Why The MBA Is Relatively Useless

I realize that I am about to review a book that is a few years old, and one that has come under a lot of criticism by others in what I call the “academic business profession” and in business circles. The reason for this is likely because Henry Mintzberg – the books author – says that a paradigm shift is needed in the way we educate managers. Paradigm shifts, weather in science, philosophy, or communication are always controversial and always attacked, because they challenge the status quo and entrenched interests. Since there has been so little change in the way MBAs are taught over the decades, it is no surprise that some people suggest Mintzberg lost his marbles.

Mintzberg’s basic problem with management education is that it is completely separate from the actual running of a business. Students are generally given a case study to analyze and come up with a solution to the case study’s company’s problem. What should an organization do with a factory that is no longer productive? What should a company do with a particular asset class?  How does a company deal with shrinking profit margins? What does a manager do with such and such employee? These case studies are about 25 pages long – and from the reading the student is supposed to come up with some solution and make a decision. That’s it. That’s what most management professors think management is – and hence what most MBA students think being a manager is.

"The trouble with “management” education is that it is business education, and leaves a distorted impression of management. Management is a practice that has to blend a good deal of craft (experience) with a certain amount of art (insight) and some science (analysis)" (p. 1)

Of course the problem is that this way of teaching management is sterile and void of any actual context. Organizations are – depending on how you want to look at them – intricate systems wherein sensemaking must happen ala Weick, or continuing cultures created and sustained by communication, practices, and performances, or places where power is both sought, fought, and transgressed. (Most organizational communication scholars will tell you it’s a combination of all these.) 

From a cultural perspective – all organizations are different cultures. Think of the differences between Apple and Microsoft. Or Starbucks and McDonalds. Or Coke and Pepsi. Or a Pentecostal church and a Southern Bapitst church. There are, in fact, as many different organizational cultures as there are organizations. As organizational communication scholars have been arguing for thirty or so years, you cannot understand an organizational culture, without studying that culture in-depth: generally through one of he many varieties of ethnographic research. 

Think about this for a moment. MBA students sit in a classroom and ‘study’ an organization on paper and are supposed to come up with a solution to some sort of organizational dilemma. This type of teaching is well-adapted to get students to do only one thing: do case studies in a classroom. Much like k-12 standardized testing, there’s no ‘there’ there. What they learn by analyzing a case study is about a useful in the real world of managing as filling in the little dots on a standardized test are to successfully going on a date. They are supposed to make a contextless decision. This is Mintsberg’s basic critique.

"An education that overemphasizes the science encourages a style of managing I call “calculating” or, if the graduates believe themselves to be artists, as in- creasing numbers now do, a related style I call “heroic.” Enough of them, enough of that. We don’t need heroes in positions of influence any more than technocrats" (p. 1).

However, businesses aren’t like that. Not at all. They are not static, but constantly on the move. They have different systems, different cultures, different values, different employees, etc., etc. etc. Hence the MBA as taught looks nothing like – and doesn’t prepare people – to actually be managers. Supposedly these MBAs with no experience can walk into an organization and just start making major decisions and taking over.

That’s somewhat crazy if you think about it. You would never let a medical student who’s only done ‘the book learnin’ perform open-heart surgery on you. However, this is exactly what MBA students are taught to think and how business teacher teach them to think. Someone without experience is not going to be trusted to make big decisions: like closing a factory or dismantling a department.

"Put differently, trying to teach management to someone who has never managed is like trying to teach psychology to someone who has never met another human being" (p. 9)

A real manager spends copious amount of time on the floor of the factory, talking with the many people that work in various departments – having conversations with both internal and external clients and customers. He might even check out other factories in his own organization to find out why those particular ones run well, while this one does not. He may check out competitor’s businesses to see how they are run differently. In other words, a real manager gets a deep cultural and organizationally significant education and understanding of the business before he makes any decision.

This is the opposite of what MBA programs teach. No ‘book learnin’ via case study is going to help. It’s like teaching. I may have an idea of how I want to teach a class – maybe a technique that’s dialogical – but the demands of, the size of, and the culture of a particular class may determine that this technique does not work. If that technique is the only one I have in my toolbox, my class is going to be a complete disaster. Embedded adaptation is key.

"In the larger organizations especially, success depends not on what the managers themselves do, as allocators of resources and makers of decisions, so much as on what they help others to do" (p. 9)

Mintzberg correctly points out that making decisions is a really small part of a manager’s job. What he doesn’t mention enough for my taste – and this is my communication bias talking here – is, well, communication. Communication takes up the better part of any manager’s job. Getting to know people, watching their performances (not performance appraisals, mind you, but the way in which people work), the stories and narratives people tell and listen too, the people who are considered heroes in the organization, as well as those considered outcasts. Managing, at its heart is all communication, and learning-on-the job, and then using what one has learned to make decisions than must be made.

“To develop a reflective turn of mind, the participants focus on them- selves, their work, and their world, to appreciate how they think, act, and manage; how they cope with the stresses of being a manager; and how they learn from experience to become more discerning—more “critical” in the constructive sense of this word” (p. 300).

So what does Mintzberg suggest? Well, here’s where he gets a lot of push back. Management education should be restricted to practicing managers. The classroom should leverage the managers’ experience. Managers have to be exposed to theories so they can learn to be thoughtful and express themselves. Thoughtful reflection is necessary. Learning is not doing. Learning is reflecting on doing. Move beyond reflection in the classroom to learning from the impact on the organization.    

However, if you consider the art and practice of managing, Mintzberg is on the right track. Which is why I think this would be a great read for #commnerds studying organizational communication. After all, culture and power and performance is what we actually study.

On Teaching Group Communication Well, Pt 2

Serendipity? Coincidence? A link into the divine? Whatever the case, I’ll take it. 

In my last post I began talking about my Group Communication class. I included some of the dilemmas all teachers face when dealing with group work and engaging students in both theory and practice. Well, then a friend and mentor of mine – Bud Goodall – posted something on Facebook. 

It is a New York Times article called “The Rise of the New Groupthink” that plainly states,

“Research strongly suggests that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption.”

I agree with some of the assessment – that group work for group work’s sake is a pointless exercise. Anyone who has been sitting in a meeting to ‘brainstorm’ some totally nonsensical idea knows what I mean. (Especially if the boss isn’t going to take those ideas seriously anyway – but that’s another story of faux participation and paradoxes in organizations.)

However, the point of my Group Communication class is to bring communication theory to life and allow students to learn experientially. The author of the Times’ piece writes:

‎"But it’s one thing to associate with a group in which each member works autonomously on his piece of the puzzle."

And this is my thought process when I teach group communication. Sure students work in groups, but each person must come to the group with something of value to put on the table. Nor are the class group projects 'useless,' but vary in degrees of length, from the short to the large, and in complexity. Which brings me to what this post was supposed to be about: The assignments from my Group Communication class.

The first is an individual project: Strengthsfinder Paper: A one page paper that explains your strength based on the Strengthsfinder assessment, including a self-reflection on where you have seen this particular strength active in your own life.

Rationale: Most students haven’t spent a lot of time with Socrates’ dictum “Know thyself.” What can they bring to the table? What do they need to know about themselves and the way they relate to other people? This is an exploration of their talent. It’s what they bring to the table.

“Quad-Group” Discussion (QGD): Each initial smaller group of approximately 4 people (hence the term “Quad”) will lead a discussion (for about 30 minutes) on some section of the Rothwell text, between Chapters 4 through 5 to be negotiated in class with other groups and me. Please note that this is NOT a presentation, but a discussion. It consists of four parts:

One week prior to your presentation you must find and send a related academic article to everyone in the class.

Lead a discussion for 25 minutes on your topic.

A one-page handout for your classmates.

An activity to go along with your discussion.

Rationale: A short project to start. Something within the safe confine of the classroom experience. Think of this as the ‘getting to know each other’ part of this group experience. This is not a presentation (no PowerPoints) but a discussion of the topic they have negotiated with the other groups and myself.

"The Edge” Assignment: Each “Quad Group” will set up a time with ETSU’s “The Edge” radio station and lend their voices for a drop, a legal, a promo, a sting, or an ad.

Rationale: Stepping out into the world, even if it still the ETSU world. The groups have to make the contacts, set up the appointments with the General Manager, and then go into the studio and create what the GM determines needs to be made. This gives them practical experience in those areas, as well as lending their voices to the Broadcast Division of the Communication Department.

Dinner and the FSNP Paper: Two “Quad-Groups” will combine to become a “Double-Quad.” This larger group will have to plan a meal from scratch, eat that meal together, and produce one co-written paper. I will be looking for evidence of your group's development and its accomplishments, and of the various contributions to the dinner and the writing process. This five-page co-constructed paper is your group response to how your “Double-Quad” worked together, concentrating on the forming, storming, norming, and performing (FSNP) aspects of group development. You will present to the class you dinner menu, and a brief discussion of the group project. 

Rationale: Leaders and other roles are generally in place within the “Quads” by the time this project rolls around. This stirs things up. Power struggles often raise their heads as groups come together. Negotiating is more difficult and the number of persons in the group makes every thing more chaotic and complex. HOWEVER, the actual project of making dinner together provides students with a pretty relaxing, fun, enjoyable atmosphere – plus they get to eat well.

The “Double-Quad” Volunteer Project & Paper: Each “Double-Quad” will volunteer with a nonprofit organization in the greater Johnson City area to complete a project of some significance both to the agency you're working for and to yourselves and your group. Group members must work together on location for at least 7 hours during the semester--some might involve much more than this, depending on how much off-site preparation is required. The objective here is, as best you can, to do something for an organization that involves your group as a group and that utilizes your group's unique abilities. Documentation is essential. The grade for this project consists of two components on which you will be graded: A professional presentation to the organization for which you volunteered, which I also attend. A co-constructed paper of 12 pages (not including references) on how the team worked while doing your volunteer project, what theoretical concepts you found informative as you worked through the process of becoming a group, the accomplishment of the necessary tasks, as well as the struggles and dilemmas you encountered.

Rationale: The big Kahuna!: serving the Johnson City community. Getting students involved with individuals they don’t necessarily run into in their daily lives. For example when I did this at USF, one group worked at the Moffett Cancer Center. At Mizzou one group worked with a home for abused children. Another for a literacy program. Another for the local animal shelter. Another for undernourished kids. A LOT of planning and collaborating and negotiating goes into, not only the project, but the co-written paper. Students found these projects not only useful, but self-fulfilling.

So that’s it. Taking theory and making it practical. Going from small groups and small projects to larger groups and larger projects. While Organizational communication is my passion, this is –by far – my favorite class to teach.

Chaos Theory, Narrative and Business Communication

This is an excerpt from a paper I presented in which I am playing with Chaos Theory and Narrative Theory. Therefore, please don't quote it. I will, however, send you the entire paper if you want it. Cheers!


------

Chaos Theory, Narrative and Business Communication

            Complexity theory – of which chaos theory is an important part – emerged as a framework for understanding the physical universe in the latter part of the twentieth century in order to refine the precision of predictive models of complex systems through the use of mathematical and statistical analysis. According to chaos theory, minor fluctuations in various systemic models can lead to fierce oscillations, as well as unanticipated and unintended consequences. The goal of chaos theory is to realize a level of predictability within complex systems, without relying on Newtonian causal relationships and patterns, which cannot account for changes in complex systems.

Complexity theory suggests that chaos, or radical fluctuations in systems, might be the answer to questions and dilemmas presented by complex systems, allowing researchers and theorists to view systems from a higher level of examination and to view systems holistically and temporally. In contrast to a Newtonian view of the world, chaos theory takes a longitudinal perspective, and one of the most attractive features of chaos theory is the idea that disorder is necessary for order, that decay is needed for renewal, and that decline is a precursor to eventual growth, that change is needed for renewed stability.

The best-known metaphor for understanding chaos theory is the butterfly effect. As Stewart (1990) explains, “the flapping of a single butterfly’s wings produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere,” a variance in a complex system which can eventually lead to “a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn’t happen. Or maybe on that wasn’t going to happen, does” (p. 141). The point of Stewart’s analogy is that the openness and sensitivity of complex systems to the influences of such minor variances cannot be measured, understood or predicted using traditional methods and models. Systems are always in flux, and using reductive methods to attempt to understand a system’s bifurcation – it’s radical fluctuations - is a paradox reminiscent of what Kierkegaard (1958) wrote about the continuity of human life.

Another major concept of complexity theory is that systems are self-organizing, that is, order re-emerges out of the chaotic state brought about through bifurification. Kauffmann (1995) describes self-organization as a type of anti-chaos, noting that disorganized systems bifurcate and eventually solidify at a new level of order. Complex chaotic systems contain an inner stabilizing force that pulls them toward order, although chaos and order are always in a constant state of tension. The fundamental points of connection and order that exert continuous regulation on systemic behavior are called strange attractors. All dynamic systems have attractors that limit the possible states a system can reach and hence maintain systemic order (MacKenzie, 2005).  Although strange attractors attempt to pull a system into a type of order, (called a fractal) they too are in continuous motion, and do not attract from a fixed point or necessarily in a linear fashion. The paradoxical nature of order/disorder, deconstruction/construction, devolution/evolution is a useful way to examine phenomena in the social sciences as well.

Social scientists apply chaos theory to a variety of fields, including communication, economics, finance, psychology, and sociology. Organizational scholars have attempted to integrate chaos and organizational communication in other arenas, including leadership (Blank, 1995), ambiguity and equivocality (Miller, 1998), the glass ceiling (Reuther & Fairhust, 2000), management (Stacy 1992, 1996) and innovation (Nonaka, 1988). However, the application of chaos theory in organizations is generally applied to times of crisis and crisis communication practices.

While each of the above studies examines various aspects of crisis via the lens of chaos theory, none puts a premium on the lens of communication as ritual or narrative processes.

Are Narratives Strange Attractors?

Organizational Life Cycle Theory suggests organizational environments are relatively stable and that organizations build structures over time to account for the slight changes and problems they encounter. According to Weick (1979), however, both internal and external environments are unpredictable, unstable, and volatile. This volatility necessitates the rapid and seemingly chaotic rearrangement of activities, priorities and performances. Nevertheless there is order of a subtle kind, which appears over time.

In the complexity sciences, a strange attractor is a set to which a dynamic system evolves after a long enough time. Although these strange attractors pull a system into a fractal order they are in continuous motion. The strange attractor is the basis of self-organization. Do narratives function as strange attractors in new businesses that could suddenly close down, devolve, and succumb to entropic forces at any time? Like the strange attractors in a fractal system, narratives at all levels are undergoing changes, while still offering organizational stability.

Narrative as a strange attractor implies not the transmission or transactional models of communication, but the ritual view of communication (Carey, 1988). Communication is linked to words such as communion, fellowship, participation and sharing. The ritual view of narrative as communication is a constitutive approach. It shows how communication constructs the social world, including our selves, our personal relationships, and our organizations. A “group’s temporarily persisting existence as a community, and as a social subject of experience and action,” according to Carr (1986), “is not that different from the story told about it; it too is constituted by the story of the community, of what it is and what it is doing, which is told, acted out and accepted in a kind of self-reflective social narration” (149-150).

This formulation of narrative reinforces and expands (by looking all three levels of narrative) the conception that the collective identities of organizational members are constituted by the narratives the participants themselves author (Brown, 2006). Narrating at the macro, meso, and micro levels simultaneously constitutes the organization and our identity through organizing and sensemaking processes. As Carey notes, communicating is the “construction and maintenance of an ordered, meaningful cultural world that can serve as a control and container for human action” (p. 18).

Narratives may be told and retold at the macro-, meso-, and micro levels, but they can only be retold from the present, with one eye fixed retrospectively on the past and one prospectively on the future (Bochner, 1994). Since narratives at all levels are constantly changing, create the basis for common understandings, and create order/disorder in the chaotic and complex world of social, institutional and interpersonal relations, narratives are the strange attractor that produce a (re)order, reintegration and renewal from the edges of chaos in which we find ourselves. The retelling of narratives is the “sacred ceremony that draws people together in fellowship and commonality” (Carey, 1988, p. 19). 

Are narratives the strange attractors that maintain order within the chaos, and the chaos within the order?

-----

From:

Herrmann, A. F. (2009). Narrative as strange attractor: Thoughts on chaos, complexity, and non-profit start-ups. Paper presented at the Central States Communication Association Convention, St. Louis, MO.

The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet.

I have to admit that since Wired became the GQ or Cosmo for Geeks - all about style and less about substance - I pretty much stopped reading it. I want tech news and information, not pictures of Will Farrell in a spaceman outfit. Every once in a while though, someone actually writes something worth reading.

Here's the gist:

The Web is dead. The Internet is alive and well.

Huh?

Ok, first of all you have to parse the two. We generally consider the Internet and the Web as the same thing. There is a distinction. The Internet is the underlying protocols that allow for the flow of information. This is what people mean when they mention things like TCIPs, IPs, DNSes and the like. These are the protocols that get a piece of datum from you to me. It is similar to when we mail a letter. I put a stamp on it and put it in my mailbox. It goes to my local post office. It gets routed to a larger post office. Sorted. Etc., etc., etc. Eventually it gets to the mailbox in your house. The underlying Internet is alive and well.

The Web is not healthy, however. Why? The main reason is we like simplicity. People are moving away from using their browsers to surf the Web. In fact, many of us spend most of our time on the Internet but off the Web. iTunes - on the Internet, but not on the Web. Apps on your smartphone - on the Internet, not on the Web. The Kindle - The iPad - The Nook. These types of applications cut through the clutter of the Web.

The second reason for the demise of the Web the places we do visit on the Web are fewer (and huge!). The Web was information that needed to be organized. Those who organized it best created their own specific type of experience. Facebook is the experience of Facebook. Nothing else on the web emulates it. Google is the experience of Google. Twitter is the experience of Twitter. Amazon is the experience of Amazon. And so on. When was the last time you just surfed the Web to surf the Web? What percentage of time do you just surf around? Yeah. Exactly. Me either.

As a tech guy and and organizational guy, I found the article - at a minimum - intriguing.

What would precipitate the end of Facebook? (Remember, no one thought MySpace would fall from its heights.) What does this mean for the future of the Web? Where will the next big 'organization process' happen?