The Harvard School of Economics has been credited with inventing the MBA with its mantra, "You do not have to know what you are managing, you only have to know how to manage." The point was to assassinate the idea that the best CEOs were those that worked their way up from mail room to the top, having done every job along the way and knowing the company's business inside out.
The Harvard School of Economics was out to conquer the business work with their MBA graduates and inadvertently destroy the U.S. economy by decimating its manufacturing and financial sectors, putting all the emphasis on the monthly bottom line.
The acceptance of this logic defying principle by the business community proves how effective mass brain-washing can be. To work your way up to top management these days you need your MBA and accept its brain-washing principles.
Back in the early '80s, EE Times together with the Wall Street Journal did a survey of CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies, asking them what their first degree was in (they all had MBAs). To their surprise, 85% said engineering. The other surprising thing was that those led by non-engineering CEOs were no longer on the Fortune 500 list three years down the road. It's obvious, that a CEO with no knowledge of the business will be at the mercy of chance as to who to believe on his staff. He will also not be in the position to lead his company in the field, as he will be effectively blind. Engineering training is the best for a CEO as he will be well grounded in the principles of what is physically possible to achieve.
Someone who has worked his way up in the company will also save the company much time and effort in lame brained re-organization. Any manager parachuted into a position will no doubt be ignorant of how his new unit functions, and fearful of exposing his ignorance. What better way to find out how things work than starting a major re-organization expounding his brilliant management principles and of course highly influenced by the astute politicians in his group. Fortunately, just like worker ants, the workers will get the necessary work done to save the organization, despite the organizational hurdles placed before them.
Many a manager farming out his company's work is admitting that he is incapable of efficiently managing his workers.
One thing the MBA has effectively taught managers is how to maximize their incomes, and minimize those of their workers.
I also am a fan of the Dilbert comic strip since years before entering the industry. I think the ignorant management would have this to say about new hires. First, they would incur large training costs. The more to train to "catch up", the larger the cost. Second, if they are working longer to achieve the same, they are draining other resources, at least indirectly through the necessarily longer interaction with colleagues for their ongoing training. Actually, in reality, these new hires would be expected to eventually reduce their work time for the same tasks.
The Murphey's Law of Employee Compensation says that the independent variable in the Work/Knowledge/Money equation that will change as a result of adjusting one of the other two is the one of least benefit to the employee. As Sgt Schultz previously has demonstrated, knowing nothing is the safest course of action. Therefore, knowing less as a result of getting a raise would serve to increase the employee's safety. By Murphey's Law, therefore, this will not be the result of raising compensation. QED, the work must increase, instead.
I believe these equations were first derived by Scott Adams as part of the Dilbert Principle, which says essentially that companies promote less knowledgeable people to a position where they can do the least amount of damage -- management :)
Your theory works until you make too much, then the let you go and replace you with someone of less experience who wil work for less money but work more hours because of no family commitments. In someone eyes, they can make up for lack of experience by working more.
"More experience should be associated with more money"
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.