Comparing Bridging Leadership with Traditional Masteral Curriculla

by Elmer S. Soriano

We asked some 25 university professors who taught Bridging Leadership (BL) to compare the BL framework and methodologies with their current graduate schools offerings. I asked them something like this: "Why we don't we teach leadership to young professionals by putting them through your your regular MBA, MPH, or MPA instead of through this Bridging Leadership course?"

A number of them were initially taken aback by the question. I think many of the professors thought of leadership training as Executive Education, that was somewhat academically more lightweight and less textbookish that their regular masteral course.

Here's a comparison of design elements that differentiate BL from the more traditional masteral classes. I threw in an additional column comparing the typical NGO training format.

Curriculum Design Element	Traditional Courses (MPA, MBA, MPH)	NGO Training	Bridging Leadership
Target Learners	Masteral students	Community members, development professionals	Current or aspiring leaders
Logic of Training	technical skills for employment after graduation	skills for livelihood and political "empowerment"	equipping individuals to induce institutional change during the course
Presumed Problem System	simple, complicated	complex	complex
Language Used	science, management	popular education	stories, systems thinking

Overall, the Some said BL unlocked passion and purpose among their learners in ways that their regular masteral classes did not.

  The Life Map Canvas is an alternative way of describing these elements, and we'll tackle that in a different blog. 

Image credits: http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2013/nelson-mandela-on-education-as-a-weapon/