Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:01:48 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:4898C376.F6B4C48@xxxxxxxxxxx:



Kris Krieger wrote:

Business survivs by *both* solving short term probblems, (*and* dodin
analysis to determine where long-term problems might occur and then
coming up wiht strategies that will form a framework for developing
tactics to solve them should/when they arise.

But that fact seems to be lost on an increasing number of businesses.
It almost seems as tho' the more fancy MBA degress are being
obtained, the less actual business sense is out there. And I don't
understand it. Are people actually gettign stupider, or is it just
that they 1) just don't much care, and/or 2) no longer have any idea
how to make rational, as opposed to purely
emotional/knee-jerk/myopic, decisions?

I couldn't agree more about that whole MBA business. I suspect the
whole principle of the MBA is fundamentally wrong. You SHOULD have to
work your way up from the shop floor or whatever, not swan in to the
board room saying you know everything already.

Graham



When I'd worked "for the government", at a time during Bush the Elder's
term, we got in an assistant section (and this was a technical/science
section) manager with an MBA whose previous job experience had been - I'm
not kidding - running the Shoe Department at a local Sears. The "agency
heads" had decided that Intelligence was a "product/commodity", and that
a user of intel was a "customer". So if one agency got stuff and passed
it to another, the former was the "producer" and the latter was the
"customer". If the phrase "total cluster fV<k" is coming to your mind,
you've got the idea. Now, to his credit, our new guy *did* put a lot fo
effort into trying to learn what the heck it was that us Worker Bees did,
but the attempt to force "business theory modelling" onto a bunch of
analyst-linguists was sheer lunacy. Productivity dropped because, as in
business, it got to where there so many damn meetings, and they
accomplished nothing other than interrupting the work that was supposed
to be getting done.

Anyhoo, given my conversations with various competent upper-level
managers in the pharmaceutical and biotech world, one major part of the
problem in business is that that the people running a department no
longer hire the people who will work for them - it's mostly done through
"human resources", who, from what I've heard, often use op-scan machines
to look for keywords in resume's. A good human manager can often sense
the extent to which a resume' is BS, but an opscan machine can't.
Another problem is meetings. THen there is micro-management - which ends
up only managing insignificant detailes, to the detriment fo the business
as a whole. Then too, I'm reminded of the story of the guy on the Board
of Directors who literally had no idea what the company (that he was
supposedly helping direct) actually did - as in, "Oh, *biotech pharma* -
so *that's* what you guys do!" (And you are of course supposed to suck it
up and listen to that with a straight face, smiling and nodding politely
and joyously...)

My Dad had worked in a major pharma company, and saw the whoel process of
de-evolution that occurred when the company became top-heavy with "fresh
young go-getter" MBA types - who held endless meetings, did endless
paperwork, and eventually laid off so many people who were actually
*doing work*, that production fell and the company just about tanked.

In part, everyone wants to be a highly-paid manager, an nobody wants to
deal with actual production. It's bureaucratization - when a
bureaucracy, *any* bureaucracy, becomes an inverted pyramid, it ceases
doing less and less of anything productive, and increasing works mainly
to expand itself, sucking up ever-more resources - eventually employing
so many people that, even tho' it doesn't *do* anything, the bureaucracy
can't simply be disbanded becuase the ensuing unemployment would be an
economic disaster. IMO, this is where most of gov.t is, and that's where
many companies either are, or soon will be.

THat's why I always say that teh gov.t can't be looked to to take actions
that will solve anything. What the gov.t can do is regualte processes so
that 1) a level playing field is maintained, which in turn 2) "greasesthe
wheels", helps keep one player from seizing up the works by screwing with
the machinery. THe mortgage mes is an example - once the gov't allowed
mortgages to be sold and bought like cabbages, the people who brokered
mortgages had no reason whatsoever to be sure that the loans were good
ones - i.e. honest loans made to people who would be able to pay the
loans off. THe gov.t made a bipartisam effort to basically allow a few
individuals within a few companies screw with the machinery of the entire
nation, whose economy has long been entwined with housing and mortgages.

IMO, that' sone of many symptoms of the "all majors, no grunts"
psychology that's currently rampant - too many people delusionally
believe themselves "entitled", by the mere fact that they breathe, eat,
and pee, to being a major rather than a grunt. The problem is that this
sort of so-called "thinking" rejects the value of experience. OK, not
all production types cna be managers, obviously - but a *good* manager is
always *open* to receiving ideas from those who are being managed. And
I've seen little to show me that the MBA types referenced in both the
original post, and your reply, have any *clue* as to teh inportance of
listening to the people who are actually doign the job that's to be
managed. Few leaders - IMO fewer than ever - understand Leadership-with-
a-capital-L...


Well, I have to agree with you on this one Kris!

At this point, If I were purchasing one of these big corporations, the
FIRST thing I would do is fire any manager who had an MBA, at least
one from the last 15 years. Those guys have basically been taught
that it doesn't matter what you do to produce, it only matters what
your financials are. Any manipulation or lie that accomplishes that
goal is perfectly alright...

Case in point - Two very good managers that I knew, both with great
engineering knowledge and good people skills went and got themselves
MBAs. The next think you know, they are backing and pushing
globalization and coming up with 'tiered' support models that resulted
in the layoffs of 80% of their personel, and looks like will soon
result in bankruptcy of a formerly largest in the industry company.

I just wish I didn't still own stock in them... :-(

--
Charlie Edmondson
Edmondson Engineering Inc
www.edmondsonengineering.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere
    ... I couldn't agree more about that whole MBA business. ... section) manager with an MBA whose previous job experience had been - I'm ... that production fell and the company just about tanked. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere
    ... I couldn't agree more about that whole MBA business. ... section) manager with an MBA whose previous job experience had been - I'm ... that production fell and the company just about tanked. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Just Four Simple Steps
    ... the manager of a production line or a line of business. ... Neil Williams ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: S0C4 x4 abend while reading VSAM KSDS file
    ... The opinion that counts comes from the business manager who makes funding decisions. ... Whatever is left in the middle is programming time. ... I recent development is using the programmer title for testers, production support and ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: What do you do?
    ... Yeah, since 1991, I made my living as a strip club DJ and manager. ... partner sold out his shares of the business to his partner. ... Never mind that he started his career in the business as I was ...
    (rec.arts.disney.parks)