ICYMI: @HarrisPoll CEO @johngerzema was on @CNBC @PowerLunch discussing new research revealing Americans feel more positive about #CEO leadership: https://t.co/0X3uzhcLYI
A Data Breach Will Now Cost Your Organization $3.86 Million, If You’re Lucky, new research from @ibm https://t.co/DsxXEfWG73 #datasecurity
A strong majority of Americans believe conscious leaders – those aware of themselves, others, and their surroundings – can vastly improve their organizations, yet less than half (48%) of Americans think leaders in our society are truly conscious, according to a survey conducted by The Harris Poll among more than 2,000 U.S. adults.
The new poll was commissioned by Healthy Companies International to better understand how Americans view leaders and their ability to navigate in a rapidly changing world. The research suggests many employees feel the world is changing faster than their organizations can adapt, and that more conscious leaders are needed to help guide teams through this acceleration.
A vast majority of Americans believe conscious leaders in an organization drive significant improvements in their employees’ performance (89%) and in their organization’s financial performance (87%). But there is a major perception gap: 94% of C-level executives surveyed believe they are very or somewhat conscious, while only 60% of employed Americans believe the same of C-level executives at their organization. The problem: nearly everyone thinks they are conscious, but the people around them don’t agree. Additional findings:
- 52% of Americans believe the world is changing faster than their ability to adapt
- 54% of Americans believe leaders are doing a poor to fair job adapting to change
- 52% of Americans view society’s leaders, in general, as not conscious enough of themselves or their surroundings
- 86% of Americans feel there would be less turmoil in the world if leaders were more conscious
“We live in a world of accelerating change, and people are looking for leaders who can adapt, and drive that change,” said Bob Rosen, PhD organizational psychologist, founder and CEO of Healthy Companies.
Read more at PRWeb.
A new global study conducted by IBM suggests the financial impact of a data breach for an organization is, on average, $3.86 million.
However, in the worst cases, "mega breaches" may cost the enterprise between $40 million and $350 million.
IBM's 2018 Cost of a Data Breach Study, conducted in conjunction with the Ponemon Institute, suggests that the cost can become this high not due to the obvious damage caused by systems -- or the theft of information at the time of a breach -- but rather due to more subtle expenses incurred by an organization.
A loss of reputation may deter potential future customers, current business relationships may falter, and the time employees must spend on damage control -- as well as retraining and education -- may all rack up the bill.
According to the study, the average cost of a data breach, $3.86 million, has increased by 6.4 percent from 2017.
After interviewing close to 500 companies which have experienced a data breach, the study calculated that this is the average cost when under 100,000 records are compromised in a cybersecurity incident.
The average time it took to uncover a data breach is 197 days, and once identified, it takes roughly 69 days to contain.
However, the speed of incident response teams can have a huge impact on the overall cost of a data breach.
When a breach is contained in less than a month, IBM suggests businesses may be able to save up to $1 million in comparison to slower companies.
The amount of records stolen also has an effect. On average, each record costs $148, but this cost can be mitigated by having an incident response team on hand, as well as by implementing artificial intelligence (AI)-based cybersecurity solutions.
"Organizations that had extensively deployed automated security technologies saved over $1.5 million on the total cost of a breach," IBM says.
The study has also examined the cost of so-called "mega breaches," in which cyberattacks result in the loss of one million to 50 million records. In these cases, enterprise players can expect to lose between $40 million and $350 million -- but one-third of this estimated cost is caused by lost business.
Read more at ZDNet.
The old saying “Live fast, die young and leave a good-looking corpse” may be soaking into the millennial generation. PGIM Investments has found in its 2018 Retirement Preparedness Survey that a majority of millennials (62%) planned to retire only when they had enough money, but 31% were not saving for retirement at all as they didn’t see “the point of planning for retirement because anything can happen between now and then.”
The study also found 25% of all pre-retirees were not sure how much they needed to save to retire and gave themselves a “C” for preparedness.
These findings are especially troublesome as retirement income is becoming less predictable with the reduction in pension plans and questions about the continuity of Social Security. The survey also found that the Gen Xers had more concern about retirement than the millennials. They estimated they would need $2.5 million on average to retire, while millennials projected they would need $1.1 million.
The study of 1,514 adults, conducted online by Harris Poll between Jan. 18 and Feb. 1, was commissioned by PGIM Investments, the investment manufacturing and distribution arm of PGIM, the global asset management business of Prudential Financial. It also found that millennials believe “people will no longer retire comfortably in the future,” and almost 66% believed that full-time employment will largely disappear and that freelancers will make up 75% or more of the U.S. workforce.
Further, more than half of pre-retirees expect to generate income by continuing to work either full time or part time after they “retire,” compared with only 6% of current retirees.
Read more at ThinkAdvisor.
A week after February’s deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Walmart Inc. executives huddled inside the company’s headquarters to discuss how they should sell guns.
President Donald Trump tweeted support for raising the minimum age to buy guns to 21. Florida Republicans voiced similar wishes. Walmart executives knew the company, one of the country’s largest sellers of guns, could be ensnared in the debate, one executive said, and they worried about a potential patchwork of state laws. Publicly, the company stayed quiet.
A week later, the chief executive of Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. made an emotional announcement on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that the chain would increase its gun-buying age to 21. That evening, Walmart said it would do the same, but not before executives warned some allies who might take issue with the stance, including Asa Hutchinson, the governor of the company’s home state of Arkansas, said a person familiar with the call.
Political divide in the country is creating a new landscape for business, in which fierce debates often lead consumers and employees to demand that corporations and chief executives take positions on big issues. That is increasingly pulling Walmart, the world’s largest retailer and largest private employer, into weighing in on issues such as immigration, the Confederate flag and gay rights—generally after other companies or politicians have done the same.
In the past, “the CEO rule was basically keep your head down, stay out of complicated issues, because there were opinions on both sides of any issue,” said Lawrence Parnell, associate professor at the strategic public relations program at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management, who also consults with companies on the topic.
“It’s no longer a question of if, but where, when and how to engage on these issues and what type of topics to engage on,” he added. “These are new challenges and things CEOs and boards never had to deal with before, so they are struggling.”
Last August, after one person was killed at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., critics protested that President Donald Trump didn’t condemn the violence strongly enough. Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier announced that he was leaving Mr. Trump’s American Manufacturing Council, saying in a statement on the company’s Twitter account that “America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry and group supremacy, which run counter to the American ideal that all people are created equal.” Other CEOs, including from Intel and Under Armour , followed his departure from the council.
Read more at The Wall Street Journal.
Many American workers are still recovering from the Great Recession, but most are focused on saving for retirement and have varying degrees of confidence they will be able to retire comfortably, according to a comprehensive study on worker perspectives.
The Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies (TCRS) study, “A Compendium of Findings About American Workers,” shows that 56% of workers say they have not yet fully recovered financially from the Great Recession, with 37% saying they have “somewhat” recovered, 12% saying they have not yet begun to recover and 7% saying they may never recover from it. In contrast, 44% of workers say they have either fully recovered (24%) or were not impacted (20%).
The Compendium, which is part of TCRS’ 18th Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey, provides a five-year trend analysis and in-depth perspectives on more than 60 key indicators of retirement readiness, including access to employer-sponsored retirement benefits, savings rates, planning-related activities and retirement confidence.
Last year, retirement confidence inched slightly higher compared to five years ago, the study found. In 2017, 62% of workers were confident that they will be able to fully retire with a comfortable lifestyle, including 18% who are “very confident” and 44% who are “somewhat confident.” The study notes that this is an improvement over 2013 and 2015, but consistent with 2016.
Future of Social Security
Not surprisingly, there are ongoing concerns about the viability about Social Security. The study finds that 76% of workers in 2017 expressed concern that the program will not be there for them when they are ready to retire — a finding that essentially has not changed since 2014.
“Most workers are counting on Social Security as a meaningful source of income in retirement – and most are concerned about its future,” explains Catherine Collinson, CEO and president of Transamerica Institute and TCRS. “Reform is needed to mitigate Social Security’s funding shortfalls, but policymakers have made little progress in identifying and implementing specific changes. Workers need clarity and direction so they can plan accordingly.”
The study suggests that these concerns present an opportunity for education, with 68% of workers admitting that they do not know as much as they should about retirement investing, and two-thirds looking to their company for more information and advice on how to reach their goals.
Read more at NAPA Net.