The Harvard Business Review is hosting an online "debate" on How to Fix Business Schools. The first salvo is fired by Joel Podolny, a long time academic who just took a job Apple as a a vice-president and is now the "dean" of of Apple University. A bunch of us will be joining the debate. I wrote something placing the blame partly on the excessive stature given to the field of economics in business schools, although that is one part of a complex set of problems — I am not sure when it will appear. Another issue, which Joel touches on, is that most business schools focus more on teaching people how to talk about management than teaching them to actually do it. As an academic who is paid to talk and write about management, it is pretty clear to me by now that it is a lot easier to talk about than to actually do it! By the way, Joel is one of the rare academics who actually seems to talk about and do it well.
The HBR Debate: How to Fix Business Schools
Comments
8 responses to “The HBR Debate: How to Fix Business Schools”
-
Bob
its an interesting debate. I’d add one thing – everyone involved is either currently heavily invested in Business Schools or was. Might it not be an idea to draw some water from outside the business school well to the debate.
Dermot -
Bob
its an interesting debate. I’d add one thing – everyone involved is either currently heavily invested in Business Schools or was. Might it not be an idea to draw some water from outside the business school well to the debate.
Dermot -
I think we have two problems. One evident in the financial world and the other at our auto makers.
In both cases business schools have lost sight of what really matters.
Our financial woes have brought to light the cost of our incessant focus on the creation of ‘shareholder value’ instead of actual, real world value. They aren’t one and the same. The former can be created through creative financial shenanigans whereas the latter must actually create something that answers a need.
When you drill shareholder value into smart people they are going to find easy ways to make the quick buck off those less informed even if it isn’t sustainable.
And as is the case at the auto maker’s, you are partly right in that business schools don’t practice management enough. But I don’t even believe we *talked* about management enough.
The focus is on skills accumulation rather than people interaction and leadership. Classes like touchy-feely should be mandatory and last the entire two years, imho. -
I think we have two problems. One evident in the financial world and the other at our auto makers.
In both cases business schools have lost sight of what really matters.
Our financial woes have brought to light the cost of our incessant focus on the creation of ‘shareholder value’ instead of actual, real world value. They aren’t one and the same. The former can be created through creative financial shenanigans whereas the latter must actually create something that answers a need.
When you drill shareholder value into smart people they are going to find easy ways to make the quick buck off those less informed even if it isn’t sustainable.
And as is the case at the auto maker’s, you are partly right in that business schools don’t practice management enough. But I don’t even believe we *talked* about management enough.
The focus is on skills accumulation rather than people interaction and leadership. Classes like touchy-feely should be mandatory and last the entire two years, imho. -
I’ve been as critical of MBA programs as anyone, but I think it’s worth mentioning that a lot of the reason they are the way they are today is that they gave the market what it wanted. That was programs rich in quantitative methods. They also, in many schools, tried to structure programs that looked “academic” that didn’t look too vocational. Add to that an enrollment with lots of students who came straight from the baccalaureate level, with no real work experience, and you wind up with program that favors the thinking over the doing.
-
I’ve been as critical of MBA programs as anyone, but I think it’s worth mentioning that a lot of the reason they are the way they are today is that they gave the market what it wanted. That was programs rich in quantitative methods. They also, in many schools, tried to structure programs that looked “academic” that didn’t look too vocational. Add to that an enrollment with lots of students who came straight from the baccalaureate level, with no real work experience, and you wind up with program that favors the thinking over the doing.
-
The comedic duo of Stan Laurel (the skinny one) and Oliver Hardy were a popular comedy team back in the days when Black and White TV was still popular. And one of their most memorable lines was, “This is a fine mess you got us into.” Unfortunately, I’m concerned the MBA is at the heart of the mess, when they should have been the impetus for smart and sustainable business achievement.
-
The comedic duo of Stan Laurel (the skinny one) and Oliver Hardy were a popular comedy team back in the days when Black and White TV was still popular. And one of their most memorable lines was, “This is a fine mess you got us into.” Unfortunately, I’m concerned the MBA is at the heart of the mess, when they should have been the impetus for smart and sustainable business achievement.
Leave a Reply