(목요모임) [28 Jan. 2016]Thursday meeting topic

[Scarlet]

Howdy ! 

It's me Scarlett !   

We will use last Saturday topics again. 

This week we have 4 topics. 

◈ Self management 

- 20 Top Tips For Managing Change – Recognising The Obstacles

◈ Social Affairs 

- "Economy and Distribution Are Unfair" Answers 72% of Respondents: 

    Republic of Korea Already a Society of Distrust

- Cronyism causes worst kind of inequality

◈ Healthcare : A Complete Guide To Develop A Healthy Soul

◈ Technology : Can Self-Driving Cars Be Ethical?

Hope you enjoy the topics. 

With luv 

Scarlett 

---

10 Top Tips For Managing Change – Recognising The Obstacles

By Jeremy Thorn

---

Boiling frog syndrome

The boiling frog is an anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of threats that occur gradually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

---

<Part 1>

Most people hate change, especially if it is ‘done to them’. Yet, if nothing were ever to change, how might anything ever improve? In this article, Jeremy Thorn, Non-Executive Director and coach to several fast-growing companies, offers an overview.

Managing change is a key requirement of any professional manager.

And after all, change is an enduring and even essential part of life. It isn’t just that the world around us is changing fast, whether we like or not, but organisations need change, if only to make things better. Nothing improves by staying the same and managing change is key to any continuous improvement programme, profit-enhancement initiative or personal development plan. As the mantra goes, “If we always do what we always did, we shall always get what we always got”.

So the reasons to embrace change from any business perspective may seem to be rather over-powering. But have you noticed? Very few of us actually welcome change – unless of course it was our idea!

Here are some proven tips that may help any manager implement change more effectively in their own organisation — one of the most difficult challenges they may ever face.

This article starts with recognising some of the obstacles. 

 What sort of change do we face?

In seeking to implement change, it is important to recognise that there are many different sorts of ‘change’ – and not all circumstances will need the same approach.

 For example, the need for change may be:

– overt and predictable (examples on a macro-scale might be increasing longevity in an increasingly health-conscious society, or the progressive decrease in demand for routine postal services; and on a micro-scale, perhaps an increasing demand for same-day response to customer-service requests, or a declining willingness by customers to wait for your core products’ delivery); or covert and insidious – the ‘boiled frog’ syndrome — change is happening but no-one really wants to acknowledge it. (For example, perhaps funding the old pension-scheme may be increasingly difficult as time goes by; or employee aspirations and work-ethics are subtly changing and current employment practices no longer reflect current needs; or the demand for traditional right-handed widgets is slowly fading away as customers increasingly demand ambidextrous carbon-neutral micro-widgets.)

– local or global — some ‘change-management’ issues can be universal, across the whole business. But often, they are very specific, even if in either case they may be encapsulated by the thought: “Let everyone else change, but not me!”. Separating local issues from corporate issues can be all-critical for successful change.

 Managing ‘change’ can have many other dynamics to consider. 

      For example, is the desired change:

– Major or minor? — worth ‘dying in a ditch for’, or just ‘nice to have’?

– Strategic or tactical? — long-range or short-term?

– Structural (encompassing whole organisational-change perhaps) or specific, whether departmental or even individual? (A significant role-change may exemplify the latter?)

– Systemic and procedural; or Cultural and even ideological? Should you be embracing first your colleagues’ ‘minds’ or hearts’ do you think?; and might they be demanding social change or personal change?

– Voluntary or imposed? The best changes may be voluntarily agreed — where everyone sees the need; but some may have to be imposed;

– Facilitated or coerced? Even imposed changes can be facilitated – and negotiated; while few coerced changes seem to work well without damaging side-effects that may take years to work through. What will your preference be?

Sorting out all these characteristics of change can be essential in deciding your best way forward.

 Why is change so hard to implement?

Understanding why successful change may be so difficult to implement is critical. If you aren’t sure of the reasons, you may always be unsure of the best solutions.

Many of the most common reasons of why change-management projects go horribly wrong, at many levels, seem to be because of deeply-held beliefs and attitudes amongst those affected, that may variously include any or all of the following.

 How many of the following responses to change do you recognise? 

      Here are twenty. I’ll bet you can think of more!

• The current way is fine — don’t spoil it!;

• We’ve never done that before — don’t let’s start now!;

• I have heard of others doing this — it doesn’t work you know?;

• It’s not what we agreed ;

• We have always done it this way and things work perfectly well as they are;

• We have spent loads of time/money/emotion/commitment in learning to do things this way; have we really got to learn a new way all over again?

• Change isn’t necessary (at least for those of us who have to implement it);

• No-one else does it this way;

• We tried this before, and it didn’t work then;

• It’s a great idea — but not just now, we haven’t got time;

• It’s a great idea for them, but not for us — we’re different;

• This change is only for your benefit, not mine/ours;

• I don’t believe you;

• I don’t trust you;

• You didn’t warn me and I need more time to think about this;

• I’ll bet my solution is better, but you haven’t asked me;

• I don’t think I can change without a lot of help (are you trying to get rid of me?);

• It isn’t ‘fair’ – it goes against all our values/agreements;

• Not another change! How long is this one going to last?

• We’ve had so many changes, we haven’t had time to digest the last ones yet!

 10 basic requirements for change

Managing change requires some critical elements to be successful, not the least to address some of the underlying attitudes listed above. They include:

1. A clear purpose, objectives and benefits;

2. Shared vision, values, standards, principles;

3. Tangible drive, enthusiasm and energy, with consistent and coherent leadership;

4. Clear, frequent and unclouded communications, in all directions;

5. Trust and mutual respect, with some shared positive experiences together;

6. Capability, information, skills and knowledge;

7. Acknowledgment of the past;

8. Transition time to let people ‘grieve for the past’ before moving on;

9. Successes which are acknowledged and rewarded;

10. Leaders who give the spotlight and credit to others

<Part 2>

Most people hate change, especially if it is ‘done to them’. Yet, if nothing were ever to change, how might anything ever improve? In this article, Jeremy Thorn, Non-Executive Director and coach to several fast-growing companies, offers some more detailed tips.

Managing change is an essential part of any manager’s role. Making improvements without change are clearly not possible. But deep change is rarely achieved without deep understanding all the dynamics of the sort of change you want to achieve, or the probable obstacles you may face, discussed in Part 1 of this article.

 Here are some tips that may help you further.

1. Establish trust

It is, self-evidently, very hard to introduce deep change in any organisation where mistrust abounds. In smaller organisations, this trust may often be presumed, not the least because distinctions between organisational hierarchies and their different ambitions can often be minimal or even non-existent, and with fewer people, it may be much easier to deliver change collaboratively.

But as organisations grow, this becomes much harder. So well before you ever choose to embark on any major programme of change, if it is not too late, build, believe and behave, as follows!

2. Build, Believe and Behave…

The essence of achieving deep change in any organisation is a) to build clear agreement by all of its core mission and purpose, with an appealing vision of the future that all can aspire to and core values that all espouse in practice, to guide all management decisions and communications; b) to believe in this passionately; and c) to behave utterly consistently in support.

In particular, for these values to be at all credible, management behaviour must be coherent, consistent and applicable to all, without exception, and most certainly not ‘just fine words’. This is a leadership challenge, to offer clear and unambiguous behaviours as exemplars to others with consistent and demonstrable conviction. This can be a demanding challenge, because leaders are always ‘on stage’, always in view of their colleagues, and your colleagues will be the first to spot and deride any inconsistencies.

Any senior manager can inadvertently kill a change programme stone dead by a misguided throw-away comment or negative body-language, far quicker than almost anyone else. So forewarned may well be forearmed!

3. Change must be driven from the top.

The reasons for change may be internal or (often) external, and may apply to any part of an organisation. But accountability for the actual management of change must always stay with those at ‘the top’. You can be sure that if a senior management team does not believe in the reasons for change and the changes proposed, first of all these changes will almost certainly not be implemented, and secondly, any change on the next occasion will be even harder to achieve.

This does not mean that senior management must take all the decisions, let alone do all the work! It is very important to devolve responsibility for detailed change to whomever may best discharge it at the point of delivery. But the senior management task is to make sure that agreed initiatives are properly supported, that the requisite resources are made available, to keep track of progress, to help resolve any problems and remove obstacles, and provide acknowledgement of others’ successes.

4. Establish teams of local Change-Champions

Few like having change ‘done’ to them, and certainly not imposed from the top if it can be helped. A very powerful tip is to set up and empower local Change Champions to help plot and deliver specific parts of the overall change programme. And if you can, do encourage to seek some quick, easy gains early on, to help build momentum?

It is important your Champions have clear remits and are properly supported with training and funds if needed. It is often best if your Champions can volunteer for this work, but you do need them to be quite knowledgeable about ‘how things work’ at the moment — both good and bad — and preferably be seen to be opinion-leaders within their peer-groups. Interestingly, some of the very best change champions can be those who may strike you as being amongst the most change-resistant — as there can be nothing so powerful as a ‘poacher turned gamekeeper’!

5. Plot where you are now

Before you change anything that is at all radical, you will need to recognise just where you are already, most especially in terms of your colleagues’ own understanding and attitudes. Regular surveys of employee attitudes and your organisation’s overall culture will not only help you to avoid ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ when it comes to implementing such change; they will also help you to monitor and manage progress in times of change and no doubt deep uncertainty.

Most especially, you will want to survey your colleagues’ own fears and aspirations about their workplace, their own ideas of what works well and what needs to improve, and probably even what drives and rewards them. As these are inevitably quite sensitive questions to ask many workforces, any survey may well raise both genuine concerns that will need to be addressed corporately, and some matters of ‘special, partial pleading’ that must of course be acknowledged locally – but may not perhaps influence far wider matters.

Such exploration will almost certainly require the guarantee of individual confidentiality and impartial feedback to your respondents, and of course mutual trust. So conduct such surveys regularly and ethically if you can, as a mater of good practice, preferably long before any major change is actually necessary, and feed back the results honestly so they have integrity.

6. Change needs a reason

The prime difficulty with managing change is that too many colleagues may see no good reason to abandon what may appear to them to work perfectly well already. ‘If it ain’t broke — why fix it’ might well be their motto. (And if they have been around in the same organisation for a while, almost certainly they will have experienced plenty of new ideas before that didn’t make things better!)

So in implementing change, it is vital to have every good reason why it is necessary, and to understand that maintaining the status quo is not an option.

However, as many of us may only listen selectively to what we really wanted to hear when given such explanations, there are two other ancillary steps you also may find particularly helpful if you can help these come alive:

a) make sure that colleagues really do experience that the old world is actually less attractive than they would like;

b) make sure their new world is as attractive for them to live in as you can.

7. Communicate these reasons!

Whatever the planned change, small or large, never assume ‘overpowering logic’ and the reasons for it (such as “it’s great for us”, or even “it’s great for you”), will persuade your troops of its benefits alone. You will need to appeal to both the heart and the mind!

So a good place to start is with your organisation’s avowed Mission, Vision and Values, and having communicated them consistently with passion, from the top, get to work in understanding what these mean to each of your colleagues or work groups.

And note? First, this communication must be two-way, not just top-down, and secondly, as you will well know, it should be regular, consistent and often.

8. Acknowledge the past

It is important to recognise that most people have a great emotional engagement to how they have done things in the past, often with great pride, and this is especially so for those who feel they have no control over any changes being proposed. Asking them to change can be a huge emotional wrench, not the least because it can suggest of sense of futility of all their past hard work, and raise great concerns for the unknown future.

Identifying, recognising and dealing openly with historic barriers to change in your organisation is critical. Some concerns may appear to be quite irrational, and then appealing to reason is most unlikely to work. And ignoring them is also most unlikely to be very productive either.

But what you can do, and should do, is to acknowledge these concerns, even if the reasons that created them may be buried long in the past.

9. Build a transition phase into your change-programme

Because responses to change can so often be emotionally driven, especially with long-standing colleagues, a very powerful aid is to consider allowing a grieving period to value the past as part of a transition phase, before changing to the new.

A short amount of time invested here may save much more time in resentment and resistance later on.

10. Reward change

Finally, acknowledge successes regularly (for nothing succeeds like success!) and give others the credit. This does not necessarily mean you need to offer financial rewards for success — and often you may feel you shouldn’t. But you can at least offer non-financial rewards, such as peer recognition however delivered, increased security, promotion, affiliation and much more. But do beware of the impact on others who may not be included?

Successful change-management does not happen over-night, and requires careful planning, a lot of talking and listening, and some very clear objectives. I wish you all good fortune!

Jeremy Thorn, Non-Executive Director and Business Coach, offers some further tips for entrepreneurs and business people that have successfully stood the test of time.

Jeremy is the author of the tips booklet ‘115 Essential Tips on Pricing’ and a frequent public speaker and workshop presenter on business topics to a wide range of organisations internationally.

Article source : http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/10-top-tips-for-managing-change-recognising-the-obstacles/

---

<Questions>

Q1. Do you know the definition of 'Boiling frog syndrome'? What do you learn from this story? 

Q2. Have you ever read the book 'Who moved my cheeses'? What did you learn from that book? 

Q3. Due to the gradual changes of something, sometimes it drives you to act nothing, ultimately you were stuck in detrimental situation and those smacked you down to coming to almost death. Have you ever felt like that you got stuck in those situation? 

Q4. Generally, how do you react to the changes ? Are you a sensitive person or numb person to changes? 

Q5. If you face the uncontrollable changes originated from external world, do you react to change or try to hold the security of past times? 

Q6. Do you have any change management strategies? 

---

"Economy and Distribution Are Unfair" Answers 72% of Respondents: 

Republic of Korea Already a Society of Distrust

By Kim Hyang-mi/ Posted on : 2015-12-23 18:19

More than half of the citizens of Korea think various areas in society such as the distribution structure, employment, welfare and political activities are "unfair."

According to the "Major Results of an Analysis of the Social Integration Survey 2015" released by the Korea Institute of Public Administration on December 22, only 27.7% of the respondents answered "Fair" to a question asking whether the socio-economic distribution structure was fair. Only 25.7% answered that the relationship between large businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises was fair.

The percentage of respondents that answered "Fair" differed slightly according to the social field-political activities (30.0%), employment opportunity (35.4%), balanced regional development (36.8%), law enforcement (37.9%), taxation and the payment of taxes (38.5%), press coverage (39.2%), treatment according to gender (47.0%), military service (48.2%), etc.-but most saw our society as unfair. The majority of people thought the situation was fair only when it came to education opportunity (57.8%). In particular, only 35.3% and 35.1% recognized that the Prosecutors' Office and courts were fair respectively, showing our society's serious lack of trust.

The respondents who answered that conflicts due to the gap between the rich and the poor were serious reached 84%. And 86.7% of the people answered that the ideological conflict between the conservatives and the progressives was serious. As for conflicts between generations, 65.1% of respondents said it was significant. This is a significant increase from previous years: 64.1% answered that conflicts between generations was serious in 2013 and 62.3% in 2014. The public's participation in politics and social issues was generally low. While the people were relatively active in their participation in alumni and hometown activities (31.3%), group activities (20.0%) and religious groups (17.7%), they barely joined political parties (1.6%), a political group activity, and civic groups (2.2%).

The people also gave low marks for cooperation between the government and the National Assembly. Only 18.3% answered that the government and the National Assembly were cooperative, 29.6% said there was cooperation among central government ministries, and 26.0% answered that the central and local governments were cooperative, suggesting the need to strengthen cooperative interaction within the government. Also only 21.8% answered that the government was communicating with the citizens.

When measuring satisfaction with life on a scale of 0 to ten with ten being the highest score, the members of our society scored 5.8. This is lower than the result of the social indicator (average 6.6) and World Values Survey (average 6.8) by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The Korea Institute of Public Administration assessed, "We need to actively address this issue for it is a figure lower than the average of all the countries subject to the survey and not just the major countries such as the U.S., Germany and Japan."

The institute held a symposium on the topic, "realizing social trust and establishing cooperative governance" and released the "Major Results of an Analysis of the Social Integration Survey 2015." During the debate, Kim Seok-ho, a professor of sociology at Seoul National University said, "The government, businesses and politicians seem to be in a league of their own, and the responsibility in state administration failures are being pushed onto the citizens. The government should increase the opportunity to communicate with the public, inform them that the government is implementing policies that approach the public and reach an agreement by presenting state administration goals to support this."

The 2015 social integration survey was organized by the Korea Institute of Public Administration and conducted by Gallup Korea. They visited the homes of the respondents and conducted interviews of 7,700 people aged 19-69 nationwide.

Articel source : http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201512231819127&code=710100

---

Cronyism causes worst kind of inequality

Economic inequality has skyrocketed in the U.S. during the past few decades. That has prompted many calls for government policies to reverse that trend. Defenders of the status quo argue that rising inequality is a necessary byproduct of economic growth -- if we don’t allow people the chance to become extremely rich, the thinking goes, they will stop working, investing, saving and starting businesses. A receding tide will then cause all boats to sink. 

Critics of the status quo have responded with the claim that inequality doesn’t help growth, but instead hurts it. This view was given ammunition by a number of recent studies, which have found a negative relationship between how much income inequality a country has and how fast it grows. One example is an International Monetary Fund study from 2015:

“We find an inverse relationship between the income share accruing to the rich (top 20 percent) and economic growth. If the income share of the top 20 percent increases by 1 percentage point, GDP growth is actually 0.08 percentage point lower in the following five years, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. Instead, a similar increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with 0.38 percentage point higher growth.”

A similar 2014 study from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded the same thing. Interestingly, the negative correlation between inequality and growth is found even when controlling for a country’s income level. This isn’t simply a case of wealthier countries growing more slowly and also being more unequal.

So the evidence is pretty clear: Higher inequality has been associated with lower growth. But as with all correlations, we should be very careful about interpreting this as causation. It might be that countries whose growth slows for any reason tend to experience an increase in inequality, as politically powerful groups stop focusing on expanding the pie and start trying to appropriate more of the pie for themselves. 

The IMF and OECD list some channels by which inequality might actually be causing lower growth. The most important one has to do with investment. When poor people have more money, they can afford to invest more in human capital (education and skills) and nutrition. Because these investments have diminishing marginal returns -- the first year of schooling matters a lot more than the 20th -- every dollar invested by the poor raises national productivity by more than if it gets invested by the rich. In other words, the more resources shoring up a nation’s weak links, the better off that nation will be. 

That’s a plausible hypothesis. But there might also be other factors contributing to the correlation between inequality and growth. It could be that there is something out there that causes both high inequality and low growth at the same time. 

The obvious candidate for this dark force is crony capitalism. When a country succumbs to cronyism, friends of the rulers are able to appropriate large amounts of wealth for themselves -- for example, by being awarded government-protected monopolies over certain markets, as in Russia after the fall of communism. That will obviously lead to inequality of income and wealth. It will also make the economy inefficient, since money is flowing to unproductive cronies. Cronyism may also reduce growth by allowing the wealthy to exert greater influence on political policy, creating inefficient subsidies for themselves and unfair penalties for their rivals. 

Economists Sutirtha Bagchi of the University of Michigan and Jan Svejnar of Columbia recently set out to test the cronyism hypothesis. They focused not on income inequality, but on wealth inequality -- a different, though probably related, measure. Concentrating on billionaires -- the upper strata of the wealth distribution -- they eval‎uated the political connections of each billionaire. They used the proportion of politically connected billionaires in a country as their measure of cronyism. 

What they discovered was very interesting. The relationship between wealth inequality and growth was negative, as the IMF and others had found for income inequality. But only one kind of inequality was associated with low growth -- the kind that came from cronyism. From the abstract of the paper:

“When we control for the fact that some billionaires acquired wealth through political connections, the effect of politically connected wealth inequality is negative, while politically unconnected wealth inequality, income inequality and initial poverty have no significant effect.”

In other words, when billionaires make their money through means other than political connections, the resulting inequality isn’t bad for growth. 

That’s a heartening message for defenders of the rich-country status quo. If cronyism is the real danger, it means that a lot of the inequality we’ve seen in recent decades is benign. Eliminate corrupt connections between politicians and businesspeople, and you’ll be safe. 

But Bagchi and Svejnar’s finding cuts two ways. It also means that plain old inequality isn’t beneficial for growth, as its defenders have claimed. That removes one of the big objections government policymakers face in talking steps to reduce inequality -- and that doing so is unlikely to hurt economic growth.

By Noah Smith

Noah Smith is an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University and a freelance writer for a number of finance and business publications. He maintains a personal blog, called Noahpinion. -- Ed.

(Bloomberg)

Article source : http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20151228000966

---

<Questions>

Q0. Do you think Korea is fair society? 

Q1. What is your opinion on the Socio-economic distribution structure of Korea society?

Q2. According to an article, higher inequality is closely related to the lower economic growth. Do you think what is the reason for that? What is your opinion on this matter? 

Q3. What is the biggest reasons for inequality in our society? 

Q4. What is the 'Cronyism' or 'Nepotism'? What are the advantages and disadvantages of 'CONNECTIONS'? 

Q5. How corrupt connections between politicians and businesspeople dedicate to inequality and lower growth? 

Q6. How do you think about the below issues? Do you think they have fair structure? 

- social field-political activities

- employment opportunity

- balanced regional development

- law enforcement

- taxation and the payment of taxes

- press coverage

- treatment according to gender

- military service

- education opportunity

Q7. Do you think ideological conflicts between the conservatives and the progressives are severe in Korea society? and why?

Q8. Do you think conflicts between generations is getting severe? What is the reason for that? 

Q9. How do you think about the cooperation between the government and the National assembly? 

Q10. Do you think government makes enough efforts to communicate with the citizens for better policy development and implementation? What is more required for cooperative governance? 

Q11. What do you think about the Political activities in Korea society? Do you trust politicians in Korea? What are the reasons for your answers? 

Q12. Do you think how much percentage of leaders in Korea society have ethical responsibility? 

Q13. Do you think how the welfare system of Korea society have to be changed? 

Q14. Do you have anyone you can trust fully? Do you trust politicians or government? And what are the reasons for that? 

Q15. In an effort to make better Korean society structure, what is required?

---

A Complete Guide To Develop A Healthy Soul

Article source : http://www.lifehack.org/353606/a-complete-guide-to-develop-a-healthy-soul

---

<Questions>

Q1. Do you have any activities to nourish your body and elevate your mind? 

Q2. Have you ever practice yoga class before? Do you think what are the advantages and disadvantages of yoga? 

Q3. Have you ever involved in any volunteer work before? What was it? After finishing that activity, what do you feel about it? 

Q4. Do you enjoy taking a walk? What is the most attractive traits of strolling? 

Q5. Do you like reading? What kinds of books do you frequently read? 

Q6. Do you keep a diary? What is the most beneficial point of keeping a journal? 

---

Can Self-Driving Cars Be Ethical?

Self-driving cars are already cruising the streets. And while these cars will ultimately be safer than their manual counterparts, they can’t avoid accidents altogether. How should the car respond if it encounters an unavoidable accident? CJ Pony Parts decided to highlight some valid points regarding the murky ethics of driverless cars. The best part of this infographic? It’s in comic form (à la The Oatmeal). What better way is there to understand fictional concepts of robotics and ethics than through a comic?

Article source : http://www.lifehack.org/345888/can-self-driving-cars-ethical

---

<Questions>

Q1. If you can buy a self-driving car would you buy it? Why do you want to buy it? 

Q2. While you are free from driving, what would you like to do? 

Q3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of self-driving car? 

Q4. If you meet unavoidable accident like 'Trolley problem' as described above infograpics while you are driving, which decision will you make ? 

Q5. If the auto driving car makes an unavoidable car accident, who should take responsibility for this situation? A driver, a law maker, or a self driving car program designer? 

Q6. What is the biggest difference between human and machine? 

Q7. When we are applying newly developed technologies into real world, do we need 'Technology assessment'? Why? 

[john park]

지난주 토요일 한 테이블 만 진행되었는데 세 번째 네 번째 토픽만 논의되었던것 갔네여. 첫번째 두번째 주제를 그냥 지나치나했는데... 잘 되었네여,,,

[Scarlet]

:) 그르게요 내용이 많아서 관심가는 것만 토론했는데 아쉽네요.ㅋ
목요모임에서도 여러주제를 두루 한번 토론해 보셔도 좋을듯해서 올려봤어요 !~ ㅋ
다들 즐거운 디스커션하시길 !~