I did an MBA, I learnt almost precisely that. Granted, US literature is a lot more indoctrinating than the European counterparts, but even here they spend more time rationalising callousness than teaching anything particularly academically backed, and I compare that to my engineering studies.
There’s a reason MBAs have a reputation as networking more than education.
Innovation management. It spent about 14 pages of the text book apologising for not being built on empiricism or even the discipline of economy.
But even when there is data, the recommendations and conclusions are weakly supported in reality, with far reaching conclusions from theoretical or narrow scope studies.
The courses on Strategy and Leadership were all listings of narrow focus phenomena in individual cases. Leadership styles can’t be meaningfully measured neither in orthogonality between eachother, nor the efficacy of style interventions.
Choice of strategy has low predictive power of success, although can be broadly categorised in hindsight.
All had data, but the usefulness is even less than the perceptual models in sociology or pedagogy.
We can reason around the theory of organisations as organism and identify missing functions. You can’t effectively identify missing strategies outside of your list of examples.
Also, there’s plenty to learn from non-academic education, vocational training for example trains a lot of skills and models without claiming to be academic.
The theory portion of our financing course was quite similar to the theoretical part of my diving license, if scaled up to take 8 weeks rather than a weekend.
Business school teaches people how to take everything they can from society while contributing nothing worthwhile.
What on earth are you talking about? I went to business school and learned many things, but not that.
I did an MBA, I learnt almost precisely that. Granted, US literature is a lot more indoctrinating than the European counterparts, but even here they spend more time rationalising callousness than teaching anything particularly academically backed, and I compare that to my engineering studies.
There’s a reason MBAs have a reputation as networking more than education.
I challenge you to name a class that wasn’t emperically backed by data. The problem isn’t the discipline, it’s what people do with the knowledge.
It would be like me being against physics because someone figured out how to make a nuclear bomb.
Innovation management. It spent about 14 pages of the text book apologising for not being built on empiricism or even the discipline of economy.
But even when there is data, the recommendations and conclusions are weakly supported in reality, with far reaching conclusions from theoretical or narrow scope studies.
The courses on Strategy and Leadership were all listings of narrow focus phenomena in individual cases. Leadership styles can’t be meaningfully measured neither in orthogonality between eachother, nor the efficacy of style interventions.
Choice of strategy has low predictive power of success, although can be broadly categorised in hindsight.
All had data, but the usefulness is even less than the perceptual models in sociology or pedagogy. We can reason around the theory of organisations as organism and identify missing functions. You can’t effectively identify missing strategies outside of your list of examples.
Why did you continue a degree you don’t believe in if it was so poorly assembled?
Branding, networking, and side perks.
Also, there’s plenty to learn from non-academic education, vocational training for example trains a lot of skills and models without claiming to be academic.
The theory portion of our financing course was quite similar to the theoretical part of my diving license, if scaled up to take 8 weeks rather than a weekend.