Tuesday, January 31, 2012

"How to Deal with Difficult People and Have Constructive Conflict" - Dumb Little Man Tips For Life

Written on 1/28/2012 by Joe Wilner

Life and relationships aren't always perfect. Take a minute to think of some difficult people you have to deal with in your life? These may be people you work with, the in-laws that come to town throughout the year, or your neighbor who can’t seem to take a hint. For whatever reason, you're just not jiving with these people.

Do you flee? Or, do you get flexible and learn to interact?

When we encounter these extreme personalities it can feel like they are trying to make our life miserable, but more often than not, it’s simply learning about these peoples’ tendencies and how to interact in a more tactful way. Some conflicts are unavoidable and shouldn’t be smoothed over or suppressed, though it’s learning to deal with our differences, and how to understand, resolve, and learn from these interactions that’s important.

Tips to dealing with problem people

Learn to recognize different personalities

First and foremost, we must develop self-awareness about our own personality tendencies. Are you more aggressive or passive? Are you more of an introvert or extrovert?

Once we know our personality tendencies we can learn to recognize other peoples’ personalities and adapt and interact in a more effective way.

Learn how to communicate with different personality types

When we are dealing with different people it requires we approach them in the way they want to be treated. Some people need more detail and clarity in communication. Some people are very direct and just want the facts, and others are more focused on relationships.

Consider how you can communicate verbally and through body language in the most effective way with these different types of people to build rapport and make them feel understood.

Know who triggers you and why

When we know who we tend to have conflict with and what it is that leads us to get frustrated, we can begin to be more proactive. We can learn to deal with this person more effectively by managing our own emotions and not be the target of their drama and unrest.

Learn to focus on strengths and positive qualities

A great way to deal with people more effectively in any relationship context is to focus on their positive qualities and to help them accentuate these when you can. Give people compliments, offer them recognition, and help them to use their strengths. We can empower others instead of knocking them down, and by doing so have a more positive influence and interaction.

Just because you apply these ideas doesn’t mean that people will always respond in a positive manner. The only person you have control is yourself, so to make sure that an unhealthy conflict doesn’t ensue. Work to build these traits.

Managing conflict is being there with:

1.Availability: Accept full responsibility for your thoughts, feelings, actions, values, and perceptions that you contribute to the conflict.

2.Flexibility: Offer a willingness to make some degree of change, so that both people can move toward a joint solution. Compromise may be required.

3.Specificity: Seek to focus the conflict of real, significant issues that point toward a practical outcome that is within the range of responsibility. Don’t get personal.

4.Clarity: When the message intended and the impact received are nearly the same, communication is achieved. For this to happen, words, tone of voice, facial expression, posture must all be congruent with each other and context with they are said.

Here are some signs of constructive and healthy conflict.

You’ll know you’re on the right track when the following ideas are present.

Conflict is constructive when:

It opens up issues of importance, resulting in their clarification.

Results in the solution of problems

Increases the involvement of individuals in issues of importance to them

Causes authentic communication to occur

Serves as a release to pent-up negative emotions

Helps build cohesiveness among people, and allows them to learn about each other

Helps individuals grow and learn to become better in the future

We can learn a lot about ourselves and grow as a person when we work through conflict. It can also open up new possibilities and allow us to think differently about our beliefs and expectations.

Developing patience and tact to deal with others more effectively is a skill that can be applied in many areas of life. Continuing developing your ability to connect and influence others in a positive way.

Written on 1/28/2012 by Joe Wilner. Joe Wilner is a coaching and writer who manages www.shakeoffthegrind.com, where he inspires and empowers people to live a full, meaningful, and thriving life. You can also follow him on Twitter at @shakethegrind

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://www.dumblittleman.com/2012/01/how-to-deal-with-difficult-people-and.html

Monday, January 30, 2012

Dimensions Of The CIO Role - Insurance CIOs Sound Off - Insurance Networking News

Panel of technology executives discusses the merits of operational, strategic and disruptive tactics.
January 27, 2012

Pat Speer

Just what does it take to be a successful insurance CIO? Members of a CIO panel were given the chance to answer that question yesterday at Celent’s 2012 Insurance Innovation and Insight Day in Boston.

Classifying the tenets of a winning CIO was one of several topics the panel members, Bill Ball, AVP, Inforce Operations and Financial Control at John Hancock; Tsukasa Makino, manager, IT Planning Department & Corporate Planning Department, Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co.; Dan Greteman, SVP, CIO-Allied Commercial and Specialty, Nationwide Insurance and Celent CEO Craig Weber tackled during the session. The CIO panel was moderated by Celent Senior Vice President-Europe Catherine Stagg-Macey, who brought various Celent colleagues up to the podium to introduce a number of different interactive topics.

Celent Senior Analyst Mike Fitzgerald explained that the new world of the CIO could be thought of as being based on three separate types of focus/management: [1] operational, [2] strategic and [3] disruptive, topics that arose out of Celent’s recent research.

Fizgerald noted that the personality of a CIO who functions in an operational environment was that of a technician. “In any other industry this person would function as more of a production manager,” he said.

The strategic CIO is a change agent, and his/her behavior is adaptable, flexible, added Fitzgerald. “A good example away from insurance would be someone who functioned as an air traffic controller.”

The CIO who falls into the disruptive category exemplifies behavior that includes exerting influence without authority, being extremely focused, taking charge and managing his/her area as a professional risk. “This is the classic visionary,” Fitzgerald said, “and in any industry would be considered a true entrepreneur."

Acknowledging that the three “types” were being offered as points of discussion and not necessarily as hard-and-fast proven classifications, Fitzgerald told the group that the goal is to think about the next CIO in the insurance organization, and the succession plan that will be formulated around that role. Then he challenged the members of the panel to find their own “center” and tell the audience what makes the best fit.

Ball responded first, stating “you need all three of these roles. The operations side is the table stakes, playing to the strategy and disruptive roles. If you can’t deliver on your systems and do your operations well, no one will talk to you about the other two. It’s an evolution of these roles more than moving from one to another.”

Nationwide’s Greteman agreed. “I think of it as if it’s one person, and they spent 75 percent of time in operations, 20 percent and 5 percent of their time doing disruptive activities,” he said, adding in joking fashion, “I also look at it in the context of if these were types of CIOs: What would their job security be? So the operational person might have 10-plus years, the strategic person would have 5 years, and the disruptive is less than 2 years. I say this because there are two forces at play, if you make a bad bet you get fired, if you make a good bet you get hired at a new level by someone else. It makes for an interesting structure.”

Tokio Marine’s Mikino clarified that although he does not hold the title of CIO, his organization has been operating in a disruptive fashion for some time. “We support autonomy and free thinking,” he said.

Weber clarified that the kinds of behaviors that position a person for success are not necessarily all from the disruptive category. “You have to have very strong executive support above you,” he told the attendees.

For more information on related topics, visit the following channels:

Access Article, Source And Its Great Content: http://www.insurancenetworking.com/news/celent-CIO-insurance-panel-disruptive-technology-29808-1.html

Social Support of Bosses and Health

Kenneth Nowack, Ph.D.

Being a leader can be a lonely place. The higher you go in an organization the least likely you are to have colleagues and reports provide you with honest and candid feedback about your behavior. How many of us of heard the refrain, “another great meeting Lou” only to wander out the door muttering to ourselves just how much a waste a time the meeting actually was.

Leaders also seem to be high in self-delusion (no research has looked at how many leaders still have “imaginary friends”). In a recent study reported in Harvard Business Review, CEOs seem to have unrealistically optimistic perceptions about several aspects of their top team’s performance. In this study, CEOs reported providing significantly higher effective direction for their team or believed that team members are less interested in promoting themselves than caring more about team interests than their direct reports (Rosen, R. & Adair, F. (2007). CEOs Misperceive Top Team’s Performance. Harvard Business Review, September 2007).

What exactly do relationships at work do for talent? Do close relationships with one’s boss and colleagues have any impact on engagement and productivity? Current research suggest strong relationships with one’s boss and direct reports are associated with:

A.Less inflammation measured as C-Reactive Protein (Suarez, E. (2004). C Reactive Protein Is Associated With Psychological Risk Factors of Cardiovascular Disease in Apparently Healthy Adults. Psychosomatic Medicine 66:684-690).

B. Enhanced immunity (Schwartz, G.E., Schwartz, J.I., Nowack, K.M., & Eichling, P.S. (1992). Changes in perceived stress and social support over time are related to changes in immune function. University of Arizona and Canyon Ranch. Unpublished manuscript).

C. Less burnout in professional working women–lower depersonalization and higher personal accomplishment (Nowack, K. and Pentkowski, A. (1994). Lifestyle habits, substance use, and predictors of job burnout in professional working women. Work and Stress, 8, 19-35).

D. Increased depression (Stroetzer, U. et al. (2006). Problematic interpersonal relationships at work and depression: A Swedish prospective cohort study. Journal of Occupational Health, 51, 144-151).

E. Enhanced job satisfaction (Simon, L., Judge, T., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. (2010). In good company? A multi-level investigation of the effects of coworker relationships on well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 534-546).

F. Greater longevity and less illness during our life based on meta-analytics reviews of over 148 studies (Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB (2010) Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. PLoS Med 7(7): e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316).

In fact a recent survey of over 15,670 employees in diverse industries by Career Systems International, the third most important retention driver was having strong relationships and working with great people (42%). Only having stimulating/exciting work (48%) and having an opportunity to grow and develop (42.9%) were rated higher.

Despite the challenges and problems in both conceptualizing social support, social integration and networking by researchers and practitioners, having people in our lives to use for emotional, functional and intellectual support appears to be a protective factor in health and one that simultaneously contributes to increase productivity.

We took a look at some social support research results from our stress and health risk assessment called StressScan by analyzing availability, utility and satisfaction of social support by gender. We tested gender differences by using a statistical test called analysis of variance (ANOVA) and found some interesting differences in gender with a sample of almost 800 professional working men and women.

A. In general, women reported greater availability and use of their social support network (supervisor/boss, colleagues/co-workers, partner, family and friends) then their male counterparts (all p’s < .01).

B. Women reported using their boss or supervisor significantly more frequently then men which was surprising as research suggests that more successful women indicate that mentoring was less important to their career advancement than did less successful women.

C. Women reported significantly more availability, use and satisfaction with their friends compared to males. They also reported greater availability and use of their partners, families and friends (all p’s < .01) which is consistent to what Shelly Taylor, Ph.D. has suggested as part of the female “tend and befriend” response to coping with work and life stress (Taylor, S. E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. Behavioral Responses to Stress: Tend and Befriend, Not Fight or Flight” Psychological Review, 107(3):41-429).

In our statistical analysis of social support for professional men and women we were able to determine the relative amount of dissatisfaction with specific sources of social support. Men and women (N= 785) rated they were either “Not at All” or only “Slightly” satisfied with the following sources to meet their emotional and instrumental support needs:

•Boss/Supervisor 31.0%

•Colleagues/Co-Workers 16.8%

•Family 13.0%

•Partners/Significant Others 9.9%

•Friends 8.3%

Having a strong social support network and being satisfied appears to be associated with the level of stress and well-being. Men and women in our sample who reported greater overall social support also reported significantly stronger correlations with:

•Lower Stress ( r= .35, p < .01)

•Greater Resilience/Hardiness (r= .47, p < .01)

•Greater Happiness (r= .58, p < .01)

Maybe the Youngbloods were right after all….”C’mon people now, Smile on your brother, Ev’rybody get together, Try and love one another right now, Right now…” Right now! Be well……

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://blog.lifehub.com/2011/04/social-support-of-bosses-and-health/

Access Ken's Website: http://results.envisialearning.com/

Saturday, January 28, 2012

D.I.S.C.O. The Good Hire Process - Envisia

January 27, 2012

Posted by Ken Nowack

Written by Sam Alibrando, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist and president of APC, Inc. , a consulting firm that works with organizations and senior executives.

There are few things more important to the success of an organization, than getting the right people into your organization (and then keeping them). The costs of a bad hire are enormous in terms of the financial investment in the hiring process, cost of poor performance, lost time and energy in needless management, decreased morale and employee retention (there is growing evidence that good employees don’t leave organizations, they leave bad bosses).

When you think of the worst things about your organization, you can probably trace it back to a bad hire. Likewise, when you consider what is working well, you will probably trace it back to a good hire.

There are three ways to get the Best People into your organization. You can Hire them, you can Inspire (or develop and retain) them or you can Retire (reposition or fire) them. Firing people is necessary but difficult and at times carries with it risk. Repositioning is often a good alternative as long as the problem was poor fit rather than poor emotional intelligence or incompetence. Developing is always good but you can only develop people within their capacity to truly learn. It is hard to take an average employee and develop them into a star (and even more difficult to take a low-performing employee even to only the next level). By far and away, the best option of getting the work force that you want is to hire them. It is easier to hire a star than attempt to develop them over years. And let’s face it, not everyone is teachable.

One of the favorite things that I do as a consultant is to help organizations hire good-fit, emotionally intelligent leaders and then to help integrate them into their new position (and possible new work culture). Below is the five-step choreography that I use, let’s D.I.S.C.O.

Define the position. Not enough time is spent on thinking about the position to be filled. What exactly are you looking for and what kind of person would fill it? We often assume that we should just fill the same position that is vacated. If you think like that you will at best get what you already had. Think about what you need now and into the future. We are currently helping the president of a company hire a COO. We are suggesting to him to think 2-3 years ahead. Who do you want or need this person to be in two years? Consider the position that you are looking to fill, a new position that is aligned with your current strategic plan (if you have one). Once you do that, describe the KSA (knowledge, Skills and Aptitudes) of the ideal person. As consultants we use a system that profiles that ideal candidate, one that we later use for assessment and interviewing purposes and even later for measuring success after they are hired.

Identify the best (and fewest) candidates. There are many ways to identify the best candidates. You can identify candidates as simply as advertising the position on the web (e.g. Craig’s List or Monster.com) for lower level hires to employing a search firm for C-level executives. Although very expensive, the advantage of using an executive search firm is that they can locate people who are already working and currently not-looking. Although we do not identify and recruit we help you determine the best way to do it. We also partner with recruiters and search firms as well. What is important in the Identification process is to get the best prospects, and not one more. This involves not just identification but also good screening. You can screen candidates by reviewing their resumes, doing a standardized phone screen or hire a search firm to do the screening for you.

Selection. Once you have a final group of good candidates you now need to go through a thorough selection process. Here are the ABCs of this process:

Assessment. We put candidates through a battery of assessments that assess fit to ideal profile, strength assessment, their team role, cognitive capacity and personality fit. We then use this information to guide the interviewing process.

Behavioral Interviews. The typical interview has about a 50% accuracy (might as well flip a coin) for predicting success. Do you want to improve your odds? Then you need to do what is called a behavioral interview. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In the interview, you want to assess how a person performed and therefore will perform in your organization. If you do this, you improve your predictability to 80%. I would take those odds. As consultants, we have both guided this process and will actually sit in on interviews. And speaking of sitting in on interviews, generally speaking the more touches (the more people in the interviewing process)–up to a certain reasonable amount, the better chances of making a good hire (and avoiding a bad one).

Confirm. You want to confirm what you are told. This includes actually following up with references, confirming allegations and doing background checks. We worked with one company that was hiring a very important general manager. The chair of the hiring committee found someone who was a friend of a friend (not the best way to identify a candidate) and he had everything that they were looking for in a GM. The chair of the committee loved him was ready to hire him on the spot. Fortunately, three other people interviewed him. One seasoned executive who interviewed the candidate had a “bad feeling” about this prospect. The assessments that we did indicated an average to poor fit for the position. This instigated enough concern that a background check was done. And when they did a background check, they found that he had a history of serious problems that would likely follow him into this next position. If the chair selected this person–in a manner that most organizations do– without following the ABCs of Selection, they would have hired their next huge headache and unnecessary expense.

Choose. This is the shortest but obviously most important decision you will make in the DISCO process. Bring together all the stakeholders, interviewers, data from assessment, information from references and background check and make a decision. Honor people who have a “bad feeling” about someone. Don’t necessarily trust “likeability” (remember narcissistic people are notorious charmers). You need to tie likeability to performance and fit. And when you choose someone, think emotional intelligence. You can have a very talented person but if they cannot regulate their emotions or they relate poorly to others, you will get more than you bargained for. After having the basic KSAs in place, few things are more important than emotional intelligence, especially if this person works with clients, needs to work in a team or manage or lead others.

Onboarding. The hiring process does NOT end with the hire. This is a mistake that many organizations make. In our process we will stay with the new hire over the course a several months helping them integrate into the new position–and the new culture if they are an outside hire. Monitoring and assessing their progress and enhancing important communications along the way. We will use all the assessment data to both coach the new hire and direct his or her boss on how to mentor the new hire. The purpose of onboarding is to instigate a soft landing (integration), detect any issues early that might be problematic down the road and hone in the performance to the strategic needs of the position.

If you are going to cut costs in an organization, do not cut costs in the hiring process. It will come back to haunt you for years. Instead learn to do the D.I.S.C.O. and you will not regret it for a minute.

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://results.envisialearning.com/

Risk Profile, Appetite, and Tolerance: Fundamental Concepts in Risk Management and Reinsurance Effectiveness GC Capital Ideas

April 30th, 2009
Posted at 1:01 AM ETFinancial Intelligence Team

EXCERPTS

Overview

As the financial crisis continues to unfold — and explanations are offered — it is clear that more robust enterprise-wide risk management will be the result. Many industry participants and observers anticipate that regulatory and rating agency scrutiny will accelerate at an unprecedented rate. Further, insurer and reinsurer shareholders and Boards of Directors are likely to demand that risk be measured and managed as it relates directly to capital on an enterprise-wide basis, particularly as an integral part of the corporate governance process.

Advancing the ERM dialogue can help insurers make value-accretive decisions through the improved deployment of capital. A thorough understanding of the basic concepts of enterprise-wide risk is fundamental to the implementation of ERM disciplines, establishing risk management parameters, and integrating this knowledge into the process of making strategic business decisions. As a result, insurance and reinsurance firms will not only be better prepared to respond to the internal and external questions relating to risk and capital, but (perhaps more importantly), they could benefit by establishing hedging or reinsurance strategies to drive capital efficiencies and maximize stable risk-adjusted returns.

We will address three core aspects of the emerging ERM and capital management dialogue:

1.We will offer a framework for defining common terminology: distinguishing Risk Profile, Risk Appetite, and Risk Tolerance. Currently there are no consistent, overarching definitions of commonly used risk terms. Greater clarity in this area is fundamental to a proper understanding of the concepts involved.

2.We will offer a framework for discussing risk tolerance, including best practices.

3.We will present the results of Guy Carpenter’s initial risk tolerance benchmarking study, which will allow us to advise our clients about their own circumstances and the general context of the markets in which they operate.

Risk Profile, Risk Appetite, and Risk Tolerance

Access Article: http://www.gccapitalideas.com/2012/01/27/weeks-top-stories-january-21-27-2012/

Friday, January 27, 2012

Are You Learning as Fast as the World Is Changing? - HBR Blog Network

by Bill Taylor

12:00 PM Thursday January 26, 2012
Comments (12)

Thursday, January 26, 2012

2012 M&A Activity in 2012 - The Conference Board

Jan 25 2012

2012 M&A Activity in 2012

While we are in a contemplative mood with respect to what may happen in 2012, I turned to the topic of mergers and acquisitions. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP recently published an advisory about what boards of directors may face in 2012, and one of the major topics was 2012 mergers and acquisition activity. Below is an excerpt from the advisory.

M&A in 2012 – Significant Opportunities … and Risks

While the first half of 2011 continued 2010’s M&A growth trends, growth stalled in the second half leading to only a very modest uptick for the full year. Spin-offs were the one type of transaction that attracted substantial interest last year, as companies decided (sometimes on their own, but sometimes with prompting from activists or other investors) that their businesses would generate better returns and have better prospects if split into two or more companies.

There is reason to expect growth in deal activity in 2012, despite current market and economic challenges. Prospective acquirers have substantial cash resources and reasonable or even strong stock prices, banks are willing to lend for at least some acquisitions, private equity firms have significant unused investor commitments, and hedge funds are actively seeking positive results. In this environment, directors should be mindful of whether the company’s current condition presents opportunities for it and its stakeholders.

Seller’s market. Interest rates remain low, potential strategic partners looking for synergistic mergers may have significant cash reserves, and financial sponsors are eager for deals. All this suggests that advantageous pricing may be achievable for companies considering a sale of control or selected divestitures. Firms considering strategic sell-side transactions must review the current financial state of the firm, markets, likely bidders and antitrust or other regulatory uncertainties. Careful planning for any transaction process in light of legal requirements is also important. Among other things, boards pursuing these transactions should be sensitive to, and take steps to prevent or limit, potential conflicts of interest on the part of their financial advisors. Recent developments also confirm that antitrust considerations are not solely a buy-side concern.

Acquisition risks. For companies considering acquisitions, directors must do their homework to understand the business being acquired; integration challenges and plans, including anticipated positive and negative synergies; antitrust or other regulatory risks, both in the United States and overseas; and financing, litigation and other consummation and post-closing risks. For example, acquiring a company that turns out not to be compliant with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or similar foreign statutes or regulations (whether or not it was subject to those provisions prior to being acquired), can result in expenses to investigate and fix the problem, loss in income from possible changes in the target’s business model and the payment of fines. In the aggregate, these costs can dwarf the purchase price of the acquisition.

LBO activity. With financial sponsors on the prowl for opportunities, management teams across a variety of industries may be approached about potential leveraged buyouts. Also on the prowl, however, are plaintiffs’ law firms, which are well aware that a flawed LBO process will create significant legal pitfalls for the target’s board and give rise to potential claims. If a board believes its CEO is likely to be approached by a financial sponsor, the CEO should be instructed to advise the lead independent director immediately of any approach. Appropriate protocols should then be put in place to assure that any process is actively supervised by the independent directors.

Defense review. The past two years have witnessed a modest but meaningful amount of hostile deal activity and shareholder insurgency, as well as negotiated deals disrupted by interlopers. Given this activity, directors of potential targets should consider a review of their defenses to understand vulnerabilities and be prepared to move quickly to fulfill their fiduciary obligations. One difficult decision faced by some boards this year relates to the renewal or non-renewal of a shareholder rights plan scheduled to expire. In reviewing these plans, boards should take into account potential threats to shareholder interests that may justify such defenses, as well as the policy of ISS to recommend “no” or “withhold” on director nominees who have voted to extend a right plan and the policies of other relevant institutions. Some companies have rights plans “on the shelf” that a board can consider adopting quickly if appropriate when faced with actual hostile activity. But the “on the shelf” approach is not entirely satisfactory for many smaller companies or even for some larger companies, given the expanded use of derivatives by some investors to establish a large economic position that can effectively be converted (after regulatory clearance) into a large ownership position. Nevertheless, given the ISS policy and similar positions of some institutions, it is not surprising that almost 80% of companies with rights plans scheduled to expire in 2011 allowed them to expire, and a majority of the extensions were for periods of two to five years rather than the once-standard ten years.

The vision. In any contest for control, a company’s strategic plan will take center stage and may very well prove to be the determinative factor. In order to mount an adequate defense against any unsolicited offer or proxy contest – and for more basic reasons of oversight – the board should ensure that the company’s strategic plan is current, has adequate support in company and market data and reflects the best judgment of management.

Balance Sheet Management and Vulnerability to Insurgency

The ratio of liquid assets to total assets of non-financial institutions in the United States is the highest in over 50 years. Feeding this fattening of the balance sheets are a historically low level of business investment relative to pre-tax corporate profits and, in some cases, issuances of debt at low cost without any near-term plans for use of proceeds. While the financial crisis of 2008-09 and subsequent economic uncertainties may have led to this situation, directors should now be asking how much longer their companies can justify retaining significant excess capital on the balance sheet. Indeed, directors should be asking how much longer investors will tolerate this trend. A common misconception is that hedge fund insurgents target only underperforming or distressed companies. In fact, one recent study concluded that the boards and managements that are most frequently attacked in activist filings on Schedule 13D are those overseeing companies characterized by steady cash flows and healthy balance sheets.[1] Directors should be carefully considering:

Whether to invest more in the business;

Whether to engage in more strategic acquisitions or similar transactions;

Whether to return more value to shareholders through share buybacks and dividends; and

Whether to incur more leverage to have additional flexibility to do any or all of the above.

Studies have shown hedge fund activists to be highly effective at inducing increases in leverage, share buybacks and dividends.[2] The same studies have shown that, despite the frequent adoption by hedge fund insurgents of the moniker “operational activist,” very few of them have proven to be particularly adept at causing improvements to the operating performance of companies. But when a board is perceived to be “standing still” on top of a healthy and growing balance sheet, activists will not hesitate to enter the scene to advocate changes to the board, management and strategic plan. Boards should explore, and push outside advisors and management to help them understand, whether more aggressive uses of excess capital may be appropriate and communicate their conclusions and reasoning to investors. This effort may do more than traditional anti-takeover mechanics to protect a company from interference by an activist who purports to know more than the incumbent directors and management about how to run the business and who, in the face of a seemingly passive board, may generate enough momentum to steer the company in radical directions that are not prudent. Despite the challenges of macroeconomic and industry uncertainties, by focusing appropriately on these issues in advance, boards may be able to reduce the likelihood of activist campaigns or have more credibility with investors if a campaign is launched.

Click here to read the full advisory. http://www.cgsh.com/files/News/8fcd6bc3-12bb-48ca-8da0-f949000c6133/Presentation/NewsAttachment/d77f88f2-1e9d-4fc8-bdaa-ff1c8f151d32/CGSH%20Alert%20Memo%20-%20Board%20Focus%202012.pdf

Other M&A Predictions

Other resources regarding M&A activity in 2012 include:

Citing steadier stock and credit markets steadier, cheap financing and the large amounts of cash on corporate balance sheets, Evelyn M. Rusili writing for the NY Times, notes that companies may need to make acquisitions to drive growth in 2012 in the face of a tepid economy. These factors, together with pent-up demand among buyout shops may fuel M&A in 2012. Tempering these forces in 2012 is uncertainty regarding the European financial system and the uncertainty inherent in a U.S. presidential election.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/on-wall-street-a-renewed-optimism-for-deals/

According to Ernst & Young LLP’s Transaction Advisory Services, strong fundamentals, which include robust cash positions, strengthening balance sheets and improved credit markets, combined with a mounting pressure for growth in a low organic growth environment, should generate an uptick in deal flow in 2012.

http://www.ey.com/US/en/Newsroom/News-releases/Ernst-and-Young-says-fundamentals-will-finally-prevail-over-uncertainty-to-get-deals-rolling-in-2012

Financialtimes.com contains a section dedicated to analysis of M&A activity in 2011 and trends in 2012.

http://www.ft.com/intl/indepth/m&a

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1] April Klein & Emanuel Zur, Entrepreneurial Activism: Hedge Funds and Other Private Investors, 64 J. Fin. 187 (2009) (“Klein & Zur”).

[2] See, e.g., Klein & Zur.

- Barbara Blackford
Posted by Barbara Blackford at 10:38 AM

Access Source And Its Great Content: Permalink: M&A Activity in 2012: http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2012/01/25/ma-activity-in-2012/

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Strategy Time to think creatively about worker engagement - Financial Post

Strategy Time to think creatively about worker engagement

Mitchell Osak
Jan 24, 2012 – 8:52 AM ET

EXCERPTS:

Companies need to more deeply consider the important role of peer comparison when designing compensation and measurement plans.

You don’t have to be a psychologist to know that people instinctively measure their own standing, satisfaction and performance relative to others. In a variety of studies, Harvard Business School professor Ian Larkin found this trait is the most powerful workplace motivator.

According to Prof. Larkin, when it comes to “deciding how hard we work and how well we think we’re performing, social comparisons matter just as much [as financial incentives].”

Comparing themselves with their peers incites employees to work harder in order to be recognized or to maintain prestige. Absolute compensation does matter, but only to a point.

This research has significant ramifications for talent management. Companies need to more deeply consider the important role of peer comparison – now supercharged thanks to social networking – when designing compensation and measurement plans.

Mitchell Osak is managing director of Quanta Consulting Inc. and can be reached at mosak@quantaconsulting.com.

.Access Article, Source And Its Great Content: http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/24/time-to-think-creatively-about-worker-engagement/

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Survival’s Ick Factor - New York Times

By JAMES GORMAN
Published: January 23, 2012

EXCERPTS

Disgust is having its moment in the light as researchers find that it does more than cause that sick feeling in the stomach. It protects human beings from disease and parasites, and affects almost every aspect of human relations, from romance to politics.

...scientists are exploring the evolution of disgust and its role in attitudes toward food, sexuality and other people.

“It’s in our everyday life. It determines our hygiene behaviors. It determines how close we get to people. It determines who we’re going to kiss, who we’re going to mate with, who we’re going to sit next to. It determines the people that we shun, and that is something that we do a lot of.”

“It is becoming a model emotion,” said Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia, a disgust pioneer with Dr. Rozin.

Dr. Haidt, Dr. Rozin and Clark McCauley of Bryn Mawr College claim nine different domains of disgust for North Americans. Dr. Curtis proposes seven categories. Joshua Tybur of VU University in Amsterdam proposed three domains of disgust, three separate psychological programs, for disease avoidance, mate choice and moral judgment.

Whatever the fine points of disgust, its power to affect behavior is unquestioned, and that power ought to be put to good use

Access Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/science/disgusts-evolutionary-role-is-irresistible-to-researchers.html?pagewanted=2&ref=todayspaper

Monday, January 23, 2012

What's Your Influencing Style? - Harvard Business Review

HBR Blog Network

Chris Musselwhite and Tammie Plouffe

2:45 PM Friday January 13, 2012

by Chris Musselwhite and Tammie Plouffe
Comments (27)

HBR FEATURED PRODUCTS

Betterness: Economics for Humans

by Umair Haque $2.99 Buy it now »

Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India: In Service for Sight

by V. Rangan $6.95 Buy it now »

Effective leadership today relies more than ever on influencing others — impacting their ideas, opinions, and actions. While influence has always been a valuable managerial skill, today's highly collaborative organizations make it essential. Consider how often you have to influence people who don't even report to you in order to accomplish your objectives. Success depends on your ability to effectively influence both your direct reports and the people over whom you have no direct authority.

Have you ever thought about how you influence others? The tactics you use? We are all aware that people use different influencing tactics, but did you realize that we each naturally default to the same tactics every time? Or that the tactics we default to are also the ones to which we are most receptive when being influenced?

It is these preferred tactics that define our influencing style. Analyzing the different influencing tactics, researchers have identified up to nine primary influencing tactics. In our quest to further understand personal influencing styles, we did additional research to build on the existing knowledge base. From our research, we've identified five distinct influencing styles: rationalizing, asserting, negotiating, inspiring, and bridging.

You may have an idea what your style is just from hearing these labels, but the most accurate way to identify your style is with an influence style indicator — a self-scoring assessment that classifies your style based on answers to questions about preferred influencing tactics. But even without the indicator, here are some questions you can ask yourself to begin to understand your style:

•Rationalizing: Do you use logic, facts, and reasoning to present your ideas? Do you leverage your facts, logic, expertise, and experience to persuade others?

•Asserting: Do you rely on your personal confidence, rules, law, and authority to influence others? Do you insist that your ideas are heard and considered, even when others disagree? Do you challenge the ideas of others when they don't agree with yours? Do you debate with or pressure others to get them to see your point of view?

•Negotiating: Do you look for compromises and make concessions in order to reach an outcome that satisfies your greater interest? Do you make tradeoffs and exchanges in order to meet your larger interests? If necessary, will you delay the discussion until a more opportune time?

•Inspiring: Do you encourage others toward your position by communicating a sense of shared mission and exciting possibility? Do you use inspirational appeals, stories, and metaphors to encourage a shared sense of purpose?

•Bridging: Do you attempt to influence outcomes by uniting or connecting with others? Do you rely on reciprocity, engaging superior support, consultation, building coalitions, and using personal relationships to get people to agree with your position?

While answering these questions, take your style a step further. How often does it work for you? Are you more successful with certain types of people? Have you ever wondered why? Since there are five different influencing styles, using only your preferred style has the potential to undermine your influence with as many as four out of five people.

Gaining awareness about our own influencing style and those of others is especially critical in light of today's fast-paced and stressful work environments, and here's why: When we are operating unconsciously out of a preference (our style) and not seeing the results we expect, we actually have the tendency to intensify our preferred behavior — even when it's not working!

If your individual success depends on gaining the cooperation of people over whom you have no direct authority, this should concern you. The way to begin to increase your odds of influencing more people is to learn to recognize and use each of the five styles.

Becoming aware that there are influencing styles other than yours is a good start. To further increase your influence, you must learn what each style sounds like when it's being used effectively and ineffectively. Gaining this awareness will help you recognize when the style you're using isn't working and how to determine one that will.

What's your influencing style? And what are you going to do about it?

Chris Musselwhite is president and CEO of Discovery Learning Inc. and Tammie Plouffe is the managing partner of Innovative Pathways.

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/01/whats_your_influencing_style.html

Saturday, January 21, 2012

2012 Separation of Chair/CEO Roles - Governance Challenges and Priorities for 2012 - The Conference Board

Governance Center Blog

Governance Challenges and Priorities for 2012 Jan 20

2012 Separation of Chair/CEO Roles

The decision of whether or not to separate the chair and chief executive roles remains a hot governance topic for public companies, boards, and shareholders. While the number of companies separating the roles of board chair and CEO has grown significantly over the past five years, it is not yet a majority practice in the US. According to The Conference Board’s 2011 Director Compensation and Board Practices Report, approximately 50% of nonfinancial services companies in the US separated these roles, with less than 65% of those companies having an independent board chair.

The Chairmen’s Forum, a group of prominent current and former chairs of corporate boards from the United States and Canada, recently issued a model statement regarding the separation of chair and chief executive roles. Under this model, boards are urged to adopt a policy requiring a separation, independent board chair. In its release, the chairman of the Chairman’s Forum, Bill McCracken, noted that “Corporate directors should prepare now for next-generation leadership, which involves building companies through strong and constructive boards led by independent chairs. . . . The Chairmen’s Forum sees succession as the inflection point in moving to a fresh model of board leadership. This policy language offers a clear way for directors to put this fresh model into practice and reflects an emerging standard.”

Shareholder representatives, including AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) and New York City Comptroller John Liu, who oversees NYC pension funds, are raising the profile of this issue by submitting shareholder proposals to require separation of the chair and CEO roles at companies like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. Despite AFSCME’s failure to garner majority shareholder support for a separation proposal last year at Exxon Mobil, ISS reports that the proposals for independent chairmen last year averaged 33 percent support at Russell 3000 companies, up from 28 percent the year before. AFSCME has announced the filing of 21 such proposals in 2012.

The issue of separation of board chair and CEO will continue to be subject of debate in the US. For more information about the debate and the rationale for separating these roles, check out The Conference Board’s Director Note, August 2011.

- Barbara Blackford

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2012/01/20/separation-of-chairceo-roles/

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Train Your Brain to Focus - HBR

HBR Blog Network.

1:32 PM Wednesday January 18, 2012

by Paul Hammerness, MD, and Margaret Moore

HBR FEATURED PRODUCTS

Nine Things Successful People Do Differently

by Heidi Halvorson $3.99 Buy it now »

Overloaded Circuits: Why Smart People Underperform

by Edward Hallowell $6.95 Buy it now »

Next time you are sitting in a meeting, take a look around. The odds are high that you will see your colleagues checking screens, texting, and emailing while someone is talking or making a presentation. Many of us are proud of our prowess in multitasking, and wear it like a badge of honor.

Multitasking may help us check off more things on our to-do lists. But it also makes us more prone to making mistakes, more likely to miss important information and cues, and less likely to retain information in working memory, which impairs problem solving and creativity.

Over the past decade, advances in neuroimaging have been revealing more and more about how the brain works. Studies of adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using the latest neuroimaging and cognitive testing [PDF] are showing us how the brain focuses, what impairs focus — and how easily the brain is distracted. This research comes at a time when attention deficits have spread far beyond those with ADHD to the rest of us working in an always-on world. The good news is that the brain can learn to ignore distractions, making you more focused, creative, and productive.

Here are three ways you can start to improve your focus.

Tame your frenzy.

Frenzy is an emotional state, a feeling of being a little (or a lot) out of control. It is often underpinned by anxiety, sadness, anger, and related emotions. Emotions are processed by the amygdala, a small, almond-shaped brain structure. It responds powerfully to negative emotions, which are regarded as signals of threat. Functional brain imaging has shown that activation of the amygdala by negative emotions interferes with the brain's ability to solve problems or do other cognitive work. Positive emotions and thoughts do the opposite — they improve the brain's executive function, and so help open the door to creative and strategic thinking.

What can you do? Try to improve your balance of positive and negative emotions over the course of a day. Barbara Fredrickson, a noted psychology researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, recommends a 3:1 balance of positive and negative emotions, based upon mathematical modeling of ideal team dynamics by her collaborator Marcial Losada, and confirmed by research on individual flourishing and successful marriages. (Calculate your "positivity ratio" at www.positivityratio.com). You can tame negative emotional frenzy by exercising, meditating, and sleeping well. It also helps to notice your negative emotional patterns. Perhaps a coworker often annoys you with some minor habit or quirk, which triggers a downward spiral. Appreciate that such automatic responses may be overdone, take a few breaths, and let go of the irritation.

What can your team do? Start meetings on positive topics and some humor. The positive emotions this generates can improve everyone's brain function, leading to better teamwork and problem solving.

Apply the brakes.

Your brain continuously scans your internal and external environment, even when you are focused on a particular task. Distractions are always lurking: wayward thoughts, emotions, sounds, or interruptions. Fortunately, the brain is designed to instantly stop a random thought, an unnecessary action, and even an instinctive emotion from derailing you and getting you off track.

What can you do? To prevent distractions from hijacking your focus, use the ABC method as your brain's brake pedal. Become Aware of your options: you can stop what you are doing and address the distraction, or you can let it go. Breathe deeply and consider your options. Then Choose thoughtfully: Stop? or Go?

What can your team do? Try setting up one-hour distraction-free meetings. Everyone is expected to contribute and offer thoughtful and creative input, and no distractions (like laptops, tablets, cell phones, and other gadgets) are allowed.

Shift Sets.

While it's great to be focused, sometimes you need to turn your attention to a new problem. Set-shifting refers to shifting all of your focus to a new task, and not leaving any behind on the last one. Sometimes it's helpful to do this in order to give the brain a break and allow it to take on a new task.

What can you do? Before you turn your attention to a new task, shift your focus from your mind to your body. Go for a walk, climb stairs, do some deep breathing or stretches. Even if you aren't aware of it, when you are doing this your brain continues working on your past tasks. Sometimes new ideas emerge during such physical breaks.
What can your team do? Schedule a five-minute break for every hour of meeting time, and encourage everyone to do something physical rather than run out to check email. By restoring the brain's executive function, such breaks can lead to more and better ideas when you reconvene.

Organizing your mind, and your team members' minds, will yield a solid payoff in the year ahead. Adding "high-quality focus" is a great place to start. Try holding a no-multitasking meeting and see what happens when everyone in the room gives their undivided attention. Have you ever tried this in your organization? If not, do you think it would fly?

Paul Hammerness, MD, and Margaret Moore are the authors of Organize Your Life, Organize Your Mind (Harlequin). Hammerness is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Moore is the founder and CEO of Wellcoaches Corporation and co-director of the Institute of Coaching at McLean Hospital.

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/01/train_your_brain_to_focus.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date

Employers Share Most Outrageous Excuses Employees Gave for Coming in Late in CareerBuilder's Annual Survey - CareerBuilder

Employers Share Most Outrageous Excuses Employees Gave for Coming in Late in CareerBuilder's Annual Survey

Study Points to the Importance of Punctuality in the New Year
CHICAGO, Jan. 12, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Cat hiccups, a disgruntled roommate and a governor's phone call are among this year's most unusual excuses employees gave for being tardy, according to a new CareerBuilder study. Sixteen percent of workers reported they arrive late to work once a week or more, up from 15 percent last year. Twenty-seven percent of workers arrive late to work at least once a month, up from 26 percent last year. The nationwide survey was conducted between November 9 and December 5, 2011 by Harris Interactive© among more than 7,000 U.S. workers and 3,000 employers across industries and company sizes.

While employers are more flexible about work schedules and start times today, excessive tardiness can have serious consequences. Over one-third (34 percent) of employers said they have terminated an employee for being late.

"Punctuality – or lack thereof - can impact how your commitment, reliability and performance are perceived by your employer," said Rosemary Haefner, vice president of Human Resources at CareerBuilder. "One of the best ways to make sure you get to work on time is to get organized and plan ahead. Lay out whatever you'll need for the workday the night before, plan to be at the office early, account for expected commute delays and eliminate distractions in your morning routine."

Traffic, sleep schedules and weather conditions are the top three causes for late arrivals to the office, according to workers:

•Traffic – 31 percent of workers

•Lack of sleep – 18 percent

•Bad weather – 11 percent

•Getting kids to school or daycare – 8 percent

Other common reasons for tardiness included public transportation delays, pets, spouses, watching TV and Internet usage.

When asked for examples of the most outrageous excuses employees provided for being late, hiring managers shared the following:
1.Employee's cat had the hiccups.

2.Employee thought she had won the lottery (she didn't).

3.Employee got distracted watching the TODAY Show.

4.Employee's angry roommate cut the cord to his phone charger, so it didn't charge and his alarm didn't go off.

5.Employee believed his commute time should count toward his work hours.

6.Employee claimed a fox stole her car keys.

7.Employee's leg was trapped between the subway car and the platform (turned out to be true).

8.Employee said he wasn't late because he had no intention of getting to work before 9:00 a.m. (his start time was 8:00 a.m.)

9.Employee was late because of a job interview with another firm.

10.Employee had to take a personal call from the state governor (turned out to be true).
Survey Methodology

This survey was conducted online within the U.S. by Harris Interactive© on behalf of CareerBuilder among 3,023 hiring managers and human resource professionals and 7,780 U.S. workers (employed full-time, not self-employed, non-government) between November 9 and December 5, 2011 (percentages for some questions are based on a subset, based on their responses to certain questions). With pure probability samples of 3,023 and 7,780, one could say with a 95 percent probability that the overall results have a sampling error of +/- 1.78 and +/- 1.11 percentage points, respectively. Sampling error for data from sub-samples is higher and varies.

About CareerBuilder

CareerBuilder is the global leader in human capital solutions, helping companies target and attract their most important asset - their people. Its online career site, CareerBuilder.com®, is the largest in the United States with more than 24 million unique visitors, 1 million jobs and 40 million resumes. CareerBuilder works with the world's top employers, providing resources for everything from employment branding and talent intelligence to recruitment support. More than 9,000 websites, including 140 newspapers and broadband portals such as MSN and AOL, feature CareerBuilder's proprietary job search technology on their career sites. Owned by Gannett Co., Inc. (NYSE: GCI), Tribune Company and The McClatchy Company (NYSE: MNI), CareerBuilder and its subsidiaries operate in the United States, Europe, Canada and Asia. For more information, visit www.careerbuilder.com.

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/employers-share-most-outrageous-excuses-employees-gave-for-coming-in-late-in-careerbuilders-annual-survey-137166598.html

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Tensions with the Board Not the Norm, Say 98% of CEOs - WorldatWork News Line

Jan. 11, 2012 — Despite the prominence of headline-making Fortune 500 boardroom clashes in 2011, 98% of U.S. CEOs report having good relationships with their boards of directors, and 95% say they believe their board supports them in the majority of decisions they make, according to a just-released survey from RHR International, a global executive talent development firm.
Though these middle-market CEOs represent companies that make up a wide swath of the American economy, their perspectives have seldom been examined. The CEO Snapshot Survey, based on responses from 83 CEOs at public and private companies, delves into their perceptions on board relationships, succession issues, their own leadership effectiveness, and the resources they need to improve their performance.

Key Findings

Boards Provide Positive Support

Boards are a fruitful source of feedback and support for CEOs, with 96% saying they can speak honestly with certain directors about their performance and the impact of their decisions, and 59% citing the board as their most helpful source of feedback. Fifty percent of CEOs say the lead director serves as this key board confidant, indicating the growing importance of finding the right person for this board position.

Succession Planning Causes Breakdowns

From the CEO's perspective, board relationships and communications begin to break down during the succession planning process. Seventy-six percent of CEOs believe they should be more involved in planning their own succession, and many CEOs report that miscommunication with the board about selection decisions and responsibilities is the most difficult part of this process. "Succession planning is full of complex psychological nuances, such as the incumbent CEO's readiness to step down, that can make it a very difficult process," said RHR International Chairman and CEO Dr. Thomas J. Saporito. "Earlier RHR research also shows CEOs need more clarity from and alignment with boards during transitions into and out of the C-Suite."

Complexity of the Job Surprises CEOs

There is a disconnect between CEOs' self-proclaimed preparedness for the job and what they experience when they assume the role. Eighty-seven percent of all CEOs felt prepared for the job, yet of that group, 54% say it was different from what they originally expected. When looking at first-time CEOs only, both percentages rise: 91% felt ready for the job and 72% report it was different from their original expectations. "This is not uncommon," said Dr. Saporito. "Stress, pressure, and loneliness all combine to create a job unlike any other they have previously had."

Isolation Hinders Performance

The intensity of the CEO's job, coupled with the scarcity of peers to confide in, creates potentially dangerous feelings of isolation among chief executives. Fifty percent of all CEOs report experiencing loneliness in the role, and of this group, 61% believe that the isolation hinders their performance. First-time CEOs are particularly susceptible to this isolation, with nearly 70% of those who experience loneliness saying it negatively affects their ability to do their jobs. Nearly half of all CEOs estimate that most other leaders experience similar feelings of loneliness.

Contents © 2012 WorldatWork. For more information, contact the Copyright Department at WorldatWork.

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=58100&from=wwnew_editorial_0312

Monday, January 16, 2012

Maybe You Can Just Visualize Becoming a Better Leader…Maybe You Can Just Visualize Becoming a Better Leader - Envisia Learning - Ken Nowack

January 15, 2012
by Ken Nowack

“I visualize things in my mind before I have to do them. It’s like having a mental workshop”

Jack Youngblood

As a kid, I played baseball and probably made over 1,000 double plays successfully–at least in my mind. I used to visualize every moment of receiving the ball from the shortstop to avoiding the slide from the base runner to get the runner out. In games, I actually did a great job of quickly turning the pivot and getting both runners out.

I’ve always wondered if my mental practice made a difference and now it seems I might actually be “wired” in my brain to be more successful than many people (hear that Brian Saebean?).

We have known for many years that mental rehearsal is almost equivalent to physical rehearsal in terms of enhancing skills and performance.

In 1995, a Harvard neuroscientist named Alvaro Pascual-Leone conducted an incredible study1. He divided volunteers into two groups with the first practicing a five-finger piano exercise for five days for two hours. At the end of each session they measured neural activation using transcranial-magnetic-stimulation (TMS) and they noticed that even after one week of practice, a stretch of the motor cortex in the brain related to finger movements took over surrounding areas demonstrating new neural circuits being established.

Pascual-Leone also asked a second group to only imagine playing the same piano piece mentally and again his research team found that the mere mental rehearsal of doing something like playing the piano altered the physical structure and function of our brain. Performance between the two groups was almost identical when both groups were tested after the two week period demonstrating for the first time the real power of mental practice.

Additional research has also demonstrated how meditation over time actually causes a significant reduction of brain activity in an area of the brain associated with sensations of pain. In a new study, researchers took 15 healthy volunteers who had never meditated and had them practice a 20 minute class just four times. The participants in the study reported a 40 percent reduction in pain intensityand 57 percent reduction in pain unpleasantness in response to a pain inducing heat device was placed on their legs. Mental practice in the form of meditation produced a greater reduction in pain than even morphine which typically reduces pain by 25 percent2.

In another widely reported study, eight weeks of 27 minutes per day mental rehearsal of mindfulness meditation results in measurable changes in brain regions associated wtih empathy and stress3. None of these changes were seen in the control group, indicating that they had not resulted merely from the passage of time.

Visualize Becoming a More Effective Leader

Each day you can mentally rehearse being more effective as a leader by:

1.See yourself allowing others to complete their thoughts and ideas before you share your recommendations, suggestions and ideas.

2.Visualize yourself speaking to a group and commanding a high degree of attention, respect and agreement with your message.

3.Rehearse and visualize yourself maintaining emotional control and being poised under interpersonal pressure and conflict (being non-defensive and open minded).

4.See yourself in a positive mood that rubs off on other talent and results in enhanced engagement and commitment to their job and tasks.

5.Mentally practice soliciting and seeking feedback from others and welcoming this as a gift to continuously improve.

6.Imagine using more participative leadership styles and involving more of your talent in problem solving, decision making and planning processes.

7.Focus on your peers saying to each other about how they would like to “follow” someone like you, believe you are always candid and direct with them and work in a collaborative, rather than, competitive manner.

So, maybe you can actually practice becoming a better leader just by deliberately practicing it in your mind. As Robert Collier said, “See things as you would have them be instead of as they are”….Be well….

1.Pascual-Leone, A. Nguyet, D.,Cohen, L., Brasil-Neto, J.,Cammarota, A.; & Hallett. M. (1995). Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation during the acquisition of new fine motor skills. Journal of Neurophysiology, 74, 1037-1045 [↩]

2.1.F. Zeidan, K. T. Martucci, R. A. Kraft, N. S. Gordon, J. G. McHaffie, R. C. Coghill. Brain Mechanisms Supporting the Modulation of Pain by Mindfulness Meditation. Journal of Neuroscience, 2011; 31 (14): 5540 DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5791-10.2011 [↩]

3.Britta K. Hölzel, James Carmody, Mark Vangel, Christina Congleton, Sita M. Yerramsetti, Tim Gard, Sara W. Lazar. Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain graymatter density. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 2011; 191 (1): 36 DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2010.08.006 [↩]

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=6561886212125248416

Friday, January 13, 2012

Insurance CIOs Vary in Value Proposition Views

What they need, how they get it and how they deliver varies widely, notes Novarica.

Insurance Networking News, January 12, 2012

Pat Speer

Insurance CIOs view many of their contributions to the organizations they serve as one of supporting new strategic initiatives, while the most important factor in CIOs’ ability to deliver on this value proposition is their relationship with business leaders. Such are the results of a new report, “Creating Enterprise Value as CIO,” issued today by New York-based research and consulting firm Novarica. The report targeted 111 members of its more than 300-member Novarica Insurance Technology Research Council, a moderated membership group of senior insurance IT executives from both the property/casualty and life/annuity sectors.

Of the 111 who took Novarica’s online survey during December 2010, approximately 33 percent represented large (more than $1 billion in premiums) companies, while 50 percent represented midsize carriers (between $100 million and $1 billion in premiums). Small carriers (less than $100 million in premium) comprised 17 percent of the total.

Approximately one-half (45 percent) of respondents across organizations of all sizes noted supporting new strategic initiatives as the CIOs’ most meaningful contribution.

“These CIOs are being judged (or are judging themselves) not by how much they can save, but by how much more than can help the company achieve,” says Matthew Josefowicz, partner in the insurance practice at Novarica and author of the report.

Approximately one-third noted that their impact on the organization was most obvious in creating efficiency and effectiveness (cutting operational costs), which, according to the report, means that these CIOs are functioning in a traditional role of helping their companies perform better and more cheaply.

Just more than a fifth of respondents reported seeing their value primarily in terms of driving innovation (operations, products/services). CIOs from mid- to small-sized carriers were more likely to choose “driving innovation in products/services” as a contributing factor to creating value. And an average of only two percent of respondents noted “identifying growth opportunities” as a primary source of creating value for their organizations.

“These CIOs have transitioned from being primarily oriented toward execution to focusing more on effecting change for their companies,” says Josefowicz.

Perhaps most noteworthy is the difference between those who cited their primary value as innovating in either product or process and the total group of CIO respondents was in their self perception. Those “innovators” are more likely to ascribe their ability to deliver innovation to their technology knowledge/skills and project/team management rather than their ability to align with the business side.

Josefowicz admits that the sample size is small, but says “it’s interesting that the innovators are not necessarily those who ‘play well with others’ – they are slightly more likely to be those with a high level of confidence in their own knowledge and ability to deliver.”

More than 40 percent of insurer CIOs think their business leaders have a poor understanding of enterprise IT issues, but only 24 percent see that as a problem. Further, only 11 percent rated their business leaders’ knowledge as “high” yet more than half said that business leaders’ knowledge served to help them obtain resources.

“So, according to our group, even a decent understanding of enterprise systems on the part of business leaders can be beneficial in securing resources,” notes Josefowicz.

Finally, while CIOs are most likely to look to their own IT staffs and other insurer’s IT staffs for future leaders, the innovators are much more likely than others to consider cross-pollinating with the business organization, according to the report.

For more information on related topics, visit the following channels:

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://www.insurancenetworking.com/news/novarica-cio-proposition-values-29718-1.html

Thursday, January 12, 2012

National Study Reveals Customer Satisfaction Ratings for Insurers - Insurance News Net

Foster City, CA (PRWEB) January 11, 2012

A new national study of satisfaction ratings conducted by Insure.com provides a comprehensive view of how consumers feel about the largest auto, home, health and life insurance companies in the U.S.

In addition to the survey results, Insure.com has released a Best Insurance Companies tool which allows consumers to see how their insurer measures up against the competition when it comes to customer satisfaction. The tool breaks out five measurements of satisfaction:

1.Customer service

2.Claims experience

3.Value for the price paid

4.Percent who plan to renew their policies

5.Percent who would recommend their companies

“This is an in-depth resource for consumers who are considering their insurance options,” said Amy Danise, Insure.com’s Editorial Director. “Our analysis lets consumers gain valuable insight into how the major companies are performing on five important levels of customer satisfaction.”

Insure.com also awarded its “People’s Choice Award” to the three highest-scoring insurers in each line of business included in its study.

Best car insurance companies

1.USAA

2.Auto-Owners Insurance

3.The Hartford

Best home insurance companies

1.USAA

2.Amica Mutual

3.Chubb

Best life insurance companies

1.Ameriprise Financial

2.TIAA-CREF

3.Transamerica

Best health insurance companies

1.Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois

2.Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey

3.Kaiser Permanente

Insure.com’s analysis of the customer ratings revealed that insurance consumers are generally satisfied with their companies:

• Most consumers are “completely” or “somewhat” satisfied with their auto insurers’ customer service.

•73 percent are satisfied with home insurance customer service.

•63 percent are satisfied with their life insurers’ customer service.

•61 percent are satisfied with their health insurance customer service.

•70 percent say they have recommended or would recommend their auto insurance company. In other categories, people who have recommended or would recommend their insurers totaled 67 percent for home insurance, 58 percent for health insurance and 50 percent for health insurance.

For complete details and to use Insure.com’s Best Insurance Companies tool to explore customer satisfaction ratings, visit http://www.insure.com/best-insurance-companies.html.

The rankings

Rank – Insurance Company – Overall Score out of 100

Auto insurance companies

1. USAA* 98.00

2. Auto-Owners Insurance* 85.82

3. Hartford Financial Services* 83.31

4. State Farm 80.50

5. 21st Century 79.28

6. Farmers 79.01

7. AAA 78.95

8. GMAC Insurance 78.56

9. Allstate 78.10

10. Travelers 77.57

11. GEICO 77.46

12. Erie Insurance 76.90

13. Liberty Mutual 76.14

14. Country Insurance 75.89

15. Nationwide 74.68

16. American Family 74.05

17. Progressive 73.69

18. Mercury General 72.05

19. MetLife 72.01

20. Esurance 71.19

Home insurance companies

1. USAA* 98.11

2. Amica Mutual* 97.67

3. Chubb* 92.19

4. Erie Insurance 88.72

5. Country Insurance 85.75

6. AAA 84.66

7. Nationwide 83.53

8. State Farm 82.34

9. MetLife 81.68

10. 21st Century 80.79

11. The Hartford 80.44

12. Travelers 79.79

13. Liberty Mutual 79.03

14. Farmers 78.71

15. Allstate 78.55

16. Auto-Owners Insurance 78.48

17. American Family 77.10

18. Universal Property & Casualty 75.05

19. Fireman's Fund 73.66

20. Citizens Property Insurance 64.15

Life insurance companies

1. Ameriprise Financial* 90.90

2. TIAA-CREF Life Insurance* 88.58

3. Transamerica* 81.28

4. Northwestern Mutual 81.23

5. New York Life 80.36

6. Pacific Life 79.99

7. Massachusetts Mutual 79.62

8. MetLife 79.39

9. Allstate 78.94

10. Prudential Financial 78.64

11. Principal 77.59

12. John Hancock 77.02

13. Hartford Life 73.75

14. AXA Equitble 73.58

15. Great-West Life 73.05

16. Jackson National 71.80

17. American General 70.86

18. ING Life Insurance 69.32

19. Lincoln National 68.12

20. Aviva Life Insurance 59.94

Health insurance companies

1. BCBS of Illinois* 84.74

2. Horizon BCBS of NJ* 84.52

3. Kaiser Permanente* 84.45

4. Highmark BCBS 82.27

5. Regence BCBS 82.17

6. Humana 81.87

7. BCBS of Massachusetts 81.46

8. Independence BCBS 81.33

9. CareFirst BCBS 80.24

10. UnitedHealthcare 79.23

11. BCBS of Florida 78.70

12. Anthem BCBS 78.29

13. Aetna 77.78

14. CIGNA 76.17

15. Coventry Health Care 73.19

16. Aetna Life (Dental, Etc.) 72.48

17. Health Net 71.91

18. Assurant 60.85

19. Blue Shield of California 59.20

• Indicates the company is an Insure.com "People's Choice Award" winner.

Methodology

Insure.com surveyed more than 4,500 insurance customers between February and August 2011 for customer service ratings and reviews. The survey included the top companies by market share, but not all large companies may be represented due to lack of data. The top three companies in each category earned Insure.com’s “People’s Choice Award.”

Insure.com makes reviews freely available via this site. The views and opinions expressed by users do not reflect the views and opinions of Insure.com. Insure.com expressly disclaims any and all liability in connection with the content of any reviews.

About Insure.com Insure.com is a comprehensive resource of consumer insurance information and data. The website features articles, news and tools on auto, home, health and life insurance topics, life insurance quotes, and car insurance comparison tools. Consumers have access to free car insurance quotes and guidance on finding the right insurance policy, saving money and solving claims problems. Insure.com is owned and operated by QuinStreet, Inc. (NASDAQ: QNST), one of the largest Internet marketing and media companies in the world. QuinStreet is committed to providing consumers and businesses with the information they need to research, find and select the products, services and brands that best meet their needs. The company is a leader in visitor-friendly marketing practices. For more information, please visit QuinStreet.com.

Press contact:
Amy Danise
860-386-6446
adanise(at)insure(dot)com

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=325643&type=lifehealth&inl=1

Why You Need A Leadership Coach - Inc - John Baldoni

Your reports are not your friends. To get the truth about how you're running your company, you'll need someone with an outside perspective.

By John Baldoni
@johnbaldoni
Jan 11, 2012

Among the reasons that companies hire executive coaches is to provide senior leaders with a sounding board.

While this is something I have long suspected, I was pleased to see it confirmed by the results of a small survey of veteran executive coaches conducted by Alexcel Group, a coaching network to which I belong. Two thirds of the coaches surveyed said their engagements involved being a trusted advisor able to provide much needed objectivity.

A reason for serving as a sounding board is rooted in trust. Not too long ago I did a seminar for CEOs of small businesses. In the course of my talk I mentioned that none of the attendees had any real friends inside the companies they owned and operated. That comment provoked a strong negative reaction.

I held my ground and challenged the group to consider that each of them had the power to hire, reward, and terminate any employee in their organization. Then one CEO looked to his colleagues and said something like, "He's right! We may not have as many friends as we think we do!" I don't think that I won over any converts but at least they allowed me to continue speaking.

Many CEOs with whom I speak talk about it being lonely at the top. They are not asking for pity—when you have access to the corporate jet, life is not all bad. But the wise executives I know realize that being in charge means you are always making decisions that have big consequences for others.

Most executives love the impact their decisions have, but at times, they know that decisions they make about opening or closing facilities, promoting this executive over another, or deciding which business to pursue or which to pass on, has real impact on people's lives. As Shakespeare wrote in Henry IV, Part 2, "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."

To paraphrase the Bard, I would say senior executives do not readily surrender their crowns but from time to time like to take them off. Enter the executive coach. His or her role is to encourage the executive to look less royal. That is, take a frank look at themselves and their roles in the company.

Good coaches I know do not pull punches with feedback they deliver. They seek to be honest brokers with ideas, opinions, and suggestions they gather from stakeholders. Coaches also listen and learn from what an executive says, and seek to share expertise in helpful ways, especially to challenge assumptions.

The obstacle for the senior leader is the desire for straight talk beyond the coach.

The man or woman at the top of the pyramid must work hard to enable people to speak truth to power. That is not easy. None of us likes push-back, especially when we are working hard to get things done right. But for those who report to a senior executive telling them the truth may be what's most important.

And so let me close with a story that General Omar Bradley recalled about his former boss, General George C. Marshall, who served as U.S. Army Chief of Staff during the Second World War. In 1939, as America began to mobilize for the eventuality of war, Marshall chastised his junior officers for their failure to disagree with him about his planning strategies. Marshall made it clear that he did not want yes men on his staff; he wanted officers who were not afraid to question his decisions.

That's a good lesson for every leader to keep in mind.

Read more:

Lead Like College Football Coach Hayden Fry

How To Lead with Empathy (and When Not To)

Free Time Ain't Free Unless You Use It

John Baldoni is the president of Baldoni Consulting, a full service executive coaching and leadership development firm. John speaks widely on leadership and is the author of 10 books on leadership including his newest Lead With Purpose: Giving Your Organization a Reason to Believe in Itself.

Access Source And Its Great Content: http://www.inc.com/john-baldoni/why-you-need-an-executive-coach.html

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

SEC Issues Implementation Schedule for Dodd-Frank Act - Best's News Service

Best's News Service - January 09, 2012 04:09 PM

By Jeff Jeffrey, Washington Correspondent
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has released its 2012 schedule for the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, laying out its six-month goals for developing new rules and public reporting requirements.

During the first six months of the year, the SEC expects to address rules for corporate governance, risk retention requirements for asset-backed securities, derivatives and other issues covered by the law.

On the corporate governance front, the SEC said it would adopt rules dealing with compensation committee independence and rules regarding compensation consultant conflicts; rules for the disclosure of pay-for-performance, pay ratios and hedging by employees and directors; and rules regarding the recovery of executive compensation.

The schedule said the agency plans to report to Congress on standardization within certain elements of the credit rating process.

The SEC said it also expects to develop definitions for a number of derivatives-related terms, including intermediaries and securities-based swaps.

The SEC's full schedule for the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act can be found on the agency's website.

The insurance industry has been closely watching the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, pushing lawmakers and administration officials to avoid lumping insurance companies in with banks. The industry has argued that insurance companies and banks are inherently different businesses, emphasizing the small number of insurance companies that failed during the financial crisis as opposed to the much larger number of banks that suffered (Best's News Service, Oct. 12, 2011).

(By Jeff Jeffrey, Washington Correspondent: jeff.jeffrey@ambest.com)BN-NJ-01-09-2012 1609 ET #

Insurance Leaders

Pages