Asklemmy

43807 readers

874 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

136

Do you think that the "Boeing debacle" will change what is taught in MBA programs ? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From what I understand, a big part of what's happening with Boeing, is that Boeing is run by Business person who want to maximize return of stock-owner rather than by people wanting to make a good product. The gained flexibility/nicer budget from massive sub-contracting led to "loss of knowledge", and cutting-down quality control steps which "never catch anything" led to issue being missed-out.

Do you think that MBA program will take this reality into account ? or would they keep focusing on maximizing short-term profit even if it jeopardize the company's future ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 82 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This is somewhat of a mischaracterization of how this all shakes out/is taught/is perceived even though I get why it seems that way.

No one tells people “sacrifice the company for short term gains.” That’s not actually what people are taught. The problem is we have a misaligned incentive system that rewards that behavior more than it punishes it and little to no incentive to play the long game other than “make sure it doesn’t completely crumble under your watch.” So eventually people think they know what good leadership looks like (rapid expansion/rapid cost cutting/fat and happy shareholders with a C-suite reaping fat stacks as a result). All while they play hot potato with a company that is being redlined which may or may not be able to take the strain.

The issue is longterm plays/considerations are disincentivized rather than straight up demonized. Since MBA programs are ultimately going to teach you what businesses want and what keeps investors happy, it feeds into this perverse incentive structure.

Edit: there are obviously exceptions to this rule, but we’re talking broadly about publicly traded companies/companies answering to a group of investors

Edit 2: yea I did a second one sorry, just had a thought that feels pretty relevant. If anybody here has seen Silicon Valley then you know that the show sprinkles in some pretty serious realities once in a while. I always think back to when “Action” Jack Barker becomes CEO of Pied Piper and is fighting with Richard. Jack is MISTER MBA CEO ELITE in a nutshell. He’s the guy to run a unicorn company. At one point Jack asked him “do you know what our product is?“ And when Richard starts explaining the technology/platform he wants to build, Jack says “it is not your platform, it is not the box, it is Pied Piper stock. That is our product.“ [Sic.] When you view your decisions through that lens at all times, eventually you’re going to run into issues with the long-term health of your company. Stocks do not represent the long term health of your company. They are a complicated snap shot of that particular moment consisting of yes some data/numbers, but also “vibes” and more.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago

Sadly you see this at all levels of companies.

I've seen it in IT for 30+ years (Google is a great example): new projects/changes make you visible to upper management, but if you prevent failures/outages no one cares.

Now, have an actual outage and fix it, you're a hero.

So, don't prevent outages, but note the issues privately, develop mitigation plans, so when the outage occurs you're the hero. That's the lesson anyway.