Slashdot Mirror


Have American Businesses Been Stranded By the MBAs?

theodp writes "In his new book, Car Guys vs. Bean Counters: The Battle for the Soul of American Business, legendary car-guy Bob Lutz says to get the U.S. economy growing again, we need to fire the MBAs and let engineers run the show. The auto industry, writes TIME's Rana Foroohar, is actually a terrific proxy for a trend toward short-term, myopically balance-sheet-driven management that has infected American business. In the first half of the 20th century, industrial giants like Ford, GE, AT&T and others used new technologies to create the best possible products and services with the idea that if you build it better, the customers will come. But by the late '70s, if-you-can-measure-it-you-can-manage-it MBAs were flourishing, and engineers were relegated to the geek back rooms. 'Shoemakers should be run by shoe guys,' argues Lutz, 'and software firms by software guys.' Learning that China plans to open 40 new graduate schools of business in the next few years, Lutz quipped, 'That's the best news I've heard in years.'"

11 of 487 comments (clear)

  1. Lutz is dead wrong by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most engineers know next to nothing about marketing and sales... to the degree that they actually despise interacting with customers. You can have the best product in the world, but if no one knows about it, your business will fail. Consistently in this world, inferior products with better marketing win over superior products. You have to know how to get your name out there, and how to get people to buy your stuff.

    1. Re:Lutz is dead wrong by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most engineers know next to nothing about marketing and sales...

      Conversely, most marketing types know next to nothing about proper engineering design.

      And this book isn't about a 'Marketing vs. Engineering' conflict in the first place. It's about the bean counters who wedge themselves in the middle of everything.

      It's about 'cost reduction engineering' which is where purchasing gets involved in product engineering. Mature products exist, but 'cost can be driven out of them' by degrading the materials used for their construction.

      To an MBA, the fact that a product lasts on average 2 years beyond it's warranty period is a problem to be solved.

      It's also all about Taylorism taken to it's furthest degree. In the vision of the MBA dudes, everybody within a company is an expendable plug-in component. Company policy is that Work Instructions must be written, and followed for each task. Once the complete set of work instructions has been captured, the whole 'Employee Expertise' of the company is captured into a file cabinet. They can then put the cabinet on a skid and move it anywhere in the world. That's how those people think. High performing employees with unique skills are a problem, a company liability, to that form of management.

    2. Re:Lutz is dead wrong by IceNinjaNine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most engineers know next to nothing about marketing and sales..

      You know, I get uncomfortable when people make assertions using words like "most". I've worked with engineers (both brilliant and mediocre) who are the worst of the worst when it comes to social skills, and I've worked with some who made it through engineering school with a paltry 3.0 and are a blast as people. Some of the most well compensated engineers I know of are sales engineers working in areas like biomedical equipment and robotics (before anybody trounces out the IT stereotype). There *are* people who can do both; I know a lot of them. I know one kid in aerospace is who very gregarious, walked into a new job, solved a vibration problem on a jet engine within his first year, and ended up with his masters (aerospace engineering) paid for by the company. He worked as an engineer for five more years, they sent him back for an MBA, and now he runs a department. Bottom line is, he's geeky, smart on both interpersonal and quantitative matters, has walked the walk, and will be CEO material by the time he's 40.

      In my line of work (yes, one of the legions of software drones) I'm a generalist who writes code and takes care of some other technical issues. When my organization needs to send out a technical liaison they send me, because I can grok the tech stuff (oh noes, he knows what Big-O is and can profile! LOL), but I know how to look good in a suit (not a good looking lad, but keeping yourself in shape along with a trip to a tailor makes all the difference), can speak publicly without issue, and I know how to generally not piss people off. There are scads of people here on Slashdot (and a few where I work) who can code rings around me, and that's fine. At the end of the day I can play both sides of the card.

      The bottom line is: there are people with both skill sets, and it's my hypothesis that they're actively excluded by MBA types from managerial roles in many cases because they are a threat. In addition, boards want profit, so those that show quarter-to-quarter myopia get the nod.

      This whole thing reminds me of a video I saw once of a smokin' hot female Phd who said "you know, I can make this widget last four times as long if they'd let me add 10% to the price".. of course that didn't happen. Said company has a mediocre reputation in its sector as a result.

  2. Re:You need different kinds of people by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem appears when the managers don't understand what the geeks are doing and give orders based on unrealistic (or completely wrong) understanding of what's happening downstairs.

    A percentage of geeks have people skills, they should be the ones in charge.

    --
    No sig today...
  3. Re:You need different kinds of people by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem are pure business guys who understand everything the MBA tought them, but don't have a true appreciation for the type if business they are running.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  4. Re:Hewlett Packard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Agreed. They had a great model, "The HP Way", which was based on the way the founders like to treat people and be treated. Bill and Dave were both engineers and built the company up to be a major international by encouraging everyone in the company to both co-operate and work for self-improvement - exactly as they had done themselves. They recognised the importance of their management in knowing the product field they were involved in and understanding the culture of creativity and job security needed for long term success. The company's slide began when they started to appoint to senior positions from outside the company - and outside the engineering field - resulting in the dilution of the HP ethic and outsourcing the engineering and manufacturing functions which had driven their innovation and growth historically. Sadly this has happened with so many western companies that we have a deficit of home-grown talent in anything other than managerialism (of which we have a surfeit). Sadly, "management" has been the real growth business of the last 30 years. The Chinese are welcome to all the MBA graduates they want.

  5. Re:You need different kinds of people by yourmommycalled · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Indeed you need many different kinds of people to manage/run any organization. In any well run organization, every one understands they have a role to play in keeping the organization working AND that they responsibility is shared. In a well run organization an engineer/programmer/scientist is not sneered at and verbally abused, nor are the sales/accounting/IT people. The problem that has occurred as Lutz keeps repeating is that because of B-schools MBA's specifically and B-school graduates in general have been told/taught that ONLY a B-school graduate knows anything about how to manage a company. They are TAUGHT that only this quarters results are important, that research and IT support is a waste of money and if you don't have an MBA you are a waste of company resources. A long time ago people started at a low level in a company and worked their way through the company learning along the way what works and what doesn't in that company Now B-school graduates learn real garbage, move into middle management and drag a company down. From my own experience as a scientist managing a successful company, I no longer hire B-school graduates. The last one I hired told me I don't know how to run my own company and that they could increase my profits several hundred fold if I would just stop wasting resources on taking care of the staff and coddling the other scientists. When he came into my lab I laughed at him and then showed him the door

  6. How Many Times Have You... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    said, "Charge me a buck more and make this part out of metal instead of fucking plastic" or words to that effect?

    Pick the product, I mean it doesn't matter what it is anything thing from your car, house, cell phone, kids bicycle, toilet paper, laptop pick the damn product.

    THAT is the MBA / Bean Counter Problem.

    They don't think in terms of high customer satisfaction they think in terms of "I can shave 0.0001 dollars per unit" and "I can predict that we will only increase our returns and warranty repair by 0.0001% and we will increase profit by .5 %".

    Huge pet peeve... I like gauges I like to see actual oil pressure in my car, actual engine temperature but these days those are rare things in cars. I know the cost difference might be 2 dollars per car and frankly I will happily pay 30 times that since 60 bucks on the cost of a new car is nothing.

    Plastic gears in assemblies... My wife drives a Mercedes C320 and there is a plastic gear someplace under the dash that is attached to a vacuum servo of some kind that has something to do with the air handling. The damn thing has some teeth missing and it chatters now and the sound is really annoying. The replacement part costs 40.00 bucks. But it will cost close to 1000.00 bucks in labor to get at the damn thing since you have to basically dis-assemble the dash to get at it.

    The above reasons are why they need to be yacked out of the chain of command.

    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  7. Re:You need different kinds of people by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My father was a management accountant, and worked in a fairly diverse set of businesses. While his job was more or less the same one in each business, he always made an effort to understand the rudiments and fundamentals of the business in his spare time. For example when working for glass company, he familiarised himself with how glass was made, the major companies in the industry, and the types and uses of glass. He would never have as much expertise as someone who worked in that industry their whole lives, but he would have enough understanding to acknowledge and even foresee problems when they came to his attention.

    I seriously doubt that MBA managers make these kinds of efforts when they take charge of companies. The dominant ethos of that profession appears to be to run a company by the numbers just long enough to move on to a higher paid position. Most that I have met have little to no underlying understanding of the businesses they are being paid handsomely to operate.

    So we have a situation where NASA managers literally do not know how rockets work, and yet will pride themselves on that fact, even as their shuttles and rockets explode after take-off. Our banks are being run by "fairly dim former [sports] players", who couldn't even perform a compound interest calculation without assistance. And above all the senior decision making levels of government, the civil service, and private industry are saturated with people who are literally incapable of understanding even why they are making their decisions, let alone which they should make.

    The quintessential manifestation of this pervasive dysfunction in western management was the US President George W. Bush. The man ran everything he ever managed into the ground, and stayed true to form while in office. People may moan about old families, money, and influence, but a large portion of the blame lies in a culture which sees fit to appoint unqualified, unknowledgeable, sweet talkers to positions of responsibility, and moreover to even deny those positions to competent candidates.

    This isn't about choosing between inarticulate geek savants and networkers. This is about choosing between experienced professionals who can communicate effectively if dryly, and people with the training, mentality, and ethics of used car salesmen. The analogy is exact.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  8. Re:You need different kinds of people by seven+of+five · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The quintessential manifestation of this pervasive dysfunction in western management was the US President George W. Bush.

    And at every opportunity, he boasted of being a "C" student, rubbing his "greater position" in the faces of those who'd spent their lives hitting the books.

  9. Re:You need different kinds of people by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been thinking along these lines for years. One of the original catalysts of this was reading a book called Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West, by John Ralston Saul, an historian. It isn't a perfect book, but it is definitely thought provoking. It is difficult to summarize, but I'll give it a shot. He argues that our modern management class is obsessed with a somewhat myopic version of reason concerned mainly with measurement. This management class lacks a sense of imagination, of history, and of human nature, preferring to retreat to a world of graphs, tables, and equations.

    The example he gave that sticks with me concerns the Mad Cow Disease crisis in the UK a while ago. Mad Cow Disease is a strange phenomenon, where protein structures called prions propagate when animals eat other animals that have the prions in their flesh. The prions eventually result in brain disintegration. They cannot be destroyed by cooking and processing. Managers in the beef industry knew that Mad Cow Disease existed, knew that it was growing, but they did not take it seriously. They likely tried to measure it in terms of number of cows infected, number of people infected by its human variant, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, and concluded that its rarity made it a negligible risk. They could have wiped it out by quick action, but they did not. What they didn't seem able to imagine was that this disease and the fear surrounding it would eventually result in the destruction of the entire British beef industry. Almost all of the stock of British cows was destroyed. Britain was banned from exporting beef to most of the rest of the world. The financial losses were huge for the industry. Saul argues that these losses were due in very large part to the lack of imagination of MBA type managers.

    I also have first hand with these issues. A friend worked for a food manufacturer that hired as plant manager an MBA graduate whose only previous experience was in a machinery assembly plant. Predictably, food safety practices and quality control went out the window, as these things were seen as negative items on a balance sheet. Lab testing and random bacterial swabbing budgets were reduced, until predictably there was a food recall that cost the company prestige, customers and a lot of money. He managed the plant primarily from his upstairs office, and he spent most of his time staring at graphs. He would seldom come down to the plant floor, and he had little comprehension of the processes and details of the plant he was managing. In the end, he left in disgrace, after transforming a plant that had formerly been extremely profitable and efficient into a money losing albatross.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)