Förändrade krav på HR-avdelningen

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on maj 31st, 2011 by admin

Ledarskap förändras daligen. Detsamma gäller kraven på ledarskapet.

Det här förväntar sig företagsledare i Europa av sina HR-avdelningar under 2011. Undersökningen har genomförts av jobbsajten careerbuilder och omfattar 757 företagsledare i Sverige, England, Tyskland, Italien och Frankrike.

1. Bra utbildning
HR-chefen bör ha eftergymnasial utbildning för att på ett bra sätt kunna korrelera HR-funktionen med företagets totala prestation.

2. Konkretisering
29% vill att HR-avdelningen skall presentera konkreta initiativ som en del av affärsplanen.
Många vill också se den beräknade avkastning på varje initiativ.

3. Analys av konkurrenter
HR-cheferna förväntas ha koll på konkurrenternas rekryterings- och mer långsiktiga HR-strategi.

4. Lösningar
60% säger att man inte vill höra om några problem om de inte samtidigt får ett lösningsförslag. Flera chefer vill bara höra förslag på lösningar som är direkt kopplade till kostnader och intäkter.

5. Större kännedom om kunden

6. Ett internt perspektiv
44% vill ha mer information om företagets anställdas syn på sin arbetssituation och jobbtillfredsställelse.
21% vill kunna se vilka anställda som överträffar sina mål.

7. Riktlinjer för kommunikation
Tydliga kommunikation från HR-avdelningen efterfrågas av många.

8. Ökad flexibilitet

Källa: SvD, 8 maj 2011

“Fantasin är en muskel som måste tränas”

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on maj 31st, 2011 by admin

Shaun Tan, Maj 2011

Can Chinese companies live up to investor expectations?

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on maj 30th, 2011 by admin

Are Chinese and other companies in emerging markets finally getting the respect they deserve? Historically, they’ve traded at a discount on all metrics of valuation—typically, in the range of 20 to 30 percent.1 Even as the underlying Chinese economy developed and the shares of these companies became a commonly accepted investment option, neither institutional nor retail investors quite shook the perception that such securities were generally risky. Yet if the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s reinforced that belief, the credit crisis of 2007 may have reversed it. Indeed, companies in several major emerging markets now trade at a premium to their peers in developed markets.

It’s true that in the wake of the crisis and the ensuing recession, investors have taken note of the great rebalancing of economic power, shifting from West to East, and have rethought long-held beliefs about the relative security of asset classes in both developed and developing economies. But an important question arises: have companies in emerging markets changed or just investors’ perceptions of them? The question is apt in a number of emerging markets, including Brazil, India, and Russia, but it’s particularly so in China, where the reversal in premiums is most noticeable. If these valuations reflect investors’ expectations for future growth and returns, are there valid reasons to believe that those of Chinese companies have improved through the recession? Or are investors already assuming an improvement in economic realities? Economic data suggest the latter.

A shift in valuation
In emerging markets, the historical discount of companies was generally in line with their performance. As we observed a few years ago,2 emerging markets may typically have exhibited higher growth but also had much lower returns on capital than their Western peers. This difference almost completely explains the difference in valuation multiples. From 2006 to 2010, our analysis found the average return on equity (ROE) of Chinese companies to be six percentage points below that of US companies—a gap that remained even when the profitability of US companies fell.3 This gap alone would imply a price-earnings ratio (P/E) multiple 20 percent lower. Even if companies in these markets had been growing three to five percentage points faster, their lower returns on capital still warranted a P/E discount of 10 to 15 percent relative to their developed-market counterparts. This discount has reversed in some markets in the wake of the economic crisis. ComIn 2008–09, it was quite easy to write this development off as a temporary, liquidity-fueled anomaly. Investors wanted to be anywhere but developed markets. While companies in developing ones still had less transparent financial reporting and weaker governance, they generally had less risky banking systems as a result of stronger government controls. Also, governments didn’t have to prop up industrial companies, as the United States did in the automotive sector. Some major emerging markets, with their promise of high growth and lower cost bases, were perceived as safer than developed markets—though not all emerging markets were equally favored. Only China and India achieved the valuation premium for a protracted period; companies in Brazil and Russia traded at a discount to those in developed markets throughout the recession.

In China, the shift in valuations has not proved to be an anomaly. They remain at a 20 to 30 percent premium above those in the United States and the European Union—and the gap is not explained by a different industrial structure. On an industry-by-industry basis, the gap is even larger. In 2008, P/E ratios for Chinese companies in the industrial, consumer goods, and financial sectors were 9 percent lower, 22 percent higher, and 33 percent lower, respectively, than those of their US counterparts in the same sectors. In 2010, these companies had valuations 38 percent, 58 percent, and 6 percent higher than those of their respective US counterparts.

A down payment on growth
If current valuation levels are based in economic reality, we should see evidence to support them—either some indication that operating performance will improve significantly in the near future or data supporting an expectation that growth levels will continue to outpace those of companies in developed economies. The data are not convincing on either point.
In fact, given the relationship between growth and P/E multiples, Chinese companies would need significant operating improvements to justify the current valuation level (Exhibit 2). Their returns on capital haven’t materially changed in the past decade (Exhibit 3), and very few sectors or company types have experienced a major improvement in returns on capital.5 When goodwill is included, the returns of Chinese companies continue to lag behind those of their US and EU counterparts by around 2 to 3 percent on average—about as much as they have for the past decade. When goodwill is excluded, the gap rises considerably: from 1999 to 2004, the returns on capital of US companies were, on average, six percentage points higher. Since then, our analysis finds that the gap has risen to between 13 and 14 percent.

If valuation levels are not based on improved operating performance, they are, in effect, a down payment on expected growth. And it’s true that in this respect, Chinese companies have outperformed their counterparts in the United States and Europe for the past few decades. Yet since the crisis, there has been a general moderation in expectations for growth in corporate earnings and GDP in both the United States and China.

In fact, the gap between expected growth in the United States and Europe and in China is almost the same today as it was before the recession. This fact should come as no surprise. Chinese companies will have significant opportunities to export to developed markets for years to come; the crisis did not change their potential for growth in domestic markets; and many of them are now past the initial stage of rapid expansion. Over the short term, during the next few years, expected corporate earnings growth is actually about the same in China as in the United States and Europe. In the longer term, the gap between forecast US and Chinese growth is not much different from pre-crisis levels.

Living up to expectations
It’s possible that Chinese companies will make good on these higher expectations. Certainly, it will help if they can deliver the levels of growth that some analysts forecast. But growth alone won’t be enough; companies will need to improve their returns on capital as well.
Chinese managers interested in improving their returns will, in general, have to be more disciplined in thinking about how effectively their different businesses and growth opportunities use capital. That won’t be easy. A few companies are becoming more thoughtful about the way they prioritize investments and are bringing greater discipline to decision making. But when capital is freely available and the size of a company determines the personal importance of its managers—as is the case in China—the motivation for discipline in the use of capital is often weak.

Investors and stakeholders also have a critical role to play. The government is already exerting considerable administrative pressure on state-owned enterprises to improve their capital efficiency: on average, these enterprises lag significantly behind private-sector ones in returns on capital. The government can exert this pressure through the banking system, which remains the principal supplier of capital to the Chinese economy, and also through the State Council’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), the agency that represents the government as shareholder in the state-owned companies. SASAC has for several years been working actively with its portfolio companies to improve their discipline in using capital. Public-market shareholders can also play a helpful role. If the importance of an issue like investment discipline is regularly reinforced through dialogue with companies, it will gradually move up the management agenda.
Companies hoping that stricter management of the corporate portfolio will improve returns might also employ a tool underutilized by even Western companies: divestitures and the restructuring of portfolios. Yet domestic M&A activity in China is extremely low by any metric, and divestitures by conglomerates are extremely rare. There is a potentially significant value creation opportunity here: divestitures create more value for the selling company’s shareholders than for the buyer’s,7 and sellers are more likely to get top dollar if they divest while a business is still strong.8 Our perspective is that selling noncore businesses isn’t a mark of failure or poor management—it’s a sign that managers are actively making a practical trade-off between increasing a company’s size and managing it more efficiently, which is what the markets are suggesting.

The Chinese government is mindful of these issues, which underlie much of the SASAC’s work to improve the performance of state-owned companies as well as the plans to create active bond and equity markets, reducing the banking system’s role in capital intermediation. The former creates pressure through administrative measures to use capital more effectively, and the latter uses market forces to encourage a more efficient allocation of capital and, by extension, to impose greater discipline on companies. This has been an objective of the State Council since the 11th five-year plan, in 2006, but events from 2007 onward slowed its progress. It’s likely to be back on the agenda in the 12th five-year plan, and the current focus on controlling inflation and domestic liquidity is also raising awareness that too much freely available capital can have unpleasant side effects.
It’s a critical moment for Chinese companies, whose valuations are high even as many reach the point where growth inevitably slows. Investors apparently remain confident that companies will be able to raise their operating performance, at least for now.

Source: McKinsey Quarterly, May 2011

About the Authors
David Cogman is a partner in McKinsey’s Shanghai office, and Emma Wang is a consultant in the Hong Kong office.

The authors would like to thank Richard Dobbs and Guoqing Wu for their contributions to the development of this article.

Golf i Kina

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on maj 29th, 2011 by admin

Bär färgglada kläder och bli fotograferad i bikini, de kraven ställs på kvinnliga golfspelare i Kina. Dessutom ska det ordnas en skönhetstävling i samband med en turnering.

– Kvinnlig golf handlar inte bara om tävling. Det är också frisk luft, vackra vyer och unga och dynamiska flickor, säger Wang Liwei, vice ordförande i Kinas golfförbund.

Wang försvarar förändringarna med att damgolfen behöver mer publik och uppmärksamhet.

Ja, vad f-n ska man säga!! Bedrövligt, eller hur?

Källa: DN, 26 maj, 2011

Tips för att leva längre!

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on maj 28th, 2011 by admin

Under 15 veckor har Insidan på DN skrivit om Sveriges vanligaste folksjukdomar – hur de drabbar människor, hur de hänger ihop och var forskningen befinner sig. Men hur ­håller man sig frisk? Motion är den faktor som slår ut alla andra, skriver Insidans ­medicinska reporter Astrid Johansson.

Fimpa och träna. Det är vad som gäller.

I femton veckor har Insidan granskat de folksjukdomar som drabbar allt fler och allt yngre, och som dessutom hänger samman. Rökning och stillasittande ligger bakom – och förvärrar – dem allihop. Träning garanterar förstås inte att vi inte blir sjuka – generna spelar också in. Men – tränar vi inte kommer vi garanterat att drabbas av den ena krämpan efter den andra.

Det visar samtliga de stora hälsostudier som hittills gjorts. Ett exempel är den svenska ”1913 års män”: Det som förenar de män i studien som hållit sig friska och fyllt 90 år är att de inte har rökt, att de tränade i medelåldern och sedan fortsatte med det, Dessutom har de haft hyfsat god social standard och låga kolesterol­värden. De har också druckit kaffe.

– Men motion och icke-rökning är de två absolut viktigaste faktorerna, som slår ut allt annat, säger Lars Lind, professor i medicin i Uppsala.

Livsstilsprofessorn Mai-Lis Hellénius, som redan för tjugo år sedan började skriva ut fysisk träning på recept till sina patienter, uttrycker det så här.

– Få saker påverkar så många grundläggande processer i kroppen som motion. Träning förlänger helt enkelt livet.

Den ”aktiva soffpotatisen” kallar forskarna oss som sitter hela dagarna och sen kör ett pass på gymmet då och då. Totalt tillbringar vi över 70 procent av den vakna tiden med att sitta stilla. Studier har visat att den som sitter still mer än fyra timmar om dagen har nästan 50 procents högre risk att dö i förtid, jämfört med den som bara sitter två timmar. Och personer som tar bilen till jobbet löper 74 procents högre risk att drabbas av hjärtinfarkt än de som går, cyklar eller åker kollektivt. Att stillasittande gör oss feta och därmed sjuka beror på att kroppens mekanism för fettförbränning stoppas när vi inte rör oss.

Källa: DN, 20 maj 2011
Läs hela artikeln här

Here comes the Great Stagnation

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on maj 27th, 2011 by admin

Are the best days of of the US economy in the past?

Well, that sure is an interesting, and very important, question. Here are some information that could help you to make your own decision:

The peak productivity period for the United States came during the period 1870–1950, when the essential elements of modern life were put into place. We went from a country where most people lived on farms to a world of electricity, flush toilets, radios, automobiles, airplanes, large-scale retail, consumer credit, and the other conveniences of modern life. We haven’t seen comparable changes since then and we probably won’t anytime soon. Alexander Field, an economic historian at Santa Clara University, has measured the 1930s as the time when the rate of technological change was highest in the American economy.

The statistics bear out the slowing down of progress. From 1973 to 2004, median household income in the United States rose only 22 percent, reflecting a paucity of broad-based productivity gains. In the last ten years, median income has not risen at all. In the last ten years, there has been no new net job creation in the United States economy. The statistic known as “multifactor productivity,” which measures the contribution of new ideas to economic growth, has been low most years since the early 1970s. In the last few years, multifactor productivity has hovered in the range of less than half a percentage point, as compared to two to three percent earlier in the century.

It’s not just about material income. Prior to 1950, life expectancy rose at a rate three times higher than after 1950; lowering infant mortality and inventing penicillin are easier problems to solve than curing cancer. In 1900, only about 6 percent of Americans graduated from high school, but by the late 1960s, this number was about 80 percent. What has happened since? High school graduation rates have gone down, despite the fact that per pupil expenditures are higher than ever. Test scores have been flat for decades.

The American economy has moved increasingly into sectors where productivity is hard to augment—namely health care, education, and government. In all of these areas, we are essentially valuing productivity at cost, just by adding up dollars spent. Those are also the sectors where it is hard to measure value or enforce accountability, and it is quite possible that the published numbers are overrating our productivity successes. When it comes to health care, the United States spends more per capita than any other nation, but it is not obvious that we produce superior health care outcomes. David Cutler, an economics professor at Harvard University, estimates that US health care productivity has been falling in recent years, not rising. The more optimistic interpretation is that we are not very good at measuring health care productivity, but that’s hardly reassuring either.

A way of summing up these points is to say that a lot of the “low-hanging fruit” is gone. We are at a temporary technological plateau and have been since the 1970s. In some areas, such as space travel and supersonic transport, we are moving backward in terms of practice. And for all the talk about the unmeasured benefits of contemporary progress, earlier eras also had unmeasured benefits: the prices of cars and penicillin understated their true values.

To a lot of observers, it feels as if productivity and innovation have been high in recent times. Most commonly, the Internet and communications technologies are cited, but let’s not overestimate the impact of these wonderful developments. A 2006 paper by economists Austan Goolsbee and Peter Klenow estimated that consumers have reaped gains from the Internet equal to two percent of GDP.1 The number has probably gone up since then (Facebook is better and smartphones ease access), but not by enough to salvage the productivity performance of the modern era.

Of course, the gains from the Internet are higher for hyper-connected journalists, leading businessmen, and the intelligentsia, so its importance is usually overestimated by opinion leaders. A typical American family faces high and rising bills for health care, education, real estate, and gasoline.

Most generally, we’ve had the mature Internet for about ten years now, and those have been the worst macroeconomic years in American history since the Great Depression. The Internet is hardly to blame, but its major economic benefits have yet to kick in. A lot of the best known Internet companies employ quite small numbers of people. Facebook has just 2,000 employees while Twitter has 450. Many recent innovations in computer use substitute for labor rather than raising wages more broadly.

What else do the numbers show? There is a variable called “per-hour labor productivity” and it has performed fairly well in recent years. But most of these gains come from laying off workers who weren’t producing very much, and not from higher standards of living for the average American household. Along these lines, a February 2011 McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) report on productivity2 found that since 2000, most American productivity gains have come from reducing inputs into production, not from innovating more. Labor force participation is at a historic low, and the job market is ailing, even after the recession has ended. That’s another sign of a sluggish real economy.

To make things even tougher, the United States and other advanced economies are aging at an unprecedented pace. This creates a demographic drag on growth, since elderly individuals are less likely to be prime innovators, and, of course, we wish to devote resources to supporting them when needed. The MGI report, on page 22, puts it starkly: “The productivity gains needed to sustain historic GDP growth rates are ambitious, having last been achieved more than 50 years ago.”

In general, we need to distinguish between “innovation” and “productivity gains which have brought significant benefits to the majority of American families.” There continue to be plenty of innovations, but the gains are increasingly concentrated in a smaller number of hands rather than being broad-based. Some of our recent innovations are downright harmful, such as people in financial markets learning how to better play the risk-taking game, “Heads, I win; tails, the taxpayer loses.”

I don’t predict that US productivity will stay forever at its current low levels. Eventually, the American economy will see some major technological breakthroughs and we will succeed at better exploiting the economic potential of the Internet. Still, the slowdown in living standards growth has been with us for almost 40 years and we should not expect it to disappear overnight. Furthermore, one of the major areas marked for a breakthrough—the biosciences—is having a hard time converting the human genome sequencing into usable products, and that goal appears to be receding.

When it comes to the longer run, I am not a pessimist. The United States continues to have a lot of talented, ambitious people. But we are not operating anywhere near the earlier era of peak productivity gains. That era came many decades ago, and we are still lost in the wilderness, hoping to find a comparable magic formula for future progress.

Source. Tyler Cowen, McKinsey Newsletter, may 2011

Förbättra din kommunikation

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on maj 27th, 2011 by admin

Med jämna mellanrum får man ju utskick som sticker ut. Och som känns värdefulla och med substans. Jag uppskattar alltid utskicken från min gode vän David Philips.

Läs gärna hans femte “injektion” här nedan.
Om Du vill ta del av hans klokskap, ta en direktkontakt med David här: david.phillips@presentationsteknik.com
Så länge du inte har ett patent eller en unik produkt alternativt tjänst är det inte produkten som säljer,
utan hur du paketerar och presenterar den. Med den enkla slutsatsen, förvånas jag djupt över att det
fortfarande finns företag som tror att det är motsatsen och hellre fokuserar sina pengar på
produktutveckling än utbildning i presentationsteknik. Men till den kategorin hör ju inte du!
För här kommer årets femte injektion : ) Läs, lär och lev din kunskap

Begränsa ditt logos och vinn
Din hjärna är makalös, både avseende dess resurser och kapacitet men samtidigt är den
också makalöst begränsad, framförallt avseende mängden fakta den kan ta in. Ironiskt
nog är faktaspäckade presentationer samtidigt något vi specialiserat oss på.
Tips: Håll dig till ett budskap per presentation. Sätt 1 tydligt mål för ditt budskap och ifrågasätt
därefter varje del av ditt innehåll – leder det här mot målet? Om det inte gör det, ta bort det.

Nakna kroppar är inte bäst
När du ser en vacker lättklädd människa, luras du till att tro att din önskan är att hon eller han inte hade kläder så du kunde få se allt. Men när så är fallet blir du snabbt varse om en smygande besvikelse och det är inte för att det inte blev som du tänkte
dig utan för att din hjärna tycker om utmaningen att skapa kompletta mönster av inkompletta mönster. Samma teknik som Viking Line använder i sina annonser, istället för VIKING LINE skriver de NG LI. Så skriv inte alltid ditt budskap på dina
mottagares näsor, låt dem få klura på slutsatsen själva.
Exempelvis om du ska visa statistik, innan du börjar. Be deltagarna skriva ner vilka tre siffror som ändrat sig mest sen förra året.

Tre saker som kontrollerar din leverans
När du är nervös inför en situation, exempelvis inför en lönediskussion, en presentation eller ett raggningsförsök på krogen så kommer det förutom din teknik att finnas tre faktorer som styr hur bra utfallet kommer att bli.
1. Du är ditt kroppsspråk, så tänk på hur du går, står och för dig.
2. Du är ditt språk, så tänk på vilka ord du använder (undvik svag retorik som: kanske, eventuellt, liten).
3. Du är din mentala inställning, så titta dig i spegeln och säg till dig själv att du är värd det, du är bäst, du är värd det, du är bäst!
Ta kontroll över dina 3 svagheter och gör dem till styrkor och du kommer att lyckas!

Nyhet på Facebook

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Digitalisering / Internet on maj 26th, 2011 by admin

Facebook Deals lanserades i förra veckan i Sverige. När besökare hos Stadium, Statoil och McDonalds checkar in i butikslokalerna, bensinstationerna eller restaurangerna med Facebook Check-in får de ett erbjudande från företagen. Fördelen för företagen är att kundernas Facebookvänner kan se att deras vänner interagerar med företagen.

När Jajja Magazine checkade in hos McDonalds i fredags fick vi ett erbjudande om en milkshake utifall vi beställde deras 50-talsmeny. Kunder hos Statoil har blivit erbjudna en kopp kaffe när de checkar in och Stadiumkunder har fått 20 procent rabatt på skor.

Facebook Deals är kanske den mest intressanta möjligheten att knyta samman fysisk verksamhet med webben. Svenskarna checkar helst in på resecentrum som Arlanda, Stockholms centralstation, Landvetter, Göteborgs centralstation och Bromma Flygplats, enligt statistik från Socialbakers.

Arenor som Globen, Hovet och Scandinavium är också populära. På nionde plats kommer IKEA vid Kungens kurva med nästan 6000 incheckningar.

Läs mer här.
Källa: Jajja Mag, 18 maj 2011

Last news up date from China from my side

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on maj 25th, 2011 by admin

US investment in China dropped sharply by 28 percent, while foreign direct investment (FDI) maintained double-digit growth from January to April, the Ministry of Commerce said on Tuesday.

Economists said they believed the US investment decline is temporary, and the Chinese economy, over the long term, will provide US companies with increased investment opportunities.

US investment from January to April decreased to $1.03 billion and the number of US firms setting up in China also fell by 3.85 percent to 475.

US investment down sharply as FDI surges BMW doubles investment in China
In contrast, European Union investment rose by 23.42 percent to $2.64 billion. Investment from the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, South Korea and Singapore, registered growth of 31.23 percent to $32.88 billion.

So, this was my last news up date from China. Soon I will be back in Sweden again …

Source: China Daily, 18 May 2011

To all you parents out there!

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on maj 24th, 2011 by admin

A 17-year-old boy killed himself recently after taking an art college entrance exam, leaving his mother regretting that she put too much pressure on him.

The boy, surnamed Yue, a senior middle school student from Heilongjiang province, was persuaded by his mother to take science courses, even though he preferred liberal arts subjects, since she believed it would give him a better chance in the national college entrance exam.

He did not do well in science. Despite the busy curriculum at school, Yue took the entrance exam of the Communication University of China in Beijing in February as a desperate bid to follow his dream in art.
But three days after Yue returned home, he killed himself by jumping out of a building.

Two months later, his mother discovered that Yue had passed the exam, but the news never reached Yue.

Source: China Daily, May 19, 2011