bj.jaat

New member
Hello Friends,

Last Night I think too much on this topic and as of my point of view I don't think it was necessary 10-15 years before but now a days competition is very high in every business and one can't fight alone with this competition until he/she is aware about some insights of business.

Many new companies emerge in today's market scenarion but got bursted because they don't have knowledge of new factors coming to the business place and same with Core Competency..


I will be very happy if you criticize this and post some really good points on this topic..

Hope to see a positive reply from your side.

Thank You..........
 
succeeding in business doesn't require an education in management
it is more a matter of knowing what you're good at and next finding the right environment to support you in the areas where you are not good (enough) yet
 

sami459

New member
when ever the the thought of what next comes into our mind this is a Topic on which me and my friends have long discussions on! there was a time wen parents used to say proudly "my son is an MBA"but now the case is such that if you said you are an MBA the answer comes "so?". in fact if u ask any1 doing an BMS they will answer they r planning not just MBA but also some other courses lik a friend of mine is doing MBA along with a GNIIT, M Com by correspondence and is planning to learn some foriegn language!
However it msut be noted that The Mba gives us an edge.
but for being sucessful you dont need MBA but a mixture of Talent, skill and luck. so it is an open debate for us. the knowledge we get from being an MBA can be got better by working and experiencing our self in this "BIG BAD WORLD"
 

lalvanzonline

New member
hii there..
I seriuosly dont think that management education is too much necessary..
it is ultimately all about your interest and ur knowledge in business..
 

bj.jaat

New member
Hello Friends,

I am absolutely agree with you Sami, Ivan and Lalvanz....

But we can't only talk about skill, Interest and Talent. What we study in MBA is pure business language and if you noted down the whole concept applies in practical life also...
If we talk about entrepreneurs, How much Tata, Ambani, Birla and Mittal are emerged in last few years?

That was too past thing when people did think about this thing that Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani started his career with 10 rs. and we can also.

At this time we can't even think that we will get success by this ideas.. As you have seen that in last 2-3 years, you have seen that many new sectors are emerged in the market and it is all because of brilliant ideas of MBA's. Now people think that if you are an MBA then you will think in different way than other people because you have wasted important 2 years in a professional course to learn about basic insight of business.

So Skills, Talents, Luck all these are very odd words now a days and every one require a good Idea that can be implemented.... and Ideas arises in everyone's mind but MBA's are taught to manage these ideas for a better future of society as well as his/her personal growth...

Again looking for comment from your sides.........

Thanks....
 

Chikebird

New member
No, it is not necissary by definition. Education aims for nothing more than teaching the student concepts, a way of thinking & analysing, discipline, understanding, time management etc. All of these elements that are inherent to education are also seen in learning by experience, education has no monopoly on the ability to communicate any business principle.

However, that does not take away anything from the value of education. On itsself, education is not a necessity, but placed in the context of time, education's main benefit is that allows you to learn in a couple of years what could take a decade if learned by experience.

Never forget the following: Education is a giving to a new generation, the collective knowledge of all previous generations. And that learning from experience is reinventing the wheel. So no, education is not necissary, but it definately is extremely time saving and more thorough.

The roots of education are bitter, but the fruits are sweet.'

Hope that helps,
- Bird
 

nitin_deshmukh

New member
Hi Friend,
As per our topic, i think it is necessory but you can't say that without ME you will not succeed.Beacause entrepreneurs are not made they are born.They posess all these qualities and thing is that how you utilise it.
As a manager point of view " If you do business yesterdays method,You will loose your business Tomorrow ". so in that condition ME is must for Survival of FITTEST.

Thank you.
 

sheldon1988

New member
Hello Friends,

Last Night I think too much on this topic and as of my point of view I don't think it was necessary 10-15 years before but now a days competition is very high in every business and one can't fight alone with this competition until he/she is aware about some insights of business.

Many new companies emerge in today's market scenarion but got bursted because they don't have knowledge of new factors coming to the business place and same with Core Competency..


I will be very happy if you criticize this and post some really good points on this topic..

Hope to see a positive reply from your side.

Thank You..........
yes i do agree that mgmt edu is necessary but i would say arrogance is not
take the case of lehman brothers i:SugarwareZ-153:

once u complete a course u aquire a diffrerent personality

regards

sheldon
 

rajanlove

Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
i thin management education is very neccessary to be successful in business .as it has produced many bigwigs like DELL,MUKESH AMBANI,ANIL AMBANI.ETC.If we claim to say that "education is the key to success ,then we must also say that mangement education is necessary to be sucessful in business.moreover,management ducation helps in taking decisions effectively
 

rajanlove

Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
I will however jump right into refuting my opponent points.

First, I would like to point out my opponent's not so great grammar and hope you remember that when you go to vote.

Second, my opponent has failed to define any of her terms or give any contentions.

Third, Management education is not necessary to be successful in business as shown in history.

My opponent has named several businesses in which these "bigwigs" had been produced by management education.
The founder of Dell, Michael Dell did not have any management education. In fact, Michael Dell did not excel academically but had great business instincts.
Education is also not the key to success, great ideas are. Anyone can have education and a degree, but having great ideas is what separates people from the rest of the pack. A person education does not translate into whether they have good or bad ideas either.

Bill Gates dropped out of college, technology was being released and Bill saw it as a great business opportunity. Luckily he had great support in his parents and a great idea. So Bill Gates, the richest man in the world is another person without any sort of management education.

Management Education does not also translate into "taking decisions effectively" in which I assume my opponent I think here means making them.

We've had thousands if not millions of people who have had management education over the years yet most of those businesses have failed. As I stated earlier, it's all about having a great idea and the intelligence to know what the next big great idea is and plan for it.

Two Final Points towards the Case:
The first U.S President to hold a MBA (Masters of Business Administration) is George W Bush.

The President to really have any sort of experience in running a business is Herbert Hoover.

Both Presidents have been a major factor in "The Great Depression" of their times that occurred under their watch.

Final Points:
My opponent did not have any contentions or definitions.

My opponent grammar was highly poor in many areas.

My opponent did not prove that management education translates into being successful in business.

My opponent own examples were false and refuted.

The rest of my opponent points were refuted by me.
 

rajanlove

Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
The strange thing about my utter lack of education in management was that it didn't seem to matter. As a principal and founding partner of a consulting firm that eventually grew to 600 employees, I interviewed, hired, and worked alongside hundreds of business-school graduates, and the impression I formed of the M.B.A. experience was that it involved taking two years out of your life and going deeply into debt, all for the sake of learning how to keep a straight face while using phrases like "out-of-the-box thinking," "win-win situation," and "core competencies." When it came to picking teammates, I generally held out higher hopes for those individuals who had used their university years to learn about something other than business administration.

After I left the consulting business, in a reversal of the usual order of things, I decided to check out the management literature. Partly, I wanted to "process" my own experience and find out what I had missed in skipping business school. Partly, I had a lot of time on my hands. As I plowed through tomes on competitive strategy, business process re-engineering, and the like, not once did I catch myself thinking, Damn! If only I had known this sooner! Instead, I found myself thinking things I never thought I'd think, like, I'd rather be reading Heidegger! It was a disturbing experience. It thickened the mystery around the question that had nagged me from the start of my business career: Why does management education exist?
 

rajan_pandey

New member
The Management Myth
Article Tools
sponsored by:
Click here to find out more!
email E-mail Article
print Printer Format

Management theory came to life in 1899 with a simple question: “How many tons of pig iron bars can a worker load onto a rail car in the course of a working day?” The man behind this question was Frederick Winslow Taylor, the author of The Principles of Scientific Management and, by most accounts, the founding father of the whole management business.

Taylor was forty-three years old and on contract with the Bethlehem Steel Company when the pig iron question hit him. Staring out over an industrial yard that covered several square miles of the Pennsylvania landscape, he watched as laborers loaded ninety-two-pound bars onto rail cars. There were 80,000 tons’ worth of iron bars, which were to be carted off as fast as possible to meet new demand sparked by the Spanish-American War. Taylor narrowed his eyes: there was waste there, he was certain. After hastily reviewing the books at company headquarters, he estimated that the men were currently loading iron at the rate of twelve and a half tons per man per day.

Taylor stormed down to the yard with his assistants (“college men,” he called them) and rounded up a group of top-notch lifters (“first-class men”), who in this case happened to be ten “large, powerful Hungarians.” He offered to double the workers’ wages in exchange for their participation in an experiment. The Hungarians, eager to impress their apparent benefactor, put on a spirited show. Huffing up and down the rail car ramps, they loaded sixteen and a half tons in something under fourteen minutes. Taylor did the math: over a ten-hour day, it worked out to seventy-five tons per day per man. Naturally, he had to allow time for bathroom breaks, lunch, and rest periods, so he adjusted the figure approximately 40 percent downward. Henceforth, each laborer in the yard was assigned to load forty-seven and a half pig tons per day, with bonus pay for reaching the target and penalties for failing.

When the Hungarians realized that they were being asked to quadruple their previous daily workload, they howled and refused to work. So Taylor found a “high-priced man,” a lean Pennsylvania Dutchman whose intelligence he compared to that of an ox. Lured by the promise of a 60 percent increase in wages, from $1.15 to a whopping $1.85 a day, Taylor’s high-priced man loaded forty-five and three-quarters tons over the course of a grueling day—close enough, in Taylor’s mind, to count as the first victory for the methods of modern management.

Taylor went on to tackle the noble science of shoveling and a host of other topics of concern to his industrial clients. He declared that his new and unusual approach to solving business problems amounted to a “complete mental revolution.” Eventually, at the urging of his disciples, he called his method “scientific management.” Thus was born the idea that management is a science—a body of knowledge collected and nurtured by experts according to neutral, objective, and universal standards.

At the same moment was born the notion that management is a distinct function best handled by a distinct group of people—people characterized by a particular kind of education, way of speaking, and fashion sensibility. Taylor, who favored a manly kind of prose, expressed it best in passages like this:

… the science of handling pig iron is so great and amounts to so much that it is impossible for the man who is best suited to this type of work to understand the principles of this science, or even to work in accordance with these principles, without the aid of a man better educated than he is.

From a metaphysical perspective, one could say that Taylor was a “dualist”: there is brain, there is brawn, and the two, he believed, very rarely meet.

Taylor went around the country repeating his pig iron story and other tales from his days in the yard, and these narratives formed something like a set of scriptures for a new and highly motivated cult of management experts. This vanguard ultimately vaulted into the citadel of the Establishment with the creation of business schools. In the spring of 1908, Taylor met with several Harvard professors, and later that year Harvard opened the first graduate school in the country to offer a master’s degree in business. It based its first-year curriculum on Taylor’s scientific management. From 1909 to 1914, Taylor visited Cambridge every winter to deliver a series of lectures—inspirational discourses marred only by the habit he’d picked up on the shop floor of swearing at inappropriate moments.

Yet even as Taylor’s idea of management began to catch on, a number of flaws in his approach were evident. The first thing many observers noted about scientific management was that there was almost no science to it. The most significant variable in Taylor’s pig iron calculation was the 40 percent “adjustment” he made in extrapolating from a fourteen-minute sample to a full workday. Why time a bunch of Hungarians down to the second if you’re going to daub the results with such a great blob of fudge? When he was grilled before Congress on the matter, Taylor casually mentioned that in other experiments these “adjustments” ranged from 20 percent to 225 percent. He defended these unsightly “wags” (wild-ass guesses, in M.B.A.-speak) as the product of his “judgment” and “experience”—but, of course, the whole point of scientific management was to eliminate the reliance on such inscrutable variables.

One of the distinguishing features of anything that aspires to the name of science is the reproducibility of experimental results. Yet Taylor never published the data on which his pig iron or other conclusions were based. When Carl Barth, one of his devotees, took over the work at Bethlehem Steel, he found Taylor’s data to be unusable. Another, even more fundamental feature of science—here I invoke the ghost of Karl Popper—is that it must produce falsifiable propositions. Insofar as Taylor limited his concern to prosaic activities such as lifting bars onto rail cars, he did produce propositions that were falsifiable—and, indeed, were often falsified. But whenever he raised his sights to management in general, he seemed capable only of soaring platitudes. At the end of the day his “method” amounted to a set of exhortations: Think harder! Work smarter! Buy a stopwatch!

The trouble with such claims isn’t that they are all wrong. It’s that they are too true. When a congressman asked him if his methods were open to misuse, Taylor replied, No. If management has the right state of mind, his methods will always lead to the correct result. Unfortunately, Taylor was right about that. Taylorism, like much of management theory to come, is at its core a collection of quasi-religious dicta on the virtue of being good at what you do, ensconced in a protective bubble of parables (otherwise known as case studies).

Curiously, Taylor and his college men often appeared to float free from the kind of accountability that they demanded from everybody else. Others might have been asked, for example: Did Bethlehem’s profits increase as a result of their work? Taylor, however, rarely addressed the question head-on. With good reason. Bethlehem fired him in 1901 and threw out his various systems. Yet this evident vacuum of concrete results did not stop Taylor from repeating his parables as he preached the doctrine of efficiency to countless audiences across the country.
 

rajanlove

Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
In the management literature these days, Taylorism is presented, if at all, as a chapter of ancient history, a weird episode about an odd man with a stopwatch who appeared on the scene sometime after Columbus discovered the New World. Over the past century Taylor’s successors have developed a powerful battery of statistical methods and analytical approaches to business problems. And yet the world of management remains deeply Taylorist in its foundations.

At its best, management theory is part of the democratic promise of America. It aims to replace the despotism of the old bosses with the rule of scientific law. It offers economic power to all who have the talent and energy to attain it. The managerial revolution must be counted as part of the great widening of economic opportunity that has contributed so much to our prosperity. But, insofar as it pretends to a kind of esoteric certitude to which it is not entitled, management theory betrays the ideals on which it was founded.

That Taylorism and its modern variants are often just a way of putting labor in its place need hardly be stated: from the Hungarians’ point of view, the pig iron experiment was an infuriatingly obtuse way of demanding more work for less pay. That management theory represents a covert assault on capital, however, is equally true. (The Soviet five-year planning process took its inspiration directly from one of Taylor’s more ardent followers, the engineer H. L. Gantt.) Much of management theory today is in fact the consecration of class interest—not of the capitalist class, nor of labor, but of a new social group: the management class.

I can confirm on the basis of personal experience that management consulting continues to worship at the shrine of numerology where Taylor made his first offering of blobs of fudge. In many of my own projects, I found myself compelled to pacify recalcitrant data with entirely confected numbers. But I cede the place of honor to a certain colleague, a gruff and street-smart Belgian whose hobby was to amass hunting trophies. The huntsman achieved some celebrity for having invented a new mathematical technique dubbed “the Two-Handed Regression.” When the data on the correlation between two variables revealed only a shapeless cloud—even though we knew damn well there had to be a correlation—he would simply place a pair of meaty hands on the offending bits of the cloud and reveal the straight line hiding from conventional mathematics.

The thing that makes modern management theory so painful to read isn’t usually the dearth of reliable empirical data. It’s that maddening papal infallibility. Oh sure, there are a few pearls of insight, and one or two stories about hero-CEOs that can hook you like bad popcorn. But the rest is just inane. Those who looked for the true meaning of “business process re-engineering,” the most overtly Taylorist of recent management fads, were ultimately rewarded with such gems of vacuity as “BPR is taking a blank sheet of paper to your business!” and “BPR means re-thinking everything, everything!”

Each new fad calls attention to one virtue or another—first it’s efficiency, then quality, next it’s customer satisfaction, then supplier satisfaction, then self-satisfaction, and finally, at some point, it’s efficiency all over again. If it’s reminiscent of the kind of toothless wisdom offered in self-help literature, that’s because management theory is mostly a subgenre of self-help. Which isn’t to say it’s completely useless. But just as most people are able to lead fulfilling lives without consulting Deepak Chopra, most managers can probably spare themselves an education in management theory.

The world of management theorists remains exempt from accountability. In my experience, for what it’s worth, consultants monitored the progress of former clients about as diligently as they checked up on ex-spouses (of which there were many). Unless there was some hope of renewing the relationship (or dating a sister company), it was Hasta la vista, baby. And why should they have cared? Consultants’ recommendations have the same semantic properties as campaign promises: it’s almost freakish if they are remembered in the following year.

In one episode, when I got involved in winding up the failed subsidiary of a large European bank, I noticed on the expense ledger that a rival consulting firm had racked up $5 million in fees from the same subsidiary. “They were supposed to save the business,” said one client manager, rolling his eyes. “Actually,” he corrected himself, “they were supposed to keep the illusion going long enough for the boss to find a new job.” Was my competitor held to account for failing to turn around the business and/or violating the rock-solid ethical standards of consulting firms? On the contrary, it was ringing up even higher fees over in another wing of the same organization.

And so was I. In fact, we kind of liked failing businesses: there was usually plenty of money to be made in propping them up before they finally went under. After Enron, true enough, Arthur Andersen sank. But what happened to such stalwarts as McKinsey, which generated millions in fees from Enron and supplied it with its CEO? The Enron story wasn’t just about bad deeds or false accounts; it was about confusing sound business practices with faddish management ideas, celebrated with gusto by the leading lights of the management world all the way to the end of the party.
 

ramsharma88888

Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
In a recent forbes survey they discovered that 3 out of the top 5 CEO's of the world do not hold Business administration degrees including Steve Jobbs. Management learning can just help attune you in that direction and sharpen your skills but at the end of the day it is the person and his leadership style that matters the most .
 

m.rajni

New member
BEFORE 10-15 YEARS ALSO MGMT STUDIES WERE THERE BUT IN PRACTICAL LIFE IT WAS NOT TAUGHT IN CLASSROOM BUT IN WORK AREA. AMBANI TATA AND BIRLAS DIDN'T EMERGE IN ONE DAY BUT AFTER MANAGING THEIR BUSINESSES FOR SO LONG YEARS. WITHOUT MGMT STUDIES IT WONT BE POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO SUCCEED NOT ONLY IN BUSINESS BUT ALSO IN LIFE
 

grail

Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
management studies helps an individual weigh their options and take the right decision...plus the basics of business...... if u have that capability installed already.. no need for an MBA....
 

TANNS

Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
nopes many good business have got nno mba degree but tey are very successful like dhirubhia ambani,bill gates etcetc
 

dhondhu

New member
i guess MBA is a must. There are certain thing that MBA teaches you that are not general knowledge like people belive. MBA is much more than generak knowledge.
 

sarantce

New member
ya ur right

present days even we cant do the business in a competitive environment with basic knowledge
we have to know indepth
 
Top