Podcasts about frijters

Join Dr. Austin Tay in Episode 43 of PsychChat to learn about "Happiness at Work." Discover the latest research findings on how employee happiness impacts productivity, engagement, and well-being. Explore key factors like meaningful work, autonomy, and positive relationships, and learn practical strategies for enhancing workplace happiness. Tune in to gain valuable insights on how investing in employee happiness can lead to organizational success.ReferencesAllan, B. A., Dexter, C., Kinsey, R., & Parker, S. (2021). Meaningful work and mental health: Job satisfaction as a mediator. Journal of Career Assessment, 29(1), 82-95.Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285.Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2022). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(2), 253-260.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (2007). Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2020). Exploring the relative and combined influence of mastery-approach goals and work intrinsic motivation on employee turnover intention. Personnel Review, 49(2), 483-501.Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., & Mansfield, L. R. (2020). Whistle while you work: A review of the life satisfaction literature. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1038-1083.Frijters, P., Clark, A., Krekel, C., & Layard, R. (2019). Happy Choice: Wellbeing as the Goal of Government. IZA Discussion Paper No. 12720.Haar, J. M., Sune, A., Russo, M., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2021). A cross-national study on the antecedents of work-life balance from the fit and balance perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(3), 502-527.Happy Research Institute: https://www.happinessresearchinstitute.com/waly-reportHarter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.Jiang, L., & Lavaysse, L. M. (2022). Perceived control and employee well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27(1), 1-18.Kong, F., & You, X. (2013). Loneliness and self-esteem as mediators between social support and life satisfaction in late adolescence. Social Indicators Research, 110 (1), 271-279.OECD (2019). Better Life Index. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Retrieved from: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/Oswald, A. J., Proto, E., & Sgroi, D. (2015). Happiness and productivity. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(4), 789-822.Seligman, M. (2018). PERMA and the building blocks of well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13 (4), 333-335.Schneider, B., Yost, A. B., Kropp, A., Kind, C., & Lam, H. (2021). Workforce engagement: What it is, what drives it, and why it matters for organizational performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(2), 188-206.Siu, O. L., Cheung, F., & Lui, S. (2021). Enhancing work-related well-being among Chinese employees: A comparison between perceived organizational support and psychological capital. Applied Psychology, 63(1), 97-136.Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322-337.

Thank you to paid FET supporters. Your support allows me to do things like:* Appear as an expert witness at the Senate Inquiry into Shared Equity (was 5th March)* Appear at the Senate Inquiry into Retirement (on Tuesday 12th March). * Conduct a seminar on housing economics for NSW regulator IPART (also 12th March)The season for change in higher learning is now.Not only have I started Fresh Economic Thinking as an independent place to do science—conduct research, teach, and engage in public debate—I am also involved as a mentor and teacher at Nova Academia.Nova Academia is a new college based in a castle outside of Theux, Belgium, run by a team of academics to create an “academic oasis” for research and teaching and to challenge great minds. The image above is the new campus. It makes me think of the X-men, where gifted students got together in a castle for intensive training in their craft but also to build life skills. Here's the pitch.Where once you were challenged intellectually and became responsible adults, university students find themselves in large impersonal bureaucratic systems that treat you as fragile and in need of protection from wrongthink. You are taught compliance and dogma, leaving you unprepared for the demands of work and adulthood. We – a group of outspoken academics, thinkers, and citizens – have seen our universities abandon you. Why waste your life in such soulless places? Come join our oasis in a beautiful castle in the Ardennes. Live on a campus with freedom of speech. Discover yourself and the world, and escape from constant fear and online distractions. An open community where art, aesthetics, movement, and genuine interactions are as important as academic content. Is this for you? It is not a place for passive consumers: it is where you will expand your thinking, become a more responsible adult, set up creative activities for others to join, design solutions to economic and social problems, and prepare for future jobs and studies. Graduates and academics will have made friends, acquired valuable critical and job-relevant skills, and developed improvements to major sectors of our society.Currently, the subject areas are economics, political economy, and health and well-being. If you are thinking of pursuing further education in these areas, consider this option. To begin over the next couple of years, the basic course structures are one-year live-in programs that start with 6-months of core curriculum then specialisation and research.* The Gap-Year Program is for high-school leavers and undergraduates looking for a challenge to expand their horizons and get exposure to new disciplines. * The Finishing Year Program is for recent graduates and professionals looking to spend time in deep learning about a topic, perhaps one outside their technical expertise. * The Avant-Garde Program is for young leaders looking to make a difference in the world. There are two actions to take if this sparks your interest. First, go here to the website to get the vibe of the place. It is very early days. Pricing is yet to be confirmed. At the moment, Nova Academia is for risk-takers and leaders. It is an experiment in learning. Second, attend the online information session on 16th March 2024 (which is unfortunately around midnight in Australia). As I noted, I am part of the mentorship group that students will have access to and will be teaching in early 2025 in some form about the economics of corruption and property markets. More details about the vision for this new education project are in the below document. Read more below from Paul Frijters about the problems he sees in modern universities that have left open a market niche for places like Nova Academia.Problems With the Modern UniversityProfessor Paul FrijtersWe observe three interconnected problems with modern academia. Each problem hampers universities' ability to deliver on their mission to curate free and critical thought, produce new knowledge, and graduate students prepared to serve the needs of their communities.1. Bureaucratic bloatUniversities today are administratively bloated, a phenomenon also noted by many others (e.g., Raewyn Connell) that self-perpetuates via national and international bureaucracies. Bureaucracy naturally expands and expands, costing the time of academics and students. US universities in 2010 were found to function perfectly well with an administration-to-faculty personnel ratio of just 1 to 3, but the typical ratio observed that year was at least 5 to 3, and getting worse. Yale recently reported that it has as many administrators as it has students. This bloat represents easily 50 percent of all expenses in a university and perhaps more than that in terms of lost productivity, if one includes both additional expenses and the production prevented by over-regulation.An example of how this bureaucracy is self-perpetuating is seen in the process of accreditation. Accreditation agencies, whether private or public, largely measure the presence of administrative staff, policies, and requirements (processes, procedures, KPIs, progress reports, databases, ethics committees, and so on). In turn, accreditation is used as a prerequisite for student access to state loans, for purposes of fulfilling job requirements, or for academics to be able to apply for research grants from state agencies. Receipt of research income is then used in marketing to students and to pursue higher levels of accreditation. In this way, the university bureaucracy is both mandated and protected by the associated national and international institutions around accreditation, research grants, state job applications, and state loans. Only institutions with large endowments – either private endowments, as in the States, or state subsidies in the form of free public land or other state-provided resources – are able to keep up and become known as high-status universities in this bureaucratic race.Administrative bloat has many other consequences, amongst which is that many university functions now follow bureaucratic rather than academic logic, ignoring the purely academic benefits to activities and focusing instead on finding and privileging reasons for the bureaucracy's own existence. This leads to a perennial search for problems that can be exaggerated and turned into a justification for more administration (e.g., ‘Is there a problem I can pretend to solve by creating an additional compliance problem?').A clear example of this is seen in human subjects ethics policies, which today involve many committees and result in the strange reality that social science academics, whose job it is to do research about humanity, are bound by rules that in no way bind millions of businesses and government departments that treat people far worse than they are treated in most research involving human subjects. The bureaucracy has created a kind of administrative ritual, justified by the need to be careful when doing research with human subjects, that demands yet more administration, goes far further than the law of the land, and naturally crowds out individual responsibility.2. Universities as businesses The modern university has become a business run for the personal glory and profit of its management, rather than an institution serving a public-good function that reflects the desire for knowledge in a whole community. Universities are now large property owners, suppliers of visas, organisers of consultancy services and places where business and management careers are made, all of which feed a commercial but not necessarily a community mission. Universities today play a real ‘game of mates' (Murray and Frijters, 2022).This new orientation has many consequences. One is an inability to effectively caretake the physical and mental health of students, because the question of ‘what good could we do' is neither the starting point nor any longer built into the self-image of the university. A second is the loss of a positive community story, leaving a vacuum that is now filled with self-hatred and divisive doomsday stories. A third is that relevant research has been replaced by performative research. Fourth, truth is no longer treated seriously, having been replaced by feel-good promises. Fifth, public lectures have reduced in importance and publishing is increasingly seen as a pure status game, leading to territorial issues. Worst of all perhaps is the demise of the university as a place where people try to solve community problems. 3. Mediocrity and cowardice Second-rate and disconnected teaching, based on what students with limited understanding enjoy hearing, is coupled in today's universities with disconnected theories that are largely for sale (e.g., content for schools of medicine influenced by Big Pharma, theories on taxation and private property pushed by billionaire think tanks, and old textbooks rehashing tired theories that dominate the market and from which disciplines cannot escape). With mass teaching have come low-quality students, dragging standards down, but also the reality that university activities become relevant to institutions (including the state) wishing to manipulate whole populations – reducing universities' independence.Immersive teaching and travel are seen today merely as risks, rather than core activities, by university managers who do not weigh the risks versus benefits of university activities with respect to fulfilling a community service role.The result of these trends, coupled with broader social trends over the past generation, are alarming. Cognitive outcomes and several indicators of university success in the West are now visibly suffering relative to a mere 20 years ago. Not only do our children have lower IQs and a reduced capacity to think abstractly, but the mobility of young people is lower. On top of this, the returns to college graduation vary widely by degree, and facing large numbers of negative-return degrees, over 50 per cent of Americans think degrees are not worth the cost.These problems feed into each other and mutually reinforce a bad equilibrium for the system as a whole. The incentives are strong for university staff who are low-quality and demotivated to find ways of avoiding higher-quality demands or demands to reduce bureaucracy (which would lead to layoffs). A peer-review system that has metastasized into a mechanism for punishing real innovation and reward for super-specialists by established territorial groups spawns textbooks and academic societies reflecting those territories, creating more barriers to real renewal. The increased importance of research status signaling makes all of this worse, as ‘winning' on the terms of the existing system becomes more important, punishing innovation and broad thinking even more.Joy and spiritual meaning have been replaced in today's universities by dull, low-quality mass teaching and mass research. Strong lock-in effects make escape for existing universities nigh impossible. As early as 2012, we observed that an Australian university wanting to do something about quality or bureaucracy would upset the unions, the existing students, the local politicians, and even the alumni (who would suddenly hear from their own university that the degree they thought was great was in fact not great). New entrants would face extreme pressures to copy the basic failed model, both due to demands for bureaucracy by accreditors and students, and due to the need to look good on signalling measures (rankings, research income, etc.). A pessimist might think the only way to change is for the whole system to eventually lose legitimacy and then implode as the demand for education finds substitutes abroad and in external institutions, like homeschooling.With great upheavals, making a portion of the population lose faith in the state and in the many institutions associated with power and money, come new opportunities. The signs that we may be at such a juncture now are seen in the increasing percentage of people who have lost faith in the news and in local politicians (shown in surveys like this one), the prevalence of beliefs that standards have fallen, and the rising percentage of people opting out by homeschooling or paying for private education rather than trusting the state. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fresheconomicthinking.com/subscribe

Rene Frijters heeft het talent ZELFVERTROUWEN. Zijn talentgesprek namen we op een paar dagen voordat bekend werd dat de bank die hij bedacht en die alles anders ging doen, omdat de klant daar wel voorop zou komen staan werd verkocht. Van die bank - KNAB - was hij de oprichter en maakte er een succes van. Maar hij was geen aandeelhouder dus toen er een leiderschapscrisis ontstond pakte hij zijn biezen. En ook aan de verkoop hield hij niets over. Bijna een herhaling van zijn ervaring bij de Alex beleggersbank waar hij ook al een geweldig succes van maakte, maar financieel niet echt van wist te profiteren. Maar René zit er niet mee want ‘rijkdom heeft niets te maken met geld'. Is dat het lot van de corporate entrepreneur of is het een gevolg van zijn hoge score op de drijfveer Eigenwaarde, die de basis vormt voor zijn talent Zelfvertrouwen en daardoor wellicht wat zelfoverschatting? Zijn TMA Talentsignaal: “Gedreven door zelfvertrouwen. Is mentaal zeer evenwichtig en stabiel. Kan meer hebben en heeft minder emotionele uitschieters. Wordt niet snel uit evenwicht gebracht. Kan emotionele gebeurtenissen beter verwerken, veerkrachtig. Heeft veel incasseringsvermogen. Vaker optimistisch. Ziet soms onvoldoende de consequenties van zijn fouten in. Betrekt fouten niet snel op zichzelf, risico op zelfoverschatting. Wordt niet snel belemmerd door angst op mislukken, durft meer.” In het talentgesprek deelt Rene zijn recept voor succes. Want van veel wat hij aanpakt weet hij een succes te maken. Maar is hij ook eerlijk over zijn moeilijke momenten en hoe juist die hem hebben geholpen om te ontdekken waar hij echt goed in is.  Want zegt hij zelf: “van bankieren en beleggen heb ik geen verstand maar ik ben wel oprichter van twee banken.” Zo bouwde zonder enige kennis ook een theater in Zuid-Afrika dat uiteindelijk de basis bleek voor een wereldact. Het is het typische "Pippi Langkous” gedrag wat hem kenmerkt: “ik heb het nog nooit gedaan dus ik denk dat ik het kan.”  Het talentgesprek is opgenomen in de studio's van Online Seminar. Een bedrijf dat in de nasleep van de Corona periode failliet ging en dat hij vorig jaar overnam. Met zijn kenmerkende enthousiasme en positiviteit is hij van dit bedrijf nu weer opnieuw een groot succes aan het maken. En nee, van streaming video producties heeft hij ook al geen verstand. De beste garantie op succes volgens René.    Links: Meer talentgesprekken over het talent achter de prestatie en het succes van inspirerende en gedreven mensen: www.talentgesprekken.com Meer over de TMA methode van talent naar performance: www.tma.nl   Kijk op www.tjommie.nl voor meer informatie over het goede werk van Rene in Zuid-Afrika.  

Cameron Murray is an author & economist. You can check out his book "Game of Mates: How favours bleed the nation" here: Game Of Mates: How favours bleed the nation : Murray, Cameron, Frijters, Paul: Amazon.com.au: Books The content discussed in this episode is general in nature, and doesn't take into consideration the individual circumstances of the listener. Any listeners should consider their personal situation and seek professional advice and assistance if needed.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A can of worms: the non-significant effect of deworming on happiness in the KLPS, published by Samuel Dupret on December 21, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary Mass deworming, where many people are provided drugs to treat parasitic worms, has long been considered a highly cost-effective intervention to improve lives in low-income countries. GiveWell directed over $163 million to deworming charities since 2010. Nevertheless, there are long-running debates about its impact and cost-effectiveness. In this report, we summarise the debate about the efficacy of deworming, present the first analysis of deworming in terms of subjective wellbeing (SWB), and compare the cost-effectiveness of deworming to StrongMinds (our current top recommended charity). Analysing SWB data from the Kenyan Life Panel Survey (KLPS; Hamory et al., 2021), we find that deworming has a small, statistically non-significant effect on long-term happiness that seems (surprisingly) to become negative over time (see Figure 1). We conclude that the effect of deworming in the KLPS is either non-existent or too small to estimate with certainty. Typically, an academic analysis could stop here and not recommend deworming. However, the non-significant effects of deworming could be cost-effective in practice because it is extremely cheap to deliver. Because the effect of deworming is small and becomes negative over time, our best guess finds that the overall cost-effectiveness of deworming is negative. Even under more generous assumptions (but still plausible according to this data), deworming is less cost-effective than StrongMinds. Therefore, we do not recommend any deworming charities at this time. To overturn this conclusion, proponents of deworming would either need to (1) appeal to different SWB data (we're not aware of any) or (2) appeal to a non-SWB method of comparison which concludes that deworming is more cost-effective than StrongMinds. Figure 1: Differences in happiness between treatment and control groups over time 1. Background and literature In this section, we present the motivation for this analysis, the work by GiveWell that preceded this, and the broader literature on deworming. We then present the details and context of the dataset we use for this analysis – the Kenyan Life Panel Survey (KLPS). 1.1 Our motivation for this analysis The Happier Lives Institute evaluates charities and interventions in terms of subjective wellbeing (SWB) - how people think and feel about their lives. We believe that wellbeing is what ultimately matters and we take self-reports of SWB to be the best indicator of how much good an intervention does. If deworming improves people's lives, those treated for deworming should report greater SWB than those who aren't. SWB should capture and integrate the overall benefits from all of the instrumental goods provided by an intervention. For example, if deworming makes people richer, and this makes them happier, they will report higher SWB (the same is true for improvements to health or education). Although we are not the first to use SWB as an outcome for decision-making (e.g., UK Treasury, Frijters et al., 2020, Birkjaer et al., 2020, Layard & Oparina, 2021), we are the first to use it to compare the impact of charities. See McGuire et al. (2022b) for more detail about why we prefer the SWB approach to evaluate charities. To determine whether the SWB approach changes which interventions we find the most cost-effective, we have been re-evaluating the charity recommendations of GiveWell (a prominent charity evaluator that recommends charities based on their mortality and economic impacts). For a review of our recent research, see this post. We present our findings in wellbeing-adjusted years (WELLBYs), where 1 WELLBY is the equivalent of a 1-point change on a 0-10...

GUEST OVERVIEW: Dr. Paul Frijters is currently a Professor in Wellbeing Economics at the London School of Economics, teaching the Masters Course in Wellbeing and Public Policy. He specializes in applied micro-econometrics, including labor, happiness, and health economics and currently advises the UK government and others on how to implement wellbeing policies at the national and regional level. Dr. Frijters publishes regularly in top 50 economics journals and has (co-) authored around 150 papers, 6 books and is in the top 1% of cited economists. He is co-author of The Great Covid Panic: What happened, why and what to do next? (2021).

We are living through huge food price increases … And in a way, that's on us.” Much of the world has spent the last two years modeling how different policies will reduce COVID-19 cases or deaths—with little to no regard to how they damage humanity. Today, I sit down with a man whose job is to actually quantify these harms. Paul Frijters is a visiting professor of wellbeing economics at the London School of Economics, a social philosopher, and co-author of “The Great Covid Panic: What Happened, Why, and What to Do Next.” “There's kind of a madness that's crept into the population looking for other crazy things to do … We are as it were in a madly stampeding herd,” Frijters says. Follow EpochTV on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/EpochTVus Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/EpochTV Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@EpochTV Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/epochtv Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EpochTVus Gab: https://gab.com/EpochTV Telegram: https://t.me/EpochTV

René Frijters is de voormalige CEO en oprichter van zowel Alex beleggersbank als Knab. Alex werd destijds voor 380 miljoen verkocht aan Binck Bank. Met Knab wist hij een bekende speler te worden met honderduizenden klanten en hij nam aldaar afscheid in 2017. Op het moment is hij onder andere actief bij fintech Bridgefund, commissaris bij Synvest, ambassadeur bij NL groeit, adviseert hij allerlei bedrijven en is actief in de non profit sector bij onder andere Stichting Tjommie. René studeerde Bedrijfsinformatica aan de HES in Den Haag. Na zijn studie was hij actief als reserveofficier bij de Koninklijke Marine en werkte langere tijd als consultant in de IT. René is 61 jaar, getrouwd, heeft een volwassen dochter en woont in Voorburg.    ***  Volg Leaders in Finance via de website. Volg Leaders in Finance via Linkedin. *** Op de hoogte blijven van Leaders in Finance? Abonneer je dan op de nieuwsbrief. ***  Vragen, suggesties of feedback? Graag! Via email: info@leadersinfinance.nl  ***   Als je de Leaders in Finance podcast leuk vindt, zou je dan een review willen achterlaten bijvoorbeeld bij Apple Podcasts? Of ons willen volgen bij Spotify. Veel dank, want sommige mensen gaan alleen luisteren naar deze podcast als ze weten dat er genoeg anderen zijn die het leuk vinden!  ***   Leaders in Finance wordt mede mogelijk gemaakt door Interim Valley, FG Lawyers, Odgers Berndtson en Roland Berger.  *** Zelf gaan podcasten? Podcast inzetten voor jouw organisatie? Vragen over Hosting? We willen best even meedenken, dus neem gerust contact op: info@leadersinfinance.nl  *** Interesse in een podcast serie over een specifiek inhoudelijk onderwerp voor jezelf of je medewerkers? Met Leaders in Finance Academy maken we series over specifieke onderwerpen in de financiële sector. Zo maakten we een serie over Anti Money Laundering, Bijzonder Beheer en volgen Open Finance en Sustainable Finance. We horen graag van je: info@leadersinfinance.nl    *** Liever niet via een podcast luisteren maar in persoon? Leaders in Finance Events organiseert events voor finance professionals. Meer informatie is te vinden op: leadersinfinance.nl/events.   

Al 30 jaar helpt autodidact Pieter Frijters mensen van hun angsten af. Vooral van de vrees om te spreken in het openbaar. Hij legt aan Ben uit waarom én hoe hij dat doet.

In this episode, Joëlle Frijters - cofounder of Improve Digital - uncovers the important moments of her entrepreneurial journey: from bootstrapping until €80 million in revenue to selling 85% shares of Improve Digital to Swisscom in 2016. Joëlle further outlines the challenges & opportunities she faced as a female entrepreneur: raising first VC funding, attracting unconventional talent, and discovering the right market to expand to.

When we interviewed the famous and controversial Princeton ethics philosopher Peter Singer, he brought up an interesting study by economist Paul Frijters that claims the current set of economic lockdowns are causing 70 times more life years lost than Covid-19 otherwise would had we done nothing. It was surprising to hear such a perspective, since there has been almost unanimous consensus amongst the economics community that the lockdowns are the preferred policy prescription – how did Paul Frijters arrive at this calculation? How justified is his view? And what are the moral-ethical implications of the current measures and his alternative proposals? We reached out, and Prof. Frijters kindly agreed to have this brutally honest conversation with us. Prof. Frijters has written a series of controversial blog posts on https://clubtroppo.com.au/, topics ranging from how politicians were forced into “crowd-think” and made the unscientific decision of economic lockdown, to why quickly giving everyone Covid to build up herd immunity would be the wisest policy right now. In this interview, we dive deep into those moral-ethical debates and discuss how sensible policy measures can arise out of scientifically rigorous economic thinking. This is one of the most fascinating interviews that Tiger has conducted, and Prof. Frijters’s diagnosis for the current academic environment and social discourse will surely stimulate you in unexpected ways. Prof. Frijters is currently a Professor in Wellbeing Economics at the LSE. He specializes in applied micro-econometrics, including labor, happiness, and health economics, including measurement and how we all can help the wellbeing of others. He is particularly active with models of cost-effectiveness and how wellbeing can become the driving focus of the nation state bureaucracy.

"Slechts 1,6% van de financiering in de tech gaat naar vrouwen. Het is niet zo dat vrouwen er niet zijn, maar degene die er zijn, krijgen dan die financiering dus niet," aldus Janneke Niessen op basis van haar onderzoek wat ze in 2018 samen met Eva de Mol uitbracht. Janneke is een tech woman, ondernemer pure sang. Als serial entrepreneur zette ze 2 internationale bedrijven op die ze succesvol verkocht. Bovendien is Janneke boardmember, angel investor en mentor voor start-ups. Janneke heeft een passie voor het opbouwen van bedrijven, en vraagt zich af of ze hier ooit nog mee kan stoppen. Het er "moeten zijn", nieuwe mensen trainen en een missie uitdragen is iets wat me enorm goed ligt en ik erg leuk vind. Het is niet altijd makkelijk maar in loondienst gaan, dat kan altijd nog, " lacht Janneke. Janneke strijdt daarnaast voor meer vrouwen in de tech. We bespreken hoe het tekort aan vrouwen precies komt, wat we hieraan kunnen doen en hoe het nou echt zit dat met die bias? Janneke houdt niet van - zoals ze het zelf noemt - "zweverig geklets" en gelooft heilig in diversiteit. Samen met Joëlle Frijters richtte ze Inspiring Fifty op; een stichting met het doel om meer diversiteit in tech te realiseren door het meer zichtbaar maken van vrouwelijke rolmodellen. Een powerful interview met veel inzichten van een vrouwelijke leider in een door mannen gedomineerde sector.

In de Green Leaders podcast van DuurzaamBedrijfsleven gaat presentator Paul van Liempt wekelijks in gesprek met een duurzame koploper. Deze week: Eric Frijters van Fabrications.

Killerrobots, racistische chatbots, ondoorzichtige algoritmes: er gaat veel mis met kunstmatige intelligentie. ECP, platform voor de informatiesamenleving, wil bedrijven en organisaties graag helpen met een verantwoorde implementatie van AI, Daniël Frijters vertelt hoe.

In deze aflevering van Beter Ondernemen Insights spreken we René Frijters, oprichter van Alex en Knab, twee disruptors in de financiële wereld die bovendien het gemak van de klant steeds voorop stellen. Hoe creëer je zo'n cultuur in je bedrijf? En waarom doet niet iedereen dat? Dat vroegen we René in Beter Ondernemen Insights. Meer inspirerende content zien, lezen of luisteren? Ga naar www.inspireertbeterondernemen.nl

In de podcast Drive luister je naar exclusieve diepte-interviews met Nederlandse topondernemers, gepresenteerd door Taco Oosterkamp. In deze aflevering: Janneke Niessen, medeoprichter van Improve Digital. 'Zorg dat je als ondernemer vervangbaar bent, anders wordt je een risico voor je eigen bedrijf.' Taco interviewt in deze podcast ondernemers die miljoenenbedrijven runnen, maar ze begonnen allemaal klein. Vaak letterlijk aan de keukentafel of op een zolderkamer. In Drive duiken we in de oorsprong van hun bedrijf en ondernemerschap: waarom werden ze ondernemer? Wat zat er tegen? Hoe zijn ze zo succesvol geworden? Luister naar alle afleveringen Janneke Niessen is medeoprichter van Improve Digital, een platform waarmee uitgevers online advertentieruimte veilen. Niessen was 5 jaar geleden samen met haar compagnon Joëlle Frijters op zoek naar funding, een zoektocht die eindigde met een overname door het Zwitserse PubliGroupe.  Champagne Die overname was niet alleen maar feest. Niessen: "Je bent vaak gefocust op dat eindmoment, die exit. Dat is even gaaf en leuk, je drinkt champagne. Maar de dag daarna is het gewoon weer business as usual." Ondanks "een heel kort lijstje" waarop stond wat PubliGroupe te zeggen had bedongen Niessen en Frijters dat zij hun bedrijf konden blijven runnen zoals zij dat zelf wilden. "Iedere ondernemer heeft een idee hoe het zou moeten. Op het moment dat je dat niet meer kunt doen, kun je jezelf niet meer zijn als ondernemer, en dan gaat het mis." Een exit zou nooit een doel op zich moeten zijn, vindt Niessen. Maar wat voor iedereen een doel zou moeten zijn is dat je zorgt dat je zelf vervangbaar bent." Anders wordt je als ondernemer zelf een bedreiging voor het voortbestaan van je bedrijf. Dat is best een lastige opgave, beaamt Niessen. "Aan de tech-kant heb ik een hele goede CTO, die zou een heel stuk kunnen overnemen." Uitdaging De grootste uitdaging is om mensen te vinden die echt beter zijn in iets dan jijzelf. "Vind die maar eens. Waarbij er een culture fit is, een persoonlijke klik én iemand ide beter is dan jij." Goede mensen zijn wat Niessen betreft ook een voorwaarde om snel te kunnen opschalen. Dat deed Improve Digital, al werd de dienst op een gegeven moment wel te veel landen tegelijk gelanceerd. "We dachten, we móeten de eerste zijn, anders zijn we te laat." Maar dat bleek niet het geval: die nieuwe markten moesten eerst 'opgevoed' worden, en dat kostte ongelofelijk veel tijd en geld. Daarnaast zorgde die snelle internationale uitrol ervoor dat de aandacht van Niessen en Frijters te veel werd versnipperd. "Je moet je tijd en geld over meerdere plekken verdelen. Als we al onze middelen op 1 land hadden gezet, en daar een heel goed persoon hadden kunnen aannemen, dan hadden we het daar veel beter gedaan. En was een volgend land makkelijker geweest." Hall of fame Op het kantoor van Improve Digital hangt een 'Hall of fame' met mensen die minstens 5 jaar bij het bedrijf werken. "Als je langer dan 5 jaar bij ons hebt gewerkt, dan ben je heel veel verschillende fases doorgegaan. Als je bij een bank of corporate werkt dan is het vaak redelijk stabiel. Hier heb je in het begin veel generalisten nodig, later specialisten. Het gaat om mensen die in staat zijn om zich continu aan te passen en relevant blijven voor het bedrijf. Dat is een bepaald type persoon waar je heel zuinig op moet zijn." 

Twee presentatoren, een gast.In de Jong en van der Burg praat het BNR presentatieduo Rens de Jong en Ben van der Burg op haar eigen wijze met een ondernemer.Over wat hem of haar drijft, hoe zijn business in elkaar zit, de business case en doelen.Ongepolijst, met de laptop erbij en energiek. Geen interview, maar een gesprek. Over ondernemerschap.Hoe zit zijn business case eruit, hoe ver is ie ermee, wat drijft 'm.