Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Managing People on a Sinking Ship - Harvard Business Review

Managing People on a Sinking Ship


http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/11/managing-people-on-a-sinking-ship/


by Amy Gallo  |   1:20 PM November 26, 2013
As the continued bad news from Blackberry reminds us, no company’s future is secure. When your business is facing declining sales, a potential buy-out, or even certain closure, how do you manage people who are likely panicking about their future? Can you keep your team’s motivation and productivity up? The short answer is yes: Even when it’s clear that a company’s in trouble, there are ways to help team members stay focused, deliver results, and weather the storm.
What the Experts SayIn a crisis, you may think you need a whole new set of management approaches. But don’t throw out your Management 101 book quite yet. Kim Cameron, a professor at Michigan’s Stephen M. Ross School of Business and author of Positive Leadership: Strategies for Extraordinary Performance, has studied organizations that are downsizing or closing and he says that, instead of abandoning best common practices, the most skilled leaders reinforce them. “Good management is good management. Treating people well, helping them flourish, and unlocking potential are all good practices regardless of the environmental circumstances,” he says. Amy Edmondson, a professor at Harvard Business School and author of “Strategies for Learning from Failure,” says that of course it’s not easy to “keep people enthused, engaged, and working hard when they know the company may not be around.” But it’s not impossible either. Here are six principles to follow when your organization starts to feel like a sinking ship.
Look for opportunities to turn things aroundSometimes it’s clear that the end is near. Your manufacturing plant is slated to close. A larger company has bought your business unit. But in other situations, there may be a glimmer of hope. “There is often a short window of opportunity to do something differently,” Edmondson says. If there’s a chance of saving the company, focus your team on doing two things. First, seek input from customer-facing employees. Their front-line perspective could provide valuable insight into how your company needs to change. Second, do small experiments with alternative business models. Edmondson suggests you ask, “What kinds of products and services would customers welcome that we don’t offer?” The goal is to alter the organization’s course away from the one that got you into this mess.
Give your team a larger purposeTo keep people focused, give them something to work toward. “Identify a profound purpose that is more important than the individual benefit,” says Cameron. People want to believe their work matters in any situation. This can be tough when the company’s success is no longer the goal but you might select something that employees value personally — leaving a legacy or proving critics wrong. Cameron studied the manager leading a GM plant that was going to close in two years. To inspire employees who knew the end of their time with GM was near, he told them to do their very best so that senior leaders would be sorry when closing day came.
Provide reasonable incentivesFind ways to reward good work. After all, if the company is failing and employees are going to collect a paycheck anyway, why wouldn’t they spend their last three months on Facebook? “It’s the leader’s job to answer the question: What’s in it for me?” says Edmondson. Make clear what they will get if they do their best in this trying time. Will they learn a skill that will help them find their next job? Will the acquiring company be keeping some staff? How will the experience help them grow professionally? “If you can’t find a way to truthfully explain why they should help you get the job done, you’re out of luck,” says Edmondson.
Show people they matter as individualsDon’t just offer the same things to everyone, however. People want to still be seen as individuals. Tailor your message and the incentives to specific team members. Whenever possible, give them personal attention and care. When news of the crisis hits, meet with your employees one-on-one. Cameron suggests you say something like, “We want you to flourish and will do our best to take care of you even though we may not be here in the future.” Find out what matters most to them and do your best to meet those needs. There may be some people who can’t handle the uncertainty; in those cases, do what you can to help them find a position at another company.
Be honest and authentic — alwaysBoth Cameron and Edmondson are adamant that being transparent is crucial in these circumstances. “Whatever you know, share it with your employees,” says Cameron. Edmondson agrees: “Be as honest as you possibly can.” Don’t try to protect people from the truth or ignore what’s happening. “You can’t not talk about reality,” says Edmondson. And don’t say anything you don’t mean. In tough situations like these, people are on high alert for lies and inauthentic messages.
Don’t ignore emotionsPeople are going to be upset, afraid, and angry. Don’t pretend that these feelings don’t exist. Instead, make room for them. “You don’t want to dismiss emotions. It only drives them underground and makes them more deeply felt. It’s important to acknowledge feelings, especially negative ones,” says Edmondson. Tell people that you’re available to talk whenever they want. Encourage people to get together without you so that they can say things they might not want to express in front of a boss.  “The best practices I’ve seen are lots of huddles — people getting together and just having conversations about what’s going on,” says Cameron. Don’t play the role of psychologist though. If people need more specialized support to deal with what’s going on, refer them to outside help, such as trained outplacement counselors.
Principles to Remember
Do:
  • Focus people on a meaningful goal
  • Be 100% honest about what you know — share any information you can
  • Encourage your team to get together without you to talk about what’s happening
Don’t:
  • Expect that people will perform if you’re only giving them a paycheck — give them more meaningful incentives such as professional growth
  • Treat people the same — remember they’re individuals with different needs and goals
  • Pretend that something bad isn’t happening — be transparent and welcome expressions of emotion
Case study #1: Take care of your teamFor thirteen years, Michael Feeley worked as a recruiter at a staffing firm in New York City. He managed a small sales force and a temporary staffing division and he loved his job. “The company came first for me. I was a loyal and trusted employee,” he says. However, soon after the economic crisis in 2008, the company struggled to maintain its hiring fees and retain clients. Senior leaders decided to cut salaries in the hopes of keeping the operation afloat. They looked for a company that could possibly acquire them.
During this crisis, Michael took a transparent and supportive approach with his team. “Honesty was the only way to live and work through it,” he says. He told his team everything he knew and did his best to support them. He spent time listening to their fears and trying to give them confidence and comfort. “I wanted them to feel good about themselves and the work they had to do every day,” he says. To keep them motivated, he was clear that he was living through the same thing. “We were all in the same boat and the people I worked with wanted to know that I was right there with them — fears and all,” he says.
As a manager, Michael felt compelled to take care of his team. “I had a deep and sincere obligation to be useful and to know what they thought, felt, and wanted to do in this emergency,” he says. He focused on the facts that he thought would help them stay engaged: the company delivered a product that was well respected in the marketplace; the owner had always looked out for his employees; and the organization had survived difficult times in the past.
Despite all best efforts, however, the office did eventually close. Michael and his team members were lucky. “We were fortunate, even in a tough job market, to transition into work pretty quickly,” he says. And many, including Michael, were able to find jobs that better suited them. “That is one of the positive things that came out of the situation — people were clear about what they did and did not want to do,” he says.
Case study #2: Create an “us vs. the world” attitudeMarc Lawn was managing a global team of 100 people when sales at the company started declining. He says the business, which sold products to companies in the tech and media space, had lost touch with its customers and had ignored important changes in the way they made purchases. When it became clear that the company was in real trouble, Marc spent time with each person on his team explaining the situation and determining who might be incapable of handling the ambiguity. “Some people don’t cope well with uncertainty,” he says, so he helped those people — 12 total — find new roles outside the company.
For the people who stayed, Marc cultivated an “us vs. the world” attitude. He explained that this was an unprecedented challenge for the company and that they would not be able to succeed without all of them. “The objective of the group was to prove everyone wrong and show that we could save this thing,” he says. He focused his team’s attention on the near-term and encouraged them to accomplish specific tasks in small, manageable chunks. To ensure momentum, he celebrated successes and rewarded every job well done. When he spoke with members of his team, he conveyed a message: “Anything is possible, no matter how grim the situation, with the right skills, and with a team ready to fight for each other.”
The company was able to survive by getting rid of one part of the company and acquiring a new business unit. “Last year, the business had a record year, which shows that you can make it work with a ‘no regrets’ attitude,” he says.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Global wealth: bringing home the Bacon - Financial Times

Global wealth: bringing home the Bacon

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/a6217016-4c5d-11e3-923d-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2kzwTQnwX

November 15, 2013
Sales of diamonds and paintings show wealth surging to new highs
What’s your fancy? A triptych of a contorted but famous painter or a fistful of rocks? Money sloshed round the salerooms this week like the boom times had never ended.
In New York, $142m was paid for three studies of Lucien Freud by his one-time friend Francis Bacon. This was a new auction record for an artwork, set in an event that raised $700m overall, the highest ever for a single sale. In Geneva, meanwhile, an orange diamond went under the hammer for $35.5m or a record $2.4m per carat – only to be overshadowed, a day later, by $83m for a 59.60-carat pink sparkler. Given the pictures of Philippines devastation flashing around the world, such heady luxury spending seemed surreal, to say the least.
But the sale results do underscore the extent to which global wealth has not only recovered its pre-crisis levels, but surged to new highs in spite of the economic uncertainties. Total personal wealth worldwide now stands at $241tn, according to last month’s Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report. That is up 5 per cent in the 12 months to June, and by 68 per cent since 2003. (The pre-crisis peak was passed in 2010.) On a per-adult basis, the latest total works out at $50,000, or, for Switzerland alone, above $500,000. And banish any idea that these advances are due solely to China’s rise. Over the past year, the US has clocked up the biggest wealth gains. Germany, France and Italy were also among the top five nations.
Of course, almost half this total wealth is held by the richest 1 per cent of adults. Moreover, the trend for affluence to expand faster at the top of the wealth pyramid – which has been evident since 2000 – shows no sign of abating. The number of dollar millionaires grew 6 per cent last year, while the cadre of ultra wealthy individuals (assets over $50m) rose 10 per cent to about 100,000. What is changing, though, is the make-up of that very top elite. The portion from Bric nations was just 5 per cent in 2000; now it is over a fifth.
All of which supports anecdotal evidence that the bounceback in art prices since 2009 is partly due to a coterie of new, wealthy Asian and Russian buyers. And if wealth forecasts are correct, there could be more gains to come: the Credit Suisse report estimates the number of millionaires should increase 50 per cent by 2018, to 48m. Who knows? Expensive artworks and gems could yet be good investments. Although Sam Goldwyn may have been closer to the mark: “I paid too much for it, but it’s worth it,” he once quipped.

Monday, November 25, 2013

Google’s ‘security princess’ on protecting users from cyber crime - Financial Times

Google’s ‘security princess’ on protecting users from cyber crime- Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/6b8c37ba-4d1b-11e3-9f40-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2lcIXfHD7

November 22, 2013 6:15 pm

Google’s ‘security princess’ on protecting users from cyber crime

By Hannah Kuchler
Parisa Tabriz says she has to forget how a normal user views a product, and consider it from a hacker’s perspective
©Justin Kaneps
Parisa Tabriz in the loft room of her shared house in Silicon Valley
Parisa Tabriz may work on the frontline of web security, tasked with keeping Google Chrome users around the world safe from an army of cyber criminals, but she still lives the life of a young adult. Leading the way to her light-filled loft room at her home in Mountain View, California, she recalls how a friend made fun of her when she turned 30. “He said to me ‘Time to be an adult – you don’t even have a door to your room’.”
In Silicon Valley, where just-out-of-college chief executives are canonised, and hundreds of 20- and 30-somethings lead exciting but unflashy lives, Tabriz is no exception. Her home – a 20-minute cycle from Google’s headquarters – is a new-build, two-bedroom rental which she shares with a housemate, and most of the furniture was chosen by the owner in the uninspired style of landlords the world over.
Tabriz has focused her room around a large office space, having pushed her bed against a wall. Darting between two desks on a leather swivel chair, she can work from any one of her three laptops. “Almost all of my work I can do from a laptop and I do photography and some digital art. So much of my life is on this portable device, which makes it really easy to be transient,” she says.
It is this transfer of everyday life to the online world, from personal conversations to banking, that has made the work Tabriz does to maintain security on Google’s browser all the more essential. The growth of mobile devices and the invention of the so-called “Internet of Things”, where anything from thermostats to baby monitors can be connected to the web, make the opportunities for cyber crime even greater. No wonder Tabriz was named earlier this year as one of the technology industry’s “30 under 30 to watch” by Fortune magazine.
“When I started the threat was not as large and the damage was probably not as significant in the common case,” she says. “But right now, so much of people’s personal lives is put online and it is not always done with the understanding of the full consequences of what the worst case scenario is.”
©Justin Kaneps
Tabriz’s bedroom and office area
In the seven years since Tabriz left college and started work in cyber security, she has seen that threat grow dramatically. After completing a computer science degree and masters at the University of Illinois and an internship at Google, she landed a job at the internet company as a security engineer. During her career, cyber criminals have gone from widespread phishing (spam emails offering plastic surgery, for instance) aimed mostly at committing credit card fraud, to more dangerous targeted attacks designed to steal anything from personal data to intellectual property and sell it on a thriving black market.
Hackers can also now trade vulnerabilities called “zero days” which help people break into networks and sell information to the highest bidder, whether they are a western company, the Russian mafia or the Chinese government. Tabriz likens the threat to offline crime, saying as long as people are motivated by the need for money, whether it is to survive or just greed, cybercrime will continue.
But she says it can feel even more intrusive to have your online accounts attacked. “Things you can easily replace, but when you feel that people have got into your most private thoughts and messages, you can feel just as violated as if someone broke into your house.”
©Justin Kaneps
Dining table
Tabriz says she feels sad and “questions humanity” when she hears about attacks, such as when her father, a doctor, had his email compromised three times. “He’s a smart man but clueless about technology,” she says. “Security should be easy.”
Like most of Silicon Valley, she is devoted to the internet and sees her job as making sure people can enjoy its “awesomeness” without feeling like they have wandered up a dark alley. Tabriz had the skills to join the “black hats”, as the criminal hackers are called, but the girl from the Chicago suburbs whose first hack was turning her operating system pink has never been tempted. “I’m much too boring and law-abiding for that,” she says. In a family full of doctors, Tabriz wasn’t a computer geek before college. Apart from being a maths and science whizz, she also credits playing football and tennis for giving her the competitive drive to beat the bad guys.
Instead of the “dark side”, she chose to join Google as one of a select group of “hired hackers” who attack Google products to find vulnerabilities which other engineers then fix. A security engineer needs to forget about how a normal user views a product, and considers it from a hacker’s perspective.
“Whereas software engineers create or ‘build’ software to solve a problem, security engineers analyse software to try and ‘break’ it – that is, we try to thoroughly understand how the code works and then avoid assumptions about how a typical person may use the software,” she says. “We assume an attacker’s mindset to look for software bugs that can be exploited to achieve some unintended behaviour.”
©Justin Kaneps
Tabriz’s photos from her trips abroad
Tabriz is now Google’s so-called “security princess”, whose sunny outlook and many hobbies, from rock climbing to travelling, sharply contrast with the hacker stereotype. This alone has won her the type of media attention the industry does not normally receive. She has been featured in the technology press and several women’s magazines, which she says is like being a “reality TV star”.
On a black coffee table in the centre of her bedroom is a plastic silver tiara with which she was crowned when she was became manager of Google’s information security engineering team. “There’s a really collegiate, joking culture,” she says, insisting that she does not wear it.
©Justin Kaneps
Collection of travel and cookery books
Despite the concentration of young tech workers, downtown Mountain View is little more than a two-block stretch of pavement cafés, and is almost an extension of the Google campus. In recent years, many Silicon Valley workers have moved to nearby San Francisco, preferring to live in the city despite the hour-long commute to work. Tabriz chose to stay in Mountain View so she could enjoy an easier journey to her office. However, she regularly flies to conferences around the world in an effort to convince skilled hackers to join Google rather than the “black hats”.
She is committed to winning what she calls the game of “cat and mouse”, even helping to introduce “bug bounties” at Google that reward outsiders for telling the company about potential new hacks. Google has so far paid out about $2m for more than 2,000 security bugs, which it then fixed, and this summer it increased the rewards fivefold. Other major companies such as Facebook, Microsoft and HP now do the same.
Tabriz admits she eats most of her meals at Google (where the food is free). At home, the dining table is laid with handcrafted crockery from her travels: wooden bowls from Bali and a delicate olive oil decanter from Italy. She says she always tries to take a cooking class wherever she goes; her fridge, however, is bare.
©Justin Kaneps
Wooden bowls from Bali
“This is a typical Googler’s refrigerator – just condiments,” she says, referring to the name Google employees call each other. Inside is a pot of chilli sauce the size of an urn but no food to put it on.
However, there are signs of imminent change with boxes filling the living room. Tabriz and her housemate are preparing to move out and she plans to move in with her boyfriend; it’s time to be an adult.
One day soon she hopes she will have a home she believes is worthy of the House & Home pages. After all, at 30 she is approaching “senior Googler status”. But on this front, Tabriz’s ambitions still seem modest. “Maybe when we buy and settle down, we will get some plants – and then we’ll start with a pet fish.”
-------------------------------------------
©Justin Kaneps
Favourite thing
For a laptop-addicted Googler, a classic but clunky typewriter is perhaps an unlikely favourite object. But for Tabriz, it marks the moment when she took on the daunting task of leaving a pool of security engineers to become their manager. “When I came back from holiday, my team had removed all the computers from my desk and left this there,” she says, pointing at the machine on a table in the middle of her bedroom. Tabriz’s new subordinates had placed a piece of paper titled “TPS report” (standing for “totally pointless stuff”) in the typewriter, which she has left in place. The joke references Office Space, a 1999 film about “a stereotypically pointy headed manager who is always asking for TPS,” Tabriz explains. As well as the memory of an “interesting transition” to manager of her friends, peers and people older than her, she has a hacker’s appreciation for a “beautiful machine”. Still, used to living her life online, she has never even sat down to write a letter on the typewriter, let alone a report. “I’m not even sure if it works,” she says.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Gettysburg: How Lincoln's speech lived on - BBC NEWS

How Lincoln's speech lived on - BBC NEWS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25038046

Gettysburg: How Lincoln's speech lived on

John F Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln
This week saw two landmark anniversaries in American history - 150 years since Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and 50 years since the assassination of President John F Kennedy.
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
It is said that it took Lincoln two-and-a-half minutes to deliver the Gettysburg Address, and that it set the tone for a century.
In the three days of fighting at Gettysburg, 51,000 men were killed or injured.
For Lincoln, the war was a test - a test of whether America's great experiment with democracy could survive.
It was still the 1860s - the idea that the people could govern themselves was revolutionary. On that damp, autumnal Pennsylvania field he re-dedicated the American Republic to the ideals on which it was founded.
For a century after the war, though, the post-slavery south enforced strict racial segregation. Black America was locked out of the Gettysburg promise.

From Our Own Correspondent

People read newspaper after Kennedy's death
  • Insight and analysis from BBC correspondents, journalists and writers from around the world
  • Broadcast on Radio 4 and BBC World Service
This is the century that separates Lincoln from John Kennedy and which binds their fates together in American history - two iconic figures who came to be associated in the American mind with the tragedy of unfulfilled promise.
For the south, the war was not about slavery. It was about states' rights - the right of the individual states to live their own way of life, free from intrusion by the distant federal government in Washington.
It is the fusion of two things that unite Lincoln and Kennedy - the age-old American argument about the proper nature and scale of federal government, and the explosive politics of race.
The Civil War faultline reaches forward into the Kennedy era. In the 1960s, American liberals had come to view southern racial politics as an abomination.
It was apartheid to the New World - an enduring legacy of slavery in the land of the free. John Kennedy began to press for change. The white South revolted.
The South had always solidly voted Democratic. Now, it threatened to defect to the Republicans - the party, ironically, of Abraham Lincoln.
Kennedy was facing re-election a year later and had to win the state of Texas. That is why he went to Dallas.
It is said that as they drove into town from the airport, he told his wife Jackie they were now heading into "nut country". Minutes later he was dead.
Lyndon B Johnson is sworn in as president hours after JFK's deathLyndon Johnson was sworn in as president hours after JFK's death
His successor, Lyndon Johnson, used the momentum created by his martyrdom to force through Congress a series of almost revolutionary acts that ended legal segregation and extended voting rights to millions of southern black people for the first time.
In a sense it was the fulfilment of Lincoln's Gettysburg promise.
Is that faultline still active? I went to a Republican Party hustings in Dallas. Every speaker condemned the pernicious expansion of federal power under President Obama as a betrayal of the founding principles of the American Republic.
The meeting began to discuss the merits and demerits of a government ban on texting while driving. Was it consistent with the founding principles? Was it not it a clear and very un-American assault on the liberty of the individual?
"Sure," one man said, "I will support a ban on texting while driving just as long as we also ban brushing your teeth while driving, shaving while driving, reaching in to the back seat to slap your kids while driving."
There followed a bizarre interlude in which speakers sought guidance from the 18th Century framers of the Republic.
What, I found myself wondering, would James Madison and Thomas Jefferson have made of the matter of banning texting while driving?
After the meeting one man, a Tea Party activist, told me that President Obama's attempts at wealth redistribution were only semantically different, as he put it, "to me holding a revolver to your head and telling you to give me your wallet".
Barack Obama
It is a graphic image. It means something very specific to a certain kind of listener - Obama cast in the image of a street robber, a mugger.
It is not overtly racist. But it has, for those who want to hear it, a clear racial undercurrent.
The Republicans despised Bill Clinton. But they never challenged his American-ness. Many black Americans believe there is something extra in the Republicans' hatred of Obama.
You are struck, again and again, by the anger that is coursing through much of the Republican Party. It is understandable. Until 2008, they had been in power for the best part of 40 years.
From Richard Nixon in 1968, until George W Bush in 2008 - 40 years in which only two Democrats had made it to the White House, and both were Southern white men. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had the mud of the Conservative south reassuringly on their boots.
It seemed, for decades, that conservative America was ascendant, and that liberal America had retreated into a self-destructive, angry counter-culture. Now it is the Republicans - so long the party of government - who are in danger of sliding into that counter-culture status.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

China, the World’s Most Populous Nation, Needs More Children - TIME

China, the World’s Most Populous Nation, Needs More Children

http://world.time.com/2013/11/21/china-the-worlds-most-populous-nation-needs-more-children/
TIME International's cover story this week delves into the looming crisis facing China as its population grows old before it grows rich
TIME Magazine International Cover, December 2, 2013Illustration by Yuta Onoda for TIME
 Follow @TIMEWorld
The Third Plenum leadership conclave that ended last week in Beijing brought — in addition to reams of turgid paeans to the Chinese Communist Party — hopes that President Xi Jinping and his team are committed to a national economic refurbishment. But among ordinary Chinese, the meeting’s most welcome outcome may be news that the notorious one-child policy is finally being loosened.
The new family-planning reform will allow couples in which one partner is an only child to have two kids themselves. (Already, farmers, ethnic minorities and couples composed of two only children are subject to more relaxed rules.) Each year, 1 million parents may take the government up on its offer to expand their families, according to demographers’ projections.
But as TIME notes in its international cover story this week, such “fine-tuning,” as state media characterized last week’s policy update, will not be enough to counteract the fact that “the world’s most populous nation, 1.35 billion strong, will soon have too few people — or, rather, too few of the right kind of people.”
Last week’s reform does show that China’s leaders, after years of delay, are beginning to face up to the unintended consequences of the one-child policy. Unveiled in 1979 to galvanize a poor, populous society, the family-planning scheme is credited with having helped spawn China’s economic transformation, despite the human-rights abuses committed in its name. But as any society grows richer and more educated, family sizes tend to taper off. As TIME’s story notes, more than three decades of government-mandated family planning have exacerbated this natural trend and left China with:
a distorted population: too few youths, too few women and too many elderly. Writing in the Population and Development Review, a peer-reviewed journal published by the Population Council in New York City, three top Chinese demographers predict that “the one-child policy will be added to the other deadly errors in recent Chinese history,” alongside the turbulent 1966–76 Cultural Revolution and a devastating man-made famine from 1959–61. “While those grave mistakes both cost tens of millions of lives, the harms done were relatively short-lived and were corrected quickly afterward. The one-child policy, in contrast, will surpass them in impact.”
In implementing the largest social-engineering experiment in human history, the People’s Republic has merely traded one population time bomb for another. China now faces a multitude of social woes usually seen in more-developed economies better equipped to handle these challenges. It is growing old before it grows rich — meaning an explosion of elderly Chinese even as the government has presided over a fraying of the nation’s socialist safety net.
Last year the working-age population shrank for the first time, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, a huge concern for a government that depends on plentiful labor to deliver economic growth, which is in turn needed to quell social instability. By limiting urban families to one child while allowing some rural ones to bear two, China has skewed its population against the type of citizen it needs in order to climb into the ranks of developed countries. Then there are the some 25 million extra males, a result of tradition-bound parents ensuring that their offspring quota is filled by a son. “I don’t think the one-child policy was worth it,” says Mu Guangzong, a population expert at Peking University. “The people who made the policy never imagined all the problems we’re facing right now. Their knowledge of demography was shallow. Now society has to pay heavily for their ignorance.”
No date has been announced for implementation of this month’s policy tweak. In fact, such deadlines will be set locally. The timetable for further family-planning reforms isn’t clear either, leading to worries that change will come too late to combat China’s social and economic woes.
Meanwhile, campaigns to catch high-profile evaders of the family-planning policy continue, even as some Chinese ignore the rules and choose to pay exorbitant government fines instead. (Other rich Chinese are giving birth overseas and registering the child for a foreign passport, which may be cheaper than paying the family-planning levies back home.)
On Nov. 19, Xinhua, the official Chinese news service, published an article about film director Zhang Yimou, who has been accused of fathering at least seven children with various women. Authorities in Wuxi, the coastal city that is the hometown of Zhang’s wife, have been trying to contact the famous director for months to get an accurate appraisal of his family size, according to Xinhua.
But even though Zhang appears to be in China shooting a movie, local authorities in Wuxi complained to Xinhua that they have not been able to reach him. Separately, the People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece, estimated that Zhang could be liable for more than $26 million in fines for his multiple offspring. Even for a family-planning bureaucracy that has made at least $330 billion from so-called social-support fees since the one-child policy began, according to one Chinese demographer’s estimate, that would be an impressive individual haul.