Item — HN Reader

Some folks in my network are ex-Oracle and my understanding is that the company is run by the CFO and a huge group of MBAs. Any company where the bean counters are at the helm are optimizing for things like quarterly earnings, tax savings like you said, etc. This is the stage where they milk whatever they can out of a dying cash cow. There’s nothing interesting to me about this flavor of capitalism and I don’t think it’s something America should be proud of producing. Conversely, technology innovation and the entire ecosystem in Silicon Valley is really special and almost irreplicable.

Note: I have nothing against MBAs, I just don’t think it’s appropriate for them to have the loudest voice at a non-financial institution. They serve a critical role but it’s a supporting one and not suitable to leadership / company direction.

2 comments

Growth at geriatric tech companies like IBM, HP, Oracle, etc. is largely inorganic, driven by well-negotiated acquisitions of smaller B2B software companies.

It takes MBAs to do this sort of work, and while it isn't for me, I don't think it's the worst business model out there.

Why does it take an MBA to do that work?

You don't need an MBA for the financial/high level business knowledge requirements (though many people involved in this have one), but the people networks that MBA programs provide are very beneficial in getting connected to the right person at the right company.

So MBA actually means MBA from top 10, maybe top 15 school? I can’t imagine the network being too useful for the 25th best MBA program.

My friends have only recently graduated from their MBAs. Will be interesting to see if their networks help.

The main value of an MBA is the network. I think lower tier schools can work well if they are tight knit and the graduates tend to stay local to the school. The top tier schools will just have people making more money at more "prestigious" companies.

it doesn't take an MBA to do that work

I've seen a lot of tech companies with CFOs as leaders and you're 100% right. They have a certain set of tools and fix those types of problems, which usually aren't the ways to lead tech companies. I think every company should be lead by a person who has a strong background in the company's main role. I have seen finance background CEOs get replaced and the Company began to thrive again. Its not a bad investing idea!