Having spent 9 years now working in the US after about 10 years spent studying then working in France I want to talk about the striking differences I have seen between these two countries (cultures) when it comes to "Lunch Time".
In France, la "pause dejeuner" (read lunch break) is sacred time in French culture and way of work. As a result, rarely you would see anyone setting up a work meeting between 11:45 AM and 1:15 pm. It is culturally unacceptable to do so and if someone does schedule such a meeting he can be sure that very few people will attend.
The other trait of lunch time in France is that it is a team building activity. Very often, people working in the same team will leave together for lunch and spend a little more than 1 hour chatting as they enjoy their meal. They'll talk about politics, economy, society, sport and work. In an informal and convivial atmosphere they'll debate many issues and share thoughts and lots of laughing. They'll then go and share an Expresso as they end their discussions and head back to work. I do think that such excercise is good for team building as employees get closer and know each other more and more. Also, very often employees will have lunch with colleagues form other teams and departments thus making lunch room (la cantine) a place to exchange important communication messages between teams, such communication is essnetial in keeping
different teams aware of what is going on within the company. These "mini town-hall" meetings occur more frequently and less formally in France and are quite helpful in strengthening the work relationship between individuals in different teams.
In the US, lunch break is less formal, more irregular in time and is definitely shorter. Many employees choose to grab a sandwich and a soda at their desk while finishing some work or browing the internet. Few people take time to have a meal at the company's cafeteria and a smaller number go to lunch together.
Between the two ways, my preference goes for the French approach. Not only it is a healthier and more pleasant from a personal perspective, It is also more beneficial for the company as it strengthens the relationship between teams and facilitates the communication process across the oragization.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Reform of US Healthcare system
The debate about the reform of US Healthcare has been going for a long while. Since president Obama took office in Jan'09, one of his priorities was to reform the US healthcare system and rightly so!
There is no doubt that a system which costs 18% of the GDP (twice as much as the utterly expensive French healthcare system), leaves 45 million people un-insured or under-insured and gets the US (the richest country on the planet) to be ranked 37 in quality of care is in deep trouble and should have been reformed long time ago.
The reform of healthcare is a multi-faceted issue that has to be examined from an economic, social and political perspectives. There are many stakeholders with conflicting needs and motivations. This small essai does not pretend to address the complexity of the problem! It only tries offer a different perspective to look and analyze the problem.
The critical question that needs to be answered by the American people is the following: "Is healthcare a merchandise or a right"? In other words, can healthcare be treated as a car or
an ipod or a computer where you can have it if you can afford paying its price? Or is healthcare
a right in which case people can have it every time they need it regardless of their capacity
to afford its price?
The prevailing opinion in the US Today is that healtcare is more of a merchandise. Hospitals, clinics, medical institutions and insurance companies are all in the business of healthcare to
make money and generate profits.
If we look in Canada and most European countries, healthcare is considered more as a right to citizens and residents. Even in the United Kingdom, it is the government who manages healthcare through the National Health Service. While differences do exist between the healthcare systems in these countries, they share common aspects: The government is one provider of healthcare (and in most cases a "significant" provider) and the system covers almost
all citizens and residents of that country (universal healthcare).
The reform of US healthcare system should start by operating a gradual shift in the "classification" of healthcare from a merchandise that can also be offered to those who can afford it to a right to those who need it.
As that shift is taking place, economical and financial aspects of the reform shall also be addressed. There seems to be a consensus that the reform will in the mid/long term provide
substantial savings to the federal government while expanding coverage to more than 95% of
US population.
The reform shall also contain provisions to simplify and streamline the way the delivery, the processing, the billing and reimbursment of healthcare are managed. A significant waste exists today that is costing hundreds of billion of dollars (about $400 bn in 2004) without adding value.
The reform of US healthcare system is a past due one and is needed for economic, financial, social, political and human reasons.
There is no doubt that a system which costs 18% of the GDP (twice as much as the utterly expensive French healthcare system), leaves 45 million people un-insured or under-insured and gets the US (the richest country on the planet) to be ranked 37 in quality of care is in deep trouble and should have been reformed long time ago.
The reform of healthcare is a multi-faceted issue that has to be examined from an economic, social and political perspectives. There are many stakeholders with conflicting needs and motivations. This small essai does not pretend to address the complexity of the problem! It only tries offer a different perspective to look and analyze the problem.
The critical question that needs to be answered by the American people is the following: "Is healthcare a merchandise or a right"? In other words, can healthcare be treated as a car or
an ipod or a computer where you can have it if you can afford paying its price? Or is healthcare
a right in which case people can have it every time they need it regardless of their capacity
to afford its price?
The prevailing opinion in the US Today is that healtcare is more of a merchandise. Hospitals, clinics, medical institutions and insurance companies are all in the business of healthcare to
make money and generate profits.
If we look in Canada and most European countries, healthcare is considered more as a right to citizens and residents. Even in the United Kingdom, it is the government who manages healthcare through the National Health Service. While differences do exist between the healthcare systems in these countries, they share common aspects: The government is one provider of healthcare (and in most cases a "significant" provider) and the system covers almost
all citizens and residents of that country (universal healthcare).
The reform of US healthcare system should start by operating a gradual shift in the "classification" of healthcare from a merchandise that can also be offered to those who can afford it to a right to those who need it.
As that shift is taking place, economical and financial aspects of the reform shall also be addressed. There seems to be a consensus that the reform will in the mid/long term provide
substantial savings to the federal government while expanding coverage to more than 95% of
US population.
The reform shall also contain provisions to simplify and streamline the way the delivery, the processing, the billing and reimbursment of healthcare are managed. A significant waste exists today that is costing hundreds of billion of dollars (about $400 bn in 2004) without adding value.
The reform of US healthcare system is a past due one and is needed for economic, financial, social, political and human reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)