Re: last dns outage I had
"What's with the thing against MBAs?
I see it all the time, yet there's never any explanation why this specific qualification is problematic."
As some others have said not all MBAs are bad, I would argue that experienced industry people with good knowledge and ability in their chosen field who move on to MBAs are usually quite good. These are rare unicorns.
Some light reading for you
https://evonomics.com/want-to-kill-your-economy-have-mba-programs/
https://www.advisorpedia.com/viewpoints/mba-thinking-can-ruin-businesses/
https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/research/cfa-digest/2014/10/you-reap-what-you-sow-how-mba-programs-undermine-ethics-digest-summary
https://hbr.org/2005/05/how-business-schools-lost-their-way
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/27/bulldoze-the-business-school
Ok too much reading?
Toys "R" US
How management dropped the ball
Heavy debt burden: After a leveraged buy-out in 2005, the company carried large debt, which limited its flexibility.
Slow adaptation & innovation: TRU failed to keep up with the shift to online retail, changing consumer behaviour, and competition from big-box and e-commerce players.
Focus on cost/finance instead of investment: Because of the financial burden and perhaps a bias towards cost metrics, the company under-invested in store experience, technology, and e-commerce capabilities.
Strategic complacency: The business model (“toy supermarket”) became obsolete, yet the management did not pivot fast enough.
MBA fingerprints all over it
Short-term/financial driven: The debt-heavy structure and focus on servicing it limited long-term investment.
Metrics over context: TRU arguably prioritized profitability, cost structure and upkeep of the model, rather than deeply rethinking the changing retail/consumer context.
Tool/structure focus rather than adaptability: Despite being in a dynamic market, the company did not sufficiently embrace emergent strategies or culture change.
The takeaway?
Even strong brands can be undermined if management emphasizes financial engineering, cost metrics and static business models rather than continuous customer-/environment-led adaptation.
Boeing 787 Dreamliner
How management dropped the ball
Extensive outsourcing: Boeing outsourced a large portion of manufacturing and global supply chain tasks (approx. 70% of work) expecting cost savings and efficiency.
Complexity and control issues: The global network of suppliers resulted in loss of direct control, inadequate supply-chain visibility, quality issues, delays.
Cost/efficiency metric focus: The drive to reduce internal manufacturing and transfer risk upstream may reflect a financially-driven management mindset (outsourcing to reduce capital cost) rather than builder/innovation-centric.
Cultural/operational misalignment: Employees and insiders reported that quality was sidelined in favor of schedule/throughput.
MBA fingerprints all over it
“Manage what you can measure”: Manufacturing cost reduction, outsourcing metrics, schedule targets were emphasised; less visible were human/quality/craft/learning metrics.
One-size tool/structure: A standard outsourcing model applied in a context (high-technology aerospace) where emergent adaptation and oversight were critical.
Short-term/financial prioritization: The urgency to deliver and cut cost may have trumped investment in deeper quality and supply‐chain robustness.
The takeaway?
In highly complex, innovation-intensive fields, management strategies that focus too narrowly on cost and metrics (outsourcing, schedule) can produce systemic risk. Robustness and human/quality factors must be embedded from the start.
Enron
How management dropped the ball
Financialization and short‐term metrics: Enron’s compensation and culture were extremely focused on meeting earnings targets, boosting stock price, special‐purpose structures and mark-to-market accounting to show growth.
Ethics/complexity neglect: The financial engineering, opaque off-balance-sheet entities and risk‐taking were demonstrations of tool/metric-based management divorced from long-term value and stakeholder risk.
Oversight failure / culture of measurement: The emphasis on financial benchmarks, growth illusions and internal incentives created a culture where the outcome of the tool-driven management was disastrous.
MBA fingerprints all over it
The obsession with shareholder value and financial metrics at the expense of broader accountability.
A reliance on management models (mark-to-market, SPVs, bonuses) that look good on paper but neglected substance, ethics and stakeholders.
The takeaway?
When management treats metrics and financial engineering as ends in themselves rather than means to serve business purpose, the result can be catastrophic. The “toolbox” enables but does not guarantee good outcomes.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
