Showing posts with label FT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FT. Show all posts

July 1, 2009

UK Economy Shrinks Most In 50 years


The UK economy shrank by the most in more than half a century in the first three months of the year, according to revised figures which were much weaker than originally estimated.

The 2.4 per cent decline in gross domestic product was sharper than the 1.9 per cent initially calculated, the Office for National Statistics reported, and was greater than the 2.1 per cent fall expected by economists. About half the revision was due to the introduction of new construction sector data and the rest was bacause of more complete services sector figures showing a sharper decline.

Not since 1958 has the quarter-on-quarter decline in GDP been greater, while the 4.9 per cent drop compared to a year earlier was the largest since records began in 1948. “‘You’ve never had it so bad’ seems the most apt summary of the state of the UK economy in Q1,” said Ross Walker, economist at RBS. “Although to some extent this is ‘old news’, it does serve to emphasise the size of the hole out of which the UK must climb.”

The precipitous decline in GDP in the first quarter reflected the fallout after the credit crisis escalated dramatically from September of last year onwards and highlights the depth of the recession that the UK has been suffering. But since the end of the first quarter there have been growing signs that the economy is stabilising. Manufacturing output actually grew in March and April, while survey data suggested the economy has returned to growth.The respected economics thinktank, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, said it thought the economy began to grow again in April.

“The survey data suggest we have at least stopped digging, but the economy remains on course for a lacklustre pace of recovery,” Mr Walker said. The Bank of England has warned that the economy faces a slow recovery, as banks remain fragile and lending weak.

The output of the construction was revised down to show a 6.9 per cent decline from the first estimate of a 2.4 per cent drop. However, the fall in output was actually less severe than the 9 per cent fall that a more recent ONS revision had suggested, which had led many to expect GDP to be revised down sharply. Services output, which makes up about three quarters of the UK economy, was revised down to see a drop of 1.6 per cent rather than the 1.2 per cent orginally reported.

“Revisions to GDP are larger than usual, reflecting greater uncertainty in measurement during a period of rapid change in economic activity,” the ONS said. The GDP figures confirmed that the recession began in the second quarter of last year, after the economy shrank by 0.1 per cent in the April to June period, rather than the 0.0 per cent decline originally reported.

The economy contracted by 4.9 per cent from its peak in the first quarter until the first quarter this year. That is worse than the 2.5 per cent drop in the 1990s recession, but less than the 5.9 per cent fall in the early 1980s recession. Despite the dramatic contraction in the economy rating agency Fitch reconfirmed the top triple-A rating on the UK’s sovereign debt at stable - along with the US, France and Germany - refusing to follow rival Standard & Poor’s which recently changed the UK’s debt outlook to negative.

The household saving ratio fell to 3 per cent from 4 per cent in the final quarter of last year, as households’ real disposable income dropped by 2.4 per cent due to lower earnings, but consumption did not fall as sharply. Business investment fell by 7.1 per cent during the quarter. Inventories made a smaller drag of 0.4 percentage points out of the 2.4 per cent fall in GDP, compared to the previous estimate of 0.6 percentage points.

“The UK national accounts ... underline the fact that the economic recovery is built on very fragile foundations,” said Capital Economics. “With the annual rate pulled down from -4.1 per cent to -4.9 per cent, average GDP growth in 2009 now looks likely to be -4 per cent or weaker rather than the -3.5 per cent we previously expected.

“Note too that the breakdown is not pretty, with the renewed fall in the household saving ratio from 4 per cent to 3 per cent underlining that the adjustment in the household sector has a long way yet to go.”

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/971b65f6-6551-11de-8e34-00144feabdc0.html

Tags: UK, UK Economy, Economic contraction, Capital Economics, UK National Accounts, Triple-A rating, GDP, Fitch, FT, Global Economic News, S&P, Standar and Poor’s, Inventories, Office for National Statistics,

Posted via email from Global Business News

June 10, 2009

Ask the Experts: The Future of Business Schools


The economic crisis has thrown business schools into disarray. Deans and professors are suffering a crisis of confidence and are seriously questioning the structure and content of a twenty-first century management education. At the same time, business schools are searching for a way to contribute to global economic recovery. How can trust be rebuilt in business schools in general and the MBA programme in particular?

Do you think that the business schools have to share the responsibility for the problems associated with education of business leaders, who made the fatal mistakes during the introduction of wrong state policies and were unable to execute corporate strategies? What can the business schools do to teach the next generation of business leaders to deal with the problems at an early stage to prevent the systemic failures in many industries in the USA and in Europe?
Viktor O. Ledenyov, Ukraine

Frank Brown: We (business schools, shareholders, bankers, consumers, investors, recruiters) can all share the responsibility for the decisions today’s business leaders have made but our priority must be to accept responsibility do to everything we can to avoid a similar crisis in the future. *The crisis has presented business schools and academic institutions with a unique opportunity to rethink important aspects of our research and programmes. We are all questioning how we can instill a healthy scepticism which encourages people to question their work more and not take risks to meet targets without thinking about them before. *Business schools must continually revamp their curriculum to keep abreast of societal, technological and economic changes. We should perhaps also develop content for continuing education post MBA which would reunite alumni and help them to draw inspiration from one another.

Della Bradshaw: Yes, I think business schools have to share the responsibility, but I think to focus the blame on MBA students is simplistic for two reasons.

First, most managers and business people in the world do not hold MBA degrees - MBAs are for a very small subset of managers, some of whom reach global visibility and the majority of whom do not.

Second, MBA graduates are bright young people who make good decisions and bad decisions like everybody else; who spend one or two years at business school and then move on.

The real brains in business schools are the faculty, who spend years conducting business and financial research. Where was the research that predicted this financial meltdown? Why did the business schools not stand up and shout about what was happening?

I think there is a real irony in the fact that US business schools claim to be the ones that do the highest quality research, but failed to predict the current situation.

Yash Gupta: It's difficult to point with any degree of certainty to the business schools as the cause of the current economic crisis, in spite of a recent survey that indicated two-thirds of respondents hold business schools partly responsible for it. To be sure, many captains of industry have MBAs, but an equally large number of business leaders do not. Also, a significant number of undergraduates from leading universities' arts and sciences programs end up on Wall Street.

Of course, business schools inform the business practice and, equally, the practice influences schools' research and learning processes. Therefore, we have an opportunity to learn and change our educational processes in light of the current crisis. One lesson we can learn from current events is that we must teach students how to challenge the existing dogma and to view issues from multiple perspectives.

This means looking at issues within the contexts of history, politics, geography, culture, and science. The schools must teach leadership as it relates to civic, moral, and intellectual capabilities. Currently, many schools tend to teach students by way of functional specialization and an enhanced understanding of tools and techniques, yet an understanding of a holistic view of an organization and how organizations interact beyond the competitive environment is critical. We should provide students with the ability to think critically; to act ethically within organizations and as individuals; to contribute to the local community and society at large; and to develop adaptability and flexibility.

Santiago Iñiguez: Yes, business schools have their share of responsibility along with the major stakeholders including regulators, rating agencies, managers, opinion markers and analysts, as well as some customers themselves. We live in a brave new world where business schools are challenged to prepare not just good financial engineers or accomplished management technicians but also global citizens. Our purpose here is therefore to identify a number of initiatives that business schools deans, directors and faculty can implement in order to prepare better managers.

For example we should revisit the purpose and contents of management education. It is not enough to adapt or update programmes curricula. The challenge is deep reinventing capitalism- and the revision of programmes should be guided by the ideals of manager and entrepreneur that we aim at developing. Ideally, different stakeholder groups, including faculty, alumni and recruiters should engage in this debate. Discussions should cover basic suppositions, including what are the major responsibilities of managers.

Furthermore we should also instill a critical approach in students along with a new set of values, skills and attitudes. Equipped with their solid management preparation and criteria to evaluate the fairness of business decisions, MBA graduates should be able to reject and denounce malpractices and unethical behaviour.

As per my recent comments for the Financial Times Soapbox I believe that new frameworks are being researched by Business schools to look at how to manage a broader array of stakeholders and create competitive advantage through these relationships. At IE and other institutions one such area of research is described as Non market strategy. This calls for corporations to look beyond the traditional confines of the market (competitors, price etc) and find opportunities through interaction with groups such as government, regulators, NGO's, the media, and reshape markets in their favour. A number of corporations do this well with a strong ability to manage these interactions, but many others are going to have to develop these attributes very quickly.

Yet Business Schools must not only research and teach these new approaches but practice them as well, as the management education sector faces greater scrutiny from a wider group of stakeholders than at any time in its history!

Ethical decision-making has turned out to be a perennial challenge in MBA programs. Where would you recommend MBA programs put more effort into teaching ethics themselves or teaching students how to broach ethical subjects with co-workers, higher-level managers and clients?

Jeff, unknown

Frank Brown: Both are important and MBA programmes are developing accordingly to take this into consideration. Just in the last decade, business schools have reviewed course content to make sure that we cover social responsibility, ethical thinking and ecological content. Good ethics is good business and companies that do the right thing often do better as a result. Also, getting practical experience and exposure to situations is key.

At INSEAD, our MBAs have the opportunity to get practical field experience in Africa to enhance their business understanding in different environments.

Today, ethics is key to business. Companies are focusing on social issues to distinguish themselves (i.e. Vodafone and Danone). Firms that strategically integrate CSR into their company culture and operations may find themselves with a sustainable competitive advantage and the power to lead an industry through positive change.

No two individuals will ever share the exact same ethical values but each employee should understand that when they sign a contract with a company, they become ethically bound to work in the interest of the company’s shareholders (to the extent permitted within the limits of the law).

When it comes to corporate responsibility, innovation is vital for companies that want to improve effectiveness and become better corporate citizens. Management educators must incorporate innovation into their own business programmes. At INSEAD, the Social Innovation Centre helps students learn about the business opportunities social innovation can bring.

Business schools must fully support faculty who act as champions of ethics and corporate responsibility. They can make a huge impact on tomorrow’s leaders all over the world.

Della Bradshaw: I think the question of ethics is an utter minefield......

What I find particularly difficult is the way in which ethics has become intrinsically linked with MBA studies. Why is it that MBA students need to be taught ethics when other students do not? I work with people who are making judgement calls every day without ever having the benefit of an MBA education, but we work within a business where there are accepted parameters of behaviour. Clearly in professions such as law, accountancy and medicine the parameters are much more clearly and legally defined.

So my answer would be that business schools should try and help managers instill clearly-defined frameworks for behaviour in their organisations. One trend that I find particularly disturbing is the move towards MBA pledges and oaths - Harvard students launched a graduation pledge last month, pledging that they would behave ethically. Perhaps I am unduly cynical, but these pledges strike me as acts of sentimentality rather than considered action.

The other area where I feel disquiet is that of alumni networking, which becomes so prevalent in difficult economic times. I think a very basic ethical question everyone working in a corporation has to ask themselves at some point is: How far are you prepared to go to help a friend? Or indeed, a fellow alumnus....

Yash Gupta: Business schools must teach ethics as a concept and enhance the understanding of the ethical conflicts that students might face in an organization. Such knowledge will enable them to better understand their co-workers, managers, and clients. Choosing a curriculum that puts individual ethics above organizational ethics, or vice versa, misses the point. You must have both, especially in the absence of a formal institutional ethical infrastructure as in the disciplines of law and medicine.

Traditionally, business schools have paid more attention to individual ethics, but one cannot build an ethical organization without an understanding of personal ethics as well as institutional ethics - in the sense of doing no harm.

Santiago Iñiguez: I believe we should emphasize management deontology, best practices and business ethics in MBA programmes. Experience shows that the best approach is dealing with business ethics across all management disciplines, from finance to marketing, rather than confining it to a single course.

Business schools must be propagators of ethical management encouraging all participants to embrace and engage in a community of best practices

Could you please give examples of strategic innovations, which are or to be introduced in MBA/ EMBA education programmes in leading business schools in the USA, Europe and Asia with the purpose to change the present difficult situation in the field of business education in 2009?
Viktor O. Ledenyov, Ukraine

Della Bradshaw: One of the most interesting moves we have seen here in the UK in recent days is the decision by the US Apollo Group to bid for BPP, the for-profit law, accountancy and business school, which has its own degree-awarding powers. You might not classify either of these as traditional business schools, but the growth in the for-profit sector is something that will certainly give all but the top university-based business schools a run for their money.

Yash Gupta: Business schools need to clearly articulate the difference between the purpose of business and the purpose of business schools. The schools’ purpose is not for the students exclusively to land jobs or to network. They shouldn’t expect to measure success of the program in the form of a return on investment. The schools must inculcate in students the idea of learning and developing skills that will make them successful as leaders and contributors to society. We must emphasize competencies as opposed to course work. Schools must build their strengths on the distinctive features that will provide a special experience to the students - the features that may leverage opportunities within in the broader community or the university.

Equally important, the business schools must have a meaningful student-recruitment process that goes beyond GPAs and GMAT scores. The curriculum needs to deal with real business problems and how leaders solve them, as opposed to tools and techniques. For example, at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, we leverage the university’s strengths in the fields of medicine and public health, as well as its physical presence in countries from Bangladesh to Zambia, to provide a unique education that emphasizes innovation, global understanding, problem-based learning, and an entrepreneurial approach to bringing science to market.

Santiago Iñiguez: At IE innovation takes place on a number of different levels. Each year the programs are assessed and recalibrated with elements enhanced within the program. Our programs will adapt to the new realities of the current business environment, although we will retain our focus on our core areas such as Entrepreneurship and managing change.

Innovation is part of our DNA and every year we transform our MBA programs in order to better prepare our graduates global challenges. Some of the recent changes include a module on Sustainability and the Future of Energy, a course on design to make students think outside the box and become more reflective, and more sessions on cross-cultural management.

The inclusion of Humanities in the MBA curriculum has also made an impact in the preparation of management leaders who at the same time are responsible global citizens. The best antidote for most of the world´s problems is good business and responsible management.

Could you please explain your vision on the proposal that the leading business schools worldwide have to focus their education programs on the creation of new business processes by students rather than on the evaluation of traded assets and extreme financial engineering, with the goal to educate a new generation of thoughtful business leaders, who will be capable to contribute to global economic recovery?
Viktor O. Ledenyov, Ukraine

Frank Brown: Firstly, I think that we should point out that business schools already produce many thoughtful business leaders who can contribute to global economic recovery. Many genuinely want to contribute to a better society.

Business schools already teach students to challenge conventional thinking and enjoy the freedom to express their ideas, make their own conclusions and be creative.

Today, because of the current crisis, we must focus on the importance of new business processes and business in tomorrow’s world. But for some time now, schools have been trying to further enhance the diversity of the MBA experience by offering a wider range of subjects and encourage students to be socially responsible.

Business schools will continue to teach finance because traded assets and profits are important for businesses to be sustainable but the focus should be on long term rather than short term profit. We also need to remind managers that they must focus on shareholder value, not managing share price.

Yash Gupta: Business leaders will be called on to address the problems of society on a global scale. The changing demographics in the world and the evolution of new economies will force us to change the paradigm of business education. Future economic success will depend upon how we address the issues of health, poverty, education, and environment as we encounter them around the world. It is expected that global warming will create more human displacement than any other phenomenon in history. The business curriculum, therefore, must find ways to enhance our students' understanding of how to solve this and other crucial problems.

Santiago Iñiguez: The challenge is actually re inventing Capitalism. This formidable effort requires the participation of all stakeholders. Business Schools can play a key role as a bridge between the generation of knowledge and its application, between the design of new financial models and the real needs of companies and investors.

The link with academic research with the needs of the real business world should be reinforced. Since the activities of business schools focus on a clinical subject, a substantial proportion of academic research should deal with real business problems, jointly with top managers. Investment banks created entire in-house universities that developed huge research on markets and companies but lacked the soundness and independence of academic research. On the other hand, academics have sometimes neglected the practical relevance of their research.

There is a lot of hype about the quality of MBA graduates and whether the MBA as a qualification itself delivers value or not. Where is the information which supports the fact that largely all wrongful decision making were implemented by individuals of MBA calibre? In my opinion a lot of Senior Managers do not possess management qualifications and are from the old school of thought especially in a lot of blue chip companies?
Mohsin Baig, Glasgow

Paul Danos: Of course most of the parties to the current crisis, many of whom have MBA’s, graduated twenty or thirty years ago and are not the products of today’s programs. I believe that the programs at the best schools give a very good coverage of the basics of business and allow students to sample some depth in various important fields. Ethics and social impact of business are covered at most schools and students do get quite a lot of strategic thinking. What may be lacking is coverage of the real scepticism and questioning attitude that great faculty actually bring to the discovery process. The way teaching is done in most MBA courses may lead to overconfidence among students. At Tuck we try to give students opportunities to “take a deep dive” with the faculty in small scale settings. By viewing close up how the theories and concepts are created, the students go away with a more balance view of their status.

Frank Brown: I think it is naïve to pretend that all MBA alumni are the same and are to blame for making wrong decisions. Business schools do not turn out one type of student who follows one set of ideas or one philosophy and reacts to business in one unique way.

As I said before, many business leaders who have an MBA are holistic, credible managers who set a good example to their teams and want to develop sustainable business.

If we can do anything to help our MBAs, it is it to help them to expect the unexpected and be better prepared for the unforeseen. We need to underline the fact that they must question and challenge logic and be sceptical about conventional thinking. Today’s business leader must change jobs from time to time to make sure they are constantly challenged and creating opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship.

Della Bradshaw: I largely agree with you - most managers have never been anywhere near a business school. However the number of key players in the crisis who hold MBA degrees is alarming - particularly for Harvard. They include Hank Paulson, former US Treasury secretary, Christopher Cox, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Stan O’Neal and John Thain, the last two heads of Merrill Lynch in the US and in Europe Andy Hornby, former chief executive of HBOS.

Yash Gupta: As in anything in life, there are likely to be variations in the quality of MBA graduates and the value that MBA programs deliver. However, in general, the MBAs have served our economic institutions well. I'm not sure it is true that all wrongful decision-making was implemented by individuals with MBAs. There are many MBA graduates who are working hard to clean up the current economic mess and make their organizations very successful. On the other hand, many wrongful decisions were made by people who had no formal business education. An example is the former leadership of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and AIG, who had no MBAs among them. It is the lifelong learning that is critical to keeping oneself in tune with new developments and environmental changes.

It is an interesting topic and I thank you all for this opportunity. I have two questions. Do you see a trend in the future for more specialized MBAs or General MBAs? Do you view Professor Henry Mintzberg’s theory in his book “Managers Not MBAs” as being more applicable in today's world? Do you think business schools will place more emphasis on the duration and quality of work experience?
Kenan Aljazairi, Saudi Arabia

Frank Brown: Yes business schools are already placing more emphasis on the duration and quality of work experience and as I said before, we are updating course content to move with the times. The average work experience at INSEAD is six years and we do not anticipate reducing this.

In reference to Henry Mintzberg, the problem is that humanity and quantitative analysis are treated separately, when it is in fact the interplay between them that has caused the crisis. Professors working in the area of organisational behaviour should start addressing figures and more importantly, the statistical economists in finance should start to focus more on human behaviour, as well as numbers.

Paul Danos: I believe that both will live side-by-side. In the classic, two-year program at a school like Tuck we give the general management coverage to start and there is time for students to concentrate in the second year. In a one year program, time becomes a factor, especially for those with no previous business education.

What has made the MBA so successful over the last one hundred years or so has been, in my opinion, the opportunity for people to change the direction of their careers. At Tuck we admit people with two to ten years of experience, from every conceivable background, many with no formal business education, and they get a fresh start and often in completely new employment fields.

Yash Gupta: MBAs serve a variety of markets. Some individuals pursue MBAs to prepare themselves for PhD programs and to pursue specialized professional interests such as investments. I envision this particular segment of students continuing to seek MBA programs that specialize. However, those who are seeking general managerial jobs, which will be in larger numbers, will pursue general MBA programs.

In my opinion, business schools will put more emphasis on the quality of the work experience and not necessarily on its duration. For example, the millennial generation has a very different set of values than Generation X or the baby boomers. Therefore, managers’ previous experiences may not help them deal with this newer cohort.

Della Bradshaw: In answer to the first part of your question, I see the market fragmenting, so both types of degrees will flourish. On the second part, there is a trend in the US to enrol younger students on MBA programmes - two thirds of the most recent entering class at Harvard graduated four years previously or less, which means they had a maximum of three years work experience when they applied for the programme.

This kind of class is very different from a class where the average age is 27 or 28, and clearly has to be approached differently. There is nothing wrong with teaching younger students - it happens on undergraduate programmes all the time. And no-one doubts they can be taught functional and analytical skills. I think Prof Mintzberg’s concern, and I hope I am not representing him, is whether they can be taught MANAGEMENT skills.

The fact that most business schools are introducing more executive MBA programmes and more executive non-degree programmes, so they are teaching those with more experience. Just not through the traditional MBA vehicle.

Santiago Iñiguez: We can expect growth in both generalist and specialised Master degree programs. MBAs are by definition generalist programs whereas Masters in Management programs allow for specialisation in a number of business functions (e.g. Finance Marketing Human Resources), or industries (e.g. bio-technology or sports). Professor Mintzberg´s main contention in the referred book is that in order to make the best of business education, participants should have a certain previous managerial experience. This is certainly the case at the leading European business schools.

If, as many of us believe, the Anglo-Saxon Model of corporate governance “has failed”, what kind of courses are recommended to prepare current and future MBA candidates on “other approaches” to governance, how the present U.S. government will modify its “agency theory” approach, and how and when the European demanded international approach to governance and regulation will be adopted by sovereign nations?
John Alan James, New York

Paul Danos: I believe that what failed is a lack of “critical analysis mindset” among leaders such as regulators, CEOs and board members. Their education did not prepare them for the kind of probing that was needed in the current complex financial world. There seemed to have been a blend of acceptance of the experts opinions, an over-confidence in the models employed, and perhaps a fear to admit to a lack of understanding. I believe that an answer is very fundamental.

Leaders in business must be deep enough to have confidence in their judgment, sceptical enough to challenge assumptions, and brave enough to admit to lack of understanding. This crisis has proven to me, that no one can have enough education or experience to have mastered all the theories and practices of the global economy. What is needed is to have the right mindset when approaching one’s responsibilities. The style of governance or the rules of governance were not at the heart of the deficiencies we have witnessed. In my opinion it was more fundamental than that and resided in incomplete understanding and the wrong intellectual approach.

Santiago Iñiguez: Historically, American and European business schools have put a different emphasis on stakeholders in strategy formulation and decision-making. Two decades ago, references to stakeholders in the US were discredited as borderline communist; the only relevant constituency for managers was shareholders.

Conversely, European business schools have developed out of a very different management culture, open to a wider array of stakeholder groups beyond shareholders. I believe that business will evolve towards a convergent corporate governance system. I don´t share with you the view that the Anglo-Saxon Model is dead, in fact it is still very influential.

First of all, thank you for the opportunity! My practical experience is in design, product and market development. Through experience and wide exposure to the global marketplace, I advanced to senior management, general management and eventually to President, CEO and Founder. Additionally, the practical playing field allowed me to test and retest theoretical models, etc… Without previous practical experience combined with formal education which I have in the form of BFA, MBA, MIBA and continued as well as continual education, change does occur. I firmly believe that by simply having formal education is not enough. Leadership, intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship can be taught, yet I do believe that many levels exist like that of a visual artist. Anyone can paint by numbers, but few can render innovative and unique images through natural abilities. It was briefly mentioned in the FT on June 8, 2009, page 10, in the Harvard class of 2008, e.g., more than two-thirds of the students had graduated from undergraduate programmes in the previous four years. My question is, do you believe that these students are prepared and are they accepted by their respective counterparts in various business climates? On a final note, we are all aware of various cultural characteristics especially within domestic markets where we find most MBAs. Why is it that we do not give more attention to this vital area, especially if we are a global marketplace? Thank you for consideration.
Jim Voss, unknown

Paul Danos: I believe that the top schools today give a very broad view of business, much more so than in the past. The role of reactivity and cultural differences are certainly not off limits in the current curriculum.

Santiago Iñiguez: I firmly believe in a post-experience program. Unless participants have a relevant experience that they can bring to class, the interactive methodologies used in the program do not work. This also applies to the case-method actually invented at Harvard Business School. More than the transmission of knowledge the MBA is a learning transformational experience deeply based on the qualities of fellow participants. For example at IE Business School, the average experience of MBA participants is over five years. Diversity is also one of the key elements of the MBA experience here. We have over 80 nationalities with students having different visions of the world and one of the highest percent female participants worldwide.

Do you think that industry leaders and markets will respond positively to an increase in ethics training in MBA programmes in the wake of the global meltdown?
Abel Iyasele, Lagos, Nigeria

Paul Danos: If you look at the leaders who were at the centre of the financial crisis, I believe you would find people who have had a great deal of ethics coverage in their education and in their businesses. I believe that we have to expand the concept of ethics to include the understanding and embracing the full responsibilities of the positions leaders take on. I would guess that most of the key players did not believe that they had violated their personal ethics standards, while at the same time many may not have had the full understanding of the risk they were taking on. Why not? I would say that they did not believe that going along without true questioning was a violation of ethics.

Santiago Iñiguez: We hope so. Unfortunately in the past recruiters didn´t show a preference on ethical attitudes over other management skills in business school graduates. It seems this is now changing and more and more ethical issues are being raised during job interviews and questionnaires

Yash Gupta: Business schools have no choice but to increase their emphasis on ethics. Because business schools are an integral part of the business system, the consequences of malfeasance on the part of individuals and organizations are unavoidably severe, as exemplified by the current crisis. Lack of ethics was the root cause of the subprime mortgage lending crisis and the disconnect between the performances of organizations and the bonuses of executives. Many companies such as Lehmann Brothers, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide, once considered successful institutions, atrophied due to ethical lapses. The cost to our society has been extremely high. Therefore, industry leaders cannot ignore the increased need for ethical training in MBA programs.

What are the key advantages of business schools that are going to become important in the near future for students when choosing a place to study? Thank you!
Vladimir Pravotorov, Moscow, Russia

Paul Danos: The core asset of academic institutions is the depth of knowledge of our faculty. At Tuck we are devoted to giving students person and complete access to faculty expertise. This means for us small scale, focus and a faculty of thought leaders who open up about what they know and how they learned it. Of course, other very important assets are our campuses where sharing, networking and relationships flourish and alumni networks that support careers and friendships.

Della Bradshaw: I think potential students are going to be seriously considering cost. Without the very highly-paid jobs in investment banking, the vast costs of study are harder to justify. I think the second will be reputation, and the ability of the schools to help students get the jobs they want. And the third is how global the education is.

One of the most interesting things I have seen in the past few years is the number of US students who choose to study outside their home country. If there is one thing that has become evident in the past year it is that we live in a truly global economy.

Santiago Iñiguez: Each student is of course different and will have specific views on each institution’s key attributes and how they add value. However their will be certain aspects of the MBA experience that are increasingly important. Della mentions price, and of course the opportunity for graduates to make a reasonable return on their investment is going to be key for programs to remain viable. So functions such as careers and alumni networks are critical and become key advantages for schools. Of course the focus, specializations and learning methodologies of each institution are also critical and will to a greater extent determine a candidate’s choice of institution as these will definitely influence career opportunities on graduation.

We focus on understanding change and equipping participants with an entrepreneurial mindset as we believe this a

Posted via email from Global Business News

June 9, 2009

Bush Is Gone, But Halliburton Keeps Cashing Cheques


Dick Cheney's former company spun off KBR in 2007 -- yet paid a huge fine for the military contractor 3 months ago.

The Houstonian Hotel is an elegant, secluded resort set on an 18-acre wooded oasis in the heart of downtown Houston. Two weeks ago, David Lesar, CEO of the once notorious energy services corporation Halliburton, spoke to some 100 shareholders and members of senior management gathered there at the company's annual meeting.

All was remarkably staid as they celebrated Halliburton's $4 billion in operating profits in 2008, a striking 22 percent return at a time when many companies are announcing record losses. Analysts remain bullish on Halliburton's stock, reflecting a more general view that any company in the oil business is likely to have a profitable future in store.

There were no protesters outside the meeting this year, nor the kind of national media stakeouts commonplace when Lesar addressed the same crew at the posh Four Seasons Hotel in downtown Houston in May 2004. Then, dozens of mounted police faced off against 300 protesters in the streets outside, while a San Francisco group that dubbed itself the Ronald Reagan Home for the Criminally Insane fielded activists in Bush and Cheney masks, offering fake $100 bills to passersby in a mock protest against war profiteering. And don't forget the 25-foot inflatable pig there to mock shareholders. Local TV crews swarmed, a national crew from NBC flew in from New York, and reporters from the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal eagerly scribbled notes.

Now the 25-foot pigs are gone and all is quiet on the western front. How did Halliburton, once branded the ugly stepchild of Dick Cheney -- the company's former CEO -- and a poster child of war profiteering, receive such absolution from antiwar activists and the media? Of course, the defeat of the Republicans in the 2008 election, the departure of the Bush administration, and a general apathy toward the ongoing, but lower-level war in Iraq are part of the answer, but don't ignore a potentially brilliant financial sleight of hand by Halliburton either. That move played a crucial role in the cleansing of the company.

"Burn & Loot"

Halliburton has been doing work in war zones since the early 1960s, when it acquired the construction company Brown & Root and was tasked by the Pentagon with building the infrastructure for the Vietnam War. Back in those days, it was vilified as "Burn & Loot." After more than three decades in news obscurity, in March 2003, with the invasion of Iraq, it suddenly returned to national attention. After all, not only had its former CEO been beating the public drums for an invasion, but its subsidiary KBR (the old Brown & Root) had been given a vast, open-ended, multi-billion dollar contractto build and maintain the new infrastructure of bases that the U.S. military was rushing to construct in that country.

More than six years later, KBR has taken in over $31 billion for a variety of services to the U.S. military, notably in the field of logistics, and the money continues to flow in. As of April 2008, under a renewed contract, the company estimated that it had served more than 720 million meals, driven more than 400 million miles on various convoy missions, treated 12 billion gallons of potable water, and produced more than 267 million tons of ice. While these numbers may be impressive, so are the multiple claims from Pentagon investigators of Godzilla-like overcharges and waste, not to speak of spiraling claims of workplace negligence, including faulty electrical wiring that led to deaths and injuries on bases KBR built, and a failure to provide adequately clean water supplies to the troops; and then there are those allegations of war profiteering made by activist groups and politicians.

In September 2004, Lesar announced that Halliburton was considering spinning off KBR as a separate company, in part he claimed because it was bearing the brunt of a "vicious campaign" of political attacks and its employees didn't "deserve to have their jobs threatened for political gain." It took three years, but in April 2007 the spinoff of KBR was completed. It is now officially on its own, and the results for both companies seem little short of miraculous. No protesters even attended the three annual shareholder meetings that KBR has since held, though its activities in the war zones have hardly changed, and only five made it to Halliburton's in 2008. This year, of course, the protesting larder was bare.

Five shareholder activists did manage to attend Halliburton's annual meeting, including me. (I own a single share of Halliburton stock.) When I asked Lesar about the company's links to KBR, he responded unequivocally, "First of all, let's be very clear, KBR and Halliburton are legally separated."

Just three months ago, however, Halliburton didn't hesitate to pay off $382 million in fines to the U.S. Department of Justice as part of the settlement of a controversial KBR gas project in Nigeria in which the company admitted to paying a $180 million bribe to government officials. Halliburton, Lesar assured us, had been willing to pony up such a sum to ensure that KBR could survive on its own. He painted the payment as an act of corporate generosity. I asked Albert Cornelison and Mark McCollum, Halliburton's top lawyer and chief financial officer, if the company had similarly agreed to pay off any future judgments against the company on its monster military logistics contracts in Iraq. Cornelison responded that he doubted the company had financial obligations for KBR's work in Iraq.

Military investigations continue

In reality, Halliburton's decision to spin the company off was surely tied to hopes that it might indeed escape a number of pending Iraq investigations and lawsuits, as well as tamp down the bad publicity KBR was generating. Still, those investigations are ongoing. At Fort Belvoir, Va., the headquarters of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), the office in charge of reviewing the Pentagon's payments to KBR, a small group of investigators continue to pursue that company's failures.

In early May, at a hearing on Capitol Hill, DCAA director April G. Stephenson told the independent, bipartisan, congressionally mandated Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan that, since 2004, her staff had sent 32 cases of suspected overbilling, bribery and other possible violations of the law to the Pentagon inspector general. The "vast majority" of these cases, she testified, were linked to KBR, which accounts for a staggering 43 percent of the dollars the Pentagon has spent in Iraq. "I don't think we're aware of a program, contract, or contractor that has had this number of suspensions or referrals," she told the hearing. (In the allied area of overpricing services, DCAA also recommended $4.3 billion worth of reductions to proposed or billed costs and pointed to another $3.3 billion worth of costs under the KBR contract that they believed were simply not supported.)

Stephenson's staff, she indicated, recommended not paying the costs KBR had billed to the Pentagon on more than 100 occasions, among other things suspending or blocking some $553 million in payments. In but one example of typical KBR practices revealed at the hearing, the company allegedly billed the Pentagon for 4,100 prefabricated living units for military bases in Iraq at an average price of $38,000, even though another contractor offered to provide similar units for $18,000 each.

None of this may, however, matter, if the Pentagon continues to follow the precedents it has recently set. As Stephenson notes, the Pentagon has already agreed to pay out at least $439 million of the $553 million the DCAA questioned, after accepting the company's explanations for each incident.

"I'm struck by the fact [that] the military doesn't seem to care about the cost as long as they get the service," said Commissioner Christopher Shays, former Republican congressman from Connecticut. "Is part of the problem that, in essence with this one contractor, we've basically said, 'KBR is too big to fail'?"

Shocking revelations

The Pentagon even appears willing to pay KBR for contracts that may have resulted in the deaths of military personnel in Iraq, allegedly electrocuted due to shoddy work by the company's electricians. Just as Lesar was addressing Halliburton's shareholders in Houston, Sen. Byron Dorgan's Senate Democratic Policy Committee was holding a hearing on Capitol Hill focused on KBR. Testifying was Jim Childs, a master electrician hired by the U.S. Army to help review military facilities in Iraq.

Childs claims that as many as 70,000 KBR-maintained buildings where troops lived and worked were unsafe because of faulty electrical wiring. "When I began inspecting the electrical work performed by KBR, my co-workers and I found improper electrical work in every building we inspected," Childs said. Hundreds of soldiers are believed to have received electrical shocks in showers and elsewhere as a result. There have beenfour documented fatalities, including Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth of Pittsburgh, Pa., a Green Beret, who died of electrocution while showering in his barracks in Iraq on Jan. 2, 2008. (Maseth's family has sued KBR, alleging wrongful death.)

According to Sen. Dorgan, documents show that KBR was paid huge bonuses by the Pentagon for this work, much of it after the allegations became public. If accurate, this gives "shocking" a new meaning. "How could it be that, given these obviously widespread problems with KBR's electrical work, the Pentagon decided to give KBR bonuses totaling $83.4 million for such work?" he wondered.

KBR, of course, denies everything. "We believe the standards that we did employ were standards that were known and thought to be acceptable in an expeditionary environment," KBR's William P. Utt told the Associated Press in response. "We don't think the wiring that we installed was potentially dangerous." In a brief statement about the deaths, the company wrote: "Based on our current knowledge and the information we have gathered to date, KBR has found no evidence of a link between the work the military tasked KBR to perform and the reported deaths that have resulted from electrocution."

Who is responsible?

One of the biggest problems with the sprawling 2008 KBR mega-contract appears to be that not enough people are watching the store (and evidently, some of those who do regularly doze off when payment issues arise).

In early May, Michael Thibault, co-chairman of the independent Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, highlighted a simple, if disturbing statistic at the second hearing of his newly established commission. Out of 504 oversight officials that, by Pentagon estimate, are needed to keep an eye on KBR's contract in Afghanistan alone, just 166 were actually in the field in April 2009. As Thibault added:

"After more than six years of fighting, this is just one example of serious and persistent shortfalls in staffing and training. In military parlance, no one is pulling guard duty on contractor performance. This example, an issue by itself, points to another broader question. Who is responsible? Who's going to fix these types of issues?"

At the Democratic Policy Committee hearing in late May, Charles M. Smith, a 31-year veteran of contract management in the U.S. Army, testified that Pentagon officials were deliberately ignoring criticism in deciding to reward KBR. Smith was in charge of KBR contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as of the award-fee or bonus-payment process that went with them. He refused to allow any bonuses to be paid out, however, because the company was not able to provide proper documentation of its costs. This was one reason, he believes, that he was taken off the contract in August 2004. Smith became a whistle-blower after he retired a year ago. Here is a sample of his testimony:

"The award-fee process is supposed to evaluate a contractor's performance level and provide a 'bonus' or award fee for superior performance. Failure to perform satisfactorily should result in a significantly lower or no award fee. [The award system] appears to me to have failed to work as it was intended and to have led to poor service for American troops, wasted taxpayer money, and possibly the deaths of soldiers in KBR operated facilities...

"The problems for operating in the environment of Iraq and Afghanistan are not insignificant. However, the major failure appears to me to have been a culture that decided KBR was too big to fail and too important to be held to account. The Army was aware of KBR's poor performance in Iraq. There have been numerous government inspections and reports. The Army, however, continued to give KBR high award fees. Those high award fees appear to have sent a message to KBR that performance did not really matter. Award-fee boards and decisions are a communications tool between the government and the contractor. The contractor learns what is important to the government and will respond accordingly." And the record shows that KBR did "respond accordingly."

Remembering Halliburton

In the meantime, Halliburton, which provided so many years of corporate "oversight" for KBR, has been cleansed of all charges in the court of public opinion and has essentially dropped from view. It has also done its best to ignore a shareholder resolution brought by Patrick Doherty, the comptroller of the city of New York, that raises the obvious issue of war profiteering in Iraq, based on the Pentagon dollars it raked in while its former CEO helped oversee the war that was making it so much money.

Some shareholder activists continue to pursue the company by other means. For instance, the pension fund of the Policemen and Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit filed a lawsuit in mid-May against David Lesar and other executives of KBR and Halliburton, accusing them of a "reign of terror." The lawsuit listed a number of complaints including bribes in Nigeria, overcharging the Pentagon for services rendered, accepting kickbacks, engaging in human trafficking, and concealing the rape of an employee.

"Under defendants' watch, and supposedly under their control and supervision, the companies were permitted to engage in conduct so notorious that the name 'Halliburton' has become virtually synonymous with 'corruption,'" the pension fund said in a complaint filed at the Harris County District Court in Houston.

"Defendants' failures have caused the Companies to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, and to be exposed to substantial additional judgments in the future."

Heather Browne, a company spokeswoman, responded: "It appears that the lawsuit is based on unfounded allegations. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves." Another shareholder activist, John Harrington, a socially responsible investment manager in California, used his KBR shares to file a protest resolution against the company this May. According to Harrington's press release:

"KBR's management is obviously not taking their human rights footprint very seriously. The board of directors is accountable to shareholders, but only if we assert ourselves as the real owners of the company. Understandably, shareholders don't like being associated with atrocities. If ever there was a need for responsible fiduciary human rights oversight within a company, it is with KBR. This company has been castigated in the press, sued, and accused of bribery, rape, murder, political corruption, tax avoidance, and who knows what else."

KBR nonetheless took in another $5.7 billion from the U.S. taxpayer in 2008, up 15 percent from the $4.8 billion it received in 2007. With the planned drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq, KBR expects its revenue to fall this year. But shareholders need not worry: Its contract with the Pentagon, signed in April 2008, potentially sets it up to make more than triple the maximum profits allowed in the previous six years.


Recently, the Financial Times ran an interview with KBR's Utt, aptly headlined "KBR believes it is ready to construct a new image." The same day stock analyst Will Gabrielski raised his profit estimate for KBR, causing company shares to jump. If forgiving and forgetting are now the norm when it comes to the records of Halliburton and KBR in the Bush years, the question remains: Will the Pentagon complete this cleansing ritual or engage in the serious task of investigating both companies?

Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/03/chatterjee/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature

Tags: Military, Pentagon, Opinion, Pratap Chatterjee, Iraq War, KBR, FT, Halliburton, Will Gabrielski, George W Bush, Pentagon, Heather Browne, Dick Cheney, Salon, Global Development News Blogspot,

Posted via email from Global Business News