In 1927, Max Ehrmann gave us timeless advice in a poem called "Desiderata" (Latin for "things desired"):
Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons
than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs,
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals,
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.
-- Cited on Character Counts,
www.charactercounts.org
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
China Stalls IP Reform at Its Own Peril
Sir James Dyson: China Stalls IP Reform at Its Own Peril
BY JAMES DYSON
The Financial Times
September 4, 2012
China’s rise as an industrial powerhouse is sweeping aside tired stereotypes. It has long been considered the home of cheap, mass-assembled goods. But now the country no longer wants to be seen as the workshop of the world. It wants to become the world leader in invention, patents and ideas. Unfortunately, China’s failure to keep its intellectual property law up to speed threatens to undermine its genuine progress, at home and abroad.
China can and will be an invaluable trading partner to both the U.S. and the U.K. But it cannot afford to fail to protect the ideas that we’ve spent years developing. It’s time to stop tiptoeing around the issue. Regardless of the offender, patent infringement is theft, pure and simple. And without punitive or regulatory action it undermines invention globally. China has promised reform. But that reform needs to be delivered.
Theft of intellectual property isn’t just confined to Rolex watches and Louis Vuitton bags. It includes everything from iPads to entire IKEA stores. Technology and ideas that are stripped apart, mimicked and mass produced. Many people know what they’re buying into when they purchase cheap knock-offs. But with a cocktail of fake branding and photo-shopped packaging, an increasing number won’t — not until a motor cuts out, a dial falls off or something worse.
It’s a growing problem. According to the Alliance for Gray Market and Counterfeit Abatement, as much as 8% of Chinese GDP comes from the sale of counterfeit goods. And up to 10% of all high-tech products sold worldwide are counterfeit. Those are staggering numbers.
Understandably, international companies are applying pressure to prevent knock-offs from flooding the market. For high tech companies China is an increasingly important trading partner. But it becomes an uphill battle if unscrupulous companies can undercut the millions required to invest in technology. The U.S. International Trade Commission reported that U.S. IP-intensive firms operating in China reported losses of approximately $48.2 billion in sales, royalties, or license fees due to IP infringement in China in 2009. And China is not impervious to domestic copycats, either.
Dyson invests heavily in research and development. We have growing team of 1,300 engineers whose job it is to develop new ideas. R&D is not only expensive, it is inherently risky. And it becomes doubly so if you can’t depend on patents to protect your idea. We’ve seen 100 different infringements of our fan appear in 20 countries. And we have to pursue each copycat separately. Evidence can be impossible to track down. Sometimes it can be hard to even find the manufacturer. One recent copycat used a public subway station as its trading address.
I’ve fought court battles over my inventions before. And many of the recent cases we’ve fought have been against Chinese owned and run brands, often in Western guises. We’ve had some victories of late — but it’s an expensive process. Aggressively protecting patents is essential to conserve an edge over competitors and to protect our investment in research and development. It’s frustrating and costly though; we’ve spent over $1.5 million in China alone battling rip-offs. For young inventors and start-ups, having your patents plagiarized is a potentially ruinous state of affairs.
It is of global interest to dam the infringement floodgates. Last week British companies including Dyson and members of the British government met with Chinese representatives. In the summit, the commissioner of China’s State Intellectual Property Office acknowledged that IP infringements in the country are of concern but insisted that they’ve made fantastic progress over recent years.
They’re right — but that progress lags well behind the country’s meteoric growth. Dyson has been waiting three years for our patents to be approved as Chinese companies seemingly jump the queue. The country benefits from strict intellectual property rules abroad, but fails to sufficiently police its own offenders at home. Chinese representatives have insisted there are ways to fast track a patent when an infringement occurs. Our experience is to the contrary but we look forward to resolving these issues. This dialogue is encouraging, but it must be backed by action. Western countries and the World Trade Organisation have pushed China to institute reforms and insist on a level playing field. Continued discussions with world leaders and members of industry will help plot a course to an open and fair patent system in China.
The Chinese government knows that the real profit is in developing world class technology. And its commitment to doing so dwarfs efforts elsewhere. Chinese leaders are looking to increase the amount of GDP they spend on R&D to 2.5% and double the number of patents they grant by 2015. Home grown invention is a good thing. And Chinese companies expect patents to be enforced around the world. The problem is that the protection isn’t reciprocated.
China can and will be an invaluable trading partner to both the U.S. and the U.K. But it cannot afford to fail to protect the ideas that we’ve spent years developing. Bilateral trade depends upon it. If we don’t work toward real reform, we will jeopardise the value of research and development globally. And along with it the jobs, wealth and exports they create.
BY JAMES DYSON
The Financial Times
September 4, 2012
China’s rise as an industrial powerhouse is sweeping aside tired stereotypes. It has long been considered the home of cheap, mass-assembled goods. But now the country no longer wants to be seen as the workshop of the world. It wants to become the world leader in invention, patents and ideas. Unfortunately, China’s failure to keep its intellectual property law up to speed threatens to undermine its genuine progress, at home and abroad.
China can and will be an invaluable trading partner to both the U.S. and the U.K. But it cannot afford to fail to protect the ideas that we’ve spent years developing. It’s time to stop tiptoeing around the issue. Regardless of the offender, patent infringement is theft, pure and simple. And without punitive or regulatory action it undermines invention globally. China has promised reform. But that reform needs to be delivered.
Theft of intellectual property isn’t just confined to Rolex watches and Louis Vuitton bags. It includes everything from iPads to entire IKEA stores. Technology and ideas that are stripped apart, mimicked and mass produced. Many people know what they’re buying into when they purchase cheap knock-offs. But with a cocktail of fake branding and photo-shopped packaging, an increasing number won’t — not until a motor cuts out, a dial falls off or something worse.
It’s a growing problem. According to the Alliance for Gray Market and Counterfeit Abatement, as much as 8% of Chinese GDP comes from the sale of counterfeit goods. And up to 10% of all high-tech products sold worldwide are counterfeit. Those are staggering numbers.
Understandably, international companies are applying pressure to prevent knock-offs from flooding the market. For high tech companies China is an increasingly important trading partner. But it becomes an uphill battle if unscrupulous companies can undercut the millions required to invest in technology. The U.S. International Trade Commission reported that U.S. IP-intensive firms operating in China reported losses of approximately $48.2 billion in sales, royalties, or license fees due to IP infringement in China in 2009. And China is not impervious to domestic copycats, either.
Dyson invests heavily in research and development. We have growing team of 1,300 engineers whose job it is to develop new ideas. R&D is not only expensive, it is inherently risky. And it becomes doubly so if you can’t depend on patents to protect your idea. We’ve seen 100 different infringements of our fan appear in 20 countries. And we have to pursue each copycat separately. Evidence can be impossible to track down. Sometimes it can be hard to even find the manufacturer. One recent copycat used a public subway station as its trading address.
I’ve fought court battles over my inventions before. And many of the recent cases we’ve fought have been against Chinese owned and run brands, often in Western guises. We’ve had some victories of late — but it’s an expensive process. Aggressively protecting patents is essential to conserve an edge over competitors and to protect our investment in research and development. It’s frustrating and costly though; we’ve spent over $1.5 million in China alone battling rip-offs. For young inventors and start-ups, having your patents plagiarized is a potentially ruinous state of affairs.
It is of global interest to dam the infringement floodgates. Last week British companies including Dyson and members of the British government met with Chinese representatives. In the summit, the commissioner of China’s State Intellectual Property Office acknowledged that IP infringements in the country are of concern but insisted that they’ve made fantastic progress over recent years.
They’re right — but that progress lags well behind the country’s meteoric growth. Dyson has been waiting three years for our patents to be approved as Chinese companies seemingly jump the queue. The country benefits from strict intellectual property rules abroad, but fails to sufficiently police its own offenders at home. Chinese representatives have insisted there are ways to fast track a patent when an infringement occurs. Our experience is to the contrary but we look forward to resolving these issues. This dialogue is encouraging, but it must be backed by action. Western countries and the World Trade Organisation have pushed China to institute reforms and insist on a level playing field. Continued discussions with world leaders and members of industry will help plot a course to an open and fair patent system in China.
The Chinese government knows that the real profit is in developing world class technology. And its commitment to doing so dwarfs efforts elsewhere. Chinese leaders are looking to increase the amount of GDP they spend on R&D to 2.5% and double the number of patents they grant by 2015. Home grown invention is a good thing. And Chinese companies expect patents to be enforced around the world. The problem is that the protection isn’t reciprocated.
China can and will be an invaluable trading partner to both the U.S. and the U.K. But it cannot afford to fail to protect the ideas that we’ve spent years developing. Bilateral trade depends upon it. If we don’t work toward real reform, we will jeopardise the value of research and development globally. And along with it the jobs, wealth and exports they create.
Roy Hart: Chorus VII from "The Rock" by T.S. Eliot
In the beginning GOD created the world. Waste and void.
Waste and void. And darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And when there were men, in their various ways, they struggled in torment towards GOD
Blindly and vainly, for man is a vain thing, and man without GOD is a seed upon the wind:
driven this way and that, and finding no place of lodgment and germination.
They followed the light and the shadow,
and the light led them forward to light and the shadow led them to darkness,
Worshipping snakes or trees, worshipping devils rather than nothing: crying for life beyond life, for ecstasy not of the flesh.
Waste and void. Waste and void. And darkness on the face of the deep.
And the Spirit moved upon the face of the water.
And men who turned towards the light and were known of the light
Invented the Higher Religions; and the Higher Religions were good
And led men from light to light, to knowledge of Good and Evil.
But their light was ever surrounded and shot with darkness
As the air of temperate seas is pierced by the still dead breath of the Arctic Current;
And they came to an end, a dead end stirred with a flicker of life,
And they came to the withered ancient look of a child that has died of starvation.
Prayer wheels, worship of the dead, denial of this world, affirmation of rites with forgotten meanings
In the restless wind-whipped sand, or the hills where the wind will not let the snow rest.
Waste and void. Waste and void. And darkness on the face of the deep.
Then came, at a predetermined moment, a moment in time and of time,
A moment not out of time, but in time, in what we call history:
transecting, bisecting the world of time, a moment in time but not like a moment of time,
A moment in time but time was made through that moment :
for without the meaning there is no time, and that moment of time gave the meaning.
Then it seemed as if men must proceed from light to light, in the light of the Word,
Through the Passion and Sacrifice saved in spite of their negative being;
Bestial as always before, carnal, self-seeking as always before, selfish and purblind as ever before,
Yet always struggling, always reaffirming, always resuming their march on the way that was lit by the light;
Often halting, loitering, straying, delaying, returning, yet following no other way.
But it seems that something has happened that has never happened before:
though we know not just when, or why, or how, or where.
Men have left GOD not for other gods, they say, but for no god; and this has never happened before
That men both deny gods and worship gods, professing first Reason,
And then Money, and Power, and what they call Life, or Race, or Dialectic.
The Church disowned, the tower overthrown, the bells upturned, what have we to do
But stand with empty hands and palms turned upwards
In an age which advances progressively backwards ?
Waste and void. And darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And when there were men, in their various ways, they struggled in torment towards GOD
Blindly and vainly, for man is a vain thing, and man without GOD is a seed upon the wind:
driven this way and that, and finding no place of lodgment and germination.
They followed the light and the shadow,
and the light led them forward to light and the shadow led them to darkness,
Worshipping snakes or trees, worshipping devils rather than nothing: crying for life beyond life, for ecstasy not of the flesh.
Waste and void. Waste and void. And darkness on the face of the deep.
And the Spirit moved upon the face of the water.
And men who turned towards the light and were known of the light
Invented the Higher Religions; and the Higher Religions were good
And led men from light to light, to knowledge of Good and Evil.
But their light was ever surrounded and shot with darkness
As the air of temperate seas is pierced by the still dead breath of the Arctic Current;
And they came to an end, a dead end stirred with a flicker of life,
And they came to the withered ancient look of a child that has died of starvation.
Prayer wheels, worship of the dead, denial of this world, affirmation of rites with forgotten meanings
In the restless wind-whipped sand, or the hills where the wind will not let the snow rest.
Waste and void. Waste and void. And darkness on the face of the deep.
Then came, at a predetermined moment, a moment in time and of time,
A moment not out of time, but in time, in what we call history:
transecting, bisecting the world of time, a moment in time but not like a moment of time,
A moment in time but time was made through that moment :
for without the meaning there is no time, and that moment of time gave the meaning.
Then it seemed as if men must proceed from light to light, in the light of the Word,
Through the Passion and Sacrifice saved in spite of their negative being;
Bestial as always before, carnal, self-seeking as always before, selfish and purblind as ever before,
Yet always struggling, always reaffirming, always resuming their march on the way that was lit by the light;
Often halting, loitering, straying, delaying, returning, yet following no other way.
But it seems that something has happened that has never happened before:
though we know not just when, or why, or how, or where.
Men have left GOD not for other gods, they say, but for no god; and this has never happened before
That men both deny gods and worship gods, professing first Reason,
And then Money, and Power, and what they call Life, or Race, or Dialectic.
The Church disowned, the tower overthrown, the bells upturned, what have we to do
But stand with empty hands and palms turned upwards
In an age which advances progressively backwards ?
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Work-Life Balance: A Different Cut
Life-Work Balance
Work-Life Balance: A Different Cut
Stephen R. Covey 03.21.07, 12:15 PM ET
The challenge of work-life balance is without question one of the most significant struggles faced by modern man. I’ve surveyed thousands of audiences about their greatest personal and professional challenges. Life balance is always at or near the top.
Much of my teaching and writing in this area has focused on the power each one of us possesses to: 1) take responsibility for, and become the creative force of, our lives; 2) decide what's most important in our whole lives--developing a vision and deep commitment to the "first things" of life and; 3) to then put those first things first and organize our lives around our priorities. For something that seems so self-evident to most people, it’s remarkable how many of us struggle to translate our intellectual awareness into day-to-day practice and decision-making.
Many people simply conclude that they are not disciplined enough. My response to that idea is that it’s usually not a discipline problem at all. The problem is more often that the person has not yet sufficiently paid the price to get very clear about what matters most to them. Once you have a burning “yes” inside you about what’s truly important, it’s very easy to say “no” to the unimportant.
However, when you get beyond the personal, there is another profoundly pervasive cause for work-life imbalance. It is to be found in the painful and surprisingly ineffective way most organizations work. In no way is this pain more clearly or practically manifest than their inability to focus and execute on their highest priorities. Using what we call the xQ (Execution Quotient) Questionnaire, Harris Interactive, the originators of the Harris Poll, and FranklinCovey recently polled 23,000 U.S. residents employed full time within key industries and in key functional areas. Consider a few of their most stunning findings:
--Only 37% said they have a clear understanding of what their organization is trying to achieve and why.
--Only 1 in 5 were enthusiastic about their team’s and organization’s goals.
--Only 1 in 5 workers said they have a clear “line of sight” between their tasks and their team’s and organization’s goals.
--Only half were satisfied with the work they have accomplished at the end of the week.
--Only 15% felt that their organization fully enables them to execute key goals. --Only 15% felt they worked in a high-trust environment.
--Only 17% felt their organization fosters open communication that is respectful of differing opinions and that results in new and better ideas.
--Only 10% felt that their organization holds people accountable for results.
--Only 20% fully trusted the organization they work for.
--Only 13% have high-trust, highly cooperative working relationships with other groups or departments.
The data is sobering. It matches my own experience with people in organizations of every kind all around the world. Despite all our gains in technology, product innovation and world markets, most people are not thriving in the organizations they work for. They are neither fulfilled nor excited. They are frustrated. They are not clear about where the organization is headed or what its highest priorities are. They are bogged down and distracted. Most of all, they don’t feel they can change much. Can you imagine the personal and organizational cost of failing to fully engage the passion, talent and intelligence of the workforce? Can you imagine the waste of time, energy and resources?
The bottom line is, when people are crystal clear about the most important priorities of the organization and team they work with and prioritized their work around those top priorities, not only are they many times more productive, they discover they have the time they need to have a whole life. We have found there are four keys or organizational/team disciplines that produce this kind of freedom and productivity:
--Discipline 1: Focus on the Wildly Important. This means you need to narrow your focus down to the one, two or three most important goals you must achieve. These goals are so important that if you don’t achieve them, nothing else you achieve really matters much.
--Discipline 2: Act on the Lead Measures. After you’ve narrowed your focus to the few key goals you must accomplish, you need to select the few key activities that are predictive of goal achievement and that you can influence on a weekly basis. These are called “lead measures.” These lead measures are 80/20 activities--that is, 80% of the results come from 20% of these activities. The 80/20 rule is also known as the Pareto principle.
--Discipline 3: Keep a Compelling Scoreboard. Once you’ve defined your goals and measures, you need to put them on a scoreboard so everyone knows all the time whether you’re winning or losing.
--Discipline 4: Create a Cadence of Accountability—a rhythm of team-based engagement and accountability.
Want balance in your life? Then sure, get your own act together, but don’t forget four powerful disciplines of execution in your team and organization. You’ll not only produce results, you’ll create your own freedom.
© 2007 FranklinCovey Co.
Stephen R. Covey is a co-founder of the FranklinCovey Company and the author of a number of best-selling books, including The 7 Habits Of Highly Effective People. Dr. Covey is now offering a monthly live Webinar series. Learn more at www.stephencovey.com/subscriptionseries.
Work-Life Balance: A Different Cut
Stephen R. Covey 03.21.07, 12:15 PM ET
The challenge of work-life balance is without question one of the most significant struggles faced by modern man. I’ve surveyed thousands of audiences about their greatest personal and professional challenges. Life balance is always at or near the top.
Much of my teaching and writing in this area has focused on the power each one of us possesses to: 1) take responsibility for, and become the creative force of, our lives; 2) decide what's most important in our whole lives--developing a vision and deep commitment to the "first things" of life and; 3) to then put those first things first and organize our lives around our priorities. For something that seems so self-evident to most people, it’s remarkable how many of us struggle to translate our intellectual awareness into day-to-day practice and decision-making.
Many people simply conclude that they are not disciplined enough. My response to that idea is that it’s usually not a discipline problem at all. The problem is more often that the person has not yet sufficiently paid the price to get very clear about what matters most to them. Once you have a burning “yes” inside you about what’s truly important, it’s very easy to say “no” to the unimportant.
However, when you get beyond the personal, there is another profoundly pervasive cause for work-life imbalance. It is to be found in the painful and surprisingly ineffective way most organizations work. In no way is this pain more clearly or practically manifest than their inability to focus and execute on their highest priorities. Using what we call the xQ (Execution Quotient) Questionnaire, Harris Interactive, the originators of the Harris Poll, and FranklinCovey recently polled 23,000 U.S. residents employed full time within key industries and in key functional areas. Consider a few of their most stunning findings:
--Only 37% said they have a clear understanding of what their organization is trying to achieve and why.
--Only 1 in 5 were enthusiastic about their team’s and organization’s goals.
--Only 1 in 5 workers said they have a clear “line of sight” between their tasks and their team’s and organization’s goals.
--Only half were satisfied with the work they have accomplished at the end of the week.
--Only 15% felt that their organization fully enables them to execute key goals. --Only 15% felt they worked in a high-trust environment.
--Only 17% felt their organization fosters open communication that is respectful of differing opinions and that results in new and better ideas.
--Only 10% felt that their organization holds people accountable for results.
--Only 20% fully trusted the organization they work for.
--Only 13% have high-trust, highly cooperative working relationships with other groups or departments.
The data is sobering. It matches my own experience with people in organizations of every kind all around the world. Despite all our gains in technology, product innovation and world markets, most people are not thriving in the organizations they work for. They are neither fulfilled nor excited. They are frustrated. They are not clear about where the organization is headed or what its highest priorities are. They are bogged down and distracted. Most of all, they don’t feel they can change much. Can you imagine the personal and organizational cost of failing to fully engage the passion, talent and intelligence of the workforce? Can you imagine the waste of time, energy and resources?
The bottom line is, when people are crystal clear about the most important priorities of the organization and team they work with and prioritized their work around those top priorities, not only are they many times more productive, they discover they have the time they need to have a whole life. We have found there are four keys or organizational/team disciplines that produce this kind of freedom and productivity:
--Discipline 1: Focus on the Wildly Important. This means you need to narrow your focus down to the one, two or three most important goals you must achieve. These goals are so important that if you don’t achieve them, nothing else you achieve really matters much.
--Discipline 2: Act on the Lead Measures. After you’ve narrowed your focus to the few key goals you must accomplish, you need to select the few key activities that are predictive of goal achievement and that you can influence on a weekly basis. These are called “lead measures.” These lead measures are 80/20 activities--that is, 80% of the results come from 20% of these activities. The 80/20 rule is also known as the Pareto principle.
--Discipline 3: Keep a Compelling Scoreboard. Once you’ve defined your goals and measures, you need to put them on a scoreboard so everyone knows all the time whether you’re winning or losing.
--Discipline 4: Create a Cadence of Accountability—a rhythm of team-based engagement and accountability.
Want balance in your life? Then sure, get your own act together, but don’t forget four powerful disciplines of execution in your team and organization. You’ll not only produce results, you’ll create your own freedom.
© 2007 FranklinCovey Co.
Stephen R. Covey is a co-founder of the FranklinCovey Company and the author of a number of best-selling books, including The 7 Habits Of Highly Effective People. Dr. Covey is now offering a monthly live Webinar series. Learn more at www.stephencovey.com/subscriptionseries.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
The Austerity Misdirection
The Austerity Misdirection
Fixed exchange rates are especially unforgiving of welfare states that destroy their ability to create wealth
Updated May 4, 2012, 7:17 p.m. ET
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
You might think there exists, among onlookers to Europe's struggles, a debate between fans and critics of austerity. There's not.
Across the spectrum, most have believed from the beginning that it was a very bad idea to squeeze economies with higher taxes and sharply reduced outlays to pay back debts that were unpayable.
Almost universal has been agreement that policy should focus on cutting debt, even if it means default, and restoring growth, not squeezing blood from a stone. What difference has existed is the old difference between Keynesians and their critics. Keynesians advocate (even in the circumstances) increased government borrowing and spending as the way to restore growth. Their supply-side critics favor tackling impediments to growth with more efficient tax codes, deregulation and privatization of state-owned assets.
Cutting crosswise through these groups, too, are degrees of willingness to advocate a measure of inflation to help the adjustment.
So how did we end up where Europe's solution has consisted mostly of tax hiking and spending contraction? Put aside those whose polemics are shaped by a need constantly to construct and reconstruct their mental worlds so all their "enemies" are on the wrong side of every debate.
Even among the non-deranged is a habit of ignoring constraints. Good ideas that can't be put into effect aren't good ideas. Bluntly put, the Keynesian remedies (borrow, spend, adjust later) require things of Germany that German politicians cannot deliver.
Governments engage in austerity not because they want to, but because they have nowhere to get the money they'd like to spend and spend. The German people don't want to tax themselves—or indirectly tax themselves with inflation—so Spaniards, Greeks and Italians can spend the money.
And inevitable is the half-spoken argument about the size of government. Whether or not Europe's governments are too big, they are certainly too big for the euro. Fixed exchange rates between sovereign, democratic countries may be practical in a world of atomized businesses and individuals who don't conceive of an alternative to organizing their lives by price signals. The gold standard certainly worked well for the better part of a century.
But that's not our world and never will be again. In France, 56% of national income is controlled by the state. Across Europe, the first recourse of every interest group and voting bloc is to expect the state to protect them from inconvenient adjustments dictated by mere price signals.
To say Europe walked blindly into monetary union is an exaggeration. Bureaucratic Europhiles hoped it would necessitate a march toward a United States of Europe. Pro-business Europhiles hoped it would force a return to the market.
The inchoate answer coming from Europe's voters, however, was "we want neither." It may be today that the message coming from voters is "we don't want the euro." Much depends on Germany. To choose not to choose (the current path) is probably to concede a chaotic version of the inflationist-Keynesian program. The European Central Bank will print money. Governments will spend it. Any commitment to pro-growth reform will be problematic and haphazard at best.
The alternative, assuming Berlin won't lead a forced march into a United States of Europe, would be for Germany, and any countries desirous of being in a currency bloc with Germany, to drop out of the euro. Their new currency would rise versus the remaining euro countries, costing them a painful short-term adjustment. This would be sad. It would strike many Germans as an unfair reward for their competitiveness, though they'd also be well-positioned to benefit from an asset fire sale in Europe. But if Germans hate inflation as much as they say they do, leaving may be the only alternative to losing a war (already begun in this weekend's French election) for control of the European Central Bank. On the current path, it's only a matter of time until the ECB surrenders and makes its contribution to adjustment by debasing the euro. Can we admit now the simple lesson is against excessive debt? Don't be impressed by those who protest that Spain and Ireland were brought down by private-sector extravagance. If we've learned anything, in a debt crisis the distinction between public and private disappears. Too, a closer look shows the Irish state an intimate participant in Ireland's housing boom, collecting 40% of the price of every new home in taxes. In Spain, regional governments owned or controlled the lenders that financed the construction binge.
A fixed exchange rate system is an especially unforgiving environment for a welfare state that destroys its ability to create wealth. But the universal lesson is: Don't be a welfare state that destroys its ability to create wealth.
A version of this article appeared May 5, 2012, on page A15 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Austerity Misdirection.
Fixed exchange rates are especially unforgiving of welfare states that destroy their ability to create wealth
Updated May 4, 2012, 7:17 p.m. ET
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
You might think there exists, among onlookers to Europe's struggles, a debate between fans and critics of austerity. There's not.
Across the spectrum, most have believed from the beginning that it was a very bad idea to squeeze economies with higher taxes and sharply reduced outlays to pay back debts that were unpayable.
Almost universal has been agreement that policy should focus on cutting debt, even if it means default, and restoring growth, not squeezing blood from a stone. What difference has existed is the old difference between Keynesians and their critics. Keynesians advocate (even in the circumstances) increased government borrowing and spending as the way to restore growth. Their supply-side critics favor tackling impediments to growth with more efficient tax codes, deregulation and privatization of state-owned assets.
Cutting crosswise through these groups, too, are degrees of willingness to advocate a measure of inflation to help the adjustment.
So how did we end up where Europe's solution has consisted mostly of tax hiking and spending contraction? Put aside those whose polemics are shaped by a need constantly to construct and reconstruct their mental worlds so all their "enemies" are on the wrong side of every debate.
Even among the non-deranged is a habit of ignoring constraints. Good ideas that can't be put into effect aren't good ideas. Bluntly put, the Keynesian remedies (borrow, spend, adjust later) require things of Germany that German politicians cannot deliver.
Governments engage in austerity not because they want to, but because they have nowhere to get the money they'd like to spend and spend. The German people don't want to tax themselves—or indirectly tax themselves with inflation—so Spaniards, Greeks and Italians can spend the money.
And inevitable is the half-spoken argument about the size of government. Whether or not Europe's governments are too big, they are certainly too big for the euro. Fixed exchange rates between sovereign, democratic countries may be practical in a world of atomized businesses and individuals who don't conceive of an alternative to organizing their lives by price signals. The gold standard certainly worked well for the better part of a century.
But that's not our world and never will be again. In France, 56% of national income is controlled by the state. Across Europe, the first recourse of every interest group and voting bloc is to expect the state to protect them from inconvenient adjustments dictated by mere price signals.
To say Europe walked blindly into monetary union is an exaggeration. Bureaucratic Europhiles hoped it would necessitate a march toward a United States of Europe. Pro-business Europhiles hoped it would force a return to the market.
The inchoate answer coming from Europe's voters, however, was "we want neither." It may be today that the message coming from voters is "we don't want the euro." Much depends on Germany. To choose not to choose (the current path) is probably to concede a chaotic version of the inflationist-Keynesian program. The European Central Bank will print money. Governments will spend it. Any commitment to pro-growth reform will be problematic and haphazard at best.
The alternative, assuming Berlin won't lead a forced march into a United States of Europe, would be for Germany, and any countries desirous of being in a currency bloc with Germany, to drop out of the euro. Their new currency would rise versus the remaining euro countries, costing them a painful short-term adjustment. This would be sad. It would strike many Germans as an unfair reward for their competitiveness, though they'd also be well-positioned to benefit from an asset fire sale in Europe. But if Germans hate inflation as much as they say they do, leaving may be the only alternative to losing a war (already begun in this weekend's French election) for control of the European Central Bank. On the current path, it's only a matter of time until the ECB surrenders and makes its contribution to adjustment by debasing the euro. Can we admit now the simple lesson is against excessive debt? Don't be impressed by those who protest that Spain and Ireland were brought down by private-sector extravagance. If we've learned anything, in a debt crisis the distinction between public and private disappears. Too, a closer look shows the Irish state an intimate participant in Ireland's housing boom, collecting 40% of the price of every new home in taxes. In Spain, regional governments owned or controlled the lenders that financed the construction binge.
A fixed exchange rate system is an especially unforgiving environment for a welfare state that destroys its ability to create wealth. But the universal lesson is: Don't be a welfare state that destroys its ability to create wealth.
A version of this article appeared May 5, 2012, on page A15 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Austerity Misdirection.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Need Space in a Relationship? Just Don't Say It That Way
The Wall Street
Updated June 26, 2012, 12:41 p.m. ET
Need Space in a Relationship? Just Don't Say It That Way
By ELIZABETH BERNSTEIN
Columnist's name
Several years into her marriage, Jessica Carr discovered a receipt on her husband's desk for a late lunch at a waterfront restaurant in Seattle, 45 miles from the farm she shares with him in Orting, Wash. He had told her he'd spent that whole day in business meetings.
"Uh-oh," Ms. Carr, now 38, remembers thinking. She'd thought her husband had seemed emotionally distant because he was overwhelmed by raising two small children. Now, she worried something else was going on.
Ms. Carr, who owns a horse training, breeding and boarding business, confronted her husband. "What were you doing, and why did you lie to me?" she asked. She braced herself for the answer, and it surprised her: He'd just needed a little time alone. Elizabeth Bernstein and relationship experts answered reader questions on June 19. Many couples say that space, or "giving each other plenty of space," is the single most important reason they think their marriage has survived.
"It seemed selfish to take the time for myself, but sometimes I need to unplug," says Rich Carr, 49, owner of an interactive marketing company.
I love asking happy long-time married couples to tell me the secrets to their successful union. Over and over, I hear this answer: "We give each other space."
Having enough space, or privacy, in a relationship is even more important to a couple's happiness than a good sex life, according to a recent unpublished analysis of data from an ongoing federally funded longitudinal study. And women tend to be more unhappy with the amount of space in their marriage than men.
Terri Orbuch, a psychologist and research professor at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, has been studying 373 married couples for the past 25 years. When she asked participants if they felt they had enough "privacy or time for self" in their relationship, 29% said no.
Dr. Orbuch recently analyzed one year of data from her study and found more wives than husbands (31% versus 26%) reported not having enough space. She believes this is because women often have less time to themselves than men. Even when women have jobs outside the home, they still are typically the primary caregivers of children or aging parents. And because they also tend to have more friends than men, they often have more social obligations.
Dr. Orbuch asked participants if they were unhappy in their marriages. Of those who reported being unhappy, 11.5% said the reason was lack of privacy or time for self. That is a more common answer than the 6% who said they were unhappy with their sex lives.
"When individuals have their own friends, their own set of interests, when they are able to define themselves not by their spouse or relationship, that makes them happier and less bored," says Dr. Orbuch, author of the book "Five Simple Steps to Take Your Marriage From Good to Great." Space gives people time to process thoughts, pursue hobbies and relax without responsibilities to others. And the time apart gives partners something new to talk about. "Space brings excitement and novelty," Dr. Orbuch says.
A person's need for space is a function of innate personality, and of their "attachment style," which is determined in infancy largely by the way we are parented, experts say.
People who had affectionate, nurturing parents are comfortable with both being close to others and being alone; they have a "secure" attachment style.
Those whose parents were inconsistently available to them emotionally often have an "anxious" attachment style. They crave closeness, fear abandonment—and need and want less space. Those whose parents were rejecting often have an "avoidant" attachment style, resisting closeness and seeking space because they fear they will be hurt.
People who fear closeness tend to seek out people who are warm and inviting. This is how someone who needs a lot of space ends up with a partner who hates to be alone.
Couples can work out their space issues, if they understand each other's different needs and why. "Underneath, both individuals want love," says Vondie Lozano, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Glendora, Calif. The space-seeking partner's need may be greater because he probably has fewer social connections, Dr. Lozano says. "When the couple can see he is just afraid of being hurt and she is just afraid of being abandoned, and it all goes back to their families," then they can stop taking it personally, she says. Individuals who don't get the space they need will find a way to create distance, Dr. Lozano cautions. They may lash out or withdraw. "If you don't give them their physical space, they will take emotional space," she says.
Mr. Carr grew up in an Air Force family, moved around a lot and often lived on farms. He says this upbringing made him self-sufficient. He experienced periods of isolation after each move, because it would take time to make new friends. He learned to entertain himself by riding horses and hiking in the woods.
Ms. Carr says she would like less space because she spends a lot of time alone in her work day, doing chores and riding.
Earlier in the marriage, Mr. Carr sometimes would schedule a meeting in Seattle and spend an afternoon walking around Pike Place Market. "That meeting with business representatives took half an hour, and my meeting with myself took two," he says. He often took back-to-back business trips.
At home, he often snapped at his kids, grunted at his wife or sat there, scowling. "I needed to get some stuff out of my head," he says. Ms. Carr tried not to take her husband's grumpiness and distraction personally, but it was hard. "I started to pull back because I thought he wasn't happy with me," she says.
Around this time, the Carrs overheard a couple, whom they didn't know, arguing. Each presented his or her view, then calmly discussed it. At one point, the husband noted they were late for an appointment and suggested they talk again the next day. "I saw that and thought, 'We need to schedule time to talk, to visit and discuss what we each need to get done,' " Ms. Carr says.
Now, the Carrs have marriage meetings. At 5:30 each morning, espressos in hand, they sit for an hour by a wall of windows overlooking Mount Rainier, catching up on personal stuff. Then they call up their joint calendar online and discuss the day's schedule—including the personal time each one will need. "What works is making this a part of a normal conversation," Mr. Carr says.
After the meeting, he goes for a walk of a half-hour or more with his Labrador retriever. Some afternoons, he sits in an old chair overlooking the pasture in back of the main stable. For a "major reset," he schedules a stay at a business retreat center in Austin, Texas. This year and last, he spent three days alone at a rented cabin in the woods, Father's Day gifts from his wife and kids. "When I give him his space to do what he wants," Ms. Carr says, "he is more engaged, more excited and more rejuvenated when he comes home."
Room of One's Own
Here's how to negotiate for more space without hurting your partner.
• Be specific. Say, 'I need the afternoon to myself.' Simply saying 'I need space' sends confusing signals.
• Explain why more space makes you happy, so your partner knows it's not about him or her.
• Enjoy the space you take. Guilt defeats the purpose, says Barbara F. Okun, counseling psychology professor at Northeastern University.
• No secrets. Tell your spouse what you did and with whom when you were away
• Don't get carried away. Too much space weakens your connection.
• Don't forget to schedule couple time and family time, too.
—Write to Elizabeth Bernstein at Bonds@wsj.com or follow her column at www.Facebook.com/EBernsteinWSJ.
Updated June 26, 2012, 12:41 p.m. ET
Need Space in a Relationship? Just Don't Say It That Way
By ELIZABETH BERNSTEIN
Columnist's name
Several years into her marriage, Jessica Carr discovered a receipt on her husband's desk for a late lunch at a waterfront restaurant in Seattle, 45 miles from the farm she shares with him in Orting, Wash. He had told her he'd spent that whole day in business meetings.
"Uh-oh," Ms. Carr, now 38, remembers thinking. She'd thought her husband had seemed emotionally distant because he was overwhelmed by raising two small children. Now, she worried something else was going on.
Ms. Carr, who owns a horse training, breeding and boarding business, confronted her husband. "What were you doing, and why did you lie to me?" she asked. She braced herself for the answer, and it surprised her: He'd just needed a little time alone. Elizabeth Bernstein and relationship experts answered reader questions on June 19. Many couples say that space, or "giving each other plenty of space," is the single most important reason they think their marriage has survived.
"It seemed selfish to take the time for myself, but sometimes I need to unplug," says Rich Carr, 49, owner of an interactive marketing company.
I love asking happy long-time married couples to tell me the secrets to their successful union. Over and over, I hear this answer: "We give each other space."
Having enough space, or privacy, in a relationship is even more important to a couple's happiness than a good sex life, according to a recent unpublished analysis of data from an ongoing federally funded longitudinal study. And women tend to be more unhappy with the amount of space in their marriage than men.
Terri Orbuch, a psychologist and research professor at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, has been studying 373 married couples for the past 25 years. When she asked participants if they felt they had enough "privacy or time for self" in their relationship, 29% said no.
Dr. Orbuch recently analyzed one year of data from her study and found more wives than husbands (31% versus 26%) reported not having enough space. She believes this is because women often have less time to themselves than men. Even when women have jobs outside the home, they still are typically the primary caregivers of children or aging parents. And because they also tend to have more friends than men, they often have more social obligations.
Dr. Orbuch asked participants if they were unhappy in their marriages. Of those who reported being unhappy, 11.5% said the reason was lack of privacy or time for self. That is a more common answer than the 6% who said they were unhappy with their sex lives.
"When individuals have their own friends, their own set of interests, when they are able to define themselves not by their spouse or relationship, that makes them happier and less bored," says Dr. Orbuch, author of the book "Five Simple Steps to Take Your Marriage From Good to Great." Space gives people time to process thoughts, pursue hobbies and relax without responsibilities to others. And the time apart gives partners something new to talk about. "Space brings excitement and novelty," Dr. Orbuch says.
A person's need for space is a function of innate personality, and of their "attachment style," which is determined in infancy largely by the way we are parented, experts say.
People who had affectionate, nurturing parents are comfortable with both being close to others and being alone; they have a "secure" attachment style.
Those whose parents were inconsistently available to them emotionally often have an "anxious" attachment style. They crave closeness, fear abandonment—and need and want less space. Those whose parents were rejecting often have an "avoidant" attachment style, resisting closeness and seeking space because they fear they will be hurt.
People who fear closeness tend to seek out people who are warm and inviting. This is how someone who needs a lot of space ends up with a partner who hates to be alone.
Couples can work out their space issues, if they understand each other's different needs and why. "Underneath, both individuals want love," says Vondie Lozano, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Glendora, Calif. The space-seeking partner's need may be greater because he probably has fewer social connections, Dr. Lozano says. "When the couple can see he is just afraid of being hurt and she is just afraid of being abandoned, and it all goes back to their families," then they can stop taking it personally, she says. Individuals who don't get the space they need will find a way to create distance, Dr. Lozano cautions. They may lash out or withdraw. "If you don't give them their physical space, they will take emotional space," she says.
Mr. Carr grew up in an Air Force family, moved around a lot and often lived on farms. He says this upbringing made him self-sufficient. He experienced periods of isolation after each move, because it would take time to make new friends. He learned to entertain himself by riding horses and hiking in the woods.
Ms. Carr says she would like less space because she spends a lot of time alone in her work day, doing chores and riding.
Earlier in the marriage, Mr. Carr sometimes would schedule a meeting in Seattle and spend an afternoon walking around Pike Place Market. "That meeting with business representatives took half an hour, and my meeting with myself took two," he says. He often took back-to-back business trips.
At home, he often snapped at his kids, grunted at his wife or sat there, scowling. "I needed to get some stuff out of my head," he says. Ms. Carr tried not to take her husband's grumpiness and distraction personally, but it was hard. "I started to pull back because I thought he wasn't happy with me," she says.
Around this time, the Carrs overheard a couple, whom they didn't know, arguing. Each presented his or her view, then calmly discussed it. At one point, the husband noted they were late for an appointment and suggested they talk again the next day. "I saw that and thought, 'We need to schedule time to talk, to visit and discuss what we each need to get done,' " Ms. Carr says.
Now, the Carrs have marriage meetings. At 5:30 each morning, espressos in hand, they sit for an hour by a wall of windows overlooking Mount Rainier, catching up on personal stuff. Then they call up their joint calendar online and discuss the day's schedule—including the personal time each one will need. "What works is making this a part of a normal conversation," Mr. Carr says.
After the meeting, he goes for a walk of a half-hour or more with his Labrador retriever. Some afternoons, he sits in an old chair overlooking the pasture in back of the main stable. For a "major reset," he schedules a stay at a business retreat center in Austin, Texas. This year and last, he spent three days alone at a rented cabin in the woods, Father's Day gifts from his wife and kids. "When I give him his space to do what he wants," Ms. Carr says, "he is more engaged, more excited and more rejuvenated when he comes home."
Room of One's Own
Here's how to negotiate for more space without hurting your partner.
• Be specific. Say, 'I need the afternoon to myself.' Simply saying 'I need space' sends confusing signals.
• Explain why more space makes you happy, so your partner knows it's not about him or her.
• Enjoy the space you take. Guilt defeats the purpose, says Barbara F. Okun, counseling psychology professor at Northeastern University.
• No secrets. Tell your spouse what you did and with whom when you were away
• Don't get carried away. Too much space weakens your connection.
• Don't forget to schedule couple time and family time, too.
—Write to Elizabeth Bernstein at Bonds@wsj.com or follow her column at www.Facebook.com/EBernsteinWSJ.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
To increase your workplace efficiency, take a nap or take a walk
June 16, 2012
To Stay on Schedule, Take a Break
By PHYLLIS KORKKI
WANT to be more productive? Keep your nose to the grindstone, or your fingers on the keyboard and your eyes on the screen. Because the more time you put in, the more you’ll get done, right?
Wrong. A growing body of evidence shows that taking regular breaks from mental tasks improves productivity and creativity — and that skipping breaks can lead to stress and exhaustion.
I think I’ll go to the gym now.
Mental concentration is similar to a muscle, says John P. Trougakos, an assistant management professor at the University of Toronto Scarborough and the Rotman School of Management. It becomes fatigued after sustained use and needs a rest period before it can recover, he explains — much as a weight lifter needs rest before doing a second round of repetitions at the gym.
Breaks are great. But I feel guilty taking too many of them.
Breaks can induce guilt because they’re “this little oasis of personal time that we get while we’re selling ourselves to someone else,” Professor Trougakos says. But that’s just the point.
Employees generally need to detach from their work and their work space to recharge their internal resources, he says. Options include walking, reading a book in another room or taking the all-important lunch break, which provides both nutritional and cognitive recharging
It’s shortsighted not to take this time, or for managers to discourage employees from taking it, he says.
I mean, if you think .... uh, what I mean to say is ... oh no, my head feels a little fuzzy. I think I need to walk around the block.
Try to take a break before reaching the absolute bottom of your mental barrel, Professor Trougakos says. Symptoms of needing time to recharge include drifting and daydreaming.
After that walk, I’m “in the zone” and want to keep working. Do I really have to take another break anytime soon?
There is no need to take a break if you’re on a roll, Professor Trougakos advises. Working over an extended period can be invigorating — if it’s your choice. What drains your energy reserves most is forcing yourself to go on, he says.
Well, I don’t want to strain myself. What if I can’t do this topic justice? I need to get another cup of coffee. Oh look, someone brought in her baby. I need to update my Netflix queue. Maybe I’ll visit Fred on the seventh floor.
Don’t go too far with this, Professor Trougakos says. Too many breaks can abet procrastination. “Anything at an extreme level,” he says, “is not going to be good.
Mostly, though, workers don’t take enough breaks — especially breaks involving movement, says James A. Levine, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic. He has done studies showing that workers who remain sedentary throughout the day are impairing their health.
“The design of the human being is to be a mobile entity,” says Dr. Levine, who is also a proponent of standing, and even walking, while working and during meetings.
I want to make some more calls, but I’m so sleepy! I wish I could take a nap underneath my desk.
Dr. Levine is a supporter of nap breaks, but only if they are allowed by management, he says. Otherwise, nappers can be perceived as slackers — even though research shows that naps improve productivity.
When it comes to productivity and concentration, everyone has a different capacity. Management should encourage employees to devise individually effective break routines, Dr. Levine says. But he also has some general guidelines: try working in intense 15-minute bursts, punctuated by breaks, in cycles that are repeated throughout the day. This works because “the thought process is not designed to be continuous,” he says.
“Long hours don’t mean good work — highly efficient, productive work is more valuable,” Dr. Levine says, and frequent breaks promote that.
They also encourage those flashes of genius that employers value so much, he adds, noting that Albert Einstein is thought to have conceived the theory of relativity while riding his bicycle.
When you come right down to it, Dr. Levine says, “the work should break up the break.”
Now that’s an idea I can get up and walk around the room to support.
Source: The New York Times
To Stay on Schedule, Take a Break
By PHYLLIS KORKKI
WANT to be more productive? Keep your nose to the grindstone, or your fingers on the keyboard and your eyes on the screen. Because the more time you put in, the more you’ll get done, right?
Wrong. A growing body of evidence shows that taking regular breaks from mental tasks improves productivity and creativity — and that skipping breaks can lead to stress and exhaustion.
I think I’ll go to the gym now.
Mental concentration is similar to a muscle, says John P. Trougakos, an assistant management professor at the University of Toronto Scarborough and the Rotman School of Management. It becomes fatigued after sustained use and needs a rest period before it can recover, he explains — much as a weight lifter needs rest before doing a second round of repetitions at the gym.
Breaks are great. But I feel guilty taking too many of them.
Breaks can induce guilt because they’re “this little oasis of personal time that we get while we’re selling ourselves to someone else,” Professor Trougakos says. But that’s just the point.
Employees generally need to detach from their work and their work space to recharge their internal resources, he says. Options include walking, reading a book in another room or taking the all-important lunch break, which provides both nutritional and cognitive recharging
It’s shortsighted not to take this time, or for managers to discourage employees from taking it, he says.
I mean, if you think .... uh, what I mean to say is ... oh no, my head feels a little fuzzy. I think I need to walk around the block.
Try to take a break before reaching the absolute bottom of your mental barrel, Professor Trougakos says. Symptoms of needing time to recharge include drifting and daydreaming.
After that walk, I’m “in the zone” and want to keep working. Do I really have to take another break anytime soon?
There is no need to take a break if you’re on a roll, Professor Trougakos advises. Working over an extended period can be invigorating — if it’s your choice. What drains your energy reserves most is forcing yourself to go on, he says.
Well, I don’t want to strain myself. What if I can’t do this topic justice? I need to get another cup of coffee. Oh look, someone brought in her baby. I need to update my Netflix queue. Maybe I’ll visit Fred on the seventh floor.
Don’t go too far with this, Professor Trougakos says. Too many breaks can abet procrastination. “Anything at an extreme level,” he says, “is not going to be good.
Mostly, though, workers don’t take enough breaks — especially breaks involving movement, says James A. Levine, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic. He has done studies showing that workers who remain sedentary throughout the day are impairing their health.
“The design of the human being is to be a mobile entity,” says Dr. Levine, who is also a proponent of standing, and even walking, while working and during meetings.
I want to make some more calls, but I’m so sleepy! I wish I could take a nap underneath my desk.
Dr. Levine is a supporter of nap breaks, but only if they are allowed by management, he says. Otherwise, nappers can be perceived as slackers — even though research shows that naps improve productivity.
When it comes to productivity and concentration, everyone has a different capacity. Management should encourage employees to devise individually effective break routines, Dr. Levine says. But he also has some general guidelines: try working in intense 15-minute bursts, punctuated by breaks, in cycles that are repeated throughout the day. This works because “the thought process is not designed to be continuous,” he says.
“Long hours don’t mean good work — highly efficient, productive work is more valuable,” Dr. Levine says, and frequent breaks promote that.
They also encourage those flashes of genius that employers value so much, he adds, noting that Albert Einstein is thought to have conceived the theory of relativity while riding his bicycle.
When you come right down to it, Dr. Levine says, “the work should break up the break.”
Now that’s an idea I can get up and walk around the room to support.
Source: The New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)