Dalton leaves off what I'd consider to be the biggest red flag: risk aversion. Many MBAs are risk averse. They are career-track professionals. They are box checkers. They are bullet-point collectors. A lot of them are extremely smart, and the ones from the top-tier programs are among the hardest working sons of bitches you'll ever meet. These were the kids who ground their asses off in high school and undergrad, and who will (generally) land lucrative, but safe careers continuing to apply the same grind-and-optimize strategies that got them through school. They do well in regimented, structured environments where there are frameworks, processes, known inputs, etc. They flourish in career tracks that resemble academic environments: where there are "grades," tracks, clear progression, etc.
A lot of engineers are the exact same way, for what it's worth. They don't have a monopoly on risk-taking any more than MBAs have a monopoly on risk aversion. Nevertheless, as a general rule, an MBA is not a degree one pursues if one is seeking risk or adventure (and I'd argue that the same could be said of any master's degree).
I'd almost require an MBA of a CFO, COO, or CEO that I'm bringing on board to scale up a business or take the helm of a mature business. But I would be a little uneasy about an MBA's founding a tech startup from the ground up. That's not to say that MBAs can't do the latter, or are necessarily good at the former. But there's a correlation. (MBAs are perfectly capable of starting non-tech businesses, however, and often do. But to found a tech startup, the MBA would really need to be technical to a high degree.)
A startup founder needs to be risk-seeking, and to whatever extent he or she has collected a bunch of degrees, that's a pattern of risk-averse behavior. It's an indicator. I still think such a person could make a great fit working at a startup, provided the entitlement issue isn't there (which it really is for a lot of folks, owing in large part to the expense of the degree). But as a founder? I'd be a little leery.
MBA programs are changing these days, and it needs to be said. A lot of them are adopting Lean Startup methodologies, or refocusing on innovation, or encouraging and teaching entrepreneurship (to whatever extent the latter can be taught, which I'd guesstimate to be maybe 50-60%). Today's MBAs are not your grandfather's MBAs. They're not the 1990s tech-bubble MBAs, either. Nevertheless, a lot of them are not risk takers.
The ones who are? Give them a fair shot. You'd be surprised. They are incredibly smart, well trained, quantitatively analytical, and make great marketers, biz dev & corp dev types, CFOs, and operations managers. Few of them walk into startups expecting $200k + signing bonus + equity the way they might have 20 years ago. That stereotype is out of date. But if a well-qualified candidate shows up at your door with realistic expectations about the job, the title, the compensation, and so forth: I see nothing wrong there. He or she has self-selected out of entitlement issues. (On the flip side, spotting the entitled ones -- MBAs or otherwise -- is fairly easy.)
Dalton leaves off what I'd consider to be the biggest red flag: risk aversion. Many MBAs are risk averse. They are career-track professionals. They are box checkers. They are bullet-point collectors. A lot of them are extremely smart, and the ones from the top-tier programs are among the hardest working sons of bitches you'll ever meet. These were the kids who ground their asses off in high school and undergrad, and who will (generally) land lucrative, but safe careers continuing to apply the same grind-and-optimize strategies that got them through school. They do well in regimented, structured environments where there are frameworks, processes, known inputs, etc. They flourish in career tracks that resemble academic environments: where there are "grades," tracks, clear progression, etc.
A lot of engineers are the exact same way, for what it's worth. They don't have a monopoly on risk-taking any more than MBAs have a monopoly on risk aversion. Nevertheless, as a general rule, an MBA is not a degree one pursues if one is seeking risk or adventure (and I'd argue that the same could be said of any master's degree).
I'd almost require an MBA of a CFO, COO, or CEO that I'm bringing on board to scale up a business or take the helm of a mature business. But I would be a little uneasy about an MBA's founding a tech startup from the ground up. That's not to say that MBAs can't do the latter, or are necessarily good at the former. But there's a correlation. (MBAs are perfectly capable of starting non-tech businesses, however, and often do. But to found a tech startup, the MBA would really need to be technical to a high degree.)
A startup founder needs to be risk-seeking, and to whatever extent he or she has collected a bunch of degrees, that's a pattern of risk-averse behavior. It's an indicator. I still think such a person could make a great fit working at a startup, provided the entitlement issue isn't there (which it really is for a lot of folks, owing in large part to the expense of the degree). But as a founder? I'd be a little leery.
MBA programs are changing these days, and it needs to be said. A lot of them are adopting Lean Startup methodologies, or refocusing on innovation, or encouraging and teaching entrepreneurship (to whatever extent the latter can be taught, which I'd guesstimate to be maybe 50-60%). Today's MBAs are not your grandfather's MBAs. They're not the 1990s tech-bubble MBAs, either. Nevertheless, a lot of them are not risk takers.
The ones who are? Give them a fair shot. You'd be surprised. They are incredibly smart, well trained, quantitatively analytical, and make great marketers, biz dev & corp dev types, CFOs, and operations managers. Few of them walk into startups expecting $200k + signing bonus + equity the way they might have 20 years ago. That stereotype is out of date. But if a well-qualified candidate shows up at your door with realistic expectations about the job, the title, the compensation, and so forth: I see nothing wrong there. He or she has self-selected out of entitlement issues. (On the flip side, spotting the entitled ones -- MBAs or otherwise -- is fairly easy.)