alfadriver said:
The worst problem with the higher ups with MBA has been the shift to making shareholders happy. That initiative is the worst thing that can happen to a company, as it immediately shifts focus to the short term. Instead, we should have been following Toyota's example of selling great cars that get better every year- and the stock price will follow.
This may be the best, most true thing I've ever read on the whole internet.
"Buy the cheap machine instead of the good one, it will make our numbers better" right up until we need to replace it five years instead of the 25 we would have got out of the good one.
"Lean manufacturing will save us so much on storage and inventory" right up until there is a hiccup in the supply chain and production comes to screeching halt
"Keeping wages low will increase our profits" until we cant keep quality people and production and quality suffer
bmw88rider said:
The real killer of corporate America is private equity and CEO pay structures and not MBAs.
Unfortunately I agree, but that is driven by people using MBAs to justify these things. I'd like to add 'legal asset stripping' by the private equity firms as well.
Not wanting to head this down patio road, but I would also say 'Lobbying allowing corporations to pay so little than people need government subsidy to live, when they should be able to live off their wages'
SV reX said:
I agree, though I still wish I had gotten an MBA.
It can be very useful but there are a lot of ways to get similar education into your brain.
I was lucky and could take a year off for an MBA program to gain a perspective on the rest of the business outside of software development. Nothing too good was available as a remote program. If looking now would consider exactly what I wanted/needed to learn and find short programs to fill the holes.
paddygarcia said:
It can be very useful but there are a lot of ways to get similar education into your brain.
Absolutely. I've learned 1000x more about marketing from doing this job than I did in my classes. But that piece of paper is a very valuable thing in corporate America.
Let me put it this way, if my previous employer hadn't paid the $60k-plus tab for me to get my MBA, there's no way I ever would have done it. I can only imagine what they cost now.
In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
Just looked. Assuming you're still talking about the university of over priced and over rated, it's $135K for a part time MBA at the Ross school of business.
And Tom, you know I'm not referring to you when I'm making my comments, I specified the 'bean counter mentality' exhibited by many in positions who hold MBA's
From time of starting mba to now. I have increased my salary 5X. Could I have done it without an MBA, sure. But it worked for me
.
Lots of Exec's don't have masters degrees..
I'd say the biggest issues are the big 3 consulting firms, PE, and the quarterly profit trap..
Most entrepreneurs don't have MBA's.. They're good at building but terrible at managing.. People like Zuckerberg and Bezos fill their companies with MBA to manage the company not build new interesting things.
Fueled by Caffeine said:
From time of starting mba to now. I have increased my salary 5X. Could I have done it without an MBA, sure. But it worked for me
That is awesome. Well done. May I ask how much you use your MBA day to day Vs the MBA helped get you the job?
And as I keep saying, its the bean counter mentaility, not the MBA that can be the issue.
MBA or not sounds like a lack of leadership, strategy. It's really easy to drive a business into the ground, you don't even need to try.
gearheadmb said:
alfadriver said:
The worst problem with the higher ups with MBA has been the shift to making shareholders happy. That initiative is the worst thing that can happen to a company, as it immediately shifts focus to the short term. Instead, we should have been following Toyota's example of selling great cars that get better every year- and the stock price will follow.
This may be the best, most true thing I've ever read on the whole internet.
"Buy the cheap machine instead of the good one, it will make our numbers better" right up until we need to replace it five years instead of the 25 we would have got out of the good one.
"Lean manufacturing will save us so much on storage and inventory" right up until there is a hiccup in the supply chain and production comes to screeching halt
"Keeping wages low will increase our profits" until we cant keep quality people and production and quality suffer
Yep. The priority of short-term profits over long-term sustainable growth is a nightmare.
Same people, when I was at a previous job, who started using our "Engineering facility" in India to handle drawing changes because the Engineer in India still made less than I did.
But when you looked at it practically, the time difference, the fact that they could rarely handle a simple red line change on an AutoCad drawing......it ended up costing more to use their cheap labor because it could be 2 days for a change vs 30 minutes for me to just do it.
I always wondered how someone in a much higher paid position than me was able to justify such things.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
I had to change career and companies a few times. I moved from manufacturing to E-commerce. In E-commerce I did Customer experience, Programs, operations, and Strategy... Then back to aerospace where I lead a Product Support organization... After a terrible merger.. I went back to E-commerce..
It's not been easy..
Now using the MBA.. I I'm nearly 15 years out of the program. I was low to mid level engineer when I took the courses. I'd say that my MBA really helped me switch my view to be longer term.. Looking at business impacts from all angles and choosing the right decision based upon the data and the impacts to customers... Do I use any of my marketing classes,,.... no..
Sure, we can blame the bean counters, but that is merely finding a scapegoat. We could take the broader view that virtually every element of modern society is at fault. Stockholders insist on year-over-year profitability and the commensurate increase in share price. Customers, be they corporate or retail, insist on the lowest price product that will get the job done. Employees want the fast track to big salaries and will jump at any lucrative offer.
Gone are the days that a man (or woman) would take the time to learn a company's business from the ground up. Gone are the days that would see customers willing to pay more for a product that was built a bit better and last a bit longer and need fewer repairs.
We have found the enemy, and he is us.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
You're not wrong.. We all want our 401K's to go up up up up up and don't tolerate when companies don't do well for investing into new tech or better service or better service offerings...
I do disagree with this statement. " Gone are the days that would see customers willing to pay more for a product that was built a bit better and last a bit longer and need fewer repairs. "
An element of consumers will always pay more for items that last longer and need fewer repairs. See used toyota prices and other things built relatively well...
I'd say that there never was a time that people would pay more for a more quality product. See Economic Utility (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utility.asp) The example of 1970's riding mowers comes to mind. Today people talk about how these old Deere 110's were strong and built to last and how today's mowers are garbage and don't last as long.. But.. these mowers were serious money back in the day, the price of new cars.. They were not the $1500 lowes/depot special we all purchase now because it fits the consumers needs.
I think as long as tasks have become complicated enough to require management to coordinate them, there's a fundamental problem: The skills needed to be in charge of a project aren't the same ones needed to actually do the jobs the manager is managing. It's a different skill set. And sometimes people try to be in charge without realizing that they don't have the same skill set at actually doing the job.
So in this time and place, an MBA is one path for the sort of shiny happy person who wants to be in charge without learning their subordinates' jobs. In other times and places, it's been other qualifications, like noble birth, membership in the one-party rule, or what have you. Making sure one of the first classes in an MBA program might be "Your subordinates probably know how to do their own job; your job is to ensure they are working on the right task" might help specifically with MBAs, but won't fix the underlying problem.
1988RedT2 said:
Employees want the fast track to big salaries and will jump at any lucrative offer.
Employees shouldn't give loyalty to companies that don't have loyalty to them. In many cases, the *only* way to get a meaningful raise is to switch companies.
In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :
There are examples where this is not true. Ups and Walmart for example but in general Loyalty to a company only gets you a terrible salary and stagnating growth.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
Your also missing a point where there just aren't quality options period in a lot of cases. There's a lot of cheap crap, but there's a lot of expensive E36 M3(picture this capitalized for effect) too.
Innocuous example, but after two years of searching I still can't find seals at ANY price point that last more than a weekend in some of my old carbs. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd pay $5-10 for what should be a $0.25 o ring if it could hold up to fuel for more than 8 hours. Well there's NOS carb units for $100, that are now 50 years old and still in original boxes, or just replace the motor altogether for $125 and hope it lasts a season.
I'm having a hard time coming up with an example where I spent more for "premium" products and it wasn't a total piece of E36 M3 just like the cheaper version. Weed sure, booze sometimes, but physical products to use? Maybe stuff that is lighter, or more ergonomic, but still disposable quality despite being 3-4 times the price.
Top dollar ball joints for the P71? Garbage. Triple cost for good solid rotors on the Ranger? Warped in a month. Any new appliance that doesn't say "commercial" on the front, and even half that do? Maybe a year, before the repair bill doubles the cost.
Wait! You all want to scapegoat all the problems onto someone else?
I think I know who the problem is...
1988RedT2 said:
Stockholders insist on year-over-year profitability and the commensurate increase in share price. Customers, be they corporate or retail, insist on the lowest price product that will get the job done. Employees want the fast track to big salaries and will jump at any lucrative offer.
Gone are the days that a man (or woman) would take the time to learn a company's business from the ground up. Gone are the days that would see customers willing to pay more for a product that was built a bit better and last a bit longer and need fewer repairs.
If companies offer competitive raises without having to jump companies, most people wouldn't jump from company to company
Hang on, for all the people here mindlessly blaming 'MBAs' there are more of us here pointing out that it's the way the people who have MBA's are asked to use them by management. For every Elon, who is just a showman who loves his grandiose proclamations, there are many companies who are using the knowledge of their employees with MBAs to drive down cost today, at the expense of the worker, and the companies future. As has been pointed out, there was a time about 10-20 years ago when in many industries, but especially automotive, that were pushing hard for everyone to get an MBA. It was seen as the next golden bullet to company success. No Engineer was going to get past the first step of management without one. I know a lot of Engineers who got MBAs at this time. Some it helped, some it didn't, but at the end of the day, these people are not what people are talking about when blaming MBAs. I didn't get one as my dyslexic brain sucks at the type of questions on the GMAT so after looking into it and doing some practice tests I decide not to go that rout, but it's worked out OK for me.
The real issues are those caused by other areas of business and society, that depend on people with MBA's to deliver the product. Discussing those issues get's close to no politics rule so there's no need to go further than has been alluded to by (me) and others. Elon blaming MBA's is like like saying nut runners are the problem with manufacturing, as every mechanical recall involves a part installed with a nut or bolt installed by a nut runner. It's the old 'bad workman blames his tools' issue. If Tesla is filled with people who spend too much time creating Power Points (and joking aside, it's a great format for presenting information, but again it's a tool, not the root cause). Then the issue is on Elon, and the people he put in charge of setting policy and hiring people, it's not on the qualification those people have.
93EXCivic said:
1988RedT2 said:
Stockholders insist on year-over-year profitability and the commensurate increase in share price. Customers, be they corporate or retail, insist on the lowest price product that will get the job done. Employees want the fast track to big salaries and will jump at any lucrative offer.
Gone are the days that a man (or woman) would take the time to learn a company's business from the ground up. Gone are the days that would see customers willing to pay more for a product that was built a bit better and last a bit longer and need fewer repairs.
If companies offer competitive raises without having to jump companies, most people wouldn't jump from company to company
Absolutely. Where I am now, one of the things they do is give you a small salary raise, but then a big chunk of stock that vests 25% each year for the next 4 years.
I've been feeling a bit burned out in the current position lately, but I also have no desire to walk away from $50k+ in unvested RSUs.
93EXCivic said:
If companies offer competitive raises without having to jump companies, most people wouldn't jump from company to company
I certainly saved one employee, and possibly two, recently by seeking out (unasked for) raises for them. One guy when I gave him the good news was a) floored and b) said 'I'll cancel that interview with X next week then!. X being a company who had recently hired two other of our people.
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:
... there are many companies who are using the knowledge of their employees with MBAs to drive down cost today, at the expense of the worker, and the companies future. ...
And that's not necessarily the MBA's fault. If someone tells an MBA "give me options that decrease production costs by 10%," a good MBA will provide several options and also explain the pros and cons of each option. It's not their fault if the top decision maker only looks at the initial delivery cost and ignores the issues of the plan.
Fun story on that in the brewing world... When InBev purchased Anheuser Busch, they looked at their supply chain and said, "Why do you have all these different suppliers for bottles?!? This isn't efficient!" They decided to give the middle finger to all the companies AB had worked with to supply their bottles and shift everything to a single supplier in Mexico that could provide the best cost. I'm sure that saved them 10% or more on the cost of glass!
...until there was an earthquake in Mexico that the warehouse was darn near on top of the epicenter. Effectively all of the glass was destroyed. A single supplier who InBev had burned had just burned was the only place with enough stock to supply AB, and they *knew* it. The price suddenly increased a whole heck of a lot more than 10%.
In reply to 93EXCivic :
Or better heath coversge. My last move netted me a modest jump in salary. But my heath benefits cost half and have double the coverage.
I can only speak from my own experience, but all of the fancy MBA-types that I have dealt with have killed the companies where I worked. They look at spreadsheets and percentages and projections, not at the workforce or the products. Yes, you can shave 2-cents off that unit cost, but you just made it a POS that no one wants to buy and you hurt the reputation of the company and now it folded and 100 people are out of work in a small community. Dont get me started.
Beer Baron said:
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:
... there are many companies who are using the knowledge of their employees with MBAs to drive down cost today, at the expense of the worker, and the companies future. ...
And that's not necessarily the MBA's fault. If someone tells an MBA "give me options that decrease production costs by 10%," a good MBA will provide several options and also explain the pros and cons of each option. It's not their fault if the top decision maker only looks at the initial delivery cost and ignores the issues of the plan.
Fun story on that in the brewing world... When InBev purchased Anheuser Busch, they looked at their supply chain and said, "Why do you have all these different suppliers for bottles?!? This isn't efficient!" They decided to give the middle finger to all the companies AB had worked with to supply their bottles and shift everything to a single supplier in Mexico that could provide the best cost. I'm sure that saved them 10% or more on the cost of glass!
...until there was an earthquake in Mexico that the warehouse was darn near on top of the epicenter. Effectively all of the glass was destroyed. A single supplier who InBev had burned had just burned was the only place with enough stock to supply AB, and they *knew* it. The price suddenly increased a whole heck of a lot more than 10%.
I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying. It's not the MBA, or even the people who have them, it's how people are asked to apply the knowledge they got in their MBA's that is the issue.
