Log has written
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009

When King Henry VIII broke with the church in Rome, he shut England’s monasteries. When Fidel Castro took power in Cuba, he did the same with Havana’s casinos.

So let’s close down business schools to get into the spirit of the new financial order.

In the past 20 years, the master of business administration (MBA) factories have created the conditions that helped land the global economy in the current mess. They legitimized a pseudo-scientific approach to finance that turned out to be bogus; they promoted a management style that was too mechanistic; and they formed a managerial elite more interested in rewards than producing lasting wealth for the economies they operate in.

There is little mistaking the growth of business schools, especially as the economy contracts and jobless bankers seek to boost their qualifications. Applications to MBA programmes in 2008 rose at the fastest pace on record, according to the Graduate Management Admission Council in McLean, Virginia. The trouble is, the last batch of MBA graduates who rose to the top made such a hash of things it is hard to believe the next will do much better.

The people who steered the global economy onto the rocks in the past year all benefited from the finest management education that money can buy.

Richard Fuld, chief executive officer of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. when it collapsed, has an MBA from New York University. John Thain, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch and Co., is a graduate of Harvard Business School. Christopher Cox, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has an MBA from Harvard University. And so does former US president George W. Bush.

The record isn’t much better in Europe. Andy Hornby, the chief executive officer of British bank HBOS Plc. is another Harvard Business School alumnus. HBOS had to be bailed out in a merger with Lloyds Banking Group Plc. and then both had to be rescued by the UK government.

Peter Wuffli, who as chief executive officer presided over the huge losses that took Zurich-based UBS AG to the brink of disaster, studied management at Switzerland’s University of St Gallen.

Of course, it is unfair to assign all blame to business schools. Over the last three decades, taking an MBA has become just another qualification, a hoop to be jumped through on your way to getting a good job on Wall Street, or in London or Zurich’s financial centres. If we studied the records, we would probably find that most of the chief executives who led us into the crisis also did finger painting at kindergarten—and it would be wrong to pin the credit crunch on that.

Still, it raises the issue of what business schools are teaching, and how they managed to create leaders who were so unable to spot the flaws in the companies they were running. If a flight-training school produced this number of crashes, we would be asking some questions. There is no reason that business studies should be exempt from the same kind of scrutiny.

The schools should be called to account for several things. First, they encouraged a quasi-scientific approach to business, sermonizing that everything could be nailed down in a textbook. By preaching a set series of formulas, they encouraged students to believe that running a company could be mastered by anyone. The entire private-equity industry is founded on that principle. So are mergers and acquisitions.

In reality, management is a skill that is acquired through experience, judgement and flair. Billions are about to be wasted relearning a simple fact that should never have been forgotten. Second, the intellectual tools that led us into the financial meltdown were largely invented within academia. Complex models for pricing risk created the market for the options and derivatives contracts that have caused so much trouble in the past year.

The business schools took something that was mysterious and unknowable—risk—and tried to make it as easy to count as peas in a pod. By doing so, they encouraged a whole generation of young men and women to go into investment banking armed with the belief that they had mastered risk, that it had been tamed and brought under control. The truth, of course, turned out to be different. Bankers can no more tame risk than sailors can tame the oceans. All they can hope to do is steer a safe course through it.

Third, the schools created a managerial elite that acted like a caste apart. One reason the bonus culture ran out of control was that many of the people involved were trapped in a bubble. They thought guaranteed bonuses, private jets and multimillion-dollar pay-offs were normal. That process started in business schools. No doubt, we will hear a lot in the next year about how the schools are reorganizing themselves. We will see lots of papers and proposals, and probably a few equations, explaining how to stop the credit crunch from happening again.

But as Henry VIII and Castro both concluded, for different reasons, sometimes an institution is beyond redemption. It can’t be fixed, simply because it is the problem.

Just shut them down. BLOOMBERG

Respond to this column at feedback@livemint.com

READ MORE ARTICLES BY:
 
eveleen Said:


The coveted institutions which made people device ways of making risk less risky, are to be blamed but partly.It is the people, the investment bankers who convoluted the whole system and added to their plans the special ingredient of greed and since the US institutions largely work on the principle of reward, it was just a matter of time for reward to exceed limits and follow greed. Hence the facts put forth are true, but not complete.

Posted On 3/26/2009 12:30:25 AM
bhattathiri Said:


Excellent article.Western management philosophy may have created prosperity for some people some of the time at least - but it has failed in the aim of ensuring betterment of individual life and social welfare. It has remained by and large a soulless edifice and an oasis of plenty for a few in the midst of poor quality of life for many. Hence, there is an urgent need to re-examine prevailing management disciplines - their objectives, scope and content. Management should be redefined to underline the development of the worker as a person, as a human being, and not as a mere wage-earner. With this changed perspective, management can become an instrument in the process of social, and indeed national, development.

Posted On 3/26/2009 4:03:51 AM
yogesh Said:


The opinion of a separate class being created out of the so called elite business schools in your article is absolutely correct. In fact these elite business schools through their greedy designs created a bubble in the society. They tried to present the field of management education at another level which morally, spiritually and intellectually it never deserved because ultimately it was just catering to the science & art of managing business which is not the end of society. Wall Street cash stoked it. Ideally Management education should be seen as part of any other stream of education and we should provide more equitable benchmarks of respect, remuneration and satisfaction (in the desired form) for all the streams be it managing business, self employment, social work, research, politics, sports AND others and set standards of excellence that are beyond short term reproach and not based on profitability, EPS and topline. If we can do that the society would be derisked to a great extent. What shocks me is that this system and emphasis on management created crooks out of the best possible brains our times might have seen.

Posted On 3/26/2009 9:33:18 AM
Rajnish Said:


I think it is unjust to form such an opinion based on a few case.s. we can't ignore the progress 20th century has seen specially in the business arena which has been Powered by Many MBA grads. You may spot a few cases of failure but the rest of the success stories cannot be ignored.

Posted On 3/26/2009 9:40:26 AM
ASHON Said:


i think the writer of this article might have been taken financial crisis only for this judgement that MBA schools not needed, by not considering entire scenario. what he needs to understand is that these MBA products have to apply their thought instead of mathematical models, calculations etc. in real life situation. for example, in the case of housing bubble, no one in those banks thought of non repayment of credits in a highly inflationary condition. To anlyse this,there need not be an MBA education, but common sense. credits were flowing into the system without knowing their cash inflows on high interest rates. So, the major problem is not with MBA guys, but with the current monitoring system with banks,in lending itself. we can't rely entirely on calculations, because whole condition is controlled by demand and supply. monitoring of these must be done in a proper manner. for this, business schools are the most needed one than any other. because now we have detected error in the pack or the system. So that needs to be properly designed and controlled. For this, an MBA or an economist guy can do much to the society. it's not logical to cut our hands if there is mud, but it needs to be clean. likewise, it is not good to criticise B-schools for illogical decisions taken by individuals

Posted On 3/26/2009 12:00:01 PM
Justin Said:


Totally disproportionate response to blame the whole mess on graduates of business schools. Using the same logic you might argue that having males as business leaders is a terrible idea.. ban all males from the boardroom. There might be a correlation but it is not by any means the cause you suggest it to be. Businesses failed in disgrace because those in positions of responsibility failed to exercise good judgement and discretion at all times. By tarnishing business schools you have fallen into the same trap.

Posted On 5/7/2009 6:58:35 PM