Sunday, May 17, 2020

R322-S106-TED TALKS-Stacey Abrams: 3 questions to ask yourself about everything you do

The following information is used for educational purposes only.

TEDWomen 2018 | November 2018

Stacey Abrams: 3 questions to ask yourself about everything you do


How you respond after setbacks is what defines your character. Stacey Abrams was the first black woman in the history of the United States to be nominated by a major party for governor -- she lost that hotly contested race, but as she says: the only choice is to move forward. In an electrifying talk, she shares the lessons she learned from her campaign for governor of Georgia, some advice on how to change the world -- and a few hints at her next steps. "Be aggressive about your ambition," Abrams says.


ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Stacey Abrams · Politician
Former Georgia House Democratic Leader Stacey Abrams made history in 2018 when she earned the Democratic nomination for governor of Georgia.





Transcript:

When I was in high school at the age of 17 -- I graduated from high school in Decatur, Georgia, as valedictorian of my high school -- I was very proud of myself. I was from a low-income community, I had grown up in Mississippi, we'd moved from Mississippi to Georgia so my parents could pursue their degrees as United Methodist ministers. We were poor, but they didn't think we were poor enough, so they were going for permanent poverty.
And so, while they studied at Emory, I studied at Avondale, and I became valedictorian. Well, one of the joys of being valedictorian in the state of Georgia is that you get invited to meet the governor of Georgia. I was mildly interested in meeting him. It was kind of cool. I was more intrigued by the fact that he lived in a mansion, because I watched a lot of "General Hospital" and "Dynasty" as a child.

And so I got up that morning, ready to go to visit the governor. My mom and my dad, who were also invited, got up, and we went outside. But we didn't get in our car. And in the south, a car is a necessary thing. We don't have a lot of public transit, there aren't a lot of options. But if you're lucky enough to live in a community where you don't have a car, the only option is public transit. And that's what we had to take. And so we got on the bus. And we took the bus from Decatur all the way to Buckhead, where the Governor's Mansion sat on this really beautiful acreage of land, with these long black gates that ran the length of the property.

We get to the Governor's Mansion, we pull the little lever that lets them know this is our stop, we get off the bus, my mom, my dad and I, we walk across the street. We walk up the driveway, because there are cars coming up, cars bringing in students from all across the state of Georgia. So we're walking along the side. And as we walk single file along the side, my mom and dad sandwiching me to make sure I don't get hit by one of the cars bringing in the other valedictorians, we approach the guard gate.

When we get to the guard gate, the guard comes out. He looks at me, and he looks at my parents, and he says, "You don't belong here, this is a private event." My dad says, "No, this is my daughter, Stacey. She's one of the valedictorians." But the guard doesn't look at the checklist that's in his hands. He doesn't ask my mom for the invitation that's at the bottom of her very voluminous purse. Instead, he looks over our shoulder at the bus, because in his mind, the bus is telling him a story about who should be there. And the fact that we were too poor to have our own car -- that was a story he told himself. And he may have seen something in my skin color, he may have seen something in my attire; I don't know what went through his mind. But his conclusion was to look at me again, and with a look of disdain, say, "I told you, this is a private event.

 You don't belong here." Now, my parents were studying to become United Methodist ministers, but they were not pastors yet.
And so they proceeded to engage this gentleman in a very robust discussion of his decision-making skills.
My father may have mentioned that he was going to spend eternity in a very fiery place if he didn't find my name on that checklist. And indeed, the man checks the checklist eventually, and he found my name, and he let us inside. But I don't remember meeting the governor of Georgia. I don't recall meeting my fellow valedictorians from 180 school districts. The only clear memory I have of that day was a man standing in front of the most powerful place in Georgia, looking at me and telling me I don't belong.
And so I decided, 20-some-odd years later, to be the person who got to open the gates.

Unfortunately, you may have read the rest of the story. It didn't quite work out that way. And now I'm tasked with figuring out: How do I move forward? Because, you see, I didn't just want to open the gates for young black women who had been underestimated and told they don't belong. I wanted to open those gates for Latinas and for Asian Americans. I wanted to open those gates for the undocumented and the documented. I wanted to open those gates as an ally of the LGBTQ community. I wanted to open those gates for the families that have to call themselves the victims of gun violence. I wanted to open those gates wide for everyone in Georgia, because that is our state, and this is our nation, and we all belong here.

But what I recognized is that the first try wasn't enough. And my question became: How do I move forward? How do I get beyond the bitterness and the sadness and the lethargy and watching an inordinate amount of television as I eat ice cream?
What do I do next? And I'm going to do what I've always done. I'm going to move forward, because going backwards isn't an option and standing still is not enough.

You see, I began my race for governor by analyzing who I was and what I wanted to be. And there are three questions I ask myself about everything I do, whether it's running for office or starting a business; when I decided to start the New Georgia Project to register people to vote; or when I started the latest action, Fair Fight Georgia. No matter what I do, I ask myself three questions: What do I want? Why do I want it? And how do I get it? And in this case, I know what I want. I want change. That is what I want. But the question is: What change do I want to see?

And I know that the questions I have to ask myself are: One, am I honest about the scope of my ambition? Because it's easy to figure out that once you didn't get what you wanted, then maybe you should have set your sights a little lower, but I'm here to tell you to be aggressive about your ambition. Do not allow setbacks to set you back.

Number two, let yourself understand your mistakes. But also understand their mistakes, because, as women in particular, we're taught that if something doesn't work out, it's probably our fault. And usually, there is something we could do better, but we've been told not to investigate too much what the other side could have done. And this isn't partisan -- it's people. We're too often told that our mistakes are ours alone, but victory is a shared benefit. And so what I tell you to do is understand your mistakes, but understand the mistakes of others. And be clearheaded about it. And be honest with yourself and honest with those who support you.

But once you know what you want, understand why you want it. And even though it feels good, revenge is not a good reason.
Instead, make sure you want it because there's something not that you should do, but something you must do. It has to be something that doesn't allow you to sleep at night unless you're dreaming about it; something that wakes you up in the morning and gets you excited about it; or something that makes you so angry, you know you have to do something about it. But know why you're doing it. And know why it must be done.

You've listened to women from across this world talk about why things have to happen. But figure out what the "why" is for you, because jumping from the "what" to the "do" is meaningless if you don't know why. Because when it gets hard, when it gets tough, when your friends walk away from you, when your supporters forget you, when you don't win your first race -- if you don't know why, you can't try again.
So, first know what you want. Second, know why you want it, but third, know how you're going to get it done. I faced a few obstacles in this race.

Just a few. But in the pursuit, I became the first black woman to ever become the nominee for governor in the history of the United States of America for a major party.
But more importantly, in this process, we turned out 1.2 million African American voters in Georgia. That is more voters than voted on the Democratic side of the ticket in 2014.
Our campaign tripled the number of Latinos who believed their voices mattered in the state of Georgia. We tripled the number of Asian Americans who stood up and said, "This is our state, too." Those are successes that tell me how I can get it done. But they also let me understand the obstacles aren't insurmountable. They're just a little high.

But I also understand that there are three things that always hold us hostage. The first is finances. Now, you may have heard, I'm in a little bit of debt. If you didn't hear about it, you did not go outside.
And finances are something that holds us back so often, our dreams are bounded by how much we have in resources. But we hear again and again the stories of those who overcome those resource challenges. But you can't overcome something you don't talk about. And that's why I didn't allow them to debt-shame me in my campaign. I didn't allow anyone to tell me that my lack of opportunity was a reason to disqualify me from running. And believe me, people tried to tell me I shouldn't run. Friends told me not to run. Allies told me not to run. "USA Today" mentioned maybe I shouldn't run.

But no matter who it was, I understood that finances are often a reason we don't let ourselves dream. I can't say that you will always overcome those obstacles, but I will tell you, you will be damned if you do not try.
The second is fear. And fear is real. It is paralyzing. It is terrifying. But it can also be energizing, because once you know what you're afraid of, you can figure out how to get around it.
And the third is fatigue. Sometimes you just get tired of trying. You get tired of reading about processes and politics and the things that stop you from getting where you want to be. Sometimes, fatigue means that we accept position instead of power. We let someone give us a title as a consolation prize, rather than realizing we know what we want and we're going to get it, even if we're tired. That's why God created naps.

But we also learn in those moments that fatigue is an opportunity to evaluate how much we want it. Because if you are beaten down, if you have worked as hard as you can, if you have done everything you said you should, and it still doesn't work out, fatigue can sap you of your energy. But that's why you go back to the "why" of it.
Because I know we have to have women who speak for the voiceless. I know we have to have people of good conscience who stand up against oppression. I know we have to have people who understand that social justice belongs to us all. And that wakes me up every morning, and that makes me fight even harder. Because I am moving forward, knowing what is in my past. I know the obstacles they have for me. I know what they're going to do, and I'm fairly certain they're energizing and creating new obstacles now. But they've got four years to figure it out. Maybe two.

But here's my point: I know what I want, and that is justice. I know why I want it, because poverty is immoral, and it is a stain on our nation. And I know how I'm going to get it: by moving forward every single day. Thank you so much.

Source:www.ted.com

Thursday, May 14, 2020

Debate: ¿Cómo será la nueva normalidad?, por Marita Carballo

The following information is used for educational purposes only.


Debate

¿Cómo será la nueva normalidad?




Ilustración: Daniel Roldán


Marita Carballo


13/05/2020

Es fundamental conocer los valores culturales y sus cambios en el tiempo porque las creencias juegan un rol central en el desarrollo político, social y económico.

Estudios de prestigiosos académicos del World Values Survey como Ronald Inglehart señalan que en la segunda mitad del siglo XX una gran parte de la generación de post guerra creció dando por sentada la supervivencia. Esta seguridad física y económica con eficientes estados de bienestar condujo a cambios culturales intergeneracionales generalizados. con visiones del mundo mutando de valores materialistas a post materialistas.

Así surgieron movimientos con alto apoyo a la paz, la protección del medio ambiente, los derechos humanos, la democratización y la igualdad de género, y se introdujeron con fuerza cuestiones no económicas en la agenda, eclipsando las clásicas de derecha e izquierda.

Pero esta aparición de cambios marcados provocó una reacción entre grupos que se vieron amenazados por la erosión de sus creencias y en los últimos años detectamos un backlash (reacción) cultural hacia valores más conservadores y de subsistencia.

Los mismos se vieron reforzados por una creciente desigualdad en la distribución de la riqueza que se concentró marcadamente en un porcentaje muy chico de personas y donde los sectores bajos y medio bajos experimentaron un deterioro en su posición relativa.

Altos niveles de inseguridad existencial conducen al autoritarismo, el nacionalismo, la xenofobia y el rechazo de nuevas normas culturales. Las personas que resisten y están en contra de este cambio cultural hacia valores que enfatizan la autoexpresión, individualismo y post materialismo tienden a apoyar líderes y partidos que defienden valores culturales que suelen poner el acento en llamamientos nacionalistas. Buscan líderes carismáticos y desconfían del establishment. Esta situación junto con la creciente desigualdad ha incrementado el apoyo a candidatos políticos como Marine Le Pen en Francia, Donald Trump en Estados Unidos, Salvini en Italia o Bolsonaro en Brasil.

A pesar del deseo de libertad y autonomía, cuando la supervivencia está en riesgo, esas aspiraciones se pueden ver subordinadas a la subsistencia y necesidad de orden y a la inversa cuando se dan las condiciones de seguridad estas conducen a una mayor tolerancia de los grupos externos, la apertura a nuevas ideas y normas sociales más igualitarias.

Nos encontramos en una situación de difícil previsibilidad hacia futuro y es importante estar abiertos y no ajustarnos a paradigmas que limiten nuestra visión y comprensión de los procesos sociales para poder orientar la toma de decisiones.

Sabemos que los valores morales de las personas se forman hasta alrededor de los 25años y estos tienden a ser bastante estables durante la vida. En circunstancias normales los cambios suelen ocurrir a través del reemplazo generacional y es un proceso lento. Pero estamos frente a la mayor crisis a escala mundial desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial y cabe preguntarnos cómo se comportan los valores de la gente en estos tiempos.

La pregunta es ¿cambiarán los valores a partir de la pandemia? Y si fuera así, ¿en qué dirección y cuán duraderos serán estos cambios? ¿O se volverá a lo que llamamos normalidad pre-coronavirus? No son respuestas fáciles y no hay estudios empíricos de epidemias anteriores que nos sirvan de referencia.

Investigaciones que realizamos en Gallup International y Voices sobre la pandemia indican que, a nivel global, las opiniones están divididas con 46% que piensa que habrá un cambio importante, 41% que el mundo volverá ser como era antes de la crisis y 13% que no sabe. En Argentina los resultados están en línea con el pensamiento global y en países como Alemania, Austria y Suiza la mayoría piensa que se volverá a una situación similar a la pre pandemia.

Al indagar en mayor profundidad en nuestro país acerca de los posibles cambios, vemos que no se prevén modificaciones sustantivas en la socialización. Se considera que podrán demorar un poco las reuniones sociales pero que volverán. La socialización es lo que más se extraña. Los vínculos a través de la tecnología ayudan, pero no reemplazan la relación cara a cara.

Quedaran de la pandemia las experiencias del teletrabajo y los avances en habilidades tecnológicas a los que se vio forzada gran parte de la población. Habrá mayor desarrollo del trabajo a distancia y del e-commerce.

También vinieron para quedarse cuidados preventivos de la salud como lavado frecuente de manos, no tocarse la cara, no estornudar sobre el otro, etc. Hay una revalorización de todo lo que implica el sector salud y reclamo de mayor inversión e investigación científica. Se fortalecerá en la agenda el problema de la desigualdad social que se vio muy expuesta en sus carencias y la falta de infraestructura para responder a necesidades básicas.

También, la enorme fragilidad de las pymes y de nuestra economía. Altísima preocupación, incertidumbre y angustia por la economía personal, familiar y del país que trasciende la coyuntura. Se visualiza un escenario de muy alto desempleo, cierre de empresas, quiebras, recesión. La planificación a futuro se ve dificultada por los problemas económicos y hay mucho miedo a quedar fuera del sistema.

El futuro es incierto y solo el tiempo y las nuevas investigaciones nos permitirán ver y explicar mejor. Pero hoy mi lectura es que la gente quiere volver a su vida normal y que si bien habrá cambios no se prevén sustantivos en la forma de vida. Hay nuevos aprendizajes, pero sin cambios profundos de valores y mucho temor por las urgencias económicas que se ven venir. Esperemos que en la esfera política tanto nacional como globalmente el miedo y la inseguridad no nos coarten la libertad y la consolidación de la democracia.

Marita Carballo es socióloga. Presidente de Voices! – Vicepresidente Comité Científico de la Encuesta Mundial de Valores



Fuente:https://www.clarin.com/opinion/-nueva-normalidad-_0_7Q9gaPGWh.html

Sunday, May 10, 2020

TED-Ed-Elizabeth Waters:The left brain vs right brain myth

The following information is used for educational purposes only.


TED-Ed | July 2017


Elizabeth Waters:The left brain vs right brain myth


The human brain is visibly split into a left and right side. This structure has inspired one of the most pervasive ideas about the brain: that the left side controls logic and the right side controls creativity. And yet, this is a myth, unsupported by scientific evidence. So how did this idea come about, and what does it get wrong? Elizabeth Waters looks into this long held misconception. [Directed by Daniel Gray, narrated by Addison Anderson].


MEET THE EDUCATOR
Elizabeth Waters · Educator
Elizabeth Waters is a neuroscientist and educator working to enrich and expand science education.




Transcript:

Behold the human brain, it's lumpy landscape visibly split into a left and right side. This structure has inspired one of the most pervasive ideas about the brain, that the left side controls logic and the right, creativity. And yet, this is a myth unsupported by scientific evidence. So how did this misleading idea come about, and what does it get wrong? 

It's true that the brain has a right and a left side. This is most apparent with the outer layer, or the cortex. Internal regions, like the striatum, hypothalamus, thalamus, and brain stem appear to be made from continuous tissue, but in fact, they're also organized with left and right sides. The left and the right sides of the brain do control different body functions, such as movement and sight.

 The brain's right side controls the motion of the left arm and leg and vice versa. The visual system is even more complex. Each eye has a left and right visual field. Both left visual fields are sent to the right side of the brain, and both right fields are sent to the left side. So the brain uses both sides to make a complete image of the world. Scientists don't know for sure why we have that crossing over. 

One theory is it began soon after animals developed more complex nervous systems because it gave the survival advantage of quicker reflexes. If an animal sees a predator coming from its left side, it's best off escaping to the right. So we can say that vision and movement control are two systems that rely on this left-right structure, but problems arise when we over-extend that idea to logic and creativity. 

This misconception began in the mid-1800s when two neurologists, Broca and Wernicke, examined patients who had problems communicating due to injuries. The researchers found damage to the patients' left temporal lobes, so they suggested that language is controlled by the left side of the brain. That captured the popular imagination. Author Robert Louis Stevenson then introduced the idea of a logical left hemisphere competing with an emotional right hemisphere represented by his characters Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. 

But this idea didn't hold up when doctors and scientists examined patients who were missing a hemisphere or had their two hemispheres separated. These patients showed a complete range of behaviors, both logical and creative. Later research showed that one side of the brain is more active than the other for some functions. Language is more localized to the left and attention to the right. So one side of the brain may do more work, but this varies by system rather than by person. 

There isn't any evidence to suggest that individuals have dominant sides of the brain, or to support the idea of a left-right split between logic and creativity. Some people may be particularly logical or creative, but that has nothing to do with the sides of their brains. And even the idea of logic and creativity being at odds with each other doesn't hold up well. Solving complex math problems requires inspired creativity and many vibrant works of art have intricate logical frameworks. Almost every feat of creativity and logic carries the mark of the whole brain functioning as one.

Source:www.ted.com

R322-S106-TED ED-Brandon Rodriguez:The power of creative constraints

The following information is used for educational purposes only.


TED-Ed | June 2017


Brandon Rodriguez:The power of creative constraints


Imagine you were asked to invent something new. It could be whatever you want, made from anything you choose, in any shape or size. That kind of creative freedom sounds so liberating, doesn't it? Or ... does it? if you're like most people you'd probably be paralyzed by this task. Why? Brandon Rodriguez explains how creative constraints actually help drive discovery and innovation. [Directed by Bálint Farkas Gelley, narrated by Addison Anderson].


MEET THE EDUCATOR

Brandon Rodriguez · JPL Education Specialist
Brandon Rodriguez is the Educator Professional Development Specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory as part of a collaboration with Texas State University. Before working at JPL, he taught high school chemistry and physics. Prior to teaching, he spent seven years in the private sector doing research and development for green alternatives to petrochemical products. Brandon received his bachelors from Vanderbilt University and his Ph.D. in chemistry from Northwestern University. He holds over a dozen publications and patents, and has presented at numerous conferences in both science and education in the United States and internationally.






Transcript:


Imagine you're asked to invent something new. It could be whatever you want made from anything you choose in any shape or size. That kind of creative freedom sounds so liberating, doesn't it? Or does it? If you're like most people, you'd probably be paralyzed by this task. Without more guidance, where would you even begin? 

As it turns out, boundless freedom isn't always helpful. In reality, any project is restricted by many factors, such as the cost, what materials you have at your disposal, and unbreakable laws of physics. These factors are called creative constraints, and they're the requirements and limitations we have to address in order to accomplish a goal. Creative constraints apply across professions, to architects and artists, writers, engineers, and scientists.

 In many fields, constraints play a special role as drivers of discovery and invention. During the scientific process in particular, constraints are an essential part of experimental design. For instance, a scientist studying a new virus would consider, "How can I use the tools and techniques at hand to create an experiment that tells me how this virus infects the body's cells? And what are the limits of my knowledge that prevent me from understanding this new viral pathway?" In engineering, constraints have us apply our scientific discoveries to invent something new and useful.

 Take, for example, the landers Viking 1 and 2, which relied on thrusters to arrive safely on the surface of Mars. The problem? Those thrusters left foreign chemicals on the ground, contaminating soil samples. So a new constraint was introduced. How can we land a probe on Mars without introducing chemicals from Earth? The next Pathfinder mission used an airbag system to allow the rover to bounce and roll to a halt without burning contaminating fuel. Years later, we wanted to send a much larger rover: Curiosity. However, it was too large for the airbag design, so another constraint was defined. 

How can we land a large rover while still keeping rocket fuel away from the Martian soil? In response, engineers had a wild idea. They designed a skycrane. Similar to the claw machine at toy stores, it would lower the rover from high above the surface. With each invention, the engineers demonstrated an essential habit of scientific thinking - that solutions must recognize the limitations of current technology in order to advance it. Sometimes this progress is iterative, as in, "How can I make a better parachute to land my rover?" And sometimes, it's innovative, like how to reach our goal when the best possible parachute isn't going to work. 

In both cases, the constraints guide decision-making to ensure we reach each objective. Here's another Mars problem yet to be solved. Say we want to send astronauts who will need water. They'd rely on a filtration system that keeps the water very clean and enables 100% recovery. Those are some pretty tough constraints, and we may not have the technology for it now. But in the process of trying to meet these objectives, we might discover other applications of any inventions that result. Building an innovative water filtration system could provide a solution for farmers working in drought-stricken regions, or a way to clean municipal water in polluted cities. In fact, many scientific advances have occurred when serendipitous failures in one field address the constraints of another. 

When scientist Alexander Fleming mistakenly contaminated a Petri dish in the lab, it led to the discovery of the first antibiotic, penicillin. The same is true of synthetic dye, plastic, and gunpowder. All were created mistakenly, but went on to address the constraints of other problems. Understanding constraints guides scientific progress, and what's true in science is also true in many other fields. Constraints aren't the boundaries of creativity, but the foundation of it.

Source: www.ted.com

Thursday, May 7, 2020

R322-S106-MOTIVATING PEOPLE-How to Keep Your Team Motivated, Remotely,by Lindsay McGregor and Neel Doshi

The following information is used for educational purposes only.


MOTIVATING PEOPLE

How to Keep Your Team Motivated, Remotely

by Lindsay McGregor and Neel Doshi

April 09, 2020



Photoboyko/Getty Images


Many leaders have crossed the first hurdles of moving their teams remote: ensuring colleagues have set up their tech tools, defined their processes, and permanently logged into their video conference accounts.

But this is just the first step towards creating an effective work environment for remote employees. The next critical question we must ask is: How do you motivate people who work from home?

This question is important now because, during crises such as Covid-19, people often tend to focus more on tactical work — answering the right number of tickets, or following the approved project plan — rather than adapting to solve the bigger, newer problems the business may be facing.

But some teams rise above the rest in times of turmoil, regardless of the challenges. They win market share. They earn life-long customer love. They keep their productivity high, or higher. In other words, they adapt. Though the academic research on remote productivity is mixed, with some saying it declines while others promise it increases, our research suggests that your success will depend on how you do it.

First, it’s important to note that right now, working from home is likely to reduce motivation.

Between 2010 and 2015, we surveyed more than 20,000 workers around the world, analyzed more than 50 major companies, and conducted scores of experiments to figure out what motivates people, including how much working from home plays into the equation.

When we measured the total motivation of people who worked from home versus the office, we found that working from home was less motivating. Even worse, when people had no choice in where they worked, the differences were enormous. Total motivation dropped 17 points, the equivalent of moving from one of the best to one of the most miserable cultures in their industries.










We identified three negative motivators that often lead to reduced work performance. These have likely spiked in light of the coronavirus pandemic. Emotional pressure and economic pressure are soaring as people worry about losing their jobs, paying their rent, and protecting their health. The barrage of news, questions on how to safely get groceries, and fears for relatives are deeply distressing. Inertia for work is bound to increase as people wonder if there’s a point in even trying.

We also identified three positive motivators that often lead to increased work performance. We believe these are in danger of disappearing in easy-to-miss ways during the current situation. Play, the motive that most boosts performance, could decrease if it continues to becomes harder for people to get things done from home. For example, people may miss the joy of problem-solving with a colleague, or the ease of making a decision when everyone is in one room. Purpose could also decline with team’s decreasing visibility into their impact on clients or colleagues, especially if no one is there to remind them. Lastly, potential could decline if people can’t gain access to colleagues that teach and develop them.

If business leaders don’t move to change this, shifts in people’s motivation will ultimately lead to a decline in adaptability, quality, and creativity just at the time when the post-cornavirus recovery will require productivity growth.

What Can Business Leaders Do?

When a colleague of ours was diagnosed with cancer, our first instinct was to reduce her work so she could focus on her illness. To be sure, there were times she needed 100% rest. But we quickly realized that we had taken away a major source of her play and purpose. Her work was a much needed break from the anxiety-inducing news she received each day.

This was also true for the firms we worked with during the financial crisis. We found that analysts trying to shore up the markets had the highest motivation levels of their careers during 18-hour work days. Military veterans we interviewed talked about their highest-stakes days in the same way. For the same reasons today, you see that rather than sit at home, many citizens are organizing volunteer bike courier clubs. Fitness instructors are leading classes from their rooftops or streaming them for free online. Academics are running virtual classrooms and workshops with their students.

It’s important for leaders to follow suit and remember that work can deliver a much needed boost to their teams, even when there’s little choice involved in their work-from-home situation.

The key is resisting the temptation to make work tactical only through strict processes, rules, and procedures. While some degree of boundaries and guidelines help people move quickly, too many create a vicious spiral of demotivation. In such cases, people tend to stop problem-solving and thinking creatively, and instead, do the bare minimum.

If you want your teams to be engaged in their work, you have to make their work engaging.

The most powerful way to do this is to give people the opportunity to experiment and solve problems that really matter. These problems won’t be the same for every team or organization. They may not even be easy to identify at first. Your employees will need your help to do this. Ask them: Where can we deliver amazing service to our customers? What’s broken that our team can fix? What will drive growth even in a time of fear? Why are these problems critical, valuable, and interesting?

Today, we’re collaborating with teams across the globe that are seizing this way of working. A pharmaceutical company’s clinical trials team is experimenting with ways they can help hospitals prioritize trials and maintain safety during this crisis. Teams across the tech unicorn, Flexport, are generating ideas on how to ship critical goods around the world, keep their clients’ supply chains running, and share tips to keep their suppliers in business. An insurance company is testing ways to prioritize their skyrocketing internal chat volumes and process claims in timely ways. In the teams we work with, we’ve seen productivity remain high, and in some cases, improve.

What has made them so successful is that they are not relying solely on giant new programs or approaches that need CEO approval. They are simply finding ways to make sure every single person on their teams feels like they have a challenge that they can help solve. In your own cases, this challenge can range from something as small as how to better greet customers or accommodate new schedules to something as big as moving your previously in-person business online.

Taking This Back to Your Teams

This all may sound great in theory, but if you’re wondering how to start, you’re not alone. Few organizations have been taught how to identify when and where it is OK to experiment with new ways of working — despite the fact that experimentation results in a 45-point increase in employee motivation.









Given today’s challenges with Covid-19, there’s a simple set of recommendations we give to teams who are working remotely.

First, what you measure is the single strongest signal to your people of what you care about. If you want to show them that you care about their motivation, you can measure it using our online tool or using your own preferred survey tool. Then, have a discussion with them about what might be driving their motivation up or down, and what would be helpful to maximize their motivation and experimentation in the weeks to come.

You might ask questions like: How is the current situation affecting you at the moment? What tips do people have for how to motivate yourself and find play and purpose in the current environment? This is your time to listen and create a safe environment in which everyone can talk.

Second, make sure your weekly routines are not focused only on the tactical work – the concrete plans you need to execute, like the tickets you need to answer, or boxes you need to check. Half of your week should also be focused on adaptive performance, where there is no plan to follow, but instead, experimentation and problem solving.

Generally, we recommend a simple rhythm for remote teams.

Monday: Hold a performance cycle meeting for the team that covers the following.

1-What impact did we have last week and what did we learn?

2-What commitments do we have this week? Who is on point for each?

3-How can we help each other with this week’s commitments?

4-What are the areas where we should experiment to improve performance this week?

5-What experiments will we run, and who is on point for each?

Tuesday-Thursday: Have at least one individual meeting with each of your team members. To help motivate your employees, focus on helping them tackle challenges that are a slight stretch. You can also coordinate small group meetings in which employees can collaborate on the week’s experiments and tackle problems together.

Friday: Focus on reflection. Showcase and gather input on the experiments of the week. This might include presentations from project groups during which team members share metrics and insights. It’s also important to check in on each other’s motivation and progress. As the leader, set the example by asking people how they are feeling: Where did they struggle with their motivation, and where did they thrive?

We know that this approach works because we used it during the financial crisis. When most financial services teams were doubling down on rules and processes, we helped thousands of people working in mortgage and home equity shops identify the problems they could solve, innovate, and adapt. Their motivation skyrocketed, and they outperformed the status quo by 200%, finding creative win-win solutions for the financial institutions they worked at and the customers who were in danger of losing their homes.

As we saw in the 2008, it is possible for teams to experiment and adapt. We also saw that it is possible for teams to freeze under pressure and recede. Make it your mission to achieve the former and achieve greater levels of growth and productivity as a remote team than as an in-person team. This is a challenge that can keep you energized and experimenting long after this crisis is behind us.


Lindsay McGregor is the co-author of the New York Times Bestseller, Primed to Perform, and the co-founder and CEO of Vega Factor, a technology and consulting firm dedicated to ending low-performing cultures. Previously, Lindsay was a consultant at McKinsey & Company, focused on large scale transformations. Lindsay earned her bachelors from Princeton University, and her MBA from Harvard University.

Neel Doshi is the co-author of the New York Times Bestseller, Primed to Perform, and the co-founder of Vega Factor. Previously, Neel was a Partner at McKinsey & Company, and the CTO of Genesant Technologies and Technology Director of Finance.com. Neel earned his bachelors in engineering from MIT, and his MBA from the Wharton School.



Source:https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-keep-your-team-motivated-remotely?

R322-S106-CRISIS MANAGEMENT-What Good Leadership Looks Like During This Pandemic, by Michaela J. Kerrissey and Amy C. Edmondson

The following information is used for educational purposes only.



CRISIS MANAGEMENT

What Good Leadership Looks Like During This Pandemic

by Michaela J. Kerrissey and Amy C. Edmondson

April 13, 2020



Left: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images; Right: Jun Sato/Getty Images


The speed and scope of the coronavirus crisis poses extraordinary challenges for leaders in today’s vital institutions. It is easy to understand why so many have missed opportunities for decisive action and honest communication. But it is a mistake to think that failures of leadership are all we can expect in these grim times.

Consider Adam Silver, the commissioner of the National Basketball Association (NBA), who — way back on March 11 — took the then-surprising step of suspending the professional basketball league for the season. Silver’s decision was one of the earliest high-profile responses to the virus outside China. He delivered it at a time of great uncertainty; coincidentally, March 11 was the day that the World Health Organization formally designated the coronavirus a pandemic.

When the situation is uncertain, human instinct and basic management training can cause leaders — out of fear of taking the wrong steps and unnecessarily making people anxious — to delay action and to downplay the threat until the situation becomes clearer. But behaving in this manner means failing the coronavirus leadership test, because by the time the dimensions of the threat are clear, you’re badly behind in trying to control the crisis. Passing that test requires leaders to act in an urgent, honest, and iterative fashion, recognizing that mistakes are inevitable and correcting course — not assigning blame — is the way to deal with them when they occur.

In a moment of tremendous ambiguity, Silver’s decisive action — well before state governments began restricting public gatherings in the United States — set off a chain of events that almost certainly altered the course of the virus. Over a million fans would now avoid potential exposure at games. Moreover, the decision had a powerful ripple effect: The suspension of the NCAA’s historic “March Madness” college tournament; the National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Baseball (MLB), and other sports leagues halting their own operations; and the rescheduling of the Boston Marathon.

That this action happened in the sports arena may be material. Here was the NBA, an organization with more than $8 billion in 2019 revenue, known for physical prowess and competitiveness, not excess caution, acting with what appeared at the time to be great caution and reserve.

It got people thinking.

But could a politician ever show similar courage in getting out ahead of the virus before its impact was widely apparent? In fact, that is exactly what happened in New Zealand. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s response to the pandemic back on March 21 was bold and engendered public support. That day, Ardern delivered an eight-minute televised statement to the nation in which she announced a four-level Covid-19 alert system. Modeled on fire risk systems already in use in New Zealand, this familiar approach set clear guidelines for how the government would step up its response — and what would be asked of citizens as infection rates grew.

The prime minister’s announcement, when New Zealand had only 52 confirmed cases, set the alert level at two, restricting some travel and urging people to limit contact. But when cases grew to 205 four days later, the alert system was raised to level four, triggering a nationwide lockdown. While her political peers — heads of state around the world — worried about their ability to maintain public support for sweeping restrictions, Ardern’s actions showed that honesty and caring yield support. A national poll put her government at over 80% public approval as of March 27. And, although uncertainty remains high, as of April 7 the number of new cases in New Zealand had fallen for two consecutive days. The country reported only 54 cases on April 6 and only one Covid-19 death since the pandemic started, leading to the Washington Post headline: “New Zealand isn’t just Flattening the Curve. It’s Squashing it.”

Importantly, Ardern’s explicit step system meant that people knew in advance that escalation was coming. They knew what would be required of them — and they accepted the challenge.

How a message is delivered matters. Ardern’s communication was clear, honest, and compassionate: It acknowledged the daily sacrifices to come and inspired people to forge ahead in bearing them together. Ardern closed her March 21 address by thanking New Zealanders for all they were about to do. And her powerful parting words were soon picked up around the globe as people looked for direction in the fog: “Please be strong, be kind, and unite against Covid-19.”

What Ardern and Silver got right in March, before the situation was clear to much of the public, reveals a great deal about what good leadership looks like during this pandemic. Understanding what’s required of leaders in this moment starts with appreciation for the type of problem this pandemic presented in its initial phases. When warning signs are fuzzy and potential harm could be large, leaders confront what management scholars call an ambiguous threat. Given the human desire to hope a threat is small, we are drawn to act as if that is factually the case. Fiascos ranging from NASA’s Columbia Shuttle disaster in 2003 to the 2008 financial system collapse have brought into sharp relief the unique challenge that ambiguous threats pose to leaders: cognitive biases, dysfunctional group dynamics, and organizational pressures push them toward discounting the risk and delaying action, often to catastrophic ends.

It takes a unique kind of leadership to push against the natural human tendency to downplay and delay. Far too many leaders instead try to send upbeat messages assuring all is well — which, in the current tragedy, has unfortunately led to unnecessary lost life at a scale that may never be accurately counted. But this is by no means the only path for leaders to take. Building on the cases of Silver and Ardern, we distill four lessons for leaders in a novel crisis.

1. Act with urgency.

A well-documented and pernicious problem with any ambiguous threat is the (understandable) tendency to wait for more information and clarity. The risks of delaying decision-making are often invisible. But in a crisis, wasting vital time in the vain hope that greater clarity will prove no action is needed is dangerous — particularly in the face of a pandemic with an exponential growth rate, when each additional day of delay contributes even greater devastation than the last. Against the natural tendency toward delay, acting with urgency means leaders jump into the fray without all the information they would dearly like. Both Ardern and Silver acted early, well before others in similar circumstances and well before the future was clear. It was what Ardern publicly described as an explicit choice to “go hard and go early.”

2. Communicate with transparency.

Communicating bad news is a thankless task. Leaders who get out ahead risk demoralizing employees, customers, or citizens, threatening their popularity. It takes wisdom and some courage to understand that communicating with transparency is a vital antidote to this risk. As Ardern stated in her early national address:

I understand that all of this rapid change creates anxiety and uncertainty. Especially when it means changing how we live. That’s why today I am going to set out for you as clearly as possible, what you can expect as we continue to fight the virus together.

Since that announcement, Ardern has delivered regular public addresses, including some in a sweatshirt recorded obviously from home. Silver similarly sent a barrage of memos throughout the NBA organization as his decision-making process unfolded. As reported on ESPN, 16 (yes, 16!) “Hiatus Memos” were delivered to the teams as of March 19.

Communicating with transparency means providing honest and accurate descriptions of reality — being as clear as humanly possible about what you know, what you anticipate, and what it means for people. It is crucial to convey your message in a way that people can understand, as Ardern did by echoing the familiar four-level alert system. But communication cannot be utterly devoid of hope or people will simply give in to despair. Somewhere in that communication must be a hopeful vision of the future toward which people can direct their energy, because without hope, resolve is impossible.

3. Respond productively to missteps.

Because of the novelty and complexity of a pandemic — or any other large system failure — problems will arise regardless of how well a leader acts. How leaders respond to the inevitable missteps and unexpected challenges is just as important as how they first address the crisis.

First, they must not revert to defensiveness or blame when mistakes are made. Instead, they must stay focused on the goal and look ahead to continue solving the next and most pressing problems. For instance, when New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio lambasted the unfairness of NBA players accessing tests that remained out of reach for the rest of America, Silver publicly acknowledged the criticism, accepted it as valid, and emphasized the (real) fundamental problem of the testing shortage — with an eye on the larger picture. He said, “I, of course, understand [de Blasio’s] point, and it is unfortunate that we are at this position in this society where it’s triage where it comes to testing. So, the fundamental issue is obviously that there are insufficient tests.”

In short, it is not our intention to suggest that the NBA’s response to the virus was perfect but rather to point out that Silver took the criticism in and kept focused on the key issue of fighting the pandemic and making tests more widely available. The important response to any misstep is to listen, acknowledge, and orient everyone toward problem-solving.

4. Engage in constant updating.

An all-too-common misconception of good leadership is that a leader must be steady and unrelenting in staying the course. Certainly, steadiness is required in these times. But given the novelty and rapid evolution of the pandemic, it is wrong to think that the work of the leader is to set a course and stick to it. Leaders must constantly update their understanding of prior probabilities, even daily, deliberately using strategies to elicit new information and learn rapidly as events unfold and new information comes to light.

Doing this means relying on expert advisors and energetically seeking diverse opinions. Silver drew on a long and diverse list of advisors as he has made his way through this crisis: from the NBA’s director of sports medicine, John DiFiori, to his colleagues based in China who saw the virus’ early toll, to a former U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy. A leader’s advisory team in the face of an ambiguous threat may change over time, because new information often means new problems have surfaced and the necessary expertise will shift accordingly. Finding and leveraging the right people for evolving problems is part of the updating challenge.


Tapping into Suffering to Build Meaning

Perhaps Silver and Ardern’s proactive responses were accidents of history rather than a special brilliance. When the first reports of the coronavirus reached Silver, he was writing a eulogy for his longtime mentor, former NBA Commissioner David Stern. It was also not long after former star player Kobe Bryant and eight others suddenly died in a helicopter crash. These events, although unrelated to Covid-19, may have put Silver in a reflective mood that helped him to see the emerging threat of the virus through a human lens. Similarly, Jacinda Ardern was feeling somber in March, which brought the one-year anniversary of the Christchurch mosque shootings that killed 51 people, the deadliest mass shooting in her country’s history.

Most people in positions of authority have seen great suffering or experienced loss — or at least their advisors have — and yet far too many failed to decisively take potentially unpopular action in the critical days as the virus gained momentum. They might argue that they were trying to remain professional: to stay rational and dispassionate, to keep their personal emotion at bay, and bide their time. But the cases of Ardern and Silver suggest an opposite approach.

We believe that leadership is strengthened by continually referring to the big picture as an anchor for meaning, resisting the temptation to compartmentalize or to consider human life in statistics alone.

Leadership in an uncertain, fast-moving crisis means making oneself available to feel what it is like to be in another’s shoes — to lead with empathy. Perhaps in the coming weeks the unfortunate scale of this pandemic will make empathy easier for many leaders. But awful scale can also have a numbing effect. It will be incumbent on leaders to put themselves in another’s suffering, to feel with empathy and think with intelligence, and then to use their position of authority to make a path forward for us all. Crises of historical proportion can make for leaders of historical distinction, but that is far from guaranteed.

Michaela J. Kerrissey is an assistant professor of management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Amy C. Edmondson is the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School. She is the author of The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth (Wiley, 2019).


Source:https://hbr.org/2020/04/what-good-leadership-looks-like-during-this-pandemic?

Sunday, May 3, 2020

R322-S106-TED TALKS-Robert Waldinger:What makes a good life?Lessons from the longest study on happiness

The following information is used for educational purposes only.


TEDxBeaconStreet | November 2015


Robert Waldinger:What makes a good life?Lessons from the longest study on happiness



What keeps us happy and healthy as we go through life? If you think it's fame and money, you're not alone – but, according to psychiatrist Robert Waldinger, you're mistaken. As the director of a 75-year-old study on adult development, Waldinger has unprecedented access to data on true happiness and satisfaction. In this talk, he shares three important lessons learned from the study as well as some practical, old-as-the-hills wisdom on how to build a fulfilling, long life.


ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Robert Waldinger · Psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, Zen priest
Robert Waldinger is the Director of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies in history.





Transcript:

What keeps us healthy and happy as we go through life? If you were going to invest now in your future best self, where would you put your time and your energy? There was a recent survey of millennials asking them what their most important life goals were, and over 80 percent said that a major life goal for them was to get rich. And another 50 percent of those same young adults said that another major life goal was to become famous.

And we're constantly told to lean in to work, to push harder and achieve more. We're given the impression that these are the things that we need to go after in order to have a good life. Pictures of entire lives, of the choices that people make and how those choices work out for them, those pictures are almost impossible to get. Most of what we know about human life we know from asking people to remember the past, and as we know, hindsight is anything but 20/20. We forget vast amounts of what happens to us in life, and sometimes memory is downright creative.

But what if we could watch entire lives as they unfold through time? What if we could study people from the time that they were teenagers all the way into old age to see what really keeps people happy and healthy?

We did that. The Harvard Study of Adult Development may be the longest study of adult life that's ever been done. For 75 years, we've tracked the lives of 724 men, year after year, asking about their work, their home lives, their health, and of course asking all along the way without knowing how their life stories were going to turn out.

Studies like this are exceedingly rare. Almost all projects of this kind fall apart within a decade because too many people drop out of the study, or funding for the research dries up, or the researchers get distracted, or they die, and nobody moves the ball further down the field. But through a combination of luck and the persistence of several generations of researchers, this study has survived. About 60 of our original 724 men are still alive, still participating in the study, most of them in their 90s. And we are now beginning to study the more than 2,000 children of these men. And I'm the fourth director of the study.

Since 1938, we've tracked the lives of two groups of men. The first group started in the study when they were sophomores at Harvard College. They all finished college during World War II, and then most went off to serve in the war. And the second group that we've followed was a group of boys from Boston's poorest neighborhoods, boys who were chosen for the study specifically because they were from some of the most troubled and disadvantaged families in the Boston of the 1930s. Most lived in tenements, many without hot and cold running water.

When they entered the study, all of these teenagers were interviewed. They were given medical exams. We went to their homes and we interviewed their parents. And then these teenagers grew up into adults who entered all walks of life. They became factory workers and lawyers and bricklayers and doctors, one President of the United States. Some developed alcoholism. A few developed schizophrenia. Some climbed the social ladder from the bottom all the way to the very top, and some made that journey in the opposite direction.

The founders of this study would never in their wildest dreams have imagined that I would be standing here today, 75 years later, telling you that the study still continues. Every two years, our patient and dedicated research staff calls up our men and asks them if we can send them yet one more set of questions about their lives.
Many of the inner city Boston men ask us, "Why do you keep wanting to study me? My life just isn't that interesting." The Harvard men never ask that question.

To get the clearest picture of these lives, we don't just send them questionnaires. We interview them in their living rooms. We get their medical records from their doctors. We draw their blood, we scan their brains, we talk to their children. We videotape them talking with their wives about their deepest concerns. And when, about a decade ago, we finally asked the wives if they would join us as members of the study, many of the women said, "You know, it's about time."

So what have we learned? What are the lessons that come from the tens of thousands of pages of information that we've generated on these lives? Well, the lessons aren't about wealth or fame or working harder and harder. The clearest message that we get from this 75-year study is this: Good relationships keep us happier and healthier. Period.

We've learned three big lessons about relationships. The first is that social connections are really good for us, and that loneliness kills. It turns out that people who are more socially connected to family, to friends, to community, are happier, they're physically healthier, and they live longer than people who are less well connected. And the experience of loneliness turns out to be toxic. People who are more isolated than they want to be from others find that they are less happy, their health declines earlier in midlife, their brain functioning declines sooner and they live shorter lives than people who are not lonely. And the sad fact is that at any given time, more than one in five Americans will report that they're lonely.

And we know that you can be lonely in a crowd and you can be lonely in a marriage, so the second big lesson that we learned is that it's not just the number of friends you have, and it's not whether or not you're in a committed relationship, but it's the quality of your close relationships that matters. It turns out that living in the midst of conflict is really bad for our health. High-conflict marriages, for example, without much affection, turn out to be very bad for our health, perhaps worse than getting divorced. And living in the midst of good, warm relationships is protective.

Once we had followed our men all the way into their 80s, we wanted to look back at them at midlife and to see if we could predict who was going to grow into a happy, healthy octogenarian and who wasn't. And when we gathered together everything we knew about them at age 50, it wasn't their middle age cholesterol levels that predicted how they were going to grow old. It was how satisfied they were in their relationships. The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80. And good, close relationships seem to buffer us from some of the slings and arrows of getting old. Our most happily partnered men and women reported, in their 80s, that on the days when they had more physical pain, their mood stayed just as happy. But the people who were in unhappy relationships, on the days when they reported more physical pain, it was magnified by more emotional pain.

And the third big lesson that we learned about relationships and our health is that good relationships don't just protect our bodies, they protect our brains. It turns out that being in a securely attached relationship to another person in your 80s is protective, that the people who are in relationships where they really feel they can count on the other person in times of need, those people's memories stay sharper longer. And the people in relationships where they feel they really can't count on the other one, those are the people who experience earlier memory decline. And those good relationships, they don't have to be smooth all the time. Some of our octogenarian couples could bicker with each other day in and day out, but as long as they felt that they could really count on the other when the going got tough, those arguments didn't take a toll on their memories.

So this message, that good, close relationships are good for our health and well-being, this is wisdom that's as old as the hills. Why is this so hard to get and so easy to ignore? Well, we're human. What we'd really like is a quick fix, something we can get that'll make our lives good and keep them that way. Relationships are messy and they're complicated and the hard work of tending to family and friends, it's not sexy or glamorous. It's also lifelong. It never ends. The people in our 75-year study who were the happiest in retirement were the people who had actively worked to replace workmates with new playmates. Just like the millennials in that recent survey, many of our men when they were starting out as young adults really believed that fame and wealth and high achievement were what they needed to go after to have a good life.

 But over and over, over these 75 years, our study has shown that the people who fared the best were the people who leaned in to relationships, with family, with friends, with community.
So what about you? Let's say you're 25, or you're 40, or you're 60. What might leaning in to relationships even look like?
Well, the possibilities are practically endless. It might be something as simple as replacing screen time with people time or livening up a stale relationship by doing something new together, long walks or date nights, or reaching out to that family member who you haven't spoken to in years, because those all-too-common family feuds take a terrible toll on the people who hold the grudges.

I'd like to close with a quote from Mark Twain. More than a century ago, he was looking back on his life, and he wrote this: "There isn't time, so brief is life, for bickerings, apologies, heartburnings, callings to account. There is only time for loving, and but an instant, so to speak, for that."

The good life is built with good relationships. Thank you.

Source:www.ted.com

Lo que la escuela dejó de prometer: la movilidad social, por Gala Díaz Langou

The following information is used for educational purposes only. Lo que la escuela dejó de prometer: la movilidad social Las pruebas PISA ...