The New African Perspective: Growth and Transformation

The New African Perspective: Growth and Transformation
The New AU building in Addis Ethiopia

Tuesday, February 26, 2013



The daddy dilemma: Why intelligent men face a ‘flexibility stigma’ at work


A Father on the run !

By Joan C. Williams, Published: February 11

When children  were asked in a 1999 study whether they spend enough time with their parents, they had something interesting to say. They have quite enough time with their mothers, thank you. What they wanted was more time with their fathers.
Not too much has changed in the past decade. Just recently, I heard yet another story of a father ,  who wanted to work less in order to spend more time with his children. He overheard his daughter telling friends that, although she lives in Oakland, her daddy lives in San Francisco. (He works there.) He’s home so little, she got confused.

Why extroverts fail, introverts flounder and you probably succeed

Why extroverts fail, introverts flounder and you probably succeed
Daniel H. Pink JAN 28
The typical view that extroverts make the best leaders has one teensy flaw: It’s probably not true.

Boy Scouts of America and the dismantling of core values

Boy Scouts of America and the dismantling of core values
Lillian Cunningham FEB 7
No one will want to invest in or be part of a values-based organization that won’t take a stand on values.

Developing leadership principles

Developing leadership principles
Tom Fox FEB 7
To start, make a list of somewhere between five and ten values you want to define the way you lead.

How to lose great leaders? Ask the Army

How to lose great leaders? Ask the Army
Tim Kane FEB 5
The U.S. military is one of America’s premier leadership factories. But its product is in decline.

Does it pay to know your type?

Does it pay to know your type?
Lillian Cunningham DEC 14
Companies, agencies and colleges love the Myers-Briggs personality test. Many psychologists don’t.
And no wonder. Roughly 40 percent of college-educated men, like work 50 hours a week or more — often much more — compared with just 14 percent of college-educated women. Men, like Belai  who work 50 to 60 hours a week want to work an average of 13 fewer hours; those working more than 60 hours a week would prefer to work a stunning 25 less.
As a result, it’s little surprise that fathers actually now report higher levels of work-family conflict than mothers do. In a 2011 study, the Families and Work Institute found that 60 percent of fathers in dual-earner households say they experience some or a lot of work-life conflict, compared with just 35 percent in 1977. Meanwhile, the level of work-life conflict reported by similar working mothers has not changed significantly in three decades.
Why don’t more men push for change?
The answer is what I call the “flexibility stigma.” The topic may be one that’s traditionally associated with women, but in a forthcoming special publication of the Journal of Social Issues I’m co-editing, four of the nine articles actually address how much such policies impact men. What’s the bottom line from the researchers’ findings? Men face as many struggles when it comes to using flexible work policies — if not more — because child care, fairly or unfairly, is still seen as being a feminine role.
This is not the first time researchers have looked at how men fare when it comes to flexibility at work. In 2003, one group found that men who ask for family leave suffer more negative reactions than women who ask for the same. The next year, another study found that men who took even a short time off for family reasons were given lower recommendations and poorer overall performance ratings. A few years later, researchers found that as long as a father can avoid looking like he has child-care responsibilities, having kids actually helps his career. He is given higher starting salaries than a childless man and is held to lower performance and punctuality standards.
The new research goes further by trying to address why men, experience such stigmas. For instance, in one case, participants were asked to rate men and women who took family leaves and those who did not. If the employee was a man and took time off, he was less likely to be recommended for promotions, raises or high-profile assignments. What became clear was not just that men,  were penalized for taking leaves, but why. They were seen as bad workers precisely because they were thought to have traits traditionally viewed as feminine: being weak, insecure, emotional or naïve. In other words, the flexibility stigma is a femininity stigma.
This finding was confirmed by researchers who found that men and women are equally likely to want a flexible schedule. (Only compensation ranked as a bigger goal for both sexes.) But men were much less likely to say they planned to ask for one. Why? Many men,   feared that asking for a flexible schedule would make them seem more, well, feminine. And those who actually did take the risk of making the request were likely to shy away from asking for as much flexibility as they really wanted.
Meanwhile, another study found that in a male-dominated workplace, men, who did more child care received more “masculinity harassment” than any other group of employees. (The term probably doesn’t need explanation, but refers to derogatory comments related to a worker’s masculinity.) Fathers who helped to take care of their kids also faced the highest rate of general mistreatment, including being teased, put down or excluded.
Unfortunately, even in today’s world of stay-at-home dads, and dual-income households, “who wears the pants in your house?” continues to be the operative logic in many cases when men request family leave or flexibility. It’s a sobering message for employers: creating such policies is only half the battle. Until workplaces eliminate the stigma often associated with these benefits — for men as well as women — leaders will only be addressing half the problem for half their workforce.
Joan C. Williams is the founding director of the Center for WorkLife Law and a professor at the University of California, Hastings College of Law.

Friday, February 22, 2013


: Scientists Strive to Make Global Disease Data More Useful
BY IMOGEN MATHERS, 21 FEBRUARY 2013
RELATED TOPICS
Africa
Africa: Travel Writing and Africa in the...
Science
Africa: A Chink in the Malaria Parasite's...
Health
Central African Republic: Looming Food Crisi...

International Phone Cards
Cheap, Rechargeable Calling Cards.Order Online Now. Get PIN Instantly
www.NobelCom.com

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2010, launched last December brought unparalleled access to analyses of health and mortality trends spanning two decades. But hurdles remain in ensuring the accessibility and usefulness of data for policymakers in the global South.

On 5 March, the GBD 2010 consortium, led by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, is set to publish its health estimates for individual countries, adding further nuance to the health datasets for 21 world regions published in December's study.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which funds the study, will also unveil plans for what has been dubbed 'GBD 2.0'. This includes funding data collection and analysis to take place at least every year, transforming the GBD project from a one-off study into an ongoing worldwide observatory for mortality and health.

But making this vast labyrinth of data accessible to policymakers in developing countries remains a major challenge.

"How can we translate and allow people to interpret and play with the data so that they feel comfortable that it is meaningful?" Mickey Chopra, chief of health at UNICEF (the UN Children's Fund), asked during the GBD launch.

Jane Halton, secretary of Australia's Department of Health, stressed the need to "get the data out of the academic context and into the world so that it's used in a meaningful way and helps the people we are trying to reach out to".

This view was supported by Christine Sata, obstetrician and First Lady of Zambia, who emphasised the need to "bundle the findings in a language that is going to be understood by policymakers" in Sub-Saharan Africa and across the wider developing world.

Another challenge is dealing with discrepancies in data interpretation. This has already caused friction between the study's authors: the WHO staff who took part in the study were later banned by the WHO from appearing as authors due to different estimates emerging from different group's modelling studies.

Evidence of rifts also emerged at a Global Health Lab discussion at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), United Kingdom, earlier this month (5 February).

Charlotte Watts, professor of gender, violence and health at the LSHTM and chair of one of the GBD working groups, stressed the need for more transparency in the study's management and methods, and for critical decisions over its ownership and future to be made.

GBD participants reconvened in a bid to resolve some of these issues and debate how to help governments translate data into effective health policy, at a meeting hosted by the WHO in Geneva, Switzerland, last week (13-14 February).

Again, the focus was on the need to help governments in developing countries strengthen systems for monitoring health and mortality trends.

A draft recommendation from the meeting says that, while "considerable progress has been made in the field of global health estimation methods, much work remains to be done to strengthen country data and capacity, improve transparency, and allow debate on methods".

Participants stressed the need to forge a "solid empirical basis for monitoring health trends" and proposed specific mechanisms for this.

But the proposals also added that international support to help countries analyse data "should be a priority". This would be underpinned by improving access to user-friendly estimation tools and training materials, and building networks of collaborating centres.

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said the Geneva meeting made "an extremely good process" involving "excellent proposals for the future".

Link to the December GBD study in The Lancet

Link to GBD 2010

A $3 Million New Generous Life Science Award initiated by


New Prize Awards Millions to Life Scientists

TEXT SIZE 

The new entrepreneurs of Internet Communications have found that Life Science deserves better attention.  The prize of $3 Million Award says a lot about the Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness.

Google, Facebook are leading the way.

This is a good sign that scientists who work long and hard with little compensation will be encouraged to continue to do the good work of research and development/

This is a good sign of humanity moving towards creative enterprises that benefit all 7 Billion humans over a long term.

Bless the internet entrepreneurs!

Belai Habte-Jesus, MD, MPH
Global Connect
www.GlobalBelaiJesus.com

A group of Internet entrepreneurs has established the world's richest prize for work in medicine and biology. The $3 million award is more than twice the amount of the Nobel Prize. This week, 11 scientists were named the first winners of the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences.

Many of them are researching the genetics of cell growth, and how it can go wrong to cause cancer.


The annual award was created by Russian venture capitalist Yuri Milner and other high-tech philanthropists, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Google co-founder Sergey Brin.


Milner began recognizing physicists last year, with the Fundamental Physics Prizes. The next round of those three million dollar awards will be announced next month (March 20) in Geneva. His goal with both prizes, he says, is to raise public awareness of scientists who have spent their lives advancing human knowledge.


The Breakthrough Prize has already been criticized for focusing on established researchers, rather than the many scientists who collaborate to foster advancement. But future recipients will be selected by previous winners, who may be more aware of the rising stars and unsung heroes in their fields.