Future rice yield losses due to climate change could be extreme

Rice is a staple food for more than half of the world’s population. Rice yields depend on numerous factors, such as agricultural practices, but they also depend on the temperature at which the crop is grown. Previous studies have shown that temperatures above rice’s optimum physiological temperature can reduce crop yield.

As a result, the International Food Policy Research Institute has stated that the effects of rising temperatures from climate change would likely reduce rice yield by 10 percent by 2050. This could have dramatic impacts across the world, as hunger and malnutrition are already significant problems.

But little is known about the physiological mechanisms through which rice plants respond and adapt to climate change. Previous investigations have left a lot of uncertainty, as they’ve used different methods to develop crop models. To address this, an international team of scientists has explored how rising temperatures affect the sensitivity of rice yields using a new compilation of data from 83 field warming experiments at 13 sites across the globe. The team also evaluated three modeling approaches (statistical models, local crop models, and global gridded crop models) to understand one of the sources of uncertainty.

Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Dr. Adizes at Austrian Course held December 2, 2016

Dr. Adizes: I welcome you to Adizes Methodology.

I think it would be good if I express to you what I believe is critical to make the methodology successful and why some companies are not fully successful.

What is the essence of the Methodology?

We all deal with change. Whenever there is change there are going to be problems. How do you handle problems? How do you grow a company when there is so much change?

The problem is that there is uncertainty, you don’t know what is going to happen, and there is risk. How to handle uncertainty and risk better than the competition?

This methodology was not developed in the library in a university. I left the university to go to the real world and see how to make this happen; how to make companies grow, in spite of uncertainty and risk.
This methodology has been tested for 50 years. Please look at our website and you will see presidents of companies who say they grew the company from $12 million to $4 billion with the Adizes Methodology. It is a testament for the methodology. It has been tested in 58 countries, in companies from startups to the biggest in the world.

Why the success?

If you have a complementary team, you see things I don’t see; I see things you don’t see. Together we see more. That reduces uncertainty.

Now, if you have the same interest, if we have common interest, that will make risk lower because those who you need will cooperate. When there is common interest there is cooperation. When there is cooperation there is less risk. A complementary team that shares knowledge and is based on common interests, reduces uncertainty and reduces risk.

That raises the question, what causes people to share information to make better decisions?

Mutual respect.

And what will make people have common interest?

Mutual trust.

So the whole Adizes Methodology is how to build mutual trust and respect in a company, so that the company can handle risk and uncertainty, and handle change better. Not only to make you happier, but also to make you richer.

A company will grow better outside if it is integrated inside. If people are fighting inside, no energy is available to deal with the outside.

Now the question: how do you build mutual trust and respect? Especially in Russia ( the audience is Russian, ed note) — because Russia does not have a history of democracy. It was always a totalitarian system, and companies in Russia are run in a totalitarian way. So there is a cultural problem: We have to change the culture inside the company.


The program is very systematic, with a program and manuals…. The results are exceptional. As I told you, companies grew from $12 million to $4 billion. But the program is not easy to apply. Changing the culture of a company is a very, very time-consuming and difficult job.

It is normal that people want change as long as they don’t have to change. So in order for the program to work, in order for a company to succeed with the Adizes methodology, it requires commitment.

Many times a president of a company has asked me, “Dr. Adizes, have you ever failed?” I say, “Yes. Not every company succeeds.”

And they ask me, “What is the difference?”

I look them in the eye and say, “You.”

How committed are you? Because people will complain: “It takes too much time… it’s too much work… we cannot do it…” Are you going to hold the line? Or not?

Adizes is not a consulting company. It’s not a training company. We are like a coach. We will train you to be an Olympic champion but you have to work hard. You have to do it. And it’s not going to be easy.

What is going to be difficult?

Number one: The program takes time. You cannot hire somebody to do physical exercise for you. That is what is wrong with some big consulting firms: You hire them to do the work for you. You just need a report and the job is finished. Is it?

To be a champion you have to show up. “But I don’t have time,” people complain. In that case forget Adizes. Try a consulting firm, and good luck.

Adizes requires commitment — at minimum one to two days a month. If you really don’t have time, then you start the Adizes program at 1 o’clock in the afternoon to 10 o’clock at night twice a month.

Problem number two: As a first-line supervisor, you tell people what to do. You listen, but not too much. Your mouth is big; your ears are small.

As you ascend the hierarchy to be the president of a company, your mouth should become small and your ears should become big. Small mouth and big ears. That’s right: You have to listen what is going on.
You have to listen to the people, what is going on with them. You are now far from the action. They are on the fighting floor, so you have to listen to what is happening down there. That is where the roots of the tree are. Watch the roots, not just the leaves. Financial statements are important but remember they are the leaves not the roots of your success.

That means that you have to change your style. You have to sit in the room and listen to the people. Some people are difficult. You must learn how to lead people whose style is different from yours.

Adizes is training you so you can handle change in the future without us. We are proud of every client we lose. Our job is to teach you the tools how to manage as a team, and then say goodbye, thank you very much. Finished. It’s like psychotherapy, organizational therapy: You should not be dependent on your therapist for too long. A good therapist makes sure you are healthy and says goodbye, you are done with therapy. You are on your own. You can come to our conventions every year and learn what is new and update yourself so your company continues to grow.

You get 4 results from the program:
You solve problems.
You build a team.
You become better managers.
And you enrich your managerial style.

I can promise you one thing: If you do a diagnosis of your company, and you identify problems which are chronic — they come back, and back, and back, and back–this is what is blocking your growth of the company — this is what you lose sleep over at night — I promise you–because we have the experience of 50 years, thousands of companies — 40% of these chronic problems will disappear. Minimum. 40% will be better; 20% will not change; and the second year, what was better will disappear, what did not change will become better. In 3 years, all problems you have today should disappear. That is on average. Some companies do it faster. It all depends on how committed you, the CEO, are to give time and energy.

In 3 years, it does not mean that you will have no more problems. You will have bigger problems. Because you are as big as the problems you are dealing with. Today maybe you have problems of quality control, you have problems of marketing, and maybe you have problems of hiring the right people. In 3 years, you will have a big problem: how to become an international company. By solving the small problems you can address the bigger problems.

Once I sent a New Years card, with wishes for the new year to my clients: “I wish you bigger problems next year than this year that you can solve.” Tell me how big the problems you are dealing with are and I will tell you how big you are.

The Adizes Methodology does not only make the company bigger, it makes you — you personally — better. People say that it helps their marriage. Next year it’s coming out, a new book of mine on how to apply Adizes in family life. And I just finished yesterday a new book on how to apply Adizes to personal life. So, this methodology is not a consulting methodology, it’s a philosophy of life.

I welcome you, I hope that you will enjoy the methodology, and I hope you will join us and many, many companies around the world and have a better company and a better quality of life.

Thank you .

Watch the presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IIyJjSC5o8#action=share

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Top 10 Reasons Online Networking is More Effective Than In-Person Networking

Meeting people in real life, face-to-face is important for building professional relationships, but I’d be willing to bet that most of us — whether introverted or extroverted — do not enjoy the awkward interactions that are common when meeting strangers face-to-face for the first time.

Networking events can feel like high school dances. Some packs of people who know each other stick together in cliques, never truly reaching out of their comfort zone. Others sit on the sidelines like wallflowers, waiting to go home to their pajamas and The Tonight Show. A scarce few may end up networking with someone they end up having a fruitful business relationship with, but most of us are lucky to leave with a few pleasant exchanges and business cards.

Networking online, however, provides a much greater chance of success. It allows for a more thoughtful approach.

Here are 10 Reasons Online Networking is Better Than In-Person Networking, followed by steps to begin networking online like a champ.

10. Unlike networking events, networking online does not require suffering through a glass of bad chardonnay and a rubber chicken dinner.

9. Networking online has the potential to reach almost anyone in the world. It’s not just limited to whoever is in the room.

8. You can be strategic and prepare before networking with someone online, as opposed to flying by the seat of your pants with whoever happens to be at a networking event.

7. Online, you don’t have to worry about someone dismissively walking away from you after sizing you up.

6. There’s no need to spend money or time away from family to travel to a conference in order to network online.

5. Who wouldn’t want to avoid making that awkward glance to attempt to make out someone’s name tag to figure out if he just introduced himself as “Ned,” “Ed,” or “Ted”?

4. No awkward handshakes.

3. Online networking doesn’t require having to remember to stuff your pockets with extra business cards.

2. One word: pajamas!

1. After connecting with someone online, the ice is broken, and an offer to meet face-to-face for lunch or at the next industry event is usually welcome, since the two parties have established, in advance of meeting each other in person, that there is potential for a mutually beneficial, professional connection.

Meeting face-to-face is an important element of a successful relationship if it is to be meaningful and mutually beneficial over the long-term, but meeting online to get the relationship started is typically far less awkward and more effective. Convinced that online networking is the way to go when you want to connect with people professionally? Check out my step-by-step All-Star Online Networking Tips to get started.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Glimpse into the World of “The Real Mad Men of Advertising”


By Heather Taylor

When Mad Men made its series debut in the summer of 2007, viewers were immediately hooked into the bold, vivacious world of advertising. Don Draper might have been fictional, but the reality was that art imitated life in the ad industry. Behind closed doors on Madison Avenue was a powerhouse of agencies where talented men and women reinvented the industry, creating some of the memorable ads ever over martini lunches and smoky photo shoots. Mad Men may have ended its run in 2015, but the Smithsonian Channel is playing homage to advertising’s formative years with The Real Mad Men of Advertising.

Premiering January 8th, the four-part miniseries takes a closer look at the ad men and women who revolutionized brands through the 1950s – 1980s, featuring interviews with top ad creators of the 1950s, Mad Men cast and crew members, and supermodel Brooke Shields reflecting on her controversial 1980s Calvin Klein ad campaign. We recently chatted with Tim Evans, Co-Executive Producer at the Smithsonian Channel for The Real Mad Men of Advertising, who shared what it was like to work with Matthew Weiner, the “golden age” of advertising, and why the miniseries doesn’t have a 1990s segment.

What inspired the team at Smithsonian to create an advertising miniseries after Mad Men had gone off the air?

Just after the finale, Matt Weiner and AMC donated props and costumes to the Smithsonian’s collection at the National Museum of American History. The donation made it clear that the series is not just a television show about an historic period; the series itself is significant because of its commentary and reflection on history. We took this as a jumping off place: What does this hit series reveal about the history of advertising, and what does that history tell us about ourselves?

If Mad Men hadn't been such a success, would the history and cultural significance of advertising be as widely discussed in the media as it is today?

The cultural significance of advertising is extremely important, but it’s such a part of the world around us that we often don’t pay much attention. Much of the media actually IS advertising, so it often seems invisible. It took Mad Men to point out the impact Madison Avenue had on 1960s America. Our series The Real Mad Men of Advertising uses the lens of Mad Men to look beyond that – to explore advertising from the 1950s through the 1980s – where I’d like to think that Don Draper would have become a grizzled ad world survivor.

What will the miniseries highlight from “the golden age” of advertising?

We interview many of the real ad men and women who created the classic ads of the 1950s through the 1980s. These are the real Don Drapers and Peggy Olsons, and their stories are fascinating. We also include the great commercials themselves. People who actually remember these commercials might find them nostalgic and others might find them a little freaky. It’s sometimes hard to believe what was allowed on the air!

There are actually two levels when we’re talking about “Advertising’s Golden Age” – the world of the ad industry, and the ads themselves. The Golden Age of the ad industry was rife with sexism, racism, harassment, and fraud… All the things that made Mad Men such compelling TV. But the ads themselves also reflected those values – and you can see those values changing in the actual commercials. The casual sexism of 1960s commercials changes by the 1970s, when women become a coveted target demographic, and changes even more in the 1980s when women are running ad agencies. The ads are a time capsule, and they are sometimes funny and sometimes horrifying, because they reflect our values during that period.

John Slattery, Matthew Weiner, and Brooke Shields are some of the big names in advertising that appear in the miniseries. What was it like to work alongside these professionals?

Each of them was a pleasure to work with, in their own ways.  Matt Weiner insists that he’s not an expert in the history of advertising, but he knows an extraordinary amount and shared some fascinating insights and information, and Brooke Shields was incredibly funny and willing to talk about her reaction as a teenager to her infamous ads. 

Was there any specific reason for not including a 1990s segment?

We could have taken the series up to today or even back to the Roman Empire, because advertising is a truly compelling story. However, the “Mad Men Era” of the 60s and 70s is considered Advertising’s Golden Age, so we wanted to start with the precursors of Don Draper in the 1950s. And we wanted to end with the 80s – when MTV and infomercials blurred the distinction between TV and commercials, and advertising had changed forever. It would be interesting to follow up with a look at the transformations of online and mobile advertising. 

Which brands throughout the decades consistently nail it with their ad campaigns?

When you delve into the research, you discover that the “brands” often had nothing to do with the campaigns. The campaigns were invented by the people we interviewed: men like Lee Clow – who created the iconic “1984” ad for Apple’s Macintosh – or women like Jane Maas – who wrote Clairol’s famous “Does She Or Doesn’t She” catchphrase. Mad Men focused a fictional eye on these people, but we hope our series reveals the men and women who had this massive but secret impact on every aspect of American culture.

Let’s talk about the future of advertising in an era of selfies, Snaps, and hashtags. Will there be a return to form or are we headed towards a much brighter future? 

One of the revelations of The Real Mad Men of Advertising is that good ads are the result of creativity… And pretty much nothing else. As the ad industry grew from the post-war era to the edge of the millennium, all sorts of new technology emerged – from radio to cable to the web to mobile. Each new technology had a bunch of new marketing theories, but the ads that made a difference – both to their product and to culture at large – were pure creativity. They were a Big Idea, or a funny riff, or a smart tweak to a widely accepted concept. And they came from smart people who embraced creativity. I think creativity will remain the most important element for advertising, no matter what the media or technology. 

Adjust the antennae cords on your TV and tune in to The Real Mad Men of Advertising premiering Sunday, January 8th at 9 p.m. ET/PT on the Smithsonian Channel.

Image credits: Smithsonian Channel

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Democrats want 9/11-style special commission to probe Russia

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democratic members of the U.S. Congress called on Monday for the creation of an independent commission to investigate Russia’s attempts to intervene in the 2016 election, similar to the Sept. 11 panel that probed the 2001 attacks on the United States.

Emotional Intelligence


By Meabh Quoirin, CEO & Co-Owner, Foresight Factory (Formerly Future Foundation)

The year of EQ

I predict 2017 will be the year of EQ. The macro socio-cultural and political conditions are ripe, the science is ready, but perhaps most importantly the consumer is hungry for it. Never has the simple adage ‘facts tell, stories sell, carried so much weight (thank you, Mr President Elect). Perhaps the simple shift towards a greater proportion of time spent in front of screens has sufficiently boosted our conscious desire for more emotional, ‘offline style’ interactions, particularly across our social networking spaces. Or maybe it’s just the undeniable pressure on today’s marketer to deliver products and messages that replicate not just people’s true needs, but their very personal identity – even their personality. The signals for understanding, tracking & matching people’s moods are getting very interesting indeed. But this will be a tricky game to play.

Needless to say pigeon-holing people by personality is pretty well impossible, at this stage at least, and likely to be just an frustrating and limited as any other classic segmentation. And so the race for – what I like to call – personality proxies – is on. Who can best play the brand as personality game? Prepare for a range of  branding shifts, immersive tech  led product experiences, and some highly experimental marcomms coming your way, sometime very soon…..

The brand balance

It’s quite clear that for brands this represents something of a seismic realisation. It’s no longer a question of deciding on an aspirational emotive positioning (the sense of self-satisfaction that pervades male-focused car advertising, for example). Marketers need to balance credible consistency in their brand tone, with an ability to detect and respond to the emotional signals that different consumers send at different moments. A person with a high EQ doesn’t adopt the same conversational style with everyone they meet – they have an instinct for picking up on a person’s current feelings and deeper motivations and expressing their personality in a way that fits. Given that two thirds of global consumers  now  welcome brands who reflect their own personality, style, taste – across all categories from the mundane to the highly engaging – so marketing simply must tune in to these different kinds of emotional intelligence.

True signals

One of the most interesting and controversial elements of emotional science is of course getting behind the consumer curtain of social norms and closer to their true desires and opinions. It will be critical to get a reading on both conscious and non-conscious responses. Something as simple as the cascade of emojis, the semi-conscious emotional responses to messages posted across the Twitter sphere, can be a hugely valuable insight into the emotion your brand elicits, versus those of your competitors. A pretty binary signal, but one that we believe is being wrongly overlooked – not least because we’ve forecast a huge rise in the volume of emoji use over the next 2 years. We can also expect exciting immersive signals to illuminate our dark emotional secrets: cue more AR and VR in every direction. From emotionally intelligent avatars to discrete hearable devices – consumers will be altogether more generous in the intelligence they offer the platforms, products and services we engage.  Understanding where the lines are, in terms of how far brands can push the application of these new data streams will create a lively discourse.

Future signs

For a hint of what’s to come, the best place to look is arguably the car industry. Ironic, perhaps given their approach to advertising thus far, but it’s genuinely intriguing to see brands such as Hyundai using facial & eye tracking signals to understand consumers’ moods as they drive. Other players, particularly at the luxury end of the market, are decoding similar signals from consumers in the showroom.

One of the key milestones we’re monitoring at Foresight Factory is how the consumer will react in all of this. Do we really, really want to be told how we feel? Will we recognise ourselves in new emotional positioning? Will we enjoy the media that is calibrated to our moods? How much of this will we even be aware of, truthfully? We’ve been exploring not only the science, but the consumers’ view of what is welcome and acceptable. Suffice to say, brands have more permission to play here than perhaps they even realise. A subtle balance will be required though and the potential for disruption from new regulation – particularly in Europe – must be keeping even the boldest marketers awake at night. Learning where the lines are, in terms of how far brands can push the application of these new data streams, will be one of the industry hot topics of the latter part of this decade.

Join us this month, as we kick-off the debate at the Advertising Week Europe Roadshow. We hope to see you there.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.