This article first appeared in the UConn Business magazine, Volume 1, Issue  (Summer 2009)

Paul Speltz ’69, ’72 MBA has been an advisor on USA-China affairs to the White House under Presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush. In 2002, President Bush appointed him U.S. Executive Director to the Asian Development Bank. He is currently Chairman and CEO of Global Strategic Associates, LLC and Senior Advisor to Kissinger Associates, Inc. He joined the School of Business Hall of Fame in 1998 and serves on the School of Business Board of Advisors. 

While some might question the objectivity of a former member of the George W. Bush administration critiquing President Obama’s performance in his first 12 weeks in office, most friends and colleagues would describe me as a moderate Republican who, above all, can recognize that the current President has faced unprecedented challenges in the short time he has held his new position.

In short, I give the Obama administration generally good marks on its performance amidst these tumultuous times. What follows are my impressions of the White House’s responses across a range of sectors, some dealt with more favorably than others. Let us take a look at some of the realities that President Obama faced as he entered office, including areas which have received less coverage than others, and understand where he has led the country so far.

Inner Beltway Syndrome 

As the euphoria of winning the election has subsided for Obama, the President faces the reality of demands from countless groups, organizations, and individuals who believe that they were instrumental in the party winning the Presidency.

Despite President Obama’s repeated claims that he will not pander to special interests, he nonetheless immediately began facing the realities of favors granted and the expectation that those favors will be repaid in Washington DC, a.k.a. the “Inner Beltway Syndrome.” In the days and weeks following the election, his biggest internal task will be in taking the mantle of Democratic power from the Democratic members of the House and Senate, who held it for the prior eight years. Unfortunately, he has not been successful in accomplishing this.

The attitudes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have not been in sync with the President, as they clearly continue to try to establish and promote their own agenda on the Hill. These mixed signals and lack of coordination have led to the array of poorly planned economic bills coming to the floors. I would give the President a “B “ for his outreach to Republicans and special interest groups in his first few months, but I would give him a “D” in his ability to seize the leadership on the Hill from the very party that put him in power. This is not unusual in Washington, but President Obama must move to control the Hill quickly, or he will fail to enact the many programs that he has promised the American people.

The Cabinet

President Obama’s ability to select a Cabinet and Sub-Cabinet actually went quickly until he began bumping into the results of excessively stringent screening standards. For example, the administration added the vetting step of analyzing the computer hard drives of many of its candidates, a laborious and time-consuming step. However, it is important to look at past administrations and recognize that, even without these extra measures, many had not filled Cabinet and other top-tier positions, including Ambassadors, until the late spring and early summer following inauguration.

Given the public’s very high expectations of Obama in light of the economic crisis, there have been unrealistic demands for speed in filling top positions. However, despite Treasury and other agencies being well on their way to filling their ranks, the administration must assume some responsibility for the added layers of scrutiny which have delayed a number of critical appointments. I rate the President between a B and a C on this effort.

Economic First Aid 

The economic “solutions” we have seen from the White House have unfortunately been a series of haphazard measures which seek to place a Band-Aid on the wound as opposed to treating the underlying condition. The results have generated a great deal of volatility and “back-and-forthing” on problems facing the automobile industry, the banking sector, and now the pay and regulation of the financial sector as a whole.

Much of this can be explained by an anxious national and global public wanting the administration to do something, anything, very quickly to halt the economic free fall. However, many of the stellar scholars and economists the President has on staff maintain more of a focus on generating plans within the intellectual sanctity of academia; precious few have the extensive private sector experience to understand how such plans will play out in the harsh reality of the marketplace.

Much of the economic “planning” that has come out of the administration, while novel and sweeping and certainly worthy of praise in an academic journal, have an equal or greater potential for economic backfire as they do for turnaround.

While the economic problems we face have been caused by greed, arrogance, lack of accountability, and unrealistic hope for continued easy wealth across a number of administrations, there has been enough finger-pointing as to their root cause. The aim must now be to focus upon learning from past mistakes and applying reasonable regulations and oversight for the future, without choking the fundamental effectiveness of free market capitalism. As of today, there is hope that the US stock markets are testing the bottom. Only time will tell if this is unrealistic optimism. My belief is that we still have a long time before we see a turnaround, and we will not see significant upticks in economic indicators such as employment levels before 2010. For his very patchy performance in an admittedly tumultuous time, I give the President a “C” on the economy.

International Relations

In the area of international relations, I feel President Obama has done quite well, and I give him a grade of “B”. The public must remember that effective operation on the global stage does not simply mean foisting responsibility upon the Secretary of State. The President must set the agenda with input from the National Security Council, the State Department, and key advisors in the White House. He must then ensure that his agenda is carried out, and that there is a level of concord among the players.

Despite high expectation, President Obama’s approach to the G-20 meetings was genuine, and his other engagements in Europe thereafter have been well received as an American foreign policy that represents a willingness to listen and cooperate with other nations, rather than lecture them. This is refreshing. The approaches in Asia, although a bit confusing at times, were well received, and his approaches with Russia on further denuclearization are seen by many (myself included) as steps in the correct direction. North Korea will remain a headache for President Obama for a long time to come, and there is no quick solution – certainly not the military strike solution that Mr. Bolton and a few others might advocate. Our patient cooperation with Japan and South Korea on this issue is crucial, andwe must continue to ensure that China and Russia remain as parties to these negotiations.

Domestic Affairs

Regarding domestic affairs, this is not an area on which the President has had the luxury of spending a great deal of time yet, so I will refrain from proposing a grade. During these first 100 days or so, most Americans have appeared to be patient, as President Obama focuses on their most important concerns: their jobs, their lifestyles, and their heavily mortgaged homes. However, patience has its limits, and this honeymoon period will run short sooner than later. At that point, key members of the Obama team in the Departments of Health and Energy, to name a few, must begin demonstrating results to a heretofore intractable and difficult Congress. We can only wish them the best.

A Closing Note

President Obama has had his hands full with more demands in his first 100 days than any of his recent predecessors. He and his team at the Treasury must maintain focus on the economy and its global impact. In every country where I have travelled in the past few months, global financial leaders have expressed a desire for the United States to act decisively in enacting necessary financial reforms without leading the rest of the world down the path of protectionism and isolationism. We must also remain productively engaged with other key economic partners, particularly China, to ensure their understanding and cooperation as we look forward.

We will hopefully be able to accomplish this while winding down the conflict in Iraq, and adding much needed resources to Afghanistan without letting it turn into a quagmire we can little afford. This is to say nothing of the demands on the President provided by Sudan, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, emerging drug wars in Mexico, and the Global War on Terror, which will stay with us for generations to come.

These challenges, when added to the mix of domestic issues and priorities, add up to a President who will need all the luck and support we can summon for him, as his hair turns exceedingly white in the months to come.

This article first appeared in the UConn Business magazine, Volume 1, Issue 1 (Summer 2009)

We live in a world of brand names and registered trademarks. Each day we are confronted with dozens, if not hundreds, of products that have become household names: Coca Cola, IBM, Nike, just to name a few.

Companies jealously guard their branded products, spending vast sums to create, promote, and differentiate them. And many consumers respond to brands through a variety of complex behaviors, even identifying with some in a personal way (“I’m a Mac person”).

The concept of branding originated in the U.S. in the nineteenth century, but it has become firmly rooted throughout the developed world and is also a growing presence in emerging international markets, particularly in the budding global youth culture of the former Soviet bloc. As in the West, young urban consumers in Eastern Europe and Russia drive brand growth and awareness.

But what core meanings are attached to branded products, and are these meanings cross-national? What qualities or values does the global youth segment associate with brands? Are branded products better or more trusted than unbranded products? And do young consumers in Eastern Europe and Russia relate to brands in the same ways as their Western counterparts?

To answer these questions, UConn Marketing Professor Robin Coulter, working with Professor Yuliya Strizhakova of Rutgers University and Professor Linda Price of the University of Arizona, developed a scale to measure four dimensions of branded product meanings: quality, values, personal identity, and traditions. The results of their research can be invaluable for multinational firms seeking to design effective marketing campaigns aimed at young consumers in both developed and developing markets.

Coulter and her fellow researchers focused on college-educated consumers, aged 18 to 29, from the U.S., Ukraine, Romania and Russia. They chose this demographic for its high degree of homogeneity, which previous research indicated spans national and cultural boundaries. In fact, this global market segment appears to have more in common with each other, identifying with similar symbols and sharing aligned interests, than with their older countrymen.

Using a combination of research protocols, including indepth interviews, extant data, and surveys, Coulter and her team explored the complex reactions that these young consumers had to branded products generally, and to a variety of durable (automobiles and electronics) and non-durable (soft drinks and personal care) products. Their results revealed striking cross-national similarities.

For each national group, quality was the most important aspect of a branded product. This is perhaps not surprising because many internationally branded products have stressed quality and dependability as key selling points (Quality is Our Most Important Product – GE; Quality is Job 1 – Ford). Coulter’s research confirms that the global youth segment perceives quality as a key component of brand-name products.

In terms of how branded products help reinforce a sense of personal identity, Coulter and her colleagues discovered some interesting differences between the U.S. and the other national groups. In particular, branding as a signal of self identity, status, and group identity was more pronounced in the U.S. This finding is likely a consequence of more firms in the U.S. promoting the image of branded products, and the greater incidence of communities, such as Mac users, affiliated with particular brands. As firms begin to implement marketing campaigns focusing on personal identity issues in the developing countries, we are likely to witness consumers in these countries ascribing greater importance to this dimension of branded products.

The findings related to “values” suggest the possibility of different interpretations across countries. In the U.S. consumers indicated the importance of values related to socially responsible actions, whereas in developing countries, interpretations suggest that value may be linked to quality and price perceptions. Coulter and her colleagues suggest the need for  additional research to more systematically examine the various values associated with branded products.

Finally, the research reported that “tradition” was the least important meaning of branded products. Coulter and associates speculate that the low level of importance assigned to this category possibly signals that the global youth market, rather than following established traditions, may prefer to break with them, and also that consumers in developing countries have not had the time to establish ongoing traditions associated with specific brands.

This study provides evidence that brand awareness spans cultural and national boundaries, and is a powerful determinant in consumer behavior among the global youth market. Global marketing managers will find the scale developed by Coulter and her team to be a useful tool for developing successful international marketing efforts.

*Study cited in this brief: Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. and Price, L. “The Meanings of Branded Products: A Cross-national Scale Development and Meaning Assessment,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 25, no.2, pp.82-93.

This article first appeared in the UConn Business magazine, Volume 1, Issue 1 (Summer 2009)

Telecommuting is generally defined as “the practice of working at home and interacting with employers, clients, and fellow workers through communication technology.” According to the latest numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, over 20 million Americans now telecommute on a semi-regular basis, a trend that increases each year.

Given the growing popularity of telecommuting, it is not surprising that many commonly-held beliefs surrounding this practice have arisen. Perhaps the two most widespread are:

1: Telecommuting enhances job satisfaction, and

2: Telecommuting enhances the work-family balance.

But are these beliefs valid? Common sense would suggest that working from home can reduce the stress of the morning and evening commute, provide a comfortable work environment, and allow more work schedule flexibility. Human resource managers often cite such benefits when recommending this alternative work mode. However, much of the research on the
benefits of telecommuting is inconclusive. Some studies indicate higher levels of job satisfaction among telecommuters, while other research finds that extensive telecommuting may result in lower satisfaction. Similar disagreement exists in the literature on work-family balance.

To help resolve these discrepancies, Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor John Veiga of the School of Business Management Department, in collaboration with Professor Zeki Simsek (UConn) and Professor Timothy Golden (Renssalaer), has conducted comprehensive research over several years, and their findings offer some surprising insights into the complexities of telecommuting.

Veiga and his colleagues analyzed a sample of 321 professional-level employees to determine whether the extent of telecommuting has a positive or negative effect on job satisfaction. The study focused on the in-office vs. out-of-office time of experienced telecommuters rather than the more common comparisons between telecommuters and non-telecommuters.

Veiga and his colleagues contacted a random sample of 1,000 professional level employees from a large, high-tech firm that encourages telecommuting. Filtering the responses down to 321, they used regression analysis on the results of a web-based survey. Respondents spanned a wide variety of jobs within the company, including marketing, sales, accounting, programming, engineering, and others.

The findings suggest that there is a curvilinear relationship between the extent of telecommuting and job satisfaction.
The shape of this curve is an inverted U, somewhat akin to a bell curve minus the tails. In other words, job satisfaction initially increases as the extent of telecommuting increases; however, this satisfaction tapers off at higher levels of telecommuting and eventually reaches a plateau. In addition, the slope of this curve is strongly affected by other factors, such as the nature of the telecommuter’s job.

Veiga and his associates found that employees who need to rely on one another to perform their tasks effectively are less likely to gain job satisfaction from extensive telecommuting. The same moderating influence applies to those who have less autonomy in how they perform their jobs. In both these cases, extensive absence from the workplace, and the resultant decrease in face-to-face interaction and feedback, can lead to frustration. The lesson is simply, if you regularly depend upon others to do your job or have limited job discretion, extensive telecommuting could put your sense of job satisfaction at serious risk.

Veiga and his colleagues provide a valuable perspective for corporate managers to consider, principally by challenging the assumption that the more employees telecommute, the more satisfied they are, irrespective of the nature of their jobs.

In a second study, Veiga and his colleagues examined the relationship between telecommuting and work-family balance. It has become a workplace axiom that by working at home, employees are better able to balance the conflicting demands of job and family. But is that true?

This time, over 1,200 professional level employees were surveyed and 454 respondents were selected for analysis. These employees worked at home an average of 20 hours per week and had been telecommuting for an average of 4 years.

The results of this study revealed that, although the telecommuters’ work interfered less with their family demands, the reverse occurred: family demands interfered more heavily with work. In fact, the more extensively individuals worked from home, the greater the demands of family became. The research shows that family members who would be reluctant to interrupt someone in the workplace seem to be much more inclined to interrupt the same individual working at home, even for relatively trivial requests.

And the telecommuter seems more apt to honor these interruptions, resulting in lost productivity. For example, ask yourself this question, “If I am working from home during the week and an ailing parent needs to be driven for regular medical visits, would I feel comfortable saying no?”

As with the job satisfaction study, job autonomy also helps offset family demands. In fact, telecommuters with greater autonomy reported far less conflict between family demands and work demands compared to those with less job autonomy. Not surprisingly, for telecommuters with larger households, family demands seriously conflicted with work demands.

In their research, Veiga and his colleagues deconstruct some of the conventional wisdom surrounding the benefits of telecommuting. Their findings can help us better recognize how to manage this growing trend and make it clear that when it comes to telecommuting, one size does not fit all employees.

This article first appeared in the UConn Business magazine, Volume 1, Issue 1 (Summer 2009)

No one needs to convince UConn marketing professor Subash Jain that globalization continues to impact MBA program curricula in this new millennium. Jain, director of UConn’s Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER), believes that dialogue among MBA faculty internationally is central to curricular reform; therefore, he invited deans and senior administrators from leading MBA programs across the globe to discuss these changes.

This inaugural Global Roundtable on Advanced Management Education Reform (GRAMER) promises to be the first of many future roundtables that will encourage experts from leading business schools—this year, ranging from Harvard, MIT, and Columbia University to international stalwarts such as Fudan University (China) and IMD International (Switzerland)—to offer future direction for curriculum innovation.

While participants may have differed in opinions over the skills, competencies, and courses that MBA programs should emphasize to prepare the next generation of global business leaders, they all agreed upon one thing: the time is ripe for examining graduate education anew, especially with respect to the environmental, geopolitical, and technological shifts now impacting industry. “There is a concern that, since the practice of management has changed considerably in the past fifty years, the MBA curriculum at leading universities must always anticipate and address these substantive changes. This roundtable allowed experts from the finest business schools across the world to offer recommendations for curricular revision that reflect the explosive growth in international business,” said Jain.

UConn’s CIBER served as an ideal host for this three-day conference that focused largely on curricular responses to globalization. Under Jain’s direction since 1995, CIBER serves as a resource center for UConn faculty, students, and industry partners who seek knowledge and skills on international issues in order to enhance US competitiveness. In recognition of its excellent global business programs, UConn’s School of Business is one of only 31 US universities to receive a US Department of Education grant to support its outreach efforts. “UConn’s CIBER is a strategic partner to our business programs at UConn, working with faculty so they may help students cultivate a sense of cultural intelligence,” said Chris Earley, Dean of UConn’s School of Business.

After opening remarks by Earley, Jain, and John Stopford, professor emeritus of the London Business School and GRAMER’s co-chair, presenters launched into a range of innovative recommendations for preparing this generation’s business leaders. While some presenters discussed how new technologies are being leveraged to foster virtual, cross-cultural experiential learning, others illustrated the possibilities of dualdegree programs that encouraged US schools to partner with non-US institutions. Understanding that succeeding in the emergent global landscape requires an innovative type of thinking, several presenters explored strategies for teaching students creativity, emphasizing that “creativity is a precondition to being global.” The wide spectrum of ideas generated rigorous discussion throughout the Stamford event, and London Financial Times reporter Michael Skapinker moderated a wrap-up session to offer participants some closure and personal reflection as they press forward to adopt curricular change.

To serve as a catalyst for future roundtables, UConn’s CIBER will be developing a white paper to summarize presenters’ ideas and outline the emergent themes across the wide array of presentations.

While presenters concurred that an MBA education must, as always, prepare graduates to maximize benefits to stakeholders, these presenters also underscored that MBA graduates must be prepared to lead in cross-cultural environments, demonstrate an acute awareness of cultural differences, and demonstrate concern for global sustainability issues, including worldwide poverty and global warming. Discovering ways to develop this mindset among students remains central to UConn’s MBA program and reflects a central part of Dean Earley’s strategic plan: preparing global leaders for the new millennium.

Jain and UConn’s CIBER will participate in future GRAMER conferences to extend the ideas and recommendations that emerged in this inaugural international forum. Jain reflected, “We all recognize that the world and, hence, industry has changed considerably with respect to environmental shifts, geopolitical shifts, and emerging markets. Change is inevitable, and this first-ever conference has positioned UConn and its global competitors well to develop exceptional MBA programs that are responsive to these changes. Here at UConn, CIBER looks forward to contributing tothese strategic curricular changes, so we may give our MBA graduates the competitive advantage they’ll need to be successful.”