Search

The Minnesota Executive Program is a six-week course for experienced senior executives who must work with the chief executive officer in formulating overall corporate strategy and establishing policies to guide the implementation of that strategy. It was introduced in early 1971 when the first group of Chief Executive Officers attended a 3 1/2 day seminar on corporate strategy. As far as we know the Minnesota Executive Program is the only University-sponsored program designed chiefly for experienced senior officers. Thus far its main appeal has been to medium-sized ($40-200 million sales volume) companies. An attempt is made to enter into a four-year Member Firm agreement with all participating companies. The agreement between the company and the Graduate School of Business Administration is as follows: 1) The Chief Executive Officer agrees to attend a 3 1/2 day seminar on corporate strategy at which he obtains an overview of the six-week course for which he will be nominating applicants. 2) The company agrees to nominate at least three senior vice presidents to attend the six-week course (no more than one man per year) over the four-year period subsequent to date of signing the agreement. 3) The Chief Executive Officer agrees to serve on the Minnesota Executive Program Advisory Board which meets once a quarter to provide input and policy guidance to the program. To date over 85% of Minnesota Executive Program (MEP) registrants have come from Member Firms. The purpose of the Minnesota Executive Program is to achieve an effective impact on the organizational climate or a participating firm by providing an opportunity for several of its top executives to: 1) Enhance general policy and strategy-making skills. 2) Develop greater sensitivity to and understanding of major environmental trends as they affect the long-run outlook and markets of a firm or industry. 3) Develop skill in utilizing environmental intelligence data for making more effective decisions. 4)... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author examines organizational problems and questions if educational remedies are the best route to take in solving these issues. He states that public University-sponsored conferences and seminars are useful, but that "educating" managers will not always lead to solutions with management issues. He asks if companies can perform their own diagnosis of problems and if managers might be expecting too much from formal education. He asks for suggestions on what actions committees should take.