This story is part of our monthlong "Work Well" initiative, which focuses on thriving in the workplace. You can find more stories from this project here.
Say what you want about brown-nosers, but people who invest in a healthy relationship with their boss have a better chance at finding career success.
This is according to Vicki Salemi, a career expert for Monster.com.
"It's always an excellent idea to bond with your boss," she told The Huffington Post. "The relationship with your boss is one of the most important ones you'll have at your current job. It'll only benefit you."
Here's why:
You'll Have A Friend In A High Place
Besides having another friend at the workplace, you'll have a significantly powerful ally, somebody who will (or should) go to bat for you in sticky situations.
It will also come in handy in the future, when you find yourself looking for a promotion or another job elsewhere.
Think about your job down the road, Salemi said. "[Your boss] can be a referral, a great networking option or help find an internal opportunity. They can be someone who can advocate for you the most. How can they do that if they don't really get to know you?"
To that end, once you become a boss yourself, "you can learn from this dynamic and relationship to be a better manager [when that time comes]."
They'll Know Your Work Ethic
Bosses are busy. Chances are you're not their only employee.
"You may not see it regularly, but if you don't continually check in with them, they may not know what you're doing behind the scenes," Salemi said. "You need to be proactive and make it a priority to connect with them."
Check in with them. "Bosses should appreciate that," Salemi said. Rather than waiting around for that annual review, ask to meet weekly or monthly. Tell them what you're working on, what you've accomplished, and find out what they'd like from you.
It'll Make "That Talk" More Comfortable
You'll be better positioned to ask for a raise, so think of it as professional development. "If you have that open dialogue with your boss and you feel free and welcome and invited to speak with them on a regular basis, then it shouldn't feel uncomfortable for you to ask for a raise or for more training, because you've built that relationship," Salemi said.
How do you pull this off?
Keep It Real
While this is a purposeful move on your part, it's still a relationship, so make sure you keep it genuine (co-workers can smell a sycophant from a mile away).
There are ways to bond with your supervisor without looking like a kiss-ass, as long as you genuinely want to establish a relationship with them.
Invite Them To Something Casual
"I don't want to say be slick, but there's a certain way to go about it," Salemi said. This may not work for every type of office (or every boss), but if it feels right for you, ask them out to coffee, saying Starbucks is your favorite, or suggest a quick walk. "It doesn't have to be about business," Salemi added, so stick to lightly personal topics (without getting too personal). Ask them about their lives and open up yourself: How was your weekend? What's your New Year's Resolution? And offer yours.
"Just like the coworkers you enjoy hanging out with, you're spending time with your boss because you enjoy their camaraderie," Salemi said.
Don't Neglect Your Coworkers
Think of your friends as a garden, and water them all regularly. "You need to manage all of your relationships at work, and that includes your coworkers, too," Salemi said. "If you're getting the stink eye, continue do to what you're doing and, as long as it's authentic and organic, know you're not doing anything wrong. You're building a relationship with your boss."
Judgement might come out as jealousy, so remain a team player, especially in departmental meetings, where you should "maybe play it down, so that you don't seem so chummy or buddy-buddy. In a group dynamic, it's important that your'e a part of the team."
And Don't Forget The Ultimate Rule
It's OK to toot your own horn, Salemi emphasized. "No one's your best advocate more than you, [so] build that relationship. It will only further your career."
The Huffington Post's "Work Well" series is also part of our "What's Working" solutions-oriented journalism initiative.
-- 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.
This article appeared as an op-ed on my regular column in The Washington Post.
Twitter is in a state of crisis. The stock has tanked since co-founder Jack Dorsey returned as chief executive. Four of 10 top executives just left. With takeover rumors swirling Dorsey must think outside the box and reinvent the one-time darling of social media.
Twitter has stumbled into a mess that may be hard to break out of. Here are five unfortunate problems:
#UsersArePassive
The top 3 reasons why people use Twitter are: getting breaking news alerts, getting general news and to "pass the time," according to a study by the American Press Institute. However, a vibrant social media platform needs the "social" part - active engagement -- to have broad, growing interest. It is striking that 44 percent of users have never sent a single tweet, according to one study. Moreover, users don't come back even if they sign up. Of the 284 million accounts created in 2013, only 12.9 percent were still actively tweeting in February 2014.
In comparison to key competitors, Twitter does not do as well on user engagement: Facebook users are more likely to post and respond to content, while Twitter users are more likely to follow passively.
#ElitesRule
In a 2013 letter Twitter was described as "a service shaped by the people, for the people." It is ironic that, in reality, a few power users with massive followings shape the service. This is not surprising given that news following -- entertainment, sports and politics as the three top sources -- is what draws users. This means that celebrities and news organizations get a leg up. While Katy Perry has over 81 million followers, according to a 2013 study, the median Twitter user has 1 follower; and even among those who were active and posted in the last 30 days, the median user had just 61 followers. The network effect reinforces the power users: Caitlyn Jenner set the record for the fastest ever time to reach one million followers. While Ellen DeGeneres's Oscars selfie was the most retweeted message.
#AudienceIssues
Media outlets must keep their eyes on the groups advertisers love, such as people between the ages 12 and 24. According to a study by Edison Research and Triton Digital, Facebook still has a lock on 74 percent of this demographic in the United States. Young people prefer Instagram and Snapchat over Twitter. The challenge in the social network business is its self-reinforcing nature: the more people there are on it, the greater the incentive for me to be on it. As Twitter falls behind, its chances of catching up become slimmer. Against its biggest competitor, Twitter has a substantial gap to close: Facebook drives 20 times as much traffic as does Twitter (as measured by social referrals as a percentage of overall traffic).
#GrowthInTheWrongPlaces
Twitter's growth market is the Asia-Pacific, according to eMarketer, and yet it is in the United States that it earns the highest revenues. Looking ahead, the Asia-Pacific markets will be heavily contested with competition from fast-growing alternative social networks, such as, the enormously popular, WhatsApp. Twitter is, of course, locked out of the biggest market of them all: China.
#ReinventingIsRisky
Dorsey is reportedly considering raising Twitter's 140-character limit to 10,000.
Currently, the average tweet length is about 67.9 characters, according to an analysis of a million tweets in 2012, by a Twitter engineer. This suggests that the few people active on Twitter are using it mostly to post photos or a link, with a brief introduction. Changing the character limit does little to address these fundamental challenges that are behind Twitter's troubles. Will expanding the limit induce users to dramatically change behaviors and become content creators, when there are already so many other platforms to do so?
By mixing the old tweet with a new longer form will add to the confusion. Loyal followers who were attracted by the brevity of Twitter could be turned off.
All great products must reinvent themselves to remain relevant, fresh and serve customers. Facebook, for example, has done this, with new apps, new markets and new plans, without changing its core. It is unwise to mess with the very attribute of what makes the product distinctive and compelling in the first place.
Twitter is not a particularly social social network; it is a community of 320 million shaped by a handful of elites. It appears too late to pivot back to a "service shaped by the people, for the people." If Dorsey can find a way to break out of the beautiful bind Twitter has created for itself, that will be news worth tweeting about.
Chakravorti is senior associate dean of International Business & Finance at Tufts University's the Fletcher School. He's also the founding director of the Institute for Business in the Global Context and author of The Slow Pace of Fast Change. Formerly a partner at McKinsey, he taught innovation at Harvard Business School.
-- 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.
With little time before Sunday's deadline for people to enroll in private health insurance via HealthCare.gov and the 13 state-run health insurance exchanges this year, there's just not much new to say about the Affordable Care Act's impact on this part of the health care system.
Three years after the launch of the exchange marketplaces, they seem to be doing ... pretty okay. The uninsured rate is way down, millions of people have used them to get health insurance, and more than 80 percent of them qualified for financial assistance. The exchanges have made it easier for low-income families to enroll in Medicaid, too. Obamacare enrollment may be transitioning from a major event to something annoying that people have to do every year, like filing taxes.
Still, major concerns remain about what will happen over time, like whether health insurers can make enough money to keep participating and whether the coverage available is affordable for enough consumers.
In other words, Obamacare is neither the disaster opponents predicted nor a smashing success that exceeded its creators' goals and completed the American safety net.
Year three of Obamacare enrollment promises to bring only incremental changes from year two, and little in the way of firm answers to lingering questions. The uninsured rate is about the same, the sign-up numbers are about the same, the polling numbers are about the same, and the worries about this new market are about the same.
Sure, the exchanges and Obamacare's Medicaid expansion have transformed the way low- and moderate-income people get covered. And the slow pace of change doesn't take anything away from the positive impact the law has had on the 17.6 million people who had no health insurance before, or had to pay more because there were no subsidies. Nor does it diminish the stress for those who are stretching their family budgets to buy insurance and avoid paying a penalty for not having coverage, or for those who just can't afford it.
But it does make it impossible to draw grand conclusions about where the system is headed, or to conclude much more about it today than could've been done a year ago.
It's also true that the politics of Obamacare are as heated as ever among those still paying attention. That includes everyone running for president and the Republicans in Congress who are still trying to repeal it and dithering over whether they have any better ideas. But the rhetorical arguments about health care reform haven't varied since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, no matter what the facts show. That bickering doesn't look likely to end or change course no matter who wins the White House in November.
While Obamacare remains a source of partisan contention, and survey results released by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation on Thursday reinforce that Democrats generally favor the Affordable Care Act, Republicans generally don't like it and more people overall think it's bad than good. The numbers have hardly shifted in six years. And fewer than one-quarter of registered voters said the health law is "extremely important" to them this election year, anyway.
So, where are we now? About 11.6 million people have enrolled nationwide since Nov. 1, acting Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt told reporters on a conference call Thursday. In the 38 states served by HealthCare.gov, there have been 8.9 million sign-ups as of Jan. 23, which compares to 7.7 million at the same point in the 2015 period, and about 100,000 fewer than after the end of last year's open enrollment. The federal agency's tally undercounts the total because the enrollment numbers it uses from the state-run exchanges in places like California, Idaho and New York are a month old and have been growing since.
The means enrollment appears on pace to at least meet the low end of the 11 million to 14.1 million the Obama administration predicted would sign up during open enrollment, especially if there's a surge in the final days, as there was the first two years. Traffic on HealthCare.gov grew by 50 percent from last week to this, Slavitt said, suggesting another rush toward the deadline.
But the administration's best guess of how many people will still have this coverage by the end of 2016 is 10 million, or just 900,000 more than the administration's projections for exchange customers at the close of 2015, which isn't much in the way of growth.
In a sense, all of these numbers do little more than confirm the unsatisfying truth that the health insurance exchanges will be works in progress for years.
The fundamental questions are the same as they were in the fall of 2013 (except that the websites work now). Will the premiums be affordable? Will people sign up? Will enough of them be healthy to offset to costs of the sick and create a stable system? Will the uninsured learn that subsidies are available to make coverage more affordable and take advantage of them? Will health insurance companies make enough profit to keep them in the market?
When the current open enrollment period winds down, don't expect the final results to tell you much more than you already know. Sign-ups start again in the fall.
Also on HuffPost:
-- 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.
I've had a lot of jobs in a lot of places -- hip coffee shop barista, downtown executive assistant, nursing home activities director, and most recently, full-time mama to one fiery little red-headed boy.
When I found out I was pregnant while working a fast-paced job, I was equal parts shocked and devastated. In my mind, I hadn't achieved my dreams yet, and this unplanned little one was an interruption. I thought motherhood would shrink my world, reduce my capacity, and quench my aspirations. Most of all, I thought taking care of someone else meant losing me. So I resigned to this new chapter life had somehow thrust upon me, my back pocket full of the dreams I'd never realize.
I had every intention of going back to work after my son was born; I even haphazardly enrolled him in daycare. Even though I'd be donating the bulk of my salary to childcare costs, I'm an extreme introvert who bores easily, so with the support of my husband and friends, back to work I would go.
But mothering found a tender place in me, one I didn't know I had. I was due to return to the office at 12 weeks postpartum, but each passing night, my heart sunk deeper. I remember one night in particular, wrestling with a hungry two-month-old who couldn't latch on properly. I cradled him in the bathtub and burst into tears. How could I leave this tiny guy with anyone else? Who would sing him the songs that calmed him or rock him to sleep? Maybe it was hormones or maybe it was the Heavens, but I knew I couldn't go back.
So I added Stay-at-Home Mom to my resume, surprising myself and everyone around me. The nursery became my office, sour breast milk my uniform, and the Kardashians my colleagues. Bored I was, but obviously never short on tasks and projects (i.e. keeping a child alive, learning how to pee again, keeping track of all my marbles while a frazzled newborn screamed in the next room).
Mostly, I relearned creativity, how to leverage the mundane and wield simple joys. Those sleepy newborn days afforded me the opportunity to explore my new found tenderness, and with the excess time the early months offered, I started to write again with my baby camped out at my side.
As Ollie got older, this became more difficult. How could I write and supervise a mobile baby? When will I have time for projects when I'm chasing down a toddler? Soon, his sleep became a pocket of time for me to invest in the craft I'd neglected for so many years in the working world. And little by little, word by word, I peeled off the layers of all the identities I'd forged, and somehow, in the least expected way, I found me again.
I love my son, and just like my other jobs, I love parts of staying at home, but as he grew, so did my restlessness. I'd get jealous of my husband when he'd leave for work, desperate for a creative outlet, adult interaction, and a reason to get dressed up. My eyes were constantly on the clock as I plotted the next nap time I could use for my new freelance writing business. In the back of my mind I wondered: Am I stewarding my gifts the best I can for my family? Could I make more money doing this? Do I have what it takes to write professionally? And most of all, can I reconcile the idea of leaving my son in someone else's care to pursue what makes me a more vibrant human?
Once I took the leap, I realized I'm a better mom when I'm doing what makes me feel alive. I'm a stronger parent while Ollie's at daycare, not when I plop him in front of the TV so I can focus on a deadline. So I put my him in childcare twice a week to pursue freelancing, and just like that, we found our sweet spot. He loves daycare, I love working, and we're both giddy upon our reunion.
Now, my son is almost two, and, as fate would have it, I accepted a full-time job -- my dream gig, writing copy for an agency. All because I quit my job almost two years ago. All because I had time to invest in what brings me life -- time I never would have had if I wouldn't have taken this roundabout path through stay-at-home motherhood.
I've never written full-time, and I don't know how I'll handle having more kids, but I'm confident. More confident than ever that I'm in the right place and doing the right thing. And I'll tell you this: having the right people around -- especially my sparkly-eyed boy and his dad -- makes all the difference.
-- 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.
The tragic outcome of the Arab Spring doesn't get any less bitter with time. The repercussions of that pan-Arab rebellion five years ago are still traumatizing the region and the world.
As Amira Yahyaoui wrote from Tunis earlier this month, even in Tunisia a counterrevolutionary narrative of "it was better before" is taking hold as virulent protests against the lack of jobs have erupted. Egypt has gone from repressive autocracy to revolt to democratic elections back to repressive autocracy. The self-described Islamic State is establishing bases in the post-Gaddafi vacuum in Libya. Assad's ruthless resistance to the revolt in Syria has devastated that country.
From Greece to Denmark, political reaction to the influx of refugees fleeing the carnage poses the most serious challenge yet to the decades-long advance toward an integrated Europe with open borders.
Writing from Cairo on the anniversary this week of the Egyptian uprising against then-President Hosni Mubarak, Walid Akef says his country today is like "hell" after the "paradise" of the Arab Spring. "I had a dream like any other Egyptian," he writes. "I lived through the unforgettable moment when Mubarak was obliged to cede the throne. I was waiting for a new Egypt, for a different future to come. Now, we are living through the worst moments Egypt has ever lived. Yet even in this complex reality, we still have hope." In an interview, Egyptian historian Khaled Fahmy recalls the excitement of the Tahrir Square protests and his support of, and then disillusionment with, the Muslim Brotherhood. His great regret, like so many others, is that "we didn't transform this energy into something more durable." World Social Media Editor Rowaida Abdelaziz talks to the Egyptian artist Ganzeer, whose street art murals and political posters exploded in popularity during the rebellion, about how the events changed him and his country. We also profile the ongoing theater activism of Sondos Shabayek, known for her "Tahrir Monologues," as she stages performances confronting sex, violence and the daily lives of women in Egypt today. Additionally, we look at the stories of 12 activists and journalists who have been silenced by the Sisi regime.
Iyad El-Baghdadi, a prominent Arab Spring activist, senses insecurity on the part of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi during this week's anniversary. Sisi's "state is franticly trying to suppress a movement it claims to have already suppressed," he writes. "Even as Egypt's central security chief declared they 'will not allow another revolution,' the hashtag 'the people demand the downfall of the regime' quietly became the top trending topic in the Arab Twittersphere." Menna Elnaka wonders now whether Egypt is really ready for democracy.
Former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter scores the illusions of both the Bush and Obama administrations, which based their misplaced hopes for Western-oriented regime change on the digital prowess and narrow social base of rebellious youth while underestimating the power of the centuries-old practice of Friday sermons at the mosques. In the end it was the holy book of Islam, not Facebook, that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power in democratic elections before they in turn were overthrown in a military coup. Writing from Al-Zarqa, Jordan, Duha Sa'fan welcomes the spirit of the Arab Spring, but laments the consequences. "Jordan has suffered a lot because of them, " she says, referring to the revolutions and the mass of refugees who have fled to her country as a result. "Reforms are needed in all aspects of the country," she continues, "but that doesn't mean we need a revolution."
World Reporter Charlotte Alfred tells us why Tunisians are protesting five years after the revolution. Tunisia's former Deputy Finance Minister Boutheina Ben Yaghlane sees economic progress as the key to preserving his country's fragile democracy. "One in six Tunisians currently lives below the poverty line and unemployment is nearly 29 percent among graduates of higher education," he writes. "In a country where three-quarters of the unemployed are 15-30 years of age, upward mobility of a promising economy is pivotal to reducing our vulnerability."
In an exclusive, WorldPost Middle East Correspondent Sophia Jones reports from Afghanistan this week where she interviews Reza Gul, a young woman who continues to speak out despite a horrific attack by her husband. "I am not afraid," she tells Sophia before boarding her flight to Kabul.
Writing form Copenhagen, Rasmus Alenius Boserup traces the evolution of the Danish mood from the "cartoon crisis" of 2006 when worldwide protests erupted after the publication of satirized images of the Prophet Muhammad to the passage this week of legislation to seize the valuables of refugees to pay for the costs of hosting them. Reflecting on a recent visit to Denmark, András Simonyi says, "The ambiguous measure of confiscating the valuables of arriving refugees is not smart. Knowing the bad memories it brings back from the past, this law should have been suspended from the start. Not doing so only poured gasoline on the fire, which is being stoked by those who see caution and moderation as a flaw of liberal democracies."
Elsewhere in the world, Brahma Chellaney writes from New Delhi that a resurgent Japan is necessary to balance China in Asia. From Moscow, Nikolai Petrov describes how falling oil prices are upending Russian politics.
WorldPost China Correspondent Matt Sheehan describes how acclaimed Chinese filmmaker Zhao Liang "walk[s] the line between art house cinema and didactic documentary, between the visually lush and the politically potent" in his new film "Behemoth." He also traces the divergent paths of two Chinese brothers, one of whom went to university in the U.S., and the other who stayed in China.
Eric Olander and Cobus van Staden evaluate China's "risky gamble" in the Middle East as President Xi visited Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia this week. Writing from Shanghai, Nobel laureate Joe Stiglitz assesses China's "new normal." "'Markets with Chinese characteristics,' he says, "are as volatile and hard to control as markets with American characteristics. Markets invariably take on a life of their own; they cannot be easily ordered around. To the extent that markets can be controlled, it is through setting the rules of the game in a transparent way." In an excerpt from his new book, "The Only Game in Town," top global bond manager Mohamed El-Erian argues that the "'new normal' of low growth, rising inequality [and] political dysfunction" can no longer be addressed by central banks but must be taken on by political leaders. Both Robert Reich and Bill McKibben praise Bernie Sanders insurgent challenge to Hillary Clinton. As Reich puts it, "Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he's leading a political movement for change." Howard Fineman looks at the power of evangelical voters in the heartland state of Iowa in advance of the presidential caucus votes there next week.
As the World Health Organization warns that the Zika virus is "spreading explosively," global health expert Laurie Garrett fears a "perfect storm" has unfolded where the spread of disease-bearing Asian and African mosquitoes meets the El Niño climate event and economic crisis in Brazil. In a reflection on the Islamic State's recent destruction of the oldest Christian monastery in Iraq, Iranian philosopher Ramin Jahanbegloo reminds us that civilization rests fundamentally on dialogue with the heritage of those who came before us. Olafur Eliasson explains why he believes art has the power to change the world.
This week's "Forgotten Fact" looks at some of the destruction in southeast Turkey -- with photos that resemble war-torn Syria -- where the government is fighting the Kurds. Another haunting photo essay shows the impact of climate change on Bangladesh.
In a tribute to Marvin Minksy, who died this week at 88, Robert Lawrence Kuhn offers the most fascinating quotes from his interviews with the artificial intelligence pioneer over the years. Fusion this week wonders if continually connected millennials will ever be able to retire. Lastly, our Singularity series ponders the exact whereabouts in our solar system of newly discovered Planet Nine.
WHO WE ARE
EDITORS: Nathan Gardels, Senior Advisor to the Berggruen Institute on Governance and the long-time editor of NPQ and the Global Viewpoint Network of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate/Tribune Media, is the Editor-in-Chief of The WorldPost. Farah Mohamed is the Managing Editor of The WorldPost. Kathleen Miles is the Senior Editor of The WorldPost. Alex Gardels and Peter Mellgard are the Associate Editors of The WorldPost. Katie Nelson is the National Editor at the Huffington Post, overseeing The WorldPost and HuffPost's editorial coverage. Eline Gordts is HuffPost's Senior World Editor. Charlotte Alfred and Nick Robins-Early are World Reporters. Rowaida Abdelaziz is Social Media Editor.
CORRESPONDENTS: Sophia Jones in Istanbul; Matt Sheehan in Beijing.
EDITORIAL BOARD: Nicolas Berggruen, Nathan Gardels, Arianna Huffington, Eric Schmidt (Google Inc.), Pierre Omidyar (First Look Media) Juan Luis Cebrian (El Pais/PRISA), Walter Isaacson (Aspen Institute/TIME-CNN), John Elkann (Corriere della Sera, La Stampa), Wadah Khanfar (Al Jazeera), Dileep Padgaonkar (Times of India) and Yoichi Funabashi (Asahi Shimbun).
VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS: Dawn Nakagawa.
CONTRIBUTING EDITORS: Moises Naim (former editor of Foreign Policy), Nayan Chanda (Yale/Global; Far Eastern Economic Review) and Katherine Keating (One-On-One). Sergio Munoz Bata and Parag Khanna are Contributing Editors-At-Large.
The Asia Society and its ChinaFile, edited by Orville Schell, is our primary partner on Asia coverage. Eric X. Li and the Chunqiu Institute/Fudan University in Shanghai and Guancha.cn also provide first person voices from China. We also draw on the content of China Digital Times. Seung-yoon Lee is The WorldPost link in South Korea.
Jared Cohen of Google Ideas provides regular commentary from young thinkers, leaders and activists around the globe. Bruce Mau provides regular columns from MassiveChangeNetwork.com on the "whole mind" way of thinking. Patrick Soon-Shiong is Contributing Editor for Health and Medicine.
ADVISORY COUNCIL: Members of the Berggruen Institute's 21st Century Council and Council for the Future of Europe serve as the Advisory Council -- as well as regular contributors -- to the site. These include, Jacques Attali, Shaukat Aziz, Gordon Brown, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Juan Luis Cebrian, Jack Dorsey, Mohamed El-Erian, Francis Fukuyama, Felipe Gonzalez, John Gray, Reid Hoffman, Fred Hu, Mo Ibrahim, Alexei Kudrin, Pascal Lamy, Kishore Mahbubani, Alain Minc, Dambisa Moyo, Laura Tyson, Elon Musk, Pierre Omidyar, Raghuram Rajan, Nouriel Roubini, Nicolas Sarkozy, Eric Schmidt, Gerhard Schroeder, Peter Schwartz, Amartya Sen, Jeff Skoll, Michael Spence, Joe Stiglitz, Larry Summers, Wu Jianmin, George Yeo, Fareed Zakaria, Ernesto Zedillo, Ahmed Zewail, and Zheng Bijian.
From the Europe group, these include: Marek Belka, Tony Blair, Jacques Delors, Niall Ferguson, Anthony Giddens, Otmar Issing, Mario Monti, Robert Mundell, Peter Sutherland and Guy Verhofstadt.
MISSION STATEMENT
The WorldPost is a global media bridge that seeks to connect the world and connect the dots. Gathering together top editors and first person contributors from all corners of the planet, we aspire to be the one publication where the whole world meets.
We not only deliver breaking news from the best sources with original reportage on the ground and user-generated content; we bring the best minds and most authoritative as well as fresh and new voices together to make sense of events from a global perspective looking around, not a national perspective looking out.
-- 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.
As the creator and executive producer of VH1's "Love & Hip Hop" series, Mona Scott-Young is the definition of a strong career woman. She's praised for her ambition, commended for her business savvy and lauded for running her multimillion-dollar company, Monami Entertainment.
At home, though, the tough-minded executive does things a little differently.
As Scott-Young says during an appearance on the new relationship show "It's Not You, It's Men," her sharp approach to business is different from how she approaches her marriage.
"Yes, sometimes I've got to steamroll through the day to get what I need done. But I have to also understand, when I get home, I'm in a partnership," she says. "Although we do have these reverse roles and he's an amazing support system, I've got to support him just as much."
This give-and-take is essential in maintaining her healthy marriage, Scott-Young adds, even though it's not always easy.
"It's still work, every single day. I go home and some days, he's like, '[Buzzer sound]. Check that at the door. This is not a business deal. This is your home,'" she says.
That's when Scott-Young says she shifts her energy -- happily so.
"I've chosen to be in this relationship. I've chosen to be with him," she says. "So it is my responsibility to make sure that I'm taking care of him as much as he takes care of me."
The polarizing discussion about what it takes to have a healthy marriage continues on this weekend's episode of "It's Not You, It's Men," airing Saturday, Jan. 30, at 9 p.m. ET on OWN.
-- 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.
COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Prior to the cartoon crisis of 2005-6, which arose after a Danish newspaper published a handful of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, Denmark did not have strong national brand recognition in the Middle East and North Africa. During numerous research trips to the region before the crisis I often heard questions along the lines of, "Denmark? Isn't that the capital of Oslo?"
Egyptians, for instance, jokingly used to refer to Denmark as "the country of cheese" (balad al-gibna), a reference to Danish dairy products exported to the region. Or they would take amusement from referring to a popular slapstick comedy starring a prominent Egyptian actor, Adel Imam, in which the plot is built around a Danish blonde in skimpy clothes. And there were soccer fans (quite a lot) who could name more famous Danish or Arab soccer players than I even knew. Beyond that, everything turned a bit hazy.
The cartoon crisis changed that. It instantly hurled Denmark into the Arab and Middle Eastern collective consciousness and tarnished Denmark with a reputation as a frontrunner in European xenophobia and Islamophobia.
Whether we find it fair or not, the dominant narrative about Denmark in the Middle East remains forcefully impacted by this experience. Danish businessmen know that and so do the Danish intelligence and foreign services. Over the past 10 years each has worked to repair and rebuild what Denmark's image lost in 2006. In the foreign service, for instance, the newly established regional reform program that I headed in Cairo from 2008 through 2011 had to scale down its reform agenda and instead focus on public diplomacy and "dialogue" activities.
Syrian migrants arrive at the main train station in Copenhagen in September, 2015. (Finn Frandsen/POLFOTO via AP)
The cartoon crisis not only created a branding challenge for Denmark in the Middle East; it also made the country weaker in the eyes of countries it normally compares itself with. The association with European xenophobia and Islamophobia had grave consequences for Denmark's capacity for international diplomacy and its exposure to international terrorism. Every incoming Danish government since 2006 has been forced to handle this structural weakness through the diplomatic, trade and security agencies.
But the current government has utterly failed to do this. Out of an eagerness to dissuade Syrian and other refugees to seek asylum in Denmark, the government, since it came to power about seven months ago, deliberately and proactively built an image of Denmark as a leader in European anti-immigration policies. It has done so by placing dissuasive ads in Lebanese media, by challenging the applicability of international conventions on the regulation of refugees and, most recently, by passing a highly controversial and symbolic anti-immigration law. In Denmark and in other countries, the success of this type of negative branding has generated tough criticism and split the electorate, sending the parties in the social democratic opposition that supported the government into an almost historically unprecedented free fall.
But that's not all. Besides the almost unbearable human costs that the new law will impose on legal asylum seekers in Denmark -- in particular the separation of parents and children for up to three years and the confiscation of personal valuables -- the government has neglected three key insights that were bitterly acquired during the cartoon crisis in 2006 but appear now to have been forgotten.
Small state, big attitude
A key lesson from the cartoon crisis was that Denmark is and always will be a small state. No matter how much the Americans love our "scando style," the cartoon crisis emphatically showed that the close relations with Washington built by successive governments could not be translated into deterrence in international politics. The cartoon crisis showed us that if we stick our noses into the wrong places and make diplomatic missteps, we may easily become an object of other more powerful states' domestic and international policies.
Contrary to what is often argued in Danish media, it was neither the printing of the cartoons as such, nor the dumb trip by a group of ill-prepared Danish imams to several countries in the Middle East that instigated the crisis. The crisis only developed when a host of political actors in the Middle East and beyond picked up on a strong but almost cost-free case for popular mobilization that the Danish government had provided them on a silver platter.
The then-prime minister and later head of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, refused to meet a group of ambassadors who arrived to express a strong worry over what they perceived as increasing Islamophobia in the Danish press and media, with the cartoons of Prophet Muhammed as the most recent case. From there, the conflict took a new and international dimension.
Angry protesters shout anti-Denmark slogans in front of the Danish embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, in 2006. (ADEK BERRY/AFP/Getty Images)
It was this diplomatic faux pas, based on a tunnel view of the Danish domestic scene, that was grasped by political leaders and opinion-makers in the state-controlled or government-supportive press in the Middle East. How could the leader of a small European state decline to even speak to ambassadors representing a range of Middle Eastern great powers?
From that point onward the crisis snowballed. Middle Eastern regimes like Egypt, Iran and Syria pushed the issue, orchestrating campaigns and street protests. It was picked up by the domestic opposition in a number of countries in the region, further complicating Denmark's attempts at containing the issue. It was picked up by Al Qaeda, adding to the growing risks of political violence and terrorism in the wake of the Danish military expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it was picked up by Middle Eastern consumers, leading to one of the worst-ever cases of consumer boycott and damage to Danish business interests in the Middle East.
It did not matter that the prime minister could not have intervened to stop the cartoons even if he wanted. It did not matter that equally presumptuous French cartoons were printed in other European newspapers. What mattered was that the case was powerfully mobilizing the populace. And that was almost risk-free, from a Middle Eastern perspective, since it involved only a European micro-power. It is, after all, a whole lot easier to organize and run an international conflict with Denmark than doing so with big powers like France, Germany or the U.S.
A migrant camp in Vordingborg, south of Copenhagen. (Per Rasmussen/Polfoto via AP)
And now, in the current refugee crisis, the Danish government neglected all the insights and lessons it could have learned from the cartoon crisis, from the limits of the country's deterrence abilities to the deep connectedness between Danish domestic politics and the broader world around us. Until now, the refugee crisis has had a broader European and Western dimension. Sadly, it may not remain so. Although a scenario along the precise lines of the cartoon crisis seems unlikely, the issue may reveal a deeper resonance with Middle Eastern politics, security and business than what we have seen so far.
The probability of this stems form the continued presence of key conditions in Middle Eastern power politics that, a decade ago, drove the cartoon crisis. Regimes remain weak and illegitimate. Jihadists are still at war with Denmark and the West. And businesses still need to appear ethical.
Ten years after the cartoon crisis, Middle Eastern regimes are still dealing with chronically low popular support. A key driver in the cartoon crisis of 2006 was the need for weak autocratic regimes to mobilize popular support internally -- or at least stop their domestic rivals from doing so first. The cartoons in that case were an issue that was obvious enough to garner support and mobilize people. Through smear campaigns and dissociation, the regimes could frame themselves as protectors of the prophet, of Islam and of a good cause.
To many, this appeared wildly hypocritical. Muslims are treated worse in the Middle East than they ever have been in Denmark. But that was not the point back then. And neither is it today. During a recent U.N. Human Rights Council hearing, envoys from a range of Middle Eastern great powers, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, chastised Denmark for its hateful debate about migrants and foreigners. It is hard to believe that this was motivated by a genuine urge to protect human rights and the rights of Muslim migrants and refugees in Denmark.
Middle Eastern migrants walking from southern Denmark towards Sweden in September, 2015. (AP Photo/POLFOTO, Per Rasmussen)
Rather, it seems likely that such criticism arose because the publicity serves political agendas. Internally, Middle Eastern regimes seek to handle their scant political legitimacy by posing as guardians of public morality. Just like it was back in 2006. Hypocritical, yes. But that's politics.
Middle Eastern regimes are active in ongoing power feuds with their neighbors and a quest for regional dominance, a dynamic that is richly illustrated by the battle between Saudi Arabia and Iran. These regimes need to position themselves to gain political advantage and domestic support -- or, at a minimum, ensure that their competitors cannot.
The decision by the Danish government to send a strong message to potential asylum seekers, combined with the existing narrative about xenophobia and Islamophobia, neglects the threats this may generate for Denmark itself. The display at that UNHRC hearing -- where Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia, among others, targeted Denmark for its treatment of migrants and refugees -- suggests that at least some Middle Eastern regimes may be eyeing an opportunity to claim political legitimacy by pointing fingers at Denmark.
An ongoing battle against terrorism
Another key lesson from the cartoon crisis was that stories about Danish xenophobia served jihadist mobilization. Since 2006 jihadists in the Middle East, and in particular Al Qaeda, have had Denmark on their target list. As a symbolic representative for European Islamophobia in the new mainstream Arab popular perception, jihadists saw Denmark as a particularly interesting target for their global jihad, and for years after the crisis in 2006, several Danish journalists, editors and cartoonists were forced to live with 24/7 police protection. Some experienced assassination attempts. While the threat from global terrorism towards Denmark was believed to have dropped gradually during the last decade -- a development that helped by the withdrawal of Danish troops from Iraq and Afghanistan -- the threat has reemerged recently.
Less than a year ago, a Danish "lone wolf" terrorist who had shown sympathies for the so-called Islamic State attacked and killed several people in central Copenhagen. Much of the propaganda emerging from ISIS addresses real and imagined grievances of the Muslim minority groups in Europe.
As with broader European terrorist threats, the renewed alert in Denmark seems intimately linked with Denmark's participation in the international military coalition against so-called Islamic State in Syria -- a factor that may have increased further by the recent deployment of ground troops to Mali in support of the stabilization of areas in the northern part of the country.
A man outside the burning Danish consulate in Beirut during a violent demonstration against the Muhammad cartoons in 2006. (HAITHAM MUSSAWI/AFP/Getty Images)
There is, of course, nothing indicating that Middle Eastern jihadist groups have the plight of refugees particularly close to heart. ISIS, from which a great deal of refugees are fleeing, continues to threaten all who flee its territory.
But the story about the Danish government's proactive struggle to limit the influx of asylum seekers from Muslim majority countries plays into the deeper narrative inherited from the cartoon crisis, a narrative that picks out Denmark as the most Islamophobic of European countries. This was the narrative underpinning the jihadi mobilization in 2006 and onwards. There is a fair reason to fear that Denmark's and Europe's attempts to block asylum seekers from entering Europe will be interpreted as yet another chapter in the imperialist and colonialist policies that jihadists claim Europe in enacting. In that worldview it is only to be expected that refugees from the Middle East will meet refusal rather than welcome -- that universal rights are not universal at all, only applicable to whites, Christians or Europeans.
The Danish government is thus running a great risk of increasing the threats of terrorism in Denmark. By actively seeking to establish a bad standing among potential asylum seekers, the government deliberately neglects lessons from 2006 -- bad publicity for Denmark may be good mobilization material for global jihadists. From a perspective of security policy, the government's proactive branding of itself as a bad country for Middle Eastern migrants and refugees rather looks like a harmful disservice.
Business and ethics
Lastly, the cartoon crisis taught Danish companies that Middle Eastern consumers and businessmen also purchase ethically. While businesspeople share the ability of autocrats and terrorists to look the other way as human rights are violated, the cartoon crisis also showed us that when their business is threatened, their stamina plummets. This is likely to still be the case today. And just as it was 10 years ago, Danish companies active in the Middle East still need to stand on the right side of public morals and ethical business. In the tough competition to reach Middle Eastern consumers, there is a continuous need to mobilize buyers. And in the Middle East, this happens the same way as back home in Denmark -- by businesses keeping their name morally and ethically clean.
Some of the many boycotts and other damages to Danish businesses that arose during and after the cartoon crisis certainly reflected genuine anger over the cartoons or the Danish government's handling of them back then. But some were also motivated by considerations of branding. It simply was not convenient to be associated with Denmark, a perceived Islamophobic brand.
In its effort to take a symbolic leadership position among European countries currently pushing for tighter migration policies, the Danish government has plainly neglected multiple important experiences collected during the cartoon crisis of 2006.
In the end the government's refugee policies are not just ethically questionable. They are also potentially harmful for Danish growth and for Danish diplomacy. And they may contribute to an increase in threats from jihadists in Denmark and beyond.
Earlier on WorldPost:
-- 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.
