Latest news with #MBAs
Irish Times
01-08-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Are consultants really an utter waste of time and money?
Journalists , telemarketers and used- car salespeople can console themselves that there is one profession even more widely detested: consultants. After all, most people have had at least one direct or indirect interaction with the professional class of pseudo-managers churned out by business schools and hoovered up by the likes of McKinsey, Deloitte or BCG – and most of them unpleasant, frustrating or simply baffling. Sure, sometimes they get involved in high-profile projects like ambitious mass relocation programmes or daring pharmaceutical sales initiatives. But most of the work seems to revolve around 30-something MBAs too dim for private equity being parachuted into multinational businesses or sprawling government departments to tell the bosses what they should already know. And that seems to be a generous interpretation. Nonetheless, it is estimated that consulting globally generated revenues of about $400 billion (€346 billion) last year. How can something so widely mocked as an utter waste of time and money be so profitable? READ MORE As it happens, three academics have recently had a stab at measuring whether consultants actually add any value, which the National Bureau of Economic Research published this month . And lo: 'We document that consulting take-up is concentrated among large, high-labour-productivity firms. For TFP [total factor productivity] and profitability, we find a U-shaped pattern: both high and low performers hire consultants. 'New clients spend on average 3 per cent of payroll on consulting, typically in episodic engagements lasting less than one year. 'Using difference-indifferences designs exploiting these sharp consulting events, we find positive effects on labour productivity of 3.6 per cent over five years, driven by modest employment reductions alongside stable or growing revenue. Average wages rise by 2.7 per cent with no decline in labour's share of value added, suggesting productivity gains do not come at workers' expense through rent-shifting. 'We do observe organisational restructuring with small increases in dismissal rates, and higher services procurement but reduced labour outsourcing. Our heterogeneity analysis reveals larger productivity gains for initially less productive firms, suggesting improvements in allocative efficiency.' How did the three authors – Gert Bijnens of the National Bank of Belgium, Princeton University's Simon Jäger and Benjamin Schoefer of Berkeley – calculate this? Through a pretty nifty data set. They combined two decades worth of granular value-added-tax data from the Belgian tax authorities, confidential and anonymised firm-level data provided by the National Bank of Belgium and public financial accounts to create what they reckon is 'the first comprehensive data set of major strategy consulting relationships in an entire economy'. [ McKinsey sheds 10% of staff in 2-year profitability drive Opens in new window ] The tendency of consulting work to be episodic – typically lasting for about a year and a half – allowed them to examine the subsequent impact on employment, wages and productivity. To focus squarely on classic consulting, Bijnens, Jäger and Schoefer excluded the 'Big Four' accountancy firms Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC, where most of the revenues come from audits and tax advice. Lots of fancy equations later, and they found that: 'Consulting events are associated with labour productivity growth, appearing to stem from mild reductions in employment against mildly growing revenue and value added. We find positive effects on average wages, no effect on the labour share, and a reduction in a proxy for outsourcing and, if anything, a shift towards managerial labour. [ Consultants face a many-sided crisis Opens in new window ] 'We find a mild increase in dismissals, against an overall modest or insignificant employment effect, consistent with some restructuring activities that, overall, increase productivity. Hence, overall, our findings point towards consulting being associated with positive or neutral outcomes for firms and, arguably and in a more complex picture, workers. 'On average, our results are more in line with a productivity-enhancing view of consulting and reject a view of consulting as a rent-shifting institution. We do not find strong profitability effects – perhaps in part because the moderate productivity effects are 'eaten up' by wage boosts (although we cannot rule out compositional effects driving both margins).' This probably won't assuage the baying hordes of management consultant critics, nor is the report glowing enough to constitute a full-throated endorsement of the consulting business model. But it was interesting enough to warrant a midweek post in late July. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Time of India
01-08-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Master's in finance vs. MBA in finance: Which one leads to better opportunities at top US investment banks?
For students with sights set on investment banking, two graduate degrees are front-runners: the Master's in Finance (MiF) and the MBA in Finance. Both are well-regarded in global finance circles, but in the United States, the preference is clearer. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Most top-tier investment banks hire MBAs into high-impact associate roles, especially from elite B-schools like Wharton, Columbia, and Booth. Meanwhile, MiF programs, more popular in Europe and Asia, are growing in recognition stateside but still primarily lead to analyst positions. So, which degree gives you a stronger edge in landing and growing a career in investment banking, especially if you're aiming for a US or global role? The answer depends on where you are in your journey and where you want to work. Who is each degree really for? The Master's in Finance is ideal for students fresh out of undergrad or with up to two years of experience. Many top MiF programs, such as those at MIT Sloan, Princeton, and UC Berkeley, attract international students aiming to break into US finance roles, though visa challenges and lower placement volumes at US-based investment banks can be hurdles. In contrast, the MBA in Finance is built for professionals with prior work experience, often from consulting, tech, or business roles, who want to pivot into finance or move up into leadership. US investment banks have a long tradition of recruiting MBA associates, particularly from Ivy League and M7 schools. This makes the MBA a more proven pathway to mid-level entry in American IB firms. Curriculum: Technical mastery or strategic depth? Master's in Finance programs in the US, like those at MIT, Duke, and Brandeis, focus on financial modeling, analytics, and investment theory. The learning is technical and intense, designed to prepare students for analyst roles in banking or asset management. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now MBA programs in the US, especially at schools like Wharton, Booth, and Stern, offer a holistic curriculum. In addition to corporate finance and investment strategy, students also study negotiation, leadership, and entrepreneurship. This blend of technical and strategic learning better suits roles that require team leadership, client interaction, and long-term deal management. Recruitment and career entry points US investment banks maintain structured pipelines for MBA hiring, especially at the associate level. Summer internships during the MBA are often critical for securing a full-time offer. Top banks like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citi, regularly recruit on-campus at MBA programs for roles in M&A, corporate finance, and capital markets. While MiF students do land IB roles in the US, most of these hires occur at the analyst level, and the competition is tougher due to fewer direct recruiting channels. MiF grads may need to network heavily or start with boutique firms or international placements before transitioning to larger US banks. Cost and return on investment Master's in Finance programs in the US are shorter, usually one year, and more affordable. The tuition ranges between $40,000 to $80,000, with a quicker ROI if placed successfully in banking or private equity. However, the starting roles are typically analyst-level and may have a ceiling without an MBA later. MBAs from top US schools cost anywhere from $120,000 to $180,000 in tuition alone, with total costs going higher with living expenses. However, they offer significantly higher starting salaries and faster promotion tracks. The payoff is slower, but long-term earnings and mobility are often greater. US vs. global hiring outlook In the US, MBA programs still dominate the investment banking talent funnel. Firms prefer candidates with work experience, leadership potential, and networking acumen, all hallmarks of an MBA grad. In Europe, MiF degrees are equally competitive, especially at institutions like LBS, HEC Paris, and ESCP, where investment banks routinely recruit graduates for analyst roles. In Asia, particularly Singapore and Hong Kong, both degrees are gaining traction, but MBAs still hold more prestige in management-focused hiring. Long-term growth and mobility A US-based MBA can lead directly into VP and director-level roles within five to seven years, especially in large firms that promote internally from their MBA associate pools. Leadership tracks, international postings, and private equity exits are common. MiF grads, unless they pursue additional education later, may take a longer time to rise — especially in the US where leadership roles in finance often favor MBAs or seasoned professionals with management exposure. In the US finance industry, the MBA in Finance remains the more powerful gateway — especially for associate-level roles and upward mobility. The structured recruiting, alumni networks, and leadership development it offers are hard to match. However, for students looking for a quicker and more affordable entry — especially into analyst roles or international finance hubs — the Master's in Finance offers a focused and efficient route. It's particularly strong in Europe, where banks regularly hire MiF grads for front-office roles. If you're aiming for a career in US investment banking, the MBA still opens more doors. But globally, both degrees offer high potential, if matched with the right timing, school, and career strategy.
Forbes
18-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
3 Systems-Related Business Skills That AI Can't Replace
Almost 10,000 US tech sector employees lost their jobs the week of July 9. The irony shouldn't be lost on us. Some of those laid off helped build the AI that rendered their jobs obsolete. Amazon CEO Andrew Jassey confirmed this trend in statements he made in March of this year. He said 'As we roll out more Generative AI and agents, it should change the way our work is done…we expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains from using AI extensively across the company.' The very skills that once separated MBAs from the pack—data analysis, process optimization, strategic planning—are now performed more efficiently, and often more effectively, by machines. This disruption has shattered a long-standing belief: success comes from mastering models, frameworks, and quantifiable insight. For decades, business schools have been teaching MBA students to build discounted cash flows, run regression analyses, and optimize supply chains—all based on the premise that smarter analysis equals better decisions. But as AI takes over the heavy lifting of analysis, a new set of business skills are needed. These are skills that can't be codified into algorithms or outsourced to large language models. Some of them aren't even the skills currently taught in most MBA programs. These are the skills demanded in our hyperconnected, systems-driven age – one in which all the technical analysis in the world cannot yield the 'right' answer or even a 'best' answer. They are skills needed in a world of uncertainty, ambiguity, and change, not one of stability. They are the skills that help executives and students not just manage what can be measured, but also what they can't even see. Three capabilities build this edge: the relational, the cognitive, and the behavioral. These capabilities aren't just AI-resistant—they're uniquely irreducibly human. The Relational Edge: Listening Deeply And Building Empathy Executives are encouraged to speak up often, precisely, and assertively. But this focus on speaking overlooks something more transformative: the power of deep listening. In systems thinking, listening isn't passive. Listening is deep and active, so the listener can hear not only what is said, but what is not said and to build a stronger relationship with the listener. Deep listening is the discipline of being fully present with another person—suspending judgment, setting aside distractions, and resisting the urge to formulate a response. It means tuning into tone, body language, and emotional undercurrents as much as words, creating space for others to surface thoughts they themselves may not yet fully understand. Deep listeners catch the unspoken concerns and subtle cues that others miss. Deep listening But deep listening does not only apply in social situations. It applies in any situation, whether it's watching your children play or sitting alone in nature. The ability to listen--really listen--requires being willing to be truly present in the moment. In systems thinking, this skill is essential because it helps the listener build empathy and trust with the speaker. It also helps sense the broader relational dynamics at play across teams, departments, and ecosystems—relational dynamics that are not always visible and yet shape how people act and react. A meta-analysis examined the effects of perceived listening. The researchers found that in the 144 studies they reviewed, that speakers that felt heard would have stronger workplace relationships and job performance. Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix, practices deep listening by 'farming dissent'. By encouraging managers to speak up when they disagree with him and listening deeply, he can avoid mistakes and see new opportunities. He claims that Netflix's 2011 failed attempt to rebrand the company's DVD-by-mail service through the new company Qwickster was because he did not listen. He was hell-bent on the new company, even though many people raised serious doubts. As he writes in his book No Rules Rules: Netflix and the Culture of Reinvention 'you have to be humble, you have to be curious, and you have to remember to listen before you speak and to learn before you teach.' This relational edge extends beyond human dynamics to natural ecosystems. Marine biologist Rachel Carson exemplified systems thinking through deep listening. She didn't just study chemical data on nature—she listened to the silence. The absence of birdsong became her signal that something fundamental had shifted in the ecosystem's interconnected web. In her 1962 book, Silent Spring, Carson wove disparate observations about nature and industrial chemicals like DDT into a powerful narrative of environmental collapse. By listening to what the system wasn't telling her—the missing sounds—she detected patterns that traditional analysis had missed. Her insight motivated John F. Kennedy to strike a panel that ultimately led to the formation of the EPA. Systems thinkers listen with more than their ears. They listen with their bodies, detecting signals from their emotions and their senses. This is embodied listening. Fire fighters do not simply see and speak about the flames, they sense them. They can detect weak signals in the business environment and are attentive of their meanings. Whereas AI can process data, it can't feel or sense the weak signals. The Cognitive Edge: Thinking Critically And Recognizing Patterns Executives and MBA students love frameworks. They rely on ratios and spreadsheets; students are inundated with 2x2 matrices and SWOT analyses. These tools simplify complex problems but seduce executives into thinking that complex problems can be cleanly dissected and solved. Yet these ratios and spreadsheets mask assumptions that frame the answers. This is why critical thinking is so important. Critical thinking is the capacity to step outside habitual models and mental shortcuts. It involves asking fundamental questions, reframing problems, and resisting the pressure to reduce complexity prematurely. By thinking critically, executives can recognize patterns that others may miss; detecting recurring structures, relationships, or feedback loops across time and domains. Systems thinkers develop this skill by scanning broadly, reflecting deeply, and continually integrating new insights into evolving mental models. Systems thinkers resist quick simplifications evoked by questions like 'What's the solution?' Instead, they first ask 'what is the right question?' And, in thinking critically, they can see patterns that others miss. Consider what happened when traditional analysis failed spectacularly. During the 2008 financial crisis, Wall Street's finest analysts missed the systemic risk building under their feet. In testimony to a Congressional panel, Former Citigroup's CEO, Charles Prince, admitted after the crisis: 'We did not foresee what lay before us.' Hedge fund manager, Michael Burry did. His insight came not from standard models but from noticing strange patterns: rising home prices, lax lending practices, investor complacency. He didn't just analyze mortgage bonds. He saw the system—the interactions among incentives, behavior, and structures. That's the cognitive edge: applying insight across domains to spot what others miss. MIT's Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue in their book, The Second Machine Age, that while AI excels within defined tasks, humans remain better at more creative tasks. Analogical reasoning—seeing connections across seemingly unrelated areas—is particularly salient to a complex world. Whereas machines can sift through vast amounts of data to make connections, they cannot make the meaningful connections that humans can make. This is the cognitive edge: the ability to identify patterns among weak cues across disciplines, question dominant narratives, and reason beyond the data. While AI can find patterns in past data, human thinkers glimpse possibilities at the edge of what's known. The Behavioral Edge: Embracing Uncertainty And Adapting To Change Business decision making seeks clarity through clearly defined goals and the stepwise actions that can take them there. Executives and business students alike are encouraged to make decisions about next steps with the best available data and the most sophisticated data analysis. This seduces people into fearing uncertainty rather than embracing it. The pursuit of more or better data to achieve well-defined goals delays action. In a world defined by constant disruption, waiting often means missing the window. Embracing uncertainty doesn't mean swimming in chaos and being paralyzed by the need for more and better data—it means becoming comfortable making decisions when clarity is elusive. This mindset requires executives to build psychological flexibility—a trait that requires the ability to maintain focus on one's goals, while adjusting to shifting conditions. This is about seeing the short term, while maintaining a focus on the long term. The behavioral response to embracing uncertainty is adaptability. When the business environment changes, systems thinkers don't panic. They pause and reflect. These executives are comfortable with change, because they experiment and adjust. They do not over-plan. These systems thinkers, though, are not skittish. They do not change direction with every piece of new information. Instead, systems thinkers are anchored with a strong sense of purpose and personal values. They maintain a general direction, and yet adapt when they learn something important and new. Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, stresses the need for continuous learning and adaptability, especially for founders and entrepreneurs navigating rapidly changing markets. He speaks to the learning loop, where people remain responsive and adjust as new information comes in. For Hoffman, this ability to adapt in real time is a key marker of success, which he calls 'permanent beta' – the idea that nothing is ever truly finished and that leaders need to stay alert to how things are shifting. As he puts it, 'You know things but don't know the whole game, and you are alert to how the game is changing.' The key, he says, is to 'never stop starting.' Systems Thinking Skills Together, these three edges create a new leadership paradigm. Historically, business skills have been grounded in strong data analysis. Better data meant better answers. Today, AI can analyze data. Business leaders need to focus on uniquely human qualities, especially the skills that are required in a highly chaotic environment. Rigor and reasoning are now replaced with sensing, interpreting, and adapting. Business leaders need to hear not just what's said, but what's not said, ask good questions, see connections among seemingly disparate ideas, and remain adaptable to new salient information, while remaining anchored on a strong values and sense of purpose. AI has commoditized technical skills. The uniquely human edge is needed to manage within messy, nonlinear, often chaotic, human systems. These aren't just generic 'soft' leadership skills, but the survival skills for a world in flux. Leading institutions are catching on. Stanford's emphasizes human-centered design. MIT teaches managers to map interdependencies. Companies like Unilever and Google now train leaders in mindfulness and emotional intelligence, not just spreadsheets and strategy decks. Business now operates in a system. The skills to navigate complex systems are not only technical, which can be performed by AI, but uniquely human. To navigate complexity requires navigating uncertainty not with fear, but with curiosity. The leaders who thrive in the age of AI won't out-analyze machines. They'll out-sense them. This article is part of a series exploring how systems thinking can transform business decision-making, with practical frameworks and real-world applications across industries. Read the first article on How Systems Thinkers Can Avoid Bad Decisions.
ABC News
15-07-2025
- Business
- ABC News
House-sitting saved me enough to buy my own home
I'm a 42-year-old divorced stand-up comic. This isn't a cry for help — I'm merely putting my life in context. I'm allergic to working in the corporate world despite an MBA and multiple burnouts to prove my eligibility as a capitalist stooge. And I'm also approaching one of the most vulnerable groups of people at risk of homelessness: single women over the age of 45. After my favourite uncle passed away in Pakistan, I was forced to confront the fragility of life and how I want to live; that I want to be of service while also being a creative. And lay down my roots, find my ground. At the time I was bouncing between sublets because I didn't want to rent a shoebox for $2,000 a month, nor live in a share house. It's bad enough doing stand-up comedy in my middle ages, let alone being part of a share-house gang. I don't like chore charts. Property ownership has always been a strange concept to me, but the older I get, the more I understand that without it, I'm at the mercy of others to not evict me. But there's the catch-22 of trying to save money while renting in the current market. A friend told me about a Victorian housing scheme where the government contributes up to 25 per cent of the property price for a share of the property — which you buy back over time. But first I'd need to qualify for this scheme and a bank loan. So my task became finding a meaningful, stable job, saving a deposit — and not living in a share house until I had bought my own place. In my previous life I was a market research consultant in the corporate sector. That was until I couldn't take the soul-crushing, profits-focused approach anymore. Then I tried surviving on an array of casual gigs: Urdu translator, mental health support provider, medical typist. Going back to a more stable role, I wanted to have an actual career that worked for me. Luckily, after a few months of job hunting I landed a social policy adviser role at a not-for-profit that I genuinely love. It's not as lucrative as my former corporate roles but it's fulfilling and it's sustainable. To avoid living in a share house as I waited to buy my own place, I turned to house-sitting. I'd previously forayed into this nomadic lifestyle when I'd quit a high paying corporate job to do my personal Eat Pray Love journey around Australia. This time, in Melbourne, I started with looking after a friend's three cats for a month. It was lovely until the fattest jumped on my bare back and dug it's claws in for grip.' Then I minded another friend's cat for a couple of weeks whose sweetness restored my faith in the feline race. And so it continued. I joined some house-sitting Facebook groups, which led to more gigs. Pretty soon I was going from house-sit to house-sit; cat to dog. My house-sits ranged from a week to several months. In between, I stayed with generous friends and was able to line up house-sits in a way that I didn't overstay my welcome with them. Most people upon finding out I house-sat for 18 months express awe, bordering on disbelief. No-one was more surprised than my family in Pakistan, where you have security guards to make sure no-one gets inside your house, while in Australia people freely give you their key. Over the 18 months I sampled a buffet of accommodation types and suburbs: from CBD flats to suburban homes. The collection of books and music were varied from place to place, as was the spice collection; some people don't even have salt while others have imported saffron. It helped me discover the kind of place I wanted to live in; the type of suburb that was right for me and the kitchen gadgets I could no longer live without (hello air fryer!). The main challenge was the lack of stability and not knowing where I'd live next. The memory foam pillow in a new home would take a couple of days to take note of my skull and I'd get used to the animals, only to repeat this cycle in a few weeks. Not to mention there are only so many wardrobe combinations of three pants and five tops that come with this lifestyle. Was it better than sharing? Having a place to myself was helpful as a creative introvert and it never got isolating because of the cute pets. Plus, house-sitting and a frugal lifestyle allowed me to save almost $60,000. Have you chosen a particular lifestyle as a way to save money or make life more affordable? We'd love to hear from you. Share with us here. When I qualified for the housing scheme, I started property hunting. After six weeks of crowded inspections, I viewed a sunny two-bedroom unit with a courtyard and decided this was it. Good location, good size, good price. I promptly sent my offer and fortunately the owner accepted. Now I've a job I love — that I would probably never have found had I not decided on this goal — and a property I'm stoked about. And thanks to saving on rent for 18 months, even after the deposit I have a healthy offset account that I hope will allow me to pay off my mortgage by retirement age, despite buying at 42. Would I house-sit again? Yes, but just on holidays and in the meantime, I'll get a cat — and a house-sitter when I go away. Amna Bakhtiar is a stand-up comic and writer from Pakistan living in Naarm/ can find her on Instagram.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
MBA Pay Gaps, Promotion Disparities & Leadership Barriers Persist For Women & Minorities: Forté Study
'A third of MBAs of both genders say they have to change jobs to advance and this is much higher for women and minorities,' Elissa Sangster, CEO of the Forté Foundation, says of the nonprofit's findings in its newly released report An MBA still pays off — but for women and underrepresented minorities, the returns come with a ceiling. A new report by the Forté Foundation reveals that despite significant post-MBA salary bumps, women and minority graduates continue to face stark disparities in pay, promotions, and access to leadership. The findings are part of Forté's 2024 MBA Outcomes study, released today (May 22), which surveyed 1,047 MBA alumni from 69 business schools. Respondents, 79% of whom were women and 29% from underrepresented minority backgrounds, reported strong initial salary gains following graduation. But the gender pay gap widens as careers progress, with women consistently lagging men in promotions, management responsibility, and proximity to the C-suite. 'Leadership barriers for both genders have climbed in the last two years, due primarily to lack of a formal career development plan and more women and minorities don't have a sponsor,' says Elissa Sangster, CEO of the nonprofit dedicated to advancing women in business through access to education, career support, and a global community. 'A third of MBAs of both genders say they have to change jobs to advance and this is much higher for women and minorities. Clearly, we can do better than having MBAs believe they have to move out in order to move up. 'We create five-year plans for a business, why not employees?' Forté's study shows that women see an average salary increase of 52% in their first post-MBA role, rising to $131,449. Men, however, see a 73% increase, reaching $140,007. Over time, the pay gap expands. Women in current roles average $179,987 — a 108% increase from pre-MBA salaries — while men average $216,487, a 168% jump. Even after accounting for a two-year age difference, the gap persists. Elissa Sangster, executive director of the Forte Foundation: 'If companies want to retain MBAs, they need to let them know why they belong, reiterate the value they bring, and help them to create a roadmap to advance' Sangster points to several key structural and cultural issues that contribute to this persistent disparity. 'There are at least four structural and cultural changes that could make an impact,' she tells Poets&Quants. 'Lack of a formal career development plan is one stumbling block to advancing in business. Our research found that both men and women cite this as a problem that has grown in the last two years, but it's a bigger problem for women and minorities.' She continues: 'Another obstacle is not having a sponsor, which is a much bigger issue for women and minorities, our research revealed. Women know how important a sponsor is and recent research found that 73% of women who have a sponsor say it helps them to advance faster.' Sangster also calls for companies to conduct more comprehensive compensation reviews. 'A third focus area is to create compensation audits to ensure salary equity but to also look at bonuses, stock options and other financial incentives. Our research found that a greater percentage of men than women value stock options and other financial incentives, but that doesn't mean women don't prioritize them, too,' she says. Cultural shifts in performance evaluation are also necessary, Sangster says. 'Culturally, provide regular actionable feedback and remove bias from performance reviews and in considering women for promotion,' she says. 'Our research found that women are promoted less frequently than men, have fewer direct reports, and are further away from becoming CEO than men. And women are more likely to say they have to leave their job in order to advance.' The disparity in promotions and leadership responsibility backs up Sangster's observations. Men in the survey report receiving 2.3 promotions post-MBA, compared to just 1.4 for women. They also manage nearly twice as many direct reports and are significantly closer to the CEO role. Only 6% of women manage budgets of $50 million or more, compared to 12% of men. To address these disparities, Sangster advises companies to implement structured long-term development plans for their people. 'I'd advise companies to create 1-, 3- and 5-year career development plans for all their people. They have business development plans but are coming up short in doing the same for employees,' she says. 'Another recommendation is to focus more on sponsorship programs and ensure there is equity in terms of who participates in them. 'If companies want to retain MBAs, they need to let them know why they belong, reiterate the value they bring, and help them to create a roadmap to advance.' Business schools, she adds, can help equip students to better evaluate employers and advancement opportunities. 'Business schools need to teach students how to navigate the interview process to ask about company career development plans to help them to pick the best employer to ensure career progress — and to continue to compare employers and ask questions after landing their first post-MBA job,' Sangster says. But she stresses that alumni must take initiative as well. 'This is a two-way street and MBA graduates and alumni need to ask questions throughout their career. Does the company have written and transparent guidelines on how to reach the next level? Do they have sponsorship programs available to all employees to help them advance? If there is no sponsorship program, how do they set up their people for success?' For those without access to formal structures, informal networks can be key. 'If a company does not have a sponsorship program, create one informally by connecting with someone at their employer who is an alum of their school. Our research found more than a third of MBAs say they have to leave in order to advance, so it is critical to prioritize networking 10 years out and longer, not just in the early years post MBA. Those connections can be the key to identifying opportunities to move up,' she says. One area where women are leading is in the use of AI to support career development. According to the report, women are more likely than men to use AI to optimize resumes (64% versus 51%), improve cover letters (59% versus 41%), and practice interview questions. Women are also more likely to use AI on the job for continuous learning and identifying automation opportunities. Sangster believes these efforts need greater institutional recognition. 'Most companies do provide some kind of learning and development platform or resources for their employees. But my guess is that a lot of them don't formally track it in a way that gets incorporated into performance reviews, feedback, or is included in criteria for promotion,' she says. She urges companies to close this loop. 'If learning and development is important enough to an organization that they are providing resources or funds to employees, then they've got to come full circle with it. Completion of those courses or skill development programs has got to make its way into performance reviews and employee evaluations for a promotion. If you are promoting people in your organization who aren't investing in their ongoing learning and development, then it's likely you are making a mistake,' she says. The study also touches on shifting workplace values. Remote and flexible work arrangements remain the top-rated benefit for both genders, but priorities diverge in other areas. Women value time-related benefits like paid time off (54% versus 40%), while men are more likely to prioritize financial perks like stock options (47% versus 29%). Finally, the study exposes a striking perception gap in views on workplace equality. Men are significantly more likely than women to believe gender parity has been achieved, with men scoring 3.11 out of 5 when asked if equality exists in the workplace. Women score the same question at just 2.18. The gap extends to perceptions of pay parity and optimism about the future of business, suggesting that cultural awareness is just as critical as compensation audits and career ladders. DON'T MISS The post MBA Pay Gaps, Promotion Disparities & Leadership Barriers Persist For Women & Minorities: Forté Study appeared first on Poets&Quants. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
