After heated debate with my classmates from around the world, I have decided to revise my Olympics medal scoring system. While we all agree that points should be given for silver and bronze medals (After all, shouldn't winning gold and silver be worth more than just winning gold alone?), the topic of dispute was how many points each medal should be awarded.
Under my original scheme, golds were worth 3 points, silvers 2, and bronzes 1. This means that earning silver and and bronze together would be equivalent to earning gold. Our consensus was that a single gold was worth more than silver and bronze together; after all, gold is the best in the world. Accordingly, my new "official" system assigns 5 points to gold, 3 points to silver, and 1 point to bronze.
As of now, China retains the lead with 330 points (49 gold, 19 silver, 28 bronze). The US follows closely with 317 points (34 gold, 37 silver, 35 bronze). Russia, Great Britain, and Australia bring up the rest of the top five, each with scores in the 100s. With only two days of competition left, GAME ON!
Also, I have posted pics of my dinner up in the Swiss mountains in my facebook album.
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
2008-08-23
2008-05-01
May Day
"First of May, first of May
F%#&ing outdoors starts today."
--James Taylor
Although it snowed briefly yesterday, the weather is still beautiful and I stick to my contention that Spring has arrived in Lausanne. People are coughing and sneezing a great deal in class so once again I am trying to remain physically and mentally fit to ward off any virus that may be going around. The last thing I want is to let my team down during this weekend's integrative exercise because I am sick.
Today in Accounting we studied cases of rogue traders who were able to cause the collapse of healthy, established banks by incurring huge losses unchecked. In each case there was a combination of factors (ethics, controls, ignorance, bureaucracy, communication, etc.) that contributed to the crisis, in each case the industry claimed it had learned its lessons after the fact, and in each case there was another, almost identical event relatively shortly thereafter.
What interested me most about this discussion was that this was not the first time we discussed cases about management ignoring blatant warning signs due to group dynamics, misaligned incentives, and individual psychologies. For example, in our Organizational Leadership class (the continuance of LPO, taught by Australian professor Ben Bryant) we studied the case of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident and the management decisions that led to it.
Irrational human behavior is something that has not changed and probably will not change. The key challenge is preventing it from translating into irrational organizational behavior. How can a leader address that? Culture change? Control mechanisms? Moreover, how can one address it while not causing drastic consequences, e.g., stifling innovation with too much control? Clearly there is no universal answer but we are learning more each day about how at least to identify such situations, their symptoms, and their causes.
And speaking of irrational organizational behavior, IPE is about to start. Today's topics: China-US trade relations and the Chinese Olympics. Heated debate, here I come!
F%#&ing outdoors starts today."
--James Taylor
Although it snowed briefly yesterday, the weather is still beautiful and I stick to my contention that Spring has arrived in Lausanne. People are coughing and sneezing a great deal in class so once again I am trying to remain physically and mentally fit to ward off any virus that may be going around. The last thing I want is to let my team down during this weekend's integrative exercise because I am sick.
Today in Accounting we studied cases of rogue traders who were able to cause the collapse of healthy, established banks by incurring huge losses unchecked. In each case there was a combination of factors (ethics, controls, ignorance, bureaucracy, communication, etc.) that contributed to the crisis, in each case the industry claimed it had learned its lessons after the fact, and in each case there was another, almost identical event relatively shortly thereafter.
What interested me most about this discussion was that this was not the first time we discussed cases about management ignoring blatant warning signs due to group dynamics, misaligned incentives, and individual psychologies. For example, in our Organizational Leadership class (the continuance of LPO, taught by Australian professor Ben Bryant) we studied the case of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident and the management decisions that led to it.
Irrational human behavior is something that has not changed and probably will not change. The key challenge is preventing it from translating into irrational organizational behavior. How can a leader address that? Culture change? Control mechanisms? Moreover, how can one address it while not causing drastic consequences, e.g., stifling innovation with too much control? Clearly there is no universal answer but we are learning more each day about how at least to identify such situations, their symptoms, and their causes.
And speaking of irrational organizational behavior, IPE is about to start. Today's topics: China-US trade relations and the Chinese Olympics. Heated debate, here I come!
2008-04-29
Mini-UN
Our International Political Economy class discussions have really heated up over the past few weeks. The topics are intentionally provocative and Jean-Pierre does a good job of mixing class time between his expert knowledge and our inter-student debate. As we have 44 countries represented in our class, it's like participating in a mini-UN. Before our eyes we see age-old conflicts unfold between individuals.
For example, between our one Israeli student and two Lebanese students we saw the Arab-Israeli conflict play out last week. Each student had "facts" supporting an assertion that the other side was to blame, each pointed out the death and destruction wrought by the other, and each refused to back down. It was exactly the same thing that happens between countries. Both sides know that the only way to resolve the conflict (the original source of which may be long forgotten) is to step back and offer peace/goodwill but instead they just escalate the rehetoric.
On the one hand, it is frustrating. We aren't here to argue about who is right and who is wrong; we are here to learn a better way. On the other hand, though, it is instructive to witness the individual interactions and learn from them about the inter-country/inter-ethnic-group interactions and reactions.
It is also interesting to see the nationalism and defensiveness come out during these discussions. For example, I asked a question today about China's investment policy in Africa. China (and Africa too) claims that it is a no-strings-attached policy. This is contrasted with the historical Western policy of lending money or making investments but requiring democratic, human rights, economic, and other reforms in return. According to our African students, Africans prefer China's approach.
My question was about whether Chinese investments were really better for Africans or, given the presentation we had just heard about Africa's history of corruption and leaders embezzling government funds, were they just bribes by a more palatable name. I.e. by not attaching any strings was China just giving corrupt leaders more leeway to take the money for themselves? It was an honest question asked to understand the situation better, not an attack on China. The first response I received, from the presentation group, was fair and rational. However, it was then followed by several responses defending China. At the root of most of these arguments was, "It's no worse than what the West has done in the past."
This is, of course, a classic "tu quoque" fallacy: "Something we are doing is OK because, hey, you're doing it too." The objective isn't to point fingers; it is to find a better solution! I ran into a similar situation when conversing with a Chinese classmate about China's massively increasing polution levels that are predicted to lead the world in just a few decades. The rebuttal was, "Yeah, but the US currently leads the world--why do you want to accuse us of wrong-doing?!" I wasn't accusing anyone of anything; I was pointing out a trend that, now that it had been identified, we have an opportunity to reverse before it is too late. Can we please stop dwelling in the past and start finding ways to make the world a better place?!
Still, there is learning in these discussions. Perhaps the logical fallacies are not soley the fault of the arguers. Perhaps the way I present my questions is perceived as confrontational or accusatory. Perhaps I could find better ways to communicate across cultural boundaries, resulting in greater productivity in such discussions. I'm sure such learning could be applied not just to the individual interaction level but also to the group, company, and country interaction levels as well. I will collect feedback and work on it; I owe at least that much to my current and future colleagues.
For example, between our one Israeli student and two Lebanese students we saw the Arab-Israeli conflict play out last week. Each student had "facts" supporting an assertion that the other side was to blame, each pointed out the death and destruction wrought by the other, and each refused to back down. It was exactly the same thing that happens between countries. Both sides know that the only way to resolve the conflict (the original source of which may be long forgotten) is to step back and offer peace/goodwill but instead they just escalate the rehetoric.
On the one hand, it is frustrating. We aren't here to argue about who is right and who is wrong; we are here to learn a better way. On the other hand, though, it is instructive to witness the individual interactions and learn from them about the inter-country/inter-ethnic-group interactions and reactions.
It is also interesting to see the nationalism and defensiveness come out during these discussions. For example, I asked a question today about China's investment policy in Africa. China (and Africa too) claims that it is a no-strings-attached policy. This is contrasted with the historical Western policy of lending money or making investments but requiring democratic, human rights, economic, and other reforms in return. According to our African students, Africans prefer China's approach.
My question was about whether Chinese investments were really better for Africans or, given the presentation we had just heard about Africa's history of corruption and leaders embezzling government funds, were they just bribes by a more palatable name. I.e. by not attaching any strings was China just giving corrupt leaders more leeway to take the money for themselves? It was an honest question asked to understand the situation better, not an attack on China. The first response I received, from the presentation group, was fair and rational. However, it was then followed by several responses defending China. At the root of most of these arguments was, "It's no worse than what the West has done in the past."
This is, of course, a classic "tu quoque" fallacy: "Something we are doing is OK because, hey, you're doing it too." The objective isn't to point fingers; it is to find a better solution! I ran into a similar situation when conversing with a Chinese classmate about China's massively increasing polution levels that are predicted to lead the world in just a few decades. The rebuttal was, "Yeah, but the US currently leads the world--why do you want to accuse us of wrong-doing?!" I wasn't accusing anyone of anything; I was pointing out a trend that, now that it had been identified, we have an opportunity to reverse before it is too late. Can we please stop dwelling in the past and start finding ways to make the world a better place?!
Still, there is learning in these discussions. Perhaps the logical fallacies are not soley the fault of the arguers. Perhaps the way I present my questions is perceived as confrontational or accusatory. Perhaps I could find better ways to communicate across cultural boundaries, resulting in greater productivity in such discussions. I'm sure such learning could be applied not just to the individual interaction level but also to the group, company, and country interaction levels as well. I will collect feedback and work on it; I owe at least that much to my current and future colleagues.
2008-02-07
Brazilian High
Yesterday was awesome. It was full of surprises from our faculty, each one better than the last. Because some prospective students read this blog and because the surprises were critical to today's success, I'll refrain from any real explanation. The cool part was that it was our first day of cross-functional project work: addressing a business case from accounting, marketing, and leadership perspectives within our groups.
At the end of the day, three groups were selected randomly to present their arguments. For each group, one member was selected randomly to do the presentation to a panel of faculty members who played roles of actual decision makers/influencers in the case. Given the amount of time we had to prepare, any presentation was essentially an improvisation.
When we were first told about the presentation part of the assignment, my natural reaction was to hope that I was selected. After all, I love presenting to an audience; it's my element. Then, as I realized that I had gaping holes of knowledge about the accounting and marketing aspects of our group's proposal (We split up the work but didn't have time to regroup before the deadline.), I became a little more apprehensive about being selected.
Our group was the second of three selected to present; I was selected from my group to be the presenter--be careful what you wish for! The faculty decision makers' roles were intended to poke holes in whatever we presented, be interruptive at times, and generally stress the presenter out. I didn't know the supporting evidence for several aspects of our plan and hadn't even seen the powerpoint in its entirety, but hey, I didn't come here not to be challenged!
The faculty gave me a hard time, especially on the quantitative stuff, but it was a big rush to be up there. The class gave me a lot of support from the audience, which felt great. At the end of the day, my presentation was pretty BSy, and probably was especially underwhelming to Stewart, the Accounting prof. I spent a significant amount of time afterward thinking about what I would have/should have said and receiving explanations from my teammates about what our slides actually meant. However, I received numerous backslaps and congratulations from my classmates afterward so I think I held my own.
Regardless, it was a great experience and I can't wait to do it again. Afterward the class and the professors (out of character) met in the lobby for Brazilian (The case was set in Brazil.) caipirinhas before heading down to the dungeon for a long night of project work. What a day; I can't wait to do it again!
On another note, the Chinese students made a very gracious presentation for lunar new year and gave away Chinese gifts to all the students. Coming from a country where everyone seems to be leery about competition from China, I found their unsolicited offering to be right in line with the warm, generous culture I've come to know and expect from these students.
At the end of the day, three groups were selected randomly to present their arguments. For each group, one member was selected randomly to do the presentation to a panel of faculty members who played roles of actual decision makers/influencers in the case. Given the amount of time we had to prepare, any presentation was essentially an improvisation.
When we were first told about the presentation part of the assignment, my natural reaction was to hope that I was selected. After all, I love presenting to an audience; it's my element. Then, as I realized that I had gaping holes of knowledge about the accounting and marketing aspects of our group's proposal (We split up the work but didn't have time to regroup before the deadline.), I became a little more apprehensive about being selected.
Our group was the second of three selected to present; I was selected from my group to be the presenter--be careful what you wish for! The faculty decision makers' roles were intended to poke holes in whatever we presented, be interruptive at times, and generally stress the presenter out. I didn't know the supporting evidence for several aspects of our plan and hadn't even seen the powerpoint in its entirety, but hey, I didn't come here not to be challenged!
The faculty gave me a hard time, especially on the quantitative stuff, but it was a big rush to be up there. The class gave me a lot of support from the audience, which felt great. At the end of the day, my presentation was pretty BSy, and probably was especially underwhelming to Stewart, the Accounting prof. I spent a significant amount of time afterward thinking about what I would have/should have said and receiving explanations from my teammates about what our slides actually meant. However, I received numerous backslaps and congratulations from my classmates afterward so I think I held my own.
Regardless, it was a great experience and I can't wait to do it again. Afterward the class and the professors (out of character) met in the lobby for Brazilian (The case was set in Brazil.) caipirinhas before heading down to the dungeon for a long night of project work. What a day; I can't wait to do it again!
On another note, the Chinese students made a very gracious presentation for lunar new year and gave away Chinese gifts to all the students. Coming from a country where everyone seems to be leery about competition from China, I found their unsolicited offering to be right in line with the warm, generous culture I've come to know and expect from these students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
