Which is more important to a Quality Professional - MBA or Six Sigma Black Belt?

[Marc]

Which is more important to a Quality Professional - MBA or Six Sigma Black Belt?

Why?

[Miner]

I've had a lot of requests for SS Black Belt, but none for an MBA.

[Wes Bucey]

I see the situation strictly as one of supply and demand. Organizations see a glut of MBA's and have narrowed the field in their candidate searches by concentrating on only candidates from 1st and 2nd tier schools.

Conversely, 6S Black Belts are in short supply and hiring officers haven't got enough experience to be able to discriminate between candidates who receive a BB certificate from ASQ or some consultant who set up a diploma mill.

In the short term, a BB certificate from any source will open more doors than any of the other ASQ certificates or MBA's (possible exception - MBA concentrated in Quality from a first or second tier school.)

I expect the fad for BB will be relaced by another fad in the next few years. Essentially, the problem is that hiring officers are easily swayed by propaganda in newspapers and trade journals. BB folk have a great publicity machine and it's so good, ASQ has nearly abandoned its own publicity in favor of jumping on the 6S bandwagon.

Heck, ASQ administers the Malcom Baldrige National Quality Award and yet gives more ink and bandwidth in its publications and website to 6S than to MBNQA.

[Rob Nix]

Since this is an open poll, I'll breifly explain why: same reasons as Wes stated, plus it is closer to the disciplines a quality professional wil use day after day.

[Jim Wynne]

I voted SS, although I have neither (nor even a bachelor's degree) and I''m doing just fine. The SS credentials will open more doors, for precisely the reasons that Wes offered. The MBA has been so watered down that I don't believe it's as strong a factor as it was before they started handing them out on street corners.

Originally Posted by Wes Bucey

...6S Black Belts are in short supply and hiring officers haven't got enough experience to be able to discriminate between candidates who receive a BB certificate from ASQ or some consultant who set up a diploma mill.

I don't think there's much evidence that HR people need to be able to discriminate to that degree. Like the MBA, the ASQ imprimatur has lost much of its luster due to the number of clearly unqualified people who proudly display ASQ certificates on their walls.

[Miner]

I have been in a variety of companies, and the lack of an MBA has never been an issue. I did, as a matter of self-improvement begin pursuit of an MBA. However, after getting half way through (with high grades lest you thick "sour grapes") I found that I had an issue with the MBA curriculum in general.

The MBA curriculum teaches very short term (should I say short-sighted?) thinking that directly conflicts with the quality philosophy of continual improvement with the long term in mind.

If you want an advanced degree, get it in Quality Management.

[Wes Bucey]

Originally Posted by Miner

I have been in a variety of companies, and the lack of an MBA has never been an issue. I did, as a matter of self-improvement begin pursuit of an MBA. However, after getting half way through (with high grades lest you thick "sour grapes") I found that I had an issue with the MBA curriculum in general.

The MBA curriculum teaches very short term (should I say short-sighted?) thinking that directly conflicts with the quality philosophy of continual improvement with the long term in mind.

If you want an advanced degree, get it in Quality Management.

I guess that curriculum "bias" may be more aligned with a particular school or even just the then current faculty. Certainly, the "Chicago School" practiced at the University of Chicago is focused on the macro- and long term views and end goals rather than on short-term achievements. Not much has changed since I went there in the early 60's in terms of philosphy. (Note this discourse specifically excludes so-called Executive MBA programs which seem to be more aimed at separating fools from their money than helping them learn stuff to help them run any organization (profit, nonprofit, government.)

In my opinion, if you aren't aiming to be the CEO of an organization, you really don't need to spend the money to go to a top tier school like Harvard or University of Chicago. If you try to leverage an MBA from one of the on-line schools to be a CEO, you get all the "book-learning," but you miss the interaction on a day-to-day basis with the type of folks who will be your collaborators and competitors in years to come. The intangibles of those connections and networking opportunities really do come in handy if you want to move beyond "talented staff member" to line officer.

Which is best depends on the rest of your education, training & experience, and what you aspire to be. Six Sigma is obviously a lot narrower in scope, and a good fit to someone who likes the performance improvement track. MBA is broader and more strategic in nature, and more attuned to someone looking at becoming a general manager, etc. Either could be useful for someone who plans on consulting, but services offered would perhaps differ.