2 ms·

This is also what annoys me about the discourse saying that MBAs ruined the company. As an individual with a science undergrad, engineering postgraduate, and so

This is also what annoys me about the discourse saying that MBAs ruined the company. As an individual with a science undergrad, engineering postgraduate, and soon to be MBA, any decent MBA program teaches you how to assess things like value proposition, key factors in your offer (eg perception of safety!), with profitability/finance being only one arm of the total educational package you're engaged in. There's a lot of nuance to finding the right leadership as a board.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
I disagree (with some evidence) that these things can be successfully synthesised. I absolutely concede that they are useful. Leadership needs to be aware of the whole spectrum of economics, public perception, brand, international standing etc. And a good leader must know the language so as to hear and instruct his/her subordinates. But subordinate that stuff must stay with respect to hard reality. Evidence is; I taught a bunch of masters business students once. Those who had absorbed too much "financialisation and business" stuff constantly got stuck in what I saw as wishful thinking... that their will alone, or "framing and spinning" could overcome. I found that very dangerous in digital tech. All the more so in something like medicine or aeronautics. I'm fairly serious when I say this stuff can be quite psychologically harmful, because as I read deeper into the management stuff I found it "ideological" and inflexible. Much of it still seems rooted in the 1980s and you can almost still hear Thatcher's voice see the shoulder pads.
- anakaine 3y ago
  I disagree with this: those who have come through an engineering pathway can be brought up to understand business. Those who have come through business tend to only see engineering as a bunch of propeller hats.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  In most business situations it is not so clear what the "hard reality" is. If you don't push even the experts for change or beyond what they are accustomed to, you tend to get stuck in some very conservative and traditional thinking.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

I disagree (with some evidence) that these things can be successfully synthesised. I absolutely concede that they are useful. Leadership needs to be aware of the whole spectrum of economics, public perception, brand, international standing etc. And a good leader must know the language so as to hear and instruct his/her subordinates. But subordinate that stuff must stay with respect to hard reality. Evidence is; I taught a bunch of masters business students once. Those who had absorbed too much "financialisation and business" stuff constantly got stuck in what I saw as wishful thinking... that their will alone, or "framing and spinning" could overcome. I found that very dangerous in digital tech. All the more so in something like medicine or aeronautics. I'm fairly serious when I say this stuff can be quite psychologically harmful, because as I read deeper into the management stuff I found it "ideological" and inflexible. Much of it still seems rooted in the 1980s and you can almost still hear Thatcher's voice see the shoulder pads.

anakaine 3y ago
I disagree with this: those who have come through an engineering pathway can be brought up to understand business. Those who have come through business tend to only see engineering as a bunch of propeller hats.
RandomLensman 3y ago
In most business situations it is not so clear what the "hard reality" is. If you don't push even the experts for change or beyond what they are accustomed to, you tend to get stuck in some very conservative and traditional thinking.