Opinion
The rise of executive education
Will universities ever become corporate training centres?
By Soheil Davari, Antonio Girardi
Opinion
The rise of executive education
Will universities ever become corporate training centres?
By Soheil Davari, Antonio Girardi
19 August 2026
The traditional model of linear, long-term business programmes is under pressure in the context of rapid technological changes. The entry of alternative providers further complicates this landscape, as they offer flexible learning and stackable credentials that challenge universities’ established role in professional education. Skills become obsolete far more quickly, and as career pathways grow less predictable, continuous and flexible forms of learning are increasingly needed. One response adopted by universities has been a growing focus on lifelong learning, designed to address professional demands while supporting personal and career development over time. This shift has reshaped executive education in response to what organisations increasingly need.
These structural changes are reinforced by shifting learner behaviour. Senior professionals increasingly approach learning as informed consumers, selecting programmes based on demonstrable career value rather than affiliation with a university. Many now combine university-based executive courses with online platforms, micro-credentials, and in-house corporate training, creating a multi-faceted learning journey. This has intensified competitive pressures on universities and pulled them towards short-term, market-responsive provision. In practice, many universities are reshaping their structures and priorities in response to growing pressures and in order to remain financially sustainable. While executive education becomes increasingly shaped by agility and commercial logic, universities face growing pressure to operate in ways that also resemble private training providers. This shift alters not only programme design but also institutional priorities and measures of success.
With market pressures intensifying from both learners and institutions, the risk of executive education drifting towards commercial provision increases. When responsiveness to demand begins to dominate academic judgement, clear governance is essential. It requires the academic oversight of curriculum design, clarity over the role of corporate partners and explicit principles that protect intellectual independence. Executive education units should be aligned with the institution’s mission and ensure that programmes are not driven solely by the demands of corporate partners. Universities should define clear mechanisms for partnerships and recognise faculty contributions. These help universities engage commercially while preserving their credibility and autonomy.
For many universities, executive education is becoming a financial lifeline. High-margin, short-term programmes generate a much-needed revenue stream, but they also introduce tension between responsiveness to the market and serving academic purpose. When financial performance becomes the primary driver, institutions risk mission drift, erosion of academic autonomy, and a shift toward short-term skills delivery at the expense of deeper intellectual development.
This does not mean that executive education is inherently problematic. Executive education places universities in a real tension: generating income while remaining socially responsible, academically rigorous and intellectually independent. Rather than choosing between these objectives, executive education enables a both/and approach.
University programmes can turn academic theories into real-world practices by bringing industry leaders into the classroom. They can challenge faculty to remain lifelong learners, adapting their knowledge to evolving business contexts. Financially, these programmes offer high-margin opportunities that can support sustaining institutional operations, while their design can reflect core values of ethical leadership.
But this shift ignores the traditional social contract of higher education, which positions universities as serving the public good, with a mission extending beyond vocational training. Universities are regarded as relatively autonomous institutions, protected from market pressures. The social contract between universities and society has evolved over time mainly due to technological change, which has made universities increasingly reliant on tuition fees. Executive education, however, is narrowly focused on professional advancement and corporate needs, which is not aligned with the traditional view. Essentially, executive education often prioritises market-driven outcomes over intellectual depth. Rising dependence on tuition fees and commercial income, combined with growing uncertainty, makes it increasingly difficult for universities to resist market pressures, accelerating the move towards revenue-driven provision.
Universities are not inevitably becoming corporate training centres, but they risk doing so when executive education is treated as a standalone commercial activity detached from academic purpose. Executive education serves to reinforce the university’s distinctive role, rather than dilute it, provided the curriculum remains rooted in critical inquiry and scholarly independence. Executive education strengthens universities when it extends intellectual depth into professional contexts, challenges dominant managerial assumptions and contributes to broader societal goals.
The real struggle for universities is not the curriculum, but the spirit of higher education. They need to choose between the traditional mode of delivery and the agile, ‘plug-and-play’ approach needed for corporate skills. The challenge is to adapt without abandoning academic values, ensuring that change is deliberate rather than a knee-jerk response to market pressure.