Bringing an Analytics Mindset to the Pandemic

Bringing an Analytics Mindset to the Pandemic

by Nico Neumann - April 23, 2020

Spend just 10 minutes on Twitter to catch up with Covid-19 news, and you’ll run into updated numbers and loud (sometimes angry) arguments about what all the data we’re collecting means. It’s proving difficult to pin down how infectious the virus is, what its mortality rate is, how effective different mitigation efforts are, and why different regions are seeing such different patterns of infection, mortality, and recurrence.

That lack of certainty is not at all surprising; after all, it’s a new disease that we’re learning about in real time, under horribly high-pressure conditions. Moreover, different regions have vastly different testing capacity and healthcare systems - those factors alone can explain much of the variability we’re witnessing.

That said, epidemiologists and other experts are running into many of the same issues that come up in any data-analytics problem. The truth is that collecting and analyzing data is rarely straightforward; at every stage, you need to make difficult judgment calls. The decisions you make about three factors - whom to include in your data set, how much relative weight to give different factors when you investigate causal chains, and how to report the results - will have a significant impact on your findings. Making the right calls will save lives in the current healthcare crisis, and improve performance in less drastic business settings.

Who should be tested?

In the case of an unknown disease, it is easiest to test only very sick people or even those who have already passed away. (In areas without enough testing kits, there may not be any choice in the matter.) Unfortunately, while this approach is easiest, it increases the perceived mortality rate. Let’s say 10 people are very sick and 1 would fall victim to a disease. Then we would record a 10% mortality rate. But if 100 people were actually infected, and 90 of them had mild symptoms (or no symptoms at all), then the actual mortality rate would be 1% - but you wouldn’t know that unless you tested more widely. The lesson: only looking at the most obvious cases makes the virus look worse than it is. Statisticians call this issue a selection bias in sampling.

Companies can easily make the same mistake. For example, let’s say an organization wants to know what’s behind an uptick in sales. The marketing manager hypothesizes that it was due to a new ad campaign. It’s tempting in this case to focus on outcomes that are easy to measure, in the name of efficiency. Let’s say we look at all the new  customers arriving at our store or website and find out that half of them saw our advertising before buying from us. We may now conclude that the conversion rate of our advertising is 50%.

However, what about all the people who saw the advertising and didn’t come to our store or website?  If we included those, the customer conversion rate would be much lower. We didn’t select those people as test candidates for our analysis, because it was more expensive and more difficult to include them. The wrong conversion rate has big implications for budget allocations and ultimately for return on investment - just as understanding both the infection and mortality rates of Covid-19 has huge implications for public-health policy going forward.

Solution: Don’t measure convenient samples; extend the study to include a more representative group. The degree to which this can happen depends on costs and available resources, of course.

How much weight should we give to different factors when we interpret the data?

The second challenge is to determine the relative impact of a factor on an outcome. Say that public-health officials are trying to understand what factors were most important to individual patients’ outcomes in the current pandemic. Determining that is not simple or straightforward because there are so many possible contributing factors: age, pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes, health of the immune system, timing of intervention, and whether the healthcare providers were overtaxed, to name a few. These questions are very hard to answer as the influence of many critical factors and their interactions cannot be observed or measured directly.

Businesses face similar dilemmas all the time. Let’s return to our earlier example of a significant uptick in sales. The marketing manager might think it happened because of the new ad campaign she championed. But maybe it was because of recent tweaks to the website design, a pricing change, new talent on the salesforce, or because a key competitor made a bad move - or (most likely) some combination of factors. It’s impossible to know for sure, after the fact.

Solution: We need a scientific method that distinguishes between and isolates the contribution of individual factors, as randomized controlled trials (experiments) do. In business settings, it’s usually possible to use experiments that can test the importance of small, self-contained changes. In a pandemic, that’s not going to be possible (though there are natural experiments popping up as different countries take different approaches to managing the crisis).

How to report results?

After all calculations and estimations are completed, analysts need to decide how to report their findings. How results are reported can often affect perceptions of how bad or good a situation is.

In the case of the pandemic, various stakeholders have presented infection numbers in very different ways. We saw many media outlets reporting total cases and comparing the virus growth curves to argue that certain methods work better or to criticize government policies. However, is it fair to compare 100 infection cases in the U.S. with 100 cases in Singapore? The U.S. has over 320 million people, Singapore 5.6 million. Absolute numbers should always be seen in context. Once we adjust COVID-19 cases per capita, the numbers look very different. At the same time, only showing relative increases can be misleading too. Having a 50% increase in numbers has very different implications for a country with 2 infections than it does for a country with 10,000 known cases.

Business results can be presented in a different light depending on the reporting too. Imagine you have the opportunity to invest in different companies. One reports 20% revenue growth and a second company only 10%. As with the example of infection numbers, we can see how misleading the growth rate can be if the total number of products sold isn’t considered. Growing sales by 10% is much easier if you only sell 10 products rather than 10,000 per month (everything else being equal). Likewise, reporting total sales numbers alone (without a reference point) may not provide a fair comparison either.

Solution: Always provide - or request - multiple metrics, in particular absolute and relative numbers, to understand the full context of a situation. This can be “total sales increase” and “percentage increase” and year-by-year or regional comparisons.

Nico Neumann is an assistant professor at the Melbourne Business School, where he teaches business analytics and marketing communications.  

How to Communicate Your Self-Care Needs to Your Partner

How to Communicate Your Self-Care Needs to Your Partner

by Jackie Coleman - April 22, 2020

The morning rush: shower, eat breakfast, get the kids dressed, start the day. The day: meetings, then calls, then more meetings. The evening: dinner, baths, bedtimes. Climb into bed, only to start over again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

As working parents with a seemingly endless array of responsibilities, it can be hard to make space for yourself. The tendency to focus all your energy on work or family and put your own needs on hold is the norm. And this has only become more difficult with the current crisis. As parents and children are stuck at home to juggle work, school, and entertainment, it feels like there’s even less time to dedicate to your own needs.

But the benefits of taking care of ourselves, whether that’s physically, emotionally, spiritually, or mentally, are undeniable. It’s the whole “adjust your oxygen mask first before assisting another” principle. In a previous article, my husband John and I called it creating a “third space” - space outside of home and work to explore interests, decompress, and find personal fulfillment. This can lead to decreased anxiety, increased productivity, and overall higher levels of life satisfaction.

But even when we know the benefits of focusing on our own physical and mental health, it can be challenging to communicate our personal needs to our partner. Feelings of guilt or shame may prevent these conversations, but not sharing our feelings and needs can lead to resentment, exhaustion, and contempt. And failing to reserve time for ourselves can make us less happy and less effective both at work and at home.

So how can you better communicate to your partner a need for a “third space” or personal time? As a wife, mother of three, and former marriage counselor who has worked with numerous couples, I see a few distinct ways.

First, know what you need. Take two minutes right now to list off what “third space” would most benefit you. Jot down whatever comes to mind. When I think about self-care, what pops into my head is a vision of someone lounging in a white bathrobe with cucumbers over her eyes. And while some spa time can be great for relaxation, there are so many other possibilities. Is it taking 15 minutes after work to sit and decompress before jumping in to help with the kids? Maybe it’s enjoying a couple of hours on a weeknight or weekend to read a book for fun. Research has found that simply anticipating an activity or event has many benefits. So maybe you don’t need weekly time but would enjoy having something big to look forward to, like a future weekend away with friends or a night alone in a hotel. I have personally taken up guitar and voice lessons, which at first seemed self-indulgent (read: guilt!), but has quickly become life-giving. Even virtual lessons can offer you the space you need. Look at your list and highlight what sticks out to you the most. Then consider whether the top few choices are feasible for your available time and finances, and whether they’ll truly recharge you.

Now that you have thought through your own needs and desires, how do you actually have a successful and productive conversation? Here are some tactical suggestions:

Timing is everything.

There are moments during the day when a conversation of substance would fail miserably: the minute your spouse or partner signs off from work, the bath-time rush, and the “witching hour(s)” getting kids fed and ready for bed, to name a few. To avoid this, set aside a time together that is free of distractions, relatively calm, and likely to be when neither of you is overtired. The best approach is to make it fun and think of it not as a way to challenge your partner, but as a way to connect. John and I love grabbing a snack and sitting together by our little pond in the front yard after we finish the kids’ bedtimes. These moments are peaceful and never feel onerous. Finding this type of breather provides the right context for a promising conversation.

Remember you’re playing for the same team.

Approach the conversation in this way: You are your spouse’s advocate and supporter, just as they are yours. And you both have one another’s health and well-being in mind. John Gottman, a prominent researcher on marital success, encourages a “soft start-up.” This means handling the conversation with gentleness and avoiding blame or criticism. You can do this by using “I feel” statements that focus on your own thoughts and needs instead of universal and accusatory statements like “You always” or “…never,” etc. Realize it is much easier to hear, “I am feeling really tired and burned out lately, and I was thinking about how much I would love to learn to paint. What do you think?” versus “You always get to do what you want and never let me have a moment to myself.” These are extreme examples, but one encourages partnership, while the other sparks defensiveness.

Actively listen.

Really try to hear the heart behind your partner’s statements and don’t just listen to respond. It can take effort to set aside your personal agenda, but after taking time to think about what your spouse’s needs or wants might be, this will be easier to do. When your partner says something, be curious, paraphrasing what you hear (even if you don’t agree!). And ask for clarification by saying something like, “That’s interesting. Tell me more.” We should want to truly understand how our partner feels. Creating an empathetic atmosphere will encourage understanding in the relationship.

It’s about give and take.

You want something, but be willing to give a little, too. Relationships aren’t about demands. They’re about mutual understanding, compassion, and sacrifice. While you have thoughts on what you need, be open to what your spouse verbalizes too. And I’d encourage you to take it one step further. Preemptively take some time to think through what your partner might be needing or wanting, and incorporate these thoughts into the conversation. Demonstrate that you have been considering them. Empathy goes a long way in deepening connection.

Do regular relationship checkups.

It is so much easier to talk about things in a casual way when resentment, frustration, or utter exhaustion hasn’t developed. Doing regular check-ins (like our nightly post-bedtime hangouts by the pond) provide a natural time and space to ask how the other is doing and to share ways that could help us flourish more. In a previous article, John and I talk about doing an “annual board meeting” for your relationship and family. This doesn’t have to take place just once a year. We have gotten in the habit of doing a weekly date day on a Saturday or Sunday to go on a hike together or explore a new part of our city. Even during social distancing, you can take a walk around the neighborhood or have a special meal together after the kids are in bed. These conversations certainly don’t need to take place every week, but having regular times mapped out is a helpful way to foster connection and open communication.

The day-in, day-out of raising children and fostering a thriving career can feel like that “lather, rinse, and repeat” cycle - especially during these uncertain times. But maybe with some self-reflection, empathy for your partner and thoughtful conversations, it can turn into: lather, sing a bit in the shower, rinse, repeat.

Jackie Coleman is a former marriage counselor and most recently worked on education programs for the state of Georgia.

The Psychology Behind Effective Crisis Leadership

The Psychology Behind Effective Crisis Leadership

by Gianpiero Petriglieri - April 22, 2020

When I ask groups of managers what makes a good leader, I seldom have to wait long before someone says, “Vision!” and everyone nods. I have asked that question countless times for the past 20 years, to cohorts of senior executives, middle managers, and young students from many different sectors, industries, backgrounds, and countries. The answer is always the same: A vision inspires and moves people. Expansion, domination, freedom, equality, salvation - whatever it is, if a leader’s vision gives us direction and hope, we will follow. If you don’t have one, you can’t call yourself a leader.

This enchantment with vision, I believe, is the manifestation of a bigger problem: a disembodied conception of leadership. Visions hold our imagination captive, but they rarely have a positive effect on our bodies. In fact, we often end up sacrificing our bodies in the pursuit of different kinds of visions, and celebrating that fact - whether it is by dying for our countries or working ourselves to exhaustion for our companies. Visions work the same way whether mystics or leaders have them: They promise a future and demand our life. In some cases, that sacrifice is worth it. In others, it is not. Just as it can ignite us, a vision can burn us out.

When a leader’s appeal rests on a vision alone, leadership is not whole. And the limitations of such visionary leadership become painfully obvious in times of crisis, uncertainty, or radical change. Take the coronavirus pandemic. No one had anything like it in their “Vision 2020.” Crises always test visions, and most don’t survive. Because when there’s a fire in a factory, a sudden drop in revenues, a natural disaster, we don’t need a call to action. We are already motivated to move, but we often flail. What we need is a type of holding, so that we can move purposefully.

What do I mean by holding? In psychology, the term has a specific meaning. It describes the way another person, often an authority figure, contains and interprets what’s happening in times of uncertainty. Containing refers to the ability to soothe distress and interpreting to the ability to help others make sense of a confusing predicament. Think of a CEO who, in a severe downturn, reassures employees that the company has the resources to weather the storm and most jobs will be protected, helps them interpret revenue data, and gives clear directions about what must be done to service existing clients and develop new business. That executive is holding: They think clearly, offer reassurance, orient people and help them stick together. That work is as important as inspiring others. In fact, it is a precondition for doing so.

Holding is a more obscure and seldom celebrated facet of leadership than vision, but no less important. And when crises hit, it becomes essential. In groups whose leaders can hold, mutual support abounds, work continues, and a new vision eventually emerges. When leaders cannot hold, and we can’t hold each other, anxiety, anger, and fragmentation ensue. In a study of BP during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, for example, my INSEAD colleague (and wife!) Jennifer Petriglieri observed both outcomes. She found that BP’s top talent, which the company needed to resolve and recover from the crisis, had different reactions to the crisis. Some lost faith in the company and in its leaders. Others doubled their effort and commitment. The difference between the two groups? The former was exposed to the top brass’ upbeat messages. The latter had bosses who drafted them to help clean up the mess. Despite the stress, working closely with one’s boss and colleagues on the response was more containing and informative. It reassured those who did it about the company’s integrity and long-term viability. Being held as we work through a crisis, the study concluded, is more useful than being told how bright the future is.

It was Donald Winnicott, a pioneering British psychoanalyst, who first conceptualized holding in this way. He observed that being held well was necessary for healthy growth in children. Parents who were available but not demanding, reassuring but not intrusive, responsive but not reactive, present even if not perfect, Winnicott observed, provided a “holding environment” that made children comfortable and curious. Holding made space for them to learn how to make sense of, and manage, their inner and social worlds - and to develop a robust sense of self. That is, a self with a healthy regard for its abilities and limitations, a self that can learn, play, work, face hardships, and sustain hope through it all.

Caretakers who held well, Winnicott noted, did not shelter children from distress and turns of fate. But they buffered children enough that they could process distress, and helped them find words to name their experiences, and ways to manage it. “Are you angry, love? Is that why you kicked? Come here. How about we tell your brother to leave your bear alone, instead.”

Children who are held well, Winnicott discovered, became more sociable and independent as grown-ups. They neither became paralyzed when faced with challenges, nor sought rescue from parental figures. They did seek help when needed and made good use of it. Winnicott called such selves true, meaning that they were free to make their way in the world, and he saw such strength and freedom as the result, one might say, of a competent kind of love. He also observed that they could offer it in turn. They had learned to hold themselves and others too.

Good holding, in short, not only makes us more comfortable and courageous. It makes us. That was Winnicott’s major insight, one as revolutionary now as it was then. His work refined Freud’s idea that socialization tames us and can make us neurotic. That only happens, Winnicott observed, when authorities impose a vision of who we must be that leaves us little room to discover who we can become. Neurosis, he contended, is not the product of what socialization does to our instincts, but of what it fails to do with our potential. Mental health and freedom, then, take learning new ways of relating to each other.

Children are not the only ones who need holding to survive and grow. Adults do too, throughout their lives. To face difficult circumstances, master new conditions, and develop in the process, we need holding from leaders and organizations. And we need to hold each other.

When we expand the definition of holding beyond child development, however, it becomes clear that there are different kinds of holding. In his later works, Winnicott hinted that the immediate, intimate holding that he spent most of his work describing works best when it occurs in a broader context of a society that is itself secure and free enough to render interpersonal holding less necessary. That was one of the functions of a democratic society, Winnicott argued: making it less indispensable for members to rely on their next of kin.

In my own research I have drawn a distinction between interpersonal holding and this broader institutional holding. Ideally, good leaders provide both, in a crisis and beyond. This is how.

Leaders provide institutional holding by strengthening the structure and culture of an organization or group. They do it, for example, when they put in place policies and procedures that reassure people about their job security or how fairly the organization is treating them. They do it when they promote dialogue that lets diverse people participate in decisions and in adapting to new challenges together, rather than encouraging polarized factions. For leaders in executive positions, this is the most impactful way of holding people in a crisis. Failing to provide it makes expressions of sympathy and understanding ring hollow. Providing institutional holding, conversely, will often make people forgive even personally dislikable leaders their remoteness.

To provide institutional holding, tell your people what will happen to their salaries, health insurance, and working conditions. What will change about how they do their work? What are the key priorities now? Who needs to do what? You might not be able to make predictions, but you can still offer informed interpretations, that is, why certain measures are sensible and needed instead of others. Dispel rumors. Encourage and protect everyone’s participation even more than you usually do. Do these things before you recommend the usual regular breaks, meditation, or exercise - otherwise you will just be neglecting your duty of care.

Once you have provided institutional holds, turn your attention to interpersonal holding, offering it to others and modeling it for them. To do this well you must let yourself be in the present. Your impulse may be to focus on the future but that will be little more than escapism if you cannot witness and understand people’s immediate experience and concerns. (Even if you can’t resolve them!). You need to muster a lingering, attentive availability that lets others “go on being,” as Winnicott put it. This is more than just being around and supportive when needed; it is a mixture of permission (to feel whatever it is that we are feeling without being shamed or overwhelmed) and curiosity (to consider different ways to understand our circumstances and, eventually, to imagine our future). Remember, as Winnicott described it, the core of holding is acknowledging distress and difficulty without giving in to powerlessness.

Leaders are not the only sources of holding. There is much we can offer each other, at work and elsewhere. In a study of successful independent workers, Sue Ashford, Amy Wrzesniewski, and I found that they invested heavily in cultivating a holding environment with peers and with behaviors that tempered the financial and emotional volatility of gig work. In her study of working couples, for example, Jennifer Petriglieri found that the most successful held each other reciprocally. Each partner helped the other face their career struggles and grow professionally, not just at home. When I reviewed the literature on grief, for a piece I wrote with Sally Maitlis on mourning in the workplace, again I found that a holding presence - capable, first, to just bear witness to another person’s pain, and later to help them find new meaning - was the most valuable gift a peer (or a manager) could offer. That gift is even more important when the loss is shared. Holding brings us back to life together, then.

People never forget how managers treated them when they were facing loss. And we will remember how our institutions, managers, and peers, held us through this crisis - or failed to. We also see the consequences of past failures of holding, in those institutions struggling to mobilize an already depleted pool of resources. It is tempting to resort to command and control in a crisis, but it is leaders who hold instead that help us work through it.  And it is to those leaders, I believe, that we’ll turn to when time comes to articulate a vision for the future.

When I ask managers to reflect a bit more on the leaders whose visions they find most compelling and enduring, they usually realize that none of those leaders started from a vision or stopped there. Instead the leader started with a sincere concern for a group of people, and as they held those people and their concerns, a vision emerged. They then held people through the change it took to realize that vision, together. Their vision may be how we remember leaders because it can hold us captive. But it is their hold that truly sets us free.

Gianpiero Petriglieri is an associate professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD. A medical doctor and psychiatrist by training, Gianpiero researches and practices leadership development. He directs the INSEAD Management Acceleration Programme, as well as leadership workshops for global organizations. You can learn more about Gianpiero’s work on his website, and follow him on Twitter (@gpetriglieri) and Facebook.

How the Coronavirus Crisis Is Redefining Jobs

How the Coronavirus Crisis Is Redefining Jobs

by Ravin Jesuthasan , Tracey Malcolm and Susan Cantrell - April 22, 2020

The outbreak of Covid-19 has forced organizations into perhaps the most significant social experiment of the future of work in action, with work from home and social distancing policies radically changing the way we work and interact. But the impact on work is far more profound than just changing where people work; it is also fundamentally altering what work is performed and how we perform it.

Many workers are doing tasks they never could have imaged a few weeks ago - sometimes in ways they wouldn’t have thought of. Employees in apparel companies like Brooks Brothers and New Balance are now producing surgical masks and gowns, while Tesla, Ford, and General Motors have retooled their factories to produce ventilators from car parts after idling their automotive plants due to plummeting consumer demand.

With jobs at the heart of how work gets done, leaders have an unprecedented opportunity to reimagine them by rearranging work and having employees take on different responsibilities to better respond to the evolving needs of their organizations, customers, and employees. We propose three ways to shift work, talent, and skills to where and when they are needed most, thereby building the organizational resilience and agility necessary to navigate uncertain times and rebound with strength when the economy recovers.

1. Make work portable across the organization.

Given the current situation with Covid-19, it’s more important than ever to move people to the most mission critical work as fast and efficiently as possible. As part of its coronavirus crisis response, for example, Bank of America is temporarily converting more than 3,000 employees from across the bank into positions intended to field an onslaught of calls from consumer and small business customers.

By breaking out of rigid job constraints, the right talent and work can be matched to solve evolving business challenges in real time. Networks of teams empowered to operate outside of existing organizational hierarchy and bureaucratic structures are a critical capability to reacting quickly in times of crisis.

Many organizations, such as Allianz Global Investors and Cisco, have already set up internal project marketplaces that break down work into tasks and projects that can be matched with people from anywhere in the organization with relevant skills and availability. These marketplaces can enable people who suddenly find themselves bereft of their normal job tasks to quickly and easily find different work using their core or adjacent skills where their contributions make a difference.

Using such marketplaces, organizations can also quickly backfill a sick employee, add extra team members to mission-critical projects, and cope with sudden hiring freezes. One hiring manager faced with a freeze recently split an intended new hire position into five part-time experiences for existing employees - thereby giving employees new opportunities to learn and grow while also enabling him to meet his business goals.

Deconstructing jobs into component tasks also makes it easier to see which tasks can be performed by workers working remotely or in other geographic locations. Leaders can bundle adjacent tasks that allow for remote work into new jobs, and port the tasks that require on-site work into other, fewer jobs - thereby limiting the amount of work that must be performed in the office or on-site.

2. Accelerate automation.

For certain types of work, automation can increase reliability, improve safety and well being, and handle sudden spikes in demand. In fact, automation isn’t a job-killer in today’s economic environment, it is becoming a mandatory capability to deal with a crisis.

Many utility companies have expanded their use of automation software in recent weeks to allow workers to operate, monitor, and control systems remotely, thereby reducing the risk of human exposure to the virus and enabling utilities to run smoothly without service disruptions.

To handle increased call volume, others have increased their use of automation in call centers. Automation can speed up response times and free agents from transactional tasks so that they can focus on responding with the empathy and emotional intelligence that customers need now more than ever.

3. Share employees in cross-industry talent exchanges.

As leaders, we must all ask ourselves: How can we tap into the broader ecosystem of talent to build the resilience of both organizations and people during these challenging times? One innovative response is to develop a cross-industry talent exchange, temporarily moving employees without work due to the crisis (e.g., airlines, hospitality) to those organizations that have an excess of work (e.g., health, logistics, some retail stores). This avoids the frictional and reputational costs associated with letting people go while supporting workers in developing new skills and networks.

For example, supermarket Kroger is temporarily borrowing furloughed employees for 30 days from Sysco Corporation, a wholesale food distributor to restaurants that has been hit hard by the coronavirus.

Months earlier in China, companies also creatively started sharing employees, moving employees without work from organizations like restaurants and lending them to others that have had a spike in demand like Hema, Alibaba’s retail grocery chain known for its fast grocery food delivery. More than 3,000 new employees from more than 40 companies in different sectors have joined Hema’s employee sharing plan.

In these arrangements, the companies receiving employees define which skills they’re looking for. They then work with the companies sharing their employees to define the length of the exchange as well as the implications for pay, benefits, and insurance.

Although the Covid-19 pandemic is a difficult time, it can also be a time of unprecedented creativity. Reimagining jobs around the constraints of today’s challenging business environment may accelerate the future of work and open up new and innovative ways in how, where, and by whom work gets done. Ultimately, this can help us build greater resilience and efficiency in our organizations, and help people live healthier, more sustainable lives.

Ravin Jesuthasan is Managing Director at Willis Towers Watson. He is a member of the World Economic Forum’s Steering Committee on Work and Employment and has been recognized as one of the 25 most influential consultants in the world. He is the coauthor with John Boudreau of the new book Reinventing Jobs: A 4 Step Approach for Applying Automation to Work and numerous articles on work, automation, and human capital. Follow him on Twitter at: @ravinjesuthasan.  

Tracey Malcolm is Global Future of Work Leader at Willis Towers Watson. She is the author of numerous articles on work and automation.

Susan Cantrell is a senior consultant at Willis Towers Watson. She is the coauthor with David Y. Smith of the book Workforce of One: Revolutionizing Talent Management through Customization (Harvard Business Press, 2010) and numerous articles on work, talent, and organization.

Are You Using Your Data, or Just Collecting It?

Are You Using Your Data, or Just Collecting It?

by Robert Glazer - February 21, 2020

One of the most important business lessons is also the simplest: success is often the result of making more good decisions than bad ones over time. The question is how to do that.

This should be easier to do today. Technology and business intelligence (BI) provide a wealth of data to guide even the most nuanced decision-making. For many scenarios, there is data that can show you the outcome of past decisions that were similar and reveal the projected outcomes over time.

Despite this, many leaders aren’t taking full advantage of the tools at their disposal and rely heavily on gut-instinct in situations where data provides a more complete picture. In situations without data or precedent, instinctive decision-making is likely the most viable option. But this strategy is unnecessarily risky in cases where the data shows the outcome of similar situations that have occurred in the past.

In these cases, many leaders use past exceptions as justification to ignore the cost of failure. Reasons for this may vary - from a distrust of analytics to a desire to succeed with a bold, unconventional move - but it can prove costly in the long-run.

An illustration of this is professional gambling. Casinos thrive because many bettors believe they are smarter than the odds, and that they can beat the house with bold betting. These are the gamblers who drive the majority of casinos’ profits.

The bettors who win in the long-run clinically assess the odds of each bet and make careful, data-backed decisions, making their biggest wagers when the odds are in their favor.

Statistics tend to normalize over time, eliminating the short-term aberrations that give the false appearance of good or bad luck. The longer you play the same game, the more the odds win out.

The Flashbulb Memory Problem

When relying on prior experience, consider that memory is inconsistent and fallible. We are more likely to recall extremely unexpected events, rather than more mundane occurrences, thanks to “flashbulb memory.”

According to the American Psychological Association, flashbulb memory describes distinct recollections of emotionally significant occurrences. APA notes, “Though flashbulb memories are more likely to be retained than the memory of an everyday event, they are not always accurate.”

In a business context, flashbulb memory causes people to remember exceptional results, rather than expected outcomes. For example, an executive may vividly remember taking a chance on an unconventional hire and watching that employee grow into a star performer. They are less likely to remember when they made a safer bet on an obviously qualified candidate who turned out to be exactly as competent as expected, or the risky hires that did not work out. The exception becomes the legend.

Taking Advantage of Data

There’s a huge difference between understanding the importance of data and making it a priority in your organization. Every business needs experts responsible for analyzing pertinent data and helping inform employee decision-making.

For example, at Acceleration Partners (AP), a member of our team is responsible for using BI to tell us which brands, based upon their attributes, past behavior, and failure rates, would be risky to take on as clients. If left to their own devices, a salesperson would naturally not be very inclined to turn away a prospect. BI-informed rules can overrule our sales team if the prospect seems to have a high potential to fail based on past data.

This does not mean it is always a bad idea to take risks. Leaders should still rely upon their instinct if they strongly believe they are right. But comparing that gut-feeling with the data consensus is a good way to test the certainty of the decision.

Likewise, if a leader decides to go against the data, they must take ownership of that choice if things go badly, and bear responsibility for the outcome. Exceptions need to have accountability because, as the saying goes, “Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan.”

Setting Rules and Policies

Of course, decision-making is executed at all levels of the organizational chart. While the executive team will handle decisions that make or break the business, successful companies ensure that employees are empowered to make decisions at every tier of the company. Where the data is overwhelming, leaders may choose to set guidelines based on evidence.

Another pertinent example at Acceleration Partners is our approach to counteroffers. In our experience, counteroffers have a poor short-term outcome because they adversely affect the relationship with the employee and only temporarily fix the underlying issues. For example, a study from Heidrick & Struggles found that 80% of senior executives think trust with an employee is diminished after the employee accepts a counteroffer.

Knowing this, we made a blanket policy for our talent team to not extend counteroffers. We think it’s a mistake to do something with such a high failure rate, and by setting a policy, we release less-experienced employees from making those hard choices without the benefit of the data or experience. We are playing the odds.

Educating employees on the historical odds of decisions prevents them from making unnecessarily risky decisions and gives leadership a chance to carefully consult the data and weigh the consequences and costs of failure.

Instinct still has a place in business, but it should not be the only driver of decision-making. By making data and BI a focal point of your team’s strategic thinking, and using it to craft smart organizational policies, leaders can safeguard their businesses against unnecessary failure, and ensure that the company makes more good decisions than bad.

Robert Glazer is the founder and CEO of Acceleration Partners, a global performance marketing agency and recipient of numerous company culture awards. Bob was also named to Glassdoor’s Top CEO of Small and Medium Companies in the U.S. list, ranking #2 out of 50. He is the author of the international bestselling book, Performance Partnerships and the upcoming book Elevate: Push Beyond Your Limits and Unlock Success in Yourself and Others. 100,000 leaders around the world read his weekly Friday Forward.  

Why You Miss Those Casual Friends So Much

Why You Miss Those Casual Friends So Much

by Gillian Sandstrom and Ashley Whillans - April 22, 2020

The iPhone on the table buzzed. Ashley sighed. After three weeks of putting out fires while working through feelings of grief and stress, her first thought was, “Now what’s wrong?”

Except, this text message wasn’t from an anxious client or student. Instead, a casual acquaintance had written: “Ashley, how are you? I’ve been thinking about you and your partner in this Covid-19 environment. I hope you are both okay!” Ashley’s eyes welled up. She needed that check-in more than she realized. And, it was a nice surprise to hear from a colleague she hadn’t caught up with for a while.

Perhaps there is something to be learned from this out-of-the-blue text message from an acquaintance. Can quick, informal check-ins provide a means to satisfy our need for social connection without turning socializing into a chore during this emotionally exhausting time?

The Surprising Power of Weak Ties

A growing body of research suggests that there are surprisingly powerful benefits to connecting with casual acquaintances - relationships that sociologists call “weak ties.”

Gillian started studying weak ties after realizing how good it felt to be recognized by the owner of the hot dog stand that she passed on her way to campus each day, or to have Barry, the local pet store owner, ask about her cat by name. Her research finds that people are happier on days when they say “hi” to a colleague in the hallway or have a brief conversation with a neighbor at the grocery store. In another of Gillian’s studies, people who were asked to “personalize” a  transaction at a coffee shop by smiling, making eye contact, and having a genuine social interaction with their barista, felt about 17% happier and more socially connected than those who were asked to be “efficient.”

To be sure, our friends and family - our strong ties - support us when we’re feeling down and make us feel appreciated. But weak ties can do these things too: It’s not just in the movies that people get social support from their hairdresser. We feel seen when a server smiles upon seeing us and knows what our “usual” is. In fact, our interactions with weak ties tend to go especially smoothly, since we are often on our best behavior with people we don’t know well. Weak-tie relationships give us short, low-cost, informal interactions, which often provide new information and social variety. As a result, we are often pleasantly surprised by these moments.

Weak Ties During Covid-19

In a normal day, people interact with somewhere between 11 and 16 weak ties on the way to work, while running errands, or on a break between meetings at the office.

Due to physical distancing, these once-common interactions have been eradicated, and we no longer have physical reminders that we are part of a wider social network. Forty-five states have issued some variation of a stay-at-home order. When we do venture out for essential supplies or to take a walk, we see faces that are half hidden behind masks, and we most definitely are not allowed to interact. In countries like Italy, you can face jail time for these once innocuous conversations.

Since weak-tie interactions aren’t happening spontaneously, we need to initiate them instead. However, we aren’t used to doing this, so it may feel a little awkward. In fact, even before Covid-19, it was not our natural inclination to reach out to weak ties. This is because we aren’t sure if the other person will be interested, and we worry that these conversations will be uncomfortable. Luckily, these fears are unfounded. When people are assigned to talk to weak ties and strangers, these conversations are more enjoyable and go more smoothly than people predict.

So, how can we overcome our overblown fears and cultivate positive, informal interactions with weak ties? Here are five scientifically based strategies:

1. Use informal modes of communication

Phone calls can feel intrusive, and emails seem impersonal. Instead, try reaching out to a “weak tie” via text message or Facebook. This will allow the other person to respond whenever they can, so you don’t need to worry about reaching out at the wrong time.

2. Don’t expect a reply

Rejection rates when reaching out to a weak tie are extremely low - in one of Gillian’s studies fewer than 12% of people who talked to strangers experienced a rejection. However, during the pandemic, many people are feeling overwhelmed and some may not respond.

If you don’t get a response, don’t take it personally. Remind yourself that the point of reaching out to a weak tie is to let this person know that you are thinking about them. Reframe your expectations: Think about this interaction as smiling at a colleague in the hallway. You’re acknowledging and saying hello to the other person. Perhaps you’ll talk for a few minutes - but if you don’t that’s fine too.

Instead of expecting a reply, enjoy the knowledge that your message is likely to deliver a little hit of happiness, and maybe, like it did for Ashley, could make a real difference in someone’s day.

3. Set an expectation for a short and simple conversation.

Your goal is to let the other person know you are thinking about them and open up the opportunity to chat, if they want to. It’s okay to keep the conversation short: In recent data one of us collected, a “just right” conversation with a stranger was about 10 minutes long. If you set the expectation that you only have a few minutes, this lets you both off the hook, and helps you avoid the feeling that socializing is another endless “to-do.”

4. Reach out to people who have affected you in the past.

Expressing gratitude is a powerful way to improve mood. If you had a colleague who inspired you, or a mentor who gave you excellent career advice, let them know you are thinking of them. Or you could reach out to someone you shared fun times but have lost touch with. You’ll both enjoy the nostalgic flashback.

5. Share something personal about yourself.

If you aren’t sure what to write about, share something personal about yourself - like a photo of your pet or child doing something cute and/or funny. Sharing aspects of yourself helps to build positive rapport and encourages the other person to reciprocate.

Draw on Weak-Tie Strategies with Strong Ties Too

Now that our social interactions are often limited to strong ties, and we schedule hour-long calls and board game nights to spend quality time together, we are at risk for becoming burned out. In data that we’ve collected post-Covid-19, we found that the more time that people spent interacting with colleagues and friends online, the more stressed out they felt.

As these data suggest, scheduled social interactions are exhausting. Also, they do not work for everyone. People in different time zones, with bad internet connection, who are juggling demanding care-giving and work responsibilities might not have time for formal means of connection that require advanced scheduling, like family or company-mandated happy hours.

We can repurpose the informality and spontaneity of weak-tie interactions to help us stay connected while reducing the risk of burnout. Right now, the best social interactions are those that tell others you are thinking of them, without an expectation of a return of time, energy, or attention.

If studying weak ties has taught us anything, it is that we need to practice self-compassion. We might not have the energy for 1.5 hour long social calls every day. That is perfectly alright.

The best research shows that even a few minutes of texting is enough to improve your mood and spread joy within your social network - perhaps more than that never-ending game of Pictionary.

We might be missing out on our weak tie interactions right now, but it is in our power to create them. An informal hello with a colleague - or your mother - is only a short text message away.

Gillian Sandstrom is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Essex. Her current research focuses on how to make difficult conversations a little easier (e.g., talking about cancer, miscarriage, bereavement) and how to encourage people to talk to strangers.

Ashley Whillans is an assistant professor in the negotiations, organizations, and markets unit at the Harvard Business School. Her research focuses on time, money, and happiness. Her first book Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life will be published by Harvard Business Publishing in October 2020.

When Losing Your Job Feels Like Losing Your Self

When Losing Your Job Feels Like Losing Your Self

by Aliya Hamid Rao - April 21, 2020

Todd* is a trim 45-year-old, but when he walks into the upscale diner where we are meeting, his shoulders are stooped, and he constantly fidgets with his fingers, emanating a nervous energy. On the day we are speaking, Todd has been unemployed for about 10 months. Todd’s job loss has had tremendous financial repercussions for his family. Yet, in a small voice, he confesses, “I think the hardest part is just not feeling like anybody sees value in me.” 

I interviewed Todd, a marketing professional, in 2014 for my forthcoming book, Crunch Time: How Married Couples Confront Unemployment, which focuses on the unemployment experiences of highly educated, married professionals with children in the U.S. Like dozens of other professionals I interviewed, Todd’s employment is key to his sense of self, determining how he measures his social status and self-worth. Yet, this self-worth is constantly threatened, because professionals like Todd have become recent casualties of a pervasive labor market uncertainty that existed long before the coronavirus pandemic. 

As unemployment reaches historic levels, now is a good time to re-examine this link between our identities and our jobs.

Labor Market Uncertainty Has Been Growing For Decades

U.S. organizations have for decades been shifting their philosophies from “big is better” to “smaller is beautiful.” Layoffs, downsizing, and rightsizing are now built into the structural logic of many corporations. The Great Recession of 2007-2009 was a watershed moment, crystallizing the trend toward labor market uncertainty, even for highly educated workers. Today, economic fallout from social distancing threatens to upend the careers of an even larger swath of U.S. professionals.

The economic costs for individuals and families will of course be tremendous, but what will be the human impact? In addition to the loss of his income, Todd experienced a loss of his social status and a deep sense of shame. As he wrestled with feeling rejected by the labor market and ashamed at his unemployment, he lost confidence in himself. He was unsure of how to interact with others, or how to spend his time purposefully. 

Todd’s experience highlights a contemporary reality: Employment, or the lack thereof, has become an intrinsic marker of a person’s moral worth. Several decades ago, the sociologist Erving Goffman identified unemployment as a “spoiled identity.” What he meant was that the unemployed are denied full participation in social life because others view them with suspicion. Through my research, I’ve heard firsthand accounts of this stigmatization. For example, Robert, another unemployed man in my study, explained that neighbors and friends treated him with kid gloves. It was, as though they feared they would “catch” unemployment if they mingled too freely with him.

Other scholars, drawing on research from economic downturns like the Great Depression and the Iowa Farm Crisis of the 1980s, have found that employment has important functions beyond income: in addition to being the basis of our social status and identity, it provides a way to structure our time, provides a sense of purpose, and broadens our social contacts. From this perspective, unemployment not only takes away income, but damages a key organizing element of our lives.    

Mothers and Fathers Experience Unemployment Differently

While Robert’s and Todd’s injured self-worths were an experience shared by many of the men I talked to, the situation was slightly different for unemployed women, at least in the early months of their unemployment. Doris, an unemployed lawyer, told me that “I’m getting a lot of validation in being a mother.” She linked this specifically to the extensive demands of her prior job, which she described as “pulling” her in ways that prevented her from spending as much time with her two sons as she had wanted.

Unemployed women talked about gaining access to a new social world: that of stay-at-home moms. When Darlene, another unemployed woman, showed up at her son’s school on a weekday morning, she was welcomed by other mothers from the school’s Parent Teacher Association. She explains, “They didn’t ask me ‘What are you doing here at a Tuesday morning at 10 o’clock?’” Instead of having to justify what she was doing outside of a workplace, Darlene felt enthusiastically included: “They were like ‘Hey come on, we need your help!’”

Unemployed fathers, on the other hand, experienced parenthood differently. One father, William, described an uneasy instance of taking care of his four-year-old son during the weekday. William would take his son to their neighborhood pool, where, as he put it, “It would be like 20 moms and then there’d be me.” He added: “I just didn’t know how to engage, and I didn’t really want to, you know? I felt awkward. I just felt like I’m that guy.” William’s discomfort stands in sharp contrast to Darlene.

Over time, though, I found that even women for whom unemployment provided a reprieve from the impossible task of trying to be an ideal worker and an ideal mother yearned to engage in professional activity. And, while motherhood does help some unemployed women structure their time, feel a sense of purpose, and broaden their social contacts, this is of course possible primarily because women’s paid work is simply not as valued as men’s. Even when women earn more than their husbands, they continue to be held responsible for the invisible and unpaid work in their families. Fatherhood is still not a culturally legitimate way for men to contribute to their families in the U.S., so fatherhood does not quite replace the latent functions of employment for unemployed men. This paradigm makes it challenging for women to participate equally in the realm of paid work and for men to participate equally in the realm of unpaid work and caregiving.  

It’s Time to Rethink This. Government and Employers Can Help.

As steady employment becomes more precarious in the U.S., and indeed globally, and we brace for a wave of unemployment in the wake of Covid-19, we should take stock of placing so much significance on employment in determining our worth as social beings. 

Uncoupling moral worth from employment will require a cultural shift, one that can be catalyzed by social policies. For instance, unemployment benefits are frequently a key bone of contention at the policy level, and there is often a stigma around using them, stemming from equating morality with employment. Universal Basic Income, which would provide a living income whether you have a job or not, may be a step toward minimizing this link between job and moral worth.

Government policies could also address gender inequalities, making it possible for both men and women to hold variety of social roles, not just as workers, but as parents, siblings, children, aunts, uncles, friends, mentors. This could be partially accomplished by recognizing caregiving as work, as many Nordic countries already do. In Sweden, parents are entitled to approximately 15 months of leave, paid at up to 80% by the government (with a cap). They are also guaranteed a spot in a public childcare system once their child turns one. Investing in social policies that take caregiving obligations into account can encourage both men and women to be proud of, and find meaning in, their roles outside of paid work.   

Employers have a part to play too. For example, companies could loosen the reins on expecting constant availability, face time, and an acute devotion to work. By truly adopting flexibility policies - i.e. working from home or flexi-time - they could signal that availing oneself of such policies is both feasible and acceptable without jeopardizing one’s career. Employers can play an important role in reshaping the entire culture of work just by taking into account employees’ non-work obligations.  

Combined, these steps could help all parents develop roles outside of work. William’s presence at the swimming pool would be expected, simply because dads taking care of their children would not be peculiar.

Over the years, Todd, William, Doris, Robert, Darlene and the other professionals I spoke with eventually got new jobs. Some got full-time work with great benefits. Others did part-time work. Yet others got fed up with trying to find employment and decided to open consulting firms. Through the course of their professional ups and downs, life also happened. Some lost parents, others got divorced. One person died. Some lost jobs again. The professional lesson, however, was clear to them: Employment, even when prestigious and well-paid, is no longer dependable. 

How much sense does it make, then, to hinge our entire mental and emotional well-being on this fickle friend? 

*All names are pseudonyms.

Aliya Hamid Rao is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Singapore Management University. Her research focuses on the intersections of work, family, and gender. Her book, Crunch Time: How Married Couples Confront Unemployment, is forthcoming in June 2020 with the University of California Press.

How Nonprofit Leaders Can Keep Their Organizations Afloat

How Nonprofit Leaders Can Keep Their Organizations Afloat

by Joan Garry - April 21, 2020

It’s hard to imagine the extent of the destruction and pain Covid-19 will cause to people around the world. In the United States alone, more than 30,000 lives have been lost and millions of jobs have evaporated, and this is only the beginning. Nonprofits will provide an essential lifeline to help people get through this crisis and will be an essential part of recovery efforts. In crises, we need the knowledge, skills, and service of these organizations. Just as critical as the government, yet more nimble, they are now an essential tool for societies to address vital needs.

Many nonprofits have big and important missions, but most are under-resourced. Of the 1.5 million in the United States, 65% have budgets under $500,000. The domestic violence shelter, the food pantry, the local free clinic - these groups are typically run on shoestring budgets with volunteer staffs. Your jaw would drop if you knew how many executive directors work 65 hours a week and are paid for 20. And again, this is on a good day. And these are not good days - not even close.

Nonprofits are struggling in a way that I, a veteran in this field, have never seen before. In Verona, Wisconsin, the Badger Prairie Network can’t keep up with the demand for its food pantry services; both food and financial donations and hours worked by volunteers are down. At Ray of Sunshine, an equine therapy program for those living with cancer in San Diego County,  immunocompromised clients can’t come, and leaders are struggling to raise the money they need to keeping paying staff and caring for the animals.

How can underfunded, understaffed nonprofits continue to serve their communities during these dark times?

Anticipate

Cathy (who asked that I not use her last name) runs a residence for women with dementia, many with serious underlying conditions, in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Her clients are without question the most vulnerable to Covid-19. Although she and her team have been vigilant and no one has been infected so far, she has already prepared a draft letter to share with her community should one of the residents fall ill.

The letter affirms that her organization is a caring one and that its high quality of service is undiminished. It notes that “the safety of our residents has and always will come first” and goes on to outline all the precautions that her team has taken so far, as well as more extensive measures (beyond government recommendations) that it would be considering in the wake of such a tragedy. It also promises continued open communication and commitment to its mission.

A good leader solves problems. A great one anticipates them. Right now, nonprofit leaders must ask the hard questions, consider the worst-case scenarios, and brainstorm all the different actions they can take right now to be ready if that happens.

Create 

Ellen LaPointe began her tenure as the CEO of Fenway Health two months ago. She’s learned more in the past two months than most new leaders learn in the first year — about the resilience of the staff and the deep, shared commitment they have to their clients. She offers a great deal to her new team in terms of strong management and leadership skills but in these early days the staff has taught her about what is possible.

Before the pandemic, Fenway had decided to virtualize some of its medical consultation services. The team projected that this transformative initiative would take a year. However, when confronted with the new normal of social distancing, they realized they would need to speed up that process. Working feverishly, they introduced the new telehealth program in just five days.

In crisis, nonprofit leaders must act with speed to innovate, execute, and deliver what people need.

Nurture

Karen Pearl is the CEO of God’s Love We Deliver, which prepares and delivering nutritious meals to New Yorkers homebound with chronic illnesses. When New York became the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, she nurtured a variety of stakeholders, including employees and donors, via video conference; it was something like Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s fireside chats in the 1930s.

She explained in detail how operations had changed, shared the stories of drivers going the extra mile, and described how carefully kitchen volunteers were cooking and packing. She brought her “tribe” closer to the organization and we can only expect she will continue to keep them close.

During challenges, leaders need to keep stakeholders close. The ability of your organization to recover once the clouds lift will be directly tied to how well you do this.

Pivot

It’s time to be nimble about crisis-time services and staffing. Are there new ways to be of use to your existing clientele and others in need? Can older volunteers, who are at higher risk for the virus, participate virtually, or can you find young people with more time on their hands than they had before - for examples from colleges or the arts community, or the gig economy workforce - to pitch in?

Drew Dyson, the executive director of Princeton Senior Resource Center, moved his education program, the Evergreen Forum online by offering tech support to professors and to his clients during the transition. A team of remote volunteers worked with hundreds of seniors to introduce them to Zoom and the initiative was a huge success. Instead of the anticipated 200 registrants, they had more than 500. You can bet that, even once the pandemic passes, PSRC will be offering more online programs to reach more clients previously not physically able to visit the center.

Amit Paley and his team at The Trevor Project, a national 24-hour toll-free confidential suicide hotline for LGBTQ youth, executed a similar pivot. They set their 40 hotline volunteers up with secure laptops in their homes in less than a week.

Ask

Gifted Wishes is a Seattle-based group that creates moments that matter for hospice patients. Gala revenue is the largest percentage of its small budget. Many others are in the same boat. Fundraisers are being cancelled left and right.

If your organization is struggling, it’s important to be honest with donors about what you need to stay open. In a moment when many people are facing unforeseen financial challenges, this can be a hard ask. However, there will still be some individuals or grant-making foundations that can help cover potential shortfalls. Remember, too, to ask your board members for advice and assistance in securing government assistance loans for which you might be eligible and making connections with impact investors focused on Covid-19 relief and recovery.

Closing your doors along with the critical services you provide will compound the crisis for many, so don’t be afraid to continue fundraising.

Our nonprofits must survive so the least fortunate among us can recover from this pandemic. Even if your cause seems less relevant now - maybe run an animal shelter or a chamber orchestra - your organizations will be even more important as society again begins to function and people seek out love, communion, and beauty in the world.

So keep reminding everyone about the ways in which your organization is unique, how you are working to repair the world, and why you need help now.

Joan Garry leads The Nonprofit Leadership Lab, runs a consulting and coaching practice, and is the author of Joan Garry’s Guide to Non-Profit Leadership: Because Non-Profits Are Messy (Wiley, 2017).  

How One Seattle Health System Is Managing the Covid-19 Crisis

How One Seattle Health System Is Managing the Covid-19 Crisis

by Christopher R. Dale , Lynn Welling and Chris Clearfield - April 21, 2020

In March 2020, the improbable suddenly became the unthinkable for Swedish Health Services, the largest nonprofit health care provider in the greater Seattle area, where two of us work as senior executives. An increasing number of Covid-19 patients from a local skilled nursing facility began to arrive at our Seattle hospitals in severe distress. We had been tracking the illness before the first U.S. Covid-19 patient was admitted on January 30 at a sister organization 30 miles north of our headquarters, and we knew how bad it might get - models projected that the region’s healthcare system could soon be overwhelmed.

We, along with the rest of the medical world, faced many unknowns in how best to care for the surge of patients we expected. But we were better prepared than we might otherwise have been because of an unrelated experience that had just played out across our health system: in January 2020, just weeks before the coronavirus outbreak began in the U.S., nearly 75% of Swedish’s caregivers, some 7,800 people, went on a three-day strike.

Swedish Health Services operates five acute care hospitals, two ambulatory care centers, and hundreds of clinics. Shutting down the entire hospital system during the strike was not an option. So as hospital administrators negotiated with our caregivers, we put systems in place to make sure that we could continue to safely serve our patients.

When the strike began, we activated our Hospital Incident Command System (HICS), the crisis response scaffolding that knit together each of our five campuses with the system as a whole. Throughout the strike, the thousands of physicians and other clinicians who continued to work displayed a widespread “preoccupation with failure,” a high-reliability behavior that minimizes the risk of patient or caregiver harm. During that time, we only noted two low-level safety events during the three-day strike, a nominal rate for our large system.

After the strike, we created an after-action report to analyze and capture our learnings. We synthesized the improvements in organizational practices that emerged from our response to the strike so we could incorporate them into daily operations and use them during future events. There were many such learnings, but two key practices transformed our response: communicating clearly and delegating authority. In late February, we presented the report to senior leaders and were prepared to leave it there.

And then Covid-19 arrived.

What felt like a major event - the strike - turned out to be a life-saving warm-up. As Covid-19 spread throughout Seattle, we again stood up our crisis response with the two major lessons we learned from the strike as pillars of our response. And, as we’ve continued our operations, we’ve uncovered a third pillar: focusing on people and sustainability. We believe these pillars can help leaders in all kinds of organization implement effective crisis management.

Communicate clearly

In times of uncertainty, anxiety and false rumors can run rampant, creating distractions and fatiguing caregivers.

Recognizing this, we created a source for facts: an intranet page accessible to all caregivers containing such things as the latest in Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) guidance and up-to-date clinical treatment protocols. Because senior leaders spend a significant amount of energy and attention keeping the page up to date, it works to both acknowledge challenges and allay fears.

In addition to having a source for caregivers seeking information, we send a rapid-fire stream of communication to staff through emails and craft messages that unit and practice leaders deliver. That may seem overwhelming, but in a crisis, communication is about repetition. Our heuristic is that we want everyone at Swedish Health to hear important information seven times in seven different ways. We don’t always get there, but the more information flow we have, the more likely we are to get important messages out to everyone.

Finally, we’re fostering dialogue. We have electronic discussion boards that leaders actively engage in. We also host frequent virtual town halls where caregivers can attend, ask questions in real time, and vote on them. When an important topic rises to the top (confusion around proper use of personal protective equipment, for example), that provides valuable feedback about where we need to augment or change our messaging.

Communication takes work, but we see that work as an investment. The intentionality we practiced during the strike helped caregivers across the organization coordinate better and know where to focus their energies. Communication - and the problem-solving that emerges in response to the concerns of our front-line workers - has become a major component of the work of our leadership team.

Delegate authority

Our organization, like many, has a complex matrix structure. Each major location has leaders, as does each service line and the system as a whole. This organizational and operational complexity has historically slowed our ability to make and implement decisions.

That lack of organizational agility was something that we couldn’t afford during the strike, and something we can’t afford during this crisis. While our CEO, COO, Chief Clinical Officer, and Chief Nursing Officer all have major roles to play, we’re shifting as many decisions as possible to those closest to operational challenges.

We’ve used the RACI approach to make explicit who is “Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed” on decisions. This has flattened the hierarchy and empowered caregiver teams to craft creative responses to the unique challenges that Covid-19 poses.

As an example, consider intravenous (IV) pumps, machines that deliver fluids and medicine to a patient’s bloodstream. Pumps require monitoring and frequent adjustment. In normal times, this isn’t an issue. A nurse will enter a patient’s room, wash his or her hands, and adjust the pump. But because Covid-19 patients are kept under isolation, caregivers now need to put on and take off protective gear before they enter or leave the room, which takes time and creates risk.

A group of clever nurses realized they could keep the IV pumps in the hallway outside of patients’ rooms, a highly non-standard practice, but one that allowed them to make adjustments without having to don protective gear.

Because the RACI approach creates natural paths for information to flow, we can capture and spread innovative practices. We’re now creating a standard approach for safely moving pumps and other machines outside of isolation areas. It’s a practice that has allowed us to accelerate our ability to learn and respond.

Focus on people and sustainability

We’re learning from the initial stages of our Covid-19 response and focusing on creating sustainable practices. Unlike the response to an earthquake or a plane crash, we need to be able to undertake months of response activity. Our approach consists of three strategies.

JOMO: Our organization was introduced several years ago to the notion of FOMO, or Fear of Missing Out. People don’t like to miss an important meeting or a key conversation, which limits their ability to truly rest and recover during their time off. During Covid-19, we’ve adopted a new stance: JOMO, or Joy of Missing Out. To that end, we’re taking steps to encourage key leaders to take time away and to model behaviors that make the organization more resilient in the long term. Amidst the chaos, we all need downtime to remain effective in the fight.

Express gratitude: Beyond creating downtime, we’re highlighting the actions, big and small, that people take to create a culture of capability and mutual support. We’ve taken practical steps - creating backup childcare programs as schools have closed, for example. But we’ve also focused on fostering a feeling of gratitude. Thank you notes, public praise, and pizza parties go a long way. One of our favorite forums has been a virtual “Gratitude Garden,” an internal website where caregivers share posts highlighting the people and things for which they are grateful. These symbolic gestures show our caregivers that we appreciate the contributions and sacrifices they are making.

Create feedback loops: The shorter the distance between a front-line caregiver’s concerns and swift organizational action, the more effectively the organization can learn - and the more caregivers will see their ideas and contributions translated into progress. In addition to the discussion boards, forums, and RACI approach, we have started thrice-weekly safety rounds, which include providers who have newfound capacity as a result of suspending elective procedures. These groups actively seek out problems and surface them so that they can be solved, which increases in capacity of our frontline caregivers.

We do not know how the Covid-19 outbreak will evolve and we do not have a perfect playbook for success. That said, the practices we have adopted can be used by all kinds of organizations to create the kind of resiliency that our current crisis requires.

There is a tendency in disasters to focus on concrete things, like the number of N95 masks and the logistics of staffing. Those are important, but our experience shows us that focusing on the human element matters just as much. Committing to clear communication, delegation, and sustainability can boost the ability for all kinds of organizations to serve their communities, customers, and employees in this time of radical uncertainty.

Christopher R. Dale, MD MPH, is the Chief Quality Officer of Swedish Health Services.

Lynn Welling, MD, is the Chief Clinical Officer of Swedish Health Services.

Chris Clearfield is the CEO of System Logic and the co-author of Meltdown: Why Our Systems Fail and What We Can Do About It.

How to Persuade People to Change Their Behavior

How to Persuade People to Change Their Behavior

by Jonah Berger - April 20, 2020

Government and public health organizations have been tasked with the challenge of changing behavior - getting people to not only practice social distancing and shelter in place but do it for weeks and potentially months. Not surprisingly, almost everyone is relying on the standard approach to drive change:  Tell people what to do.  Issue demands like: “Don’t go out,” “Stay six feet apart,” Wash your hands,” and “Wear face masks.”

While a lot of us are following recommendations so far, making sure everyone sticks with them for the long haul is a tougher ask. Some people are still or have resumed congregating in groups. Some churches, with support from their local leaders, are flouting stay-at-home orders. And protesters have begun to demand that businesses reopen sooner than experts suggest.

Directives aren’t particularly effective in driving sustained behavior change because we all like to feel as if we are in control of our choices. Why did I buy that product, use that service, or take that action?  Because I wanted to. So when others try to influence our decisions, we don’t just go along, we push back against the persuasive attempt. We get together with a friend, shop more than once a week, don’t wear a mask. We avoid doing what they suggested because we don’t want to feel like someone else is controlling us.

Our innate anti-persuasion radar raises our defenses, so we avoid or ignore the message or, even worse, counter-argue, conjuring up all the reasons why what someone else suggested is a bad idea. Sure, the governor said to stay home but they’re overreacting.  Maybe the virus is bad in some part of the country, but I don’t know a single person whose gotten it.  And besides, many people who get it are fine anyway, so what’s the big deal?  Like an overzealous high school debater, they poke and prod and raise objections until the persuasive power of the message crumbles.

So if telling people to do doesn’t work, what does? Rather than trying to persuade people, getting them to persuade themselves is often more effective.  Here are three ways to do that.

1. Highlight a gap. 

You can increase people’s sense of freedom and control by pointing out a disconnect between their thoughts and actions, or between what they might recommend for others versus do themselves.

Take staying at home. For young people who might resist, ask what they would suggest an elderly grandparent or a younger brother or sister do. Would they want them out, interacting with possibly infected people?  If not, why do they think it’s safe for them to do so?

People strive for internal consistency. They want their attitudes and actions to line up.  Highlighting misalignment encourages them to resolve the disconnect.

Health officials in Thailand used this approach in anti-smoking campaign.  Rather than telling smokers their habit was bad, they had little kids come up to smokers on the street and ask them for a light.  Not surprisingly, the smokers told the kids no. Many even lectured the little boys and girls about the dangers of smoking. But before turning to walk away, the kids handed the smokers a note that said, “You worry about me … But why not about yourself?” At the bottom was a toll-free number smokers could call to get help.  Calls to that line jumped more than 60% during the campaign.

2. Pose questions.

Another way to allow for agency is to ask questions rather than make statements.  Public health messaging tries to be direct: “Junk food makes you fat.” “Drunk driving is murder.” “Keep sheltering in place.” But being so forceful can make people feel threatened. The same content can be phrased in terms of a question: “Do you think junk food is good for you?” If someone’s answer is no, they’re now in a tough spot. By encouraging them to articulate their opinion, they’ve had to put a stake in the ground - to admit that those things aren’t good for them. And once they’ve done that, it becomes harder to keep justify the bad behaviors.

Questions shift the listener’s role. Rather than counter-arguing or thinking about all the reasons they disagree, they’re sorting through their answer to your query and their feelings or opinions on the matter.  And this shift increases buy-in. It encourages people to commit to the conclusion, because while people might not want to follow someone else’s lead, they’re more than happy to follow their own.  The answer to the question isn’t just any answer; it’s their answer, reflecting their own personal thoughts, beliefs, and preferences. That makes it more likely to drive action.

In the case of this crisis, questions like “How bad would it be if your loved ones got sick?” could prove more effective than directives in driving commitment to long-term or intermittent social distancing and vigilant hygiene practices.

3. Ask for less.

The third approach is to reduce the size of the ask.

A doctor was dealing with an obese trucker who was drinking three liters of Mountain Dew a day.  She wanted to ask him to quit cold turkey, but knew that would probably fail, so she tried something else. She asked him to go from three liters a day to two.  He grumbled, but after a few weeks, was able to make the switch.  Then, on the next visit, she asked him to cut down to one liter a day. Finally, after he was able to do that, only then did she suggest cutting the soda out entirely. The trucker still drinks a can of Mountain Dew once in a while, but he’s lost more than 25 pounds.

Especially in times of crisis, health organizations want big change right away. Everyone should continue to stay at home, by themselves, for two more months.  But asks this big often get rejected.  They’re so different from what people are doing currently that they fall into what scientists call “the region of rejection” and get ignored.

A better approach is to dial down the initial request. Ask for less initially, and then ask for more. Take a big ask and break it down into smaller, more manageable chunks. Government officials responding to the pandemic are already doing this to some extent by setting initial end dates for social distancing measures, then extending them. But there might be more opportunities, for example when experts allow for some restrictions to be lifted - say, on small gatherings - but insist that others, such as concerts or sporting events, continue to be banned.

Whether we’re encouraging people to socially distance, shop only once a week, thoroughly wash hands and wear face masks, or change behavior more broadly, too often we default to a particular approach: Pushing.  We assume that if we just remind people again or give them more facts, figures, or reasons, they’ll come around.  But, as recent backlash against the Covid-19 -related restrictions suggests, this doesn’t always work over the long term, especially when your demands have no fixed end date.

If we instead understand the key barriers preventing change, such as reactance, and employ tactics designed to overcome them, we can change anything.

Jonah Berger is a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the author, most recently, of The Catalyst: How to Change Anyone’s Mind (Simon & Schuster, 2020).