Monday, May 27, 2013

Android~ "WAZE" Top GPS application in Android market

Yes good news indeed! Waze is the best GPS app in the smartphone Market! Highly recommended user to test it out when you want reports on "trafficjam" especially in Malaysia!



(Reuters) - Google Inc is in talks to buy Waze, an Israeli mapping start-up that has held discussions with several large technology companies, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Friday.

Google's discussions with Waze, which one of the sources told Reuters remained fluid and could change in tenor at any time, come amid reports Facebook is willing to pay $1 billion for the crowd-sourced service, which relies on information provided by its 47 million members to craft its mobile-oriented maps.

By buying Waze, the Internet search giant would prevent the company from falling into the hands of Facebook, which is delving deeper into mobile technology as it tries to grow its user base.... read more






image source

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Self development~ Make Pain Pleasure, Self motivation




Sources of Insight


Posted: 24 May 2013 08:20 AM PDT
image
"The only person you are destined to become is the person you decide to be." – Ralph Waldo Emerson
Many activities are not inherently pleasant.
Many activities don't produce natural rewards.
How do you motivate yourself when the activity is not inherently pleasant, or not inherently motivating?
What can you do to motivate yourself and others to do the things that need to be done, or you should do, or are good for you … but you don't want to do them, or don't like to do them?
Luckily, there are plenty of ways to motivate yourself and others to do activities that are not inherently fun or not inherently rewarding.  That is, if you know how.
In the book, Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, authors Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler show us how.
These authors know their stuff, and they are great at turning insight into action.
The key is to make pain pleasurable.

The Biggest Motivators of Excellence are Intrinsic

You can pave the path of personal excellence from the inside out.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"In short, as you think about the problems you're trying to resolve, don't be afraid to draw on the power of intrinsic satisfiers.  As Don Berwich so aptly stated: 'The biggest motivators of excellence are intrinsic.  They have to do with people's accountability to themselves.  It's wanting to do well, to be proud, to go home happy, having accomplished something.'  Berwick recognizes that people have a powerful desired to do what's right.  Harnessing that intrinsic desire is a far more powerful influence tool than using extrinsic rewards or exacting punishment."

We Can Transcend Our Own Nature

To motivate yourself, it helps to know that a characteristic of human nature is to transcend our own nature.
According to psychiatrist M. Scott Peck:
"Just because a desire or behavior is natural, odes not meant it is … unchangeable … it is also natural … to never brush our teeth.  Yet we teach ourselves to do the unnatural.  Another characteristic of human nature — perhaps the one that makes us more human — is our capacity to do the unnatural, to transcend and hences transform our own nature."

Make the Activity Itself More Attractive

To motivate yourself, you need to find ways to make the activity more inherently attractive.
In In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"The promise here is significant.  If we can find a way to change the feeling associated with a vital behavior, we can make compulsive bad habits feel as disgusting as going to bed with gritty teeth.  And we can make formerly unappealing activities become as satisfying as brushing our teeth.  And if you miss this important concept, whenever you try to motivate yourself or others to change behavior, you'll turn to perks and wisecracks rather than find ways to make the activity itself more inherently attractive."

Create New Experiences and Create New Motives

You can change reactions to previously neutral or negative behaviors by creating new experience, or changing why people do something.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"So, if we shouldn't poke people with sharp sticks as a way of propelling them away from their inappropriate behavior, what's left?  Actually, there are two very powerful and ethical ways of helping humans change their reaction to a previously neutral or noxious behavior: creating new experiences and creating new motives."

You Can't Just Talk People Into It

While you can spend a lot of time painting a picture of the vision, and explaining the benefits, unfortunately, that alone doesn't work.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"These arguments are easy to make but hard to sell because they involve verbal persuasion and the people you're talking to don't understand the language.  You're describing activities and outcomes for which they have no frame of reference, and you're then asking them to make enormous and immediate sacrifices (no gang, no drugs, no freedom) in order to achieve them.  It won't work.  It can't work."

Try It, You'll Like It

Get people to try it.  This is the "Try it, you'll like it approach."  Psychologist Daniel Gilbert taught us that we're awful at predicting our own likes and dislikes.  We're often wrong when we predict we won't like a new behavior.  Try it anyway.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"So Dr. Silbert simply plods forward, demanding that residents try studying for a class, attending the opera, mentoring another student, and so forth.  Experience has taught her that if residents try  new behaviors, they end up liking many if not most of them.  Okay, perhaps few become opera fans.  Nevertheless, over 90 percent come to enjoy dozens of behaviors they never would have imagined if they'd one day enjoy."

Vicarious Experience

If you can't get people to try something, sometimes the best way to motivate someone is to share a story that people can relate to, and vicariously experience the impact.   The key is emotion and empathy.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"The 'try it, you'll like it' strategy can be further aided by the use of models.  Many of our influencer masters have found that vicarious experience can work in situations where they can't get people to try a vital behavior based on faith alone.  For example, as you recall from an earlier chapter, Miguel Sabido inspired hundreds of thousands of illiterate Mexicans to sign up for literacy programs by engaging them in the story of a man just like them — someone who was 'too old to learn.'  Someone who was initially unwilling to bear the shame of sitting in a class with much younger people and admitting his 'defect.'"

Make it a Game

Fun and feedback are a powerful way to create change.  People like to feel like they're making progress.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"Keeping scores produces clear, frequent feedback that can transform tasks into accomplishments that, in turn, can generate intense satisfaction.  The designers of many of today's video games have an intuitive feel for Dr. Csikszentmihalyi's research and have used it to create games that call for highly repetitive activities that end up being amazingly addictive as individuals strive for that next level of achievement."

Connect to a Person's Sense of Self

Many activities are not naturally rewarding, so the 'try it, you'll like it strategy' doesn't always work.  Also, it's difficult to turn every activity into a game through constant feedback.  In this case, you can find your motivation by investing yourself in the activity.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"Unpleasant endeavors require a whole different sort of motivation that can come only from within.  People stimulate this internal motivation by investing themselves in an activity.  That is, they make the activity an issue of personal significance.  Succeeding becomes more than the challenge of reaching the next level of a video game — it becomes a measure of who they are.  They set high standards of who they'll be, high enough to create a worthy challenge, and then they work hard to become that very person."

It's the Lack of Thought that Enables Bad Behavior

Thoughtless behaviors and auto-pilot can lead to unintentional bad behaviors.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"Often humans react to their immediate environments as if they were on autopilot.  They don't pause to consider how their immediate choices reflect their ideals, values, or moral codes.  The connections between their actions and personal standards are rarely 'top of mind.'  Michael Davis calls this failure to connect values to action, 'microscopic vision.'  Ellen Langer calls it 'mindlessness.'  Patricia Werhane prefers to refer to it as a lack of 'moral imagination.'
No matter their terms, each of the scholars was referring to the human tendency to burrow into mundane details while failing to consider how they connect to our values, morals, and personal standards.  This means that when we make horrific and costly mistakes, more often than not we're not purposefully choosing to do bad things.  It's almost as if we're not choosing at all.  It's the lack of thought, not the presence of thought, that enables our bad behavior."

Connect Behavior to Values

If you connect behavior to your values, then you can establish connections and consequences that you might otherwise miss.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"When we inspect our actions from a moral perspective, we're able to see consequences and connections that otherwise remain blocked from our view.  Renowned psychologist Dr. Stanton Peele reports that taking  a broader moral perspective enables humans to face and overcome some of their toughest life challenges.  In fact, Peele has been able to systematically demonstrate that this ability to connect to broader values predicts better than any other variable who will be able to give up addictive and long-lasting habits and who won't.  Peele has found that individuals who learn how to reconnect their distant but real values to their current behavior can overcome the most addictive of habits — cocaine, heroine, pornography, gambling, you name it."

Shine the Spotlight on Human Consequences

It's easy to lose the human touch.  It's easy to get desensitized with information overload, or a bunch of facts and figures in a spreadsheet.  It's then just as easy to make bad choices despite good intentions.  The key is to rehumanize things by using real people, real examples, and having empathy for your impact.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"Now for a corporate application.  If you're a leader attempting to break down silos, encourage collaboration, and engage teamwork across your organization, take note.  Moral disengagement always accompanies political, combative, and self-centered behavior.   You'll see this kind of routine moral disengagement in the form of narrow labels ('bean counters,' 'gear heads,' 'corporate,' 'the field,' 'them,' and 'they') used to dehumanize other individuals or groups.  To reengage people morally — and to rehumanize targets that people readily and easily abuse — drop labels and substitute names.  Confront self-serving and judgmental descriptions of other people and groups.  Finally, demonstrate by example the need to refer to individuals by name and with respect for their needs."

Confronting Demons Does NOT Motivate Change

Confrontation doesn't motivate change.  In some cases, it can make it worse.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"A reigning but inaccurate assumption in counseling is that confrontation motivates change.  But despite all the hoopla about family interventions and counselor-led confrontations, William Miller learned that forcing people to face their demons along with their friends, colleagues, and therapists who hates those demons also didn't work.  In fact, in one study, he found that confrontation actually increased alcoholic binging.  This les Miller in a different direction.  He began to explore the opposite.  What if the counselor merely helped patients figure out what they wanted rather than what their fed-up friends wanted?"

Motivational Interviewing

If getting preachy or having people confront their demons doesn't work, then what does?  Honor choice.  Lead the horse to water.   If they find the water, and it's their choice, they'll drink.
In Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors write:
"With the new question, Miller discovered that the best way to help individuals reconnect their existing unhealthy behaviors to their long-term values was to stop trying to control their thoughts and behaviors.  You must replace judgment with empathy, and lectures with questions.  If you do so, you gain influence.  The instant you stop trying to impose your agenda on others, you eliminate the fight for control.  You sidestep irrelevant battles over whose view of the world is correct.
The discovery led Miller to develop an influence method called motivational interviewing.  Through a skillful use of open and nondirective questions, the counselor helps others examine what is most important to them and what changes in their life might be required in order for them to live according to their values.  When you listen and they talk, they discover on their own what they must do.  Then they make the necessary changes."
If you haven't been effective in driving change or motivating yourself, maybe you can use one nugget from above, or one piece of insight, to change your approach and get unstuck and get real results..
Are you ready to change anything?

You Might Also Like

101 Ways to Motivate Yourself and Others
13 Motivation Techniques
13 Negative Motivation Patterns
Coercion is a Deadly Enemy of Motivation
Discipline vs. Motivation
Find Your Drive – The Keys to Motivation
Image by stevendepelo.



Email delivery powered by Google

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Inspiration Video~ Values in the video that you should be watching before you die.


1) Sylvester Stallone talking to his son in Rocky Balboa. 
2) Will Smith talking to his very young son in Pursuit of Happyness.
3) Al Pacino talking to his team before tan importantmatch in Any Given Sunday.

leadership~ Are you ready to lead the nation?


How to prevent the next global crisis
March 19, 2010: 3:00 AM ET
·          
·          
·          
·          
·         EmailPrint
The 5 traits that connect the world's biggest threats—and what we must do to stop future ones.
by Larry Brilliant, Skoll Global Threats Fund

San Francisco recently marked the Chinese New Year, a big event here with a downtown parade, fireworks and plenty of celebration. We moved from the year of the Ox to the year of the Tiger. Perfect. 2009 saw a certain ox-like obstinacy -- stunned by the economic downturn, people, governments and economies plodded along, keeping their heads down. 2010, however, is eminently Tigerish. We face many tremendously complicated issues this year. If tigers were global threats, this year we have many by the tail.
I sit on a committee on catastrophic risks for the World Economic Forum and co-chair a national committee on biological risks established by presidential directive. I also head up a new organization, the Skoll Global Threats Fund, which focuses on threats that -- if left unchecked -- might bring the world to its knees.
Skoll Global Threats Fund is brand new -- only half a year since Jeff Skoll started this new entity -- and we are setting about trying to find ways to help mitigate the risks from climate change, water scarcity, pandemics, nuclear proliferation and conflict in the Middle East.
There are some common denominators these threats share, which are for the most part also common to other grave global problems, like the financial system meltdown, global governance failures, and disruptions of global trade that our WEF committee deals with. And for many of these factors, the year of the Tiger is a turning point, a crossroads. Here are five common denominators:


1. Communication
Society in general does a lousy job of communicating that the kinds of global threats I mentioned are true risks that could affect us all, and when we do get that point across, it's usually too late. We have plenty of examples. Take Hank Paulson and the U.S. economic crisis. Things were fine until they weren't, and then they were really bad, really fast. The Bush administration failed to manage expectations or communicate the causes and cures of the impending meltdown. The way in which the risks of inaction were presented and the palpable fear in the eyes of Paulson and other officials made the crisis worse, resulting in greater fear, paralysis, and loss of jobs.
Or take pandemics. The World Health Organization uses a classification system that sounds to non-epidemiologists like hurricane warnings. Most would think a category 5 pandemic akin to Katrina destroying New Orleans. But as a global agency, WHO has adapted a system to assess the number of countries and regions affected, so its top-numbered categories describe spread, not death rate. So while swine flu indeed became one of the most widespread diseases in human history, it did not have the death rate with which we assume a pandemic is usually associated. In this case, a nuance, but what a misleading nuance. Will people treat the next pandemic, which could be far more lethal, less seriously now that they've seen -- and survived -- a mild one?
2. Uncertainty
All of these risks share qualitative and, especially, quantitative uncertainty. Scientific uncertainty, outcome uncertainty, and the unintended consequences of any interventions are common to most of these global threats. This keeps scientists and officials up all night, but it keeps actuaries, hedge funds, and insurance companies in business. I'm an epidemiologist and we report our science with "confidence intervals." I once wrote a paper that showed how an agricultural mix-up in Michigan led to an industrial chemical, Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBB), getting into the food chain and into the milk of nursing mothers. I was not able to tell how many of Michigan's mothers had PBB in their milk, but I estimated that more than 8 million nursing mothers had a fire retardant chemical in there, and I did so "with 85% confidence." Of course, the makers of that chemical were furious, but it was the immediate need for public health action that mattered most. Far more exhaustive studies showed it is more likely that 9 million mothers in Michigan had the contaminant in their milk. But from my study of a small sample, I was not able to give more than an 85% confidence. Whether it was 8 or 9 million, my point was served -- the milk that a huge number of women were feeding their children was contaminated, and we needed to act.
Science is like that. We talk in terms of probability and inferences that can be drawn from a sample of a certain size. We make projections over time that might be x or 2x. But policy makers -- and voters -- want exact answers, not estimates. In climate change, for example, the science is astoundingly good, very complex, and breathtaking in how much data and detail has been amassed. This may be the most competently studied large-scale phenomenon in history. And while the vast majority of serious scientists agree the evidence is clear that human activity causes and can prevent global warming, they do not communicate as well as your local TV weatherman. This failure to communicate to the general public, which scientists rarely think of as their primary job, has made it hard for average people to accept estimates with confidence intervals, ranges, probability statements and the "stuff" of academic science. After all -- if you are mired in a deep recession, you want to think about today's income, not about the confidence intervals around the ranges of projections that colorless, odorless, tasteless gases will cause the global temperature and the seas to rise years in the future.
It seems true, if inconvenient, that X millions of acres of seashore, Y hundreds of millions of climate refugees, and Z billions of malaria mosquitoes will result if we don't act. But scientists won't tell you the actual numbers for X, Y or Z. They will tell you they are "90% confident that there will be between 100 million and 1 billion climate refugees." Those wide ranges, coupled with the long delay time, the intangible nature of the risks, and the complexity, make this global threat a hard sell. It is much easier, as the coal industry has done, to tell people to wait for an oxymoron that does not exist like "clean coal" instead of making hard choices today. And as the-soon-to-be- published book Merchants of Doubt catalogs, vested interests have an easier product -- "doubt" -- to sell, i.e., the "doubt" about cigarettes causing cancer, hairspray causing holes in the ozone layer, and coal and oil causing climate change.
3. Low probability
I once co-authored an article in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty about a survey of epidemiologists four years prior to the H1N1 influenza pandemic. We polled some of the smartest, top influenza experts -- and as a group they estimated the probability of a serious pandemic in the next ten years as 10%. What do we do with information like that?
We can't say "make a 10% effort to prevent the pandemic." Indeed, is a 10% risk of a global threat something to worry about? It is if the threat is highly consequential. We should all be worried if there is a 10% chance that hundreds of millions might die, but perhaps not so much if there is a 10% chance that dozens might. And there is a cumulative effect that should force us to become more prepared -- while the individual risk of large scale drought, rapid acceleration of global warming with catastrophic weather events, rapidly spreading highly fatal pandemics, and nuclear terrorism might each be small, in the aggregate, the risk that the world will face one or more of these threats in the coming decades are too high to be ignored. The low probability of any individual threat happening makes it harder to command the attention of the public or the policy makers, but knowing the aggregate or overall risk makes it imperative to plan sane prevention and mitigation strategies.
4. Leadership
Solving these risks requires real leadership of two kinds: effective, charismatic individual leaders and trusted institutions. We lack both, sadly. Where are today's Churchills, Roosevelts, Mandelas, Gandhis? We need leaders who are willing to make the difficult decisions, even if unpopular. We need leaders who can communicate the challenges and convince people of the need to understand the issues, not only the slogans, and to spend their most precious assets -- their time and political capital -- focused on problems that seem intangible, far in the future, uncertain, and even unlikely. And it is not just the individual leaders who are falling short. The institutions to deal with these threats are suffering under the weight of their years. The United Nations is over 60 years old, but many of its key components haven't changed to adapt to today's world. Global institutions tackling pandemics, proliferation, and other threats are also showing their age.
5. Public will and governance
I separate governance from leadership because they are different, albeit connected. A leader inspires people to make difficult choices. But getting those choices enacted into legislation, regulation and changes on the ground requires governance. And in a democracy, governance around these kinds of threats is really hard. In a democracy, leaders can't lead at all if voters won't elect them, and they can't lead for long if voters do not support their decisions. Yet on these threats, we have to ask voters to focus on events of uncertain probability that in many cases won't occur for a generation. We have to ask them to sacrifice their focus on short-term issues -- jobs, family, health -- and become political activists for something that doesn't directly benefit them in the near term. People intuitively understand why protecting the planet by heading off pandemics is a good thing. But it's hard to come home at the end of the day and say, "Boy, cutting emissions felt great today." Or "I know my kids are not at risk of getting that disease, but I got them vaccinated anyway to prevent children in other parts of the world from getting it." We need public will to be fully behind these difficult policies because without political engagement from citizens and pressure from below, governments will be reluctant -- and perhaps incapable -- of making the tough decisions needed to tackle these threats.
I believe it's not an exaggeration to point out that democracy itself will be put to the test by the governance challenge these threats entail. In democracies, majorities have proven highly resistant to voting against short-term personal interests in favor of incrementally reducing the risk of potential long-term societal catastrophes. We've been able to get away with this by and large up until now. But if we are not willing to make long-term investments in education, building sustainable infrastructure, reducing energy costs and getting off dependence on oil and coal, creating solutions to global water shortages, preventing pandemics, stopping nuclear proliferation and building sustainable peace, it's not just future growth that's at risk. It is our very form of government that we risk. If democracies cannot solve these critical problems, it may not be democracy that is the winning form of governance in this next round of global competition.
To develop effective ways to counter these global threats, we need to understand what they have in common: They are hard to communicate, driving personal sacrifice and political engagement on them difficult, making both leadership and governance hard. Each of these great global threats individually may be rare, but highly consequential and, in the aggregate, they are too important to ignore. And globalization has accelerated them all. Strategies to meet these threats have to embrace all these components. And there's one more thing we need: speed. We're running out of time.
As a planet, we face huge challenges. 2010 will be a decisive year. Let's get to work figuring out the answers. Get involved. Learn about these issues, petition your leaders, demand that we prepare now, and vote for those who are working constructively to tackle these challenges. Support the work of scientists and other organizations working on solutions. Teach your kids about them. These aren't someone else's problems. They're all of ours.
Larry Brilliant joined the Skoll Global Threats Fund after serving as the first executive director of Google.org. An MD and MPH, Larry was one of a four-person U.N. team that led the successful smallpox eradication program in India and South Asia. He later founded the Seva Foundation, whose projects have given back sight to nearly 3 million people worldwide.  Larry also co-founded The Well, a pioneering digital community and was a professor of international policy and epidemiology at the University of Michigan.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Self Development~ Personal SWOT Analysis

article grabbed from here :)

Personal SWOT Analysis

Making the Most of Your Talents and Opportunities.



What are YOUR strengths and weaknesses?
© iStockphoto/vgajic
"Chance favors the prepared mind."
– Louis Pasteur
You are most likely to succeed in life if you use your talents to their fullest extent. Similarly, you'll suffer fewer problems if you know what your weaknesses are, and if you manage these weaknesses so that they don't matter in the work you do.
So how you go about identifying these strengths and weaknesses, and analyzing the opportunities and threats that flow from them? SWOT Analysis is a useful technique that helps you do this.
What makes SWOT especially powerful is that, with a little thought, it can help you uncover opportunities that you would not otherwise have spotted. And by understanding your weaknesses, you can manage and eliminate threats that might otherwise hurt your ability to move forward.
If you look at yourself using the SWOT framework, you can start to separate yourself from your peers, and further develop the specialized talents and abilities you need to advance your career.

How to Use the Tool

To perform a personal SWOT analysis, print out our free worksheet, and write down answers to the questions in each area below.

Strengths

  • What advantages do you have that others don't have (for example, skills, certifications, education, or connections)?
  • What do you do better than anyone else?
  • What personal resources can you access?
  • What do other people (and your boss, in particular) see as your strengths?
  • Which of your achievements are you most proud of?
  • What values do you believe in that others fail to exhibit?
  • Are you part of a network that no one else is involved in? If so, what connections do you have with influential people?
Consider this from your own perspective, and from the point of view of the people around you. And don't be modest or shy – be as objective as you can.
And if you have any difficulty with this, write down a list of your personal characteristics. Some of these will hopefully be strengths! You can also learn more about identifying your strengths in our article on "Your Reflected Best Self™".
Tip:Think about your strengths in relation to the people around you. For example, if you're a great mathematician and the people around you are also great at math, then this is not likely to be a strength in your current role – it may be a necessity.

Weaknesses

  • What tasks do you usually avoid because you don't feel confident doing them?
  • What will the people around you see as your weaknesses?
  • Are you completely confident in your education and skills training? If not, where are you weakest?
  • What are your negative work habits (for example, are you often late, are you disorganized, do you have a short temper, or are you poor at handling stress)?
  • Do you have personality traits that hold you back in your field? For instance, if you have to conduct meetings on a regular basis, a fear of public speaking would be a major weakness.
Again, consider this from a personal/internal perspective and an external perspective. Do other people see weaknesses that you don't see? Do co-workers consistently outperform you in key areas? Be realistic – it's best to face any unpleasant truths as soon as possible.

Opportunities

  • What new technology can help you? Or can you get help from others or from people via the Internet?
  • Is your industry growing? If so, how can you take advantage of the current market?
  • Do you have a network of strategic contacts to help you, or offer good advice?
  • What trends (management or otherwise) do you see in your company, and how can you take advantage of them?
  • Are any of your competitors failing to do something important? If so, can you take advantage of their mistakes?
  • Is there a need in your company or industry that no one is filling?
  • Do your customers or vendors complain about something in your company? If so, could you create an opportunity by offering a solution?
You might find useful opportunities in the following:
  • Networking events, educational classes, or conferences.
  • A colleague going on an extended leave. Could you take on some of this person's projects to gain experience?
  • A new role or project that forces you to learn new skills, like public speaking or international relations.
  • A company expansion or acquisition. Do you have specific skills (like a second language) that could help with the process?
Also, importantly, look at your strengths, and ask yourself whether these open up any opportunities – and look at your weaknesses, and ask yourself whether you could open up opportunities by eliminating those weaknesses.

Threats

  • What obstacles do you currently face at work?
  • Are any of your colleagues competing with you for projects or roles?
  • Is your job (or the demand for the things you do) changing?
  • Does changing technology threaten your position?
  • Could any of your weaknesses lead to threats?
Performing this analysis will often provide key information – it can point out what needs to be done and put problems into perspective.

A Personal SWOT Example

What would a personal SWOT assessment look like? Review this SWOT analysis for Carol, an advertising manager.

Strengths

  • I'm very creative. I often impressing clients with a new perspective on their brands.
  • I communicate well with my clients and team.
  • I have the ability to ask key questions to find just the right marketing angle.
  • I'm completely committed to the success of a client's brand.

Weaknesses

  • I have a strong, compulsive need to do things quickly and remove them from my "to do" list, and sometimes the quality of my work suffers as a result.
  • This same need to get things done also causes me stress when I have too many tasks.
  • I get nervous when presenting ideas to clients, and this fear of public speaking often takes the passion out of my presentations.

Opportunities

  • One of our major competitors has developed a reputation for treating their smaller clients poorly.
  • I'm attending a major marketing conference next month. This will allow for strategic networking, and also offer some great training seminars.
  • Our art director will go on maternity leave soon. Covering her duties while she's away would be a great career development opportunity for me.

Threats

  • Simon, one of my colleagues, is a much stronger speaker than I am, and he's competing with me for the art director position.
  • Due to recent staff shortages, I'm often overworked, and this negatively impacts my creativity.
  • The current economic climate has resulted in slow growth for the marketing industry. Many firms have laid off staff members, and our company is considering further cutbacks.
As a result of performing this analysis, Carol takes the bold step of approaching her colleague Simon about the art director's maternity leave. Carol proposes that both she and Simon cover the job's duties, working together and each using his or her strengths. To her surprise, Simon likes the idea. He knows he presents very well, but he admits that he's usually impressed by Carol's creative ideas, which he feels are far better than most of his.
By working as a team, they have a chance to make their smaller clients feel even better about the service they're getting. This takes advantage of their competitor's weakness in this area.

Key Points

A SWOT matrix is a framework for analyzing your strengths and weaknesses as well as the opportunities and threats that you face. This helps you focus on your strengths, minimize your weaknesses, and take the greatest possible advantage of opportunities available to you.

Friday, May 10, 2013

health~ Run 1 hour = 9 hours Extra Life

article grabbed from here :)


Every Minute Of Exercise Could Lengthen Your Life Seven Minutes


At a recent dinner party, a geeky friend of mine was cheerily justifying the piles of money he spends on a personal trainer. He’s feeling so great that it’s worth every cent, he exulted, “And the best part is the return on the time! Every minute you spend working out comes back to you, because you’ll live that much longer!”
“Really?” I wondered. I knew vaguely that being active lengthens life expectancy, but was the return on time spent really 1 to 1?
Certainly, I hoped it was. It’s a daily struggle to make the time to exercise, and the current federal health guidelines call for at least 150 minutes a week of moderate exercise — a lot of time that somehow manages to seem like even more, magnified by the “should” it adds to so many days. There are hundreds of other reasons to exercise, and the one that works best for me is wanting to feel at my best on that very day. But it would be very comforting, I thought, if I knew that all of that time would come back to me.
Not only do you get the time back, it comes back to you multiplied — possibly by as much as seven or eight or nine.
Let me cut to the happy conclusion: It seems that it does. And then some. If you play with the data of a recent major paper on exercise and longevity, you can calculate that not only do you get the time back; it comes back to you multiplied — possibly by as much as seven or eight or nine.
To quote Tom Anthony, a regular CommonHealth reader with a Harvard physics degree who kindly helped me with the math, “I wish I could get these paybacks in the stock market.”
This is all a bit of a public health parlor game, of course, resting on averages and approximations. You, personally, could work out ten hours a week and still die flukishly young. But the math looked so striking that I asked for a reality check from Dr. I-Min Lee of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a Harvard professor and senior author of that recent paper, “Leisure Time Physical Activity of Moderate to Vigorous Intensity And Mortality: A Large Pooled Cohort Analysis.”
Yes, she confirmed, she had not calculated out the question before, but according to her data, a middle-aged person who gets the recommended 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise — defined as the level of brisk walking — can expect a 1-to-7 return: seven extra minutes of life gained for each minute spent exercising.
Some background: The paper on exercise and longevity broke ground by calculating for the first time the gains in life expectancy from various levels of activity. In the past, researchers had found that in general, being active gains people from two to four years of life, though some calculations concluded that it was a wash, that active people gained only as much time as they spent exercising.
(Of course, Dr. Lee noted, it’s not just how long you live, it’s how well, and exercise is key to quality of life, particularly in older age: “My mentor said it best: It’s not the years you add to your life, it’s the life you add to your years.”)
Dr. Lee’s paper drew on pooled data from six large studies that included more than 650,000 people followed over ten years, and showed that people who exercised at the recommended level gained 3.4 years of life after age 40. According to its numbers, she said:
Say you start with someone 45 years old who begins to follow the 150-minute-a-week recommendation. Average American life expectancy is 78. So: “If you start exercising at 45 and you die at 78, that means that you exercise for 33 years, at 150 minutes a week. I calculated that over 33 years you would need to spend basically 4,290 hours in exercise, which is 179 days of exercise, which is less than half a year. So that’s half a year, and you gain almost three and a half years, so it is worth exercising. That’s an approximate scenario using reasonable assumptions, and you’re getting a 1-to-7 return.”
And, I asked, what if you exercise more vigorously than the brisk-walking level?
In general, she said, more strenuous exercise has approximately double the effect. So, for example, 75 minutes of jogging has roughly the effect of 150 minutes of brisk walking. “So instead of gaining seven times the time spent, you’d be gaining 14 times.”
The curve of gain tapers off at some point.
Back-of-the-envelope math aside, many caveats are in order, including Dr. Lee’s warning that the gains do not extend infinitely. (If they did, wouldn’t we be able to live forever so long as we spent every minute exercising? Feels like a science fiction story waiting to be written.)
“Yes — if you do a little, you gain a little; if you do more, you gain more,” she said. “But the curve of gain tapers off at some point. We aren’t sure exactly at what point the risks outweigh the benefits. But this point is clearly higher than most people would do. The most common risks are musculo-skeletal injuries; we know these occur more frequently with longer duration and/or more intense physical activity.” Also, people who have long been sedentary and suddenly start exercising — like the classic snow-shovelers who keel over — run heart risks.
The message, she says, is: “If you do nothing now, just start with a little bit of exercise. If you already do a little bit, try to get the 150 minutes that are recommended. And our current recommendations say that if you’re willing to go up to 300 minutes, you do get additional benefits.”
Tom Anthony’s math came out very similar:
Computing years of life gained after age 40, running for two hours a week should gain you about four years of life. “So that is roughly 100 hours per year for your remaining 40 years or 4,000 hours in total for all 40 years. In one year, there are 24 hr/day X 365 days = 8,760 hours. So four additional years is 8,760 hr/yr X 4 yr = 35,040 hours of life gained. To gain these extra hours, you expended 4,000 hour of running. So the payback ratio is 35,040 hours gain/ 4,000 hours expended = 8.8.
Running for an hour gives you 9 hours of extra life.
Brisk walking for an hour gives you 2.9/8 X 9 = 3.2 hours of extra life.
Biking for an hour at less than 10 mph gives you 4/8 X 9 = 4.5 hours of extra life
Rope jumping for an hour gives you 10/8 X 9= 11 hours of extra life
Calisthenics for an hour gives you 8/8 X 9 = 9 extra hours of life
Here’s a bit more from the press release on Dr. Lee’s study, adding some interesting data about obesity and exercise that I’d sum up as “Better to be a bit fat and fit than normal weight but inactive”:
“We found that adding low amounts of physical activity to one’s daily routine, such as 75 minutes of brisk walking per week, was associated with increased longevity: a gain of 1.8 years of life expectancy after age 40, compared with doing no such activity,” explained I-Min Lee, MD, associate epidemiologist in the Department of Preventive Medicine at BWH and senior author on this study. “Physical activity above this minimal level was associated with additional gains in longevity. For example, walking briskly for at least 450 minutes a week was associated with a gain of 4.5 years. Further, physical activity was associated with greater longevity among persons in all BMI groups: those normal weight, overweight, and obese.”
Also:
The findings show that physical activity was associated with longer life expectancies across a range of activity levels and BMI groups. Participation in a low level of leisure time physical activity of moderate to vigorous intensity, comparable to up to 75 min of brisk walking per week, was associated with a 19 percent reduced risk of mortality compared to no such activity.
Assuming a causal relationship, which is not specifically demonstrated in this research, this level of activity would confer a 1.8 year gain in life expectancy after age 40, compared with no activity. For those who did the equivalent to 150–299 min of brisk walking per week–the basic amount of physical activity currently recommended by the federal government–the gain in life expectancy was 3.4 years. These benefits were seen in both men and women, and among white and black participants. Importantly, they were also observed among persons who were normal weight, overweight, and obese. Participants faring best were those who were both normal weight and active: among normal weight persons who were active at the level recommended by the federal government, researchers observed a gain in life expectancy of 7.2 years, compared to those with a BMI of 35 or more who did no leisure time physical activity (a 5 ft 5 in tall person with BMI of 35 weighs 210 lb).