Health Care For The Poor

Por ALAN MURRAY

Cuando Dan Akerson asumió el liderazgo en los esfuerzos de reestructuración de General Motors Co., muy pocos pudieron predecir el impacto que empezaría a tener casi de inmediato en un frente en particular: papeles más destacados para las mujeres en la automotriz, desde los rangos medios hasta la junta directiva.

Alan Murray, editor de The Wall Street Journal, habló con el presidente de la automotriz estadounidense sobre las contribuciones realizadas por las ejecutivas, gerentes, ingenieras y miembros mujeres de la junta directiva en la reinvención de GM. En el proceso, Akerson rindió tributo a una mujer que tuvo una influencia especial en su carrera, su madre.

Estos son extractos editados de la conversación.

Alan Murray: La del automóvil es probablemente uno de las industrias más masculinas. Usted hizo un esfuerzo concertado para promover y atraer a más mujeres. ¿Por qué?

Dan Akerson: No sé si fue un esfuerzo consciente o un mejor reconocimiento del talento. En cierta manera, uno es prisionero de su pasado. Crecí en una casa donde mi madre era una presencia de peso. Tuvo un impacto sobre mí mayor que el que tuvo mi padre, a quien quise mucho. Mi madre era una mujer ambiciosa, talentosa y dada a asumir riesgos. Cuando yo tenía 11 años, empezó a trabajar como cajera de una tienda y terminó siendo la asistenta del gerente. Si no hubiese sido mujer, no lo digo con un sentido peyorativo, hubiese llegado a la gerencia. El propio gerente diría lo mismo. Así que para mí, no se trata del género, sino de las capacidades. Cuatro de los 12 miembros de la junta directiva son mujeres. Mary Barra (vicepresidenta de desarrollo global de productos) es una de las ejecutivas más talentosas que he conocido. Estaba en el departamento de recursos humanos, pero había pasado por las divisiones de fabricación e ingeniería. Dirigió plantas. En una empresa tradicional como GM, el jefe de recursos humanos es visto como la persona detrás del trono… lo cual no me gustaba. Así que ahora es quien dirige el desarrollo de productos a nivel global.

Murray: Tiene que ser la primera mujer con un trabajo de este tipo, ¿no? Quiero decir que es un trabajo donde abunda la testosterona.

Akerson: Sí, hay mucho de eso en la industria automotriz. Yo diría que Mary es tan buena que puede navegar sin problema a través de la burocracia y distingue entre lo importante y lo marginal. Mary trabaja increíblemente bien con la gente.

Murray: Usted fue blanco de algunas críticas por ese nombramiento.

Akerson: Sí. Francamente me sorprendió por el hecho de que la crítica se basara en que yo no tenía experiencia en el sector automotor. Sin embargo, por estos días ser un hombre de la industria no es el mejor de los halagos, porque estos ejecutivos llevaron a la industria al borde del abismo.

Las mujeres en GM incluyen la jefa de Chevrolet Europa; la gerente de nuestro tercer mercado más grande, Brasil; la directora de fabricación global y la jefa de recursos humanos. No quise a las mujeres en los trabajos tradicionales que normalmente se les asigna.

Murray: ¿No trabajos operativos?

Akerson: Sí. Algunas de nuestras plantas más grandes están dirigidas por mujeres; 20% de nuestro personal técnico está compuesto por mujeres. Buscamos líderes con títulos en ingeniería, porque esta es una compañía compleja que se basa en lo técnico.

Murray: Dijo que deberíamos haber mencionado a Mary Barra en nuestro artículo sobre las mujeres que están camino a ser presidentas ejecutivas (publicada la semana pasada). ¿Será ella la próxima presidenta ejecutiva de GM?

Akerson: No lo sé. Es una candidata. No me sorprendería si lo logra. Creo que hay un grupo de candidatos calificados.

Murray: Cuatro de los 12 miembros de la junta directiva de GM son mujeres. ¿Afecta eso la cultura para las mujeres dentro de la organización?

Akerson: Sí. Uno siempre quiere ver a alguien como uno que le vaya bien, que tenga serias posibilidades de llegar a la cúpula. Y eso va paralelo a las líneas de género, raza y etnia.

Murray: ¿Lo presionan para que promueva a las mujeres?

Akerson: No. No me presionan. No sé si la presión me la aplico yo mismo. Sin embargo, ahora hacemos evaluación de talento. Trato de revisar el desempeño de 50 ejecutivos y hablamos sobre posibles reemplazos. ¿Qué estamos haciendo para tener una buena reserva de talento?

Murray: Entró en la empresa hace tres años, justo después de que GM saliera de la protección de la corte de bancarrota. Con todas las cosas por las que la compañía tenía que preocuparse, ¿cómo y por qué hizo de esto una prioridad?

Akerson: No diría que lo hice una prioridad. Fue una prioridad ‘B’. La prioridad ‘A’ era poner a la compañía bajo control. La empresa tenía que nacer de nuevo. Y ahora estamos tratando de transformar una buena empresa en una grandiosa.

Miembro de la audiencia: Tengo curiosidad de saber si tiene un argumento empresarial que justifique que la diversidad de género es importante.

Akerson: Bueno, ¿quiénes son nuestros clientes? Estoy seguro que 60% de las decisiones de compra en un auto son tomadas por mujeres. Así que creo que la base de empleados y la perspectiva de una empresa deben representar de alguna forma su base de clientes. Queremos diversidad, no sólo de género, sino de raza y etnia.

By RAJEEV MANTRI

Venture capitalists add value to an enterprise at many levels and are not just financial investors. Good venture capitalists invest in smart entrepreneurs and big opportunities, and also bring to the table their network of relationships and connections. India is a preferred investment destination among emerging markets and has oodles of bright and hungry entrepreneurs who have built world-class companies across industries.

Rajeev Mantri

However, a culture of serial entrepreneurship and mobility of entrepreneurial talent across business sectors is absent. India’s social structure tends to promote business activity between people of the same community, and social class and family birth also influence one’s vocation, resulting in a dearth of what economists call “social capital.”

In the entrepreneurship and startup world, it’s common to hear people talk enthusiastically about “developing the ecosystem,” which is the same as creating social capital. Early-stage venture investing remains very risky and difficult despite the fact that India is burgeoning with first-rate entrepreneurs. I think this is because of the dearth of social capital – social networks in India are centered around family and identity. A culture of trust which encourages cooperation and profit-motivated, self-interested action has only just begun to take root.

Dynastic succession is one of the most pervasive and curious characteristics of Indian society, and can be befuddling to a casual observer. Whether it is business, politics, the fine arts or Bollywood, children inevitably do what their parents did, often with strenuous consequences for both the family and society. Some 3000 years have passed since the great war of Kurukshetra took place between the Pandavas and Kauravas to resolve a disagreement over succession and inheritance, and history continues to rhyme.

Lateral entry into a vocation outside the purview of one’s family and identity remains difficult. As Warren Buffett might put it, capital allocation in India is determined by the “lucky sperm club,” those who are born in certain families and communities.

Dynastic succession is not the most efficient way to allocate human capital. A poet who could have been an effective politician doesn’t necessarily make that choice, and a financier who could have made a better writer doesn’t pick that path. Talent ends up being sacrificed at the altar of societal norm, precisely because the opportunities for realizing one’s potential in “other” fields are very limited. In economist-speak, a Nash equilibrium exists and the net effect is that society becomes inertial and innovation is stifled.

“Not being able to exit even if they want to means that instead of entrepreneurs owning their company, the company owns them.”

The more social capital India can form, the faster the rate of innovation and idea exchange and ultimately, positive change – and this applies as much to politics and Bollywood, as it does to the startup world. We can be sure that such change will be positive because open and vibrant ecosystems allocate resources far more optimally and democratically than the almost-feudal system in existence today.

How can India create social capital? At the macro level, market competition creates social capital and trust. India is notorious among investment bankers for its low domestic mergers and acquisitions activity relative to the size of its economy, and it’s uncommon for small and medium-sized companies to sell themselves to larger competitors. Alok Kejriwal, entrepreneur and founder of Internet company Contests2win.com, recently told me that the absence of markets that encourage M&A and dearth of liquidity events can be a serious innovation-killer. Entrepreneurs who can’t get a good price for their company won’t sell, and pricing is distorted because of shallow markets and an inertial system that rewards continuity rather than change.

Not being able to exit even if they want to means that instead of entrepreneurs owning their company, the company owns them.

The antidote is meaningful economic reforms, which reward productivity gains and encourage competition. India’s legal and economic structures promote inertia, rather than productivity and fluidity. Bollywood, which was recognized as an industry by the BJP-led NDA government in 1998, is one of the most visible and least talked about success stories to benefit from pro-market policy.

In the last decade, the film industry has become more organized and corporatized. Access to finance has reduced the influence of criminal elements and the infamous underworld. New talent has emerged and an industry which was once dominated by a few families is now far more democratic. Increased efficiency in movie production, distribution and marketing have grown the market for all and it has become possible to produce and release small-budget films which would have otherwise been commercially unviable.

This growth can be replicated in other sectors. The Congress-led UPA government has reiterated its commitment on this front, but the question is whether it will actually do enough, or hide behind the excuse of protecting India’s “mango people” once again.

At the micro level, the best way to create social capital is to pursue one’s dreams and ambitions, even if it seems difficult or impossible at first. Getting out of one’s comfort zone and trying new things, forming groups and organizations where none exist, and bringing together like-minded people whose values and ideas are aligned, though seemingly innocuous, can be deeply transformational. The generation of Indians that grew up through the watershed economic reforms of 1991 and the reform efforts of the NDA government from 1999-2004 is now coming of age. As has been captured by movies and popular culture, this generation is more confident, assertive and aspirational. Global investors and India’s “mango people” alike would be better off if they create social capital to dramatically alter India’s curious cultural calculus.

—Rajeev Mantri is executive director of Navam Capital, a Kolkata-based venture capital firm.

By SARAH TILTON

STATS: A 7,226-square-foot home with five bedrooms, and 5½ bathrooms, asking $5.5 million, or $761.12 a square foot. Property taxes in 2011 were $30,685. The house was previously listed for $5.9 million.

DETAILS: This Federal home in Old Town Alexandria dates back to 1803, says the owner, who takes pride in the restored moldings and the original woodwork. The formal dining room has Palladian windows at either end. The game room has a fireplace and arched bookcases. A curved staircase with the original mahogany banister leads to the second floor. The master bedroom includes his-and-hers bathrooms as well as his-and-hers walk-in closets. Don’t get attached to the garden furniture as it doesn’t come with the house; neither do the garden pots and statuary.

NEIGHBORHOOD: It’s about 15 minutes to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and about 15 minutes to the White House. Drive 20 minutes to Mount Vernon or walk to the galleries at the Torpedo Factory Art Center.

SELLER:
Leslie Ariail, a partner in a company that manages properties and develops real estate.

WHAT WE PAID: Mrs. Ariail says that she and her late husband, John, paid $2 million for the house in 1994. She says they put more than $1 million into renovating it in 2006 and 2007, adding a summer house (which they also call a gazebo) with limestone columns and a fireplace, expanding the sunroom and taking out the wall between the kitchen and the sunroom.

WHY I’M SELLING: “I’m downsizing,” says Mrs. Ariail, 68. “It’s a big house and my kids all think I need something smaller.” She plans to stay in the neighborhood.

WHAT I’LL MISS: Mrs. Ariail says she will especially miss the library. “It’s a cozy evening room with a fireplace,” she says. She’ll also miss the garden and doubts she’ll have one of “this magnitude” at her next house.

WHAT I WON’T: The squirrels. Mrs. Ariail says they rip the blooms off the tulips and eat the bulbs. “They’re just fuzzy-tailed rodents,” she says. “The world is not perfect and they contribute to that fact.” Mrs. Ariail realizes that if she moves to somewhere else in the neighborhood there will still be squirrels, but notes that they won’t be the same squirrels.

COMPS: Nearby, a 5,192-square-foot home with four bedrooms and 5½ bathrooms is asking $5.9 million.

OTHERS SAY:
Babs Beckwith of McEnearney Associates says the house is well priced considering the size and the original features like the leaded glass windows. Carol Cleary, also of McEnearney Associates, has the listing and says the house is unique because of the quality of the restoration including the moldings and the garden. “The landscaping is perfection,” she says.

Write to Sarah Tilton at sarah.tilton@wsj.com

Therapists say “stop whining about your problems.” Elizabeth Bernstein on Lunch Break looks at why we are whining more these days and the need to cut it out.

Sharon Rosenblatt was talking to her therapist fast and furiously about her dating life, when the woman suddenly interrupted her. “Haven’t we heard this before?” the therapist asked.

Was Ms. Rosenblatt offended? Not at all. The 23-year-old, who works in business development for an information technology company, says she specifically sought out a tough-love therapist after graduating from college and moving to Silver Spring, Md., two years ago.

‘No more complaints. I don’t want to hear about this one more day.’ —DOUGLAS MAXWELL, New York

“When there’s unconditional love from my therapist, I’m not inclined to change,” Ms. Rosenblatt says. Previous therapists, she says, would listen passively while she complained unchallenged.

Whining, as defined by experts—the therapists, spouses, co-workers and others who have to listen to it—is chronic complaining, a pattern of negative communication. It brings down the mood of everyone within earshot. It can hold whiners back at work and keep them stuck in a problem, rather than working to identify a solution. It can be toxic to relationships.

How do you get someone to stop the constant griping? The answer is simple, but not always easy: Don’t listen to it.

Moms, and bosses, are good at this. Some therapists are refusing to let clients complain endlessly, as well—offering up Tough Love in place of the nurturing gaze and the question “How does that make you feel?”

They’re setting time limits on how long a client can stay on certain topics and declaring some topics off-limits altogether. Some are even taping clients so they can hear how they sound and firing clients who can’t stop complaining.

“Talking endlessly about your problems isn’t going to help,” says Christina Steinorth, a marriage and family therapist in Santa Barbara, Calif. She tells her patients in the first session: “If you are looking for the type of therapy where I am going to nod my head and affirm what you are feeling, this isn’t the place to come.”

When clients whine, Ms. Steinorth has them make a list of how their life could improve if they stopped complaining and started working to solve their problems. She suggests they set aside a 10-minute window every day and do all their whining then. For clients who still won’t stop, she suggests they consider discontinuing therapy until they are ready to move forward.

‘I want whiners to ask themselves: “Would I hang out with this person?” ‘ —JULIE HANKS, Salt Lake City

Sometimes it feels like we’re a nation of whiners. Many of us learned this behavior as children, when we got what we wanted by wearing our parents down. In adulthood, whining—or venting, as I like to call it when I’m doing it—can be a coping mechanism, allowing us to let off steam.

“A lot of whiners don’t know they whine,” says Julie Hanks, a licensed clinical social worker who has a therapy clinic in Salt Lake City. “I want them to ask themselves, ‘Would I want to hang out with this person?’ “

Television encourages us to whine, thanks to shows like WE tv’s “Bridezillas” or A&E’s “Monster In-Laws,” about people who do almost nothing else. Technology, meanwhile, has trained us to expect instant gratification and become frustrated when we have to be patient. Facebook can make us feel that everyone else has it easier.

According to the Seattle-based Gottman Institute, married couples who flourish have a 5-to-1 ratio of positive-to-negative interactions within “conflict conversations.” In couples who divorce, the ratio is less than 5 to 1.

The good news is that it is possible to get whiners to stop. Ms. Hanks, who takes a tough stance on whining, says it is critical to build a rapport with a client. She often challenges patients to go an entire session without talking about pet topics, such as their mother or their ex. You can ban overvisited topics at home, too, she says, as long as you pay attention to real problems. She sometimes audiotapes sessions, so clients can hear themselves whine. She has even taped herself at home, to learn how she relates to family members.

Ms. Hanks says it is important for the listener to understand that whining masks a deeper, more vulnerable emotion. For example, a person might complain about a boss, but what he is really feeling is fear that his career is stalled. “Whining is just a powerless complaint,” she says. Understand this and you can get to the root of what is wrong.

Fran Walfish, a Beverly Hills, Calif., licensed psychotherapist, has a three-step stop-whining program. First, she points out the behavior, sometimes mirroring it back to a client, using both the same words and tone.

“The goal is to create self-awareness,” Dr. Walfish says, and in a neutral way.

Next, she points out that there’s a pattern to the complaining. Finally, she asks the whiner what he or she plans to do about it.

“When someone whines to you, it is an indirect way of saying, ‘You fix it,’ ” Dr. Walfish says. “You want to put the responsibility back where it belongs, in the whiner’s lap.”

Douglas Maxwell, a licensed psychoanalyst in Manhattan and president of the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, says constant complaining is often a “resistance,” and the person whining is often unaware of it.

With a client who gripes incessantly about a problem without making progress, he will say: “Stop. No more complaints. I don’t want to hear about this one more day. You must talk about something else.”

Often, clients don’t take this so well, Mr. Maxwell says. They resist his attempt to break through their barriers and even transfer their anger onto him. But he holds his ground—and says he is prepared to repeat his ban as often as he has to.

Sometimes, Mr. Maxwell will use humor. “Here we go again,” he might tease a patient.

“Once you draw the line in the sand, you have to hold that line,” he says. “Otherwise, anything you say as a therapist loses its effect.”

Crybabies, Be Gone!

Often, people don’t realize they are whining. The trick: Raise their self-awareness without using accusatory or sarcastic language.

Go gently: Even therapists say this conversation sometimes ends with the client walking out. Start by telling the person who is whining how much you appreciate him or her.

Use a tone of genuine curiosity. You want to get to the bottom of the problem together. You may want to mirror the negative communication. ‘I don’t know if you hear yourself, but listen to what you just said.’

Point out there’s a pattern. Say, ‘Do you realize it’s the fifth night in a row you’ve talked about this?’ Offer to tape future conversations so the person can hear for him or herself.

Open up the conversation. A person whining about work may be feeling unwell, or stuck in his career. Ask, ‘Is there something else that’s wrong?’ Explain that it is hard for you to hear the real issue because the person’s tone and attitude are getting in the way.

Ask the person what he or she plans to do about the problem. Hold them accountable.

Suggest alternatives. The person might want to write down a list of complaints and leave it in a drawer. Or keep a journal and circle repeated complaints in red pen. Or spend an hour at the gym, or do something outdoors with you.

Set a time limit. For 10 minutes a day, the person can whine unfettered—and you will listen. Then time is up. Do this once a day, once a week—or challenge the person to a ‘whine-free day.’

Give positive reinforcement. Say, ‘I love to hear good things about your job.’ Praise each increment toward healthy communication.

Write to Elizabeth Bernstein at Bonds@wsj.com or follow her column at www.Facebook.com/EBernsteinWSJ.