On November 24 NOVA has a program called What Are Dreams? and joins leading dream researchers
as they "embark on a variety of neurological and psychological
experiments to investigate the world of sleep and dreams." (thanks to Moleskinerie for the tip).
The link between sleep, safety and impairment is one that occasionally crops up in employment law for example, where there is a request for accommodation of a shift worker or where there is an accident. The Harvard Medical School has a helpful site that reviews, in part, the link between Sleep, Performance and Public Safety. Here are some of the links:
The demands and expectations of our modern society have placed
increasing demands on our time, and more than ever people are making up
for those demands by cutting back on sleep.
same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that the cost of
insufficient sleep is much higher than most people recognize.
research is revealing, for example, how sleep loss, and even
poor-quality sleep, can lead to an increase in errors at the workplace,
decreased productivity, and accidents that cost both lives and
resources. Awareness can help you improve your sleep habits and in turn
NOVA offers some great links if you're interested in further research.
I've been giving some thought of late to the so called organizational "black sheep" - you know, the contrarians, "malcontents" and those that don't tow the company line (in fact, they might not even be aware that there is a company line or care that one exists if they are aware of it).
I was reminded (thanks to Tim Corcoran for his excellent post) of an interview with two-time Oscar-winning director Brad Bird of Pixar. Bird's first project at Pixar was the The Incredibles. When he showed the technical teams story reels of his vision for the movie, they "turned white" and said that it would take "ten years and cost $500 million. How are we possibly going to do this?" Did Bird cave? Did he simply compromise his creative vision in favour of the tried and true?
To the contrary, he said:
"Give us the black sheep. I want artists who are frustrated.
I want the ones who have another way of doing things that nobody’s
listening to. Give us all the guys who are probably headed out the
door.” A lot of them were malcontents because they saw different ways
of doing things, but there was little opportunity to try them, since
the established way was working very, very well.
We gave the black sheep a chance to prove their theories, and we
changed the way a number of things are done here. For less money per
minute than was spent on the previous film, Finding Nemo, we
did a movie that had three times the number of sets and had everything
that was hard to do. All this because the heads of Pixar gave us leave
to try crazy ideas."
That last sentence is worth repeating: "All this because the heads of Pixar gave us leave
to try crazy ideas."
Some would see Bird's request, to put it politely, as a tremendous risk. Bird saw it as the only way to do what he knew had to be done to achieve his creative vision. Same old, same old wasn't going to do it. Only disruptive innovation attained through unrestrained freedom to do "crazy" things was going to do that.
How many organizations would do what Pixar did? How many organizations are a singularly and consistently on the cutting edge of their industry? How many would have the maturity and confidence to engage and empowere the "malcontents" rather than show them the door?
In my experience, most companies view the so-called malcontents and contrarians as disruptive forces that have to be "brought in line" with the "common corporate vision" or sent on their way. They try to change them rather than exploit the fact that they see things differently. Pixar's success is surely owed, in some part, to the fact that they saw the "black-sheep" as a strength.
According to a recent McKinsey Quarterly
survey, 79 percent of all companies have cut costs in response to the
global economic crisis—but only 53 percent of executives think that
doing so has helped their companies weather it. Yet organizations
continue to cut. Cost reductions often go wrong, we believe, and our
experience suggests that they can be done in a better way.
That is startling - only 53 percent of executives think that
doing so has helped their companies weather it [the global economic crisis]. Cutting costs often means reducing headcount and taking salaries and benefits and other associated costs out of the business. If 53% don't think that the cost cutting measures they've employed have helped, it makes you wonder what they're going to look like once this financial crisis ends.
This is my personal weblog and the views expressed here are solely the author's and should not be attributed to my firm or its clients. The material and information provided on this website are for general information only and should not, in any way, be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, currency, or adequacy of any information linked or referred to or contained on this weblog. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog, without first retaining counsel and obtaining appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed to practise law in the relevant province, state, territory or country. This blog is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and Michael Fitzgibbon. Please note that I am only able to provide legal advice to clients and will not provide free legal advice. Please don't send me any information or questions by email or otherwise because any information sent to me cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged or confidential.