Now that some of you folks are getting your interview invites, one of the common things I get asked is how to best prepare for an interview.
It's quite simple, if a bit unconventional.
Practice talking about your candidacy OUT LOUD. Either talking about it to someone (friend, family member, spouse, dog, cat, hamster, etc.) or to yourself (yes, it will sound strange and weird at first).
Interviews aren't intellectual exercises. They aren't carefully rehearsed speeches. A great interview is one where BOTH the interviewer and interviewee are fully engaged in conversation (but obviously with the interviewee doing most of the talking). Conversation = talking.
You don't get "good" at interviews by reading books, writing notes, or doing anything where it's all in your head. You have to get used to hearing these very themes coming out of your own voice - your career goals, why "b-school X" is the right place for you, what you've accomplished, your strengths and weaknesses, and so forth.
If you're not used to actually talking about this out loud - it's going to come across as awkward no matter how much you've "read" your notes or "written down" stuff or memorized complete threads of "monologues" in silence. The interview room is NOT the best place to be vocalizing this stuff for the first time.
It's got to be in your body, not just in your head -- so that it comes across as natural and engaging. If it's all in your head and not fully in your body (i.e. so that your body language responds to what you're actually saying), you WILL come across as disconnected, disengaged, distant, and dull.
Talking is a physical activity. Nervousness is a physical condition. The more comfortable you are talking OUT LOUD about these things we normally don't talk about everyday in our lives (why MBA, goals, accomplishments, failures, etc.) the less nervous you will get no matter how big the stakes are because YOU are the expert on yourself, and you are used to talking about it.
It's not about coming up with carefully scripted answers to specific questions - because an astute interviewer will pick up on the fact that it's carefully scripted. Insincerity or lack of authenticity is what KILLS you in an interview more than a stumble of a word here or there. No one, including the adcom or interviewer, likes to feel that they're being played or that you are putting on an artificial front - no matter how substantive you think you are, if you come across as insincere or "scripted", it is death.
So how do you "prepare" for something where you're supposed to come across as spontaneous and authentic as if you were answering their question for the first time? You do so by practice, practice, practice -- until you're so used to talking about it out loud that you can improvise around it.
Anyone who has done sales will know what I mean. An interview is basically a sales pitch - with the product being YOU. A great sales pitch isn't one that sounds carefully scripted, but one where the sales person knows the underlying sales points and product so well that he/she can respond in the moment without thinking and improvise -- the more one physically talks it out, the smoother and more comfortable one becomes with the material.
Interviewing is a physical activity - treat your preparation as such (and this goes with MBA recruiting as well -- i.e. you get better at case interviews by physically talking it out - being good at case interviews isn't purely about your "thinking process" but about being good at "verbalizing" your thinking process).
Monday, November 2, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Do The Right Thing: Taking an Oath
A recent story about Harvard Business School students taking an oath of business ethics seems to have caught wind with a few media outlets. The Huffington Post picked it up, NPR interviewed two HBS students about it, and even Michael Lewis ("Liar's Poker") referenced it on CNN's Fareed Zakaria.
In my opinion, I'm all for it. Why not? What is the harm in pledging to act in good faith? At worst, it won't do much good, but at best it can have a marginal effect.
Again, an oath alone won't solve all of our problems, because the underlying problems are complex and multifaceted. However, from a human standpoint I think it's a great thing that some business school students are trying to do the right thing.
Or to put it another way, the cyncism and jaded mentality of human behavior ("assume the worst, always") is what I call the Dick Cheney School of Psychology. That kind of negative, fatalist view of the world may not be the primary cause of bad behavior, but it certainly can be an important lubricant used to justify bad behavior.
It's the common refrain and tone you'll hear from those who were part of the problem:
"it's human nature to be greedy and bad"
"people will always cheat and steal if there's incentive"
"between my own ass and someone else's, I'd save my own ass at all costs"
All of which is true. But the cynic's world view (i.e. many MBAs and business types of the past) is to see that before anything else. To be far more willing to see the bad in people, and less willing to see the good. And that, in itself, is a naive view. Because everyone has the capacity for both, given the appropriate circumstance and frame of mind.
It's sort of that view that "if the whole world is a race to the bottom, why fight it, join that race!" which precisely leads otherwise upstanding people to justify why they're doing bad things.
That's why if an oath at least helps to be even a small counterpoint to the cynicism that could creep in over time, then I'm all for it.
Because I am willing to bet that those who have misbehaved or will misbehave do so because they don't want to see the good in themselves or in others -- regardless of whether such misbehaviors are "illegal," or legal but ethically questionable. They are more willing to discredit the good, and amplify the bad in others as way to justify why their misbehavior is "par for the course". Because if they did see more good than bad in themselves, the misbehavior would be incongruous to who they are -- and they would simply own up to their wrongdoing when caught, and apologize without making any excuses for it. And even if they weren't caught for their misdeeds, they would at least feel guilty or remorse for what they did IF they didn't have such a cynical view of themselves and of others.
Again, an oath is a good appetizer, but not the "main course." The main course is still a change in regulation and corporate governance. But that doesn't make the appetizer worthless.
In my opinion, I'm all for it. Why not? What is the harm in pledging to act in good faith? At worst, it won't do much good, but at best it can have a marginal effect.
Again, an oath alone won't solve all of our problems, because the underlying problems are complex and multifaceted. However, from a human standpoint I think it's a great thing that some business school students are trying to do the right thing.
Or to put it another way, the cyncism and jaded mentality of human behavior ("assume the worst, always") is what I call the Dick Cheney School of Psychology. That kind of negative, fatalist view of the world may not be the primary cause of bad behavior, but it certainly can be an important lubricant used to justify bad behavior.
It's the common refrain and tone you'll hear from those who were part of the problem:
"it's human nature to be greedy and bad"
"people will always cheat and steal if there's incentive"
"between my own ass and someone else's, I'd save my own ass at all costs"
All of which is true. But the cynic's world view (i.e. many MBAs and business types of the past) is to see that before anything else. To be far more willing to see the bad in people, and less willing to see the good. And that, in itself, is a naive view. Because everyone has the capacity for both, given the appropriate circumstance and frame of mind.
It's sort of that view that "if the whole world is a race to the bottom, why fight it, join that race!" which precisely leads otherwise upstanding people to justify why they're doing bad things.
That's why if an oath at least helps to be even a small counterpoint to the cynicism that could creep in over time, then I'm all for it.
Because I am willing to bet that those who have misbehaved or will misbehave do so because they don't want to see the good in themselves or in others -- regardless of whether such misbehaviors are "illegal," or legal but ethically questionable. They are more willing to discredit the good, and amplify the bad in others as way to justify why their misbehavior is "par for the course". Because if they did see more good than bad in themselves, the misbehavior would be incongruous to who they are -- and they would simply own up to their wrongdoing when caught, and apologize without making any excuses for it. And even if they weren't caught for their misdeeds, they would at least feel guilty or remorse for what they did IF they didn't have such a cynical view of themselves and of others.
Again, an oath is a good appetizer, but not the "main course." The main course is still a change in regulation and corporate governance. But that doesn't make the appetizer worthless.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Business As A Service Profession: A Rant
I normally don't do this, but I felt I should share some of my thoughts about what I've seen as a big problem with the whole MBA culture.
As expected, I usually get people emailing me their profile, or posting it on the various discussion forums where I post. It's usually the same fundamental question: "What are my chances at school X, Y, or Z?" or "How can I improve my profile to get into school X, Y, Z?"
No issues with that whatsoever. In fact, I welcome it. I do get a bit of a kick when in my own way I find that my work has helped others for the better (not just with b-school admissions, but to see their life's work or who they are or who they *could* be in a way they may not have thought of before). And it can be incredibly humbling too because quite a number of the people I've worked with are so incredibly talented and accomplished at such a young age.
However, I did get one inquiry that frankly shocked me, but pointed to a larger problem that seems to be pervasive in the kinds of people who are attracted to business school and to business careers.
This person basically asked me whether joining the US military will help him get into business school. This person laid out the reasons for enlisting in the same self-interested manner that any other "MBA-type" person would for any business career. It was mostly about him and his self-development.
I would hope that you understand why this is a problem when it comes to deciding whether to serve in the military.
Anyhow, I wanted to use the "to join the military or not" as an extreme example of what I mean about SERVICE.
The concept of service isn't some feel-good, morale boosting concept. It's a very practical thing. So much of what the military does whether on the front line or in a support role is dependent on TEAM. No one fights alone. No one does anything alone. Everything is co-dependent. You put your life in the hands of others, as they put their lives in your hands. That level of trust and integrity between officers and their enlisted men is essential for survival. Yes, it's principled, but it's also practical and ensures the greatest chance of success and survival.
That very concept of service -- to serve others -- not just to "serve your country" in the abstract, but to serve the men and women that are working under you and above you is ingrained in the military.
Of course, as human beings there is always some element of self-interest and self-preservation, but for the military apparatus to be effective, the people involved in it have to be driven by far more than saving their own ass and wondering "what's in it for me?"
And that is precisely the problem with the MBA culture and the mentality.
There is absolutely no sense of service or selflessness -- because, for some reason, in the business world it's supposed to be "every man for himself". Some Darwinian race to the bottom of what people are willing to do to one another. It's all about ME. And not about US.
You don't have to all of a sudden quit your high flying job, or forgo going to Harvard Business School and join the Marines. Nor do you need to work in nonprofit full-time. Nor do you even really need to volunteer at a nonprofit.
It's not about "jobs" or what you can put on your resume.
It starts with the mentality that IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.
You don't have to change anything about your current situation. But a change in how you see your situation and how you approach your current situation is where the real difference lies.
Of course there will be self-interest. You want to make more money. We all do. You want a more prestigious job. Those are nice things to have. And you don't have to give up any of those desires at all. BUT, it's got to be far more than that.
You can be self-interested while still approaching your current job, volunteer activity, career aspiration, school, etc. with the mentality of:
What can I do to contribute?
What can I do to help [him/her] on my team do a better job?
What can I do to be more giving of my time, more compassionate, more empathetic?
What can I do to truly listen to what others have to say (and not just *hear*) and to understand, even if I don't necessarily agree with them?
What can I do to be the one *holding* the spotlight to shine on others, rather than waiting for the spotlight to shine on me?
Now, I'm sure I'll get some cynical business type (and the business types other than lawyers relish in being cynical) assuming that what I am suggesting here is somehow naive or unrealistic.
To which I challenge you -- the more self-absorbed and self-interested you are, the thicker the walls you will build around you over time. The more you care only about yourself, the less people will care about you. If you want to know why there's such a backlash against MBA types and the business community, it's precisely that. The perception is that MBAs only care about themselves, they are greedy, they are obsessed with money and prestige, and they care far more about themselves than they do about their contributions. And while such broad brush strokes may be unfair, it is rooted in some truth. Yes, med students want money. Yes, law students want money. Yes, even film students want money. We all want the same things no matter what profession we're in. We want nice houses, nice cars, a comfortable life, a powerful and respected position in our community, awards and accolades that boosts our ego, etc. The problem with the MBA culture is that it often doesn't go beyond that -- and the excuse is always "I don't have time" or "I need to pay off my loans" or "my family comes first" -- problems that for some reason some MBAs feel are unique to them and them only. We all have problems.
Many other professions have some sort of "higher cause" ingrained in the ethos of that profession - an ethos that even the most cynical and jaded doctor, lawyer, filmmaker, journalist, etc. at least acknowledges (and perhaps even a little grain of it remaining somewhere). In business school, that lack of ethos that points to some sort of SERVICE is a major problem and source for why we end up with such a nihilistic and amoral business culture.
None of the other professions are perfect by any stretch, but at least medicine has "to heal others". For law, it's "to serve the law, to bring justice to others". For film/writing/dancing/music, it's "to make art". For journalists, it's "to uncover and communicate the truth". For teachers, it's "to enrich the minds of others with wisdom and knowledge". Even for sports, no matter the hijinks or egos of some athletes, few if any athlete feels they are bigger than the sport they play.
What is the ethos of business? To simply enrich our own pockets? (the "shareholder value" argument is a masquerade for self-interest). To say that it's self-interest or to maximize profit isn't an ethos rooted in anything human or aspirational. It's simply nihilistic.
Maximizing profit or shareholder value is HOW we stay in business. But it's not WHY we do business. And so many of us in the business world have failed to separate that.
Who knows, maybe with this economic crisis, a new idealism and ethos may become codified within the business community to replace "shareholder value as the sufficient end in itself". Business schools have a part to play in that, as do MBA students and applicants alike. It starts with all of us.
Service. Business as "service". Business leadership as "service" - to serve others, to serve constituents. I'll let you ponder and decide what that means to you specifically.
Soldiers lay their life on the line for their fellow soldiers. A ship captain lays his life on the line for his shipmates. A pilot who safely crash lands in the Hudson uses his brief celebrity to fight for the rights of his fellow pilots and to lobby for greater safety measures. Firefighters lay their lives on the line to save people everyday.
These people are heroes, but many of them will say that they are simply doing their job. Why? Is it purely out of modesty? Or is it because there is an ethos of service embedded in their profession that is hammered into them from the day they sign up, which encourages them to act in such a selfless manner?
And to the cynical who feel resigned to the fact that the business world, the MBA, etc. "is what it is" and can't change or that any goodwill you do will be a lost cause, I challenge you as follows:
If you are so cynical to have no faith in others, why bother living at all? If you have no hope, then each day you get up your body and mind may be alive, but your soul sure isn't.
As expected, I usually get people emailing me their profile, or posting it on the various discussion forums where I post. It's usually the same fundamental question: "What are my chances at school X, Y, or Z?" or "How can I improve my profile to get into school X, Y, Z?"
No issues with that whatsoever. In fact, I welcome it. I do get a bit of a kick when in my own way I find that my work has helped others for the better (not just with b-school admissions, but to see their life's work or who they are or who they *could* be in a way they may not have thought of before). And it can be incredibly humbling too because quite a number of the people I've worked with are so incredibly talented and accomplished at such a young age.
However, I did get one inquiry that frankly shocked me, but pointed to a larger problem that seems to be pervasive in the kinds of people who are attracted to business school and to business careers.
This person basically asked me whether joining the US military will help him get into business school. This person laid out the reasons for enlisting in the same self-interested manner that any other "MBA-type" person would for any business career. It was mostly about him and his self-development.
I would hope that you understand why this is a problem when it comes to deciding whether to serve in the military.
Anyhow, I wanted to use the "to join the military or not" as an extreme example of what I mean about SERVICE.
The concept of service isn't some feel-good, morale boosting concept. It's a very practical thing. So much of what the military does whether on the front line or in a support role is dependent on TEAM. No one fights alone. No one does anything alone. Everything is co-dependent. You put your life in the hands of others, as they put their lives in your hands. That level of trust and integrity between officers and their enlisted men is essential for survival. Yes, it's principled, but it's also practical and ensures the greatest chance of success and survival.
That very concept of service -- to serve others -- not just to "serve your country" in the abstract, but to serve the men and women that are working under you and above you is ingrained in the military.
Of course, as human beings there is always some element of self-interest and self-preservation, but for the military apparatus to be effective, the people involved in it have to be driven by far more than saving their own ass and wondering "what's in it for me?"
And that is precisely the problem with the MBA culture and the mentality.
There is absolutely no sense of service or selflessness -- because, for some reason, in the business world it's supposed to be "every man for himself". Some Darwinian race to the bottom of what people are willing to do to one another. It's all about ME. And not about US.
You don't have to all of a sudden quit your high flying job, or forgo going to Harvard Business School and join the Marines. Nor do you need to work in nonprofit full-time. Nor do you even really need to volunteer at a nonprofit.
It's not about "jobs" or what you can put on your resume.
It starts with the mentality that IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.
You don't have to change anything about your current situation. But a change in how you see your situation and how you approach your current situation is where the real difference lies.
Of course there will be self-interest. You want to make more money. We all do. You want a more prestigious job. Those are nice things to have. And you don't have to give up any of those desires at all. BUT, it's got to be far more than that.
You can be self-interested while still approaching your current job, volunteer activity, career aspiration, school, etc. with the mentality of:
What can I do to contribute?
What can I do to help [him/her] on my team do a better job?
What can I do to be more giving of my time, more compassionate, more empathetic?
What can I do to truly listen to what others have to say (and not just *hear*) and to understand, even if I don't necessarily agree with them?
What can I do to be the one *holding* the spotlight to shine on others, rather than waiting for the spotlight to shine on me?
Now, I'm sure I'll get some cynical business type (and the business types other than lawyers relish in being cynical) assuming that what I am suggesting here is somehow naive or unrealistic.
To which I challenge you -- the more self-absorbed and self-interested you are, the thicker the walls you will build around you over time. The more you care only about yourself, the less people will care about you. If you want to know why there's such a backlash against MBA types and the business community, it's precisely that. The perception is that MBAs only care about themselves, they are greedy, they are obsessed with money and prestige, and they care far more about themselves than they do about their contributions. And while such broad brush strokes may be unfair, it is rooted in some truth. Yes, med students want money. Yes, law students want money. Yes, even film students want money. We all want the same things no matter what profession we're in. We want nice houses, nice cars, a comfortable life, a powerful and respected position in our community, awards and accolades that boosts our ego, etc. The problem with the MBA culture is that it often doesn't go beyond that -- and the excuse is always "I don't have time" or "I need to pay off my loans" or "my family comes first" -- problems that for some reason some MBAs feel are unique to them and them only. We all have problems.
Many other professions have some sort of "higher cause" ingrained in the ethos of that profession - an ethos that even the most cynical and jaded doctor, lawyer, filmmaker, journalist, etc. at least acknowledges (and perhaps even a little grain of it remaining somewhere). In business school, that lack of ethos that points to some sort of SERVICE is a major problem and source for why we end up with such a nihilistic and amoral business culture.
None of the other professions are perfect by any stretch, but at least medicine has "to heal others". For law, it's "to serve the law, to bring justice to others". For film/writing/dancing/music, it's "to make art". For journalists, it's "to uncover and communicate the truth". For teachers, it's "to enrich the minds of others with wisdom and knowledge". Even for sports, no matter the hijinks or egos of some athletes, few if any athlete feels they are bigger than the sport they play.
What is the ethos of business? To simply enrich our own pockets? (the "shareholder value" argument is a masquerade for self-interest). To say that it's self-interest or to maximize profit isn't an ethos rooted in anything human or aspirational. It's simply nihilistic.
Maximizing profit or shareholder value is HOW we stay in business. But it's not WHY we do business. And so many of us in the business world have failed to separate that.
Who knows, maybe with this economic crisis, a new idealism and ethos may become codified within the business community to replace "shareholder value as the sufficient end in itself". Business schools have a part to play in that, as do MBA students and applicants alike. It starts with all of us.
Service. Business as "service". Business leadership as "service" - to serve others, to serve constituents. I'll let you ponder and decide what that means to you specifically.
Soldiers lay their life on the line for their fellow soldiers. A ship captain lays his life on the line for his shipmates. A pilot who safely crash lands in the Hudson uses his brief celebrity to fight for the rights of his fellow pilots and to lobby for greater safety measures. Firefighters lay their lives on the line to save people everyday.
These people are heroes, but many of them will say that they are simply doing their job. Why? Is it purely out of modesty? Or is it because there is an ethos of service embedded in their profession that is hammered into them from the day they sign up, which encourages them to act in such a selfless manner?
And to the cynical who feel resigned to the fact that the business world, the MBA, etc. "is what it is" and can't change or that any goodwill you do will be a lost cause, I challenge you as follows:
If you are so cynical to have no faith in others, why bother living at all? If you have no hope, then each day you get up your body and mind may be alive, but your soul sure isn't.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Why Diversity Matters
I originally wrote the following on the Businessweek forums in response to some understandably emotional private equity guys who just received their dings.
********
I'll try and explain from the b-school's point of view how this admissions process works on a macro level - which may give some of you some insight into how it impacts you as an individual applicant.
B-schools are looking to build a dynamic and diverse incoming class. They're not doing this necessarily for politically correct or social engineering reasons, but for one very practical reason:
The greater the diversity of the class, the greater the diversity of career choices amongst the students, which means the greater the likelihood of attracting a wider range of recruiters, which then mitigates the risk of becoming a one-trick pony school, especially during tough job markets.
Think about it.
No matter how disparate the "career goals" are in the essays of individual applicants, in the aggregate you can make some reasonable assumptions. For example, as a group the private equity dudes will more likely than not stay in finance - it's just horse trading from one fund or bank to the next. Those who actually end up in something completely different like nonprofit or marketing are a minority, no matter what they say on their essays.
So if you fill up the class with a bunch of private equity dudes and finance types, you're going to have a class that is even more skewed towards finance jobs than before. And this doesn't even count all the IT dudes who want to get into finance.
And this can be harmful for a school's ability to attract a wide array of recruiters over the medium- to long-term because it will be known as a one-dimensional school. Moreover, it will have a harder time attracting a wide array of applicants from different backgrounds to apply because of its reputation of skewing towards one kind of applicant.
Of course in reality there's going to be skew -- both in terms of the applicant pool and recruiters -- but b-schools do want to minimize the skew as much as they can.
You may care about PE recruiting, the *current* crop of students may get "j*zz in their pants" (sorry, had to make the SNL reference) at the sight of a PE fund, but the school really doesn't care. They've seen trends come and go. And PE being a "hot" sector for MBAs is simply a trend.
That's why they want to extend as many branches to the widest possible array of industries and recruiters, because it allows them to hedge their bets on which is going to be the next "hot" thing without having to predict which is the next "hot" thing. Having your recruiting and alumni reach across the broadest spectrum of industries and job functions is how they build up an enduring reputation.
I'll tell you a brief anecdote. When I was in school during the dot-com mania, certain recruiters like Proctor & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson stopped recruiting at Wharton and only accepted resume dropoffs. Why? They couldn't hire anybody, and their recruiting sessions were poorly attended (in the end, they still hired a couple of Wharton grads from my year, but no dog and pony show). The school was extremely concerned about this because it's not good for the long-term. Everything goes in waves and the school didn't want to be stuck having crappy marketing recruiting in more "normalized" time periods where marketing will attract a dedicated segment of the class (not to mention turning off potential applicants who hear about the lack of marketing recruiting). In the end, they kissed and made up, and things as far as I know are going well. Stanford went through the same issue with investment banking, Fortune 500, leadership rotational programs, etc. for a while because the "yield" for these recruiters was so low that it wasn't worth trekking out to Stanford. Of course, the arrogant dweebs would say "well who wants to work at those crappy jobs anyhow, they're all starting new companies" -- which isn't really true. An administration with foresight can't let the arrogance or selectiveness of the current student body that is based on some "trend" dictate the skew and reputation of the school with future students and recruiters. Stanford's admin was genuinely concerned about this and have tried to reach out with varying degrees of success.
It's why schools like HBS have been so successful in the past because of their ability to send their grads to virtually every nook and cranny in any industry. I don't have proof of this, but at least from my personal experience they have the most diverse alumni base in terms of job function, geography, and industry. Their alums were the first to get into VC in the 1960s (not Stanford). Their alums were the early entrants into PE (before it was huge). Their alums were the first to get into medial/entertainment. Their alums were also one of the early entrants into nonprofit and social enterprise. Entrepreneurship as a career path for MBAs was something that HBS and Stanford grads were into well before it become a buzzword amongst all b-schools. They have a longstanding tradition of sending grads into all kinds of established industries. It's about reach, and it's something that other schools have tried to emulate (copy). Even schools like Stanford try really hard, which makes it even harder to get in because they do have to work extra hard to ensure a diverse class -- their alums skew so heavily towards working in tech/VC *and* Northern California that the admissions results can sometimes be downright bizzare - because they are hoping that you all don't stay in Palo Alto - it's Stanford's biggest achilles' heel is the lack of geographic diversity. Wharton also has issues - it's alumni base (particularly those who graduated pre-1992) are overwhelmingly finance. Even though it's less of a finance school now compared to say Chicago or Columbia or NYU, they are also actively building a more diverse alumni base. Because it's that diversity that gives it the real edge when it comes to overall reputation - because you never know where the next big thing will happen. If HBS has one guy in Bhutan, Wharton wants to be there too. Even Chicago is catching onto that (as each year progresses, you will see that the "finance nerd" stereotype to be more a thing of the past as Chicago tries really hard to broaden its applicant pool).
That's why they don't want to fill the class with only PE dudes, IT engineers, bankers, and management consultants - even though at most schools they will still make up a healthy chunk of the class. Again, the greater the diversity, the greater the chance of minimizing the skew of post-MBA career paths.
So what does this mean for PE applicants?
If you come across as a traditional PE dude in terms of profile *and* orientation (everything about you screams "I'm a finance guy through and through" no matter what you say in your applications), it can become more random simply because there's other people who have such similar profiles as you will. And they are NOT going to take all of you in, especially since there's a lot more applicants with PE background now than there was 5-10 years ago (simply because the industry has grown -- more headcount overall means more potential applicants).
Anyhow, you can take this as you will - you may not agree with their philosophy, but then again you're the applicant looking out for your own individual career, wheras the school administrations are looking after the reputation and reach of their respective schools - for the current crop as well as future generations. Just keep in mind that universities don't operate in calendar quarters or even fiscal years - but as educational institutions they can afford to operate with their longer-term interests in mind.
********
I'll try and explain from the b-school's point of view how this admissions process works on a macro level - which may give some of you some insight into how it impacts you as an individual applicant.
B-schools are looking to build a dynamic and diverse incoming class. They're not doing this necessarily for politically correct or social engineering reasons, but for one very practical reason:
The greater the diversity of the class, the greater the diversity of career choices amongst the students, which means the greater the likelihood of attracting a wider range of recruiters, which then mitigates the risk of becoming a one-trick pony school, especially during tough job markets.
Think about it.
No matter how disparate the "career goals" are in the essays of individual applicants, in the aggregate you can make some reasonable assumptions. For example, as a group the private equity dudes will more likely than not stay in finance - it's just horse trading from one fund or bank to the next. Those who actually end up in something completely different like nonprofit or marketing are a minority, no matter what they say on their essays.
So if you fill up the class with a bunch of private equity dudes and finance types, you're going to have a class that is even more skewed towards finance jobs than before. And this doesn't even count all the IT dudes who want to get into finance.
And this can be harmful for a school's ability to attract a wide array of recruiters over the medium- to long-term because it will be known as a one-dimensional school. Moreover, it will have a harder time attracting a wide array of applicants from different backgrounds to apply because of its reputation of skewing towards one kind of applicant.
Of course in reality there's going to be skew -- both in terms of the applicant pool and recruiters -- but b-schools do want to minimize the skew as much as they can.
You may care about PE recruiting, the *current* crop of students may get "j*zz in their pants" (sorry, had to make the SNL reference) at the sight of a PE fund, but the school really doesn't care. They've seen trends come and go. And PE being a "hot" sector for MBAs is simply a trend.
That's why they want to extend as many branches to the widest possible array of industries and recruiters, because it allows them to hedge their bets on which is going to be the next "hot" thing without having to predict which is the next "hot" thing. Having your recruiting and alumni reach across the broadest spectrum of industries and job functions is how they build up an enduring reputation.
I'll tell you a brief anecdote. When I was in school during the dot-com mania, certain recruiters like Proctor & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson stopped recruiting at Wharton and only accepted resume dropoffs. Why? They couldn't hire anybody, and their recruiting sessions were poorly attended (in the end, they still hired a couple of Wharton grads from my year, but no dog and pony show). The school was extremely concerned about this because it's not good for the long-term. Everything goes in waves and the school didn't want to be stuck having crappy marketing recruiting in more "normalized" time periods where marketing will attract a dedicated segment of the class (not to mention turning off potential applicants who hear about the lack of marketing recruiting). In the end, they kissed and made up, and things as far as I know are going well. Stanford went through the same issue with investment banking, Fortune 500, leadership rotational programs, etc. for a while because the "yield" for these recruiters was so low that it wasn't worth trekking out to Stanford. Of course, the arrogant dweebs would say "well who wants to work at those crappy jobs anyhow, they're all starting new companies" -- which isn't really true. An administration with foresight can't let the arrogance or selectiveness of the current student body that is based on some "trend" dictate the skew and reputation of the school with future students and recruiters. Stanford's admin was genuinely concerned about this and have tried to reach out with varying degrees of success.
It's why schools like HBS have been so successful in the past because of their ability to send their grads to virtually every nook and cranny in any industry. I don't have proof of this, but at least from my personal experience they have the most diverse alumni base in terms of job function, geography, and industry. Their alums were the first to get into VC in the 1960s (not Stanford). Their alums were the early entrants into PE (before it was huge). Their alums were the first to get into medial/entertainment. Their alums were also one of the early entrants into nonprofit and social enterprise. Entrepreneurship as a career path for MBAs was something that HBS and Stanford grads were into well before it become a buzzword amongst all b-schools. They have a longstanding tradition of sending grads into all kinds of established industries. It's about reach, and it's something that other schools have tried to emulate (copy). Even schools like Stanford try really hard, which makes it even harder to get in because they do have to work extra hard to ensure a diverse class -- their alums skew so heavily towards working in tech/VC *and* Northern California that the admissions results can sometimes be downright bizzare - because they are hoping that you all don't stay in Palo Alto - it's Stanford's biggest achilles' heel is the lack of geographic diversity. Wharton also has issues - it's alumni base (particularly those who graduated pre-1992) are overwhelmingly finance. Even though it's less of a finance school now compared to say Chicago or Columbia or NYU, they are also actively building a more diverse alumni base. Because it's that diversity that gives it the real edge when it comes to overall reputation - because you never know where the next big thing will happen. If HBS has one guy in Bhutan, Wharton wants to be there too. Even Chicago is catching onto that (as each year progresses, you will see that the "finance nerd" stereotype to be more a thing of the past as Chicago tries really hard to broaden its applicant pool).
That's why they don't want to fill the class with only PE dudes, IT engineers, bankers, and management consultants - even though at most schools they will still make up a healthy chunk of the class. Again, the greater the diversity, the greater the chance of minimizing the skew of post-MBA career paths.
So what does this mean for PE applicants?
If you come across as a traditional PE dude in terms of profile *and* orientation (everything about you screams "I'm a finance guy through and through" no matter what you say in your applications), it can become more random simply because there's other people who have such similar profiles as you will. And they are NOT going to take all of you in, especially since there's a lot more applicants with PE background now than there was 5-10 years ago (simply because the industry has grown -- more headcount overall means more potential applicants).
Anyhow, you can take this as you will - you may not agree with their philosophy, but then again you're the applicant looking out for your own individual career, wheras the school administrations are looking after the reputation and reach of their respective schools - for the current crop as well as future generations. Just keep in mind that universities don't operate in calendar quarters or even fiscal years - but as educational institutions they can afford to operate with their longer-term interests in mind.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
What is good writing?
Over the past few years, I've gotten some questions about what makes a good essay.
Good writing first and foremost is not about style or polish. I think that's the biggest disconnect for many people whose office environments are overwhelmingly focused on polish and style that it messes with their notion of what is deemed "good writing." When asked to write outside a corporate context, it can be completely disorienting -- right becomes left, up becomes down.
What makes good writing?
The most important quality is CLARITY. Unless you're writing a diary for your eyes only, you write to be understood. Your main thesis, opinion, and intentions have to be absolutely crystal clear to a reader. Oftentimes, it's scraping away all the double-speak, buzzwords and cliche phrases learned over the years in an office. When in doubt, use the simpler word because it's likely closer to the heart (which is what an essay with a subjective voice is all about - you are writing in the first person after all).
Another important quality is SPECIFICITY. Without being specific about what you're talking about, you can't be precise in your insight. And if you're not precise, what you say has no substance, leaving no impact on a reader. Oftentimes, stripping all the shit away from one's writing into plain English can really reveal what you *really* know because you can't hide behind language.
ECONOMY is also paramount. Even award winning novelists (or their editors at least) strive for this. You cut out as much fat as possible - both the words and the content. The more succinct, the greater the impact.
And the last one for writing from a subjective viewpoint (first person narrative) is SINCERITY. Tonally, it's got to sound like a real person, not a robotic PR release. Aim for a lack of formality without being casual.
Your essays may not sound like the stylized writing you are used to at work, but believe me it will be miles better than the overwhelming majority of shit you'll see in powerpoint presentations, website copy and business correspondence. Corporate speak makes it harder to separate the clueless, incompetent, and spineless from the knowledgeable, talented and ethical - that's why it can be an invaluable "cover your ass" dialect in a bureaucracy.
One last thing. All of this doesn't mean that style is irrelevant. Highly stylized writing can certainly be fun to read especially in the hands of a talented writer with keen insight, but only if such writing is clear, specific, concise and sincere. In the context of b-school essays however, it's unnecessary and distracting. That's the underlying problem with language used in many office environments - it's a highly stylized form without the clarity, specificity, economy or sincerity one will see in truly good writing.
Good writing first and foremost is not about style or polish. I think that's the biggest disconnect for many people whose office environments are overwhelmingly focused on polish and style that it messes with their notion of what is deemed "good writing." When asked to write outside a corporate context, it can be completely disorienting -- right becomes left, up becomes down.
What makes good writing?
The most important quality is CLARITY. Unless you're writing a diary for your eyes only, you write to be understood. Your main thesis, opinion, and intentions have to be absolutely crystal clear to a reader. Oftentimes, it's scraping away all the double-speak, buzzwords and cliche phrases learned over the years in an office. When in doubt, use the simpler word because it's likely closer to the heart (which is what an essay with a subjective voice is all about - you are writing in the first person after all).
Another important quality is SPECIFICITY. Without being specific about what you're talking about, you can't be precise in your insight. And if you're not precise, what you say has no substance, leaving no impact on a reader. Oftentimes, stripping all the shit away from one's writing into plain English can really reveal what you *really* know because you can't hide behind language.
ECONOMY is also paramount. Even award winning novelists (or their editors at least) strive for this. You cut out as much fat as possible - both the words and the content. The more succinct, the greater the impact.
And the last one for writing from a subjective viewpoint (first person narrative) is SINCERITY. Tonally, it's got to sound like a real person, not a robotic PR release. Aim for a lack of formality without being casual.
Your essays may not sound like the stylized writing you are used to at work, but believe me it will be miles better than the overwhelming majority of shit you'll see in powerpoint presentations, website copy and business correspondence. Corporate speak makes it harder to separate the clueless, incompetent, and spineless from the knowledgeable, talented and ethical - that's why it can be an invaluable "cover your ass" dialect in a bureaucracy.
One last thing. All of this doesn't mean that style is irrelevant. Highly stylized writing can certainly be fun to read especially in the hands of a talented writer with keen insight, but only if such writing is clear, specific, concise and sincere. In the context of b-school essays however, it's unnecessary and distracting. That's the underlying problem with language used in many office environments - it's a highly stylized form without the clarity, specificity, economy or sincerity one will see in truly good writing.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
How much does brand matter?
For many applicants, getting that prestigious name on their resume is one of the many reasons why they want an MBA from a top school.
But does the brand of your MBA really matter?
Like many aspects of b-school, admissions, recruiting, etc. -- it all depends.
In essence, the pedigree of your education matters more the less experienced (read: younger) you are. It matters if you're looking to work in specific industries like management consulting and banking - where these firms do most of their recruiting at select schools.
If you're in your early to mid-20s and you're not particularly sure about what you want to do post-MBA, then going to the school with the best overall reputation is likely your best bet.
But if you're pretty sure about what you want to do and it doesn't involve investment banking or management consulting, then you want to focus far more on the specific strengths or geographic location of the school.
Also, if you're in your 30s and beyond, you already have an extensive body of work that employers will look at no matter how hard you try to run away from it. Of course, there's a difference in opportunities between say an online degree and Darden, but there's not really going to be a huge difference for you whether you got to Darden, Kellogg, or Stanford -- because as a seasoned professional, you will be judged on your entire body of work. In fact, depending on your circumstance, it may not even matter whether you go to a top30 vs. a top16 school.
Pedigree matters for kids because they don't have much else. Experience matters for adults - even if such prior experience is not related to your current career aspirations. And other than banking or consulting, just about every other industry values experience above all.
But does the brand of your MBA really matter?
Like many aspects of b-school, admissions, recruiting, etc. -- it all depends.
In essence, the pedigree of your education matters more the less experienced (read: younger) you are. It matters if you're looking to work in specific industries like management consulting and banking - where these firms do most of their recruiting at select schools.
If you're in your early to mid-20s and you're not particularly sure about what you want to do post-MBA, then going to the school with the best overall reputation is likely your best bet.
But if you're pretty sure about what you want to do and it doesn't involve investment banking or management consulting, then you want to focus far more on the specific strengths or geographic location of the school.
Also, if you're in your 30s and beyond, you already have an extensive body of work that employers will look at no matter how hard you try to run away from it. Of course, there's a difference in opportunities between say an online degree and Darden, but there's not really going to be a huge difference for you whether you got to Darden, Kellogg, or Stanford -- because as a seasoned professional, you will be judged on your entire body of work. In fact, depending on your circumstance, it may not even matter whether you go to a top30 vs. a top16 school.
Pedigree matters for kids because they don't have much else. Experience matters for adults - even if such prior experience is not related to your current career aspirations. And other than banking or consulting, just about every other industry values experience above all.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The MBA Job Market: Lessons from the Past
With an expected increase in applicants to the top MBA programs coupled with a far tighter job market, the next few years for MBAs is going to be tough. It'll be harder to get in, and it'll be harder to get the jobs that they want.
However, this isn't the first time it's ever happened. And it certainly won't be the last. Every time the current crop of folks will say "this time, it's different" -- those who've been through multiple cycles know otherwise. The circumstances may change, but it's been that way since the dawn of time -- there will be good times, and there will be bad times, and neither last forever.
So here is some food for thought.
(1) Be pragmatic. You may not get the dream job you want. Frankly, even during boom times, it's hard to get your dream job, especially if you're career switching and need to convince a company that "even though I don't have direct relevant experience, I ...." It's just hard to get a good job, period.
(2) Know what and what not to settle for. This will vary by individual. Some of my classmates in the aftermath of the dot-com bust in 2001 and post 9/11 took whatever job they could get (just anything) because they couldn't bear not being employed and needed the money badly. And they turned out all right. Others were more willing to hold out -- some as long as a year and a half to get the job they wanted (and they turned out all right). The most important thing is to know that everyone has a different threshhold -- and to AVOID getting sucked into whatever peer pressure you may be facing (i.e. "all my friends are holding out, so I should do the same" or "all my friends are settling, so I should do the same"). It's your life, your money, your obligations, your priorities. From a practical standpoint, it comes down to how much risk you're willing to take to hold out, vs settling for whatever it is you have. How long are you prepared (mentally and financially) to survive without a job post-MBA to get the job you want?
(3) There are many paths to the same goal. For example, if you really really want to work in some specific sector in finance, you don't need to necessarily start there right after b-school (although the direct path is usually the preferred route). In a bad job market, you may have to be prepared to reach your goal EVENTUALLY rather than IMMEDIATELY. And if it's really what you want to do, it really shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things whether you get there now, or get there later through some circuitous route.
(4) There is no template or formula. It seems like so many MBAs are too keen to search for some template or formula to follow whatever it is they want, rather than THINKING FOR THEMSELVES. MBA students (and applicants) seem to be so prone to herd mentality, like they need constant reaffirmation for the choices they make by constantly benchmarking the actions and choices of others. When many of your fellow MBAs act like sheep, it's easy to just fall in line if you're not aware that they're just being sheep and looking to you to figure out what to do. Be aware of the convention, but don't feel bound by it. Forge your own path.
(5) It's not that fragile. As alluded to in (2), most if not all the MBAs I knew from various schools who graduated in '01 turned out all right. Likewise, the 2009, 2010 and 2011 grads will turn out all right - the first few years post-MBA may be a tumultuous and stressful time for many, but in the end it'll be fine - short of armageddon (but then, it wouldn't really matter for any of us if that were the case, now would it?). The direction of your whole life doesn't hinge on whether you get the interview with a particular firm, or whether you make $X or anything else that may seem to cause an MBA to get an unnecessary ulcer. Yes, it can be stressful if you have loans to pay back, and being unemployed sucks, but adding phantom stakes of how this will impact your life long-term only makes it worse. You are getting an MBA (or just graduated with one) to work a desk job at a company -- nothing of real consequence is going to happen to you if it doesn't quite work out. And if it's a matter of survival, no one is going to laugh at you if you have to live with your parents (it's been done by quite a few grads from top schools in the last crash of '01). You're not shut out of some uber-prestigious job because you've had to take your old pre-MBA job to make ends meet, or to work part-time at Starbucks. Yes, it can be trying, it can be tough -- but you'll come out such times a stronger and more wiser person -- wiser about who you are and what you *really* want. And when you've finally been able to strip away the mystique or prestige or whatever it is you've ascribed to whatever career path you so coveted, you'll see that WORK IS WORK. Most people (even those who may have seemed to reach their childhood dreams) aren't exactly thrilled about having to work - but they do the best they can.
Some of you may know that careers aren't linear. Life isn't linear. Things happen to you that will change your world forever, causing you to start over. Or you will make that choice. You will more likely go from one career path to another completely unrelated career path -- and do that a couple of times for the rest of your life. This isn't your parent's generation where you work up the ranks as the "company man" or there's clear "exit strategy" for job XYZ which then leads to job ABC and so forth. Lawyers go back to med school. Equity research analysts quit and join a rock band. Many walk away from corporate life to start a mom 'n pop business, with some only to come back to corporate life. Others become full-time parents. A life's work these days is becoming a random series of careers - and in the workplace, a revolving door of newcomers coming in and veterans leaving.
That's why there isn't some 10-step plan for getting a job in a tough job market (or any job market), other than keeping your expectations realistic.
And most importantly, like many things -- NOT getting what you want can lead to other more wonderful things you never would've even discovered otherwise -- if you're willing to see it that way.
As vague as it may sound, you want to be as focused as you can, but open to other things along the way as well - it's a difficult but worthwhile balance to strive for as you enter b-school this fall (or if you're applying to b-school, a good way to get a head start on this before half the MBAs start jumping off the cliff in panic and fear).
However, this isn't the first time it's ever happened. And it certainly won't be the last. Every time the current crop of folks will say "this time, it's different" -- those who've been through multiple cycles know otherwise. The circumstances may change, but it's been that way since the dawn of time -- there will be good times, and there will be bad times, and neither last forever.
So here is some food for thought.
(1) Be pragmatic. You may not get the dream job you want. Frankly, even during boom times, it's hard to get your dream job, especially if you're career switching and need to convince a company that "even though I don't have direct relevant experience, I ...." It's just hard to get a good job, period.
(2) Know what and what not to settle for. This will vary by individual. Some of my classmates in the aftermath of the dot-com bust in 2001 and post 9/11 took whatever job they could get (just anything) because they couldn't bear not being employed and needed the money badly. And they turned out all right. Others were more willing to hold out -- some as long as a year and a half to get the job they wanted (and they turned out all right). The most important thing is to know that everyone has a different threshhold -- and to AVOID getting sucked into whatever peer pressure you may be facing (i.e. "all my friends are holding out, so I should do the same" or "all my friends are settling, so I should do the same"). It's your life, your money, your obligations, your priorities. From a practical standpoint, it comes down to how much risk you're willing to take to hold out, vs settling for whatever it is you have. How long are you prepared (mentally and financially) to survive without a job post-MBA to get the job you want?
(3) There are many paths to the same goal. For example, if you really really want to work in some specific sector in finance, you don't need to necessarily start there right after b-school (although the direct path is usually the preferred route). In a bad job market, you may have to be prepared to reach your goal EVENTUALLY rather than IMMEDIATELY. And if it's really what you want to do, it really shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things whether you get there now, or get there later through some circuitous route.
(4) There is no template or formula. It seems like so many MBAs are too keen to search for some template or formula to follow whatever it is they want, rather than THINKING FOR THEMSELVES. MBA students (and applicants) seem to be so prone to herd mentality, like they need constant reaffirmation for the choices they make by constantly benchmarking the actions and choices of others. When many of your fellow MBAs act like sheep, it's easy to just fall in line if you're not aware that they're just being sheep and looking to you to figure out what to do. Be aware of the convention, but don't feel bound by it. Forge your own path.
(5) It's not that fragile. As alluded to in (2), most if not all the MBAs I knew from various schools who graduated in '01 turned out all right. Likewise, the 2009, 2010 and 2011 grads will turn out all right - the first few years post-MBA may be a tumultuous and stressful time for many, but in the end it'll be fine - short of armageddon (but then, it wouldn't really matter for any of us if that were the case, now would it?). The direction of your whole life doesn't hinge on whether you get the interview with a particular firm, or whether you make $X or anything else that may seem to cause an MBA to get an unnecessary ulcer. Yes, it can be stressful if you have loans to pay back, and being unemployed sucks, but adding phantom stakes of how this will impact your life long-term only makes it worse. You are getting an MBA (or just graduated with one) to work a desk job at a company -- nothing of real consequence is going to happen to you if it doesn't quite work out. And if it's a matter of survival, no one is going to laugh at you if you have to live with your parents (it's been done by quite a few grads from top schools in the last crash of '01). You're not shut out of some uber-prestigious job because you've had to take your old pre-MBA job to make ends meet, or to work part-time at Starbucks. Yes, it can be trying, it can be tough -- but you'll come out such times a stronger and more wiser person -- wiser about who you are and what you *really* want. And when you've finally been able to strip away the mystique or prestige or whatever it is you've ascribed to whatever career path you so coveted, you'll see that WORK IS WORK. Most people (even those who may have seemed to reach their childhood dreams) aren't exactly thrilled about having to work - but they do the best they can.
Some of you may know that careers aren't linear. Life isn't linear. Things happen to you that will change your world forever, causing you to start over. Or you will make that choice. You will more likely go from one career path to another completely unrelated career path -- and do that a couple of times for the rest of your life. This isn't your parent's generation where you work up the ranks as the "company man" or there's clear "exit strategy" for job XYZ which then leads to job ABC and so forth. Lawyers go back to med school. Equity research analysts quit and join a rock band. Many walk away from corporate life to start a mom 'n pop business, with some only to come back to corporate life. Others become full-time parents. A life's work these days is becoming a random series of careers - and in the workplace, a revolving door of newcomers coming in and veterans leaving.
That's why there isn't some 10-step plan for getting a job in a tough job market (or any job market), other than keeping your expectations realistic.
And most importantly, like many things -- NOT getting what you want can lead to other more wonderful things you never would've even discovered otherwise -- if you're willing to see it that way.
As vague as it may sound, you want to be as focused as you can, but open to other things along the way as well - it's a difficult but worthwhile balance to strive for as you enter b-school this fall (or if you're applying to b-school, a good way to get a head start on this before half the MBAs start jumping off the cliff in panic and fear).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
