A while back I mentioned how much I enjoyed Philip Broughton’s take on ‘What they teach you at Harvard Business School’ and that it mirrored my own thoughts about the gap in what business school’s teach and what they should teach. Performance, while doing the right things, and bringing about a balance in one’s life, seems a sensible purpose for a business school to me. Recently, I read in a Financial Mail column from Wits Business School that the Dean and his leadership reckons that business schools needed to address this. Who’s fault is it I wonder that they don’t? And now Matthew Lynn has been more direct by laying accountability for the worldwide economic meltdown we are witnessing directly at the door of the most prestigious business schools in the world. How do you know someone has an MBA? They tell you they do. I found that funny first time and it sounds just as good now. I think the economic crisis we are in though will turn that around: How do you know someone has an MBA? They don’t mention it. Leadership should be inspiring. Be inspired.
MBA’s in the firing line
June 7, 2009 · 5 Comments
Categories: Business ethics: principles · Leadership
Tagged: Matthew Lynn, MBA, Philip Broughton, Wits Business School
5 responses so far ↓
John McLaren // June 16, 2009 at 11:58 am |
The problem with Matthew Lynn is that he has never worked in the business world.
His take on the cause of the meltdown is laughable and to blame it on people with MBA’s even more so. It’s just the nature of capitalism. Markets rise. Markets fall. Period.
Graham Willcock // June 28, 2009 at 11:13 pm |
Thanks for the response John. Does that mean one can only have an opinion if one has personal experience of something? Never before in the history of business have so many people had so much education. Never before have they been paid as much as they are and created as much value as they do. Maybe you are right that the market was due for a correction. What I am interested in though is whether something aggrevated that correction? Perhaps made it worse than it should have been? The gap between have’s and have nots around the world has never been more acute. Nor it seems our understanding of what is right and wrong more confused. If business schools taught business people the language of business fine. What I object to is that they presume to train them to be leaders (their intent not mine) without ensuring they understand the need for consistency in their decision making processes. The need for morality and with it sustainability. Matthew Lynn may not have worked in business which is why those of us who do should sit up and take note.
John McLaren // June 28, 2009 at 11:58 pm |
Certainly one may have an opinion even if it is foolish and shallow.
In the aftermath detailed analysis has shown the main reason to be lack of regulation and little policing of the few regulations that were in place which was a George Bush strategy…..
It was not a failure of business decision-making but rather a failure of ethics by an unscrupulous few. I still think Matthew Lynn’s opinion was unbelievably naive and showed no grasp of the underlying causes. And no amount of “consistency” by the millions of small businessmen will make a single iota of difference in the future. That’s like saying that businessmen in the motor industry were to blame. Or the media industry. It was by far and large a failure of regulation in mainly the financial sector.
John McLaren // June 29, 2009 at 12:40 am |
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by Matthew Lynn not having worked in business and those who do needing to take notice. Where is the link ? What rationale ties those two statements together ? Should businessmen sit up and take notice of all or any statements by persons who have not been in business before ? I think you have fallen victim to the common fallacy of appealing to novelty and unfortunately based your conclusion on a rather hasty generalisation. How does one distinguish between those that must be ignored and those that must be heeded
Graham Willcock // June 29, 2009 at 11:28 am |
There are quite a few points here John which I will do my best to address – I’m not sure I would agree that ethical business practice is a novelty; nor that the need to listen to contrarian viewpoints from people outside of one’s industry commits a fallacy. Regulation, which you seem to favour, is usually enacted by individuals who do not have experience in business which is why, even if government tends to be fairer, business remains more efficient. As for whether business people should sit up and take note of comments outside of business the answer is an emphatic yes they should. All stakeholders – be they definitional or instrumental – have a voice that needs to be heard. Business and profit may be synonymous with each other but I’m not sure in the way you view them. Profit is but one element in the triple bottom line – the others being ‘people’ and the ‘planet’. But even then the emphasis has to be on sustainability. And therein lies the answer to your question as to which voices you should heed: Those that promote the triple bottom line.
As for the current crisis being perpetrated by a minority, this is a comment I have heard many times over the past year. And it is one I disagree with most strongly. In many ways it’s how the rest of us go about making ourselves feel better: This mess must be someone else’s fault. But it’s not. Enron, Xerox, Pharmalat, Lehman Brothers – the list is endless – all resulted from an institutionalised form of avarice that has at its root shareholders pursuit of unsustainable returns. Whose fault is that? Not George W Bush, although I would usually find reason to blame him if I could. In business it comes down to business leaders, trained by business schools who overtly lay claim to their credentials for producing leaders. Leadership that is ethical is consistent. Leadership that is ethical considers the implications for all those impacted by their decisions. That’s how consistency plays a role in morality – but it is also necessary for rationality. Now if consistency = rationality, and inconsistency – irrationality; and rationality is necessary for morality to exist then you get my point that consistency is necessary for ethical business practice. And that’s why your comment that ‘no amount of “consistency” by the millions of small businessmen will make a single iota of difference in the future’ is incorrect. It is consistency such as this that is the very basis for the establishment of a moral code, assuming that the actions of the community are viewed as a social good.