|
内容：Nicole Lee 编辑：HaibrarAi_sY
Wechat ID: NativeStudy / Weibo: http://weibo.com/u/3476904471
Part I: Speaker
A Study Found Bankruptcy Soared Among Americans 65 And Older August 6, 2018
AILSA CHANG, HOST: More older Americans are showing up in bankruptcy court. The rate of seniors age 65 and older who have filed for bankruptcy has tripled since 1991. That statistic comes from a new study from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project. It's a research collaboration funded by several universities. Deborah Thorne of the University of Idaho is the study's lead author. And I asked her why more older Americans are turning to an option often thought of as a last resort.
DEBORAH THORNE: Based on their answers to surveys, the lead causes of being in bankruptcy are medical expenses and declines in income. So it could be, you know, they lost money in 2008, or they've outlived their retirement 'cause they no longer get a defined benefit or a pension. So they've had a decline in income, or they've had medical expenses that they just absolutely cannot keep up with.
CHANG: But this is a very different picture than what existed, say, a few decades ago, right?
THORNE: Sure. So if we look at this historically, we had Social Security in place that was adequate, right? You could start full benefits, full replacement benefits at earlier ages. And we had defined benefits rather than defined contributions where we weren't taking the risk ourselves. So what we've seen is these risks that are just in life have been shifted off onto individuals. And that has been exacerbated by policy decisions over about the last 20 years. The financial squeeze on older Americans has just gotten tighter and tighter and tighter as we have weakened the social safety net that they can depend on. And here's the pickle for them, is that they're older, so they cannot recover. They cannot go back to work at 65 and 70 years old and recover the money that they've lost. So quick example - I had a woman contact me this morning. She said, I'm 71. We lost $200,000 in - of our retirement in the collapse in 2008. She's driving for Uber Eats at 71 years old. She said, we'll never recover. So if you go through bankruptcy of 45, you can bounce back to a large degree. Not so if you're 65. You cannot hit the job market and expect to be hired at a decent salary even if you're healthy enough, right?
CHANG: Right. I mean, bankruptcy's usually thought of as a way to get a fresh start when everything else has failed.
THORNE: Right.
CHANG: And if this older generation can't bounce back after bankruptcy...
THORNE: No.
CHANG: ...What is the calculation behind declaring bankruptcy, because there's just no other choice available?
THORNE: Well, they're drowning in debt. And see; here's something that's really tragic, is when they strip their 401(k)s and their retirements to try to pay their bills. And they have nothing left to draw on. And they cannot stave off the debt collectors any longer. And that's finally what pushes them over the edge. That's the calculation really that they make in their head. We have done everything we possibly could. We are tapped out. And they - you know, it's like they throw up their hands and they say uncle. We can't stand this anymore.
CHANG: What kind of reaction have you heard to your study? I mean, have advocacy groups such as the AARP reached out to you? Have they...
THORNE: Yes.
CHANG: ...Pointed to your study as an impetus for maybe thinking about new policies?
THORNE: Nothing's come about yet because it just came out this morning. We would hope that policymakers would decide to make this a priority and provide some security, financial security through more affordable medical care and more security in how older people manage their retirement accounts. And we hope the policymakers will step up and shift policy so that there's more protection for older Americans.
CHANG: Deborah Thorne is the lead author of a new study called "Graying Of U.S. Bankruptcy: Fallout From Life In A Risk Society." Thank you very much for being with us.
THORNE: You're so welcome.
Source: NPR https://www.ted.com/talks/supasorn_suwajanakorn_fake_videos_of_real_people_and_how_to_spot_them
[Rephrase 1, 4’16
Part II: Speed
Disaster equals energy plus misinformation Janet Howd | August 6, 2018
[Time 2] In 1976 "The Failure of Foresight," a PhD thesis, was completed by the Organizational Sociologist, Barry A Turner. Two years later, this thesis became a book entitled "Man-Made Disasters, the first to state that any organization that seeks to "achieve a minimal level of co-ordination by persuading their decision-makers to agree that they will all neglect the same kind of consideration when they make a decision" is "building-in catastrophic potential."
Quite a few of us are likely to have had personal experience of: "a complex situation in which a number of parties handling a problem are unable to obtain precisely the same information about that problem, so that many differing interpretations of the problem exist."
Many of us also will be aware that: "when problems have vague, non-quantifiable goals and lack available routines for their solution," by relying instead on ad-hoc procedures and sloppy management, a "variable disjunction of information is likely to be found."
Clear though these signs may be, most employees and citizens simply accept whatever company or authority view they are given and feel it unnecessary to think matters through for themselves. What is more, even when people do think things through for themselves, they are rarely prepared to VOICE any misgivings they have because to do so would make them seem out of place - notwithstanding that should a disaster occur, such out of place-ness is going to be the new reality for everyone involved.
Barry A. Turner was my husband and all sections in italics and quotation marks in this article are from the now-seminal work that resulted from his meticulous research in the mid-1970s into major accidents and disasters, including the Aberfan disaster and the Summerland Theme Park fire, that had occurred in the preceding 10 years.
Forty years later, his statement that, "the more extensive a negentropic order-seeking system becomes, the greater is the potential it also develops for the orderly dissemination of unintended consequences" should be blindingly obvious. Yet those words describe exactly what happened in Fukushima, Japan in 2011. [338 words]
[Time 3] Indeed, with all the aforesaid information having been disseminated well before 1986, one might expect that any member of any organisation (particularly if it is large and has the reputation of being one of high reliability) should know well to:
Make the effort to find out where they are supposed to fit in and seek to fit in even better.
Speak-up against hierarchical practices that support individual hubris and limit company growth.
Speak-up against self-seeking that destroys trust, and openly question societal and cultural practices that do the same
Find out and keep in mind what has gone wrong before, so as to avoid the same thing happening again by default.
Be prepared to be blamed and shamed for speaking up and pointing out problems if the alternative is the destruction of all they hold dear - not to mention that of everyone else working on and around the same project.
Never assume that something which is part of company history - however obvious or major - doesn't need to be re-voiced from time to time so that is known and understood by every single current company member from the most spanking-new apprentice to the most imminent retiree.
Plus (and this last point is probably the most important), since information is vital to the wellbeing of any company, as many employees as possible should be 'in the know' about why they are doing what they are doing, and consider how they can most easily be connected with and communicate with others doing very different tasks.
I decided to write about the above because my own business, The Voice Practice, a company that I set up shortly after my husband’s sudden and untimely death in 1995, has been profoundly influenced by this way of thinking.
Based on the premise that no one way of saying something can be clear enough for varied audiences to understand, I stress that it is essential that presenters first make sure that they fully understand for themselves the information they want to share. [337 words]
[Time 4] Once that is done I then help them plan how to voice that information clearly and cleanly in words most appropriate to the needs of each and every audience member being addressed.
To gain and maintain audience interest I help clients to speak clearly using a full range of articulacy, pitch, vocabulary and volume but stress that shouting should only ever be used in an emergency so as to gain instant and full attention. Shouting for any other purpose is a breath too far: a wind of change that pushes people off-balance.
To ensure that as many recipients as possible get chance to understand the information a client wishes to convey, I ask them - no matter how time consuming and inconvenient this may seem to them - to use different vocabulary and prepare different slides for different audiences. This is because no matter how tempting it may be to prepare slides merely as an aide memoire for themselves, the sole purpose of any images presenters show should be to cement the chosen information in the minds of the specific audience members in front of them.
Finally, I warn each individual that one duff presentation based on poorly-prepared material can turn into such a personal disaster that it takes a lot of getting over.
To prevent them having to experience such discomfort I share with them the simple equation that my husband provided to help guard against catastrophic events: "Disaster equals energy plus misinformation."
Would that current World Leaders showed more awareness of that simple fact. [256 words]
Source: Management-Issues https://www.management-issues.com/opinion/7319/disaster-equals-energy-plus-misinformation/
Use This Simple Technology Tool You Already Have to Strengthen Relationships With Your Partners Stacey Hanke | August 6, 2018
[Time 5] Business is accelerating for companies across the globe. Opportunities are abundant, and so is the competition. More than ever, companies search for strategies to better connect with clients and prospects in hopes of building long-lasting relationships, ones that will endure economic change and competitive pressures. Executives know that consistent conversations with clients are vital to strengthening relationships and closing deals. They also know face-to-face meetings do it best. Unfortunately, many companies are underutilizing available technology they have to connect with clients face-to-face -- the webcam.
Here are four reasons why companies should utilize their webcams and leverage their technology:
1. Travel is expensive and inconvenient. Few things are as difficult and costly as modern-day travel. With geographical expansion in our business footprint, along with fluctuating airfare, the price of a single business trip can vary wildly, making the time and money required for employee travel add up quickly. In 2016, Certify reported the average domestic business trip costs companies $949 per person, while the average international trip averages about $2,600 per person. These costs don't take into consideration lost productivity and time spent out of the office. Solution: Encourage employees to use their webcams for more cost-efficient, face-to-face client meetings. In the first year that Cisco created its corporate telepresence rooms, it reported a travel savings of over $100 million. Consider how much your organization could save if only 50 percent of travel was replaced with virtual meetings.
2. Broaden the talent pool. Travel can be daunting for many employees as they attempt to strike a balance at home and work. Many highly skilled employees are unable to accept jobs requiring frequent travel as it often conflicts with personal responsibilities. As a result, the available talent pool for strategic positions is limited to only those with the freedom and flexibility to travel. Sadly, many great employees become burned out from frequent travel. A recent study showed the dark side of hypermobility and the effects it has on employees. Increased travel expectations coupled with longer workdays and time away from family is costing employers significantly in employee turnover and productivity losses. Solution: Consider opportunities to work with clients virtually. By utilizing webcams, employees can work face-to-face with clients and prospects, build solid relationships and still meet their after-hours responsibilities. This will broaden companies' talent pool prospects and lift current employees' morale. Giving people the gift of time -- allowing them to strike a better work-life balance -- will help prevent burnout. [395 words]
[Time 6] 3. There's a real-time advantage. Technology has made decisions more time-sensitive than ever, increasing the rate at which we work. What may have previously taken business professionals days to decide can now occur in one text, email or instant message. Businesses lose out on influencing opportunities while employees travel to and from locations, disconnected from lightning-fast decisions occurring without them. Solution: Webcams allow employees to be immediately present while pressing decisions and discussions are underway. Everyone can remain connected and in the know when leveraging technology correctly. If a key decision-maker has a last-minute question or concern before closing a deal, webcams provide the ability for instant answers.
4. Visual connection builds trust and influence. Once companies create a client relationship, it's likely most future conversations will occur on the phone. Unfortunately, phone conversations limit the relationship's ability to grow and deepen the same a way that face-to-face discussions do. Users are more likely to multitask during a conference call. Participants also miss out on nonverbal aspects of the conversation and can often misinterpret tone and context. Conference calls lack a sense of personality and connection that only face-to-face meetings can provide. Solution: Use the webcam instead of the phone whenever possible. Increase the level of trust in your client and prospective relationships by being face-to-face online. Allow others to put a face to a name, observe body language and feel physically present. The combination of audio and visual connection will strengthen your relationships and grow your level of influence. Best of all, users are less likely to multitask when engaging in a virtual call. They know they are being watched and will refrain from checking text messages, social media and emails. [282 words]
[The Rest] Professionals hoping to evade the use of a webcam have an abundance of excuses, but few are reasonable. Most people complain they don't like the way they look on camera or are intimidated in its set-up. Like any other tool, frequency of use creates proficiencies and habit. How to get started using your webcam:
Turn it on! Virtually every computer comes with a webcam. Find a meeting platform you prefer and get started.
Test your equipment before the call. Ensure your camera and sound are working correctly well before the call begins. This will ensure the meeting starts on time and without complications.
Toss the excuses. Everyone sees you in the office every day. When you are at your best in the office, you should have no qualms about being at your best on camera.
Same rules apply. Apply the same rules to your virtual meetings as you would those in person. Ensure there is a written agenda, stick to the topic, and start and end on time. [ words]
Source: Entrepreneur https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/316879
Part III: Obstacle
How to Earn a Reputation as a Fair Manager Liane_Davey | August 3, 2018
[Paraphrase 7] At some point in your career, you likely encountered a manager you believed was unfair. You probably thought to yourself, “When I’m a manager, I’m never going to be like that!” Now that you’ve been promoted to a management position, you’re probably dedicating significant amounts of time and energy to making unbiased decisions, but no doubt finding that the right balance is elusive. Sadly, there is no objective measure of fairness. Instead, each time you attempt to level the playing field on one dimension, you throw it off balance on another. The best, if imperfect, approach is to understand the different forms of fairness and to be thoughtful about when and how you apply them.
You can start with the most standard measure of fairness, which focuses on the outcomes of your decisions. Did your decision-making process lead to a fair distribution (of inputs and outputs) for everyone involved? You can apply this test to common managerial decisions such as how you allocate workload, offer development opportunities, and dole out rewards and recognition. You can be sure that your team is scrutinizing the outcomes of these high-profile decisions. If one person is disadvantaged by your decision making (e.g., assigned a less desirable shift or given a more difficult assignment) multiple times, it’s likely that they will perceive your decision-making as unfair.
If that was all you had to worry about, life would be relatively simple. Unfortunately, there’s more to it. In addition to the fairness of the outcome, your team will be judging the fairness of your process. Was your decision-making process inherently fair, regardless of the outcome? For example, if you were evaluating performance, did you include the right factors (such as measuring salespeople on both the total revenue and the profitability to avoid rewarding the people who sell unprofitable work)? Was your assessment of the variables in your decision objective and unbiased (e.g., did you get input from multiple sources to reduce the likelihood of favoritism)? How you arrive at your decision will carry as much weight in how you are perceived as the decision you ultimately end up making.
The challenge is that when you try to optimize one version of fairness, you can inadvertently taint the other. As a simple example, imagine assigning workload based on a flip of a coin. Because a coin-flip is random, it can be considered a fair process. Now imagine that you flip the coin ten times and seven of those times it comes up heads. Now the person who chose heads gets 70% of the workload — an unfair outcome. The takeaway is that you need to be mindful about both your decision-making process and the resulting outcomes. You might need to compromise on one form of fairness to avoid damaging the other.
One interesting side note: research has suggested that the relative importance of the fairness of the outcome versus the fairness of the process depends on which an employee hears about first. The research looked at a hypothetical hiring process in which some applicants were evaluated with a fair process and some with an unfair process (the difference was whether the evaluators scored all nine parts of the assessment protocol or only one of the nine). Some of the participants were told about the process that was used to make the selection decision before hearing whether or not they got the job, whereas others were told about the process after.
For those who heard about the process before the outcome, the fairness of the process (rather than whether they got the job or not) predicted their overall satisfaction. For example, people who heard about the process of evaluation, but found out that they were ultimately not hired, were OK with that outcome because they believed the process leading to that decision had been fair. For those who learned about the outcome first, the fairness of the outcome was more important. For example, when people first heard that they were not hired, without any explanation of the process used to arrive at that decision, they immediately assumed that the decision was unfair. The study provides an important lesson: when you’re using a fair process that might lead to an unfair allocation, be sure to provide details about the process before your team learns of the decision.
To this point, we have been talking about fairness as if it has a single definition that can be applied to either the process or the outcome of decision-making. That too, oversimplifies your challenge as a manager. There are two competing definitions of fairness — equality versus equity. In an egalitarian form of fairness, propriety is tied to how equal things are, whether that’s having the same process or the same outcome for everyone. Vacation policies where everyone gets the same number of days off would be one example. In contrast, an equitable definition of fairness allows for either the process or the outcome to vary based on some legitimate and equitable difference among people. In the vacation example, you might give more days of vacation for employees who have a longer tenure with the company. You end up with four different versions of fairness using either an equal or equitable definition applied to either the process or the outcome. Are you are starting to empathize with the manager you thought was being unfair?
Whether the fairness of the process or the outcome takes precedent and whether the formula is equality or equity will depend on the nature of the decision. Where you are trying to strengthen teamwork and connection, an equal distribution of the outcome can be useful. Profit sharing is a common method for rewarding an entire group for the successes they have achieved through collaboration. Where you’re hoping to spur individual performance, you can emphasize an equitable process. Sales incentives and other individual bonus payments encourage individuals to put in the maximum effort. Let the goals of the situation dictate which formula you use.
Even once you invest considerable effort in deciding fairly, that’s no guarantee that it will be perceived that way by your team. Don’t make the mistake of assuming your decisions will speak for themselves. If you are focusing on an equitable process for choosing who gets promoted, where you will weigh certain competencies or styles more positively than others, make your intentions known to your team. If you’re emphasizing an equal sharing of the bonus pool to reinforce the importance of every member of the team, be upfront about it.
You are the manager and you have the discretion to make those calls. Regardless of how you choose to make the difficult calls, it’s critical that you communicate what you’re thinking. Transparency increases trust in the process and has value for your employees above and beyond the specifics of the decision-making process.
In the end, we all learn that life isn’t fair. As a manager, you’ll learn this much sooner than others. You’ll face difficult decisions where no resolution seems ideal and where the outcome will be perceived as fair by some and unfair by others. Don’t be too hard on yourself. As long as you have thought carefully about what the business needs and made your assessment of the best answer as objectively as possible, you have done your job. You will always have an opportunity to restore balance with the next decision. [1226 words]
Source: HBR https://hbr.org/2018/08/how-to-earn-a-reputation-as-a-fair-manager
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2018-8-7 21:44:28
收藏
收藏
