correlate Rotating Header Image

March, 2008:

Should I get my MBA?

Interestingly, I received the same question this week from four different people.  Thought I would write a post on the topic.

Truth be told, there is not a standard answer that applies to everyone.  If there is anything that is clear now, it is that all people are on different paths and often end up at the same destination through different methods.  (no, not trying to be philosophical…did you hear that tree?)  So it really depends.  The reason is people go to get their graduate degree, MBA or otherwise are for a variety of reasons and there are a lot of opinions on an MBA out there as well.

1.  Often people get their MBA to change industries.   This was the most common reason amongst my Sloan colleagues.  In fact, it was pretty ironical.  It seemed like 25% were shifting from consulting to banking, another 25% from banking to consulting, another 25% engineering to consulting or banking and the final 25% some other goal.

2.  Second reason, while not discussed as often as it probably should, many individual back to get their MBA for the education.  You do acquire a great set of learnings, many of which prove valuable for me every day.  I find myself applying principles (maybe not formulas or models all the time) but principles to many fundamental elements on how I approach things.  In many cases, in my field, I utilize it in technology strategy, process management, looking at disruptive technologies, market analysis or understanding different competitive threat scenarios/responses.

3.  Networking.  This I do believe depends a lot on the program that you enter.  I believe the education your receive (for the most part) is the very similar at all schools, in fact they use the same text books in most cases.  But the network(s) you build and develop in an MBA program is something you can leverage throughout your career.  This is, in my opinion, a critical lens to look through when deciding to get your MBA and which program to apply.

But I don’t view an MBA prescriptively.  If you do, I think you could be making a mistake.  It is different for everyone and there are a lot of MBA’s out in the marketplace now so the “punching the ticket” approach I see more often not providing the return on investment.

So, if you are asking whether to get an MBA, you need to ask yourself a couple of questions.  What are you trying to accomplish?  Where are you trying to get to in the short-term and the long-term?  You better know this going in because they pretty much ask you this question your first week.  And a two year MBA program flies by and many of your decisions about how to utilize your time are predicated on you knowing where you are heading.

And once you know that, what steps will help you to get where you are aiming to go with your career and how will the MBA experience help you in achieving your objectives.  To deep dive into one area, in the internet, media and technology industries, there are two fundamental schools of thought.  The first is that an MBA can fundamentally help you navigate an increasingly complex marketplace with market disruptions and consumers needs changing in a variety ways.  How to navigate it is a developed skill and an MBA is a sound foundation.  The second is the ‘street smarts’ method which is to head straight into the start-up environment and there is not any better place to learn than “doing it” either through a successful venture or even failing.  I’ve seen both work successfully.

Hope this helps…

A Seesmic Issue

Get it, Seesmic, Seismic, ah whatever. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Seesmic, there is a great explanation of it here at Cruchbase, here and here. My definition: video-based communication start-up founded by Loic Le Meur which could re-define personal communication to be more video-based and not just predominately email.

Anyway, over the past few days, I’ve been taking a look at Seesmic more closely, and using the new direct messaging capability which I believe was an absolute must (do not have much interest in contributing out in the public timeline like I do with Twitter). I must say that it is great to see Loic’s team innovating right into the customer feedback.

But there are a couple key issues that Seesmic must get out in front of before they turn into seismic ones. Let’s face it, as cool as video emailing is, using it is flying in the face of years of email com. I’m not sure what the active user number is but I would be shocked if it was very high. There are a couple of reasons for it in my opinion:

- Where is the viral network effect for it? The most successful of start-ups have a key viral play as part of their strategy. If Seesmic has one, it is alluding me. I need a way to invite folks in my network into the conversation.

- As everyone jumps from network play to network play, none of my connections are out of Seesmic. I do not know why this is but it is the case. So unless I want to talk to strangers in the public timeline (which is great way to meet others), it has low utility for me personally.

- Tell me when I have a message waiting in my inbox. This is an absolute must-have feature. Someone direct messaged and I do not get notified in my inbox that I have a message waiting ala Facebook and I cannot subscribe to an inbox RSS feed. Big issue.

- Facilitate growth. Let me direct message a non-member and that will facilitate usage, memberships and traffic. If I direct message someone and they are notified, in most cases, they are going to click through and register to see the message. And some of them will stay continue to video message, participate and invite other friends to partake.

Just some thoughts and perhaps some of these are addressed, and I’m missing them. And perhaps Seesmic is trying to control growth to get their infrastructure footing. But until the above is clearly available, I don’t see the high-flyer tool it has the promise to be.

NOTE (10 p.m. EST): Just made online contact with Cathy from Seesmic. She was extremely responsive both on Seesmic and then tried to come here to comment as well. Just made some comment system changes so hopefully she’ll come back and do so. Looking forward to it! Thanks Cathy and great meeting you.

Today’s Favorite Web Site; 10:42 PM EST

Not sure if “Favorite Web Site” will be a new theme for me or not. Most likely not since it is inefficient with Delicious being a more logical alternative. But every now and then I am going to post about a particular site when it is truly worthy.

Today’s: Venture Capitalist T-Shirt

Check it out. It will take you two seconds. Where else can selling $100 t-shirts actually be a viable idea? And I have to had it to them, their t-shirt ideas are fantastic.

My personal favorites:



There are plenty more, check it out. Here’s to hoping they get to a $1B valuation.

what once was is no longer

I always find this funny, and it quite related to some of my views regarding the Yahoo! situation a few days back. Here is an excerpt from today’s NYTimes, “Amid Hurdles at AOL, Chief of Its Parent Is Open To A Deal“:

AOL still enjoys many advantages that most companies can only dream about, from a prestigious brand name to an enormous revenue stream ($5.2 billion in 2007, down 33 percent from 2006). AOL’s Web sites attract 112 million visitors a month, and 9.3 million Americans still pay the company for Internet services.

I find it amazing at the difference businesses are viewed on their way up rather than down or hit maturity with no longer a steep growth curve. Granted I find that there a fundamental issues with the AOL business and there has been since the point where they missed the mark thinking $19.95/month was always going to be the path to perpetual greatness.

But, for a moment, think back to the time AOL was the media darling. When $1B, then $2B, then $3B (BILLION!) and so on made an online media company the place to be and was only sung praises. It is that oft imperceivable shift where you go from “a juggernaut, where will it stop” to “the pace of growth has slowed”.

(editor’s note: AOL’s advertising stream has slowed to 18% growth, I can think of a number of firms that pine for an 18% growth rate)

IT value isn’t hidden, WE hide it

There is a pretty good article, “How to Tap IT’s Hidden Potential” in the MIT Technology Review. Overall, it doesn’t include anything new to the conversation but try to re-kindle the conversation regarding IT’s place in the organization. Coming from a large organization, it is truly easy to see and almost impossible to see in the agile, start-up world.

It remains the area of the business (typically) where it is all costs, all have-to expenditures, sole focus is to get the key elements in place with the least expense and lowest technology/business risk. And too often not looked at as a potential differentiator against competition nor a way to supplement or work to make the “front-line” technology operations that build products stronger.  The irony of it all is that the value of IT isn’t hidden at all, it is (or the potential) is clearly there.  Organizations choose to hide it with their practices and policies that govern IT at most fundamental of levels.

This whole school of though reminds me of a post I wrote a while back called The Enterprise Outlook is Cloudy.  Not fully on the mark but highly correlated because organizations’ choice to not use the cloud as part of IT strategy is directly tied to the “wall” discussed in the article.  The cloud, while it presents lower costs, it introduces greater risk to that of its “I never got fired for buying” brethren.  But it should be considered in cases a more strategic, moving the business forward option.  It does not, however, match with the way in which IT groups in most cases judge their own success.  This has to change.