Total garbage
Course Evaluation – Critical Feedback
The course adopts an authoritarian, imposed learning style, reminiscent of a “Mussolini-style” approach, where content is delivered top-down with no room for critical thinking or participant engagement. The pedagogy relies on spoon-feeding, with lengthy paragraphs read aloud in a monotonic voice, accompanied by infantile illustrations that are wholly inappropriate for an executive audience.
It is particularly inappropriate and frankly demeaning that an audience composed of senior executives, directors, and participants who often hold PhD degrees is required to engage with basic operational content such as types of ladders, forklift utilization, or manslaughter scenarios in nuclear facilities. This content bears no relevance to executive responsibilities and reflects a profound misalignment between the course material and its intended audience. References to nuclear facilities are especially disconnected from reality, given that Italy’s last nuclear power plants were shut down in 1990, following the 1987 referendum.
Beyond content quality, the technical performance of the learning platform is unacceptable. The platform frequently crashes, forcing participants to restart entire chapters from the beginning, regardless of progress already made. As a result, what is officially presented as a 12-hour course realistically expands into well over 50 hours, constituting a significant waste of scarce executive time on content that delivers no proportional value.
The course further displays systemic bias and discrimination toward foreign workers and people of color, particularly through its treatment of language barriers, cultural background, and religion. Cultural diversity is not approached as a leadership challenge to be managed with competence and respect, but rather as a problem to be endured. For example, scenarios highlight situations in which women may refuse to be attended by a male doctor, presented not as an opportunity for cultural intelligence or inclusive management, but as an inconvenience requiring tolerance—apparently as a reminder that diversity itself is the issue. The implicit message seems to be that inclusion is acceptable only insofar as it does not disturb the dominant norm.
More seriously, the course content is discriminatory and openly problematic in its representation of women. Women are repeatedly portrayed as sources of stress, illness, or disruption, or relegated to low-quality or subordinate roles, resulting in a tone that is mocking rather than educational. The inclusion of a “female pregnant worker” as a problem scenario reinforces outdated gender stereotypes and frames pregnancy as a professional liability, contributing to a non-inclusive and biased narrative that is incompatible with modern leadership standards.
Overall, the course reflects a white male–centric worldview, lacks inclusivity, and demonstrates a striking disconnect from contemporary executive education principles. Over the course of more than 20 years of international professional experience, it is unprecedented to encounter a country or institution imposing a program of such low educational value, poor execution, and excessive time cost on senior professionals.
In summary, this course represents not a learning experience, but a compulsory administrative burden, offering no meaningful value while consuming an unreasonable amount of executive time.
Recommendations:
Redesign the program to address executive-level strategic, ethical, and leadership challenges.
Eliminate irrelevant operational content unsuitable for senior leadership.
Ensure inclusive, non-discriminatory representation across all materials.
Replace authoritarian delivery with interactive, outcome-driven learning methods.
Resolve platform stability issues to prevent loss of progress and wasted time.