But you can manage the personal and professional risks of online indulgence by remembering the 3 Ps: Principled, Private and Planned. Here's what they entail:
Principled: If you're using the Internet to shield yourself from judgement by friends, family, colleagues or community, make sure you're not also violating your own moral code. Identify the ethical principles or standards you're going to adhere to in your private activities, whether it's the ten commandments, the Golden Rule, or a simple "don't hurt anybody." Be clear about the secret parts of yourself that you want to encourage, and find room for them to grow online, while avoiding sites or people who legitimate behaviors you know are unhealthy or wrong. You can take a principled approach to even the murkiest parts of your online life if you:
Write down your core principles for online behavior (or bookmark someone else's) so you can check in periodically and make sure you're not violating your ethical own bottom line.
Seek out online communities and activities that support parts of you that stay hidden offline but need a voice: gay teens, cancer fighters, aspiring poets and rape survivors are just some of the groups who have found a new source of understanding online.
Talk with your partner about what's okay for you to keep private online, and make sure you are both taking the same precautions to keep your private activities shielded from one another or the world.
Cut off communications if an online pal insists on asking for (or giving you) permission to indulge in behaviors that are unhealthy, hurtful or against your conscience.
Private: If parts of your online life conflict with your offline life and responsibilities, create a private online identity without links to any identifiable information (i.e. don't connect it to your Facebook account, main email address, social security number or credit card). This reduces your risk of exposure, and prevents you from inappropriately exploiting your professional status or privileges. Keeping your private online life private is not a small job, however: it takes real effort, knowledge and skill to achieve a reasonably secure level of anonymity (or pseudonymity) online. Some practices you may want to consider:
Choose a web browser that offers enhanced privacy options, and use it along with a proxy server.
In fact, get used to using an anonymous proxy server to keep the web sites you're visiting from tracking your IP address, and automatically delete your search history, cookies, logins etc. whenever you log out and/or at the end of every day, or erase your tracks manually.
Read up on the basics of Internet privacy by visiting the web sites of Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and follow their blogs for the latest news on technology or policy changes that could affect your online privacy.
Planned: Don't let a secret life creep up on you. Make sure you're making clear and conscious decisions about why and how you're keeping it on the down low. Remember that there's no such thing at 100% private. Anticipate the possibility of exposure. If you couldn't handle the legal, professional and emotional consequences of revelation, don't do it at all.
Notice the accounts and activities you are taking pains to hide (like the browser window you suddenly close when someone else walks into the room), and make sure you are handling them ethically and responsibly.
Whenever you make mistakes in patrolling the boundaries of your private online life (like accidentally leaving your browser logged into your secret email account), ask yourself if it's a sign that you want to change those boundaries.
If you're a senior decision-maker, think carefully about any private activities that, if exposed, would affect the share price, reputation or capacity of your organization.
If what you are doing privately online would have significant consequences for the people you love, you need their consent.
The point of the 3 Ps is to help manage privacy, not enable sneakiness. There are many legitimate reasons why people keep parts of their life separate or private, whether it's to find support for a stigmatized problem (like mental illness), community for a marginalized identity (like being transgender) or conversation around an embarrassing interest or topic (like your passion for Rod Stewart). The ability to connect anonymously is one of the Internet's great opportunities, and following the 3 Ps is the best way to ensure you don't abuse it. Do not employ these practices for behavior that is hurtful, unethical or illegal, or to avoid the consequences of bad decisions.
Of course, there is a fourth P in this story. But after all the references it's received in the Weinergate coverage, let's allow that P to simply remind us why the other 3 matter.
http://blogs.hbr.org/samuel/2011/06/in-the-juiciest-political-sex.html
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
The end of cheap goods?
Some are predicting the end of the cheap “China price”; others are more sanguine
“IT IS the end of cheap goods,” says Bruce Rockowitz. He is the chief executive of Li & Fung, a company that sources more clothes and common household products from Asia than perhaps any other. In the low-tech areas in which Li & Fung specialises, the firm handles an estimated 4% of China’s exports to America and a sizeable chunk of its exports to Europe, too. It has operations in several East Asian countries, where it diligently searches for cheap, reliable suppliers of everything from handbags to bar stools. So when Mr Rockowitz says the era of low-cost Asian production is drawing to a close, people listen.
He argues that Asian manufacturing has gone through a number of phases, each lasting about 30 years. When China was isolated under Mao Zedong, companies in Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea grew expert at making things. When China reopened in the late 1970s, after Mao’s death, these experienced Asian operators converged on southern China. With almost free access to land and labour, plus an efficient port and logistics hub in nearby Hong Kong, they started to make things ever more cheaply and sell them to the whole world.
For the next 30 years manufacturers in China helped to keep global inflation in check. But that era is now over, says Mr Rockowitz. Chinese wages are rising fast. A wave of new demand, especially from China itself, is feeding a surge in commodity prices. Manufacturers can find some relief by moving production to new areas, such as western China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Malaysia, India and Indonesia. But none of these new places will curb inflation the way southern China once did, he predicts. All rely on the same increasingly expensive pool of commodities. Many have rising wages or poor logistics. None can provide the scale and efficiency that was created when manufacturers converged on southern China.
Nothing can replace the Chinese miracle. “There is no next,” says Mr Rockowitz. Prices will now start to rise by 5% or more each year, with no end in sight. And that may be optimistic. So far this year, Mr Rockowitz says, Li & Fung’s sourcing operation has seen price increases of 15% on average. Other sourcers of Asian toys, clothes and basic household products tell similarly ominous tales.
Yet manufacturers in some other fields see things differently. On May 31st, the day Mr Rockowitz spoke in Hong Kong, the annual Computex fair opened an hour’s flight away in Taipei. Hotels were packed, even at inflated prices. The world’s hottest technology companies, such as Apple and even Taiwan’s HTC, were absent. But nearly 2,000 vendors showed up to hawk cheap and innovative gizmos.
Mainland Chinese firms arrived in force: more than 500 hired booths, up from 200 last year. Many are from the same parts of China that were once noted for cheap textiles and toys. With government encouragement, the belt that stretches from Shenzhen to Guangzhou has been shifting to more sophisticated products, such as electronics.
Some of the more striking offerings at the fair were ultra-cheap versions of global hits. A company named BananaU advertised tablet computers with Google’s Android operating system for $100. Another pushed Windows-based thin computers looking much like MacBooks for under $250. E-Readers were everywhere and available for a song.
Whether these products can be produced or sold in developed markets is unclear. The quality may be “B” for Banana rather than “A” for Apple. The intellectual property embedded in some devices may not, ahem, have been paid for. But still, the booths were packed. Buyers goggled and haggled over motherboards, memory chips, solid-state drives, servers, graphics cards, non-tangling cables, connectors, monitors and so on.
In 2009 the prices of these electronic goods jumped suddenly, as buyers emerged from the financial crisis and started ordering more equipment from manufacturers which had slashed capacity. But data collected in Taiwan suggest that prices are now falling sharply again (see chart). If the vendors at Computex had a common slogan, it would be “more for less”.
Among the products that generated the most heat were those that saved energy. These included alternating- and direct-current converters, and sensors that could moderate the power consumption of streetlamps, fridges and air conditioners. Such devices were initially marketed for their “green potential”, but what buyers liked was their ability to enhance productivity. Japanese firms, which have had to make do with less power since the earthquake, were particularly eager.
Chinese firms were curious about any product that lowered costs or made it easier to automate. When labour was cheap, Chinese firms used it inefficiently. Now they are learning how to get more from fewer hands. Li & Fung may be sounding the closing bell on one era of production, but the Taipei computer fair suggests that another is emerging.
http://www.economist.com/node/18805862?story_id=18805862
“IT IS the end of cheap goods,” says Bruce Rockowitz. He is the chief executive of Li & Fung, a company that sources more clothes and common household products from Asia than perhaps any other. In the low-tech areas in which Li & Fung specialises, the firm handles an estimated 4% of China’s exports to America and a sizeable chunk of its exports to Europe, too. It has operations in several East Asian countries, where it diligently searches for cheap, reliable suppliers of everything from handbags to bar stools. So when Mr Rockowitz says the era of low-cost Asian production is drawing to a close, people listen.
He argues that Asian manufacturing has gone through a number of phases, each lasting about 30 years. When China was isolated under Mao Zedong, companies in Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea grew expert at making things. When China reopened in the late 1970s, after Mao’s death, these experienced Asian operators converged on southern China. With almost free access to land and labour, plus an efficient port and logistics hub in nearby Hong Kong, they started to make things ever more cheaply and sell them to the whole world.
For the next 30 years manufacturers in China helped to keep global inflation in check. But that era is now over, says Mr Rockowitz. Chinese wages are rising fast. A wave of new demand, especially from China itself, is feeding a surge in commodity prices. Manufacturers can find some relief by moving production to new areas, such as western China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Malaysia, India and Indonesia. But none of these new places will curb inflation the way southern China once did, he predicts. All rely on the same increasingly expensive pool of commodities. Many have rising wages or poor logistics. None can provide the scale and efficiency that was created when manufacturers converged on southern China.
Nothing can replace the Chinese miracle. “There is no next,” says Mr Rockowitz. Prices will now start to rise by 5% or more each year, with no end in sight. And that may be optimistic. So far this year, Mr Rockowitz says, Li & Fung’s sourcing operation has seen price increases of 15% on average. Other sourcers of Asian toys, clothes and basic household products tell similarly ominous tales.
Yet manufacturers in some other fields see things differently. On May 31st, the day Mr Rockowitz spoke in Hong Kong, the annual Computex fair opened an hour’s flight away in Taipei. Hotels were packed, even at inflated prices. The world’s hottest technology companies, such as Apple and even Taiwan’s HTC, were absent. But nearly 2,000 vendors showed up to hawk cheap and innovative gizmos.
Mainland Chinese firms arrived in force: more than 500 hired booths, up from 200 last year. Many are from the same parts of China that were once noted for cheap textiles and toys. With government encouragement, the belt that stretches from Shenzhen to Guangzhou has been shifting to more sophisticated products, such as electronics.
Some of the more striking offerings at the fair were ultra-cheap versions of global hits. A company named BananaU advertised tablet computers with Google’s Android operating system for $100. Another pushed Windows-based thin computers looking much like MacBooks for under $250. E-Readers were everywhere and available for a song.
Whether these products can be produced or sold in developed markets is unclear. The quality may be “B” for Banana rather than “A” for Apple. The intellectual property embedded in some devices may not, ahem, have been paid for. But still, the booths were packed. Buyers goggled and haggled over motherboards, memory chips, solid-state drives, servers, graphics cards, non-tangling cables, connectors, monitors and so on.
In 2009 the prices of these electronic goods jumped suddenly, as buyers emerged from the financial crisis and started ordering more equipment from manufacturers which had slashed capacity. But data collected in Taiwan suggest that prices are now falling sharply again (see chart). If the vendors at Computex had a common slogan, it would be “more for less”.
Among the products that generated the most heat were those that saved energy. These included alternating- and direct-current converters, and sensors that could moderate the power consumption of streetlamps, fridges and air conditioners. Such devices were initially marketed for their “green potential”, but what buyers liked was their ability to enhance productivity. Japanese firms, which have had to make do with less power since the earthquake, were particularly eager.
Chinese firms were curious about any product that lowered costs or made it easier to automate. When labour was cheap, Chinese firms used it inefficiently. Now they are learning how to get more from fewer hands. Li & Fung may be sounding the closing bell on one era of production, but the Taipei computer fair suggests that another is emerging.
http://www.economist.com/node/18805862?story_id=18805862
How the best labs manage talent
Of the $1.2 trillion spent globally each year on R&D across corporations and academia, 40 percent—much the largest share—pays for people. Our team interviewed and surveyed world-class researchers in academia and a range of industries to understand what drives research productivity in labs. We found that the best ones, regardless of specialty or industry, share a pattern of behavior across six key practices: talent, strategies and roles, collaboration, problem solving, portfolio and project management, and alignment with the needs of the business and the market. To understand what characterizes the best labs, we then studied 4,500 researchers in 260 laboratories in academia and research-based industries, including automotive, basic materials, high tech, and pharmaceuticals.
Our conclusion was that talent management, more than anything else, is what the best R&D operations consistently get right (Exhibit 1). While all the practices we looked at are clearly correlated with high performance in labs, talent is the most important driver of their productivity and shows the highest level of correlation. Interestingly, talent management is also the practice that has the highest opportunity for improvement. That makes this a tremendously powerful lever to improve R&D productivity, regardless of its current level (Exhibit 2). Strategy is the second most correlated practice, but here the respondents saw the least opportunity for improvement.
Top-quartile academic labs are five times more productive than bottom-quartile ones. Similar differences exist among industrial labs. Yet many research institutions don’t understand how well they are doing, because the people who work there wildly overestimate their own performance: in our survey, 12 percent of them suppose that their own lab is in the top 1 percent, and 70 percent think it is at least in the top 25 percent. Most researchers don’t know how productive great labs are or how they become great. In fact, most labs can assess how well they do only by basic output measures. A halo effect further distorts perceptions: researchers who think that their lab performs well assume that its talent-management practices are also strong.
Average labs typically look mostly for specific technical proficiencies—say, the ability to use a piece of equipment or to run certain tests. Specific technical capabilities are sometimes required, but even when hiring for them, top labs want people who can adapt to new roles as the research evolves. Those new roles, especially in industrial settings, should include project management and business experience—something many labs overlook.
Although public recognition is important, it isn’t everything: we found that researchers also want financial rewards for performance. In the best labs, such incentives are linked transparently to achievements or outcomes—great research, publication in a leading journal, the attainment of a milestone, or successful patent applications. One lab gives small cash bonuses to researchers chosen by peers for exceptional helpfulness. Another offers stock options for killing projects early, to avoid wasting money on futile or low-value efforts. Many academic labs, however, must rely more on nonfinancial motivators.
Not everyone succeeds in the laboratory. Obviously, failure should have consequences, but often it doesn’t: in one research unit, the weakest performers were moved to another lab rather than counseled to leave. The best labs don’t tolerate poor performance for long. If foundering researchers don’t improve, they are asked to depart, which carries the added advantage of importing fresh talent and ideas.
Given the importance of research for many (if not most) companies, these are clearly matters for the C-suite, not just research managers. Top executives should start by focusing on practical, tactical measures: inquiring about the research unit’s diversity in background, experience, and capabilities; the ability of its culture to support innovation; the support researchers get for personal development; and the alignment between incentives and performance.
Once research leaders accept the value of initiatives to improve talent management, they are easy to implement and have high impact. What’s more, their incremental cost is much lower than that of many other ways of making labs more productive—for example, reorganizing them or investing in new facilities.
Six key practices drive successful research organizations. Among these six, talent management is the one most correlated with high performance yet has the highest opportunity for improvement. No lab should neglect its people.
McKinsey on Finance on iPad
https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Talent/How_the_best_labs_manage_talent_2811
Our conclusion was that talent management, more than anything else, is what the best R&D operations consistently get right (Exhibit 1). While all the practices we looked at are clearly correlated with high performance in labs, talent is the most important driver of their productivity and shows the highest level of correlation. Interestingly, talent management is also the practice that has the highest opportunity for improvement. That makes this a tremendously powerful lever to improve R&D productivity, regardless of its current level (Exhibit 2). Strategy is the second most correlated practice, but here the respondents saw the least opportunity for improvement.
Top-quartile academic labs are five times more productive than bottom-quartile ones. Similar differences exist among industrial labs. Yet many research institutions don’t understand how well they are doing, because the people who work there wildly overestimate their own performance: in our survey, 12 percent of them suppose that their own lab is in the top 1 percent, and 70 percent think it is at least in the top 25 percent. Most researchers don’t know how productive great labs are or how they become great. In fact, most labs can assess how well they do only by basic output measures. A halo effect further distorts perceptions: researchers who think that their lab performs well assume that its talent-management practices are also strong.
What top labs get right
Talent management isn’t simply about hiring the best; not everyone can. It’s about managing talent appropriately through selection, recruitment, development, and rewards. Just about any lab can do so, yet many don’t. We looked at each of these areas, and while all are correlated with performance, some matter more than others (Exhibit 3).
Recruiting for potential
Managing talent appropriately starts with recruiting appropriate talent. The head of a top-ranking academic lab told us that “the most important intrinsic we look for is scientific curiosity.” Great labs such as this one evaluate the potential of researchers by appraising their basic intellectual ability, general problem-solving skills, and enthusiasm. They also test a candidate’s cultural fit, important to support teamwork and collaboration, which in turn drive productivity. Candidates may, for example, spend an afternoon devising answers to a specific question or working in the lab with the team. This approach helps labs assess a candidate’s social compatibility as well. Before making a decision on recruitment, the best labs also solicit the views of team members about each candidate.Average labs typically look mostly for specific technical proficiencies—say, the ability to use a piece of equipment or to run certain tests. Specific technical capabilities are sometimes required, but even when hiring for them, top labs want people who can adapt to new roles as the research evolves. Those new roles, especially in industrial settings, should include project management and business experience—something many labs overlook.
Nurturing people
Talent management doesn’t stop once researchers are hired. As an R&D executive told us, “Many of our research leaders don’t have the capabilities they need to succeed in senior positions in the organization. We are trying to give people more experience across the business to round out their future leadership potential.” A top lab, unlike a weaker one, actively supports its researchers’ development throughout their careers. Senior team members, for example, spend significant time in solo sessions with new researchers and mentor them continually. Year-end reviews appraise these activities. The most productive labs also require all researchers to develop annual personal-development plans.Recognizing success
Many researchers crave recognition, and labs have a number of ways to provide it: public acknowledgement in meetings, awards, opportunities to present at conferences or to attend symposiums. Even more recognition comes from giving high performers active opportunities, such as larger research budgets, leadership of bigger efforts, and part-time professorships. These incentives, our work shows, often inspire researchers more effectively than money does. They cut turnover significantly and almost always cost far less than financial compensation.Although public recognition is important, it isn’t everything: we found that researchers also want financial rewards for performance. In the best labs, such incentives are linked transparently to achievements or outcomes—great research, publication in a leading journal, the attainment of a milestone, or successful patent applications. One lab gives small cash bonuses to researchers chosen by peers for exceptional helpfulness. Another offers stock options for killing projects early, to avoid wasting money on futile or low-value efforts. Many academic labs, however, must rely more on nonfinancial motivators.
Not everyone succeeds in the laboratory. Obviously, failure should have consequences, but often it doesn’t: in one research unit, the weakest performers were moved to another lab rather than counseled to leave. The best labs don’t tolerate poor performance for long. If foundering researchers don’t improve, they are asked to depart, which carries the added advantage of importing fresh talent and ideas.
Building diversity
Another driver of high performance is a diverse team of people with different backgrounds, specialties, and forms of expertise to help solve problems. The most important aspect of building such a team is encouraging turnover, not only by weeding out underperformers, but also by encouraging rotation to adjacent research areas, other geographies, different roles, or, for an industry lab, to the business side of the company. To help researchers better understand the needs of business and to create a greater appetite for career opportunities outside R&D, one commercial lab organizes regular presentations by former group members who have rotated into business positions.Room for improvement
Of the six critical practices that influence a lab’s productivity, the researchers we surveyed told us that talent is the one most in need of improvement. Even the best labs can raise their game in this area, and their research productivity can improve significantly even if executives are happy with its current level.Given the importance of research for many (if not most) companies, these are clearly matters for the C-suite, not just research managers. Top executives should start by focusing on practical, tactical measures: inquiring about the research unit’s diversity in background, experience, and capabilities; the ability of its culture to support innovation; the support researchers get for personal development; and the alignment between incentives and performance.
Once research leaders accept the value of initiatives to improve talent management, they are easy to implement and have high impact. What’s more, their incremental cost is much lower than that of many other ways of making labs more productive—for example, reorganizing them or investing in new facilities.
Six key practices drive successful research organizations. Among these six, talent management is the one most correlated with high performance yet has the highest opportunity for improvement. No lab should neglect its people.
McKinsey on Finance on iPad
https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Talent/How_the_best_labs_manage_talent_2811
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)