Management courses do more for universities than society, argues Ben Schiller
Management courses do more for universities than society, argues Ben Schiller
In his 1954 book The Practice of Management, the great American management thinker Peter Drucker wrote that “no greater damage could be done to our economy or to our society than to attempt to ‘professionalize’ management by ‘licensing’ managers … or by limiting access to management to people with a special academic degree”.
At the time, Drucker was worried by what he saw as a new phenomenon for managers to be trained at business schools, rather than 'learning on the job', as they always had. He disagreed that management could be a profession, like medicine or law, because it was essentially something you learned by doing, not in the classroom.
Despite his reputation, society has completely failed to take Drucker’s advice. Since the 1950s, thousands of business schools have opened around the world with the express intention of teaching management, and the skills and knowledge imparted there have come to be seen as increasingly important in the world’s boardrooms, not to mention its governments.
Today, more than half the US’s senior managers are alumni of business schools. And things are going the way of MBAs in other places too: India, for example, has seen a huge boom in management education over the last decade. Having had practically no business schools twenty years ago, it now has as many as 2,500, and graduates a staggering 500,000 MBA students a year.
In the UK, 248,000 students took management or business degrees in 2008-9, including 58,000 postgraduates, and 32,000 MBAs. Business is now the most popular subject in higher education. And in the last fourteen years, according to the Association of Business Schools, the number of people taking postgraduate management courses has grown 94 per cent, compared to 63 per cent across all subjects.
To some, this is a positive sign, showing a healthy interest in business among the young, and laying good foundations for the future. To others, though, it is importing the wrong sort of expertise and culture from the US. Arguably, say its critics, management education does more to benefit universities and students (through fees and higher salaries) than it does the wider fabric.
In their celebrated 2007 book The Puritan Gift, Ken and Will Hopper argue that business school fundamentally changed the way managers progress in their careers. In the old days, young people would join companies from university and spend years acquiring what the Hoopers call domain knowledge of their chosen industry. With business school, graduates were licensed to practice management, without ever having done it, and without in-depth industry understanding.
This change, in turn, led to an over-reliance on financial metrics (to compensate for other knowledge), and the rise of financial engineering at the expense of lasting value creation, the Hoppers say. Managers became detached from the coalface, and began to identify more with shareholders than employees. The result was "intellectual arrogance and managerial incompetence on a scale inconceivable in earlier generations".
Several critics have blamed business schools for engendering a culture of aloofness in boardrooms today. They point out that scandals like Enron and the recent financial crisis involved numerous management graduates, including several regulators and government officials. While it is unfair to blame business schools for everything, it is reasonable to question the underlying model, and ask whether we should be copying the US approach so unthinkingly.
British politicians have spoken of the need to rebalance the economy away from a dependence on the financial sector. They argue – rightly – that the path back to prosperity lies in rebuilding the manufacturing sector, and creating products that we can export around the world. If that is the case, though, then we need to educate and encourage youngsters differently. The problem with business schools is they tend to produce more financial whiz kids and consultants, than innovators and entrepreneurs; around half of London Business School’s MBAs go into financial services or management consulting, for example.
The UK has become more entrepreneurial in the last fifteen years. Figures like Branson, Dyson, and Sugar are now household names. Shows such as Dragons Den make independent business exciting. Entrepreneurialism is celebrated in magazines, web sites, and ‘how I made’ columns. The internet has spawned thousands of start-ups, while also making it easier for people to work for themselves or in small groups.
The UK is still less dynamic than it might be, though. Gordon Brown spoke of creating "a deeper and wider entrepreneurial culture where enterprise is truly open to all". But if anything, during the Labour years we became more professional than entrepreneurial. For every youngster dreaming of being the next Theo Paphitis, thousands more go to university hoping to become lawyers, consultants, and financial analysts.
Though they teach some useful skills, business schools feed a culture of credentialism, where what matters is the degree, rather than skills or experience. They have created the illusion of a profession, and the pretense of a scientific body of knowledge. And they have done this largely not for our benefit, but for their own. If we want to build a new economy from the ruins of the financial crisis, then we need to educate people in new ways. Rather than more management, universities would serve us better by teaching something of merit, and holding up a less distorted mirror to business's workings.
Ben Schiller, a freelance journalist, blogs on his website. He is writing a book about the management industry.
Join the discussion
Comments
Please login to post a comment or reply
Don't have an account? Click here to register.
Excellent article. Yes, develop scientific, medical, engineering, IT, etc., skills to a high level, and just some basic management/business courses as needed. It's been outrageous that so many in the chain of command and their subordinates have MBAs from Harvard, Wharton, etc., but were involved in massive failures of business and financial industries (or was it really theft and fraud). I question the practical knowledge and the talents of many of the professors at the B-schools who were to prepare their students for the real world - to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. (I took an Executive Management course at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management which is usually rated highly, but only one professor out of several speakers was worth listening to.)
I remember my father 35yrs ago complaining about the "new, young" generation of managers who were taking position that people who had grown up with a company. Companies going "headhunting" at graduations for "top management"...paying a fortune for these youngsters. His opinion was that they´d ruin the companies from lack of knowing what to do. It used to be that by doing well in school you showed you could learn. Then you came to the company and learned what was needed to do the job. Well, we´ve seen what this dillusion has brought us.
I just real;ised I fel into a trap set by this article.
I wrote: "Of course there are incompetant MBAs out there. Of course."
But I should have written: "Of course there are incompetant individuals who have an MBA degree out there. Of course. Just as there are incompetant people who have a BSc, a BA or a LLB degree"
Hmmm I think there are several things going on here, but I'm far from persuaded.
First, presumably the alternative to "cuture of credentialism" is the good old British tradition of the culture of the amateur, where a degree in ancient Greek or PPE was all that anyone would ever need...
I'm not sure one would really argue that has been a great success over the last century.
Indeed, if I were to choose a GE (with lots of MBAs), a Cisco (with lots of MBAs) or a Microsoft (with lots of MBAs) to a traditional British firm I am not sure I would be persuaded that hiring smart people with MBAs was such a bad thing...
Secondly, this analysis seems to mix up several aspects. Certainly we could criticisize the idea of "management as a portable skill" and managing by numbers. But that started long before MBAs became widespread: you could look to conglomerate like ITT in the 60s, or in the UK to GEC (the infamous weekly fax) or Hanson. I don't think Lords Weinstock or Hanson needed MBAs to evangelize the idea of "management by numbers".
Indeed, one could perhaps argue that the fault in UK plc has been the dominance of accountants (how many of the FTSE 100 CEOs are accountants?). To be controversial, MBAs at like learn that management is more than just numbers, and could perhaps be an antidote to the problem rather than its cause...
Of course there are incompetant MBAs out there. Of course. There are incompetant engineers, lawyers & Doctors. But is that an argument for abolishing those qualifications? Or is it instead an argument for more professionalism and trying to improve competance amongst managers, with whatever qualifications?
Finally, this seems very overstated. Out of a working career of 40-50 years is a one/two year education *that* influential? Is one year at INSEAD really going to outweigh three years at Cambridge? And forty years of "real world" learning? Or is this simple stereotyping, and blaming a trend on a few individuals?
Fifty years ago we had Parkinson's Law, "I'm All Right Jack" & "The Rise of the Corporate Man". There is a degree of 'plus ca change...' but there is also an element that if we as a country wish to compete, we need to become more competitive: that means investing in skills & training of all sorts, and I would include management in that.
I would suggest that learning management is necessary, but it is not sufficient: we need that skill & people who invest in learning it, but we also need other skills and people to invest time in learning them too.
Yes, wld definitely recommend Mintzberg. Most comprehensive look at the subject. Memorable quote: teaching management to someone who have never managed “is like trying to teach psychology to someone who has never met another human being”.
He says MBAs are better at coming up with strategies than implementing them. An MBA is useful for conceptualising problems, but doesn't provide skills so people work with other people and get things done. It is better at "hard" skills than "soft" ones.
And he says MBAs encourage a sort of "heroic" leadership, where the MBA-manager sits on high making world-historical decisions, while everyone else has to carry them out.
MBA programs tend to attract “a disproportionate share of people with these characteristics – impatient, aggressive, self-serving – and then launch them on fast tracks to positions of influence in society”.
Of course, not all MBA graduates fit the stereotype - a long way from it. But there are a lot of celebrated academics and business-folk who think these programs are largely unhelpful.
The interesting question, I think, is why such programs have continued to grow in number and importance in the face of such criticism. If you look at the history, it is not just post-Enron or post-financial crisis that people have raised big red flags..