Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Branson on Branson

GORDON PITTS

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 5:05 PM EDT 23/01/07

The boyish leader of Virgin Group is wondering what to do with his wealth and whether his kids will perpetuate the brand ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jack Frost from Toronto, Canada writes: It would be nice if employers could start seeing past the seemingly magical 'MBA' letters behind people's names. I've worked with both - people who have an MBA, and people who do not have an MBA - to be honest, the MBAs are no more value-added than anyone else. If anything, they lack 'real world' experience, and rely too much on theories and assumptions. Even with the much touted 'case method' of learning in today's MBA schools - it's very easy to dream up solutions to a company's problems when the students don't have to live with the consequences of their decisions. I question their ability to face a 'real' problem...which is why I believe that real-life experience should matter much more so than proposed fictitious solutions to 'real-life' situations. The students may get a false sense of confidence that they can turn around any company!! I think Branson has it right - street smarts are a more favourable characteristic to have.
  2. david phelan from oakville, Canada writes: post # 1: You can boiler plate that !
  3. Larry Robinson from white rock, writes: An individual who values individuals - can't be taught and there is no course to learn it. WardAir was lost without Max running the show, Apple is Steven Jobs, Cobra was Carroll Shelby, ... nutbars to some, geniuses to others. Contemporary corporate culture is systems oriented and a conglomeration of non-threatening numbers people. Nice to see a few risk-taking cowboys still around.
  4. Mark Ghose from Toronto, Canada writes: If MBAs aren't 'better' than non-MBAs then certainly you shouldn't be threatened. Although admittedly there is a proportion of MBAs that are not necessarily better performers, the proportion of non-MBAs that suck is even higher. Usually people complaining about MBAs are the same 'performers' going home at 4:30 or 'working from home'.
  5. Have Pun Will Travel from Canada writes: Perspicacious comments from Mr. Frost. I salute you sir.
  6. Jack Frost from Toronto, Canada writes: To #4....hardly. I probably put more hours in in a day than you do in a week. There are people, probably like yourself, that have an MBA and define themselves by it. That's fine if that makes you feel important. My point was not intended to indicate that MBA's 'suck' or that non-MBA's 'suck' - as you so eloquently put it.....my point was merely made to suggest that people (employers in particular) should consider looking past the magical letters to the individuals behind them. It just seems to be happening less and less, probably because there are 100,000 MBAs churned out of schools in North America every year - to the point where 'joe jobs' are being filled by MBAs. If anything, it's more important than ever to consider the individual and not the letters.
  7. Mark Ghose from Toronto, Canada writes: To #6, you sound a tad bit insecure, didn't get into b-school? As for working more hours than me, that's laughable since I work in the investment banking field where I spend close to all my waking hours at work. Last I checked, no one can work more than 24 hours in a day.... Yes, yes by all means consider the individual and not the letters, but when you have people willing to foregoe (sacrifice) 12 to 16 months of income to change their careers, expand their education and obtain greater incomes there is little more that non-MBAs can whine about. Our whole system of education is predicated on earning the 'letters': don't we teach our children to graduate from high school, got to university etc. Wake up, that's the way the world works: credentials count.
  8. Jack Frost from Toronto, Canada writes: To #7, I didn't bother with an MBA since my undergrad is in commerce (although I did spend quite a bit of time thinking about it). Instead, I decided to take another route with the CFA - which from what I've heard from people who have both an MBA and a CFA - the CFA was more challenging to attain, not to mention the rigorous qualification criteria that is required to finally obtain the designation. I don't see the point in spending 12 - 24 months learning what I've already learned in 4 years. MBA's are (or at least should be) designed for people who have engineering or biology or whatever other degrees. Yet I continue to see tons of people who have an undergrad in business, and then go back to get an MBA - where is the value add? Particularly when many of the students are increasingly going to b-school with less and less real-life experience. I would argue that the only real value add to a b-school education (if someone already has an undergrad in business) is the people they take the program with. If a lot of the people are green with very little experience, then to me it's pointless. I guess the bottom line with my original comment is that employers should get past the letters (this goes for the CFA as well) - spend some time really understanding what value the individual will bring to the company. By the way, my condolences for your lack of a life since you are a slave to your investment bank. I do work some long hours, but not that many hours (nor would I want to). Just remember - you are likely not going to be 50 years old, and then say to yourself, 'I wish I would have worked more'...
  9. David Ball from Canada writes: Those that can do, those that can't go to school!
  10. Mark Ghose from Toronto, Canada writes: Ok #8, with all due respect, now you're just not making sense. You argued that employers should consider street smarts over experience, yet you put the time and effort into obtaining a CFA! Your actions are hypocritical. Why would you expend your resources to obtain that absolutely solid cert if you didn't believe it would afford you more in terms of career opportunity, income etc. In fact, you are laughably trying to turn the debate towards 'MBAs vs CFAs' as opposed to your original ridiculous claim that street smarts are all that should be considered. You're confused my friend, your CFA is an accomplishment that supports the argument that credentials and business education are important ways to gain knowledge/build careers- whether MBA is better/worse than CFA is another argument altogether. Just look at your own life, you 'didn't bother with an MBA' yet you considered it. Perhaps, some people mull it over and come up with the opposite decision. As for me, no condolescences necessary- besides wasn't it you who touted the hours you worked as some sort of good thing?
  11. Jack Frost from Canada writes: #10 - There are only 2000 words to write an opinion on these boards. It is sometimes difficult to express your whole opinion without giving the wrong impression. However, if you read carefully, my argument is about 'value-add'. My first comment (post #1) relates specifically to the MBA, and more specifically to my opinion on some of the shortcomings of that degree vs having real-life experience. Holding the CFA designation has nothing to do with that opinion. The CFA was a value-add to my existing education (not a repetition of it). I do think the MBA is of value (as mentioned in my post #8) to people who's undergrad is in something other than business. Regardless, I don't think you can make an apples-to-apples comparison of the two designations - they address different areas of finance. Do I think real-life management experience is better than getting an MBA - yes. The CFA doesn't address management experience per se, it addresses more technical aspects of the investment industry...so I definitely see this as a bigger value add for what the designation is designed to address. You are clearly twisting my opinions - if that makes you feel better, please continue. But I DID NOT say that 'street smarts are all that should be considered' as you have claimed. I also in no way was trying to turn the argument into 'MBA vs CFA' - as you have also claimed. My concern is that people are relying too much on 'credentials', and not enough on the individual and the value they bring to the organization. And yes, I didn't bother with an MBA because in the end, I would have been doing it for the letters only, not for the right reasons - to actually learn something beyond what I have already learned. It seems people these days are only interested in thinking of the letters as a ticket, as opposed to actually considering what they are learning...the sad part, as mentioned, is the business world is encouraging it....except for people like Branson of course.
  12. Samantha Lal from Canada writes: Congratulations on attaining a CFA, Mr. Frost. The time and effort it takes to complete that is considerable. Your point, that credentials add value to you as a worker, does bolster ours though. I too took the easy road that's supposed to be MBA school. The brochure was glossy and all the picutures had smiling faces which suckered me into the hardest-working two years of my life. I went to school with Mark and I remember him as both bookish and street smart as were a lot of my fellow students. Many of them studied and worked at the same time. I'm in investment banking now too so Branson's probably right: new ventures don't necessarily need biz school. They need intrepid people chock full of personality. But the traditional fields such as banking or accounting need skills learned beforehand because learning things like option strategies on the job could be costly. Sir Richard may not be blown away by MBAs but that's not to say he doesn't hire them. I'd say having a leadership personality AND credentials always, yes always equal more than i) just leadership ii) just an mba/cfa.
  13. Jennifer D from Canada writes: The MBA does wonders for opening doors but even with an MBA you are not guaranteed a job. I think employers do look past the magical letters, especially given that now adays MBA's are a dime a dozen. The MBA shows an employer that the person is presumably hard working and ambitious and if they are not it will show sooner or later. Mark cannot argue that the MBA got him where he is today, but it was not the MBA alone. It is moreso due to his extreme intelligence, determination to succeed and ambition. I also went to school with Mark and he is probably the most intelligent person I know. We worked very hard to obtain this degree and to be knocked for it is ridiculous. I agree with Mark, those who knock it can only be threatened by it. I am in no way saying that we as MBA's are smarter than those without, not by any means. Perhaps many of us did it for the letters, but doesnt that make us smarter for doing so given the opportunity it provides. Choosing a job candidate who has an MBA over a candidate who doesnt is no different than an employer choosing a candidate with an undergraduate over someone without. There has to be some underlying base for selection. That being said, I highly doubt an employer would choose an individual with an MBA and no experience over an individual who has experience and a proven performance record. And anyways, now that MBA's are a dime a dozen employers will have no choice BUT to look past the credentials, so this argument back and forth is irrelevant.

    That's my one cent.....if I had to do it over again, I would. There are valid points to both your arguments but unfortunately I think the discussion was more of a battle of wit and words than actual substance.
  14. Seafood Dude from Canada writes: With in the scope of my duties I hire/promote/demote/fire middle and some senior management. For what it is worth, in hiring positions where I am involved I look for a bundle of experience and credentials that suit my decision criteria and typically that matrix changes from person to person. I have always maintained that credentials come in all forms and sizes, and that they are only one piece of the pie.

    One of the best executive assistants I had ever seen was a mother who after 18 years of raising her family, came back to work. One of the best managers I had ever employed left school at age 12. I have employed MBA qualified people with both poor and excellent results. Most employers realise it's a package they purchase, and one that ideally should be chosen to suit the situation. I suppose like any asset really.

    On a final note I would comment that interestingly, no one has mentioned anything about credentials coming from military training, whether at the officer level or not. Shame. There is a lot to be said for the huge training investment that is made in military personal.
  15. D D from Canada writes: I agree with what Sir Richard has to say about the hire and fire mentality of many North American Companies. And a large acquisitive US database (and applications) company comes to mind. Myopic in its vision, in its goals, in its targets and in its treatment of employees... it is a shame that these successful entrpreneurs are such poor managers AND maintainers of sound and responsible business sense. And unfortunately, complementing the theme of "yes boss" are the senior managers that such organizations recruit. With no one prepaped to give open and honest ideas for the common good. In general, the British companies (where I used to work before I came to North America) have got a more healthy attitude towards staff - staff development, staff training, staff retention and staff as assets. When a company makes profits in the multi millions, it is hard to justify lay offs. If it is now necessary to lay off people, why was there a dumb directive to senior managers to recruit, especially when the recruitment in some cases was only 3 months prior to the lay offs. What kind of business principles are these? Apart from unprofessional, thoughtless, careless and myopic ?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top