哈佛商學院院長談倫理與全球教育
報道 2013年04月12日
香港——孟買出生的尼廷·諾里亞(Nitin Nohria)是哈佛商學院(Harvard Business School)的首位亞裔院長。他談到了全球化、文化衝擊、商業倫理教學的重要性，以及為什麼沒有必要將“銀行”當成一個下流詞。
問：多家美國知名大學在中東和亞洲開設分校。你們學院也有類似的計劃嗎？
答：哈佛商學院已經做出決定——這個決定的好壞還有待時間證明，即在全球範圍內投資設立同等規模的校園並不是推進全球化最明智的方式。我們認為我們很難在國外提供與國內相同的教育體驗。複製一個校園的硬件並不難，但打造它的軟件卻需要很長的時間。
問：哈佛商學院如何同一個日趨全球化的世界保持聯繫？
答：我們的策略是用最小的“身體足跡”提供最大的全球“智力足跡”。我們擁有七個國際研究中心——香港的這個研究中心是最先開設的。另外，在硅谷也有一個。不過，當你身處波士頓時，有時會感覺那是另外一個國家。（笑。）
1月，我們在伊斯坦布爾開設了一個精益中心；伊斯坦布爾是東西方的重要交匯點，一個人很容易從那裡進入中東、東歐和前蘇聯國家。
我們每年撰寫250-300個案例研究，其中有超過一半是國際案例。所以，我們的學生讀到的是關於中國和印度、巴西和南非的案例。
問：在2010年接任該職位時，你說過要將所有的學生送到國外去。效果如何？
答：兩年前，我們引入了教學的“田野方法”。一年級的所有900名學生必須要去國外。考慮到後勤問題，當時很多人都說我們瘋了。
在波士頓，他們花10周的時間提出一個商業想法，然後帶着這個想法去國外一家公司待上一周。很快，他們就意識到了想像與現實之間的巨大差別。大多數學生都表示，這是他們在我們學院最震撼的體驗之一。
問：時下有一種觀點認為，孩子必須要擠過狹窄的學術成功之路，而任何失敗都將會對他們以後的生活產生致命影響，但你最初就被你的母校——印度理工學院孟買分校(Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay)拒絕了。
答：在印度，那會兒學生可以提交兩次大學申請——第一次是在讀11年級時。得知被拒時，我覺得這輩子要完了。但第二年我又申請了一次。
那時候，人們不會坐等錄取信，因為郵政系統不可靠。大學會在各個校園貼出錄取學生的名單。所以，每個人都會去學校。錄取學生名單是按名次而不是按字母順序排的，並會在最後一名錄取學生的名字下面劃一條橫線。只排到了第600名卻高興得不得了，這種感覺我是第一次體會到。
將孩子置於如此巨大的壓力之下是很悲哀的，因為你需要花費很長的時間才能發現你真正擅長的是什麼。
問：你是在什麼時候搞清楚你想要做的事情的？
答：在麻省理工學院(MIT)攻讀博士學位時，我開始選的是金融學，因為我感覺這與我的工程學背景更近一些。但我知道這裡還有其他的工程學學生、金融學學生，他們都非常擅長數學。而我在這一方面卻很一般，我的數學不好。
但後來我又開始學習社會學、心理學和行為學，這都是我先前沒有機會去體驗的。這些學科對我來說非常適合。
如果我在16歲時就對我的父母說我想學社會學，我父親的反應會是：“什麼？你想睡大街嗎？”
這就是我推崇美國通識教育的原因。麻省理工學院是一所以工程學而聞名的學院，但它也有着一流的人文學科院系。我擔心的是，在一個過於注重學生表現和考試成績的體制下，我們會擠走這種智識開發。
問：在21歲時來到美國，你有沒有感到一種文化衝擊？
答：對我來說，那種文化衝擊就好像是從大城市孟買到了一個村莊。波士頓給人的感覺就是一個小城鎮——晚上10點以後你甚至都不能出去吃飯，因為這個點我們都已經回家了。我每個月都要去紐約一趟，那種感覺就好像是重回大城市一樣。
排隊買三明治時，我也得先學習。女店員會問，“要哪種麵包？”我不知道。在印度，我們只有一種麵包。我原以為煎熬已經結束了，不想她又問，“哪種奶酪？哪種醬料？”
不過，說真的，我真正需要適應的是這種新的教育體制。我稱我的教授為“先生”(sir)。而我的教授說，“叫我唐納”。我花了一個月的時間才習慣了叫他“唐納”。
我可以講我所想的任何事情。我沒有必要進行自我審查。我可以對別人說我認為他的想法不對，非常自由。我有與任何人平起平坐的權利。
弗蘭科·莫迪利安尼(Franco Modigliani)是諾貝爾獎獲得者；在第一次上他的課時，我原以為得畢恭畢敬，但事實上，那只是很普通的一堂課而已。
問：時下海外的學生也需要做這樣的調整嗎？
答：印度現在已經有了和美國一樣的三明治。
哈佛商學院的學生大都有了幾年的工作經驗，而這種經驗通常與全球經濟有關，即便他們是在國內公司工作。所以，他們的公司已經讓他們有了一定的經驗。我們挑選的是那些已經具備企業家素質的人。
那些從未在美國工作過的國際學生的確需要一個適應期，但通常很快就會適應。
從進入哈佛商學院的第一天起，你就必須要學會參與。你可能知道，我們採用的是案例研究教學法。我們是不講課的。
最初，有些學生只會講他們在課前已經想好的想法；他們並不會參與實時的討論。但令人驚奇的是，人們在教育上也非常容易變通的。我一直都覺得很神奇：你或許會認為，基於20年的教育，你已經無法通過另外一種方式學習了。
問：在被任命為院長時，你所做的很多研究都是倫理學領域的，但這好像與現代企業沒有什麼關聯。
答：在過去，好企業的定義是言行一致。在美國的小城鎮，當地銀行家是鎮上最受尊重的人。而現在，“銀行”(bank)已經成了一個下流詞。
關於企業，沒有什麼是天生不道德的。它們必須要贏得顧客的信賴。如果你贏得了信賴，那麼美好的事情就會發生。顧客會回來的。
問：你教商業倫理嗎？
答：我們開設了一門名為“領導力與企業責任”(Leadership and Corporate Accountability)的必修課。這面有一個案例：一家公司銷售所謂的“百分之百純蘋果汁”，但實際上卻摻了水。你可能會因此而入獄。
問：你們學院的學生是世界一流的。你覺得有必要教這些高智商的人不去賣假蘋果汁嗎？
答：他們必須要記着他們的責任。就像大多數人高估了他們的聰明才智一樣，很多人也都高估了他們性善的一面。
堅持自己的道德責任觀並不難；但在老闆施壓的情況下或在巨大短期利得的誘惑下，你會怎樣呢？
問：說到蘋果汁，我們想到了亞洲一些主要國家存在的產品安全、勞工慣例、裙帶關係和行賄受賄等問題。雖然這些問題在世界各地都存在，但在發展中國家似乎更為突出。對於在這些市場上運營的人來說，你有什麼建議？
答：有一句話叫“入鄉隨俗”，在亞洲，不同的國家，其所能接受的腐敗程度也是不同的。所以，如果你試圖採用一種不同的標準，那是不是很傻？按照一種更符合道德的方式運營會讓你處於不利地位嗎？
看看印孚瑟斯(Infosys)和塔塔(Tata)。我並不是說它們完全沒有問題。但相對而言，它們的運營方式更接近於西方全球化公司的運營方式。
你是有選擇的。你可以生產劣質產品，你也可以生產人們所希望的高質量產品。
我與知名外包公司維布絡(Wipro)的阿茲姆·普雷姆吉(Azim Premji)有過交流。我問，“你怎麼會有堅持企業道德的勇氣？”
他說，“腐敗者也需要‘資源配置’：他們會一直不停地向你索取，並索要更多的賄賂。但他們不會找我索賄。現在，我可以自由自在地工作了。”
問：在你看來，有的文化是不是比其他文化更容易導致惡劣行為？
答：有的文化是不道德的，比如說安然公司(Enron)的文化。這是人們在思考道德淪喪時所犯的最大的錯誤：他們認為它是一個壞傢伙。
但在很多時候，是好人發現他們自己陷入一個失去了“道德指南針”的環境。我們告訴學生要誠實，要承認自己的道德瑕疵。
我們讓他們坦誠他們過去所做的事情，比如說行騙或受賄。然後我們問，“為什麼會出現這種情況？”
本文最初發表於2013年3月27日。問：多家美國知名大學在中東和亞洲開設分校。你們學院也有類似的計劃嗎？
問：哈佛商學院如何同一個日趨全球化的世界保持聯繫？
答：我們的策略是用最小的“身體足跡”提供最大的全球“智力足跡”。我們擁有七個國際研究中心——香港的這個研究中心是最先開設的。另外，在硅谷也有一個。不過，當你身處波士頓時，有時會感覺那是另外一個國家。（笑。）
1月，我們在伊斯坦布爾開設了一個精益中心；伊斯坦布爾是東西方的重要交匯點，一個人很容易從那裡進入中東、東歐和前蘇聯國家。
我們每年撰寫250-300個案例研究，其中有超過一半是國際案例。所以，我們的學生讀到的是關於中國和印度、巴西和南非的案例。
問：在2010年接任該職位時，你說過要將所有的學生送到國外去。效果如何？
答：兩年前，我們引入了教學的“田野方法”。一年級的所有900名學生必須要去國外。考慮到後勤問題，當時很多人都說我們瘋了。
在波士頓，他們花10周的時間提出一個商業想法，然後帶着這個想法去國外一家公司待上一周。很快，他們就意識到了想像與現實之間的巨大差別。大多數學生都表示，這是他們在我們學院最震撼的體驗之一。
問：時下有一種觀點認為，孩子必須要擠過狹窄的學術成功之路，而任何失敗都將會對他們以後的生活產生致命影響，但你最初就被你的母校——印度理工學院孟買分校(Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay)拒絕了。
答：在印度，那會兒學生可以提交兩次大學申請——第一次是在讀11年級時。得知被拒時，我覺得這輩子要完了。但第二年我又申請了一次。
那時候，人們不會坐等錄取信，因為郵政系統不可靠。大學會在各個校園貼出錄取學生的名單。所以，每個人都會去學校。錄取學生名單是按名次而不是按字母順序排的，並會在最後一名錄取學生的名字下面劃一條橫線。只排到了第600名卻高興得不得了，這種感覺我是第一次體會到。
將孩子置於如此巨大的壓力之下是很悲哀的，因為你需要花費很長的時間才能發現你真正擅長的是什麼。
問：你是在什麼時候搞清楚你想要做的事情的？
答：在麻省理工學院(MIT)攻讀博士學位時，我開始選的是金融學，因為我感覺這與我的工程學背景更近一些。但我知道這裡還有其他的工程學學生、金融學學生，他們都非常擅長數學。而我在這一方面卻很一般，我的數學不好。
但後來我又開始學習社會學、心理學和行為學，這都是我先前沒有機會去體驗的。這些學科對我來說非常適合。
如果我在16歲時就對我的父母說我想學社會學，我父親的反應會是：“什麼？你想睡大街嗎？”
這就是我推崇美國通識教育的原因。麻省理工學院是一所以工程學而聞名的學院，但它也有着一流的人文學科院系。我擔心的是，在一個過於注重學生表現和考試成績的體制下，我們會擠走這種智識開發。
問：在21歲時來到美國，你有沒有感到一種文化衝擊？
答：對我來說，那種文化衝擊就好像是從大城市孟買到了一個村莊。波士頓給人的感覺就是一個小城鎮——晚上10點以後你甚至都不能出去吃飯，因為這個點我們都已經回家了。我每個月都要去紐約一趟，那種感覺就好像是重回大城市一樣。
排隊買三明治時，我也得先學習。女店員會問，“要哪種麵包？”我不知道。在印度，我們只有一種麵包。我原以為煎熬已經結束了，不想她又問，“哪種奶酪？哪種醬料？”
不過，說真的，我真正需要適應的是這種新的教育體制。我稱我的教授為“先生”(sir)。而我的教授說，“叫我唐納”。我花了一個月的時間才習慣了叫他“唐納”。
我可以講我所想的任何事情。我沒有必要進行自我審查。我可以對別人說我認為他的想法不對，非常自由。我有與任何人平起平坐的權利。
弗蘭科·莫迪利安尼(Franco Modigliani)是諾貝爾獎獲得者；在第一次上他的課時，我原以為得畢恭畢敬，但事實上，那只是很普通的一堂課而已。
問：時下海外的學生也需要做這樣的調整嗎？
答：印度現在已經有了和美國一樣的三明治。
哈佛商學院的學生大都有了幾年的工作經驗，而這種經驗通常與全球經濟有關，即便他們是在國內公司工作。所以，他們的公司已經讓他們有了一定的經驗。我們挑選的是那些已經具備企業家素質的人。
那些從未在美國工作過的國際學生的確需要一個適應期，但通常很快就會適應。
從進入哈佛商學院的第一天起，你就必須要學會參與。你可能知道，我們採用的是案例研究教學法。我們是不講課的。
最初，有些學生只會講他們在課前已經想好的想法；他們並不會參與實時的討論。但令人驚奇的是，人們在教育上也非常容易變通的。我一直都覺得很神奇：你或許會認為，基於20年的教育，你已經無法通過另外一種方式學習了。
問：在被任命為院長時，你所做的很多研究都是倫理學領域的，但這好像與現代企業沒有什麼關聯。
答：在過去，好企業的定義是言行一致。在美國的小城鎮，當地銀行家是鎮上最受尊重的人。而現在，“銀行”(bank)已經成了一個下流詞。
關於企業，沒有什麼是天生不道德的。它們必須要贏得顧客的信賴。如果你贏得了信賴，那麼美好的事情就會發生。顧客會回來的。
問：你教商業倫理嗎？
答：我們開設了一門名為“領導力與企業責任”(Leadership and Corporate Accountability)的必修課。這面有一個案例：一家公司銷售所謂的“百分之百純蘋果汁”，但實際上卻摻了水。你可能會因此而入獄。
問：你們學院的學生是世界一流的。你覺得有必要教這些高智商的人不去賣假蘋果汁嗎？
答：他們必須要記着他們的責任。就像大多數人高估了他們的聰明才智一樣，很多人也都高估了他們性善的一面。
堅持自己的道德責任觀並不難；但在老闆施壓的情況下或在巨大短期利得的誘惑下，你會怎樣呢？
問：說到蘋果汁，我們想到了亞洲一些主要國家存在的產品安全、勞工慣例、裙帶關係和行賄受賄等問題。雖然這些問題在世界各地都存在，但在發展中國家似乎更為突出。對於在這些市場上運營的人來說，你有什麼建議？
答：有一句話叫“入鄉隨俗”，在亞洲，不同的國家，其所能接受的腐敗程度也是不同的。所以，如果你試圖採用一種不同的標準，那是不是很傻？按照一種更符合道德的方式運營會讓你處於不利地位嗎？
看看印孚瑟斯(Infosys)和塔塔(Tata)。我並不是說它們完全沒有問題。但相對而言，它們的運營方式更接近於西方全球化公司的運營方式。
你是有選擇的。你可以生產劣質產品，你也可以生產人們所希望的高質量產品。
我與知名外包公司維布絡(Wipro)的阿茲姆·普雷姆吉(Azim Premji)有過交流。我問，“你怎麼會有堅持企業道德的勇氣？”
他說，“腐敗者也需要‘資源配置’：他們會一直不停地向你索取，並索要更多的賄賂。但他們不會找我索賄。現在，我可以自由自在地工作了。”
問：在你看來，有的文化是不是比其他文化更容易導致惡劣行為？
答：有的文化是不道德的，比如說安然公司(Enron)的文化。這是人們在思考道德淪喪時所犯的最大的錯誤：他們認為它是一個壞傢伙。
但在很多時候，是好人發現他們自己陷入一個失去了“道德指南針”的環境。我們告訴學生要誠實，要承認自己的道德瑕疵。
我們讓他們坦誠他們過去所做的事情，比如說行騙或受賄。然後我們問，“為什麼會出現這種情況？”
翻譯：陳召強
Harvard Business School Dean on Ethics and Global Education
April 12, 2013
HONG KONG — Nitin Nohria, a Mumbai
native, is the first Asian dean of Harvard Business School. He spoke
about globalization, culture shock, the importance of teaching business
ethics and why “bank” need not be a four-letter word.
Q. Several major U.S. universities are opening campuses in the Middle East and Asia. Are there similar plans at your school?
A. Harvard Business School made a decision — and
only time will tell whether it’s a good or bad one — that investing
globally in full-scale campuses is not the most sensible way to promote
globalization. We have a hard time being convinced that we could offer
the same educational experiences abroad. Replicating the hardware of a
campus is easy; but it takes a long time to build the software.
Q. How do you stay in touch with an increasingly globalized world?
A. Our approach is to have the biggest global intellectual footprint with the smallest physical footprint. We have seven international research centers — the one here in Hong Kong was our first. Well, actually one is in Silicon Valley. But when you’re in Boston, that sometimes feels like a foreign country. (Laughs.)
In January we opened a very lean center in Istanbul, which is a great meeting point between the East and West, a place where one can easily reach the Middle East, Eastern Europe and former Soviet states.
We write 250 to 300 case studies a year, and more than half of these are international. So our students are reading about China and India, Brazil and Africa.
Q. When you started your job in 2010, you said that you would send all your students overseas. How has that worked?
A. Two years ago, we introduced the “field method” of teaching. All 900 of our first-year students must travel abroad as a requirement. At the time, a lot of people told us we were crazy because of the logistics of it.
They spend 10 weeks in Boston coming up with a business idea, and then they take it overseas for a one-week experience with a company. Very quickly, they realize the profound difference between their imaginations and reality. Most of them say that this was one of their most powerful experiences at our school.
Q. There’s a belief today that children must stay on a narrow academic path to succeed, and that any failure could doom them later in life. But you were initially rejected from your alma mater, the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay.
A. When I was a student in India, you could apply to university twice — the first time in 11th grade. When I didn’t get in, I felt like my life was over. But I tried again the next year.
People did not wait for admissions letters then, as the postal system was unreliable. The universities would post lists of names on campus. So everyone would show up. The names were arranged not alphabetically but by rank, with a line drawn under the last student admitted. I’d never been happier to be No. 600 on a list.
It’s quite sad that we put children through this extraordinary stress. It takes a long time to discover what you are really good at.
Q. When did you figure out what you wanted to do?
A. When I went to M.I.T. for my Ph.D., I started by studying finance, which I felt was closer to my engineering background. But I knew that there were other engineering students, and finance students, who were great at doing math in their heads. I was not. I couldn’t do it.
But I started studying sociology, psychology and behavior, which I’d never had the chance to experience. These were natural subjects for me.
If I told my parents as a 16-year-old that I wanted to study sociology, my dad would say, “What? You want to live on the streets?”
This is why I deeply appreciate the liberal arts education in the United States. M.I.T. is known as an engineering school, but it has a great humanities department. I worry that, in a system that puts so much pressure on performance and testing, that we squeeze out the intellectual discovery.
Q. Did you have culture shock going to America as a 21-year-old?
A. My culture shock was that I felt like I’d arrived at a village from the big city of Bombay. Boston felt like a small town — you couldn’t even go out for dinner after 10 p.m., which we did all the time back home. I’d have to go to New York once a month just to feel like I was in a big city again.
I had to learn how to get through the sandwich line. The lady would ask, “What bread?” And I wouldn’t know. In India, we only had one kind of bread. I thought my ordeal was over, but then she’d ask, “What cheese? What condiment?”
But, to be serious, my real adaptation was to the new education system. I called my professors “sir.” And my professor said, “Call me Don.” It took me a month to call him “Don.”
I could say anything on my mind. I didn’t have to self-censor. I could tell someone that I thought he was wrong. It was so liberating. I had the right to be anyone’s intellectual equal.
I took my first class with a Nobel winner, Franco Modigliani. I thought I’d have to bow and scrape, but it was just a regular class.
Q. Do overseas students today have to make these same adjustments?
A. Well, we have the same sandwiches in India now as in America.
Most Harvard Business School students have already worked a few years. Their experiences tend to be tied to the global economy, even if they are working for domestic companies. So their companies have already given them a certain amount of exposure. We choose people who are already entrepreneurial.
International students who have never worked in the United States do have a period of adaptation, but it is usually short.
On your first day at Harvard Business School, you have to participate. As you probably know, we teach by the case-study method. There are no lectures.
In the beginning, some students only say what they’ve prepared to say before class; they are not discussing things in real time. But what’s remarkable is how educationally pliable people still are. I’m constantly amazed. You’d think that 20 years of education would make you incapable of learning in another way.
Q. When you were appointed, much was made of your research in the field of ethics — not something usually associated with modern-day business.
A. It used to be the case that the definition of a good business was one that was as good as its word. In small-town America, the local banker was the most respectable man in town. Now, “bank” is a four-letter word.
There is nothing inherently unethical about business. They’ve always had to earn the trust of their constituency. If you’re trusted, good things happen. Customers come back.
Q. Do you teach business ethics?
A. We have a full required course called “Leadership and Corporate Accountability.” Here’s one case: A company sells something called “100 percent apple juice,” but it’s actually flavored water. You can be put into prison for that.
Q. Your students are among the top in the world. Is it necessary to teach intelligent people that they can’t sell fake apple juice?
A. They should be reminded of their responsibilities. Just as most people overestimate how smart they are, many may overestimate how good they are.
It’s easy for people to believe in their own sense of moral responsibility; but what happens when they are put under pressure by bosses or tempted by large short-term gains?
Q. Speaking of fake apple juice, there have been problems with product safety, labor practices, nepotism and bribery in major Asian nations. While these problems exist everywhere, they seem more prominent in developing countries. What advice do you have for people operating in these markets?
A. There is this sense of “When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in Asia. …” And there is a different accepted level of corruption in each nation. So, if you try to adopt a different standard, are you foolish? Are you penalized for operating in a way that is morally better?
Look at Infosys and Tata. I’m not saying they’re lily white. But relatively speaking, they operate closer to how a global company does in the West.
You do have a choice. You can make shoddy products, or you can make high-quality ones that people want.
I was speaking with Azim Premji of Wipro, a major outsourcing company. I asked, “How did you have the courage to remain ethical?”
He said, “Those people who are corrupt need to allocate resources to that: They kept being asked to pay more and more bribes. But they gave up on asking me for bribes. Now I can work freely.”
Q. Do you think some cultures lead to worse behavior than others?
A. Some cultures are corrupt, like Enron’s. This is the biggest mistake people make when they think about ethical failings: They think it’s one bad apple.
But much of the time it’s good people who have found themselves in circumstances in which they’ve lost their moral compass. We tell our students to be truthful — to recognize when they’ve had a moral lapse.
We ask them to admit to things they’ve done in the past, like cheated or taken bribes. And then we say, “Why did that happen?”
Q. Several major U.S. universities are opening campuses in the Middle East and Asia. Are there similar plans at your school?
Q. How do you stay in touch with an increasingly globalized world?
A. Our approach is to have the biggest global intellectual footprint with the smallest physical footprint. We have seven international research centers — the one here in Hong Kong was our first. Well, actually one is in Silicon Valley. But when you’re in Boston, that sometimes feels like a foreign country. (Laughs.)
In January we opened a very lean center in Istanbul, which is a great meeting point between the East and West, a place where one can easily reach the Middle East, Eastern Europe and former Soviet states.
We write 250 to 300 case studies a year, and more than half of these are international. So our students are reading about China and India, Brazil and Africa.
Q. When you started your job in 2010, you said that you would send all your students overseas. How has that worked?
A. Two years ago, we introduced the “field method” of teaching. All 900 of our first-year students must travel abroad as a requirement. At the time, a lot of people told us we were crazy because of the logistics of it.
They spend 10 weeks in Boston coming up with a business idea, and then they take it overseas for a one-week experience with a company. Very quickly, they realize the profound difference between their imaginations and reality. Most of them say that this was one of their most powerful experiences at our school.
Q. There’s a belief today that children must stay on a narrow academic path to succeed, and that any failure could doom them later in life. But you were initially rejected from your alma mater, the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay.
A. When I was a student in India, you could apply to university twice — the first time in 11th grade. When I didn’t get in, I felt like my life was over. But I tried again the next year.
People did not wait for admissions letters then, as the postal system was unreliable. The universities would post lists of names on campus. So everyone would show up. The names were arranged not alphabetically but by rank, with a line drawn under the last student admitted. I’d never been happier to be No. 600 on a list.
It’s quite sad that we put children through this extraordinary stress. It takes a long time to discover what you are really good at.
Q. When did you figure out what you wanted to do?
A. When I went to M.I.T. for my Ph.D., I started by studying finance, which I felt was closer to my engineering background. But I knew that there were other engineering students, and finance students, who were great at doing math in their heads. I was not. I couldn’t do it.
But I started studying sociology, psychology and behavior, which I’d never had the chance to experience. These were natural subjects for me.
If I told my parents as a 16-year-old that I wanted to study sociology, my dad would say, “What? You want to live on the streets?”
This is why I deeply appreciate the liberal arts education in the United States. M.I.T. is known as an engineering school, but it has a great humanities department. I worry that, in a system that puts so much pressure on performance and testing, that we squeeze out the intellectual discovery.
Q. Did you have culture shock going to America as a 21-year-old?
A. My culture shock was that I felt like I’d arrived at a village from the big city of Bombay. Boston felt like a small town — you couldn’t even go out for dinner after 10 p.m., which we did all the time back home. I’d have to go to New York once a month just to feel like I was in a big city again.
I had to learn how to get through the sandwich line. The lady would ask, “What bread?” And I wouldn’t know. In India, we only had one kind of bread. I thought my ordeal was over, but then she’d ask, “What cheese? What condiment?”
But, to be serious, my real adaptation was to the new education system. I called my professors “sir.” And my professor said, “Call me Don.” It took me a month to call him “Don.”
I could say anything on my mind. I didn’t have to self-censor. I could tell someone that I thought he was wrong. It was so liberating. I had the right to be anyone’s intellectual equal.
I took my first class with a Nobel winner, Franco Modigliani. I thought I’d have to bow and scrape, but it was just a regular class.
Q. Do overseas students today have to make these same adjustments?
A. Well, we have the same sandwiches in India now as in America.
Most Harvard Business School students have already worked a few years. Their experiences tend to be tied to the global economy, even if they are working for domestic companies. So their companies have already given them a certain amount of exposure. We choose people who are already entrepreneurial.
International students who have never worked in the United States do have a period of adaptation, but it is usually short.
On your first day at Harvard Business School, you have to participate. As you probably know, we teach by the case-study method. There are no lectures.
In the beginning, some students only say what they’ve prepared to say before class; they are not discussing things in real time. But what’s remarkable is how educationally pliable people still are. I’m constantly amazed. You’d think that 20 years of education would make you incapable of learning in another way.
Q. When you were appointed, much was made of your research in the field of ethics — not something usually associated with modern-day business.
A. It used to be the case that the definition of a good business was one that was as good as its word. In small-town America, the local banker was the most respectable man in town. Now, “bank” is a four-letter word.
There is nothing inherently unethical about business. They’ve always had to earn the trust of their constituency. If you’re trusted, good things happen. Customers come back.
Q. Do you teach business ethics?
A. We have a full required course called “Leadership and Corporate Accountability.” Here’s one case: A company sells something called “100 percent apple juice,” but it’s actually flavored water. You can be put into prison for that.
Q. Your students are among the top in the world. Is it necessary to teach intelligent people that they can’t sell fake apple juice?
A. They should be reminded of their responsibilities. Just as most people overestimate how smart they are, many may overestimate how good they are.
It’s easy for people to believe in their own sense of moral responsibility; but what happens when they are put under pressure by bosses or tempted by large short-term gains?
Q. Speaking of fake apple juice, there have been problems with product safety, labor practices, nepotism and bribery in major Asian nations. While these problems exist everywhere, they seem more prominent in developing countries. What advice do you have for people operating in these markets?
A. There is this sense of “When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in Asia. …” And there is a different accepted level of corruption in each nation. So, if you try to adopt a different standard, are you foolish? Are you penalized for operating in a way that is morally better?
Look at Infosys and Tata. I’m not saying they’re lily white. But relatively speaking, they operate closer to how a global company does in the West.
You do have a choice. You can make shoddy products, or you can make high-quality ones that people want.
I was speaking with Azim Premji of Wipro, a major outsourcing company. I asked, “How did you have the courage to remain ethical?”
He said, “Those people who are corrupt need to allocate resources to that: They kept being asked to pay more and more bribes. But they gave up on asking me for bribes. Now I can work freely.”
Q. Do you think some cultures lead to worse behavior than others?
A. Some cultures are corrupt, like Enron’s. This is the biggest mistake people make when they think about ethical failings: They think it’s one bad apple.
But much of the time it’s good people who have found themselves in circumstances in which they’ve lost their moral compass. We tell our students to be truthful — to recognize when they’ve had a moral lapse.
We ask them to admit to things they’ve done in the past, like cheated or taken bribes. And then we say, “Why did that happen?”
沒有留言:
張貼留言