Structural models of corporate universities in the United States of America
Growing competition in the rapidly developing information society and global economy poses new challenges before businesses. Corporate sector is becoming more and more aware of the decisive role which highly qualified human resources play in the successful functioning of companies in national and international markets. The search for new ways and mechanisms of training employees lead to the creation of corporate university as an advanced form of organizational learning. In view of the importance of this innovative educational phenomenon and the diversity of ways of its realization, the authors aim to analyze the structural models of corporate universities classified by scientists based on different criteria. The methodology of the research was based on interdisciplinary and systemic approaches. We used a complex of interrelated methods: comparative, structural, systemic-functional analysis, comparison and synthesis which are suitable for the study of scientific papers, official documents, empirical data. Particular attention is focused on the main classifications which are based on the availability of campus, the way of subordination of the university in the organization’s hierarchy, form and degree of centralization of control over the corporate university. Organizational features of corporate university in the United States of America are highlighted. The authors conclude that, despite the differences between companies, particularly, in the areas of activity, missions and strategic goals, modern corporate universities in all their structural diversity become a mechanism of professional training and development, which, on the one hand, performs the function of the development of the organization aimed at ensuring its competitiveness and, on the other hand, – the function of development of employees and motivating them to continuous professional growth, which is the basis of their personal competitiveness. Thus, corporate university can be considered as a link between the sustainable development of the company and the individual continuous professional development of employees.
Allen, M. (2002). The corporate university handbook: designing, managing, and growing a successful program. New York, NY: AMACOM.
Barrow, C. W. (2017). The entrepreneurial intellectual in the corporate university. Edinburg, TX: Springer Nature.
Dealtry, R. (2001). Managing the transition to the corporate university – a synthesis of client research. Workplace Learning, MCB University Press, 13 (5), 215–222.
Dealtry, R. (2017). The future of corporate universities: how your company can benefit from value and performance-driven organisational development. Bingly, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Frazee, B. (2002). Corporate universities: a powerful model for learning. URL: http://www.clomedia.com/articles/corporate_universities_a_powerful_model_for_learning.
Hilse, H., & Nicolai, A. (2004). Strategic learning in Germany's largest companies: Empirical evidence on the role of corporate universities within strategy processes. Management Development, 23 (4), 372–398.
Kent, S. (2005). Firm footing. Personnel Today, Reed Business Information, April, 19–20.
Lipp, D. (2013). Disney U: How Disney University develops the world’s most engaged, loyal, and customer-centric employees. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.
Lytovchenko, I. (2016 a). Corporate university as a form of employee training and development in American companies. Advanced Education, 5. 35-41. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.62280
Lytovchenko, I. (2016 b). Development of higher education-industry partnership as factor of corporate education efficiency in the USA. Science and Education, 10 (CXXXXXI), 98–102. https://doi.org/10.24195/2414-4665-2016-10-19
Lytovchenko, I. (2016 c). Role of adult learning theories in the development of corporate training in the USA. Future Human Image, 3 (6), 67–80.
McKinney, J. C. (1966). Constructive typology and social theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Meister, J. (1998b). Corporate universities: lessons in building a world-class work force. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Noe, R. A. (2010). Employee training and development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ogienko, O. (2016). Facilitation in the context of pedagogical activities. Advanced Education, 5. 85 – 89. DOI: 10.20535/2410-8286.70621
Paton, R., Peters, G., Storey, J., & Talor, S. (2005). Handbook of corporate university development: managing strategic learning initiatives in public and private domains. Aldershot, Hants, England: Gower.
Prince, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). Corporate universities – an analytical framework. Management Development, 21 (10), 794–811.
Rademakers, M. (2014). Corporate universities: drivers of the learning organization. London; New York: Routledge.
Saienko, N. (2017). Cognitive development of students in foreign language acquisition. Advanced Education, 7. 4-8. DOI: 10.20535/2410-8286.77570
Wheeler, K. B., & Clegg, M. E. (2005). The corporate university workbook: launching the 21st century learning organization. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Wheeler, K., & Clegg, E. (2012). The corporate university workbook: launching the 21st century learning organization. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.