draft

Malcolm Gladwell

President of High Point University

Thomas A. Chang | GE CEO, Jeff Immelt

I attended a lecture by GE's CEO, Jeff Immelt, today. From the notes I took from my iPhone, he clearly described his thoughts on aspects of a strong future leader; be a systems thinker, embrace globalization, be comfortable to make tough decisions, learn how to solve problems well and be confident.

Throughout the lecture, he seemed to particularly emphasize the importance of confidence and loving to compete - being a competitor. Most of the points Immelt covered were pretty sound concepts though I was slightly questionable with his weight on being competitive because competition entails striving to win at the expense of someone else's loss. He is indeed a global leader, building networks in hundreds of countries so rather than solely being competitive, I think the key is to learn how to foster collaboration where the philosophy is based on a win-win equation.

Immelt described business to be similar to jujitsu, the Japanese martial art. He explained that jujitsu revolves around learning how to utilize an opponent's momentum to against them. Similarly to business, he expresses that a leaders must learn how to reinforce and empower peoples' passions.

To get things done, he would explain that building confidence is first. Building Momentum is second. And third, is to build excellence. Times and circumstances are different throughout history so he believed that it would be erroneous to listen to "old-timers." Only people who understand your context have the ability to give good advise. "I believe there are two types of advise in the world;" Immelt explained - "things you should do and things the adviser would do."

He ended the lecture by saying that business is fun and meaningful, consisting of people who can create competitiveness, wealth and prosperity.

Thomas Chang | Letter: to Tim Einfield, Quote: Kurt Vonnegut

"We have to continually be jumping off cliffs and developing our wings on the way down."

- Kurt Vonnegut

I feel that often times, this must be the case for entrepreneurs because by definition, they are risk takers; risk takers who assume full responsibility for the outcomes of their actions and decisions. They are not always given the luxury of time, assurance or confirmation and must utilize current resources at hand in determining the best strategy available.

During my sophomore year in college, I attended a conference in Chicago that centered around the roles of youth entrepreneurship in future societies. One of the keynote speakers was Ryan Allis, co-founder and CEO of iContact Corp. There was something he mentioned during his presentation that really caught my attention. "Do it first. Then ask for permission..." he advised. This confirm my value of time in entrepreneurship because in relativity, one of our most scarce assets is time; something you can not take back - that is, without time travel [record: February 6th, 2011]. Assuming that humans live, on average, 70 years, within that given time frame is all we have for making the most out of our lives. And in this fact, it's enough to propose the dangers of constantly second doubting because before you know it, you've lost all the time doubting rather than doing. It is sometimes better to just 'do' rather than get stuck in what Ryan Allis described as "analysis paralysis." It can be very time consuming when one becomes too meticulous in making a product 'perfect' but consequently keeps the product from ever being exposed.

In a recent conversation I had online with my friend who is also working on some entrepreneurial ventures, we discussed topics relating to just

Tim! I apologize for not getting back to you until now! I've been extremely busy and I failed to keep up with your message in a timely manner. But I'm here now. I read through everything carefully and my greatest advice is that you truly need to evangelize your vision to the people you are asking for help - significantly easier said than done.

However, I'm sure you are already working hard to do so but the unfortunate culture is that most people look for something in return or simply don't understand your perspective until they've experienced it themselves like how a cancer patient feels or how a parent feels having lost a child - in this case, having a disability. To add to the challenge it's a 501c3. It's extremely difficult to persuade people to help when first starting out but it can be done. Utilize and take advantage of everything you have, make relationships with good people and show them how their help can benefit them.

Hiring out is an option but dangerous because people want to make money. Finding good, moral people in this economy is rare. Plus there must be some credible foundation in which you know will work on. You may need to test a bridge out first by rolling a few rocks across it before commanding everyone to run across at once. Same thing with the venture - find those people who will build a beta test site for you; the skeleton form and just get it out there to let people try it. Don't worry about getting everything perfect, just get it out there. Nike's "Just Do It" slogan is right.

At this stage, it sounds like you are simply looking for people. Show them what you have so far and ask them to work with you. This is crucial rhetoric: you must ask them to work 'with' you, not 'for' you. Also, demonstrating what you have done and have thus far will significantly increase the possibility that they will help. Possibly search for a partnership(s). Searching for people in your CS department is a good start. Remember, strip everything to the bare essentials in beta and get it out. Everything great has started small. Facebook simply was created to be a cool site for Harvard with $200-$1000 for servers and a highly motivated team. Once you get something rolling, it becomes easier for you to convince people to help; possibly to the point where you require people to apply to help for you. But the point is, you have to just get something out. Sell your vision to someone, build the skeleton, and test.

As entrepreneurs, we'll never know if something will work until we allow the public to decide so spending thousands of dollars on something you don't know whether or not will work is dangerous so you must first test. The reason why I I know this is because I've seen multiple ventures get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and even millions to start a seemingly promising idea but at the end of the day, not persuasive enough to the public and ultimately wasting a fortune. One example is "CollegeOnly.com" started by a Princeton graduate for college students to connect. Sounds cool right, plus the kid must be really smart having graduated from Princeton. To Peter Thiel (early investor of facebook) it seemed promising. So he invested $1.2Million in the venture in 2009. Today, it's 2011, the site has launched last year 2010 but has disastrously failed because it has not convinced the public. Even after trying market through creating their own web show, marketing through facebook, spreading nationwide, they ultimately failed. It doesn't matter how much medicine you give to a dead body, a dead body is a dead body. Likewise, a bad product is a bad product.

So the key is to get something together and throw it out there. If fail, that only means you've learned a way not to fail again just as Thomas Edison learned 1000 ways not to fail in order to find that one world-changing success. In short, evangelize to good friend(s) with CS knowledge, build bare essential and get it out. Best to find people in physical proximity so you can shape the vision best by being with them the entire ride.

I wish you the best of luck my friend. Hope all is well. Don't hesitate to email or message me anytime bro.

Thomas Chang | Web Article: Changes in Technology and Business Economy

Here is the link: Free! Why $0.00 Is The Future of Business

Here is my analysis: Digital economists seem to understand a concept different from the traditional business model. Rather than the two way exchange between provider and consumer, the digital age has spurred economists to rethink the elements in which creates an efficient economy. The article described how the future of business models is becoming more adaptive to exchanging “something” rather than solely money. I found it interesting when they mentioned the asset of time and respect as capital. With the multiple components of exchangeable “externalities” it seems the over lying common denominator is activity. As long as there is any type of activity, economic opportunities exist. Whether it be using a site for free and glancing at an ad or buying cheap CD’s while receiving exposure to a touring band, there is a connection between all those situations which lies in mere activity.

Most traditionally, people receive a service or product and pay for it. But now, humans have developed more complex methods of gaining revenue in parallel to how humans behave. Psychologically, consumers love the idea of free because they don’t have to compensate anything to attain something else. From that, websites have designed their business model to just that type of behavior by allowing their site to be free but have a third party pay them for ad space. And while a user may not think they are affected by advertisement, studies will show that reoccurring ads can significantly solidify a certain inclination towards one brand or another through mere subconscious exposure.

Thomas Chang | Article: "The Genius of the Tinkerer"

Here is the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503730101860838.html

Here is my analysis: The concept the writer illustrates in this article is interesting because year after year, ideas manifested from the past provide valuable insight, like building blocks, to how we can design new ideas on top of the old. On a personal note however, I think it is as important to be able to find ideas out of simplicity as well rather than adding onto the old. One fairly recent example is in the 1990’s, mp3 players were bulgy devices that came in all sorts of styles and colors. The more the better, the bigger the better right? Not necessarily. When Steve Jobs designed the iPod, it was simply a white rectangle box with a circle in the middle. Who would have guessed. On Steven Spielberg’s Back to the Future, their idea of the future consisted of magnificently ostentation plastic clothing, bright flashing devices and noisy, bleeping house appliances. It is nothing like the world we live in today. The most prized futuristic houses are simple and clean.

The approach on today’s style has seemed to play more along the lines of simplicity and convenience rather than adding more on top of the old. As Leonardo da Vinci once said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” That is not to say, the story about the scholar who designed the orthodontic teeth cement after studying corals is not wonderful. It makes sense how different elements, physical and abstract ideas, can be combined in different combinations to create something completely new.

TED Video: Jason Fried, Work Dynamics

Here is the link: http://www.ted.com/talks/jason_fried_why_work_doesn_t_happen_at_work.html

Here is my analysis: Jason Fried points out several important points about the distractions in today’s working environment. He points out that most company managers are misconceived about how their employees are distracted during work because they think websites like Facebook, Twitter and personal emails are the problem. However, Jason Fried illustrates how managers, themselves, are the distraction to their employees. “Managers don’t actually do the work; they just go around making sure everyone else is…” explains Fried. I can understand this point because he provides the example of sleeping. Work and sleep are both phase-based activities. When you are interrupted during sleep, it takes time to go through the natural cycles again (the events of alpha, theta, brain waves, K-complexes, REM, etc). Likewise with work, when you are interrupted while you’re concentrating on something, it takes time to return to your previous mode of focus.

Managers might constantly come by to check up on you, ask you questions or summon meetings. Meetings are an interesting case alone. I remember in high school, while I was in the junior reserve officer training corps, the staff members and officers were required to attend weekly meetings. One of the largest projects we worked on was organizing a week-long camp (Basic Leadership Camp) for the underclassmen. The meetings were the most torturous of events because they were excruciatingly long and we never got anything done. The same four hours it took to take turns talking about every department’s particular situation could be done simply by having leader speak to two to three people, independently, for a few minutes then allow them to continue working rather than keeping them in the conference room to listen to another department’s problem that had no relevance to their own tasks. However, one aspect about Jason Fried position on the topic of distraction, I feel, is that his point may be true for the more elite team of employees.

I think managers should take in the circumstantial factors of their work place and what type of employees they lead. For example, it seems that less focused and motivated businesses have a reason to restrict Facebook or Twitter because their employees may be lazy individuals who need a supervisor to keep them in line and constant meetings to reorganize. On the other hand, companies like Google or Facebook possess the most brilliant of teams and high-caliber workers. These are the people who have the self-discipline to choose, as Fried says, when is the right time to be distracted. They have the initiative to continue working and not voluntarily lose focus. Recently, I watched an interview from Mark Zuckerberg where the interviewer asked him about board meetings and Zuckerberg replied, “I mean, here at Facebook, we’re about focus and not so much about bureaucracy…” This response was like a breath of fresh air.

Thomas Chang | Web Article: "Is Google making us stupid?"

Here is the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/

Here is my analysis: This article had great relevance to my personal experience with using the internet over the last few months. I’ve been working on a project that has gone on for about a year now, and much of it had to do with researching different aspects of networks and simply spending time, exploring. It has gotten to the point where the article has slammed the nail right on the head. I think I have significantly lost much of my ability to concentrate and focus, both in thought and speech. As explained in the article, internet surfing, by nature, does not require much concentration. Rather, like the way I spend much of my time online, it consists of “hopping” from site to site, skimming, getting distracted, checking my email, typing a few sentences for my homework essay, and checking Facebook… Unlike reading a book, I am no longer training myself to “sit tight” and read one material thoroughly. And over time, I have noticed that my way of thinking is easily distracted.