'Meditation on Leadership/Thoughtful Leadership'에 해당되는 글 19건

  1. 2011.05.06 Why America Fail to Innovate? (3)
  2. 2011.05.05 Do we need more scientists and engineers? YES & NO!
  3. 2011.04.18 The Root Cause of Recent Social Conflicts!
  4. 2011.03.29 Must think stuffs before thinking!

American has enormous creative energy, but its industries are dominated by lawyers and accountants, not product people. Thirty years of financial engineering and short-term profit optimization has impaired the ability of American companies to innovate. 

- Roger McNamee, co-founder of the technology investing firm - Elevation Partners -



source: "We blew our opportunity to change the world". Harvard Business Review, April 2011. 


Lawyers, accountants, finance engineers, and short-term profit optimizers kill innovation capability of the U.S. Then, if we - product people kill them, does innovation can be resurrected in the U.S.? Maybe not, because we still need them. Thus, optimal management or control over them may guarantee recovering innovation power in the U.S.A society who want to keep innovation within her must be smart to balance power of innovators and supporters.

Jeonghwan (Philip) Choi,
Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요

  1. Favicon of http://www.coachsfactorystores.net/ BlogIcon Coach Factory Store 2012.06.11 11:07  댓글주소  수정/삭제  댓글쓰기

    Keep up on it. Thanks for sharing the info Couldnt agree more with that, very attractive article.I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting.

  2. Favicon of http://www.rayban-sunglassesoutlets.com BlogIcon Ray Ban Sunglasses 2012.06.11 11:14  댓글주소  수정/삭제  댓글쓰기

    Took a lot of time to read but I really found this very interesting and informative, thank you buddy for sharing.Thank you! Share with us the good times.

Do we need more scientists and Engineers? 

It is one of provoking questions to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) field. 
Instead of logical or academic writing for this debate, I want to share my personal experiences as a former engineer and refugee from the field.  

Many European chemical engineering students want to escape from STEM field because of low compensation and geographically isolated workplaces. When I worked as an external business consultant at a U.S. based Chemical company in Germany, I surveyed Chemical engineering student's perception toward their future jobs and job searching channel. The study included many top-tier engineering schools such as RW Aachen, T-U Muenchen (Germany), Universite de Lyon (France), Imperial College (UK), ETH Zurich (Swiss), and 8 other colleges. 

Chemical Engineering students reported that they would not come to the conventional chemical industry with several reasons: 

Reasons of avoiding to get a job at conventional chemical industry. 

1. Aachen students want to be a management consultant rather than being an engineer for searching better financial compensation. 

2. Many French student want to get a job at Cosmetic industry because those industry locate in Urban area while conventional chemical plants locate in rural and isolated area.

3. An international student at ETH Zurich said he searched for 'Ethical company' for his workplace. He added that many of conventional chemical companies were eliminated from his lists for their unethical actions. 

4. Many imperial colleges students at UK had plans to enroll MBA programs after 2~3 years experience. They plans to change their career from engineering to finance for better financial compensation and job security. 

Overall, many talented chemical engineering student in Europe lost their passion on STEM field not because of difficulties of job, but because of "Unfair compensatin" and "Low appreciation" from companies and society. 

I suggested to my Client company that 
1) Increase compensation for engineers. 
2) Hire moderate talented students. 
3) Cultivate international talent pool. 
4) Marketizing the company's employee wellness compensation. 
5) Support engineers to transform themselves as managers. 
6) Commit to ethical and corporate social responsible activities. 

Except suggestion 3) cultivate international talent pool, the other suggestions were not adopted. 
This small case also support a claim that "We don't need more scientists and engineers" 

In addition, John Tierney's article support the claim. (refer to below source).  

Therefore, my personal humble conclusion is 

"Mediocre Science and Engineering jobs will significantly decrease while demands for top-talented scientists and engineers continually increase. However, top-talented scientists and engineers move everywhere, regardless of their nationality, in order to maximize their fiscal and social pay-offs and self-utilization." 

Jeonghwan Choi

source: http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/what-shortage-of-scientists-and-engineers/#h[]

October 17, 2008, 12:43 PM

What Shortage of Scientists and Engineers?

If the United States really has a critical shortage of scientists and engineers, why didn’t this year’s graduates get showered with lucrative job offers and signing bonuses?

That’s the question that comes to my mind after reading about Barack Obama’s plans to address the “shortage” we keep hearing about from blue-ribbon commissions of scientists and engineers. He wants to pay for the training of 100,000 more engineers and scientists over the next four years, as my colleagues Bill Broad and Cory Dean note in their excellent analysis of the presidential candidates’ plans to encourage technological innovation.

Now, I’m all in favor of American technological innovation, and I’m glad to see Mr. Obama promising to review the export restrictions that have been so damaging to the aerospace industry (and that were promoted by John McCain because of what he called national-security risks). I’m also all in favor of American scientists and engineers, especially the ones in my family. (My father is a chemical engineer; my brother is an electrical engineer.) I’d love to see American corporations and universities frantically competing to offer them the kind of salaries paid to M.B.A.’s and lawyers.

But employers don’t have to throw around that kind of money because there’s no shortage of workers — and they won’t be increasing their offers if the federal government artificially inflates the labor supply with an extra 100,000 graduates. As Daniel S. Greenberg wrote in the Scientist magazine in 2003: “Despite the alarms, no current or impending shortage exists, and never did. Instead, we’re glutted with scientists and engineers in many fields, as numerous job seekers with respectable credentials can attest.”

The only “shortage” is of American-born scientists and engineers. But with so many talented foreigners competing for positions here in schools and laboratories, it’s entirely rational for American students to head into fields where their skills are in more demand — and harder to replace with foreign labor. Mr. Greenberg sums up their options nicely:

Consider the economic fates of two bright college graduates, Jane and Jill, both 22. Jane excels at a top law school, and after graduation three years later, is wooed and hired by a top law firm at the going rate–$125,000 a year, with a year-end bonus of $25,000 to $50,000.

Jill heads down the long trail to a PhD in physics, and after six Spartan years on graduate stipends rising to $20,000 a year, finally gets her degree. Tenure-track jobs appropriate to her rigorous training are scarce, but, more fortunate than her other classmates, she lands a good postdoc appointment–at $35,000 year, without health insurance or professional independence. Three years later, when attorney Jane is raking in $150,000 a year, plus bonuses, Jill is nail-biting over another postdoc appointment, with an unusually ample postdoc recompense of $45,000 per annum. Medicine and business management similarly trump science in earning power.

So why do we keep hearing complaints about a shortage? One recent reason is that it’s been harder for foreign scientists and engineers to get visas since the Sept. 11 attacks. But the quickest and cheapest way to deal with that problem is to increase the number of visas (as Mr. Obama has promised to do).

But even if the visa restrictions are eased, the complaints about a shortage are sure to continue — they’ve been sounded for decades. Why? Well, consider who does some of the loudest complaining: administrators of university science and engineering department that stand to get more funds, and corporate executives hoping to have more future workers trained at taxpayer expense.

The blue-ribbon commissions have kept warning that America’s future is in jeopardy if we don’t train more native-born scientists and engineers, but I don’t see how Americans are worse off by letting some technologies be developed and manufactured by foreigners who can do it more efficiently.Politicians inveigh against the trade deficit in advanced-technology products, but what’s the harm in buying computer disk drives and semiconductor chips produced more cheaply in Asian factories?

And as long as American universities and laboratories keep attracting the world’s best talent, why should we worry about losing our technological edge?

Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요

Dr. Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences and former Chief Economists of the World Bank, indicated the root cause of recent financial system flaws are "socializing risk, privatizing profit." (2008, United Nation)

Thus, he recommended stop socializing risk and stop privatizing profit. 


I want to elaborate Dr. Stiglitz's insight into Education and Training. 
In order to recover humanistic communities, "Stop socializing Education Cost, and Stop privatizing profits from public education."

Contemporary education issues such as collapsing public education and less skilled workforce primarily come from the lack of education budgets. Those discrepancies of education or training budget are mainly stem from the privatizing profit which come from educated or skilled people in public education. The cost of education and training are paid by general public people or family, but the profits, benefits, and pay-offs from publicly or individually paid education and training costs are privatizing for fistful number of business people.

Therefore, we have to "stop socializing education cost and stop privatizing profit from public education."
Tax cut, for example,is the most critical misconduct for 'socializing education cost and privatizing profit,' and it should be stopped. 

Education and Training for human community is the core 'social agreement.' Thus, we need to protect this value in order to keep and flourish whole human community. 

Jeonghwan. Philip. Choi 
April 17, 2011 
Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요

A frame is the combination of beliefs, values, attitudes, mental models, and so on which we use to perceive a situation. We effectively look through this frame in the way we would look through tinted spectacles. The frame significantly effects how we infer meaning and hence understand the situation.

Kahneman and Tversky defined a decision frame as ‘the decision-maker’s conception of the act, outcomes and contingencies associated with a particular choice.’

Thus, framing (define problem, domain, mental mode, boundary, and  situation) is the must think stuffs before thinking. 

- JC - 

Examples of framing questions include:

  • What are our strengths? What are our weaknesses?
  • What do you see as our biggest challenge?
  • What behaviors will help drive the business strategy?
  • What is getting in our way?
  • What stands out for you in the data we just reviewed?
  • What are the possibilities we see in this situation?
  • How do you feel about this at a gut level?
  • What are we missing, neglecting or underestimating?
  • Where have we been? Where are we going? To what do we aspire?
  • What would we do if the roles were reversed?
  • What if one of our key assumptions is wrong, or backwards?
  • How would we do this if we had unlimited resources? If we had no resources? 

Tips for Creative Conversations

  1. Ask a "framing" question. What is the challenge or complex idea you need to address?
  2. Write about it. Take a few minutes to think about the question. What's your perspective on the issue? Write down your thoughts —bullet points, journaling, whatever works for you.
  3. Turn to the images. The images (postcards, magazine clippings, photos) should be arranged around a room, on tables or in decks of "cards" to sort through. Without talking (background music can be nice), look at the images. Choose an image that reflects or relates to what you are thinking and feeling about the question or challenge. (Don't over-think it ? if you're drawn to an image and aren't sure why, that's OK).
  4. Look closely. Once you've selected your image, pay attention to what you actually see. Look at the details. What is there? Write down as much as you can to describe the image.
  5. Talk about it. With your partner, team or group, describe your image. First tell them what you see. Then talk about why you chose that image. At first, the image is all yours — the others need to simply listen. After a few minutes, you can ask others what they see in the picture. Each person will then repeat the process.
  6. Consider So what? and What if? What did you learn from the images and the process of talking about them? How was it helpful? What was surprising? What was commonly shared? What were key differences? And what if you used these insights as you addressed the problem or challenge? What will you do now?

source1: Framing

source2: Can You Lead with Pictures?

Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요