In contrast, the traditional uni-
versity is an educational institution which grants
both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees
in a variety of subjects, as well as conduct-
ing original scientific research. On the other
hand, though, a corporate university typically
limits scope to providing job-specific, indeed
company-specific, training for the managerial
not only valuable training and education to
employees, but they also help organizations to
retain and promote key employees. Today, there
is a growing trend for organizations to partner
with traditional universities since a traditional
university brings organization, structure, and
faculty. Universities are often interested in
corporate university opportunities because of
the economic gain. What an organization sup-
ported corporate university decides to offer will
depend on their needs (such as sales training,
marketing, or soft skills) and business (like
manufacturing, consulting, or technology),
but most corporate universities offer a blended

DOI: 10.4018/ijamse.2015010103

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015 31
curriculum of online and in person classes.
Some organizations offer courses during the
workday while other offer them at varying times.
Courses can be short workshops or longer, more
traditional courses. Unlike traditional universi-
ties, corporate universities demand a return on
their investment. Many corporate universities
provide hands-on and team learning as a more
effective alternative to lecture-based courses,
but all corporate universities agree that what is
learned has to be applied in nature and should
be of high utility and applicable to the work
environment. One of the important observa-
tions here is corporate universities can only be
established by big corporate houses and not by
small and medium scale corporate organiza-
tions. Further there is a view that establishing
separate specialized universities does not help
in the long run as they tend to restrict the
expansion of knowledge by creating artificial
boundaries (Balram, 2005; Anandakrishnan,
2008; Yashpal, 2009). It is argued that it is
beneficial to integrate corporate education into
traditional universities (Narasimharao, 2010).
What we may see in this approach is narrowing
the border between corporate universities and
traditional universities. It also has the advan-
tage of using the ‘whole’ university. Corporate
universities are a growing trend world over. In
1993, corporate universities existed in only 400
companies. By 2001, this number had increased
to 2,000, including Walt Disney, Boeing, and
Motorola (Hearn, Denise R. 2002).
In most cases, corporate universities are
not universities in the strict sense of the word.
The traditional university is an educational in-
stitution which grants both undergraduate and
postgraduate degrees in a variety of subjects, as
well as conducting original scientific research.
In contrast, a corporate university typically
limits scope to providing job-specific, indeed
company-specific, training for the managerial
personnel of the parent corporation. Corporate
universities are set up for a variety of reasons, but
most organizations have the same basic needs.
According to Hearn and Denise (2005)
these are:
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
• Organize training
• Start and support change in the organization
• Get the most out of the investment in
education
• Bring a common culture, loyalty, and
belonging to a company
• Remain competitive in today’s economy
• Retain employees
Successful initiatives to establish corporate
universities are on clearly recognized and well-
grounded needs such as: the need to compete
effectively by having a more capable work
force; or the need to retain employees by making
them more “mobile” across the corporation’s
spectrum of job functions. In a number of cases,
corporate universities have been successfully
launched and perpetuated in the context of a
major, sustained change management exercise.
In these cases, the corporate university can
serve as a visible, high touch institution that
embodies the change program. Although a
corporate university may sound attractive, there
is a lot of work that goes into the planning and
implementation of such a project. Corporate
universities can be outsourced to a consulting
firm or planned and implemented in house. It is
a growing trend for organizations to partner with
traditional universities. There are a number of
consulting firms that will help to set up corporate
university, but that can be expensive and time
consuming. Forming a cross functional team
of business stakeholders can be used to launch
the corporate university (Meister & Jeanne,
1998). J.P. Morgan and Co. is an example of a
company with an organized curriculum (Tanner,
Lisa (2007)). They have three different types
of courses: business specific courses, organi-
zational learning and communication classes,
and management and executive training. What
an organization decides to offer will depend on
their needs (such as sales training, marketing,
or soft skills) and business (like manufacturing,
consulting, or technology). Many corporate
universities offer a blended curriculum of online
and in person classes. Some organizations offer
courses during the workday while other offer
32 International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015

them at varying times. Courses can be short partially understood messages, of contradictions
workshops or longer, more traditional courses. with other corporate activity, and the myriad
Unlike traditional universities, corporate other ways in which reality confounds the digest
universities demand a return on their invest- of events tend to be glossed over. This paper
ment. There must be concrete evidence that is would be of some special interest because it
the classroom is delivering results. Many tells the story of how well designed corporate
provide hands-on and team learning as a more universities will alone play a significant role
effective alternative to lecture-based courses, not only in knowledge development but also
but all corporate universities agrees that what in higher education arena.
is learned in the classroom should be directly
applicable to the work environment.
Corporate universities, legacy should be 2. BACKGROUND
based on a sound tradition of education, train-
With the increase in number of corporate uni-
ing and development. What provokes special
versities over the past few years, much analysis
interest is that many heads of the corporate
has naturally been about making sense of and
university explicitly seek to learn from, and
interpreting the meaning and significance of this
import, the American model(s) of corporate
phenomenon. Thus, for example, one distinct
university. Indeed, there was an explicit intent
approach has been to compare and contrast
and attempt to draw on the work of Meister
corporate universities with traditional univer-
(1998) as part of a strategic intent to shift from
sities (Blass, 2001; Antonacopoulou, 2002).
the tradition of the training pattern to a more
And one aspect of this has been to address the
commercial mode. Meister’s (1998) book,
question of whether corporate universities are
Corporate Universities: Lessons in Building
a threat to, or opportunity for, conventional
a World-Class Workforce, portrays abundant
universities (Meister, 1997). In this paper we
examples of apparent success in numerous
do not concern ourselves with this part of the
organizations such as GE, National Semicon-
debate. For our purpose here, the extent to which
ductor, Tennessee Valley Authority, Bank of
corporate universities should be rated as ‘real
Montreal, and Chase Manhattan Bank and so
universities’ or whether they dilute the label or
on. Each seems to have secured top management
present a growing threat is not the issue. Rather,
commitment from chief executives and others
we want to examine how academic strategies
providing visible support; they appear to have
if well designed and implemented will help to
a ‘guiding coalition of board members’ who
rationalize and to a large extent make corporate
proffer a compelling corporate vision. These
university more effective and ensure that the
visions are ‘inspiring, memorable, credible and
quality and excellence is maintained as therein
concise’. While these accounts of ‘best prac-
lies the future of higher education to a large
tice’ can be instructive and thought provoking,
extent. Researchers do not seek to assess the
what they do not reveal are the many obstacles
implications for the world of education at large;
invariably faced in practice and the difficulties
rather we want to assess corporate universities as
in maintaining any progress made.
academic partners in the process of optimizing
Yet we know from a range of cases that
higher education. The approach to the concept
managers who seek to introduce corporate
of the corporate university is to regard it as a
university initiatives face many obstacles. The
cluster of ideas and a set of institutional and
account one receives of corporate practice is
technological possibilities that can be mixed
highly dependent on how organizational re-
and re-mixed in various combinations.
search is conducted. When spokespersons are
Hence, the research question then is not
invited to tell the story of success they of course
‘What is a corporate university?’ but, ‘How
readily rehearse the script familiar to them. The
the cluster of ideas and the mix of possibilities
complexities of opposition, of uncertainty, of

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015 33
are used in particular settings?’ Further, the
interest is to the extent to which, and the ways
in which, the configurations and possibilities
are constrained and with what consequences.
Research methods include exploration and
grounded theory approach. Required analysis
and interpretation of the present scenario of
higher education, academics in general and cor-
porate university in particular is done based on
the collection of relevant documentary evidence.
3. ORIGINS AND RATIONALE
The story of the competing rationales and com-
peting conceptualizations of what a corporate
university is for, and should be, as illustrated
by this case, has a resonance in many other
companies. The playing out of these tensions
is, however, unusually stark as different stake-
holders different objectives. The nature of the
initiative that unfolds usually is influenced by
the company’s historical legacy. The main rea-
sons for establishing corporate university are:
1. General feeling that other leading compa-
nies are establishing corporate universities
and so this organization should possibly
follow this trend.
2. Inherited legacy of an elaborate education
and training infrastructure is perceived to
be expensive and outdated. It is judged that
much of that could be reduced or dispensed
with and the money invested in a more
targeted way elsewhere.
3. Usually the management cadre gets ne-
glected from a development viewpoint
and that the needs of this target group need
to be addressed at a time when a more
entrepreneurial and commercial outlook
becomes a requirement.
4. More important is the feeling that new
capabilities are required under the new,
competitive, privatized regime as differ-
ent attitudes and competencies need to be
nurtured in order to address the new market
conditions.
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
5. Finally, in a global business arena, there is a
view that the group requires some common
leadership and management development
activities in order to provide ‘corporate
glue’ for the corporation as a whole.
The corporate university concept roots
back to the 1960s when US corporations like
Walt Disney Company, McDonalds and General
Electric used the label for their internal train-
ing facilities. These first corporate universities
were large, physical training institutions aimed
at efficient workforce training. They emerged
out of dissatisfaction of these companies with
the output of the educational system. The
growing interest in learning and knowledge
that emerged with the rise of the knowledge
economy (Drucker, 1988) supported a renewed
interest in the concept in the late 1990s. Central
management issues of this time like the learning
organization, core competencies and knowledge
management reflect an ‘explosive interest in the
subject of learning’ (Deiser, 1998).
Organizations and their employees nowa-
days face an even stronger need for lifelong
learning due to the continuous flow of change
in society resulting from technological innova-
tions to increased market dynamics through
deregulation and globalization. For many
contemporary organizations knowledge is an
important asset and learning a strategic process.
These organizations are in search for models
that help to improve their competitive advan-
tage and business performance. The corporate
university model offers a strategic learning
architecture that can connect strategy processes
and organizational learning with each other
(Hilse & Nicolai, 2004).
3.1. The Corporate
University Model
Although the term corporate university sug-
gests a clear and identified model, there is no
uniform definition and configuration of this
model. In the mainly practice based publications
several definitions exist. The most widespread
34 International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015
Figure 1. Corporate university typologies
definition comes from Meister (1998). In this
definition the corporate university provides
education and is therefore aimed at knowledge
transfer, rather than on knowledge production.
The university label is somewhat misleading in
this definition, because research and knowledge
production play a significant part in universi-
ties. More recently Allen (2007) defined the
next-generation corporate university to be: “A
corporate university is an educational entity that
is a strategic tool designed to assist its parent
organization in achieving its mission by con-
ducting activities that cultivate both individual
and organizational learning, knowledge and
wisdom”. In this definition the combination
of the individual and organizational learning
perspective is made explicit. Although some
development in thinking can be perceived, the
definition remains rather abstract and the rela-
tionship with strategy seems to be still one-way
(top-down). In an era of rapid change and the
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
need for knowledge productivity one would ex-
pect that the corporate university would become
more central in shaping strategy and operating
on other paradigms than the education model. At
this point, the typologies of corporate universi-
ties have more to offer. Some scholars defined
the corporate university in different prototypes
rather than coming up with one definition.
These typology-based definitions give more
insight into the bidirectional strategic role of
the corporate university as given in Figure 1.
The definitions and typologies give only
high level information about the corporate
university model. They do not provide specific
design principles for the implementation of the
model. Neither do they provide insight into
the way corporate universities can contribute
to strategic learning and innovation. Also the
boundaries between the stages are unclear and
artificial. The insight to the relationship between
International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015 35

Figure 2. Corporate university dimensions

the corporate university model and key theories
in strategic learning and innovation is lacking.
3.2. Dimensions of
Corporate Universities
From the publications on corporate universi-
ties several building blocks or dimensions that
play a role in the configuration of the corporate
university can be extracted. These dimensions
vary from scholar to scholar, but are summa-
rized in Figure 2.
The dimensions give some insight into the
configuration options organizations have for
setting-up corporate university. The descrip-
tion doesn’t add to the understanding of the
relationship between the dimensions. Relating
the dimensions in an integrated model can raise
this understanding. The house of learning model
presented in Figure 3, integrates some of the
dimensions described.
Although this model clarifies the relation-
ship between several dimensions of a corporate
university, it is still rather top down and abstract.
For research into the strategic potential of
corporate universities it has limited value. In
order to investigate the relationship of corporate
universities with strategy the next paragraph will
concentrate on the work done on this specific
aspect of corporate university research.

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
36 International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015
Figure 3. House of learning
4. STRATEGIC LEARNING AND
THE CORPORATE UNIVERSITY
Although many scholars highlight the strate-
gic role of the corporate university, only few
have actually researched the relationship of
corporate universities with strategy (Hilse &
Nicolai, 2004; Jansink et al., 2005). Jansink et
al. (2005) focus in their research on the ques-
tion how corporate universities contribute to
the organizational competency to produce new
knowledge. This knowledge productivity is the
ability of an organization to track down relevant
information, to create new knowledge with this
information and to apply this knowledge in
improving and renewing working processes,
products and services (Kessels, 2001). In their
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
research three different theoretical concepts
are examined: the developmental stages of
corporate universities (Rademakers, 2005), the
concept of knowledge productivity (Kessels,
2001; Harrison & Kessels, 2004) and the concept
of strategic alignment. The Knowledge-Based
View of the firm (Grant, 1996) is a strategic
management theory that is relevant to the cor-
porate university. It focuses upon knowledge
as the most strategically important of the firm’s
resources and is an outgrowth of the broader
resource-based view. The knowledge-based
view describes the coordination mechanisms
through which firms integrate the specialist
knowledge of their members. Knowledge is
viewed as residing within the individual, and the
primary role of the organization is knowledge
International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015 37
application rather than knowledge creation. This
line of reasoning emphasizes the role of the
individual in creating and storing knowledge.
This is unique ‘tacit knowledge’ in contrast to
‘explicit knowledge’ stored in manuals, proce-
dures and patents (Polyani, 1966).
The corporate university can play a central
role both in the integration of this knowledge
of employees and in facilitating individual
learning. The interventions for knowledge in-
tegration come from the field of organization
development. Some of these interventions may
be outside the scope of many corporate universi-
ties, but should not if the corporate university
wants to play a strategic role. Especially orga-
nization development interventions are closely
connected with the aims of corporate universi-
ties (e.g., job rotation, change programs). The
support of individual learning is a central task
for most corporate universities that grew from
a traditional training department. Following
Jansink et al. (2005) training isn’t the only
method to support this individual learning.
Training has to be part of a broader learning
policy, in which there is also room for creating
positive conditions for learning and for guiding
learning in the workplace.
5. ACADEMIC STRATEGIES
Academic Strategies in corporate university
must embody a number of guiding principles
which the University advocates and upholds
for learners studying at the institution, namely:
• That the learning and teaching opportuni-
ties afforded to students should challenge
students intellectually, encourage reflective
learning, and enable them to take their place
and be at ease with ‘diverse others’ locally
and internationally;
• That the learning and teaching is designed
to develop the subject-specific and generic
transferable skills necessary for academic
success, future employment and active
citizenship;
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
• That students should appreciate the impor-
tance of demonstrating high standards of
academic integrity and ethical conduct in
every aspect of their studies, research and
professional practice;
• That the learning and teaching environ-
ment and the delivery of programmes and
research student training is as supportive
and inclusive as is reasonably possible;
• That it encourages approaches to teaching
and assessment that foster student engage-
ment, together with an awareness and un-
derstanding of the skills and attributes that
they already possess and are developing;
• That curricula, teaching, learning and
assessment methods take account of the
diverse learning support needs of the
student body;
• That in valuing lifelong learning deep
approaches to learning are fostered which
enable students to continue to grow, and
develop on graduation into their chosen
careers;
• That value is attached, and encouragement
given, to scholarship in teaching, and the
scholarship of teaching with staff integrat-
ing their own research and professional
practice into all aspects of curriculum
delivery, leading to research informed
teaching and evidence-based effective
pedagogic practice;
• The creation of an atmosphere that provides
a safe environment for experimentation and
risk-taking for curriculum development,
for teaching and assessment practices and
for students;
• That in welcoming and celebrating the
diversity of its staff and student body the
university will endeavour to ensure that for
all programmes of study, both classroom
based and on-line, these guiding principles
will apply
In the coming years, there will be more
pressure building on corporate university for
adopting the academic strategies to enable
38 International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015
knowledge workers and better knowledge
management. These could be any or all of the
following: personalization, multi-age classes,
small learning communities, multidisciplinary
curricula, cooperative learning, project-based
learning, peer tutoring, team teaching, global
connections, life skills curricula, career coun-
seling and portfolio-based assessments. Taken
to together, they represent a new, alternative,
education model. It is highly unlikely that any
one corporate university can or will utilize all
ideas. Additionally, some strategies are more
relevant to young learners, while others apply
only to older learners. However, a true “New
Model” corporate university will embrace a
vast majority of these strategies. Each strategy
is linked to one or more of three categories -
pedagogy, institute and skills. It is not easy to
develop New Model Universities. Nonetheless,
there are some overarching principles that cut
across many of the strategies discussed here
that underpin the philosophy of “New Model”
corporate university. They are leadership, life-
long learning and cultural diversity.
Ongoing adaptation to a dynamic and
complex environment requires organizational
learning, whilst learning opportunities for in-
dividuals are important to attract, develop and
retain talent. As a result, corporate learning is
increasingly seen as the key to unlock answers
to strategic challenges. Corporate learning
involves creating, acquiring and deploying ca-
pabilities (know-how, skills and attitude) aimed
to renew, implement and optimize strategy. In
other words, the art of strategy is related to the act
of learning. Companies excelling in corporate
learning have an edge over their competitors
through superior adaptive capabilities and being
attractive to top talent in the labor market. In
tune, companies around the world are stepping
up their investments in corporate learning. As
a result, having a corporate university/acad-
emy (an organizational unit to drive corporate
learning at a strategic level – not a re-labeled
training department) is becoming the norm to
excel, rather than the exception.
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
There is a conflict between ‘placement-focused’
and ‘development-focused’ objectives for
an academic strategy and it becomes all the
more crucial in case of corporate university
programmes. The programmes often seem to
have mixed functions. In my view, the academ-
ics should not be concerned with placement
process, it should be about development. This
paper is written to help to close some big gaps in
education - the gap between research and action,
between stated goals and policy and between
perception and reality. Few will argue that these
gaps exist when it comes to the way education
is delivered in this country. Moreover, the void
that has emerged between the supply side of
the equation from education providers, and the
demand side of the equation from organizations
is a need for a combination of self-development,
career development, management development
and leadership development, something that
Schatz (1997) argues that MBAs cannot do.
Anderson et al. (2001) suggest that academ-
ics and practitioners are moving further apart,
while Ball and Butler (2000) believe there is
a cultural conflict in their relative approaches,
particularly to research and practice.
It is this emerging gap that corporate
universities have developed to fill. Whether or
not the supply side of the equation could have
adapted to meet the needs of the demands of the
organizations is questionable. The competitive
environment in which organizations operate
means their needs are changing rapidly, and
the cumbersome bureaucratic processes of the
education sector, founded originally on quality
concerns, means that they are unable to respond
quickly enough to their customers’ needs. This
may need to change; else the education sector
could find the demand for its services diminish
further. In what other industry would the major-
ity of proven research be discarded in favor of
an overused, discredited model? In education,
the research unequivocally supports a student/
learner centered model but universities and
systems overwhelmingly favour the older mass-
International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015 39

production model. Where else is there such a
gaping chasm between the stated goals of an
organization and the policies that are adopted
to accomplish those goals? In education, there
is widespread support for the idea that every
student is important and yet, in practice, systems
are set up to favour a few at the expense of the
many. As for the gap between perception and
reality, the perception among most parents,
communities and policy makers is that failing
universities can be “fixed” by doing more of
what has failed.
The reality is that failing universities need
a completely new approach that engages learn-
ers/students and co-opts them into the learning
process. And what about the “successful” uni-
versities, those whose students rank high on
standardized tests and go on to pursue higher
education in impressive numbers? These have
an even lesser incentive to change even though
they are better at selecting talent than at nurtur-
ing it. Why do these gross disconnects exist?
Mainly, the problem lies in the entrenched
nature of bureaucracies. Systems designed for
a different time and for a different set of needs
have since become fragmented and deeply
compartmentalized. Even where there is com-
monality of purpose, the “systems” themselves
remain hopelessly gridlocked. Even widespread
change is more easily managed when broken
up into easily measured chunks. Providing a
simple and common vocabulary, all university
constituents can use help to bridge the gap be-
tween laypersons and experts. It can thus help
diverse education constituents to work together
toward realizing shared expectations. Around
the world, a new kind of educational model is
taking tentative steps toward the mainstream.
This model is far better suited to provide the
knowledge and skills that students will need
to succeed in a new global economy than the
traditional model still practiced. The new model
embodies many ideas which are not new but
are only now being seen as a real alternative to
traditional systems. The reasons why these ideas
are taking root have to do with the simple fact
that the old mass-production model of education
simply doesn’t work for most, if not all. The old
model was designed to weed out the “smart”
destined for higher education from those who
would work in nonacademic vocations. But that
kind of distinction is no longer valid.
Today, meaningful, useful education is
something all need regardless of the career
choices they will eventually make. Universi-
ties and institutions need to do more than just
select students according to their cognitive
abilities. They need to become places where
diverse talents are recognized and nurtured,
where everyone is made to feel special, has an
opportunity to realize his or her full potential
and succeed on his or her own terms. In other
words, they need to become “New Model”
universities as the pressures for change in
education are building fast.
7. FUTURE RESEARCH
DIRECTIONS
Although the rise of the corporate university
seems to expresses a growing interest in the
connection between learning and strategy
in contemporary organizations, the research
fundament of corporate universities is still
lacking. Most research in this field is aimed at
definitions, typologies and case studies with
a descriptive nature. This results in models
and typologies that are ideal types and have
limited value in directing organizations and
their corporate universities towards successful
adoption and implementation of the corporate
university ideas of 1) linking individual and
organizational learning, 2) linking learning and
strategic innovation, and 3) improving overall
business performance. A proper understanding
of how corporate universities can contribute
to strategic innovation is missing in research
and practice. Absorptive capacity might be an
interesting means to explain the relationship
between corporate universities and strategic
innovation. Future research will need to aim at
extending the absorptive capacity concept and
develop a theoretical model for the contribution
of corporate universities to absorptive capacity

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
40 International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015

development and academic strength to further programs are designed to convey corporate
higher education. culture and focus on learning beyond on-the
As stated by Daniel Twomey, et al, “de- job training. By doing so, many employees
veloping a corporate university expresses [an throughout the United States and abroad are
organization’s] commitment to the value of offered educational opportunities that might
investing in human capital” (1999, p. 340). not otherwise be available to them.
Companies that develop corporate universities
believe that in focusing on employee competen-
cies, skills, and abilities, they are ensuring their 8. CONCLUSION
competitiveness and future success. Corporate
When we consider all the problems plaguing
provided education has been found to improve
higher education, and as we look for solutions
employee satisfaction and employee retention,
to those problems, we need to consider our
as well as, provide a competitive advantage for
customers. What potential graduate business
many organizations (Twomey, et al, 1999). Cor-
student wouldn’t be drawn to a new model of
porate universities may also follow the Tailored
learning that not only promises useful skills
Training model which refers to those traditional
but also guarantees a job and a good salary at
universities and corporations who are “working
the end of the process? Many of us think that a
in tandem to develop distance learning courses
education is a worthy goal in its own right, and
designed to address a company’s specific needs”
it certainly has been in the past. But if we’re
(Kaeter, 2000 p. 119). In this case, corporations
not able to give our students training that leads
can direct universities on which components of
to jobs then it’s possible our model of learning
their standard curriculum should be passed on to
will not survive for very much longer. If we
their employees. Additionally, this partnership
want to avoid that disappointing future, we have
allows corporations to add their own input and
to recommit as institutions of higher learning
information into the training materials. Jeanne
to giving our students the skills that not only
Meister concludes, corporate universities are
enrich their lives but also match the demands of
built on a system that understands “the chief
the evolving labor market. Moreover, develop-
concern for knowledge workers in nearly every
ment high-impact learning is tricky. Not only
industry and occupation is the short shelf life of
should there is a need to understand the basics
their knowledge, causing them to have to con-
of training and development, but also integration
stantly retool their schools” (1998, Extending,
with the talent practices (career progression and
p. 52). Employees benefit from the corporate
leadership) to ensure creation of a “culture of
university movement in more ways than sim-
learning.” As Peter Senge (1990) and many oth-
ply being able to perform their assigned jobs
ers have uncovered, learning culture is perhaps
better. They also learn skills and possibly earn
the most important asset a company can build.
degrees that can be carried through their career,
Organizations profess that their most
making they, themselves, more marketable to
valuable asset is their people; hence, there will
the workplace. Corporate universities are the
always be great competitive advantage in find-
“fastest growing segment of the adult education
ing innovative and effective ways to increase
market” (Meister, 1998, Ten, p. 38). Addition-
the value of human capital. If that be so, then
ally, those corporations that provide corporate
they need to recognize, people who invent
universities tend to have an advantage over the
and innovate must not only be very capable
“eligible employee pool,” in that they are often
technically, but must also have the freedom to
perceived as “employers of choice” (Meister,
learn and share what they’ve learned in an open
1998, Ten, p. 53). Thus, corporate universities
environment. Hence, the most important ele-
strive to achieve their mission of developing
ments of “capability building” include creating a
programs that are clearly linked to business
management culture which is open to mistakes,
objectives and organizational strategy. These

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015 41
building trust, giving people time to reflect,
and creating a value system around learning.
The learning organization will increasingly be
challenged to engage learners and weave learn-
ing into their personal and professional lives.
Without question, the corporate university
is moving into the next phase of operation -
one where accountability for business results
and a drive for innovative learning solutions
will be critical for how learning leaders are
measured in their jobs. That’s why, partnering
between corporations and universities may
offer the best of both worlds. Traditional busi-
ness schools can create new opportunities for
themselves by responding to companies’ need
for fast-changing skills and corporate training
departments can benefit from structured links
to universities and colleges (Vine and Palsule,
1999). This is where the traditional universities
and corporate universities can wed for bliss of
mankind and notwithstanding the significant
proliferation and growth in sophistication of
corporate universities in recent years, there is
still considerable room for continued evolution
as long as organizations face new problems
and seek new ways of learning. There will
be innovations in the structures of corporate
universities and in the very nature of learning
itself. While no one can predict exactly what
the innovations will be or lead to, what one can
look forward in the next few years as corporate
universities progress is: greater use of learning
outsourcing, professionalizing the chief learn-
ing officer role and innovation in managing the
business of learning.
REFERENCES
Allen, M. (2002). The Corporate University Hand-
book (p. 9). AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.;
ISBN978-0-8144-0711-0
Allen, M. (2007). The next generation of corporate
universities: Innovative approaches for developing
people and expanding organizational capabilities.
New York, NY: Pfeiffer & Co.
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Anandakrishnan, M. (2008). Promises and perils of
globalized higher education. Journal of Educational
Planning and Administration, XXII(2), 199–212.
Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P.
(2001). The practitioner-research divide in industrial,
work and organizational psychology: Where are we
now, and where do we go from here? Journal of Oc-
cupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4),
391–411. doi:10.1348/096317901167451
Antonacopoulou, E. (2002).Corporate universities:
The domestication of management education. In C.
Wankel& R. DeFillippi (Eds.), Rethinking man-
agement education for the 21st century (185-207).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Arkin, A. (2000). Combined honours. People Man-
agement, 43-46.
Atrivision (2007). Managing Corporate Learning.
Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/dassen/
managing-corporate-learning
Bachler, C. J. (1997). Corporate universities are
catching on. Workforce, 7766(6), 96–97.
Ball, D. F., & Butler, J. (2000). Research assessment
exercises in UK universities – learning to innovate.
International Journal of Services Technology and
Management, 1(4), 340–356.
Balram, P. (2005). Reinventing our universities.
Current Science, 88, 529–530.
Blass, E. (2001). What’s in a name? A com-
parative study of the traditional public univer-
sity and the corporate university. Human Resource
Development International, 4(2), 153–172.
doi:10.1080/13678860121806
Deiser, R. (1998). Corporate universities: Modeer-
scheinungoderstrategischererfolgsfaktor. Organisa-
tionsentwicklung, 1, 36–49.
Drucker, P. (1988). The coming of the new organiza-
tion. Harvard Business Review, 66(1), 45–53.
Education Week Glossary. (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/context/glossary
Fresina, A. (1997). The three prototypes of corpo-
rate universities. The Corporate University Review,
34-38.
Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory
of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(10),
109–122. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110
42 International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015
Harrison, R., & Kessels, J. (2004). Human resource
development in a knowledge economy: An organi-
sational view. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hearn, D. R. (2002). Education in the Workplace:
An Examination of Corporate University Models.
Retrieved from http://www.newfoundations.com/
OrgTheory
Hilse, H., & Nicolai, A. (2004). Strategic learn-
ing in Germany’s largest companies. Journal
of Management Development, 23(4), 372–398.
doi:10.1108/02621710410529811
Jansink, F., Kwakman, K., & Streumer, J. (2005).
The knowledge-productive corporate university.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(1),
40–57. doi:10.1108/03090590510576208
Joyner, J. (2001). Technical competency is a short-
term solution. Computing Canada, 27(2), 27–34.
Kaeter, A. (2000). Virtual cap and gown. Training
(New York, N.Y.), 37(9), 114–122.
Kessels, J. W. M. (2001). Learning in organisa-
tions: A corporate curriculum for the knowledge
economy. Futures, 33(6), 497–506. doi:10.1016/
S0016-3287(00)00093-8
Meister, J. (1998). Extending the short shelf life of
knowledge. Training & Development, 52(6), 52–53.
Meister, J. (1998). Ten steps to creating a corporate
university. Training & Development, 52(I), 38–43.
Meister, J. C. (1997, March). Corporate universities:
An opportunity or threat to higher education? Paper
presented at the Designing a Virtual University
Conference, Cambridge, MA.
Meister, J. C. (1998). Corporate universities: Lessons
in building a world-class work force. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Narasimharao, B. P. R. (2010). Biotechnology edu-
cation and societal demands: Challenges faced by
biotechnology and human resource development.
Social Responsibility Journal, 6(1), 72–90.
Paton, R., Geoff, P., Storey, J., & Scott, T. (2005).
Handbook of corporate university development:
Managing strategic learning initiatives in public
and private domains. Aldershot, UK: Gower Pub-
lishing, Ltd.
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Polanyi, M. (1966). Tacit Dimension. New York,
NY: Doubleday & Co.
Rademakers, M. (2005). Corporate universities:
Driving force of knowledge innovation. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 17(1/2), 130–136.
Schatz, M. (1997). Why we don’t teach lead-
ership in our MBA programmes. Journal of
Management Development, 16(9), 9, 677–679.
doi:10.1108/02621719710367774
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art &
practice of the learning organization. New York:
Doubleday.
Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline
field book for educators, parents and everyone who
cares about education. New York, NY: Doubleday
& Co.
Tanner, L. (2007). Corporate university approach
taking hold.Dallas Business Journal. Retrieved from
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic
capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-
SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Twomey, D., Jones, G., Densford, L., Keller, T., &
Davis, J. (1999). Corporate universities change and
competitive advantage. Global Competitiveness,
7(I), 340.
Vine, P., & Palsule, S. (1999). Corporate universities:
Back to school. British Journal of Administrative
Management, 18–21.
Walton, J. (1999). Strategic human resource develop-
ment. Harlow, UK: FT Prentice Hall.
Yash, P. (2009). Report of the committee to advise
on renovation and rejuvenation of higher education.
Retrieved from http://www.education.nic.in/
Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capac-
ity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension.
Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.
 International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering, 2(1), 30-43, January-June 2015 43

Neeta Baporikar is currently on sabbatical after her academic assignment with Ministry of Higher Educa-
tion, Head - Research, CAS-Salalah, Sultanate of Oman. Prior to this she was a Professor at IIIT Pune
and BITS India. With more than a decade of experience in industry, consultancy and training, she made
a lateral switch to research and academics in 1995. Dr. Baporikar holds D.Sc. (Management Studies)
USA, PhD in Management, University of Pune INDIA with MBA (Distinction) and Law (Hons.) degrees.
Apart from this, she is also an External Reviewer Oman Accreditation Council, Accredited Management
Teacher, Qualified Trainer, Doctoral Guide and Board Member of Academics and Advisory Committee in
accredited B-Schools. Reviewer for international journals, she has to her credit several refereed research
papers and authored books in the area of Entrepreneurship, Strategy, Management and Higher Education.

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

View publication stats