engineer们莫要悲观，还是大有可为的！
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2081930,00.html谁有空可以翻译一下。
engineer们莫要悲观，还是大有可为的！
Driven off the Road by M.B.A.sby Rana Foroohar
Bob Lutz, the former Vice Chairman of General Motors, is the most famous also-ran in the auto business. In the course of his 47-year rampage through the industry, he's been within swiping range of the brass ring at Ford, BMW, Chrysler and, most recently, GM, but he's never landed the top gig. It's because he "made the cars too well," he says. It might also have something to do with the fact that Maximum Bob, who could double as a character on Mad Men, is less an éminence grise than a pithy self-promoter who has a tendency to go off corporate message. That said, his new book, Car Guys vs. Bean Counters: The Battle for the Soul of American Business, has a message worth hearing. To get the U.S. economy growing again, Lutz says, we need to fire the M.B.A.s and let engineers run the show.
Lutz's main argument is that companies, shareholders and consumers are best served by product-driven executives. In his book, Lutz wisecracks his way through the 1960s design- and technology-led glory days at GM to the late-1970s takeover by gangs of M.B.A.s. Executives, once largely developed from engineering, began emerging from finance. The results ranged from the sobering (managers signing off on inferior products because customers "had no choice") to the hilarious (Cadillac ashtrays that wouldn't open because of corporate mandates that they be designed to function at -40°F). It's pretty easy to imagine Car Guy Lutz removing his mirrored shades and shouting to the cowering line manager, "Well, customers in North Dakota will be happy. Too bad nobody else will!" (See five destructive myths about the U.S. economy.)
The auto industry is actually a terrific proxy for a trend toward short-term, myopically balance-sheet-driven management that has infected American business. In the first half of the 20th century, industrial giants like Ford, General Electric, AT&T and many others were extremely consumer-focused. They spent most of their time and money using new technologies to create the best possible products and services, regardless of development cost. The idea was, if you build it better, the customers will come. And they did.
The pendulum began to swing in the postwar era, when Harvard Business School grad Robert McNamara and his "whiz kids" became famous for using mathematical modeling, game theory and complex statistical analysis for the Army Air Corps, doing things like improving fuel-transport times and scheduling more-efficient bombing raids. McNamara, who later became president of Ford, brought extreme number crunching to the business world, and soon the idea that "if you can measure it, you can manage it" took hold — and no wonder. By the late 1970s, M.B.A.s were flourishing, and engineers were relegated to the geek back rooms. (See why you should still go to college.)
This is not to say that the Whiz Kidding of American business yielded no positives; things like the hyperefficient FedEx logistical hubs and the entire consulting industry were born out of it. But ultimately, moving numbers around can do only so much. Over the long haul, you've got to invent or improve real products and services to grow.
In the U.S., the growth of the financial industry has only exacerbated the trend toward balance-sheet-driven management. Companies everywhere, but particularly in the U.S., where the banking sector wields the most power, are under tremendous short-term pressure to make their quarterly numbers. This often leads to planning that's reactive rather than smart: force the highest-paid engineers to retire, even if they are the best, and reduce payroll costs across all divisions rather than invest in the ones that are pushing the New New Thing through the pipeline. (See the 20 best- and worst-paid college majors.)
It's interesting to note that the one area of the U.S. economy that's adding jobs and increasing productivity and wealth is also the one that is the most relentlessly product- and consumer-focused: Silicon Valley. The company off Highway 101 that best illustrates this point is, of course, Apple. The only time Apple ever lost the plot was when it put the M.B.A.s in charge. As long as college dropout Steve Jobs is in the driver's seat, customers (and shareholders) are happy. The reason is clearly the one Lutz puts forward in his book: "Shoemakers should be run by shoe guys, and software firms by software guys."
Meanwhile, despite all the post-financial-crisis soul searching within the business community about the value of an M.B.A., schools are still churning them out. There are, and will be for the foreseeable future, a lot more bean counters than engineers in this country. But the same may soon be true in China, where the state plans to open 40 new graduate schools of business in the next few years. As Lutz puts it, "That's the best news I've heard in years."
See why women now hold more advanced degrees than men.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2081930,00.html#ixzz1SHFB1HIM
哈哈，酒虾，应该这么说，一个时代兴一种东西，在那个当下，人民都认为这个东西有效，但过了那个时候，又认为另外一个东西好，在有的时代认为工程师是决定因素，另外一个时代就是其它家伙的时代，麦克纳马拉做防长的时候，前期厉害，后来办法不多，但把福特管理的还不错，也算一种时代变换吧， 鲍勃.鲁兹传记？
我是不相信成功可以复制的！ 任何事情对群体是个概率，对个体就是绝对的。 是的，成功不见得能复制，因为时间，地点，人，环境都不同了，人们的意识也发生的根本性转变，不过多看些还是有借鉴的好处的。国内的经济环境不够理想，现在大部分民营企业还处在产业链的最低端，没有自主的知识产权，没有长远的战略发展计划，最后只会沦为世界工厂，而不是研发工厂。这是大的方面，小到一家私企，它需要为社会负何种责任，这种责任能否换得相对应的利益，政策倾斜也好，特别照顾也好，这是当下私营企业主首先要考虑的问题。。 :call: 失败的人都大致相同，成功的人却各有各的精彩 楼上几位没细看我转的文章？
Bob Lutz认为美国的经济衰退始发于大量任用MBA，现在是需要大量任用工程师的时候，才能带来经济的复兴。
最后一句：But the same may soon be true in China, where the state plans to open 40 new graduate schools of business in the next few years. As Lutz puts it, "That's the best news I've heard in years."
我也认为成功不是可以复制的，但是失败却是可以复制的。 谷歌浏览器，自动直接给翻译了。翻译的那个乱八七糟惨不忍睹，呵呵。
最后一句是不是有幸灾乐祸的味道？ 唉，又是一个做蛋糕还是分蛋糕的争论！