Employee reactions to talent pool membership

Purpose – Despite a large literature on talent management there is very little research on the comparative attitudes of employees in talent pools with those not in talent pools. This is an important omission as employee reactions should influence how effective talent programmes are and how they can be designed and evaluated. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to explore the work-related attitudes of employees who are members and non-members of talent pools. Design/methodology/approach – Matched samples of employees working in a single public sector, scientific organization were surveyed using a standard survey and open questioning to elicit and compare the voices of included and excluded employees. Findings – Employees in talent pools were more positive about their future prospects than employees outside talent pools who reported feelings of lower support from the organization, stronger feelings of unfairness and had lower expectations of the organization’s interest in them. Research limitations/implications – More matched-sample studies are necessary to further understand how employee reactions to talent pool membership are mediated by context. Practical implications – Organizations should consider how employees will react to the design and implementation of talent pools and try to alleviate any adverse reactions. Two threats in particular are the depression of affect among excluded employees and failure to sustain positive affect among the included employees. Originality/value – This is one of very few studies to explore employee reactions to talent programmes in a single organization. The single-site design controls for a large number of variables that confound inter-organizational studies of talent pool membership

Individual based model links thermodynamics, chemical speciation and environmental conditions to microbial growth

Individual based Models (IbM) must transition from research tools to engineering tools. To make the transition we must aspire to develop large, three dimensional and physically and biologically credible models. Biological credibility can be promoted by grounding, as far as possible, the biology in thermodynamics. Thermodynamic principles are known to have predictive power in microbial ecology. However, this in turn requires a model that incorporates pH and chemical speciation. Physical credibility implies plausible mechanics and a connection with the wider environment. Here, we propose a step toward that ideal by presenting an individual based model connecting thermodynamics, pH and chemical speciation and environmental conditions to microbial growth for 5·105 individuals. We have showcased the model in two scenarios: a two functional group nitrification model and a three functional group anaerobic community. In the former, pH and connection to the environment had an important effect on the outcomes simulated. Whilst in the latter pH was less important but the spatial arrangements and community productivity (that is, methane production) were highly dependent on thermodynamic and reactor coupling. We conclude that if IbM are to attain their potential as tools to evaluate the emergent properties of engineered biological systems it will be necessary to combine the chemical, physical, mechanical and biological along the lines we have proposed. We have still fallen short of our ideals because we cannot (yet) calculate specific uptake rates and must develop the capacity for longer runs in larger models. However, we believe such advances are attainable. Ideally in a common, fast and modular platform. For future innovations in IbM will only be of use if they can be coupled with all the previous advances

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)