Europa após o Brexit: Uma proposta para uma parceria continental

Europa após o Brexit: Uma proposta para uma parceria continental Após a decisão britânica de deixar a UE, a trajetória da Europa, e mesmo o seu destino, tornou-se novamente uma questão de escolha. Propomos uma nova forma de colaboração, uma parceria continental. A parceria continental proposta consistirá numa participação de bens, serviços, mobilidade de capital e alguma mobilidade no trabalho temporário, bem como num novo sistema de tomada de decisões inter-governamentais e na execução de regras comuns para proteger a homogeneidade do mercado integrado. Isto resulta numa Europa com um círculo interno, a UE, com uma integração profunda e política, e um círculo exterior com menos integração. A longo prazo, poderá também servir como uma visão para estruturar as relações com a Turquia, a Ucrânia e outros países. Por: Jean Pisani-Ferry, Norbert Rottgen, André Sapir, Paul Tucker e Guntram B. Wolff Fonte: Bruegel Ver também: O Medef está preocupado com as consequências do Brexit O impacto do Brexit preocupa os representantes do patronato francês. Que temem que esta travagem no projeto europeu faça cair o relançamento económico da UE. «De tanto andarmos em círculos dobre o futuro da Europa, vamos acabar por ser ultrapassados pemas grandes potencias emergentes» disse o PDG da Airbus, Fabrice Bréguer. (...) Por: Cécile Barbière Fonte: EurActiv O Reino-Unido não vai manter «um pé» na UE A primeira ministra britânica Theresa May declarou que a possibilidade de um segundo referendo ou qualquer outra tentativa para «manter um pé na UE» foi descartada. (...) Por: Matthew Tempest Fonte: EurActiv

China dirige-se para Oeste: a nova Rota da Seda de Pequim para a Europa

A China está a construir novas estradas, ferrovias e oleodutos da Ásia Central para a Europa, num esforço para implementar novas conexões com o resto do mundo. Os resultados podem ser bons para os chineses - mas nem tanto para os outros países envolvidos. Por: Erich Follath Fonte: Spiegel On line

 China Heads West: Beijing's New Silk Road to Europe

China is building new roads, railroads and pipelines from Central Asia to Europe in an effort to build new connections to the rest of the world. The results may be good for the Chinese -- but less so for the other countries involved.

In Kashgar, on the western edge of the Peoples' Republic of China, the view is reminiscent of the Bible and the days when the ancient Silk Road began to take shape here in the 1st century B.C. Today, the government plans to use Kashgar as the starting point for a new, global trade route -- but at this point, there is still little evidence of it.

"Posh, Posh," the men shout on their horse-drawn carts, as they make their way to the meadow where drivers are selling camels. Potential buyers expertly reach into the animals' mouths to examine their health. The air is dusty and filed with the sounds of animals neighing, braying and bleating, as if the horses, donkeys and goats know that they won't stay tied up for long. Women, only a few of them wearing veils, walk through the chaos carrying sacks of apricots and raisins.

Brexit, Europa, Mediterrâneo: para um novo tratado fundador

E em política estrangeira, e particularmente a respeito dos nossos «vizinhos do Sul» mediterrâneo, os 28 Estados da União reproduziram os mesmos erros que em matéria de integração e de coordenação das políticas económicas e fiscais. E a política europeia de vizinhança não parece produzir reais progressos. O tempo da refundação chegou, estima Henry Marty-Gauquié. Para o diretor honorário do Banco europeu de investimento (BEI) e membro do Grupo de analise JFC Conseil, este novo começo deve apoiar-se na «única instituição que representa os povos: o Parlamento europeu». Por: Henry Marty-Gauquié; Fonte: La Tribune

Draghi pede um corta-fogo público para a banca

O conselho de governo do Banco Central Europeu (BCE) não produziu surpresas e decidiu manter intactos as taxas de juro no mínimo histórico de 0%. Junto com o brexit, e a análise das suas consequências, um dos temas que chamou a atenção durante a ronda de imprensa foram as declarações efetuadas sobre a saúde do sistema bancário. Perguntado sobre o efeito da consulta britânica na banca, Mario Draghi reconheceu o impacto negativo que teve nos bancos ¿Os bancos mais prejudicados foram aqueles que tinham maior quantidade de empréstimos não bancários¿, assinalou. As palavras de Draghi de que o sector bancário pode necessitar de um apoio governamental para os empréstimos duvidosos provocou a forte subida da banca. Fonte: Cinco Dias

If You Can’t Say What Your Meeting Will Accomplish, You Shouldn’t Have It

• by Bob Frisch and 
• Cary Greene in HBR

APRIL 18, 2016

How many times have you walked out of a theoretically important meeting—a leadership offsite, a C-suite pow-wow, a sit-down with the board—thinking, That was a great discussion, but I’m not sure we really accomplished anything? More often than not, the problem lies not in what did or didn’t happen at the meeting itself. You didn’t get anything done because the goals for the meeting were never firmly established in the first place.

We see this happen all the time when clients hire us to help manage offsites. Often, they start by handing us a pretty well developed (and usually packed) agenda, full of already-booked speakers, and a finalized list of confirmed attendees. Beyond logistics, the actual substance of the offsite is nearly set. But then we always ask the meeting owner—the most senior executive hosting it—the same two questions:
What do you want to have debated, decided, or discovered at the end of this session that you and the team haven’t already debated, decided, or discovered?
What do you want attendees to say when their team members ask, “What happened at the big meeting?”

In almost every case, the response is the same: “That’s a good question—I hadn’t actually thought about those things.”

It doesn’t matter if it’s an eight-person board meeting, a 15-person executive team meeting, or a 150-person leadership conference—your first step when planning an important one-off or non-routine get-together should be to draft an initial set of goals based on the answers to the two questions above. In the words of Stephen Covey, “Begin with the end in mind.” These objectives are not the activities you will be engaged in or the time slots on the agenda. They are more high level: your desired outcomes for the offsite.

The list needn’t be very long or complicated. As a starting point, three-to-five short bullets or sentences that articulate what you want to accomplish is more than enough.

But this process may take some time. The meeting owner might go through two to three iterations before he or she has a straw-model set of objectives ready to be tested with other key meeting stakeholders, who should then be asked to review the list and identify any missing or unnecessary goals. Once everyone is aligned, agree and communicate to all other attendees that these objectives are locked in. This helps keep the agenda focused and gives the meeting owner cover if someone asks to add an unrelated presentation or discussion at the last minute.

Here are some example objectives from different types of meetings we’ve run recently:

Board meeting:
Provide Board input as Management formulates the new five-year strategy
Agree on how much runway remains on the current core strategy
Identify new strategies to potentially pursue

Finalize the operating model for strategic governance
Annual strategic planning process
Long-term (five+ year) strategic oversight
Agree on the topics and timing for additional Board input into the current planning cycle

Executive team meeting:
Develop a list of growth opportunities for the team to further assess
Begin to define select growth opportunities, including the future state description for each and potential measures of success
Confirm the accountable executive and team leader for each opportunity
Understand the timeline and activities over the next three months

Leadership conference:
Establish the purpose and positioning of the Extended Leadership Team
Impart a meaningful understanding of the company’s vision, mission, and strategy, including top priorities for the next three years
Understand priority issues surfaced by attendees and develop potential solutions
Align around next steps

Your list of objectives must also drive important decisions about aspects of the meeting:

Agenda. Draft an agenda and map each activity to your stated goals. Do all of them help you achieve one or more of your objectives? Are there any objectives that can’t be achieved through what you have planned?

Attendees. The number and identity of attendees should be based on the scope and objectives of the meeting. For example, if you need to make decisions, we recommend a smaller group. If your aim is to generate ideas or achieve broad organizational buy-in for an initiative, you should invite a larger group.

Pre-reads. Don’t overload people with voluminous meeting pre-reads full of assorted plans, reports and studies that aren’t directly related to your objectives. Instead use your list to organize, filter and focus the content you send in advance.

Location. The location of your meeting should reflect its objectives too. For example, if your goals focus on a specific region, go there. If an explicit objective is for participants to get to know each other better, make sure you pick a venue designed for socializing.

When you set out and share your objectives in this way, it ensures that everyone is “coming to the same meeting.” Attendees will be energized and ready to accomplish those goals.

Merkel grants May until new year to trigger Article 50

German Chancellor Angela Merkel gave her opposite number Theresa May breathing space to come up with a Brexit negotiation position on Wednesday (20 July), concurring with the new British PM that London will not trigger Article 50 until the New Year.

At a evening dinner in Berlin – May’s first foreign trip since becoming prime minister seven days ago – May stressed that she needed until the end of the year to come up with a UK position – even if that upset some EU member states.

Merkel, at a joint press conference of the two women at the Chancellery in Berlin, agreed, but warned “No one wants things to be up in the air – neither Britain nor the member states of the EU.”

Technically, the UK must give legal notice under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty of its desir

By Matthew Tempest | EurActiv.com

German Chancellor Angela Merkel gave her opposite number Theresa May breathing space to come up with a Brexit negotiation position on Wednesday (20 July), concurring with the new British PM that London will not trigger Article 50 until the New Year.

At a evening dinner in Berlin – May’s first foreign trip since becoming prime minister seven days ago – May stressed that she needed until the end of the year to come up with a UK position – even if that upset some EU member states.

Merkel, at a joint press conference of the two women at the Chancellery in Berlin, agreed, but warned “No one wants things to be up in the air – neither Britain nor the member states of the EU.”

Technically, the UK must give legal notice under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty of its desire to quit the 28-member bloc, following June’s shock referendum result.

However, Article 50 makes no mention of a time frame, beyond the two-years of negotiation that will then follow.

Although May became PM unexpectedly quickly, following David Cameron’s resignation, few member states are likely to have much patience beyond the start of 2017  – and with it, the French and German election cycles.

“Everybody has an interest that these things are prepared carefully, that the positions are clear – and I think it’s fully understandable that a certain amount of time is needed for that,” Merkel said.

With a UK parliament report today condemning the Cameron government for having no Brexit contingency planning, Merkel told reporters that Britain needed a “well-defined position” before starting the two-year talks

May admitted such a timescale pushing notification beyond the end of 2016 “would not please everyone.”

She said, “All of us will need time to prepare for these negotiations and the United Kingdom will not invoke Article 50 until our objectives are clear. That is why I have said already that this will not happen before the end of this year.

“I understand this timescale will not please everyone but I think it is important to provide clarity on that now. We should strive for a solution which respects the decision of British voters, but also respects the interests of our European partners.”

May said her priority was a “sensible and orderly departure.”

Although May – who herself campaigned for a Remain vote in the referendum – has repeatedly said ‘Brexit means Brexit’ since entering Number 10, it has become clear that few on the Leave side agree what form of relationship, or membership of the European Economic Area, could now apply.

No praise for Boris

Under critical questioning from German reporters over the appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary, May pointedly refused to defend him by name, merely praising “the team” she had appointed to deal with Brexit.

Merkel also pointed out that ‘informal’ negotiations on Brexit could not take place until Article 50 is notified.

MAY WARNS AGAINST SCOTTISH EU HOPES AHEAD OF MERKEL TALKS Theresa May warned on Wednesday (20 July) that Scottish plans to somehow remain in the EU despite the UK’s Leave vote were “impracticable”. EurActiv.com

“I’ve been clear that Brexit means Brexit and the UK is going to make a success of it,” May said, but stressed that Britain was “not walking away from our European friends”.

“It’s in that constructive spirit I’ve come here today to lay the foundation for a strong relationship in the months and years to come,” she said.

But Merkel made clear the negotiations – to be conducted on the British side by former Europe minister under John Major, David David – could get sticky.

“It’s not as if the British prime minister will in future sit at the EU table,” Merkel said. “We will certainly stick up for our interests just as Britain does for its own citizens.”

The UK already announced today it was giving up its rotating presidency of the EU Council, set for the end of 2017, to Estonia.

UK 'TOO BUSY' WITH BREXIT TO HOLD EU PRESIDENCY, CLAIMS MAY Britain will no longer take on the rotating EU presidency as planned next year, surrendering the role in the wake of the Brexit vote, Prime Minister Theresa May’s office said Wednesday (20 July). EurActiv.com

May reiterated her promise to reduce UK immigration to a “sustainable” level of tens of thousands a year – although again, without putting a deadline on it.

Asked by the BBC about the UK and German both now being represented by female leaders, May joked, ““We have two women here who have got on and had a very constructive discussion.”

“Two women who, if I may say so, get on with the job.”

How to Take the Bias Out of Interviews

HBR STAFF

If you’re a hiring manager, you’re probably happiest getting a sense of a candidate through unstructured interviews, which allow you to randomly explore details you think are interesting and relevant. (What does the applicant think of her past employer? Does she like Chicago? What does she do in her downtime?) After all, isn’t your job to get to know the candidate? But while unstructured interviews consistently receive the highest ratings for perceived effectiveness from hiring managers, dozens of studies have found them to be among the worst predictors of actual on-the-job performance — far less reliable than general mental ability tests, aptitude tests, or personality tests.

Why do we stick with a method that so clearly does not work, when decision aids, including tests, structured interviews, and a combination of mechanical predictors, substantially reduce error in predicting employee performance? The organizational psychologist Scott Highhouse called this resistance “the greatest failure of I-O [industrial and organizational] psychology.”

The unwillingness to give up a much-loved evaluation approach seems to be driven by two factors: Managers are overconfident about their own expertise and experience, and they dislike deferring to more structured approaches that might outsource human judgment to a machine.

When sociologist Lauren Rivera interviewed bankers, lawyers, and consultants, they reported that they commonly looked for someone like themselves in interviews. Replicating ourselves in hiring contributes to the prevalent gender segregation of jobs, with, for example, male bankers hiring more male bankers and female teachers hiring more female teachers.

Sometimes we have to learn the hard way. A few years ago, Texas legislators realized that the state was short on physicians. To fix the problem, the legislature required the University of Texas Medical School at Houston to increase the class size of entering students from 150 to 200 — after the admissions committee had already chosen its preferred 150 students. As most students apply to several medical schools simultaneously, by that time all the top-ranked candidates had already been spoken for. This meant that the pool of still-available students was made up of candidates who had previously received a low ranking from the admissions committee. Of the 50 students finally selected, only seven had received an offer from another medical school.

This government-dictated requirement turned into an eye-opening field study, allowing University of Texas researchers to examine whether the initial ranking mattered for the students’ performance in and after medical school. Here’s the shocking result: The performance of initially accepted and initially rejected students turned out to be the same. Digging deeper, the researchers found that about three-quarters of the difference in ratings between initially accepted and initially rejected students was due not to more-objective measures, such as grades, but rather to the interviewers’ perceptions of the candidates in unstructured interviews. Faced with this finding, the researchers ask whether, after an initial assessment of academic and other performance measures, traditional interviews should be replaced by a lottery among the viable applicants.

I don’t expect lotteries to replace interviews in most situations, but the evidence against unstructured interviews should make any hiring manager pause. These interviews should not be your evaluation tool of choice; they are fraught with bias and irrelevant information. Instead, managers should invest in tools that have been shown to predict future performance. On the top of your list should be work-sample tests related to the tasks the job candidate will have to perform. For example, Compose, a cloud storage company, decided to completely do away with resumes and instead evaluate job candidates based on how well they solved a job-related problem. Companies including Applied, Blendoor, Edge, GapJumpers, Interviewing.io, Paradigm, and Unitive provide the analytical tools and the software that can bring more structure to hiring procedures.

Still, most companies will want to “see” the candidates after the work-sample test. Companies should rely on a structured interview that standardizes the process among candidates, eliminating much subjectivity. These interviews pose the same set of questions in the same order to all candidates, allowing clearer comparisons between them. This may seem like an obvious approach, but, incredibly, it remains underused. Of course, the flow of conversation during the interview will be slightly more awkward than it already is, but the payoff is worth it.

The protocol should also require the interviewer to score each answer immediately after it is provided. This neutralizes a variety of biases: We are more likely to remember answers with vivid examples, for example, and answers that are most recent. Evaluators who wait until the end of the interview to rate answers risk forgetting an early or less-vivid but high-quality answer, or favoring candidates whose speaking style favors storytelling.

It’s also best to compare candidate responses horizontally. That is, if you interview five candidates, compare each of their answers on question one, then each answer on question two, and so on. Many academics, myself included, do this when grading exams. Ideally, evaluators hide their assessment of question one from themselves — literally obscuring it from view — to reduce the chance that the answer will influence scores on subsequent questions. This can be uncomfortable because interviewers often discover that a candidate gives superb answers to some questions but deeply disappointing ones to others. Although it complicates evaluation, identifying this internal inconsistency is worthwhile, especially if there are questions that receive more weight.

Comparative evaluations not only help us calibrate across candidates but also decrease the reflex to rely on stereotypes to guide our impressions. In joint research with Max Bazerman of Harvard Business School and Alexandra van Geen of Erasmus University Rotterdam, we have shown that biases that lead us to expect women to be better at stereotypically female jobs, such as nursing, and men at stereotypically male jobs, such as engineering, tend to kick in when we focus on and vertically evaluate one candidate at a time. In contrast, people are less likely to rely on whether a candidate “looks the part” when evaluating several candidates simultaneously and comparing them systematically.

Structured interviews are not just about discipline in asking questions — some companies, including Google, structure the content of their interviews using data. Their people-analytics departments crunch data to find out which interview questions are more highly correlated with on-the-job success. A candidate’s superb answer on such questions can give the evaluator a clue about their future performance, so it makes sense that responses to those questions receive additional weight.


Replacing unstructured with structured interviews is only part of the battle; managers should also abandon panel, or group, interviews altogether. I know of no evidence that they provide a superior gauge of a candidate’s future performance. And it’s best to keep interviewers as independent of each other as possible. To state the obvious, if you have four interviewers, four data points from four individual interviews trump one data point from one collective interview.

Once everyone has evaluated all candidates, the evaluators should submit their assessments before a meeting to discuss an applicant. This would allow an organization to aggregate answers — those one-to-10 weighted scores on questions asked in the exact same order. Assessments with candidates above a certain threshold should advance for further consideration. Whether the candidate roots for the Red Sox should not even be asked, and of course it’s not relevant.

Implementing these adjustments is just the beginning. Having embraced the fact that unstructured approaches are inferior, make sure you keep experimenting to fine-tune what works best in your context. For example, my colleagues and I are working with the government of a large country to improve its talent management. We have run a number of A/B tests to measure the diagnostic power of specific work-sample tests and interview questions for public servants. Data analysis and design innovations such as comparative evaluations can help organizations level the playing field and benefit from 100% of the talent pool.

Like people in most other human endeavors, hiring managers are powerfully and often unwittingly influenced by their biases. While it’s exceedingly difficult to remove bias from an individual, it’s possible to design organizations in ways that make it harder for biased minds to skew judgment. We should stop wasting resources trying to de-bias mindsets and instead start to de-bias our hiring procedures. Work-sample tests, structured interviews, and comparative evaluation are the smart and the right things to do, allowing us to hire the best talent instead of those who look the part. Smarter design of our hiring practices and procedures may not free our minds from our shortcomings, but it can make our biases powerless, breaking the link between biased beliefs and discriminatory — and often just stupid — actions. 

---

Iris Bohnet is a behavioral economist and professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and director of its Women and Public Policy Program. Her new book, “What Works: Gender Equality by Design,” was published in March 2016 by Harvard University Press.