HBSWK readers respond:The China Dilemma for U.S. Firms: Comply, Resist, or Leave?

Comply, resist, or leave are strong, close-ended options for an organization if we consider them in isolation and presume they are stand-alone options. But once we realize that interactions and interdependences exist within these elements we can formulate and execute a strategy that can help.
Leaving is definitely not an option. Organizations should not ignore the "dragon's might" and its economic prowess. Resisting completely is also not an advisable stand, because you should never take the dragon head-on especially when you know it breathes fire. Complying completely is also not a recommended option because it may lead to strangling the very ethics and values on which the organization survives.
What I suggest is a combination of resist and comply. This gives you ample room to bargain and negotiate.
I do not see any threat or moral hazard when the service provider makes clear to its customer the potential threat [that it may share information with] the [government] or other authorities. Forewarned is forearmed. So the organization can start with a basic product/service offering. Clearly study the politics and potential of the market and then slowly spread your wings by negotiating, bargaining, and making the authorities and customers understand the benefits of the offering.
As they say, when in Rome do as the Romans do. I would say in the East play it cool because aggressiveness can send the wrong signals to the authorities and also to people at large. As in Buddhist philosophy, follow the middle path and take baby steps in spreading business in the "Land of the Dragon." I agree with the critics of this strategy that profits will be limited and controlled, but so will losses in case the strategy or game plan fails. And it's better to fight than to attack or run and hide.

HBSWK readers respond: Should More Transparency Extend to Education for Management?

The whole idea of grades relating to recruitment is a non-issue from the Indian management student's perspective. From time immemorial we have been taught to excel in education and that meant transferring hard work and intelligence into grades, marks, or percentages, whatever evaluation system we may use.
When most of the grading systems are relative, it becomes all the more necessary for recruiters to know the grades of prospective candidates.
Organizations recruit for a particular job profile rather than for a particular grade. If an organization has a preference for grades and you prefer otherwise, than you will never gel with the organizational culture: You are simply not the one for that particular job profile, nothing more, nothing less.
Students who feel that revealing grades to recruiters may hamper their chance of selection can follow one of two options. First, get in the groove and align with the system and score. Second, be yourself, understand yourself, and try to be the "best fit" to the dream organization.
Mark Twain wrote, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." I would add "schooling or grades." It does not matter really what grades you get. Personally, I believe grades do not always reflect intelligence.
My MBA experience tells me to have a resume reflecting the "true you." Your potential, both achieved and latent, is more than any one aspect.

HBSWK readers' respond: Is There Too Little "Know Why" In Business?

The purpose of business is creating wealth. It is the only "Know Why" for any business.
Affluence is the fifth dimension which entails all discovery, altruism, excellence and heroism. Any firm which restricts itself to any one of the components is not realizing its full potential.
"Know Why" is the primary driver to arrive at "Know How," but often that is missed as we get too much involved in the complexities of running a business. Organizations tend to stray from their objective in the absence of clear definition. And that definition is nothing beyond "Affluence" that is "Creating Wealth."
Adding abstract dimensions and definitions to "Know Why" may work at an individual level but for an organization we need a realistic definition that's easy to understand and follow.
Many may term it as a mean motive of an organization's existence minus all morals. On the contrary, if an organization has to be affluent and sustain creating wealth it cannot do away with morality. As already cited by Jim Heskett in his article, do we see Enron anymore?
In conclusion, "Know Why" is "Affluence" and for "Know How" I leave this choice to the organization.

som prabha milan

हृदय जनित रणभूमि पर,
प्रेम अलंकार झंकृत तत क्षण,
अश्वमेघ सोपान स्वपन पर,
राग रागिनी स्वर लाहिरी तत्पर,
सोम सूर्य प्रभा मिलन,
बेला अविरल हर क्षण!


hridya janit ran bhoomi par,
prem alankar jhankrit tat shan,
ashv megh sopan swapan par,
raag raagni swar lahiri tatpar,
som surya prabha milan,
bela aviral har shan.