The blog demonstrates why companies should encourage employees to take a nap and what benefits can one extra hour rest bring to the overall productivity. In many small companies in China, employers expect employees to work overtime, sometimes over 12 hours. In order to reduce overall cost and increase profit, those employers exhaust the workers, trying to get the best out of everyone. What these employees do not realize is that overtime working usually has a negative effect on workplace performance and leads to errors and loss. In contrast, successful and large companies usually treat their employees well, encouraging employees to take naps during work. These smart employers know that only well-rested workers are more efficient and creative. As proven in many cases, “Napping at work can make your employees feel more refreshed and revitalized, enabling them to perform their duties more competently.” The companies that allow their workers to nap actually prevent the potential loss that occurs as the adverse consequence of sleep deprivation.

Other than allowing naptime during work, many successful companies aim to create a pleasant working environment for employees. Google and Zappos are two perfect examples. They provide free food and drinks for employees, celebrate their accomplishment from time to time and allow them to have fun in the workplace. The CEO of these two companies obviously had understood a principle- Happy employees make profitable business!

I recently read Roy’s blog on the US’s debt to China. I think he clearly states the reason for China to postpone collecting its debt and continue buying bonds to financially supports the U.S. In the recent news, China mocked U.S for stumbling on a debt deal by depicting the nation as a beggar. Technically, the reason that U.S owned 17 trillion dollars to China, Japan and other countries was the squandering spending habits of the average Americans as well as the government’s lack of regulation. This huge debt was created because the amount of tax revenue it collects each year cannot cover the huge deficit it has. Similarly in Europe, Greece and Spain had borrowed money from each other and other European countries by an amount that they cannot afford to pay back. This created a economic recession in the Europe.

However, in the US-China case, it seems unreasonable that China kept buying the US bonds after the huge debt. The reason is simply that China’s economy relies heavily on export and U.S is one of its largest clients. So if China urges US to pay back its debt, the Americans then have no money to spend on the Chinese goods, especially during holidays. However, now China is trying to stand up on its own feet by laying more emphasis on innovative industries and increasing the domestic consumption . And the U.S. must stop its “spending splurge and borrowing binge and restore fiscal sanity before it is too late.”

I recently read David Zhang’s blog on LuLulemon’s stance on large-sized cloth. And I think it did a great analysis on why LuLulemon is reluctant to produce plus-size clothing. As a yoga-apparel company, LuLulemon targets only at fit women whose pants sizes are smaller than 12. They also claimed “discouraging plus-size customers has actually been part of the brand’s strategy.” Expectedly, this strategy arouse feminist outrages, which even upgraded after Chip Wilson, the cofounder of Lululenmon, commented in a Bloomberg Interview, “some women’s bodies just don’t work for [the pants]”

Definitely, Lululemon has its own reason for not producing plus size. As David put it, they “ found stocking large size of clothes in the store inconvenient and unprofitable.” In David analysis, because of their strategies, they are gradually losing the old customers as people ages and starts putting on weight. In addition, I think Lululemon underestimated the loss from plus-size customers. Since Lululemon is mainly targeting the US and Canadian market where there is a considerable number of large size people, they are losing huge amount of potential customers. As there is a tendency for increasing nutrient awareness, more plus size people wants to pursuit a healthy lifestyle and a fit figure by taking yoga classes. Therefore, there is a large demand from large size people.

 The stubbornness of Lululemon is causing them to lose competitive advantage in yoya-appareal market since their strong competitor Abercrombie announced to add XL and XXL to its product line. This tells us adapting to the consumers’ need is important for a company to achieve success.

According to the CBC news, Starbuck announced its policy of banning firearms in its store recently, and this action heated the debate between gun right advocacies and gun control advocacies. The decision Starbuck it made this time put the corporation under stress since the several companies that had banned guns were involved with some troubles. In some U.S. states where gun laws allow people to purchase guns without state permit such as Arizona, guns become some people’s must-bring item when they go out. It can be perceived that carrying guns had become a part of their culture. And that’s where the cultural clash comes in. As an international company, Starbucks surely has to come cross many obstacles because of different cultural environments. And the gun culture is an inevitable and tough one. Usually when a cultural conflict occurs, companies should adapt to the local culture while staying in the same parameter outlined by the company. However in this case, I think Starbucks is making a right choice since the gun culture cannot coexist with its own corporate culture. Started from the foundation period, Starbucks had aimed to create relaxing and comfortable environment for customers to sit down, read a magazine and enjoy a cup of coffee. And the gun carriers bring in tension in the store, and employees are put in a position where they need to be extremely cautious in confronting these people. So to remain its value proposition, Starbucks took a strong stance on the issue.

As the frequency of seeing a UPS van on the road increases, people are aware that UPS’s influence on delivery industry has grown incredibly strong. First started as a package delivery company in America, UPS had worked its way to become the world’s largest delivery company and the most recognized brand. The success of its business attributes to the sustainable strategy and strong corporate values. On its official website, UPS identifies itself as a “company that has never shied away from reinventing itself”. And this had been proven by UPS’s constant changing tactics to satisfy customers’ needs. Since lost cost and high quality is its focusing strategy, UPS has never stopped to reduce overall cost with the help of technology and innovation. For example, the company saved them 20.4 million miles by having an expert map out their routes before the delivery occurs according to a case study done by Harvard University. This also better UPS’ corporate image for being environmentally friendly. In addition, the company is able to “look into the future” and expand its logistics service. For example, in order to maximize its revenue stream, UPS partnered with both online shopping companies and old school retailors. This created a enormous demand during holidays for UPS since the changing shopping styles. People who are unwilling to squeeze into the crowd shop online and order delivery; And for those who shop in store but are reluctant to carry the stuff home can also have them shipped home. The Bloomberg post pointed out that the omni-channel-retailing strategy benefits both the consumers and UPS.

“If you’re going to get all the publicity from it, why isn’t it putting more money into its charity?” asked by Doug White, a professor of Columbia University regarding the McDonald charity issue. Recently, Corporate Accountability International, an advocacy group criticized the fast-food giant for contributing too little to charitable organization while gaining a huge amount of revenue. In my opinion, McDonald is not doing a good job in demonstrating corporate social responsibility not only because of the

insufficient money it put into charity but also because of its strategy of targeting children as its main market. According to the news, it spent almost 25 times as much on advertising as it did on charitable donations in 2011, and most of their advertisements are targeting children. Due to the first mover advantage, McDonald had a great corporate image and reputation in the fast-food industry. Over the years, McDonald had developed different tactics to attract attention from children such as the different toys that come with the “Happy Meal.” However, McDonald’s most products are considered “Junk Food” by dietitians; thus, consuming too much will bring harms to children who needs nutrition for body growth. Health news on WebMD shows that Fast food was the main food source for 29 to 38% of children and kids can gain 6 pounds a year from fast food! Therefore, McDonald’s advertising tactics are ethically unacceptable as it potentially led to more obese children. At the beginning, fast food industry was created to serve the working adults who were too busy to have a nice meal. But now McDonald’s had successfully associated their corporate image with children.