|
May, 2009,
Volume 13, Number
7
Leading in a Dynamic and Unpredictable World: Wharton
Leadership Conference, June 16, 2009
How Corporate Governance Affects Cross-Border Mergers
and Acquisitions
By Mark Hanna
The 5,700-Mile Journey for Leadership Development
By Wendy Parsons
Leading in a Dynamic and Unpredictable World:
Wharton Leadership Conference, June 16, 2009

The
13th annual Wharton Leadership Conference is scheduled
for June 16 in Philadelphia on "Leading in a Dynamic and
Unpredictable World."
For
information on the conference, click here:
http://leadershipconference.wharton.upenn.edu/2009/index.shtml.
Speakers include (http://leadershipconference.wharton.upenn.edu/2009/speakers.shtml):
Beth
Brooke, Global Vice Chair, Ernst & Young
·
Peter Guber, chairman and CEO of
Mandalay Entertainment Group
·
Ellen Kullman, CEO of DuPont
·
Fiona MacLeod, President of BP
Convenience Retail
·
Steven Pearlstein, Pulitzer-Prize
winning columnist for the Washington Post
·
Frank Russomanno, CEO of Imation
·
Harbir Singh, vice dean for Global
Initiatives at the Wharton School
·
Richard Norton Smith, author and
historian, and expert on the American presidency
For
registration, go to
http://leadershipconference.wharton.upenn.edu/2009/registration.html.
Beth
Brooke focuses on developing Ernest & Young’s strategic
direction and shaping its position on public policy.
Her work includes engaging with regulators, policy
makers, business leaders, and investors. She has been
an advocate for the advancement of women, and served as
a U.S. delegate to the 2009 United Nations Commission on
the Status of Women. She helped create the Ernst &
Young Corporate Social Responsibility group, including
its Fellows Program, which enables the firm’s top
performers to spend three months working with aspiring
local entrepreneurs in developing countries. During the
Clinton Administration, she worked in the U.S.
Department of the Treasury, where she was responsible
for all tax policy matters related to insurance and
managed care.
How Corporate Governance Affects Cross-Border Mergers
and Acquisitions
By Mark Hanna
Mergers and acquisitions (M&As)
have a marvelous potential for adding value to firms,
but the subsequent reorganization phase is often fraught
with difficulties. This is especially true for
cross-national M&A activity, as the widely-touted 1998
merger of Germany’s Daimler-Benz and America’s Chrysler
clearly illustrates. After years of being unable to
profit on the relationship, Daimler sold an 80.1 percent
stake of DaimlerChrysler to Cerberus Capital Management
in 2007, and then agreed to sell the remaining 19.9
percent on April 27, 2009.
Part of the difficulty with
post-merger restructuring is that cross-border mergers
and acquisitions never occur in a strict business
vacuum. Added to the narrow issues of tactical
reorganization are broader cross-country factors
relating to politics, culture, ideologies, and history.
Not to be excluded from this list are the differences in
national corporate governance institutions, which can
provide varying degrees of power and influence to the
different stakeholders involved in the reorganization.
In a recent article in Strategic
Management Journal titled “National
Corporate Governance Institutions and Post-Acquisition
Target Reorganization,”
Laurence Capron, professor of Strategy at INSEAD,
and
Mauro Guillén, director of the Joseph H. Lauder
Institute for Management & International Studies at the
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania,
undertook an exhaustive analysis of how national
corporate governance differences affect the relative
bargaining power of shareholders and employees in the
critical restructuring phase. What they found, in
effect, is that governance differences do matter.
The National Corporate
Governance Factor
Corporate governance, which deals
with “the allocation of rights and obligations among the
firm’s stakeholders,” is a critical factor in the
success of any M&A activity because it can affect the
balance of power. This is particularly true in the
post-acquisition phase, where asset restructuring
and resource redeployment can potentially place
shareholders and employees at odds with each other.
“Asset restructuring” refers to the disposing or
recombining of assets as well as the elimination of
redundancies, all of which can entail employee layoffs.
“Resource deployment” refers to “an actual shift of
technological, marketing, or operational knowledge from
the acquirer to the target or vice versa, which may
affect employees in various ways.” For example, older
employees might oppose resource redeployment if they
have to learn new skills or if they will lose power to
the benefit of new employees or groups within the firm.
Capron and Guillén were interested
in studying how differences in national corporate
governance systems vis-à-vis shareholder and employee
rights could affect the post-M&A reorganization efforts.
They made three specific arguments, which they
subsequently tested:
·
Acquirers embedded in a system that
protects shareholder rights better than in the context
in which the target resides, are likely to exert more
pressure to reorganize the target during the
post-acquisition period;
·
Target employees whose labor rights are
well protected are likely to constrain the acquirer’s
ability to restructure the target’s assets or to
transfer resources across the merging firms;
·
An acquirer’s past acquisition experience
is expected to moderate the effect of target employee
rights on the acquirer’s ability to reorganize the
target.
The reasoning behind the third
argument is that repeated cross-border M&A experience
gives the acquirer the insight to anticipate target
employee reactions, design better compensation schemes,
and reduce the trauma of target reorganization, all of
which reduce resistance to change.
Data and Methods
When designing their study, Capron
and Guillén decided on the idea of “corporate
acquisition” as their basic unit of analysis. Their
initial sample frame consisted of 2,020 “horizontal”
acquisitions (i.e., those with similar product lines)
undertaken in North America and Europe between 1988 and
1992 by manufacturing companies. Only acquisitions
within the same four-digit U.S. Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code industry were considered. The
acquisitions were either entire corporations or else
distinct business units from continuing corporations.
They mailed 1,778 survey
questionnaires during 1994 and 1995 to acquiring
companies, addressed to the chief executives of the
business units that did the acquisition. Of those
surveys sent out, 273 were completed, giving a 16
percent response rate. The final data set spans 253
acquisitions undertaken by 190 acquirers located in 14
countries and targets in 27 countries.
These surveys were designed to
measure three dependent variables:
·
The extent of post-acquisition target
asset restructuring;
·
The extent of post-acquisition
redeployment of acquirer resources;
·
The extent of post-acquisition
redeployment of target resources to acquirer.
A nice design feature of the study
was that the independent variables measuring changes in
shareholder rights and labor rights in the acquirer and
target countries were derived from separate index data,
not survey data. Shareholder rights were measured using
an index developed by Schneper and Guillén (2004).
Target country labor rights were measured using a
specific index put out by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD). The use of index
data in this context is a good technique to prevent
“common method bias,” a potentially troublesome aspect
of purely survey research.
To round out their models, the
authors included some additional variables. To measure
the acquirer’s experience as a moderating variable, they
included an interaction term calculated by multiplying
acquirer M&A experience by target country labor rights.
They also specified a number of control variables,
including acquisition motive, industry growth,
pre-acquisition profitability, etc.
Finally, they used a number of
analytical techniques, including ordinary least squares
(OLS) regression and structural equation modeling, to
check the magnitudes, interactions, and statistical
significance of the variables.
Results
After running a number of different
models, Capron and Guillén found considerable support
for their predictions. Specifically, they state:
We found
support for our predictions that stronger legal
protection of shareholder rights in the acquirer’s
country compared to the target country increases the
acquirer’s ability to restructure the target’s assets
and leverage the target’s resources, while the
protection of employee rights in the target country
restricts the acquirer’s ability to restructure the
target’s assets and redeploy resources to and from the
target.
What about the acquirer’s previous
M&A experience as a factor in reducing target employee
resistance? The authors found that “experienced
acquirers partially mitigate the negative effects of
target labor rights on target asset restructuring and
resource deployment.” They use the word “partially”
because they found a non-significant effect on resource
deployment to the acquirer. They observed, “Capturing
new resources from the target might be more complex,
more idiosyncratic, and less subject to the experience
effect.”
Final Observations
This study is a significant advance
in the M&A literature because it is “the first to pursue
an institutional analysis of the potentially divergent
interests of shareholders and employees in the
post-acquisition process” using a cross-national set of
data.
The paper also has some
implications for management theory. Capron and Guillén
state, “we have further developed and advanced a key
insight of institutional theory, namely that economic
action is embedded in dynamics of interest, power, and
influence.” They further observe that “it is congruent
with the resource-based view of the firm and its
assumption of firm heterogeneity because firms with
experience have a capability that enables them to
overcome institutional obstacles.”
This paper also has implications
for managerial practice, especially as it affects the
acquirer’s bidding price for the target. The authors
note that if national governance institutions prevent
the acquirers from making certain post-acquisition
changes, the target price needs to be discounted for
that risk. Similarly, if national institutions present
opportunities for creating value through regulatory
arbitrage, the target price should be adjusted upwards.
Insofar as this paper highlights
the complex relationship between firm-level value
creation and country-level corporate governance
institutions, it also provides a “caveat emptor” for
firms engaging in cross-border acquisitions, which
brings us back to case of Chrysler.
The White House announced at the
end of April that the beleaguered auto firm will seek
bankruptcy protection and enter into an alliance with
Italian-based Fiat. In a May 1 article titled “Chrysler
Pushed into Fiat’s Arms,” The Wall Street Journal
reported that the final ownership structure will likely
involve the UAW’s retiree health fund (55 percent), Fiat
(20 to 35 percent), U.S. government (8 percent), and
Canadian and Ontario governments (2 percent).
Considering that the corporate governance institutions
of three different countries are involved with the newly
reorganized firm, Chrysler’s restructuring efforts are
likely to be a rough-and-tumble affair.
Author’s Notes:
Schneper, W.D. & Guillén, M.F.
(2004). Stakeholder rights and corporate governance: a
cross-national study of hostile takeovers.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 263-295.
Mark Hanna is a freelance business
researcher and writer based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He
can be reached at
markhanna@mchsi.com.
Changing the Mindset at the British National Health
Service:
Lord Ara Darzi
Knowledge@Wharton
During
a recent visit to the University of Pennsylvania, Ara
Darzi, Lord Darzi of Denham, spoke with Wharton
management professor Michael Useem about the British
National Health Service (NHS) and how it plans to meet
the challenges of delivering quality health care in
England over the next decade. Darzi, a surgeon, was
appointed Health Minister by British Prime Minister
Gordon Brown in June 2007.
An edited transcript of the
conversation follows.
Knowledge@Wharton:
Welcome to Philadelphia. Based on almost two years in
office as Health Minister, are there general guidelines
for the structuring and operating of national health
systems that you can offer?
Darzi:
Thank you. It's nice to be in Philadelphia. May I just
add that first, I am a clinician academic and continue
to be a clinician, working two and a half days a week.
But at the same time, the Prime Minister very kindly
asked me to serve, and it's been my privilege to do so
for two years. Working in the National Health Service (NHS)
and also being part of policy making for the NHS, I'm a
great fan. Last year, we celebrated its 60th
anniversary. It has stood its test of time.
What really attracts me about
the NHS is one of its principal values: Everyone has
access to care, irrespective of their ability to pay.
For free. That is a very unique value. We have a
universal health care system. I think that value
actually is more relevant 60 years down the line than
it's ever been. As you know, it's a tax-funded system.
The government has significantly increased the
expenditure in the NHS from somewhere around 42 billion
pounds in the year 2002 to somewhere approaching 110
billion pounds next year. That's massive growth. We've
done many reforms in the NHS over the last seven or
eight years. I had the privilege of designing where we
are heading for the next phase of our reform, which I
articulated in my report last July. [It contains] a very
clear statement: "Quality will be the organizing
principle of the NHS."
Knowledge@Wharton:
Let me ask about the last six months which, with the
financial crisis, have been very difficult on major
economies just about everywhere in the world. It has now
morphed into an economic crisis for many countries,
certainly the U.S. and the UK. Given the fact that GDP
in the coming 12 months may actually be negative,
certainly in the U.S. -- and also, I believe, in the UK
-- talk through some of the implications for providing
health care given the downward pressure that comes from
fewer taxes, fewer pounds coming in from the tax rolls,
and other consequences of the economic crisis. What is
being done to cope with the fact that this is going to
be a very difficult 12-month stretch?
Darzi:
I think most of us have grave concerns about the
economy, and I think all governments across the globe
are working very hard dealing with the causation of this
problem. As far as health goes, certainly within the NHS,
I made the point earlier, we've increased the
expenditure to about 110 billion pounds. That's more
than doubling the expenditure in the health system. What
drove my report at the time was [that] quality was an
organizing principle. There are two things that the NHS
has as unique advantages during these difficult economic
times.
First, because it's a health
care system that looks after you from cradle to the
grave, it should start with -- and we are investing in
-- prevention. Prevention is better than cure.
Prevention is cheaper than treating illness. Many of our
interventions are: "How do we introduce evidence-based
measures in prevention?" -- whether these happen to be
lifestyle-based diseases or [others]. I'll give you
obesity as a good example. We look at obesity as
seriously as climate change, because we believe, from a
health perspective, that it could have the biggest
impact on the health of our population.
The second thing is quality.
It's like many other sectors. Let's not forget that
quality may be cheaper in health care. Quality's not
more expensive. It may be cheaper. Doing things right
the first time, giving patients access at an earlier
stage of their disease -- that in itself will make
health care costs cheaper. So on the one hand, I'm
reassured because we have a universal health care, which
is tax-funded.
Knowledge@Wharton:
One of the central thrusts in your report, which is
going to guide your actions in the next several years,
is to focus on developing ownership and leadership on
the part of all players, all participants, in the health
system: patients, physicians, nurses, administrators,
pharmacists. It's a difficult goal to achieve,
especially on the massive scale that you have proposed.
If you could say a couple words about how you're going
to go about developing that sense of identity as a
leader on the part of all of the players, so that they
indeed feel that they own the system, that the problems
are theirs, and that they have an obligation to address
the problems and solve them.
Darzi:
I couldn't agree more. I think one of our biggest
opportunities is to invest in the tremendous leadership
pool we have in the NHS. The question is, how do you
activate that? How do you promote that leadership gene
that exists in the system? That, in itself, requires
more than just saying, "Go out there and be a leader."
Leadership has to have a purpose. It's leadership for
quality that I'm looking for from the Health Service,
from those who work in the Health Service.
To do that requires a mindset
change, a behavioral change, across the system. That is
the type of transformational change that we are thinking
of at the moment. More importantly is what we've learned
from the next stage review, which I led. There were 10
regional reports. Clinicians felt that they were
actually involved, challenging themselves with
evidence-based care, and designing the pathways of care.
So there was ownership in that process.
Besides the ownership, we
need to move on to the next phase, in which they feel
empowered to make that change happen. I think what's
important for us, as clinicians -- and I will say "us,"
me, too -- is that when you are empowered,
accountability comes with it. I think, for the first
time, and certainly in this phase of reform, it's not
just individual accountability; it's a collective
accountability around the team looking after a patient.
I'll give you an example. If
you look at a patient pathway, from the day they are
referred from their primary care physician into a
hospital setting -- treatment is done in hospitals by
multiple teams -- then back to the primary care
physician, we need a way in which there is a collective
accountability across the pathway of care. That is what
we need to work on and develop within the NHS, and
that's exactly what we're doing. I announced in my
report what I call the National Leadership Council,
which is the opportunity for the NHS itself to develop
and promote leadership skills within that accountability
framework that I described.
Knowledge@Wharton:
Let me ask several personal questions. As a surgeon, you
are in control of the surgical theater. As a member of
the House of Lords and a Minister, that control is
shared with many other individuals. There are forces
over which you, indeed, can exercise very little
control. Guide us through your own experience in moving
from a clinician, a researcher, to a person responsible
for a national health system.
Darzi:
It was a fairly steep learning curve. [As for] my role
in the House of Lords, I'm a member of a team of five.
We are five ministers in total, and the Secretary of
State for Health, who is in the House of Commons, is
Alan Johnson. I've benefited a lot from his mentorship
and the mentorship of many other colleagues in the House
of Lords who welcomed me and mentored me for my initial
introduction there. You started by describing me as a
clinician and an academic. I'm a professional. I talk
about what I know. My role in the House of Lords is to
bring that clinical flavor to what I do in health care
policy. That, in itself, the support that I have
received from many noble Lords in the House, [means
that] I've been very fortunate in having some
fascinating debates, very interesting debates. The
chamber itself is full of exceptional people with all
sorts of different backgrounds. So, when you take a bill
through, as I did -- my first bill was the Human
Fertilization and Embryology bill -- I can't remember
having heard any debates of that quality ever in my life
before. So it was a great privilege to be part of that,
and be personally responsible for leading that bill
through.
Knowledge@Wharton:
Let's go back a little bit on your career. To do it over
again, would you pick a career in medicine, and in
particular, would you pick a career in surgery?
Darzi:
Absolutely. There's no doubt in my mind. It's not just
picking it. There are two privileges in life. One is to
serve your patients, and that is the most gratifying
thing you can ever do. In surgery, you tend to see the
benefits of that more quickly, because you will see the
outcome of the interventions you've been involved in
with your colleagues from a patient's perspective. The
second privilege is to serve in public service itself.
I've been fortunate enough to do both. But ultimately,
I'm a clinician, I'm a surgeon, and when I'm finished
with this job, I'll [return to practicing surgery].
Let's not forget, as I said, that I do this two days, or
two and a half days a week.
Knowledge@Wharton:
Let me ask about that. You wear two hats, you have two
jobs, you're in senior administrative roles and you are
part of, in effect, politics in Great Britain. But you
also are in surgery several days a week. How do you
balance the two very different worlds in the same week,
in the same day?
Darzi:
It is tough. I do work very hard. But it's enjoyable.
And let's not forget the reason I'm doing the two jobs.
That is exactly the purpose of my appointment. The Prime
Minister and the government were very keen that [they
have] someone who was an active clinician, who could
come in and be part of a bigger team of five other
colleagues in which I led a major review, where
clinicians were very active players in that review,
designing the future of the NHS. So I don't see [the two
different worlds] in any way opposing each other. I
think they are very much aligned, and, as I always
remind my civil service colleagues in the department,
it's not uncommon that I do my four days in Whitehall,
and then I go to my operating theater. I am constantly
asking what some of my colleagues will think of this
policy or that policy. It's my "testing bed," as I call
it. And that, in itself, has been very, very powerful
for me.
Knowledge@Wharton:
As I recall, the Prime Minister called you to 10 Downing
Street and offered you the position you hold now. It did
come as a surprise. If there's been one surprise since
then, something you have had to master that you didn't
appreciate, or didn't really anticipate, what would that
be? What is the biggest surprise you have faced since
the initial offer itself?
Darzi:
How long do you have? You know, when you go into a new
job like this, you have many, many anxieties. In
relation to that, I was tremendously surprised by the
amount of positive welcome that I had from everyone, and
the support I've received from, not just government, but
people within the House of Lords and others. Everyone
has this passion in our country about the NHS. That is
fascinating. It's part of our social culture now. Those
positive things weren't just within the NHS: When I went
outside the NHS, that was very obvious to me as well.
So, as I said, it's been a tremendous experience for me,
and I very much hope one day I can look back at it and
say I had the privilege of making a contribution in the
NHS.
Knowledge@Wharton:
Professor Darzi, that takes me to my final question. The
day will come when you do step out of your position, and
as you anticipate that day sometime in the future, what
do you hope will be said about your legacy in this role
on behalf of the British people?
Darzi:
Time will tell. Another person will have to answer that
question rather than me. I believe what I would like to
be said is [that I] focused our minds on what matters
most --with quality being the organizing principle of
any health care system. It is quality that wakes me up
in the morning to come to work, it is quality that my
patients expect from me.
Note:
This article is reprinted from the April 27, 2009 issue
of Knowledge@Wharton,
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2224.
THE 5,700-MILE JOURNEY FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
By
Wendy Parsons
Since
2007, select groups of young women leaders from the
Middle East and North African countries have made the
journey to the Wharton School’s Philadelphia campus to
take part in a six-month experience called the Legal and
Business Fellowship Program. The U.S. Department of
State-funded Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI)
is a partnership with the University of Pennsylvania Law
School, the Wharton School, and the American-Mideast
Educational and Training Services, Inc.
This
year, twenty-two women have been selected for the
program based on leadership potential, commitment to
professional growth in the legal or business sectors of
their local economy, and knowledge of English.
They
will complete a month-long program at the university and
then spread out across the U.S. for a five-month
internship at a Fortune 500 company or top-tier law
firm.
Vana
Ghazarian, from Lebanon, took part in MEPI in 2008.
Like many Program participants, this was Vana’s first
U.S. experience. But, the journey began for Vana many
years prior to her nearly 5,700-mile flight from Lebanon
to Philadelphia.
Vana’s
story begins in Lebanon during the early 80s. She was a
child in a country at war, amidst bombs and gunfire.
Anxious to ensure his family’s safety, Vana’s father
moved his wife and children to Cyprus. “My childhood in
Cyprus was amazing,” Vana recollects. There among
rugged mountains, fields of wildflowers, and ancient
fairy-tale castles, Vana lived on the idyllic island, a
peaceful jewel in the glittering aquamarine
Mediterranean.
Despite
the beauty of the island’s picturesque countryside,
Vana’s mother was homesick for her relatives left behind
in Beirut. “I remember my mother watching news reports
of the war in Lebanon through tear-filled eyes,” Vana
recounts. At the end of the war, Vana’s father moved
the family back to their homeland.
But,
Vana’s homecoming was to Beirut – a city deeply scarred
by the wounds of war. Vana was 11 years old – too young
to fully comprehend the devastation she saw everywhere.
Many of the city’s beautiful buildings had been reduced
to rubble. “My dad took us to where his office used to
be,” says Vana. “Half of the building was gone, and
nothing could be salvaged. I imagined myself in the
building when it was destroyed. The experience was
shocking.”
Everything familiar in the city seemed gone. Grounded
deeply in the values her parents instilled in her, Vana
pushed beyond her fears. “My father has a strong
character, and I learned from him how to persist and
overcome challenges,” Vana says.
With
each move of his family, Vana’s father had to start over
again from scratch.
His
courage taught Vana and her two brothers and sister to
make their own future. “My dad did an excellent job of
getting us to a safe shore so that we would be ready to
face life’s challenges,” Vana says.
Vana’s
father also encouraged the children to cooperate with
one another and put the family first. His daughters
were given the same rights and responsibilities as his
sons, she recalled, and all were treated equally.
With
family values deeply ingrained in her character, Vana’s
potential as a leader began to emerge upon graduation
from high school. Without the financial resources to
afford college, Vana decided to apply anyway, supported
by only her dreams and her confidence.
“I
didn’t have a clue how I would pay my tuition, yet I
knew that I had the strength to do it,” Vana relates.
She received 50 percent financial aid but the rest of
the tuition bill was up to her. She started classes at
Haigazian University in Beirut but tuition deadline
pressure was always a concern. With a tuition payment
due in one month, Vana began applying aggressively for
jobs in the region.
Vana
says it was with great relief as well and nervousness
that she received her first job interview request. “I
was only 18 and I was afraid,” Vana says. “I didn’t
know what to expect.” But Vana turned her fear into an
outward show of confidence. “I approached the three
strangers – my interviewers – with a smile on my face,”
Vana says.
She soon
began work in her first job, making rolls and washing
trays in the kitchen of a coffee shop. “My first day on
the job I worked nine hours non-stop,” Vana recalls.
“When I went home, I collapsed on the couch, too
exhausted to go to bed.”
The
nine-hour days became Vana’s daily routine. She was up
at 6 a.m. in the morning, attended class during the day,
and worked in the coffee shop from 3 p.m. until
midnight. Despite working full time at the coffee shop
and as a full-time student, Vana excelled at both.
“My
schedule was hectic, but when I made my first tuition
payment, it was the most amazing feeling I’d ever
experienced,” Vana remembers.
The long
hours did not diminish Vana’s work ethic. “I loved my
work and, in a few months, I became a team leader,” she
says. “Soon after, I was made the assistant manager.”
In less than a year she was manager for an outlet.
Vana
paid for her college experience while contributing
financially to her family. She graduated in 2006 with a
degree in business administration. Shortly after, she
was hired at Bang and Olufsen. Her delight at securing
this new job was short lived. War erupted in Lebanon –
again.
“When
the war started, I felt paralyzed,” she explains. “I
was in shock for a few days.” . Despite the danger of
bombs exploding around her, she continued working and
socializing with her friends.
“We got
used to the idea that a bomb could go off at any moment
but we didn’t let it stop us from living,” Vana says.
“If a bomb exploded, we would call each other to make
sure everyone was okay. I refused to stop my life
because of danger. Life is all about risks. I took the
risks that I had to so that I could enjoy living in my
country.”
Vana
applied to the MEPI program in November 2007, although
her acceptance meant having to work two jobs to ensure
that her financial responsibilities would be covered
during her six-month absence.
Vana was
accepted into the program and was soon in the company of
young Middle East women from different cultures and
backgrounds. “It was amazing to be in a room full of
women who all had made it through difficulties to be
there and who each had her own success story to tell,”
Vana says.
Vana
says her experience in the program brought new
challenges. “It was difficult for me to shift from
working 12-hour days and being responsible for others
both at home and at work,” she recalls. “At Wharton, I
was the one with so much to learn.”
But all
quickly changed when Vana started her internship in
Intel’s Mobile Platform Group. On her first day at
Intel’s California headquarters, she was assigned three
research projects that required her to prepare
presentations for management. Within a month, Vana’s
manager assigned her to leader her team at the Intel
Developer Forum in San Francisco.
After
five months at Intel, Vana returned home to Lebanon.
“On my flight home, I thought non-stop about my time in
the U.S.,” Vana recollects. “Now that I’m back at work,
I can relate situations that arise to the case studies
we examined in class. I really appreciate that I now
have many approaches to dealing with these situations.”
Soon
after returning home, Vana was promoted to marketing and
sales manager at Bang & Olufsen, an audio, video and
multimedia company.
“My U.S.
experience was a turning point in my life,” Vana says.
“I am a dreamer and an achiever. I’ve always been that
way. But when I returned from the U.S., I realized how
big I can dream, and how much I can achieve. This
experience made me realize the importance of ongoing
learning.”
“My
perspective of success and achievement has changed,”
Vana says. “My strength and enthusiasm are focused on
becoming a successful leader with a growing confidence
that makes me feel I’m on my way to realizing my
dreams.” |