China must draw the right lessons from the failures of its one-child policy — Yasheng Huang

MIT Sloan Prof. Yasheng Huang

MIT Sloan Prof. Yasheng Huang

From South China Morning Post

In 1983, the UN gave China and India awards for their efforts to control the population. The recipient for India was its then prime minister, Indira Gandhi. She famously pushed for a compulsory sterilisation campaign and even suspended elections in order to enforce it. Her programme failed miserably, and one of its enduring effects is a pervasive distrust of India’s health care system, which still plagues public health efforts today.

By contrast, China’s one-child policy was in place for 35 years until this October, when the government announced a shift to a “one couple, two children” policy.

The contrast in duration between the Chinese and Indian population control policies cannot be sharper, and it is this, among other differences, that prompted some Western observers to argue that the authoritarian Chinese system is more capable of enforcing politically tough but economically rational policies.

The reality is much more complicated. It is true that India has a higher fertility rate than China and it is also true that India could not enforce population controls as effectively as China has. But there are many other differences between China and India that would account for a lower fertility rate in China, regardless of policies. Chinese women enjoy a higher socio-economic status than Indian women. Chinese basic education and public health are far superior to those in India. All these factors would have led to a declining fertility rate in China even if China did not have the one-child policy in place.

Read the full article at South China Morning Post.

Yasheng Huang is the International Program Professor in Chinese Economy and Business and a Professor of Global Economics and Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management.

How TV can succeed in the digital age — Daniel Schiffman

Daniel Schiffman, MIT Sloan MBA '15

Daniel Schiffman, MIT Sloan MBA ’15

From Forbes

The media landscape has changed tremendously over the past year, and as we look ahead to 2016 a big question is: What is the future of TV? Television has long been the leading medium when it comes to American video consumption, but the landscape is quickly changing. Traditional TV is seeing competition from video streaming providers like Netflix and Amazon, Over-The-Top (OTT) devices such as Chromecast and Roku, and streaming content on a myriad of personal devices.

While big data is a powerful tool, it hasn’t yet unseated TV from its place at the head of the pack. A Nielsen Total Audience Report for Q2 2015 shows that adults 18+ spend more than 32 hours a week watching television, giving TV a 95% share of all video viewing. As for advertising, TV is where we see the majority of spending. It’s a $72 billion-a-year industry in the U.S., compared to $50 billion for digital advertising. However, if TV is going to stay the leader amid this digital disruption, it needs to make some changes – and make them fast.

Not surprisingly, we’re starting to see TV experiment with alternate data collection methods. The traditional means to obtain data about television viewership has long been the Nielsen rating system. That is based on a panel of roughly 25,000 homes in the U.S. and collects data once every minute. However, it really only tells us what is on the TV screen in that home. It doesn’t show if anyone is actually in the room watching the TV, or, if they are in the room, whether they are attentive to the program. Yet Nielsen has long set the standard for telling us what Americans are supposedly watching, which sets the pricing for TV advertising.

Read More »

The five keys to successfully negotiating your salary — Neal Hartman

neal-hartman

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Neal Hartman

From Forbes

Many people find asking to be paid more money awkward. How will your request be perceived? Will you look greedy or demanding? Are you sure you’re really worth what you’re asking for? The key to answering these questions and reaching a successful outcome is preparation. Fortunately, it’s not difficult to prepare for a salary negotiation. It just takes a few simple steps.

1. Think about timing.

The first step in preparing for a salary discussion is to consider timing. In general, it’s better to discuss salary after you receive a job offer rather than once you start a position. Companies generally expect there will be some negotiations before a person formally accepts a position, and assuming you have done your market research, you should be comfortable knowing the salary range and typical benefits for your position and in your location.

However, many people decide to have this conversation when they have been in a job for a time and desire a raise. If this is the case, look at whether you’ve had changes in job responsibilities. Have you taken on new roles or tasks? Or have you recently completed a successful project? If so, this would be an appropriate time to ask for an increase.

Another rule of thumb is that it’s better to ask for a raise when you’re happy in your job, versus feeling dissatisfied. You want to bring a positive attitude to the negotiating table, because that suggests you are committed to the company and are in for the long haul. After all, who wants to reward a disgruntled employee?

It’s also helpful to look at how the company is doing. If it just announced layoffs, don’t ask for a raise. On the other hand, it reported a 15% increase in profits over the last quarter, that is probably a better time.

Read More »

The rise of data-driven decision making is real but uneven — Kristina McElheran and Erik Brynjolfsson

Kristina McElheran, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy Visiting Scholar

Kristina McElheran, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy Visiting Scholar

 

 Professor of Information Technology, Director, The MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy


Professor of Information Technology,
Director, The MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy

From Harvard Business Review

Growing opportunities to collect and leverage digital information have led many managers to change how they make decisions – relying less on intuition and more on data. As Jim Barksdale, the former CEO of Netscape quipped, “If we have data, let’s look at data. If all we have are opinions, let’s go with mine.” Following pathbreakers such as Caesar’s CEO Gary Loveman – who attributes his firm’s success to the use of databases and cutting-edge analytical tools – managers at many levels are now consuming data and analytical output in unprecedented ways.

This should come as no surprise. At their most fundamental level, all organizations can be thought of as “information processors” that rely on the technologies of hierarchy, specialization, and human perception to collect, disseminate, and act on insights. Therefore, it’s only natural that technologies delivering faster, cheaper, more accurate information create opportunities to re-invent the managerial machinery.

At the same time, large corporations are not always nimble creatures. How quickly are managers actually making the investments and process changes required to embrace decision-making practices rooted in objective data? And should all firms jump on this latest managerial bandwagon?

Read More »