Would the economy be better off without MBA students?
economist.com
economist.com
I think the MBA does a disservice because it often either doesn't teach "people management" at all or (worse?) reinforces hard-core Taylorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management#Taylor.27...). We get disastrous manage-by-the-numbers and "us vs. them" mentality, ultimately devaluing the role of the manager! If all you need to manage is a report that says how many widgets employee X made relative to compensation you can automate away most management.
Yes, under that definition (not all MBA programs are like that, but it seems the majority are), I think the MBA is bad for the US economy. It promotes underperformance, lack of innovation, and sucks up resources that could better be spent elsewhere.
Instead, they should teach Drucker-ism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker) and Organizational Systems Theory (http://managementhelp.org/organizations/systems.htm).
Managers can and do amazing things by enabling their coworkers to scale better by:
* Removing roadblocks that get in their way
* Listen to, and allow employees to change and shape the culture
* Coach coworkers to improve skills and develop flow
* Help mentor and guide the organization as it scales up
Though, we need far fewer of them if we leave it to stuff like this. It allows organizations to be a lot flatter and scale better without dedicated managers, putting causing downward demand on managers so it seems something most MBA programs won't adopt. Still, it would prevent wholesale manager-bankruptcy that I envision is the future for the "managing" class in most businesses.
- MBA... Master of Business ADMINISTRATION. For some reason this morphed into management material, which it isn't. the whole thing teaches you about the administrative side of running a company. awesome, useful. it does NOT teach anything about making a company successful or how to make people within it successful. it is NOT a management course.
so where can one learn management then?
1., the product success side you can't learn anywhere. hence all these shitty companies with shitty products and services. the product side is sort of covered in engineering. technical founders, for example, understand the core principle of what works and what will be an issue down the line. what is right and what is wrong.
a generic 'manager' armed with an MBA and technical background of 5 years of XBox Live just doesn't. the concept of 'wrong' or 'down the line' does not exist. excel has no formula for that.
2., the people success part is very much a soft skill which needs to be learned through practice in an enforced learning environment. current organisations that do this are the various Armed Forces (NCO and Officers) and similar orgs like the Boy Scouts. some companies emulate this through trainee programs - Siemens has a structured way of giving you a team early on, then giving you challenges. which include firing 2 people from that team after you have worked with them for a while. for real. but now you KNOW first hand how a layoff looks like. not just a spreadsheet anymore.
the armed forces gradually give you more responsibility, group, platoon, etc. you have constant feedback loops focusing on your leadership abilities, not just the pure outcome of a task. after action reviews, the whole spiel. nothing grounds you like hearing in an AAR that your team had no clue what you told them, etc.
in austria we have technology and crafts-oriented higher colleges, which have an interesting concept. i completed one for constructional engineering. not only do you learn how to calculate a large construction project (both from a structural and a economic side). you actually learn to build it with your own hands. now you KNOW how much work it is to build 1m of brick wall. so shaving off a few minutes per 1m to make a project 'viable' to build 1000m of wall in a week with 5 men doesn't come so easily anymore, because you know that the workers will simply get exhausted and produce errors and accidents. no MBA on earth teaches you this insight. backache and blisters on your hands do. humans are stupid in that way.
It's vandalism. I just did an hour of procrastinatory cyberstalking, it's the work of a high schooler in Ohio. Probably vandalizing articles they read for class.
Speculation: if not just out of frustration, perhaps sabotage against classmates reading later? Is that a thing now?
----
Last good revision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_managem...
For example, maybe all Wiki article paths should redirect to a specific version? E.g. if I go to "wiki/tree" I'll get "wiki/tree/1101" which is the version number. Then, every page can have a message at the top saying "to get to the latest revision, click here". (Just an off-the-top-of-my-head idea of how to do this).
"The professionalisation of management has, some argue, been the single biggest factor behind the economic advancements of the past 100 years."
Not electricity, rapid transportation, semiconductors/computers, telephones, the assembly line, or public investment in research. Professionalization of management. Mmkay.
It's actually a story arc in the most recent season of Downton Abbey where the middle class lawyer/businessman Matthew Crawley bails out the old-money estate and with it it's undisputed master, his father-in-law, the Earl of Grantham. Looking over the books (which, it's implied, is beneath his new status), he realises that the estate is mismanaged, running a deficit and multiple avenues of efficiency are left unexplored. He faces stiff opposition from the Earl with reference to "that's how it's been done for generations". Eventually, (spoiler alert), Matthew, his brother-in-law, a mere servant (gasp!), and the Earl form a coalition to turn the estate around.
The triumph of "the world of business and the law" over "that's how it's been done for generations" is the professionalisation of management.
Whether it's the single biggest factor is of course disputable, but it's very big.
Professionalization of management is not a phrase I've read before, but I'm assuming it means management as a profession. The benefit here is that managers are supposed to be interchangeable gears driving a company forward. The drawback is that the "interchangeable gears" idea really doesn't work in practice.
No, it's not just a part you can replace overnight, but interchangeability works like it does for software engineers. If a software engineer's career takes him from a bank to Google to an airline, nobody lift an eyebrow. A professional manager can take the same journey.
By which you mean, it does not? A lot of harm was done in the industry by trying to make programmers interchangable.
This is a concept I learned from several professors across many classes in 2 separate colleges. I've read it in management blogs too -- it's a widely held incorrect concept.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/degree_pollutio....
As suggested there (including the author's expansions in the comments), when an activity confers private benefits but at a cost in negative externalities, a traditional economic/policy response is to tax the activity in proportion to its net externalities. So perhaps excessive upper-level/professional degrees should be taxed, rather than subsidized. (That is, tax the degrees themselves, not any consequential rise in income, if any.)
"Pull for Arts Degree."
Underneath it someone else wrote. "Wipe for Business Degree."
Film at 11.
Works with : - politicians - lawyers - liberals - libertarians - communists - the military industrial conglomerate
Also work with any minority or any ethnic group, although it may result in classifying you with a special tag which is generally frowned upon.
The opposition's entire argument hinges on this one sentence, but they supply no evidence to refute the idea that this segment doesn't behave like a free market at all. As the moderator pointed out, there's no reason to believe that this is anything other than the effect of the "old boys' network".
The opposition needs to come at this from another angle - to show that an MBA gives advantage to the holder in such a way that it isn't clearly an effect of networking rather than learning. Unless they can do that, I will remain unconvinced. I will, however, admit that this a big ask. Performance of business leaders is difficult to measure in a meaningful way.
Hayek taught us to be smarter than that, dammit. I'd expect a good MBA to know that.
i have the utmost respect for his program and the people they admit - everyone i met seemed highly intelligent and extremely driven. it may yet be in my future. to anyone interested in an MBA - take a long look at Tuck. i was admitted to several elite schools and this one stood out to me. it felt the most like a family, which is what i wanted. for me, a poor 27 year old (relative to the typical MBA entrant) with a strong interest in early-stage technology, the arithmetic didn't make sense. i had a moment, late in the evening before leaving Boston for good, where i saw into a future in which i was saddled with extreme debt and forced to make decisions about where to work and what career to pursue based upon a pending loan payment rather than a passion. it would take several years post-mba to pay off the debt over which i'd begin adding expense to my life e.g. kids, house, marriage, car... i'd likely earn a great deal of money (by my measure) and i'd find myself in a strange mix of being stuck, due to circumstance, but also comfortable and content. i would pay my loans off but, would i realistically be willing/able to leave that lifestyle? the answer to me was clearly, "no." so, the choice was: take extreme risk now, when i have no baggage and next to nothing to lose or, take extreme risk never. i wasn't comfortable with the latter option. explaining this decision to my parents was a horrific experience.
Exactly. The title makes it sound as if this is some sort of binary choice. Different businesses need different pieces or backgrounds.
Anybody who has been on the receiving end of a frivolous lawsuit can understand how that's true for lawyers. But it's less obvious for MBAs. A good example, though, is Simmons Mattress:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons...
This is something I picked out from the article in a quick skim. And sums it up pretty well.
If you can get into a top 10 business school, the consensus is it's worth it. If not, it may be wise to skip it.
As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I don't think anyone is arguing that for an individual, getting an MBA from a top tier university isn't worth it. There is enough MBA-run businesses with a heavy amount of nepotism to ensure it makes financial sense.
While there are tons of successful graduates of top MBA programs, it may be a function of who is admitted and not a function of the value added by the program.
If you had a great job, lets say Investment Banking, you may go to a top business school to switch to Private Equity. To an hacker those don't sound different, but they are worlds apart.
The biggest benefit to getting an MBA is that it gives you an excuse to interview with whatever company you want to. It gives you the opportunity to really change your path. Few other places do that.
You are going to get in the trenches with the next generation of self-selected future business leaders. These are the people that will form of the nucleus of your professional network for the next 30 years.
YC is like a new elite graduate school / bootcamp for startup entrepreneurs. Just like not everyone gets into HBS or Saïd or INSEAD, not everyone gets into YC.
B-school is getting more startup and entrepreneurship oriented, but is still aimed, for the most part, at general management at mid-sized and large mainstream firms.
I don't know what the current climate is, but early in the last decade, MBAs were about half the salary of a good programmer. It was economical to hire one for about every 2-3 programmers just to offload some of their non-programming tasks (updating MS Project schedules, specifications, etc - and yes ... it was BDUF).
It gets me thinking as well, like what if people for and against the issue could vote up comments independently. So you get the the agreed talking points on both sides of the issue facing off against each other.
No one ever addresses this issue when talking about the bad aspects of MBAs.
I sometimes think it would be fun to get one (although, since I dropped out of MBA undergrad, the only easy way for me to get one is LSE or LBS or another UK or EU school).
I know finance to the extent of "how to read a balance sheet", run a startup, or do very basic investment analysis, but nothing really exciting. If an MBA actually would be useful for something beyond credentialing in operations/management, I might consider it more.
But, I also have an MBA. And I would get that again.
I don't know much about MBA programs, but don't you study Economics, Accounting, Finance...? Or Economics isn't considered technical enough?
I had the choice of getting an MBA or MS in Finance. I went for the MS Finance and took these courses; 2 stats, 2 econ, 2accounting, 2 Managerial Analysis, and 8 Finance courses as my paid for course load. I took non-required courses in Operations management, MIS, Leadership, Business Law, and Marketing at the cheap Grad student rate and sat in the same classes as MBA’s.
Go to my schools website and you can see the simple thought approach difference between an MS and MBA The MBA program landing page is all about school rank, how to get in, cost. The course work isn’t directly linked to that page. http://bauer.uh.edu/graduate-studies/mba/index.php The M.S. Finance page tells you the goals about what they want you to learn, and has the curriculum http://bauer.uh.edu/graduate-studies/ms-finance/index.php MBA programs are LARGELY about getting credentials. They are profit centers for universities, and get run that way. Most students are there to punch a card. You can see that mindset in terms of how the websites are set up.
Not all that many people do law degrees, but the Economist has repeatedly covered studies that suggest the number of lawyers we have is well above the economic optimum, that having too many lawyers harms the economy.
Further, since you have an MBA, you should be fully aware that the tiny number of MBA holders have wildly disproportionate influence on the economy. As the article says at the beginning, 40% of Fortune 500 CEOs hold an MBA. So it's entirely reasonable to ask whether the degree, like a law degree, is really benefiting everybody. Perhaps it mainly benefits MBA-holders at the expense of others.
At the very least, a business degree would be theoretically applicable for doing work in the real world. Why isn't this discussion about art, history, or political science majors?
Further, the harm, if any, of most degrees is to the person who pays for it. People are generally allowed to do stupid things that don't hurt others. But Mintzberg and others argue that the harm caused by MBAs is to the economy, while individual MBA-holders profit. That would be a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, which isn't self-correcting.
IMO, the problem is that these degrees give you the technical tools needed to function as a manager, but fall short in developing leadership skills -- which is bad news when companies automatically place McKinsey alums with top X MBA's in influential positions.