Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Attention Restoration Theory Taps Nature's Medicine | Smart Journalism. Real Solutions. Miller-McCune. By John McKinney

Attention Restoration Theory Taps Nature's Medicine | Smart Journalism. Real Solutions. Miller-McCune.


A long line of the world’s thinkers — from Immanuel Kant to William James to Deepak Chopra — have recommended we take walks in nature to relieve stress and refocus our thoughts. And nature writers — from Henry David Thoreau to John Muir to Edward Abbey — have extolled the restorative benefits of nature. “Everybody,” Muir said, “needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul.”

Turns out they were ahead of their time. “Attention Restoration Theory” or ART, which posits that a walk in the woods helps refocus the mind and revive the spirit, has been a growing field of research for the past 20 years. New studies are quantifying the restorative powers of nature and suggesting how the restorative process works.

“In the late 1980s, I discovered that ‘favorite places’ could be a good window [measurable unit of analysis] into how humans use their environment to restore themselves,” states psychologist Kalevi Korpelawith Finland’s University of Tampere.

Korpela’s most recent study questioned some 1,273 city dwellers of Helsinki and Tampere, aged 15 to 75 about the restorative experiences of their “favorite” places. Residents identified their favorite restorative places and what they perceived as the health benefits of visiting them.

The self-rated restorative benefits gained by venturing into the woods and along natural shorelines — “an early-morning walk is a blessing for the whole day,” as Thoreau said — were judged as significantly stronger than ventures to other favorite places in the city, including developed parklands. The results revealed links between the need for restoration (relief from worries and stress about money, jobs and the hectic pace of modern life) and the use of favorite places — what the social scientists call “environmental self-regulation strategies” — to achieve restorative benefits.

The more worries (particularly about work and money) an individual had, the higher the typical level of restoration experience, and the more reported benefits gained from getting out into nature. Unfortunately, those with many worries had a low rate of nature trips and consequently received a lower level of restorative benefits.

“This inconsistency surprised us,” Korpela says.

As social scientists explain it, nature engages your attention in relaxed fashion — leaves rustling, patterns of clouds, sunsets, a bird, the shape of an old tree. Nature captures our attention in subtle, bottom-up ways and allows our top-down attention abilities a chance to regenerate. Attention, therefore, is “restored” by exposure to natural environments.

But the artificial world, like a downtown city, demands active attention to avoid getting hit by cars, negotiate lights and intersections and navigate around others on the sidewalk. At the same time, city walkers are bombarded by advertisements, traffic and noise. The high-demand attention required when negotiating crowded city streets offers no rest for the weary mind; in fact, it’s similar to the intellectual requirements demanded of office workers or of college students.

Nature’s value in the recovery from illness has been quantified repeatedly. Studies have shown that post-surgery patients resting in rooms overlooking trees recovered better and faster than those in rooms with a view only of a brick wall. Another study demonstrated that women with breast cancer who walked in a park, watched birds or tended gardens recovered more quickly and were in better spirits than those with little or no contact with the natural world.

The cognitive benefits of nature — even if it’s just a hint of nature like a poster or a potted plant — are many and have been tallied by a number of recent studies. University of Michigan researchers Marc Berman, John Jonides and Stephen Kaplan wanted to quantify the effects of ART. Students were given long tests of sequences of numbers to repeat in reverse then sent on walks — half the study participants on a nature walk and half on a city walk. Upon re-testing, the nature walkers’ scores improved significantly while the city walkers’ did not. The experiment was repeated so that each student walked in nature and in the city, and everyone’s score was better after the nature walk.

Researcher Gary Felsten wanted to know the most restorative locations for study breaks and decided to ask students at the University of Chicago, a venue both academically intense and far removed from nature. Felsten took pictures of various lounge areas overlooking urban scenes and other buildings, others looking out on restful natural scenes. For some windowless lounges, he used computer software to place murals of natural scenes onto their empty walls.

Students were asked to rate the lounges for “a sense of being away” and other qualities considered by ART as “restorative.” Students rated the lounges with both artificial and real views of nature as more restorative than views of the city.

Researchers around the world have shown that windows looking out on nature scenes deliver significant restorative results and are now inquiring about the possible benefits of “virtual” nature. Can technology in the form of nature scenes on a high-definition plasma screen provide a restorative “nature fix?” Researchers from the University of Washington’s Human Interaction With Nature and Technological Systems Lab got mixed results from two studies: One study showed plasma nature windows providing low-level restorative benefits, another study showed them no more restorative than a blank wall.

One result of all of this research is that recognition of nature’s mental and physical health value is now part of public health discussions. And ART research has helped legitimatize eco-psychology, long stereotyped as New Age philosophy and now seen as grounded in science and statistics.

If further research shows that people deprived of nature will display behaviors characteristic of fatigued attention and irritability, how should office buildings be designed? Schools? Neighborhoods?

Korpela sees the need for more studies about the use and effectiveness of natural and other favorite places in helping people regulate and reduce the stresses of everyday life.

“How do people use different kinds of places to ameliorate stress, reflect on personal matters, to regain and reflect on their identity?”

Korpela believes the restorative value of nature can be taught to today’s stressed-out city dwellers. Under his direction, what is likely “the world’s first forest trail with psychological signposts enhancing the restorative experience” was constructed recently near Ikaalinen Spa, one of Finland’s largest. Hikers meander through diverse scenery and get trailside signpost instructions aimed at increasing the restorative experience: inducing reflection, relaxation and improving their moods.

Researchers will continue to quantify the amount and kind of nature we need to restore our spirits and regain our mental acuity. In the meantime, it appears Thoreau was right: “We can never have enough of nature.”

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

The Journey Through Adolescence 704.2

The Journey Through Adolescence 704.2: "

One of the toughest jobs in the world is being a teenager. Everything's in transition. Everything's intense – even apathy.



Kids on the brink of adulthood have to cope with inconsistencies and conflicts. The desire to be different clashes with the need to fit in. The desire to be independent collides with the aversion to self-reliance and personal responsibility.



Here are five ways to improve your journey through adolescence:



1. Be yourself. Mindless conformity is a prison. Express yourself authentically and don’t be afraid to stand out. But don’t dress or behave in extreme ways just to be different or to prove you can. You don’t need orange hair, a nose ring, or tattoos to be special. It’s more important to be respected than noticed.



2. Don’t expect too much or settle for too little. Don’t expect anyone else to make you happy, but don’t allow others to treat you badly. Hang out with people who bring out the best in you, and be the kind of person who brings out the best in others.



3. Responsibility is a privilege, not a penalty. Dependability and self-reliance are your tickets to freedom and independence. Don’t waste energy resisting what you have to do. Instead, win others’ trust by doing what you should do.



4. Think ahead. Every act has a consequence. The choices you make today will shape tomorrow. Pleasure lasts for a moment, but happiness lasts much longer. Just because it feels good doesn't make it good.



5. Take charge of your life. Your life is your ship, so be the captain, not a passenger. Figure out what needs to be done to improve your life, and then make it happen. Your attitudes are more important than your aptitudes. You can’t control what happens to you, but you can control what happens in you. Don’t whine, win.



This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.



____

Click here to listen to audio versions of this and other commentaries. You can also subscribe to my weekly newsletter, which always has links to audio versions of my commentaries.




"

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

The Achievement Test - NYTimes.com, by David Brooks

The Achievement Test - NYTimes.com

Unless something big and unexpected happens, 2011 will be consumed by a debate over the size of government. Republicans will launch a critique of big government as part of their effort to cut spending. Democrats will surge to the barricades to defend federal programs.

Josh Haner/The New York Times

David Brooks

Go to Columnist Page »

The Conversation

Conversation

David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

This debate will be contentious, but I hope it’s not rude to mention that it will be largely beside the point. National destinies are not shaped by what percentage of G.D.P. federal spending consumes. They are shaped by the character and behavior of citizens. The crucial issue is not whether the federal government takes up 19 percent or 23 percent of national income. The crucial question is: How does government influence how people live?

There have been cases when big government has encouraged virtuous behavior (in the U.S. during World War II), and cases when big government has encouraged self-indulgence and irresponsibility (modern Greece). There have been cases when small government was accompanied by enterprise and development, and cases when small government has led to lawlessness, corruption and distrust.

The size of government doesn’t tell you what you need to know; the social and moral content of government action does. The budgeteers and the technicians may not like it, but it’s the values inculcated by policies that matter most.

The best way to measure government is not by volume, but by what you might call the Achievement Test. Does a given policy arouse energy, foster skills, spur social mobility and help people transform their lives? Over the years, America has benefited from policies that passed this test, like the Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill. Occasionally, the U.S. government has initiated programs that failed it. The welfare policies of the 1960s gave people money without asking for work and personal responsibility in return, and these had to be replaced. The welfare reforms of the 1990s involved big and intrusive government, but they did the job because they were in line with American values, linking effort to reward.

Over the past few decades, Americans have waged political war as if all that matters is the amount of money going into federal coffers. The fights have been about “cutting government” or “raising revenue.” But amid this season of distraction the entire society suffered a loss of values and almost nobody noticed until it was too late. Both business and government started favoring consumption and short-term comfort and neglecting investment and long-term growth.

This hasn’t been a case of government corrupting capitalism or vice versa. The two have worked hand-in-hand. The government has erected a welfare state that, as Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard has pointed out, spends vast amounts on consumption (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the debt) and much less on investment (education, research, infrastructure), while pushing the costs on future generations. Meanwhile, the private sector has encouraged a huge increase in personal debt to fuel a consumption bubble. The geniuses flock to finance, not industry.

If we’re going to reverse this tide, it might be useful to put the Achievement Test back at the center of politics. This would help focus the national mind on the fundamental challenge: moving from a consumption-dominated economy oriented around satisfying immediate needs toward a more balanced investment and consumption economy. It might also cut through the gridlocked trench warfare between big-government liberals and small-government conservatives.

Reframing the argument around achievement wouldn’t end partisan division. Democrats and Republicans differ on what makes an economy productive. But it would allow for horse-trading.

As part of the budget process, Republicans could champion the things they believe will enhance productivity and mobility. Many of these will mean making sure people have the incentives to take risks and the freedom to adjust to foreign competition: a flatter, simpler tax code with lower corporate rates, a smaller debt burden, predictable regulations, affordable entitlements.

Democrats could champion the things they believe will enhance productivity and mobility. Many of these will mean making sure everybody has the tools to compete: early childhood education, infrastructure programs to create jobs, immigration policies that recruit talent, incentives for energy innovation.

The two agendas sit in tension, but they are not contradictory. The exciting thing about this moment is that everything is on the table. Thousands of policy proposals are floating around, thanks to the various deficit commissions and policy entrepreneurs. As the parties argue about the debt limit and the rest, it should be possible to take items from both and ram them into a package that cuts consumption spending in order to make investment spending more affordable.

How big will the resulting government be? That is a secondary issue. If a policy enhances achievement, we should be for that thing. If it displaces investment, we should be skeptical of it. Quality, not quantity, matters most.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Michael Josephson Commentary: Sailing the Seven C's of Character @ http://goo.gl/hw3oH

Michael Josephson Commentary: Sailing the Seven C's of Character 703.5

Sailing the Seven C's of Character 703.5

As you consider your goals for 2011 I want to suggest a C voyage to work on your character.

No, you’re not too old and I don’t mean to imply you’re a bad person. Surely by now many of you have heard my mantra: You don’t have to be sick to get better. Besides, we all know it's a lot easier to make a good person better than to make a bad person good.

Remember, the struggle to be a person of character takes place on the level of daily choices at home and at work. People of exceptional character stand out from the crowd because they develop the discernment and moral strength to know and do the right thing in circumstances that might overwhelm or confuse others.

Here are the Seven C’s of Character: Conscience, Caring, Consideration, Confidence, Competence, Control, and Courage.

1st: Nurture and honor your personal Conscience. This is a precious internal moral compass that helps you maintain your integrity.

2nd: Show people you Care; demonstrate a genuine unselfish concern for the well-being of others, be empathetic, charitable, and above all, kind.

3rd: Be Considerate; think about the way your actions will affect others, and know that you are responsible for the consequences of all you say and do.

4th: Be Confident that you are good enough, valuable enough, and strong enough to withstand potential consequences of principled conduct, including the loss of money, jobs, and even friends.

5th: Develop moral Competence; learn to make and implement good decisions that are ethical and effective and get the best possible result out of every choice.

6th: Control your emotions; distinguish between what you want and what you need; beware of impulses and urges that can cause you to compromise ethical principles; don't settle for pleasure, go for happiness.

7th: Have the Courage to do the right thing even if it might cost more than you want to pay.

Every one of these elements can be a challenge on any particular day. The point, and I hope your goal for 2011, is to self-consciously sail these Seven C's because CHARACTER COUNTS.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Are We Too Dumb for Democracy? The Logic Behind Self-Delusion | | AlterNet by Stephen Dufrechou

Are We Too Dumb for Democracy? The Logic Behind Self-Delusion | | AlterNet

Are We Too Dumb for Democracy? The Logic Behind Self-Delusion

When faced with facts that do not fit seamlessly into our individual belief systems, our minds automatically reject (or backfire) the presented facts.
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

A recent cognitive study, as reported by the Boston Globe, concluded that:

Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

In light of these findings, researchers concluded that a defense mechanism, which they labeled “backfire”, was preventing individuals from producing pure rational thought. The result is a self-delusion that appears so regularly in normal thinking that we fail to detect it in ourselves, and often in others: When faced with facts that do not fit seamlessly into our individual belief systems, our minds automatically reject (or backfire) the presented facts. The result of backfire is that we become even more entrenched in our beliefs, even if those beliefs are totally or partially false.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” said Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher of the Michigan study. The occurrence of backfire, he noted, is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”

The conclusion made here is this: facts often do not determine our beliefs, but rather our beliefs (usually non-rational beliefs) determine the facts that we accept. As the Boston Globe article notes:

In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. And then we vote.

Despite this finding, Nyhan claims that the underlying cause of backfire is unclear. “It’s very much up in the air,” he says. And on how our society is going to counter this phenomena, Nyhan is even less certain.

These latter unanswered questions are expected in any field of research, since every field has its own limitations. Yet here the field of psychoanalysis can offer a completion of the picture.

Disavowal and Backfire: One and the Same

In an article by psychoanalyst Rex Butler, Butler independently comes to the same conclusion as the Michigan Study researchers. In regards to facts and their relationship to belief systems (or ideologies), Butler says that:

there is no necessary relationship between reality and its symbolization … Our descriptions do not naturally and immutably refer to things, but … things in retrospect begin to resemble their description. Thus, in the analysis of ideology, it is not simply a matter of seeing which account of reality best matches the ‘facts’, with the one that is closest being the least biased and therefore the best. As soon as the facts are determined, we have already – whether we know it or not – made our choice; we are already within one ideological system or another. The real dispute has already taken place over what is to count as the facts, which facts are relevant, and so on.

This places the field of psychoanalysis on the same footing as that of cognitive science, in regards to this matter. But where cognitive studies end, with Nyhan’s question about the cause of backfire, psychoanalysis picks up and provides a possible answer. In fact, psychoanalysts have been publishing work on backfire for decades; only psychoanalysis refers to backfire by another name: “disavowal”. Indeed, these two terms refer to one and the same phenomena.

The basic explanation for the underlying cause of disavowal/backfire goes as follows.

“Liberals” and “conservatives” espouse antithetical belief systems, both of which are based on different non-rational “moral values.” This is a fact that cognitive linguist George Lakoff has often discussed, which incidentally brings in yet another field of study that supports the existence of the disavowal/backfire mechanism.

In accordance with these different non-rational belief systems, any individual’s ideology tends to function also as a ‘filtering system’, accepting facts that seamlessly fit into the framework of that ideology, while dismissing facts that do not fit.

When an individual—whether a “liberal”, “conservative”, or any other potential ideology—is challenged with facts that conflict with his/her ideology, the tendency is for that individual to experience feelings of anxiety, dread, and frustration. This is because our ideologies function, like a lynch pin, to hold our psychologies together, in order to avoid, as Nyhan puts it, “cognitive dissonance”. In other words, when our lynch pins are disturbed, our psychologies are shaken.

Psychoanalysts explain that, when this cognitive dissonance does occur, the result is to ‘externalize’ the sudden negative feelings outward, in the form of anger or resentment, and then to ‘project’ this anger onto the person that initially presented the set of backfired facts to begin with. (Although, sometimes this anger is ‘introjected’ inward, in the form of self-punishment or self-loathing.)

This non-rational eruption of anger or resentment is what psychoanalysts call “de-sublimation”. And it is at the point of de-sublimation, when the disavowal/backfire mechanism is triggered as a defense against the cognitive dissonance.

Hence, here is what mentally occurs next, in a matter of seconds:

In order to regain psychological equilibrium, the mind disavows the toxic facts that initially clashed with the individuals own ideology, non-rationally deeming the facts to be false—without assessing the validity of the facts.

The final step occurs when the person, who offered the toxic facts, is then non-rationally demonized. The person, here, becomes tainted as a ‘phobic object’ in the mind of the de-sublimated individual. Hence, the other person also becomes perceived to be as toxic as the disavowed facts, themselves.

At this point, ad hominem attacks are often fired at the source of the toxic facts. For example: ‘stupid liberal’ or ‘stupid conservative’, if in a political context. Or, ‘blasphemer’ or ‘heretic’, if in a religious context. At this point, according to psychoanalysis, psychological equilibrium is regained. The status quo of the individual’s ideology is reinforced to guard against future experiences of de-sublimation.

Why Do Different Ideologies Exist?

This all begs the obvious question about the existence of differing ideologies between people. Why do they exist? And how are they constituted differently? George Lakoff has demonstrated in his studies (which are supported strongly by psychoanalysis), that human beings are not born already believing an ideology. Rather people are socialized into an ideology during their childhood formative years. The main agents which prescribe the ideology are the parental authority figures surrounding the child, who rear him, from infantile dependency on the parent-figures, into an independent adult. The parental values of how the child should be an independent and responsible adult, in regards to his relations between his self and others, later informs that child’s ideology as an adult.

Lakoff shows that two dominant parenting types exist, which can determine the child’s adult ideology. Individuals reared under the “Strict Parent” model tend to grow-up as political conservatives, while those raised under a “Nurturing Parent” model tend to become political liberals. His most influential book on these matters, “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think”, was published in 1996.

Of course, peoples’ minds can fundamentally change, along with their ideological values. But short of a concerted effort by an individual to change, through one form of therapy or another, that change is mostly fostered by traumatic or long-endured life experiences.

Yet many minds remain rock solid for life, beliefs included. As psychiatrist Scott Peck sees it, “Only a relative and fortunate few continue until the moment of death exploring the mystery of reality, ever enlarging and refining and redefining their understanding of the world and what is true.”

Thus to answer Nyahan’s question—how can society counter the negative effects of backfire?—it seems only one answer is viable. Society will need to adopt the truths uncovered by cognitive science and psychoanalysis. And society will have to use those truths to inform their overall cultural practices and values. Short of that, Peck’s “fortunate few” will remain the only individuals among us who resist self-delusion.

Stephen Dufrechou is Editor of Opinion and Analysis for News Junkie Post.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Wendell Berry on Work — Politics — Utne Reader @ http://goo.gl/I4R35

Wendell Berry on Work — Politics — Utne Reader

Wendell Berry on Work

wendell-berry-workThis article is printed here courtesy of The Progressive , where it originally appeared as a letter to the editor in response to the article “Less Work, More Life.”

The Progressive, in the September issue, both in Matthew Rothschild’s “Editor’s Note” and in the article by John de Graaf (“Less Work, More Life”), offers “less work” and a 30-hour workweek as needs that are as indisputable as the need to eat.

Though I would support the idea of a 30-hour workweek in some circumstances, I see nothing absolute or indisputable about it. It can be proposed as a universal need only after abandonment of any respect for vocation and the replacement of discourse by slogans.

It is true that the industrialization of virtually all forms of production and service has filled the world with “jobs” that are meaningless, demeaning, and boring—as well as inherently destructive. I don’t think there is a good argument for the existence of such work, and I wish for its elimination, but even its reduction calls for economic changes not yet defined, let alone advocated, by the “left” or the “right.” Neither side, so far as I know, has produced a reliable distinction between good work and bad work. To shorten the “official workweek” while consenting to the continuation of bad work is not much of a solution.

The old and honorable idea of “vocation” is simply that we each are called, by God, or by our gifts, or by our preference, to a kind of good work for which we are particularly fitted. Implicit in this idea is the evidently startling possibility that we might work willingly, and that there is no necessary contradiction between work and happiness or satisfaction.

Only in the absence of any viable idea of vocation or good work can one make the distinction implied in such phrases as “less work, more life” or “work-life balance,” as if one commutes daily from life here to work there.

But aren’t we living even when we are most miserably and harmfully at work?

And isn’t that exactly why we object (when we do object) to bad work?

And if you are called to music or farming or carpentry or healing, if you make your living by your calling, if you use your skills well and to a good purpose and therefore are happy or satisfied in your work, why should you necessarily do less of it?

More important, why should you think of your life as distinct from it?

And why should you not be affronted by some official decree that you should do less of it?

A useful discourse on the subject of work would raise a number of questions that Mr. de Graaf has neglected to ask:

What work are we talking about?

Did you choose your work, or are you doing it under compulsion as the way to earn money?

How much of your intelligence, your affection, your skill, and your pride is employed in your work?

Do you respect the product or the service that is the result of your work?

For whom do you work: a manager, a boss, or yourself?

What are the ecological and social costs of your work?

If such questions are not asked, then we have no way of seeing or proceeding beyond the assumptions of Mr. de Graaf and his work-life experts: that all work is bad work; that all workers are unhappily and even helplessly dependent on employers; that work and life are irreconcilable; and that the only solution to bad work is to shorten the workweek and thus divide the badness among more people.

I don’t think anybody can honorably object to the proposition, in theory, that it is better “to reduce hours rather than lay off workers.” But this raises the likelihood of reduced income and therefore of less “life.” As a remedy for this, Mr. de Graaf can offer only “unemployment benefits,” one of the industrial economy’s more fragile “safety nets.”

And what are people going to do with the “more life” that is understood to be the result of “less work”? Mr. de Graaf says that they “will exercise more, sleep more, garden more, spend more time with friends and family, and drive less.” This happy vision descends from the proposition, popular not so long ago, that in the spare time gained by the purchase of “labor-saving devices,” people would patronize libraries, museums, and symphony orchestras.

But what if the liberated workers drive more?

What if they recreate themselves with off-road vehicles, fast motorboats, fast food, computer games, television, electronic “communication,” and the various genres of pornography?

Well, that’ll be “life,” supposedly, and anything beats work.

Mr. de Graaf makes the further doubtful assumption that work is a static quantity, dependably available, and divisible into dependably sufficient portions. This supposes that one of the purposes of the industrial economy is to provide employment to workers. On the contrary, one of the purposes of this economy has always been to transform independent farmers, shopkeepers, and tradespeople into employees, and then to use the employees as cheaply as possible, and then to replace them as soon as possible with technological substitutes.

So there could be fewer working hours to divide, more workers among whom to divide them, and fewer unemployment benefits to take up the slack.

On the other hand, there is a lot of work needing to be done—ecosystem and watershed restoration, improved transportation networks, healthier and safer food production, soil conservation, etc.—that nobody yet is willing to pay for. Sooner or later, such work will have to be done.

We may end up working longer workdays in order not to “live,” but to survive.

Wendell Berry
Port Royal, Kentucky

Mr. Berry’s letter originally appeared in The Progressive (November 2010) in response to the article “Less Work, More Life.”

Source: The Progressive



Read more: http://www.utne.com/Politics/Wendell-Berry-Work-Life-Balance.aspx#ixzz18z0FfLf9

The Performance Improvement Blog: Does Your Organization Suffer From ADD? by Stephen J. Gill @ http://goo.gl/7oW14

The Performance Improvement Blog: Does Your Organization Suffer From ADD?


Does Your Organization Suffer From ADD?

Organizations, as well as children, can have ADD (attention deficit disorder)? Do your managersConference room imagehave trouble keeping their attention focused on new performance-improvement initiatives? Do they get excited about new management models and new (or reconstituted) management/leadership theories but lack the persistence to follow through on implementation. Many executives, because either they are desperate to achieve performance goals or they are afraid they will miss out on the latest management trend, will flit from one new program to another. Wally Bockaptly describes this phenomenon in reference to a client who worked in an ADD organization.

He worked for a large company for seven years. In that time, the company had at least one management fad per year. They found their cheese, learned about some fish market, discovered their strengths, and tried to master the carrot principle. When they found that they couldn't balance their scorecards, they aspired to develop into Level 5 Leaders. They only got to level 1 before they moved on to something else.

Each “fad” could be helpful to managers in this company, but by not following through on one method and giving it a chance to take hold and improve the management practices of the organization, two detrimental things happen. First, the company wastes time, energy, and money on activities that do not help the organization achieve its goals. Second, the company creates a culture in which employees don’t want to commit themselves to new initiatives because they assume management will move on to something else within a short time. Managers might go through the motions of attending training events, or company-wide meetings, or becoming familiar with a new method. However, if they are not committed to change, they will not support implementation. They will not talk about the new approach with the people they supervise, they will not provide resources for the initiative, they will not make time available for teams to work on related projects, and, worse, they might intentionally sabotage efforts to change anything.

Then the management method gets blamed for a lack of results.

  • “We tried lean six sigma but our quality ratings didn’t improve.”
  • “We gave all of our managers 360 feedback and they still don’t talk to each other.”
  • “We sent everyone to three days of emotional intelligence training and it seemed like things improved for awhile but now it’s back to where we were before.”

Usually the problem is not the method; it’s the way the method is implemented. If managers don’t see how the method will help them achieve important business goals, if managers don’t have clear expectations for learning and success, if managers aren’t being supported by their bosses, if managers don’t have any immediate opportunities to apply the new method, and if managers aren’t held accountable and rewarded for applying the method, then the company can’t expect to reap any significant benefits. Like a diet, it doesn’t matter which one you choose. It could be Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, Zone, or Biggest Loser. You won’t be successful unless your goal is clear, you have support from others, you are persistent, and you get feedback on your progress.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Debt and the Future of the United States, by William A. Sahlman @ http://goo.gl/yuKre

Debt and the Future of the U.S.

From where I sit as an economist, it's still all about the economy and the long-term impact of the problems laid bare by the Great Recession. During the financial crisis, the world came to the apparently shocking realization that debt financing entails risks. Financial institutions, households, and governments all suffered because they had too much leverage.
Though the corporate sector has generally decreased leverage, the same is not true of government, particularly in the U.S. Every company and household here and abroad will ultimately be affected by the unabated and accelerating gap between government revenues and spending.
There is a great deal of confusion in the popular media about the level of the current budget deficit and outstanding debt. To illustrate, most press reports peg the current U.S. deficit at $1.5 trillion, roughly 10% of gross domestic product (GDP). Gross public debt is $14 trillion, or over 95% of GDP. Most observers believe that the government will run a sustained deficit for the next decade that could add over $10 trillion to outstanding federal debt.
But closer inspection of government data reveals that these figures grossly understate both the current deficit and level of debt. Consider, for example, that the estimated net present value of obligations under the Social Security system is approximately $8 trillion. As the ratio of retired people receiving benefits to working people paying into the system increases, there will be an ever-increasing deficit confronting the government.
Even more problematic is that the Medicare system has a vested unfunded net liability of approximately $38 trillion. Once again, the inexorable shift in demographics, combined with high and increasing healthcare costs, will result in a widening gap between tax intake and payment outflow for Medicare.
On another front, the government is also on the hook for insuring bank deposits (including money market funds at the peak of the crisis), pension liabilities, and a wide range of other loans and liabilities. The total value of explicit loan guarantees is well over $10 trillion.
In total, the estimated liabilities of the federal government are in the range of $70 trillion, over five times annual GDP. By implication, the annual deficit is equal to the reported deficit plus the change in the vested, unfunded liabilities incurred in that year (e.g., the change in the Medicare liability) plus the implicit net cost of the annual guarantee for various liabilities. Therefore, the current deficit is more like $4.5 trillion than $1.5 trillion, while the total net revenue for the government was only $2.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. Washington, we have a problem.
This kind of leverage is unsustainable. Though some will argue that higher taxes are required, the reality is that the total amount collected each year in personal and corporate taxes (excluding social security and Medicare taxes) is only a bit over $1 trillion. Spending must be cut.
The recent report of The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform suggested a number of options for addressing the challenges posed by excessive government leverage. This report, and several others prepared by other objective bodies, must become part of our collective dialogue about the future of the country. Every business leader and every citizen has a responsibility to understand and help address these issues. Otherwise, as some scenarios in Europe have already made clear, the U.S. will ultimately suffer the same fate as all countries that spend way beyond their means.
William A. Sahlman is the Dimitri V. D'Arbeloff-MBA Class of 1955 Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School.