His point was simply this:  “Would you want to have a surgeon operate on you who did not have a deep understanding of physiology?”  I know I would want my surgeon to have both a theoretical or conceptual understanding of body systems, and a lot of experience actually doing the surgery. 

So, why is it that so often “theory” is used as a dirty word.  As in, “that is just a bunch of theory,”  or “that is too theoretical.”  Yet, one never hears anyone saying, “that’s just based on experience,” or “that is just too practical.” 

But, perhaps they should. 

In the best sense of the word, “theories” simply help you to make sense of complex situations by helping you to understand the pricniples or elements that are in play.  We create and test theories–though we don’t call them that–all the time. Any time you use your prior experience to guide your actions in a new situation you are doing so because you have created an implicit theory about how things work and you believe that your theory will apply to the new situation.  Of course, the only evidence to support your theory is your own experience. 

In contrast, well done research leverages the experience of others in similar situations and distills down the essential lessons. In addition, since theories in the academic world are more formal, they must stand up to intense scrutiny, and can be tested with enormous amounts of data and well-designed experiments.  I don’t actually know any reputable academic who deals in the type of theory that some think of when they think of academic theory–the armchair theorizing that is disconnected from the real world. I think the last great armchair theorist was William James, and he died in 1910. However, I do know of plenty of consultants who sell themselves as experts based on their experience, yet lack even a basic theoretical foundation for their work.  For example, many executive coaches operating today do coaching that crosses the line into therapy…and don’t even realize it because they lack sufficient knowledge of psychology.

Good executive education recognizes the importance of practical experience and theoretical knowledge and presents a blend of ”theory” and “practice.”

“Executive Education is the term used for programs at graduate-level business schools that aim to give classes for Chief Executives and other top managers or entrepreneurs. These programs do not usually end in a degree, although there is an ever-growing number of Executive MBA programs that are very similar and offer a Masters of Business Administration upon completion of the coursework.” 

This definition highlights several fundamental components of executive eductaion: 1) the providers; 2) the target audience; and 3) the comprehensiveness of the educational experience (degree or non-degree).  I suggest modifications to all three components of this definition:

1) Providers.  The Center for Creative Leadership is a good example of a top 10 rated provider of executive education that is not part of a business school.  In fact, a number of business schools have sliced off their executive education groups to allow them to run as independent corporations. 

2) Target Audience.  While most executive education providers do target “chief executives and other top managers or entrepreneurs,” you won’t find many CEOs sitting in class. Typical executive education classes are targeted to middle and upper management as well as top management. 

3) Degree vs non-degree programs.  My own personal perspective is that executive education does not include degree-bearing programs such as the Executive MBA.  Why not? Executive education is clearly focused on providing practical, actionable learning experiences to working managers, directors, vice presidents, etc.  The degree-granting infrastructure at any university must (for good reasons) use a different set of lenses to construct and assess the learning experience.  It is the very fact of imposing this degree-based logic on the educational experience that changes the nature of the learning experience and shifts it away from the core focus on providing practical, actionable learning experience to participants.  Do these experiences carry enough academic rigor to justify certain credit levels? How will we evaluate student performance?  (grades must after all be granted in degrees)…I think you get the point.