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 

Changing the Mindset at the British National Health Service:  Lord Ara Darzi
Knowledge@Wharton 

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 60^th 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.”