I’ve said the Harvard MBA is the most second most damaging thing to happen to business in the last 40 years. I might have to clarify that to “the myth of the Harvard MBA is the second most damaging thing to happen to business in the last 40 years".
We found no statistically significant alphas — despite testing every possible school with a reasonable sample size. MBA programs simply do not produce CEOs who are better at running companies, if performance is measured by stock price return.
But if there is no evidence that stock returns are attributable to CEOs, then what justification is there for their stratospheric pay? How much longer will investors and boards be fooled by randomness and hollow credentialism?
Oh, and the first most damaging thing to happen to business in the past 40 years? The Chicago School of Economics.