This is a book about what goes on behind the scenes in the Harvard MBA program. It is written by Michel Anteby, a sociologist/anthropologist, and is presented as a follow up to his ethnography of a factory, Regulation in an Aeronautics Plant. In this new book, Anteby looks at Harvard Business School (HBS), as an anthropologist might look at Trobriand Islanders. What is unusual about the project is that the author is (or at least was, when the book was written and published) a HBS professor—so he is both the watcher and one of the watched.
The book is a combination of description and interpretation of those descriptions (What it is like to be an HBS professor, and what implicit rules guide the school?) and integration of the description and interpretations into the author’s broader sociological sensibility. It consists of eight chapters, six of which describe various aspects of the HBS experience. These chapters look at issues such as how the case method works, the nature of the socialization process of a new professor, the implicit understandings and rules that guide HBS professors, and the promotion and advancement process. These chapters are sandwiched between an introduction and conclusion that put the observations in a sociological/anthropological theoretical context and draw out relevant insights. (The title, Manufacturing Morals: The Values of Silence in Business School Education, gives the reader a succinct summary of those insights.) In addition to these eight chapters, there are a postscript and an appendix on methods and data.
The description and interpretations part of the book is written for interested lay people such as myself. I enjoyed reading this part of the book and found it provocative and informative. It has nice discussions of issues such as the following:
-
• How the case method—the distinguishing feature of HBS—is made into a useful method through lots of hard work and coordination among the various professors.
-
• What is expected of HBS professors in terms of research and teaching—much more focus goes into teaching there than at most other colleges, including colleges and universities devoted to teaching.
-
• What HBS professors are expected to do, such as dress appropriately (Brooks Brothers is highly recommended—I suspect not the 346 line, however).
-
• What HBS professors are expected not to do—for example, hang a picture in one’s office, do one’s own bibliography, or pick up one’s own cleaning. Their concierge sees that all those are taken care of.
The second part of the book is written more for the sociological/anthropological cognoscenti and is filled with the type of sociological jargon that C. Wright Mills lamented in his Sociological Imagination. In this part of the book, the author develops his major theme—how vocal silence on moral issues is not silence at all; it simply hides unvocalized views that become built into the institutional structure—in this case, the HBS approach to teaching. The author sees this part of the book as addressing three main questions:
-
1. Whether morals can be transmitted on a large scale via organizational scripts and routines
-
2. Whether the process of scripted morals might modify or even destroy them
-
3. How morals might endure in organizations
His answers are the following:
-
1. Morals cannot be written into scripts, but scripts can allow the prospect of morals to emerge.
-
2. Vocal silence is flexible, and morals can evolve without major organizational revisions.
-
3. It depends on how one defines morals.
Although I agree with the sense of vocal silence—what reasonable observer cannot in this post-modern era?—I found the emphasis on it labored and lacking nuance. These issues have been explored deeply by modern and post-modern philosophers and methodologists, and I would have preferred that these issues were discussed within that context.
Can One Watch Oneself in a Scientifically Objective Way?
I am neither a sociologist nor an anthropologist, but as an outsider economist, I had a problem with the conveyance of this study as a formal scientific case study because of the author’s position as both a watcher and a member of the watched group. Although being both watched and watcher has the advantage of putting the observer into a wonderful position inside the watched, it also undermines any real or perceived objectivity. Objectivity in such self-reflective work can come only from laying one’s cards fully on the table, and vocalizing one’s views as explicitly as possible. In not doing that, the author seems to be making the same mistake that he seems to be attributing to the HBS approach.
To enable one to achieve objectivity as best one can, science has rules, and I assume that those rules extend to case studies. Those rules are designed to see that a scientific observer has as little skin in the game as possible. When you are an untenured professor describing the educational system where you work, you have enormous skin in the game; it cannot be otherwise. That dual role undermines any sense of perceived objectivity; it creates almost insurmountable pressures to pull punches and observe strategically, thinking about how what one writes might affect one’s position. An outside observer has no way of knowing to what degree that happened. I saw many possibilities in which it might have influenced the presentation. Here is just one small example: There was a good discussion of the appropriate compensation charged for paid consulting. Anteby writes that when, after some guidance upward, he suggested $3,000 a day, that was considered low, and there was pressure to raise it. However, he coyly does not say what he set the rate at, or whether he views the high, implicitly suggested rate as morally questionable.
In a short two-page postscript, the author partly addresses the objectivity issue when he explains how, when he was informed that his promotion packet was viewed by tenured professors, he strongly considered abandoning the study because the knowledge “tainted my field in ways that I had naively not foreseen.” He writes as if the idea that the other faculty might have known about his project came as a shock to him, just as Captain Renault was shocked to discover gambling at Rick’s. If it did come as a shock, the author does not have the same sense of workplace networks that I have. I would have assumed that this information would have been well known through informal channels that exist in all organizations, and especially in academic organizations, long before the packet was distributed. Even if it were not known, though, he would know that the study would become known, which itself would have influenced his writing and observations.
I am not objecting to the descriptive part of the study; I am objecting only to the scientific skin placed on it. My sense is that the author sees himself as a radical progressive whose morals differ from those of many HBS professors. If that is the case, a more straightforward discussion would have been cleaner, along the following lines: Here are my values; here are the values of most HBS professors; here is how they differ; and here is why mine are better. In conclusion, even though the study provides some interesting descriptions and insights, it was not satisfying for me because Anteby does not apply his vocal silence insight to himself.
