In the early 1900s we were an industrial nation and needed 40 hours of work to produce a widget. Today we are an informational age and sadly people are working 60 hours or more a week. Something is wrong with that culture but it can be fixed when managers understand what keeps people healthy and productive, when they understand there is life outside of work.

Organizational culture

A Manager’s Job Is Making Sure Employees Have a Life Outside Work

 

by Arjun Dev Aurora and Raman Frey

March 25, 2016

A young man with cancer at our Silicon Valley firm requested additional sick time for post-cancer treatments and checkups.

Another employee, one who had been born in Vietnam and came to this country with his parents, requested one day per month when he would work remotely. He would return to south central Los Angeles to work a double shift at his parents’ liquor store. Setting up his laptop there meant that his parents could take a brief break from their sixteen-hour days.

Perhaps these seem like reasonable requests that any humane manager would approve. And in both cases, as their supervisors, we did grant these requests.

And yet more often than not, the unspoken rules of “killing it” here in Silicon Valley might prevent people like these from even mentioning their needs to their managers. If you’re not sleeping under your desk, you’re not committed — an attitude we sometimes refer to as “martyr capitalism.”

It’s not just that we want our employees and collaborators to get their jobs done — that’s a given — we want to see them thrive both in and out of the workplace. It’s a magnanimous attitude with no self-evident ROI, and brings to mind Gary Vaynerchuk’s quip with a venture capital professional who was quizzing him on the worthiness of his new business. She kept repeating, “But what is the ROI on this spend?” and he finally snapped and retorted, “What’s the ROI on your mother?!” In other words, not all the value of a company can be quantified.

Instead of being penalized for needing time to process a difficult life change or illness — or even to attend a child’s soccer game — we believe managers should encourage taking the time to have a rich life outside of the cube.

We have both found that encouraging employees to be creative and independent — not obedient soldiers taking orders down the chain of command — makes everyone feel like they have a stake in a positive outcome. Recent research backs this up.

An HBR.org piece from earlier this year references a University of Michigan research study, which found that employees thrive when working in an atmosphere that is “positive and virtuous,” including being treated with respect and compassion, as well as being appreciated for the value for their contributions. Kindness can reinforce competence and lead to greater success. People who are treated kindly and with respect literally operate more from their pre-frontal cortex, associated with nuanced decision making, creativity and abstract thinking, rather than their amygdala, associated with the fight or flight response.

A mean boss may get short-term results, but sows the seeds for long-term systemic failure, as has been shown by Stanford’s Emma Seppala and Georgetown School of Business’s Christine Porath in her research.

We are convinced that a team characterized by trust, respect and admiration, working 40-hour work weeks, will outperform a similarly competent team characterized by fear, mistrust and scarcity thinking, frantically “being productive” 80 hours per week. The statistical evidence overwhelmingly supports that more than 50 hours per week leads to diminished returns.

Fear is not the same as respect, and kindness is not the inverse of competence People who believe their work truly benefits others and who are treated with respect in the workplace simply produce better results.

For managers who would like to move away from a pressure- and fear-based system to a more human way of leading, we suggest the following:

• Get clear on your “why.” Not the what or the how of delivering your product or service, but the deep intrinsic need that’s being met, your own motives and the feelings you create for customers.
• Understand what really matters to someone, whether an entry-level team member straight out of school or a veteran entrepreneur. Seek to understand what they really care about. This may sound obvious, but in the midst of pressure for deliverables, it’s often forgotten.
• Give to givers. Take time to give to folks who give, be cautious of people who always take.
• Give to takers as well. But in moderation and only if it’s immediate and urgent.
• Join communities of people who share your values about work, and meet with them frequently. Help one another as much as you can. The benefits may not be instant or self-evident, but there is cumulative power in ensuring that everyone thrives.

---

Arjun Dev Arora is currently an Entrepreneur in Residence at 500Startups and a co-founder of Immediately, a mobile platform that helps free sales people from their desks and laptops. Previously, he was Chairman and Founder of Retargeter (acquired in 2015) and worked in business development at Yahoo! He advised on M&As and IPOs for various technology companies at investment bank Jefferies Broadview. Arjun is also a notable angel investor and startup advisor.

---

Raman Frey is founder of Good People, a social club that fosters community, trust and friendship through food, drink and conversation. He was co-founder of Frey Norris Gallery and has recently contributed in sales, branding and marketing roles at Cronos CCS, Artkick, Collaborative Advantage and other technology startups. His writing appears regularly on Medium.

Whether your business is small or large, whether it has three employees or 3000, creativity is an important seed to organizational growth. It is one thing having creative individuals working for you and another thing entirely to have groups of people working creatively not as individuals, but as the group collective. Often thought to be an individual expression, creativity by a group can be even more dynamic. A Harvard Business Review article explores the topic.

Resolving the Paradox of Group Creativity

by Andre Walton

Researchers have been studying creativity for more than 150 years, yet it still remains elusive. We’re not much closer to understanding what it is exactly that sparks unique ideas. One reason for this lack of insight may be that so much research has looked at the wrong things. Until quite recently, creativity has been studied from the assumption that it is a function of particular individuals and their characteristics.

Researchers have asked, “What is it about certain people that causes unique ideas to emerge from their minds?” But some students of creativity are now beginning to realize that this question ignores other critical factors that can promote or inhibit novel thought patterns that lead to unique, creative works.

One of the fundamental drives that motivates people in their careers and personal pursuits is the need to be distinctive — to leave a mark on the world through personal achievements. In Art and Artist, psychoanalyst Otto Rank suggests that people’s desire to be creative stems from their need to feel immortal, symbolically at least, and to leave their indelible mark on future generations in the form of artworks. If Rank is to be believed, this drive to be unique may be the primary motivation for many of us to follow a path of creativity.

On the other hand, we humans are a mass of contradictions, and there’s another drive that has the potential to undermine our motivation to seek uniqueness: our need for connection with others. As psychologist Abraham Maslow suggested, we all need to belong to groups, to feel, to be seen, and to have things in common with others. Those who do not fulfill this need to belong may have considerably less resilience in terms of emotional stability; the link between creativity and “poor mental health” has been well documented and may stem from this underlying sense of being an “outlier.”

When we’re group-oriented, enjoying the safety and sense of companionship that group membership provides, it is our similarity to others that is salient. And when we’re indulging in our need for individuality, enjoying a sense of uniqueness, it’s our dissimilarity from others that is critical. As my own research has shown, this dissimilar condition is what helps us explore cognitive paths that are different from those trodden before — either by us or by those around us.

These two intrinsic, human drives operate in opposite directions, with our sense of group membership encouraging cognitive processes similar to other group members and undermining the motivation to think uniquely — that is, undermining creativity itself.

Several studies lend practical support to this theoretical notion. In times of trauma or potential stress, we tend to gravitate toward being with others, identifying closely with our in-groups, by flying the national flag or going to church more often. But creativity seems to decrease under these circumstances.

So when you’re managing a team or working in a group, what can you do to help foster creative thinking?

In team settings, the “group vs. individuality” dynamic depends on whether the team has a collectivist orientation, where the good of the group is expected to prevail, or an individualist orientation, when it is expected that individuals will strive for their own benefit and that of their immediate families. It’s no coincidence that the U.S., arguably one of the most individualist countries in the world, is also the most creative in terms of patents generated, innovation, and scientific research publications. The result of individualists working within an individualist culture, then, is likely to be a high level of innovation.

However, let’s consider a Portuguese or Asian culture — both highly collectivist, compared to the U.S. — such as a Portuguese subsidiary of a U.S. multinational. It’s not uncommon for the parent company to “import” its underlying corporate modus operandi into the environment of its subsidiaries, sometimes as a matter of policy but sometimes simply because management teams from the central office have set up the structure and practices of the subsidiary. Under these circumstances, employees drawn from the local community can find themselves in a collectivist environment at home but in an individualist workplace.

The implications for creativity become difficult to predict under circumstances like these. While more research is needed to determine how these “hybrid” circumstances affect creativity, it’s reasonable to assume that people will adapt to different cultural norms in different circumstances.

A further example of how the group-versus-individual dynamic affects creativity is the act of brainstorming. During the last half of the 20th century, companies that wanted to encourage creative thinking relied on brainstorming and team building as important tools in their toolkit. But in both situations it’s the group that becomes important, which is perhaps the reason why brainstorming has never fulfilled its original promise.

When advertising executive Alex Osborn popularized brainstorming in the 1953 book Applied Imagination, he predicted that it would double the number of ideas that a group of people would generate in response to a problem or challenge. However, it proved not to live up to his expectations. As later research showed, brainstorming actually reduces the number of ideas a group produces when compared with the number of ideas that can be generated by those same individuals on their own.
So if you can’t rely on brainstorming and teamwork to elicit more creative ideas, what can you do?

One remedy is to make sure that individuals have plenty of space for individual contemplation and input. In a brainstorming situation, this might mean having group members take time to generate ideas on their own (not in the immediate environment of other group members). Individuals can then come back together to share their ideas and discuss how their individual contributions relate to the task at hand. They may diverge one or more times to generate ideas that build upon the original contributions. In our everyday work environments, this ability to find personal time and space to think is crucial to enabling creative thought.

But even when given the space and freedom to flourish, creativity can be an elusive and fragile phenomenon, which can be affected by factors such as leadership style, stress, and organizational culture. A corporate philosophy that lets people know it’s OK to be creative is critical, as is leadership that promotes the notion that everyone’s creative contribution will be taken seriously. Given the importance of innovation in contemporary organizations, isn’t it time we all started taking creativity more seriously?

---

Andre Walton is a visiting professor of creativity and entrepreneurship at the University of South Wales. He’s also the author of Embracing the New Era: Managing oneself and others into the era of creativity.

Often, new organizational leadership comes in and feels a need to "shake things up" in an effort to make what they believe to be positive changes. But there needs to be sense to the change management equal to the development of those new leaders charged with enacting it. A new Harvard Business Review article discusses why they need to mesh.

 

 

Change Management and Leadership Development Have to Mesh

 

By Ryan W. Quinn & Robert E. Quinn

January 07, 2016

 

Leadership development and change management tend to be top priorities for many organizations. In spite of this, a majority of organizations tend to fall far short of their goals for both. One major reason organizations struggle is because they treat both leadership development and change management as separate rather than interrelated challenges. Cultural changes cannot happen without leadership, and efforts to change culture are the crucible in which leadership is developed.

For better results, organizations should coordinate their leadership development and change management efforts, approaching them as one and the same. True leadership involves deviating from cultural expectations in ways that inspire others to choose to follow. What’s more, leadership is not the sole responsibility of the C-suite. Managers at all levels of an organization must overcome resistance if genuine cultural change is to occur. Thus, change initiatives—which require a deviation from a dominant set of norms and behaviors—are the best learning environments for star managers to develop leadership skills, as well as a necessary component of a successful culture-change initiative.

How then, should organizations go about integrating their change management and leadership development initiatives? We recommend an approach that is both top-down and bottom-up.
The bottom-up part of the integrated development and change process requires potential leaders throughout the organization to engage in a process of learning how to enact a desired change in an organization’s culture in the everyday experiences of organizational life.

For example, one company suddenly found itself audited at the request of their largest client and were told that they needed to change their accounting procedures. In response, many employees insisted that the changes could not be made by the demanded deadline. They were impeded by cultural beliefs around how quickly the organization could mobilize and complete complex tasks. Janet, a member of the task force assigned to handle the requirements of the audit, was participating in leadership development training at the time.

 Using a leadership tool we developed called  the fundamental state of leadership, she decided to reach out to employees who had a stake in the new requirements to understand their perspectives (rather than wait for others with more authority to tell her what to do). She gathered new information and discovered their fears, while simultaneously coming to the realization that the deadline could be met.

With this new understanding, she was able to help other employees question their beliefs and come up with creative ways to streamline the accounting procedures so as to meet the deadlines.

As part of a class assignment from her leadership training, she also reflected on the experience and used her own (and others’) reflections to inform her subsequent plans and actions. Eventually, more and more of her colleagues began to accept the importance of the accounting changes and their accompanying deadlines, and were participating in creative action.

Their actions led to bottom-up change: the emerging culture and accounting policies could not have been planned in advance, but came from the ideas and actions of motivated employees and were uniquely suited to the local challenges they faced. Janet, however, was more than just a change agent in this one situation. Her planning, acting, reflecting—and planning again—demonstrated true leadership.

But a bottom-up process is unlikely to work unless it is also embedded in a top-down learning process. A top-down process creates structure and motivation for employees to maintain engagement in the change/leadership development process. If done well, it also provides emotional and social support potential leaders, because deviating from cultural expectations can be a lonely endeavor.

A successful top-down process begins with executives clarifying desired results for change management/leadership programs. For example, executives may want to change accounting procedures or inspire creativity in order to become more efficient, as in Janet’s company. Or they may want to lower barriers between departments or create financial stewardship throughout the organization. The goal depends on the organization and its situation, but what is important is that it is specific (ideally, with a measurable outcome) and accepted by all members of the executive team.

Once the goal is clear and accepted, executives can identify potential leaders throughout the organization to engage in the leadership development/change management process. These may be executive team members, people in key positions, people who have shown a passion for this specific change, people who are deemed to be “high potential,” or some combination of these characteristics.

 Many variables about the type of change program could drive the decision about which potential leaders to include, such as strategic, the number needed for a critical mass, the need to stage the change process, the amount of support that can be provided, geographical dispersion, the diversity of expertise or demographics involved, and so on.

Selected leaders should be given structure, accountability, support, and motivation as they engage this process—but also the freedom to create their own solutions, as Janet did with the help of the accounting team. The objectives of the change and development effort, the scope of initiative, the time frame, the type of support to be given, and the rewards for success should be made clear when invitations are extended.

 Classes can offer advice but the key is to instill a plan-act-reflect cycle—and then support managers as they learn on the go. The attention of senior executives and the needed financial support should be guaranteed; a worse-case scenario is for a fledging leader to have the rug pulled out from under them partway through the change and development process.

Once the structure and motivation is secured and outlined, potential leaders can launch their repeated efforts at creating experiences that enact the new objectives using the plan-act-reflect cycle. Ideally, reflections could be shared so that potential leaders learn from each other as well as from their own efforts.

Change management and leadership development programs have a woeful record at most organizations. In large part that’s because they come up against a common challenge—deviating from a dominant culture (the true test of leadership) is very difficult. Tasking managers with driving bottom-up cultural change will provide leadership training in itself. They will require top-down support to succeed.

---

Ryan W. Quinn is an associate professor of management at the University of Louisville College of Business.

---

Robert E. Quinn is the Margaret Elliott Tracy Collegiate Professor of Business Administration in the organization and management group at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business in Ann Arbor.

Now that the New Year is over and we're heading toward the Superbowl, you may have noticed that your alcohol consumption has risen over the holidays. Like many others, drinking is often associated with celebrations, but moderate regular consumption of wine has its health benefits as well, according to this New York Times article.

Drink to Your Health (in Moderation), the Science Says

 

Aaron E. Carroll

THE NEW HEALTH CARE DEC. 21, 2015 / NEW YORK TIMES

 

Moderate consumption of alcohol is generally safe, as long as it doesn't lead to abuse, and may even be healthful for some people. Credit Matthew Staver for The New York Times 

 

Over the past year, I’ve tried to clear up a lot of the misconceptions on food and drink: about salt, artificial sweeteners, among others, even water.

Now let me take on alcohol: wine, beer and cocktails. Although I have written about the dangerous effects of alcohol abuse and misuse, that doesn’t mean it’s always bad. A part of many complex and delicious adult beverages, alcohol is linked to a number of health benefits in medical studies.

That doesn’t mean the studies provide only good news, either, or that the evidence in its favor is a slam dunk. You won’t be surprised to hear that, once again, my watchword — moderation — applies.

Research into how alcohol consumption affects health has been going on for a long time. A 1990 prospective cohort study included results of more than 275,000 men followed since 1959. Compared with those who never drank alcohol, those who consumed one to two drinks a day had a significantly reduced mortality rate from both coronary heart disease and “all causes.” Those who consumed three or more drinks a day still had a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease, but had a higher mortality rate over all.

A 2004 study came to similar conclusions. It followed about 6,600 men and 8,000 women for five years and found that compared with those who drank about one drink a day on average, those who didn’t drink at all and those who drank more than two drinks a day had higher rates of death. Results like these have been consistent across a number of studies in different populations. Even studies published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research agree that moderate drinking seems to be associated with a decreased risk of death over all.

However, alcohol seems to have different effects on different diseases. Almost all of the major benefits of drinking are seen in cardiovascular illnesses. In fact, with men, even consumption of a surprisingly large amount can seem protective.

When it comes to cancer, the picture isn’t as rosy. For instance, a 2007 study involving the Women’s Health Study cohort found that increased alcohol consumption was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. More broadly, a 2014 systematic review of epidemiologic and experimental studies looking at alcohol and breast cancer found that the overall consensus is that each additional drink per day increases the relative risk (comparing the risk in two groups) of breast cancer by a statistically significant, but small, 2 percent — although not the absolute risk.

A meta-analysis of colorectal cancer and alcohol found that heavy drinkers, but not light or moderate drinkers, were at increased risk of the disease. No relationship is seen with respect to bladder cancer or ovarian cancer. A study that included all cancers found that light drinking was protective; moderate drinking had no effect; and heavy drinking was detrimental.

Moderate alcohol consumption has been found to be associated with other benefits, though. A cohort of about 6,000 people followed in Britain found that those who consumed alcohol at least once a week had significantly better cognitive function in middle age than those who did not drink at all. This protective effect on cognition was seen in people who drank up to 30 drinks a week.

A 2004 systematic review found that moderate drinking was associated with up to 56 percent lower rates of diabetes compared with nondrinkers. Heavy drinkers, though, had an increased incidence of diabetes.

This is where savvy readers should be asking: What about randomized controlled trials? After all, epidemiologic evidence and associations only go so far; they cannot get us to causation.

Recently, in Annals of Internal Medicine, such a trial was published. Patients with well-controlled Type 2 diabetes were randomized to drink 150 milliliters of water, white wine or red wine with dinner for two years. The beverages were provided to patients free of charge. They were all placed on a Mediterranean diet with no calorie restrictions.

Researchers found that those who drank the wine, most notably red wine, had a reduction in cardiometabolic risk factors, or those for heart disease, diabetes or stroke. This was especially true in patients who had certain genotypes. Further, no one had any significant adverse effects from being randomized to drink the alcohol.

In another analysis of that randomized control trial published this year, the most interesting finding was about blood pressure. In this study, some people saw a reduction in systolic blood pressure. Again, the alcohol was not associated with significant adverse effects. This contradicts the findings from systematic reviews of epidemiologic studies that show alcohol intake may be associated with a small but significant increase in blood pressure.

Adding further complications was a shorter-term trial looking at red wine consumption that found it had no effect, positive or negative, on blood pressure in patients with atherosclerosis. A different analysis of that study found that it did result in improved cholesterol levels, even though many patients were already being treated with statins.

A 2011 meta-analysis examined 63 controlled trials of wine, beer and spirits, and found that all of those beverages increased levels of HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol). There was even a dose-response, with more alcohol consumed having more of an effect.

Synthesizing all this, there seems to be a sizable amount of evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is associated with decreased rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and death. It also seems to be associated with increased rates, perhaps to a lesser extent, of some cancers, especially breast cancer, as well as some other diseases or conditions. The gains from improved cardiovascular disease deaths seem to outweigh all of the losses in other diseases combined. The most recent report of the U.S.D.A. Scientific Advisory Panel agrees with that assessment.

But alcohol isn’t harmless. Many people with certain diseases or disorders, and women who are pregnant, need to avoid it. Others who can’t keep their consumption to acceptable levels need to abstain. Alcohol is very harmful when abused, so much so that it’s difficult for me to tell people to start drinking for their health. That’s rarely the conclusion of any studies about alcohol, no matter how positive the results. Nor is it the advice any doctors I know give.

However, the evidence does seem to say that moderate consumption is safe, and that it may even be healthy for many people. If you’re enjoying some drinks this holiday season, it’s nice to know that they may be doing more than just bringing you cheer.

Correction: December 21, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated the effect that alcohol was shown to have on HDL cholesterol in a 2011 meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found that wine, beer and spirits increased levels of HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol), not decreased them.

When confronted with pain, the consumer most often turns to painkillers, whether over-the-counter or prescribed. Understandably, no one wants to spend a day in pain so taking a pill is easy even if there are many more conservative approaches. But what should be even more painful, as described in an article from The Guardian, is the way pain treatment is marketed causing the consumer to overpay when it is not necessary. Once again, the public should be reminded to read labels, not just on their cereal boxes, but on their medicines as well.

Targeted painkillers zero in on one vital organ – the wallet 

  

 
Suzanne Moore / The Guardian
 

It is no surprise that Reckitt Benckiser could mislead customers with its Nurofen Specific range. When ill or in pain, we will pay for any promise of a magic bullet 

Ever since I tried to give a headachey guy at a party a painkiller marketed for period pain, I have wondered how exactly these things work. His reluctance to take it was remarkable. What did he think was in this pill? Some marvellous chemical that only those who menstruate respond to? Still, the packaging was pink, so, you know … anything might happen.

 

‘In Australia the federal court has just ruled that Reckitt Benckiser, which makes Nurofen, has misled consumers with its Nurofen Specific pain range.’ Photograph: Dinendra Haria/Demotix/Corbis  

Nurofen's maker misled consumers over painkillers' contents, court rules

Indeed, targeted pain relief in the form of over-the-counter medicine appears to be largely about targeted marketing yet, as the choice becomes bewildering, this marketing has been very effective. In Australia the federal court has just ruled that the multinational drug company Reckitt Benckiser, which makes Nurofen, has misled consumers with its Nurofen Specific pain range. It sells Nurofen Back Pain, Nurofen Period Pain, Nurofen Migraine Pain and Nurofen Tension Headache for almost twice the amount it charges for plain old Nurofen, but all these medications actually have the same active ingredient, 342 milligrams of ibuprofen lysine.

Nurofen is already more expensive than generic ibuprofen, but we down great quantities of it. Painkillers are increasingly sold as “fast-acting” as well as able to mysteriously travel to the one part of the body that hurts, able to somehow discriminate between different kinds of headaches, to “know” the difference between lower back pain and a fever.

The drugs work, to an extent, but the claims made for them depend on us not being able to read the labels

Such customised pain relief depends on magical thinking, in which we hand over money for the idea that all everyday aches and pains can be treated with these magic little bullets. The drugs work, to an extent, but the claims made for them depend on us not being able to read the labels or understand them. We are bound to be more susceptible when we are ill or in pain. Ibuprofen is remarkably useful, there is no need to make any snake oil claims for it, but this has not stopped companies doing it.

The company’s spokeswoman told the Sydney Morning Herald that this specific-pain range was “to help consumers navigate their pain relief options, particularly within the grocery environment where there is no healthcare professional to assist decision making”. Such bunkum should give us a headache, all right.

When we choose to medicate ourselves with over-the-counter remedies, we are also buying comfort. These pills will not only stop our pain, but also feel it and understand it. All those ads which show parts of the body lit up reinforce this idea. If we go to a doctor and leave without a prescription, we may feel short-changed. The desire to take something, anything, fuels the scam of the multivitamin market too.

How easy it is to mislead us as consumers. We all want to feel better, not to know better. That’s why we swallow wishful thinking down with our “fast-acting” pills, gel caps, capsules, soluble tablets. Where does it hurt? Everywhere. What part of the body is really targeted? That vital organ : the wallet.

Whether you own a small business on a local "main" street or merely shop at one, know this: small businesses make up a majority of local economies and are imperative to the well-being of communities. Their owners are the ones who support local initiatives, little-league teams, PTAs, Chambers of Commerce and more. Most likely they are a neighbor and a friend. Shop Local shouldn't be a slogan, it should be a lifestyle.

Why Business Retention and Expansion Plans are Important for Downtowns

By Stephanie Troller, Colorado Main Street Program, Department of Local Affairs | 
From Main Street Story of the Week  | December 11, 2015 | 






Small businesses are the driving force in today’s economy, especially in downtowns.   According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), there are 28 million small businesses in the U.S. which account for 54% of all U.S. sales.  Additionally, small businesses provide 55% of all jobs and 66% of net new jobs since the 1970s (https://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-trends-impact). Therefore, it’s critical for all communities and downtowns to have a business retention and expansion (BRE) plan in place to help local small businesses, providing them with opportunities to be successful. 

After all, small businesses help increase the number of local jobs, preserve or increase the local tax base, increase property values, enhance the community’s image, increase consumer confidence, and diversify the local economy.

It is easier and cheaper to keep an existing business than it is to replace one. A business retention and expansion plan, properly implemented, not only helps keep businesses open but possibly even helps them expand.  For local governments, think of the sales and property tax lost by having a vacant building.  For Main Street practitioners, think of the image of what an empty building conveys to consumers and how that affects the overall confidence for investment in your downtown.  There are four major components to consider when designing a local BRE plan.



1. Team Building and Partnership Development.  As with any major community or economic development endeavor, it is important to form a strong team to help carry out the plan.  When building a BRE team, consider the skills and resources that are needed in order to serve the local businesses.  Is industry knowledge represented on the team?  Is the team outcome oriented?   How can partner agencies help? Can they provide services to businesses?  When forming your team, consider training and utilizing local volunteers for business visits.  By using local volunteers, connections and relationships are made stronger and using volunteer labor can help a program’s budget as well.  Make sure all partners understand and acknowledge the purpose of the program.

2. Relationship Building. With a team in place, outreach to businesses can begin.  The first efforts should focus on building trust with business owners and managers.  Once a relationship is formed, start collecting data about the business and its needs. There are several ways to collect data: focus groups, on-site business visits, or surveys. Use local community knowledge to establish a rapport with the owners and managers. Make sure to communicate the intentions of the BRE plan and follow up on any commitments made.

3. Responding to Business Needs.  After data is collected, it will need to be analyzed and understood.  First, respond to any “red-flags.”  If there is a business in risk of failing, what can be done to help?   Assistance to individual businesses at this stage will need customized solutions.  Secondly, use the information collected to create technical assistance, marketing assistance, or operational assistance programs.  If possible, create financial assistance programs geared to help businesses expand. Lastly, this data can inform long-term development programs and help local governments create policy for retention, expansion, attraction programs and funding.

4. Management and Follow-up. You will need human capital, a sufficient budget, and technology to ensure that business visitations and the technical assistance are effectively managed.  As with any program, if there is a budget, hire a coordinator or dedicate existing staff time to oversee the BRE plan. Make sure to maintain information on workforce, technical, and financial resources available to businesses. Maintain a database about the businesses and their needs and make sure to market the program and its services to the entire business community. As with any good plan, make sure it is measurable and flexible.  Make adjustments as needed.



The local businesses in your downtown are as important to placemaking as much as, if not more than, the buildings they operate in.  They provide the experiences and interactions where visitors have a memorable meal or buy an artisan gift that can’t be found anywhere else.  Small businesses also generate the sales tax which, in part, funds local governments’ operations and infrastructure investments.  If you don’t have healthy businesses, you can’t have a healthy community.  Properly implemented BRE plans can help businesses become more competitive and remove local obstacles that interfere with the success of business. 


Stephanie Troller has over 11 years working with rural and urban communities in both Colorado and New Mexico. Her experience includes business retention and recruitment, planning and implementation, housing, project and program management.  She specializes in economic development and is passionate about helping communities achieve their short term and long term goals.

I watched my wife make holiday cookies with my four year old grandson. She was teaching him how much of each ingredient to add and, frankly, he often missed that 1/4 tsp from fully making it into the bowl. "What a mess" I thought, "those cookies were not going to taste the way they should." As it turns out, there's more to the thought of letting a child help, and make a mess as an article in SLATE points out. Oh, and the cookies tasted fine.

The Value of a Mess

You should let your kids totally botch household chores from an early age.

By Jessica Lahey / SLATE

Mom and Dad’s little helper.

Photo illustration by Juliana Jiménez. Photo by Thinkstock.

Excerpted from The Gift of Failure: How the Best Parents Learn to Let Go So Their Children Can Succeed by Jessica Lahey. Out now from HarperCollins Publishers.

A friend told me recently after she’d had a car accident that left her unscathed but chastened that in the midst of the crash, she’d realized she needed to make lists of all the small details her family would need to know if she was not there to take care of them. Her son needed to know that his soccer clothes had to go into the laundry  Sunday so he’d have what he needed for Monday’s practice.

Her daughter needed to know which fabrics can go in the dryer and which cannot and what happens when wool sweaters sneak into the dryer by mistake. The kids should know how to fix the toilet when it clogs, and reset the water pressure tank after a power outage, and change a fuse, and winterize the lawn mower, and the million other things she’d taken care of herself rather than burden her kids with.

I pointed out that if she were to die in a car accident, the location of the reset lever on the water tank would be the least of her family’s worries, but I understood her point. She’d gotten a glimpse of just how paralyzed and incompetent her kids would be in her absence. When we don’t allow our children to participate in the business of running a household, they are quite helpless without us. Worse, we don’t expect competence from them, and when they do give household duties a shot, we swoop in, and we fix.

We swoop in after our kids make their beds and smooth out the lumps and bumps. We swoop in after they fold the laundry and straighten the misfolded towels. I’ve actually taken the sponge out of my son’s hands because he was making more of a mess of the milk he was supposed to be cleaning up. I understand the impulse to want things done better, or faster, or straighter. But what’s more important—that the dishes are immaculate, or that your child develops a sense of purpose and pride because he’s finally contributing in a real and valuable way to the family?

That the bed is made without wrinkles, or that your child learns to make household tasks a part of his daily routine? All this swooping and fixing make for emotionally, intellectually, and socially handicapped children, unsure of their direction or purpose without an adult on hand to guide them.

Just because your child has never done the laundry, or loaded the dishwasher, does not mean she is not capable of doing just that. And kids want to feel capable. They are creative and resourceful, and even tasks that seem unmanageable due to limits of heights or dexterity can be accomplished with the aid of a step stool and simple directions. Those dishes that belong in the high cabinets above the counter? It took a half hour, but when my younger son was first assigned dishwasher duty at 6 or 7, he dragged a chair from the living room to reach the shelves.

One by one, he put those plates away where they belonged. When I had asked him to “unload the dishwasher,” I’d forgotten about the high shelves but he’d figured a way around that obstacle himself. The look of pride he gave me when I said, “Wait—you did all of it? Even those plates?” was utterly gratifying. Failure has been a part of that process, of course. Since that first day, he has broken dishes in the process of learning how best to carry, stack, and load them, but who cares? I’d trade 10 broken plates for his smiles of competence and pride.

Explain to your children from an early age that you expect them to contribute to the running of the household. If they are older and have never been asked to contribute before, be honest. Cop to the fact that you failed yourself and have been underestimating their abilities all along. Set clear expectations, and hold your kids accountable when they don’t meet those expectations. If your daughter’s job is to clean up her place after meals and rinse the dishes before putting them in the dishwasher, and she forgets, leave the dishes out. Explain to her that the once–easily-rinsable food dries over time, and it will be much harder to clean it off when she finally gets around to it, but the dishes will remain on the table, waiting for her to clean them up.

Even if that dish sits on the table for two days, don’t nag or hover, and absolutely no swooping or fixing, but be present and help problem-solve. Be there to help if your son is not sure about a cycle setting on the washer or if something goes horribly awry with the fabric softener, but find something absorbing to do while he goes about the work. If you go behind your child’s back and redo the chore he has just finished to his satisfaction, even if it’s after he’s left the room, he’ll notice. You will be telling him through your actions not only that he is incompetent but that you will finish the job if he’s careless.

And no bribes or rewards of cash payment—those kinds of short-term incentives can be used to kick-start motivation but don’t work as a long-term strategy. When I praised my son for putting those plates away in the high cupboards, I was not praising him for taking on the task, because he knew I expected that of him. Rather, I was praising him for the extra effort, determination, and perseverance he showed when he hit a roadblock.

Even toddlers, with their diminutive hands and limited attention spans, can begin to explore their abilities and competence in shared household responsibilities. When dealing with younger children, be sure to make your expectations clear and age-appropriate. Communicate family participation as a privilege, or even a game, and toddlers can accomplish more than you might expect. Here are some examples of the kinds of tasks toddlers are capable of learning:

• Put their dirty clothes in a basket or hamper.
• Dress themselves with clothing that’s not too complicated.
• Fold simple items of clothing or linens such as pillowcases or washcloths.
• Put their clothes away in drawers.
• Follow two- or three-step directions in order to complete tasks. (“Get your toothbrush, put toothpaste on it, brush your teeth.”)
• Throw trash and recycling away in the proper place.
• Put toys away in tubs and baskets when they are done playing with them.
• Get out and put away their dishes as long as you arrange their cups and bowls on a low shelf.
• Feed the dog or cat.

Most of us have heard that there are both complex carbohydrates and simple carbohydrates and that the complex ones are good for us while the simple ones are not. But that's not always true. A better way to look at carbohydrate consumption and which adversely affect diet, blood sugar levels, insulin resistance, caloric intake and more is to use the glycemic index. In short, if you're looking to lose weight, control blood sugar, and eat well, choose foods that are rated "50" and below while avoiding as much as possible those foods above that mark.

 

Personal Health

 

The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

 

By Jane E. Brody

October 19, 2015

Credit Paul Rogers

The nutritional pickle so many Americans are now in is largely a result of “an oversimplification of dietary recommendations that created a fat phobia,” Dr. Frank B. Hu of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health told me.

Starting in the 1970s, when accumulating evidence from animal and human studies showed that a diet high in saturated fats and cholesterol was an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, dietary guidelines urged people to eat less fat.

Although health advice focused on saturated fats from high-fat animal foods, many people generalized the advice to mean all fats, choosing in their stead a panoply of reduced-fat and fat-free foods rich in carbohydrates, from crackers to sweetened yogurts. They especially increased their consumption of two kinds of carbohydrates, refined starches and sugars, that have helped to spawn the current epidemic of obesity and Type 2 diabetes.

Experts now realize that efforts to correct past dietary sins that made heart disease and stroke runaway killers have caused the pendulum to swing too far in the wrong direction.

“The mistake made in earlier dietary guidelines was an emphasis on low-fat without emphasizing the quality of carbohydrates, creating the impression that all fats are bad and all carbs are good,” Dr. Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology, said. “It’s really important to distinguish between healthy fats and bad fats, healthy carbs and bad carbs.”

He explained that saturated fat, found in fatty animal foods like meats and dairy products, raises blood levels of cholesterol and is not healthy, “but olive oil is important — it’s beneficial for cardiovascular health and body weight.” Olive oil, like canola, avocado and nut oils, is monounsaturated, and while it has as many calories as meat and dairy fat, it does not raise serum cholesterol or foster fat-clogging deposits in blood vessels.

“We have to get out of the fat phobia mind-set,” Dr. Hu stressed, adding that we also have to abandon the idea that all complex carbohydrates are good.

Sugars are simple carbohydrates and starches are complex carbohydrates; all are ultimately broken down into glucose, the body fuel that circulates in blood. Sugars are digested rapidly, quickly raising blood glucose, but most starches take longer to digest.

Important exceptions are refined carbohydrates, like white bread and white rice. Starchy foods with highly processed grains that have been stripped of dietary fiber act more like sugar in the body. They are rapidly digested and absorbed, raising blood levels of glucose and prompting the secretion of insulin to process it. When consumed in excess of the body’s need for immediate and stored energy, refined carbs and sugars can result in insulin resistance and contribute to fatty liver disease.

Alas, potatoes, the nation’s most popular vegetable, act like sugars and refined carbohydrates. They have what is called a high glycemic index, the ability to raise blood glucose rapidly. Potatoes, Dr. Hu explained, are made of long chains of glucose easily digested by enzymes in the mouth and stomach, and the fat in French fries slows the process only slightly.

The concept of a glycemic index, proposed in 1981 by David Jenkins and his colleagues in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, has since been validated repeatedly and is now accepted as a good way to distinguish between the kinds of carbohydrates that are health-promoting or at least neutral and those that have negative health effects.

In 2002, Dr. David S. Ludwig, a pediatrician, endocrinologist and nutrition researcher at Boston Children’s Hospital and professor at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, published a comprehensive review of how glycemic index influences human physiology, clearly demonstrating its importance to preventing and treating obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Had Americans and their physicians heeded it then, we might have been largely spared the fix we’re now in.

The index was developed by testing the glucose response to a standard amount of carbohydrate against a reference food, either pure glucose (index number 100) or white bread (71). High-glycemic foods like baked Russet potatoes (111), white baguette (95), cornflakes (93), white rice (89), pretzels (83), instant oatmeal (83), rice cakes (82), Gatorade (78) and French fries (75) induce higher blood glucose levels than ordinary white bread and are best consumed infrequently and in small quantities.

At the other end of the glycemic spectrum, oatmeal (55), pasta (46 for spaghetti, 32 for fettuccine), apples (39), carrots (35), skim milk (32), black beans (30), lentils (29), prunes (29), barley (28), chickpeas (10), grapefruit (25), peanuts (7) and hummus (6) have a smaller effect on blood glucose, and green vegetables like broccoli have too little an effect to be measured.

Closely related to the glycemic index is the glycemic load. While the glycemic index measures how quickly a particular food raises blood sugar, the glycemic load takes portion sizes into account. Hence a food like watermelon, with a high glycemic index, has a low glycemic load, since much of the fruit is water.

High-glycemic foods are a particular problem for people trying to control their weight. The amount of insulin released to lower blood glucose can overshoot the mark and result in a rapid return of hunger. A low-glycemic food, on the other hand, has no such effect. And those that are rich in wholesome fats, like peanuts or avocado, can actually delay the return of hunger, though the calories can add up quickly if consumed to excess.

“The glycemic index and glycemic load of the average diet in the United States appear to have risen in recent years because of increases in carbohydrate consumption and changes in food-processing technology,” Dr. Ludwig wrote in 2002. The pattern persisted in the decade that followed, and can largely explain the rise in overweight and obesity among Americans of all ages.

In addition, chronic consumption of meals with a high-glycemic effect can induce insulin resistance, the hallmark of Type 2 diabetes, and an excess of free fatty acids in the blood, resulting in fatty liver disease. The prevalence of both these disorders has risen in recent years, and both can lead to chronic inflammation, a promoter of cardiovascular disease.

Dr. Hu said that when he was growing up in China, most people were physically active and thus able to handle the glycemic load of large amounts of white rice consumed. “Now, however, the Chinese have become more sedentary but still consume large amounts of white rice, and both obesity and diabetes are on the rise,” he said.

There are many reasons as to why one would want to lose weight. Health reasons including the conditions caused by obesity such as metabolic syndrome, diabetes, HBP and more should be the number one reason. But in reality, for many, the desire to look better would be the primary motivator. A new study reported in MNT indicates how much weight one needs to lose to appear more attractive.

 

How much weight do we need to gain or lose to appear more attractive?

Written by Marie Ellis / Medical News Today

Published: Monday 7 December 2015

---

Previous studies have shown that so-called attractive people earn higher wages, receive more favorable outcomes in court and are more likely to win political elections. But what is this elusive index of attractiveness? A new study examines social perception of attractiveness in quantitative terms and suggests a specific amount of weight people need to gain or lose before others either notice or regard them as more attractive. 

 

How much weight loss or gain makes a person appear attractive to others?

The researchers are led by Prof. Nicholas Rule, of the University of Toronto in Canada, and they publish their findings in the journal Social Psychological & Personality Science.

He and postdoctoral fellow Daniel Re specifically investigated facial adiposity, which is the perception of weight in the face, because it accurately indicates a person's body mass index (BMI).
"It is a robust indicator of one's health," says Prof. Rule. "Increased facial adiposity is associated with a compromised immune system, poor cardiovascular function, frequent respiratory infections and mortality."

He adds that "even a small decrease can improve one's health."

As such, the researchers created a collection of photos digitally, which included male and female faces between the ages of 20-40 years old.

Each of the photos contained subjects with neutral expressions, their hair pulled back and no facial ornamentation.

Women need to lose slightly less weight than men to appear 'attractive'

After altering each image to create a range of images that included gradually increasing weights, the researchers asked participants in the study to compare randomly drawn pairs of faces and to select the one that appeared heavier to them.

From their results, the team found that a change in BMI of approximately 1.33 kg/m² (2.93 lbs/m²) is the magic number at which changes are noticeable.

Re explains that they tallied the weight change thresholds in relation to BMI, rather than kilograms or pounds, "so that people of all weights and heights can apply it to themselves according to their individual stature."

After their first investigation, the researchers then looked into the threshold at which alterations in a person's facial adiposity triggered a change in perceived attractiveness.

They found that the magic decrease in weight at which the faces appeared more attractive to the study participants was 2.38 kg/m² (5.24 lbs/m²) for women and 2.59 kg/m² (5.7 lbs/m²) for men.
 
For women and men of average height, this translates to about 6.3 and 8.2 kg (13.9 and 18.1 lbs), respectively.

Commenting on their findings, Prof. Rule says:


"Women and men of average height need to gain or lose about 3.5 and 4 kg, or about 8 and 9 lbs, respectively, for anyone to see it in their face, but they need to lose about twice as much for anyone to find them more attractive."

He says this difference between men and women indicates that the facial attractiveness of women may be more susceptible to changes in weight, meaning that "women attempting to lose weight need to shed slightly fewer pounds than men for people to find them more attractive."

The researchers conclude their study by noting that their findings "contribute to a greater basic understanding of the precision and limits of social perception and may provide information of value to medical practitioners and individuals seeking to manage changes in weight."

Should you expect your doctor or other healthcare personnel to lead by example? It seems reasonable to expect that the provider who cares for your well-being is not him/herself morbidly obese, a smoker, or chronically depressed. However, those employed in healthcare are people too and they also succumb to disease and injury. Unfortunately, the workers who are treating patients aren't themselves always afforded access to care that is focused on their well-being.

GALLUP / Business Journal

Often Ignored: Healthcare Employees' Well-Being

 

by Jade Wood and Rebecca Riffkin

 

Story Highlights

• Healthcare workers must be able to lead patients by example
• Staff well-being drives significant organizational outcomes
• Helping employees thrive in all elements of well-being is key

Many healthcare providers are giving more attention to their patients' well-being by focusing on the "whole person." A crucial component of this holistic view of patient care is positioning providers as people who lead by example and thrive in their own well-being. After all, how well can medical professionals influence positive lifestyle habits in their patients if they're not embracing healthy habits themselves?

The problem is, the very workers who are treating patients can sometimes be left out of the well-being equation. Though a great deal of attention is geared toward patients' well-being, healthcare workers often have limited means to engage in well-being practices of their own. This is particularly worrisome as healthcare employees' well-being can affect a healthcare organization's ability to provide the best and safest patient care.

Defining Well-Being

Gallup and Healthways have developed a comprehensive, research-based definition of well-being and how it relates to employees, business outcomes and living a fulfilled life. This definition encompasses five interrelated and essential elements: purpose, social, financial, community and physical. Together, these elements provide key insights into individuals' sense of purpose, social relationships, financial security, relationship to their community and physical health.



Respondents can be classified as thriving, struggling or suffering in each element according to how they rate that particular facet of well-being in their lives:

• Thriving: well-being that is strong and consistent in a particular element
• Struggling: well-being that is moderate or inconsistent in a particular element
• Suffering: well-being that is low and inconsistent in a particular element

Gallup and Healthways research shows that more than half of all healthcare workers are thriving in none or only one element of well-being, rather than thriving in multiple elements. But this also means that there is a significant opportunity for their well-being to improve. A more positive finding is that one in three healthcare workers (34%) is thriving in three or more well-being elements.



Taking a "Care for the Healthcare Worker" Approach

The field of medicine can be quite stressful, as it's both emotionally demanding and logistically rigorous, which can be a recipe for burnout. The 24/7 nature of the job -- constantly being "on," with always more to do -- and regulatory and compliance tasks can create a heavy and sometimes burdensome workload for many healthcare professionals.

Healthcare workers are notorious for neglecting their own care and not taking time for their own well-being. That's why a "care for the healthcare worker" approach is essential within healthcare organizations to give workers the energy, focus and adaptability they need to come to work ready to be their best every day. In fact, healthcare workers with high well-being are more likely to be resilient and recover quickly from stress, important qualities to possess when overseeing the lives and welfare of others.

Whether a healthcare organization approaches well-being to improve its employee engagement, retain talent or meet its mission to create a healthier community, well-being drives significant business outcomes. Healthcare workers who are thriving in three or more elements are more likely to be at work every day, because they have fewer unhealthy days that prevent them from doing their usual activities than do those with lower well-being.

Furthermore, high well-being supports mental health and resiliency. Healthcare workers who are thriving in three or more well-being elements are more likely to report bouncing back quickly from illness, injury or hardship than those who are not.



Medical professionals who are thriving in three or more elements are also two times less likely to look for a new job than their counterparts with lower well-being. Both of these findings are significant, because attendance and retention are crucial components of proper patient care, patient satisfaction, correct staffing coverage and reduced expenses.



Thriving Healthcare Workers Can Help Patients and Communities Boost Their Well-Being

Improving healthcare workers' well-being requires more than simply improving physical health. Healthcare workers who don't feel connected to their community or who are struggling with debt may find it difficult to focus on their patients or model healthy behaviors to them while they are at work. When healthcare workers thrive in all elements of well-being, not just physical, healthcare
organizations can gain a competitive advantage from employees' maximized performance, reduced turnover and enhanced engagement. Establishing a culture that promotes well-being by focusing on all five elements will help healthcare workers thrive -- and this, in turn, will benefit patients and the community.

Sangeeta Agrawal contributed to the research in this story.

Survey Methods

Results are based on a Gallup Panel Web study completed by 24,320 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 8-Nov. 13, 2014. A subsample of 1,300 healthcare working adults was selected for this analysis. The Gallup Panel is a probability-based longitudinal panel of U.S. adults who are selected using random-digit-dial (RDD) phone interviews that cover landline and cellphones. Address-based sampling methods are also used to recruit panel members. The Gallup Panel is not an opt-in panel, and members are not given incentives for participating. The sample for this study was weighted to be demographically representative of the U.S. adult population using 2013 Current Population Survey figures. For results based on this sample, one can say that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points, at the 95% confidence level. Margins of error are higher for subsamples. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error and bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Jade Wood is Well-Being Practice Manager at Gallup.

Rebecca Riffkin is a Writer and Analyst at Gallup.