Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

Best content from the best source handpicked by Shyam. The source include The Harvard University, MIT, Mckinsey & Co, Wharton, Stanford,and other top educational institutions. domains include Cybersecurity, Machine learning, Deep Learning, Bigdata, Education, Information Technology, Management, others.

older | 1 | .... | 45 | 46 | (Page 47) | 48 | 49 | .... | 82 | newer

    0 0

    Big Data – revolutionising sport in unexpected ways




    You know analytics is serious in sport when the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows an interest. Not only does it run a yearly conference on the topic, its boffins are busy figuring out fresh ways to revolutionise sport using Big Data.
    “Sports are watched by millions and millions of people - yet, pretty much all of the strategic decisions are made by humans in a split second. These decisions could definitely be enhanced by learning from past data, but humans can’t keep large databases in their heads. I wanted to build predictive analytics tools to help teams make these decisions,” Cynthia Rudin, associate professor of statistics at MIT, tells the Guardian.
    Rudin believes Big Data analytics can help in various ways, from tweaking training plans to determining patterns about competitors. “If we know, for instance, that in certain circumstances, a particular coach on the opposition team tends to make a particular decision, then we can be ready for it,” she adds. “Another example - we can place sensors all over a car while it is in training for a race, and use the sensor data to help a driver learn how to race better.”
    The ever-growing world of Big Data has already permeated the sporting arena in surprising ways. Player health and safety, for instance, is one increasingly attractive use case. “Particularly in high injury sports, you think about the health of player, how we can use data and analytics to look after their bodies,” Martin Houghton, managing partner from HP’s analytics and data management division in EMEA.
    Just look to the high impact, rough game of rugby, where players are being saved from long-lasting physical damage thanks to predictive analytics technology. Pro players across the globe have been fitted with sensors to measure and monitor intensity levels, collisions and fatigue to help predict their limit and injury risk. From all this information, coaches can determine how to alter players’ training schedules. Psychological data can also be collected to explore how psyches can affect performance.
    American sports continue to benefit from Big Data in myriad ways. The Oakland A’s baseball team famously used analytics to make strides in Major League Baseball, as captured in the 2011 film Moneyball, whilst NBA basketball teams are now investing heavily in the necessary technologies and expertise to gain an advantage over others.
    Organisations such as STATS use cameras to measure players and the ball in x and y coordinates. This brings in speed, distance, player separation and ball possession statistics, which can be filtered into user-friendly interfaces so coaches can make better decisions.
    And data analysts are being employed en masse by some of the NBA’s best-known teams. The Dallas Mavericks have been investing heavily of late. Coach Rick Carlisle recently revealed a raft of new personnel has been brought into the analytics division of the team. It’s expecting to see manifold benefits heading into the new season. “We’re going to be a better team this year,” Carlisle said this month. “We know that by the analytics.”
    The ultimate aim for all these sports teams is to improve performance in the same way modern businesses in almost all industries seek to exploit data to tweak their operations for the good of the company as a whole and their customers. Just looking at the business side of sport, it’s easy to see the crossover between the two ostensibly separate worlds.
    HP has been working with NASCAR to boost the motor sport’s brand. Together they built the Fan and Media Engagement Center (FMEC), which collects up all the information fans post publicly online. All this data can be captured, analysed and passed on to al the relevant people, whether the drivers or their PR reps. Now they all know what the fans are thinking, they know just how to get them revved up.
    And this is what Big Data should be about for any business - it’s the customers who make or break the company. They need to be impressed via information before anyone else.


    0 0


    Seven Mistakes to Avoid When Writing Multiple-Choice Questions 




    The goal of any well-constructed test is to test students’ expertise on a topic and not their test-taking skills. We need to eliminate as many flaws in our questions as we can to “provide a level playing field for testwise and not-so-testwise students. The probability of answering a question correctly should relate to an examinee’s expertise on the topic and should not relate to their expertise on test-taking strategies.” (NMBE, 2001, p 19)
    In this article, we will examine seven common flaws in the construction of multiple-choice questions that students can exploit to help them select the correct answer based on their testwiseness rather than content knowledge. By recognizing these common flaws, you can learn to write better questions for your tests and quizzes.

    Grammatical Cues

    Issue: This occurs when one or more of the distractors don’t follow grammatically from the question stem. This often relates to the use of a/an, verbs/nouns, or singular/plural.
    Solution: Check for grammatical consistency.
    • When using “a” or “an” make sure there is agreement with the wording of the options.
    • Don’t ask for a noun answer and then have a verb as an option.
    • Don’t ask for a plural answer and then have a singular option.

    Distractor Length Cues: “too long to be wrong”

    Issue: We often feel we should include more detail in the correct answer to ensure that it is clearly the best choice. This is called the “too long to be wrong” rule. Unfortunately testwise students can use this to their advantage.
    Solution: Keep the options similar in length and level of detail.

    Logical Cues

    Issue: This most often occurs when one of the options contains all of the other options. Testwise students will select amongst similar options not outlier options. We often have writing difficulty when trying to generate the last option and often that last option is unrelated to the other options and the discrimination criteria that is provided in question stem.
    Solution: The question should ask students to discriminate the options along the same discrimination dimension related to the specific criteria described in the question stem. All incorrect answer should be reasonable responses that do not fully meet the discrimination criteria specified in the question stem.

    Repeating Words

    Issue: Students look for words or phrases that are repeated in the question and options. The more repeating, the more likely it is the right answer.
    Solution: Move repeating words to the stem, if possible. Review and revise questions to eliminate word repeats, if possible.

    Using absolute terms

    Issue: Many higher-level ideas are not absolutes. “Never True” and “Always True” are often too absolute. Students are experts at arguing the outlier idea that is outside such absolutes.
    Solution: Avoid absolute words and substitute words that require more judgment – which is the best, which is least likely. Try to use wording that lets students discriminate between the various options using the criteria that is stated in the question stem.

    Not random distractor/options order

    Issue: The most common location for the correct answer is C or D. The trouble with this is that if the testwise student is reduced to guessing, they will guess C or D to maximize their chances. “In numeric options, the correct answer is more often the middle number than an extreme value.” (NMBE, 2001, p 22).
    Solution: Review the entire test to ensure that C and D do not appear as the correct answer too often. Pay careful attention to numerical questions that have C or D as the correct answer.

    Join Jim Sibley on Nov. 4 for Writing Better Multiple-Choice Questions. During the seminar, you will learn the importance of writing effective multiple-choice questions with well-constructed stems and plausible alternatives. Learn More »

    Convergence strategy

    Issue: The idea here is a testwise student will select the answer that combines the most elements of all the options. The correct answer most likely is the one that combines the most number of common elements from other distractors. If a word occurs in most of the options, mostly likely the correct answer will contain that word. If a term appears only in one option, then that probably is not the correct answer.
    Solution: This most often happens when we write the correct answer first and then begin rearranging it to create the options. Review your finished question to see if you can use the convergence strategy to get inferences of the correct answer.
    You can use question-writing rules (like those found in NMBE manual) to create great questions, but you also should use rules like those outlined here to check your work. Questions that are clear to one person often are imprecise to another. Find a friend or colleague who is willing to review your questions. It is much less painful to discover a question is bad in the comfort of your office, rather than in front of your students. The ironic thing about multiple-choice question-writing is that with more experience, more time is required to write a question, as our standards for what constitutes a good question increases.

    View at the original source

    0 0

    H

    Who Is the Chief Sustainability Officer?



    There are only a few dozen chief sustainability officers in American companies, although their number has been growing rapidly. A new study byGeorge Serafeim and Kathleen Miller explains who they are, where they come from, and how to make them more effective.

    Since the start of the 2000s, a high-level corporate position has evolved that is still something of a mystery. As companies have engaged in more efforts around sustainability, environmental and otherwise, the "chief sustainability officer" has been created to champion and monitor these efforts.
    But despite dozens of individuals in some of the world's largest companies taking on these duties, the role has been little studied. Just what are chief sustainability officers (CSO), where do they come from, and how much influence do they exert?
    “THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CSO REFLECTS AN UNDERLYING NEED FOR COMPANIES TO NOT ONLY MONITOR BUT ALSO IMPROVE THEIR PERFORMANCE”
    "Companies are monitoring the impact they're having environmentally and on society, and the appointment of the CSO reflects an underlying need for companies to not only monitor but also improve their performance," says Harvard Business School associate professor George Serafeim.
    To create more understanding about the position, Serafeim wrote the paper 
    "Chief Sustainability Officers: Who Are They and What Do They Do?" 
    with Kathleen Miller, CEO of Miller Consultants. 
    Their results suggest that CSOs are of critical importance in successful sustainability efforts, but ironically become less central as sustainability efforts blossom.
    Although often linked with environmental issues such as water and energy use, a growing number of companies are taking sustainability efforts much further by improving working conditions in their supply chain, creating better safety procedures, and reaping profits from products that address environmental and social problems.
    "Regulators and investors are asking for it, customers are demanding it, and employees are expecting it," Serafeim explains. "Once you reach a point where a customer says, 'What are your policies in terms of your supply chain operations?' you better have a good handle on that."
    Enter the CSO.
    The position of CSO has been created at an increasing number of companies over the past few years. In 2003, twice as many companies had fulltime sustainability officers than in 1995, and between 2003 and 2008, the number doubled again, research shows. (The first CSO with that title in an American publicly traded company is believed to be DuPont's Linda Fisher, appointed in 2004.)

    THREE STAGES OF SUSTAINABILITY

    To study a CSO's responsibilities and to look at how the role shifts depending on the company's level of commitment, Serafeim and Miller surveyed 66 CSOs and people with similar duties but different titles in 27 industries. They found that companies are often engaged in sustainability at one of three stages:
    Compliance: In this initial phase, companies often start with activities related to complying with regulations. Activities are not strategic or centralized. In addition to compliance, employees may volunteer to work on recycling projects or green teams. Most companies at this stage have not created a formal CSO position.
    Efficiency: Next, companies become more strategic about sustainability by finding ways to achieve efficiencies that will save corporate dollars, such as cutting energy and water use or reducing waste generation and carbon emissions. "These things are an easy sell," Serafeim says. "They're a good thing to do and the obvious thing to do."
    At this stage, more companies are likely to hire or appoint an official corporate sustainability officer, who works with the CEO. The CSO is often tasked with building a business case for making changes that improve the company's bottom line, while also protecting or enhancing the company's reputation. "The CSO is really driving the execution of the sustainability strategy," Serafeim says. Many companies end up hovering in this phase without moving on to the final stage, innovation, the research shows.
    Innovation: A select number of companies shift to a more advanced innovative stage by integrating sustainability into the core of the business in ways that transform the company. Strategies tend to be driven by the market with an eye on maximizing long-term profitability, and sustainability efforts often look to address bigger problems in society, including climate change, water management, and obesity.
    Study findings imply that in this stage ultimate responsibility for sustainability shifts from CEO to CSO. The CSO's main responsibility is to help develop a sustainability strategy as well as map out how changes will be made, and the CSO must often unify subcultures within the firm.
    But the CSO also delegates more sustainability responsibilities to various departments. So while at the Efficiency stage the CSO concentrates responsibilities, at the Innovation stage he does exactly the opposite: He delegates decision rights and makes functions and business units accountable.
    "What companies are doing at this stage is refocusing their strategy from an inward perspective to an outward focus," Serafeim says. "How can we enable our customers, suppliers, and others to behave and operate in a more sustainable way? It allows you to envision new markets, new opportunities, and new needs. Very few companies have reached this stage."

    BOOSTING COMMITMENT


    Many companies don't make it to the innovation stage because they focus only on short-term goals like the cost savings they achieve from reduced energy use, rather than taking risks with more ambitious sustainability plans.
    "Many organizations are afraid to raise the stakes and make bigger bets," Serafeim says. "It's not easy to make that transition. That's why you need the CSO to make a push to move on, become more ambitious."
    Nike and Dow Chemical are examples of companies that have made it to the innovation stage. After Nike faced accusations about violations of human rights by subcontractors, it made drastic changes to operate more responsibly in its supply chain. At Dow, company officials used its science capabilities to develop components for solar panels and are now working on materials for cars that make them safer and more efficient.
    "Dow is using its science background to address fundamental issues and problems we're having," Serafeim says. "That's a whole different level of sustainability strategy. And it's trying to understand how those environmental, social, and governance issues create value in the long term."

    SUCCESSFUL SUSTAINABILITY

    The CSOs in the study made a variety of suggestions for success:
    • CSOs should plant themselves as close as possible to the corporate areas where sustainability can produce value for the company. Initially, CSOs need to work with company officials who oversee compliance and issues. As sustainability goals become more ambitious, the areas where sustainability will produce value will vary from company to company.

    • CSOs should have their finger on the pulse of the company culture, understanding what motivates employees and devising a strategy for implementing change that aligns with the workforce. Sometimes the strategy needs to be customized to work for offices located in separate geographic locations. "If you come up with a strategy that the workforce is not going to buy, you will have a very tough time implementing that strategy," Serafeim says. "The strategy needs to be compatible with what employees are expecting, the skills they have, and their aspirations."

    • Some say the CSO should be placed on the executive team because the mere presence of the CSO at the C-suite table keeps sustainability on the agenda.

    • It's important to articulate a compelling business case for such efforts and to make the strategy understandable and relevant to internal stakeholders. CSOs are often challenged with pushing company leaders out of the "trade-off" mentality. "For years there was this institutional logic that says if you do the right thing, your competitiveness will be hurt and it will come at a cost to the firm," Serafeim says. "People don't understand that if you do things strategically, you can create significant value for the firm. The CSO is in the best position to change this perception, but he needs to have the data and the tight business case to communicate that."

    • CSOs should focus on a manageable set of sustainability issues, rather than biting off more than they can chew at once. And they should keep in mind that sustainability goals will change over time. Edelman says his approach is "evolutionary, not revolutionary." IKEA CSO Steve Howard says, "You can't transform everything at once. The hardest thing about leading the change is managing the complexity …"
    Serafeim agrees that companies need to constantly rethink and revise their sustainability strategies.
    "Sustainability is not something that's static," Serafeim says. "It has to be dynamic because social expectations are continually changing."
    It helps to have a dedicated employee—the CSO—steering the ship.
    "The way to think about the CSO is it's the person who is the change agent," Serafeim says. "It's the person who sees how the future is developing, how social expectations are changing, how regulations and the business environment are changing in the future. The CSO is the ambassador with the vision, the person who decides what needs to change when it comes to how the company is interacting with the communities and the broader societal context in which it operates."

    0 0

    The Changing Face of African Innovation






    Africa has great resources and untapped potential, however, the lack of funding acts as a significant barrier to entrepreneurship and innovation. In order to fully utilise our resources, we need meaningful investments to provide inclusive prosperity on the continent. The Innovation Prize for Africa (IPA) 2015 is an annual competition founded by the Africa Innovation Foundation (AIF) that encourages innovators to come up with ground breaking solutions that further promotes Africa’s economic growth.
    Africa is on the rise with more than half of the world’s fastest growing economies from Nigeria, Angola, Mozambique, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Zambia. Africa is now emerging as one of the world’s premier destinations for cutting-edge innovation and inspiring entrepreneurship. Awards like the IPA prompt conversation around innovation in Africa. It also helps to highlight talent, provide a platform to attract funding for start-ups and the adoption of new and emerging technologies.
    According to a report from the World Economic Forum, Africa faces 28% of the global disease burden but only has 3% of the world’s healthcare workforce. This is a major concern for the growth and progress of the continent. IPA finalist, Joshua Okello from Uganda saw a need and created an innovative product that would ease the struggles of midwives and mothers to be. He created Winsenga, a low cost smart phone-based tool that enables untrained midwives in rural areas in Africa to effectively and accurately monitor the health of an unborn child during antenatal care and labour. The IPA gave his product much needed visibility and has helped create more awareness about the need for innovators to focus on real challenges faced by their communities.
    The continent has made a considerable amount of progress over the past few years and it is important that African countries continue to learn from one another. The IPA provides a platform for this sort of knowledge sharing and it encourages entries in key categories that are critical to Africa; Agriculture and Agribusiness, Environment, Energy and Water, Health and Wellbeing, ICT applications, and Manufacturing and Services Industries. Open to all Africans globally, the Innovation Prize for Africa invests in transformative ideas, innovations and business models across sectors that are constantly evolving and improving the lives of many Africans.
    Imperative to building a better future are Africa’s youth, and by encouraging creativity through innovation and entrepreneurship, I am convinced that Africa will have a great future. The more Africans produce and innovate solutions to the continent’s daily challenges, the less we will have to rely on outside support to fund our economic growth and build a sustainable future.


    0 0
  • 10/10/14--09:58: Send your name to mars.10-10
  • 0 0

    The Best-Performing CEOs in the World


    The knock on most business leaders is that they don’t take the long view—that they’re fixated on achieving short-term goals to lift their pay. So which global CEOs actually delivered solid results over the long run? Our 2014 list of top performers provides an objective answer.
    Leaders for the Long Term

    A few years ago I sat down with Starbucks founder Howard Schultz in his Seattle office to discuss the challenges of being a CEO. At one stage I asked whether he felt there was a disconnect between the person he would like to be and the persona he needs to project while running a public company. Serving as a CEO, he said, “has been difficult—and lonely.” Yet he’d found that it was indeed possible to be values-driven while also winning Wall Street’s respect. “But the only ingredient that works in this environment is performance—so we have to perform.”
    Schultz has delivered on both fronts. He has become increasingly progressive, speaking out on topics ranging from presidential politics to gay marriage. And though that might make some shareholders cringe (and others applaud), he has resoundingly—and consistently—come through for investors. As a result, Schultz has earned a spot (#54) on our list of the 100 best-performing CEOs in the world. It’s a varied ranking, whose honorees represent 22 nationalities and countless personal values and styles. Another Seattle-based CEO, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, comes out as #1.
    How do you measure a CEO’s worth? We decided to approach the task scientifically, basing the ranking on hard data, not on reputation or anecdote. Specifically, we looked at the increase in total shareholder return and market capitalization.
    How We Calculated the Rankings
    We also focused on long-term—or at least longish-term—results. Our rankings consider the performance of active CEOs over their entire stints, and we’ve included only those who have been in their jobs for at least two years. (The median term for all the CEOs we studied is seven years.)

    The top CEOs have undeniably been effective. The top 50, on average, have delivered total shareholder returns of 1,350% (adjusted for exchange-rate movements) during their time on the job. That translates into an annual return of 26.2%. Adjusting for industry effects, average total shareholder returns for the top 50 are 1,161%, and for country effects, 1,087%.
    We acknowledge, of course, that being a good CEO is about far more than just investment performance. Leading a company and creating value depend on many skills that are hard to measure—strategic vision, authenticity, long-term planning. And investors certainly aren’t the only stakeholders that need tending to; the best-run companies connect effectively with customers, employees, and the communities where they operate.
    But we want this ranking to be as objective as possible, so we’ve put a premium on what we can measure precisely. Someday, we hope that there will be equally concrete ways to account for “intangibles”—environmental impact, employee satisfaction, customer engagement—so that we can confidently add that data to the formula. Until then we can only supplement this list with parallel data that tries to track some of these “softer” attributes.
    Along those lines, we asked the Reputation Institute, a reputation management consultancy, to rank our top 100 CEOs in terms of these other skills—work environment, citizenship, governance, leadership, and so on. The results suggest, I’m afraid, that doing well doesn’t correlate much at this stage with doing good. That said, a few superstars scored high across the board, including Bezos, who, despite Amazon’s well-publicized entanglements with publishers and authors, was #4 on the Reputation Institute list. (Schultz finished in the middle of the pack.)
    What else do we know about the CEOs on this list? Most are men—only two women, Debra Cafaro of Ventas and Carol Meyrowitz of TJX, made the top 100—and the median age is 59. (This is similar to what we see in the entire group studied, in which 3% of CEOs were female and the median age was 58.) 
    Thirteen CEOs are of nationalities that differ from their companies’. (Though it’s still not a global market for CEOs, that figure is more than double what it was in the 2013 version of this ranking.) 
    And while the top 100 have each experienced their own unique journeys to success, there do seem to be two preferred pathways. Over a quarter of the CEOs have MBAs, and nearly as many had studied engineering.
    We also looked at CEO pay, to see how that related to performance. To do so, we worked with Equilar, a company that collects information on compensation, to tally the most recent pay packages for the top 100. These elite CEOs are very well paid, as are most CEOs. But on average the executives on our list receive more of every form of compensation than their peers do.
    Disney’s Bob Iger, #60 on our list, is the highest paid among our 100, with a total package of $34.3 million. That doesn’t make him the world’s best-paid CEO. In fact, according to Equilar, 13 CEOs earned more, led by Charif Souki of U.S. gas developer Cheniere Energy, whose 2013 compensation totaled $141.9 million.
    So what’s the ultimate takeaway from this ranking? In many ways, Bezos’s place atop the list says it all. Here’s a CEO who has frequently underperformed in the short term while continuing to make big bets on the future. Amazon often reports quarterly losses, even as sales continue to rise. And though the company is subject, like many firms, to dramatic share-price swings, Amazon and Bezos have a long-term track record of delivering shareholder value that is second to none. 
    How much do you know about the facts and figures that define this elite group? Take this short quiz to find out.
    Why Engineers Make Great Leaders
    Twenty-four of HBR’s 100 best-performing CEOs have undergraduate or graduate degrees in engineering, compared with 29 who have MBAs. (Eight CEOs have both degrees.) At technology or science-based companies, it’s not a big surprise to find an engineer at the helm. But engineers thrive at the top of other kinds of firms, too: Examples include Carlos Alves de Brito of brewing giant Anheuser-Busch InBev, Jeffrey Sprecher of the financial services firm Intercontinental Exchange, and Kari Stadigh of the insurance company Sampo.
    What makes an engineering degree useful to people leading a business? “Studying engineering gives someone a practical, pragmatic orientation,” says Nitin Nohria, the dean of Harvard Business School, who holds an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. “Engineering is about what works, and it breeds in you an ethos of building things that work—whether it’s a machine or a structure or an organization. Engineering also teaches you to try to do things efficiently and eloquently, with reliable outcomes, and with a margin of safety. It makes you think about costs versus performance. These are principles that can be deeply important when you think about organizations.”
    Executive recruiter James Citrin, after examining the list’s numbers, notes an interesting trend: CEOs who were hired into firms as outsiders were more likely to have an engineering degree than insiders who were promoted into the job. “That connects with my experience,” says Citrin, who leads Spencer Stuart’s North American CEO practice. “When boards are making decisions, and they know it’s riskier going outside, it often gives them comfort if a candidate has studied engineering.” Why? Citrin says engineers excel at “architectural thinking” and logical problem solving. The only downside of an engineering background, Citrin says: It might be a small strike against a candidate who wants to lead a company in a creative field such as fashion or advertising.
    How They Stack Up on Pay
    One of the downsides of a global CEO ranking is that it’s difficult to offer a comprehensive comparison of these leaders’ pay, because countries require different levels of transparency with executive compensation. With help from the compensation analysis firm Equilar, we compiled pay data on 68 of our top 100 CEOs. (The remaining 32 are based in countries that lack public data on executive pay.)
    The takeaways from our pay analysis:
    No surprise: American CEOs earn more. The median pay for U.S. CEOs on HBR’s list is $12.1 million, compared with $6.4 million for non-U.S. CEOs for whom we obtained data. All 10 of the highest earners lead U.S. companies. “That’s consistent with what we’ve seen for years: that U.S. CEOs make more,” says Aaron Boyd, Equilar’s director of governance research. The pay calculations incorporated each executive’s salary, cash bonus, equity awards, option awards, and “other,” and the biggest difference between U.S. and non-U.S. pay packages was the size of equity and option grants—components that are particularly valuable when global markets are rising. Those components are also especially lucrative to CEOs who generate above-average total shareholder returns.
    High-performing CEOs earn more than the average. Last year the median compensation for S&P 500 CEOs reached $10.1 million, breaking into eight digits for the first time. That’s 20% below the amount earned by the U.S. CEOs on our list. Equilar’s analysis shows that, on average, they outearned other CEOs in every category—including salary, bonus, equity awards, and options. And since our top 100 CEOs produce superior shareholder returns in the long term, their equity and options will obviously appreciate with their stock. In addition, the top 100 tend to stay in their jobs longer than most CEOs, increasing their lifetime earnings.
    Family and founders sometimes “earn” less. It may seem ironic that Jeff Bezos, the #1 CEO in performance, comes in second-to-last in compensation, earning a 2013 salary of $81,000 and total compensation of $1.7 million (most of which consists of company-provided security). While Bezos’s annual comp is far below the CEO average, Amazon’s founder holds an 18% stake in the company, which means that for every $1 increase in Amazon’s share price, Bezos’s net worth rises by $84 million. It also makes him the world’s 20th richest person, by some calculations.
    Money Isn’t Everything
    While HBR’s global CEO ranking takes a critical step forward by gauging CEOs on long-term, rather than short-term, gains, it nevertheless looks at performance in purely financial terms. Yet a company’s greatness also depends on nonfinancial factors—like social responsibility and integrity. Though these are harder to quantify, there are organizations that try to track such factors and compare how companies measure up on them.
    For a broader view of our top 100, we asked the Reputation Institute, which ranks global companies annually according to how positively they are regarded, to reorder our list. Its RepTrak methodology has respondents rate companies on seven dimensions—products and services, innovation, workplace, governance, citizenship, leadership, and performance—and then calculates a score of 0 to 100 for each.
    The companies on our list are those whose reputations were rated highest by respondents in their home countries.
    When we looked at the top 10 firms, a few things jumped out:
    Bezos wins again. We can probably chalk the dual achievement up to his constant pursuit of a clear vision: to be “the most customer-centric company in the world.” Still, it presents a marvelous irony. The leader most adamantly ignoring Wall Street pressure creates the most value—and the company that spends next to nothing on advertising and PR ends up with a great reputation.
    There is really no correlation. The order of names on the two lists is utterly unrelated. While two of the top 10 CEOs from our ranking also lead companies that are in the top 10 reputation-wise, so does a CEO ranked 98th on the original list. In fact these reputation winners are pretty evenly distributed in terms of their value creation.
    It’s fair to call it a CEO ranking. Sure, this is a ranking of company reputations, not the reputations of the CEOs themselves—and what is being measured here is their current value, rather than any change in value across the CEO’s tenure. We’re still comfortable with hanging these companies’ reputations on their leaders. First, because among these 10, the average tenure in office is over 12 years—surely enough time to make a mark. Second, because no one is better positioned than the CEO to effect the changes that improve (or ruin) a company’s image.
    For longtime leaders, it might be personal. One of the CEOs of our reputational top 10 is a founder (Bezos); one is the son of a founder (Hayek), and two are close to that (Wolfson, whose father was chairman of the same company, and Riboud, whose father spent many years in the same CEO seat before him). Nearly all the rest have been with their companies a long while—as in 27 to 35 years. At least two explanations are possible. Perhaps people outside the company respond well to long-term leaders, so reputation scores tend to rise with tenures. Or it could be the other way around: Maybe leaders whose identities are so thoroughly tied up with their companies’ are more attuned to leaving legacies that aren’t only about financial value created.
    Karen Moskowitz
    The Numbers in Jeff Bezos’s Head
    by Daniel McGinn
    On a Friday afternoon in 2004, Amazon manager Vijay Ravindran received an unusual invitation—to a Saturday morning meeting with Jeff Bezos at the boathouse adjoining the CEO’s lakefront home. When the attendees arrived, Bezos told them he’d received an employee suggestion that Amazon supplement its existing shipping policy—free shipping on orders over $25—with a new offer. Customers would pay an annual fee for free shipping on most products, regardless of order size. “Jeff was extremely energetic—he felt this was an opportunity to build something that was going to be very important,” Ravindran recalls. Hence the urgent weekend meeting at the lake.
    The proposal sparked hushed concerns and consternation. Amazon’s finance team worried that waiving shipping charges would gut margins. “There were people who thought it was an extremely bad idea—the spreadsheets uniformly painted pictures of losses,” Ravindran says. Bezos ignored the objections, convinced that the offer would spur more orders. That intuition proved correct just weeks later, when the program, Prime, launched. Customers who’d previously made a few purchases a year were suddenly ordering multiple times a month. “Instead of looking to protect the current business, Jeff saw the upside,” says Ravindran, now chief digital officer at Graham Holdings. “It was the most impressive display of business leadership I’ve seen in my career.” Today tens of millions of customers pay $99 a year for Prime, which generates more than $1 billion in membership fees and incalculable incremental sales.
    Disregard for orthodox approaches is not unusual for Bezos. Amazon’s culture famously forbids the use of PowerPoint, for instance. But the frequency with which he rejects spreadsheet-driven decision making has probably played a larger role in Amazon’s growth. With 132,000 employees and $75 billion in annual revenue, Amazon is a 20-year-old corporation that routinely posts losses. (Its operating loss may top $800 million in the third quarter.) Unlike Apple, which boasts precisely how many iPhones it’s selling, Amazon steadfastly refuses to give Wall Street basic data, such as how many Kindles it has sold—an opaqueness that even Bezos fans say hurts the stock price. Like every CEO, Bezos talks about managing for the long term—but he walks the talk, shrugging off investor concerns even as Amazon’s stock dropped from a high of $407 in January 2014 to $307 in August. Over the long haul, however, there’s no disputing his ability to generate shareholder returns: The company’s stock performance since its 1997 initial public offering has been so strong that its share price could have dropped to $250, and Bezos would still rank as HBR’s best-performing CEO.
    He and his team have achieved that feat by sticking steadfastly—even boringly—to a few key principles (outlined in his 1997 shareholder letter, which he still sends to investors every year). Instead of focusing on competitors or technology shifts, they continually invest in getting a little bit better. In their core retail business, they grind out incremental improvements in delivery speed and product offerings while chipping away at prices. As Amazon continues to move into completely new industries—it’s now a serious player in cloud computing, online video, e-readers, and other devices—some see a company that’s pioneering a new model. “In some ways he’s invented a new philosophy for running a business,” says Brad Stone, author of The Everything Store, a best-selling Bezos biography. “Even as Amazon grows, he’s focused on reinvesting to make it even bigger—and because that means it shows no profits, he avoids paying dividends or corporate taxes.”
    While Amazon is younger than Walmart or Apple, its creation story is becoming equally familiar. After graduating from Princeton with a computer science degree in 1986, Bezos spent eight years on Wall Street. In 1994 he and his wife, MacKenzie—a Princeton grad and his former coworker—left New York for Seattle, setting up shop in their garage. Jeff and a few employees began building a website that would sell books. Amazon went live in July 1995 and, in its first month, sold books to customers in 50 states and in 45 countries. It quickly expanded into CDs and other goods.
    While consumers gravitated to Amazon, some investors remained skeptical. Henry Blodget, then a Merrill Lynch analyst, recalls an investor conference in the late 1990s at which Bezos patiently explained why Amazon allowed customers to return huge flat-screen TVs for a full refund with no questions asked—a costly policy meant to drive customer satisfaction. “Almost no one understood the potential for the company, its business model, and its stock,” says Blodget, who rose to fame for his seemingly outlandish 1998 prediction that Amazon shares, which were trading around $200, would hit $400—which they did, three weeks later. (Blodget now runs Business Insider, a website in which Bezos is an investor.)
    Today Amazon is so successful that people often assume it has enjoyed a linear rise—like a dominant sports team cruising, as expected, to the championship. But for several years, Wall Street questioned Amazon’s viability. “At analyst conferences during the early 2000s, I saw fund managers openly laughing at him,” recalls Marc Andreessen, the entrepreneur-turned-venture-capitalist. “They’d say, ‘That guy is nuts, and that company is going to go bankrupt.’ That’s one of the things I really admire about him, and it’s what I talk to our founders about. It’s very easy to say you want to be Jeff Bezos today. It’s a lot harder to be Jeff Bezos during that ‘valley of death’ period. It was his willingness to go through that valley and to come out the other side that makes Wall Street give him the benefit of the doubt. A lot of people would have given up, but he didn’t. That’s what I admire most about his story.”
    The other big misconception: that Bezos doesn’t care about profitability. By all accounts Amazon’s mature businesses (such as online retail) are profitable; it’s his deep investments in new businesses that create accounting losses, which he regards as a false measure of performance. “He’s really focused on cash flow and what kind of return on invested capital is being created,” says Warren Jenson, Amazon’s chief financial officer from 1999 to 2002. Bill Miller, a fund manager at Legg Mason who has held shares in Amazon since it went public, says Bezos shows deep understanding of the point Clay Christensen made in his recent HBR article “The Capitalist’s Dilemma,” which argued that most managers focus on the wrong financial metrics. “Jeff really takes theory seriously—he started out wanting to be a theoretical physicist,” Miller says. “In terms of financial theory, he’s trying to get away from the behavioral problems that afflict other companies” that try to maximize the wrong numbers. Other Bezos watchers go even further: At a time when many large companies (most notably Apple) are hoarding idle cash, shouldn’t we be lauding Amazon’s ability to continually find entirely new industries to reinvest and innovate in, rather than criticizing the losses driven by those outlays?
    Bezos is unperturbed by criticisms of his financial management. He says he’s always been transparent about Amazon’s focus on long-term cash flow (instead of net profit). “As far as investors go, our job is to be superclear about our approach, and then investors get to self-select,” he says. He insists Amazon discloses far more data about its business than is legally required and is silent only about numbers that could help competitors.
    Some criticism goes beyond his financial theories, however. Like Walmart, Amazon has been condemned for upending the economics of industries in ways that destroy competitors and vaporize jobs. Since 2007, when its Kindle ignited the e-book business, Amazon has been at war with publishers for using its leverage to price e-books at discount levels. Over the past two years the company has drawn fire for its treatment of distribution-center workers and the hyperaggressive steps taken to weaken rival e-commerce players such as Zappos and Diapers.com. (It eventually acquired both.) Bezos’s personal management style, which by some reports can be abusive and demeaning, has also been reproached. But Stone believes Bezos has mellowed with age. “In fairness, a lot of the examples in the book of him behaving that way are older ones, and I think he’s gotten better over time,” Stone says.
    Even critics admit that Bezos has an unusually ambitious imagination—one likely to have an impact far beyond online retailing. He founded Blue Origin, a company experimenting with space travel, and last year purchased the Washington Post, where he spends one day a month in hopes of finding a viable financial model for journalism. And at Amazon, his strategy of making bold moves into adjacent industries could become a model for other managers. Scott Cook, the Intuit founder and former Amazon director, compares Amazon to companies such as P&G (which invented brand management) and Toyota (which invented lean manufacturing). “I think Amazon is one of those—what they’re doing is inventing better ways for companies to operate,” Cook says.
    That spirit could continue for some time. Bezos is 50—about the same age Bill Gates was when he retired from Microsoft to pursue philanthropy at the Gates Foundation, whose offices are visible from the roof deck at Amazon’s headquarters. But Bezos seems unlikely to make that kind of transition. “I’ve never gotten any vibe off of him that he wants to do anything else,” says Andreessen. “He’s monomaniacally focused on Amazon. My sense is he’s going to be running it another 30 years—and shareholders will be lucky if he does.”
    Jeff Bezos in His Own Words
    In early August Amazon’s founder and CEO spoke with HBR’s Adi Ignatius and Daniel McGinn at the company’s Seattle headquarters. Here are edited excerpts from that conversation:

    Bezos: I bet 70% of the invention we do focuses on slightly improving a process. That incremental invention is a huge part of what makes Amazon tick. There’s a second kind of invention, which is more clean-sheet and larger scale—things like the Kindle or Amazon Web Services. We have a culture that supports the risk taking and time frames required for that.
    Your stock has taken some hits this year. Does that affect the way you manage?
    Amazon’s stock has always been somewhat volatile. Even though we have significant revenues, we invest in so many new initiatives that in some ways we’re still a start-up. Volatility is part and parcel of being a start-up.
    You say you focus on customers, not competitors. But how do you react to Google’s teaming up with Barnes & Noble to offer same-day delivery?
    You can’t insulate yourself from competition by being customer-obsessed. But if that obsession leads to invention on behalf of customers, it helps you stay ahead.
    You’re now making your own big investments in same-day delivery. How do you know customers want it?
    In our retail business, there are three big ideas: Low prices, vast selection, and fast, reliable delivery. We continually work on all three. We don’t know what technologies might be invented or who our competitors will be, so it’s hard to build strategies around those uncertainties. But I do know that 10 years from now, nobody is going to say, “I love Amazon, but I wish the prices were a little higher.” It’s the same thing with fast delivery.
    Has the backlash over your dispute with Hachette about e-book pricing surprised you?
    The publishing industry changes very slowly. The paperback, which was developed before World War II, was the last radical invention before the e-book. All the arguments that the literary establishment made against paperbacks—they’re devaluing books, publishers are not going to be able to invest in literature—are being made about e-books, too. Today we know the arguments about paperbacks were wrong, and they’re equally wrong about e-books. It will take a while for the incumbents to come to terms with e-books, but we’re determined to get e-books to be less expensive.
    What other CEOs do you admire?
    I’m a huge fan of Jamie Dimon, Jeff Immelt, and Bob Iger. They all have deep keels. They have conviction around certain business ideas. Warren Buffett is another one. They can’t be blown around, and I think that’s pretty rare.

    0 0
  • 10/17/14--19:31: 100 Best CEOs 10-18

  • 100 The Rankings



    1
     
    Jeffrey Bezos
    Amazon
    2
     
    John Martin
    Gilead Sciences
    3
     
    John Chambers
    Cisco Systems
    4
     
    David Pyott
    Allergan
    5
     
    David Simon
    Simon Property Group
    6
     
    Lars Rebien Sørensen
    Novo Nordisk
    7
     
    Hugh Grant
    Monsanto
    8
     
    J. Michael Pearson
    Valeant Pharmaceuticals
    9
     
    Mark Donegan
    Precision Castparts
    10
     
    William Doyle
    PotashCorp
    11
     
    Tadashi Yanai
    Fast Retailing
    12
     
    David Novak
    Yum Brands
    13
     
    Michael Wolf
    Swedbank
    14
     
    Pablo Isla Álvarez de Tejera
    Inditex
    15
     
    Marc Benioff
    Salesforce.com
    16
     
    Oscar Gonzalez Rocha
    Southern Copper
    17
     
    Stephen Wynn
    Wynn Resorts
    18
     
    James Taiclet Jr.
    American Tower
    19
     
    Elmar Degenhart
    Continental
    20
     
    George Paz
    Express Scripts
    21
     
    Tsai Ming-Kai
    MediaTek (tie)
    21
     
    Paolo Rocca
    Tenaris (tie)
    23
     
    Reed Hastings
    Netflix
    24
     
    Ronald Havner Jr.
    Public Storage
    25
     
    Michael Balmuth
    Ross Stores
    26
     
    Daniel Hajj Aboumrad
    América Móvil
    27
     
    Debra Cafaro
    Ventas
    28
     
    James Gallogly
    LyondellBasell
    29
     
    Christopher Connor
    Sherwin-Williams
    30
     
    Djalma Bastos de Morais
    Cemig
    31
     
    Paul Bisaro
    Actavis
    32
     
    Jon Fredrik Baksaas
    Telenor (tie)
    32
     
    Renato Alves Vale
    CCR (tie)
    34
     
    Alexander Cutler
    Eaton (tie)
    34
     
    Stephen Luczo
    Seagate Technology (tie)
    36
     
    Gordon Nixon
    Royal Bank of Canada
    37
     
    Kent Thiry
    DaVita
    38
     
    H. Lawrence Culp Jr.
    Danaher
    39
     
    Charles Davidson
    Noble Energy
    40
     
    George Scangos
    Biogen Idec
    41
     
    Ulf Schneider
    Fresenius
    42
     
    Dan Dinges
    Cabot Oil & Gas
    43
     
    Simon Wolfson
    Next
    44
     
    Michael Ward
    CSX
    45
     
    Fujio Mitarai
    Canon
    46
     
    Carlos Alves de Brito
    Anheuser-Busch InBev
    47
     
    Ed Clark
    Toronto-Dominion Bank (tie)
    47
     
    Joseph Papa
    Perrigo (tie)
    49
     
    Philip Pascall
    First Quantum
    50
     
    John Wren
    Omnicom
    51
     
    Carol Meyrowitz
    TJX
    52
     
    Nick Hayek Jr.
    Swatch
    53
     
    John Hammergren
    McKesson
    54
     
    Howard Schultz
    Starbucks (tie)
    54
     
    Blake Nordstrom
    Nordstrom (tie)
    56
     
    Frank Hermance
    Ametek
    57
     
    Bruce Flatt
    Brookfield Asset Management
    58
     
    Jeffrey Sprecher
    Intercontinental Exchange
    59
     
    Wolfgang Reitzle
    Linde
    60
     
    Robert Iger
    Walt Disney
    61
     
    Benoît Potier
    Air Liquide
    62
     
    William Rhodes III
    AutoZone
    63
     
    Monty Moran
    Chipotle Mexican Grill
    64
     
    Ajaypal Banga
    MasterCard
    65
     
    Richard Cousins
    Compass Group
    66
     
    Terry Lundgren
    Macy’s (tie)
    66
     
    Benjamin Steinbruch
    Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional (tie)
    68
     
    Randall Hogan
    Pentair
    69
     
    Gregory Case
    Aon
    70
     
    André Desmarais
    Power Corporation of Canada (tie)
    70
     
    Paul Desmarais Jr.
    Power Corporation of Canada (tie)
    72
     
    Ola Rollén
    Hexagon
    73
     
    Herbert Hainer
    Adidas
    74
     
    Lars Rasmussen
    Coloplast
    75
     
    George Weston
    Associated British Foods
    76
     
    Mark Parker
    Nike
    77
     
    David Zaslav
    Discovery Communications
    78
     
    Ed Heffernan
    Alliance Data Systems
    79
     
    Peter Rogers
    Babcock
    80
     
    Gregory Henslee
    O’Reilly Automotive
    81
     
    Fabrizio Freda
    Estée Lauder
    82
     
    Scott Saxberg
    Crescent Point Energy
    83
     
    Tsai Eng-Meng
    Want Want China Holdings
    84
     
    Eric Wiseman
    VF
    85
     
    He Guangbei
    BOC Hong Kong
    86
     
    Gregory Johnson
    Franklin Resources (tie)
    86
     
    Michael Mussallem
    Edwards Lifesciences (tie)
    88
     
    Jean-Paul Clozel
    Actelion
    89
     
    Martin Winterkorn
    Volkswagen
    90
     
    Kari Henrik Stadigh
    Sampo
    91
     
    Lars Renström
    Alfa Laval
    92
     
    Michael Kowalski
    Tiffany & Company
    93
     
    John Finnegan
    Chubb
    94
     
    Jacques Aschenbroich
    Valeo
    95
     
    Jean-Paul Luksic
    Antofagasta
    96
     
    Edward Matthew Tracy
    Sands China
    97
     
    Gregory Goodman
    Goodman
    98
     
    Franck Riboud
    Danone
    99
     
    Brian Jellison
    Roper Industries
    100 
    Willard Oberton
    Fastenal

    0 0
  • 10/17/14--19:57: CEO compensation 10-18
  • A Closer Look at Compensation



    $34,321,055
    1
    60
     
    Robert Iger
    Walt Disney
    $33,349,798
    2
    77
     
    David Zaslav
    Discovery Communications
    $31,333,332
    3
    15
     
    Marc Benioff
    Salesforce.com
    $31,069,648
    4
    81
     
    Fabrizio Freda
    Estée Lauder
    $25,032,775
    5
    53
     
    John Hammergren
    McKesson
    $24,397,054
    6
    63
     
    Monty Moran
    Chipotle Mexican Grill
    $23,087,809
    7
    34
     
    Alexander Cutler
    Eaton
    $21,368,796
    8
    99
     
    Brian Jellison
    Roper Industries
    $21,049,501
    9
    3
     
    John Chambers
    Cisco Systems
    $20,720,802
    10
    51
     
    Carol Meyrowitz
    TJX
    $19,920,167
    11
    89
     
    Martin Winterkorn
    Volkswagen
    $19,758,406
    12
    34
     
    Stephen Luczo
    Seagate Technology
    $19,703,525
    13
    38
     
    H. Lawrence Culp Jr.
    Danaher
    $19,601,381
    14
    17
     
    Stephen Wynn
    Wynn Resorts
    $17,981,470
    15
    58
     
    Jeffrey Sprecher
    Intercontinental Exchange
    $17,242,507
    16
    54
     
    Howard Schultz
    Starbucks
    $17,099,257
    17
    37
     
    Kent Thiry
    DaVita
    $16,503,699
    18
    50
     
    John Wren
    Omnicom
    $15,695,528
    19
    5
     
    David Simon
    Simon Property Group
    $15,651,849
    20
    93
     
    John Finnegan
    Chubb
    $15,451,862
    21
    2
     
    John Martin
    Gilead Sciences
    $15,425,608
    22
    76
     
    Mark Parker
    Nike
    $14,925,670
    23
    40
     
    George Scangos
    Biogen Idec
    $13,535,473
    24
    69
     
    Gregory Case
    Aon
    $13,040,682
    25
    20
     
    George Paz
    Express Scripts
    $12,488,884
    26
    36
     
    Gordon Nixon
    Royal Bank of Canada
    $12,444,632
    27
    44
     
    Michael Ward
    CSX
    $12,419,615
    28
    82
     
    Scott Saxberg
    Crescent Point Energy
    $12,362,590
    29
    64
     
    Ajaypal Banga
    MasterCard
    $12,221,026
    30
    18
     
    James Taiclet Jr.
    American Tower
    $12,132,702
    31
    86
     
    Gregory Johnson
    Franklin Resources
    $12,112,481
    32
    7
     
    Hugh Grant
    Monsanto
    $11,694,852
    33
    68
     
    Randall Hogan
    Pentair
    $11,632,936
    34
    4
     
    David Pyott
    Allergan
    $11,415,211
    35
    84
     
    Eric Wiseman
    VF
    $11,410,721
    36
    66
     
    Terry Lundgren
    Macy’s
    $11,024,994
    37
    31
     
    Paul Bisaro
    Actavis
    $10,817,347
    38
    29
     
    Christopher Connor
    Sherwin-Williams
    $10,241,714
    39
    47
     
    Ed Clark
    Toronto-Dominion Bank
    $9,990,042
    40
    12
     
    David Novak
    Yum Brands
    $9,960,041
    41
    27
     
    Debra Cafaro
    Ventas
    $9,799,806
    42
    39
     
    Charles Davidson
    Noble Energy
    $9,699,876
    43
    9
     
    Mark Donegan
    Precision Castparts
    $9,199,200
    44
    24
     
    Ronald Havner Jr.
    Public Storage
    $9,126,260
    45
    28
     
    James Gallogly
    LyondellBasell
    $9,112,864
    46
    42
     
    Dan Dinges
    Cabot Oil & Gas
    $7,732,857
    47
    23
     
    Reed Hastings
    Netflix
    $7,680,697
    48
    98
     
    Franck Riboud
    Danone
    $7,431,806
    49
    78
     
    Ed Heffernan
    Alliance Data Systems
    $6,997,734
    50
    8
     
    J. Michael Pearson
    Valeant Pharmaceuticals
    $6,611,950
    51
    86
     
    Michael Mussallem
    Edwards Lifesciences
    $6,371,472
    52
    10
     
    William Doyle
    PotashCorp
    $6,231,026
    53
    25
     
    Michael Balmuth
    Ross Stores
    $6,177,521
    54
    70
     
    Paul Desmarais Jr.
    Power Corporation of Canada(tie)
    $6,177,521
    55
    70
     
    André Desmarais
    Power Corporation of Canada (tie)
    $6,147,121
    56
    92
     
    Michael Kowalski
    Tiffany & Company
    $6,146,036
    57
    47
     
    Joseph Papa
    Perrigo
    $6,000,000
    58
    46
     
    Carlos Alves de Brito
    Anheuser-Busch InBev
    $5,912,414
    59
    56
     
    Frank Hermance
    Ametek
    $5,516,854
    60
    57
     
    Bruce Flatt
    Brookfield Asset Management
    $5,305,165
    61
    62
     
    William Rhodes III
    AutoZone
    $3,690,079
    62
    80
     
    Gregory Henslee
    O’Reilly Automotive
    $3,446,321
    63
    49
     
    Philip Pascall
    First Quantum
    $3,434,692
    64
    54
     
    Blake Nordstrom
    Nordstrom
    $2,760,550
    65
    6
     
    Lars Rebien Sørensen
    Novo Nordisk
    $1,681,840
    66
    1
     
    Jeffrey Bezos
    Amazon
    $1,603,307
    67
    16
     
    Oscar Gonzalez Rocha
    Southern Copper
    $794,761
    68
    100
     
    Willard Oberton
    Fastenal

    0 0

    Af

    Does   IQ   Beat   EQ ?   Wrong   Question.

    After 100 years of research, there’s little agreement on the definition of intelligence or how to measure IQ. Yet Adam Grant insists cognitive skill trumps all, and “Emotional Intelligence Is Overrated.” His critique is wrong, but important.
    His latest post on LinkedIN is a follow up to his Atlantic piece on “The Dark Side of Emotional Intelligence,” where he warns it’s risky to develop emotional competence. For example, he even speculates that Hitler used emotional intelligence to manipulate people into a frenzy of mindless loyalty.
    Framing this as “IQ versus EQ” demonstrates neither. At any meeting, any dinner table conversation, it’s obvious that these aspects of intelligence need to work together. The ability to conduct complex analysis is hobbled (and dangerous) without the ability to connect meaningfully with other human beings. The ability to sense and manage emotion is nearly useless without the ability make meaning from rational observation.
    Traditional psychological research has treated emotion and cognition as separate, even competitive. The current trend in neuroscience says something new, and powerful: Thoughts and feelings areinterdependent.

    Emotions Drive People

    That said, in the human brain, no signal is more powerful than emotion. Emotion is a primary filter; it’s a signal of survival. Any high school teacher can tell you: Algebra can’t compete with love. As a growing body of neuroeconomics research shows, we make decisions with emotion, then justify those with logic. Obviously, we’ll do a better job in that process if IQ and EQ work together.
    Science is a process of mounting evidence. Grant cites a couple of studies to support his opinion, but the real test comes from hundreds. While there certainly are studies that find EQ to have little value, and studies that find IQ to be essential, today Google Scholar lists over a hundred thousand studies on emotional intelligence. The evidence is growing. The interest in EQ as an important construct is indisputable.

    The Evidence for Emotional Intelligence

    This year, for the first time, a “big data” approach was used to assess the significance of emotional intelligence around the globe. Using a random-sampling process from a database of over 75,000 people, Six Seconds created a sample that’s balanced across age, gender, role and region to publish The State of the Heart Report. Assessing both EQ and performance outcomes (e.g., effectiveness, relationships, decision-making). The result: Between 50-60% of variation in these performance scores are predicted by EQ.
    EQ-outcome-scatter
    While Grant says EQ is unimportant on the job, The Business Case for Emotional Intelligence and The School Case for Emotional Intelligence, scores of studies say otherwise. Perhaps more importantly, in real-world examples, in people’s daily lives, we can see emotional intelligence skills improve performance at work, in school, and in life. They predict career success, school success, classroom behavior, stress management, leadership influence, employee engagement & performance, plant safety, change leadership,employee retention and even life success for professional athletes.
    Even more, emotional intelligence is an enabler of cognitive development. Looking at the fascinating body of neuro-learning research from Mary Helen Immordino Yang and other cognitive neuroscientists (see Medina’s Brain Rules for a good intro), a new perspective emerges: at a neurological level, thinking and emotion work together. We don’t “think” with one part of the brain and “feel” with another; the process of learning is built into the very same neural circuits as the process of social-emotional interaction.

    Is EQ More Important than IQ?

    None of this is to say that IQ is unimportant. In education and business we ALREADY focus on IQ. For the last hundred+ years, cognitive development has been the primary goal of education: we have seen IQ scores increase by two standard deviations over the last century (that means a “somewhat smart person today” would be a “genius” in 1915). This “Flynn Effect” suggests (a) that IQ tests don’t actually measure intelligence, and (b) that around the world massive attention is given to cognitive development.
    Growing IQ is helping us in many ways (creating innovations such as tiny computers that can be inserted into our hearts). At the same time, all this attention to IQ hasn’t solved other of the world’s most pressing problems (from poverty to environmental destruction to divorce to war). In fact, people today are more stressed, more lonely, and therefore less able to solve problems.
    Here in Silicon Valley, you can throw a rock and hit a building full of uber-intelligent engineers. These people are painfully smart – they graduated or dropped out from the top universities, they are only hired if they have good-to-scary levels of IQ. So now what? As Daniel Goleman explained in his rebuttal to Grant’s article (which includes a link to that piece), IQ gets you hired, but EQ gets you promoted.

    The Dark Side of Emotional Intelligence

    While Grant’s LinkedIN post is deliberately hostile (promotional intelligence?), his Atlantic article has a more thoughtful and important point. Capabilities can be misused. So should we avoid these skills? The Taliban knows that educated girls will eventually overthrow the regime, so they suppress education to keep this “danger” at bay. Is that the approach we want to take emotional skill, or about any area of knowledge?
    Emotional intelligence is a tool. Can someone misuse it? Sure. A baseball bat is for play, but in the wrong hands… One can make the danger argument for any skill, but it doesn’t make it inherently dangerous. There is nothing inherently manipulative about understanding one’s emotions and using that understanding for better decision making. The only real path forward is wisdom.
    Intelligence is not enough. We need to apply intelligence with the discernment that comes from awareness and compassion. Our purpose at Six Seconds is to support people to create positive change. Change that ennobles and empowers self and others. It’s the essence of leadership, and it’s urgently needed. While we must have cognitive power, but people are not just rational: the missing link is emotional intelligence.







    0 0




    20141020_2


    What You Eat Affects Your Productivity

    Think back to your most productive workday in the past week. Now ask yourself: On that afternoon, what did you have for lunch?
    When we think about the factors that contribute to workplace performance, we rarely give much consideration to food. For those of us battling to stay on top of emails, meetings, and deadlines, food is simply fuel.
    But as it turns out, this analogy is misleading. The foods we eat affect us more than we realize. With fuel, you can reliably expect the same performance from your car no matter what brand of unleaded you put in your tank. Food is different. Imagine a world where filling up at Mobil meant avoiding all traffic and using BP meant driving no faster than 20 miles an hour. Would you then be so cavalier about where you purchased your gas?
    Food has a direct impact on our cognitive performance, which is why a poor decision at lunch can derail an entire afternoon.
    Here’s a brief rundown of why this happens. Just about everything we eat is converted by our body into glucose, which provides the energy our brains need to stay alert. When we’re running low on glucose, we have a tough time staying focused and our attention drifts. This explains why it’s hard to concentrate on an empty stomach.
    So far, so obvious. Now here’s the part we rarely consider: Not all foods are processed by our bodies at the same rate. Some foods, like pasta, bread, cereal and soda, release their glucose quickly, leading to a burst of energy followed by a slump. Others, like high fat meals (think cheeseburgers and BLTs) provide more sustained energy, but require our digestive system to work harder, reducing oxygen levels in the brain and making us groggy.
    Most of us know much of this intuitively, yet we don’t always make smart decisions about our diet. In part, it’s because we’re at our lowest point in both energy and self-control when deciding what to eat. French fries and mozzarella sticks are a lot more appetizing when you’re mentally drained.
    Unhealthy lunch options also tend to be cheaper and faster than healthy alternatives, making them all the more alluring in the middle of a busy workday. They feel efficient. Which is where our lunchtime decisions lead us astray. We save 10 minutes now and pay for it with weaker performance the rest of the day.
    So what are we to do? One thing we most certainly shouldn’t do is assume that better information will motivate us to change. Most of us are well aware that scarfing down a processed mixture of chicken bones and leftover carcasses is not a good life decision. But that doesn’t make chicken nuggets any less delicious.
    No, it’s not awareness we need—it’s an action plan that makes healthy eating easier to accomplish. Here are some research-based strategies worth trying.
    The first is to make your eating decisions before you get hungry. If you’re going out to lunch, choose where you’re eating in the morning, not at 12:30 PM. If you’re ordering in, decide what you’re having after a mid-morning snack. Studies show we’re a lot better at resisting salt, calories, and fat in the future than we are in the present.
    Another tip: Instead of letting your glucose bottom out around lunch time, you’ll perform better by grazing throughout the day. Spikes and drops in blood sugar are both bad for productivity and bad for the brain. Smaller, more frequent meals maintain your glucose at a more consistent level than relying on a midday feast.
    Finally, make healthy snacking easier to achieve than unhealthy snacking. Place a container of almonds and a selection of protein bars by your computer, near your line of vision. Use an automated subscription service, like Amazon, to restock supplies. Bring a bag of fruit to the office on Mondays so that you have them available throughout the week.
    Is carrying produce to the office ambitious? For many of us, the honest answer is yes. Yet there’s reason to believe the weekly effort is justified.
    Research indicates that eating fruits and vegetables throughout the day isn’t simply good for the body—it’s also beneficial for the mind. A fascinating paper in this July’s British Journal of Health Psychology highlights the extent to which food affects our day-to-day experience.
    Within the study, participants reported their food consumption, mood, and behaviors over a period of 13 days. Afterwards, researchers examined the way people’s food choices influenced their daily experiences. Here was their conclusion: The more fruits and vegetables people consumed (up to 7 portions), the happier, more engaged, and more creative they tended to be.
    Why? The authors offer several theories. Among them is an insight we routinely overlook when deciding what to eat for lunch: Fruits and vegetables contain vital nutrients that foster the production of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that plays a key role in the experience of curiosity, motivation, and engagement. They also provide antioxidants that minimize bodily inflammation, improve memory, and enhance mood.
    Which underscores an important point: If you’re serious about achieving top workplace performance, making intelligent decisions about food is essential.
    The good news is that contrary to what many of us assume, the trick to eating right is not learning to resist temptation. It’s making healthy eating the easiest possible option.

    0 0


    Sleep is More Important than Food




    Let’s cut to the chase.


    Say you decide to go on a fast, and so you effectively starve yourself for a week. At the end of seven days, how would you be feeling? You’d probably be hungry, perhaps a little weak, and almost certainly somewhat thinner. But basically you’d be fine.
    Now let’s say you deprive yourself of sleep for a week. Not so good. After several days, you’d be almost completely unable to function. That’s why Amnesty International lists sleep deprivation as a form of torture.
    Here’s what former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had to say in his memoir White Nightsabout the experience of being deprived of sleep in a KGB prison: “In the head of the interrogated prisoner a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep … Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it.”
    So why is sleep one of the first things we’re willing to sacrifice as the demands in our lives keep rising? We continue to live by a remarkably durable myth: sleeping one hour less will give us one more hour of productivity. In reality, the research suggests that even small amounts of sleep deprivation take a significant toll on our health, our mood, our cognitive capacity and our productivity.
    Many of the effects we suffer are invisible. Insufficient sleep, for example, deeply impairs our ability to consolidate and stabilize learning that occurs during the waking day. In other words, it wreaks havoc on our memory.
    So how much sleep do you need? When researchers put test subjects in environments without clocks or windows and ask them to sleep any time they feel tired, 95 percent sleep between seven and eight hours out of every 24. Another 2.5 percent sleep more than eight hours. That means just 2.5 percent of us require less than 7 hours of sleep a night to feel fully rested. That’s 1 out of every 40 people.
    When I ask people in my talks how many had fewer than 7 hours of sleep several nights during the past week, the vast majority raise their hands. That’s true whether it’s an audience of corporate executives, teachers, cops or government workers. We’ve literally lost touch with what it feels like to be fully awake.
    Great performers are an exception. Typically, they sleep significantly more than the rest of us. InAnders Ericcson’s famous study of violinists, the top performers slept an average of 8 ½ hours out of every 24, including a 20 to 30 minute midafternoon nap some 2 hours a day more than the average American.
    The top violinists also reported that except for practice itself, sleep was second most important factorin improving as violinists.
    As I began to gather research about sleep, I felt increasingly compelled to give it higher priority in my own life. Today, I go to great lengths to assure that I get at least 8 hours every night, and ideally between 8 ½ and 9, even when I’m traveling.
    I still take the overnight “redeye” from California to New York, but I’m asleep by takeoff — even if takes an Ambien. When I get home at 6 or 7 a.m., I go right to bed until I’ve had my 8 hours. What I’ve learned about those days is that I’d rather work at 100 percent for 5 or 6 hours, than at 60 percent for 8 or 9 hours.
    With sufficient sleep, I feel better, I work with more focus, and I manage my emotions better, which is good for everyone around me. I dislike having even a single day where I haven’t gotten enough sleep, because the impact is immediate and unavoidable. On the rare days that I don’t get enough, I try hard to get at least a 20-30 minute nap in the afternoon. That’s a big help.
    Here are three other tips to improve the quantity and quality of your sleep:
    • Go to bed earlier — and at a set time. Sounds obvious right? The problem is there’s no alternative. You’re already waking up at the latest possible time you think is acceptable. If you don’t ritualize a specific bedtime, you’ll end up finding ways to stay up later, just the way you do now.
    • Start winding down at least 45 minutes before you turn out the light. You won’t fall asleep if you’re all wound up from answering email, or doing other work. Create a ritual around drinking a cup of herbal tea, or listening to music that helps you relax, or reading a dull book.
    • Write down what’s on your mind — especially unfinished to-do’s and unresolved issues — just before you go to bed. If you leave items in your working memory, they’ll make it harder to fall asleep, and you’ll end up ruminating about them if you should wake up during the night.


    0 0

    Burned-out tech workers can't connect to others



    SAN FRANCISCO — Internet media magnate Arianna Huffington exhorted thousands of workers in the Internet-based software industry last week to not let their own lives be controlled by technology.
    Tech companies themselves should lead the fight against "burnout"— including the kind caused by mobile work devices — and encourage them to do good for the industry's own good, Huffington urged.
    "Technology has to become our slave, not our master," she told the keynote crowd at Dreamforce 14, the Salesforce.com user conference that drew 150,000 salespeople, engineers and other software workers here.
    Huffington recounted her own burnout that led to a physical collapse, before she rebounded to found an online media news site that was acquired by AOL in 2011 for $315 million, mostly in cash.
    "We have the power to change things," she says. "We can get away from the collective delusion that burnout is the price of success."
    Huffington echoed the thoughts of Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff in urging tech workers and executives to more philanthropy and better self-care, by "not just doing well but being well."
    "Benioff said philanthropy is the best drug he's ever taken," she said.
    Of her fellow keynote figures (musician Neil Young, Benioff and spiritual guru Eckhart Tolle), she said: "The four of us haven't been together since Woodstock."
    Huffington then previewed Tolle's remarks in saying that people are most effective when they're being true at work to their inner selves.
    "People don't touch an audience if they're not in touch with themselves," said Tolle, who joined Huffington onstage at the city's Moscone Center for a seated interview after her keynote speech.
    Tolle ranged further, saying social media has had a multiplying effect on a human urge that dates back to long before Facebook came along.
    Since we first communicated, we've been telling others fictionalized accounts of our own lives.
    "People construct an image of themselves composed of stories, they live through a self-image," Tolle says.
    Yet this intellectual construct is "a delusion," a distracting and exhausting roadblock to inner peace, he said, before throwing the audience a curve:
    "Facebook can magnify this delusion," he said. "It can be very seductive."
    Meditation and other forms of mental focus may offer a healthier, alternative path.
    "Eighty percent of thinking is unnecessary; it just gets in the way of enjoying your life," said Tolle.


    0 0

    Bill Gates' Solution to Income InequalityPikke


    It might not come as a surprise to many that Bill Gates, whom Forbes’ magazine ranks as the second wealthiest man in the world, doesn’t agree with the ideas of French economist Thomas Piketty.
    It’s Piketty, after all, who made a big splash this year with his book Capital in the 21st Century, which argued that it is a fundamental law of capitalism that wealth will grow more concentrated absent destabilizing events like global wars. Piketty’s solution? A global tax on capital that could help governments better understand how wealth is distributed and stem the tide of inevitably increasing inequality, which Piketty believes is socially destabilizing.
    If you believe the Forbes list, there is nobody in the world besides Carlos Slim who has more to lose than Bill Gates if Piketty’s global wealth on tax were to be instituted. But Gates’ critique of Piketty’s work, published Monday on his personal blog, isn’t completely self-interested. After all, Gates has already pledged to give away half his fortune over the course of his lifetime, a much larger amount than the 1% or 2% wealth tax, proposed by Piketty, would confiscate. His problem isn’t with the idea that the super wealthy should spread their fortunes around, but ratherwith Piketty’s mechanism and the incentives it would create:
    "Imagine three types of wealthy people. One guy is putting his capital into building his business. Then there’s a woman who’s giving most of her wealth to charity. A third person is mostly consuming, spending a lot of money on things like a yacht and plane. While it’s true that the wealth of all three people is contributing to inequality, I would argue that the first two are delivering more value to society than the third. I wish Piketty had made this distinction, because it has important policy implications."
    Gates shares Piketty’s goal of spreading wealth, yet he doesn’t want to discourage the uber wealthy (like Gates) who are taking risks, investing in value-creating businesses, and helping the world through philanthropy. Gates’ solution? Shift the American tax code from one that taxes labor to one that taxes consumption. Now, this sounds like standard, right-wing economic theory. Consumption taxes are usually favored by the wealthy and by conservative economists because they tend to be regressive in nature. Since everyone—rich and poor—have to consume some amount of goods and services, and because the proportion of income spent is much higher for the poor than the rich, consumption taxes like state and local sales tax burden the poor more than the rich.
    But this doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Economists like Cornell University’s Robert Frank have long advocated for progressive consumption taxes that could do much to solve what they perceive as the ills of growing income inequality. As Frankwrites:
    "Under such a tax, people would report not only their income but also their annual savings, as many already do under 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts. A family’s annual consumption is simply the difference between its income and its annual savings. That amount, minus a standard deduction—say, $30,000 for a family of four—would be the family’s taxable consumption. Rates would start low, like 10 percent. A family that earned $50,000 and saved $5,000 would thus have taxable consumption of $15,000.
    Consider a family that spends $10 million a year and is deciding whether to add a $2 million wing to its mansion. If the top marginal tax rate on consumption were 100 percent, the project would cost $4 million. The additional tax payment would reduce the federal deficit by $2 million. Alternatively, the family could scale back, building only a $1 million addition. Then it would pay $1 million in additional tax and could deposit $2 million in savings. The federal deficit would fall by $1 million, and the additional savings would stimulate investment, promoting growth. Either way, the nation would come out ahead with no real sacrifice required of the wealthy family, because when all build larger houses, the result is merely to redefine what constitutes acceptable housing. With a consumption tax in place, most neighbors would also scale back the new wings on their mansions."
    As you can see, one of the strategies behind this tax regime is to reduce the incentive to consume. With less conspicuous consumption, the poor would suffer from the negative effects of having less than those around them. As many behavioral studies have shown, relative wealth has more of an impact on personal happiness than absolute wealth.
    Such a regime could appeal to both the right and left sides of the political spectrum. For those on the left, who are sometimes uncomfortable with the effects of a culture based around consumption, this tax would discourage such behavior. Meanwhile, a regime that encourages savings and investment would appeal to conservatives.
    But for a progressive consumption tax to be truly progressive, there would need to be a hefty estate tax to prevent the rich from simply letting their wealth grow over generations through interest income. But Gates argues this is not a problem, because we have the ability to institute estate taxes, a policy which he is a “big believer” in.

    0 0

    Closing In On Quantum Computing



    “For more than two decades,” writes Valerie C. Coffey (@StellarEdit), “one of the holy grails of physics has been to build a quantum computer that can process certain types of large-scale, very difficult problems exponentially faster than classical computers. Physicists are making progress toward this goal every day, but nearly every part of a quantum computer still needs re-engineering or redesign to make it all work.” ["The Incremental Quest for Quantum Computing," Photonics Spectra, 6 June 2014]
    With companies like Google and Microsoft seriously pursuing the subject of quantum computing, progress towards creating a indisputable quantum computer is likely to speed up. I say an “indisputable” quantum computer because the Canadian company D-Wave already has a quantum computer on the market; but, scientists are torn over whether it truly operates as a quantum computer. The problem with quantum computing is that you can never look under the hood to see what is going on because such an act would interfere with the quantum magic that allows a particle (in this case, a qubit) to be both a zero and a one at the same time. The following explanatory video calls this a “secret computation.” If you are new the subject of quantum computing, you’ll find the video both fascinating and insightful.
    As the video notes, one of the challenges associated with quantum computing is instability. Because calculations are taking place at the quantum level, the slightest interference can disrupt the process. To increase stability, most experimental systems rely on heavy shielding and are cooled to operating temperatures approaching absolute zero. That’s makes quantum computers very expensive to build and maintain. Since they are so difficult and expensive to work with, you might ask: Why bother? Paul Lopata, a physicist at the Laboratory for Physical Sciences in College Park, MD, explains, “Despite the well-known successes of computing machines based on digital logic, some algorithms continue to be difficult to perform -- and some problems are intractable not only on existing machines but on any practical digital-logic machine in the foreseeable future!” ["Beyond digital: A brief introduction to quantum computing," The Next Wave, Volume 20, No. 2, 2013] He continues:
    “These intractable problems serve as both a curse and a blessing: A curse because solutions to many of these intractable problems have significant scientific and practical interest. A blessing because the computational difficulty of these intractable problems can serve as a safeguard for secure data storage and secure data transmission through the use of modern encryption schemes. It is clear that the only algorithmic way to solve these intractable problems is to utilize a computing machine that is based on something other than standard digital logic. One such path toward developing a ‘beyond-digital logic’ machine is in the field of quantum computing. Quantum computing is still in the early stages of its development, and most of its advances are being reported from universities and basic research labs.”
    One of the more interesting advances that has been made resulted from an experiment at Washington State University. Eric Sorensen, a WSU science writer, reports, “Researchers at Washington State University have used a super-cold cloud of atoms that behaves like a single atom to see a phenomenon predicted 60 years ago and witnessed only once since.” ["Discovery opens new path to superfast quantum computing," WSU News, 4 June 2014] The phenomenon to which Sorensen refers is called a Bose-Einstein condensate. Sorensen explains that the condensate is important to the field of quantum computing because it makes it easier for researchers to test assumptions and changes in the atomic realm of quantum physics. The experiment was conducted by Peter Engels and his colleagues, who were able to cool about one million atoms of rubidium to 100 billionths of a degree above absolute zero.
    “At that point,” Sorensen explains, “the cluster of atoms formed a Bose-Einstein condensate -- a rare physical state predicted by Albert Einstein and Indian theorist Satyendra Nath Bose -- after undergoing a phase change similar to a gas becoming a liquid or a liquid becoming a solid. Once the atoms acted in unison, they could be induced to exhibit coherent ‘superradiant’ behavior predicted by Princeton University physicist Robert Dicke in 1954.” Engels told Sorensen, “This large group of atoms does not behave like a bunch of balls in a bucket. It behaves as one big super-atom. Therefore it magnifies the effects of quantum mechanics.” Sorensen notes, “While their cloud of atoms measures less than half a millimeter across, it is large enough to be photographed and measured. This gives experimenters a key tool for testing assumptions and changes in the atomic realm of quantum physics.”
    What Sorensen doesn’t say is that a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) can act as a stable qubit. Coffey notes, “The creation and control of a single qubit is inherently difficult, but controlling many of them simultaneously is even harder. Quantum states are fundamentally limited for the same reasons that the number of transistors on a semiconductor board is limited, according to Christopher Monroe, professor of physics at the University of Maryland’s Joint Quantum Institute in College Park. The more of them you have, the more difficult it is to connect them and the noisier the system.” An article from European Grid Infrastructure notes, “A BEC is a versatile quantum system that can be precisely controlled, and it is one of the essential requirements for building a quantum computer.” ["Getting closer to quantum computing with the grid," European Grid Infrastructure, 21 July 2014]
    Researchers from the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) agree that “one major hurdle in harnessing the power of a universal quantum computer is finding practical ways to control fragile quantum states.” In an attempt to address that problem, IQC researchers, Joseph Emerson, Mark Howard, and Joel Wallman, “have confirmed theoretically that contextuality is a necessary resource required for achieving the advantages of quantum computation.” ["Study finds weird magic ingredient for quantum computing," Phys.org, 11 June 2014] The article explains:
    “Quantum devices are extremely difficult to build because they must operate in an environment that is noise-resistant. The term magic refers to a particular approach to building noise-resistant quantum computers known as magic-state distillation. So-called magic states act as a crucial, but difficult to achieve and maintain, extra ingredient that boosts the power of a quantum device to achieve the improved processing power of a universal quantum computer. By identifying these magic states as contextual, researchers will be able to clarify the trade-offs involved in different approaches to building quantum devices. The results of the study may also help design new algorithms that exploit the special properties of these magic states more fully.”
    Another interesting breakthrough was announced earlier this year by researchers from Yale University. “Scientists at Yale University have demonstrated the ability to track real quantum errors as they occur, a major step in the development of reliable quantum computers.” ["Major Leap Toward Quantum Computing," PCB 007, 14 July 2014] The article notes that information loss, or quantum error, is a major challenge for quantum computing. Yale physicist Rob Schoelkopf, Sterling Professor of Applied Physics and Physics, stated, “Ninety-nine percent of quantum computing will be correcting errors. Demonstrating error correction that actually works is the biggest remaining challenge for building a quantum computer.” The article continues:
    “Schoelkopf’s group and other Yale collaborators tackled the first step in quantum error correction --successfully identifying errors as they happen, in their case by means of a reporter atom. Identifying quantum-computing errors in real time is particularly challenging: Qubits are so fragile that searching for errors can result in more errors. To determine if an error occurred, Schoelkopf and his team relied on an ancilla, or a more stable reporter atom, which detected errors without destroying the state and relayed that information back to the scientists on a computer. During their experiments, the scientists used a superconducting box containing the ancilla and an unknown number of photons, or light particles, which were cooled to approximately -459°F, a fraction of a degree above absolute zero. This minimized quantum errors induced by the environment.
    The team then tracked the photons in the box over time to see if and when the photons escaped. Losing photons from the box indicated lost information, or the occurrence of a quantum error. The errors need to be detected without learning the exact conditions in the superconducting box, including the number of photons, because determining the conditions in the box can disrupt the qubit quantum state and result in more errors. So the ancilla reported only the photon parity -- whether an even or odd number of quantum photons were present in the box -- in real time. A change in parity -- for example, from even to odd -- indicated the loss of a single photon without revealing whether the box had changed from six to five photons or from four to three photons. The team found success in their first experiment and demonstrated for the first time the tracking of naturally occurring errors, in real time, as would be needed for a real quantum computer.”
    Schoelkopf asserts, “It is hard to estimate how long it will be until we have functional quantum computers, but it will be sooner than we think.” That’s a claim we’ve heard before (see my post “Quantum Future: Just Beyond Our Grasp“). Let’s hope that this time the prediction is more accurate.

    View at the original source

    0 0


    How Modi Can Deliver on the Promise of ‘Make in India’



    Within the 24 hours surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement of the government’s new, pro-manufacturing “Make in India” policy, the nation also boasted a successful mission to Mars and a credit rating that had been raised from “negative” to “stable” by Standard & Poor’s. Suddenly, a lot of things seemed to be going India’s way — but for “Make in India,” at least, there are plenty of hurdles ahead. 
    The campaign, which focuses on the manufacturing sector, is not going to be easy to deliver, despite the enthusiasm that accompanied the launch of the effort’s new logo and website. FDI (foreign direct investment), Modi, told investors, should stand for First Develop India. “India is the only country in the world which offers the unique combination of democracy, demography, and demand,” he said. In the audience were CEOs from abroad — Maruti Suzuki’s Kenichi Ayukawa and Lockheed Martin’s Phil Shaw — and home, including Tata Group chief Cyrus Mistry, Reliance head Mukesh Ambani, Kumar Mangalam Birla of the Aditya Birla Group and IT tycoon Azim Premji.
    Modi followed the launch with meetings with other CEOs, such as Mary Barra of General Motors, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Satya Nadella of Microsoft and (earlier) Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo. They all gave the appropriate soundbites to the media. But the key question is: Will they bite? Will they be able to convince their boards and Fore companies to invest in India? Will Make in India work?
    “This is a great idea,” says Jagmohan Raju, professor of marketing at Wharton. “The Indian consumer has come of age, and domestic demand will continue to increase to justify the production of goods in India. Twitter  If goods are produced in India, it creates manufacturing sector jobs. It creates an infrastructure of ancillary industries. More jobs will be created in the industrial sector and the economy will get a boost. Japan started its growth path by making goods for the U.S. China has a strong manufacturing base. India can achieve the same.”
    Getting Rid of Red Tape
    “There are several hurdles to Modi’s Make in India campaign,” counters Ravi Aron, professor at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. “The reason that there is very little manufacturing investment in India is not because the country has done a poor job of marketing itself. Twitter  India today is a bad choice for foreign investment in manufacturing. It is not surprising that manufacturing accounts for only about 15% of the Indian GDP.”
    “Poor infrastructure, crony capitalism and corruption have likely done more to dissuade investment than labor laws.”–Janice Bellace
     Modi has not yet initiated many policy changes to improve the business climate in India, although he has assured investors that a red carpet will replace red tape. India is currently ranked 134th in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business list. According to government officials, as part of the Make in India initiative, all hurdles related to starting or doing business in India will now be resolved in a maximum of 72 hours. The government has created a panel of experts and representatives from various departments to hear issues related to domestic and global investment. To put that in perspective, Vodafone has been fighting the government in the courts for several years. Walmart is still waiting on the sidelines, having abandoned its partnership with the Bharti Group.
    Almost a month after the new policy was announced, the government amended some of the labor laws. The changes pertain to the system of inspection of companies, known as the Inspector Raj. Under the new system, inspectors will no longer be able to visit companies of their choice and stay there for as long as they want. A computerized database system will decide who goes where. There is also a time limit for filing reports. An online Shram Suvidha portal has been unveiled for employers to submit one compliance report for 16 labor laws. “These facilities are what I call minimum government, maximum governance,” Modi said at the launch of the campaign. There were a few other measures, such as portability of provident funds, designed to benefit employees. But the Industrial Disputes Act, which does not allow a company to close down a loss-making unit, remains intact for now.
    “Modi has taken the position that India must be transparent and efficient,” says Janice Bellace, professor of legal studies and business ethics at Wharton. “Poor infrastructure, crony capitalism and corruption have likely done more to dissuade investment than labor laws. What Modi needs to do is eliminate outdated legislation and replace them with up-to-date laws, where appropriate, and streamline compliance and enforcement procedures. Most importantly, Modi should commit the government of India to ‘decent work,’ an International Labor Organization term that includes opportunity, security, adequate remuneration and freedom of association.”
    Modi is trying to change mindsets — that of labor, of bureaucrats and of employers. “The policy offers few tangibles except acceptance of self-certified documents, a 72-hour window to get clarifications on the Make in India website and 25 defined focus areas,” says Radhicka Kapoor, fellow at the Indian Council for Research and International Economic Relations and the author of a recent paper titled, “Creating Jobs in India’s Organized Manufacturing Sector.”
    “While the PM has acknowledged that India is indeed a difficult place to do business due to the large number of regulatory bottlenecks and has set a target of elevating India’s ranking by 85 rungs in the World Bank’s Doing Business survey, he has not outlined a specific strategy to achieve this goal,” Kapoor notes. “What the policy does, however, is to send signals of vigor and enthusiasm. But it will take a lot more than a flashy new website, a new lion symbol and catchy phrases to make India a manufacturing powerhouse and create productive jobs for India’s rapidly-expanding workforce.” 
    Adds C.S. Rao, chief economist at apex chamber Assocham: “At this point, the policy mirrors Modi’s thoughts. It needs to be seen how it turns out.” According to Kumar Kandaswami, senior director at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India, so far the campaign is “a statement of intent.” That said, he adds, “it is a very important one as it will mobilize activity and direct the attention of stakeholders. The government has brought on board industry leaders. The fact that this is held out as an important initiative of the prime minister means that there will be serious follow-up action.”
    No one is quarreling with the need to boost manufacturing, but Pankaj Chandra, professor of production and operations management at the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, says that the government must take a proactive approach if it wants to get results. “In the past, the bureaucrats didn’t do their part of the job. They did not have the strategic framework,” Chandra notes. “There were the big manufacturing investment zones. But the bureaucrats couldn’t see beyond a real estate play. And manufacturing is everything but a real estate play. The world over, manufacturing has changed. Modern manufacturing is about science and technology, R&D, new processes, innovation, skills and quality. If we can’t do all this, I don’t think the Make in India project will work.”
    Make in India is a great idea. The Indian consumer has come of age, and domestic demand will continue to increase to justify the production of goods in India.”– Jagmohan Raju
    But Babu Khan, senior director (manufacturing & infrastructure) at apex chamber the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), says that “Make in India” is more than a statement of intent. “[Make in India] underscores a sound strategy and the strong reforms process that the new government is committed to,” Khan says. “The Indian economy is at a major turning point, as we can now look back at the global financial crisis and move ahead toward economic revival.”
    Khan adds that recent statistics show how critical it is for India to focus on boosting manufacturing. “After growing at 10.1% during the five-year period 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, the manufacturing sector slowed down sharply, growing at just 4.2% in the past four years,” he explains. “As a result, its share in GDP has declined to 14.9% in 2013-2014 from a peak level of 16.2% in 2009-2010.”
    Déjà Vu
    This is not the first time that India has tried to boost its manufacturing prowess. In 2004, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and McKinsey produced a report titled, “Made in India: The Next Big Manufacturing Export Story.” According to the report, “Manufacturing exports from India have not taken off even though India has several advantages, including engineering skills (process, product, quality and capital), a growing domestic market, a raw material base and a large pool of skilled labor.… India has the potential to increase manufacturing exports from $40 billion in 2002 to $300 billion by 2015.”
    In 2004, the government set up the National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council (NMCC). In 2006, the NMCC came out with a national strategy for manufacturing. The objective: to raise the share of manufacturing in GDP from 17% to 30%-35% by 2015. The council dubbed 2006-2015 as the “decade of manufacturing in India.” In 2012, McKinsey wrote: “If India’s manufacturing sector realized its full potential, it could generate 25% to 30% of GDP by 2025.” In May 2011, the department of commerce finalized a strategic paper on doubling India’s exports from $246 billion to $500 billion in the next three years (2011-2012 to 2013-2014). Merchandise exports needed to grow at 26.7% to achieve this target. For the record, the manufacturing sector saw a decline of 1.4% in August 2014.
    The figures have not changed materially; only the target year has moved from 2015 to 2025. A more recent FICCI report dated August 2013 notes: “In the current scenario, to expect manufacturing to grow at 14% (as targeted) on a long-term basis may not be feasible.” (Incidentally, Modi has appointed former McKinsey India chairman Adil Zainulbhai as chief of the Quality Council of India, which will spearhead the Make in India effort.)
    Aron says that there are several things fundamentally wrong with India that will continue to stifle manufacturing. “There are four classes of deficits,” he explains. First are the factors of production. India faces crippling shortages in, for example, power. Businesses are forced to rely on expensive and inefficient ways of producing power. India’s labor laws make it hazardous for businesses that face seasonality in their demand to set up mass production facilities. By telling industry that it cannot retrench a part of the workforce in accordance with falls in demand, India has succeeded in making original equipment and component manufacturing extremely unattractive, Aron notes.
    Window for growth through export-led manufacturing may well have closed for India.” –Ravi Aron
    Second, continues Aron, are the enablers of production — such as surface transport and ports. “Manufacturing requires a significant edifice of infrastructure support. This edifice is absent in India,” he points out.
    “The third set of issues has to do with the legal regime. Laws are made to suit the extremely myopic and expedient objectives of the regime in power,” Aron notes. “The Vodafone retroactive taxation is a case in point. Even after the Supreme Court ruled that the company did not owe taxes, Parliament passed a retroactive law to claim the money from Vodafone in what must surely seem to foreign investors like state-sponsored larceny. Walmart, Amazon and Nokia are all faced with capricious tax and business laws being implemented by a corrupt bureaucracy. Is it any surprise that Microsoft did not include Nokia’s manufacturing facility in Chennai in its deal for Nokia’s phone and tablet assets. The reason? Tax terrorism again.”
    Finally, there is chronic, all pervasive corruption. It is only the fourth deficit that Modi can tackle to some extent, says Aron.
    Raju contends that Aron is too pessimistic. On infrastructure, for instance, “many manufacturing companies in India and elsewhere do create their own infrastructure. Look at Jamshedpur [a city with a population of more than 600,000 built by the Tatas over 100 years].” But he sees other problems. “I am less worried about labor laws, and more worried about the availability of a skilled workforce,” he says.
    Kandaswami says the Make in India policy can bring in more FDI, make the sector more competitive, create good quality jobs and enhance the quality and quantum of exports. “But the vision statement has to be followed up by action on the policy and implementation fronts,” he explains. Not delivering on the promise would be a significant setback for manufacturing in India.
    Has Time Run Out?
    Considering that India realized the manufacturing imperatives several years ago and did nothing but produce a series of reports that gathered dust, it may already be too late. “The window for growth through export-led manufacturing may well have closed for India,” says Aron. There are two reasons for this, he adds. First are supply efficiencies: Large volume component manufacturers move to a region because they wish to co-locate with other firms in the same supply chain. “Between 1985 and 2000, many manufacturers went to China because of cheap labor,” Aron notes. “But their growth in the second phase — from 2000 through 2012-2013 — was because an ecosystem of suppliers comprising members … of many business verticals — semiconductors, medical equipment, heavy electrical, molded plastics and toys — had sprung up in China. In other words, many firms took their manufacturing to China because their supply chain partners were already there. Companies first went to China for cheap labor, but stayed for supply chain efficiencies.”
    The second issue is the extent of automation in production, continues Aron. “In industry after industry, we have seen automation in the form of robotic production, digitization of business processes and precision manufacturing techniques,” he points out. “Manufacturing is returning to the U.S. much faster than manufacturing jobs are. The growth in manufacturing jobs is not really about where unskilled laborers swing their hammer at a widget moving on the assembly line; it is about workers that calibrate, operate and manage machines as a part of the manufacturing routine.
    Even with all these challenges, Modi could still attract some manufacturing FDI to India, Aron says, though it would be nothing like China’s “spectacular gains” made between 2000 and 2010. “But nonetheless, [it could be a] significant amount,” he notes. “Before he does that though, he will need to build roads, ports and power plants — the manufacturing infrastructure. Perhaps a CEO could tell the PM: ‘If you build it, they will come.’”

    0 0







    0 0




    How U.S. News Calculated the Best Global Universities Rankings



    Find out how we determined the world's top universities overall and by region and country.

    School-Level Indicators



    Publicly available data sources were used to create the school-level indicators.

    Number of Ph.D.s awarded (5 percent): This indicator reflects the​ total number of doctoral degrees awarded in 2012. The number of doctorates awarded can be considered an alternative indicator of research output and is linked to volume.

    Number of Ph.D.s awarded per academic staff member (5 percent):​ This is the number of Ph.D.s awarded per the number of academic faculty members for the same year. This is a size-independent measure of the education environment at the university.

    How the Overall Global Scores and Numerical Rankings Were Calculated

    To arrive at a school's rank, the overall global scores were calculated using a combination of the weights and z-scores for each of the 10 indicators used in the rankings. In statistics, a z-score is a standardized score that indicates how many standard deviations a data point is from the mean of that variable. This transformation of the data is essential when combining diverse information into a single ranking because it allows for fair comparisons between the different types of data.​​​​​​​​​​​​ 
    Several of the indicators were highly skewed, so the logs of the original values were used. The indicators that used logs were:
    • Publications
    • Total citations
    • Number of highly cited papers
    • Number of Ph.D.s awarded
    • Global research reputation
    • Regional research reputation
    This log manipulation rescaled the data and allowed for a more normalized and uniform spread across each of the indicators. After these six indicators were normalized, the z-scores for each indicator were calculated in order to standardize the different types of data to a common scale. ​
    In order to calculate a school's overall global score, the calculated z-scores for each of the 10 indicators were then weighted using the assigned weights described earlier. U.S. News determined the weights based on our judgment of the relative importance of the ranking factors and in consultation with bibliometric experts.
    The overall global score for each school was calculated by summing the school's weighted values for each indicator. The minimum score from the pool of 750 schools was then subtracted from each of the scores in order to make zero the lowest possible score.
    The scores were then rescaled by multiplying the ratio between the overall performance of each university and the highest-performing university by 100. This forced the scores to fall on a 0-100 scale, with the highest-performing school earning an overall global score of 100.
    The top 500 universities out of the 750 were then numerically ranked in descending order from 1 to 500 based on their weighted, rescaled overall global score. Each school's overall global score was rounded to one decimal place in order to increase variance between scores and to minimize the occurrence of ties.
    In addition, the 750 universities received a numerical rank for each of the 10 ranking indicators, such as publications, total citations and global academic reputation, based on their z-score for that indicator. The highest-scoring university for each of the 10 indicators received a rank of 1 and the lowest-scoring university received a rank of 750. Ties were allowed. 
    As noted earlier, the numerical ranks for each of the 10 indicators are published on usnews.com for each school ranked in the top 500. This means that there are some schools in the top 500 rankings that have ranking indicators with numerical ranks in the 501 to 750 range. The numerical ranks published for each ranking indicator are to be used to determine the relative position of each school in that indicator. The numerical indicator ranks were not used to calculate the overall global score.
    Bibliometric Indicators

    The bibliometric indicators used in our ranking analysis are based on data from the Web of ScienceTM ​for the five-​year period from ​2008 to 2012.​ The Web of ScienceTM is a Web-based research platform ​that covers ​​more than 12,000 of the most influential and authoritative scholarly journals worldwide in the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities.
    ​Publications (12.5 percent): ​This is a measure of the overall research productivity of a university, based on the total number of scholarly papers (reviews, articles and notes) that contain affiliations to a university and are published in high-quality, impactful journals. This indicator is closely linked to the size of the university. It is also influenced by the discipline focus of the university, as some disciplines, particularly medicine, publish more than others.
    Normalized citation impact (10 percent​​): The total number of citations per paper represents the overall impact of the research of the university and is independent of the size or age of the university; the value is normalized to overcome differences in research area, the publication year of the paper and publication type.
    NCI is considered one of the core measures of research performance and is used by various research evaluation bodies globally. ​​The subject fields used in the analysis came from Thomson Reuters' InCitesTM 
    product, which helps institutions evaluate research output, performance and trends; understand the scope of an organization’s scholarly contributions; and articulate outcomes to inform research priorities. InCites utilizes the content and citation indicators found in the Web of ScienceTM.

    Total citations (10 percent): This indicator measures how influential the university has been on the global research community. It is determined by multiplying the publications ranking factor by the normalized citation impact factor. Total citations have been normalized to overcome differences in research area, publication year of the paper ​and publication type.
    Number of highly cited papers (12.5 percent): This indicator reflects​ the number of papers that have been assigned as being in the top 10 percent of the most highly cited papers in the world for their respective fields. Each paper is given a percentile score that represents where it falls, in terms of citation rank, compared with similar papers (same publication year​, subject and document type). As the number of highly cited papers is dependent on the size of the university, the indicator can be considered a robust indication of how much excellent research the university produces.
    Percentage of highly cited papers (10 percent): This indicator is the percentage of a university's total papers that are in the top 10 percent of the most highly cited ​papers in the world (per field and ​publication year). It is a measure of the amount of excellent research produced by the university and is independent of the university's size.

    International collaboration (10 percent): This indicator is the proportion of the institution's total papers that contain international co-authors divided by the proportion of internationally co-authored papers for the country that the university is in. It shows how international the research papers are compared with the country in which the institution is based. International collaborative papers are considered an indicator of quality, as only the best research will be able to attract international collaborators.
    School-Level Indicators

    Publicly available data sources were used to create the school-level indicators.

    Number of Ph.D.s awarded (5 percent): This indicator reflects the​ total number of doctoral degrees awarded in 2012. The number of doctorates awarded can be considered an alternative indicator of research output and is linked to volume.

    Number of Ph.D.s awarded per academic staff member (5 percent):​ This is the number of Ph.D.s awarded per the number of academic faculty members for the same year. This is a size-independent measure of the education environment at the university.

    How the Overall Global Scores and Numerical Rankings Were Calculated

    To arrive at a school's rank, the overall global scores were calculated using a combination of the weights and z-scores for each of the 10 indicators used in the rankings. In statistics, a z-score is a standardized score that indicates how many standard deviations a data point is from the mean of that variable. This transformation of the data is essential when combining diverse information into a single ranking because it allows for fair comparisons between the different types of data.​​​​​​​​​​​​ 
    Several of the indicators were highly skewed, so the logs of the original values were used. The indicators that used logs were:
    • Publications
    • Total citations
    • Number of highly cited papers
    • Number of Ph.D.s awarded
    • Global research reputation
    • Regional research reputation
    This log manipulation rescaled the data and allowed for a more normalized and uniform spread across each of the indicators. After these six indicators were normalized, the z-scores for each indicator were calculated in order to standardize the different types of data to a common scale. ​
    In order to calculate a school's overall global score, the calculated z-scores for each of the 10 indicators were then weighted using the assigned weights described earlier. U.S. News determined the weights based on our judgment of the relative importance of the ranking factors and in consultation with bibliometric experts.
    The overall global score for each school was calculated by summing the school's weighted values for each indicator. The minimum score from the pool of 750 schools was then subtracted from each of the scores in order to make zero the lowest possible score.
    The scores were then rescaled by multiplying the ratio between the overall performance of each university and the highest-performing university by 100. This forced the scores to fall on a 0-100 scale, with the highest-performing school earning an overall global score of 100.
    The top 500 universities out of the 750 were then numerically ranked in descending order from 1 to 500 based on their weighted, rescaled overall global score. Each school's overall global score was rounded to one decimal place in order to increase variance between scores and to minimize the occurrence of ties.
    In addition, the 750 universities received a numerical rank for each of the 10 ranking indicators, such as publications, total citations and global academic reputation, based on their z-score for that indicator. The highest-scoring university for each of the 10 indicators received a rank of 1 and the lowest-scoring university received a rank of 750. Ties were allowed. 
    As noted earlier, the numerical ranks for each of the 10 indicators are published on usnews.com for each school ranked in the top 500. This means that there are some schools in the top 500 rankings that have ranking indicators with numerical ranks in the 501 to 750 range. The numerical ranks published for each ranking indicator are to be used to determine the relative position of each school in that indicator. The numerical indicator ranks were not used to calculate the overall global score.
    Data Collection and Missing Data
    The data and metrics used in the ranking were provided by Thomson Reuters InCitesTM research analytics solutions. The bibliometric data were based upon the Web of ScienceTM.

    Publications are limited to those published between 2008 and 2012. However, the citations to those papers come from all publications up to the most recent data available. For the 2015 edition of the U.S. News Best Global Universities, ​​published in 2014, this cutoff was around April 2014. 
    It is necessary to use a slightly older window of publication to allow for citations to accumulate and provide statistically relevant results.

    The subject fields used in the analysis came from Thomson Reuters' InCitesTM 
    schema and did not include arts and humanities journals, and therefore they are excluded for the citation-based indicators; but articles from arts and humanities journals were included in the papers count used in the publications indicator. Arts and humanities journals accumulate few citations and citation analysis is less robust; therefore, the deliberate exclusion of arts and humanities improves the robustness of the results.
    When data were not available, such as Ph.D.s awarded,​ ​a z-score of zero was used so as to neither reward nor penalize the university (i.e., it is treated as an average of all the other universities).

    When the value is zero it is not possible to calculate the log value; therefore, a substitute is used. The substitute is one-tenth of the minimum value of all other institutions. There were no missing data in the bibliometric or reputation indicators.

    ​​University Rankings by Region

    After the overall top 500 rankings were calculated, U.S. News then produced additional rankings. The ​​U.S. News Best Global Universities rankings by region ​​​​​show the top institutions in four regions with a large number of globally ranked schools. Those regions are Asia, Australia/​New Zealand, Europe ​and Latin America. To determine which countries are in which region, we used the United Nations definition of geographical regions.
    The methodology for the region rankings is based entirely on how a school ranked in the overall Best Global Universities rankings covering the top 500 schools worldwide. Universities are numerically ranked in their region based on their position in the overall​ Best Global Universities rankings.
    For example, in Europe, the highest-ranked university in the overall top 500 rankings is the United Kingdom's ​​University of Oxford, at No. 5 globally, which also makes the school ​No. 1 in Europe. The second highest-ranked university in Europe is the U.K.'s University of Cambridge, which is ranked No. 6 globally, making it No. 2 in Europe.

    University Rankings by Country

    The U.S. News Best Global Universities rankings by country show the top institutions in 11 countries with a large number of globally ranked schools. Those countries are Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
    The methodology for the country rankings is based entirely on how a school ranked in the overall Best Global Universities rankings covering the top 500 schools worldwide. Universities are numerically ranked in their country based on their position in the overall Best Global Universities rankings.
    For example, in Canada, the highest-ranked university in the overall top 500 rankings is the University of Toronto, at No. 14 globally. That means it is also ranked No. 1 in the Best Global Universities in ​Canada rankings. The second highest-ranked university in Canada in the overall rankings is the University of British Columbia, ranked at No. 30 globally, which means it's ranked No. 2 in Canada.

    0 0


    U S News global University Ranking 2014


    These institutions from the U.S. and nearly 50 other countries have been ranked based on 10 indicators that measure their academic research performance and their global and regional reputations. Students can use these rankings to explore the higher 

    education options that exist beyond their own countries' borders and to compare key aspects of schools' research missions. These are the world's top 500 universities.

    Mehtodology involved

    How Indian Universities are doing both Asian and global Rankings




     India New Delhi


    #45 Asian rank


    37.2
    Global Score



     India Bangalore


    #46 Asian rank


    32.3
    Global Score


     India Mumbai, Maharashtra


    #65 Asian rank


    28.0
    Global Score


     India Kharagpur



    #86 Asian rank




    Global University Rankings

    Showing 1-10 of 500 schools sorted by Global Rank
    100.0
    Global Score
    #1

    Harvard University

     United States Cambridge, MA
    88.9
    Global Score
    #2

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

     United States Cambridge, MA
    88.0
    Global Score
    #3

    University of California--Berkeley

     United States Berkeley, CA
    85.1
    Global Score
    #4

    Stanford University

     United States Stanford, CA
    83.6
    Global Score
    #5

    University of Oxford

     United Kingdom Oxford
    83.3
    Global Score
    #6

    University of Cambridge

     United Kingdom Cambridge
    80.3
    Global Score
    #7

    California Institute of Technology

     United States Pasadena, CA
    80.1
    Global Score
    #8

    University of California--Los Angeles

     United States Los Angeles, CA
    77.4
    Global Score
    #9

    University of Chicago

     United States Chicago, IL
    77.3
    Global Score
    #10

    Columbia University

     United States New York, NY



    77.0
    Global Score
    #11

    Johns Hopkins University

     United States Baltimore, MD
    76.7
    Global Score
    #12

    Imperial College London

     United Kingdom London
    76.1
    Global Score
    #13

    Princeton University

     United States Princeton, NJ
    76.0
    Global Score
    #14Tie

    University of Michigan

     United States Ann Arbor, MI
    76.0
    Global Score
    #14Tie

    University of Toronto

     Canada Toronto, Ontario, ON
    76.0
    Global Score
    #14Tie

    University of Washington

     United States Seattle, WA
    75.6
    Global Score
    #17

    Yale University

     United States New Haven, CT
    74.0
    Global Score
    #18

    University of California--San Diego

     United States La Jolla, CA
    73.8
    Global Score
    #19

    University of Pennsylvania

     United States Philadelphia, PA
    72.7
    Global Score
    #20

    Duke University

     United States Durham, NC


    72.4
    Global Score
    #21

    University College London

     United Kingdom London
    72.2
    Global Score
    #22

    University of California--San Francisco

     United States San Francisco, CA
    72.1
    Global Score
    #23

    Cornell University

     United States Ithaca, NY
    71.3
    Global Score
    #24

    University of Tokyo

     Japan Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo
    70.3
    Global Score
    #25

    Northwestern University

     United States Evanston, IL
    69.6
    Global Score
    #26

    Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich

     Switzerland Zurich
    69.4
    Global Score
    #27

    University of Wisconsin--Madison

     United States Madison, WI
    69.1
    Global Score
    #28

    University of California--Santa Barbara

     United States Santa Barbara, CA
    68.8
    Global Score
    #29

    University of Minnesota--Twin Cities

     United States Minneapolis, MN
    67.9
    Global Score
    #30Tie

    University of British Columbia

     Canada Vancouver, British Columbia, BC


    67.9
    Global Score
    #30Tie

    University of Texas--Austin

     United States Austin, TX
    67.4
    Global Score
    #32Tie

    University of Melbourne

     Australia Parkville, VIC
    67.4
    Global Score
    #32Tie

    University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill

     United States Chapel Hill, NC
    66.6
    Global Score
    #34

    Ohio State University

     United States Columbus, OH
    66.5
    Global Score
    #35

    University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign

     United States Champaign, IL
    66.4
    Global Score
    #36

    New York University

     United States New York, NY
    66.0
    Global Score
    #37Tie

    Boston University

     United States Boston, MA
    66.0
    Global Score
    #37Tie

    University of California--Davis

     United States Davis, CA
    65.7
    Global Score
    #39

    Peking University

     China Beijing
    65.5
    Global Score
    #40

    University of Edinburgh

     United Kingdom Edinburgh, Scotland



    65.2
    Global Score
    #41

    Washington University in St. Louis

     United States St. Louis, MO
    64.7
    Global Score
    #42Tie

    University of Hong Kong

     Hong Kong Pok Fu Lam
    64.7
    Global Score
    #42Tie

    University of Pittsburgh

     United States Pittsburgh, PA
    64.6
    Global Score
    #44

    McGill University

     Canada Montreal, Quebec, QC
    64.5
    Global Score
    #45

    University of Sydney

     Australia Sydney, NSW
    64.3
    Global Score
    #46

    Pierre and Marie Curie University - Paris 6

     France Paris
    63.8
    Global Score
    #47

    University of Queensland Australia

     Australia Brisbane, QLD
    63.7
    Global Score
    #48

    University of Munich

     Germany Munich
    63.4
    Global Score
    #49

    University of Manchester

     United Kingdom Manchester
    63.3
    Global Score
    #50

    University of Southern California

     United States Los Angeles, CA


    0 0


    MBA Double-Degrees On The Upswing


    Graduate School of Business Knight Management Center
    Graduate School of Business Knight Management Center
    It’s not as if a full-time MBA from an elite business school has lost its value. The highly sought after degree remains a catapult  – into the higher levels of industry, into rising startups, into innovative social enterprises. For most students aspiring to work in those realms at a much higher level than they would with just a college degree, the MBA is enough – for most, that is, but not for all.
    Some seek a bigger catapult. Simultaneously with their business education, they take on another advanced degree. And while numbers aren’t available concerning the total number of U.S. MBA students taking dual or joint degrees, developments in top business schools suggest this difficult challenge is becoming more valued, and more popular.
    Stanford’s Graduate School of Business is launching a new joint degree program, as Yale’s School of Management reports a record percentage of MBA students simultaneously taking two degrees.
    In the past two years, Stanford has unveiled three new joint degree programs, the most recent of which, starting next year, combines an MBA with an MS in electrical engineering.
    Typically, joint degree programs require students to complete the requirements for two separate degrees. Many schools offer “dual degree” programs for MBA students; these arrangements often allow overlap of degree requirements, with single courses counting for credit across both degrees. Tuition costs vary by school and program, from the simple adding together of each program’s price to more complicated formulas that make the combined program cheaper than the sum of both parts.
    YALE SETS RECORD FOR PERCENTAGE OF JOINT DEGREE STUDENTS
    This year, Yale set a record for its percentage of MBA students taking joint degrees, with 15% adding another sheepskin to their business master’s, up from 14% the previous year.
    Yale’s senior associate dean for the MBA program suggests the school’s output of double-dippers will help make Earth a better place.
    “Combining business education with graduate study in another discipline gives them a solid foundation for addressing some of the most vexing problems facing our world,” Anjani Jain says.
    And to be sure, the breakdown among the 47 Yale MBA candidates’ other degree fields shows most are concentrated in areas of potential impact in human affairs. Fourteen are going to law school to receive a JD along with their MBA. Sixteen are after a master’s degree in forestry, seven are pursuing a master’s in public health; three others are in medical school to add an MD to their MBA. Whether the single divinity student and the MA candidate in drama will go on to address important and vexing problems remains to be seen but is certainly not inconceivable.
    At Stanford, seven students enrolled in a new joint degree program that will provide an MBA and MS in computer science to graduating students. Currently, about 13% to 15% of GSB students are in joint- or dual-degree programs, compared to fewer than 10% four or five years ago, says Madhav Rajan, senior associate dean for academic affairs. Rajan expects that once the joint computer science and electrical engineering programs become established, the proportion of MBA students doing double degrees will rise.
    “WE LIKE DUAL DEGREE STUDENTS”
    “We like joint- and dual-degree students,” Rajan says. “They’re usually very, very good students and they have diverse interest, and I think they add a lot. Having students stay more than two years and acquire a degree in another field is a positive thing. We want to encourage that.”
    Administrators at a number of business schools have for many years recognized the value of offering double-degree options, and some of the programs are evolving along with economic and technological change. At MIT’s Sloan School of Management, a decline in U.S. manufacturing in the late ’80s led to the creation of the Leaders for Global Operations (LGO) dual-degree program, which gives students an MBA from Sloan, plus an MS in engineering. Students perform a six-month internship at a partner company – Amazon, Caterpillar, Dell and Boeing are among the partners – take “plant treks” to factories and distribution centers, and participate in “global operations leadership” seminars with company executives.
    “The origins were to prepare students to become leaders in manufacturing in the U.S., to give them the business management skills that they need and the technical skills that they need and to put all those skills together,” says Jane Deutsch, admissions director for the LGO program, which enrolls about 50 students per year. Tuition costs $123,000 for the two years, minus an automatic one-time fellowship of $45,000 to $65,000. The tuition amount is slightly lower than for Sloan’s regular MBA – $127,500 for two years – because the LGO program includes a six-month internship off campus and a summer semester priced at the MIT graduate school rate.

    0 0




    Extending Credit to Burma’s Rural Poor

    Local social enterprise Proximity Designs explores how to take better loan options to the furthest reaches of Burma
























    27 Years of economic sanctions have laid difficult foundations for expansion of formal 
    financial services among the poor in Burma (also known as Myanmar). Many Burmese people turn to informal savings and loan options under unfavourable terms, which ultimately reduce people’s ability to invest in their livelihoods.

    But Rangoon-based social enterprise Proximity Designs is hoping to change that, with a more affordable, “on-the-move” loan geared at helping rural families cope with seasonal income fluctuations.
    “Our loan product is designed to provide a safety net for rural families whose loved ones are temporarily away to work,” said Su Mon, head of Proximity Designs’ knowledge and social impact team.
    The loan is the culmination of in-depth research into the financial habits of rural Burmese, which Proximity conducted earlier this year with consultancy Studio D Radiodurans and design company Frog. Commissioned by the Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion, the research highlighted the shortage of credit options for rural migrant workers, many of whom head to the fertile Irrawaddy Delta region during rice harvests.
    The research also found that most people borrow money from informal sources at extremely high interest rates. Though Burma’s Central Bank restricts private banks to13% interest annually on borrowing, bank services and other formal loans are not suited to the needs of the rural poor who need to borrow to invest during planting and pay back loans after the harvest.
    Ohn Han, a young farmer in Pegu Division’s Thae Kone township, said people therefore turn to convenient but costlier informal lenders.
    “As we need money to invest, we have to take loans from money-lenders with higher interest rates. We pay them back with paddy [unmilled rice], not money, so the lenders end up paying half price for a bag of paddy,” he said.
    Burmese also remain distrustful of formal finance. Under the rule of General Ne Win from 1962-88, the government repeatedly devalued higher-value kyat notes without warning, wiping out many people’s cash savings. More recently, a banking crisis in 2003, and the government’s long-standing manipulation of the exchange rate have meant the kyat, especially in cash, is not a trusted commodity.
    “The country’s long history of monetary instability and capricious policy-making has scarred many to formal finance of any form,” said Burma specialist Sean Turnell, an economics professor at Macquarie University in Sydney who has written about micro finance in Burma.
    “In other words, Burma is not starting from a blank slate, but from well behind the starting line.”
     To grow its businesses and improve the lives of its people, Burma is building a secure, reliable payment structure with partners like Visa.
    A survey of 5,100 people by the UN Capital Development Fund and the UN Development Program published in May found that only about 4% of Burmese have a savings account at a bank. Some 62% do not save at all, the survey results suggested, a fact the UN agencies said leaves people vulnerable to shocks like illness and natural disasters, and hurts Burma’s broader economy.Since 2007, Proximity Designs has provided loans to rural farmers to help them pay for energy and irrigation products via affordable instalments over long periods.
    Su Mon said that in her experience, the key to getting rural people in Burma to take up a financial product was to make it as easy as possible for them.
    “People in rural [Burma] can be motivated to use more formal financial services if those services are flexible and accessible to meet their needs,” she said.
    Proximity Designs’ “on-the-move” loan seeks to do just this. With support from Visa, Proximity is capitalising on its previous research to develop a loan product that meets an unmet need: affordable loans for temporary migrant workers. The loan is still being developed, but is expected to be dispersed through a network of localised loan officers.
    “We will customise the loan to meet our targeted customer needs in terms of timing, payment terms, ways to deposit loan payment, and loan origination process,” Su Mon said.
    Hiro Taylor, Burma country manager for Visa, said the company, which entered Burma two years ago and has partnered with local banks, would be looking at ways its technology could help Proximity Designs to digitise and improve the ease and security of its loan product.
    “[Proximity Designs] are going to test the pilot in a paper-based environment. We’ll study that product and gather these learnings and see how we can apply Visa’s financial services tools to facilitate those loans,” Taylor said.
    “This is part of Visa’s overarching focus in the region to move consumers away from cash to secure, sustainable digital solutions,” said Stephen Kehoe, head of Visa Inc.’s global financial inclusion team.
    With the entry of two new international telecommunications firms in recent months, millions more of Burma’s people will shortly be using mobile phones and internet. This mobile revolution can be harnessed to bring the security and flexibility of digital currency transactions to Burma’s cash-reliant economy, Taylor said.
    “That creates a very interesting proposition,” he said, “for banks, for telecommunications companies, for technologists, for marketers, and for networks like Visa to figure out if there are ways to digitally leapfrog traditional payments systems and to roll out services and build a backbone that can be trusted and reliable.”
    Content managed and produced by Visa

older | 1 | .... | 45 | 46 | (Page 47) | 48 | 49 | .... | 82 | newer