Are business schools to blame for some of this shit?

[Batgirl]

During the runup to election 2000 the Bushies swaggeringly referred to themselves as the MBAs who were going to run the country like a corporation...if this is the case, where did they learn all these bad business practices?

Was the Iraq inavasion just an 80s-style hostile business takeover?

Is the bankrupting of our treasury, the attempts to plunder working people (via bankruptcy and tort "reform", shoshecurity privatization) and the rape of our environment, simply mundane, garden variety short sighted greed?

The kind of irrational greed that occurs repeatedly when CEOs utilize tactics that lead to temporary black ink but long-term withering?

Anecdote: My brother works as a skilled tradesman for a large, global auto supplier. Years ago, the plant where he works kept a supply of parts and tools on hand -- workers like my brother would go to "the crib" when they needed something to do a particular job. But at some point, "the crib" was emptied of its inventory. When someone needed something it would have to be special ordered and overnighted to the plant.

My brother was outraged that he had to spend an hour and a half running around the plant, filling out forms, because he needed a $5 wrench. Which he didn't receive until the next day after it was specifically shipped to the plant.

This scenario played out over and over. The executive type in charge of that particular area told my brother "we don't keep stuff in the crib because this way we don't have to pay inventory taxes."

My brother was dumbfounded. By his calculations, the $ saved on inventory taxes is insignificant compared to the costs of not having the crib stocked. I mean, there are actually times when, for lack of a necessary tool or part, a production line can be shut down, leading to plants in other states having to shut down while waiting for products that can't materialize. Vast sums of money lost.

My brother realized that this manager was only concerned with how his particular department looked on paper. The lost productivity to the company as a whole, as well as the ridiculous costs of shipping items on an as-needed basis, didn't come from his budget. But the inventory taxes did.

Thus, this manager was costing the corporation huge amounts of money while making himself look good. (But you know, the real reason cars cost so much is those lazy, unionized shoprats!)

This is just one tiny example of a pervasive mindset that seems to infect the minds of managers and executives.

According to my brother, most of the managerial types in "the shop" are no longer "car guys" -- they're freshly minted MBAs who seem to only know how to use smoke and mirrors to make their little feifdoms look good to the higher-ups.

Anecdote: One of these MBA wizards made a foray out onto the shop floor and thought a row of retractable hoses looked "too cluttered." He ordered them removed, except for one that was shortened by several feet. Trouble was, these hoses were connected to power tools that had to reach along a large metal lathe. The guy who worked on that machine showed up for his shift and went apeshit when he saw how this manager had made it impossible for him to do his job with his "improvements."

It required a lot of screaming and cursing before the order was given to unimprove his work station.

I think these anecdotes illustrate a lot of the mismanagement of our country right now. These people aren't thinking long term, they can't see beyond their noses. Temporary, artificial gains, and don't worry about what things are going to be like in ten or 20 years.

If they have to doom a significant portion of the working class into poverty, well if God wanted us to provide a safety net for elderly or disabled people, he wouldn't have invented faith based organizations.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. MBA's are ruining America!

[ProfessorGAC]

22. Not All Of Us

I've got one. I'm not ruining this country. I teach in one B-School now (part time) and i'm the one saying that a corporations duty extends BEYOND the bottom line and the stockholders' enrichment. Some of us are ok.
The Professor

[ultraist]

2. LOL! That's good

But, I think they are getting exactly what they want, being the crafty, unethical businessmen that they are. They are in it for their own short term gains. They don't care about the long term health of our economy or regular Americans.

It's corporate raider mentality or Enron CEO mentality. Rob the everyday stock holder (the employees or regular Americans) in order to rack up enormous personal wealth. They know exactly what they are doing.

[booksenkatz]

3. Shrubbie IS running America like a company

He's running it into the ground, like Arbusto, but he's enriching himself and his cronies thoroughly before the final crash.

[BigBearJohn]

4. Seems like the same thing that brought down the Roman civilization

[Warpy]

5. They're to blame for most of it

B-school graduates are trained in one thing and one thing only, wringing the last penny available and putting it toward the bottom line.

They rarely know anything about the businesses they are hired to run, and their personnel skills extend to developing and/or using formulas that say when a longterm and well trained employee becomes more expensive to keep than an untrained employee right out of high school is to hire and keep for a few years.

The corporate managerial culture is the closest thing to pure evil I've seen in my lifetime. Come the revolution, the B-schools are the first institutions that need to be levelled.

[EVDebs]

10. The Wharton School wrote the book on 'outsourcing' n/t

[NewJeffCT]

6. It sounds good to many

But, many didn't realize in 1999-2000 that Bush was a FAILED businessman, despite having a ton of advantages from his Daddy & his Saudi friends.

Most people only see the bottom lines on big corporations like Wal-Mart ($250 billion in revenue); GE ($100 billion); and see the huge bonuses that CEOs get. However, having worked in two big corporations (one was top 25 when I started, the other was borderline top 100), big corporations are also rife with inefficiencies, redundencies, waste & fraud. The difference is the government is accountable to the people, while the corporation is accountable to the stockholders.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Undubitably. So is making doctors business-minded, and allowing

lawfirms to break the public sector/private sector conflict of interest boundaries.

[vpigrad]

8. Repukes will spend $10 to steal $1 from the public!

> we don't have to pay inventory taxes."

Example #1. So rather than pay money that they owe to us, they decide to steal from us by not keeping it in inventory. Companies should pay their fair share and stop stealing from the public. It people like that that need to be put in prison for stealing from us for not paying their taxes.

[xchrom]

9. the streets of america are paved with gold.

this is the goal of higher education for so many americans -- and yes it affects the country at it's deepest levels.

it's a skewed way of looking at the world -- and passes over social responsibility as part of the importance of Being.

so many good brain cells wasted on thinking about business.
and creating what has virtually become a closed society for a few and a debt ridden mire for the rest.

[applegrove]

11. They just pick and choose the tools they want. It is okay to go after

regulators, employees, suppliers, just like MBAs are taught it is okay to treat all of these like competators.... and then Bush & co get to put the government in debt. A poison pill that really poisons.

[Democrats_win]

12. MBA motto: Justify your job by doing whatever pops into your head.

[Karenina]

13. Coupla decades ago

down in the Village, over flavored vodka, I was informed by Soviet dissidents that the U.S. would be destroyed by the Harvard Business School.

[datasuspect]

20. decades ago?

in the village?

i bet THAT must have been interesting.

lucky devil. . .

[Karenina]

29. Indeed it was.

In the Soviet Union their support was in their intelligent, educated, clear-sighted and dangerous dissent. In Manhattan they noted well how "free" they were to STARVE and NO ONE cared. We were all college kids at the time...

[Tsiyu]

14. The human has always wanted something for nothing

It seems modern corporate accounting practices are designed to let the human have something for nothing while appearing educated and respectable.

This way of conducting business has destroyed us.


Repeat as many times as necessary: You can't get something for nothing.

Example: All the fools who supported * because they got a "free" tax cut cost our soldiers the body armor they needed, and caused them to have to go fight an unjust war unprotected. The tax cut recipients sold out their own citizens for a few hundred bucks, never seeing the true cost.

YOU CAN'T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

[burythehatchet]

15. I'm an MBA and I don't think I'm to blame

You are looking at symtoms. The disease is raw capitalism. When decision making is constrained by making the next quarters numbers, then all sensible alternatives are rendered invalid. Having said that, I can tell you that there are plenty of evil bastards who wouldn't know the right thing if it bit 'em in the ass. However, most of us are trying to balance competing objectives.

As for me, I have had very high paying corporate jobs but I tend to leave them when I am forced to make decisions that go against my value system. I realize that is not a common position.

[Batgirl]

16. the question is not directed at you personally

I have a lot of respect for honest businessmen, entrepreneurs, innovators...

But how can real talent and ability thrive in a system that's designed to benefit the grotesquely huge entities who can afford to pay politicians to implement custom-designed legislation?

A system that rewards lying, cheating, cooking the books, etc. is a system that PUNISHES THE VIRTUOUS.

A few years ago I toiled at a graphics job in a large corporation. After having worked for small companies, I thought I was escaping a petty soap opera and joining the real world where sanity would reign.

Instead I saw even more of the pettiness, more of the soap opera, but the people dressed much spiffier. They also were much less productive, since a lot of their energy was devoted to evading responsibility and passing the buck.

In this corporate environment, most people were concerned with protecting their turf and maintaining the status quo. If there was a better, cheaper, faster way of doing something, it would never be implemented, because changes had to come from the wizards at the top, from the very people who were too busy trying to figure out the difference between their asses and their left elbows.

The people who actually did the work, who could see how improvements could easily be made to various ways of doing things, had no voice.

Outside "consultants" were brought in to determine how efficiency could be increased.
One brilliant development was that all of us several thousand employees had to memorize the company creed, which of course was a string of words that seemed to mean nothing in particular. The "consultants" could go up to anyone at any point in the day and ask them to recite this, and we were made to understand that a failure to do so would have unfortunate consequences that were never spelled out. (maybe we would be sent to some kind of "re-education" camp).

The consultants also imposed a complex bureaucratic layer of procedures that were supposed to keep jobs on track and eliminate waste and redundancy. Tremendous amounts of paperwork had to be filled out to prove that these procedures were being followed. Of course, the procedures had very little to do with reality -- adhering to them would have meant that nothing would ever get done. So more time was wasted creating false paper trails to give the illustion that the procedures were being followed.

I really doubt the consultants were fooled by any of this. And why should they care? They got paid huge money for their services. As long as the suits at the top could stride about arrogantly thinking they were "proactive", the consultants would still get paid.

This was also my first experience with the flow of information being strictly controlled. Corporate execs of large firms do not share information with mere employees, after all.

Which in my opinion is a big reason for the secrecy of the Bush administration. It comes from the mentality of being the top executives of the corporation.

They don't see themselves as being stewards of our democracy, they are the bosses of the country.

They aren't working for us, the citizens. We are working for them. They owe us nothing, least of all an explanation. Our existence is allowed at their pleasure. They run the place, we are here to empty their wastebaskets and make sure the toilet doesn't back up in the executive washroom.

[datasuspect]

18. wow! did they have TPS reports too?

working in corporate america is one of the singularly most depersonalizing and alienating experiences i have ever had the misfortune to subject myself to.

[Batgirl]

23. no, but TPS reports are to ISO compliancy

as a mosquito bite is to being swallowed by a whale

[datasuspect]

24. ha ha!

what you wrote reminded me of that movie office space . . .

[info being]

32. We're a lot alike

I'm an MBA too, and I think we can go one of two ways. The thing is, the curriculum teaches you to look at things from a higher level...so you actually understand the connections and interworkings of the economy.

Those of us who care about humanity graduate with not just a strong ability to get things done in an organization, but a clearer view of the consequences of our actions. Those who are only in it for the money simply conform to the pre-existing corporate mission and make it happen. Then there's another bread, I guess...the CEO and politician MBA's, who simply loot a company or a country and use their knowledge to fool everyone. There are probably a few other types that I'm forgetting.

[Batgirl]

34. what do you call this type?

The kind that gets fixated on a truly bad idea, then claps his hands at his minions and regally orders them "make it so!" Sometimes, everyone in the organization except for Genius A knows instantly that this idea is tragically wrongheaded. Genius A goes home to brag about his idea and even his cat knows that it sucks.

But not one person in the company will tell him so, either because they've figured out a way to personally benefit from the plunge into stupidity, or because they've noticed that people who offer their honest opinions don't work there anymore. Also, the immediate underlings like going to lunch with the boss, they like the feeling of belonging to the inner sanctum, they like their fat paycheck. And the only way to secure these things is to assure the boss that his cherished idea is the best thing they've heard of since prelubricated condoms.

Because that's the kind of boss Bush is, as evidenced by him surrounding himself with yes-men.

[info being]

37. That probably happens for a few reasons

I have a bad habit of trying to answer rhetorical questions, which yours certainly is...but

First off, that kind of boss is a moron. He/she has probably always been a moron, but it probably didn't help that, for 20 years or whatever, employees never pointed out what a moron said individual is (for the reasons you mention).

I'll also suggest that, if said scared and timid employees who fail to correct said boss weren't so scared...maybe this would never happen.

Personally, when I got to a point in my life where I had enough money in the bank that I didn't care about losing my job, I stopped acting out of fear. Today, if my boss is wrong I'll tell him he's wrong. If I'm producing value they'll keep me around. If I'm not, they'll let me go. Either way, the whole situation is more on my terms. But that is only possible when people stop getting into debt and start saving.

The funny thing is: that's when the real career success starts. When you aren't scared.

[Batgirl]

38. the real mystery is

how do so many of these "morons" climb so far up the ladder and thrive? It's hard to believe these are the rare exceptions when we have an entire administration that is based on this dynamic.

A for "real career success" only starting when people are outspoken in their criticism of the boss, all the yes-men the execs at the corporation I used to work for were all living the good life.

The head honcho build himself a notoriously huge mansion as the company's fortunes were sliding downward and worker raises and Christmas bonuses were eliminated.

Several "re-orgs" resulted in various layoffs of employees, not the people in the executive suites.

When he ultimately left, he'd screwed up so badly many of us were naive enough to think he wouldn't be hired anywhere else. But not to worry, he quickly landed another lofty position at another company.

[info being]

42. I'm still trying to figure that out too

Believe me, I've watched many looter-types go from one VP position to the next. My theory is that these people have one big break that earns them that status. For example, at some point they get lucky and latch on to a huge success. Or maybe they pay their dues in a difficult envrionment like Accentre. From there, its all about connections.

I'm not willing to pay my dues. I will create value on my terms and get paid a fair price for doing so. I also don't really care about being a corporate VP.

[Pithy Cherub]

39. Classic answer - focuses down, not up or laterally.

Where is the "boss/leader" in your equation? Ah, more rhetorical questions. :)

Lower level employees are a bellweather as to the type of leader at the top. The environment is only trust based when the leader shows welcome to contrary ideas, rewards risks (success & failure)and gives performance feedback continuously. The best of the best show employees how their work is meaningful on a regular basis.

You are more accurate than you will ever know about savings - it is the key to being more authentic in the workplace and having dignity about principles. Good for you! You practice what you preach. ;)

[info being]

41. I in no way mean to shift the blame from the boss

But I've seen an incompetent VP nearly cry when the company revolted against him in a meeting. Since then, he's been much better. You gotta stand up for yourself because nobody else will do it.

[info being]

43. Just like...

A government won't "behave" unless the people stand up for themselves. Same thing in a corporation. People have to be willing to sacrifice and take chances to get to a better place. It is the nature of the ruler / subject relationship...the subject only gets enough to keep him/her from demanding more.

[Pithy Cherub]

44. People have spoken up, died and gone to jail to stand up for rights.

Voting outgrowth of democracy in a republic. Majority rules in government and in the board room. A failure of leadership at the "people's" level are those within the majority abandoning principles to curry favor, a la Colin Powell. The minority's elected representalvies also went against the people to vote for IWR.

However; your premise is targeted towards a "one ruler" principle rather than many partners. The MBA mindset that is being derided here is the singular focus on the most powerful person rather than building partnerships and coalitions. What's missing form your thesis is an appreciation of the time factor to deploy multiple means to influence and outcome.;)

Again, you are to be commended for taking charge of your own career by being free to choose your work environment.

[info being]

45. I may be the MBA, but you're complicating the issue

Colleages need to band together and take care of their mutual self-interests as it clashes with corporate interests. Instead, too often, we employees cower and compete. Its not that difficult.

[Pithy Cherub]

17. There is an OUTSTANDING book that documents MBA's

performance is not what most people would guess. It is factually done and footnoted. A scholar(doctorate) and former head of a top notch MBA business school program wrote it. This treatise is done with humor and directness about the failures of MBA's as leaders due to the educational style deployed by America's top business schools. It is a devastating critique and perscription combined with how MBA's are coarsening businesses with their analytical approaches.

H. Mintzberg, "Managers Not MBA's."

[Batgirl]

21. interesting

I wonder if the author's insights would be useful in trying to understand the way this CEO administration is running our country...sounds like a trip to the library is in order

[Pithy Cherub]

25. Mintzberg specifically addresses that in the book...

and he goes on to say how it dehumanizes and the tradeoffs on value systems that make people do it - they are taught sometimes inadvertently) how in MBA classes. Well worth the read! :)

[ProfessorGAC]

26. I've Read It. It's Horrible

It's clearly the conclusions of a researcher who wanted that result before he started.

The analytical approach is exactly what this country needs, not managers. The MBA's who see the first resort of cost cutting to be headcount reduction aren't analyzing a thing. Anybody with an IQ higher than broccoli can do that.

The analytical business types are the ones that drive strategic decisions to improve corporate performance WITHOUT cutting heads.

The problem is there are too few at the top of the big, big corporations who are participating in the analyses and understand the results. (Of course, there are execs who do understand. I don't want to indict all of them, the way Mintzberg indicted all of us.

And yes, i'm being defensive here.
The Professor

[Pithy Cherub]

27. Have to give you major props for being open to reading it.

Let me admit that from the end user perspective - as an exec that did the hiring of MBA's, and sat at the C level with peers who are MBA's.

The analytical approach led to an amazing amount of groupthink of the worse sort. The reason most M&A activity fails so agonizingly often is because of the narrow focus on strategic acquisitions from a "calculating, heroic management style" that was not balanced by the behavioral, entrepreneurial or vision side.

It is a matter of degree and I would not indict ALL - just stating that his information is borne out in the corporate environment too often for his theory not to have a lot of merit. It gives pause to outstanding educators to ask questions about how to ensure that is not the end product of their programs.

You are showing that you have at least considered there is some truth to what he states. ;)

[ProfessorGAC]

28. I Can Buy That Cherub

I question his scholarship on it, but i can understand your POV.

However, it has been my experience that if the presenter of the information, and the driver of the change based upon the findings has any charisma, the groupthink doesn't appear as readily.

One major chasm in many industries is the inability of HR to understand the importance of sheer charisma in leadership. You know and i know that there are some people we would follow into a burning building. I'm sure we've known some managers who couldn't get people to follow them OUT of a burning building. It's "leadership" based upon power, not upon LEADING.

The analytical approach, IMO, is not the root cause of that problem, but an inability to root out empire building, groupthink that's already in place, and leadership by fiat that causes the overall environment you describe.

I completely understand what you're saying. But i think that indicting the analytical approach misidentifies the root cause of what is wrong in many major corporations today. The misread of the importance of force of will and the energy imparted by charismatic mid-managers has caused stagnation, risk aversion, and leads to micromanaging from the top.

I think you'll understand my different, but not polar opposite viewpoint.
The Professor

[Pithy Cherub]

30. Thank you esteemed Professor! Our conclusions align, yet

our root cause analysis is based on our differing perspectives. Charisma undiluted by consequences and empathy are also great causes of professional failure. An exaggerated sense of entitlement is prevalent in the executive ranks. The dynamic of selection criterion for the team demonstrates a prediliction to hiring those who represent a similar value statement thereby effectively reducing and marginalizing a "maverick's" influence.

We both view the intangibles and levels of competencies as being critical to a leader. The problem is how often that is forced to take a backseat to being able to 'prove' it by numerical and empirical examples to the exclusion of sheer intuition (based on experience). Mintzberg is brilliant on emergent strategic planning (another book) which arises out of the tangible and intangible business environment.

Your summation on HR is correct. HR is not usually an equal at the table and is brought in to clean up after the elephant stampede. However; the top leader remains accountable for creating cultural climates that espouse what is valued... and so it goes! :toast:

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Cheers To You As Well

Just so you know, i work full time in industry. The professor thing is a part time deal, because the full time dream died when i kept making more money in industry than i ever even hoped to make. So, i dropped the dream of full tenured professorship and went to work in industry. Figured i could help make the system better from within.

I'm a level 13 in a multinational with 16 levels (16 being CEO). So, i too am familiar with the goings on at the highest level. I'm not at the highest level, but close enough to directly observe and critique.

Methinks our perspectives are more similar than either of us might think, from our first two posts.
The Professor

[Trailrider1951]

19. LOL, "...run this country like a corporation..."

Enron?

[info being]

31. I'm an MBA, ask me anything

[Blue_Tires]

35. i say they certainly share some of the blame for enron n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. I wonder if it's MBAs who are going around telling companies that

the way to improve their bottom line is to treat both their employees and their customers worse, because that's what I hear about and see constantly: employees getting screwed over and customers being treated worse and worse.

[OrlandoGator]

40. I am a current MBA student.

And I think the business schools do an excellent job of emphasizing ethical business practices and accepted accounting methods. It's when the MBA's get to the real world and realize that their job completely hinges on fiscal year EBIT that you start getting the "Enron-style" accounting.

[bleedingheart]

46. what you are describing is a JIT type system

Just-In-Time or some form of MRP-ERP system (Materials Resource Planning or Enterprise Resource Planning)

However it seems like a very inappropriate use of those types of systems.

I am an industrial engineer and one are of expertise for those in my profession is resource planning so that not too much money is dumped into inventory that is sitting on the floor taking up needed space or being taxed. Typically these systems are designed for manufacturing facilities so that they have the inventory that they need but not so much that they end up having parts go to waste or become obsolete. On the common sense side of it...think of an automotive plant. They don't want to keep a month's worth of tire inventory on hand because it would require an immense amount of storage space and there are risks of damage and pilfering...so they might only keep 3-4

Do these systems work? Yes
Are they appropriate for every situation? No
Do they require common sense and some research of the process? Yes

The system you describe to me sounds poorly implemented and possibly (very likely) inappropriate.

I have worked with systems like this for maintenance departments and they typically involve keeping common products on hand in inventory and utilize barcode systems which keep a log of what department/individual takes out items. (This helps track what department is charged for the item and it might also help give an indication of problems related to equipment in that department as well...if Part A keeps being replaced on Machine 1 then more than likely it might be more cost effective to replace Machine 1)

....sorry to geek out..

[bleedingheart]

47. additional note...

I do want to point out that I think that it is the inherent greed of certain individuals that ruin any good system...including the government. Whether it is personal gain or glory there are people who will move forward with the dumbest of ideas...

I personally think that there are many systems that could be improved upon but that can't be done easily.

I shudder at the incompetence of many of the individuals in the Bush administration and I don't believe it is "MBA" as much as the ideology of greed and selfishness that some of these people had well before they got their educations...(which many squandered..)