The Full-Time MBA Requirement: A Critical Examination
Why do companies ask for a full-time MBA for positions where they require 10-12 years of experience? An MBA is mostly pursued when someone wants to change their career, for example, a Software Coder with a B.E. degree who wants to move to HR. In such cases, it makes sense to pursue an MBA. However, why should HR candidates with years of experience in HR, who have learned on the job and worked their way up the corporate ladder, be overlooked for not having a FULL-TIME MBA? Are HR heads lobbying with business schools to promote full-time MBAs, or are they trying to secure positions for their friends' or relatives' children? After all, they will likely encourage their children to pursue a full-time MBA too.
We must stop these so-called HR heads from using their positions to mislead others into believing that no matter how many years of experience or the quality of experience one has, a full-time MBA is still required. I have been told that it is a filter used to have fewer and better candidates to interview. Really? Can years of experience not be a good enough filter?
The Domino Effect of Full-Time MBA Requirements
One company does it, and then all companies blindly follow. Until 2-3 years ago, it was only Indian companies like TCS, Infosys, and Wipro weeding out non-MBAs from their systems. Now, even smaller companies have started copying them. Internally, they all know that experience matters, but still, HR heads insist on a full-time MBA. They know they can afford a 10-20 lakh full-time MBA course for their children, making them more marketable in management. In short, all non-MBAs or those who studied part-time will be pushed out of the job market over time, replaced by the children of these HR heads and their friends/relatives. Is this full-time MBA craze any less than the quota/reservation system? The only difference is that it is practiced by the sophisticated people of society.
The Cultural Contrast: US vs. India
In the US, studying while earning is a matter of pride, and employers respect their employees for that. But in India, only full-time MBAs matter. Those who could not leave their jobs to study full-time or did not have wealthy parents to pay the exorbitant MBA fees are deemed useless. If someone studied while earning because they had a family dependent on their earnings, they have to suffer their entire life because they did a part-time MBA instead of a full-time MBA. Unfortunately, copying these Indian companies, even US MNCs in India have started behaving similarly.
The Need for Change
We have to stand up against this reservation system created by these HR heads. They have no real concern for Human Resource or Economic Empowerment. They are only lobbying through their LinkedIn groups, HR Networking Groups, etc., to keep insisting that only full-time MBAs are valuable. I recently attended an interview with a VP of a Fortune 500 company. I was surprised when he told me at the end of my interview that he did not agree with me that HR can play any role in increasing productivity because it is the Ops job. His full-time MBA and extensive job-hopping did not even teach him the value HR can bring to business. According to him, HR should not spend time getting to know employees on the floor because it is the job of the line supervisor. Then what is HR supposed to do, Mr. full-time MBA VP? Only keep networking and lobbying to get their children/friends/relatives into higher positions in the company while all the other non-MBAs keep working hard to deliver results.
Examples of Bias in Organizations
In one of the previous organizations where I worked, the HR head used to promote interns only from the institute where she did her MBA. Amazing! Where did fairness, integrity, etc., disappear?
Another HR head started weeding out all non-MBAs (irrespective of their performance rating) soon after taking up the position of HR head and began hiring new employees who were full-time MBAs. Obviously, these newbies could not manage attrition and retention activities the way the previous experienced employees could. But that did not matter. It would have been interesting if someone conducted an audit to find out why these experienced employees with good performance but non-full-time MBAs were removed, and within a month, these new full-time MBAs were brought in. What were the benefits? Was there an increase (even a bit) in the HR scorecard? In fact, there was a drastic dip in the overall morale of all other employees. Was this full-time HR head even questioned for his immature decision? Yes, he was moved to another position after 2 years because, by then, management realized that this guy was toxic. By then, he had ruined the careers of many experienced HR professionals in that system.
Conclusion: Challenging the Full-Time MBA Norm
These HR heads need to be stopped from spreading the notion that a full-time MBA is the only important qualification required, irrespective of years and quality of experience. Am I the only one feeling this way? Please share your thoughts.
Why do companies ask for a full-time MBA for positions where they require 10-12 years of experience? An MBA is mostly pursued when someone wants to change their career, for example, a Software Coder with a B.E. degree who wants to move to HR. In such cases, it makes sense to pursue an MBA. However, why should HR candidates with years of experience in HR, who have learned on the job and worked their way up the corporate ladder, be overlooked for not having a FULL-TIME MBA? Are HR heads lobbying with business schools to promote full-time MBAs, or are they trying to secure positions for their friends' or relatives' children? After all, they will likely encourage their children to pursue a full-time MBA too.
We must stop these so-called HR heads from using their positions to mislead others into believing that no matter how many years of experience or the quality of experience one has, a full-time MBA is still required. I have been told that it is a filter used to have fewer and better candidates to interview. Really? Can years of experience not be a good enough filter?
The Domino Effect of Full-Time MBA Requirements
One company does it, and then all companies blindly follow. Until 2-3 years ago, it was only Indian companies like TCS, Infosys, and Wipro weeding out non-MBAs from their systems. Now, even smaller companies have started copying them. Internally, they all know that experience matters, but still, HR heads insist on a full-time MBA. They know they can afford a 10-20 lakh full-time MBA course for their children, making them more marketable in management. In short, all non-MBAs or those who studied part-time will be pushed out of the job market over time, replaced by the children of these HR heads and their friends/relatives. Is this full-time MBA craze any less than the quota/reservation system? The only difference is that it is practiced by the sophisticated people of society.
The Cultural Contrast: US vs. India
In the US, studying while earning is a matter of pride, and employers respect their employees for that. But in India, only full-time MBAs matter. Those who could not leave their jobs to study full-time or did not have wealthy parents to pay the exorbitant MBA fees are deemed useless. If someone studied while earning because they had a family dependent on their earnings, they have to suffer their entire life because they did a part-time MBA instead of a full-time MBA. Unfortunately, copying these Indian companies, even US MNCs in India have started behaving similarly.
The Need for Change
We have to stand up against this reservation system created by these HR heads. They have no real concern for Human Resource or Economic Empowerment. They are only lobbying through their LinkedIn groups, HR Networking Groups, etc., to keep insisting that only full-time MBAs are valuable. I recently attended an interview with a VP of a Fortune 500 company. I was surprised when he told me at the end of my interview that he did not agree with me that HR can play any role in increasing productivity because it is the Ops job. His full-time MBA and extensive job-hopping did not even teach him the value HR can bring to business. According to him, HR should not spend time getting to know employees on the floor because it is the job of the line supervisor. Then what is HR supposed to do, Mr. full-time MBA VP? Only keep networking and lobbying to get their children/friends/relatives into higher positions in the company while all the other non-MBAs keep working hard to deliver results.
Examples of Bias in Organizations
In one of the previous organizations where I worked, the HR head used to promote interns only from the institute where she did her MBA. Amazing! Where did fairness, integrity, etc., disappear?
Another HR head started weeding out all non-MBAs (irrespective of their performance rating) soon after taking up the position of HR head and began hiring new employees who were full-time MBAs. Obviously, these newbies could not manage attrition and retention activities the way the previous experienced employees could. But that did not matter. It would have been interesting if someone conducted an audit to find out why these experienced employees with good performance but non-full-time MBAs were removed, and within a month, these new full-time MBAs were brought in. What were the benefits? Was there an increase (even a bit) in the HR scorecard? In fact, there was a drastic dip in the overall morale of all other employees. Was this full-time HR head even questioned for his immature decision? Yes, he was moved to another position after 2 years because, by then, management realized that this guy was toxic. By then, he had ruined the careers of many experienced HR professionals in that system.
Conclusion: Challenging the Full-Time MBA Norm
These HR heads need to be stopped from spreading the notion that a full-time MBA is the only important qualification required, irrespective of years and quality of experience. Am I the only one feeling this way? Please share your thoughts.