Label Cloud

We recently sat down with Alex Counts, President and CEO of Grameen Foundation. If "Grameen" sounds familiar to you, that’s because it is (or, at least, should be). Grameen Bank was started by Muhammad Yunus, the oft-credited forefather of micro-finance. In fact, he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his founding of the bank. Because of Yunus and many others – including Alex – who helped him along the way, people who live in poverty now have access to money (or, credit) to start their own businesses. They also now have access to the hope it grants.

Alex loves what he does. He’s curiously both measured and impassioned when he talks about it. We asked Alex what drove him to go into this line of work.

His Path

At age 20, Alex’s life path was taking shape. As a junior at Cornell University, he took to heart some advice from a college mentor: “all problems have a solution… that solution just isn’t getting to all problems.” Alex was on a mission – to scale solutions globally, so that they reached localized problems. So, he wrote a letter to Muhammad Yunus to better understand Grameen Bank. Really, he wanted to understand if he could play a role in scaling Yunus’ approach to poverty reduction. He wanted to see firsthand whether Grameen’s impact was possible in countries other than Bangledesh.

His Fulbright scholarship, post graduation, took him to Bangladesh for six of his first nine years out of college. He worked closely with Muhammad Yunus for many years (In Alex’s office hangs a framed picture of Yunus and a post-grad version of himself sitting at a table in conversation with others. The photo smacks of collaboration and impact). In 1997, Prof. Yunus funded Grameen Foundation – with $6,000 (interest from prize money Yunnus had previously won). Convinced of micro-credit’s global potential, Alex now had a platform of his own – as head of Grameen Foundation – to scale an impactful solution to poverty reduction. In the process, he became a full-fledged social entrepreneur.

Key Lessons

Today, Alex Counts is a force in the non-profit world. The risks he took to become a social entrepreneur have paid dividends. We can learn a lot from his path, its uncertainty, and his ultimate success.

The work of a social entrepreneur is truly noble. But how difficult it must be to start your own (non-profit) business if you can’t promise returns to investors… or even yourself (in the traditional sense of “returns” anyway). How did Alex do it?

He talked to people. Lots of people… for funding. The more he talked, the more he was rejected. But the more he also stumbled upon others willing to pony up. His persistence paid off. As he put it, “The more you talk to people, the more you get of both” (‘no’s AND ‘yes’s).

He also took a leap of faith. When he and Yunus started Grameen Foundation, they didn’t know how they were going to get the necessary funding and resources to launch and sustain it. They simply believed that if they started it, then the money and people would follow. That's exactly what happened.

A steadfast belief in their work sustained them. That belief, and the passion that it stirred within them, breathed constant life into their idea and their work.

When asked where that faith, that confidence, came from, Alex again quotes a mentor who once told him, “Even if you play and lose, you’re still in paradise.” In stark contrast to the people whom Grameen Foundation helps, Alex was lucky at birth to have been born where he was (as are most of us who read (or write) blogs).

Grameen Foundation had setbacks, but Alex looked at the silver lining of every dark cloud that came his way. The organization learned. It improved. In short, Alex used the Foundation's failures as “springboard(s) to achievement.” (How many times have we seen this theme of ‘failure as springboard’ emerge? Hint: every time).

One exchange from our conversation, seemed to capture Alex's formula for success. That is, if you “work hard,” use the “gifts” you’re lucky enough to have, and do it all with “ethics,” then “it’s only a matter of time” before your work starts yielding results (“beyond what [you] could have [ever] imagined”). Alex added: Only two things get in the way of this. Either, you’re doing something you’re not good at. Or, you’re not doing what you love.

Listen to the interview when we post it in full. You’ll find out:

* What Alex wanted to be when he grew up (and why)

* What Alex does to unwind and detach from his work’s stress

* Who he credits with granting him the freedom to pursue his true calling

Today we’re launching “Up and Comers” - a series of interviews with young influentials (think Crain’s Business 40 under 40) in business & politics and arts & entertainment. These “up and comers” are people who might not yet be household names, but will be in time.

Check back in soon to watch our interview with Parag Khanna, one of Esquire magazine’s 75 Most Influential People in the 21^st Century, who at 30 published best-selling book The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order. In the interview, you’ll find out why he chose the less trodden path of foreign policy over the more proven (and lucrative) one of high finance. You’ll also hear about some of his favorite – and most harrowing – moments traveling the world, while on his two-year research tour for The Second World.

There's quite an uproar in Canada right now. A lot of Canadians disagree with their country’s Olympic motto: “Own the podium.” Behind the slogan is a stated desire to win more medals at the 2010 Games than any other country. Many Canadians – including former Olympians – find the approach too aggressive. This is not surprising in a country where “doing your best” has been the historical measure of success. Other Canadians, however, believe the slogan’s more aggressive tone is precisely why it’s effective. These are likely the Canadians who can’t stand the fact that their country is the only one in the history of the Games to never have won a Gold while hosting (Ottawa ’76 and Calgary ’88).

On the surface, the controversy appears to be nothing more than fodder for inconsequential chat around the Canadian water-cooler. But below the surface lies a fundamental question – for Canada as a country and for us as individuals:

What kind of success do we value? Put another way: What should success look like – A Gold medal? Or being content with doing our best?

Kevin Hall, in his recent book Aspire, recalls the story of Henry Marsh. In 1984, Henry Marsh was poised to win Gold in the 3,000-meter Steeplechase. Heading into the Olympics, he was ranked #1. For the previous seven years, he finished first at the US Championships. He was the hands-down favorite in the event. Nobody questioned it. Then, everything changed. Days before the race, he contracted a serious virus. He didn’t take medication for fear of failing Olympic drug testing. In bed is where he spent the days leading up to the race. He was in no shape to compete. Nevertheless, he willed himself onto the track on race day. In breathless anticipation, people watched the race begin. Henry was doing fine. He and another competitor led the pack… until the final stretch of the race, when his competitor pulled away, and two others passed him. Henry finished fourth – no medal.

This year’s Canadian slogan does not shed a winner’s light on Henry Marsh. But when you talk to Henry, a different story emerges. As Kevin Hall tells it: “Henry had a talk with himself before the (race) and promised that if he gave the race everything he had, then he wouldn’t be hard on himself, no matter where he placed…. (After the race,) he received thousands of sympathy cards and letters … for what (people) saw as colossal bad luck. But to Henry it was a triumph…. He had entered a race and given it everything he could give…. He saw it as a personal victory.”

Olympic Gold eluded Henry Marsh. So did Silver and Bronze. But he seemed to be at peace with the outcome. His mind was strong. And his heart was happy.

It just so happens that the following year was the best of his career. He won another US Championship and set a Steeplechase record that would not be broken for another 20 years. Today, he’s reached enviable levels of business success as a speaker, trainer, and marketer.

So, what kind of success do you value: a Gold medal regardless of circumstance or a happy heart regardless of outcome?

One thing we often ponder – and that our conversation with Dominic Barton surfaced yet again – is the question of nature vs. nurture. These luminaries – Are they born with "it"? Or is "it" learned? Our hunch is a bit of both. But to what degree is each at play?

Here’s the thing – it might not matter. What if success is simply a conscious choice? What if being born with “it” doesn’t matter, but choosing to believe that you can attain “it” does?

We plan to explore this further in subsequent posts. For now, it's an emerging thought born of meaningful conversations with captains of industry who have reached heights of success that many of us aspire to.

We recently sat down with Dominic Barton, the Worldwide Managing Director of consulting firm McKinsey & Company (that’s the firm’s de facto title for CEO). We spoke to him on topics ranging from the 2010 World Economic Forum to what he does first thing every morning to his personal experiences with success and failure.

We'll publish the complete interview soon. In meantime, we wanted to highlight some things from the conversation that we found particularly striking.

It boils down to one question: How did a small-town Canadian farm boy grow up to lead the world's most influential consulting firm?

There’s a “special sauce” to Dominic’s success. And while we don’t have the complete recipe (nobody does), we did uncover a few key ingredients. First, let’s set the context – Where did Dominic come from?

Growing Up
Dominic was one of only six people in his high school (of 200 students) to attend college. Early on, almost as if by natural selection, he was part of an elite group. It was a small group of driven individuals who “helped push each other.”

There was also that one teacher who saw potential in Dominic and told him so. She was one of what would become many mentors in Dominic’s life. She convinced him to join the debate team, where Dominic honed his communication and analytical skills. It was also his first real opportunity travel, exposing him to different people and places – it really “opened up [his] aperture.”

He must have done something right because he eventually received a coveted Rhodes Scholarship, which “made a big difference in terms of where [he] went to university (and) the path [he] took.” He attributes some of it to luck. But he also believes “you can make your own luck.” With characteristic Canadian humility, he quickly added, “[It’s] a strange thing to say.”

While he didn’t say much more on making your own luck, there seems to be a common belief, among the luminaries we speak with, that luck can be made. As Oprah put it, luck is simply “preparation meeting opportunity.” What Oprah’s quote does not include though is an important pre-requisite: knowing what you want. Having a clear sense of what you want allows you to prepare with focus and recognize an opportunity when it arises.

Dominic’s father, a clergyman, was influential in clarifying for Dominic what he wanted to do (or not do, in this particular case). Dominic considers his father to be one of his most important mentors and “the smartest person” he’d ever met. But Dominic didn’t want to be like him – a man offering brilliant perspective on the sidelines. No, Dominic wanted “to get stuff done, not talk about what other people [were] doing.” Something in Dominic’s DNA, ironically, rejected his father’s approach to life. Dominic, unlike his father, wanted to “get into the arena.”

He is very much there now; and he likes it. It wasn’t a linear path, and there have been bumps along the way. How he’s dealt with those bumps is particularly telling. Whether innate or nurtured, he’s demonstrated particular characteristics that have largely contributed to his success.

These characteristics become clear when we ask him how he found his way to Asia more than a decade ago – in retrospect, a defining moment in Dominic’s career (many consider his Asian experience to be chief among the reasons he was elected to the top post of McKinsey in 2009).

Defining Moment
In the late 90’s, Dominic was a partner in McKinsey’s Toronto office and was doing well, but he was in a rut (albeit “a comfortable rut,” as he acknowledges). He thought his growth had reached a plateau. He felt the need “to change it up and push it.” An opportunity came up in Korea – the office there was in desperate need of partners and it was a real chance to build something, do something new.

Sounds like nothing special really, but here’s what’s telling about Dominic and sets him apart.

His mentors told him not to do it! They “thought it was a stupid idea.” They said, “You’re going to kill your career.” “It’s a difficult place.” “Why are you doing this?” “Why would you ever want to think about (this)?”

That only made Dominic “more excited” to go.

Dominic told himself, “I’m going to go. I’m going to be tested like I’ve never been tested. I’ll learn some things. And if it doesn’t work out at McKinsey, I can live with that. But I know I’m going to grow.”

If not for this move, Dominic would not be running McKinsey & Company today.

Key Lessons
Here we have a few key ingredients to Dominic’s success. In addition to personal drive and a passion to grow, on clear display is Dominic’s strong gut feel, comfort with the unknown, and acceptance of potential failure. It sounds trite on the surface. But upon deeper inspection, it’s not.

Dominic needed not only a strong gut feel, but also one that he could consciously tap into and trust. In this case, he knew, or rather he felt, that he needed a change. The Korea opportunity spoke to him louder than any of his mentors – and he listened.

He needed not just a comfort with the unknown, but to be OK with not having all the answers before acting. That is, he couldn’t quite put his finger on why he had to go, but that didn’t stop him from going.

Finally, he needed not just an acceptance of potential failure, but a certain faith that things would work out, even if Korea didn’t. That is, he was OK with the possibility of things not ultimately panning out at McKinsey – he had accepted the potential negative consequences of his decision.

Where did these characteristics come from? What gave him the strength to make such a jump, in the face of strong discouragement, with no apparent upside?

In going against his mentors, Dominic said, “I’ve always had mentors. They’ve been extremely important to me even before McKinsey…. (But) just because you get advice (doesn’t mean) you … have to listen to it.”

He said that two things, in particular, made him more comfortable with the entire situation.

First, he referenced advice that he received from a mentor in the Indonesia office, who told him, “There’s a sixth muscle we all have, and that’s instinct. We don’t play it up enough, but it’s actually a very important piece of our thinking arsenal. ‘What’s your feel? What’s your visceral reaction to something?’”

Dominic continued, “He would literally try to train me on this. He’d say, ‘I don’t want you doing an analysis. I want you to go away and think about this and come back with what’s your feeling about this.’”

Dominic’s initial reaction was “What the hell is this?” He seriously questioned whether clients would appreciate his “feeling” on an issue. He thought clients would look at him and say, “You don’t get it.”

Imitating his mentor, Dominic went on, “‘What’s your feeling? It’s going to be very important, as you get more senior – you’re not going to have time to analyze everything. You’re going to have to have an instinct towards it.’”

Dominic makes clear, “Instinct is something I (started to) consciously (think) about.”

That was the first thing.

“The second one was failure.” Dominic started talking about his experience with failure at McKinsey and how it actually helped him – as a person and as an executive. “It took me three times before I was elected a partner at McKinsey. And it was a very painful process.... I hadn’t experienced a lot of failure. I had worked hard and you know, if you work hard, you do well. Here I was. I was working hard and I was rejected…. ‘You’ve got some serious issues you’ve got to deal with.’ One of them was very painful. It was ‘We’re not sure about your problem solving skills’…. That’s like telling an astronomer they [sic] can’t do math… it was a bit of a slap in the head.

“I got angry. I thought it was unfair.”

But the whole experience had a profound effect on Dominic. In his words, “It gave me the strength to say ‘You know what? I’m not going to define myself by someone else’s standards… or by what other people think.’”

Dominic started seeking value internally rather than externally. He’d ask himself, “What do I want to accomplish in my life, if not in the world?” Then he’d convince himself, “That’s what I should focus on…. There’s going to be times where it works and there’s going to be times when it doesn’t. But I’m going to be comfortable with that.”

The more we talked to Dominic, the more we realized it’s not just his knowledge of Asia that helped him get elected to McKinsey's highest post, but also his zen-like knowledge from there.

Listen to the interview in full (when we post it soon) to find more about Dominic, including:
*How he handles bad luck
*What he looks for when recruiting new talent
*What he thinks is just as good as five hours of sleep

Persuasion is a key ingredient to success. It’s true whether you're a hollywood screen writer, corporate employee, or international diplomat. In each case, your objective is to influence your audience, your boss, or your enemy or ally to feel or act a certain way. Refugee Run, a one-hour simulation of terrifying refugee life at this year’s World Economic Forum, persuades in a way that is unique and particularly effective.

As we've previously written in this blog, Refugee Run places Forum delegates in the environment and mindset of what it’s like to be a refugee – bare tents, crying women, warring gunshots, barking soldiers, dark silence, and frightening unpredictability. We partook in the experience and realized that it was more intense and jolting than expected. Kudos to Refugee Run for re-creating such an experience so powerfully. But beyond the Run's ability to re-create an experience is its ability to influence the "rulers of the universe" who go through it.

The Run inspired Richard Branson to take over Mia Farrow's hunger strike in 2009. It compelled COO of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, to reach out to strategic business partners to explore more ways to help. And it's rumored that, at this year's Forum, it compelled Jeffrey Sachs, in concert with UN Global Impact, to bring the Refugee Run to their Leaders Summit in June 2010, a summit that, according to UN Global Impact Executive Director, Georg Kell, will host 1,000 international CEOs.

At the World Economic Forum, an environment in which who is saying something is sometimes more persuasive than what is being said, Refugee Run bucks the trend altogether in how the message is communicated – through experience, not simply discussion or Powerpoint presentation. It's a lesson in persuasion that we can all learn from and is applicable to numerous contexts, whether that context is solving the world's most pressing challenges or dealing with a problematic boss at work.

At Davos this year, there is a lot of talk about humanitarian aid, particularly in light of the recent Haiti disaster. It’s not surprising then that many are applying business principles to the problem. What is surprising, or least interesting to us, is the consistency in applying one particular framework to humanitarian assistance. McKinsey is talking about it. Manpower is participating in it. Jeffrey Sachs is advising about it.

That is: Supply Chain Management. It might sound scary (that's many times what business jargon does: scares us) but it’s actually quite basic.

It starts with a simple question: How do we get aid from the Have’s to the Have Not’s? It’s best to use an example – let’s use the AIDS epidemic in Africa. On the one side, pharmaceutical companies make drugs to combat AIDS. On the other side, millions of Africans are infected with AIDS with no access to the right drugs. How do the right drugs get to the people who need it? Then, we identify what the supply is – either a product or service – in this case, pharmaceutical drugs. (We could even talk about people (that is, doctors) in the recent case of Haiti). Next, we break down, into discrete pieces, the points through which the supply is taken: (1) Pharmaceutical company, (2) Shipping company, (3) Port, (4) Village, (5) Individual. That is our “supply chain.” (The supply chain can look quite different than this – and get complicated pretty fast – depending on context). Finally, we determine how we get from one chain to the next, which is usually a question of who. Who is responsible for moving supply along the chain? The answer, in a lot of successful cases, is “Private-public partnerships.”

In the case of AIDS in Africa, for the most part, big US pharmaceutical companies (#1) have been responsible (sometimes with US government help) for committing a certain amount of drugs to ship (#2) to the appropriate African port (#3). At that point, the private companies’ expertise typcially ends. Another group must pick it up from there. NGO’s (sometimes with UN help), with their local expertise, are typically the best to distribute aid once it’s “on the ground.” From the port, they transport it to the right villages (#4), then get it to the right people (#5).

As a stark reminder of the importance of the supply chain as well as organizations’ roles along it, Jeffrey Sachs, at an intimate panel discussion, recanted that ten years ago, pharmaceutical companies started to realize that their drugs just sat in boxes at major African ports. They weren’t reaching those in need because there was no infrastructure in place to get the drugs to villages. Many died as a result. Some on the panel (which consisted of the CEO of Manpower, Executive Director of UN Global Compact, Deputy Chairman of KPMG, and President of Global Hand) nodded as Sachs mentioned that it was at Davos, that same year, that “Big Pharma” highlighted this challenge. They connected with the UN and international NGOs to link the last few supply chains together, ultimately ensuring that the drugs reached those in need.

It’s exciting to see business and humanitarian causes work handed-in-hand, not just “on the ground,” but also in concept. Transferring knowledge from one sphere to make the other better (in this case, the framework of supply chain management) is one of the World Economic Forum's biggest strengths. Where else do the "rulers of the universe" gather, in such quality and quantity, with so much focus and thought dedicated to combatting some of the world's greatest challenges? We have our criticisms of the World Economic Forum (many do), but it's worth highlighting the great good it serves as well.

The World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, hosts a dynamic, intelligent, and opinionated group of approximately 2,000 international business and political leaders, referred to, in some press accounts, as "rulers of the universe."

As we partake in the broader Davos Experience, we're talking to a large cross-section of participants - leaders of the world's most respected businesses to non-profit practioners at the world's most respected NGOs - for a unique take on this year's Forum. This is what we're hearing after just a couple days (most of this comes from off-the-record conversations with well-positioned Forum delegates, so we are unable to attribute most of it to specific individuals):

Problems and solutions. We spoke with an internationally renowned business leader and seasoned problem-solver, who provided some of his insight and perspective on this year’s Forum:

• He bemoaned that too much focus at this year’s Forum is on problems and not enough is on solutions. He thinks the number and nature of agenda topics make sense, but the way they’re being discussed leaves something to be desired.
• Continuing on the theme of solutions, he commented on the Goldman Sachs backlash that, as of late, has monopolized press coverage in the aftermath of the financial crisis. (That is, Goldman's profits are skyrocketting, and the company is on the verge of paying out huge bonuses. This, when many have claimed that their financial viability was salvaged by the government’s decision, in the eye of the financial storm, to pay Goldman 100 cents on the dollar for faulty AIG credit, as part of the AIG bailout). He said that Goldman’s is an emotional problem – it represents such a small piece of what’s going on and what needs to be solved in the broader financial crisis context – and as such needs an emotional solution, not a rational one. So we won’t be surprised if in the coming days, weeks, or months, Goldman responds, not with a numbers- or data-driven solution to address the public’s hostility and Congressional concern, but rather with a symbolic or feel-good solution, likely non-profit, or “common good,” in nature (which ironically won’t much touch their bottom line, but will address the hostility).
• Of the tone at this year's Forum, this sought-after mind called it “somber.” Whereas last year, delegates were shell-shocked amidst the depths of the financial crisis, this year, delegates are keenly aware of the unprecedented nature of the recovery ahead and their responsibility in blazing a trail out of it.

Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is to the World Economic Forum as Michael Jackson is to 80's pop music. So his presence is cause for great fervor, even among the Forum's elite class of participants.

• One off-record-conversation he’s had this year was with a group of promising global talent that the Forum christens its “Young Global Leaders” (YGLs) – a young group of 200-300 promising thinkers, business managers, and political leaders, chosen annually by the World Economic Forum. Clinton spoke to the YGLs about current events including Afghanistan-Pakistan, US Healthcare, Haiti. When we asked one YGL whether the discussion was juicier than what we would read in the papers, this YGL responded, "It's Bill Clinton. He's not stupid. He knows everything he says is on the record.” But while Clinton didn’t vary much from what he’s said in the past, this YGL still thought it somewhat of a coup for him and about 50 other YGL's to get Clinton all to themselves for about an hour.
• Bill Clinton is also spending a lot of his time raising funds for Haiti relief, most likely doing a lot of back-slapping and arm-twisting at his Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) party, during the Forum’s first night. “Nightcaps” as they’re officially called by the Forum, this nighttime party was one of the year’s most exclusive at Davos.

Refugee run. Outside the walls of the Forum’s main hall is something called the Refugee Run, a joint effort between UNHCR (The UN Refugee Agency) and Crossroads Foundation (a non-profit dedicated to raising awareness of (and support to combat) the plight of the world’s less fortunate through experiential learning) meant to provide Forum delegates with an intimate understanding of the global refugee problem. For one hour, it places delegates in the environment and mindset of what it’s like to be one of the world’s 42 million refugees – bare tents, crying women, warring gunshots, barking soldiers, dark silence, and frightening unpredictability. In only its second year at the Forum, the Refugee Run boasts delegate participation varying from Ban Ki-moon to Richard Branson. According to one of the Run’s organizers, it was Branson’s participation in last year’s Refugee Run that inspired him in May 2009 to finish Mia Farrow’s hunger strike (after Farrow's frail health prevented her from continuing) to protest Sudan's removal of several humanitarian agencies from Dafur, a region known to produce a large number of refugees living in terrifying conditions.

New leadership. We ran into Bill George on the streets of Davos. (He's fast becoming the de facto, resident expert on leadership for The Popped Kernel). In our ten minute walk through the crisp air and snowy sidewalks, he made clear his optimism for the new generation of leaders, slowly taking over key positions in business and politics internationally. He thinks this new group of leaders brings with it an unprecedented consciousness of and for the common good. Remember, this is the man who, in our interview with him in November 2009, told us that the financial crisis of '08-'09 was driven not by sub-prime mortgages, so much as by “sub-prime leadership.”

Banking regulation. Bankers and financiers are uneasy, if not outright worried, about the banking regulation that the Obama Administration proposed a few weeks ago.

• The regulatory curbs aim to prevent the "too big to fail" mentality of the recent economic crisis that, in retrospect, incented big banks to take disproportionate risk, whereby if they're right, they reap huge rewards and if they're wrong, taxpayers pick up the tab. There's also an element of disentangling investment activities, whereby banks would not be able to run hedge funds, nor would they be able to trade on their own behalf.
• Congressman Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is omnipresent at the Forum (We saw him outside his hotel, inside the Newsweek luncheon, and of course, he's a power center inside the main hall). Congressman Frank is in a position to shape Obama's banking regulation in the House, and as such, participants are clamoring to hear what he has to say as well as influence his committee's ultimate direction on regulation. Of the influence that financiers and their lobbyists are trying to exert, he says, "I don't pay any attention to it. It has no effect on public policy. We have been glad to discuss things with them. They have information, but we have decided to go ahead with this (regulation)." (as quoted in the International Herald Tribune)
• Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, is also at the Forum. In the Forum's main hall, he clarified and defended the Obama regulation with moderator Charlie Rose.

What has become clear, since Obama's announcement two weeks ago, is that there will be regulation - everyone has accepted that as fact (which is a feat in and of itself). What is less clear is what exactly the regulation should or will be.

China. Much hay has been made of the fact that China represents the largest delegation at this year's Forum.

• People are starting to talk about the "China consensus" as opposed to the "Washington consensus" - the notion that what comes out of Bejing is more influential to world affairs than what comes out of D.C. Additionally, bets are being made on when exactly China's economy will over-take America's (2020 appears to be a safe bet).
• Some Western delegates have been overheard calling China’s presence here "arrogant," not so much for its size as for its attitude. One delegate framed it relative to India’s presence and tone: “India is begging; China’s just being. China's here. They’re listening. But there’s an air that they can manage it all better. But that’s not necessarily true. And that concerns me.”
• A seismic shift is happening both politically and economically as the Sleeping Giant awakens from slumber and rises to power. Its ascent is highly controversial in that the implications are far from certain. Where there is uncertainty, there is discomfort. And where there is discomfort, there is a desperate effort to control the situation to regain lost comfort.

This is partially what's happening at the 2010 World Economic Forum. From China to banking regulation, countries and companies, among the chaos of uncertainty, are sizing each other up, both partnering and undermining, at the whim of self-interest, to solve their problems and hopefully, at the same time, the world’s ills. In parallel, from Bill Clinton's fundraising to the Refugee Run's awareness building, the energy and effort behind humanitarian aid is strong and resilient. The question isn't so much about which forces will beat out the rest (financiers vs regulators, self-interest vs public good), but rather how these forces will work harmoniously together.

That is what the World Economic Forum is all about. For an organization that values thought over action, we might end up with more questions than answers by the end of the week, but those questions will hopefully be the right ones, which of course, is the first step to any effective solution.

Nestled in the snow-capped Alps of eastern Switzerland, Davos is home to one of the most high-powered events of the year: The World Economic Forum. Attendees are the world's most influential business and political leaders. French President, Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured at right), opened the meeting with a call for international banking regulation.

The feel here is exclusive, yet the Forum's aim is rather inclusive. That is, how to solve the most pressing concerns of our time, chief among them, health and education challenges facing the world's most needy. Also on the agenda: the direction of the global economy, climate change, and international security & coexistence.

We will be covering the Forum through its close on Sunday, Jan 31. And, as is now typical, we will finalize our coverage with a post mortem analysis.

You can also follow real-time action on Twitter, either by using the #WEF hashtag or following the Forum tweeter @Davos.

Additionally, we recommend checking out:
- Live streaming video of the World Economic Forum
- YouTube's World Economic Forum channel
- Wall Street Journal's World Economic Forum coverage hub