4. Объясните значение понятий, взятых из статьи упражнения 3, на английском языке:

welfare, social solidarity, to erode the belief, mutual obligation, commitment, sovereignty, legitimacy, borders and boundaries, immigration, migrants, natives, to endanger, to alienate, minority communities, segregation, diasporas, social disruption, marginal, to distribute (benefits) unevenly, reinforces inequality, to add to urban congestion, halt to immigration, backlash, poverty.

5. Ответьте на вопросы:

1. Are you a fluent English speaker?

2. What assignments are the most effective for improving your language?

3. Does using a dictionary frequently enlarge your English vocabulary?

4. What world events are you concerned with?

5. What issues are you reluctant to discuss?

6. What are the most pressing issues you’ve read about recently?

7. Are you an intuitive person?

8. Can you predict the future of mankind?

9. What are the possible ways to prevent wars?

10. Have you ever doubt the existence of other civilizations?

11. Do you believe in people’s stories about viewing aliens?

12. What parts of the world would you like to visit? Why?

13. Have you ever been to Paris?

14. Would you like to see Seven Wonders of the World?

15. What are your life priorities?

6. Переведите словосочетания на английский язык. Составьте с ними предложения или короткие рассуждения о мировых проблемах современности:

новости культуры, спортивные новости, экстренное сообщение, «бегущая строка», серьезная проблема, голод в Эфиопии, беспорядки в Лондоне, встреча глав государств, переговоры о сотрудничестве, участие миротворцев, смена власти, члены Евросоюза, единая валюта, финансовый кризис, оздоровление экономики, спад производства, увеличение численности населения, высокая плотность населения, младенческая смертность, угроза терроризма, выборы президента, поддержка развивающихся экономик, введение новых налогов, поддержка малого и среднего бизнеса, посредничество в торговле между двумя регионами, зона свободной торговли, беспошлинная торговля, международные организации, ООН, Всемирная Торговая Организация, обменный курс доллара к фунту стерлингов, изменение климата на планете, ухудшение экологии, природоохранная организация, гуманитарная помощь от Красного Креста, Общество по защите животных, сторонники и противники клонирования человека.

Раздел 8

Articles to Translate

1. Health, Stress and Related Work Issues

Losing Weight The Olympic Athlete Way

For many of us, getting to and staying at an optimal weight is a struggle. Sedentary life styles, rich foods and less and less recreational time aren't helping us stay trim, or more importantly, healthy (since thin isn't always healthy).

Sure, we know the elements of weight loss and health. Good nutrition, lower fat intake, higher fruits and vegetables, + using up more calories yields less fat on our frames. Of course knowing these things doesn't make the fat go away. Applying the knowledge does.

We can learn from Olympic athletes about how to take what we know, and USE it to produce success. This doesn't apply only to weight loss of course, but to almost everything. Here are some tips taken from the Olympic athletes who are succeeding at tasks which are, in some ways, much more difficult than losing weight.

Visioning Results

Swimmer Mark Tewksbury, former Summer Olympic medal winner, indicated that part of his preparation included imagining standing on the gold medal podium and hearing "Oh Canada" (he's Canadian, of course). This type of visioning, repeated over and over, becomes a central motivating force for overcoming obstacles, because it focusses you on the reward. It makes the reward seem attainable, real and concrete provided that you visualize yourself in the picture, and that you paint a picture that engages all your senses. What does it feel like? What are you hearing? What do you see?

Some examples. Imagine yourself in your favorite high-priced boffo outfit that you've outgrown and out-bulked over the last year or two. Visualize walking into a party in the outfit, and people paying attention to you, commenting on how absolutely great you look. Or imagine going into your favorite store and being able to buy that wonderful bit of clothing that would have looked really lousy on the bigger, more rotund "you".

Rehearsal

If you prepare for an event by actually carrying out the behaviors, it is called practice. If you mentally run through the behaviors, it is called rehearsal. You are practicing in the mind. Fortunately, practicing in the mind can be done anywhere and can be as effective as "real" doing. However, mental rehearsal, as with results visioning, must be undertaken in detail, each step, action or word being imagined. The more vivid the picture painted, the better the results. Also, it is most effective if you imagine obstacles, things that might go wrong, and imagine dealing successfully deal with them. This last bit is the key to rehearsal in weight loss. Sit down and anticipate the situations where you eat badly. Imagine them in detail. Then imagine or rehearse better ways of dealing with them. Rehearse saying no to the second helping. Imagine taking a walk when you are stressed, instead of eating. Got the idea?

Build Skills And Knowledge

All the visioning and rehearsal in the world can't help you if you don't know what you were doing in the first place. You need to know about foods, nutrition and the proper ways to exercise for your age and fitness level. Read, learn, talk to others about how they've succeeded. Consult your physician. The more you know, the more you can do (like cooking low fat meals that taste good), the better your chances will be.

Summary

Success in life, in our work, even in our families comes about much like success for Olympic athletes, which is probably why the Olympics inspire and interest many people. The fight to be better. The excitement of challenge. And above all, winning by trying, even though others may be better. You can apply this to your weight loss program and improve your chances at success.

2. Human Resources Related Topics

Strange but True (and Really Funny) Job Interview Behaviour

Most managers and supervisors (and HR people) have had experiences interviewing candidates for job openings. I'm sure each of you has, at one time or another, been baffled by interviewee behaviour, but we're betting you haven't faced some of the behaviours that we list below. Certainly head-scratchers, and amusing (at least to read about). Strange but true.

Based on a survey published via the Internet, here are some of the odd things reported by HR professionals.

1. "... said he was so well-qualified that if he didn't get the job, it would prove that the company's management was incompetent."

2. "... stretched out on the floor to fill out the job application."

3. "... brought her large dog to the interview."

4. "... chewed bubble gum and constantly blew bubbles."

5. "Candidate kept giggling through serious interview."

6. "She wore a Walkman and said she could listen to me and the music at the same time."

7. "Balding candidate abruptly excused himself. Returned to office a few minutes later, wearing a hairpiece."

8. "Applicant challenged interviewer to arm wrestle."

9. "... asked to see interviewer's resume to see if the personnel executive was qualified to judge the candidate."

10. "... announced she hadn't had lunch and proceeded to eat a hamburger and french fries in the interviewer's office."

11. "Without saying a word, candidate stood up and walked out during the middle of the interview."

12. "Man wore jogging suit to interview for position as financial vice president."

13. "Stated that, if he were hired, he would demonstrate his loyalty by having the corporate logo tattooed on his forearm."

14. "Interrupted to phone his therapist for advice on answering specific interview questions."

15. "... wouldn't get out of the chair until I would hire him. I had to call the police."

16. "When I asked him about his hobbies, he stood up and started tap dancing around my office."

17. "... had a little pinball game and challenged me to play with him."

18. "... bounced up and down on my carpet and told me I must be highly thought of by the company because I was given such a thick carpet."

19. "At the end of the interview, while I stood there dumbstruck, went through my purse, took out a brush, brushed his hair, and left."

20. "... pulled out a Polaroid camera and snapped a flash picture of me. Said he collected photos of everyone who interviewed him."

21. "Candidate asked me if I would put on a suit jacket to insure that the offer I had made was formal."

22. "Said he wasn't interested because the position paid too much."

23. "While I was on a long-distance phone call, the applicant took out a copy of Penthouse, and looked through the photos only, stopping longest at the centerfold."

24. "During the interview, an alarm clock went off from the candidate's brief case. He took it out, shut it off, apologized and said he had to leave for another interview."

25. "A telephone call came in for the job applicant. It was from his wife. His side of the conversation went like this: "Which company? When do I start? What's the salary?" I said, "I assume you're not interested in conducting the interview any further." He promptly responded, "I am as long as you'll pay me more." "I didn't hire him, but later found out there was no other job offer. It was a scam to get a higher offer."

26. "An applicant came in wearing only one shoe. She explained that the other shoe was stolen off her foot in the bus."

27. "His attache [case] opened when he picked it up and the contents spilled, revealing ladies' undergarments and assorted makeup and perfume."

28. "He came to the interview with a moped and left it in the reception area. He didn't want it to get stolen, and stated that he would require indoor parking for the moped."

29. "He took off his right shoe and sock, removed a medicated foot powder and dusted it on the foot and in the shoe. While he was putting back the shoe and sock, he mentioned that he had to use the powder four times a day, and this was the time."

30. "Candidate said he really didn't want to get a job, but the unemployment office needed proof that he was looking for one."

31. "He whistled when the interviewer was talking."

32. "... asked who the lovely babe was, pointing to the picture on my desk. When I said it was my wife, he asked if she was home now and wanted my phone number. I called security."

33. "... she threw-up on my desk, and immediately started asking questions about the job, like nothing had happened."

34. "Pointing to a black case he carried into my office, he said that if he was not hired, the bomb would go off. Disbelieving, I began to state why he would never be hired and that I was going to call the police. He then reached down to the case, flipped a switch and ran. No one was injured, but I did need to get a new desk."

35. "... asked if I wanted some cocaine before starting the interview."

Abuse of Internet Access at Work

When this was written originally, the Internet was less available, and less essential. Since then, almost every workplace has employee access to the Internet, and email, so the issue of abusing Internet access at work has escalated. Most human resource (HR) departments have to face this issue. Here's some advice on policy to try to keep some balance.

This month we look at a question which is being asked with increasing frequency. What are the issues of concern around providing Internet access for government staff?

Problem: I am a manager in a government office that has recently been “wired” so that each employee has access to the Internet. At present staff can surf the net, and use electronic mail. It has come to my attention that one of our staff has been spending inordinate time on the Internet, and there has been a suggestion that he has been accessing “adult sites” while at work. Do you have any comments or suggestions?

Answer: More and more government organizations are installing Internet access for staff, and this question will become more common. How do you regulate usage without making the technology useless? In fact, what degree of regulation is appropriate?

In general terms, let’s remember that the Internet allows communication and research to be done from the office. Second, its valuable contribution will be in the ease that communication can occur with colleagues, and members of the public. Unfortunately, there is no hard and fast set of rules. In the situation described above, there are several concerns. Probably the most serious is the possibility that the Internet is being used to access pornographic material, at the taxpayer’s expense. Clearly this is a serious concern because of the additional responsibilities and obligations public servants have, compared to other sectors. While few are aware of it, access to web sites can be monitored, and an individual who goes to such sites can be identified by the web site owner.

Since most government staff have identifiers that indicate they are government staff, we must realize that such behaviour is not “secret”. There is a potential for public embarrassment. For those reasons, even leaving aside moral and ethical issues, staff should be clear that Internet access brings responsibility. We recommend that an Internet usage policy be drafted (usually called an Acceptable Use Policy-AUP). As with any policy, staff should be actively involved in determining what is and is not acceptable behaviour on the Net. That is probably the clearest of the issues related to the problem given.

The next issue is the lack of productivity that occurs if staff spend inordinate amounts of time surfing the Net. In the specific case outlined, the individual was spending as much as three hours at a time, apparently doing non-work related things. Some people advocate that the employer become a policeman, monitoring access electronically (which is technically possible), and enforcing rules harshly. There are others that suggest that the real issue lies elsewhere, and monitoring and enforcement don’t address them. Putting aside the pornography access, one obvious question that comes to mind is whether the individual in question is able to meet his or her job obligations while also spending a good deal of time on unproductive activities. If the answer is no, then there is a clear performance problem that should be dealt with by focusing on the job tasks that are not getting done, or objectives and deadlines not meant. This would be the same, if the person was spending large amounts of time on the telephone, on personal calls.

If the employee is able to complete all job tasks and still “waste time” on the Internet, then the question shifts to whether the individual has sufficient work to do. And that, again, is an issue unrelated to the Internet, itself.

Some other considerations apply. One of the odd things about the Internet is that worthwhile research can be found almost accidentally. Many of the things of value we find are a result of “playing” on the Net. While we don’t recommend that staff have free licence to pass their days in an Internet stupor, we also do not want to restrict access in a harsh way. It is very difficult to determine whether a person’s Internet time is “work related”. The more we impose and enforce restrictions, the more effort and resource have to be invested in the police function. Barring extreme cases of abuse, it may be that we have to make sure there is a simple, straight forward policy in place, and then trust that staff will abide by that.

Monitoring use may not add value to the organization, and can create a climate where people will be fearful to use the Internet, even for legitimate reasons.

In the extreme cases of abusive behaviour such as accessing pornographic material, harassing other Internet users, or conducting political activities during work hours), it may be necessary to use stronger methods, including monitoring of log files, followed by appropriate disciplinary actions. Otherwise we suggest that the time issue be handled like any other time issue. Rather than considering the time spent on the Internet, a better focus is on the productivity of the staff member.

Is he doing the job? If not, then normal procedures should be used. If the job is getting done, then perhaps the job needs to be enriched or expanded. Perhaps the Internet time is spent out of boredom, much like some people read the daily newspaper. Conclusion It is absolutely essential that departments have easily understood policies on Internet use, and that these policies be understood by staff. As we indicated, these policies should be drafted with the involvement of staff, whenever possible. If you are of the mind that staff are paid for what they produce rather than the time they put in (a progressive notion), then it makes sense to tackle most of these issues in terms of productivity, not time spent. That’s where the focus should be. Clearly this issue is going to come up more and more as we move into the next century. Be prepared beforehand, so you don’t have to make up rules as you go along. The “seat of the pants” approach is far more likely to provoke grievances and legal problem.

3. Management, Supervision and Related Leadership Topics

Performance Appraisal Goofs - Common Managerial Mistakes

Performance appraisals are probably the most misused, and goofed-up management tool in existence. Starting from misunderstanding the whole point of appraisals, right on through to use of poor communication with employees, managers make a fairly consistent set of mistakes about employee reviews, and performance appraisals. Here are some of them in the fourth in our series of common managerial mistakes.

Since there are a fair number of errors made by managers in the performance appraisal and employee review process, we'll approach this set in brief point form. Stay tuned since we'll be dealing with a few more performance appraisal errors in a future article in this series. Until then here's the first five.

Focusing on the Form: Most managers are given specific forms to fill out to record the results of performance appraisals and reviews. Apart from the fact that most forms aren't really effective in creating better performance, it's easy for managers to believe that performance appraisal is about, and only about, getting the forms in on time (which they don't). Performance appraisal isn't about the form. It's about the process.

Focusing on The Appraisal, Not the Planning: Appraisals are usually done (at least formally), once a year, covering the period preceding. The problem is that it's looking backward, and you can't change what's happened in the past. The focus (and time invested) should be on the upfront planning for performance, since we can influence the present and future. Clear shared understanding of performance expectations is powerful.

Doing To the Employee, Not Working With: There's a sense, on the part of many, that the performance appraisal involves doing something TO the employee (i.e. telling them how they have done). While communicating the manager's perceptions is not a completely bad thing, when it is the ONLY thing, it loses power. Performance discussions should be dialogues. One of the most important reasons to create performance dialogues is to foster the ability to self-evaluate on the part of employees. That makes for better performance and less work for the manager.

Surprises: If there's one fundamental rule for employee reviews (there's actually a number of fundamental rules and principles), it's this: There should never be any surprises for the employee. Managers sometimes forget. If there is anything the manager brings out in the employee review that is new to the employee, the manager has not been doing his or her job communicating with the employee.

Procrastinating: Let's face it. Managers don't particular like to do employee reviews, often because they don't realize the benefits of doing them properly, or because they haven't been exposed to the process that will make them painless, and productive. Regardless of reasons, it's common for employee reviews to be scheduled, then postponed, or otherwise delayed. This sends an important message to employees: "Performance appraisals aren't important around here". If we want employees to take them seriously, managers need to take them seriously, and demonstrate their importance through action.

Over Empowering Employees

Managers, influenced by the "employee empowerment" buzz of the late '90's sometimes place too much emphasis on insisting that ALL employees exercise more power, discretion and decision-making in their jobs. The result can be the appearance of indecisiveness on the part of managers, and a desire, on the part of employees, to be "left alone" to do their jobs within a more limited scope. Learn how to avoid this common error on employee empowerment.

As a result of the encouragement of management gurus in the late 1990's empowerment became a state of affairs of value in and of itself. While having employees capable and willing to make decisions and act on their own is a good situation, some managers have taken the concept too far.

Not all employees want to be involved in day-to-day decision making, and are quite content to leave decision up to the "person in the corner office who makes the big bucks. Insisting on employee involvement and empowerment can cause negative fallout.

Pitfalls to Watch For

Some employees don't want more responsibility. They are content to cede responsibility to their managers or supervisors, who they see as being paid to "steer the ship". If you are attempting to place more power in the hands of employees, watch for hesitancy, procrastination when employees are asked to take a broader role, and resistance. That may indicate, for an individual employee, that he or she is not ready, or willing to "be empowered".

Managers can't expect employees to make effective decisions when the are empowered to make decisions, if they lack the information or skills to make INFORMED and EFFECTIVE decisions. If information is not freely shared with employees, asking them to be "empowered" will end up frustrating employees, and result in poor decisions.

Managers who empower staff to make decisions, but then turn around and reverse or argue those decisions cause more problems then they solve.

Over empowerment of staff (manager avoiding making decisions) may create the perception, accurate or not, that the manager is weak, and indecisive. It can detract from employee trust.

Prescriptions for Avoiding Employee Empowerment Mistakes

Do not insist that hesitant or resistance employees take on more responsibility when they clearly do not want that responsibility. You can force empowerment on staff. Make increased responsibility available to all staff, but be aware that not all staff have the ability, or desire to exercise it. Don't push too hard.

Ensure staff have the information they need to make decisions properly. As a manager you have more "big picture" information, and it's easy to forget that good decisions require the decision-maker to have that information, or they will make poor decisions.

Give up some of your control in decision-making by accepting that some staff decisions might be different than the ones you make. Give more leeway and latitude and argue less with their solutions.

To avoid appearing weak or indecisive, don't "offload" all decision-making to empowered employees. Communicate so that employees understand that you are empowering them because they are closer to the action, and in some ways, are the experts about their job functions. On the other hand, some decisions ARE management level decisions, and should remain that way. For example, deciding what should be done about a particular employee's poor performance is a MANAGEMENT LEVEL DECISION. Asking employees for their advice or input on such management level decisions guarantees that you will appear weak, and indecisive.

Summary

Empowering employees can result in better decisions, more engaged workers, and can help managers focus on what they alone must deal with. Managers with empowered staff spend less time micromanaging and dealing with day-to-day decisions (that can be taken over by staff).

However, empowerment which is coerces employees, or is improperly implemented can backfire. Follow the simple tips, and you can avoid negative outcomes that you don't intend.

4. Articles on Communication and Conflict

Words of Anger, and Language of Peace

Recently, I came across some Facebook posts coming from a colleague who works in the areas of international education, development and training. She's a colleague I've worked with in the past and for whom I have great respect (or had).

She asked people to contact the government to protest their refusal to supply short time visas to allow her former students in Nigeria to visit from Africa for a reunion. Since I've worked with people from the same population and country, I asked what I might do to help.

Then I realized something. The language she used, accusatory in nature, and invoking the "racism" complaint, came across to me as a bit strident. Then, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I didn't care to be associated with someone, even someone well respected, who was trying to exert pressure through the use of words one might call "fighting words".

The essence of her communication to the government (she published the letter she sent to the Immigration department" was this: Since SHE could find no valid reason for the denial of SOME of the visas, she concluded, later in the letter, that racism was the culprit.

Racism IS still alive and well in this world, and the 9/11 destruction hasn't helped advance the anti-racism cause, of which I have also been a part.

IF she had some documented evidence to explain the denial of visas I would have had little problem standing shoulder to shoulder with her. And contributing my voice.

The problem is that anyone can trumpet an opinion based on their bias, but what will the outcome be. Usually success is elusive when one tries to inflame situations. Occasionally, one wins through intimidate, but that perpetuates a style of interaction based on confrontation and inflammatory language.

So, I concluded a) that I could not support her attempts, and b) that there was no point even having a discussion on the point. People who tend to use inflammatory language that divides people tend not to be open-minded. It also discouraged me that a number of her Facebook friends applauded her actions, apparently, not needing any evidence to support a contention that, while possibly correct, came with no documentation.

Language of Inflammation, Language of Peace

I continued to think about this further and realized that there are two "language" sets (that idea isn't new to me but I've never used the term peaceful communication before).

One can phrase things to anyone -- spouse, co-worker, boss, friend, in ways that WILL provoke defensiveness, anger and counter-attacks. In my view this is the kind of language used by the person I've described. It's a language of confrontation and advocacy. It's also the language of the bully.

On the flip side there's the "language of peace" which is much more "working with" than "working against". It is based on:

- Observable behaviors that can be verified

- Separating out facts from opinion, while making the distinctions clear. Also opinions should be clearly marked and the evidence and thinking should be supplied including facts, but also experience, logic, etc).

- Not demeaning readers or listeners by suggesting they "don't get it", don't understand, or are, somehow, less than the person presenting the argument.

- Focuses on working together, rather than winning ALL the stakes.

There's certainly more characteristics of peaceful language and communication and it's possible to drill down and examine the words and phrases a person uses, or could use and identify the specifics of peaceful communication versus inflammatory communication.

Random Thoughts on Peaceful, Building Bridges Communication

- The confrontational approach, something we see far to much of in our governments, polarizes opinions and leads people to believe in black and white issues. One side says this. The other contradicts, and so long as the confrontational style continues, no agreement will occur. Only anger and frustration.

- The language of peace improves the credibility of the players using it, versus people who are "fighting" all the time. Often this has the unfortunate effect of making the "fighter" more angry, and more strident. It ends up as a vicious circle.

- The idea of the language of peace is relevant and applicable for ANY situation where there is disagreement, whether its a spouse to spouse conversation, or two countries, or labor and union. All the same rules apply.

- Peaceful language can be learned. It's not necessarily a function of "personality" or even "style". It's about skill, and learning how to do it. Unfortunately we don't teach children, or adults for that matter, how to do it.

- Confrontational approaches poison relationships, and reduce the ability for parties to actually solve problems and create the synergy and new ideas that might actually enrich their lives, or the lives of others (i.e. the population of a country).

- Confrontational approaches not only insult the other party, but they insult the intelligence of onlookers, and demean our institutions. If you have ever watched television coverage of debates in government, i.e. the Senate, House of Representatives, Parliament, the often childish, "in your face", trying to score points process is embarrassing to watch. This shakes the faith of the population in those important institutions.

Conclusion

I lost a good deal of respect for the colleague I mentioned, because, particularly for those that exert influence over others, I believe there is a responsibility to build bridges, and not create larger chasms just to get one's way.

On the positive side, I realized it was time to re-visit my book on the use of "cooperative communication", which teaches people the specifics -- what to say, what not to say, to interact in peaceful ways that encourage working together. It's still an excellent book.

Eventually, possibly in late 2012 (that would be next year), I plan on revamping the book; since I think it makes it possible for people to understand how THEIR use of language creates tension and disharmony. It also makes it possible for people to learn not just a general philosophy, but very specific techniques to replace the "fighting words" they use at home and at work.

Finally, on a personal level, I made a commitment that I will never support a cause or organization that uses language to accuse, demean or otherwise attack others in a chronic manner.

I won't vote for any party of candidate that uses attack ads. I won't lend my voice to causes that try to "win" by polarizing people into black and white, me versus you camps.

5. Public Speaking, Speeches and Group "Stuff"

Principles of Credibility

Bacal & Associates publishes a help card with tons of tips to help you deal with resistant, difficult or hostile groups. If you speak to, or present to groups who are not keen on hearing or accepting what you have to say, click here for more tips and information.

It doesn't matter who you are speaking to. Whether to a group of a thousand, a radio or television audience, or one person in the privacy of your office, much depends on your ability to come across in a credible and honest fashion. Good intentions are not enough. Many the honest, open speakers have created an impression of shiftiness and dishonesty due to a lack of understanding about how to structure content, and how to use language and speaking style to come across in a credible manner. In this column, taken from notes from our "Dealing With Hostile Groups" seminar, we provide some tips for you.

What Does Credibility Mean?

You will be perceived as credible when you:

appear relatively unbiased

appear similar to the audience

communicate in ways the audience understands

demonstrate understanding of the audience's opinions

do not sound defensive or aggressive

do not over react to criticism

Specific Tips

1. Don't oversell or ignore downsides from the audience's points of view. Research suggests a mix of focusing on evidence to support your position AND considering objections is most effective.

2. Pre-empt attacks by bringing up audience concerns yourself. For example: "I know some of you are probably thinking [fill in objection]. Let me address that."

This is much better than ignoring these until an audience member attacks you with an objection.

3. Match your language to the audience. That is, stay away from all bureaucratic language and abbreviations, unless your entire audience is very familiar with them. Even then, explain the abbreviations.

Match your language to the anticipated educational levels and dialects of the audience members. Don't use huge words, or language that isn't used in the world your audience lives in. Don't use long, convoluted sentences, either. Speak like them!

4. Whenever possible DON'T READ A PREPARED SPEECH. This reduces your power of influence, and credibility. Very few people are able to read a speech effectively. Most attempts at reading make you appear to be unconfident, stiff, and artificial. Reading occasional quotes, however, is OK.

5. Generally, a lectern separates you from the audience. Consider using a wireless microphone so that you can leave the lectern, or dispense with it entirely. However, if you must use a lectern, don't use a death grip on it. The audience will perceive this as discomfort and stiffness. By the way, walking around is relaxing for you (usually), and is more interesting for the audience.

6. Use a well-organized structure for your presentation. Use the old saw: Tell em what you are going to tell them. Then tell them. Then tell them what you told them. This corresponds to the introduction, body, and conclusions/summary.

7. When using the above structure, indicate in your opening that you imagine that some have concerns, that you will be addressing. Then, in your body, present both sides. You may want to emphasize any positives you have identified.

8. Speak with energy and intensity to show your commitment to your topic, but don't go "over the top", by sounding like a preacher or sales-person.

9. Make an extra effort to make eye-contact with people in the group. The listeners need to feel that your primary concern is each of them, not selling them on the ideas YOU have. So you want to appear as listener focused as possible.

10. Don't try to accomplish too much, or present too much information. The more you present, the less impact each point has. By trying to do too much you risk the possibility that the listeners will miss your main points, or simply get lost and frustrated.

Conclusion:

While most of the tips we have presented relate to sounding credible to a group of people, most apply to talking to individuals also. Remember that the best way to sound credible is to focus on the audience, and its concerns, rather than your concerns, or the concerns of your government. There are a good many other tactics you can apply to difficult groups or difficult people. Our half-day seminar on the subject is available to help.

6. Training & Development/Learning

E-learning, Distance Education, Not Equivalent to Full Time Study

Even though almost everybody can understand that:

- a conversation on the phone is not the same as a conversation face to face

- watching a sport on television is not the same as being there in person

- watching people have sex is not the same as actually having it.

Many people believe that e-learning is the same as learning in a live group, and distance education or online learning is the same as full time study.

It’s pretty weird. When I suggest that online learning is DIFFERENT from classroom learning, I’m always challenged even if I make absolutely NO allusion to whether one is better or worse.

It is always the attendees and graduates of the online or distance programs that get defensive and deny what even basic common sense says. They are different.

But Are They Different Enough To Matter?

No doubt those with degrees from online programs would say no, but they don’t even grasp different does not mean better/worse.

But they are different enough to affect learning. That’s not to say that one person will better learn facts from one program or another. It is however, reasonable to assume that if the process and experience of learning is different, then the learning has qualitative differences.

As Marshall McLuhan suggested, the medium affects the message.

Using an analogy, if the only contact you’ve had with hockey is by watching on TV, your understanding of the game WILL be different than someone who has seen many games live in person and on television. What you learn about hockey is different. Television does not provide the same learning experience, even if the same game is watched.

Let me give you one example that exemplifies how the process of learning affects the learning, by using language learning.

An immersive environment is one where the learner is “immersed” in the language/learning environment. If it’s French immersion, that’s what is spoken all the time. It’s a powerful way of learning a language quickly and to help people become close to natural speakers in the second language. If you compare someone who learned a language in an immersive environment with someone who took courses once or twice a week, even if you equalize for total time spent, the results are completely different. One speaks like a natural speaker, and the other doesn’t.

The WAY one learns affects the learning and sometimes in ways that are hard to measure.

The same is true of education. Different media do not result in the same results. For example, in a full time study program it’s possible to be literally immersed in a field of study, and in fact, that is often what happens at good graduate schools. You go to classes, you set up study groups, you discuss the field over beer, you socialize with the professors, and on and on, provided it’s a small high quality program.

You will never get this type of immersion in distance, part time, or online study. As a result your learning is different. In fact, it will probably be inferior but you may not notice, because it’s likely you are taking online courses as a means to advance your career. You aren’t as interested in learning for learning’s sake.

The additional good news is that at the undergraduate level, it probably doesn’t make a substantial difference whether you take things online, via e-learning, or in classes, simply because the quality of undergraduate education generally tends to be somewhat low in many fields — in fact in the fields where it’s likely you can take online version. The demands of the profession you strive for are probably lower than, let’s say a surgeon, lawyer, engineer (where online courses may be hard to find).

Where the difference lies is in higher education — graduate level work, where face to face programs can involve personal mentoring, strong interpersonal relationships between student and professors, and less of an emphasis on getting a job. There the experiences are hugely different.

Again, if your desire is to complete a program for career advancement, you’ll probably want the easiest path and that won’t be in a demanding, 24hr. a day immersion type graduate program.

Conclusion:

I can understand that people will disagree with what is “better”, and I suppose we’ll never resolve that question without proper data, but the one thing that I do not believe a rational person can deny is that:

Different process of experience and learning will yield different learning results.

If you don’t believe me, GO to a hockey game live — even a minor league game if you’ve never been, and tell me that you understood how fast and violent the game was just by watching on TV. Maybe I’ll buy you a beer.

PS. Now the next question is whether employers trust alternative degrees as much as they do traditional ones. Stay tuned. Or comment. Always comment.

Learning File - Going To Training? Some Hints

People attend training for a lot of reasons. The obvious one is to learn some new skills to use on the job or to further one's career. There are other reasons too. Sometimes training sessions provide an opportunity to visit with people you don't ordinarily see and find out what's going on elsewhere. Or, sometimes, it's just a pleasant (hopefully) break from the usual routine.

If you are attending training, whether it's for learning new software, or to learn to cope with stress, what you learn from it is going to depend on what you put in, and how you plan the process. In this article we'll provide some hints so you can maximize your learning and make use of what you have learned on your job (or perhaps the next one).

SELECTING TRAINING

There's lots of training out there, some of it great, some average, and some poor. Since tastes differ, it's hard to help you choose what will work for YOU. However, if you have a choice of choosing the training you will attend, compare the topics to be covered to your own needs (see next section). Don't make your decision based on the length of a course. Often the shorter ones will only give you an overview and not help you use new learning on the job. Ask around to see if others have attended the course, and solicit their opinions, but remember that tastes differ. If the course you are interested in is offered internationally by a large company, you can ask on the Internet.

WHY ARE YOU GOING?

It's always good to be clear about why you are going to a training session. If someone has requested that you attend (let's say your boss), make sure you understand your boss's expectations before you go. Ask: "How do you expect me to use what I have learned?" If you are going because you have a training need, ask yourself what you want to learn, and how you might apply it to your job (or career development). The clearer you are about why you are going and what you want to get out of it, the more likely you will get what you are hoping for. Knowing this will allow you to be more of an active learner.

INVOLVE YOUR BOSS

Most organizations require that you get approval to attend training sessions, since there is a cost involved and you will be away from your desk for the length of the session. When you approach the boss, there's several things to discuss. Again, why are you going? Second, how it will be useful. And third, what you need from the boss to make use of the training. For example, if you are taking a course on a new software package, let's say the Acme Word Publisher, you aren't going to get much use from it unless it's already set up on your work system and easily accessible IMMEDIATELY upon you return to work. If something is "missing" on the work end that will mean you can't use what you've learned IMMEDIATELY, then consider delaying the training.

It's always a good idea to schedule a "debriefing" with the boss after the training, to explain what went on, your opinions of it and how you intend to use it. The best reason for doing this is that it reinforces your own learning, and serves as a reminder.

WHILE YOU ARE THERE

Trainers can't read minds (although the really good ones seem to). While you shouldn't be pressured to participate actively if that's not your style, it really helps everyone if you ask questions when things aren't clear, and express your opinions and experiences. Remember that you and your fellow training participants can learn as much or more from each other than the trainer (and sometimes know more than the trainer!). In the event that things aren't to your liking, approach the trainer privately and break time. If you don't get some positive response, then you can always choose to leave (provided that's OK with the boss). If you do get into such a situation, communicate your reasons to the boss. Still, try to be flexible. Sometimes some kinds of training can be personally uncomfortable due to the subject matter, but that may pass if you hang in there.

AFTER THE SESSION

Here's a few hints so that whatever you learned doesn't get lost.

- Consider doing a presentation to your colleagues on what you learned (that's a great review process that helps you remember).

- Try to begin using what you have learned the FIRST DAY back on the job.

- Remember you have both the course material and your notes to use. Periodically go through them (you'd be amazed how many people chuck this material in a drawer, never to be viewed again.

There you have it. If you follow these basic hints, you'll probably get more out of the training session. That helps everyone, and justifies the company's investments (both present and future) in training programs.

Источники информации

1. The Economist online

2. The Economist printed edition

3. Work911.com Business, Management and Personal Development Resource Center : Bacal & Associates Online Home

4. Business World online edition

5. www.makeuseof.com

6. www.world-science.net

Содержание

1. РАЗДЕЛ 1. How to Work with Information

2. РАЗДЕЛ 2. World News

3. РАЗДЕЛ 3. Business World

4. РАЗДЕЛ 4. Finance

5. РАЗДЕЛ 5. Cultural World

6. РАЗДЕЛ 6. Science and Technology

7. РАЗДЕЛ 7. Applying Your Knowledge

8. РАЗДЕЛ 8. Articles to Translate