I'm doing it thru' Wits Business School. It was a lot of hard work but on the whole it was not difficult - one needs very good time management skills. In terms of course work, there are course which are easier than other depending on ones background. I'm a CA(SA) so the soft-skill courses were harder for me. If I had to do it again, I would do the UCT MBA course which is shorter in terms of course work.
I've thought of another research report that could be interesting, maybe someone can do it in the future... Many times I have been thinking what causes empires to crash, not on large corporations but empires like the Roman Empire, Alexander The Great's empire, etc. Latest being things like Citigroup which was once the largest bank in the world, etc. I think its got to do with the leaders/managers changing, e.g. retiring CEO's or Chairman (in the case of Citi) and not having a proper successor (Citi got rid of the perfect guy about 1-2 years before Sand Weill retired causing the problem)... But one should find the exact factors linked to the downfall, then one can analyse large corporations in detail and see when trouble could come... E.g I am following JPMC very closely as a shareholder and i dont expect any major top-level changes anymore for the next few years, but when Jamie Dimon steps down the guy who takes over needs to possess certain skills and a mindset different to the average to really keep the firm excellent, so i am trying to figure out what one should look at, i have a good idea and i think that JPMC is very organised and i believe the number 2 at this stage is excellent... but creating such a framework could help analyse any company, here in SA or overseas... whats your thoughts?
By the way, do you need to do comparisons of two proportions. I wrote a statistics program (in Delphi)a while ago that an NMMU lecturer had a look at and said he wanted to use for his students. I can email you. Comparison of proportions in two independent samples is so easy because you do not have to find the mean etc - just key in 4 figures.
I'm doing a correlation analysis between firm performance and Executive remuneration within the financial services sector (banks, insurances etc.)... Preliminary findings (seems intuitively correct) i.e there seems to be a correlation between firm performance and bonuses. Salary is relatively flat - depends on the skill of the individual and objective of the company when appointing the CEO. Share options ... mmm ... no conclusions on this ... Logic of alignment of objectives between CEO and Shareholders seems difficult to find as many simply excise the options at the first opportunity. There are interesting trends in the data which will make for interesting reading.
This is quite a hot topic in Governance at the moment, and I'm pretty sure that if you contact the IOD (Institute of Directors) with a brief on what you are doing, and get in touch with some Group Company Secretaries in the listed companies which fall within your sector of research - they would be both interested to assist (provided that there is no disclosure that would relate their info to their company publically ... offer to sign a confidentiality clause ...) and would also be interested in your findings for distribution to their boards in exchange for their participation. The IOD might be able to put you onto a discussion or interview with Mervyn King himself, sure he'd gladly get involved.
Often a lack of adequate succession planning, arogance & greed, and inadequate risk assessment and management. A ship turns very slowly, and usually when the execs see its gone off-course, its momentum is already in the wrong direction and can't be steered back again. Causes a compounding effect in the wrong direction.
Werner, empires crash when the cost of getting the base feedstock from the production areas is greater than the value of the feedstock where it is consumed. Rome moved its production of grain to its outlying provinces, the cost of moving that grain to Rome grew as the population along the way started to "steal" / dilute the stocks until precious little reached Rome & the cost was too great for the average citizen. This led to unhappiness & eventually it all went pear shaped. This amongst other issues - Take corporations where the sheer size leads to organizational structures that constrict the free flow of information from where it is generated to where it is read. All the managers need to spin it their way & so the essential message ends up being a confabulation of different opinions, the board makes decisions based on essentially diluted information & it all goes pear shaped. Watch out for managers who create too many layers in the cake & so doing separate themselves from reality. Thats why outsiders usually cant turn around a ship that once was run by someone who came through the ranks - OMO (Look at Coleman Andrews, Khaya Ngakula etc etc)
Bruberi, thanks for the reply, very inlightening... I agree about the corporations section, when thinking in the sense of Jamie Dimon at JPMC, he started off when he was very young working for Sandy Weill from the bottom, worked his way up, and till today is very much involved with the standard employee, routinely drinks coffee with selected people to gain insight into how their departments are functioning and to see if the middle managers are telling him the correct things. So i think thats why JPMC is run so well, the top-most managers are in direct contact with the low employees... If this changes it becomes like what the failed banks were like... e.g. Citi got rid of all the initial people who built it up from the ground, then it crashed...