Intelligent caring appears to have been given various synonyms in industry. An example is Radical Candor (https://www.radicalcandor.com/) and it appears to have many of the same ideas behind the concept. It is becoming part of the organisational identity in certain organisations but otherwise is a largely individual quality.

The aspect that intrigues me the most is how an internal locus of control is developed in childhood and early adulthood.

Please continue sharing your thoughts on this, Ken.

Great article, refreshing memories on few MBT subjects like ‘Leadership and people management’.
Thanks ken as usual and Royston for the Radical Candor book reference.

“How important is solving the problem to the person”

From my experience in team and personal leading, finding how important the problem is to the person and or thyself, surprisingly is not an easy task:)

Would be great if Ken, can shed some light on this as well!

Cheers
Tamer

What reassurance do current students have about the program going forward? Many of the cohort are in the MBT purely because of the elements described in the letter above. If this were to change, we could see an adverse impact to enrollments and viability of the program. I strongly urge UTS to do more to explain the thinking behind this plan and give current students a voice in this critical matter via the MBT Board.

If the MBT moves to the Business Faculty it will be very unfortunate.

When I completed my MBT in 2004 (known as the MBITM back then) it was commonly known that the subjects we took from the Business Faculty were nowhere as engaging or as rewarding as the other MBT subjects within FEIT. The Business Faculty class interactions were very different to the rest of the MBT program.

It takes a huge leap of faith for a technical person to undertake a Masters of Business. Having the program run by an engineering or IT faculty with Industry-based lecturers helps overcome some of the doubts a technical person would have in committing to such a program.

Moving the MBT program to the Business Faculty will almost certainly deter most prospective students who have a technical background.

Is there anything current students and alumni can do to help influence the Dean to keep the program within FEIT?

I graduated from the (then) MBTIM in 2004. It was the best course I ever enrolled in or completed. There we three main factors that made this course superb:
– The content – which was up to date, delivered by UTS and industry experts, and challenging.
– The students – the course has always been very selective, creating an environment where people want to learn – and want to learn from each other. The support and engagement from other students was vital . Competition between students was not a value within the cohort – unlike my experience of MBA subjects. The students all had work experience, so also had life experience.
– The teaching staff engaged by the MBTIM were stellar. They knew their content, they knew how to engage adult students with work experience and they knew how to get the best from us.

My experience of the MBA subjects I had to take, was that they were commodified to the nth degree. The goal seemed to be to push students through in bulk with little consideration for those with a hunger to learn and excel. One MBA guest lecturer even spent some time trying to poach us to join the MBA at his institution. The experience left me quite uninspired.

Considering the MBT is consistently highly rated as THE best course on offer at UTS, it seems counter-intuitive to move it out of its current structure, where a board of Alumni and current students can continue to ensure excellence, to a faculty where so many of us have had unfortunate learning experiences.

As an Alumnus, I have a stake in ensuring the value of my qualification is maintained. I certainly doubt this will be the case if the course is swallowed up by the Faculty of business.

Fantastic contribution, Alex! The wisdom of experience, that has been deeply and critically reflected upon, ‘speaks’ loudly in this piece! Thank you!

Yes, good point, Jens. However, the organisation has to be open to critique and willing to act on the changes that are needed. This requires ‘intellectual humility’ – a leadership practice that we talked about in LPM. Such an attribute is rare in workplaces where the competitiveness breeds defensiveness and an attitude of knowing everything. If one knows everything, there is nothing to learn!

Hi Ken,

I have seen a very similar ‘SonCo bought out by MotherCo’ scenario.

In this case, it appeared to me that MotherCo’s primary motivation was to acquire a specialised software product written & owned by SonCo and their secondary motivation was to claim their customer base.

Before the takeover, SonCo were a small, agile and customer focussed organisation. They had a great rapport with their customers, they would respond quickly and tailor their software for the customer needs if it seemed reasonable. You could ask questions and get basic assistance without being charged.

After the takeover SonCo basically disappeared. They’d merged into MotherCo who were large and slow to respond. They were very bureaucratic, required the customer to log calls, jump through hoops and sometimes wait years for software modifications. They charged the customer for every minute they spoke to them even if nothing of value come out of the contact.

The leadership issue was that the senior people at MotherCo did not seem to acknowledge or value any of the qualities that had made SonCo successful. They only wanted SonCo’s product and customer base, which has since diminished. Our organisation no longer deals with MotherCo or SonCo now.