ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 5104|回复: 13

[阅读小分队] 【每日阅读训练第四期——速度越障4系列】【4-19】经管

[复制链接]
发表于 2012-7-19 21:37:00 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
【速度】

9 Dumb Ways to Ruin a Meeting
If you must call a meeting, make it count. Don't waste everyone's time with one of these mistakes.
By Jeff Haden | July 17, 2012 | +TweetinShare38

【计时1】

Meetings are incredibly expensive. The next time you’re in a meeting, mentally add up the hourly rates of everyone in the room.

Then factor in the opportunity cost for what every person could be achieving instead of sitting and listening to Hal from shipping describe the relative merits of single-wall and double-wall cartons.

Then factor in what you could be doing instead.

Makes you wonder why you ever have meetings, doesn’t it?

Still, sometimes you do need to meet–so when you do, don’t ruin the meeting by continuing to make any of these mistakes:

1. You meet at a neutral site.

Meetings aren’t about words; meetings are about action. Great meetings solve problems, set new courses, create new action plans. Great meetings result in something tangible.

So why would you ever want to meet in a conference room when no product, no service, no nothing is ever produced in a conference room?

Meet where the action is, at the site of the problem or opportunity. Don’t sit in a room and stare at each other when you can focus on the issue you’re trying to fix.

Get up, get out, get your hands dirty, and focus on the actual–not the intangible.

[203 words]


【计时2】


2. You’re a slave to clock conventions.

We all think in round numbers. We can’t help it. Our calendars are marked in 30- or 60-minute chunks. We’re programmed to expect things to start and end at certain times, say, 10:30 or 9 or 3:30–”round” numbers.

So the meeting that starts at 9 is usually scheduled until 9:30, even if you only really need 10 minutes to make a decision. It’s like the bigger-house syndrome: After you buy a bigger house, you somehow manage to fill it with furniture even if you don’t need any more furniture.

Plus, there’s the “just in case” factor: We’ll already have everyone together, so let’s schedule a little extra time, just in case. And what always happens? You fill the time.

Instead, decide ahead of time how long a meeting should last solely on the basis of what you need to accomplish–and nothing more. Then schedule the time accordingly. Tell everyone the meeting will end on time no matter what.

Then stick to it. It’ll be tough at first, but people will quickly adapt and be a lot more focused and productive.


And consider starting a 12-minute meeting at, say, 9:18. Then it can still end on a round number, and the people who crave convention can feel like their world still makes some sense.

[222 words]


【计时3】

3. Your agenda includes information.

No agenda should include the words information, recap, review, or discussion.

Great meetings often have agendas that are no more than one sentence, like “Determine the product launch date” or “Select software developer for database redesign.”

Information? Share it before the meeting. If I need to make a decision during a meeting, shouldn’t I have the information I need to make that decision ahead of time? Send documents, reports, etc., to participants in advance.

Holding a meeting to share information is unproductive and wastes everyone’s time–it’s lazy.

4. You allow people to “think out loud.”

If anyone in a meeting says, “I’m just thinking out loud…” cut them off. Immediately.

Why? Their thoughts should already be together. They should show up with concrete ideas based on the information you provided ahead of time. Don’t let people muse aloud about the half-baked concepts they want to share just because they feel they have to participate or because they want to seem smart.

5. You’re penny polite and pound rude.

It happens all the time. A few people get to the meeting early, and one starts chatting with the person who will lead the meeting. The room fills and it’s time to start, but their conversation isn’t over, so the team leader keeps chatting for a few minutes so he won’t seem rude. (Or he’s in love with his own voice.)

And everyone else sits and waits and waits until they’re done.

Chat all you want beforehand, but when it’s time to start, start. Say, “We need to get started, so I’ll catch up with you later,” and start the meeting on time.
[277 words]


【计时4】

6. You don’t establish accountability.

Great meetings result in decisions, but a decision isn’t a decision if someone doesn’t carry it out. Say what. Say who. Say when.

Never let ownership be fuzzy or unclear. An action item without a clear owner is like an orphan–it’s someone else’s responsibility.

Which means it quickly becomes no one’s responsibility.


7. You publish a lengthy recap.

Meeting recaps should only include action items. State what was decided, what will be done, who is responsible for doing it, when it will be done, and nothing else.

Never include items like, “Discussed possibility of reorganizing departmental responsibilities.” If all you did was discuss reorganization, then 1) shame on you for not making a decision, and 2) including a “discussion” in a recap implies that group discussions that don’t result in decisions are worthwhile.

Don’t give general discussions credibility by including them in a meeting recap. People might start thinking general discussions have value.

Where meetings are concerned, they don’t.

[165 words]


【计时5】

8. You follow up as the group.

Assigning accountability means specific individuals are responsible, not the team as a whole.

So don’t meet with the entire team to check on progress. Don’t waste everyone else’s time. Meet with the people responsible. Follow up individually.

If you like, the people responsible can send progress emails to the rest of the group. But don’t get the group together just so everyone else can hear about what’s been done.

Once you’re off and running, the only time you need to meet again is when further decisions need to be made, or when you want to celebrate success and praise the people who deserve recognition.

9. You meet to improve team cohesion.

Team members do need to work well together. But they don’t need to hang out together or “bond” in order to work well together.

Great business relationships are created when people work together toward a common goal and are able to count on one another to do their part, meet commitments, get things done–in short, to produce tangible outcomes and achieve meaningful goals.

Otherwise, the relationship is more interpersonal than productive.

It’s your job to build a productive team. Let your employees establish interpersonal relationships on their own time.

Don’t worry. They will.

[212 words]



【越障】

The fog of LIBOR
LIBOR is badly broken. But for now, a flawed number is better than none
Jul 14th 2012 | from the print edition

[attachimg=595,335]103544[/attachimg]

THE furore over alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and its European cousin, the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR), continues to rage. In Britain, the deputy governor of the Bank of England and the chairman of Barclays were hauled over the coals this week by a parliamentary committee. In America, it emerged that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York may have been informed of alleged manipulation of LIBOR some time after 2007; the Senate Banking Committee plans to look into the affair.

Yet all the while the basic mechanism of LIBOR trundles on. Each morning at 11am in London, submitters at panels of some of the world’s biggest banks send their estimates of borrowing costs in various currencies and for various terms. A few minutes later the benchmark figures flash to life on tens of thousands of traders’ machines around the world, and ripple out into the pricing of loans, derivatives and other financial instruments.

Be generous, and assume that attempts to manipulate LIBOR are in the past. A deeper problem still besets these numbers: they are almost entirely fanciful even if the banks that submit them are providing honest estimates. That is because the unsecured interbank funding market, which is supposed to be where banks borrow from each other, is frozen solid. In the euro area in particular, banks are lending almost no money to one another. Most banks that now have cash prefer to deposit funds at the European Central Bank (ECB), which in turn lends it on to those that are short of it. At the moment banks have more than ?00 billion ($980 billion) parked at the ECB, where it earns no interest. LIBOR and EURIBOR measure an activity that barely exists.

Even if markets were functioning properly, some of the banks submitting estimates would struggle to borrow at any interest rate, let alone the one they have been submitting. This problem is starkest for EURIBOR, where individual banks have been submitting rates that are likely to be a good deal lower than the rates they would have to pay in actual transactions. The biggest banks in Italy and Spain generally estimate the cost of borrowing euros for a year at about 1.1%. This rate is much lower than the 4% and 5% their governments (and ultimate guarantors) pay to borrow for the same period.

There is nothing necessarily untoward in this. Unlike LIBOR submitters, EURIBOR banks are not asked to provide estimates of what they think they would have to pay to borrow, merely estimates of what the borrowing rate between two “prime” banks should be. Yet the definition of “prime” is essentially now “German”, leading to a widening disconnect between the actual costs of bank borrowing across most of Europe and the benchmark rates that supposedly reflect them. “The reference to EURIBOR is completely useless for Italian banks,” says Giovanni Sabatini, the managing director of the Italian Banking Association. “EURIBOR is less than 1% and our banks are paying 350-400 basis points above EURIBOR.”

Attempts to improve LIBOR and its equivalents bring fresh problems. Regulators, politicians and industry groups are now poring over ways to improve the calculation of such rates (see Free Exchange). These could include using larger panels of banks and forcing banks to report actual transactions. American authorities have told Barclays to adopt strict governance and reporting rules to ensure its submissions are honest. In isolation each of these changes seems perfectly sensible. Yet in aggregate they pose two big risks.

The first is that banks may simply stop contributing LIBOR estimates to minimise the risks of being prosecuted or sued. Paul Tucker, the Bank of England official up before MPs this week, said contingency planning has already started to deal with this risk. He also raised the possibility that civil lawsuits against banks might be so large as to undermine financial stability.

A second risk is that changes to the method of calculating LIBOR could lead to very different numbers being generated. Much bigger panels would include banks that are smaller and less creditworthy than those currently submitting, leading to higher LIBOR rates. Since these numbers are hard-wired into tens of thousands of derivatives contracts and loan agreements, the losers would almost certainly dispute the changes. “If LIBOR 2 is going to give an answer that is structurally higher than the old LIBOR, then it will be worth litigating over,” says one lawyer. “Each basis point might not seem much, but multiplied across the billions in contracts it soon adds up to a pretty big number.”

[786 words]

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
发表于 2012-7-19 23:37:49 | 显示全部楼层
第一次参加阅读小分队啊,前面的速度基本每部分都差3-4行
后面的阅读只大概看懂了银行经济政策调整中面临的问题,及不同银行的不同情况。
基本没看懂啊,哭......
发表于 2012-7-19 23:53:02 | 显示全部楼层

1'06
1'05
1'25
44''
55''
4'20
发表于 2012-7-20 08:10:32 | 显示全部楼层
好吧~再次地板~

计时:
今天的话题好有意思,长知识啦!
1:10;
1:22;
1:30;
1:10;
1:12;
越障:
好美的图,团团辛苦~
4:57;
最近引起轩然大波的是英国的L和其兄弟E机器?它们被宣称有操控行为,上周负责人被英国议会抓去问责
传说,美国的F可能是告密者,现在有机构介入正调查此事
L每天都从世界各地的财经分析人那里获取评估数据,经过标准化计算之类的,
贷款价格、金融衍生品等其他金融工具的数据会传送给成百上千交易者,
更深的问题是即使L诚实的评估仍然不行,因为银行内部的不安全
即使市场运转良好,各金融机构也可以完全不按照传输的数据定利率什么的,然后举了例子
不像L,E不会把数据定死,而是介于两大主要银行间,这个“主要”也是难界定的,
其实也就是德国,但这样就对欧洲大部分地方不适用了
为了让L更加公开平等,政府还有一些人都在想措施,但是他们会带来两个大的风险
一是银行会因为规避起诉或者责任的风险而不再用L提供的评估数据;
而是更新换代,也就是升级版L2可能会造成许多数据收集的麻烦



发表于 2012-7-20 08:37:25 | 显示全部楼层
先占第一页, 哈哈
1:12
1:43
2:22
1:13
1:28
5:39
发表于 2012-7-20 10:32:17 | 显示全部楼层
后一篇Libor的完全没看懂。。弱爆了。。
发表于 2012-7-20 16:19:45 | 显示全部楼层
Speed:
55''  1'  1'08  50''  53''
Obstacle:
5’47
It very hard for me to understand and recall the first part of the passage-_-
Recall:
The impact of manipulation of LIBOR is still going on and now the banks submitting the interest rates face stricter supervision.
That revise the way to calculate LIBOR can have two big risks. The first is that banks may be not willing to submit the interest rate anymore in order to escape the risk of being prosecuted. The second is that the LIBOR may be quite different from current LIBOR and can make huge difference on the assets whose valuation is based on LIBOR.
发表于 2012-7-20 18:32:30 | 显示全部楼层
1:37
1:36
1.37
1.24
1.30


1.纽约联邦银行调查什么银行的操纵行为。

2.论述了一些可能的问题,   银行与银行之间不借钱,有钱存在另一个什么地方;一些银行能以任何利率买进,上报利率比交易中的要低;不像L ,E只上报了主要银行的利率没有它应该上报的,造成成本分离,对意大利银行无效;
3   监控者采取措施加强数据的真实性像改善问题,但有副作用

4.仅仅降低了被起诉的可能,但增加公民的的控告
5.不一样的方法使数据不同,带来利率的上升,影响了借贷交易,让损失者哀声怨道。

涉及银行方面专业问题- -     没怎么搞懂
发表于 2012-7-20 20:34:07 | 显示全部楼层

1'15''
1'23''
1'51''
1'16''
1'25''
7'18''
越障没明白,好像主题意思是说现在的submitters不诚实还是做什么的方法不对,建议说加强管制云云。。。。然后我就彻底迷糊了
打算再看一遍~
(我好像是翻译了一遍。。。,词还用的相当不专业)
L和E被操控,在A,美国联邦银行涉嫌操纵L,银行委员会决定调查此事
每天早上,全球各大银行的提交者提交他们估计的借贷利率,几分钟后运用到数以万计的投资项目中,金融衍生物和其他的财政项目。
假设过去存在L操纵,更大的问题是:即使这些数字各大银行提供了真实的数据,他们仍然是估计值。这是因为不安全的interbank funding市场,他们时间相互借贷,是不流动的。特别是在欧元区,银行间不存在借钱,多数银行都愿意把钱存在欧洲中央银行,央行再将这些钱贷给那些资金匮乏的银行。这些存款的银行是不会得到利息的。L和E控制的行为机会不存在。
即使市场健全,银行估计值是也可以随意提交,E的问题最为明显,他提交的利率往往低于实际交易值。举例意大利和西班牙
L的提交者被要求提供他们可能支付的利率,E不用,E仅仅提供两个发展的很好银行的估计值。说发展好,其实指的就是German,他们导致了估计值与实际值的巨大误差。某人说G的经验不能用于意大利。
改善L和它的同类会带来新的问题,多方进行了努力,比如增多提供估计值的银行、强制银行提供真实的估计值,举了美国当局让BARCLAY采取行动的例子,并说带来了两个危害:1、银行可能会停止继续提供估计值 2、改变数字的计算方法会导致很难统一的局面。
发表于 2012-7-20 22:22:48 | 显示全部楼层
0''55 说meeting是专注在无形的事上,机会成本很大,弄不好浪费时间。还是多花些时间在具体工作上
1''13 其实meeting根本不用费那么多时间,因为人多了就久了。同样的决定自己做只用几分钟,所以应该给meeting定时,十几分钟就可以结束会议。
1''14 有几个meeting忌讳:不要把信息在会议上共享,在会前就该做好;不要让没想好的人随便发言;在该开会的时候就马上开会,如果之前有chatting要马上结束
1''29 开会后要马上明确分工;在会后写简报一定要简略到位,不要含大概框架
1''20 当group leader要明确责任 明确分工。跟进任务的时候要找负责人 而不是整个team
       你需要凝聚整个组,但不要用会议时间 他们私下会进行交流
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-3-29 08:46
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部