Home » Libraries » C.B. "Bud" Johnston Library

Management Bulletin

The Business Library contains a large number of the "Management Bulletins" that were published by the American Management Association. In addition to the article we provide below, here are the titles of some of the other essays found in #34, 1963: "Future Problems of Management Education;" "Business Education: Five Emerging Trends: and "College Graduates in Business: An Appraisal". Management Bulletin.
[This article was copied from an AMA Management Bulletin held in the Western Libraries at the University of Western Ontario. The original article should be consulted since this copy may contain some errors. The text and/or images are being made available to researchers for scholarly purposes. They should not be used for commercial gain without the permission of the author or publisher]

Education for Management in the 1960's
The Business Library contains a large number of the "Management Bulletins" that were published by the American Management Association. In addition to the article we provide below, here are the titles of some of the other essays found in #34, 1963: "Future Problems of Management Education;" "Business Education: Five Emerging Trends: and "College Graduates in Business: An Appraisal". Management Bulletin. [This article was copied from an AMA Management Bulletin held in the Western Libraries at the University of Western Ontario. The original article should be consulted since this copy may contain some errors. The text and/or images are being made available to researchers for scholarly purposes. They should not be used for commercial gain without the permission of the author or publisher] Education for Management in the 1960's by WINSTON OBERG
taken from Education for Business: A Balanced AppraisalEducation for Business: A Balanced Appraisal, AMA Management Bulletin #34.

RARELY HAS THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION FOR management received more critical attention from businessmen, educators, and the general public than it has in the past decade. A number of factors have accounted for this. For one thing, a postwar executive development vogue led hundreds of companies and scores of universities to establish special management training programs of one kind or another, and this led to attempts to assess the impact of these programs.1 For another, the first Russian sputnik turned the entire nation's worried attention toward its system of higher education; economists studying the dynamics of economic development concluded that one of this country's most significant economic advantages lies in its extensive facilities for training business managers.2 Most responsible of all, however, for focusing the attention of thoughtful business and educational leaders on the subject of management education were two monumental studies of the nation's college and university programs in business administration, which were released within a few weeks of each other in 1959.3
These two reports challenged business school aims, methods, policies, and Curricula; and they led to intense and prolonged soul searching and self-criticism by business school faculties -a process that is continuing even today.4 The reports did not revive the old questions with which business educators once had to deal such as the value of university education itself, the possibility of preparing people for management careers in a classroom (as opposed to the hallowed "college of hard knocks"), or the right of a mundane, vocational curriculum like business to be admitted to the ivied halls of higher learning. These were no longer the issues they had been during the decades immediately following the opening of the nation's first business school in 1881 at the University of Pennsylvania, for they had apparently been mostly resolved. Economists had succeeded in demonstrating quite convincingly the real economic value of university education by showing that for each additional year of schooling a man completed -up through and including his final year in college -his annual income and lifetime income were increased by a certain amount. For example, it was estimated that $180,000 was added to the lifetime income of the average male if he attended and completed college.5
The early debate over the value of an education specifically oriented to business had clearly been won by the affirmative: more than 160 schools of business were in existence by the late 1950's, and one out of every six undergraduates on the nation's college campuses was majoring in business; business graduates were in greater demand by employers -with more job offers and higher starting salaries -than graduates of the more traditional courses; and by 1960 a substantial proportion of the nation's business executives had themselves majored in business administration. Finally, although there were still faculty members who felt that business schools were not a legitimate part of the university curriculum, the liberal arts and humanities had by and large made their peace with the vocational departments on their campuses. The business educators, therefore, could feel quite content: they had been accepted by their fellow educators, by the business community, and by the general public.

RARELY HAS THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION FOR management received more critical attention from businessmen, educators, and the general public than it has in the past decade. A number of factors have accounted for this. For one thing, a postwar executive development vogue led hundreds of companies and scores of universities to establish special management training programs of one kind or another, and this led to attempts to assess the impact of these programs.1 For another, the first Russian sputnik turned the entire nation's worried attention toward its system of higher education; economists studying the dynamics of economic development concluded that one of this country's most significant economic advantages lies in its extensive facilities for training business managers.2 Most responsible of all, however, for focusing the attention of thoughtful business and educational leaders on the subject of management education were two monumental studies of the nation's college and university programs in business administration, which were released within a few weeks of each other in 1959.3 These two reports challenged business school aims, methods, policies, and Curricula; and they led to intense and prolonged soul searching and self-criticism by business school faculties -a process that is continuing even today.4 The reports did not revive the old questions with which business educators once had to deal such as the value of university education itself, the possibility of preparing people for management careers in a classroom (as opposed to the hallowed "college of hard knocks"), or the right of a mundane, vocational curriculum like business to be admitted to the ivied halls of higher learning. These were no longer the issues they had been during the decades immediately following the opening of the nation's first business school in 1881 at the University of Pennsylvania, for they had apparently been mostly resolved. Economists had succeeded in demonstrating quite convincingly the real economic value of university education by showing that for each additional year of schooling a man completed -up through and including his final year in college -his annual income and lifetime income were increased by a certain amount. For example, it was estimated that $180,000 was added to the lifetime income of the average male if he attended and completed college.5 The early debate over the value of an education specifically oriented to business had clearly been won by the affirmative: more than 160 schools of business were in existence by the late 1950's, and one out of every six undergraduates on the nation's college campuses was majoring in business; business graduates were in greater demand by employers -with more job offers and higher starting salaries -than graduates of the more traditional courses; and by 1960 a substantial proportion of the nation's business executives had themselves majored in business administration. Finally, although there were still faculty members who felt that business schools were not a legitimate part of the university curriculum, the liberal arts and humanities had by and large made their peace with the vocational departments on their campuses. The business educators, therefore, could feel quite content: they had been accepted by their fellow educators, by the business community, and by the general public.

THE FORD AND CARNEGIE STUDIES

THE FORD AND CARNEGIE STUDIES

Why, then, did the Ford and Carnegie reports arouse such intense concern and soul searching among the educators? The answer lay in both the nature and documentation of the criticisms made by the reports, the credentials of the people who prepared them, and the organizations which sponsored them. Chief criticisms of the business schools were as follows:6

Why, then, did the Ford and Carnegie reports arouse such intense concern and soul searching among the educators? The answer lay in both the nature and documentation of the criticisms made by the reports, the credentials of the people who prepared them, and the organizations which sponsored them. Chief criticisms of the business schools were as follows:6
1. Their standards were too low, the courses did not challenge the better students, and grading was too easy.
2. Their students were inferior because admissions requirements were low. The average IQ of business students was lower than that of students in most other colleges or departments. Business schools were seen as the dumping ground for poor students. Business graduates -although they received higher starting salaries -did not progress as rapidly or rise as high in business organizations as did graduates of other disciplines.
3. Business curriculums did not prepare students properly. There was too much narrow vocationalism in business curriculums. Many courses (typing, shorthand, salesmanship, and hotel front desk management were mentioned as examples) had no place in a university program but were being offered by many schools. On the other hand, not enough liberal arts courses were included; nor were there enough foundation courses in mathematics, statistics, the humanities, languages, or the natural and social sciences to give students the broad-gauge background needed for continuing personal growth and progress.
4. Business faculties were inferior and needed improvement. The research which the faculty members were carrying out also required substantial improvement, both in quantity and quality.
1. Their standards were too low, the courses did not challenge the better students, and grading was too easy. 2. Their students were inferior because admissions requirements were low. The average IQ of business students was lower than that of students in most other colleges or departments. Business schools were seen as the dumping ground for poor students. Business graduates -although they received higher starting salaries -did not progress as rapidly or rise as high in business organizations as did graduates of other disciplines. 3. Business curriculums did not prepare students properly. There was too much narrow vocationalism in business curriculums. Many courses (typing, shorthand, salesmanship, and hotel front desk management were mentioned as examples) had no place in a university program but were being offered by many schools. On the other hand, not enough liberal arts courses were included; nor were there enough foundation courses in mathematics, statistics, the humanities, languages, or the natural and social sciences to give students the broad-gauge background needed for continuing personal growth and progress. 4. Business faculties were inferior and needed improvement. The research which the faculty members were carrying out also required substantial improvement, both in quantity and quality. What business schools badly needed to do, the reports concluded, was to revise their objectives, teaching methods, student selection practices, and curriculums substantially and attempt to strengthen their faculties in a variety of ways.
Major attention was given in the reports to revision of curriculums and to the contents of the courses to be included. Both reports drew up recommended undergraduate and graduate programs, designed to improve the preparation of men for careers in business and, more specifically, for careers in management. It is interesting, and somewhat encouraging, that the studies were in substantial agreement in the curriculum recommendations they made.
For instance, the reports agreed as to how students at the undergraduate level should spend their study time. (Where the reports recommended a range in hours, the midpoint of the range has been used in arriving at the recommended percentages given below.) Both reports urged that students' time should be spent approximately as follows:
16 to 19 per cent on mathematics and the natural sciences.
16 to 17 per cent on the social sciences (excluding economics).
11 to 12 per cent on economics.
6 to 10 per cent on applied quantitative methods like accounting and applied statistics.
3 to 6 per cent on organization theory and management principles.
3 to 5 per cent on business policy.
3 per cent on the political and legal environment of business.
16 to 19 per cent on mathematics and the natural sciences. 16 to 17 per cent on the social sciences (excluding economics). 11 to 12 per cent on economics. 6 to 10 per cent on applied quantitative methods like accounting and applied statistics. 3 to 6 per cent on organization theory and management principles. 3 to 5 per cent on business policy. 3 per cent on the political and legal environment of business. The two reports disagreed somewhat on the degree of vocational specialization to be permitted. The Ford report recommended that only 11 per cent of the curriculum be devoted to special functional courses like marketing, finance, or production, while the Carnegie report permitted 19 per cent of the courses to be in these areas. On the other hand, the Ford report called for 24 per cent of the subjects to be in the general area of liberal arts and humanities, while the Carnegie report required only 16 per cent of the time be devoted to these topics. However, the two reports were for the most part in agreement in their criticism of what they called an "overly vocational orientation" in existing curriculums and in the kinds of changes they recommended at the undergraduate level.
At the master's degree level, which was regarded by both reports as the terminal professional degree in management, there was even greater consistency in curriculum recommendations. Both studies called for a two-year master's degree program, in which courses would be divided as follows:
35 to 37 per cent on functional business subjects like finance, marketing, production, and so forth.
14 to 17 per cent on applied quantitative methods like accounting, applied statistics, and other information and control techniques.
10 to 11 per cent on the political and legal environment of business.
8 to 11 per cent on organization theory, management principles, and human relations.
5 to 9 per cent on business policy.
35 to 37 per cent on functional business subjects like finance, marketing, production, and so forth. 14 to 17 per cent on applied quantitative methods like accounting, applied statistics, and other information and control techniques. 10 to 11 per cent on the political and legal environment of business. 8 to 11 per cent on organization theory, management principles, and human relations. 5 to 9 per cent on business policy. The only real disagreement came in two relatively minor areas. The Ford report called for 6 per cent of the time to be devoted to courses in report writing and research; these courses were not even mentioned in the Carnegie recommendation. Conversely, the Carnegie report provided for roughly 13 per cent of the courses to be free electives, whereas the Ford report made no such provision.
Reaction of business faculties to these and to the other Carnegie and Ford recommendations was not unanimously favorable, which was perhaps not surprising since major criticisms were directed at the faculties themselves. The fundamental assumption of both reports that students would be better prepared for management if they took fewer technique oriented courses and more courses of a general background nature-was challenged by many professors who felt that businesses were looking for graduates who could make an immediate contribution in some area of specialty rather than for men who had been prepared to become company vice presidents. These professors felt that a business school would be doing a disservice to students if it made them less able to make a good showing on their early assignments in a company because it was only by making a good early showing that men were singled out and promoted into management positions. It would be of little value to prepare a man for a high-level executive position if he could not perform well enough at lower levels to reach that position.
More serious, however, than these or most other faculty criticisms of the two reports were the criticisms the report writers themselves leveled at their analyses. For example, the Ford report acknowledged that its recommendations were essentially opinions. The underlying body of research findings which are necessary for really determining what education for management should consist of was as yet nonexistent. There was, as the report said, a depressing lack of understanding by educators and by businessmen as to what qualifications actually were needed for successful business careers and of the role which formal education could play in developing these qualifications. What was still needed, the Ford study said, was a "survey of business school alumni drawn from a broad cross section of schools and departments of business, an attempt to evaluate the kind of training they received and its impact on their careers, together with a companion study of a large number of businessmen of varied educational backgrounds."
Wittingly or not, the Ford report was echoing the argument made nearly two decades earlier by a businessman-critic of the education for management then being conducted by the universities:
We hear a great deal about the scientific approach. . . . Have the colleges tried to apply it to the question, "What can colleges do to assist industry in training executives?" They have a research program ahead of them. First, they must go and find out what industry needs in its executive material. Study the men in industry who left college five and ten years ago, both the successes and the failures. Why did they fail or succeed? Have they met the needs of industry? Second, analyze curriculum in the light of the facts discovered.... If changes are needed, they should have the courage to make them.7
We hear a great deal about the scientific approach. . . . Have the colleges tried to apply it to the question, "What can colleges do to assist industry in training executives?" They have a research program ahead of them. First, they must go and find out what industry needs in its executive material. Study the men in industry who left college five and ten years ago, both the successes and the failures. Why did they fail or succeed? Have they met the needs of industry? Second, analyze curriculum in the light of the facts discovered.... If changes are needed, they should have the courage to make them.7 In short-and somewhat paradoxically- American business schools found themselves in the position of being criticized and advised to make substantial changes in their goals and methods by critics who themselves admitted the inadequacy of much of the evidence used in indicting the schools. At the same time, the schools received more advice and less real evidence than they needed to make really meaningful and satisfactory changes.
A few universities moved to remedy the situation by carrying out research among their alumni.8 But much more research is needed before anyone can write a prescription for the kind of education that will be optimal for business executives. The chances, of course, are very good that no one prescription will suffice: no one set of courses will be best for all executives. It may well be that management will need to be taught in schools of engineering and law, if large numbers of men with these specialties continue to move into management. Business schools themselves may have to specialize-some concentrating on the preparation of functional specialists and others on the preparation of men for responsible management positions. A variety of approaches are possible. All we can really say with confidence at this point is that despite the extensive analyses which have recently been made and the soul searching which has gone on among business faculty members, a decision about what should be taught and about how, when, where, and by whom it should be taught is still a long way off. The business schools are still, to a large extent, shooting in the dark.

ADVANCED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

ADVANCED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

What about the area of what might be called "midstream" training for executives? What about the advanced management program which a number of universities, as well as organizations like the American Management Association and the National Industrial Conference Board, have developed in recent years? Are we in any better position with respect to the assessment of these programs? In a rather curious way, I believe the answer to this last question is yes. Perhaps this is because the programs are shorter and more specific in their objectives and hence are easier to assess. In any event, the research that has been carried out on these programs has, it seems to me, been more useful and has permitted us to arrive at a better assessment of these programs than of others.
In the first place, we can probably safely (if negatively) conclude-based on research efforts to date-that the actual value of these programs cannot be demonstrated. This is particularly true of university programs. Because of the imprecise methods for measuring and recording the "before" and "after" performances of executives, the many other variables operating to influence executive performance, and the small number of people involved from any one company, the possibility of objectively demonstrating that executives are improved (or changed) by their experience in brief management programs has proved impossible. Kenneth Andrews, after studying training programs, concluded that "to prove the quantitative contributions of formal education (to executive performance) may remain impossible.9 He felt that as with many other significant human institutions, the value of such education might simply have to be accepted as a matter of faith.
Many in-company programs have been studied and changes in management performance following training have been reported. The Ohio State "boomerang study," which demonstrated that a training program can have the opposite effects from those intended, is probably the best-known example.10 But from my own experience, I can attest to the difficulty in demonstrating significant improvement following training-even with in-company programs where it is possible to make use of control groups and where large numbers of supervisors operate within the same general environment. We will not for a long time (and possibly never) be able to assess rigorously the effects of most in-company executive programs.
If we can't measure the contribution that executive programs are making in any kind of formal statistical way, does this mean we can't evaluate them at all? The answer to this question is, of course, no. After concluding that quantitative proof of the contribution of the Harvard program was probably impossible to get, Andrews still went ahead and collected the reactions of hundreds of executives who had attended the program; and he subsequently obtained the reactions of several thousand men who had attended some 30 other programs. He analyzed these reactions and was able to make a number of apparently quite useful generalizations about the programs. In general, it was clear that men who had attended university executive programs thought that they were valuable and that those attending such programs had gotten a great deal from them.
We at Michigan State have been asking ourselves what our own role in advanced management programs should be. With the products of the postwar baby boom now entering college, we expect to be taxing our resources just to carry out our regular teaching programs. We have been conducting a variety of programs for executives. Should we continue these prograrns--or are they expendable in a society attempting to use its educational resources to the utmost?
We are aware that the actual contribution of these programs (like the actual contribution of our undergraduate and master's degree programs) is probably unmeasurable. We are also aware that the people who have attended our programs felt, for the most part, that the experience was valuable. But this is not enough information on which to base a decision. At the very least we need to know whether interest in and demand for them will remain constant or increase or whether executive programs are simply a fad which will pass away when fashions change. Our long-range commitment to management programs will clearly depend in part on top management interest in and support for such programs. If strong top management support exists, then, we shall probably continue the programs-even if there is no proof that they are effective. If this support is only lukewarm or even nonexistent, we shall not continue to offer them.
Following this reasoning, we wrote to the presidents of the 750 largest corporations in the United States early in 1962 and asked them for their candid opinion of university executive programs. We wanted to know if these programs were frills or fads or if they were solid educational activities that should be continued-even if this meant some curtailment of university undergraduate and graduate programs. The results indicated strong support for the continuance of such programs among companies which had used them and an even split for and against the programs among companies which had not used them.11 Thirty-two per cent of the companies responded to the survey; roughly 60 per cent of the responses came from the president or one of his vice presidents. Nearly two-thirds of the companies responding said they had sent men to university programs, and among these companies the ratio of favorable to unfavorable attitudes toward university programs was better than five to one.
Why did these companies like the university programs, and what specifically did they feel men got out of attending them? The following is a composite letter of the most favorable comments, culled from 134 responses, about university executive programs:

What about the area of what might be called "midstream" training for executives? What about the advanced management program which a number of universities, as well as organizations like the American Management Association and the National Industrial Conference Board, have developed in recent years? Are we in any better position with respect to the assessment of these programs? In a rather curious way, I believe the answer to this last question is yes. Perhaps this is because the programs are shorter and more specific in their objectives and hence are easier to assess. In any event, the research that has been carried out on these programs has, it seems to me, been more useful and has permitted us to arrive at a better assessment of these programs than of others. In the first place, we can probably safely (if negatively) conclude-based on research efforts to date-that the actual value of these programs cannot be demonstrated. This is particularly true of university programs. Because of the imprecise methods for measuring and recording the "before" and "after" performances of executives, the many other variables operating to influence executive performance, and the small number of people involved from any one company, the possibility of objectively demonstrating that executives are improved (or changed) by their experience in brief management programs has proved impossible. Kenneth Andrews, after studying training programs, concluded that "to prove the quantitative contributions of formal education (to executive performance) may remain impossible.9 He felt that as with many other significant human institutions, the value of such education might simply have to be accepted as a matter of faith. Many in-company programs have been studied and changes in management performance following training have been reported. The Ohio State "boomerang study," which demonstrated that a training program can have the opposite effects from those intended, is probably the best-known example.10 But from my own experience, I can attest to the difficulty in demonstrating significant improvement following training-even with in-company programs where it is possible to make use of control groups and where large numbers of supervisors operate within the same general environment. We will not for a long time (and possibly never) be able to assess rigorously the effects of most in-company executive programs. If we can't measure the contribution that executive programs are making in any kind of formal statistical way, does this mean we can't evaluate them at all? The answer to this question is, of course, no. After concluding that quantitative proof of the contribution of the Harvard program was probably impossible to get, Andrews still went ahead and collected the reactions of hundreds of executives who had attended the program; and he subsequently obtained the reactions of several thousand men who had attended some 30 other programs. He analyzed these reactions and was able to make a number of apparently quite useful generalizations about the programs. In general, it was clear that men who had attended university executive programs thought that they were valuable and that those attending such programs had gotten a great deal from them. We at Michigan State have been asking ourselves what our own role in advanced management programs should be. With the products of the postwar baby boom now entering college, we expect to be taxing our resources just to carry out our regular teaching programs. We have been conducting a variety of programs for executives. Should we continue these prograrns--or are they expendable in a society attempting to use its educational resources to the utmost? We are aware that the actual contribution of these programs (like the actual contribution of our undergraduate and master's degree programs) is probably unmeasurable. We are also aware that the people who have attended our programs felt, for the most part, that the experience was valuable. But this is not enough information on which to base a decision. At the very least we need to know whether interest in and demand for them will remain constant or increase or whether executive programs are simply a fad which will pass away when fashions change. Our long-range commitment to management programs will clearly depend in part on top management interest in and support for such programs. If strong top management support exists, then, we shall probably continue the programs-even if there is no proof that they are effective. If this support is only lukewarm or even nonexistent, we shall not continue to offer them. Following this reasoning, we wrote to the presidents of the 750 largest corporations in the United States early in 1962 and asked them for their candid opinion of university executive programs. We wanted to know if these programs were frills or fads or if they were solid educational activities that should be continued-even if this meant some curtailment of university undergraduate and graduate programs. The results indicated strong support for the continuance of such programs among companies which had used them and an even split for and against the programs among companies which had not used them.11 Thirty-two per cent of the companies responded to the survey; roughly 60 per cent of the responses came from the president or one of his vice presidents. Nearly two-thirds of the companies responding said they had sent men to university programs, and among these companies the ratio of favorable to unfavorable attitudes toward university programs was better than five to one. Why did these companies like the university programs, and what specifically did they feel men got out of attending them? The following is a composite letter of the most favorable comments, culled from 134 responses, about university executive programs:
I am happy to respond to your request for our views on university executive programs. This is a subject that has been of considerable interest to me and to the other members of our management group. We have sent a number of men to these programs and feel that they have definite value to U. S. business and should be continued. While it is certainly true that the bulk-perhaps as much as 90 per cent-of an executive's development comes as a result of his work experiences, we feel these programs have a definite contribution to make. They let men get away from the day-to-day pressures of the job and from the restrictive "party line" thinking that exists in most companies and allow them to do some more relaxed thinking and some healthy self-analysis. The broadening experience of rubbing elbows with men from a variety of company backgrounds is also very worthwhile. Men learn from each other; they discover that other companies have faced problems similar to theirs and have arrived at different solutions. In a good program, too, men will be brought up to date on new developments that they have not as yet learned about-they will be "updated." And then, too, the fact that a man has been picked to go to a program often has the added benefit of increasing his self-confidence and morale.

We do not feel that the benefits from these programs are entirely one-sided, either. We think it is good for the universities and the business world to get closer together. We believe that professors benefit by having their ideas and theories exposed to the challenge of men who are on the firing line. While businessmen undoubtedly need more theory, academicians also need to test their ideas against business reality. Of course, since many of these programs are held in the summer when buildings and faculty may not be utilized to the fullest, they provide added income without necessarily taking anything away from the university's primary, educational efforts.

Finally, we might suggest that these programs will probably become increasingly a normal and logical extension of the university's undergraduate and graduate teaching activities. It is hardly possible to prepare a man for a management position when he is an undergraduate or even a graduate student. Some things can only be learned after a man has had actual management experience. So advanced management programs, it seems to us, fit logically into the objectives of the university business school.

We congratulate you on this challenge you have posed to yourselves to reassess your mission. We in our company do not feel the management programs of the better universities are frills or fads. We think they should be continued.

I am happy to respond to your request for our views on university executive programs. This is a subject that has been of considerable interest to me and to the other members of our management group. We have sent a number of men to these programs and feel that they have definite value to U. S. business and should be continued. While it is certainly true that the bulk-perhaps as much as 90 per cent-of an executive's development comes as a result of his work experiences, we feel these programs have a definite contribution to make. They let men get away from the day-to-day pressures of the job and from the restrictive "party line" thinking that exists in most companies and allow them to do some more relaxed thinking and some healthy self-analysis. The broadening experience of rubbing elbows with men from a variety of company backgrounds is also very worthwhile. Men learn from each other; they discover that other companies have faced problems similar to theirs and have arrived at different solutions. In a good program, too, men will be brought up to date on new developments that they have not as yet learned about-they will be "updated." And then, too, the fact that a man has been picked to go to a program often has the added benefit of increasing his self-confidence and morale. We do not feel that the benefits from these programs are entirely one-sided, either. We think it is good for the universities and the business world to get closer together. We believe that professors benefit by having their ideas and theories exposed to the challenge of men who are on the firing line. While businessmen undoubtedly need more theory, academicians also need to test their ideas against business reality. Of course, since many of these programs are held in the summer when buildings and faculty may not be utilized to the fullest, they provide added income without necessarily taking anything away from the university's primary, educational efforts. Finally, we might suggest that these programs will probably become increasingly a normal and logical extension of the university's undergraduate and graduate teaching activities. It is hardly possible to prepare a man for a management position when he is an undergraduate or even a graduate student. Some things can only be learned after a man has had actual management experience. So advanced management programs, it seems to us, fit logically into the objectives of the university business school. We congratulate you on this challenge you have posed to yourselves to reassess your mission. We in our company do not feel the management programs of the better universities are frills or fads. We think they should be continued. Representative of the opposing and negative school of thought, contained in the 52 letters which were unfavorable to university programs, is this composite which includes the most common critical themes running through the letters:
We are happy to respond to your request for our views on university executive programs. We have never made use of any of these programs because they all took so long we felt we couldn't spare men long enough to send them. Another reason we were not too interested in these courses is the fact that we are convinced that executive development must take place on the job-there is no substitute for on-the-job experience and coaching by a man's superiors.

It may be that a few of the programs should be continued-after all, if business continues to support them by sending men to these programs, they must have some value. But it seems to us that most of these programs have just about run their course. They seem to be just another fad, with nearly every university in the country thinking it has to have one, although not all are qualified to carry out a quality program. I am wondering-and you may take this as a cynic's viewpoint-if many of the programs have not been established primarily as a means of providing additional summer income to faculty members.

Some of my friends in other companies have used these programs and report that they tend to be too general or too theoretical in content to be very Useful. These executives now prefer to send their men to the more practical short courses offered by the American Management Association or the National Industrial Conference Board.

I hope you will find these views useful as You reassess your school's activities. It is our view that the universities of this country should stick to their primary job of educating undergraduate and graduate students.

We are happy to respond to your request for our views on university executive programs. We have never made use of any of these programs because they all took so long we felt we couldn't spare men long enough to send them. Another reason we were not too interested in these courses is the fact that we are convinced that executive development must take place on the job-there is no substitute for on-the-job experience and coaching by a man's superiors. It may be that a few of the programs should be continued-after all, if business continues to support them by sending men to these programs, they must have some value. But it seems to us that most of these programs have just about run their course. They seem to be just another fad, with nearly every university in the country thinking it has to have one, although not all are qualified to carry out a quality program. I am wondering-and you may take this as a cynic's viewpoint-if many of the programs have not been established primarily as a means of providing additional summer income to faculty members. Some of my friends in other companies have used these programs and report that they tend to be too general or too theoretical in content to be very Useful. These executives now prefer to send their men to the more practical short courses offered by the American Management Association or the National Industrial Conference Board. I hope you will find these views useful as You reassess your school's activities. It is our view that the universities of this country should stick to their primary job of educating undergraduate and graduate students. These two letters cannot, of course, do justice to the richness and variety of thought and feeling contained in the 236 letters (several of them running to two and even three pages), but they do indicate the range of opinions expressed. After careful analysis of the nearly 500 criticisms and suggestions contained in the letters, we were able to reach a number of conclusions which we felt provided a guide to university efforts in the executive program field:
1. From the enthusiastic comments about certain of the better programs, it was clear that at least some of the executive programs were not frills and fads and should be continued. One executive went so far as to say that he thought a man came out of some of the best programs "wiser than if he had a college degree." In any event, there appears to be a real and continuing market for the better programs.
2. The programs' major contributions lie in their ability to challenge men to reassess their customary ideas and habits and in the opportunities they provide for men to acquire new ideas and new perspectives. These challenges and new ideas can come from both faculty members and fellow participants, which means that selection of both staff and students is of vital importance.
3. An important by-product of the programs is the link they provide between business and the university.
4. Some of the programs are clearly marginal and should be radically revised or discontinued.
1. From the enthusiastic comments about certain of the better programs, it was clear that at least some of the executive programs were not frills and fads and should be continued. One executive went so far as to say that he thought a man came out of some of the best programs "wiser than if he had a college degree." In any event, there appears to be a real and continuing market for the better programs. 2. The programs' major contributions lie in their ability to challenge men to reassess their customary ideas and habits and in the opportunities they provide for men to acquire new ideas and new perspectives. These challenges and new ideas can come from both faculty members and fellow participants, which means that selection of both staff and students is of vital importance. 3. An important by-product of the programs is the link they provide between business and the university. 4. Some of the programs are clearly marginal and should be radically revised or discontinued. A number of other suggestions were also drawn from the study but these are the major findings. They suggest that executive programs can play a valuable part in the management education process. They do not provide suggestions for specific course content, although a number of respondents argued that tailoring a program to the individual would be the ideal way of carrying
Out advanced management education. Since this is impossible in most cases, some other form of tailoring-through developing programs for individual companies, for the members of trade associations, or for men in some functional branch of a business-may well prove most valuable. What tile comments did provide in abundance was feedback of the type the Carnegie and Ford Foundation reports called for in the assessment of the undergraduate and graduate programs.

* * *

* * *
Most of the questions in the management education field have not yet been answered: What does a manager need to learn? When should he learn it? How can he learn it most effectively? It is possible that these questions can never be answered in a definitive, statistically qualified way. But the use of feedback from the executives--as in the Andrews studies and from the top managers who send or refrain from sending executives to the programs--appears to be a practical and useful way of providing working answers to these questions. This is true for both executive programs and undergraduate and graduate business administration programs. Support by United States business for continuing research into the goals and methods of management education would enable universities to test the validity of the Ford and Carnegie studies and eventually would substantially improve tile preparation that universities provide to prospective managers.

1 See, for example, Andrews, Kenneth, "Is Management Training Effective? Part I," "is Management Training Effective? Part II," "Reaction to University Development Programs"; Harvard Business Review; January--February 1957, March--April 1957, May--June 1961.
2 Harbison, Frederick, and Myers, Charles A., Management in the Industrial World, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1959.
3 Gordon, Robert A., and Howell, James E., Higher Education for Business (Ford Foundation Study), Columbia University Press, New York, 1959; Pierson, Frank C., et al., The Education of American Businessmen (Carnegie Study), McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1959.
4 For some faculty reactions, see "Proceedings, of Business Administration Conference on the Ford and Carnegie Foundation Reports, March 11-12, 1960," Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1960.
5 Miller, Herman P., "Annual and Lifetime Income in Relation to Education: 1939-1959," American Economic Review, December 1960.
6 Silk, Leonard S., "The Education of Businessmen," Committee for Economic Development, New York, 1960.
7 Kelso, A. R., "What Can Colleges Do to Assist Industry in Training Executives?" Advanced Management, January 1942.
8 See, for example, Pierson, op. cit., p.147; and the series of case studies carried out by the Carnegie Institute of Technology: Dill, William R., et al., The New Managers, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1962.
9 Andrews, Kenneth, "Is Management Training Effective? Part II," Harvard Business Review, March--April 1957.
10 Fleishman, Edward, et al., "Leadership and Supervision in Industry: An Evaluation of a Supervisory Training Program," The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1955.
11 Oberg, Winston, "Top Management Assesses University Executive Programs," Business Topics, Michigan State University, Spring 1963.

1 See, for example, Andrews, Kenneth, "Is Management Training Effective? Part I," "is Management Training Effective? Part II," "Reaction to University Development Programs"; Harvard Business Review; January--February 1957, March--April 1957, May--June 1961. 2 Harbison, Frederick, and Myers, Charles A., Management in the Industrial World, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1959. 3 Gordon, Robert A., and Howell, James E., Higher Education for Business (Ford Foundation Study), Columbia University Press, New York, 1959; Pierson, Frank C., et al., The Education of American Businessmen (Carnegie Study), McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1959. 4 For some faculty reactions, see "Proceedings, of Business Administration Conference on the Ford and Carnegie Foundation Reports, March 11-12, 1960," Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1960. 5 Miller, Herman P., "Annual and Lifetime Income in Relation to Education: 1939-1959," American Economic Review, December 1960. 6 Silk, Leonard S., "The Education of Businessmen," Committee for Economic Development, New York, 1960. 7 Kelso, A. R., "What Can Colleges Do to Assist Industry in Training Executives?" Advanced Management, January 1942. 8 See, for example, Pierson, op. cit., p.147; and the series of case studies carried out by the Carnegie Institute of Technology: Dill, William R., et al., The New Managers, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1962. 9 Andrews, Kenneth, "Is Management Training Effective? Part II," Harvard Business Review, March--April 1957. 10 Fleishman, Edward, et al., "Leadership and Supervision in Industry: An Evaluation of a Supervisory Training Program," The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1955. 11 Oberg, Winston, "Top Management Assesses University Executive Programs," Business Topics, Michigan State University, Spring 1963.

WINSION OBERG is Assistant Dean and Director of Executive Management Seminars, Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan State University, Fast Lansing, Michigan.