Category: News

Last week, a new trailer for Aliens: Colonial Marines attempted to split the difference between the heavy action gaming that appeals to mainstream gamers and the fanservice that fans of the Alien and Predator series’ expect. Since the game is a sequel to the movie Aliens, it was clear that the title would lean more toward James Cameron’s action movie rather than the original Alien‘s horror. However, even in Aliens the xenomorphs were nearly unstopable, and making the aliens weak enough to be first person shooter cannon-fodder robs could rob them of their significance.

Today, the game has officially launched, and reviewers have, sadly, reported that the game is a lackluster shooter dressed in Alien garb. The Metacritic average for the Xbox 360 version of the game is only a 50 – far below last week’s sci-fi horror release Dead Space 3.

Critics cited poor graphics, glitches, and poor enemy AI as elements that make the game’s single player campaign bland. The game’s class-based multiplayer modes, however, have been praised in more than one review.

If you’re a fan of Lean Cuisine meals, pay attention: there’s been a recall on the brand’s mushroom ravioli due to customer reports of glass in the food. No injuries have been reported.

The Mushroom Mezzaluna Ravioli meal has been subjected to an immediate recall by Lean Cuisine makers Nestle and affects over 500,000 packages. Lean Cuisine asks customers who have already bought the food to contact customer service at (866) 586-9424 or [email protected] to receive a replacement coupon.

“This is an unusual complaint for us because we don’t have glass in our factories. We have a no-glass policy,” Nestle spokesperson Roz O’Hearn said. “We are very committed to food safety.”

The meals have production codes of 2311587812 and 2312587812. These codes can be found on the gray “proof of purchase” panel on the side of the box.

The company made a statement in the recall, saying, Nestle is dedicated to food quality, and the health and safety of its consumers. For these reasons, the company initiated this recall. We apologize to our retail customers and consumers and sincerely regret any inconvenience created by this voluntary product recall.

Many social enterprises start small and grow fast. This puts a premium on the need to develop, or recruit, talented people who can take on evolving roles and responsibilities. Yet planning for future leadership needs falls between the cracks at most social enterprises. Leaders plead lack of time and money to make development a priority. If you are among them, be aware that neither excuse holds up under close scrutiny. What you really need is a change in mindset.

That change begins with answering three key questions:

• What is your organization’s strategy for the near term, and how will you fulfill it?
• What kinds of people do you need to make the strategy a reality?
• How do you develop, or hire, the staff you will need?

You are far from alone if your organization hasn’t grappled with these questions. Only 37% of respondents to The Bridgespan Group’s Leadership Diagnostic Survey said they have “a clear understanding” of the leadership skills, roles, and number of individuals needed over the next three to five years to achieve their strategic goals. Only 39% indicated that they had identified potential successors for key positions.

Taking a hard look at strategy and figuring out how it impacts staffing needs — answering the first two questions — is something every organization, large or small, can and should do. But it’s critically important if yours is a fast-growing organization. For example, if you are planning to add new sites, you’ll probably need to develop a cadre of site directors, and possibly a vice president for field operations. If you plan a strategy shift to greater focus on community engagement, you may need to enhance the skills involved in working effectively with community leaders.

Once you’ve mapped your organization’s near-term talent needs, you’re ready to assess whether members of your current staff have the potential to grow into those new roles.
In our survey, about half the respondents say they consider staff potential as part of their evaluation process, but we found that few actually have tools or approaches that help them do this systematically.

Here’s where a simple tool called a Performance-Potential Matrix comes in handy. The matrix draws on past performance, plotted on the horizontal axis, and judgments about an employee’s potential to take on more responsibility, plotted on the vertical axis. The upper-right quadrant — high performance and high potential— is the sweet spot for future leaders. Using the tool, you can plot current and future leaders on one page and determine whether you are likely to have the internal talent to meet your needs.

Year Up, a nonprofit that helps urban young adults to develop professional careers and pursue higher education, began using the matrix when it had only one site, a small staff, and annual revenue around $1 million. But it was growing fast. Today, Year Up is a $30 million organization with multiple sites, and it still uses the matrix.

Now that you have identified employee strengths and weaknesses, it’s time to craft individual development plans. This is where capital-constrained enterprises feel the pinch of time and money most severely. We heard comments from nonprofit leaders like: “In order to lead, you need time to lead,” and “[We have] inadequate financial resources to cover training and development costs.”

Leadership development doesn’t need to be a separate initiative or an expensive training program added on to the organization’s core work. In fact, research by the Center for Creative Leadership has shown that leadership is best learned on the job. The Center’s 70-20-10 model, now widely used in the corporate world, calls for 70% on-the-job learning, 20% coaching and mentoring, and 10% formal training. It’s a model gaining appeal among nonprofits of all sizes.

The performance-potential matrix and the 70-20-10 model are simple, straightforward tools to break through the falsely perceived time and money barriers. The potential payoff is huge. By developing a cadre of up-and-coming leaders, you can delegate more, which frees up time you need to focus on strategic priorities. More importantly, by changing your organization’s leadership development mindset, you can create the momentum needed to build a talent pipeline that will keep your organization strong as you grow, and grow fast.

Follow the Scaling Social Impact insight center on Twitter @ScalingSocial and register to stay informed and give us feedback.

Scaling Social Impact
Insights from HBR and the Bridgespan Group

• Have a Real Impact; Keep Your Day Job
• Lessons From a Failed Social Entrepreneur
• The Talent Needed for Social Impact
• Give Us Feedback and Get a Free HBR Article

Taylor Swift’s love life has been the topic of conversation longer than most of us would like to admit. But because she makes her relationships the center of her songwriting, it’s hard to ignore the digs she takes at her exes as those who know her music try and figure out which guy she’s talking about.

And though there have been several guys in the past couple of years–relationships which have been highly publicized by the media–Swift says she’s not the pursuer, ever.

“I’m sure if I looked up the latest Google Alerts rumor it would say I’m chasing somebody who doesn’t like me as much as I like him — people love that angle on me,” Swift said in an interview with Elle Magazine. “They’re like ‘Oh Taylor, coming on too strong again, chasing boys.’ I never chase boys. They don’t like it!”

Of course, many songwriters take things from their real life–especially the painful things–and turn them into hit songs. The difference here is that Swift is young, she’s female, and she’s prone to dating other celebrities. Those three things often turn into media gold, and though she seems to understand that, she also says she’s just doing what she’s always done.

“To me it’s just writing songs the way I always have,” Swift says. “It’s me sitting on my bed feeling pain I didn’t understand, writing a song, and understanding it better. If people want to dissect the lyrics, that’s their right, but it’s all coming from the exact same place as where I started. It’s just something I do to feel better.”

How do you show your undying love to your significant other on Valentine’s Day? Do you cook a nice meal to enjoy between the both of you? Or do you go out to see a movie? Perhaps you’ll make a 3D printed chocolate model of your face for them to nibble on.

Wait, what?

Indeed, Japan, the country that essentially has two Valentine’s Days, has cooked up another way for couples to celebrate their love. FabCafe has joined forces with KS Design Lab to offer 3D printed chocolate faces to couples on Valentine’s Day.

So, how doe this all work? A person first gets a full 3D body scan, and their face is then recreated in 3D modeling software. From there, it prints silicon molds of faces which are then filled with chocolate. Once dry, the chocolate comes out in the shape of their face. It’s endearingly creepy, but hey, at least it’s not another 3D printed fetus.

[BBC via CNET]

It looks like Twitter is making a small, non-intrusive push to promote more interaction between members of the service.

Some users are seeing a new message appear atop their streams on Twitter.com. It notifies them that someone (a particular @person) is “back on Twitter.”

“Welcome @person back to Twitter,” it reads. “You friend @person is back on Twitter. Mention them in a tweet to welcome them back.”

Inside the prompt is a quick link to compose a tweet that mentions said @person.

This appears to be a fairly new feature and was just spotted by Fred Wilson over on his AVC blog (via AllTwitter). It’s clear that Twitter is looking to help spur engagement between users, especially ones that they fear may be flirting toward the dark side (or have just come back from it). You know, that “inactive user” label. Any social network is going to be constantly waging a war against inactive users, but Twitter, specifically, has seen its share of troubles in that department.

In December 2012, Twitter hit 200M monthly active users. But some reports have put the number of actual Twitter accounts at well over 500 million. Of course, some of this discrepancy can be attributed to duplicate, fake, and otherwise spam accounts. But some of it has to do with users who created an account, quit, and then never came back.

It makes sense that Twitter would try to rope users back to becoming regular daily or monthly users, and tapping their pals to welcome them back and get them engaged seems like a good plan.

It’s unclear exactly what prompts Twitter to feature an account in the “Welcome Back” message. It could be that the user tweeted again for the first time in a long time – or it could be that they reactivated a stagnant or deactivated account. We’ve reached out to Twitter for clarification and will update this article accordingly.

The Walking Dead returned to television on Sunday night, and it just happened to beat its own record for ratings at the same time. The show, as you may know, returned from a midseason hiatus, hooking in users anxious for its return.

The AP reports (via ABC), citing Nielsen numbers, that the midseason premiere set a series record on Sunday night with 12.3 million viewers, beating its previous record, which was set when AMC ran the season premiere in October (10.9 million). According to the report, 7.7 million of this past Sunday’s viewers were between the ages of 18 and 49 – a record on its own, for a cable show for that demographic.

Earlier this week, AMC posted a couple of behind-the-scenes videos looking at the record-setting episode. The network also posted a preview of the next episode.

For those who have yet to see the midseason premiere, AMC is offering it online for free until Sunday, March 10th. The network will not be offering other episodes of the series as free online streams, but they want to get fans started off, so if you’re interested, you have a few weeks.

More The Walking Dead fun here.

The U.K.‘s Health Protection Agency (HPA) this week confirmed that a patient receiving intensive care treatment at a Manchester hospital has been diagnosed with a new type of coronavirus.

The patient, who had recently travelled to the Middle East and Pakistan, is the second confirmed U.K. resident to be diagnosed with the virus. Worldwide, 10 confirmed cases of the virus have been diagnosed. The new virus has been found in patients with acute respiratory illnesses who had coughing, shortness of breath, breathing difficulties, and a fever.

“The HPA is providing advice to healthcare workers to ensure the patient under investigation is being treated appropriately and that healthcare staff who are looking after the patient are protected,” said John Watson, head of the respiratory diseases department at the HPS. “Contacts of the case are also being followed up to check on their health.”

Coronaviruses generally infect the upper respiratory system and gastrointestinal tract. Though they have been linked to the common cold, they are also cause of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).

The first case of the new coronavirus was diagnosed in the U.K. in September 2012. That patient died from a severe respiratory infection.

Since that time, the HPA has been working with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Centre for Disease prevention and Control (ECDC) to watch for illnesses caused by the new virus. Doctors in the U.K. have also been provided with updated guidance on the investigation and management of possible cases of the new coronavirus.

“Our assessment is that the risk associated with novel coronavirus to the general UK population remains extremely low and the risk to travelers to the Arabian Peninsula and surrounding countries remains very low,” said Watson. “No travel restrictions are in place but people who develop severe respiratory symptoms, such as shortness of breath, within ten days of returning from these countries should seek medical advice and mention which countries they have visited.”

(Image courtesy HPA)

Megan Fox’s son Noah, who was born in September but wasn’t announced until October, has been given the honor of having the best celebrity baby name of 2012.

According to a poll of over 2,000 women, Noah ranked first on the list for favorite names. Somewhat surprisingly on the list of least favorites are Reese Witherspoon’s son, Tennessee, and Beyonce and Jay-Z’s daughter, Blue Ivy. I thought that couple could do no wrong.

Favorite Baby Names:
1. Noah (Megan Fox)
2. Luca (Hilary Duff)
3. Hollie (Amanda Holden)
4. Faith (Michelle Heaton)
5. Marnie Mae (Tamzin Outhwaite)
6. Pearl (Jack Osbourne)
7. Theodora (Robbie Williams)
8. Penelope (Kourtney Kardashian)
9. Aoife (Una Healy)
10. Marlowe (Sienna Miller)

Least Favorite Baby Names:
1. Fox India (Mark Owen)
2. Eugene (Billie Piper)
3. Dolly (Chantelle Houghton)
4. Astala (Peaches Geldof)
5. Lorenzo (Snooki)
6. Maxwell (Jessica Simpson)
7. Blue Ivy (Beyonce and Jay Z)
8. Camden (Nick Lachey)
9. Tennesse (Reese Witherspoon)
10. Leighton (Stacey Solomon)

But there are tons of odd celebrity baby names that didn’t make the list, like Jason Lee’s kid, Pilot Inspektor, or Nicholas Cage’s son Kal-El (after Superman, of course). Perhaps the idea that no one else will have a name like that is what appeals most to these parents, but I feel for those kids when they get to middle school.

Don Johnson may have won over a large fanbase in the ’80s with “Miami Vice”, but he went on to star in another hit show, and has been involved in an unfortunate battle with the producers since 2010 for what he claimed was rightfully his.

Johnson starred with Cheech Marin on “Nash Bridges”, which ran from 1996-2001 and was enormously successful for the USA network. According to Johnson’s contract with the show, he was to receive 50% of the profits if there were more than 66 episodes filmed. But after 122 episodes, he still hadn’t been paid. Johnson sued Rysher Entertainment in 2010 for not living up to their end of the bargain, and the case has been drawn out ever since.

Although Rysher was originally ordered to pay Johnson $23 million plus interest back in 2010, there has been some dispute over exactly how much the actor was owed, which stalled things in court. But the parties have come to an agreement, and Johnson has accepted $19 million in order to settle the case.

No one would dare to suggest that every international development programme or policy has been a resounding success, yet finding the space to acknowledge and learn from instances of failure is still hard work. Happily though, there are signs that this is changing. Through this blog I’d welcome a conversation about how we can use these changes to increase our impact on the lives of the poorest.

Justine Greening, DFID’s Secretary of State’s speech at the Open Up conference in November 2012, set the tone: “We need to be really honest with ourselves and others about why it didn’t work. And we need to share those results, not hide them away.”

The aspiration for both funding agencies and implementers to be more open about learning from failure is mirrored in the mainstream media. The Guardian recently carried a story about How to talk about failure  and the need for more humility: “We are working in some of the most challenging environments on earth – it’s our mission to go where others have failed to make a difference and help create lasting change. By the very definition of our calling, we should expect that we will fail, and fail often. If our work were easy, someone else would have solved the problems of poverty, pollution, corruption and the like long ago”.

Last week, the New York Times set out how “success stories are rarely the whole story … projects frequently go off course, and it’s not unusual for them to fail outright. What is unusual is for researchers to openly discuss their failures.” And there are many others: a very frank TED talk on the implications of admitting failure; an entire edition of the Harvard Business Review dedicated to on failure full of articles and follow-up blogs on the importance of failure. The list goes on…

There are also a growing number of proactive initiatives to encourage this debate. A few of my favourites are:

• The World Bank Institute’s Fail Fairs;
• The annual day for failure;
• Engineers without Borders’ Failure Report;
• admitting failure.com

Global international institutions are joining in: The World Bank President, Jim Kim’s latest blog, Big idea 2013 – learning fast from failure, sets out plans for hubs to collect and distribute case studies of both success and failure. The IFC’s smart lessons initiative, The Asian Development Bank, the Head of the UK Civil Service, Sir Bob Kerslake all echo the sentiment. Is there a chance that failure is going global?

What about in DFID? It is unlikely that there is anyone in DFID who doesn’t recognise how important it is to learn from failure. We have all seen the hugely impressive results we can achieve (check out our website and other DFID bloggers) but we know we can do better. We are here to succeed for the world poorest people but we know that failure is – and will continue to be – a reality.

Even then, it is hard to talk about failure. DFID’s Director General for Policy, Michael Anderson, spelled it out at the Open Up Conference:

“there’s a real temptation if you’re working for a government department to portray everything as a victory. And, if there is a failure a real temptation to cover it up. We need to find a way to find the confidence to stand up to external criticism that comes with failure”

There could be many potential reasons for this: personal pride, fear of undermining the case for aid, an optimism bias and career incentives all play their part. In the complex world of international development (Owen Barders’ recent work on complexity theory) developing the skills to diagnose and analyse failure is a real challenge.

But there are some simple things we can do to get started. DFID’s transparency commitments as part of the International Aid Transparency Initiative mean that anybody can review any project document, monitoring report or evaluation report and see for themselves what’s working and what’s not. Internally, the 2012 annual meetings of our Senior Civil Service and our programme managers from around the world both agreed that failure is a part of our business and that a more pragmatic and open approach will make us better at fulfilling our global objectives.

We are starting to encourage our partners to study and publicise not just the stories of success but to also be prepared to talk about – and learn from – the bad news too. The newly announced code for our suppliers explicitly expects partners to accept “responsibility for their role, including being honest when things go wrong so that lessons can be learned”. It works the other way too: in the DRC we run an annual survey of our partner organisations to find out what is good and bad about working with DFID, reinforcing the message that we are serious about learning and serious about improving the impact of our investments. Our public dissemination of the Tuungane evaluation is a good example our willingness to be open about what has not worked, an openness that has surprised a number of our partners.

But failing is still very hard work and we know there is much more to do and are in the market for ideas…

In a recent list of America’s “Most Generous Donors,” tech comes out very well.

The list comes to us from The Chronicle of Philanthropy, a magazine devoted to tracking to world of nonprofits.

Mark Zuckerberg and his new wife Priscilla Chan rank #2 on the list after donating nearly $500 million to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Zuckerberg made the donation back in December 2012 in the form of 18 million Facebook shares. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a leading philanthropic trust organization in the area. It’s Zuckerberg’s largest single charitable donation to date, having given $100 million to improve public schools in Newark, New Jersey back in 2010.

Their gift of $498.8 million is second only to Warren Buffet, who spread nearly $3.1 billion around Howard G. Buffett Foundation, NoVo Foundation, and the Sherwood Foundation.

In fifth place on the list is Google’s Sergey Brin and his partner Anne Wojcicki, who donated approximately $222.9 million in 2012, most of it to their own Brin Wojcicki Foundation, which supports multiple causes including “education, environment, women’s issues, and many other causes; the Human Rights Foundation; and Tipping Point Community, a nonprofit that seeks to eliminate poverty in Northern California.”

They also made a $32.8 million contribution to the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research.

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen also broke the top 5, coming in at #4 for his $309.1 million in 2012 donations.

A 10-year old child was killed on Monday night in Oakdale, Minnesota when a gunman began spraying bullets into passing cars at random. The mother of the child was injured but is expected to survive; a woman in another car was also wounded.

The gunman was taken into custody and police say they are investigating a motive, but for now it appears the shootings were completely random. The incidents occurred near a Rainbow Foods store in a suburb. It’s been reported that the man taken into custody–a 33-year old whose name has not been released–lives in the neighborhood.

Residents are stunned and saddened today as news of the child’s death spreads; in the last several weeks, following the horrendous shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, the media has been inundated with stories of tragic shootings that are getting national attention because of the ever-present conversation on gun control. President Obama has promised to make changes to gun control laws, but is coming against opposition from many sides. The president is expected to focus primarily on the economy in his State Of The Union address tonight, but many believe he will at least touch on the issue of gun control, especially since several victims of gun violence will be attending the speech–including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

“When the president talks about guns, he’s going to have enormous support in the gallery and in the country. Ultimately we think he’ll have it in the Congress too,” said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Google has made an adjustment to Google+ with the goal of making it easier for users to find friends and colleagues on Google+, which is ultimately Google’s biggest obstacle in growing user adoption of its social network.

Most users seem to agree that Google+ (the social destination) is a well-designed social network, but their real life friends just aren’t there like they are on Facebook.

Google has replaced the “Circles” icon in the app ribbon on the left-hand side with “Find People” (the icon still shows actual circles).

“Click through and you’ll find a new page with a list of people you might want to add,” says Google’s Sean Purcell, announcing the new feature. “We’ll show you people you’re already talking to on Gmail and other Google products at the top of the page. To get even more suggestions, it’s easy to search by your school, workplace, or other email accounts.”

“If you want to organize the people you’ve added a bit further, you can always click the ‘Your circles’ button at the top of the page,” he adds. “From there you can use the circle editor to see all of your circles and decide who belongs in each one.”

I’m not sure if the feature will make a huge difference in user adoption of Google+, but it I don’t suppose it can hurt.

[via SoftPedia]

The Internet lit up last week as rumors of a new, more powerful Chromebook began to disseminate after a leaked video showed off a product called the Chromebook Pixel. It was touted as a super high resolution Chromebook that rivals Apple’s own retina display MacBooks. At the time, we didn’t know if it was real or not, but some of Google’s own code may have just confirmed it.

Myce, a computer storage community, recently ran a report claiming it found a number of hints in the code of Chrome OS that point to the existence of Chromebook Pixel. If legitimate, it could be the first solid proof we have that Google is finally introducing a Chromebook for the power user and hardcore media consumer.

So, where does this all begin? Myce says that there are traces of code in Chrome OS that point to the existence of HighDPI support. The current Chromebooks aren’t powerful to support HighDPI resolutions, but something like the Chromebook Pixel obviously can.

Next is where things get interesting. Chrome OS developers say that HighDPI will only be supported on something called “Google Link.” The folks at Myce think this is a codename for Chromebook Pixel, and it very well could be.

So, we can assume that the Chromebook Pixel is a real thing, but do we know anything about the hardware? After some more digging, it was found that Chrome OS developers are also working on adding in Ivy Bridge CPU support. Going even deeper, the Google Link name is brought up again as developer say they’re adding support for the “Link chipset” which could be in reference to the aforementioned Ivy Bridge.

Some final notes of interest include code that hints at support for backlit keyboards and LTE connectivity.

If all of this comes to fruition, we may have Google’s most ambitious piece of hardware yet. The Chromebook line is already an attractive alternative to Windows and OS X. The only thing holding it back has always been its less than impressive hardware. Granted, it didn’t really need it with Chrome OS, but the Chromebook Pixel, if real, could pose a real and serious threat to laptops and MacBooks.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) today announced its 25 “core sports” for the 2020 Summer Olympic Games. Notably absent from the list was wrestling – a sport that has been part of the olympic games since the very first olympics in 1896.

That doesn’t mean that wrestling won’t be an event at the Olympics, however. The sport will now have to compete with other “shortlisted” sports for inclusion in the 2020 games. Baseball/softball, karate, roller sports (inline skating), sport climbing, squash, wakeboarding, and wushu are other shortlisted sports that will make presentations to the IOC executive board at a meeting in St. Petersburg in May. Following that meeting the executive board will choose which of the shortlisted sports to include in the 2020 games.

From an IOC statement:

In an effort to ensure the Olympic Games remain relevant to sports fans of all generations, the Olympic Programme Commission systematically reviews every sport following each edition of the Games.

The 25 core sports that will definitely be included in the 2020 games are athletics, rowing, badminton, basketball, boxing, canoeing, cycling, equestrian, fencing, football, gymnastics, weightlifting, handball, hockey, judo, swimming, modern pentathlon, taekwondo, tennis, table tennis, shooting, archery, triathlon, sailing and volleyball.

The location for the 2020 Summer Olympic Games will be chosen in September 2013 at the 125th IOC Session. The candidate cities are Istanbul, Tokyo, and Madrid.

Why is everybody so concerned about work-life balance?

According to one urban legend, based on 1950s pop psychology*, workaholics are greedy and selfish people who are bound to die from a heart attack.

Not really. As the great David Ogilvy once said: “Men die of boredom, psychological conflict, and disease. They do not die of hard work.” This is especially true if your work is meaningful.

Most of the studies on the harmful effects of excessive work rely on subjective evaluations of work “overload.” They fail to disentangle respondents’ beliefs and emotions about work. If something bores you, it will surely seem tedious. When you hate your job, you will register any amount of work as excessive — it’s like forcing someone to eat a big plate of food they dislike, then asking if they had enough of it.

Overworking is really only possible if you are not having fun at work. By the same token, any amount of work will be dull if you are not engaged, or if you find your work unfulfilling.

Maybe it’s time to redefine the work-life balance — or at least stop thinking about it. Here are some considerations:

Hard work may be your most important career weapon. Indeed, once you are smart-enough or qualified to do a job, only hard work will distinguish you from everyone else. Workaholics tend to have higher social status in every society, including laidback cultures like those found in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, or South America. Every significant achievement in civilization (from art to science to sport) is the result of people who worked a lot harder than everyone else, and also happened to be utterly unconcerned about maintaining work-life balance. Exceptional achievers live longer, and they pretty much work until their death. Unsurprisingly, the 10 most workaholic nations in the world account for most of the world’s GDP.

Engagement is the difference between the bright and the dark side of workaholism. Put simply, a little bit of meaningless work is a lot worse for you than a great deal of meaningful work. Work is just like a relationship: Spending one week on a job you hate is as dreadful as spending a week with a person you don’t like. But when you find the right job, or the right person, no amount of time is enough. Do what you love and you will love what you do, which will also make you love working harder and longer. And if you don’t love what you are doing right now, you should try something else — it is never too late for a career change.

Technology has not ruined your work-life balance, it has simply exposed how boring your work and your life used to be. Did you ever try to figure out why it is so hard to stop checking your smartphone, even when you are having dinner with a friend you haven’t seen in ages, celebrating your anniversary, watching a movie, or out on a first date? It’s really quite simple: None of those things are as interesting as the constant hum of your e-mail, Facebook, or Twitter account. Reality is over-rated, especially compared to cyberspace. Technology has not only eliminated the boundaries between work and life, but also improved both areas.

People who have jobs, rather than careers, worry about work-life balance because they are unable to have fun at work. If you are lucky enough to have a career — as opposed to a job — then you should embrace the work-life imbalance. A career provides a higher sense of purpose; a job provides an income. A job pays for what you do; a career pays for what you love. If you are always counting the number of hours you work (e.g., in a day, week, or month) you probably have a job rather than a career. Conversely, the more elusive the boundaries between your work and life, the more successful you probably are in both. A true career isn’t a 9-5 endeavor. If you are having fun working, you will almost certainly keep working. Your career success depends on eliminating the division between work and play. Who cares about work-life balance when you can have work-life fusion?

Complaining about your poor work-life balance is a self-indulgent act. The belief that our ultimate aim in life is to feel good makes no evolutionary sense. It stems from a distorted interpretation of positive psychology, which, in fact, foments self-improvement and growth rather than narcissistic self-indulgence. This misinterpretation explains why so many people in the industrialized Western world seek attention by complaining about their poor work-life balance. It may also explain the recent rise of the East vis-à-vis the West — you will not see many people in Japan, China, or Singapore complain about their poor work-life, even though they often work a lot harder. Unemployment and stagnation are in part the result of prioritizing leisure and pleasure over work.

In short, the problem is not your inability to switch off, but to switch on. This is rooted in the fact that too few people work in careers they enjoy. The only way to be truly successful is to follow your passions, find your mission, and learn how to embrace the work-life imbalance.

*Friedman, M.; Rosenman, R. (1959). “Association of specific overt behaviour pattern with blood and cardiovascular findings.” Journal of the American Medical Association (169): 1286-1296]

Toni Braxton says she doesn’t feel that old spark anymore when it comes to music, and she wants to retire from the biz to focus on her acting career. After a career spanning over twenty years, the songstress says she’s ready for something new.

“For what I do I have to love it. I have to feel that excitement and it’s gone,” she said. “I’m just not going to do any albums anymore; maybe touring occasionally here and there because I love performing, but not as much as I did in the past. But no new projects.”

The mother of two has found some success on stage–she starred in Beauty And The Beast and Aida on Broadway–and has a popular reality show, “Braxton Family Values”, which focuses on the singer and her sisters. But she wants more, and says she knows she’s capable of doing something deeper.

“I hate to have reality star behind my name. That’s just not what I wanted to be when I grew up. I would like to play a lesbian,” she said. “I don’t know why. And do a whole make-out scene and the whole thing; just something completely different than people would expect from me. Not a lipstick lesbian, either.”

Braxton has long been an advocate for gay rights and has said she is very close with her LGBT fanbase.

“I love my boys because my boys help me be a better girl,” she said. “My choreographer and my video director are gay, and they’ve been my best friends since I started in the industry.”

On Valentine’s Day, as you settle in with your significant other for some food, wine, and probable sex, remember that all of those feelings you’re feeling can be easily explained by chemical reactions in your brain.

OK, maybe not all of it. AsapSCIENCE doesn’t want to take the mystery out of love or anything, they just want to let you know that your brain on love is pretty much the same as your brain on coke. And it’s the result of millions of years of evolution, baby.

Yeah, evolution. You know how hot that is, baby.

[AsapSCIENCE]

Quick test: name one company that does one thing and does it very well. The companies that occupy the limelight are typically diversified giants that achieve growth through constant expansion into new markets and the introduction of additional product lines (just think P&G, GE, and Microsoft).

But the truth is that the really successful companies are highly focused, achieving unprecedented efficiencies by designing a business model with a razor-thin focus and learning to do the one thing really well. Many of us academics still teach an old case about Shouldice Hospital, which only treats simple cases of hernias and nothing else but does it better than anyone. A more recent example is Quidsi, the driving force behind Diapers.com web site which sells only baby consumables. Some of readers may also recall ING Direct, which is focused on a narrowly defined set of simple financial services, and Southwest Airlines, which still has one class (economy) and one aircraft type (Boeing 737).

Thanks to this extreme focus there is no need for complicated processes, expensive equipment and underutilized (and expensive) resources. As a result, Southwest Airlines turns planes around much faster than competitors, ING Direct can avoid having hundreds of physical bank locations and Shouldice can schedule surgeries in a well-oiled production process with no downtimes or waiting.

Despite these advantages, such companies are actually quite rare in much of the Western World and it is much more “normal” to see complex conglomerates in which none of the above applies.

Except in Germany (and to a lesser extent in other German-speaking countries).

The amazing resilience of the German economy is often attributed to its reliance on Mittelstand companies, small to medium sized enterprises. These typically family-run businesses employ more than 70% of all German employees in the private sector, and are export-oriented, making Germany the second-largest exporter in the world. There is a wonderful account of these companies in the book Hidden Champions by Hermann Simon, former INSEAD professor and now Chairman of Simon, Kucher & Partners. During a recent presentation at INSEAD Hermann described some of their common features:

• Most Hidden Champions are extremely focused in what they do. To give a few examples: Jungbunzlauer supplies citric acid for Cola-Cola worldwide (and a few other salty and sweet chemicals), TetraMin is the number one producer of fish food, Uhlmann is the world leader in packaging systems for pharmaceuticals, and Flexi is the number one manufacturer of dog leashes worldwide.
• They do one thing but they do it extremely well by achieving tremendous efficiencies, making them cost-competitive despite their location in a very expensive country.
• Due to the simplicity of their product lines, their organizations avoid complexities and intricate structures, resulting in very lean management hierarchies.
• To compensate for their razor-thin focus on just a single product (or product category), they diversify internationally and enjoy great economies of scale.

All of these characteristics make these companies perfect examples of focused business models, which seem to thrive even in harshest economic conditions. Which raises some interesting questions: why don’t we see more of these firms in other countries? Is there something about their cultures that is hard to sustain? Does public ownership bring pressures to continually grow by going into new areas?

Whatever the answers to these questions, we do believe that extreme focus is an often-overlooked way to innovate a business model — for startups and established companies alike. Our own favorite US-based examples of such successful companies are Diapers.com and messenger bag manufacturer Timbuk2. What new focused company will come next?