A trend I've noticed often among "business managers" (MBAs or wannabes) is to assume they can manage something they don't understand, then simply shift to the lowest common denominator of dollars and cents (or your local equivalent).

Rather than actually manage anything, they then just demand others find ways to reduce the number of dollars in the cost line, and raise the number of dollars in the profit or revenue line.

The end result tends to be foreseeable and in line with most other comments here - short-term thinking outcomes, like asset stripping, selling things to free up capital (that isn't needed) and leasing them back (to make the business look more profitable as it spirals into the ground by burning up all that capital pile, after paying a large dividend), etc.

I wonder - is there an argument in favor of this, beyond the usual "shareholder value" or "shareholder return"? Is this something that's taught or expected as part of the doctrine? Is the idea of turning complex things you don't understand into revenue a taught principle? (As in my experience, it ends up with very obvious catastrophic issues, caused by the business manager not understanding or believing the impact that will arise from the change they make, followed by them changing job before the foreseen and inevitable negative outcome arrives).

Could companies get better business managers by releasing their bonus over a period of years, so that people's true ability to perform is factored in? Aka the principle of being around for long enough to get found out, which in theory ought to get you better managers, since those who would get "found out" will avoid the opportunity?