A semester older, a semester wiser?

I didn't sign up for CHP 396 until mid-summer, so I don't know how early on we knew about the blogs or the format of the class. I did not find out until a few weeks before school. From the first email I received, I was most excited about blogging. I was excited to have something substantial to show the public. However, as the class continued, I realized experiencing blogging for the first time in a graded class was not the best way for me to start. I think bringing the grade component into blogging caused me to take less risks, to be less likely to talk about certain issues, and to only discuss certain topics rather than free flowing stream of consciousness. Looking back, I wish I would have taken more risks. I wish I would have strayed from the given topic more often. I am glad that we had this opportunity to blog, even though I will admit, it was not the easiest thing for me to do. I do plan to continue blogging on random topics, although possibly under a different name for a fresh start.

The first week, I was pretty anxious to write about my class expectations. I'm choosing this post not because I think it is some of my best work, but because I think it is very expressive of the course and it's beginnings. I touch on learning as a student. Much of what we discussed in the middle of the course was how learning occurs, why some students are disengaged, and how we can improve this. The Business Honors Project I mention is one way in which we can help engage students by providing my resources. Reading this over, I also realize that many honors students are engaged because they feel like they are making a difference, invoking change. We feel that we are a part of something special and that we have the ability to affect others. Maybe those that are disengaged don't feel this way because they don't get as much attention as honors students. I also touched on professional responsibility, tipping points, management, and feedback which were clear topics of the class. I thought this post was a good overview.

In the fourth week, we were asked to do a "taking stock" post on how we felt blogging was going for us. In this week, I talked more about the Expert Mind article. This is actually one of the articles that interested me the most. The only Psychology class I've taken is AP in high school, but I think my argument for the self-serving bias is quite applicable. Many of us end of majoring in the subjects that we are successful in, and only if we are strong enough to understand our personal mission and achieve our shared vision do we move away from that compliance. This, of course, ties into our later course theme of personal mastery. I know that something I struggled on was bringing myself into the posts, and I wish I would have done that more here. I think the reason I feel the way I do about the Expert Mind article is because it took a lot for me to go against what I was good at to do what I enjoyed. I was naturally gifted at tumbling and just had a build suited for gymnastics when I was young. I competed and did well without as much practice as other girls. But one of the things that I could never overcome in gymnastics was fear---every time I did a new combination it was because someone told me they were spotting me and then moved their hand. I sprained my wrist doing my first back flip because I kept twisting around to see the ground before reaching it---even though that is not supposed to happen in a back flip. I enjoyed winning and I enjoyed being able to do combinations that girls my age were not able to do. But I did not enjoy going to lessons. I did not enjoy the anxiety that I felt. When I started playing tennis at 9 years old, I was already behind many of girls my age (you know, those that started from the womb apparently). Going to tennis lessons was slightly dreadful for me because the people in my class were all younger and I consistently felt embarrassed, but I still enjoyed playing the sport. I enjoyed the game and the mentality of it much more than gymnastics. In a few months, my parents told me that they could no longer handle paying for lessons for both gymnastics and tennis, so I had to make the decision to quit gymnastics. I'm not sure they thought it was the smartest decision at the time, and I'm not sure I do because I could have become a much better gymnast than I am a tennis player. Yet, the enjoyment that I received from playing tennis was so much greater. This is why intrinsic motivation and shared vision, not compliance, is necessary for personal mastery. I became a successful tennis player in high school, qualifying for state 3/4 years, but it took work and following what I enjoyed to take that step.

Side note- I also like the way I tied the article into the topic of blogging and taking stock.

Among my favorite posts is "Profiting from Non Profit Work". It was one of the first posts that I tried to come up with a title for and I do think that was helpful in narrowing my focus. I think extrinsic motivation does come forth when people do not have a personal connection, and sometimes it is this extrinsic motivation that brings on the intrinsic (as I described in a post titled Personal Motivations (not part of my portfolio)"). I like this post because I bring it full circle with the businesses and back to the students. I think this post is something that we can all relate to.

My last post is "We can change the unchangeable". I thought it was a nice summary of the class and made points that were relevant to the future. Also, I think I was able to tie in my experiences to the blog better than I had in the past. It was also the first time that I completely strayed from the topic at hand. I think that is a sign of growth and risk taking from me that allowed me to write about something I was more passionate about.

Change for better or for worse

This is edited for the last slide and has the song credits added in. I should have done that earlier, I apologize.

What a football game today---guess we couldn't have two great wins in the same week.

Chp 396 Project 2 Final

View more presentations from twchan2.

We can change the unchangeable

My media project was done on change, and how change doesn't necessarily turn into something better. I did try to narrow my approach to change that is designed, not caused by external factors. For example, one of my examples was the creation of calculators that inhibits learning, not global warming. But as I was thinking all of this through, I kept considering all the external factors. In my first blog post, I wondered if we could ever really design change to be effective, because there are so many external factors that go into it---the environment, the type of people it affects, how these people react to the change, etc. It goes on and on.

After reading Tipping Point, I feel the same way. The book discusses three major factors that affect whether a trend will have a "tipping point". With a tipping point, effective change can then occur. These three "rules of tipping points" are: The Law of the Few, The Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context.

In recent years, the honor society that I am president of has a survey for general members to voice their opinions. Tonight we had our reevaluation meeting to go over the responses we got. We do this so that we can change the society for the better and react to everyone's viewpoints, not just our own. This is a very big honor society of around 5000 members on campus, so when we consider any type of change it's important that we consider everyone and really think about the society's mission (promoting academic excellence in freshmen and making a difference in our campus and community). We've done a lot in the past 2 years that I have been on the executive board, and when I think back on all of the major changes in the honor society I realize how much they fit in place with the three factors.

About 8 years ago, the society at the U of I campus was not active at all. This is difficult to imagine because in the last 2 semesters, we have received an award from TIS for Most Outstanding RSO and an award from the Dad's Association for Most Outstanding Organization, both based on impact and differences made on campus. The change happened when the executive board 8 years ago realized that the society was not accomplishing anything since it was so large. By creating a point system for members to receive honor cords at graduation, the participation rate went to about 150 members, with about 10 members receiving enough points to graduate with honor cords the first few years it was instilled. Now, we have about 40 honor cord graduates, with about 300 active members. We are still growing, but I think there will come a point when we are limited by the number of members motivated to get an honor cord, and thus to participate in service events and make an impact on the community. Receiving an honor cord today sounds appealing because you would be one of 5000 members to receive one; you also get enough attention at events since chairs still have time to ensure you are accountable for attending, etc. The Power of Context says that when you make people accountable for their actions, the tipping point can happen. The group 8 years ago made a large organization that did nothing into essentially a "smaller organization" by creating the divide between active and inactive members. This is the Power of Context. It also tells me that some day we will be limited by the same rule.

Since I have joined the executive board, one of our goals has been to incorporate a social dynamic into the honor society. This is to facilitate member to member interaction. When members become friends and have someone to go to events with, they are more likely to participate. In the last 2 years, we have had a social committee. As of tonight, we voted a new social coordinator to the executive board to begin in 2010-2011. Perhaps that is the reason that I am writing this blog tonight. I think it's a very exciting change for us to have, and will help to make our message even "stickier". Having people do service events or tutoring students with their friends makes the event seem more appealing, and thus the events will be more likely to stick with members.

With all of these changes, I feel that we are really growing in participation. Perhaps one day, getting more members to participate will no longer be a goal of ours. Instead, we can move onto another of the rule of epidemics---the law of the few perhaps by being even more selective in our committee chairs and then eventually exec members which we are already pretty selective in.

Maybe we can't stop global warming or swine flu, but we can reinvent things to help slow the destructiveness down. We can go green; we create vaccines. Doing these things may seem small for change that happens on such a large level. But small things make a difference. We can make large organizations seem smaller if the cause of ineffectiveness is the size. There are things that we cannot change, and then, there are things that we can.

Beyond the mentor

Sure, freshmen may feel as if they are in an apprentice role when meeting with upperclassmen. But the best mentor relationships, and those that continue between freshmen and upperclassmen, are when they are not in this apprenticeship role forever. It's when the freshmen and upperclassmen are able to connect on other levels rather than just receiving and giving advice. If a mentoring relationship is going to continue beyond the first meeting, the first few questions, the first few emails, there has to be some kind of other relationship developed in which the two players are "equals". These continuing relationships are the type of mentoring relationships we desire, the types that we get the most out of, and the types that not all freshmen get to experience.

Let's first talk about what all freshmen at U of I DO get to experience. All freshmen have the opportunity to have a mentor, whether it be through their LAS/Eng/Bus 100 Tas, the buddy they are assigned for the freshmen orientation events, their resident advisor(all first semester freshmen are required to live in dorms if they live on campus),etc. The point is, U of I has formed an orientation system that pretty much makes it impossible for you to get by your first week of school without running into an upperclassman that is in a leadership role. Each of the upperclassmen mentioned above are qualified and have obviously learned their way around campus and know how to navigate each of their roles. Each has taken their role because they wanted to teach or help freshmen integrate into the college atmosphere. These type of people fit into our mental model of what a "mentor" is. The TAs, buddies, and advisors will all tell the freshmen to ask them any questions. In the first meeting with these leaders, the freshman will feel like an apprentice and ask any questions that he or she has. The questions will get answered, but from here on out, there may be no further personal communication among the two parties. Or, there may be a few more meetings, but it will always be in a apprentice environment, where the conversation is mostly business with a question-answer flow. The two parties do not communicate outside of the meetings they set up for the older student to help and answer some questions for the younger student. In this type of relationship, there is EXPLICIT mentoring, and most (if not all) students at U of I will receive this type of mentoring. Its efficiency is very dependent upon the mentee's ability to be pro-active in asking questions and setting up meetings.

In the above example, there is no relationship outside of the mentor-mentee one developed, so the mentor has little to no incentive of being the pro active one and setting up hang out sessions or meetings with the mentee. In special cases, the mentor and mentee become more than just that; they develop a sort of mutual relationship, where the mentoring is just intrinsic. The mentoring is something that comes with the relationship, but it is not the reason for the relationship. The hang-out sessions are less forced. It's difficult for these relationships to be formed, because often neither the mentor nor the mentee will make the extra effort to break the sessions out of just advising discussion. The extra effort would take the relationship to a different level, one that is outside of the typical mental model we hold for mentor relationships. Not all students get to experience this type of mentoring because not all students are lucky enough to find an upperclassman that they connect with in different ways. Many students that experience this often find these relationships come from a group outside of what U of I provided them with already(although these type of relationships are also possible with the TA, RA but I think most people find it outside of this). Perhaps this is an RSO, a sports team---some type of group where interests were connected and the same type of people coexist.

As I've mentioned before, in my business fraternity, freshmen pledges have this wonderful opportunity to interact and get advice from fellow business majors who have been through it all before. We've been through the resume creating, job hunt, integrating with school, roommate issues, etc. With the ~100 people in the fraternity, even if a freshman has a very specialized issue, they are likely to be able to connect with someone who has an answer. Because everyone knows each other so well, the pledges can easily ask some of the closest members who would have experience about ____(fill in ANYTHING). Approximately 20 pledges are selected each semester based on their personalities and fit with the fraternity after three stages of interviews. During the pledge semester, each pledge must "interview" (hang out one on one) with 34 different active members. These sessions will last anywhere from one hour to a weekend outing to Chicago (although these are difficult to do since there's only so much time in a semester!) Spending one on one time with 34 members in addition to the time at events really helps to push the development of the relationship. The pledge freshmen have an entire fraternity's knowledge at their disposal---as well as over 100 mentors. Pledges are probably on the 2nd type of mentor relationship that I described with at least 10 of the actives. These people are the ones they connected with the most, the ones that affected them the most, the ones that have pushed beyond just a mentor relationship with questions and answers---but into the type of mentor relationship that will last forever.

Do I change my ways?

Do I change my ways? That is how I know I have learned from an experience.
Could I teach it to someone else? That is how I know I have learned from a course.
Can this evidence of learning be communicated to others? ...


I, similar to probably 99% of CHP students, have always cared a lot about my grades. The transition of high school to college is the semester that sometimes throws people off with their classes. For me, it was my first semester sophomore year. This semester, it wasn't that I didn't try. It wasn't that I didn't care. But I didn't try as hard as I should have, I didn't care as much as I should have, and my grades did not turn out the way I liked them to be.

Do I change my ways?

My first semester sophomore year, I was very scattered. Like many business students during the on campus recruiting season (September-October), I was busy interviewing and balancing that with school work and extracurriculars. Having all of this going on as well as having some of the difficult core business classes this semester really overwhelmed me. In some ways, my first semester sophomore year was comparable to many students' first semester freshman year. It was the semester that I realized the "shock" of college and the difficulty of classes merging together. Looking back on it, none of my classes were that difficult. I should have done better in each of those classes, but for whatever reason, I let distractions get the best of me and I ended up with the worst GPA I have ever received. I feel like I lost a lot of things that semester. In my mind, I had lost my GPA, my desire, heart, passion---I was so disappointed. What had caused me to fail? Simply said, I took on too much. I was on the exec board of two organizations---Vice President of Fundraising for my business fraternity, tutoring coordinator of my honor society, an active leader in Business Council, as well as a general member in various other organizations. I cared a lot about each of these, and I put them above my grades. If I did poorly in a class, it only affected me. If I did poorly at fundraising, it affected thousands of other people(both the people I was selling to and the people in the fraternity). A very small amount of my time was allocated to academics between the job search and the work I was doing for my organizations. The time that I did spend studying, I was often thinking about what I should do next rather than focusing on the job at hand. My mind was thinking about something else.

Looking back on it, the only thing I lost this semester was my high GPA. I did not lose my heart; I did not lose my passion. These were still core fundamental values that did not change. My "poor" grades this semester were not reflective of my lost in passion or heart---I had just prioritized my time differently. I wouldn't do any of it differently either. Most importantly, I gained experience. I learned how much I could handle, I learned how to manage my time, and I learned to look to the future.
"Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted"- reads a famous quote. I am unsure where this originated but I am going to credit Randy Pausch as that is where I heard it. This is what I told myself; I just had to bounce back.

I can never get back the course topics that I did not learn as well as I should have. I can never get back those foregone A's. But I CAN look to the future and prove that I have learned from this experience.

My first semester sophomore year, I received my lowest GPA in college. My second semester sophomore year, I received my highest GPA in college. The turnaround is evidence that I learned from my experience. The classes I took second semester were in a progression of classes known as more difficult than the first semester. I managed to do better in--- what students rate as--- the two hardest accounting classes than I did in the two easiest accounting classes. Did I quit all the extracurriculars I was involved in? No. But I did, change my ways. I changed my studying habits. I changed my mindset going into studying. First semester, if I had a problem getting enough tutors for my tutoring program, I would continue to think about it as I was studying for a test. Second semester, I learned to work out any issues I had before going into a study session so that I would be fully devoted to that task. I tried to prepare more ahead of time. First semester, I was happy that I had scored an internship and let myself go a little bit. Second semester, I knew I had more potential to work for.

Peter Senge encourages "systems thinking". During the first semester, I was attributing my grades to the lack of time. But I wasn't considering other areas. I wasn't considering my lack of time MANAGEMENT, and most of all, my inability to acknowledge when too much was too much and I needed to take a step back. We can't attribute an effect to a single cause, because all the operations in a system are intertwined. By taking a look at the big picture, I learned from my experience. Nonetheless, I am sure that there is more to learn in the realm of time management. Just like the time lags experienced in the "beer game", life is a string of experiences that we continue to learn from as time goes on.

In this case, I have evidence I learned because my grades improved, but this is only over one semester. If I have really learned from my experience, the good grades will continue. And I am doing what it takes for that to happen. My fundamental values were never changed or lost.

Prioritizing Challenges

"We're in college... we should be able to do what we want!" But alas, we are subject to the restrictions of our majors, the curriculum, and the requirements for graduation. Many majors have so many requirements that students do not have an opportunity to take additional classes. Should some of these requirements be sacrificed so that students can become more well rounded? No, I do not think so. When students graduate from the U of I in their major, graduate schools or companies believe in their ability to succeed at their institution because of the reputation and curriculum that they know to be true about this university. They know the coursework that is required for a certain major to be attained, and by looking at the particular student's GPA the institution has determined that this student is high achieving, and thus would be a success. So, from a professional future standpoint, the coursework would be a less objective measure if some students could opt out (here, we may also consider whether students would even opt out if allowed, knowing that someone is going to be reviewing the students' judgement if they choose to take "wine tasting" instead of their "biology" major course).

First of all, I think we need to prioritize any type of change we are trying to make. The first problem we must solve is the decline of degrees. I believe this is a bigger problem, because the ultimate goal of education is to raise the efficiency of people in the work force. That is, the rate and quality at which employees are able to accomplish the jobs. Once we do this, we can continue to raise the efficiency and quality by concentrating on other areas (such as elective curriculum).

Declining for Degrees discusses the progression of students who are starting to "glide" through the system rather than using higher education as a way to pursue learning effectively (getting the right things done, according to Drucker). If students are allowed to take some electives instead of their current required classes during their senior year, isn't this just feeding into the decline? I feel like, now, is as necessary of a time as any, to impose stricter rules on the major guidelines. Education is taken for granted, assumed as a right. If we can impose stricter rules in terms of degree requirements, then it is possible students will focus more on their learning than just gliding through.

The argument against such a strict major curriculum is whether students are getting a well-rounded education if they do not have room for courses outside their major. From what I know, and perhaps it is different in Engineering, but students should be able to finish their curriculum (including required gen eds) by taking 15 hours a semester. The students who are looking to be more well rounded and have further interests will have the desire to take the 18 hour semester their senior year. If they feel that it is too much, they could take it as credit/no credit. In addition, students could even just sit in the lectures for their electives without even taking the class. This would take away the pressure of tests and homework for those added hours. Professors are pretty good about letting this happen.

There are also many other ways to build a well rounded student outside of coursework. People volunteer in areas of interest. As a business student, if I were interested in medical relief, I could go volunteer at the children's hospital or join an RSO. This is another reason why it is so important for students to know the resources that they have. I know that there is an RSO called Foundation for International Medical Relief of Children (FIMRC), but not that many students on campus may. I also know where to go for resources if I was looking for more information in medical relief. I would ask one of my friends that were Pre-Med majors. I think the project group that is working on publicizing resources to freshmen will help. Freshmen can then build a network and join the groups that are of interest to them---making them more well rounded without having to change or sacrifice any curriculum.

To conclude, I feel that there is no excuse for students to sacrifice their major classes in order to take electives that they are interested in just to be more "well rounded". This is just going to feed into the system of "gliding" There are many other ways to do this, and the costs of allowing electives over requirements would outweigh the benefits.

Too Harsh or Just Right?

When we talk about criticism, it's easy for us to say "yes we can take it" and "lay it on us" because we want to improve, etc. But when it comes down to it, I think it's safe to say that the majority of the world doesn't enjoy criticism and would much prefer praise and the feeling of success. Jake's post contrasts two coaches, one who gives strong criticisms to the point of scaring his players, and the other who intersperses his criticisms within positive statements. In Jake's experience, the latter helped him to achieve All-League Honors and gave him a reason to play basketball again. We have talked about how it's important to consider the type of audience when giving criticism. I'm going to address this topic. But, at times, I switch the word from "criticism" to "coaching" because I think that addresses a broader area, and fits more to exactly what I'm talking about. The term "criticism" seems too negative. I wonder how we can draw the line between being too "soft" with positive comments when they are undeserved and too harsh with our overly critical comments that scare kids away from their sport. In some areas, I think harsh coaching is needed, and the risk of being too soft is greater than the risk of being too harsh.

I think one of these areas is sports. Sports are a tough/harsh environment to begin with--often infused with loud voices, contact, and strong competitive desire to beat the other team. Harsh criticisms would fit the environment, and perhaps the type of people playing the sport are filtered because of their desire to play that particular game. These could be the type of people that want to be yelled at to improve. I'm not exactly sure if in Jake's post he meant that the first coach wasn't constructive in his criticism (as in didn't even tell the players how to improve) or if he was just saying that he felt the coach was too harsh. I do feel that coaches need to be constructive--let their players know how to improve. I think this type of harsh-coaching works for sports, especially as the level increases. College sports may need harsher coaches than high school sports. Bruce Weber is often criticized for being too soft, and in the past couple years when our basketball wins have decreased, this is what the media has blamed it on. I'm sure there are other imposing factors, but in at least some areas, his softness does seem to be a factor.

Luther Head was a member of the runner-up 2004-2005 Illini basketball team. At the beginning of Luther's career at Illinois, he had a couple run-ins with the police for robbery. Bruce didn't punish Luther much more than a slap on the wrist. Bruce became known as a soft coach. Fast forward a few years, and Jamar Smith was suspended after driving under the influence and getting into a one-car accident that put his fellow team mate in the hospital. I won't get into the details, but there were many other questionable actions by Jamar such as leaving the teammate in the car before someone else called 911...

Jamar was suspended for the rest of the season but stayed on the basketball team. He stayed on the basketball team after almost killing a fellow team mate. He continued to play. He continued to drink. He continued to party more than he should have. He was seen around campus drinking and it led to him receiving a probation from drinking. Bruce Weber continued to be known as a soft coach. Why didn't he criticize Jamar more? Why didn't he make him red shirt the next season? Why was he not scaring Jamar so that Jamar would get into gear? Why was Bruce not the intimidating Category A coach that Jake described? It seems that the incident itself wasn't enough for Jamar to realize how much basketball meant to him. It seems he needed some harsher coaching. A year later...Jamar was arrested again for violating his probation on alcohol. After the arrest, Jamar was kicked off the basketball team, transferred schools, and the Illini were left without their shooting guard. Jamar contributed a lot to the basketball team in talent, and the season following his departure showed that we missed him.

Sometimes setting the tone as a "harsh" coach is necessary. Maybe if Luther would have been suspended more games, Jamar would have came into the team scared of any consequences for DUIs and then he wouldn't have gotten a DUI to begin with. Maybe if Jamar was punished more strongly after his DUI, he wouldn't have continued to drink and get arrested. The tone that the coach sets does matter, and having an intimidating tone as a coach can be helpful for the team in getting wins.

I wanted to throw my example out there because I feel like in America, we have this strong desire to keep "babying" people into success. Kids constantly get compliments even when they aren't doing well (especially from parents). One of the reasons our obesity rate is so high is because parents are unable to say "no" and feed their kids whatever they want.

This is not to say that it is unnecessary to be positive. I do think that one of the reasons the tough criticism didn't work for Jake is because the coach was doing this at a lower level. The players were just kids, and needed some push and compliments to keep going and have the desire to play. Even in my example, Bruce was able to mold Luther Head into one of the best college players and winning personalities in the nation. It's difficult to decide what the best coaching is and when---but I think that lies on the coach. Perhaps Jake's first coach used to be an upper level coach and was unable to mold his ways to fit a young team. This falls on the coach. I think the situation also completely changes when we go into how to motivate or criticize students in academia.

The academic environment is not the harsh, contact-filled one that I described for sports. Nonetheless, when instilling a mentoring program, it would be necessary to consider whether we think it is possible for peers to give the negative criticisms that may be necessary, or if there would be too much "babying" involved. Professor Arvan brought up in a post that we keep complimenting our classmates on their blogs, but that's not going to help them improve. How do we find the peer mentors that are willing to criticize their peers?

Transparency: Personal Vs. Public Companies

In my book review, I wrote about how the social networking technology helps facilitate a connector's ability to communicate with its large network. The technology also helps those who are not natural connectors learn to build that network. But the very benefits of a social site such as Facebook and LinkedIn are very similar to its downfalls. Being able to post our writing to a blog for the world to read allows us to be heard, to voice our opinions, and to develop our skills in front of the broadband. On the downside, everyone has the capability to read these blogs, to know our opinions, and to criticize our faults. I think these are all risks that make it difficult for me to be completely transparent in my writing.

In business, financial statements are said to be representative of how the company is doing. Transparency is "great". It helps investors learn which companies are doing well, which ones aren't, which ones to buy stock in. But is transparency good for the company? On one end, transparency allows companies to interact with consumers. If the consumers know what is actually going on, they can give feedback (one possible way of feedback being through the blogosphere). Consumers are more trusting of transparent companies, and that is a major benefit. However, companies are hesitant to be completely transparent in their disclosures because there is risk of others in the industry knowing too much, and this is similar to risk that we face.

Any kind of transparency or allowance of the public to see your work makes you liable. Having our blogs for the world to see makes us liable to criticism and labeling among other risks. First of all, as students, we need to consider who may be viewing our blogs and other public websites we may have, such as Facebook.

Employers may do a search on our name to see what comes up. I have my Facebook on extreme-privacy settings, and am even paranoid about anyone reading this blog and finding anything that could be misconstrued. It is risky to have your thoughts viewable to the public. When I was in high school, I kept a livejournal. I would vent, express concerns over classes, and discuss any challenges that I had day to day. One day, I wrote a long entry discussing my anger with my mom and how I thought she was being *completely unreasonable* with her punishment, etc. After having it up for 2 hours and having about 10 comments on it from my friends saying they agreed with me and my mom was being completely unreasonable, I realized that this was not the type of thing I should have on a public site. I think it reflected poorly on my temper and maturity. It also really displayed my mom in a negative manner that obviously was just due to the heat of the moment. It was not fair to her.

Another risk with blogs is that the repercussions do not only affect the writer, but can change other people's lives as well. One girl at my high school made a list of "people she hates" and listed about 30 people on her LiveJournal. This girl was suspended from school (for an amount of time that I can't remember right now), but even worse, one of the girls on her "hate list" developed an eating disorder. This was after being called overweight (among other less politically correct terms) on the hate list and who knows, the hate list could have contributed to her eating disorder. Having freedom of speech and the ability to easily spread our ideas to other people is a benefit of America and technology, but in this case, the consequence was a bigger cost.

President Obama took major advantage of the transparency of our current world. He used social media, blogs, networking sites--all which equate to free advertising. It worked for him, and it can work for us. On the other hand, being consistently in the lime light proves risks. For example, he is more vulnerable to people criticizing his policies. Putting your thoughts out for the world to see makes you accountable for them. If I put a subtle thought about how I don't like Kanye West, it could bring backlash and I would have to defend my opinion, even though I may not feel so strongly about it. This is a benefit because it promotes accountability, but at the same time, it is an automatic filter for the type of things that people may post. People know that others are reading their blog, so it is possible that some of the things they write could be catered to what they think the public wants to read. This parallels earnings management in companies ---when management manipulates financials to what the public (investors) wants to see.

Public companies get in trouble for earnings management because it gives off the wrong idea of how the company is doing. Public companies are regulated so that a certain level of transparency must be attained. Typically, the more transparent a company is, the more trust the investors have and the company earns a good reputation. What does our desire to be transparent or hesitations about our blog entries and say about our personalities?

Final Tipping Point Review

Consider AOL, MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. We live in a society of trends. As proven by the above list, some of these have already faded into the last decade. Inevitably, a new trend will come along that pushes the older one out of the public eye. How do these trends begin? Why do some ideas catch on and become trends, while other ideas fail to spread? In attempting to design effective change, many of us have likely experienced the latter with our own ideas. We hope the ideas we have are good and that as a consequence they spread on their own accord. But is that sufficient? Is it really enough to simply believe in our message and “never give up” or are we not taking the necessary steps to spread our message through the population?

“Never give up!”---the memorable phrase we consistently echo in our minds. We hope that perseverance is enough to ensure diffusion of our message. I heard this phrase from my high school tennis coach my freshman year. The moment I heard this message was the unarguable “dramatic moment” that changed my tennis career. Moving from the bottom seed of the varsity team my freshman year to a state qualifier and team captain my sophomore year, I took the message to heart. My game became about perseverance, not only as a big idea, but perseverance within every single point. I won matches by not giving up on points, eventually demoralizing higher ranked opponents.

Perhaps the reason this message is so memorable for me is that I received it on the tennis court---the place I felt most comfortable. Both the environment and the person I received it from mattered. My coach was someone I trusted, someone who motivated and inspired me. We had developed a relationship from summer practice sessions, where we worked on a one-on-one basis. The fact that she took time out to work with me showed that she cared; this is how she gained my trust. Although I trusted my coach, the surroundings still mattered. The “Broken Window Theory” speculates that criminals commit more crime when windows are already broken because of the conducive environment. Even though I trusted my coach for tennis advice, I would not have been as motivated to act on the message had I been sitting in front of a television or sitting on a couch. Being on a tennis court gave the message an environment conducive for action. Thus, the message impacted me the way it did because of a combination of the person and environment in which I received it.

Similarly, Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, describes three rules that cause the Tipping Point to be: The Law of the Few, the Law of Context, and the Stickiness factor. Growing up, even on the playground, we always notice one child who is the loudest, the most popular, and the one that convinces all the other kids to play his game. This is the little boy who can start talking to all of the girls and make it look “cool” while everyone else claims “cooties”. And then a day later, because of this popular child, it is “playground proven” that no cooties exist. I have always admired this personality who is able to take an idea and spread it. Even now, it seems as if some people have “it” and some people don’t. What is “it”? Apparently, there is not only one “it”, but three. Gladwell describes three different types of personalities as those who are able to spread change, to create the tipping point that produces an epidemic.

When we think of someone who is able to spread an epidemic, most of us think of the dominant, outgoing, personality who is the most popular or knows everyone. This is what Gladwell describes as a “connector”. Connectors are the type of people that have 1500 Facebook friends; connectors are those who easily meet friends and acquaintances, retaining a solid social network. Roger Horchow, a successful business man from Dallas, is depicted in the book as a social-network fiend. He “collects people the way others collect stamps” (45). Horchow keeps track of acquaintances’ birthdays, essentially keeping in touch with everyone that he meets. Doing what Horchow does is unimaginable to me. In my opinion, it is the most elaborate and exaggerated example in the book. I think there are many excellent connectors, or what we would call “networkers”, but not in the way that Horchow is described. He writes down everyone’s name and is completely happy with calling someone a friend after meeting them only once.

Connectors have a way of staying in touch with people without feeling the discomfort of talking to a “weak tie” or “not-so-good-friend”. In a student world, we are often put in touch with various people who have connections, such as a dean who is able to put us in touch with whomever to answer questions. We try to build connections with a diverse group of recruiters because we know they have connections to a full-time job or internship. Building this network is not necessarily part of our personality nor may it come as easy as it does to the experienced “connector”, but we learn to do it. It is a fact that building relationships with other people has a direct correlation with job placement, as 56 percent of people find their job through a personal connection (54). It should not come as a surprise, then, that connectors are responsible for the “word of mouth” epidemics. It only makes sense---the more people you know, the more people you tell, the more people who believe in an idea.

One of the reasons that Roger Horchow was able to be acquainted with so many people was because he kept a personal book of their contact information. The emergence of social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) and technology (Blackberry, IPhone) has allowed us to be reachable at any given point in time. The current environment and technology makes it easier for us to become these “connectors”—to a point where it almost seems like we are cheating. The results of Facebook and its ability to spread an idea prove that connections are essential. With its emergence, the need for that experienced connector fades a bit. People are able to spread their ideas to millions by creating an event on Facebook or sending out a “message”. They don’t need to tap into their individual book of numbers. So, for many of us, Facebook—the site of connections, the site that helps us become better connected, is a news source as well. It’s the source college students use to learn about library events, concerts, and parties. However, the need for the experienced connector like Horchow still emerges with the question of credibility. On a networking site, we can “add” many connections and have the ability to mass-contact them. However, if we do not continually build the relationship with our ties, we lose the credibility to spread ideas. Networking sites help facilitate a connector; they are not a replacement. People listen if they feel a bond to the idea, if they are touched by that idea. The only way for a connector to touch a person is to understand them beyond “just a name”. They must know a person’s feelings and emotions, and this is why it’s necessary to for connectors to form a relationship beyond just a connection on a networking site. Although Facebook is beneficial because it allows for mass-inviting to be possible, in some ways, it is also the downfall. People are overwhelmed by mass invites, indifferent to the cause. A connector who properly uses Facebook would also send a personal message, making the cause more credible and touching.

Connectors are those who connect us to the right people. Mavens are those who connect us to their opinions based on their large amount of knowledge on a subject matter. When mavens speak their opinion, it matters because they are experts in their field. Gladwell uses Paul Revere’s reign of information spread in 1775 to portray the need for connectors and mavens. In Paul Revere’s night ride, he was both a maven and a connector. He helped discover the message that the British were coming (maven), and then used it to pass along (connector).

Similarly, Muhammad Yunus is both a maven and a connector. He came up the project of micro-crediting based on his opinions of economics. He was also the one to diffuse the project. By using his connections to the banks and the network he attained in college, he was a connector. Without a connector, a maven has no source to spread its knowledge. Without a maven, a connector has no data to spread.

Muhammad Yunus, a professor of economics, was able to pull from his knowledge to affect the entire country of Bangladesh. Yunus proves that by giving small, “micro”, loans to the poor, they are able to invest the money. Yunus had developed his strong opinion on micro crediting as a result of his knowledge in economics. In small integrals, micro lenders receive a return on income, and move above the poverty line. This idea of “micro-crediting” seems to contradict the idea of profit and economic growth, but in fact succeeds in “stickiness”. The financing grows from Yunus’ own pocket to an actual banking institution. The 20 dollars that Yunus used at the beginning of his project was an investment that turned into a project that ultimately brought millions of people out of poverty. Just as a “small” investment for the poor helps them change their lives around greatly, a small push from Yunus to apply his opinion on financing gave micro-financing the push it needed.

Mavens are not all-powerful or omniscient. They do not have the power to convince everyone of their expertise, which Yunus discovered when the banks initially refused to make micro loans. In my opinion, Gladwell seems to imply that mavens have the personality that engages others to listen. However, maybe mavens just know the right people to engage. They know who will be engaged, how to get them to be engaged, and most importantly, the right people to engage. The right people need to listen for an idea to spread. The right people are those that will continue to spread the idea: the salesmen.

I don’t believe that Yunus was a “salesman” the way that Gladwell describes the word. His exterior personality did not help his ability to sell the idea. All of his “selling” was done by his desire to spread his opinion on economics, which makes him more of a maven. Nonetheless, when Yunus opened Grameen Bank, he found professional salesmen in the bank’s workers.

“Salesmen”, as we think of the word, are those outgoing personality types that we consider persuasive, ruthless, and maybe even annoying. Gladwell, however, says that the traits of a salesman are energy, enthusiasm, charm, and likeability. Think of salesmen as the representatives of an idea. Salesmen have an ability to win over the trust of the consumer. They are the ones we typically notice on the exterior looking in. Salesmen don’t create an idea, nor do they have a personal connection to that idea as mavens do, they simply sell an idea that is already in existence.
Atul Gawande in Better, writes about the World Health Organization(WHO), which had the goal of eradicating polio from the world (Gawande 31). The WHO, however, had no jurisdiction or authority to mandate vaccines, so it had to depend on its human resources to spread the idea. Pankaj Bhatnagar was the physician that became the salesman for the polio vaccines.

Pankaj proves that salesmen do not need to be loud. Salesmen understand the product, as well as their customers. Pankaj knew what the “consumers” had to lose, and so when he was selling the vaccine, he did so in a caring manner. Salesmen are able to bend their “sell” and personality to whatever and whomever they are selling to. They understand that not everyone is going to buy their product, and understand the cost benefit ratio of losing a consumer. Pankaj knew that it was better to pass up one family than try to “force drops on people”, which could cost him more families (Gawande 45).

If there is one concept that Gladwell describes greatly in this chapter and the book, it is subtlety. Selling does not necessarily equal the loud, conniving, or annoying sales person. A salesman may be the person who knows when to stop talking, or the person who smiles at the right point of the conversation. The common theme throughout the Tipping Point is that small things do matter and make a big difference. For salesmen, the subtleties in what they do are what make them persuasive. What made Pankaj persuasive had nothing to do with talking or convincing. It was the subtle and often missing idea of listening. He listened to those that he was trying to sell to, and that’s what allowed him to gain trust.

The other day I listened to a presentation by a company's Vice President of Marketing. He spoke about how his company was different. Its number one priority was its employees, its social responsibility, etc. The VP had excellent presentation skills, great ideas, and was very poised. However, for whatever reason, I did not feel that I trusted him. Everything he talked about related to the company. I could tell that he was trying to sell me his company, and that’s all he wanted.

On the other hand, a different company began its presentation with an alum of the University of Illinois. The alum began joking around about his days at the university and asked us what social areas were still popular; he related to the audience. He invoked audience participation. His presentation skills were not as developed as the older VP, but he was able to gain our trust. We felt that he was genuine and real. We related to him as he told stories of himself as a college student. He talked about his decision making in a career path, as well as challenges in college and the work place. It’s necessary for salesmen to understand their audience. In this case, college students related more to a younger, humorous, and genuine professional and that lead to the “sell”. Students were more engaged in the presentation. This alum was more successful in gaining our trust and “selling” the company, without seeming too obvious.

I think there are other personality traits among the salespeople, mavens, and connectors other than ability to gain trust. Each of them have a sense of diligence. They care about what they do. The three different types of people may not necessarily be attached to the particular idea they are selling. But salesmen are personally attached to selling the idea, mavens are attached to learning about an idea, and connectors are attached to meeting the people that could use that idea. In my mind, they all exhibit the idea of diligence and perseverance---that same idea of “never giving up”. This is one aspect that Gladwell does not explore in the book. If we are missing his three factors, but apply diligence, is that enough? Or would the inability to find these three factors be his definition of insanity?

Although Gladwell’s factors seem to encompass a large amount, we are in a world of change---improving technology, changing types of people in power. I wonder how these will affect his ideas. The dynamics of “The Law of the Few” are constantly changing in the technology-filled world that we are a part of. Various programs make it easier for technology to do what once only people could do. Facebook becomes a facilitator. It saves time for an experienced connector like Horhow, and makes it possible for a non-experienced connector to learn to become one. The ideas presented in The Law of the Few are very ideal, but very general. Gladwell seems to decipher each person as an innate-born of that type, which makes that perfect connector impossible to find. However, a high percentage of Generation Y likely feels as if they are connectors. Even so, if people only have “light connections” on a networking site and don’t continue to build the relationship, they are not connectors. With the ease of technology, I believe the need for a stronger connection is pushed up another notch. Even acquaintance-relationships need to become stronger. Although this relationship development is the responsibility of a connector, it can be helped along by our surroundings. This is what Gladwell describes to be the “Law of Context”.

The “Law of Context” insists that our surrounding environment is what allows us to succeed in diffusion of an idea. The “Power of 150” is what I believe to be his most interesting idea. Gladwell writes that only in smaller groups less than 150 can change be spread. In these smaller groups, we are held accountable for our own actions. People know each other well enough that we feel the need to spread the change, and be productive contributors to an idea. Peer pressure can be extremely important to innovation and making ideas better. We saw this in Atul Gawande’s Better. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons that hand washing is such a threat to hospitals is because it is so difficult to trace back to the convict. Having the responsibility put on a person makes a big difference.

Interestingly enough, the University of Illinois utilizes the Power of 150 in its Registered Student Organizations (RSOs). The most successful organizations on campus are less than 150, or right around that number. This is not by accident. The organizations that are able to gain the most from their members’ connections, members’ ideas, and members’ knowledge, are those that have an application process. The application process ensures that the number will be retained to under 150. In a group less than 150, members have the opportunity to get to know each other better, which is necessary to gain the trust that salesmen have. Members are more likely to share their connections with each other, and diffusion of ideas becomes possible. With one of the biggest Greek Systems in the nation, each sorority or fraternity has about 150 people. Each RSO has a mission statement, and the organization essentially fights for that cause. My business fraternity is currently co-sponsoring the Illini Summer Opportunity Organization (ISOO), a philanthropy that helps children in the area attend summer camps. Each member of the business fraternity is given a mandatory 5 tickets to sell, and we are held accountable through our mandatory philanthropy hours. The group is small enough so that we must take responsibility. We are behaving as salespeople by selling the tickets, but also as mavens by selling a charity that we believe in. Another reason the number 150 is so powerful, is that it is small enough for us to be close, and big enough for us to connect to a large amount of people. As we sell our tickets, we are being connectors. Each 100 or so members of the fraternity are members of other organizations, clubs, or even just academic classes. When we sell our tickets to a person in a different organization, we are essentially connecting that new 150 group to our idea. This causes a chain reaction and epidemic, until eventually; we reach every organization on campus. That is the ideal.

The ideal doesn’t always happen. While Tipping Point does a good job at pointing out characteristics that every trend includes, readers should be careful to look at this as an exhaustive list. Gladwell simplifies effective change into 279 pages, when in reality, change isn’t only about the input and process behind the cause, but also the outlying factors of the status quo and the competitors of change. Other factors matter too: among them is the stickiness factor that Gladwell mentions.

The final factor that Gladwell discusses is the Stickiness Factor, which I will not go into depth on because I believe it is the most obvious of the three factors. The message matters. The way in which the message is presented and how is essential to whether the message is spread and successful. The message “Never give up” was memorable to me; it stuck to me. I learned to lead and spread perseverance by example. Were there other ways that this message could have been spread? Most definitely. But Gladwell’s book is about finding the fit for the environment. For 15 high school girls, hearing a coach screaming three words is not the way to make a message “sticky”. It worked for me due to the relationship I had build with the coach. But for most high schools girls, only by witnessing that the application of perseverance could make them successful, were they buying the message. Three years after I have left the team, I still go back to matches. The player winning the most matches isn’t the one that has the most talent, but the one that makes the biggest hustles, gets to the most balls. It is the one that “never gives up”. I smile because I know that the message of perseverance is continuing to spread. Girls that have never met my old tennis coach still live by her words. Messages that have achieved a tipping point continue to live on.

In the end, Gladwell’s inspiring story of how “small changes can make a big difference” displayed the truths of his very own ideas. The Tipping Point became a New York Times best seller, a book read by business classes, companies, and inspiring entrepreneurs all over the world. Gladwell, himself, has been able to create a “tipping point” for the book by the very same name.

Bibliography

Gawande, Atul. The Essential Drucker. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2001. Print.

Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point. New York, NY: Time Warner Book Group, 2000.
Print.

"Q & A with Muhammad Yunus." PBS n. pag. Web. 1 Oct 2009.
.

Book Review Draft 2

AOL. MySpace. Facebook. YouTube. Twitter. We live in a society of trends. Some of these trends last, but most don’t. As proven by the above list, some of these have already faded into the last decade. Inevitably, a new trend will come along that pushes the older one out of the public eye. How do these trends even begin? Why do some trends catch on, while others fail? In attempting to design effective change, many of us have likely experienced the latter. We hope to provide innovation or invention for what we have in our minds as a great idea. Is it really enough to simply believe in our message and “never give up” or are we missing certain aspects that keeps our message from spreading through the population?

“Never give up!”---the memorable phrase we consistently engrave into our minds. We hope that perseverance is enough motivation for us to make a move in the specific message that we are trying to spread. I heard the phrase from my high school tennis coach my freshman year. She made it the most memorable message that I have ever received in my life. She was someone I trusted, someone who motivated and inspired me. The moment I heard this message was the unarguable “dramatic moment” that became the tipping point for my tennis career. Perhaps the reason it is so memorable for me is that I was on the tennis court---the place that I felt most comfortable. Both the environment and the person I received it from mattered for me.

It was a combination of these two factors, the context and environment which I received it in that allowed the message to impact me the way it did. Similarly, Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, describes these three rules that cause the Tipping Point to be: The Law of the Few, the Law of Context, and the Stickiness factor.

Growing up, even on the playground, we always notice that one child who is the loudest. The bossiest. The one that convinces all the other kids on the block to play his game. To play tag when everyone else wants to play hide and go seek. I know I always admired this personality who was able to take an idea and spread it around to all of the other kids. Even now, it seems as if some people just have “it” and some people don’t. What is “it”? Apparently, there is not only one “it”, but three. Gladwell describes three different types of personalities as those who are able to spread change, to create the tipping point that produces an epidemic.

When most of us think of someone who is able to spread an epidemic, we think of that dominant, outgoing, personality who is the most popular or knows everyone. This is what Gladwell describes as a “connector”. Connectors are the type of people that have 1500 Facebook friends, the type of people who easily meet friends and acquaintances and retain a solid social network. Roger Horchow, a successful business man from Dallas, is depicted in the book as a social-network fiend. He “collects people the way others collect stamps”(45). Horchow keeps track of acquaintances’ birthdays, and essentially keeps in touch with everyone that he meets. Doing what Horchow does is unimaginable to me. In my opinion, it is the most elaborate and exaggerated example in the book. I think there are many excellent connectors, or what we would call “networkers”, but not in the way that Horchow is described. He writes down everyone’s name and is completely happy with calling someone a friend after meeting him once.
Connectors have a way of staying in touch with people without having the discomfort that most of us have when talking to a “weak tie” or “not-so-good-friend”. In a student world, we are often put in touch with various people that have various connections, such as a dean that could put us in touch with whoever we need to answer our questions. We try to build connections with a diverse group of recruiters because we know they have connections to a full-time job or internship. It’s not necessarily part of our personality nor may it come as easy as it does to the natural “connector”, but we learn to do it. It’s a fact that building relationships with other people has a direct correlation with job placement, as 56 percent of people find their job through a personal connection (54). It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that connectors are responsible for the “word of mouth” epidemics. It only makes sense---the more people you know, the more people you tell, the more people who believe in an idea.

One of the ways that Roger Horchow was able to be acquainted with so many various people was because he kept a personal book of their contact information. The emergence of social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) and technology (Blackberry, IPhone) has allowed us to basically be reachable at any given point in time. The current environment and technology that we are a part of facilitates and makes it easier for us to become these “connectors”—to a point where it almost seems like we are cheating. But the results of Facebook and its ability to spread an idea prove that connections are essential. Even the school library has a Facebook page to spread the word about any events coming up.

So, for many of us, Facebook—the site of connections, the site that helps us become better connected, is a news source as well. It’s the source college students use to learn about library events, concerts, and parties. While connectors are those who connect us to the right people, mavens are those who connect us to proper information. Mavens have a remarkable amount of expert knowledge in certain areas, and use that information to help others to get the best deal. Mavens are convincing, without being conniving. We consistently take their advice because they want to help, not “twist our arm”. A maven, essentially, is a “data bank” and uses that knowledge to help others.

Gladwell uses Paul Revere’s reign of information spread in 1775 to portray the need for a connector and a maven. In Paul Revere’s night ride, he was both a maven and a connector because he helped discover the message that the British were coming(maven), and then used it to pass along (connector). Similarly, Yunus can be seen as both a maven and a connector. He was both the “designer” of his project of micro-crediting, and the one to diffuse the project. By designing and discovering what just a few cents could do, Yunus was a maven. By using his connections to the banks and the network he attained in college, he was a connector. Without a connector, a maven has no source to spread its knowledge, and without a maven, a connector has no data to spread.

Muhammad Yunus, a professor of economics was able to pull from his knowledge to affect the entire country of Bangladesh. Yunus exhibits the qualities of a maven and proves that by giving small, “micro”, loans to the poor, they are able to invest it. Yunus, a learned man of economics, was simply looking for a way to apply the degree that he was lucky enough to earn. In small integrals, their return on income grows, and they move above the poverty line. This idea of “microcrediting” seems to contradict the idea of profit and economic growth, but in fact succeeds in “stickiness”. The financing grows from Yunus’ own pocket to an actual banking institution. The 20 dollars that Yunus used was an investment that turned into a project that ultimately brings millions of people out of poverty. Just as a “small” investment for the poor helps them change their lives around greatly. A small push from Yunus’ to apply his knowledge in economics gave microfinancing the push it needed. Yunus is the ideal example of a maven, a person who uses his obsession with subject matter (ie: economics) to help get others the best deal.

Mavens are not all-powerful or omniscient. They do not have the power to convince everyone of their expertise, which Yunus discovered when the banks initially refused to make micro loans. In my opinion, Gladwell seems to imply that mavens have the personality that engages others to listen. However, maybe mavens just know the right people to engage. They know who will be engaged, how to get them to be engaged, and most importantly, the right people to engage. The right people need to listen for an idea to spread. The right people are those that will continue to spread the idea: the salesmen.

I don’t believe that Yunus was a “salesman” the way that Gladwell describes the word. His exterior personality did not seem to help his ability to sell the idea. All of his “selling” was done by his desire to spread his expertise and information, which makes him more of a maven. Nonetheless, when Yunus opened Grameen Bank, he found professional salesmen in the bank’s workers.

“Salesmen”, as we think of the word, are those outgoing personality type that we consider persuasive, ruthless, and maybe even annoying. Gladwell, however, says that the traits of a salesman are energy, enthusiasm, charm, and likeability. Think of salesmen as the representatives of an idea. Salesmen have an ability to win over the trust of the consumer. They are the ones we typically notice and see on the exterior looking in. Salesmen don’t create an idea, nor do they have a personal connection to that idea as mavens do, they simply sell an idea that is already in existence.
Atul Gawande in Better, writes about the World Health Organization(WHO), which had the goal of eradicating polio from the world (Gawande 31). The WHO, however, had no jurisdiction or authority to mandate vaccines, so it had to depend on its human resources to spread the idea. Pankaj Bhatnagar was the physician that became the salesman for the polio vaccines.

Pankaj proves that salesmen need not be loud, Salesmen understand the product, as well as their customers. Pankaj knew what the “consumers” had to lose, and so when he was selling the vaccine, he did so in a caring manner. Salesmen are able to bend their “sell” and personality to whatever and whomever it is they may need to sell it to. They understand that not everyone is going to buy their product, and understand the cost benefit ratio. Pankaj knew that it was better to pass up one family than try to “force drops on people”, which could cost him more families (Gawande 45).
If there is one concept that Gladwell describes greatly in this chapter, or even in the book, it’s subtlety. Selling does not necessarily equal the loud, conniving, annoying sales person. Selling may just be the person who knows how to stop talking, or the person who smiles at the right point of the conversation. The common theme throughout the Tipping Point is that small things do matter and make a big difference. For salesmen, the subtleties in what they do are what make them persuasive. The biggest characteristic of Pankaj’s personality that made him persuasive had nothing to do with talking or convincing. It was the subtle, often missing, idea of listening. He listened to those that he was trying to sell to, and that’s what allowed him to gain trust.

I think there are some other personality traits among the salespeople, mavens, and connectors. Each of them have a sense of diligence. They care about what they do. The three different types of people may not necessarily be attached to the particular idea they are selling. But salesmen are personally attached to selling the idea, mavens are attached to learning about an idea, and connectors are attached to meeting the people that could use that idea. In my mind, they all exhibit the idea of diligence and perseverance---that same idea of “never giving up”. This is one aspect that Gladwell does not explore in the book. If we are missing his three factors, but apply diligence, is that enough? Or would the inability to find these three factors be his definition of insanity?
Although Gladwell’s factors seem to encompass a large amount, we are in a world of change---improving technology, changing types of people in power, and I wonder how these will affect his ideas. The dynamics of “The Law of the Few” are constantly changing in the technology-filled world that we are a part of. As described with Facebook, various programs make it easier for technology to do what once only people could do. The ideas presented in The Law of the Few are very ideal, but very general. Gladwell seems to decipher each person as an innate-born of that type, which makes that perfect connector impossible to find. However, a high percentage of Generation Y likely feel as if they are connectors. This trait is pushed along by our surrounding environment and technology---what Gladwell describes to be the “Law of Context”.

The “Law of Context” insists that our surrounding environment is what allows us to succeed in diffusion of an idea. What Gladwell describes as the “Power of 150” is what I believe to be his most interesting idea. He writes that only in smaller groups, groups less than 150, can change be spread. In these smaller groups, we are held accountable for our own actions. People know each other well enough that we feel the need to spread the change, and be productive contributors to an idea. Peer pressure can be extremely important to innovation and making ideas better. We saw this in Atul Gawande’s Better. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons that hand washing is a such a threat to hospitals is because it is so difficult to trace back to the convict that cause a virus to a particular patient. Having the responsibility put on a person makes a big difference.

Interestingly enough, the University of Illinois utilizes the Power of 150 in its Registered Student Organizations (RSOs). Most of the organizations on campus are less than 150, or right around that number. With one of the biggest Greek Systems in the nation, each sorority or fraternity has about 150 people. Each RSO has a mission statement, and the organization essentially fights for that cause. My business fraternity is currently co-sponsoring the Illini Summer Opportunity Organization(ISOO), a philanthropy that helps children in the area attend summer camps. Each member of the business fraternity is given a mandatory 5 tickets to sell, and we are held accountable for it through our mandatory philanthropy hours. The group is small enough so that we must take responsibility. We are behaving as salespeople by selling the tickets, but also mavens by selling charitable idea of summer camps for children. But another reason the number 150 is so powerful, is that it is small enough for us to be close, but big enough for us to connect to the outside. As we sell our tickets, we are being connectors. Each 100 or so members of the fraternity are members of other organizations, clubs, or even just academic classes. When we sell our tickets to a person in a different organization, we are essentially connecting that new 150 group of people to our idea. This causes a chain reaction and epidemic, until eventually; we reach every organization on campus. That is the ideal.

The ideal doesn’t always happen. While Tipping Point does a good job at pointing out characteristics that every trend includes, readers should be careful to look at this as an exhaustive list. Gladwell simplifies effective change into 279 pages, when in reality, change isn’t only about the input and process behind the cause, but also the outlying factors of the status quo and the competitors of change. MAYBE ADD IN SOME OTHER FACTORS THAT I THINK MATTER HERE or would that be too much? Other factors matter too: among them is the stickiness factor that Gladwell mentions.

The final factor that Gladwell discusses is the Stickiness Factor, which I will not go into depth on because I believe it is the most obvious of the three factors. The message matters. The way in which the message is presented and how it is presented is essential to whether the message is spread and successful. The message “Never give up” was memorable to me; it stuck to me. Moving from the bottom seed of the varsity team my freshman year to a state qualifier and team captain my sophomore year, I learned to lead and spread perseverance by example. Were there other ways that this message could have been spread? Most definitely. But Gladwell’s book is about finding the fit for the environment. Although it worked for me, for 15 high school girls, hearing a coach screaming three words is not the way to make a message “sticky”. Only by witnessing that application of perseverance could make them successful, were the 15 girls on my tennis team buying into the example. Three years after I have left the team, I still go back to matches. The player winning the most matches isn’t the one that has the most talent, but the one that makes the biggest hustles, gets to the most balls, the one that “never gives up”. I smile because I know that the message of perseverance is continuing to spread. Girls that have never met my old tennis coach, still live by her words. Messages that have achieved a tipping point continue to live on.

In the end, Gladwell’s inspiring story of how “small changes can make a big difference” displayed the truths of his very own ideas. The Tipping Point became a New York Times best seller, a book read by business classes, companies, and inspiring entrepreneurs all over the world. Gladwell, himself, has been able to create a “tipping point” for the book by the very same name.

Profiting from Non-Profit Work

"What motivates you?" When asked this question in class, many of us may answer: a good grade, successful career, or the idea of achievement. These exhibit different types of motivation, extrinsic and intrinsic. The idea of volunteering is so good natured and service-oriented, but I wonder how often volunteers/donors are doing it out of external motivations. For example, recognition and personal advancements are typical awards to be received. Or maybe some people volunteer and give simply because they are guilt-tripped and feel obligated. With companies, there is the idea of "social responsibility" that is necessary for long term success. Corporations may donate to causes, or have their employees be a part of service events. Are companies only socially responsible because they have to be? for profits? to follow the precedence set by others in their industry?

Recognition is clearly given to those that benefit the society. Those that donate to the Ronald McDonald fund have their name put up on a wall. Donors of the university get a room--or if they're ambitious, a building named after them. On the lower end (the 1 or 2 dollar donation to Ronald McDonald) I really do not think people give for recognition reasons, unless it is a mom humoring her child. The primary motivation in small donations is the fact that people feel obligated, guilty. IE: Drive through window: "Would you like to add one dollar to benefit the research for heart disease?"
Who can really say no when you just spent probably more than 5 times that giving towards heart disease.
Businesses are recognized for their work as well. On the other end, those larger donations, such as a university room or even a sponsor of Relay for Life, obviously receive incentive for their donations. I think having these incentives proves that extrinsic motivation is pretty important, or else the incentives would not be necessary at all.

Businesses receive good rankings(Most responsible companies), which often lead to good recruitment, resources, productivity, and profit. As a business student, I really enjoyed the companies that showcased their philanthropy side. I know that the place I interned for last summer had a great service program. The company actually took a low income Chicago area school and not only gave money, but also mentored and had some internships for those students. When it came down to picking between two similar companies, little things make the difference. Something like professional/social responsibility of the company really helps, companies know it. So would these companies be using their time to fund outside projects if it didn't provide any benefit for them? Personally, I think there would be a fewer amount of companies doing it. The industry leaders would still be giving, but there are some that may not be as devoted.

On a personal level for the students, I'm sure many of us feel a strong passion for philanthropy and have likely reaped the benefits as well. During interviews, I often give answers based off of experiences that I receive from my volunteering. I can see where external motivation would come in. There are many non-paid internships at the hospital that can be used as "job shadows" for students, but are also volunteering opportunities that help the patients. Some other examples would be volunteering at the nursing home or the actual planning of philanthropy events that would be beneficial for the resume.

Although I do believe that some people/organizations may volunteer for the recognition, or personal advancements, I still have hope. I am not cynical enough to believe that it is the primary motivation. Along the way, there may be that volunteer who is doing it just for a college application or for that job shadow experience, but hopefully it is not most of us. I do believe in human kind enough to believe that the people or companies that are displayed in those top ranking lists are legitimately devoted to benefiting society. And honestly, even if people are extrinsically motivated when it comes to non profits, at least its getting done. Lives are getting saved, kids are getting positive role models, and society as a whole is benefiting from the chain reaction of "social responsibility".

All for One, One for All

When discussing goal alignment, the first thing I think of is the sport of basketball. The typical goal incongruence with team sports occurs when players work to “show off” and get more points individually rather than playing with the team’s best interest in mind. In recent years, Kobe Bryant’s development from the individual-goal oriented player to the team-player has made headlines. The player that once had an extreme lack of goal alignment grew into a team-driven player that lead the Lakers to a championship.

Kobe began his career with another NBA star, Shaquille O’neal. Shaq, the veteran, was getting all of the attention and winning the MVP awards when the Lakers were on their tear through NBA championships. Eventually, Shaq left the Lakers for a different team, leaving Kobe to be the only star. This is something Kobe wanted, finally getting the attention and credit for his team's success. Kobe went on to score the 2nd most points ever in a single game, win the NBA scoring championship, but his team didn’t even get past the first round of the playoffs. People argue that Kobe wasn’t playing for his team, he was playing for himself. Finally, in the last couple years, the Lakers have made it to the NBA Finals, winning it in 2009. In these two years, Kobe’s point statistics were down, but the rest of his teammates’ statistics were up.
Sometimes it’s necessary to make individual sacrifices for the team. Making these sacrifices is a more long-term way of thinking. As we can see with Kobe’s example, in the long term, he had bigger individual successes. Drucker stated that management success can be measured by 1) economic/profitable developments 2) productivity of employees and 3) social responsibility. The guests on Wednesday taught us that in an organization, these ideas operate together. Businesses cannot exist without profit, but long term profit will not occur without high productivity and social responsibility. Let’s take a look at the Lakers as an organization, and Kobe as a “manager” of that organization. Afterall, he is the team leader and captain. As a manager, Kobe did what he could do produce economic profit, but along the way he was unable to get the rest of the members of his team to be productive. He was not socially responsible to the Laker organization when he put his own goals ahead.

Not so coincidentally, when Kobe began playing for the team, he earned even more individual success. He won his first NBA MVP title and NBA Finals MVP title in the last two years. In the long term, the three ideas of management discussed by Drucker operate together. The more social responsibility, the more profit. This is true for a business, RSO, sports team. The three aspects must operate together just as a team needs to work together. Kobe is only one person, but success occurred only when he thought for everyone and not just himself.

Draft 1

AOL. MySpace. Facebook. YouTube. Twitter. We live in a society of trends. Some of these trends last, but most don’t. As proven by the above list, some of these have already faded into the last decade. Inevitably, a new trend will come along that pushes the older one out of the public eye. How do these trends even begin? Why do some trends catch on and blow through the population like a wind storm, while others are stuck in a stage as if struck by lightning? Most of us have likely had the experience of the latter, hoping to provide innovation or invention for what we have in our minds as a great idea, but seemingly never able to do it. Is it really enough to simply believe in our message and “never give up” or are we missing certain aspects to our innovation that keeps our message from spreading through the population?

“Never give up!”---the memorable phrase we consistently engrave into our minds and hope is enough motivation for us to make a move in the specific message that we are trying to spread. For me, the phrase itself, screamed by my high school tennis coach, is the most memorable message that I have ever received in my life---an unarguable “dramatic moment” that became the tipping point for my tennis career. Perhaps the reason it is so memorable for me is that the environment or context that I received it in was on the tennis court---the place that I felt most comfortable in when I was in high school.

Not only did this message touch on my tennis career, but I also apply the idea to my academic, professional, and extracurricular activities. The message spread through me like wildfire. Although diffusion of a message throughout one person’s life may not be as difficult as attempting to innovate or begin a trend for an entire world, the ideas behind it remain the same. The three words, “never give up” have stuck with me so strongly in the last 7 years not only because it’s a powerful message, or because the person who relayed the message to me was someone that I trusted. It was a combination of these two factors, along with the context and environment which I received it in that allowed the message to spread throughout my mind and life the way that it did. Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, describes these three rules that cause the Tipping Point to be: The Stickiness Factor, The Law of the Few, and the Law of Context.

Ironically, an ingredient of stickiness is that it is often opposing to the typical ideas of society. For example, television was a product that parents disliked, labeling it an education-killer. By making children’s primary form of entertainment, television, educational, the makers of Sesame Street spread the virus of literacy through the agent of infection, television. This educational Tipping Point would give children a head start, and then these children would continue to spread the show onto their parents and other children (Gladwell 89.) After running several experiments, a decision was made to combine the fantasy and real elements together, keeping the children’s interest in the show. By changing just a small critical area of the show, the producers of Sesame Street created not only a cultural phenomenon, but the beginning of the educational television that graces any household with a child and Nickelodeon today.

The interesting aspect of “stickiness” is that in order to make a message sticky, you don’t need to change the substance. The writers of Sesame Street simply mixed the fantasy character with real adult figures. Essentially, the stickiness in a message comes in the way its packaged. The results of the small critical change are felt 40 years later due to the small critical modification that caused the tipping point. Sticky messages are able to transcend popular beliefs; for example, Sesame Street was able to turn television into an educational phenomenon.

Although this message of “stickiness” is clearly important, I feel Gladwell spends a bit too much time discussing this factor, primarily because it is the most obvious one of each of the factors. Partially, because most of the time when we have challenges designing effective change, the problem lies in the “effectiveness” not in the “design. In other words, the problem is in the ability to apply our design, which is more relative to the Law of the Few and Law of Concept theories outlined. How can we apply the message that we create? According to Gladwell, much of the answer lies in who we choose to spread the word.

Growing up, even on the playground, we always notice that one child who seems to be the loudest. The bossiest. The one that convinces all the other kids on the block to do what he or she wants. I know I always admired this personality who was able to take an idea and spread it around to all of the other kids. Even now, it seems as if some people just have “it” and some people don’t. What is “it”? Apparently, there is not only one “it”, but three. Gladwell describes three different types of personalities as those who are able to spread change, to create the tipping point that produces an epidemic.

When most of us think of someone who is able to spread an epidemic, we think of that dominant, outgoing, personality who is the most popular or knows everyone. This is what Gladwell describes as a “connector”. Connectors are the type of people that have 1500 Facebook friends, the type of people who easily meet friends and acquaintances and retain a solid social network. Roger Horchow, a successful business man from Dallas, is depicted in the book as a social-network fiend. He “collects people the way others collect stamps”(45). Horchow keeps track of acquaintances’ birthdays, and essentially keeps in touch with everyone that he meets.

Doing what Horchow does is unimaginable to me; in my opinion, the most elaborate and exaggerated example in the book. I think there are many excellent connectors, or what we would call “networkers” in the world, but not in the way that Horchow is described---writing down everyone’s name and so completely happy with calling someone a friend after meeting him once. Connectors have a way of staying in touch with people without having the discomfort that most of us have when talking to a “weak tie” or “not-so-good-friend”. In a student world, we are often put in touch with various people that have various connections, such as a dean that could put us in touch with whoever we need to answer our questions. We try to build connections with a diverse group of recruiters as we know that they have connections to that full-time job or internship. This is because it’s a fact that building relationships with other people has a direct correlation with job placement, as 56 percent of people find their job through a personal connection (54). It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that connectors, people with all of these relationships are those that are responsible for the “word of mouth” epidemics. It only makes sense---the more people you know, the more people you tell, the more people who believe in an idea.
One of the ways that Roger Horchow was able to be acquainted with so many various people was because he kept a personal book of their contact information. The emergence of social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) and technology (Blackberry, IPhone) has allowed us to basically be reachable at any given point in time. The current environment and technology that we are apart of really facilitates and makes it easier for us to become these “connectors”—to a point where it almost seems like we are cheating. But the results of Facebook and its ability to spread an idea prove that connections are essential. Even the school library has a Facebook page to spread the word about any events coming up.

So, for many of us, Facebook—the site of connections, the site that helps us become better connected, is a news source as well. It’s the source college students use to learn about library events, concerts, and parties. Sure to be a shocker for the 21st century, there are people to do this too. While connectors are those who connect us to the right people, mavens are those who connect us to proper information. Mavens are a remarkable amount of expert knowledge in certain areas, and use that information to help others to get the best deal or find that best restaurant. Mavens are convincing, without being conniving. We consistently take their advice because they want to help, not “twist our arm”. A maven, essentially, is a data “bank” and uses that knowledge to help others.

A bank, in the sense of the word, is defined as a location of many of the same type of resource; we usually think of this as a location with the resource of money. Banking institutions don’t believe in giving loans to those without credit, because the risk that the lenders will default on their loans is not worth the little interest that the banking institution may possibly receive on the small loan. However, Muhammad Yunus proves that by giving small, “micro”, loans to the poor, they are able to invest it. Yunus, a learned man of economics, was simply looking for a way to apply the degree that he was lucky enough to earn. In small integrals, their return on income grows, and they move above the poverty line. This idea of “microcrediting” seems to contradict the idea of profit and economic growth, but in fact succeeds in “stickiness”. The financing grows from Yunus’ own pocket to an actual banking institution. The 20 dollars that Yunus used was an investment that turned into a project that ultimately brings millions of people out of poverty. Just as a “small” investment for the poor helps them change their lives around greatly, a small push from Yunus’ to apply his knowledge in economics is what gave microfinancing that push it needed. Yunus is the ideal example of a maven, a person who uses his obsession with subject matter (ie: economics) to help get others the best deal.

Gladwell uses Paul Revere’s reign of information spread in 1775 to portray the need for a connector and a maven. In Paul Revere’s night ride, he was both a maven and a connector because he helped discover the message that the British were coming(maven), and then used it to pass along (connector). Without a connector, a maven has no source to spread its knowledge, and without a maven, a connector has no data to spread.

The third group of people that Gladwell describes are the Salesmen. This group includes that outgoing “salesman” personality type that many of us think of when we think of words such as: persuasive, ruthless, and maybe even annoying. Gladwell, however, says that the traits of a salesman are energy, enthusiasm, charm, and likeability. If there is one concept that Gladwell describes greatly in this chapter, or even in the book, it’s subtlety. The common theme throughout the Tipping Point is that small things do matter and make a big difference. For salesmen, the subtleties in what they do are what make them persuasive. Dan Rather’s slight bias and smiling during particular portions of news reporting caused favorability towards that subject matter to spike up. Any sort of bias shown by a newscaster may not seem obvious to the audience, but in fact does change the way they view news stories.

The dynamics of “The Law of the Few” are constantly changing in the technology-filled world that we are a part of. As described with Facebook, various programs make it easier for technology to do what once only people could do. The ideas presented in The Law of the Few are very ideal, but very general. Gladwell seems to decipher each person as an innate-born of that type, which makes that perfect connector impossible to find. However, a high percentage of Generation Y likely feel as if they are connectors. This trait is pushed along by our surrounding environment and technology---what Gladwell describes to be the “Law of Context”.

On a campus with 40,000 students, I am under the impression that everywhere I go, I will know someone. As narcissistic as that sounds, it’s probably not that far off from what most students on this campus think. The close-knit environment where we all live within a 2-mile radius of each other may be one reason for this, but our connections on campus come primarily from our student organizations: one of the 1100 Registered Student Organizations on campus. I am personally a member of a business fraternity of approximately 100 members. We initiate approximately 20 members each semester. What has always stricken me about my business fraternity is the way in which we are able to transform a young pledge class with little knowledge about the professional world into one that takes these ideals of professionalism, brotherhood, and responsibility and molds it onto future pledge classes. In additional to teaching our principles onto others, we also share a responsibility. As a business fraternity, we often work with the Business Career Services and help advertise or spread the news about any events they may have coming up.

Our ability to make an impact on first, each other, and then on the rest of the community (in our case, the College of Business) is what Gladwell calls “The Power of 150”. Only in smaller groups, under 150, can change be spread. Most of the organizations on campus are less than 150, or right around that number. The biggest Greek System on campus has around 150 people in each sorority or fraternity group. People know each other well enough that we feel the need to spread the change, and be productive contributors to an idea. Peer pressure can be extremely important to innovation and making ideas better. We saw this in Atul Gawande’s Better. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons that hand washing is a such a threat to hospitals is because it is so difficult to trace back to the convict that cause a virus to a particular patient. Having the responsibility put on you makes a big difference.

Other characteristics make a big difference too, though. While Tipping Point does a good job at pointing out characteristics that every trend includes, readers should be careful to look at this as an exhaustive list. Gladwell simplifies effective change into 279 pages, when in reality, change isn’t only about the input and process behind the cause, but also the outlying factors of the status quo and the competitors of change.

In the end, Gladwell’s inspiring story of how “small changes can make a big difference” displayed the truths of his very own ideas. The Tipping Point became a New York Times best seller, a book read by business classes, companies, and inspiring entrepreneurs all over the world. Gladwell, himself, has been able to create a “tipping point” for the book by the very same name.