Simon Caulking: The wrong direction and Would the Economy be better off without MBA students by Henry Mintzberg

Two friends of mine publish the J&E Alert, a fantastic newsletter highlighting thought provoking thinking on leadership, management and business. Below are two snippets from their newsletter. You can subscribe directly by sending an email to the editors (Mireille Jansma & Jurgen Egges)

Article - Simon Caulking: The wrong direction (Financial Times, 3 December 2012 )
 

Critical article on management with references to Henry Mintzberg, Gary Hamel and Alan Greenspan, by author and journalist Simon Caulkin. 

From the article: "To mark the journal’s 90th anniversary, the Harvard Business Review website has run a series of blogs and articles under the strapline Why Management Matters. Alas, the content does not engage with the proposition itself, taking the importance of management for granted. 

This is a common stance. Management is so omnipresent that it is mostly invisible. But nearly a century after it emerged in modern form, it is a good time to pose that fundamental question: does management matter, and if so why? The answer of course is that it does – but more and in less congratulatory ways than most people suppose." 

Article - Would the economy be better off without MBA students? (Henry Mintzberg vs. Paul Danos, Economist debates, November 2012) 

Debate between Henry Mintzberg and Paul Danos, on the (lack of) merit of MBA's. 

Opening Statements:

• Henry Mintzberg: "Management is a craft, rooted in experience. But one cannot teach the craft to people who lack the experience. Those who believe they have learned management by sitting still in an MBA classroom are a menace to society."
• Paul Danos: "I agree that a business leader must have experience to truly hone his or her management skills. However, two years in a modern and well-functioning MBA programme will accelerate students on the path to leadership." 

From the moderator's opening remarks: "(...) Are MBA students good for the economy? At first glance it might seem an odd question to ask. The professionalization of management has, some argue, been the single biggest factor behind the economic advancements of the past 100 years. Basic ideas such as such as paying employees for their talents and capital budgeting have made companies more competitive and helped to improve the lives of millions of people.

Surely, then, the fact that the most powerful people in business have studied management at the world's best universities is a good thing. This is what Paul Danos, the dean of Dartmouth University's Tuck School of Business, will be arguing. He thinks that the reason business prizes MBAs so highly is because they have been taught the business and leadership skills that companies require. After all, if they didn't, they wouldn't hire and promote them so enthusiastically.

 Henry Mintzberg, a management guru most famous for his book Managers Not MBAs, does not agree. He says that MBA programmes teach the wrong things to the wrong people. Not only does this mean that companies are led by unsuitable people, but it also means that the right candidates—who have learned the craft of management through years of practise—are barred from leadership positions by an old boys' network. This, he believes, holds the economy back."