Stanford GSB, Entry 19: Rainy, Foamy, Fuzzy, and Right-Wingy: Profs, Secretaries, Do-gooders, and criminals

Wow it’s been a while since I’ve written. I guess I got so caught up in winter quarter stuff that I haven’t really been keeping the blog up to date – so there’s a lot to write about.

So what’s been going on? Well for one thing, we are almost completely finished with the winter term – only one week of classes is left!

It seems like it was just yesterday that I was taking my accounting and my finance midterms. How did I do? Well, the engineering background continues to pay off; since they were both based on solid concepts which can be taught (and learned), I did pretty well.

So what does the end of the winter quarter mean at the GSB?

For one thing, rain. So much for the illusion that attending Stanford means going to school in “Sunny California”! It’s been raining almost non-stop for the past month (or so it seems). Today the sun came out for a few minutes, which was nice.

Yes I know, California is suffering from a drought, California needs rain, so I shouldn’t be complaining, but couldn’t it rain, like every other day, instead of every single day?

It’s enough to make my thoughts turn to Southern California. Or maybe Arizona. Or maybe even Las Vegas. Ahh, to feel the sun shining on my face again…

Which reminds me - Vegas FOAM is next week. FOAM, for those of you following the blog will know is the Tuesday night partying done by the MBA’s (joined by an occasional Sloan or two), since we don’t “officially” have classes on Wednesdays at the GSB. It stands for Friends Of Arjay Miller (Arjay Miller Scholars are the ones who get good grades).

Usually, Tuesday night FOAMs are held at a local establishment, but next week everyone (well not everyone, but many) will be flying to Vegas after classes on Tuesday, spend the night partying there, and flying back on in time for the non-existent Wednesday classes, or at the very latest, in time for Thursday classes.
Click to Read Full Post

Fuzzy Logic

The other two things that end of the term means are “Final Exams” and “Final Projects”.

The thing about group projects in Business School that I find odd (and perhaps a little bit scary), is that in our fuzzy classes, a very large percentage of our grade (in some cases up to 50%) is based on the final project.

This week, I had thee final project due for my entrepreneurship and VC class, taught by Professor G., a 30-plus veteran of the Venture Capital industry. In that class, we had to write a 20-page business plan); I think we wrote a pretty good one about using iPhones for building communities based on popular TV shows.

How do I know that it was good? I’ve written a plan or two before and it seemd OK.

On the other hand, we also had both a final project and a final exam for our Marketing class.

I can say that I honestly have no fracking idea what the professor was looking for in our final paper, and even worse, many classmates feel like the final exam is going to be a complete mystery. (Any science fiction-oriented readers will will recognize the Battlestar Galactica reference there – for the rest of you, never mind!).

Which brings me to the subject of fuzzy grading. Fuzzy can be a good thing, as in “warm and fuzzy”. More often than not, at least where the GSB is concerned, a fuzzy class is one where the grading is “arbitrary, capricious, and highly subjective”.

There’s a joke around the student body that in many GSB classes (at least the fuzzy ones), your grade is guaranteed to be accurate within 2 letter grades of what you actually get – up or down! (do the math – it basically means that grades in fuzzy classes are pretty meaningless). I have one classmate who got an H, the highest grade possible, for participation in a class where he felt he didn’t participate that much at all – go figure! Good thing Stanford has a policy of not disclosing grades for MBA’s!

Doing Good

Speaking of classes, especially here at Stanford, grades certainly aren’t everything. In fact, there are quite a few things set up to help local charities. A few weeks ago, we had the White Party, which held an auction for everything from Dinners with famous VC's to yaching with groups of MBA1 girls, with all the proceeds going to charities.

Several of my classmates set up a website for their Social Technology class, which aims to use the web as a vehicle for helping out needy causes.

The site, Education Dream Lab, will help educational projects raise money online using the power of Web 2.0 social networking technologies. (See http://educationdreamlab.org/blog/). For their first project, they are helping students at the Phoenix academy in East Palo Alto (which is generally thought of as being more economically needy area than Palo Alto) with a scholarship fund.

Way to go guys!

Right-Wingy

In the past few weeks, we’ve had a number of illustrious visitors and it’s always fun to give the outside world a glimpse of who we get to see.

This Monday, Colin Powell gave a talk on campus. It was a big event – tickets were sold out I think. (Due the rain, though, not everyone came; the seats weren't quite as full as you might expect for such a famous guy).

In person, Mr. Powell was pretty engaging and articulate, and even came across, dare I say, passionate. Which is pretty different from his TV persona.

He told quite a few funny stories. For example, he told us one about when he was National Security Advisor and took his then 21-year old son to buy his first car. As a negotiating tactic, he picked up his brick satellite phone (remember those?) and said things like “Yes, Mr. President, I’ll be right there, Mr. President”, even when the President wasn’t on the phone. Why? To show the car dealer he was ready to walk away and they’d better settle on a deal very fast!

Unfortunately, Powell, who came across very as very likable during this talk, avoided the tough questions – no students were allowed to ask questions. California in general and Stanford in particular is a pretty liberal place, and I couldn’t wait for someone to ask him about his “performance” at the UN convincing the nation to go into the military adventure in Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, guess who also arrived on campus this week? In fact, her first day was the same day that Colin Powell gave his speech.

Who else but his successor as Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. She got her PhD here at Stanford, was a professor and a provost here (I have no idea what a provost is, so don’t ask), before she was recruited by one called “W.” to make the trek up to Washington.

Thus far, no speeches on campus from Condi (though she did give an interview to the Stanford Daily). Now that she's back on campus, I’d be happy to interview her for this blog! I’ll keep you posted.

Speaking of former Secretaries of State, we (the Sloan class) had a private audience with George Schultz, who was Reagan’s Secretary of State in the Eighties a few weeks ago. Speaking of eighties, Schultz is in his late 80’s (89 if I’m not mistaken), but was in very good form for our event.

He sat on a very old-fashioned chair in front of our class, spoke a little bit about wanting to rid the world of Nuclear Weapons, and then proceeded to answer every one of our questions. Come on Colin and Condi, if an 89 year old guy can take questions from students, so can you!

Schultz told us some stories of his days with Reagan, and meeting the leaders of foreign countries. One of the most memorable was about Deng Xiopeng of China.

“People in that part of the world, “ said Mr. Schultz, when asked his impressions of Deng, “sometimes get a reputation of beating around the bush and not being direct. Well let me tell you, Deng did NOT have that problem. He was probably the most blunt person I’ve ever met - He told you exactly what he was thinking without wasting any time.”

In other words, he wasn't Fuzzy at all!

Crazy Eddie

One of our more entertaining speakers thus far came to our accounting class. Yes, you heard that right, I said accounting.

We had Sam Antar, the former CFO of Crazy Eddie’s, which was a well-known electronics retailer in the New York / New Jersey area which went public in the 1980’s. I had never heard of Crazy Eddie’s, but it turns out it was one of the hottest stocks when it IPO’ed, well before the dot com boom, climbing from 8 to 80 very quickly based on it rapid earngins growth.

The only problem was that it turned out to be one of the biggest securities frauds to hit Wall Street up to that time. Sam and his cousin Eddie, the company's founder, had been skimming money off the top, falsely reporting inflated earnings, laundering money, and doing all kinds of unsavory things to defraud investors and keep their stock climbing.

Sam is a convicted felon, and he explained some of the schemes they used in duping the IRS, his auditors (KPMG), and the public. He also explained how white collar crime was usually about making people comfortable so they overlooked the details - it was more about distraction than obstruction, he said.

With the recent Madoff scandal on everyone’s mind, this made for a very colorful presentation.

But do you know what the real crazy thing is? While Eddie went to prison and the Antar family had to pay like $90 million back to investors and to the government, Sam got off scott free – no civil or criminal penalties against the millions he’d made as the deceptive CFO of the now defunct electronics retailer.

Not just that, but he got to keep the $20 million or so he’d made from stock during that period, and now he’s giving talks at Stanford Business School!

Wow. Now that’s pretty crazy...

Stanford Business, Entry 15: The Last Class, Finals, and Clint Eastwood

We finished classes on Thursday of last week, and this week is Finals Week. It’s hard to believe that a third of the school year is already over, and very soon after we start back up in January, the program will be half over. I guess that’s both part of the upside and the downside of being in a one-year program: it goes very quickly.

The Last Day Of Class.
On the last day of class, we had Strategy (which was as short half-term class, which I enjoyed, unlike many of my classmates judging from their comments), Finance (which was perhaps too long of a class), and Economics.
I have to admit that I was sad to end our Economics class. We’ve had this class since the pre-term, and I think I’ve only missed it only once (when, for some odd reason, we had it at 8:30 am, rather than it’s usual 1:15 pm time slot). OK OK, if you read this blog, you’ll notice that at the beginning of the term, I wasn’t so hot on this class.

But it has grown on me, especially since we started discussing Macroeconomics. Given the events going on in the US and World economies, this class may have become (in my opinion) our most interesting class, and professor Flanagan seems adept at teaching us how to think about obscure concepts like the marginal product of labor, potential GDP, and the reserve requirements of the Fed, very clear. So much so that I think I’ll actually miss not having econ moving forward! Who would’ve thunk it?

Clint Eastwood rides onto campus.
On the evening after the last day of classes, many of the Sloans went to a local hockey game (the team was the San Jose sharks), organized by one of our classmates who’s a hockey aficionado. For many of our international students, this was their first time ever seeing hockey. I ended up not going because there was another event on campus that I found interesting: A showing Clint Eastwood’s film, Letters from Iwo Jima, followed by a discussion with Mr. Eastwood himself. I guess he doesn’t live that far away (Carmel) so it’s not too long of a trip, but this seemed like a pretty unique opportunity, not to be missed.

The movie itself was pretty dramatic– it was about the “defense” of Iwo Jima from the American invaders (and was a counterpart to Eastwood’s earlier movie, Flags of our Fathers). The movie was almost entirely in Japanese with English subtitles. Even though I speak some Japanese, I couldn’t understand a word and had to read the English.

Clint (may I call him Clint??) was introduced by a professor at Stanford who had written a book or two about history and the movies. This seemed like a good idea, but ended up being painful because the guy went on with a very lengthy introduction of Eastwood, while Clint sat there on stage, patiently waiting for his chance to well, say something.

This guy quoted lines from his Dirty Harry movies, and otherwise demonstrated his excellent knowledge of Clint Eastwood’s career. More than a few of us in the audience were thinking: “OK dude, so you’re a smart professor. Now shut it and let Clint Eastwood talk, which is why we came here tonight”.

In some ways, this event was a great example of what’s good and bad about academia. On the one hand, we had an Oscar winning director come to show his movie and discuss it with us. That doesn’t happen every day in the real world. On the other hand, we had a know-it-all professor who was trying to show how he “knew it all” and wanted to demonstrate his knowledge about the subject, when we, the audience, were primarily interested in the subject itself and not the professor’s take on it!
In his defense, the professor (I forget his name) did ask some good questions and eventually let Clint answer them, which was interesting. At the end of the discussion, the professor started to close down the event with: “Well, thank you Clint Eastwood for coming here to Stanford tonight.”

Clint smiled his one sided smile and asked, very calmly, in that soft but authoritative voice cut him off: “Well, don’t they have any questions?”and gestured at us, the audience. It was probably the defining moment of the night, and left the professor a little flummoxed. The good news is that we the people got to ask Clint questions; I asked him about the budget on Iwo Jima ($13 million) and how he funded it (He made a call to Warner’s and got his Japanese distributor to put up some money; the movie has brought in ) and advice of funding indie movies (find someone with money and pitch it to them; this last part wasn’t that helpful but technically accurate). It was definitely the highlight of last week for me.

Final Projects and Exams.
Early this week, we had two final projects due, and two final exams.
For our modeling class (another class that I’ll miss, particularly Professor Moore’s very vivid lectures), we had a final regression analysis project. My team’s project was an analysis of the variation of Linden Dollars (The virtual currency used in the online virtual world, Second Life) vs. US Dollar exchange rate, to see if it could be explained by a variety of other factors.

For our strategy class, each group had to do a “strategy audit” of a real company. The companies ranged from online travel to sports aircraft companies, and this was our first experience in reaching out to companies outside the b-school for a b-school project. Our team did a project on TCHO, a hip new chocolate company located in San Francisco (Yes, we did get free chocolate each time we visited them).

We had our first of two final exams on Monday: Economics. Even though I think I’ve gotten good at econ, this was a much tougher exam than I’d anticipated. The fact that it was Open Book didn’t help much; we’d spent much of macro talking about employment, inflation, and GDP, and almost no time talking about deflation, which ended up being a big part of the exam. Even some of my classmates who were econ majors in undergrad weren’t totally sure about their answers. Oops. Did I say I’d miss econ and I was sad that it was over? Let me reconsider that…

We now have only one more exam before the end of the term – Finance. This class has been a tough one for many of my classmates, particularly those who have never been exposed to financial or investing topics before. It must’ve also been a tough one to teach, because we have a variety of people ranging from finance experts (people who have traded options and worked for investment banks) to finance novices (who had no idea what a call or a put were before this class).

For me, I’m somewhere in the middle – I traded options for fun many years ago so know what they are (and might I add am pretty good at losing money trading options which is why I don’t do it anymore). But I’ve had very little exposure to the theory behind them. And I definately don’t buy the finance class’s conclusion that taking on debt can be a good thing for the company. Isn’t that what got GM and other automakers in trouble in the first place? Toyota (to the chagrin of many Japanese bankers, and I would add to many b-school finance professors) has zero debt, and no one is talking about them going out of business!

Speaking of finance, the test is coming up in less than 48 hours. I really should have been studying rather than watching the Humphrey Bogart double-feature at the Stanford Theater in Palo Alto this evening. Oops. Too late to study now, will have to cram tomorrow for the test on Thursday.

Stanford Business, Entry 14: Nike, PACCAR, Boeing, Amazon and Costco: Our Northwest Study Trip

Keeping up with our breakneck pace, we had our first out-of-town study trip last week, followed by the Stanford Thanksgiving break. I think I like the Stanford thanksgiving break a lot better than I liked the MIT break during my undergrad days; at Stanford, we got the whole week off.

This was (no doubt) so that we could catch up on the work for our final projects, since there's only one week of class left in the Quarter before... (drumroll)... Final Exams.

Of course we all studied very hard during this break (Well, honestly, most people started their vacation last weekend and took the whole week off; now we're struggling to get caught up on everything by Monday morning).

In the case of the Sloans, we left for Portland the week before Thanksgiving (for our international readers, Thanksgiving is a very big holiday in the US, and occurs on the last Thursday of November). On Wednesday morning, we got up very early (pre-dawn), flew up to Portland, Oregon, where we visited the headquarters of Nike.

On Thursday, we rode in a bus from Portland to Seattle and visited PACCAR (originally stood for the Pacific Car and Foundry Company), and then on Friday we visited three companies in the Seattle area: Boeing, Amazon.com, and finally Costco. Many of us spent the weekend in Seattle, our first real break since the term started.

Study trips like this are, in my opinion, one of the more fun aspects of business school. OK well maybe it's not exactly fun to get up before dawn, get dressed up in business suits, and spend the whole day listening to corporate executives talk about how great their businesses are.

But relatively speaking, it's much more fun than being in a classroom talking about these same things. On the positive side, we (usually) get to meet with high level executives of (usually) well-known companies, they give us a schpeal about Leadership, with copious amounts of company history thrown in for color, and we (usually) ask them lots of (usually) intelligent questions. And that beats studying about the derivation of the Black-Scholes option pricing formula any day!

So here’s my brain-dump from what I recall of our Northwest Study Trip:

The Cult-ure of Nike

We were welcomed to Nike headquarters near Portland by a number of executives, including the head of Nike HR, a woman in charge of retail aspects of Niketown, and a guy named Nelson, who was one of the first employees of Nike when it started back in the 70’s. His official title is now something like “Keeper of the Nike Culture”; kind of a cool title – what it seems to involve, as far as I can tell, is displaying knick-knacks that he has collected along the way, and telling stories about Nike’s history, which he did with great aplomb and fanfare.

Nelson shared with us that you could understand Nike by looking at the primary personalities around which the company was built - Phil Knight (who was CEO for a long time, not to mention a Stanford business school alum; also a multi-billioinare who donated enough money to Stanford that the new GSB campus will be called the Knight Management Center); a very famous mid-distance runner in the 1970’s named Steve PreFontaine (known to the initiated simply as Pre), and Bill Bowerman, who was a legendary track and field coach for both Knight and Pre at the University of Oregon.

Does this history matter? Well from what I could tell, these stories reflect the culture of Nike quite well to this day; and of the companies we visited, Nike had the most in your face culture: Everyone at Nike seemed to be 1) passionate about sports, and 2) passionate about the history and culture of Nike, and 3) very, very competitive, as if business was sport.

I love Nike’s products and they’ve certainly developed one of the top consumer brands of the last 30 years, but the visit was a bit strange for me. It kind of felt like I was going on a guided tour of a Scientology shrine. I felt, I don’t know how else to put it, like I was one of the un-initiated.

But it’s probably because 1) I’m not a sports fanatic, and 2) Before our visit, I had no idea who Pre was, 3) I didn’t know that Coach Bowerman was a legend in the running world, and 4) I knew that the new Stanford Business School campus was named Knight, who must've been a very rich guy for Stanford to name a campus after him, but that was about it.

We also had the former head of Nike Golf give us a presentation about leadership. Speaking of Golf, did I mention the meeting was in the Tiger Woods shrine, er, i mean, building? This building is basically a memorial to Tiger's career, including some of his trophies, memorabilia, and a timeline showing everything Tiger has done in his career. For golf fans, this building must be like dying and going to heaven.

Many of the Nike buildings are named after famous athletes. At the moment I can’t remember any of them, except for Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan (probably the last Nike product that I know by name was the Air Jordan when it was introduced in 1984, and I was on junior high school basketball team).

Nike even had an athletes walk of fame – kind of like the Hollywood Stars. I could hear my colleague’s sounds of recognition as they saw the name of their favorite 70’s or 80’s football or baseball or basketball player.

It felt like a trip into the “Cult of Nike”; I don’t mean that Nike is a cult in a bad sense; the most effective organizations with the most passionate members usually have this kind of quality to them.

Another thing I noticed about Nike culture: I found them to be brutally honest. Maybe too much so, which I kind of appreciated.

For example, why did they start the non-profit Nike foundation? Honstely, because they were getting a lot of heat over bad working conditions in their off-shore factories. Why did they want us to go the Nike store? To spend lots of money on their products so their profits will go up. Why were they being so nice to us? Because they hoped we might want to work for Nike someday. What is Nike's biggest weakness today as a company? That they're a bunch of old white guys with very little diversity. Actually it was kind of refereshing to get such direct answers.

Of course, being ignorant about sports didn’t stop me (or my classmates) from spending at the famed Nike Store. I usually buy a pair of sneakers once every five years; I bought two pairs that day!

PACCAR: The Lexus of Heavy Duty Trucks

On Thursday, we visited PACCAR outside of Seattle. According to Wikipedia, they are the third largest manufacturer of heavy-duty trucks in the world. I hadn’t heard of them before the Sloan program (one of our classmates is from PACCAR), though I had heard of their truck brands – Kenworth and Peterbilt in the US and DAF in Europe. There’s a famous gun-battle scene in the movie Heat, which was one of my favorite movies of the 90’s.

Although I grew up in Detroit, I'd never been to an automotive assembly line, so this was fun for me to see. In fact, between Nike, PACCAR, and Boeing, it was fun to see companies that made actual things.

This might seem like a trivial point, but I was discussing this with another software guy in our class, and he remarked that we weren’t used to building actual physical objects – our products are usually just bits and bytes on a computer.

At PACCAR, we had a former Sloan and (currently EVP of something), give us a talk about the company and its history. Inevitably, the question about why GM and the other US car companies were doing so poorly and why PACCAR wasn’t in danger came up. The answer was interesting – having to do with being hamstrung by unions, quality of products, and providing what customers wanted.

Of course, the world wide recession was affecting them too – demand for trucks was down considerably, their plant was running at less than maximum capacity.

The first thing that struck many of us about the assembly line was that it was spotless; as one of our colleagues from Japan told us, just like Japanese assembly lines, you could eat food off of the floor (No not literally!).

The second thing was how automated the whole process was – PACCAR was a poster-child for efficiency. Each piece of the assembly had it's own barcoding and in some cases RFID so they could track exactly where the parts or the assembled trucks were.

In fact, PACCAR is one of the few companies that Toyota allows to use one of its internal suppliers, notably the Lexus supplier for interiors, PACCAR trucks are known as the high end of trucks, often called the “Lexus of Trucks”.

When we sat inside the cab of one of their finished trucks, I could see why. As the owner of three Lexus vehicles (the only car I’d ever owned before buying a Honda hybrid a few years ago), I can confirm that the interior looked and felt kind of like I was sitting in a Lexus!

The Bigness of Boeing

On Friday we visited Boeing – this was fun. One of the EVP’s (also a Stanford Sloan alum) gave us a talk about Boeing’s line of aircraft, including the new model of the 747 (which is being used for freight primarily) and the new 787 dreamliner, of which lots of airlines have ordered, but which is behind schedule.

Of course the conversation naturally turned to Airbus and Boeing’s recent rivalry – the A380 (the very large plane that Airbus released recently) vs. the 787 dreamliner. Airbus’s plane is bigger. Does that matter? On any visit to Boeing, the conversation inevitably turns toward size.

We saw brand new 747’s being produced on the assembly line and all I can say is that they are BIG. We visited the BIGGEST building in the world. It’s so big that it has it's own fire-station, birds live in rafters, and Boeing employees hunt the birds now and then to clear them out. The building can house something like 70 football fields. The engines of the Boeing 767 are so big that it’s the same size as the fuselage (i.e. the body) of the 737 (which is the airplane that airlines like southwest use for point to point flights).

How does Boeing feel about Airbus plane being bigger than theirs? Boeing makes the point that they tried to go out to sell a larger plane, but came back with a different set of customer requirements - more fuel efficient planes. Boeing says that the two new planes are not really direct competitors – the A380 was meant for a hub and spoke model, where large numbers of passengers are going from hub to hub. The 787 dreamliner, a much more fuel efficient plane, is meant for point-to-point travel and so Boeing will sell alot more of them.

Like PACCAR, Boeing seems to be affected by the recession. Unlike PACCAR, they seem to have a very large union workforce. Unlike PACCAR, you can’t order a plane from Boeing before 2015, because all of the planes coming off the assembly line are already accounted for by “firm orders” from airlines around the world. Why would the recession affect them if planes are full until 2015? Don't know but they were certainly of the opinion that the recession would be bad for them.

We then drove by Boeing’s own little airport, which is just outside this building. When the planes are built, they are then flown off to the ordering airlines right from Boeing field. Oops...did I say "little" airport? I stand corrected. The Palo Alto airport is a little airport. Compared to this, the Boeing field is freaking huge.

Kindlin at Amazon

We then shuttled off to Amazon.com, to meet a GSB Alum who is in charge of corporate development. For me personally this was a fun visit, because of the internet angle (the lobby with articles from the nineties was like a trip down memory lane back to the dot com boom). It was also fun because as writer, I’m all into books. One of the things he spent a lot of time talking about was the Amazon kindle e-book reader.

The Kindle has been under development for a while – as it seems have many other non-successful ebook platforms. This one, though was endorsed by Oprah, who gave away kindles to all the members of her studio audience recently. And, just like that, Amazon sold out of all of it’s kindles.

With over 200,000 books available on it, this might be the ebook reader that actually works. What makes this one different? The Power of Oprah.

Costco-land

We ended our visit with a trip to Costco. The CFO it turns out is also a Stanford GSB Alum, and he came prepared with lots of slides about Costco’s past and future performance.

Speaking of cults, Costco is fascinating not because of the cult-like nature of employees, but because of the attitude of customers. It turns out I was the only US resident in the audience who’d never been inside a Costco. I remember last year, when I was part of a California company that was being acquired by EMC (which is a Massachusetts company). During the HR question and answer session (in California), the only question that the employees seemed to care about, really care about, even in this age of inflated health care prices, was whether the new company was still going to pay for employee’s Costco membership cards!

When I moved to California about a year ago, I happened to be going to a store which shared a parking lot with a Costco on the weekends. It was a madhouse… with kids and entire families jumping with excitement as if they were going to Disneyworld! There was an electricity there. Think of a 21st century version of the Brady Bunch dressing up in their sunday best to go to Sears.

We learned a lot about the history of Costco; about the founding of the company; they did close to $100 million in their very first year. They’re the third largest retailer in the industry (after Walmart and Target, I believe). The founders are still around, and the culture is very no-frills, keep costs low kind of culture.

The bottom line: Costco sells a lot of stuff at very low, wholesale prices. In fact, the CFO showed us all manner of pics and figures of the amount of various products they sell, ranging from hot dogs to diamond rings.

One dynamic that he mentioned was that Dads who spend time with their kids on weekends and aren’t sure what to do, take the kids to Costco. The kids pig out on the sugary sweets and greasy food (well he didn’t say that exactly but he did say that Costco wasn’t into healthy food) while the Dad shops, the perfect win-win situation.

Unlike PACCAR and Boeing, though, Costco doesn’t seem to be suffering from the downturn. Even more people are looking for ways to save money. In fact, he said that many "premium" brands who would not even talk to Costco in the past are now approaching Costco to get rid of excess inventory. Soon we may all be dancing in the Costco parking lots looking forward to seeing Mickey Mouse!

Stanford Business, Entry 12: Midterms, Negotiations, and Sarah Palin

I’ve missed a week (or maybe two) in the blog because of two crazy busy weeks, which concluded this last weekend with our midterm exams and Halloween parties both on and off campus. Here are my top observations about the last two weeks:

Taking tests was both easier and harder than I thought it would be.

Our midterms were our first real academic challenge since we arrived at the Stanford Graduate School of Business program two months ago. This is no small point, given that many of us in the Sloan program have been out of school for more than 10 years (!).

I think it’s safe to say that many in our class were stressed out about the Finance exam. and preparing feverishly over the past week (when we had time to study, which was cut dramatically short by our Negotiations class – see point below).

While a few of our classmates worked in finance before (so the class is pretty easy for them), for many of us, the concepts are completely new. Some of us didn’t even know what selling stock short was a few short weeks ago. I can confess that I didn’t really grasp the differences between NPV, IRR, despite being exposed to both concepts in my career. And I have to confess that I knew very little about the CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or market-efficient portfolios when I arrived on campus just a few weeks ago. Come to think of it, I’m not quite sure that I buy into the CAPM or market efficient portfolios even now, but I hope like hell I got the questions right on the exam!

Conversely, many of our classmates did not seem so stressed out over our Economics exam. This was a surprise to me, since I find Econ to be a little bit subjective and was probably more stressed out over it than I was about finance.

Not surprisingly, no one seemed to be stressed out over our OB exam, which was either a 3-hour take-home exam or a final paper.

So, what’s it like to take an exam at Stanford GSB?

Since Stanford is one of the few Universities with a formal honor code, teachers don’t proctor exams in the classroom. No TA’s either. Just us chickens, er I mean students.
Our teacher, Professor F., after handing out the exam, wrote his office phone number on the board, told us to call him if we had any questions, and left for the day.

Really. There was no one monitoring the exam, and we are expected to keep our own time, not do anything that’s not allowed, and hand in the exam in to the appropriate location before the deadline has passed.

This means that there isn’t that much difference between an in-class exam and a take-home exam, especially since they’re both completely open book and open notes. The in-class exams had time limits of 1.5 hours, and the take home exam (which we had a whole week to complete) had an honor-code-bound time limit of 3 hours.

Oddly enough, this honor code thing probably made us more conscious about making sure we didn’t do anything wrong than a more traditional exam type of environment.

So how did I do? I don’t know – we haven’t gotten the results yet… so I’m rushing to get this blog entry up before we get the results.

Cramming in an extra class is both a good and a bad idea.

The one thing that complicated our exam schedule (OK it wasn’t the only thing, but the biggest thing) was that during the week before our midterms, we had an extra class. Not just an extra hour or two, but 15 hours of a normal ten session elective class, Negotiations, every night from 5 to 8 pm.

What was it like? We would show up to class and immediately get instructions on the negotiation exercise for the day. Before the lecture, We’d usually go out and conduct a fictional negotiation.
We’d work hard to try to get the best deal in the negotiations that we could (sometimes not reaching any agreement whatsoever), and then head back to the classroom where the teacher put up our scores in front of the whole group, so we could make fun of those of us who didn’t do so well. Haha, no just kidding about that last part. Actually the negotiations where one party didn’t do well were the ones where we learned the most.

In one week we did: a two-party negotiation where one person was trying to buy a plant from the other party and had to agree on a price; a three party-negotiation where each of us represented a company and we needed to figure out which two of the three were going to work together, or if all three were going to work together (this one was a bit of a mindbender, if you do the math, it naturally leads to all kinds of Machiavellian behavior); a multi-division group negotiation (where each of us was on a three-person team that had to negotiate with another three-person team – this one proved to be the most difficult believe it or not); and finally a six-party negotiation with representatives from six different organizations (this one kind of reminded me of the six-party talks between the US and North Korea, with everyone trying to get their little piece of the pie – it was about as successful too).

As I said in my last entry about OB, for some of my engineering friends, it might seem that we’re just playing parlor games . And OK, I have to admit, these exercises are a bit contrived, but the experience of going through them is, in my opinion, probably going to stay with us longer than the derivation of the CAPM from our class.

All Hallow’s Eve

It was Friday, and Exam week had come to an end. The students were dressing up as ghosts and ghouls and vampires. This is Halloween. This is Halloween. Halloween, Halloween! (honor code note, src: Tim Burton’s the Night Before Christmas).

Actually I was so tired of both negotiations and exams that I went to three Halloween parties this weekend – a Graduate Student Halloween Party on Friday (which was in Rains, a Stanford Graduate Dorm), a Sloan Fellow’s party on Saturday (which was for our class and partners, held at one of our colleague’s house in Palo Alto), and the MBA Halloween party (which was at a local nightclub in Palo Alto). This is the benefit of being on campus – honestly I don’t think I’ve even been to three Halloween parties over the past three years, let alone in one weekend.

For many of our international friends, this whole Halloween thing was a bit of a spectacle. Why were we dressing up in funny costumes? Why were we putting in so much effort to dress up in funny costumes? Did they have to wear costumes to come to a Halloween Party or could they go in normal clothes? If Halloween is supposed to be scary, why were there people walking around dressed as politicians?

Of the three parties that I went to, the Sloan Halloween party was by far the most fun. Which is funny because we definitely had the highest average age of the three parties. We had classmates dressed as everything from Arab Oil Sheiks to the Grim Reaper and the Incredible Hulk (actually we had two Hulks at our Sloan party alone, growling at each other every chance they got).

But what was the most popular costume on campus this Halloween? Without a doubt, it was Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin.

While I did see one Hillary, one Bill Clinton, one Barack Obama, and one John McCain. I counted at least 10 Sarah Palin’s. Most of them were dressed up in suits, with hair adorned like the veep candidate and matching glasses to boot. If that wasn’t enough, one of them was dressed in a bikini swimsuit with a beauty-contestant sash. And once I ran into two Sarah Palin’s travelling together who looked slightly different –one was Sarah when she was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and the other was after her national makeover. Now that was scary.

Return to Normalcy

Even scarier? On Sunday night, I found myself suddenly without anything to do. No more exams. My take-home paper was done. My take-home exam was done. There were no more Halloween parties. No GSB events or Sloan activities to attend. No required Leadership workshops, prep sessions, or Seminars to dress up for. No last minute study group meetings for assignments due on Monday morning.

Wow. After two months of non-stop activity, I suddenly found myself not knowing what to do with myself. I tried hard to remember what it was like to be a normal person again.

Then I recalled that we had lots of reading to do for this upcoming week, and I breathed a sigh of relief. Since the OB class was over, we also had a new Strategy class that started at 8 am and there was no way I was going to make that unless I got some sleep this week. Somehow the large amount of reading (which I hadn’t done yet) and upcoming assignments (which I hadn’t started yet) hanging over my head had become comforting.

I found that a little bit disturbing. Instead of doing any reading that night, I rented a science fiction movie and watched it guilt-free.

SPECIAL DISCLAIMER: the opinions and experiences recounted in these blog entries about my year at Stanford Business School for the Sloan Program are my own personal observations and ranting. This blog is not endorsed by either the Stanford GSB and definately not by any of my fellow Fellows

Stanford Business, #9, I Have a Dream... of Approaching Midterms and Dysfunctional Study Groups

Time is flying fast, and we are almost to our midterms – only two weeks to go. This is no doubt raising some concerns and fears within the business school in general, and the Sloan program in particular (more on some of the rising tensions later).

So, what’s our week like?

Monday is our Excel day (we have two class-dose of financial modeling with Microsoft Excel). Tuesday is our “hard science day” – with Finance in the morning and Economics in the afternoon. I say hard science, but honestly I personally have some concerns about whether economics is such a hard science and not really a social science disguised as a hard science. Sometimes, when i'm not sure what direction the supply and demand curves should go, it kindof seems like a social science ("anthropology?") that's basically concerned with an imaginary tribe of people called “rational” people (rumored to exist?), an imaginary group of producers, called "profit-maximizing firms" (also rumored to exist) , and what these two groups might do in an imaginary place called "the free market".


On Wednesday we usually don’t have any official “classes”. You might think we have the “day off” – but not really. Usually there is a dizzying array of activities planned for us on Wednesdays – some of it by the Sloan GSB program itself, and some of it by our study groups (speaking of study groups, I think we are starting to see some real drama in the study group realm– see later in this post). Last Wednesday we had the lunch with the CEO of Skype. There is usually a Career Development Workshop on Wednesdays for self-funded Sloans, and those of us in study groups usually work on our finance assignments, which are due on Thursday. Next week we have our Silicon Valley Study trip on Wednesday.

On Thursday, it’s Finance and Economics again. And on Friday we have what I like to think of as our touchy feely day. On Friday, we have two doses of our OB class. I’m not even sure what the class is called in reality; we just refer to it as OB.

So, what is OB, really??

OB stands for Organizational Behavior. At Stanford, this seems to be the “discipline” (or rather, the umbrella) under which all so-called soft stuff – leadership, interpersonal dynamics, communication skills, teambuilding, HR – gets dumped. It's just OB.

I like to think of it as a way for academia to talk respectably about interpersonal dynamics and touchy-feely stuff without actually calling it that. By calling it “Organizational Behavior” instead, it lets Stanford GSB still maintain that everything is being researched rigorously and thoroughly as a “field of study” rather than a bunch of interesting ideas about how people behave in groups.

In some ways this has been the most “fun” class thus far. Last week, we watched video clips from the movie, 12 Angry Men (the old one, with Henry Fonda). We were discussing influence and how, in the movie, the jury starts out as 11-1 for a guilty verdict. He gets them, through many techniques, one by one to reconsider, and by the end it is 11-1 on his side for a non-guilty verdict. I won’t tell you what happens at the end (If you haven’t seen this movie, it’s a great one to watch). Basically the whole movie takes place in the jury deliberation room. Henry Fonda’s character is masterful in how he unfolds his doubts about the case to the rest of the group.

I Have a Dream … of an iMac?
This week our OB class sessions were about goal-setting and effective communication. On this second point, we watched the complete video of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech from 1963. It is interesting, says Professor F., who teaches the class, that many of us know the last few minutes of this speech, but few, if any of us, have watched the speech in its entirety. I don’t think there was anyone in the room who had read or seen the whole speech.

He gave us a transcript of the speech and we watched Martin Luther King deliver it. I don’t have to tell you that it was a masterful speech; but afterwards we analyzed it to see what techniques he used in his speech that made it very effective. Here’s some of what we found:

· Analogies. MLK used analogies and metaphors very effectively, talking about the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. He also spoke extensively about the metaphor of a check being given to the African American community when the Emancipation proclamation was issues in 1860’s by Abraham Lincoln, and how that check was bouncing. There were many, many more.

· Integrating the Setting. The speech was given in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC at a very large rally. MLK did a very good job of integrating this setting, starting by talking about Lincoln, alluding to the famous Gettysburg Address, and mentioning the Emancipation Proclamation (for our international readers, this was the proclamation at the end of the US Civil War made by President Lincoln which freed the slaves in the south). He also brought in the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution indirectly, quoting “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, and “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”, all the while with Washington DC as his backdrop.

· Identifying a Common Purpose. One of the things that MLK did in his speech was to talk about racism as not a problem just of the “south” (technically, southeast) but of all Americans. There were lots of references to the North and states which were not part of the south (California, Colorado, New Hampshire) in an effort to cast light on the speech as affecting an American issue and not just a regional issue.

· Repeating Key Concepts. MLK repeated certain phrases over and over again, which made them stick. In fact, Professor F. pointed out, that a few of his repeated lines basically captured the whole speech, including the progression of the speech: “100 years later”, “Now is the time”, “Never be satisfied until”, “I have a dream”, “Let Freedom Ring”.

· Building Momentum and Creating a Sense of Urgency. The speech started out very logically, and with MLK speaking softly and slowly. As the speech went on, as the metaphors became more colorful, we saw him speed up and start raising his voice.

After watching the MLK speech, we watched another example of effective communication, this time of Steve Jobs when he rejoined Apple computer. It was a precarious time for Apple, and as usual, Jobs did a masterful job of presenting the iMac as being better than most, if not all, computers out there.

He focused on the issue of speed. First he showed a chart comparing the speed of iMac vs. a Compaq PC. Then he presented a slide showing the speed of iMac in relation to other Pentium computers out there. Finally, to hammer the point home – he showed a demo of an animation running head to head on a Compaq PC and on an iMac. Let’s just say that the demonstration was pretty effective -- the Compaq computer was limping along with the animation barely moving, while on the iMac, the animation was blazing along.

Now as I said the demo was pretty effective communication, though perhaps a bit contrived. As a software guy, there could have been any number of reasons why a particular animation ran slowly on the PC rather than the Mac. If some of those conditions had been reversed, it could have been the Mac that was running painfully slow compared to the PC. That’s what marketing is all about, I guess.

Those of you NOT in business school will probably see right away the irony of showing and evaluating these two pieces of effective communication one after the other. One was about a social issue of staggering importance, while the other was pretty much only of staggering importance to the shareholders of a given corporation, albeit an iconic one. One was about social justice, while the other was about technological prowess.

Don’t worry, those of us in Business School see this irony too (at least I hope some of us do!) Or maybe we don’t. Maybe to b-school students, these are both, well, simply good examples of OB.

Midterms are Approaching

As the midterms are approaching very quickly, I can sense a general level of nervousness in the class rising, particularly as we struggle with finance, modeling, and even economics – have we learned enough to pass the midterms? Are our study groups being effective? What is a Net Present Value, anyways, and why do I care?

We’ve started having “Modeling for Poets” sessions (aka remedial modeling) and “Finance for Poets” (aka basic finance) sessions each week. The finance sessions are scheduled very conveniently at 8 am in the morning.

Inspired by our discussion of goal-setting in our OB class, I think I’ll set a goal related to these early morning sessions. I will set a goal to make it to at least one of these “Finance for Poets” sessions (yes, the 8 am ones) sometime this term.

Speaking of OB, my goal is what Professor F. would label as a SMART goal, a popular acronym for goals which are set in a “good” way. S is for Specific: one session of Finance for Poets is specific enough– nothing vague about it; M is for Measurable: Well, so far I’ve made it to zero sessions so this is easy to measure; A is for Achievable: Yes I have occasionally gotten out that early so it is possible; R is for Realistic: well, not sure about this one- we’ll see; T is for Timetable: I have a clear timetable in this goal, by the end of this term.

Study Group Drama

Yes, I think as mid-terms approach, tensions are definitely heating up, and not only in our study group, but others as well. Tensions between morning and evening, all of whom have to agree on a time to meet. Between married, married with kids, and single Sloans, all of whom have to pay the same class dues, and who often have radically different schedules trying to coordinate a time to meet. Between those who think finance (or economics, or modeling) is easy and those who think it (they) is black magic and extremely difficult. Even between those who think certain classes are not being well taught and those who don't.

I have also heard from several people that their study groups are not working well. I originally posted the specifics of an incident from my own study group.


-----Incident Transcript and Interpretation Deleted-------


I've taken it out because it proved too controversial since it involved my taking serious offense at comments directed to me personally from a member of my study group about why our study group wasn't functioning so well.

The reactions from my classmates to this blog entry were perhaps even more interesting than the incident itself - ranging from:


· encouragement ("a little dirty laundry can go a long way", "thanks for saying what some are thinking but not saying", RESPONSE: thanks)

· genuine concern about our relationship ("Hope you and this other guy are going to get along", RESPONSE: we're going to get along fine; we had a very heated discussion today that did a lot of good for us both and will hopefully lead to a productive relationship over the next eight months of the school year)

· logical admonishments ("you really should have discussed it with your classmate before putting it in your blog", RESPONSE: thanks, a very good point in general)

· offense ("I'm shocked. can't believe someone would say that to you!", RESPONSE: neither could I at the time)

· censorship ("Please don't put anything in your blog that might make the GSB look bad or hurt recruiting for the Sloan program or that those recruiting from the Sloan program might read online"), RESPONSE: Call me crazy, but I think Stanford GSB's reputation is strong enough to be able to handle it; if it can survive a book called "Snapshots from Hell", my little blog isn't certainly going to tip the scales...

· a serious case of cold-shouldering from some of my previously very friendly and warm GSB Sloan classmates ("If I don't look at Riz today and don't say hello to him, maybe he'll know that I don't approve of him putting stuff that happens between him and his classmates into the blog"). WARNING TO FUTURE BLOGGERS: yes, this is part of the joy of personal blogging, especially if, like me, you don't always follow the party-line that everything is always hunky dory... I read one blog that took place at a prominent business school (!) from a few years ago; the blogger quit in October, because "it was just too controversial" to continue. We'll see how long this one lasts - even this revised entry is likely to generate its share of controversy!

Interestingly, the most encouraging and helpful reaction was from our study group. The incident and our subsequent discussion led us to one of the more open and most productive study group sessions we've had in a while, with broad agreement about how to move forward.

So, ironically, our study group at least, is likely to be well prepared for the approaching mid-terms!

Stanford Business, Entry 7: New Study Groups, Philosophy, Desert Survial and Jack Welch

So, last week we officially ended our pre-term. This was an important milestone for us, as many of us in the Sloan program hadn't been to school for many years. Despite the fact that it wasn't officially graded, we learned a lot about how to work in Study Groups, about business school generally, and about Micro(MicroEcon, not MicroSoft, though the CEO of Microsoft did visit this week - will post more about that in my next post), Strategy, and Managerial Accounting specifically (see previous posts for specifics of what we learned in these classes).

I was personally excited about the end of the pre-term because it meant that we would shift to a more normal schedule: instead of starting class in the morning each day, some days would be off (well at least Wednesday would be our day off), and on most days class wouldn't start until 10 am! Yahooooo! (Wasn't that what customers of Wamu said in their commercials? Turns out Wamu went bankrupt this week - more on the financial crises and what our professors have to say about it later).
Read More...

Those of you following this blog will know that i like to follow "engineer's hours", which don't seem to work so well at a business school full of the best-and-brightest-early-risers. By "bright-and-early-risers" I mean those who don't follow engineer's hours - for me, I'm usually asleep at 8 am; Given that I probably didn't get to sleep until 2 am, that would mean i'm just finishing my sixth hour of sleep. For some business school students, 8am seems to be "mid-day", meaning they have been up for at least 3 hours.

Last Wednesday, on the last day of the pre-enrollment bootcamp, we had farewells from all of our three professors (actually one of them, our economics professor, is going to continue in the fall term - but as for the other two, that was it).



Someone in the class had the idea that we should give the profs a little gift as a token of our appreciation. This was a brilliant example of an idea starting at the grass roots level reaching fulfillment at a blistering pace. From an email that was sent out on Tuesday, by Wednesday someone in the class had bought three bottles of wine as appreciation for each of our professors: A Chilean wine, a French wine, and an Argentinian wine. Then we had our Chilean fellow, our French fellow, and our Argentinian fellow present the wines to each of the professors.

So what else has happened happened last week? Here are some highlights:

New Study Groups



As I mentioned before, our Study Group was just starting to hum by the third week of pre-enrollment. But then, suddenly, and without warning, just as classes ended on Wednesday, new Study Group assignments were sprung upon us!

At least that's how it felt - in actuality, we knew that this was coming. Despite our occasional hiccups, I realized that I was going to miss my initial study group. We'd gotten to know each other well. We had even become forgiving of each other's idiosyncrasies and learned (for the most part) how to channel these unique qualities into getting the best result for the group. (Err, except when we had to survive in the desert, which didn't go so well - see section on Half Moon Bay retreat below).

I figured that the new group might also be willing to work out some compromise so that we weren't meeting at the crack of dawn every single day. Anyways since we had a few days before class began (thursday was our retreat; friday was a free day, the weekend was free, and classes didn't start until monday). Well the weekend wasn't really free since as usual in Business School, we had both readings and problem sets for the first day of class.

As soon as the study group assignments were handed out, most of the students left to enjoy some sun and relaxation after what seemed like a very long pre-term. Just as I grabbed my bag to leave the room, I was informed that our study group was going to meet there and then!
Well, I figured, Business School is about efficiency, after all, so I put aside my toughts of r&r and went to the Study Group meeting, figuring that at least this meant we wouldn't have to meet on Monday. And at least one other member of my group, a Marine biologist with multiple degrees from Stanford already, had told me that she also was a night person, so the two of us might have some sway with the rest of the group members.

The group met for a while, but we accomplished only one cooncrete thing: Our first "official meeting" was going to be at 8:30 am on Monday morning before our first class. And we were all expected to have done our reading and homework before the meeting.

Sigh. My endless quest for a laid back study group goes on.

The old doubts started to creep back in; I looked out the little tiny window in our study group room, literally and metaphorically gazing "across the street", wondering if there wasn't a spot in an engineering class which began at 3 pm meeting only once a week with my name on it... Actually I had already decided to audit a computer science class (it would be a shame to spend this whole year and Stanford and not take advantage of the incredible engineering and comp sci departments). And it was scheduled to start at 4:15 pm on Tuesday ; not that I'm counting, but that would be more than seven hours later than our study group meetings. Ahh! Engineers hours.



Poets, Quants, and a Philosopher


In biz school (at least at Stanford), students are often grouped into poets (those with liberal arts education), and the quants (those with more financial, numerical, or engineering background). I should fit nicely into that second category, the quants, given my degree in computer science from MIT, but somehow I don't.

Poets had trouble with quantitative subjects and wanted to spend time talking about issues. That sort of fit me, as I definitely enjoyed the class discussions more than the actual material that was being covered . But I didn't have problem with quantitative subjects, other than being motivated to sit in class for hours on end. Quants could solve quantitative problems easily, but had problems with soft mushy wordy subjects. That kinda fit me too - except that I kind of enjoy soft, mushy, wordy subjects.

In fact, I don't have a problem with either kind of subject; I just have trouble getting motivated to get to class on time, day after day. I remember in elementary school one of the determinants of our grade was "attendance" - those who attended class automatically got a better grade than those who didn't. I didn't always find this fair, if we ended up learning the same things, but as an elementary student you're taught to respect the adults point of view. When I got to MIT, it was like having a straitjacket removed. I could go to class when I wanted; skip it when I wanted; as long as I passed the exams, I could pursue my extra-curricular activities with vim and vigor.

Believe it or not, Business School is a little bit like elementary school in this regard. In almost all of our classes, attendance is graded. If you don't attend, you're not participating - and you can lose up to 20% of your final grade on this.

Despite the lack of structure during my undergraduate days, when I'd first graduated with a bachelors, I had been a very motivated young man. I remember showing up for work at my very first startup, a company called DiVA (spun out of the MIT Media Lab), at 8:30 am wearing a suit hoping to make a good impression. No one was there. I couldn't even get into the office so I sat down outside the front door. In fact, around 10 am, people started to wander in, and were wondering why I was wearing a suit (was I a customer? was I interviewing for a job?).

In Business School, the exact opposite was happening. I would show up at 10 am, a few minutes late for class, wearing jeans and whatever shirt I could find as I scrambled from my dorm (which several of my b-school colleagues have pointed out is usually the same two shirts, again and again). In this case, everyone else had already been jogging, had discussed the homework, kissed their wives (or husbands) goodbye, dropped off the kids at school, eaten breakfast, and reviewed today's case study, all before I had even gotten out of bed!

Even harder (and more disturbing) than attending classes, I can't seem to stop my mind wandering to the philosophical underpinnings of what the heck we're really trying to accomplish in business school. Rather than try to figure out the marginal cost curve which yields maximum output for a given set of resources (a company, or even a country), I found myself questioning the assumption (made on the very first day of econ class) that a country is best off when they have made maximum utilization of their resources from an economic point of view. I have met many friends from other countries (who were not in business school) and it wasn't always clear to me that we were much better off. I remember talking to a woman from Cape Verde a few years ago, and she went on and on about how much happier people in her country were than we are here in the US. This is despite the fact that we have such a significantly higher "standard of living" than say Cape Verde.

In strategy class, rather than simply analyzing what made a company successful, I found myself wondering whether strategy can really be taught simply by talking about successful companies in the past (the case method, which was first pioneered by Harvard Business School and is now used pretty heavily by Stanford, though we also use textbooks heavily in our other classes). When we studied WIP (work in progress inventory accounts) in accounting, I couldn't help but start thinking about how the accounting system seems to have been built entirely for manufacturing firms, and how services firms, software firms, and Internet firms aren't really well represented by the current accounting system - shouldn't somebody be redesigning the system to reflect the new reality?


Another example: George Parker, a former Dean of the Sloan program at Stanford, and a well known finance dude, laid out for us the fundamental structure of the financial services sector, partly in response to the current financial crisis. As a result of his talk, it would be natural to start thinking about the mechanics of the interest rate, how banks and investment bank works and what interest rates should be charged. He divided the world into 1) people who save money (you, me, our friendly neighborhood corporations, and governments) and 2) people who need money (you, me, our friendly neighborhood corporations), and how this created the need for banks in the first place.

He pointed out that the average 3% margin of banks between what they paid for capital (what they pay us for depositing savings) and the inherent mismatch of needs between the providers of capital (we want to be able to pull out our money short term, with no risk) and the recipients of capital (who want to borrow money for as long as 30 years, and have inherent risk in the projects they invest in), he told us that some shakiness was inevitable.

Rather than thinking about the equity/debt ratios and what interest rates were sustainable to maximize profits, I found myself wondering about the stability of the whole financial services sector altogether, in the very long term. Was it really sustainable to have two parties with such different interests mediated by a bank who owes us our money back every time we ask for it, but never actually has all that money available? Was the financial system, based the idea of cost of capital (represented as i or r in our finance equations) really sustainable, in the long run, or were "runs on the bank" unavoidable, even inevitable? WaMu's recent crash (the biggest bank failure in history) underscores this.

There are other financial systems that don't rely on interest as the key motivator (the Islamic financial system, for example, does not allow charge for money). Is it possible to have an economic or financial system where interest (the cost of capital) is not the sole, end all, be all. But it's not clear to me that the Islamics system is inherently any more stable either - since they just change the word profit for "interest" and charge about the same as the "prevailing current interest" rate, just calling it something else.

But business school students aren't supposed to be philosophers! We're supposed to be here to get skills and perspective that helps us to get ahead in our careers, and make more money, not question the fundamental nature of the subjects we're studying. So on to career advancement and skills training!


Incompetent Jerks and Lovable Fools in the Desert


On Thursday we had a field trip to Half Moon Bay for a "team-building" retreat. The bus was going to leave from Littlefield arch at 8:30 am. Sharp. By the time I got there, I learned that some of my classmates (who'd gotten to know me well) were already taking bets to see how late I'd be and if I'd miss the bus and have to drive to Half Moon Bay on my own. Oops! Sorry to disappoint, guys, but on that day, I made it on time (there were even a few students who showed up after me).

So what does one do on a "team-building" retreat from arguably the top business school in the country?

The presenter started out by talking about interpersonal skills and how important they were. She brought up the classic consultant (and MBA) tool, the two by two matrix - divided into quadrants. Along the horizontal axis was "interpersonal skills" and along the vertical axis was interpersonal skills. The people in the top right quadrant (Lovable, Competent Heros, or some moniker like that) were people everyone wanted to work with. The bottom left quadrant (Incompetent Jerks), were people that no one wanted to work with because they didn't know what they were doing and they were hard to work with.

The two tricky quadrants were the upper left - "Competent Jerk" is someone who is very good at what they do, but has bad interpersonal skills, and "Lovable Fools", those people who have good interpersonal skills and get along with everyone, but aren't very good at what they do. She asked us how many of us would like to work for one or the other. Quite a few raised their hands under working for "Competent Jerks", with some people giving an explanation that at least that way they'd learn something, even if thier boss was a jerk. In fact, she continued, when people are asked this question in a survey, a large percentage answer "Competent Jerks". But when people are observed actually choosing people to work for, they almost always favor working for "Lovable Fools" rather than "Competent Jerks". This was interesting.

We spent the morning talking about interpersonal skills and qualities that different people in the class had. This consisted of an exercise where we each had a number of cards - each colored differently and each with a "personal quality" on them - for example "does well under pressure", "is a diligent worker", "speaks his mind", "gets things done methodically", "is a visionary", etc., and we had to hand out the cards to people in our class if we thought the card didn't describe us, but described someone else. I won't get into specifics but I think we were all surprised how well (or not so well) our classmates knew us.

Half-moon bay is a nice little beach on the other side of the hills that define the western edge of Silicon Valley. During lunch a few of us went on a walk along the beach while our Marine biologist gave us a tour of the little aquatic life that lives near the seashore. "I may not know much about balance sheets," she quipped after pointing out the different kinds of snails and barnacles that lived there, "but I do know alot about fish!". Somehow I don't think that's going to help her through businesss school, but it sure was a lot of fun! (except for the time when I tired to touch a sea enenemy, something I didn't even know existed 24 hours earlier, and it squirted me; hopefully it was just water it sprayed on me!).

In the afternoon, we divided into our old study groups and had to face the highlight of our trip to Half Moon Bay, a group test: The Desert Survival scenario. We were all on a plane (let's suppose). Let's also suppose that we crash-landed int he Sonoran desert (that's south of Arizona near the Mexico border). Let's further suppose that the pilot and copilot were killed in the crash, but miraculously, we are all OK. Let's one-more-time suppose that we have a series of items - including a parachute, a swiss knife, a topcoast, a mirror, a quart of water each, salt tablets, and on and on - and it is the goal of the group to come up with rankings of items by importance. I found myself thinking that this scenario was written well before the iphone was out; I would just do a GPS lookup of where we were and call someone to pick us up.

iPhone-less, the sole determinant of our survival would be our rankings of the importance of each item. We were revealed at the end to the the rankings of a "survival expert", our team would either survive or die in the desert, depending on how close our rankings were to his rankings.

Needless to say, most teams died on the desert! Ours was particularly bad, and my own score was more than particularly bad (though there might have been one person in our whole class who scored worse than I did!).

The trick happened to be the two most important items - I somehow ended up ranking them both last. Our group mostly agreed on our rankings, though we had a few disagreemetns. One member of our group insisted that the most important item (i won't tell you which one it is, since you might want to go thru this exercise yourself) was among the most important, we (myself included) didn't listen to him! Oops!

This situation, one person who is in a minority, disagreeing passionately with the group, who is too far gone to listen, seems to come up again and again.


I thought we'd learned our lesson about this. But this week, in our first OB (organizational behavior) class, it happened again, in our new Study Groups. All the members of my study group agreed on one position, except one of us - in this case it was me -- passionately disagreed with the group.

In both situations, the desert scenario (where I was with the group) and the OB scenario (I'll describe the actual scenario in my next blog entry), where I was the dissenter, it turned out that the dissenter ended up being the person who was "most right" and the group ended up being "most wrong". This was an interesting result- in both cases, neither of us had the data or votes to back it up, we were operating on what is one of my favorite topics, intuition.

One of our team members, John, said that in his real life job (in the construction industry), when one of his team members disagrees very passionately about something, he usually takes the time to really hear that person out and understand why they feel so strongly. But neither he nor I nor the rest of our group did that in the desert scenario, beacuse we thought we were pressed for time and had agreement from the other group members. Maybe the wisdom of crowds isn't as great as it's cracked up to be!



Jack

In the movie industry, whenever someone says "Jack" in a knowing way, they all know who's being talked about: Jack Nicholson, the famouse movie star who has won multiple best actor Oscars, and who has a personality that is recognizable wherever he goes.

In businesss school, when someone says "Jack" in a knowing way, they are also talking about an easily recognizable celebrity - in this case, Jack Welch, who was CEO of General Electric for many years, and considered by some to be among the greatest of American CEO's. Though John Q. Citizen might not recognize Welch, John Q. BusinessSchoolStudent certinaly does. Even though Welch retired a few years ago from the CEO slot at GE, he is a recognizable figure in the business section of the bookstore and on financial news programs on TV.

We studied a case in Strategy class on General Electric, and reviewd what happend during multiple CEO's ending up on Jack Welch, who many consider one of the most visionary CEO's of his time. One of the elements of his vision for GE was that they be #1 or #2 in every industry they were in - and that sometimes meant selling businesses which were profitable but couldn't get there, or buying into other businesses which were already there. This vision also originally led to a process of "de-staffing" early on during GE's days.

The class seemed very energized by this discussion about GE and about Welch in particular. After the discussion, the professor showed us a clip of Jack speaking at some conference. The professor said it was the most "geniuine" clip he'd seen, even though it's fairly old. Jack talked very passionately about how many people in corporations have trouble coming to grips with a six letter word: Reality. He spoke exuberantly about how corporate staffs (in big companies) don't make anything, don't sell anything,a nd they should be there primarily to support the field and how often they don't, and how companies need to be restructured for that.

Like the rest of the class, I found this talk inspiring, up to a point. Then later, as I was wandering around campus, the philosopher in me came out,and I began to wonder what I really thought about Jack Welch, his philosophy, and the culture of adoration that's gone up around him. Something was nagging at me and I couldn't quite articulate it until later.

Note: if you read on, you might be exposed to heretical views on being acorporate CEO and might, like I am in danger of, be excommunicated from the religion of American Business School Students.

So let me start by saying that I agree that Welch was a wildly successful CEO who brought in profits. And even an effective leader. But I guess i get a little unsettled when they talk about Welch being a visionary for American business.

It strikes me that "Being #1 or #2 in every industry you're in" isn't much of a vision. It's more of a performance measure. It's kind of like going to college and saying my vision of college is to get an A or B in every class I take. And if I can't get an A or B, then I'm going to drop the class. And I'm only going to take classes where I can get an A or a B. Sorry guys, but that's not a vision - that's a grade point average.

It also struck me that Jack was a great operator but not much of a visionary about the business units themselves, which seemd to have no rhyme or reason why they were part of GE except Welch's three circles (which didn't strike me as showing any kind of real understanding of the new or old technology or markets that GE was in), just how each was performing.

OK, granted I'm operating on limited information, of course. And no doubt, Jack is a "great" guy who knows how to squeeze every penny of performance out of the people that work for him; I just disagree that he's much of a visionary [of course when the Business Inquisition gets to me, I may change my mind on all these philosophical topics, and get back to making profits, yeah!].

Speaking of a vision of a grade point average, I have a vision too: that i'm not going to get A's or B's in my classes unless I stop spending all my time writing and get back to studying!

Stay tuned for more on the first week of the official term, the arrival of the MBA's and the undergrads onto the Stanford campus, and the house that Software Built. Coming Soon to a blog near you!

SPECIAL DISCLAIMER: the opinions and experiences recounted in these blog entries about my year at Stanford Business School for the Sloan Program are my own personal observations and ranting. This blog is not endorsed by either the Stanford GSB or by any of my fellow Fellows.