Showing posts with label Harvard Business Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harvard Business Review. Show all posts

Saturday, February 07, 2015

Two Results of Blue Laws' Repeal: Less Education, Less Income

"Blue laws," for those too young to remember, were in force in many states and communities across the United States when I was growing up. They forbade businesses, except for a few given exemptions like pharmacies, from being open on Sundays.

Of course, these laws reflected the Christian tradition of observing the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the dead as a sabbath.

Personally, I think it's fine idea for businesses to take one day a week off, especially if they do it in order to encourage their employees to rest and focus on the Word of God. But I don't think that people should be coerced into observing a sabbath. The New Testament knows nothing of a coerced faith.

But a study cited by a recent edition of the Harvard Business Review Daily Stat, shows that the repeal of Blue Laws has resulted in a work force less inclined to seek higher education and who earned less as a result. Check it out:

THE DAILY STAT: Harvard Business Review

February 5, 2015

The Lure of Mall Jobs Hurts Students’ Educational Prospects


The repeal of “blue laws” in American states had a harmful effect on young people’s education and earnings: Their number of years of completed education declined 0.11 years, their likelihood of finishing high school fell by 1.2 percentage points, and their subsequent adult wages decreased, says Dara N. Lee, an economist at the University of Missouri. Lee studied 16 states that, from 1955 to 1991, repealed laws requiring stores to close on Sundays. The expansion of Sunday retail activities led to a decline in church attendance and drew more young people into the labor market and away from school, the research suggests.


Thursday, September 25, 2014

Not Just Smart...

...but degreed. This is a time of consolidation, predictably following a time of innovation. So, this study's findings make sense.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

So does this mean you can trust an artist or writer more than you can a mathematician or accountant?

Of course not.

But this is interesting.

THE DAILY STAT: Harvard Business Review

September 17, 2014

People Are More Selfish and Dishonest After Doing Math


Research participants who had spent 15 minutes solving math problems were 4 times more likely to lie for personal gain in an ethics game than those who had answered randomly selected verbal questions from a standardized test, says a team led by Long Wang of the City University of Hong Kong. The act of calculating appears to crowd out people’s social and moral concerns, resulting in behavior that is more self-interested and even immoral. Stimuli such as family photos that prompt thoughts about social values appear to diminish these negative effects, the researchers say.
SOURCE: The social and ethical consequences of a calculative mind-set

Tuesday, November 05, 2013

Silence is Golden

In yet another way, according to this brief summary on recent research presented today by the Harvard Business Review's Daily Stat.

In Proverbs 17:28, God revealed this wisdom to Solomon:
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.
I wish that I would remember this more.

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

"Being authentic [is] far more important than being perfect."

Leaders, we need to take off all our masks. (That includes spiritual leaders, pastors.) Check out the Harvard Business Review blog post in which the following informative video is embedded. I don't think that Peter Fuda, the author of the blog post and narrator of this video is necessarily encouraging disclosing things that only God and you need to know about. But I do think his commendation of being one's self as a leader is important. Great food for thought and prayer here.

What was that Jesus said about, "Let your yes be yes and your no be no"? Here.

UPDATE: Reading this book years ago was a help to me.


Thursday, March 07, 2013

The Future

Remember The Population Bomb? It was published in 1968 and was not only popular, but accepted as irrefutable truth by many thoughtful people during my college years, 1971-1975. The book's thesis was, as a Wikpedia article on the subject says, that there would be "mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals." Because of this impending crisis, the book "advocated immediate action to limit population growth."

But, guess what? The "population explosion" didn't happen. Wednesday's Harvard Business Review Daily Stat delves into why the dire predictions of shortages resulting from overpopulation didn't come about.

MARCH 6, 2013
Whew! How We Dodged the Bullet on Global Starvation

How did the world survive the 20th-century population explosion, which many had expected to lead to mass starvation? Agricultural innovation contributed to a 10% rise in per-capita food production from 1961 to 1980, and greater global trade and a population shift to cities helped the world absorb billions more people, David Lam of the University of Michigan writes in Demography. The population boom was triggered by rapidly falling death rates, but the subsequent global decline in birth rates means that the world's population, now at 7 billion, may soon stabilize and may never reach as high as 12 billion, Lam says.

Source: How the World Survived the Population Bomb: Lessons From 50 Years of Extraordinary Demographic History




















Casey Stengel was right: It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

Does that mean that scientists--social as well as physical--should refrain from speculating about the implications about ongoing trends? Or that we should stop paying attention to them?

Of course not!

But I think that we shouldn't ascribe infallibility to pronouncements about the future made by any human being, no matter how well trained, thoughtful, and credible they may be.

As a Christian, I want to make responsible decisions about my life, my actions, and my votes.

So, when I hear what knowledgeable people tell me about the federal debt and its implications for the future or what climatologists say about global warming, to name two examples, I don't stick my head in the sand or go into panic mode. I consider, do what I can, and move on with my life.

This is possible because as a believer in Jesus Christ, I'm assured that I belong to the God Who is in the process of making a new future for His creation. And, because of the grace of God received by all who believe in Jesus, I get to be part of it!

Even with all my sin, faults, and imperfections, God is teaching me to pray with King David:
...I trust in You, O Lord;
I say, "You are my God."
My times are in Your hand...
[Psalm 31:14-15] 

Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Strange

I'm not sure what to make of this research at all. Does it add up to you?

MARCH 5, 2013
To Improve Your Math-Test Score, Write About Your Emotions First

Female research participants who were instructed to write about their current emotions for five minutes subsequently got an average of 15% more math problems right than other women, say Kathleen C. Burns of the University of Wisconsin and Stacy L. Friedman of the University of Massachusetts. The finding is in accord with past research showing that emotional expression has broad positive effects. It's unclear whether simply talking about feelings—as opposed to writing about them—before taking a test could also improve performance, the researchers say.

Source: The benefits of emotional expression for math performance

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Has Facebook Peaked?

Has Facebook peaked? Is it settling into a particular social media niche? Today's Daily Stat from the Harvard Business Review would seem to indicate that the answer to both questions is, "Yes":

FEBRUARY 14, 2013
Number of Users Spending Less Time on Facebook Outweighs Number Spending More Time

34% of Facebook users say they spend less time on the site now than last year, while just 13% say they spend more time on it, according to a Pew survey. Additionally, 28% say the site is less important to them now than a year ago, compared with 12% who say it's more important. Decreases in engagement with the site seem to be most prevalent among the young: 42% of users ages 18-29 report spending less time now on the site.

Source: Coming and Going on Facebook

















Personally, I feel that Facebook is good for some things, like communicating with family, friends, and groups. But as a media for receiving or transmitting information or opinions, Twitter is better.

My guess as to why that's so has been that Facebook is more, pardon the unintended pun, "in your face," whereas the 140-character limit of a tweet on Twitter limits the irritation one might derive from an unpleasant political post, coarse comments, or other irritating posts, pictures, and forwards.

Each week on the PBS Newshour, Lauren Ashburn and Howard Kurtz converse on the cultural impact of digital media. I was struck by several of their comments in the segment two days ago, which seemed to dovetail with my thoughts:
CHRISTINA BELLANTONI [the anchor conducting the segment]...So we're finding actually that some people seem to be a little overloaded on Facebook, right? You have some data...
LAUREN ASHBURN: And they're taking a vacation from Facebook; 61 percent in the new Pew study, as you can see here, are taking a break from Facebook.
HOWARD KURTZ: Of several weeks or more -- a vacation, virtually.
And there's another 20 percent who were on Facebook, not anymore. And the question is, Lauren, why are they bailing out?
LAUREN ASHBURN: Why are they bailing out?
I mean, I think we could just have a discussion around this table about why we would want to bail out of social media. But I actually posted this on my Facebook page. And I think you have it on yours as well, that the reason, in addition to the ones that the study has, are the fact that you don't like what people are saying politically.
We saw that a lot during the campaign season, that it is affecting your family life, that you are obsessed. And you are spending too much time on social media and Facebook while your 3-year-old child is drawing on your carpet.
HOWARD KURTZ: Facebook fatigue could be a factor, but I also just think that some people are just bored with it. Facebook has been around now.
It's got a billion users worldwide. I don't think it has quite the buzz factor that it used to. So, some people may say, well, I can go on my mobile gadget and do other things, play other games, go on other social networks. Facebook has competition now.
LAUREN ASHBURN: And a lot of people say that Twitter, too, Christina, has almost usurped the place of Facebook in terms of getting information.
I think Facebook is now much more family-oriented and that your network is really your network of friends. But Twitter is where, if you're a journalist, or anyone else ...
HOWARD KURTZ: Public person or a politician.
LAUREN ASHBURN: A public person -- you can get -- disseminate information.
CHRISTINA BELLANTONI: In short little bursts there.
The digital world moves at a lightning pace. We're all still figuring things out. I still use Facebook. But I'm now on Twitter much more than Facebook. It's my social media of choice. Others seem to be drawing the same conclusion or opting out of social media altogether.

Monday, February 11, 2013

Even Bank Robbers Are Going High Tech

They're eschewing the time-honored tradition of sticking up banks in person and, instead, going online.

Of course, there are some 70 year olds who still rob banks the old fashioned way.

FEBRUARY 11, 2013
Criminals Give Up on Robbing Banks and Head for the Internet

The FBI is leaving more bank-robbery investigations to local police now that bank holdups in the U.S. are on the decline, says the Wall Street Journal. Bank robbers stole $29.5 million, or $7,600 per heist, in 2012, down from $107 million, or $12,400 per crime, in 1997. Would-be robbers are responding to tighter security in banks, tougher sentences for offenders, and the allure of easy money in internet crime: The American Bankers Association estimates criminals netted $1.8 billion in check and debit-card fraud in 2010.

Source: Crime That No Longer Pays

Friday, December 28, 2012

Do Tote Bags or Charitable Deductions Encourage Giving?

Here's yesterday's installment of The Daily Stat from the Harvard Business Review:

DECEMBER 27, 2012
Why You Don't Like Donating to Charities That Offer Thank-You Gifts

Research participants were willing to donate 38% less, on average, to public broadcasting if the U.S. nonprofit offered a thank-you gift, in this case a pen, say George E. Newman and Y. Jeremy Shen of Yale University. A promised gift of a tote bag brought intended donations down 17%. A thank-you gift creates ambiguity in the donor's mind about whether the donation is supporting the charity or is a quid-pro-quo, the researchers say.

Source: The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving
















Frankly, thank you gifts have never enticed me to make a contribution to a not-for-profit organization.

In fact, they act as a reverse incentive on me, making it less likely that I will give.

Rightly or wrongly, I have a visceral reaction that goes something like this: If they can afford to give me something for my contribution, maybe they don't need my money. Maybe, I think, they could save a few bucks and lower their cost of operation by not buying thank you gifts.

Now, I'm sure that at least some of the thank you gifts offered by not-for-profits are donated by corporate sponsors who, in turn, are able to write the donations off on their taxes.

But that raises another issue. Even though taxpayers, individual or corporate, would be crazy not to take advantage of the charitable deduction of our tax laws, I'm not a fan. There are several reasons for this.

First, there's a matter of principle: I think that giving ought to be based on genuine commitment. I give to my church because I believe in the mission off the Church to make disciples for Jesus Christ. I give to other not-for-profits because I believe in what they're doing, not because I get a tax write-off.

Second, I don't think it's right for the taxpayers of the United States to effectively subsidize my charitable contributions or the charities I support. I believe that every taxpayer should expect to put her or his money where their commitments.

Third, and this is in a way my most serious concern, I stew about the possibility of coercion from some governmental entities over charities that have become dependent on the charitable deduction used by their benefactors.

For example, in some European countries, churches are still affiliated with the state. Pastors of the official state churches are, in effect, government employees. As Western culture comes increasingly to reject the very notion of sin, some clergy are being charged with "hate speech" for implying that there are, as I believe is revealed in the Bible, objective standards of right and wrong from God.

We have no official state churches in the United States, thank God. But with shifting mores, what might happen to the giving of congregations whose not-for-profit status is revoked for speaking God's truth in love to a culture that increasingly views truth as a pliant and personal thing? Would those who give to their local church be inclined to give less because they could no longer get a charitable deduction on their income taxes?

Maybe. In any case, I prefer that the possibility of such leveraging over the missions of churches and all other not-for-profit organizations didn't exist.

In 1 Corinthians 9:15, in the New Testament portion of the Bible, the apostle Paul says to a group of first-century Christians: "Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

Thank yous are nice, though unnecessary for the committed giver. But thank you gifts are utterly superfluous, cheapening the entire transaction.

And, I will keep taking my charitable deduction each year. I'm not nuts. But I wouldn't shed any tears if this provision of our tax laws went away either.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Should This Be Filed Under, "No Surprise"?


JULY 24, 2012
Many Financial Pros Feel Pressure to Compromise Ethics

30% of financial services professionals say their compensation or bonus plans create pressure to compromise ethical standards or violate the law, according to a survey in the U.S. and UK conducted for the law firm Labaton Sucharow. 22% of female respondents say they'd face retaliation if they reported wrongdoing in the workplace, compared with 12% percent of male respondents.

Source: Professionals Feel Unethical Behavior May Be a Necessary Evil and Have Knowledge of Workplace Misconduct, According to Labaton Sucharow Survey


















This came in today's Daily Stat from the Harvard Business Review. Maybe the only shocking thing about the findings is that such a small percentage of financial services professionals feel pressured to play fast and loose with ethics or the law.

If that seems cynical, I hasten to add that feeling the heat to cheat isn't itself unethical, criminal, or sinful.

When internalized, the pressure to cheat may be described with the Biblical term, temptation. Being tempted to sin isn't to do wrong.

And, if we're honest, we've all been tempted to do wrong.

That's part of being human.

 Jesus Christ, truly God and truly human, experienced temptation, but unlike the rest of us, never sinned. Christ not only has conquered sin and death for those who repent for sin and believe in Him, He also understands what it's like to be tempted...to be human. Hebrews 4:15, in the New Testament, says, "[In Christ]...we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin."

When faced with temptation, the God revealed to us in Christ can help us. "No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone," 1 Corinthians 10:13, also in the New Testament, says, "God is faithful and he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it."

 Of course, if we don't want to avoid sin or successfully elude the temptation to do so, there is no help to be had from God. While God wants to help us, He won't force His help on us.

But, honestly, it's better to run away from sin (and all its consequences) into the arms of God than to run to sin. Take it from one who knows.

Monday, June 04, 2012

Overhearing Office Chatter Decreases Productivity

I've never been able to write, read, research, pray, or engage in any concentration-intense activity when a TV is on or when there's loud conversation happening close to me. And precisely because I love music so much, the only kind of music I can have playing around me when I'm working on a sermon, for example, is instrumental stuff, like classical or jazz, that doesn't engage me emotionally or mentally. Were I to play any of my favorite artists' music, all of whom sing, or listen to NPR, while trying to be productive, I could forget about getting anything useful done.

Maybe I'm easily distracted. But today's Harvard Business Review's Daily Stat indicates that at least one form of distraction, one that I would find hard to deal with if I worked in an office with others, can decrease productivity.


JUNE 4, 2012
Coworkers' Conversations Impair Your Performance

Overhearing your office mates' conversations can cause a decline of 5% to 10% in your ability to read, write, and carry out other tasks requiring efficient use of short-term memory, according to a New York Times report of a study by Finland's Institute of Occupational Health. The researchers found that in an office environment, speech is the most disturbing type of sound because it is processed by working memory. Employees perform better when speech is masked by the sound of a babbling brook.

Source: From Cubicles, Cry for Quiet Pierces Office Buzz