iPhone>All Other Smartphones

           After seeing the movie “The Social Network” this past weekend—which chronicles the events leading up to the creation of Facebook—I began thinking more and more about the concept of intellectual property. At what point in the idea process does something belong to you? In the movie, Zuckerberg (the creator of Facebook) is accused of stealing the idea of Facebook from his Harvard peers. While most critics agree that Zuckerberg indeed “stole” the idea, I find myself surprised at how strongly I disagree. In a world where individuals have ample resources available at their fingertips via the Internet, how does one idea ever truly belong to one person? While ideas are hard to compartmentalize, the emergence of patents aim to protect a company that relies on technology and innovation to maintain competitive advantage.

            According to Apple, Motorola has stolen their idea of multi-touch technology. However, unlike the case of Facebook, Apple has patents to protect their competitive edge in the smartphone market. Apple is suing Motorola for violating 3 patents that deal specifically with multi-touch surfaces, claiming that their smartphone products like the Droid are a direct copy of the technology featured in Apple’s leading product, the iPhone.

            Since I am an iPhone user, I don’t think Apple has anything to worry about. The iPhone is clearly superior to all Motorola products, even if they DO feature multi-touch technology. It will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the case, and the outcome will largely shape intellectual property cases in the future. 

Shout Out To Mommy!

     Since my mom works for the domestic airline Virgin America, I have to give her a shout out on my blog. If you haven't flown with Virgin yet, you HAVE to--I promise you won't be disappointed. The fleet of aircrafts are all brand new, and the employees actually want to provide great customer service. Which is why I was not surprised to see the long list of carriers who made the "America's Meanest Airlines": US Airways, American Airlines, and United to name a few.
    
     There's no reason not to travel comfortably, so next time you need to fly, fly Virgin!

It's Settled: Blondes DO Have More Fun

           While I have been a blonde my entire life (all 21 years of it), I’ve always toyed with the idea of dying my hair darker. I always assumed that brunettes were taken more seriously than blondes in terms of intelligence and wit, which is something that appealed to me. According to the Lithuanian company Olialia, this is not the case.

            The company, who is planning to open a resort on one of the lovely islands in the Maldives, has one requirement for all potential employees: you MUST have blonde hair.

I’m not kidding.

            Not only must all of the employees of the resort have blonde hair, but Olialia mandates that the crew operating the aircraft that brings visitors to the island (including pilots) be blonde too. According to the managing director of the company (who is also blonde…SHOCKER), the company does not discriminate. She states, “But we find that when women with dark hair work here, they are surrounded by all these beautiful blonds, so eventually they end up going blond too.” The managing director goes on to further say that the company is looking to change the stereotype associated with blondes and intelligence, stating "Our girls are very smart and they have degrees."

           While I appreciate Olialia's plight to free blondes from a stereotype that is vastly self-inflicted, the task of serving margaritas in scantily-clad bikinis to over-aged men on a remote island may not do the trick.

            

It's All About ME!

          I have a confession to make: my first word as a child was not “mommy”, or “dada”, but “MINE". And apparently I am part of a larger movement in my generation that encourages self-centeredness and shuns empathy. According to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan, college students are 40% less empathetic than they were 30 years ago. The article highlights a harsh reality of people growing up in today’s cutthroat world—“today’s students are generally less likely to describe themselves as ‘soft-hearted’ or to have ‘tender, concerned feelings’ for others. They are more likely, meanwhile, to admit that ‘other people’s misfortunes’ usually don’t disturb them”.

            In another article published by the University of Michigan, the author coins the term “Generation Me” for students my age, and further claims that we are the “most self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident and individualistic [generation] in recent history”. So what do we attribute to this? Bad parenting?

            Not quite. I believe this is a direct result of the world we grew up in; we are a byproduct of the competitive, individualistic environment that surrounds us at all times. In a world where students need to find the cure to cancer to get into college, we learn to put “blinders” on that allows us to focus solely on ourselves, and achieving personal goals at any cost. Does this mean we are inherently bad people?

            No. But these traits of our generation will drastically affect the workplace; it will be harder for individuals to work in teams, listen to one another, and collaborate. It also means that professionals will do whatever it takes to get what they want, no matter if it is at another’s expense (because we don’t care, remember?).

            So for all of you college students, watch out. It’s a tough world out there.

Not All Universities Are Created Equal

              With the cost of tuition steadily increasing year to year, universities are looking for ways to differentiate themselves from competitors (except Harvard). In a world where adding value is a critical success factor, schools are adapting performance measures that do just that: numerically show how the institution “adds value” to students. This movement started in 2006 when the Secretary of Education under the Bush administration chastised schools for “relying on their reputations…and not measuring whether their students are actually learning”. Since then, schools have made drastic changes to increase their academic efficiency.

                For example, one school utilizes a metric that analyzes a professor’s salary on a per student basis. The results were astonishing—some untenured professors made less than $100 per student while other professors who only taught a few small classes made upward of $20,000 per student. Metrics like this one illustrate the operating inefficiencies of academia.

                While critics say that the increase in productivity will be at the expense of what makes a university truly unique, I do believe that universities should be run more efficiently than they currently are. With public colleges being faced with budget cuts, operating effectiveness will be the key to survival.  A student deserves to know what kind of value a university will provide—I would hope it is included in tuition.

New York Politics

     While I admit I have lost faith in the political party system in the U.S, I couldn't help but chuckle after reading an article in the Wall Street Journal about one of the gubernatorial candidates in New York. Jimmy McMillan has created a new political party surrounded by an issue that he is very passionate about-- the "Rent is Too Damn High" party (I wish I was clever enough to make this one up). McMillan promises, if elected, to lower rent for all U.S. citizens who are currently paying way too much in rent. McMillan even interviewed people on the streets of New York, and when one man replied he didn't pay a lot in rent, McMillan rebuttled "You know why? He still lives with his mama.”
     The ironic part about McMillan's platform is that he thinks paying $800/month in rent for an apartment in Brooklyn is expensive. I would love to pay $800/month for my own apartment in New York (and I know of others who would too).
      Nonetheless, no matter how ridiculous this man's platform is, I can't help but like the guy. He isn't trying to fit the "politician mold"-he feels passionately about an issue and hopes that others do too. While I don't plan on switching my affiliation to the "Rent is Too Damn High" party, I will call myself a Jimmy McMillan fan.

Student Loans: What You Should Know (that they don't tell you)

       With the cost of tuition increasing exponentially, many students have to assume debt in the form of student loans to pay for schooling. Since the majority of students who apply for loans have little to no background in finance (myself included), it is important to fully understand what is expected of them as debt holders.
       I found a great article on my favorite education blog that included an interview with an attorney on the truth behind student loans. While many school administrators say that education debt is "good" debt (as if there is such a thing), the article highlights scary truths that I myself didn't know at the time I applied for a student loan.
       As I said before, I am a firm believer in educating oneself to make good life decisions. So read this article and I'm sure you will learn something about debt that you didn't know before!

If You’re Looking for a Glass Ceiling, Work for Citi

            Back in September, working women across the country were up in arms about a pamphlet distributed by Citi (although HR representatives deny the company distributed the material) that called corporate females to act more like men in the workplace. It comes as no surprise that Citi is now engulfed in a discrimination lawsuit. Six women have come forward stating that Citigroup is an “outdated boys club”, and that firm executives discriminate against females in decisions regarding compensation, promotions, and termination.

            This is a trend that appears to be common in the financial services industry, with women making 58.8 cents of every dollar men earn according to Government Accountability Office statistics. Rival bank Goldman Sachs is also facing a gender discrimination lawsuit.

            I am anxious to see how these lawsuits will impact women in the corporate world, depending on whether the courts view these claims as truly discriminatory in nature. 

Prosperous Economies Do Not Ensure Happy Citizens

           While money may serve as the leading incentive for people to succeed, individuals also strive to work towards the betterment of society. With the U.S. economy in shambles, politicians and citizens alike believe that money is the solution to our nation’s problems.

            In a previous post, I discussed the idea that after a certain given salary ($75,000), the happiness of an individual does not increase. Adair Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, takes this concept a step further and claims that economic prosperity does not lead to an increase in citizens’ happiness either. According to an economic theory concocted by Roger Bootle, there are two types of activities that careers fall under that individuals engage in: creative and distributive activities. A creative activity is one where your job benefits another individual, i.e. a doctor. A distributive activity is one in which your purpose is to create gains for your company/client at the expense of another. Turner goes on to say that the more prosperous a nation grows, the more people engage in distributive activities which are “activities that cannot increase human happiness.”

            While it is important for a nation to flourish, it is important to keep in mind that economic growth is not linked to an improvement amongst citizens when the activities are purely distributive. On a microeconomic level, Turner mentions that distributive careers in the legal profession as well as financial services industry are highly distributive, and while they may be high-paying jobs, they are “socially useless” in terms of their contributions to society.

            While I do not fully agree with these points made in Turner’s lecture at the London School of Economics, I do agree with the idea that economic growth does not always make the individuals that comprise an economy happier. I also find it interesting that Turner believes the financial services industry to be “socially useless”, considering he serves as Chairman of Britian’s leading financial regulatory body.

The Halo Effect: Alive and Well in Corporate America

         During my freshmen year, I enrolled in a business course called “Leading Organizations”, which focused on studying the structure of corporate hierarchies and the psychology behind business. While I do not remember everything I learned in that class, I do recall learning about a psychological phenomenon called “the halo effect”. According to the scientist who coined the term, the halo effect refers to the underlying assumptions that individuals make about others based solely on appearance. In the class, we watched a video about two females who were being interviewed for a specific job position. One woman was very well put-together, while the other was made to look disheveled and unattractive. While the uglier candidate had more suitable work experience and leadership qualities, the attractive female got the job. Why?

            When an individual meets someone that is attractive, they assume that other personal qualities of the individual are also attractive. For example, if I met an attractive individual, I would assume they lead a very active lifestyle and have desirable personal qualities (great sense of humor, strong morals, etc…) The reverse halo affect is the assumption that an unattractive person has many other undesirable traits. If I were to interview an individual who looked like he or she had just rolled out of bed, I would make negative assumptions about their personality. Whether or not you believe it to be fair, this is a theory that has been proven by empirical research for many years.

            Thus, it comes as no surprise that I came across a blog post that confirmed this theory. According to “The Juggle”, thin women who work in the business world earn more than fat women who perform the same work. While the research showed the opposite result for males, it appears that corporate America treats women much like the fashion industry does. The research claims thin women make an average of $15,572 more per year than average-sized women, and that there is a direct relationship between gaining weight and pay penalties.

            While obesity continues to be a growing epidemic in the U.S., I find it interesting that the business world rewards females who appear to be healthy. Love it or hate it, the halo effect is here to stay.

Loss of Faith in Capitalism

          I am a self-proclaimed capitalist. While that sentence may not make me popular in the state of California, I freely admit that I am a follower of the ideals of Adam Smith. Smith is famous for coining the economics term “the invisible hand” that is featured in every high school economics textbook in America. He believed in the self-regulatory nature of markets, and shunned governmental interference in the economy. Up until 2008, many individuals agreed with the notion that markets should be free of government rule and left to operate on their own. With the series of unfortunate events that ensued in 2008 (downfall of Lehman Bros, bailout of AIG, etc…), the theory that has shaped Western civilization for hundreds of years is being called into question. Can the players in free market economies act in their own self-interest while still benefiting stakeholders? Does capitalism pave the way for fraud and unethical behavior? If so, how much government regulation is appropriate? While I do not think my twenty one years of life experience can fully answer these questions, I want to discuss possible solutions to the growing lack of confidence that people have regarding capitalism and big business.

            One solution to this problem is to rid of capitalism altogether and implement an economic system that is completely regulated and monitored by the government. However, that is not a viable option because those types of economies have been historically proven to be unsuccessful (Russia, for example).  Therefore, if the problem is not caused by the principles of the economic theory, it must be created by the users of it--capitalists.

According to a survey administered by McKinsey, there is a trust gap that exists between consumers and corporations that continues to grow over time. The survey, given in 2007, discovered that “68% of executives say that large corporations make a generally or somewhat positive contribution to the public good. Yet only 48% of consumers agree”. It is safe to assume that the societal contributions made by Bernie Madoff and the executives of most investment banks have only widened the gap over the past three years. However, it is wrong to blame the system itself and not the users of the system. Consumers are associating unethical behavior with corporations, rather than the individuals that run them. A blog post entitled “To Understand the Lack of Business Ethics Look to Education” captures this notion when the author states, “When people point the finger at companies such as Enron and Arthur Anderson, the unethical behavior was not caused by the organization, but rather these individuals were already unethical”. I am certain that the credit crisis was not a weakness of capitalism, but a signal about the types of individuals who run big business in America.

            Although executives of corporations have a fiduciary duty to serve in the best interest of their shareholders, the Jeff Skilling-type executives consider themselves exempt from such duties. Since I am a huge advocate for education as a means of bringing about change, I believe the problem lies in the lack of education about ethics in schools. Out of all the high school curriculum and undergraduate work I completed as an accounting major, I was never required to take a course in ethics. The cheating that I witnessed or heard about was commonplace, but was rarely reprimanded. So how can we expect business executives to follow the rules when ethics is not something that is emphasized or valued in education?

            I am in no way making excuses for people like Bernie Madoff—I think all humans agree that he deserves to rot in jail for all of eternity. I am merely highlighting the need for ethics in education to try to extinguish the root of the problem. Statistics prove that it is not only the “slacker-type” students that are cheaters growing up; it is the students who have immense pressure to succeed. A professor at Stanford University conducted research in this area and found that “Nationally, 75 percent of all high school students cheat. But the ones who cheat more are the ones who have the most to lose, which is the honors and AP (advanced placement) students. Eighty percent of honors and AP students cheat on a regular basis… It's the kids with a 4.6 grade-point average who are under so much pressure to keep their grades up and get into the best colleges. They're the ones who are smart enough to figure out how to cheat without getting caught." Once students learn they can get away with unethical behavior in school, we all know it is a slippery slope when one enters the corporate world.

            The only way to mitigate this problem is to teach ethics in schools. Most students are aware of what is considered right and wrong, but there is a large gray area that remains untouched long after schooling is over. This gray area is filled with actions that are not illegal but still not considered morally sound, like when companies use legal practices of earnings management in their financials to mislead investors. It is this particular gray area that the crooks on Wall Street manipulate and abuse, causing citizens to mistakenly blame capitalism as the villain. Schools need to incorporate courses that simulate ethical dilemmas and teach strategies to find ethical solutions when the answer is not clearly evident. While undergraduate and graduate business schools emphasize leadership in their curriculum, they fail to integrate ethics as a component of leadership. This fatal flaw causes students entering the working world to disassociate being a good leader and acting ethically, when in reality the two go hand in hand.

            Therefore, the only way to restore faith in the markets is to change the character of those who control the markets. Rather than personifying greed and exploitation, big business in America should represent what capitalism encourages; an economic system free of governmental control that welcomes entrepreneurial spirit and rewards hard work. And this can only be created by educating the next generation of movers and shakers on the importance of ethical behavior in the workplace. This will not be a change that will occur immediately, but schools need to assume the responsibility of nurturing leaders and start to incorporate values and principles of ethical behavior into academia.