It's that time of year again - here we are on the last day of 2017. Everywhere you look, there's a post or article on making New Year's Resolutions. Inevitably, these discussions end up with a statement providing statistical proof about how terrible we are at keeping our resolutions. For example, I read one post this morning (from Professor Michael Roberto, one of my favorite bloggers!) that cites a LinkedIn study that showed that 63% of professionals used "To Do" lists, daily (or weekly) goals, or resolutions - not surprisingly, 41% of the items on these "To Do" lists are never completed. I found another article from last year that stated that about 80% of all New Year's Resolutions fail by the month of February.
While I am no expert in this area, I think we are missing at least half of the process when we prepare a list of resolutions or goals for the coming year. Just as important, and most likely to be forgotten, is the process of carefully reviewing last year's resolutions or goals and reflecting on what was accomplished, as well as what failed and the reasons for both. Reflection helps us think more carefully about the new resolutions and goals that we make for the new year. Did we aim too high or too low? Did we really mean it when we listed those resolutions last year? In other words, were we just going through the exercise or were we serious about getting down to business? As I reflect on the resolutions that I made around this time last year, I can see definite areas where I aimed too high. I also see some areas where I sold myself short and aimed far too low.
Once you have adequately reflected upon last year's goals and resolutions, then and only then is it time to come up with new ones for the year. I have found it most helpful (at least for me) to write down my goals and resolutions somewhere. I keep the list of goals and resolutions handy, so that I can refer back to them throughout the year. I cross each goal off once I have achieved it. I also try to come up with both short-term (monthly, quarterly, and yearly) as well as long-term (5 year) goals for myself. The short-term goals can be modified and adapted throughout the year - for example, if something more pertinent comes along that I need to re-dedicate my time and effort towards, I will review my old list of goals and take something off. Finally, I have found it helpful to keep the list relatively short - usually 5 to 10 short-term goals is more than enough.
Goal-setting is an important part of both your personal and professional life. The end of one year and the beginning of the next is a great time to go through and review the progress you have made over the last year. It's an even better time to set goals for the coming one.
As 2017 comes to a close, I would like to take this time to wish all of you a very happy, prosperous, safe, and fulfilling 2018.
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Wednesday, December 27, 2017
Introverts versus extraverts
A couple of posts ago, I mentioned something called the "Lemon Juice Test" that has been used to determine whether someone is predominantly an introvert versus an extrovert. You may be asking yourself the question, "Why does it matter?" There seems to be a widespread belief that great leaders are always extroverts - for example, President Bill Clinton, Muhammad Ali, and Winston Churchill were all famous leaders that happened to score very high on the extrovert scale. However, there are just as many famous leaders that were introverts - President Barack Obama, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mohandas Gandhi, and Mother Teresa all score very high on the introvert scale.
There are a number of studies that do show that extraversion is one of the best personality predictors of successful leadership (see the review by Timothy Judge and colleagues describing some of the research supporting the so-called "great man hypothesis"). U.S. Presidents are generally perceived to be more effective leaders when they are extroverts (see the article reviewing this body of research). Unfortunately, most of the studies linking extraversion with effective leaders are highly subjective - there are few studies that show that extraversion is associated with objective measures of performance.
Adam Grant published a very interesting study that suggested that whether extroverts versus introverts made better leaders depended on what kinds of employees these leaders were trying to lead. In the first set of field experiments, Grant and his team found that pizza delivery stores with leaders who were rated high in extraversion consistently performed better (i.e., achieved higher profits) when employees were passive. Conversely, when employees were more proactive, pizza delivery stores with leaders who were rated high in introversion performed better! In the second set of experiments (conducted in the laboratory setting), passive groups achieved higher performance (in this case, the group was asked to fold T-shirts in a limited period of time, so performance was determined by the number of T-shirts that the group folded) when they were led by an extraverted leader. Conversely, proactive groups performed better when they were led by an introverted leader.
Why should the type of employees in the group matter? Grant and his colleagues suggested that when the followers are passive, the shyness and quietness of the introverted leader can be interpreted as a lack of interest or boredom in the task, which then decreases the followers' motivation to perform well. Conversely, when the followers are proactive, introverted leaders are perceived as more open and more willing to take feedback, leading to more engaged followers and better overall team performance. In other words, when followers believe that their leaders value their contributions and input, they are motivated to perform at a higher level!
Extraverted leaders, on the other hand, may be perceived by proactive followers as being less receptive to feedback and input. In this case, proactive followers are less engaged and perform worse than they would otherwise. Conversely, passive followers may need the "push" by the extraverted leader to excel.
I know what you are thinking - and you are right. Better performance in a pizza delivery store and/or a T-shirt folding task may not be transferable to other tasks or jobs. You could certainly argue that these results may not be replicable when dealing with a more difficult or complicated task. However, what I think the study shows is that context matters greatly. More importantly, I think the study shows that introverts can still be effective leaders. Just like extroverts, leaders who happen to be introverts will have their own unique strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, both types of leaders will be effective when they are paired with the right teams.
There are a number of studies that do show that extraversion is one of the best personality predictors of successful leadership (see the review by Timothy Judge and colleagues describing some of the research supporting the so-called "great man hypothesis"). U.S. Presidents are generally perceived to be more effective leaders when they are extroverts (see the article reviewing this body of research). Unfortunately, most of the studies linking extraversion with effective leaders are highly subjective - there are few studies that show that extraversion is associated with objective measures of performance.
Adam Grant published a very interesting study that suggested that whether extroverts versus introverts made better leaders depended on what kinds of employees these leaders were trying to lead. In the first set of field experiments, Grant and his team found that pizza delivery stores with leaders who were rated high in extraversion consistently performed better (i.e., achieved higher profits) when employees were passive. Conversely, when employees were more proactive, pizza delivery stores with leaders who were rated high in introversion performed better! In the second set of experiments (conducted in the laboratory setting), passive groups achieved higher performance (in this case, the group was asked to fold T-shirts in a limited period of time, so performance was determined by the number of T-shirts that the group folded) when they were led by an extraverted leader. Conversely, proactive groups performed better when they were led by an introverted leader.
Why should the type of employees in the group matter? Grant and his colleagues suggested that when the followers are passive, the shyness and quietness of the introverted leader can be interpreted as a lack of interest or boredom in the task, which then decreases the followers' motivation to perform well. Conversely, when the followers are proactive, introverted leaders are perceived as more open and more willing to take feedback, leading to more engaged followers and better overall team performance. In other words, when followers believe that their leaders value their contributions and input, they are motivated to perform at a higher level!
Extraverted leaders, on the other hand, may be perceived by proactive followers as being less receptive to feedback and input. In this case, proactive followers are less engaged and perform worse than they would otherwise. Conversely, passive followers may need the "push" by the extraverted leader to excel.
I know what you are thinking - and you are right. Better performance in a pizza delivery store and/or a T-shirt folding task may not be transferable to other tasks or jobs. You could certainly argue that these results may not be replicable when dealing with a more difficult or complicated task. However, what I think the study shows is that context matters greatly. More importantly, I think the study shows that introverts can still be effective leaders. Just like extroverts, leaders who happen to be introverts will have their own unique strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, both types of leaders will be effective when they are paired with the right teams.
Sunday, December 24, 2017
Traditions
We have a lot of Christmas traditions in the Wheeler family, most of which my wife and I brought to our family from our childhoods. For example, we always open up Christmas presents on Christmas morning, rather than Christmas Eve - with one notable exception. We always let our kids open up one present on Christmas Eve, and it's always the same thing every year - a brand new set of pajamas to wear on Christmas night. Christmas Eve day always starts with a big breakfast - usually waffles or pancakes (this year it was waffles). We dress up and go to Christmas Eve mass either before or after dinner (the time now usually depends on what time all of the kids get home). We always drop off a couple of plates of homemade Christmas cookies at the hospital on the way back home from dinner, usually with the staff working in the PICU or Cardiac ICU, since that is where I have spent most of my professional career. I always read "Twas the Night Before Christmas" before the kids go to bed. We have another big breakfast on Christmas morning - after opening up presents. And then it's "over the river and through the woods" to Grandmother's house!
I suspect that our children will carry over many of these traditions if and when they become parents with their own children. The beautiful thing about traditions is just that - they come from the past and uniquely tie us to our past. The same is true for many organizations. Traditions that have become part of the organizational culture are the bridge between the past, the present, and the future.
Respect your traditions. Tomorrow is Christmas. I wish you all peace and prosperity as we close out 2017 and start a new year. There is an old Irish Christmas blessing that I will close with:
I suspect that our children will carry over many of these traditions if and when they become parents with their own children. The beautiful thing about traditions is just that - they come from the past and uniquely tie us to our past. The same is true for many organizations. Traditions that have become part of the organizational culture are the bridge between the past, the present, and the future.
Respect your traditions. Tomorrow is Christmas. I wish you all peace and prosperity as we close out 2017 and start a new year. There is an old Irish Christmas blessing that I will close with:
“May the Blessings of Christmas be with you,
May the Christ Child light your way,
May God’s holy angels guide you,
And keep you safe each day.”
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
"Make it easy to do the right thing..."
I was working in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) last week, when I came across what I thought was a very interesting photograph
I should provide a little bit of context here, before I go further. First, you have to understand that one of the most common (and most effective) ways that the nursing leadership of our PICU communicates general updates, announcements, and policy changes to the rest of the team is by posting information on the walls of the staff bathrooms on the unit. As a matter of fact, most of our nursing inpatient units communicate in this manner - it is actually quite effective, believe it or not. Second, we have had problems with toilets throughout the hospital clogging up with sanitary wipes. As it turns out, the company that makes these commercially available sanitary wipes claim that the wipes can be flushed safely down the toilet ("safe for flushing" and "safe for septic tank"). Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a large hospital with toilets in every patient room, the number of sanitary wipes that get flushed down the toilet places a lot of stress on the sewage pipes. Our facilities department decided to try to mitigate the problem by posting these signs above every toilet in all of the staff bathrooms.
So back to my original story. I was working in the PICU last week, when I came across the sign above posted in one of our staff bathrooms. Incidentally, the toilet of this particular bathroom happened to be clogged. We called facilities, and surprisingly enough, the toilet was clogged with sanitary wipes! Was this a case of blatant disregard for a clear sign asking staff not to flush sanitary wipes down the toilet? Not really. What I ALSO found in the bathroom that day, on top of the toilet and within easy reach of anyone using it, was a package of sanitary wipes! I went on a little expedition and walked through all of the staff bathrooms in the PICU and found the same issue - clearly legible signs stating, "Ignore the hype: Don't flush a wipe!" and right underneath them, a package of sanitary wipes!
Would you be surprised that the signs had clearly failed to encourage staff not to flush sanitary wipes down the toilet? Not at all - a better strategy may have been to remove the sanitary wipes from the bathrooms AND only then, post the sign. In other words, we failed here because we did not make it easy to do the right thing.
How many examples can you find where a change initiative has failed because the leadership failed to make it easy to do the right thing? I bet you could come up with several in your own personal experience. I came across a story that said that landscape designers often wait before placing sidewalks in a public venue in order to see how people will actually walk around:
Pretty clever, huh? Bottom line, if you want any change initiative to succeed, you absolutely, positively have to make it easy for people to do the right thing.
I should provide a little bit of context here, before I go further. First, you have to understand that one of the most common (and most effective) ways that the nursing leadership of our PICU communicates general updates, announcements, and policy changes to the rest of the team is by posting information on the walls of the staff bathrooms on the unit. As a matter of fact, most of our nursing inpatient units communicate in this manner - it is actually quite effective, believe it or not. Second, we have had problems with toilets throughout the hospital clogging up with sanitary wipes. As it turns out, the company that makes these commercially available sanitary wipes claim that the wipes can be flushed safely down the toilet ("safe for flushing" and "safe for septic tank"). Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a large hospital with toilets in every patient room, the number of sanitary wipes that get flushed down the toilet places a lot of stress on the sewage pipes. Our facilities department decided to try to mitigate the problem by posting these signs above every toilet in all of the staff bathrooms.
So back to my original story. I was working in the PICU last week, when I came across the sign above posted in one of our staff bathrooms. Incidentally, the toilet of this particular bathroom happened to be clogged. We called facilities, and surprisingly enough, the toilet was clogged with sanitary wipes! Was this a case of blatant disregard for a clear sign asking staff not to flush sanitary wipes down the toilet? Not really. What I ALSO found in the bathroom that day, on top of the toilet and within easy reach of anyone using it, was a package of sanitary wipes! I went on a little expedition and walked through all of the staff bathrooms in the PICU and found the same issue - clearly legible signs stating, "Ignore the hype: Don't flush a wipe!" and right underneath them, a package of sanitary wipes!
Would you be surprised that the signs had clearly failed to encourage staff not to flush sanitary wipes down the toilet? Not at all - a better strategy may have been to remove the sanitary wipes from the bathrooms AND only then, post the sign. In other words, we failed here because we did not make it easy to do the right thing.
How many examples can you find where a change initiative has failed because the leadership failed to make it easy to do the right thing? I bet you could come up with several in your own personal experience. I came across a story that said that landscape designers often wait before placing sidewalks in a public venue in order to see how people will actually walk around:
Pretty clever, huh? Bottom line, if you want any change initiative to succeed, you absolutely, positively have to make it easy for people to do the right thing.
Saturday, December 16, 2017
The morning huddle
My wife and I have been getting our house ready to host a holiday party for my work team - this is only the second year in our current house, so we hope that this will become an annual tradition. Anyway, I was running some "almost last minute" errands at our friendly neighborhood Kroger store this morning, when I heard an overhead page that said something like, "Good morning Kroger team, please send a representative from your department for the morning huddle."
Wow! I was impressed to hear that Kroger has a morning huddle. It certainly makes sense though - just about every industry has embraced the concept of a morning huddle, a pre-shift huddle, or a daily operations briefing. I don't know exactly where this started, but I know that the military started conducting morning reports or daily briefings a long time ago. Perhaps the concept came from the sporting world - before every play in football, the offense gets together in a "huddle" and talks about the next play.
Look carefully the next time that you are out and about, and I think you will find that there are numerous examples of this practice. Restaurants do it - the manager often will pull together all of the waiting staff together before a shift to tell them about the night's specials, how many guests are coming (and how busy they can expect to be), and any other last minute items of interest. Ritz Carlton hotels are particular well-known for the huddle concept and call their version of it, "the daily line-up." Who knows what our current President does, but historically the President of the United States receives a morning briefing of the overnight events every morning.
If everyone else is doing it, there must be something to the morning huddle, right? As a matter of fact, there are a number of health care organizations that have embraced the concept. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center was one of the early pioneers for what they called the "morning safety huddle". The morning huddle started out as a staffing huddle between nursing leadership and charge nurses (the lead shift nurse) from each of the inpatient units in the hospital. Borrowing concepts from United States Navy aircraft carrier operations, the hospital's Safety Officer, Steve Muething, MD and others restructured the morning staffing huddle, which occurred every single day of the year, to include a briefing of significant events that had occurred overnight, the current status of the inpatient unit (from a census, acuity, and staffing perspective), and any anticipated issues for the upcoming shift (from a patient safety, flow/capacity, staffing, employee safety, or patient/family experience perspective). More importantly, Dr. Muething and his team made the huddle multidisciplinary with the addition of a Safety Officer of the Day (SOD), a senior physician who was assigned daily responsibility for working with the lead nurses to help identify and mitigate any problems throughout the day, as well representatives from other areas of the hospital, such as Social Work, Respiratory Therapy, Supply Chain, and the Patient and Family Relations department.
The morning huddle at Cincinnati Children's was so successful that the organization started conducting a "Daily Safety Brief" following the huddle. The "DSB" brought together (at first, by telephone but later in person) representatives from all of the major areas of the hospital - Inpatient, Outpatient, Peri-operative Services, Emergency Services, Mental Health Services, Pharmacy, Facilities, Supply Chain, Information Services, Security, Laboratory, Radiology, Occupational Safety, and others (about 17 different departments are represented) to raise awareness and communicate any concerns for the upcoming day's operations. Each representative again reports significant events that occurred overnight, as well as predicted events for that day. If a problem has been identified, the representative is expected to report how the problem was identified and mitigated. In most cases, identified problems are fixed within 48 hours. Problems that cannot be mitigated at the local level are escalated to hospital leadership. The name has since been changed to the "Daily Operations Brief" or "DOB" in order to reflect the fact that the focus is not just on safety, but on hospital operations as a whole.
Conducting a morning or pre-shift huddle is now considered best practice in most industries, including health care. It doesn't matter whether you are leading and managing a large academic medical center or a small, community-based physician practice, bringing your team together to discuss key items for the upcoming day is an important part of leading an effective team. The Children's Hospital Association has published several key tips for implementing safety huddles, which are available here. If it's good enough for Kroger, it must be good enough for health care!
Wow! I was impressed to hear that Kroger has a morning huddle. It certainly makes sense though - just about every industry has embraced the concept of a morning huddle, a pre-shift huddle, or a daily operations briefing. I don't know exactly where this started, but I know that the military started conducting morning reports or daily briefings a long time ago. Perhaps the concept came from the sporting world - before every play in football, the offense gets together in a "huddle" and talks about the next play.
Look carefully the next time that you are out and about, and I think you will find that there are numerous examples of this practice. Restaurants do it - the manager often will pull together all of the waiting staff together before a shift to tell them about the night's specials, how many guests are coming (and how busy they can expect to be), and any other last minute items of interest. Ritz Carlton hotels are particular well-known for the huddle concept and call their version of it, "the daily line-up." Who knows what our current President does, but historically the President of the United States receives a morning briefing of the overnight events every morning.
If everyone else is doing it, there must be something to the morning huddle, right? As a matter of fact, there are a number of health care organizations that have embraced the concept. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center was one of the early pioneers for what they called the "morning safety huddle". The morning huddle started out as a staffing huddle between nursing leadership and charge nurses (the lead shift nurse) from each of the inpatient units in the hospital. Borrowing concepts from United States Navy aircraft carrier operations, the hospital's Safety Officer, Steve Muething, MD and others restructured the morning staffing huddle, which occurred every single day of the year, to include a briefing of significant events that had occurred overnight, the current status of the inpatient unit (from a census, acuity, and staffing perspective), and any anticipated issues for the upcoming shift (from a patient safety, flow/capacity, staffing, employee safety, or patient/family experience perspective). More importantly, Dr. Muething and his team made the huddle multidisciplinary with the addition of a Safety Officer of the Day (SOD), a senior physician who was assigned daily responsibility for working with the lead nurses to help identify and mitigate any problems throughout the day, as well representatives from other areas of the hospital, such as Social Work, Respiratory Therapy, Supply Chain, and the Patient and Family Relations department.
The morning huddle at Cincinnati Children's was so successful that the organization started conducting a "Daily Safety Brief" following the huddle. The "DSB" brought together (at first, by telephone but later in person) representatives from all of the major areas of the hospital - Inpatient, Outpatient, Peri-operative Services, Emergency Services, Mental Health Services, Pharmacy, Facilities, Supply Chain, Information Services, Security, Laboratory, Radiology, Occupational Safety, and others (about 17 different departments are represented) to raise awareness and communicate any concerns for the upcoming day's operations. Each representative again reports significant events that occurred overnight, as well as predicted events for that day. If a problem has been identified, the representative is expected to report how the problem was identified and mitigated. In most cases, identified problems are fixed within 48 hours. Problems that cannot be mitigated at the local level are escalated to hospital leadership. The name has since been changed to the "Daily Operations Brief" or "DOB" in order to reflect the fact that the focus is not just on safety, but on hospital operations as a whole.
Conducting a morning or pre-shift huddle is now considered best practice in most industries, including health care. It doesn't matter whether you are leading and managing a large academic medical center or a small, community-based physician practice, bringing your team together to discuss key items for the upcoming day is an important part of leading an effective team. The Children's Hospital Association has published several key tips for implementing safety huddles, which are available here. If it's good enough for Kroger, it must be good enough for health care!
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Have you heard about the lemon juice test?
I've been doing some reading on introverts and extroverts lately. It all started after I read a really interesting book this past fall (actually, I listened to the book on tape while driving back from dropping my daughter off at college) called, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain. According to several leadership theories, highly charismatic, energetic, self-confident individuals make the best leaders. In other words, the best leaders are extraverts. As it turns out, there are studies to support this assertion. However, there are just as many studies, many of which are discussed in Cain's book, that suggest that introverts can be great leaders too.
As I have mentioned on several posts in the past, I score fairly high on the introvert scale. Given the choice between going to a social gathering with a large group of friends or having a quiet evening at home reading a good book or watching a movie with my wife, I choose the latter every time. I really don't like being the center of attention. While I am definitely goal-oriented, I am driven more by intrinsic motivation than extrinsic motivation. Recognition is nice to receive, but I prefer to receive it in private instead of in a public forum.
So, am I doomed as a leader because I am an introvert? As it turns out, the answer is definitely no. For one, introverts can overcome some of their quiet tendencies and still be effective leaders. Even more interesting, in many cases, an introvert leader is a great asset and preferable to an extrovert leader.
But before I talk about introverts (and I will in an upcoming post), I have to mention something that I came across in my background research called the lemon juice test. The test was invented by a psychologist named Hans Eysenck in the late 1960's. The test goes something like this. Take some lemon juice and place a few drops of it on your tongue. Introverts salivate more than extraverts do! Sounds hokey, right? Well, there is a biologic explanation for how the lemon juice test works. Eysenck's research found that the Ascending Reticular Activating System (RAS), an area of the brain (actually, the brain stem) that has important functions in arousal, sleep/wakefulness, attention, and habituation. Chronic, overstimulation of the RAS is more common in introverts, while decreased stimulation of the RAS is more common in extroverts. This makes sense, right? If the RAS is stimulated all the time (as you would find in introverts), the last thing a person wants is to be in an environment or situation that causes even more stimulation of the RAS. Conversely, if the RAS is never stimulated (as you would find in extroverts), an individual will want to seek out situations or an environment that results in stimulation of the RAS.
What does this have to do with lemon juice? Surprisingly enough, the RAS also appears to be involved in taste perception. More stimulation of the RAS in this case leads to greater taste perception of the lemon juice, leading to higher levels of saliva production. Again, as introverts have a hyperactivated RAS, they will "perceive" the lemon juice taste and produce greater levels of saliva.
Eysenck was one of the first to link a biologic process with personality. Unfortunately, later studies suggested that his theory (and the lemon juice test) was an incredible oversimplification of a very complex biological process. Regardless, it is a pretty cool test that you can do at home. So go out and try the lemon juice test and see whether you are an introvert or an extravert (you probably already know). And then we will get to the discussion on whether you will make a good leader!
As I have mentioned on several posts in the past, I score fairly high on the introvert scale. Given the choice between going to a social gathering with a large group of friends or having a quiet evening at home reading a good book or watching a movie with my wife, I choose the latter every time. I really don't like being the center of attention. While I am definitely goal-oriented, I am driven more by intrinsic motivation than extrinsic motivation. Recognition is nice to receive, but I prefer to receive it in private instead of in a public forum.
So, am I doomed as a leader because I am an introvert? As it turns out, the answer is definitely no. For one, introverts can overcome some of their quiet tendencies and still be effective leaders. Even more interesting, in many cases, an introvert leader is a great asset and preferable to an extrovert leader.
But before I talk about introverts (and I will in an upcoming post), I have to mention something that I came across in my background research called the lemon juice test. The test was invented by a psychologist named Hans Eysenck in the late 1960's. The test goes something like this. Take some lemon juice and place a few drops of it on your tongue. Introverts salivate more than extraverts do! Sounds hokey, right? Well, there is a biologic explanation for how the lemon juice test works. Eysenck's research found that the Ascending Reticular Activating System (RAS), an area of the brain (actually, the brain stem) that has important functions in arousal, sleep/wakefulness, attention, and habituation. Chronic, overstimulation of the RAS is more common in introverts, while decreased stimulation of the RAS is more common in extroverts. This makes sense, right? If the RAS is stimulated all the time (as you would find in introverts), the last thing a person wants is to be in an environment or situation that causes even more stimulation of the RAS. Conversely, if the RAS is never stimulated (as you would find in extroverts), an individual will want to seek out situations or an environment that results in stimulation of the RAS.
What does this have to do with lemon juice? Surprisingly enough, the RAS also appears to be involved in taste perception. More stimulation of the RAS in this case leads to greater taste perception of the lemon juice, leading to higher levels of saliva production. Again, as introverts have a hyperactivated RAS, they will "perceive" the lemon juice taste and produce greater levels of saliva.
Eysenck was one of the first to link a biologic process with personality. Unfortunately, later studies suggested that his theory (and the lemon juice test) was an incredible oversimplification of a very complex biological process. Regardless, it is a pretty cool test that you can do at home. So go out and try the lemon juice test and see whether you are an introvert or an extravert (you probably already know). And then we will get to the discussion on whether you will make a good leader!
Sunday, December 10, 2017
"Don't pigeon hole me!"
I was really shy growing up. I mean really shy. I used to hate attention and would do everything possible not to draw attention to myself. I was always quiet in elementary school, and I used to hate it when the teacher called on me. Remember that annoying classmate when you were in school - the one who used to raise his or her hand and do everything possible to get the teacher's attention so that they could show off his or her intelligence? Well that wasn't me. I was exactly the opposite. I would do everything possible to NOT get called on. I even would try to outsmart the teacher and use reverse psychology ("maybe if I look straight at her, she won't call on me"). I eventually grew out of my shyness, but I still would call myself an introvert. I've taken the Myers-Briggs personality test a few times, and I score very high on the introversion scale every time.
My shyness ended up being a major liability when I was in the first grade. I remember learning who my first grade teacher would be towards the end of the summer. On my first day of school, however, we were told that our first grade teacher was recovering from being sick (or having surgery - I can't remember exactly) and that we would have a substitute for most of the first month or two of school. I didn't mind the substitute so much - she seemed nice enough, but she really liked to have us read out loud during class. I used to hate that so much, that I just would not do it. I remember that she used to like for us to color between the lines using appropriate colors. I thought that was a waste of time, so I would pick whatever color from my crayon box and do my best to stay in the lines (I didn't do it very well). Suffice it to say that my first grade substitute teacher didn't think too highly of my potential as a student.
I was placed in the lowest reading group - the "Little Pig" reading group (the name of the book we were reading - think "Sally, Dick, and Jane" only even worse). And then, my real teacher showed up. I remember the day like it was yesterday. I thought that I would have a new chance with my real teacher, so I read aloud during our reading group. She took one look at me and told me that I was in the wrong reading group. She moved me up to the next group - this one was called the "Red Rock Ranch" reading group (again, after the name of the book). I read aloud again, and this time she told me, "Nope, still the wrong group. Come with me." She then brought me to the highest reading group in our class, the "Rainbow" reading group. I read aloud a third time and fit right in with the rest of the group. I stayed in the highest reading group for the rest of the year.
So what's the lesson here? Simple. If you treat the members on your team like they are idiots, they will be idiots. However, if you expect them to be successful, if you motivate them in the right way, and if you treat them as equals, they will respond in kind. All of this reminds me of a book I just read called, "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success" by Carol Dweck. Dweck says that there are two types of mindsets in this world - a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. Individuals who adopt a fixed mindset are like my first grade substitute teacher. According to this view, individuals are born with a certain degree of intelligence and a certain set of abilities and skills. Effort and practice will help them improve, but only to a certain degree. They are who they are based on their genetic make-up and environment - nothing else. Conversely, individuals who adopt a growth mindset are like my real first grade teacher. Everyone is born with the potential to be great. According to this view, effort, dedication, motivation, and hard work all matter. And they matter a lot.
As an example, Dweck tells of a study in which adults were asked to draw a self-portrait. Next, they participated in a workshop on drawing that lasted for five days. At the end of the five days, they were again asked to draw a self-portrait. Just look at some of the pictures below to see what a difference the 5 days of instruction made:
Pretty incredible, huh!?! If these students had adopted a fixed mindset, they would have never been able to improve on their ability to draw. They were improved, or so Carol Dweck says, because they had a growth mindset.
Clearly, my first grade teacher (the real one, not the substitute) had a growth mindset. Perhaps she brought out the growth mindset in me too. The important thing is that she did not pigeon hole me. She thought I could do better at reading. She told me I could do better. And then when I did do better, she encouraged me even more.
My shyness ended up being a major liability when I was in the first grade. I remember learning who my first grade teacher would be towards the end of the summer. On my first day of school, however, we were told that our first grade teacher was recovering from being sick (or having surgery - I can't remember exactly) and that we would have a substitute for most of the first month or two of school. I didn't mind the substitute so much - she seemed nice enough, but she really liked to have us read out loud during class. I used to hate that so much, that I just would not do it. I remember that she used to like for us to color between the lines using appropriate colors. I thought that was a waste of time, so I would pick whatever color from my crayon box and do my best to stay in the lines (I didn't do it very well). Suffice it to say that my first grade substitute teacher didn't think too highly of my potential as a student.
I was placed in the lowest reading group - the "Little Pig" reading group (the name of the book we were reading - think "Sally, Dick, and Jane" only even worse). And then, my real teacher showed up. I remember the day like it was yesterday. I thought that I would have a new chance with my real teacher, so I read aloud during our reading group. She took one look at me and told me that I was in the wrong reading group. She moved me up to the next group - this one was called the "Red Rock Ranch" reading group (again, after the name of the book). I read aloud again, and this time she told me, "Nope, still the wrong group. Come with me." She then brought me to the highest reading group in our class, the "Rainbow" reading group. I read aloud a third time and fit right in with the rest of the group. I stayed in the highest reading group for the rest of the year.
So what's the lesson here? Simple. If you treat the members on your team like they are idiots, they will be idiots. However, if you expect them to be successful, if you motivate them in the right way, and if you treat them as equals, they will respond in kind. All of this reminds me of a book I just read called, "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success" by Carol Dweck. Dweck says that there are two types of mindsets in this world - a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. Individuals who adopt a fixed mindset are like my first grade substitute teacher. According to this view, individuals are born with a certain degree of intelligence and a certain set of abilities and skills. Effort and practice will help them improve, but only to a certain degree. They are who they are based on their genetic make-up and environment - nothing else. Conversely, individuals who adopt a growth mindset are like my real first grade teacher. Everyone is born with the potential to be great. According to this view, effort, dedication, motivation, and hard work all matter. And they matter a lot.
As an example, Dweck tells of a study in which adults were asked to draw a self-portrait. Next, they participated in a workshop on drawing that lasted for five days. At the end of the five days, they were again asked to draw a self-portrait. Just look at some of the pictures below to see what a difference the 5 days of instruction made:
Pretty incredible, huh!?! If these students had adopted a fixed mindset, they would have never been able to improve on their ability to draw. They were improved, or so Carol Dweck says, because they had a growth mindset.
Clearly, my first grade teacher (the real one, not the substitute) had a growth mindset. Perhaps she brought out the growth mindset in me too. The important thing is that she did not pigeon hole me. She thought I could do better at reading. She told me I could do better. And then when I did do better, she encouraged me even more.
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Remembrance
Someone sent me an e-mail this morning lamenting the fact that there doesn't seem to be anyone who cares that today is December 7 - National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. I agreed with him, and then I saw that our flag out in front of the hospital was flying at half-mast. I e-mailed him back and let him know that at least someone still remembered.
Exactly 76 years ago, on that "day that will live in infamy" the United States was attacked by Japan. We entered World War II shortly thereafter. Today, we honor and cherish those who gave their lives in the service of their country. But we also remember, today of all days, an entire generation who likely saved our world from ultimate destruction. We too remember their sacrifice.
President George H.W. Bush gave a speech at the USS Arizona Memorial on the fiftieth anniversary of Pearl Harbor on this day in 1991. I encourage all of you to watch it - it is very moving. He ended his remarks by looking out over the water, his voice cracking as he fought back his emotions:
Look at the water here, clear and quiet, bidding us to sum up and remember. One day, in what now seems another lifetime, it wrapped its arms around the finest sons any nation could ever have, and it carried them to a better world.
May God bless them. And may God bless America, the most wondrous land on Earth.
Today, of all days, let us remember.
Exactly 76 years ago, on that "day that will live in infamy" the United States was attacked by Japan. We entered World War II shortly thereafter. Today, we honor and cherish those who gave their lives in the service of their country. But we also remember, today of all days, an entire generation who likely saved our world from ultimate destruction. We too remember their sacrifice.
President George H.W. Bush gave a speech at the USS Arizona Memorial on the fiftieth anniversary of Pearl Harbor on this day in 1991. I encourage all of you to watch it - it is very moving. He ended his remarks by looking out over the water, his voice cracking as he fought back his emotions:
Look at the water here, clear and quiet, bidding us to sum up and remember. One day, in what now seems another lifetime, it wrapped its arms around the finest sons any nation could ever have, and it carried them to a better world.
May God bless them. And may God bless America, the most wondrous land on Earth.
Today, of all days, let us remember.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
"Don't make a living, make a life..."
Winston Churchill reportedly once said, "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." While I am not completely sure what Churchill had in mind when he said this, I do think that the giving is all about service to others. Similarly, the Greek philosopher Aristotle asked a rhetorical question and then promptly answered it: "What is the essence of life? To serve others and to do good."
Today, the Continuing Medical Education department at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center spent the morning at the Freestore Foodbank. The Freestore Foodbank is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to "provide food and services, create stability and further self-reliance for people in crisis." It is the largest emergency food and services provider in the Tri-State area (a 20 county area surrounding the city of Cincinnati in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana). The organization purchases and collects donations of food from manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and government agencies before then distributing it to approximately 250 local community partners. There are likely similar organizations in almost every city in America - in fact, Freestore Foodbank is a member of a larger organization called Feeding America.
We had a great time this morning volunteering for a great cause, and I think the team enjoyed the opportunity to work together and do something fun outside of work. Volunteering for a worthy cause is a great way to build team camaraderie. I wonder how much money various corporate teams spend every year hiring any of a number of outside consultants or groups that have become part of a growing cottage industry of "team building" experts. It seems to me that the time (and money) could be better spent volunteering together for a worthy cause, such as Freestore Foodbank.
During this holiday season, I encourage all of you to spend a morning or afternoon with your teams, volunteering for a charitable organization. I guarantee that these organizations need your help - and I am 100% confident that the time will be well spent. Imagine how much better our world would be today, if teams just gave even a few hours every quarter serving others. In other words, don't make a living. Make a life.
Today, the Continuing Medical Education department at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center spent the morning at the Freestore Foodbank. The Freestore Foodbank is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to "provide food and services, create stability and further self-reliance for people in crisis." It is the largest emergency food and services provider in the Tri-State area (a 20 county area surrounding the city of Cincinnati in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana). The organization purchases and collects donations of food from manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and government agencies before then distributing it to approximately 250 local community partners. There are likely similar organizations in almost every city in America - in fact, Freestore Foodbank is a member of a larger organization called Feeding America.
We had a great time this morning volunteering for a great cause, and I think the team enjoyed the opportunity to work together and do something fun outside of work. Volunteering for a worthy cause is a great way to build team camaraderie. I wonder how much money various corporate teams spend every year hiring any of a number of outside consultants or groups that have become part of a growing cottage industry of "team building" experts. It seems to me that the time (and money) could be better spent volunteering together for a worthy cause, such as Freestore Foodbank.
During this holiday season, I encourage all of you to spend a morning or afternoon with your teams, volunteering for a charitable organization. I guarantee that these organizations need your help - and I am 100% confident that the time will be well spent. Imagine how much better our world would be today, if teams just gave even a few hours every quarter serving others. In other words, don't make a living. Make a life.
Sunday, December 3, 2017
"It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas..."
Well, even though the temperature outside is hovering around 50 degrees, it is indeed beginning to look a lot like Christmas, at least at the Wheeler house. We started putting up our holiday decorations right before Thanksgiving, and we finished putting up our outdoor Christmas lights just this morning. One last holiday tradition remains - Christmas greeting cards! I have to admit, even though it is a lot of work addressing envelopes and signing all of our Christmas cards, I do enjoy hearing from old friends every year when we receive their Christmas cards in the mail. We have made many connections over the years, and the annual Christmas card is frequently the one time every year when we renew these connections.
One of the questions my wife and I ask ourselves, just about every year, is who we are going to include on our Christmas card list. We usually send out quite a few cards every year, but one of the key factors is whether we received a Christmas card from someone the prior year. In other words, if we received a Christmas card from your family last year, there is almost a 100% certainty we will be including your family on our list of Christmas cards to send out this year. Surprisingly enough, psychologists have a name for this phenomenon - it's called the norm of reciprocity.
Two psychologists, Phillip Kunz and Michael Woolcott actually studied the norm of reciprocity using Christmas cards back in 1976. The study is actually quite interesting. Kunz and Woolcott randomly (more or less) selected 576 names from a Chicago city directory - all complete strangers - and mailed them a Christmas greeting card. The two investigators varied the content and type of card, as well as the sender of the card. For example, high-quality cards usually had a poetry inscription or winter scene and were printed on high-gloss paper, while low-quality cards were plain, white cardstock with a Christmas message written in red ink. Some of the cards were "sent" from a "Dr. and Mrs. Kunz" (high-prestige), while others were signed simply "Phil and Joyce" (low-prestige). Each card had a return address that was clearly marked. Regardless of who sent the card or whether the card was high- versus low-quality, 117 of the recipients sent a response back to the two investigators. In other words, nearly 20% of the recipients returned a Christmas card or note back to a complete stranger! Some of the responses inquired how the recipients were acquainted with the senders, while others wrote back lengthy responses telling all about their family and what was going on in their lives!
As it turns out, recipients were more likely to send back a response if the card was high-quality or the sender was high-prestige. I suspect that some people were likely too embarrassed to ask how they knew the sender and felt obligated to return the gesture. Moreover, some recipients likely saw some utility in "keeping on the good side" of the high-prestige sender. What matters most, I think, is the simple fact that so many recipients did actually respond.
Type "norm of reciprocity" into Google and you will likely find examples and suggestions on how you can use the "norm of reciprocity" to your benefit - say in a negotiation, as one example (think "quid pro quo" or "you scratch my back, I scratch your back"). I agree there is merit in learning about the "norm of reciprocity" - however, in this holiday season, perhaps when our world most needs it, I am reminded of the simple lesson that there is something uniquely special and reassuring in our human nature that feels some sort of obligation to return a simple act of kindness. As Aesop said, "no act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted." Let us all remember the "norm of reciprocity" this holiday season and beyond.
One of the questions my wife and I ask ourselves, just about every year, is who we are going to include on our Christmas card list. We usually send out quite a few cards every year, but one of the key factors is whether we received a Christmas card from someone the prior year. In other words, if we received a Christmas card from your family last year, there is almost a 100% certainty we will be including your family on our list of Christmas cards to send out this year. Surprisingly enough, psychologists have a name for this phenomenon - it's called the norm of reciprocity.
Two psychologists, Phillip Kunz and Michael Woolcott actually studied the norm of reciprocity using Christmas cards back in 1976. The study is actually quite interesting. Kunz and Woolcott randomly (more or less) selected 576 names from a Chicago city directory - all complete strangers - and mailed them a Christmas greeting card. The two investigators varied the content and type of card, as well as the sender of the card. For example, high-quality cards usually had a poetry inscription or winter scene and were printed on high-gloss paper, while low-quality cards were plain, white cardstock with a Christmas message written in red ink. Some of the cards were "sent" from a "Dr. and Mrs. Kunz" (high-prestige), while others were signed simply "Phil and Joyce" (low-prestige). Each card had a return address that was clearly marked. Regardless of who sent the card or whether the card was high- versus low-quality, 117 of the recipients sent a response back to the two investigators. In other words, nearly 20% of the recipients returned a Christmas card or note back to a complete stranger! Some of the responses inquired how the recipients were acquainted with the senders, while others wrote back lengthy responses telling all about their family and what was going on in their lives!
As it turns out, recipients were more likely to send back a response if the card was high-quality or the sender was high-prestige. I suspect that some people were likely too embarrassed to ask how they knew the sender and felt obligated to return the gesture. Moreover, some recipients likely saw some utility in "keeping on the good side" of the high-prestige sender. What matters most, I think, is the simple fact that so many recipients did actually respond.
Type "norm of reciprocity" into Google and you will likely find examples and suggestions on how you can use the "norm of reciprocity" to your benefit - say in a negotiation, as one example (think "quid pro quo" or "you scratch my back, I scratch your back"). I agree there is merit in learning about the "norm of reciprocity" - however, in this holiday season, perhaps when our world most needs it, I am reminded of the simple lesson that there is something uniquely special and reassuring in our human nature that feels some sort of obligation to return a simple act of kindness. As Aesop said, "no act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted." Let us all remember the "norm of reciprocity" this holiday season and beyond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)