Are MBAs the Problem?
blogs.harvardbusiness.org
blogs.harvardbusiness.org
On the article I think the author is off-base here and I think you as a person are exactly the reason why. Staying in school 2 more years is not a "high risk/high return" situation at all (as the author claims). It's a no risk/guaranteed return situation (MBA's make more in the workplace, that's been proven by countless studies)
The real high risk/high return folks are the ones who go out and start a business or join a startup. That's truely a risk.
Anyway, once you've disproven the idea that an MBA is a high risk action the rest of the author's thesis falls apart.
I have no clue where to get accurate data on this. But I have full confidence in HN community to send me a link to a reputable answer.
() obviously defined as the percentage of employees with an MBA degree within an organization
These courses were by far the most valuable, and they absolutely focused on how to run and grow both small businesses and enterprises. I even started my first (failed) company and got independent study credit for it.
To present an undergraduate analogue: in elite colleges, which invariably and intentionally lack business programs, economics programs have a large number of douchebags in them who see "econ" (they never call it "economics") as a pathway to investment banking. Real economics students hate sharing classes with them.
In colleges with business programs, the douches tend to gravitate toward the business degrees, and leave the economics students alone. Just as with economics, which has many serious students, there are non-douchebags who also pursue business degrees and MBAs, obviously, and I'm sure they hate sharing classes with the power-seeking douchebags as well. A lot of really good people go through MBA programs into management. But douchebags also also follow that track, because they follow money and status; it's how douchebags operate.
However, it's not even accurate to say that douchebags are the problem, since there are about as many of them (give or take) as in any other point in history. The difference is that the post-1980s mainstream corporate environment favors and promotes those prone to overtalk, power-play, and "hunger" (corporate euphemism for greed)-- in other words, douchebags. Douchebags thrive in environments of superficiality, conformity, hierarchy, and opacity of contribution. So now you have a system where, despite the best efforts of business-inclined and talented non-douchebags to pursue MBA programs and management tracks, they cannot ascend in the majority of corporate hierarchies, because most companies have filled their upper ranks with douchebags.
MBA programs don't cause this problem. The money and status they offer attracts douchebags, but I've seen absolutely no evidence that they encourage more people to become such. Moreover, the problem isn't that there are more douchebags alive than there were, say, 30 years ago. The fundamental problem is that large, hierarchical corporations now select in favor of douchebags rather than against them. What degrees the douchebags have has nothing to do with this.
I'm not quite sure who you consider a "douchebag" here. It carries the connotation of a mean, shallow person. Yet you also use it to denote people who seek status or money.
However, from my own personal experience, many of the people interested in pursuing status and money are competent, capable, curious people who are always looking to do a favor for others (you never know when the good karma from those favors will come back to you!). My investment banking peers were some of the most outstanding people I've ever met.
"Douchebags" seldom get anywhere in business unless they're related to someone important, contrary to what Hollywood directors might have told you.
I think you may have inadvertently provided the definition of 'douchebag' that you accused the poster of missing :-)
Less facetiously, I think he was referring to people for whom status and power was an end, rather than a means or a side-effect. When you're very determined to reach a goal, all of your actions are informed by your thinking; when your goal is status and power, and you start treating your interactions with people as another means to that end, you would probably fit the poster's definition of a 'douchebag'.
I think the poster meant to contrast this to people who study a field (say economics) for its own sake, because they enjoy it or because they hope to make a useful contribution; by 'useful', I mean one that will benefit others than themselves.
Or maybe you mean that helping other people is fine, as long as you are not aware of the fact that it is likely to help you, too?
Read the memoirs of any successful business person. They all say that treating people nicely earns their loyalty, and is an essential part of success.
Is that "douche-y"?
Heaven forbid some asshole douchebag treats me well and helps me fulfill my goals, just to make himself better off, too!
>Less facetiously
This whole conversation is facetious. That's the only reason why the (juvenile) parent comment is getting upvoted. Moreover, I don't think he's ever tried to see how far he could get in business by being a douchebag. In practice (outside of Michael Douglas movies), nobody wants to work with them.
I use "douchebag" for those for whom status and money are top-tier goals, and those who are willing to make ethical sacrifices in order to further their career and material well-being. People who fit this profile tend, in addition to being shallow, to be relatively useless because their only skills are political play.
My investment banking peers were some of the most outstanding people I've ever met.
I've met some great people at all levels of investment banks, but there's no denying that (except outside of a few ivory-tower quant groups) investment banking has a douchebag culture. Face time, moronic machismo, authoritarianism, and professional hazing all play into that. Most of the well-adjusted bankers have an almost heroic ability to keep themselves centered in spite of their insane environment.
"Douchebags" seldom get anywhere in business unless they're related to someone important [...]
This is generally true in technology, but not as true in business as a whole. What underlines a douchebag-friendly environment is one crucial element: opacity of contribution. Douchebags generally spend too much time playing politics to contribute under their own power, and usually get ahead by taking credit for others' work, assigning themselves (and people whom they know will let them take credit) easy but important-seeming projects, and playing politics. In technology, it's harder to pull this off than in most other businesses.
You're also confusing "asshole" and "douchebag"-- two related but distinct concepts. An asshole is a mean, obnoxious, and tactless person. A douchebag is a socially successful and smooth, but mean-spirited and worthless person. Assholes are assholes to everyone and generally reviled for this, but douchebags aren't douchebags to anyone important, and will only be mean if it improves their social standing. So you don't necessarily know, in all circumstances, who the douchebags are. Douchebags climb corporate ladders easily, due to the opacity of douchebaggery. Assholes, on the other hand, almost never rise; if no one else takes them out, a douchebag will, because the reviled asshole is an easy target.
Based on what I have read about monetary crises, financial panics, and recessions (past and present), I find it hard to accept the thesis that if we only had fewer "douchebags" in the world, that we could avoid all problems. Financial flows would still induce bubbles, and bubbles would still play on mob psychology. Devaluing a currency would still push GDP above its natural level, and require a period of readjustment.
Furthermore, the corporate culture of the 2000s and the 1990s was far, far, far more professional and less "douchebaggy" than what I've heard of the 80s. Why, you can get fired for sexual harassment nowadays, which would have been impossible 20 years ago.
Again the system you describe where "douchebags" rule is far different from my experience in the system. You say that non-"douchebags" cannot climb the corporate hierarchy because it is stacked with "douchebags". Your crude term does not describe the majority of the MBAs, CEOs, MDs, associates, CFOs, accountants, lawyers, and others that I had the pleasure to be acquainted with, although there was a minority of people that I certainly would not like to ever see again.
Lastly, I suspect you are getting upvotes merely for using rhetoric that makes teenagers giggle, which I find sad. Such a juvenile word choice lowers your credibility, because it appeals to the inner snickering child, and not the logical mind. An observer is left to conclude that your point could not stand on its own without the use of crude emotional appeals.
I cannot help but think that reddit has arrived.
The Clinton regime had an expansion and a recession. So did the Bush regime. Neither leader nor political environment was able to alter the underlying business cycle. But, under Clinton, we had an unprecedentedly prosperous expansion and a mild recession; under Bush we had a shitty expansion ("jobless recovery" into 2004) and a devastating recession. Douchebags, enabled by the lax regulatory climate, had much to do with this change. Although there are certainly plenty of douchebags on both sides of the political aisle, the fact is that a Republican political and economic culture is more douchebag-friendly. Douche Czar Erik Prince, for example, thrived in the Bush administration.
Douchebags aren't responsible for the fact that a bubble occurred, but they influenced the character of it greatly, and magnified the human cost immensely. Most notably, there is the fact that this bubble was in real estate, a type of investment that appeals greatly to the status-driven douchebag mind. (If you don't consider house flippers and real estate speculators to be vintage douchebags, you're seriously out of touch.) A bubble in real estate has a monstrous human cost, whereas one in gold is relatively irrelevant to most people.
I also get the impression that universities regard MBAs as an easy way to make money - ie. a repackaged and remarketed grab bag of bachelor degree subjects.
Am I being overly cynical?