Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone who hires a some one with any degree to lead a company, and that person has zero experience in the industry, is an idiot. Boards hired, and stockholders championed, people to give profits (usually increasing profits) year after year. These people's jobs and salary were commiserate on satisfying that requirement. If you have industries that can't grow any more, or gain any more income, you have to do something to keep your job.
It astounds logic to be pissed at the person who does exactly what the boards and stockholders wanted, and expressly hired them to do. Provide profits every quarter any way you can, and beat expectations. What these people need to do is to not punish people for long term thinking and investment if it might impact short term earnings. Hell, even Google sees drops in share price when they miss earnings estimates while pursing long term goals...like a 28% growth one year instead of 60%.
This argument of technical vs business led management is not only in engineering fields but also in the medical field.
In med school, we often heard the mantra that MBAs will be the boss of MDs and how the number of hospitals run by MDs have decreased, being taken over by MBAs etc. The implication was that part of the health care problem was caused by this business takeover of healthcare. I guess it stems from the same argument of whether a business i better run when it's managed by someone who strategies from the financial side, or from the end product perspective.
I honestly don't know. Our world has become increasingly complex and I think most engineers and doctors are ill equipped to run large corporations without some business training. That said, science itself is also quite complex and I think something gets lost when a nontechnical person tries to implement strategies on products they have little understanding of. I guess ideally, all MBAs should have technical training in whatever products they're trying to sell. I see schools directing towards that way. In recent years, med schools have increased their combined MBA/MD programs. I've known a lot of engineers doing joint business/engineering studies, including many engineers getting their MBAs. I think the future will go towards that direction, where basic foundational knowledge will get you on the floor, but the management suite awaits those technical egg heads who also knows how to manage money.
Anyone who hires a some one with any degree to lead a company, and that person has zero experience in the industry, is an idiot. Boards hired, and stockholders championed, people to give profits (usually increasing profits) year after year. These people's jobs and salary were commiserate on satisfying that requirement. If you have industries that can't grow any more, or gain any more income, you have to do something to keep your job.
There are some pretty resounding exceptions to that idea. Take a look at the CEO of Ford. He came from aerospace and pretty much saved the company.
There are some pretty resounding exceptions to that idea. Take a look at the CEO of Ford. He came from aerospace and pretty much saved the company.
There are, but like everything in business and psychology this isn't a physical law. Being a mechanical engineer who earned his MBA and worked up the ladder at Boeing to upper management provides dramatically more (and fairly related, including supply chain) experience towards Ford then if you hired some one from an insurance company or financial services.
I just read an interesting article in Time. It suggested a dude (Bob Lutz) is writing a book about how American business started to tank when we started putting MBAs in charge, instead of engineers. Apparently the engineers really cared about doing good work and making great products for the customers. The MBA brainpower apparently goes mainly toward securing profits for stockholders with the minimum, and usually most short-sighted efforts, and innovation and quality have hit the skids.
It resonated with me, because I have wondered how we went from the most creative and powerful manufacturing economy on earth to a country that make a few computer gadgets (I Phone, big whoop) and a bunch of financial derivatives, securities, and other worthless bs. Here's the link:
Do you think there is any truth to the notion? I would like to see us get back on top by being the best innovators, not through financial shell games.
I absolutely agree. Those people have the wrong priorities and not seldom no idea of what the businesses they manage are about. In Germany the corresponding term BWL is gradually becoming a term of abuse. There are armies of those parasites who only study that subject because they want to get rich fast.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,352 posts, read 54,520,826 times
Reputation: 40819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
Kettering University (formerly General Motors Institute aka GMI) has a co-op program throughout their entire degree program. It offers a great look at what the profession is all about, as well as offering an income opportunity. Their focus is engineering. Back when I attended, it was a 5 year program, with the last year involving a significant project for the student's sponsoring company, and requiring a thesis. I don't know of any other undergraduate engineering programs that do this.
Exactly what I had in mind. I believe Northeastern offers a similar program and Wentworth Institute of Technology, if not co-op, places a higher degree of importance on practical as well as theoretical knowledge than the 'norm'.
At the NIH, one of the lab chiefs ordered a new autoclave to replace the broken one. He showed purchasing exactly which one to order for the needed function.
Purchasing took it over to the "Chief" of the whole lab facility who was an MBA.
When the autoclave arrived it was not only the wrong one, it was the one the scientists all agreed had no purpose at this facility.
The MBA explained to the scientists that the one she ordered for them cost 20% less than the one they wanted.
The scientists informed the MBA that that particular model ALWAYS breaks down every six months, and the one they requested NEVER breaks down.
The MBA then informed the scientists that the one she ordered came with a lifetime warranty on all parts and labor.
The scientists informed the MBA that there is always a six-month down-time to repair the broken autoclave, and that during that down-time they couldn't perform their experiments.
The MBA informed the scientists that she had saved the Government $2,000.
The scientists informed the MBA that having 25 scientists standing around doing nothing for six months costs money.
Finally, the NIH hired a "liaison" to act as communicator between the bureaucratic culture and the scientific culture.
After 911, however, the bureaucrats (MBA down to the security guards) were given absolute power over the scientists.
I just read an interesting article in Time. It suggested a dude (Bob Lutz) is writing a book about how American business started to tank when we started putting MBAs in charge, instead of engineers. Apparently the engineers really cared about doing good work and making great products for the customers. The MBA brainpower apparently goes mainly toward securing profits for stockholders with the minimum, and usually most short-sighted efforts, and innovation and quality have hit the skids.
It resonated with me, because I have wondered how we went from the most creative and powerful manufacturing economy on earth to a country that make a few computer gadgets (I Phone, big whoop) and a bunch of financial derivatives, securities, and other worthless bs. Here's the link:
Do you think there is any truth to the notion? I would like to see us get back on top by being the best innovators, not through financial shell games.
This discussion reminds me of what Admiral Hyman Rickover once said about business management. Rickover was a man with extremely high technical standards. He had to suffer through the takeover of Electric Boat Co. his priciple contractor by a business conglomorate called General Dynamics. Rickover was quoted as saying "They don't know the difference between ships and horse turds." I think Rickover was right.
I find that video highly disturbing for so many reasons, and I'm only up to the second of the four hours thusfar. That's one deep rabbit hole, depicted in the video.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
