Transferring Western Management Knowledge to China: Perceptions of Graduates from an American Executive MBA Program

As is well-known, China’s rapid economic growth over the past decades has been impressive and this growth has driven the demand of qualified managers and professionals by both foreign and Chinese enterprises. This paper examines perceptions of the graduates of an American Executive MBA program, who experienced the transfer of Western management knowledge through team teaching and virtual student teams. The findings show that graduates are generally satisfied with their overall educational experience and its impact on their career in terms of promotions and compensation. Furthermore, the team teaching and global virtual student teams are viewed as valuable experiences.     

Is inequality harmful for the environment? An empirical analysis applied to developing and transition countries

The object of this article is to examine the relation between social inequalities and pollution. First of all we provide a survey demonstrating that, from a theoretical point of view, a decrease in inequality has an uncertain impact on the environment. Second, on the basis of these conceptual considerations, we propose an econometric analysis based on panel data (fixed-effects and dynamic panel data models) concerning developing and transition countries for the 1988-2003 period. We examine specifically the effect of inequality on the extent of local pollution (sulphur dioxide emissions and organic water pollution) by integrating the Gini index into the formulation of the environmental Kuznets' curve.     

BEHIND THE

Zhao Benshan, regarded as the ＂King of Xiaopin＂ in China, carried out his skit, The Donation, during the CCTV Spring Festival Gala on Febmary 13, Chinese Spring Festival Eve for the Year of the Tiger. ＂Ihe skit was mainly about Zhao＇s donation of 30,000 Yuan （by a mistake,     

The hard side of change management

Everyone agrees that managing change is tough, but few can agree on how to do it. Most experts are obsessed with "soft" issues, such as culture and motivation, but, say the authors, focusing on these issues alone won't bring about change. Companies also need to consider the hard factors-like the time it takes to complete a change initiative, the number of people required to execute it, and so forth. When the authors studied change initiatives at 225 companies, they found a consistent correlation between the outcomes of change programs (success versus failure) and four hard factors, which they called DICE: project duration, particularly the time between project reviews; integrity of performance, or the capabilities of project teams; the level of commitment of senior executives and staff; and the additional effort required of employees directly affected by the change. The DICE framework is a simple formula for calculating how well a company is implementing, or will be able to implement, its change initiatives. The framework comprises a set of simple questions that help executives score their projects on each of the four factors; the lower the score, the more likely the project will succeed. Companies can use DICE assessments to force conversations a bout projects, to gauge whether projects are on track or in trouble, and to manage project portfolios. The authors have used these four factors to predict the outcomes and guide the execution of more than 1,000 change management programs worldwide. Not only has the correlation held, but no other factors (or combination of factors) have predicted outcomes as successfully.     

Three questions you need to ask about your brand

Traditionally, the people responsible for positioning brands have concentrated on the differences that set each brand apart from the competition. But emphasizing differences isn't enough to sustain a brand against competitors. Managers should also consider the frame of reference within which the brand works and the features the brand shares with other products. Asking three questions about your brand can help: HAVE WE ESTABLISHED A FRAME?: A frame of reference--for Coke, it might be as narrow as other colas or as broad as all thirst-quenching drinks--signals to consumers the goal they can expect to achieve by using a brand. Brand managers need to pay close attention to this issue, in some cases expanding their focus in order to preempt the competition. ARE WE LEVERAGING OUR POINTS OF PARITY?: Certain points of parity must be met if consumers are to perceive your product as a legitimate player within its frame of reference. For instance, consumers might not consider a bank truly a bank unless it offers checking and savings plans. ARE THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE COMPELLING?: A distinguishing characteristic that consumers find both relevant and believable can become a strong, favorable, unique brand association, capable of distinguishing the brand from others in the same frame of reference. Frames of reference, points of parity, and points of difference are moving targets. Maytag isn't the only dependable brand of appliance, Tide isn't the only detergent with whitening power, and BMWs aren't the only cars on the road with superior handling. The key questions you need to ask about your brand may not change, but their context certainly will. The saviest brand positioners are also the most vigilant.     

Do you have a well-designed organization?

For most companies, organization design is neither a science nor an art; it's an oxymoron. Organizational structures evolve in fits and starts, shaped more by politics than by policies. Although most executives can sense when their organization designs are not working well, few take meaningful action, partly because they lack a practical framework to guide them. The authors of this article provide just such a framework; they present nine tests that can be used to either evaluate an existing organization design or create a new one. Four "fit" tests offer an initial screen: The market advantage test asks whether a design directs sufficient management attention to the company's sources of competitive advantage; the parenting advantage test determines whether the design gives enough attention to the corporate-level activities that provide real value to the company; the people test shows whether the design reflects the employees' strengths; and the feasibility test looks at constraints that may impede implementation. Five "good design" tests can help a company refine its prospective design. The specialist cultures test ensures that there's sufficient insulation for units that need to be different from the prevailing culture; the difficult-links test determines whether a design offers solutions for potentially problematic unit-to-unit links; the redundant-hierarchy test asks whether the design has too many parent levels; the accountability test looks at whether every unit has suitable controls; and the flexibility test ensures that the design lets the company adapt to change. Once a design is altered, the tests should be repeated. Organizational decisions are inevitably complex, and tweaking one part of the design may produce unanticipated consequences elsewhere.