Meister, Jeanne C. (1998). Corporate universities: Lessons in building a world-class work force. (Rev. ed.). Reviewed by Gene E. Fusch, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

Meister, Jeanne C. (1998). Corporate universities: Lessons in building a world-class work force. (Rev. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 256 pages $40     ISBN 0786307870 Reviewed by Gene E. Fusch Southern Illinois University at Carbondale July 13, 2001 In response to expanding global competition, increasing information technology, and changing organizational structures, some companies are employing the corporate university strategy to address their workforce needs. The exponential growth and the emergence of over one thousand new corporate universities during the past eight years affirm this trend (Peak, 1997; Meister, 1998; Allerton, 1998). The emergence of these new corporate universities does not necessarily presume the building of new edifices, nor the maintenance of the traditional ivory tower of higher education. Instead, the idea of the corporate university is a metaphor for continuous learning on the part of the whole organization, from the chief executive officer to the hourly shop-floor worker. In addition, the corporate university spans the entire adult educational spectrum, which includes the structured classes of the archetypal ivory tower and the multiple delivery methods used for shared organizational learning experiences, as well as the virtual university (Meister 1998). Training management magazines such as Corporate University Review, Management Review, Training Magazine, and Training and Development illuminate the corporate university phenomenon. Some of the articles in these publications appear to romanticize the corporate university ideology as a cure for the ailments of American corporations as they endeavor to transform their organizations from the vertical Tayloristic and autocratic structures of the past, into workplace environments that foster worker participation, decision-making, teamwork, and organizational learning. I have expressed these notions in poetic verse. A period of reshaping and rethinking corporate vision and mission, of rediscovering markets and niche— self-identity and capacity for change.… A time of continual improvement, shared learning, and corporate citizenship, and from the ivory and virtual towers of corporate universities— the birth of learning organizations (Fusch, 1999, p. 18). In a manner similar to the articles that romanticize the corporate university ideology, Jeanne Meister's (1998) book Corporate universities: Lessons in building a world-class work force promotes the corporate university ideology. Meister provides a rationale for promoting corporate citizenship, for bringing together the entire supply chain through the corporate university strategy, ten goals for corporate universities, and the practices of several successful corporate universities. Rather than discussing these ideas and practices that Meister presents in her book, I will focus here on my major concerns about her book. Scholarly Manuscript or Infomercial? Jeanne Meister discusses the results of a survey conducted of 100 corporate university deans and describes the practices of the leading corporate universities. She rationalizes the need for corporate universities, the benefits to the company and to the employee, and takes the reader through the ideology of the corporate university. Read uncritically, Meister's book appears to be a scholarly work supported by empirical research and containing a convincing message. Being an advocate of such an ideology, I too could easily embrace her work. However, closer examination of her book seems to reveal five salient concerns: 1) several assumptions appear to be insufficiently supported; 2) many of the citations noted in the text are not listed in the endnotes and bibliography; 3) seemingly contradictory statements; 4) validity of the data; and 5) there may be a latent motive for this book. Indeed, Meister's book has several assumptions that appear to be insufficiently supported. “In fact, 31 percent of our nation's children do not graduate from high school on time…” (p. 10, emphasis added). Other statements contain assumptions such as “the corporate universities here will become models” (p. 28, emphasis added) or “business organizations in the future will compete...” (p. 31, emphasis added). In reference to traditional training, there was a non- supported statement that “the student graduates and stops learning…” (p. 34, emphasis added). Other assumptions used assertions such as must and have as in the following examples: “In order to…, corporations must enter into partnerships” (p. xiii, emphasis added); “training must become a continuous process where…” (p. 28, emphasis added); “The familiar excuse—“It's the way we've always done things”—must be changed to recognize that the educational process must focus…” (p. 186, emphasis added); “American companies have watched Japanese companies create a competitive edge through a series of alliances with their suppliers and customers and have come to realize that their adversarial relationship with suppliers has hindered them” (p. 172, emphasis added); and “Companies have found that” (p. 191, emphasis added). Without supportive documentation for such assumptions, this book appears more pretentious than scholarly. In relation to the supporting documentation in Meister's (1998) book, there are several citation references in the text without bibliographical references in the endnotes. For example: There are 18 reference marks in chapter one, while, in the end notes there are only six bibliographical references. In addition, several quotations appear without any citation references. In addition to my concerns above, two contradictory arguments recurrently appear in Meister's the book. Some of the arguments suggests dissatisfaction with the traditional educational such as: “Corporate universities are essentially the “in-house” training and education facilities that have sprung up because of the frustration of businesses with the quality and content of post-secondary education” (1998, p. 12). Other suggestions indicate that companies may be satisfied and are working with traditional educational institutions such as: the “Annual Survey of Corporate University Future Directions found that nearly half of all corporate universities currently have some type of alliance with an accredited educational institution” (1998, p. 25). Throughout the text, Meister (1998) discusses her findings which appear to identify the knowledge, skill, and performance needs as well as perceived needs of individuals in the organization ranging from executive management to the shop floor worker; however, Meister's survey participants were corporate university deans and often appointed from the executive management ranks. One may propose that from the corporate university deans' managerial position, that the deans may have a limited knowledge of the perceived needs of those at the shop floor and first line supervision levels. From her study of what she called best practices, Meister suggests that management skills were needed. "What is striking about a number of these core competencies is how closely they resemble what companies traditionally regard as management-type skills" (1998, p. 17). The notion of management skills seems to contradict the arguments to provide training for increased technical skills for the non- managerial shop floor worker (Bloom and Lafleur, 1999; Judy and D'Amico, 1997). At the end of her book, Jeanne Meister who is the president of the Corporate University Xchange, Inc., promotes her companies consulting services and publication products. This promotion of her business activities may suggest that the latent motive for this book was to appear as an authoritative text in order to sell consulting services and products. Given my concerns that seem to appear throughout the book, Meister's (1998) book may have been written to appear scholarly espousing the wisdom of an authority while it may in effect be a bound volume of an infomercial. In her book, Meister offers a few suggestions including that the goal of the corporate university is to “inculcate everyone from the clerical assistant to the top executive in the culture and values that make the organization unique and special and to define behaviors that enable employees to 'live the values'” which may provoke concerns about corporate management intentions toward workers (1998, p. 39). In contrast to her potentially controversial suggestions, Meister also provides arguments for empowering workers and providing employees mobility through the portable skills. Although Meister's (1998) book appears to be a bound volume of an infomercial and that I have criticized what I view as an attempt to appear as a scholarly and authoritative work, much of the content is practical and may be supported by research. The book is pleasant to read, provides one strategy for the corporation of tomorrow, and promotes the ideology of the corporate university as a metaphor for continuous learning. It is evident from my book review, that the reader should carefully peruse any written work to interpret any latent intent as well as the lucid concepts. References Allerton, H. E. (1998). Phi beta company. Training & Development: State of the Industry Report, 52(1), 8. Bloom, M. R., & Lafleur, B. (1999). Turning skills into profit: Economic benefits of workplace education programs. New York: The Conference Board. Fusch, G. E. (1999). Organizational transition. Performance Improvement Journal, 38(10), 18. Judy, R. W., & D'Amico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020: Work and workers in the 21st century. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hudson Institute. Peak, M. H. (1997). Go corporate u! Management Review, 86(2), 33-38. About the Reviewer Gene E. Fusch, is a Visiting Instructor in Workforce Education and Development at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Illinois.