venerdì 31 gennaio 2014

EU2020 e lotta alla povertà, dal sovranazionale al locale. Il caso di Torino

EU2020 e lotta alla povertà, dal sovranazionale al locale. Il caso di Torino

Flexicurity, activation, the Third Way, social investment....The rise (and fall?) of centrist welfare reform strategies in Europe

Flexicurity, activation, the Third Way, social investment....The rise (and fall?) of centrist welfare reform strategies in Europe

Obama vuole cambiare il welfare americano ma...

Obama vuole cambiare il welfare americano ma...

La prima prova (italiana) della cogestione

La prima prova (italiana) della cogestione

Relational Welfare. L’esperienza di Participle e Southwark Circle

Relational Welfare. L’esperienza di Participle e Southwark Circle

IDEO’s Culture of Helping

Few things leaders can do are more important than encouraging helping behavior within their organizations. In the top-performing companies it is a norm that colleagues support one another’s efforts to do the best work possible. That has always been true for pragmatic reasons: If companies were to operate at peak efficiency without what organizational scholars call “citizenship behavior,” tasks would have to be optimally assigned 100% of the time, projects could not take any unexpected turns, and no part of any project could go faster or slower than anticipated. But mutual helping is even more vital in an era of knowledge work, when positive business outcomes depend on creativity in often very complex projects. Beyond simple workload sharing, collaborative help comes to the fore—lending perspective, experience, and expertise that improve the quality and execution of ideas.
Helpfulness must be actively nurtured in organizations, however, because it does not arise automatically among colleagues. Individuals in social groups experience conflicting impulses: As potential helpers, they may also be inclined to compete. As potential help seekers, they may also take pride in going it alone, or be distrustful of those whose assistance they could use. On both sides, help requires a commitment of time for uncertain returns and can seem like more trouble than it’s worth. Through their structures and incentives, organizations may, however unwittingly, compound the reluctance to provide or seek help.
The trickiness of this management challenge—to increase a discretionary behavior that must be inspired, not forced—makes what the design firm IDEO has achieved all the more impressive. Ask people there about the organizational culture, and invariably they mention collaborative help. Observe how things get done, and you see it at every turn. Actually map the networks of help, as we did, and it becomes obvious how broad and dense they are. Clearly the firm is high performing; it is lauded all over the world for innovations in business, government, and health care, and regularly called upon to advise other firms that want to increase their innovation capabilities. All this help seeking and help giving apparently pays off.
The question for the rest of us is, How has IDEO managed to make helping the norm? Are there principles that leaders of other organizations could learn and apply to similar effect? We spent two years making observations, interviewing people, and conducting surveys to find out.
IDEO may seem like a very different kind of company from yours, but it is probably less so than you think. Your organization, too, is full of knowledge workers tackling complex problems. It, too, needs to boost its productive creativity. It could produce better outcomes for customers and provide a more attractive working environment for top talent if your employees, like IDEO’s, engaged in effective mutual help. Let’s look at the four keys to achieving those goals—beginning with a challenge to the people at the very top of the organization. Judging by IDEO’s experience, that is where building a help-friendly company begins.
Leadership Conviction
Not every large company’s leader would, if asked about organizational priorities, bring up the topic of encouraging collaborative help in the ranks. But IDEO’s leadership is explicitly focused on it. For Tim Brown, the CEO, that’s not only because the problems IDEO is asked to solve require extreme creativity; it’s also because they have become more complicated. Brown says, “I believe that the more complex the problem, the more help you need. And that’s the kind of stuff we’re getting asked to tackle, so we need to figure out how to have a culture where help is much, much more embedded.” Essentially, this is a conviction that many minds make bright work.
Leaders at IDEO prove their conviction by giving and seeking help themselves. For example, we observed a particularly successful event (in terms of new ideas generated) when a C-suite-level helper joined a team for an hour-long brainstorming session. The team’s project hadn’t even formally kicked off yet, so it was not a situation in which help was desperately needed. Nor was this leader the only one qualified to provide it. His arrival in the room signaled strongly that helping is an expected behavior in the culture and that everyone is part of the helping network.
Our mapping of that network in one IDEO office clearly captures leaders’ personal involvement. (See the exhibit “Mapping Help at IDEO.”) In the diagram each person is represented by a circle; the larger the circle, the more times that person was named by someone else as a helper. Notice that the most popular helpers are spread across all levels of the organization. Contrary to common wisdom and even to much of the scholarly literature on helping in organizations, status is no barrier to being asked for help at IDEO. Low-level people are willing to approach those at the top—who, conversely, are not afraid to make themselves vulnerable by asking for help from people several levels down.
The Two Sides of the Helping Coin
It would be easy to assume that to promote helping in your organization, you should focus on increasing your experts’ willingness to offer assistance. Consider the story Jon Gertner shares inThe Idea Factory, his history of AT&T’s Bell Labs. At one point AT&T’s patent department wanted to figure out why certain individuals in that famously inventive group were more successful than others at hatching novel ideas. They discerned just “one common thread,” Gertner wrote. “Workers with the most patents often shared lunch or breakfast with a Bell Labs electrical engineer named Harry Nyquist.” Nyquist was particularly skilled, it turned out, at asking good questions.
At first glance Nyquist seems to be the helping hero of that organization. But many of those lunches probably occurred because he was invited by someone who was working on a complex problem and needed a sounding board. There are two sides to every helping encounter, and both must be encouraged and supported.
People in many organizations might well hesitate to extend such an invitation. Because most cultures have norms of reciprocity, getting help from others can put you in their debt. Even if you are unfazed by the prospect of a future request, you might worry about seeming weak or incompetent if you ask for assistance, especially from someone of higher status. IDEO makes a conscious effort to sweep that hesitation away. From the beginning of every project, designers are encouraged to assume that they’ll need help. A project team with a demanding client learns that it would be irresponsible not to ask a colleague who had a lot of experience with that client to review its work. The team members might ask for that colleague’s input throughout the project, in sessions lasting anywhere from 15 minutes to half a day. At IDEO there is no shame in asking for help, and this psychological safety shows up on many levels: For example, people cheerfully accept frequent all-office e-mail blasts along the lines of “Does anyone have experience with Spanish-language radio?” or “Who’s tried the new quick-loss diet?”
In most cases, however, asking everyone in the organization for help isn’t particularly effective. The help seeker must figure out whom to approach. You might assume that the best helpers in your organization would be the people with the greatest expertise, but that assumption turns out to be flawed. Expertise is of course valuable, but our study of the IDEO helping network shows that it matters less than you might think. Look again at the helping map. The horizontal axis indicates people’s status as experts. (We computed expertise scores by using a separate survey in which several key people in the office listed the primary experts in each of the many disciplines and functions represented there.) On the basis of previous research, we expected that expertise in a field would strongly predict popularity as a helper. But we were wrong. Many popular helpers had two other attributes going for them.
In our survey of the entire office population, people were asked to click on the names of all those who helped them in their work and to rank their top five helpers from first to fifth. (See the exhibit “What Makes an IDEO Colleague Most Helpful?”) Then they were asked to rate their number one helper, their number five helper, and a randomly suggested “nonhelper” (someone whose name they hadn’t selected) on several items. Those items assessed three characteristics: competence (how well the person did his or her job); trust (how comfortable the respondent was sharing thoughts and feelings with the person); and accessibility (how easily the respondent could obtain help from the person).
Here was the surprise: Trust and accessibility mattered much more than competence. That doesn’t mean competence is irrelevant: People did rate their number one and number five helpers as more competent than their nonhelpers. (And IDEO has experts in a wide array of domains, so it’s pretty much guaranteed that the competence to solve any problem exists somewhere within the firm.) But the number one and number five helpers received fairly close scores for competence, whereas people trusted their top-ranked helpers more than they did their fifth-ranked helpers, and they trusted both much more than their nonhelpers. The results for accessibility were similar.
The finding that you have to be trustworthy to get to the top of someone’s helper list at IDEO is consistent with work by Amy Edmondson, of Harvard Business School, and her colleagues. They find that groups work much more effectively when members feel safe discussing mistakes and problems with one another. (See “Speeding Up Team Learning,” HBR October 2001.) Asking for help involves at least some vulnerability, so it stands to reason that people would turn to helpers whom they can trust with their thoughts and feelings. When we talked with the IDEO partner Diego Rodriguez about the firm’s practice of designating helpers to check in on projects, he said, “The situation where I think it works really well just boils down to this: There’s trust in the room that the intention of the person popping in is to help the project.”
Accessibility involves being available, willing, and able to lend a hand. We tracked the day-by-day help seeking and help receiving by four teams during the course of their projects. When a team failed to get help, it was usually because the person needed simply wasn’t available—he or she was out of the office, out of e-mail contact, or simply too overcommitted to devote the time. This happened occasionally even with helpers who’d been assigned to a project. Often a team’s best helper was someone who hadn’t been identified as such at the start of the project.

giovedì 30 gennaio 2014

Cellule Staminali Cordonali

Cellule Staminali Cordonali

Legge di stabilità: gare d'acquisto per i farmaci generici. EGA esprime la sua preoccupazione

Legge di stabilità: gare d'acquisto per i farmaci generici. EGA esprime la sua preoccupazione

Cure transfrontaliere: le proposte di modifica di Cittadinazattiva

Cure transfrontaliere: le proposte di modifica di Cittadinazattiva

Ricerca scientifica

Ricerca scientifica Prader Willi

Neuromielite ottica, successo per il primo trapianto di staminali ematopoietiche

Neuromielite ottica, successo per il primo trapianto di staminali ematopoietiche

Ipotiroidismo congenito, lo screening neonatale deve essere reso universale

Ipotiroidismo congenito, lo screening neonatale deve essere reso universale

domenica 26 gennaio 2014

Talk is cheap. Reforming welfare is harder than politicians are letting on

“THE new welfare state must encourage work, not dependency.” So said Tony Blair in his first Labour Party conference speech after becoming prime minister in 1997. Reforming welfare was one of Mr Blair’s top political priorities: proof of his “compassion with a hard edge”.
If only he had succeeded, the British might be spared endless rehashes of his speech. On January 20th Rachel Reeves, Labour’s welfare spokesman, gave a speech arguing that welfare should reward “work, responsibility and contribution”. Three days later Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory welfare secretary, chimed in, claiming that benefits trap people in ghettos and push them into crime. Like Mr Blair, both think that welfare reform is an election winner. Yet their bold rhetoric disguises a notable lack of ambition.
During Mr Blair’s time in government, the state spent around 5% of GDP on welfare and tax credits for people of working age. When recession hit in 2008, shrinking the economy and pushing people out of work, the proportion jumped to around 6%, where it has stuck stubbornly ever since. Last year spending reached £96 billion ($158 billion), a slight increase in real terms on the previous year. Pension spending, which accounts for £110 billion, is growing faster, thanks to generous uprating and an ageing population (see chart).
Cuts to welfare are necessary. Both Labour and the Conservatives have promised to bring about a budget surplus after the next general election in 2015. Public services have been cut heavily already, and voters tend to like spending on schools, hospitals and police officers. No party seems willing to commit to raising taxes. Slicing welfare, by contrast, is hugely popular—at least in broad theory. A private poll conducted by the Labour Party in October showed that 64% of Conservative-Labour swing voters supported welfare cuts. Just 9% opposed them.
Yet British voters have contradictory views about welfare, says Graeme Cooke of IPPR, a left-leaning think-tank. They tend to believe that benefits for newly unemployed people are too low, and that an outsize amount is spent on foreigners and habitual layabouts. Many voters are themselves claimants: 4.6m families receive tax credits, at a cost of around £29 billion. These mostly top up the incomes of working people with children—the sort of folk politicians try to court. A flurry of cuts already made will have only small effects on total spending.
As a result, both parties have focused on those who tend not to vote: young people and foreigners. The Conservative Party proposes to abolish housing benefit for people under the age of 25. The Labour Party argues that young people should have to pass literacy and numeracy tests to be able to claim benefits (illiterates will be sent back to school) while the long-term unemployed should get subsidised minimum-wage jobs. All three main parties want to prevent new immigrants from claiming out-of-work benefits.
Some of these policies have merit. But they will hardly nibble at the welfare bill. Housing benefit for the young, for example, costs around £2 billion per year—a little less than 10% of the housing bill. Once young adults with children of their own and people leaving care are excluded, as Tory officials hint they would be, the potential savings are negligible. As for benefit tourists, in 2011 people who were foreign nationals when they first registered for national insurance numbers represented just 6% of claimants. It is likely that few of them had arrived shortly before.
Savings will come from less trumpeted changes. George Osborne, the chancellor, has frozen the value of most working-age benefits in cash terms until 2015, allowing inflation to eat away at the bill. That freeze could easily be extended into the next parliament. Raising the age at which people become eligible for pensions has a similar effect. And so will economic recovery—at least if it begins to raise wages and enables more part-time workers to move into full-time jobs. Indeed, that is where the real difference between the parties lies. Labour types think that the economy will not start creating well-paid jobs again unless the state sets about altering its structure (see Bagehot). The Tories prefer to wait.

Italia - Europa sola andata?

Giovani Italiani Bruxelles e alcuni Eurodeputati italiani al Parlamento Europeo organizzano la tavola rotonda ‘Italia - Europa solo andata? Giovani e ingresso nel mondo del lavoro: sfide e soluzioni". L'evento si svolgerà mercoledì 29 gennaio 2014, dalle 18.00 alle 20.00 presso la sede del Parlamento Europeo a Bruxelles.

ESPAnet 2014: call per proposte di sessione

E’ online la call per le proposte di sessione per la Settima Conferenza di ESPAnet Italia "Sfide alla cittadinanza e trasformazione dei corsi di vita: precarietà, invecchiamento e migrazioni", che si terrà a Torino il 18-20 settembre 2014. Obiettivo della conferenza è analizzare come i cambiamenti nei corsi di vita che derivano da tali trasformazioni richiedano un ripensamento più complessivo degli assetti di welfare e dell'idea stessa di cittadinanza.
Il testo della call e le istruzioni per i coordinatori di sessione sono disponibili sul sito della conferenza.
Le proposte vanno inviate entro il 28 gennaio 2014 all'indirizzo mail: espanet2014@unito.it

Sfide alla cittadinanza e trasformazione dei corsi di vita: precarietà, invecchiamento e migrazioni
Torino, 18-20 settembre 2014


Tema della conferenza

L’invecchiamento della popolazione, la crescente partecipazione delle donne al mercato del lavoro, la maggiore instabilità delle relazioni famigliari, la flessibilità e insicurezza delle carriere lavorative, la presenza di minoranze di origine immigrata sono solo alcuni esempi delle trasformazioni che mettono sotto pressione la cittadinanza sia sotto il profilo sociale che civile e politico. La crisi economica attuale non può che rafforzare una tale pressione, contribuendo ad aumentare le diseguaglianze sociali, a mettere in concorrenza o in frizione fasce diverse di popolazione, esponendo alcuni gruppi più di altri a nuovi e vecchi rischi sociali.

Obiettivo della conferenza è analizzare come i cambiamenti nei corsi di vita che derivano da tali trasformazioni richiedano un ripensamento più complessivo degli assetti di welfare e dell'idea stessa di cittadinanza. Come si stanno ridefinendo, nel caso italiano e sullo sfondo dello scenario europeo, le forme di protezione sociale, e come si tiene conto dei profondi mutamenti in atto? L'attenzione sarà rivolta non solo ai processi di cambiamento sociale ma ai diversi ambiti di policy che sono chiamati a rispondere alle nuove sfide: dalle politiche per la primissima infanzia a quelle per la non autosufficienza, dalle politiche per l'istruzione a quelle per la formazione lungo tutto il ciclo di vita, dalle politiche di conciliazione famiglia lavoro a quelle di integrazione e inclusione sociale.

Youth Guarantee: il dialogo tra Ferrera e Giovannini

All'inizio di quest'anno ha finalmente preso avvio la cosiddetta Youth Guarantee, la Garanzia Giovani promossa dall'Unione Europea per stimolare l’inserimento occupazionale degli oltre 6 milioni di under25 europei che sono attualmente disoccupati. Maurizio Ferrera, referente scientifico di Percorsi di secondo welfare, nell'articolo La lezione di Londra e Parigi e quello che si può fare subito per i giovani disoccupati pubblicato il 10 gennaio sul Corriere della Sera, ha sottolineato come l'Italia abbia messo in cantiere un piano ambizioso, ma anche come potrebbe essere utile guardare a quanto stanno facendo altri Paesi, come Francia e Inghilterra, che hanno scelto approcci diversi ma egualmente interessanti per sviluppare le proprie politiche occupazionali dedicate ai più giovani.
L'11 gennaio Enrico Giovannnini, Ministro del Lavoro e del Welfare, attraverso una lettere indirizzata al direttore del Corriere, ha risposto alle osservazioni di Ferrera. Il Ministro ha voluto sottolineare come nei mesi scorsi siano stati varati diversi provvedimenti caratterizzati da un approccio maggiormente attivo rispetto alle politiche passive assunte in passato nel nostro Paese, e come siano da considerarsi propedeutici alla realizzazione della Youth Guarantee.
Vi proponiamo di seguito i due contirbuti, utili a comprendere come nei prossimi mesi si struttureranno le politiche di contrasto alla disoccupazione giovanile.     

La lezione di Londra e Parigi e quello che si può fare subito per i giovani disoccupati
Maurizio Ferrera, Corriere della Sera, 10 gennaio 2014
Dal primo gennaio ha preso formalmente avvio il programma UE “garanzia giovani”, volto a promuovere l’inserimento occupazionale dei circa 6 milioni di disoccupati europei sotto i 25 anni. Molti governi hanno già presentato alla Commissione i propri Piani di attuazione, indispensabili per accedere al co-finanziamento UE. Come ha ben spiegato Beppe Severgnini sul Corriere del 7 gennaio, la sfida del lavoro giovanile (che non c’è) è particolarmente acuta nel nostro paese.
In linea con le direttive UE, il Piano del governo Letta mira a garantire ai giovani disponibili al lavoro una serie di proposte d’inserimento: se non proprio contratti di assunzione, almeno apprendistati, tirocini, percorsi di formazione, consulenza e fondi per l’avvio d’impresa e così via. Il bacino di potenziali beneficiari è stimato in quasi un milione di giovani, di cui più della metà nelle regioni del Sud. In un documento informale, la Commissione ha giudicato il Piano italiano “in linea di massima adeguato”, ma ha anche rimarcato l’assenza di “impegni e quantificazioni precise”, in particolare per quanto riguarda le attività delle regioni. Implementation will be key, conclude il documento: tutto dipenderà dall’attuazione nei vari contesti territoriali.
Come (quasi) sempre, la Commissione ha colto il punto. Per le nostre claudicanti amministrazioni regionali e i loro fragili servizi per l’impiego sarà molto difficile mantenere le promesse. Campania e Sicilia dovrebbero “garantire” (espressione molto impegnativa) proposte di inserimento a più di 150.000 giovani entro quattro mesi dalla loro iscrizione al nuovo schema; la Puglia quasi 100.000, la Calabria 50.000. Saggiamente, il Piano cerca di mantenere le redini di tutta l’operazione in capo al Ministero del Lavoro, affidando alle regioni il ruolo di gestori delegati. Ma ciò sarà possibile sul piano politico e istituzionale? E, soprattutto, sapranno le amministrazioni regionali svolgere con un minimo di efficienza ed efficacia anche solo le funzioni delegate? Purtroppo, è lecito dubitarne: non per partito preso, ma sulla base dell’ esperienza dell’ultimo decennio, che è stata largamente fallimentare proprio laddove il mercato del lavoro funziona peggio.
I dati del Primo (sì, primo!) Rapporto di Monitoraggio sui servizi per l’impiego, meritoriamente realizzato dal Ministro Giovannini, segnalano una situazione di drammatica inettitudine. Nel 2012 la Campania ha “garantito” solo 7.000 giovani disoccupati, la Puglia 8.000, la Calabria 4.000; solo la Sicilia ha fatto un po’ meglio, con circa 30.000 giovani coinvolti in qualche misura di attivazione lavorativa o professionale. Certo, tali modesti risultati vanno in parte ascritti alla scarsità di personale (negli altri paesi i dipendenti dei servizi per l’impiego sono molto più numerosi) e, soprattutto, alle condizioni di strutturale debolezza economica del Mezzogiorno.
Come però emerge dalle “buone pratiche” (alcune esistono e andrebbero valorizzate) di alcune regioni, qualche margine per migliorare ci sarebbe. La discrepanza fra le competenze richieste dalle aziende meridionali e quelle possedute dai giovani è fra le più elevate d’Europa: in altre parole, ci sono molte imprese che potrebbero assumere, ma non trovano personale con le qualifiche appropriate. E’ su questo fronte che andrebbero concentrati i primi sforzi.
Le risorse finanziarie disponibili per la garanzia giovani nel 2014 non sono poche (circa un miliardo e mezzo) e qualche passo in avanti potrà essere fatto, anche al Sud. Considerando i nostri punti di partenza, l’attuale versione del Piano appare però troppo generica e ambiziosa: è auspicabile fissare alcune priorità e obiettivi specifici, come del resto ci ha chiesto la Commissione. La Francia ha scelto di realizzare la garanzia giovani per tappe, iniziando da schemi pilota in alcuni dipartimenti per arrivare “a regime” nel 2016.
Non sarebbe più prudente seguire questa strada? O quanto meno condizionare l’accesso ai fondi UE e nazionali in base all’effettiva performance (anche progettuale) delle regioni? Si potrebbe inoltre prendere ispirazione da altri elementi della strategia di Parigi, come gli incentivi ai cosiddetti emplois de l’avenir, i lavori del futuro. Un’altra buona idea è il programma Myplace dell’Inghilterra, che aiuta i giovani ad aiutarsi da soli: fondi, spazi, informazioni e consigli a gruppi di ragazzi e ragazze disposti a cercare e “agganciare”, anche tramite attività di servizio civile, chi è totalmente fuori da ogni circuito (gli esclusi fra gli esclusi).
Per il governo Letta la garanzia giovani è una scommessa doverosa, ma anche molto rischiosa. Occorre uno sforzo straordinario di progettazione e gestione, evitando al tempo stesso di promettere ciò che è impossibile realizzare. Inoltre è indispensabile responsabilizzare in modo diretto e trasparente tutti i soggetti da cui dipende l’occupazione giovanile. Che non sono solo idecisori pubblici e i servizi per l’impiego, ma anche le imprese, i sindacati e l’insieme di quei “corpi intermedi” che in Italia criticano continuamente la politica ma spesso le chiedono molto più di quanto danno.

Il piano Garanzia Giovani è un'occasioneEnrico Giovannini, Corriere della Sera, 11 gennaio 2014
Caro Direttore,
Maurizio Ferrera ha commentato ieri la notizia che il Piano italiano sulla «Garanzia Giovani» ha avuto il via libera della Commissione europea. Si avvia così la fase amministrativa per il trasferimento dei fondi Ue (circa 1,5 miliardi), da spendere nel biennio 2014-2015. Nel suo articolo Ferrera avanza anche alcune proposte per rendere il Garanzia Giovani ancora più efficace. E di questo lo ringrazio. Vorrei sottolineare che Garanzia Giovani è solo un primo passo: disegna, infatti, un nuovo modello di politiche del lavoro basato su un piano nazionale con declinazione territoriale concertato con le Regioni, utilizzabile anche per altre fasce di età, con attenzione specifica per chi fruisce di sussidi di integrazione salariale, mobilità e di disoccupazione.
Il programma Garanzia Giovani si basa anche sui numerosi provvedimenti adottati in questi mesi, tra cui l'alternanza scuola-lavoro, gli incentivi all'assunzione, la semplificazione normativa, il finanziamento di tirocini e di fondi per l'autoimprenditorialità, per un investimento che supera il miliardo di euro. Una sorta di «prova generale» di una svolta che stiamo imprimendo alle politiche «attive» per l'occupazione e il reinserimento, dopo tanti anni di dibattiti nei quali si sono privilegiate le politiche «passive», basate cioè sugli ammortizzatori sociali.
Infatti, con il «pacchetto lavoro» del giugno scorso non solo sono state riviste alcune normative, istituiti incentivi per l'assunzione di giovani (che, insieme a quelli per donne e over50, in sei mesi hanno prodotto 36 mila assunzioni), ma è stata anche creata la «Struttura di missione» che ha sviluppato il programma Garanzia Giovani, grazie alla collaborazione con altri ministeri, province, altre istituzioni e soprattutto le Regioni, cui spetta la competenza in materia di politiche attive del lavoro.
Il programma Garanzia Giovani, elaborato anche con il contributo delle Parti sociali, delle organizzazioni giovanili e del terzo settore (che svolgeranno un ruolo attivo anche nella fase attuativa), prevede una serie di percorsi personalizzati finalizzati all'inserimento lavorativo, a un'esperienza di tirocinio, all'mpegno nel servizio civile, alla formazione professionalizzante e all'accompagnamento all'avvio di una iniziativa imprenditoriale. Insomma, un percorso all'altezza di quello offerto in altri Paesi europei.
Il percorso del giovane che si iscrive al programma sarà registrato in un sistema informativo integrato per l'intero territorio nazionale, che, per la prima volta, sarà accessibile a tutti i soggetti abilitati a fornire i servizi (centri per l'impiego, agenzie autorizzate, ecc.). In questo modo, sarà possibile applicare criteri moderni: contendibilità tra le strutture e premialità per quelle più efficienti con un sistema di costi standard, continuo monitoraggio delle azioni e sussidiarietà, cioè la possibilità di un intervento dal centro nei casi di mancato funzionamento delle strutture regionali e provinciali.
L'impianto operativo sarà oggetto di protocolli che il ministero firmerà con ogni Regione nelle prossime settimane, in modo da assicurare una certa omogeneità sull'intero territorio nazionale e l'avvio delle registrazioni al programma da parte dei giovani entro il mese di marzo.Ovviamente, la realizzazione di Garanzia Giovani è una sfida importante per tutti, in primo luogo per le strutture territoriali. Questo nuovo approccio potrà essere esteso progressivamente a tutte le fasce d'età.
Non a caso nella legge di Stabilità è stato creato un apposito Fondo per sperimentare strumenti innovativi per la ricollocazione dei lavoratori disoccupati o in ammortizzatori, con stanziamenti aggiuntivi e più consistenti (350 milioni) destinati al Mezzogiorno. Il piano straordinario per le politiche attive che proporrò alle Regioni per il biennio 2014-2015, come ho anticipato ieri alle Parti sociali, vuole mettere a frutto questo nuovo metodo per colmare uno dei ritardi storici del nostro Paese, migliorando non solo le regole, ma il funzionamento di tutte le componenti del mercato del lavoro.

La Youth Guarantee in Europa

Il 22 aprile 2013 – a seguito della proposta della Commissione europea del dicembre 2012 - il Consiglio UE ha adottato formalmente la raccomandazione sulla Youth Guarantee, la Garanzia per i Giovani che assicurerà ai cittadini europei con meno di 25 anni un’offerta di lavoro, studio o formazione entro quattro mesi dalla fine degli studi o dall’inizio della disoccupazione.
Se in Italia il dibattito sull’utilizzo dei fondi FSE per la Garanzia Giovani è più che mai acceso (si veda il piano attuativo del Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali), anche il resto dell’Europa si muove. Al 15 gennaio 2014, 17 dei 28 Stati Membri hanno presentato alle istituzioni UE il proprio piano attuativo. Mancano ancora i progetti di Austria, Danimarca, Estonia, Finlandia, Germania, Lussemburgo, Malta, Slovacchia, Slovenia, Olanda e Gran Bretagna.
La Garanzia in Europa
L’Europa invita i governi nazionali a sfruttare per il raggiungimento degli obiettivi della Youth Guarantee le risorse del Fondo Sociale Europeo, che ammontano complessivamente a più di 10 miliardi di Euro all’anno per il periodo 2014-2020. In aggiunta, 20 dei 28 Stati Membri riceveranno ulteriore supporto finanziario dal programma YEI, Youth Employment Initiative. Si tratta di un canale di integrazione ai fondi FSE, per un totale di 6 miliardi di Euro, riservato ai paesi che presentano almeno in una regione tassi di disoccupazione giovanile superiori al 25%. I paesi virtuosi “esclusi” dallo YEI sono Austria, Danimarca, Estonia, Finlandia, Germania, Lussemburgo, Malta e Paesi Bassi. Per tutti gli altri – compresa l’Italia con uno stanziamento di circa 530 milioni di Euro, seconda solo agli oltre 881 milioni di Euro per la Spagna – è stato possibile pianificare le attività finanziate dallo YEI già a partire dal settembre 2013. A condizione però che i governi riservino all’implementazione della Youth Guarantee almeno lo stesso ammontare di risorse nell’ambito della propria dotazione FSE. Il target dei fondi YEI sono i giovani NEET – Not in Education, Employment or Training – fino a 25 anni o, nei Paesi che lo ritengono necessario, fino a 30. Più in generale, l’Europa chiede a tutti di utilizzare i fondi provenienti dal FSE per realizzare ampie riforme strutturali che – nel tentativo ultimo di arginare il fenomeno drammatico della disoccupazione giovanile – aumentino l’efficacia del sistema educativo e facilitino il passaggio scuola-lavoro, potenzino i servizi per l’impiego e per la formazione professionale, e migliorino le condizioni all’interno del mercato del lavoro.
L’ispirazione finlandese
Già nel 2012, come si evince dal documento di lavoro che accompagnava la proposta di raccomandazione del Consiglio sull’istituzione di una garanzia per i giovani, il modello per quella che sarebbe diventata la Youth Guarantee europea era costituito dal progetto finlandese della garanzia per i giovani istituito per la prima volta nel 2005. A seguito di una revisione dello strumento nel 2011, l’iniziativa è ripartita all’inizio del 2013 per concludersi nel 2016. Il modello finlandese – come spiega il Ministero dell’Educazione e della Cultura – è basato sul “Public-Private-People-Partnership Model”, un approccio che vuole favorire la partecipazione attiva non solo delle istituzioni pubbliche ma anche di tutti gli stakeholder coinvolti nelle politiche del lavoro e degli stessi beneficiari, perché si facciano carico in prima persona del proprio percorso di crescita professionale. Istituzioni locali, Terzo settore, parti sociali, associazioni giovanili, imprese e imprenditori, e fornitori di servizi sul territorio sono i protagonisti dell’iniziativa studiata insieme dai ministeri del lavoro, dell’educazione, delle politiche sociali e della salute con uno stanziamento pubblico di 60 milioni di euro all’anno.

Ogni giovane di età inferiore a 25 anni e ogni neo-laureato di età inferiore ai 30 riceveranno un’offerta di lavoro, tirocinio, formazione sul lavoro, proseguimento degli studi, o un periodo di attività di laboratorio o recupero entro tre mesi dall’inizio della disoccupazione, mentre a coloro che lasciano la scuola è garantito un posto nella scuola secondaria superiore, nell’istruzione e formazione professionale, nell’apprendistato, in laboratorio per giovani, o in altre attività di recupero. Per raggiungere questi obiettivi, il Governo finlandese ha provveduto alla creazione di nuovi corsi e scuole professionali, e affidato alle autorità locali la responsabilità di fornire counselling a tutti gli studenti al termine dei loro studi. Attenzione particolare è rivolta poi alla condizione dei cittadini stranieri attraverso l’offerta di più corsi di lingua e possibilità per completare il proprio percorso scolastico.
L’analisi svolta da EUROFOUND sui progetti di Garanzia Giovani di Finlandia e Svezia - Nuorten YhteiskuntatakuuEn jobbgaranti for ungdommar – evidenzia come l’attenzione posta sul buon funzionamento dei servizi per l’impiego pubblici e l’obbligo per questi di fornire consulenza ai giovani entro un massimo di tre mesi dall’inizio del periodo di inattività, abbia offerto soluzioni appropriate e puntuali per evitare fenomeni di scarring, giovani “marchiati” e intrappolati in situazioni di inattività e disagio sociale a causa dei tempi di intervento troppo lunghi dei servizi pubblici. Tuttavia, conclude il rapporto Eurofund, rimangono irrisolti problemi di natura strutturale all’interno del mercato del lavoro, e l’iniziativa sembra essere ancora poco efficace per “raggiungere” i giovani più a rischio di disoccupazione di lungo periodo. Le iniziative finlandese e svedese – così come implementate fino al 2012 – non agivano abbastanza nel campo della formazione, nell’assicurare un progetto professionale di lungo periodo e necessitavano maggiore integrazione tra la dimensione lavorativa e quella sociale e sanitaria.
Se in un mercato del lavoro dinamico e ben funzionante come quello dei paesi nordici la scelta di focalizzare l’intervento sul ruolo dei servizi pubblici per l’impiego può risultare ragionevole, in contesti caratterizzati da malfunzionamenti del mercato del lavoro concentrarsi sulla capacità dei centri per l’impiego di collocare i giovani sul mercato del lavoro – senza considerare attentamente la tipologia e le condizioni di lavoro proposte – potrebbe invece costituire un rimedio di breve periodo, non certamente sostitutivo rispetto all’implementazione di riforme strutturali.

A Milano arriva il Terzo Forum delle Politiche Sociali

Dal 24 gennaio al 1 febbraio si terrà a Milano il 3^Forum delle politiche sociali “Tutta la Milano possibile”. Un titolo che suggerisce una visione globale, omnicomprensiva, innanzitutto per quanto riguarda le politiche sociali: le scelte riguardanti la cultura della salute, le garanzie offerte ai cittadini più deboli, le misure contro la precarietà e la solitudine, le "buone pratiche" rivolte a chi ha meno, gli interventi in grado di sconfiggere la filosofia delle discriminazioni e di affermare quella delle pari opportunità.

Ma anche riguardo ai soggetti coinvolti: dall'associazionismo alla cooperazione, dall'impresa sociale al volontariato, dalla cultura al sapere, dalle forze sindacali a quelle economiche, che si "scambieranno" per ragionare assieme delle priorità e degli obiettivi capaci di alimentare un radicale cambiamento di orientamenti e pratiche per una città che sappia guardare al suo futuro e nella quale nessuno si senta escluso.
Il forum sarà inaugurato il 24 gennaio presso il Teatro Elfo Puccini, dove, a partire dalle ore 9.30, l’assessore Majorino e il sindaco Pisapia stileranno un bilancio di metà mandato sulle politiche sociali locali e spiegheranno come sta procedendo la loro riorganizzazione. Il dibattito verrà poi esteso a importanti stakeholders sociali, fondazioni, enti religiosi, istituzioni e vedrà anche il coinvolgimento dei Ministri Kyenge e Guerra. Dalle ore 14.00 avrà invece luogo un incontro sull’emergenza povertà, “Le misure e le azioni di sostegno al reddito. Il ruolo delle città”, con la partecipazione di Maurizio Ferrera.
Come detto, i temi toccati saranno molteplici: politiche giovanili e servizi per l’infanzia; politiche del lavoro e dell’inclusione sociale. Si parlerà di salute, sia fisica che mentale, dell’Alzheimer e della disabilità, con un focus sulle barriere architettoniche, al cui abbattimento gli enti locali sono chiamati in prima linea, soprattutto in una metropoli; di terza età e assistenza domiciliare, in particolare del nuovo sistema delle collaboratrici famigliari e delle badanti; di inclusione sociale anche da un punto di vista urbano; ma anche di diritti e integrazione delle diversità, che siano etniche, culturali, o di orientamento sessuale. Infine, la promozione della cultura della legalità e la lotta alla violenza sulle donne.
Per incontrare le esigenze di tutti, sono state scelte modalità operative eterogenee: dibattiti, spettacoli teatrali, visite sul campo, proiezioni di film.

Create for Bite the Ballot and the European Parliament

Bite the Ballot believes in the power of the ballot box and the ability for one person to make a difference. We're giving creatives the chance to have their work displayed in the European Parliament.

Creative Brief

It's no secret that many young people find politics boring and it's no secret that we want to change that view. Last year we redecorated the Houses of Parliament and after the success in the UK, we are taking this to The European Parliament. We're asking all those aged over 18 to show us 'What does it mean to be European in 2014?'

The judges will choose 20 artists or photographers from across Europe that capture what being European means to them in the modern day. Their work will be displayed in a special exhibition (3rd - 10th March 2014) and at one of Europe's most famous buildings - the European Parliament.

This is your chance to show MEP's what life as a European citizen is truly like for you!

Career Opportunities

The selected 20 artists or photographers will:
  • Have their work exhibited at the European Parliament in Brussels
  • Receive an exclusive invitation to the exhibition opening*
  • Receive a certificate from Bite the Ballot
  • Receive exposure across Bite the Ballot's official online channels
*Travel and accommodation for 1 night will be provided for 1 person

The artist or photographer as selected by the community and the host will*:
  • Receive exposure across Bite the Ballot's official online channels
*The host will select from the top 10% of the highest voted submissions.

Schedule

Launch Date: December 12, 2013
Submit By: 30 gennaio 2014
Voting Period: 31 gennaio 2014 - 07 febbraio 2014
Artist Selection: 14 febbraio 2014
Each stage will close at 6pm GMT.

giovedì 23 gennaio 2014

Find the Coaching in Criticism

Feedback is crucial. That’s obvious: It improves performance, develops talent, aligns expectations, solves problems, guides promotion and pay, and boosts the bottom line.
But it’s equally obvious that in many organizations, feedback doesn’t work. A glance at the stats tells the story: Only 36% of managers complete appraisals thoroughly and on time. In one recent survey, 55% of employees said their most recent performance review had been unfair or inaccurate, and one in four said they dread such evaluations more than anything else in their working lives. When senior HR executives were asked about their biggest performance management challenge, 63% cited managers’ inability or unwillingness to have difficult feedback discussions. Coaching and mentoring? Uneven at best.
Most companies try to address these problems by training leaders to give feedback more effectively and more often. That’s fine as far as it goes; everyone benefits when managers are better communicators. But improving the skills of the feedback giver won’t accomplish much if the receiver isn’t able to absorb what is said. It is the receiver who controls whether feedback is let in or kept out, who has to make sense of what he or she is hearing, and who decides whether or not to change. People need to stop treating feedback only as something that must be pushed and instead improve their ability to pull.
For the past 20 years we’ve coached executives on difficult conversations, and we’ve found that almost everyone, from new hires to C-suite veterans, struggles with receiving feedback. A critical performance review, a well-intended suggestion, or an oblique comment that may or may not even be feedback (“Well, your presentation was certainly interesting”) can spark an emotional reaction, inject tension into the relationship, and bring communication to a halt. But there’s good news, too: The skills needed to receive feedback well are distinct and learnable. They include being able to identify and manage the emotions triggered by the feedback and extract value from criticism even when it’s poorly delivered.
Why Feedback Doesn’t Register
What makes receiving feedback so hard? The process strikes at the tension between two core human needs—the need to learn and grow, and the need to be accepted just the way you are. As a result, even a seemingly benign suggestion can leave you feeling angry, anxious, badly treated, or profoundly threatened. A hedge such as “Don’t take this personally” does nothing to soften the blow.
Getting better at receiving feedback starts with understanding and managing those feelings. You might think there are a thousand ways in which feedback can push your buttons, but in fact there are only three.
Truth triggers are set off by the content of the feedback. When assessments or advice seem off base, unhelpful, or simply untrue, you feel indignant, wronged, and exasperated.
Relationship triggers are tripped by the person providing the feedback. Exchanges are often colored by what you believe about the giver (He’s got no credibility on this topic!) and how you feel about your previous interactions (After all I’ve done for you, I get this petty criticism?). So you might reject coaching that you would accept on its merits if it came from someone else.
Identity triggers are all about your relationship with yourself. Whether the feedback is right or wrong, wise or witless, it can be devastating if it causes your sense of who you are to come undone. In such moments you’ll struggle with feeling overwhelmed, defensive, or off balance.
All these responses are natural and reasonable; in some cases they are unavoidable. The solution isn’t to pretend you don’t have them. It’s to recognize what’s happening and learn how to derive benefit from feedback even when it sets off one or more of your triggers.
Six Steps to Becoming a Better Receiver
Taking feedback well is a process of sorting and filtering. You need to understand the other person’s point of view, try on ideas that may at first seem a poor fit, and experiment with different ways of doing things. You also need to discard or shelve critiques that are genuinely misdirected or are not helpful right away. But it’s nearly impossible to do any of those things from inside a triggered response. Instead of ushering you into a nuanced conversation that will help you learn, your triggers prime you to reject, counterattack, or withdraw.
The six steps below will keep you from throwing valuable feedback onto the discard pile or—just as damaging—accepting and acting on comments that you would be better off disregarding. They are presented as advice to the receiver. But, of course, understanding the challenges of receiving feedback helps the giver to be more effective too.
1. Know your tendenciesYou’ve been getting feedback all your life, so there are no doubt patterns in how you respond. Do you defend yourself on the facts (“This is plain wrong”), argue about the method of delivery (“You’re really doing this by e-mail?”), or strike back (“You, of all people?”)? Do you smile on the outside but seethe on the inside? Do you get teary or filled with righteous indignation? And what role does the passage of time play? Do you tend to reject feedback in the moment and then step back and consider it over time? Do you accept it all immediately but later decide it’s not valid? Do you agree with it intellectually but have trouble changing your behavior?
When Michael, an advertising executive, hears his boss make an offhand joke about his lack of professionalism, it hits him like a sledgehammer. “I’m flooded with shame,” he told us, “and all my failings rush to mind, as if I’m Googling ‘things wrong with me’ and getting 1.2 million hits, with sponsored ads from my father and my ex. In this state it’s hard to see the feedback at ‘actual size.’” But now that Michael understands his standard operating procedure, he’s able to make better choices about where to go from there: “I can reassure myself that I’m exaggerating, and usually after I sleep on it, I’m in a better place to figure out whether there’s something I can learn.”
2. Disentangle the “what” from the “who”If the feedback is on target and the advice is wise, it shouldn’t matter who delivers it. But it does. When a relationship trigger is activated, entwining the content of comments with your feelings about the giver (or about how, when, or where she delivered the comments), learning is short-circuited. To keep that from happening, you have to work to separate the message from the messenger and then consider both.
Janet, a chemist and a team leader at a pharmaceutical company, received glowing comments from her peers and superiors during her 360-degree review but was surprised by the negative feedback she got from her direct reports. She immediately concluded that the problem was theirs: “I have high standards, and some of them can’t handle that,” she remembers thinking. “They aren’t used to someone holding their feet to the fire.” In this way, she changed the subject from her management style to her subordinates’ competence, preventing her from learning something important about the impact she had on others.
Eventually the penny dropped, Janet says. “I came to see that whether it was their performance problem or my leadership problem, those were not mutually exclusive issues, and both were worth solving.” She was able to disentangle the issues and talk to her team about both. Wisely, she began the conversation with their feedback to her, asking, “What am I doing that’s making things tough? What would improve the situation?”
3. Sort toward coachingSome feedback is evaluative (“Your rating is a 4”); some is coaching (“Here’s how you can improve”). Everyone needs both. Evaluations tell you where you stand, what to expect, and what is expected of you. Coaching allows you to learn and improve and helps you play at a higher level.
It’s not always easy to distinguish one from the other. When a board member phoned James to suggest that he start the next quarter’s CFO presentation with analyst predictions rather than internal projections, was that intended as a helpful suggestion, or was it a veiled criticism of his usual approach? When in doubt, people tend to assume the worst and to put even well-intentioned coaching into the evaluation bin. Feeling judged is likely to set off your identity triggers, and the resulting anxiety can drown out the opportunity to learn. So whenever possible, sort toward coaching. Work to hear feedback as potentially valuable advice from a fresh perspective rather than as an indictment of how you’ve done things in the past. When James took that approach, “the suggestion became less emotionally loaded,” he says. “I decided to hear it as simply an indication of how that board member might more easily digest quarterly information.”
4. Unpack the feedbackOften it’s not immediately clear whether feedback is valid and useful. So before you accept or reject it, do some analysis to better understand it.
Here’s a hypothetical example. Kara, who’s in sales, is told by Johann, an experienced colleague, that she needs to “be more assertive.” Her reaction might be to reject his advice (“I think I’m pretty assertive already”). Or she might acquiesce (“I really do need to step it up”). But before she decides what to do, she needs to understand what he really means. Does he think she should speak up more often, or just with greater conviction? Should she smile more, or less? Have the confidence to admit she doesn’t know something, or the confidence to pretend she does?
Even the simple advice to “be more assertive” comes from a complex set of observations and judgments that Johann has made while watching Kara in meetings and with customers. Kara needs to dig into the general suggestion and find out what in particular prompted it. What did Johann see her do or fail to do? What did he expect, and what is he worried about? In other words, where is the feedback coming from?
Kara also needs to know where the feedback is going—exactly what Johann wants her to do differently and why. After a clarifying discussion, she might agree that she is less assertive than others on the sales floor but disagree with the idea that she should change. If all her sales heroes are quiet, humble, and deeply curious about customers’ needs, Kara’s view of what it means to be good at sales might look and sound very different from Johann’s Glengarry Glen Ross ideal.
When you set aside snap judgments and take time to explore where feedback is coming from and where it’s going, you can enter into a rich, informative conversation about perceived best practices—whether you decide to take the advice or not.
5. Ask for just one thingFeedback is less likely to set off your emotional triggers if you request it and direct it. So don’t wait until your annual performance review. Find opportunities to get bite-size pieces of coaching from a variety of people throughout the year. Don’t invite criticism with a big, unfocused question like “Do you have any feedback for me?” Make the process more manageable by asking a colleague, a boss, or a direct report, “What’s one thing you see me doing (or failing to do) that holds me back?” That person may name the first behavior that comes to mind or the most important one on his or her list. Either way, you’ll get concrete information and can tease out more specifics at your own pace.
Roberto, a fund manager at a financial services firm, found his 360-degree review process overwhelming and confusing. “Eighteen pages of charts and graphs and no ability to have follow-up conversations to clarify the feedback was frustrating,” he says, adding that it also left him feeling awkward around his colleagues.
Now Roberto taps two or three people each quarter to ask for one thing he might work on. “They don’t offer the same things, but over time I hear themes, and that gives me a good sense of where my growth edge lies,” he says. “And I have really good conversations—with my boss, with my team, even with peers where there’s some friction in the relationship. They’re happy to tell me one thing to change, and often they’re right. It does help us work more smoothly together.”
Research has shown that those who explicitly seek critical feedback (that is, who are not just fishing for praise) tend to get higher performance ratings. Why? Mainly, we think, because someone who’s asking for coaching is more likely to take what is said to heart and genuinely improve. But also because when you ask for feedback, you not only find out how others see you, you also influencehow they see you. Soliciting constructive criticism communicates humility, respect, passion for excellence, and confidence, all in one go.
6. Engage in small experimentsAfter you’ve worked to solicit and understand feedback, it may still be hard to discern which bits of advice will help you and which ones won’t. We suggest designing small experiments to find out. Even though you may doubt that a suggestion will be useful, if the downside risk is small and the upside potential is large, it’s worth a try. James, the CFO we discussed earlier, decided to take the board member’s advice for the next presentation and see what happened. Some directors were pleased with the change, but the shift in format prompted others to offer suggestions of their own. Today James reverse-engineers his presentations to meet board members’ current top-of-mind concerns. He sends out an e-mail a week beforehand asking for any burning questions, and either front-loads his talk with answers to them or signals at the start that he will get to them later on. “It’s a little more challenging to prepare for but actually much easier to give,” he says. “I spend less time fielding unexpected questions, which was the hardest part of the job.”
That’s an example worth following. When someone gives you advice, test it out. If it works, great. If it doesn’t, you can try again, tweak your approach, or decide to end the experiment.
Criticism is never easy to take. Even when you know that it’s essential to your development and you trust that the person delivering it wants you to succeed, it can activate psychological triggers. You might feel misjudged, ill-used, and sometimes threatened to your very core.
Your growth depends on your ability to pull value from criticism in spite of your natural responses and on your willingness to seek out even more advice and coaching from bosses, peers, and subordinates. They may be good or bad at providing it, or they may have little time for it—but you are the most important factor in your own development. If you’re determined to learn from whatever feedback you get, no one can stop you.

martedì 21 gennaio 2014

A Blessing and a Curse? Political Institutions in the Growth and Decay of Generalized Trust: A Cross-National Panel Analysis, 1980–2009

Despite decades of research on social capital, studies that explore the relationship between political institutions and generalized trust–a key element of social capital–across time are sparse. To address this issue, we use various cross-national public-opinion data sets including the World Values Survey and employ pooled time-series OLS regression and fixed- and random-effects estimation techniques on an unbalanced panel of 74 countries and 248 observations spread over a 29-year time period. With these data and methods, we investigate the impact of five political-institutional factors–legal property rights, market regulations, labor market regulations, universality of socioeconomic provisions, and power-sharing capacity–on generalized trust. We find that generalized trust increases monotonically with the quality of property rights institutions, that labor market regulations increase generalized trust, and that power-sharing capacity of the state decreases generalized trust. While generalized trust increases as the government regulation of credit, business, and economic markets decreases and as the universality of socioeconomic provisions increases, both effects appear to be more sensitive to the countries included and the modeling techniques employed than the other political-institutional factors. In short, we find that political institutions simultaneously promote and undermine generalized trust.
  • Blaine G. Robbins

"Una misura di performance dei SSR"

Obiettivo dello studio è valutare i SSR considerando il valore che differenti stakeholder, sulla base delle loro differenti esperienze e visioni, ritengono di poter attribuire ad un serie di indicatori selezionati.
La complessità del settore sanitario, e i crescenti vincoli finanziari che costringono a scelte spesso socialmente difficili, ci sembra infatti che richiedano un maggiore confronto dell’esperienza e dei diversi punti di vista di chi, a vario titolo, si occupa del SSN, quali associazioni dei pazienti, politici, tecnici, manager aziendali, rappresentanti delle industrie, professionisti, etc..
A tal fine abbiamo pensato di promuovere la costituzione di un panel esclusivo di esperti (circa 40), per discutere e valutare eventuali perfezionamenti dell’algoritmo di valutazione predisposto dal nostro gruppo di ricerca, e quindi esprimere la propria preferenza e l’importanza attribuita agli indicatori di performance che lo alimentano.
Il questionario che Le sottoponiamo si compone di due parti, per un totale di 21 domande, e la sua compilazione avviene in forma rigorosamente anonima.
Esso ha la finalità di rilevare il valore che Lei attribuirebbe, secondo la Sua esperienza e competenza, ad alcuni indicatori selezionati, rappresentativi di aree di performance dei SSR in termini di risultati di salute, di soddisfazione dei cittadini, di efficienza, di appropriatezza e di equità.
Per ogni indicatore, sul quale Le chiediamo di esprimersi, troverà una schermata con i suoi valori effettivi regionali (anonimi nel senso che non è indicata la Regione a cui si riferiscono) e, per alcuni di questi, Le chiediamo di darci la sua valutazione su una scala da 0 a 100, dove 0 rappresenta il 'punteggio' peggiore e 100 quello migliore. Le chiederemo ancora di evidenziarci il maggiore o minore valore che Lei attribuirebbe ai singoli indicatori al fine di massimizzare la performance del Sistema.
Un algoritmo proposto in letteratura ci permetterà poi di costruire un indice unico di performance, sintetizzando le risposte di tutti gli stakeholder del Sistema.
La ratio di quest'esercizio risiede nella convinzione che il 'peso' che i singoli individui attribuiscono ad indicatori diversi, può differire in base all'esperienza ed al proprio assetto valoriale: essendo convinti che la valutazione di un servizio pubblico, dalle caratteristiche etiche, quale quello sanitario, debba necessariamente fondarsi su un processo democratico.

Judging the Difference between Attractiveness and Health: Does Exposure to Model Images Influence the Judgments Made by Men and Women?

Recent research has shown facial adiposity (apparent weight in the face) to be a significant predictor of both attractiveness and health, thus making it an important determinant of mate selection. Studies looking at the relationship between attractiveness and health have shown that individuals differentiate between the two by preferring a lower weight for attractiveness than for health in female faces. However, these studies have either been correlational studies, or have investigated weight perceived from only the face. These differences have been discussed with regard to sociocultural factors such as pressure from parents, peers and also media, which has been seen to have the highest influence. While exposure to media images has been shown to influence women’s own-body image, no study has yet directly tested the influence of these factors on people’s preferred weight in other women’s bodies. Here we examine how a short exposure to images of models influences men’s and women’s judgments of the most healthy looking and attractive BMI in Malaysian Chinese women’s bodies by comparing differences in preferences (for attractiveness and health) between groups exposed to images of models of varying attractiveness and body weight. Results indicated that participants preferred a lower weight for attractiveness than for health. Further, women’s but not men’s preferred BMI for attractiveness, but not health, was influenced by the type of media images to which they were exposed, suggesting that short term exposure to model images affect women’s perceptions of attractiveness but not health.
  • Ian D. Stephen mai,
  •  
  • A. Treshi-Marie Perera

7 Crippling Parenting Behaviors That Keep Children From Growing Into Leaders

While I spend my professional time now as a career success coach, writer, and leadership trainer, I was a marriage and family therapist in my past, and worked for several years with couples, families, and children. Through that experience, I witnessed a very wide array of both functional and dysfunctional parenting behaviors. As a parent myself, I’ve learned that all the wisdom and love in the world doesn’t necessarily protect you from parenting in ways that hold your children back from thriving, gaining independence and becoming the leaders they have the potential to be. 
I was intrigued, then, to catch up with leadership expert Dr. Tim Elmore and learn more about how we as parents are failing our children today — coddling and crippling them — and keeping them from becoming leaders they are destined to be. Tim is a best-selling author of more than 25 books, including Generation iY: Our Last Chance to Save Their FutureArtificial Maturity: Helping Kids Meet the Challenges of Becoming Authentic Adults, and the Habitudes® series. He is Founder and President of Growing Leaders, an organization dedicated to mentoring today’s young people to become the leaders of tomorrow.
Tim had this to share about the 7 damaging parenting behaviors that keep children from becoming leaders – of their own lives and of the world’s enterprises:
1. We don’t let our children experience risk
We live in a world that warns us of danger at every turn. The “safety first” preoccupation enforces our fear of losing our kids, so we do everything we can to protect them. It’s our job after all, but we have insulated them from healthy risk-taking behavior and it’s had an adverse effect. Psychologists in Europehave discovered that if a child doesn’t play outside and is never allowed to experience a skinned knee, they frequently have phobias as adults. Kids need to fall a few times to learn it’s normal; teens likely need to break up with a boyfriend or girlfriend to appreciate the emotional maturity that lasting relationships require. If parents remove risk from children’s lives, we will likely experience high arrogance and low self-esteem in our growing leaders.
2. We rescue too quickly
Today’s generation of young people has not developed some of the life skills kids did 30 years ago because adults swoop in and take care of problems for them. When we rescue too quickly and over-indulge our children with “assistance,” we remove the need for them to navigate hardships and solve problems on their own. It’s parenting for the short-term and it sorely misses the point of leadership—to equip our young people to do it without help. Sooner or later, kids get used to someone rescuing them: “If I fail or fall short, an adult will smooth things over and remove any consequences for my misconduct.” When in reality, this isn’t even remotely close to how the world works, and therefore it disables our kids from becoming competent adults.
3. We rave too easily
The self-esteem movement has been around since Baby Boomers were kids, but it took root in our school systems in the 1980s. Attend a little league baseball game and you’ll see that everyone is a winner. This “everyone gets a trophy” mentality might make our kids feel special, but research is now indicating this method has unintended consequences. Kids eventually observe that Mom and Dad are the only ones who think they’re awesome when no one else is saying it. They begin to doubt the objectivity of their parents; it feels good in the moment, but it’s not connected to reality. When we rave too easily and disregard poor behavior, children eventually learn to cheat, exaggerate and lie and to avoid difficult reality. They have not been conditioned to face it.
4. We let guilt get in the way of leading well
Your child does not have to love you every minute. Your kids will get over the disappointment, but they won’t get over the effects of being spoiled. So tell them “no” or “not now,” and let them fight for what they really value and need. As parents, we tend to give them what they want when rewarding our children, especially with multiple kids. When one does well in something, we feel it’s unfair to praise and reward that one and not the other. This is unrealistic and misses an opportunity to enforce the point to our kids that success is dependent upon our own actions and good deeds. Be careful not to teach them a good grade is rewarded by a trip to the mall. If your relationship is based on material rewards, kids will experience neither intrinsic motivation nor unconditional love.
5. We don’t share our past mistakes
Healthy teens are going to want to spread their wings and they’ll need to try things on their own. We as adults must let them, but that doesn’t mean we can’t help them navigate these waters. Share with them the relevant mistakes you made when you were their age in a way that helps them learn to make good choices. (Avoid negative “lessons learned” having to do with smoking, alcohol, illegal drugs, etc.) Also, kids must prepare to encounter slip-ups and face the consequences of their decisions. Share how you felt when you faced a similar experience, what drove your actions, and the resulting lessons learned. Because we’re not the only influence on our kids, we must be the best influence.
6. We mistake intelligence, giftedness and influence for maturity
Intelligence is often used as a measurement of a child’s maturity, and as a result parents assume an intelligent child is ready for the world. That’s not the case. Some professional athletes and Hollywood starlets, for example, possess unimaginable talent, but still get caught in a public scandal. Just because giftedness is present in one aspect of a child’s life, don’t assume it pervades all areas. There is no magic “age of responsibility” or a proven guide as to when a child should be given specific freedoms, but a good rule of thumb is to observe other children the same age as yours. If you notice that they are doing more themselves than your child does, you may be delaying your child’s independence.
7. We don’t practice what we preach

As parents, it is our responsibility to model the life we want our children to live. To help them lead a life of character and become dependable and accountable for their words and actions. As the leaders of our homes, we can start by only speaking honest words – white lies will surface and slowly erode character. Watch yourself in the little ethical choices that others might notice, because your kids will notice too. If you don’t cut corners, for example, they will know it’s not acceptable for them to either. Show your kids what it means to give selflessly and joyfully by volunteering for a service project or with a community group. Leave people and places better than you found them, and your kids will take note and do the same.

Why do parents engage in these behaviors (what are they afraid of if they don’t)? Do these behaviors come from fear or from poor understanding of what strong parenting (with good boundaries) is?
Tim shares:
“I think both fear and lack of understanding play a role here, but it leads with the fact that each generation of parents is usually compensating for something the previous generation did. The primary adults in kids’ lives today have focused on now rather than later. It’s about their happiness today not their readiness tomorrow. I suspect it’s a reaction. Many parents today had Moms and Dads who were all about getting ready for tomorrow: saving money, not spending it, and getting ready for retirement. In response, many of us bought into the message: embrace the moment. You deserve it. Enjoy today. And we did. For many, it resulted in credit card debt and the inability to delay gratification. This may be the crux of our challenge. The truth is, parents who are able to focus on tomorrow, not just today, produce better results.”
How can parents move away from these negative behaviors (without having to hire a family therapist to help)?
Tim says: “It’s important for parents to become exceedingly self-aware of their words and actions when interacting with their children, or with others when their children are nearby. Care enough to train them, not merely treat them to a good life. Coach them, more than coddle. “
Here’s a start:
1. Talk over the issues you wish you would’ve known about adulthood.
2. Allow them to attempt things that stretch them and even let them fail.
3. Discuss future consequences if they fail to master certain disciplines.
4. Aid them in matching their strengths to real-world problems.
5. Furnish projects that require patience, so they learn to delay gratification.
6. Teach them that life is about choices and trade-offs; they can’t do everything.
7. Initiate (or simulate) adult tasks like paying bills or making business deals.
8. Introduce them to potential mentors from your network.
9. Help them envision a fulfilling future, and then discuss the steps to get there.
10. Celebrate progress they make toward autonomy and responsibility.