리처드 브랜슨이란 사람은 국내에 크게 알려져 있지 않지만, 미국에서는 스티브 잡스 만큼이나 유명한 CEO이다.  맨손에서 시작해 '버진' 이라는 대기업 회장이된 인물이다. 어떻게 보면 뻔할 수도 있는 전형적인 미국적 자본주의의 성공스토리였지만, 그의 기행들 덕에 읽는 재미를 느낄 수 있었다.  아무나 그처럼 성공하는 건 아닌가보다.  고모하고 6살에 내기를 했는데, 2주간의 바다휴가 사이에 수영을 배우면 돈을 주겠다는 내기였다. 그는 6살에 이미 목숨을 걸 정도로 목표에 대한 집착이 정말 대단했고- 2주가 끝나고 집으로 가는 길에 강가에서 마지막으로 도전한 끝에 고모에게 돈을 따낸다.  '이정도 에너지는 있어야 사업을 하는구나'라는 생각이 들었다.  쉽게 포기하지 않는- 안된다고 해도 어떻게든 방법을 찾아내는 자세가 정말 대단했다.  

(리처드 브랜슨 회장의 위용...마초적이면서도 멋있다^^ 뒤 사진은 우주항공회사 버진 갤럭틱의 로고라는데- 회장 본인의 동공을 촬용하여 만들었다고 한다)

그는 갖가지 털털하면서도 갖가지 기행으로 유명한데- 본인의 회사인 버진항공의 비행기 안에서 스튜디어스로 여장하고 손님들에게 서빙을 하는 가 하면,

(아시아나항공 CEO가 기내에서 이렇게 하고 다닌다고 생각해보라!)

취미가 기구여행인데 대서양 횡단 기록도 가지고 있다.  기구 타다 죽을 뻔한 적도 두번이나 있었다고 한다;;

(버진이 휴대폰 시장에 진출할때, 썼던 누드 마케팅.  브랜슨 본인도 누드 인형을 착용하고 퍼포먼스에 참가했다. 위 퍼포먼스는 최악의 광고에 선정되었으나 이로 인해 오히려 큰 광고효과를 보았다고^^)

인생의 좌우명이 '일단 시도해보라' 라는데- 정말 에너지와 추진력이 정말 대단한듯 하다. 일에 재미가 없으면 포기한 다는 그 답게 그의 기업 역시 문어발 확장을 자랑한다.  버진 뮤직 -> 버진 항공(버진 아틀란틱) -> 버진 헬스클럽 -> 버진 우주항공(버진 갤럭틱)...

오늘은 대놓고 특정회사 상품을 예찬하고자 한다.  필자도 최근에 구입한 크록스 신발에 대해서다. 

이 제품을 처음 접했던 것은 의과대학 본과 시절 병원에 실습을 나가면서 부터였다.  쓰레빠도 아닌 것이, 구두도 운동화도 아닌 것이 구멍도 뻥뻥 뚫린게 참 시원해보이고 가벼워 보였다.  

(딱 요것이다.  선생님들이 수술방에서도 신고 다니고, 병동에 환자보러 다닐 때도 신고 다녔다)

돌이켜 보면 병동에서 쓰레빠, 운동화를 신고 다니면 안된다는 규칙을 피하기 위한 최적의 선택이 크록스 였던 것이다. 이 신발의 장점은 결정적으로 양말을 신지 않아도 된다는 점이다!!  학생 때는 짬이 되지 않아 차마 신고 다닐 수가 없어 아쉬웠다.  하지만 이젠 눈치 보지 않고 신을 수 있다^^ 

내 발에 크록스를 장착하는데 유일하게 걸리는 것은 위 사진에서 보듯이 요상한 모양이었다.  편하긴 하지만 다른 패션과 쉽사리 어울리지 못하는 독특함 때문에 주저하게 되었던 것이다. 그러나 이점을 완벽하게 해결한 크록스 신상을 발견!

(바로 요놈이다~!)

이 녀셕은 크록스의 장점에 패션을 더했다.  댄디한 로퍼의 모양을 본땄으나 크록스의 가장 특징인 socksless(양말없이 신을 수있는) 특성을 놓치지 않았다.  로퍼엔 발목이 없는 양말을 신어야 하는데- 로퍼는 방수가 안되서 장마철에는 쉽게 젖는 것이 큰 단점이다.  특히 여름에 신어야 하는 스타일인데 비가 많이오는 날에는 신기가 꺼려져서 문제였다. 그런데 이녀석은 양말을 신을 필요가 없어 방수를 걱정할 필요가 없다.(오~? 문제의 해답을 구한게 아니라 문제를 없애버렸다)  맨발로 신고 다니다 비오면 그냥 맞고 집에 와 벗어놓으면 금방 마른다. 기특한 녀석~ 캐주얼 혹은 캐주얼 정장 스타일에 맞게 디자인되어서 더더욱 만족하게 되었다~

이 제품은 회사에 다닌 여성들이 신기에 안성맞춤처럼 보인다~ 장난감 처럼 보이는 외향이 단점인 크록스인데 이 제품은 꽤나 고급스럽다.

양말을 안신어도 되는 크록스, 비올 때 안성맞춤인 크록스.  가히 현대인의 나막신이라 불릴 만하지 않을까?  예절과 패션, 실용성을 다 잡고 싶은 욕심쟁이라면 장마철 이맘 때 하나 뽑아보자. 이만 대놓고 크록스 무료홍보 끝.

미국에서 자궁경부암 백신 주사가 10대에서 효과를 거두고 있는 모양입니다.  2006년 이후로 미국 10대 청소년들의 HPV(인간유두종 바이러스) 감염을 약 50%나 낮추었다고 하네요. 생각했던 것보다 효과적이라는 말입니다~  미국에서도 크게 확산되어 쓰고 있지는 않은 모양인데...이쯤 되면 HPV 백신이 조만간 한국 표준 예방접종표에 들어올지도 모르겠다는 생각이 드네요.

-----------------------

CDC: HPV Vaccine Is Lowering Infection Rates in Teen Girls

The prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infections in adolescent girls in the United States has declined significantly since the human papillomavirus vaccine (Gardasil, Merck) was introduced in 2006, a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates.

The study, published online June 19 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, reveals that vaccine-type HPV prevalence decreased 56% among female adolescents aged 14 to 19 years since 2006, despite relatively low immunization rates.

Only about half of all girls in the United States received the first dose of the HPV vaccine, the CDC said in a statement. A series of 3 shots is recommended over the course of 6 months. In contrast, countries such as Rwanda and Australia have vaccinated more than 80% of their teenaged girls.

About 79 million Americans, most in their late teens and early 20s, are infected with HPV. Each year, about 14 million people become newly infected.

"These results of this study showing that the types of HPV that commonly cause cervical cancer has dropped by about half in teen girls since 2006 are striking, better than we'd hoped for, and should be a wake-up call for us to increase vaccination rates," CDC Director Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, said during a telephone news conference. "We can protect the next generation of girls against cancer."

Dr. Frieden's reasons for low vaccination rates are complex. "Providers are not consistently giving strong recommendations for the vaccine and aren't encouraging vaccination at every encounter. These are missed opportunities. We need to do a better job of informing parents about the vaccine. Many say they don't think it is necessary because their child isn't sexually active," but physicians need to better explain that there is a need to vaccinate well before they get exposed, he added.

"Our low vaccination rates represent 50,000 preventable tragedies: 50,000 girls alive today will develop cervical cancer over their lifetime that would have been prevented if we reach 80% vaccination rates," he said. "For every year we delay in doing so, another 4400 girls will develop cervical cancer in their lifetimes."

Among females aged 14 to 19 years, the vaccine-type HPV prevalence (HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, or HPV-18) decreased from 11.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2 % - 14.4%) in 2003 to 2006 to 5.1% (95% CI, 3.8% - 6.6%) in 2007 to 2010, a decline of 56% (95% CI, 38% - 69%). Among other age groups, the prevalence did not differ significantly between the 2 times (P > .05). The vaccine effectiveness of at least a single dose was 82% (95% CI, 53% - 93%). A total of 4150 women in 2003 to 2006 and 4253 women in 2007 to 2010 aged 14 to 59 years were included in the analysis.

According to CDC, each year in the United States, about 19,000 cancers caused by HPV occur in women, and cervical cancer is the most common. About 8000 cancers caused by HPV occur each year in men in the United States, and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common.

The Gardasil (Merck & Co) vaccine was introduced in 2006 to prevent cervical cancer caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18. A bivalent vaccine (Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) was approved in 2009 to prevent cervical cancer and lesions caused by HPV types 16 and 18.

In 2011, the CDC recommended that the Gardasil vaccine be administered to boys. There are currently no estimates on how many boys have received the vaccine, said Lauri Markowitz, MD, an epidemiologist at the CDC and author of the study.

HPV vaccination is also recommended for older teenagers and young adults who were not vaccinated when younger.

J Infect Dis. Published online June 19, 2013. Abstract

Love and Fear and the Modern Boss

Five hundred years ago, Niccolò Machiavelli posed the question of whether it is better for a leader to be loved or feared, concluding that if you can’t be both (and few people can), being feared is more effective. While the complexities of human nature resist definition in such stark terms—behaviors lie along a continuum—the question of fear versus love has been a fundamental one for leaders throughout history.

Until a generation or so ago, fear was the predominant model. In the 1950s and 1960s, corporal punishment was common even in public schools, and the workplace was a largely hierarchical and autocratic arena where leaders imposed rewards and punishments based on conformity with the rules. Today, teachers in most of the developed world would instantly lose their jobs for hitting a student, and in the office, too, acceptable models of leadership have shown their softer side. This shift in the predominant leadership model reflects the move from an industrial to an information economy. In factories, you need strict rules and you reward people based on very simple and clear productivity metrics. Knowledge workers don’t respond well to such rigidity, and fearful service employees would have trouble putting on a good face for customers. In fields like advertising, tight controls stifle creativity and commitment.

But even in the developed world, plenty of leaders still rely on fear, and many people continue to put up with it. One reason is simply that people rationalize the fear model as “just the way things are done around here,” as is the case with hazing, arguably a form of leadership among students. Another reason is that some people feel a sense of pride and accomplishment in toughing it out; they find satisfaction in meeting the standards of a very demanding boss. Others simply prefer an autocratic style over an empowering one; they don’t want to decide how to do their work but would rather just know the rules and follow them. Still others actually believe that they will ultimately be more successful with a strong boss, one who will push them beyond the limits to which they’d stretch themselves.

It’s just as well that we have people who can work under these bosses because some circumstances still call for a fear-based style of leadership—where you want to discourage risky behavior, such as in a nuclear power plant. With the stakes so high on safety, tight control—not improvising—is prudent. Employees tend to self-select into these companies. Leaders need to do the same—find roles that match their temperaments.

Indeed, if a leader is stern and autocratic—even rude and insulting—he can inspire great respect if he is also authentic, and if he genuinely cares about the people working for him. Two of the most successful coaches in the history of college basketball exemplify Machiavelli’s two extremes—the feared Bobby Knight at Texas Tech and Mike Krzyzewski, Duke’s beloved Coach K—and both have won devoted followings among players. Coach K, whose leadership style relies on open communication and caring support, wrote a book called Leading with the Heart. Knight, on the other hand, has had a career marked by controversies about his harshness, including allegations that he choked a player during practice. Despite his bullying, he inspires tremendous loyalty and even love. Texas Tech players know what they’re getting into, and they know that Knight’s temper is integral to his being—and that he truly cares about them.

That’s why, five centuries after it was written, we can still take lessons from The Prince. Leading by force and intimidation has its downsides—the potential for the leader’s derailment chief among them. Thanks to his violent behavior and inability or unwillingness to adapt his dominant style to changing societal norms, Knight was eventually fired from his job at Indiana University (though quickly snapped up by Texas Tech). But there are times when the softer approach to leadership is equally ineffective—or simply inauthentic—and rule by fear is the way to go. Successful leaders read the signals and adapt their styles accordingly, but they know their limits. A stretch assignment for a leader might be a developmental opportunity that brings out previously unrecognized strengths—but if the role requires a style beyond the leader’s adaptability, the result is often disastrous.

--------------

결론을 말하자면 사랑은 창조성이 요구되는 환경에, 공포는 임시변통이 허용되면 안되는 rule을 따라야 하는 환경에 적합한 리더십이라고 하네요. 

예> 광고회사 <-> 핵발전소

ref: http://hbr.org/2008/01/love-and-fear-and-the-modern-boss/ar/1