The Value Of An MBA. Is It Worth It?

It's been a while, since my last post where over the past two months, I've noticed several articles in refute of the value of an MBA, by folks that currently hold a bachelors! After considering many of the arguments that focus on cost and the added value to corporations without individual experience, to some extent, I would have to agree. In these distressed financial times of rising costs to education and extreme downward pressure on wages due to an employer's market; the view of most financially savvy individuals is that ROI for an MBA is long-term with a higher risk than normal, not to recoup costs. However, when we consider America's ever rapid decline in education against the world, there's cause for concern as recent comments by certain business and community leaders have worked to undermine the importance of education.

In contrast, very many scholars would argue in favor of an MBA (with concrete evidence as a backing) that if ever there were a need to educate the masses, it's now as the global market pressure to compete within the technology sector increases exponentially year after year, as technology itself influences the rate of change. Other arguments in support of an MBA, come from the fact that upon entry into a program, most MBA candidates are not sure of their career options, making a relationship with experienced academic staff all the more important.

Finally, how do we gauge individual proficiency of relative the disciplines without institutional guidelines? Sure, there will always exist a few smart and self-reliant persons who can show discipline and aptitude to educate themselves on finance, accounting and read various books on leadership, but for most of us institutional structure is desired and needed. When we consider that in the past like the 17th century, people like Ben Franklin and others were self-taught and successful, but times were very different and competition with a need to adhere to standards were non-existent. So, it maybe feasible for small number of us to sell-educate, however, who's going take a chance on an individual based solely on their claim for aptitude? And an MBA is not all about reading books on the subjects it's about professional networking, the intangible and practical aspects of leadership!

The Greatest Threat To Your Identity: Your SmartPhone/Device?

Although credit card theft remains the primary breech of security for one's identity, access through the smartphone and devices will soon supplant this crude criminal method. As technology expands, rendering manual activities for purchase and verification of identity obsolete, so to will the criminal endeavors to acquire consumers most valuable information. Currently, smartphones and devices are overtaking conventional methods of payment, communication and access. Advancements in technology are occurring much faster than our ability to secure against violation. As such, we can expect to see a rise in the complaints of identity theft through handheld smart-devices.

Augmenting the ever increasing trend of technology, are the advancements in technology that feeds itself, causing an exponential rate of change and undermining the ability of most governments to offer counter security measures. Technology advents like nanotechnology, IPv6 and new more powerful computing are enabling the criminalistic endeavors of many that includes some governments. Considering the manner in which consumers make use of smart devices (making material purchases, paying utilities and mortgages) that require housing of personal information with quick access to passwords; our behavior continues to provide tremendous opportunities for criminals, a fact that will rise at a rate commensurate with advances in technology. And lke it or not, criminals are consumers and they keep up with technology like experts, showing an adeptness for technology with creative cryptic actitivies.

Finally, as consumers abandon LAN lines for wirelsss connections, using the airways to make communication connections, the free "air" or medium will become the highway for criminal getaways. Unless authorities, equipment suppliers and ISP's work in collaboration to improve security and enforcement, an end to this activity, is more than likely, not soon forthcoming. At some point, the "air" that we breath may not entirely be free anymore, as consumers will inevitably have to subsidize any new security measures. So, caution to those consumers that are quick to replace secure methods of communication with new technology, for the price for convenience, may come at a cost, far too great to imagine!

Is Your Organization Globally Competitive?

Managers who have been shaped and developed within a mentoring environment are handicap, as their views distort the perception of leadership. Traditional forms of development like mentoring shape managers, not leaders in the image of their predecessor. This type of development quagmire a company's performance, freezing the competitive strategy and back-dating results to the original date of strategic inception. Many managers adopt behaviors that appear on surface, as successful, when in reality they prove obsolete and counterproductive with today's workforce. As current managers, choose successors from a mentoring pool of "likeables personalities" competition among potential leaders is thwarted, leaving miniature copies of past business ideology for replacements. Missing within this group of chosen few, like chapters from human development, are the improvements brought on by failure and a coalesce of diverse cultural creativity.

When we speak of competition within industries, most people would conclude that we are referring to a set of products or services, and would fail to realize forces at work that enable competitive advantages. Intellectual resources embodied in human capital form the innovative aspirations, provide the vision to forecast beyond the here and now, and personify the mission for the organization. Often, this most valued resource is neglected by a time-lapsed decline in material support, a lack of development or an incapacity to appropriately lead.

Traditional forms of management are obsolete in today's global environment, as they are absent of the principle leadership qualities that equip aspiring leaders of those behaviors that are indicative of team success. As organizational leaders, cling to old forms of development like "mentoring" the competitive landscape for most industries decline. The natural consequences of reduced or substandard competition is a slowing of innovation, declining profits and workforce reshuffling, as the overall skill-sets change due to retraining. When the competitive landscape changes as the adaptiveness of an organization is called into question, can we then check our leadership strategy?

Leading From A Smaller Chair!

Over the years, we've become familiar with the typical conference room setting of Corporate America where there sits a "whale of a conference table" end-capped by one or two, high leather chairs and flanked by a series of substantially smaller chairs. For those of us who have attended a corporate meeting, we have observed and at times, participated in the shuffling of positions where hierarchy has often been closely monitored by those whose professionalism is defined by their authority. During these occasions, we experience traditional corporate symbolism in it's finest form where definitively and demonstratively, leaders exact their positions of authority for subordinates to align behaviors in accordance. Powerful are these images for first-time managers, especially as veteran colleagues wisper advice on corporate etiquette while they smudgily greenhorn your reputation to cohorts. Considering the effort to produce this orchestrated display of authority, how much if any can be attributed to higher productivity? How effective is symbolism in gaining admiration from subordinates and does it contribute to improved workplace efficiency?

Times are changing, as younger generations show immunity to figures of authority and desire almost immediate access to positions of authority. In contrast, many mid-career professionals only aspire to have enough authority to lend credence to their "qualified" opinions. Faced with the ever increasing complexity of employee behavior, leadership has been forced to capitulate on traditional forms of organizational behavior. As symbolic gestures that perpetuate authority prove ineffective, leaders are finding it advantageous to allow for greater team independence, create more opportunity for freelance work, and streamline pathways to leadership. This is done to accomodate the demands of future leaders, tomorrows innovators freshly graduated from most colleges or B-schools. Forgotten in the equation are mid-career professionals who often opt-out of executive-level positions in favor of mid-level management positions as workplace balance outweigh career goals. These seasoned professionals understand the importance of the individual contributor and are satisfied with possessing enough "juice" or authority to remain effective, and a credible professional. To them, leading from a smaller chair offers significant reward as there are fewer headaches than from assuming the overall responsibility of an organization which is typically a never-ending proposition.

"The Double-Standard of Leadership in Professional Sports."

If the most recent NBA free agency issues surrounding Lebron James, Bosh and Wade have taught us anything, it's probably that ownership and the fans exploit the concept of loyalty, more than players. Owners have historically dismantled teams for purposes of rebuilding, traded players just in time to receive maximum value for declining skills or performed "equal trades" for the purpose of a roster upgrade. Fans have waged media wars against unproductive and "selfish" players often applying pressure to ownership in hopes of forcing a trade. The ability of either of these groups to invoke change within their respective clubs has been championed by society, as a generally accepted practice and a plausible way to rid one's franchise from an "unloyal," money-hungry player or "a cancer in the locker room." Enabled by the overwhelmingly negative perception of being "all about the money," players were typically forced to comply with demands as ownership and fans leveraged heavily on this option during contract negotiation.

Up until recently, the prevailing strategy to win in the NBA called for a substantial roster upgrade where ownership or team leadership, represented by the GM or President of operations would utilize several mechanisms to acquire top talent. Specifically, team leadership would assemble the best available talent through free agency, the draft or trade that fit an adopted coaching scheme where player skill-sets would be matched to the existing skills of key players for enhanced play. Historically, only a couple of teams (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls & Spurs) have displayed the capacity to assemble talented players and the consistent desire to win at all costs. Outside of this list, the other 26 teams have rarely, if ever attempted or been successful in implementing a strategy to win; leaving us to conclude that they show a disinterest in winning, or a incapacity/ineptness in managing a professional club towards a championship banner or are only interested in profits.

In constrast, society has a double-standard view of loyalty when it comes to professional sports where players are held to a different set of standards than are owners and fans. If a player, takes it upon oneself to expedite a similar competitive strategy like a franchise, consorting with other talented professional to form a team and win, then society and ownership show disagreeance in action. And if ever there were a situation that called for such action, then it would be with the professional athlete who is typically bound for employment via the negotiated contract, thus making oneself a business. This would be especially true for the exceptional athlete who may embody an individual franchise's success. So, I applaud these players for their leadership and desire to win, regardless of immediate compensation, and for taking action when ownership/management were unable.

How Important Is Your Career Yardage?

As a mid-career professional, a person who has invested a "sizable chunk" of life cultivating skills through the acquisition of advance-level education and personal sacrifice for time in favor of the office; how much traction (career-yardage) has one really gained playing the Corporate game? How much value can one affix to one's career? What does success really mean? If the ultimate life goal, centers around the accumulation of wealth or the acquisition of power, then at some point, one would have to assess the value of the effort. If we consider the value proposition it would make no sense to have a "period gain!"

To ask these questions, one would have to be matured into a certain stage of life where career aspirations like yardage, fade away, being driven out by the most important aspect of one's career "the personal impact that is made on others!" When we reflect on former colleagues or peers? Do we say "man he/she made alot of money while they were here?" Or do the memories of the more favorite just warm the cockles of our hearts or do the unsavory elicit feelings of disdain? I would say that our impact on one another carries significant weight in creating lasting workplace memories than do our authority or compensation. Details surrounding individual compensation are not typically shared and so this aspect of one's impact would be speculative! So, much of our thoughts about one another are derived from the quality of our interface. Therefore the most important aspect of one's professional career is in how one has lead their career.

So, how much of the positive imagery of oneself is sacrificed to matriculate up the Corporate ladder? Over the years can one accurately measure the career yardage gained? Can one assess the relative value individual sacrifice and collateral impact to one's family? In essence, how much career yardage can we quanitify? So, how important is one's career yardage?

The Corporate Fiefdom.

Long ago (in Medieval times), there existed a system of allegiance or loyalty where powers, priveleges and opportunity were granted from the seat of a few "power brokers." These "gifts" or fiefs, as they were called, could be held as "pawns for exploitation" much like promotions in Corporate America. Nothing about this arrangement produced the best results for the masses, only those that seeked to remain in power or that sought to build an empire benefited. As I extrapolate about this system, contrasting it with Corporate America, you'll find similarities between the two that will help illuminate the major flaws in the current leadership model. My objective is to promulgate about the need for change in Corporate leadership.

Our Corporate Leadership strategy can be characterized as "traditional" being operated by traditionalist. A traditionalist in Corporate America is a person(s) that klings to an old way of conducting business, putting into practice these beliefs and molding successors in the mannerisms in an attempt to sustain personal influence which is the primary function of the system. Like a corporation's ability to survive beyond the life expectancy of it's investors, products and personnel, the traditionalist model of leadership aspires to as well; however, unlike the leadership model, corporations require moderate to substantial leadership and philosophical change to remain competitive or to survive. Specifically, as investors seek the perpetuation of investments through the longevity of corporations the adopted form of leadership is not well-suited to provide such, as the very nature of  market competition is to provoke organizations to adapt to changing conditions. A microcosm of this behavior is the self-interest demonstrated by the officers of companies when choosing successors. The prevalent methodology utilized by these "trusted authorities" is to favor those that assimilate or those that present the lowest-level of leadership competition. In a competitive environment and if given the choice, most managers would choose the lesser competition or least threatening credentials to promote. The reason behind such madness is that most managers, manage out of fear and fail to appropriately plan for an exit strategy or stay well past their usefullness.

 When evaluating the strength of a company's leadership it's important to gauge the degree to which managers participate in continued education, advanced training and leadership coaching. What we are experiencing in America today is a lack of participation where foreign counterparts continues to outpace us, possessing advanced degrees and challenging the prevailing conventional philosophy. The challenge to us as leaders is in penetrating this wall of leadership and establishing a credible alternative. So, when you get back to your office, please pay attention to the mannerism of your leadership evaluating them beyond the salient features that define their structures.

"The Gulf" Soiled By BP's Greed!

The tragedy in the Gulf is directly attributed to a breakdown in leadership. Now, British Petroleum's leadership finds itself marred by a global conscensus of ineptness in decisioning and the perception of greed. As the company raked in windfall profits, upwards of the 10's of billions, quarter after quarter and year after year; BP's leadership continued to ignore the signs of disaster that culiminated in the platform explosion and the ongoing spill, an environmental disaster beyond the scope of the Exxon Valdez of Alaska.

Leading up to the spill, BP's leadership front broke down like the Maginot line of the Great World War. Like the "visionary leadership" of the French at the time, BP's management operated with a great deal of arrogance, classically displaying a failure of communication rooted in a pompous attitude and disrespect of maintenance communications from the field. This behavior augmented by steady record profits only bostered the authority of management. Stockholders and major investors continued to allow BP's executives to steam-roll their management philosophy to the top, displacing any counter philosophy or intuitive proposals. This silent ownership validated management by bankrolling their performance and offering 100's of millions in bonuses.

If we look at BP's operations, we can see a great deal of their operating philosophy is predicated on oil exploration, drilling, refining, collection and distribution of the product. Very little investment has gone into examining how oil seepage affects the environment or in technologies to advent in case of disaster. This operational strategy is not just unique to BP, rather it is a strategy that defines the Oil Industry. The lack of consistent and meaningful maintenance hallmarks the strategies of most fortune 500 companies, as the view from above is that maintenance is not revenue generating and therefore, should not see equal funding. Disproportionate budgeting of maintenance in Corporate has reached an unprecidented point and so to in government as our nation's infrastructure continues to crumble.

In contrasting the two, I would add that it is much easier to make an unpopular decision and appropriately budget for maintenance in Corporate than in government. I say this recognizing the political stakes of public leadership and red tape of government where reaching a conscensus in congress will represents a huge hurdle for any adminstration. Over the years, political parties have registered their position on industry regulation, "less or more?" I think the answer is obvious, especially as one party which stakes it's economic policy on less regulation attempts to over-criticize the federal government's response to the disaster. As the Republicans have invested much effort in pushing for less regulation (in particular in the Oil Industry), I guess we can say that "you get what you pay for!" Leadership from both the private and public sector failed, and the Gulf is soiled because of their greed!

The Lost Art of Effective Leadership Communication.

The underlying principle of effective leadership is effective communication. As the primary agent of success and personal accountability, communication often "bookends" the expectations a leader has for his staff. The cornerstone of good organizational leadership visualized through effective communication is the use of processes. Any manager, that attempts to undermine the importance of good process is a disorganized mess and is planning to eventually fail. The objective of a leader is to exceed the desired results of major stakeholders. This can only be accomplished by maintaining the focus of subordinates during the life expectancy for a project. Processes provide structure to a project and help guide the performance expectations of leadership. Processes help eliminate ambiguity in expected behavior of support personnel for a given project and thus help reduce variables, improving the probability for success.

As today's organizations, seek to reduce waste becoming more efficient through Six-Sigma initiatives, a greater appreciation of communication and effective process is required. Gaining support from major stakeholders is important when choosing to adopt Six-Sigma where timely and accurate communication of progress hallmark the Six-Sigma way. Increasingly, organizations race to acheive only Six-Sigma branding, failing to completely adopt true behaviors and measures designed to reduce error. Many forget the lost art of "Level-Setting" those that contribute to a project, those that support the project by providing resources and those that benefit from the project. This way one can avoid unreasonnable expected results and can establish an evironment that promotes success.

Corporations: How Strong Is Your Leadership Core?

Today, many would question the strength of most of Corporate America's leadership core. This is especially true following successive Wall Street debacles over the past decade. Must I remind you of Enron, Aldephia, Tyco and MCI-Worldcom etc...Oh, let's not forget about the most recent issue considerably the most profound economic tragedy in our nations history, "the housing bust" caused by credit default swaps. So, were these incidences all attributed to market conditions or what Republican's refer to as "natural market forces" or did these forces work to expose unethical business behavior?

First, let's divest ourselves of this puritest idea of a global economy where "natural market forces" will prevail to reconcile the market, seemingly driving out the weak and vulnerable, and unprofitable businesses ultimately to create a much stronger economy. This concept is intended to be analagous to the accepted idea behind the processes of "mother nature" where the fitness of organism are continually tested with each generation, but nothing can be further from the truth. This is nothing more than a political/power ploy that plays against economic and historical ignorance of the general society. The reality is that there is nothing naturally fair and ethically sound about conducting large-scale business operations where one participates in a national and or global economy. The degree of competition on that scale and the monetary stakes are so high, that the desire of man to win, at all costs inevitably lends itself to his natural inclination to cheat! Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, dishonesty in business, as well as unethical behavior has prevailed and is the predominate reason for government intervention. Markets have never truly corrected themselves without some outside force enabling or in some cases guiding the underlying moral compass of those human elements behind the economic decisioning. So, the only thing natural about the market is how the thrill of competition and earnings potential help bring about the innate desire of man to accumulate great wealth.

So, how did we get from the deluge of market greed to the strength of one's leadership core? Easy, the degree to which management demonstrates a capacity to withstand those unethical behaviors that will provide a competitive advantage, in favor of adopting principles of leadership that help create ideological and cultural diversity has lead to very weak leadership cores. When we make challenges to change the organizational behaviors of corporate leadership, most incumbent leaders would prefer just a cosmetic change in behavior where a seismic change may be required. If we consider the plans for successorship that most organizations put forth, they are primarily authored by the incumbent or "old-school brass!" Longevity in life and profession is innate in all of us and this is especially true of "traditional leadership." This connection with the debacles of Wall Street for the decade is somewhat obvious and somewhat obscure, but there is a strong connection.

The people behind the Enron, Aldephia, Tyco and MCI-Worldcom debacle which lead to the Sarbanes Oaxley Act practiced the same investment principles as those for our current economic crisis. Credit Default Swaps are algorithms, just like the one's used by Enron to mitigate risk in energy and are complex derivatives. These so called "financial instruments" are considered exotic by most financial professionals and are the dream of those who wish to amass great wealth without any effort. What ever happened to all of those young mathematicians of Enron after it's failure and countless others from failed institutions of the same period? When leaders make the choice to go with those who will not challenge wrongful authority and who will just "do what they are told," we all lose. So, let's be careful in how much independent power and authority we vest in our leaders.

HR Conundrum: Hire or Fire?

In the past, HR played a substantial role in the hiring and firing of professionals, from assisting in the search for potential leaders to embodying the organization's efforts to attract top talent. Today, it's no different with a few and very less important responsibilities. Over the years, large companies have drastically reduced the size and importance of HR by relegating their task to supporting leadership's competitive strategy; supplying the company with human capital to outperform the Industry and assisting with the marketing of the company brand. "Sounds familiar" but it's quite different now, as the human element involving personal recruitment, talent evaluation and the subjective interview are now performed by "software!" With executive searches conducted by a select few and high-powered Executive Search Firms, HR's job is to support the written company policy and exepedite restructuring initiatives through the common layoff. Even the mid-level professional manager job posts are off-limits to HR, as Directors and VP's hand-select favorites from a short list of seemingly non-threatening "personal successors." Many of the managerial job openings are posted with the preferred candidate in-mind where HR's role in most cases, is to ensure the formality of the candidate search process. Typically, leaders make candidate selections off-premise favoring and in cases personally developing successors months, if not years prior to the job posting. So, is there a real chance at impressing HR representatives? I would say "yes!" How important is it to do so? Not so much, now-a-days. Someone once gave me professional advice that was very important, he said " Never submit for candidacy for a professional position without knowing someone!" I thought but was immediately provided the answer "they're all wired!"

Are You Leading or are You an Individual Contributor?

High-performance teams are generally composed of a number of professionals with very similar skill-sets. This arrangement is much different from a Group where individual talents can be considerably varied. For either of these organizational and operational units, confusion may arise about the concept of leadership and who among the members is most equipped to lead the consolidated effort. Many would classify the efforts of some of the more vocal members worthy of leadership status; While others would conclude that the occasional great commentary as just "a great idea!" Considering the scenario, it's important to understand the context of the contribution and the position from which it is rendered. Often, teams and groups make the mistake of amplifying a great idea to a sign of great leadership, ignoring the particulars of individual character and behavior. The question that needs to be ask is "Is This Person Just A Great Individual Contributor or Do They Have The Capacity To Lead?" Leaders have a capacity to author great ideas, provide foresight during times of despair when the overall view of the landscape requires clarity. Leaders can recognize great thought and effort from others while properly classifying both without falsely amplifying either to the next level.

When Is It Ok to Talk About Racism In Leadership?

I can recall early in my professional career, during one of my first meetings with an executive where I brought up the subject of diversity within the leadership ranks. The conversation quickly and almost mistakenly migrated to an admission by the VP of a lack of organizational diversity among the management ranks that was even more pronounced beyond the Director-level. At this point, the conversation took a natural route to the probable cause(s) where racism was suggested as the leader. As dogmatic as racism has become in almost every facet of our society, here I was carrying on conversation with another minority, who happened to be a VP of a Fortune 500 company and whose temperament began to drastically change, from an executive mentor to that of a defense lawyer. The earlier zeal that was felt for me as a potential understudy subsided, leaving me with a cold shoulder of quick and very calculated responses. Realizing the error in judgement, I back-tracked attempting to salvage as much as I could from the opportunity. Although, now I was faced with a unwillingness to participate further in this initial session where an overwhelming fear appeared as the culprit. I gathered much from his subsequent statements and newly etched demeanor. He continued to demonstrate a willingness to mentor and we actually had a few more scheduled meetings where I participated half-heartedly. However, I began to realize (especially growing up in Alabama) that acceptance of or assimilation into a system of behaviors that numerically-negotiates the leadership respresentation of my likeness, was not for me. Forgoing any additional meetings, I knew the potential damage but I knew that I could handle it. I walked away but not before formulating a few questions.

When is it ok to talk about racism, especially if we attempt to counter the historically effects with measures to improve diversity? Knowing that Corporate America is a microcosm of society, can we genuinely assume that tremendous strides are being made? How much does the competition for wage (high-wage) contribute to the scaling and significant difference in demographic representation of minorities in executive leadership roles? How well can I depend on fellow minorities to participate in any movement to produce change or are the costs too high considering their position? If we eliminate threats of retribution, can we establish a platform to initiate change?

Welcome readers!

Readers, this is the first of many blogs that I will submit about corporate leadership. The purpose of this blog (which is an initiative) is to discuss the current leadership model(s), providing insight into their strengths and weaknesses, make projections about it's future in this global economy and offer solutions (alternative leadership models/behaviors).

The impetus for my actions comes from almost 13 years experience working in Corporate America where the roots of my frustrations are derived. My thoughts are that leadership continues to show wrinkles, masking a face or a facade of inclusiveness where the physical manifestations of diversity are paraded to society as a badge of success; however, the truth is that real diversity is a product of the acceptance of cultural and ideological differences.

The challenge for the latter is to produce innovation through unmatched creativity and to do so without stagnation in processes. As more organizations/MNC's (Multinational Corporations) move to teams, away from the traditional group format of functional parts, the more they will rely on diverse teams or cross-functional teams. This fact along with the increase in global competition where many new-comers from emerging economies will help drive the traditional form of leadership out, as the pressure to outperform will lead many to falsify results. As a consequence, companies will desire methods to assess the performance of its leaders against the compensation rendered, for a job supposedly "well done."

So, I invite you to join me in a set of lively conversations about leadership, how it has failed us and how it continues to produce the same coterie of leaders that force everyone who aspires to leadership to just "do what you're told!"