• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

2 Minute MBA!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    2 Minute MBA!

    Forget the expensive business schools, with this cut out and keep guide you’ll be able to hold your own in the boardroom of any blue-chip multinational and gain untold riches with no effort at all!

    If you’re struggling with lower revenues in existing product lines, stop all investments and cut training budgets.

    If you have two brands which are reputable in different market sectors, save money by merging them into one crap brand that nobody likes.

    If you want to cover the risk of someone not repaying you for a loan, buy a share in somebody else’s loan risk.

    If you own very exclusive brands which appeal to high disposable income consumers, outsource production to an Asian dictatorship where illiterate, malnourished 7 year olds will make the same stuff with plenty quickness and much cheapness.

    If you find your margins under pressure, cut costs by reducing customer contacts and bleeding your suppliers to death.

    Make sure you know nothing at all about what your company actually makes or sells; leave that kind of irrelevant detail to your underpaid permie minions.

    If all else fails, blackmail the government by threatening to make 150,000 people redundant and pick up a big taxpayer funded subsidy.

    Finally, don’t forget to take home a 7 or 8 figure failure bonus.

    Feel free to add suggestions!
    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

    #2
    Something bothering you today?
    Older and ...well, just older!!

    Comment


      #3
      Top rant Mich!
      ǝןqqıʍ

      Comment


        #4
        As someone who's actually got an MBA, I can put it even more succinctly than that.

        "A company exists solely to make money for its shareholders".

        When you really think about it, therein lies the problem.
        Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus

        Comment


          #5
          PM Junkie

          you had to study an MBA to findout that ?

          better put, a company is in business to make a profit


          Milan no MBA Benes.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by PM-Junkie View Post
            As someone who's actually got an MBA, I can put it even more succinctly than that.

            "A company exists solely to make money for its shareholders".

            When you really think about it, therein lies the problem.
            Indeed. In essence, that’s actually correct, but making money continually over a period of many years involves a more developed way of thinking, involving an understanding of technology, the outside world, human relationships, social expectations and norms, political developments and so on and so on. A business which loses the goodwill of society is on the wrong course. ‘Society’ includes the customers of a business and the regulatory bodies who can wield power over a business and threaten it’s ability to earn profits.

            I’ve started reading ‘The Puritan Gift’. It’s not about religion, but a fantastic book about the puritans who arrived in North America and built up their villages and businesses into highly successful organisations. The puritans believed that to be successful, a business should serve a useful purpose in society, should have and follow ideals, should involve skilled craftsmanship and should place decision making at the lowest possible level where people are qualified to make a judgment.

            http://www.puritangift.com/book.html

            The decline of this puritan organisational method came in the 50s and 60s with ‘scientific management’ and the rise of the MBAs; professional ‘managers’ who jump from one sector to another applying their primarily financial and statistical methods while having no knowledge of the sector or business concerned. The idea came about that someone who ran a biscuit manufacturer successfully would be just as successful at running a publisher or a bank.

            Contrast this with the Rhineland style of management which involves many stakeholders in decision making; derided by US businesspeople for so long, but actually very successful in the long run.

            Sod it, this is turning into one of those essays I wrote for my PGDip.
            And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
              Indeed. In essence, that’s actually correct, but making money continually over a period of many years involves a more developed way of thinking, involving an understanding of technology, the outside world, human relationships, social expectations and norms, political developments and so on and so on. A business which loses the goodwill of society is on the wrong course. ‘Society’ includes the customers of a business and the regulatory bodies who can wield power over a business and threaten it’s ability to earn profits.

              I’ve started reading ‘The Puritan Gift’. It’s not about religion, but a fantastic book about the puritans who arrived in North America and built up their villages and businesses into highly successful organisations. The puritans believed that to be successful, a business should serve a useful purpose in society, should have and follow ideals, should involve skilled craftsmanship and should place decision making at the lowest possible level where people are qualified to make a judgment.

              http://www.puritangift.com/book.html

              The decline of this puritan organisational method came in the 50s and 60s with ‘scientific management’ and the rise of the MBAs; professional ‘managers’ who jump from one sector to another applying their primarily financial and statistical methods while having no knowledge of the sector or business concerned. The idea came about that someone who ran a biscuit manufacturer successfully would be just as successful at running a publisher or a bank.

              Contrast this with the Rhineland style of management which involves many stakeholders in decision making; derided by US businesspeople for so long, but actually very successful in the long run.

              Sod it, this is turning into one of those essays I wrote for my PGDip.
              Stop that - remember you're a tester!!!
              Older and ...well, just older!!

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by ratewhore View Post
                Stop that - remember you're a tester!!!
                I’m a tester with an education instead of an MBA.
                And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                  I’m a tester with an education instead of an MBA.
                  A proper one, O'levels and stuff? None of this modular GCSE namby-pamby rubbish...
                  Older and ...well, just older!!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by ratewhore View Post
                    A proper one, O'levels and stuff? None of this modular GCSE namby-pamby rubbish...
                    I only have a couple of O levels and the rest are GCSEs; fate of being born in the wrong year I’m afraid. Actually GCSE's for the first couple of years were just recycled O level papers with some coursework added to please the girls, and went downhill after that. But yes, 4 A levels, BSc, PGDip, now working for MSc.
                    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X