ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1320|回复: 6
打印 上一主题 下一主题

article to share

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2006-1-16 10:32:00 | 只看该作者

article to share

什么叫做MBA


MBA是英文Master of Business Administration的缩写,中文翻译过来叫工商管理硕士。

    MBA诞生于美国。经过近百年的探索和努力,它培养了为数众多的优秀工商管理人才,创造了美国经济发展的神话和奇迹。MBA被誉为“天之骄子”和“管理精英”,成为企业界乃至社会敬重和羡慕的特殊人物,甚至在公众心目中被视为“商界英雄”。据统计,美国最大的500家公司的总经理、董事长等高层主管,绝大多数都是MBA。这一惊人的事实,是对MBA教育的成功业绩的最好说明。MBA意味着超群的能力、胆识、品德;代表着财富、地位、权力、荣誉;预示着希望、成功和辉煌。

    七十与八十年代,可说是世界各国MBA的黄金时代。以美国为首的西方国家,经济上处于好景,企业需要大量的管理人才,特别是来自著名大学的商学院毕业生,于是出现了MBA学位供不应求的现象。强大的供需比例,优厚的从业报酬,吸引着学生对MBA趋之若骛,世界各地知名与不知名的院校,纷纷设立了MBA课程,在美国,MBA课程更是数不胜数,形成了泛滥的情况的出现。平心而论,限于师资、图书设备以及学生本身的学术根基薄弱等因素,某些院校的MBA课程,素质上确时有问题。八十年代后期为MBA的高峰期,到1991年,修读MBA课程的学生开始略有下跌。其后若干院校对MBA课程进行革新,1993年开始报读人数又再回升.


对外国(尤其是美国)MBA课程的批评,过去一直都有,但近年特别严厉。有的批评来自商界主管人士,有的则是商学院任教的学者。批评的焦点是各院校培养出来的MBA人才不能满足商界的要求。简单来说,商界所需要的企管人才要具备以下才能:具有领导技巧,有解决问题的能力,能与人沟通,以及具有团队的合作精神。

    在学者当中,近年批评最激烈的首推加拿大麦基尔大学管理学著名教授Henry Mintzberg。他认为:“MBA课程训练出来的毕业生犹如雇佣兵,除了少数的例外,他们对任何行业或企业都没有承诺感。这些MBA课程创造了一套错误的企业价值观。”他对著名的哈佛商学院“纯”案例教学法的批评尤为猛烈,认为案例方法只训练人们对自己几乎一无所知的事务妄加发言(见“MBA Newsletter”,1993年11月)。此外,亦有批评者认为哈佛商学院的案例教学法强调个人表现,不重视团队工作(teamwork),其强调评分法(每班低成绩的学生须占百分之十)助长的个人竞争而不是团队合作,因而导致企业不良的后果(见“Business Week”,1993年7月19日)。

    除上述外,其他对管理教育的批评(包括MBA与BBA)尚有下列数项:课程的割裂性,毕业生沟通技巧差,以及缺乏商业首先等.


针对有关批评,各著名商学院进行了反思,并对MBA课程进行了一系列的革新:


(一)按综合性(integration)原则设计了MBA课程,不是按职能(function)独立分科讲授,其中卓有成效的有美国的Babson学院等。印第安纳大学商学院亦进行课程重整与综合,减少重复的地方,使教材更合逻辑性。据有关资料透露,哈佛大学商学院把MBA第一年的十一门必修课程浓缩为四门综合性课程(见“MBA Newsletter”,1993年11月)。明尼苏达大学亦于1993年9月开始把MBA课程综合化,并分为三个“核心”:基础核心(Foundation Core)、职能核心(Functional Core)和领导才能核心(Leadership Core)。

    (二)重视团队合作精神:建立团队文化已成为各MBA课程的一个主流思想。印第安纳大学要求学生分组,在课室内外均进行合作。哈佛大学亦对一年级MBA的team project增加25%,并规定队合作的研究计划应达到一个最低数目。此外亦改变学科的评分会,减少目前学生的剧烈竞争状况.


(三)重视学生的“软性”技巧(“soft”skills)训练。美国若干大学已在精心设计一些有关课程(特别是行为科学学科方面),并进行试验,例如透过学期研究计划,课堂报告,人际活动等方法,对领导才能的软性技巧进行训练。香港中文大学工商管理硕士课程亦要求新入学的二年制全日学生参加一项“外展训练学校”开设的课程,为期一周,训练学生的毅力、领导才能与团队精神,效果显著。

    (四)重视商业道德的训练:重视商业道德是世界各地MBA课程的一大趋势。法国ISA的MBA课程甚至采用一套新颖的方法,把学生送到阿尔卑斯山的一间寺院进行道德训练。该校不认为在一些MBA课程加上道德观念的探讨就能使学生变得更有商业道德。

    (五)重视沟通技巧的训练:美国达特茅斯大学Tuck商学院及纽约大学均聘有专责教授负责管理沟通技巧的讲授。

    (六)课程的全球化(Globalization):美国各商学院在负责审订质素的机构AACSB的指引下已纷纷把各课程变得更为国际性、全球化,这趋势在八十年代中已开始。目前享誉正隆的大学商学院(LBS)与法国的INSEAD,不论在课程上或学生的组成上均以国际性作标榜.


以上是几个当前MBA课程发展的大趋势,是对批评者的一个回应。可以预见,今后MBA课程会更趋向实用化,严谨化和合理化的道路发展。


[此贴子已经被作者于2006-1-16 10:31:56编辑过]
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2006-1-16 10:36:00 | 只看该作者

MBA 天才的坟墓!?


著名的管理大师彼得。德鲁克曾经毫不客气地指出:"把MBA课程教给23岁的人,这让我很吃惊,我认为这基本上是浪费时间。他们缺少经验背景。你可以教他们技能,比如会计和其它能提供的东西,但你不能教他们管理。"


2005年1月24日,权威的英国商业媒体《金融时报》公布了其2005年度全球MBA排行榜,哈佛商学院在屈居亚军多年后,终于扬眉吐气重登全球第一的宝座,毫无疑问,这所有近四百年历史的名校在世人眼中绝对堪称是MBA界的翘楚。然而,一份25年前的调查报告却教人眼镜大跌——绝大多数读完哈佛MBA的人在走向平庸。这,绝非危言耸听。


  早在1960年,哈佛商学院曾经对他们的毕业生做了一个为时20年的长期跟踪调查,到了1980年再度盘点时,却发现结果非常出人意料。在读MBA之前,很多人都有着自己的创业梦想,但是当读完MBA后往往屈就高薪而转身走向投资银行或咨询公司。20年后,只有3%的人坚持了自己的梦想并不断提醒自己勿忘目标,结果他们的财富等同于剩余的97%的人。读了MBA,却埋葬了众多未来商界领袖的梦想。


  "对没有任何管理经验的人传授管理学,好比对一个除自己就从未见过第二个人的人谈心理学一样荒谬。"任教于法国INSEAD和加拿大McGill的管理学教授Henry Mintzberg新近出版了一本名为《要管理者不要MBA》(Managers,Not MBAs)的书,开篇就提出这个观点。Mintzberg教授认为每年有很多缺乏经验但梦想成为CEO的年轻人企图通过MBA教育来加速他们在公司中的提升,其实是极大的错误。这对于那些雄心万丈想通过MBA来完成金字塔尖跨越的年轻经理人们来说,无疑是冰水浇头。


  如果回到起点,所有希望借势MBA的经理人们,该认真思考两个递进的问题:你职业征途的雄心壮志是什么?


  看清MBA真相?


  MBA断送商业领袖


  有多少人就有多少个选择MBA的理由


  升迁?高薪?创业?还是立志成为未来的CEO?既然1000个人的心中有1000个哈姆雷特,那么每个选择MBA的年轻人自然也有属于自己的光荣与梦想。


  想进500强企业:Ricon毕业于国内名校,英文底子非常好,他的目标是进入世界500强企业,但是苍白的简历并不能使他如愿。如何给简历增加分量,他想到了出国读MBA.为了纯粹追求自己的梦想,他几乎把工作外的所有时间都用来为MBA的申请做准备,准备GMAT、准备PS、准备Essay……出色的英文功底让他的申请非常顺利,Ricon如今离他的目标仅一步之遥。


  弥补管理知识盲点:做了8年销售的Jason终于爬上了区域销售经理的宝座,但是他发现除了销售外,对很多管理者需要的知识几乎一无所知。财务、人力资源、物流……Jason的视野里一下子出现了数不清的盲点,而这些盲点恰恰是制约他再往上攀升的阻力,痛苦不堪的他几乎想尽了办法也无法走出困境,选择MBA也许是他惟一的出路。


  寻找职业发展之路:Leon的职业生涯属于典型的布朗运动,转换职业根本没有规律可言。从导游到PR、从人事助理到销售代表,Leon的工作换得非常勤,但是始终挣扎在底层,缺乏明确的目标是他无法突破职业瓶颈的根源所在。听从了朋友的建议,Leon选择了一所国内知名的商学院,他希望通过MBA来指引未来职业的发展道路。


  镀层MBA的金更时髦:和同龄人相比,Vivian的家境条件非常好,她也一心想去海外镀金。原本学工商管理的她除了MBA之外似乎也没有更好的选择,尤其是在MBA热潮尚未退去的时候,似乎没有比出国读一个MBA更时髦的事情了,何况区区几十万的学费她也能负担得起,那么有什么理由不读MBA呢?


  ……


  的确,读MBA并不需要一个冠冕堂皇的理由。根据英国《金融时报》对MBA学生调查的不完全统计,"转换或拓宽就业领域"和"个人职业发展"是大部分人选择MBA的最主要原因。除此以外,"提高薪水"、"建立职业交流网络"、"创业"等等也被列为重要原因。当然,也有一部分人冀望通过读MBA"成为未来的商界领袖".


今日的MBA≠明日的商界领袖


  一国内顶尖大学商学院校友聚会时,一干正在就读的MBA学子们慷慨激昂,宣扬自己的职业目标就是做未来的商界领袖,且大有非他们莫属的豪情。而早已毕业的师兄师姐们则默不做声,因为他们正在为商界领袖们打工,领着一份还不算微薄的工资而已。


  "MBA和商界领袖,理论上不是没有关系,实际上却几乎没有关系。因为商界领袖很少有学MBA的,而最有可能的情况是:MBA给商界领袖打工。"零点调查集团董事长袁岳毫不客气地给MBA们泼了一盆冷水。在他看来,这些所谓国内知名的商学院在教学思想中犯了双重错误——学生被误导入领袖之想,而实际上连匠术也没学到。所以在校园里做凌云梦,出了校门连个泥饭碗也难拿到。"领袖所需要的是认识社会规则的社会知识,而系统管理知识乃为规范体系的操作者使用。"袁岳指出,MBA不等同于CEO,就像法学硕士不等同于大律师、大法官一样。


  甲骨文CEO拉里。埃里森曾在耶鲁大学2000届毕业典礼上做了一个令人回味无比的演讲:"请你设想这样的情况:从现在起5年之后,10年之后,或30年之后,今天站在你左边的这个人会是一个失败者;右边的这个人,同样,也是个失败者。而你——站在中间的家伙,你以为会怎样?一样是失败者。失败的经历,失败的优等生。说实话,今天我站在这里,并没有看到一千个毕业生的灿烂未来。我没有看到一千个行业的一千名卓越领导者,我只看到了一千个失败者。


  现在,我猜想你们中间很多人,也许是绝大多数人,正在琢磨"能做什么?我究竟有没有前途?'当然没有。太晚了,你们已经吸收了太多东西,以为自己懂得太多。你们再也不是19岁了。你们有了'内置'的帽子,哦,我指的可不是你们脑袋上的学位帽。2000年毕业生,你们已经被报销,不予考虑了。我想,你们就偷偷摸摸去干那年薪20万的可怜工作吧,在那里,工资单是由你两年前辍学的同班同学签字开出来的。


  事实上,我是寄希望于眼下还没有毕业的同学。我要对他们说,离开这里。收拾好你的东西,带着你的点子,别再回来。退学吧,开始行动。我要告诉你,一顶帽子一套学位服必然要让你沦落。"埃里森的言词固然过激,但是明眼人都能看出,在传统的、固化的教学模式下,今日的MBA要想成为明日的CEO,概率实在小之又小。那么,在极小概率中读了MBA且成为商界领袖的人是些怎样的人呢?


  他们没有被MBA埋葬


  前述哈佛的那项调查固然让人沮丧,但是终究还是有3%的"异类"笑到了最后,那么究竟是何种原因使他们在一大群聪明人当中坚持到底并最终脱颖而出呢?


  .com的总裁谢劲波自2001年以来接触过近千位有志于读MBA的申请人,他认为,每个人都有选择读MBA的理由,但是最终能成为商业领袖的却注定只能出现在那些始终知道自己到底"要做什么人"的那类人中。至于因为职业发展到一定地步,需要通过读MBA来完善知识结构;借此寻求转机,希望通过MBA来指引未来职业的发展道路;甚至仅有梦想就稀里糊涂选择MBA的人,想走得远一点会很难。


  目标明确者,很早就制定了进入世界一流商学院的目标,也为此提早做好了准备,在学习的过程中也始终如一地坚持自己的目标。坊间明证之一,便是如今前程无忧的掌门人——甄荣辉。这个出身贫寒的香港人在成为HP的销售冠军后,放弃了30万港币的年薪和稳定的工作,将全部积蓄都用作了念MBA的学费。他选择的是法国的INSEAD商学院,这是一所不逊色于美国任何一家商学院的欧洲顶尖学府,虽然学制仅为一年,但是学费却并不便宜。对于甄荣辉来说,这无疑是一场赌博,作为销售状元,他在HP的发展前景光明,放弃这样让人羡慕的环境,而去追求一个未知的结果,风险未免有些大,但是一心想成就事业的Rick还是坚持下了价值百万的赌注。无论是毕业后拿15万美元起薪转行做了管理咨询,还是日后成功运作前程无忧上市坐拥数亿身家,他始终知道自己到底"要什么",目标明确如斯者,想不成功也难。


  同样举哈佛商学院的例子,早在1949年,那里曾经走出来一大群后来叱咤美国商界的领袖级人物——包括把强生变成家喻户晓的品牌的吉姆。博克,带头进行个人电脑革命的施乐公司彼得。麦克科洛,把"价值投资"带到华尔街、创建空前成功的共同基金的比尔。卢恩,将布鲁明黛尔百货变成时尚代言人的马文。特劳伯……1949届的哈佛商学院毕业生是个独特的群体,其中有超过三分之一的人最终成为商界领袖,并为20世纪90年代美国的繁荣奠定了基础。究其原因,发现他们大部分为二战退伍军人,曾经席卷诺曼底海滩和南太平洋岛屿。他们本身具备独当一面的能力,转战商场犹如转战战场,许胜不许败是他们惟一的信条,因此他们能在商界中脱颖而出也不足为奇。战争是极端竞争的场合,这里训练出的能力,对获取商业竞争胜利起极关键的作用。可以说战争洗礼是49届MBA大规模成为商业领袖的必要条件,后人常常会用他们的例子来说明MBA能造就商业领袖,可谓误导。


  MBA是聪明人玩的游戏,但聪明人却未必能玩到最后,MBA也许真的是"天才的坟墓",但是有些雄心壮志终究不会被埋葬。


  MBA究竟能带来什么  MBA教管理还是教匠术


  著名的管理大师彼得。德鲁克曾经毫不客气地指出:"把MBA课程教给23岁的人,这让我很吃惊,我认为这基本上是浪费时间。他们缺少经验背景。你可以教他们技能,比如会计和其它能提供的东西,但你不能教他们管理。"既然不能教管理,那么MBA究竟能教人什么?


  "职业经理人一定要有职业的工具知识,它们乃是一种匠术,没有匠术,连职业经理人也做不了,"袁岳认为在以经济学家为主导的诸多国内商学院中,重视匠术的人实在是少之又少,"他们否定匠术的原因,一是不懂匠术、二是不会教匠术、三是匠术兴,他们逊。可悲的是我们尊敬的MBA教授们大学也不成,小学也不成,匠术的教法和知识的教法是完全不一样的。"袁岳用他在哈佛的经历现身说法:"比如教谈判术。一般是理论一堂课,练习真谈判一堂课,总结讨论一堂课,三堂课算一次,全年大约有16次。虽然很累,但是很有用,角色扮演、谈判计分、互相评价出招等等,基本上主要可能的谈判场景你都经历过,下次碰到的所有场景你就会似曾相识。这就是谈判匠术的教法,而知识的教法是一门课从头讲到尾,八股但决不实用。"而北大光华管理学院张维迎教授一直认为中国商学院不缺乏教书匠,缺乏的是真正有水平的、懂得现代管理知识的研究者,真正的学者。"商学院不可能和所有的管理培训都一样。美国一些不错的商学院,拼命地跟市场上的公司进行竞争,这是不对的。实际上我在上游,你在下游,是一个链条。"张教授认为商学院也是分层次的,比如波音公司生产大飞机,但是很多公司生产小零件。


  对于张维迎教授的观点,袁岳并不认同,他认为商学院就应该是一个职业学院,是一个应该讲究匠术的学院,而不是一个以学术为主导的学院。"作为职业学院,教学内容应该分成两部分:第一个是职业知识,叫做知识型的知识,带有一定的学术色彩,使我们认识经营管理;第二个是工具型知识,告诉我们怎么样做。重视了知识型知识的提供,但是缺乏或者说工具型知识的提供严重不足,跟商学院的本质有比较大的偏差。"袁岳将之形容成车马,知识型的知识充当了主角,车很大、马很小,就会造成MBA毕业以后,用人单位会感觉到他的实战能力比较低。而要是换一匹马,即用工具型的知识充当主角,即使是大车还是一样能拉动。


  显然,匠术只不过是一种"术",无论是谈判、营销、人力资源、沟通技术……这些MBA的课程都是职业经理人所必须掌握的"术".而管理是一个过程,是一门1+1不知道会等于什么的学问,众多变量导致结果的不确定性。如果读MBA者,都能首先放下身段、脚踏实地地学习"商场匠术",那么出来做个好职业经理人,理应绰绰有余,但要想成为商界领袖、管理大师,那还要看各位的造化了。


MBA是两条腿走路的书柜


  读MBA做不做得了商业领袖,也许见仁见智,但MBA在企业被嘲笑为"两条腿走路的书柜"却屡见不鲜。学得出,却用不出。面对用人市场,MBA们备受考验。


  大多数中国人有瞧不上比自己强的人的习惯,除非你真能显示出特殊的本事或手段,否则你是他永远的"敌人".而那些没有真才实学的MBA,恰是被这样的"观点"给打倒了!


  有这样一个例子,某教师出身的MBA被聘为总经理助理,专抓财务管理与员工培训两块业务。有一年正逢年终大盘点,财务、销售、仓库等部门都派人参与,他是这条业务线的总管自然也得参加。偏巧,盘点后的结果显示:实数与财务库存账不符,实数与物流系统结存数也不符。他傻了眼,完全没了方向。原本就对他拿高薪不满、等着看他笑话的财务经理更是有机会将难题一推了之。而他硬着头皮依照财务管理书上的内容,设计了几条解决思路,开了两天的协调、核查碰头会,始终没能查出差错的节点与原因。倒是那位财务经理"三下五除二"地将问题搞定。从此,他就得了"两条腿书柜"的绰号……


  林是一位从英国回归的MBA,他碰到的苦恼是与同一团队的销售经理不合,而他的上司似乎更偏袒对方,这让他有很大的失落感。说来也简单,林是公司客户服务部经理,主要协助销售部门协调产品的发送、进口、运输与质量等一系列客户服务工作。一次,有家客户订购的整套产品因法国工厂的疏忽少发了关键部件,致使客户工程延误;为此,销售经理当着上司的面大发雷霆,指责他拆销售部门的台。当时林气不过,便与那位老兄争了几句,而他的上司却没有任何表态。


  过不久,林的上司安排他与销售经理共同出席公司三个管理团队的例行会议。当会议谈到客户对产品质量投诉议题时,林表示希望销售与生产部门能协调拿出一个方案,尽量避免当地销售工程师与工厂质量工程师之间不必要的推诿,从而降低客户的满意度。不知是林用词不当还是销售经理气还未消,俩人在会议上又争吵起来,而生产部门的当事人则在一旁看"戏",例会不了了之。会后,林的上司非常恼火,责怪林当着这么多其他团队管理人员的面丢他的脸,还反复地说:你不能事先与我沟通吗?我们三个人先协调,不就可以将球推给生产部门了吗?!


  从上司的角度看,没有一个上司喜欢"多事、刺头"的下属,但他很会平衡哪类下属对他在公司的地位有帮助,很显然他不会偏向林。另外,上司非常在乎他的权威和地位,他需要别人的承认;偏偏林在上司的"上司、竞争对手"面前让他"丢了脸",他当然很没面子。由此看来,林最大的失败是不分场合直抒胸臆,既没能讨上司的喜欢,也没能和同事融洽相处,说白点就是没学会如何"做人".新创意公司首席职业顾问俞茵发现:自从MBA大量"生产"以来,大多数人对MBA持怀疑的态度,特别是负责市场、销售的非MBA经理们,他们始终认为:MBA只是嘴上说得动人,真让他们"真刀真枪"地干可能连门都找不到……因此,经常可以看到趾高气扬、自以为是的MBA被销售"人精"教训得一愣一愣的,最终遭遇"滑铁卢".


MBA是攀比效应还是虚荣效应


  最近几年,MBA高价待沽的火热场面几乎消失殆尽,有人说,MBA过剩,读了也"销"不出去。MBA的未来何在?


  记得张维迎教授在一个对话节目中对MBA的现状有过一个独特的看法:从经济学角度来讲,MBA类似一个网络产品。中国现在很多MBA之所以不太好找工作,还是因为MBA太少。MBA越多,它的价值也会越来越提升。我们可以用经济学里的外部连带效应中的攀比效应和虚荣效应做一下分析。


  攀比效应是一种赶时髦心理,就是说消费者认为其他人买这个东西的越多,他的购买欲望就越强烈。并且拥有这种商品的消费者越多,这种商品的内在价值就越大,一个简单的例子就是CD唱机,如果只有很少的人拥有,那么就没有厂商愿意去生产丰富的唱片,CD唱机的价值也就体现不出来。而虚荣效应正好相反,它代表了人想独占某种商品的欲望,能够拥有的人越少,带给人们的需求欲望就越强烈。比如艺术品、专门设计的赛车、定做的高档服装等等,从某种程度上,虚荣是荣誉、地位或身份的象征。


  如果把企业作为买主,MBA作为一种商品的话,那么在企业的眼里,MBA具备不具备外部连带效应呢?如果有,是攀比效应在起作用呢?还是虚荣效应在起作用?


  当然我们更愿意相信企业使用MBA是从一种理性角度出发的,合理评估企业需要和MBA的能力、作用,来决定是否和如何使用MBA.但是,不可否认的是,很多企业在用人上还是受外部影响的。那么这种影响表现为什么呢?


  著名的博客写手、清华大学MBA 水木经伦论坛英侠认为:"MBA在企业的眼里会经历一个从虚荣效应到攀比效应的变化。"我们还记得前几年MBA的整体数量比较少的时候,MBA留给社会的是一个社会精英形象,所以很多企业使用MBA实际上是虚荣效应在发挥作用,用以表示自身企业的高品位和规范管理。随着MBA毕业生的增多,大量的MBA毕业生涌向社会,MBA具有的虚荣效应消失,而攀比效应还没有起作用,所以MBA的就业在社会上暂时进入了一个低谷阶段。但是,几年之后MBA这种商品将迎来攀比效应发挥作用的一个新的时期,当越来越多的公司拥有MBA的时候,没有MBA毕业生的公司将会被认为是一个不规范,跟不上时代变化的企业。MBA的需求会迎来一个新的高峰。


  不管是不是天才的坟墓,对于大多数人来说,"MBA"这三个简简单单的英文字母终究还是充满了无尽的诱惑。那么,就请擦亮你的眼睛,认清MBA的真面目,仔细盘算一下自己该不该读MBA、何时出手,牢记投资回报率是关键。


===================


DADADA有话要说:)


这个就有点那个!!!不知道会不会discourage某些chase mba的人。。。其实,各人看法吧,还是那句话,go for it if you want!haha

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2006-1-16 10:38:00 | 只看该作者

MBA主要的必修课程


必修课程必修课程大约有13门。它们是:
  
   (1)宏观经济学;(2)会计学;(3)财务管理;
   (4)营销管理;(5)生产管理;(6)系统工程;
   (7)企业战略;(8)经济法;(9)计算机辅助管理;
   (10)财政与金融;(11)国际贸易与国际金融;
   (12)应用经济学;(13)人力资源的开发与管理。



====


that maybe from the China style MBA ba?


Hope to read more for oversea MBA。 But something alike, i assume~~?


[此贴子已经被作者于2006-1-16 10:39:35编辑过]
地板
 楼主| 发表于 2006-1-16 10:41:00 | 只看该作者

An interview with Henry Mintzberg


Nov 2nd 2001
From The Economist Global Executive


What’s wrong with business education today?


Henry Mintzberg is Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies at McGill University and a visiting professor at INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France. But he is better known for his ten books and for co-founding, with Jonathan Gosling, the International Masters Programme in Practising Management (IMPM). Led by a consortium of schools from five countries, including INSEAD and McGill, the IMPM offers an alternative approach to management education, teaching students in five modules, each held in a different country and focusing on a different aspect of managing, over the course of 18 months. It has spawned a similar programme for the public sector in Canada and the Advanced Leadership Programme for senior-level managers. Mr Mintzberg has stepped down as chairman of the IMPM to continue writing, including his next book, “Developing Managers, Not MBAs”. He spoke with The Economist Global Executive from Prague.



What led you to the conclusion that current management education was flawed?


I guess seeing enough MBAs over time and seeing the impact of MBAs on companies. Having an MBA doesn’t mean you’re a terrible manager; there are a number of successful managers who have MBAs . . . But I think that [in business schools] there’s a promotion of an approach to managing that is disastrous in many areas. Because basically, you don’t get trained in the capacity for managing in an MBA programme. You think you do, but when you end up in a managerial position, you don’t really have much to turn to from your education . . . a lot of people end up grabbing for techniques.


The most obvious example, I think, of where it goes wrong is in the case-study method: give me 20 pages and an evening to think about it and I’ll give you the decision tomorrow morning. It trains people to provide the most superficial response to problems, over and over again getting the data in a nice, neat, packaged form and then making decisions on that basis. It encourages managers to be disconnected from the people they’re managing.


Also because getting an MBA is a license to practice managing things that you never worked in. Often, MBAs will parachute around from one company or industry to another, without really understanding what’s behind it.



Can you point to specific examples of MBAs failing as managers?


[Joseph Lampel and I] did an article, eight months ago—we came across this book from a Harvard Business School insider in 1990, which featured the Harvard “superstars” of 1990, and so ten years on we decided to look at how these people did. Well, out of 19 people listed, ten of them were disasters, either fired by their boards, things like that, including people like Frank Lorenzo [of Eastern Airlines]. He probably made the list by about eight months.



Why does the IMPM solicit applications from working managers rather than full-time students?


It’s two things: teaching people who have a context, and we make use of their own decision, building on their own experiences whenever we can. We use a few cases, but we’re not a case place. We make great use of their own personal experiences, and it’s incredibly powerful.



How much experience do you think a student would need to benefit from an MBA programme?


I don’t think they’ll get anything out of an MBA programme in that regard. What you get out of an MBA programme, no matter how much experience, is functional tools and understanding in disciplines: you’ll understand economics, you’ll understand marketing, finance, accounting. That, MBA programmes do very well. No matter how much experience you’ve got, that’s what the focus is. For a management programme like ours, or anything that’s truly geared to management . . . I think you’ve got to be in a management position and be struggling with having to manage a situation. Whether that means one year of finance or ten years, I’m not altogether sure. We know it works well with people who have five to ten years of actual experience. But I’ve always wanted to run [an IMPM-style programme] with junior managers, to see how it would work.


They’ve got to be in a managerial context to be able to use that context in the classroom. And the classroom has to be designed to take advantage of that, which almost no MBA programmes or executive education programmes do.



You’ve talked about exploring different styles of managing: perhaps a European style, a developing-countries style, and so on. What have you discovered about the possibilities of difference in managing styles?


We haven’t really studied it systematically in the context of the class. It’s difficult to get the different schools to consider that, because they’re just not used to the idea—except in Japan, where they’re very, very obsessive about it. In Japan they’re very focused on what does it mean to manage in a Japanese style. But I’m not sure we’ve been successful in getting the Indians in management to focus on what does it mean . . . INSEAD doesn’t focus on what it means to manage in Europe.


The style of managing currently taught isn’t universal at all; it’s American. Everything is American. There’s no reason why that should be universal.



What’s wrong with the “American style”?


This obsession with leadership . . . It’s not neutral; it’s American, this idea of the heroic leader who comes in on a white horse to save the day. I think it’s killing American companies. You’ve got all this drama going on. Executive bonuses are just a reflection of that, where people are singled out and paid obscenely, as if they’re larger than life. It’s nuts. It’s absolutely nuts.


It’s the also the mindless application of technique. There’s a lot of that in the States, where people just grab techniques and apply them without thinking.



Among your students at IMPM, have you found a blend of management styles?


There’s a lot of variety. But, you know, we’re not attracting the heroes. We’re attracting the craftspeople—people who know their businesses well, know their companies well.


5#
 楼主| 发表于 2006-1-16 10:52:00 | 只看该作者

for girls


======


Ladies last
Business schools are trying hard to attract female students. Though the sex ratio imbalance is still skewed, there may not be much more they can do


Listen to an exclusive audio interview with Edward Snyder, Dean of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business (in RealAudio or Windows Media Player), and a roundtable with Paul Danos, dean of Tuck School of Business, and David Kreps, Senior Associate Dean of Stanford University Graduate School of Business (in Real Audio or Windows Media Player).


When Noreen Doyle, now second-in-command at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), travelled to San Antonio, Texas, as an employee of Bankers Trust almost 30 years ago, she got a memorable reception. Her flabbergasted host wasted little time in hustling her into the chairman’s office. “George, they sent a girl down here,” he chortled.



Companies back in the 1970s were not used to professional women in the workplace. Nor were business schools. Ms Doyle was one of the first women to graduate from Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, in 1974. She recalls one occasion when a professor disagreeably pronounced, “Today is ladies’ day”: an excuse to single out the “ladies” present, who could be counted on one hand. “You were in a fishbowl,” she says of her time at Tuck. “If you made [being a woman] an issue, you got frozen out.”



Times have changed. Ms Doyle shared her memories, along with more hard-nosed thoughts on the EBRD’s strategy, at a recent gathering of the Women in Business Club at London Business School—a forum which itself embodies the modern emphasis on support. Most business schools these days are sensitive about having disproportionately low female enrolment, and about other issues involving women in business. Tuck, Ms Doyle’s alma mater, now bursts with women’s support networks: it has a mentoring program for female students, a women-in-business club, a symposium on work/life balance and a working women’s MBA group. Most business schools have similar offerings.


But there is still far to go. True, women—if they so choose—are wrapped in support networks once they get to business school; but the trouble is getting there in the first place. Few top business schools have MBA classes that are more than 35% women (Stanford is one of the highest, with its class of 2003 comprised of 38% women). The higher-level the degree, the fewer women may be enrolled. At London Business School, figures for the MBA programme have risen from 23% women in 1996 to 29% in 2001; but its executive MBA programme has 24% women in 2002—up from 18% in 2000. Its prestigious EMBA Global programme, run jointly with Columbia, has just 17% women. By contrast, other professions have righted these imbalances: women account for some 50% of law student applicants in America.



Business schools themselves can hardly be blamed for this imbalance. Most are actively trying to lure more women through recruiting and offering scholarships. The old problem is rather that business does not appeal to women as much as to men. Much fuss has been made in America over a new book by Sylvia Ann Hewlett, “Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children”, which argues that high-flying women do not have as many children as they would have wished. Though the hype around the book is exaggerated, it does flag the fact that women, more than men, often face tough choices about family and career. For mothers or prospective mothers, the long hours and travel time of a business career can be off-putting. Moreover, high-flying businesses, especially the financial services, are not renowned for their friendliness towards women (with or without children). As women steer clear of business, so they steer clear of business school: Sarah Rapson, an MBA student at LBS and official in the Women in Business Club, notes that the take-up rate for women—the percentage of admitted women who actually accept a place in business school—is sometimes lower than that for men.



So what—if anything—can be done? “It’s difficult—I think 30% is probably going to be where it stays unless business schools do something really different,” says Ms Rapson. She reiterates that business schools are going flat-out to attract more women, but notes that boosting the number of women on the faculties might help. LBS is currently the only top-tier business school with a female dean, but only 15 of its 107 faculty members are women, a not atypical percentage. “What we want to see are role models,” Ms Rapson says, speculating that as more business-school faculty are pulled from business rather than directly from academia, more women may join up.


6#
 楼主| 发表于 2006-1-16 10:55:00 | 只看该作者

The role of the admissions office


In this excerpt from “Which MBA?”, the Economist Intelligence Unit explains the workings of those who determine prospective students’ fates










Although getting in is tough, admissions staff invariably present a smiling face. After all, you may be the ideal candidate. As a result, you can expect them to be efficient in answering queries and eventually making an offer of a place. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a common reason for choosing a particular school is the helpfulness of the admissions office. Schools also make an effort to get applicants on campus. Good candidates are much more easily persuaded to sign up when they are physically on campus and can meet the faculty members, sit in on classes and talk to students. Many admissions departments also telephone prospective students to continue the selling process. For those who fit the student profile the school is aiming for, considerable help, in the form of scholarships and even living allowances, can be available.


Like everything else in the MBA world, information technology now dominates the admissions process. Most schools accept online applications and most of their websites provide enormous amounts of information about programmes, facilities and faculties.


The friendly face of admissions is about attracting applications, however. Once the forms and online submissions start rolling up, the job of admissions changes. The concern then becomes how to select only the best candidates and to make sure that none of the best defect to competing schools. There are good commercial reasons for this. The best students attract the best recruiters and get the best jobs. Graduates who get the best, highest-paid jobs are great advertisements for the school and (the school hopes) grateful and generous alumni.


At first sight the qualities admissions departments look for in candidates are fairly standard. They expect a good first degree (generally the subject is not important, although some schools offer fast tracks to applicant with undergraduate majors in areas such as business studies, economics or finance) and a good GMAT score, although this will vary from school to school. In 2000, for example, Stanford in San Francisco had an average GMAT score of 727 (remember that the maximum score is 800) and London Business School had 690. All schools that require the GMAT have an effective minimum score, and it follows that the higher the average at the school the higher is the minimum requirement. Also required are a solid work background, generally of at least three years; good interpersonal skills and leadership potential; a belief that you really want to come to their school; and a "wow" factor that somehow sets candidates apart (this might be an interesting former career such as ballerina or marine corps colonel or charitable work in developing countries).


The decision, however, is entirely in the hands of the admissions office and its director. Directors typically have long experience of selection and claim the ability to spot the students who will and will not succeed. The reality is that for the majority of candidates the judgment is finely balanced and largely subjective. It may also be weighted by considerations that go well beyond the qualities of a particular candidate. For example, the school may want to boost the number of foreign students or increase the average number of years of work experience or GMAT scores. In any case, there will always be a need for a good mix of backgrounds by function and industry for each intake, so a trade-off may be required, for example, between test scores, job responsibilities and international experience.


Applications are theoretically reviewed by an admissions committee, which typically includes members of the faculty. In practice, the admissions director usually has the ultimate say on who is in and who is out, and the committee, if involved at all, will deal only with borderline cases.


Given the link between bright students, bright graduate recruits and grateful graduates, the admissions and careers services departments work closely together. If they decide after reviewing applications that certain candidates have unrealistic goals for their subsequent careers, they may not be prepared to risk their job record by taking them on. Even successful applicants will be encouraged to start the job search early on.

7#
 楼主| 发表于 2006-1-16 10:56:00 | 只看该作者
这可是我这几天的精华啊!累了...
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-7-5 09:12
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部