Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
"Fire the M.B.A.s and let engineers run the show......" 5
- Thread starter MJCronin
- Start date
whilst not voting for MBAs to run the show, i'm not sure that most engineers wouldbe the right person either.
the right person, with a degree in basket weaving, with the vision and the drive to make that vision a reality is the right person. the guy running the show, IMHO, needs to be able to attract the right kind of people, to have confidence that they are following the game plan, to have confidence that they are capable and honest. I expect him to be expert in one area of the enterprise, beit engineering, finance, politics, ... but not all.
in my experience engineers can be great at making things, ok at seeing what things need making, scraping by at finance, and failing (generally) at HR. history is littered with examples of great engineering enterprises by washed up on the shores of Failed Island.
the right person, with a degree in basket weaving, with the vision and the drive to make that vision a reality is the right person. the guy running the show, IMHO, needs to be able to attract the right kind of people, to have confidence that they are following the game plan, to have confidence that they are capable and honest. I expect him to be expert in one area of the enterprise, beit engineering, finance, politics, ... but not all.
in my experience engineers can be great at making things, ok at seeing what things need making, scraping by at finance, and failing (generally) at HR. history is littered with examples of great engineering enterprises by washed up on the shores of Failed Island.
SomptingGuy
Automotive
The company I work for was run by engineers when I was first hired. We've transitioned to the typical MBA management over the years. But the company s still alive and we've explored many markets that I doubt would ever have come to us if we'd stayed as we were.
I usually hate the whole corporate MBA thing, but it does seem to allow me to tinker with complex numbers and pV diagrams and still get paid.
- Steve
LinkedIn
I usually hate the whole corporate MBA thing, but it does seem to allow me to tinker with complex numbers and pV diagrams and still get paid.
- Steve
msquared48
Structural
It seems like you are saying that an engineer can't be an MBA?
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
-
3
- #8
A 25M+ company I worked for was founded and run by engineers for 30 years. It completely dominated its market niche and its name was recognized as a quality name by the customers who used the product. Through thick or thin, it returned a good profit nearly every year.
Then, control was acquired by some shady stock-market tyes who couldn't pass the security and exchange requirements to go public with the company they had, so they got control of the company since with was already listed.
Under this kind of managment, capital investment in the company stopped along with growth. But the engineers kept making newer products by buying obsolete test equipment and pushing it beyond spec through careful use and modification. This allowed the company keep its size and still offer some new products. After about 8 years, the take-over group sold the company to a fortune 50 company that built itself solely by acquisition. This new company was run by MBAs, and used lots of MBA straight out of college. Within 5 years, they got rid of, laid-off, or drove away all (100%) of the engineering and technician talent (about 40 people). Every time a bad business decision was made (and there were plenty), they got rid of people (i.e. senior engineers). Within 7 years, this 25M+ company was reduced to a remnant of the original product line with no real new products, that today are consolidated with similar old products from other destroyed acquisition companies.
And the engineers? A top few were hired by a small engineering competitor who in a matter of 3 years has gone from a 2M company to a 12M company, and are continuing to grow fast and re-dominate that market niche.
Moral - MBAs will destroy a business faster than take-over sharks.
And me? I got wiser, and found engineering work in another industry at a growing privately owned company (i.e. not traded on the market) that is not run by MBAs.
However, it is run by sales types, but that's a whole nother issue.
Oh, you sold warp engines to a customer even though we don't currently have that as a product? Of course, you know, the main problem is there is no source of ready available anti-matter to run it! How do I know that anti-matter is unavailable? - call it engineering intuition. Yes, I know the important thing is to get-the-sale, but is it wise to do so if we don't actually have a product? OK! OK! I'll see what I can do in 6 months. Oh! you want it in 3 months because that's when the next industry show is!
Beam me up Scotty - there's no intelligent life here.
Then, control was acquired by some shady stock-market tyes who couldn't pass the security and exchange requirements to go public with the company they had, so they got control of the company since with was already listed.
Under this kind of managment, capital investment in the company stopped along with growth. But the engineers kept making newer products by buying obsolete test equipment and pushing it beyond spec through careful use and modification. This allowed the company keep its size and still offer some new products. After about 8 years, the take-over group sold the company to a fortune 50 company that built itself solely by acquisition. This new company was run by MBAs, and used lots of MBA straight out of college. Within 5 years, they got rid of, laid-off, or drove away all (100%) of the engineering and technician talent (about 40 people). Every time a bad business decision was made (and there were plenty), they got rid of people (i.e. senior engineers). Within 7 years, this 25M+ company was reduced to a remnant of the original product line with no real new products, that today are consolidated with similar old products from other destroyed acquisition companies.
And the engineers? A top few were hired by a small engineering competitor who in a matter of 3 years has gone from a 2M company to a 12M company, and are continuing to grow fast and re-dominate that market niche.
Moral - MBAs will destroy a business faster than take-over sharks.
And me? I got wiser, and found engineering work in another industry at a growing privately owned company (i.e. not traded on the market) that is not run by MBAs.
However, it is run by sales types, but that's a whole nother issue.
Oh, you sold warp engines to a customer even though we don't currently have that as a product? Of course, you know, the main problem is there is no source of ready available anti-matter to run it! How do I know that anti-matter is unavailable? - call it engineering intuition. Yes, I know the important thing is to get-the-sale, but is it wise to do so if we don't actually have a product? OK! OK! I'll see what I can do in 6 months. Oh! you want it in 3 months because that's when the next industry show is!
Beam me up Scotty - there's no intelligent life here.
-
2
- #10
moltenmetal
Chemical
You need a healthy balance between the conservatism and risk aversion of engineers and the aggressiveness of pure businesspeople. As long as both are rowing with equal strength, the boat goes forward and stays off the rocks- at least the rocks you can see on either side.
Engineers, even the ones in so-called purely technical roles, need to become better businesspeople. They need to do so both for their own sake and for the sake of their profession. Is an MBA a good tool to help them do that? Dunno- never took one. I suspect it once meant a great deal more than it does now. The performance of the engineers I've met who have done MBAs hasn't really sold me on the value of the MBA - most of them were just weak technically and took the MBA as a potential way out of the hell of doing a job they weren't very good at.
What you can do without are shareholders who have no interest in or knowledge of your business. I watched a publicly traded former employer hack its own limbs off one by one in a bizarre Monty Pythonesque attempt to raise its share value, I and have no interest in going through that again. Unfortunately, doing stuff on a really large scale usually means that you need the capital that you can raise only from otherwise disinterested shareholders, public or private, and all the problems they bring. Fortunately, size and scale doesn't impress me much.
Engineers, even the ones in so-called purely technical roles, need to become better businesspeople. They need to do so both for their own sake and for the sake of their profession. Is an MBA a good tool to help them do that? Dunno- never took one. I suspect it once meant a great deal more than it does now. The performance of the engineers I've met who have done MBAs hasn't really sold me on the value of the MBA - most of them were just weak technically and took the MBA as a potential way out of the hell of doing a job they weren't very good at.
What you can do without are shareholders who have no interest in or knowledge of your business. I watched a publicly traded former employer hack its own limbs off one by one in a bizarre Monty Pythonesque attempt to raise its share value, I and have no interest in going through that again. Unfortunately, doing stuff on a really large scale usually means that you need the capital that you can raise only from otherwise disinterested shareholders, public or private, and all the problems they bring. Fortunately, size and scale doesn't impress me much.
msquared48
Structural
Unfortunately, from my personal experience, in order to move up in the MBA world, and there aqre a lot of powser hungry MBA's, you have to improve the bottom line of the company, mainly by saving or cutting whom or whatever is the victim, and seldom by increasing productivity and production, or increasing clientelle. The former methods generate a bad rep for the MBA's as uncaring and unfeeling to employees, while the latter is what engineers commonly do - difference in business phylosophy in my opinion. I commonly use the latter methods.
I, too, am both.
However, I have known a few power hungry engineers too. Just a more common animal with MBA's.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
I, too, am both.
However, I have known a few power hungry engineers too. Just a more common animal with MBA's.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
do you want an MBA designing something (other than a business plan) ?
For most engineers, it's enough of a challenge to be proficient at their field of expertise. Most of the things that make for a good engineer, don't (IMHO) make for a good business leader.
There are two different fields (product development and business development) both require time, energy, and talent to produce good results. I think, similar to many posts here, that the problem with MBAs is not that they can't manage a business, but rather they manage the business with a different agenda to what the engineers want.
just as there are good engineers and bad MBAs out there, there are also (shock, horror) bad engineers and good MBAs.
For most engineers, it's enough of a challenge to be proficient at their field of expertise. Most of the things that make for a good engineer, don't (IMHO) make for a good business leader.
There are two different fields (product development and business development) both require time, energy, and talent to produce good results. I think, similar to many posts here, that the problem with MBAs is not that they can't manage a business, but rather they manage the business with a different agenda to what the engineers want.
just as there are good engineers and bad MBAs out there, there are also (shock, horror) bad engineers and good MBAs.
SomptingGuy
Automotive
When last boss but one got promoted into his job, the first thing that happened was that the CEO sent him on an MBA course. So when he finally came back (6 months with no boss) he had zero interest in his team and used his MBA to get higher up the greasy pole.
- Steve
LinkedIn
- Steve
moltenmetal
Chemical
rb1957: I'm not talking about the entirety of skills needed to run all aspects of a business here. I'm not advocating that all CEOs or senior managers need to be engineers either.
Whether or not it's a struggle just to handle the technical side, basic business sense is a mandatory skill for engineers, and one they frequently lack in my experience. No engineer can do without them entirely and be anything other than a potential victim or a liability to their firm, or both.
Whether or not it's a struggle just to handle the technical side, basic business sense is a mandatory skill for engineers, and one they frequently lack in my experience. No engineer can do without them entirely and be anything other than a potential victim or a liability to their firm, or both.
i know we're generalising about individuals (ie something you pretty much can't do !?) but i've seen many engineers who want to make the product "better" without appreciating what the customer is willing to pay for. Sometimes we get tunnel vision, sometimes we operate as a "field of dreams" (if you build it, they will buy it).
I don't know, one of the biggest issues I see is that the technical staff here are often actually taking a broader look than the MBA's/management etc.
So, I'm not convinced that most Engineers lack basic business sense etc.
However, the 'sense' they have doesn't seem to match with the short term chasing quarterly returns to keep the stock market happy business model that appears to dominate.
So, I'm not convinced that most Engineers lack basic business sense etc.
However, the 'sense' they have doesn't seem to match with the short term chasing quarterly returns to keep the stock market happy business model that appears to dominate.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
It seems that every faction we deal with has a different agenda, and most don't exactly align with serving the customer.
Marketing looking at alternite customers, no matter how it effects the real customers.
Operations wanting to buy the most expencive equipment so they can reduce maintenance.
And the business types wanting to play king of the hill.
We seem to get cought in the middle. We are blamed for problems, and get no credit for the lack of problems.
And HR can't seem to see the difference in job functions (no wonder they can't seem to fill some engineering jobs).
Marketing looking at alternite customers, no matter how it effects the real customers.
Operations wanting to buy the most expencive equipment so they can reduce maintenance.
And the business types wanting to play king of the hill.
We seem to get cought in the middle. We are blamed for problems, and get no credit for the lack of problems.
And HR can't seem to see the difference in job functions (no wonder they can't seem to fill some engineering jobs).
You should read The Whiz Kids, by John A. Byrne, about the management types, including Robert MacNamara, who came from the US Army Air Corps, and took over Ford Motor company in the 1950s.
There was an interesting anecdote in the book about how they demonstrated that the Boeing B-17 was superior in WWII Europe, to the Consolidated B-24. The group leader, Tex Thornton, later to run Litton, was a chain smoker. He flew across the Atlantic in a B-24, and he was not permitted to smoke, due to the B-24's tendency to leak fuel and blow up. I have read other accounts of B-24s, and this was a problem. There was no detailed analysis of what happened next. Presumably, B-24s had higher casualties than B-17s. It was possible that the boss had made it perfectly clear how the numbers were expected to turn out.
Of course, Thornton was justified in questioning the battleworthiness of an aircraft you cannot safely smoke in.
I strongly recommend the book.
JHG
There was an interesting anecdote in the book about how they demonstrated that the Boeing B-17 was superior in WWII Europe, to the Consolidated B-24. The group leader, Tex Thornton, later to run Litton, was a chain smoker. He flew across the Atlantic in a B-24, and he was not permitted to smoke, due to the B-24's tendency to leak fuel and blow up. I have read other accounts of B-24s, and this was a problem. There was no detailed analysis of what happened next. Presumably, B-24s had higher casualties than B-17s. It was possible that the boss had made it perfectly clear how the numbers were expected to turn out.
Of course, Thornton was justified in questioning the battleworthiness of an aircraft you cannot safely smoke in.
I strongly recommend the book.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- News
- Locked
- Article
- Locked
- Question