Archive for April, 2009

Blame the Business Schools

7 April, 2009

As governments search for solutions to the current finanial crisis others are looking for who to blame and business schools are getting their share of the blame.

A colleague – who also holds and MBA – sent me the article “Harvard’s Masters of the apocalypse” in early May. Which discusses the accolades given and the business cases written by business schools at the heart of this and earlier crises and says;

Business schools have shown a remarkable ability to miss the economic catastrophes unfolding before their eyes.

picture-10The debate is being played out on the Harvard site, where Harvard defends itself saying that those responsible for the companies and organisations involved in the current crisis graduated some years ago and the courses have changed since then. Yet the Harvard graduate writing in the Times article above points out that both Enron and RBS were studied as best practice up to the time of their respective falls. Granted RBS was studied from the perspective its successful acquistion and integration of NatWest, but still the company has fallen a long way in a year, and the CEO is now labelled as the “world’s worst banker“. So the defence offered by Harvard doesn’t really hold.

Some commentators predict that the age of the MBA is over, I don’t think so – and not just because I happen to have one. But there need to be some changes.

  • Conflict of Interest

The first thing that needs to be addressed is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest; students pay a lot of money to join courses – making it difficult for school’s to kick students out for either bad performance or unethical behaviour. At my school, in my year, there was one student who cheated and one who did not perform, taking a second attempt at every exam. The exam retakes were legal but both guys have the same degree as me, effectively undercutting the value of my degree. But they paid the same as me.

  • Silo Thinking

During the degree subjects are studied separately; finance, accounting, organisational development, HR, marketing are all kept separate. Business ethics and shareholder management come far down the list. But the subjects affect each other and need to be integrated. A friend who went to IMD told me of one case study they did where each group recommended strategy changes to grow the business. At the end the professor of organisational development criticised them all saying “this is a family business – why did you all assume that the right thing to do was to grow big? why did none of you think of the current culture of the company?”

By getting out of the silo thinking students would be required to integrate finance, marketing, growth, organisational culture and ethics in developing their strategy.

  • Subjects studied

Beyond the risk and return ration and the discussion of WACC I don’t remember much about risk management. Judging by the current fall out it’s been missing from some other school curricula.

  • Underlying assumptions

The underlying premise of almost all of MBA teaching is that the company should grow. That you measure the success of the company by market capitalisation, or by market share, or by any other simple numeric measure relating to size – one company director boasted of headcount.

But companies can define other measures of success particularly if they’re private companies and not driven by the shareholders’ expectations.

There are other changes suggested, doctors and lawyers have to register each year, ship’s captains and pilots have to update their training regularly. Perhaps it’s time for this level or professionalisation to occur in the business world. Afterall the accounting is regulated and audited, internal processes are now guided by SOX. Certifying business leaders might be the only thing left.

POST SCRIPT: Bob Sutton is even more specific, he doesn’t just blame MBA training – but suggest that economics and the economists are too blame. Well, there’s enough blame to go around I’m sure the ecomomists can take their share.

G20 Protests

6 April, 2009

Now that the dust has settled on the G20 discussions and the protests maybe it’s time to understand what really went on.

I heard an interview on BBC World radio discussing the reporting on the events last week. In the journalist’s view (and sorry I didn’t catch his name) the violence had been almost a self-fulfilling prophecy and was largely generated by the police and the media. The police announcement that they “expected violence” signalled to more moderate protesters that they should stay away. Even so, there were many protesters there protesting on an issue basis – at the loss of their pension funds, at the loss of jobs, at the lack of effective regulation or at banker’s bonuses. There was a small group of extreme and violent protesters who led the charge into the RBS building.

The best online report I can find of the events comes from Al Jazeera – English.

It’s interesting, according to Hamish MacDonald the protesters were asking to leave the area when the police charged. The police were targetting a small group of protesters but it’s pretty hard to target a small group in a surging crowd.

But focus on the filmclip between 1.30 and 1.50, there’s an interesting ratio of protester:police:photographer

Crowds at the G20 protests

Crowds at the G20 protests

The police are holding their line against the protesters. But behind the protesters are banks of photographers. The ratio here seems to be 1:1:2

Breaking into RBS during the G20 protests

Breaking into RBS during the G20 protests

Here the protesters have broken into the RBS building, it’s a symbolic break-in – RBS has come to symbolise the worst wrongs of the crisis. But look, there are half a dozen protesters entering the building, no police visible, and many cameras. The ratio is 1:0:1

Two tenets of democracy are the right to protest and the right of free press. It looks as though those are both healthy in the UK.

One further tenet is linked to freedom of arrest or harassment by police. That’s looking a little doubtful. I wasn’t there – but seeing and reading first hand accounts it seems the police did the policing equivalent of opening a walnut with a sledgehammer.

Apprentice 2: Cater a Chi Chi Party

1 April, 2009

The second task for the candidates was a catering challenge. The two team leaders both put themselves forward as the obvious leaders – with some justification. Rocky Andrews runs a chain of sandwich stores, and Jasmina Siadatan is a restaurateur.

However it’s one thing to lead a group of people who know what they’re doing and who acknowledge you as their boss, and quite another to lead a bunch of amateurs who have a vested interest in seeing you fail.

There were two tasks; a lunch service to an office and catering a chi chi party.

Empire, with Rocky as a leader, chose an Olympic theme, after all the London Olympics are only 3 years away. They then figured they could include any type of food, which defeats the purpose of having a theme – which should give you a focus for the evening. Then the guys decided to wear togas (rented) for the party. This is extra cost and as Nick commented “the hairy arms and spotty backs aren’t appealing”.

Their pitch for the party was way out of line £60 pounds per head for canapes – they ended up going with £15. The food they came up with at the party included a nacho chip with a sausage on it – I can’t imagine which cuisine that is supposed to be from.

Apprentice2 resultsThe concept was bad – and the execution was terrible. The customer was disappointed and only paid half the fee – the guys ended up with a loss. Not a way to win favour with Sir Alan.

The girls were led by Yasmina who took charge from the beginning, the theme was Mediterranean, which is easy to do, and can be used for both the lunch and the event. She pulled the team together and got them to have fun while working hard. While the execution was a bit off – they  prepared the biggest bruschetta I’ve ever seen  – they were spot on on the night. Hard working, alert, watching the crowd, service minded and attention to detail. It was a win deserved.

In the board room Rocky defended himself well, leaving Howard and James out to hang. I did think James would go – his verbiage was off-putting. However Rocky made too many silly decisions in light of his supposed expertise.

Sir Allen Sugar commented that he was puzzled about how it could have gone so wrong given that both Rocky and Harry had relevant experience. In the end he thought Rocky didn’t have the experience/expertise/potential to go any further.

“Rocky you’re fired”

In my view: James was a pretty close second, and after his outburst in the boardroom he won’t last long. Rocky could have saved himself by taking the negotiator Philip Taylor in to the boardroom with him. Ultimately though, this was Rocky’s expertise, he was project manager, and they lost money. Can’t be surprised that he was fired.

Pushing the Envelope

1 April, 2009

I did a joint presentation today with a colleague who used the phrase “pushing the envelope”. I was surprised, to me the phrase is very American and she’s not. It stuck with me, it’s an expression I always meant to “look up” and I was curious about its origins.

The commonly understood meaning is going beyond usually accepted limits, and that’s the sense in which my colleague used it.

All the space that was ever under the ladder = the envelope

All the space that was ever under the ladder = the envelope

Searching around the internet for its origins I found a lot of references to aeronautics, where it refers to the combinations of parameters, such as altitude and velocity, at which flying is safe. This meaning of it was derived from a mathematical meaning ‘the locus of the ultimate intersections of consecutive curves’. If that doesn’t make it immediately clear imagine a ladder sliding down a wall, all the space that it ever occupied is, mathematically speaking, the envelope.

So in aeronautical terms “pushing the envelope” was flying in a way that pushed the aircraft beyond the limits generally accepted by mathematicians and engineers.

The term was used by technicians and pilots from 1940s onwards (at least), but it wasn’t until Tom Wolfe picked it up and used it in his book “The Right Stuff” in 1979 that it entered general use.  I suspect that most people don’t realise where it originated, and couldn’t explain it if someone asked what it really meant. Did you? Is it a term you use? I’m curious.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 345 other followers