Today, March 30, is National Doctor's Day in the United States, so I would first like to take a moment to thank all of the physicians out there for all that you do, every day. It takes incredible passion, commitment, and dedication to be a physician, and I am privileged to be a part of this great profession. Thank you. Please take a moment to thank all of the physicians you know in your life - they will appreciate it.
Today also happens to be the birthday of one of my favorite rock-n-roll artists. The singer, songwriter, musician, and guitar virtuoso, Eric Clapton was born 74 years ago today in Surrey, England. Clapton, nicknamed "Slowhand" (the moniker was given to him by the Yardbirds manager, Giorgio Gomelsky in early 1964 because Clapton played the guitar so fast), has had an amazing career, both as a soloist (most recently) and as part of a number of famous rock and blues bands, including the Yardbirds, John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers, Cream, Blind Faith, Delaney & Bonnie and Friends, and Derek and the Dominoes. Even if you aren't a rock-n-roll aficionado, trust me, you've heard his music played on the radio. Clapton is always on everyone's list of the best rock-n-roll guitar players, and some would say that he is the best guitar player ever to live (Rolling Stone magazine named him #2 on their list of the 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time). He has sold over 100 million records worldwide, won a Grammy award 18 times, and received a knighthood as a Commander of the Most Excellent Order (CBE) of the British Empire. He has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame not just once, but three times (once as a solo artist and twice again as a member of the rock groups, Cream and the Yardbirds). Indeed, he is the only artist to receive that distinction. And if that isn't enough for you, he was even once considered as a replacement to join the Beatles when his good friend, George Harrison threatened to quit (he did play the lead guitar on the Beatles' song, "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and appeared on the album commonly referred to as the White Album).
So, you would think that if anyone had an abundance of self-confidence, it would be Eric Clapton. Think again. Clapton once said in an interview, "I've always been riddled with self-doubt about my work." Really?!?!? In fact, Clapton was often incredibly uncomfortable playing in front of live audiences. Yet Clapton was able to do it - and he played incredibly well (even if his back was turned to the audience during many of his guitar solos!).
Clapton surrounded himself with the right individuals. Legendary producer, Tom Dowd, who produced one of Clapton's most famous songs, Layla, recorded when he was in the band, Derek and the Dominoes, did much more for Clapton than produce his records. He made Clapton feel comfortable. He inspired confidence. Clapton once said, "His role was making me feel comfortable and inspiring confidence in myself, and I've never been rich in those areas."
So, if you are having doubts about your own leadership and success. Don't worry. It happens to all of us at some point, and it even happens to the best of us. The important thing is to keep going. Surround yourself with individuals who will support you and inspire confidence. And if you are in a position of leadership, remember to do likewise for the individuals on your team. As leaders, one of our jobs is to encourage, inspire, motivate, and build confidence in and for the other members of the team. If we, as leaders, can bring out the best in someone, as Tom Dowd did for Eric Clapton, then our work is complete.
Happy Doctor's Day. And Happy Birthday to Eric Clapton.
Saturday, March 30, 2019
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Opening Day - Part II
For those of you who read my last post, here's the really cool plot twist! Did you know that Casey gets a second chance? The famous sports writer, Grantland Rice, wrote a poem called "Casey's Revenge". The vilified hero of the previous story comes back to win the day in the end. The lesson here? It's as old as the poem itself, maybe even older. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!"
There were saddened hearts in Mudville for a week or even more;
There were muttered oaths and curses- every fan in town was sore.
"Just think," said one, "how soft it looked with Casey at the bat,
And then to think he'd go and spring a bush league trick like that!"
There were muttered oaths and curses- every fan in town was sore.
"Just think," said one, "how soft it looked with Casey at the bat,
And then to think he'd go and spring a bush league trick like that!"
All his past fame was forgotten- he was now a hopeless "shine."
They called him "Strike-Out Casey," from the mayor down the line;
And as he came to bat each day his bosom heaved a sigh,
While a look of hopeless fury shone in mighty Casey's eye.
They called him "Strike-Out Casey," from the mayor down the line;
And as he came to bat each day his bosom heaved a sigh,
While a look of hopeless fury shone in mighty Casey's eye.
He pondered in the days gone by that he had been their king,
That when he strolled up to the plate they made the welkin ring;
But now his nerve had vanished, for when he heard them hoot
He "fanned" or "popped out" daily, like some minor league recruit.
That when he strolled up to the plate they made the welkin ring;
But now his nerve had vanished, for when he heard them hoot
He "fanned" or "popped out" daily, like some minor league recruit.
He soon began to sulk and loaf, his batting eye went lame;
No home runs on the score card now were chalked against his name;
The fans without exception gave the manager no peace,
For one and all kept clamoring for Casey's quick release.
No home runs on the score card now were chalked against his name;
The fans without exception gave the manager no peace,
For one and all kept clamoring for Casey's quick release.
The Mudville squad began to slump, the team was in the air;
Their playing went from bad to worse - nobody seemed to care.
"Back to the woods with Casey!" was the cry from Rooters' Row.
"Get some one who can hit the ball, and let that big dub go!"
Their playing went from bad to worse - nobody seemed to care.
"Back to the woods with Casey!" was the cry from Rooters' Row.
"Get some one who can hit the ball, and let that big dub go!"
The lane is long, some one has said, that never turns again,
And Fate, though fickle, often gives another chance to men;
And Casey smiled; his rugged face no longer wore a frown-
The pitcher who had started all the trouble came to town.
And Fate, though fickle, often gives another chance to men;
And Casey smiled; his rugged face no longer wore a frown-
The pitcher who had started all the trouble came to town.
All Mudville had assembled - ten thousand fans had come
To see the twirler who had put big Casey on the bum;
And when he stepped into the box, the multitude went wild;
He doffed his cap in proud disdain, but Casey only smiled.
To see the twirler who had put big Casey on the bum;
And when he stepped into the box, the multitude went wild;
He doffed his cap in proud disdain, but Casey only smiled.
"Play ball!" the umpire's voice rang out, and then the game began.
But in that throng of thousands there was not a single fan
Who thought that Mudville had a chance, and with the setting sun
Their hopes sank low- the rival team was leading "four to one."
But in that throng of thousands there was not a single fan
Who thought that Mudville had a chance, and with the setting sun
Their hopes sank low- the rival team was leading "four to one."
The last half of the ninth came round, with no change in the score;
But when the first man up hit safe, the crowd began to roar;
The din increased, the echo of ten thousand shouts was heard
When the pitcher hit the second and gave "four balls" to the third.
But when the first man up hit safe, the crowd began to roar;
The din increased, the echo of ten thousand shouts was heard
When the pitcher hit the second and gave "four balls" to the third.
Three men on base - nobody out - three runs to tie the game!
A triple meant the highest niche in Mudville's hall of fame;
But here the rally ended and the gloom was deep as night,
When the fourth one "fouled to catcher" and the fifth "flew out to right."
A triple meant the highest niche in Mudville's hall of fame;
But here the rally ended and the gloom was deep as night,
When the fourth one "fouled to catcher" and the fifth "flew out to right."
A dismal groan in chorus came; a scowl was on each face
When Casey walked up, bat in hand, and slowly took his place;
His bloodshot eyes in fury gleamed, his teeth were clenched in hate;
He gave his cap a vicious hook and pounded on the plate.
When Casey walked up, bat in hand, and slowly took his place;
His bloodshot eyes in fury gleamed, his teeth were clenched in hate;
He gave his cap a vicious hook and pounded on the plate.
But fame is fleeting as the wind and glory fades away;
There were no wild and woolly cheers, no glad acclaim this day;
They hissed and groaned and hooted as they clamored: "Strike him out!"
But Casey gave no outward sign that he had heard this shout.
There were no wild and woolly cheers, no glad acclaim this day;
They hissed and groaned and hooted as they clamored: "Strike him out!"
But Casey gave no outward sign that he had heard this shout.
The pitcher smiled and cut one loose - across the plate it sped;
Another hiss, another groan. "Strike one!" the umpire said.
Zip! Like a shot the second curve broke just below the knee.
"Strike two!" the umpire roared aloud; but Casey made no plea.
Another hiss, another groan. "Strike one!" the umpire said.
Zip! Like a shot the second curve broke just below the knee.
"Strike two!" the umpire roared aloud; but Casey made no plea.
No roasting for the umpire now - his was an easy lot;
But here the pitcher whirled again- was that a rifle shot?
A whack, a crack, and out through the space the leather pellet flew,
A blot against the distant sky, a speck against the blue.
But here the pitcher whirled again- was that a rifle shot?
A whack, a crack, and out through the space the leather pellet flew,
A blot against the distant sky, a speck against the blue.
Above the fence in center field in rapid whirling flight
The sphere sailed on - the blot grew dim and then was lost to sight.
Ten thousand hats were thrown in air, ten thousand threw a fit,
But no one ever found the ball that mighty Casey hit.
The sphere sailed on - the blot grew dim and then was lost to sight.
Ten thousand hats were thrown in air, ten thousand threw a fit,
But no one ever found the ball that mighty Casey hit.
O, somewhere in this favored land dark clouds may hide the sun,
And somewhere bands no longer play and children have no fun!
And somewhere over blighted lives there hangs a heavy pall,
But Mudville hearts are happy now, for Casey hit the ball.
And somewhere bands no longer play and children have no fun!
And somewhere over blighted lives there hangs a heavy pall,
But Mudville hearts are happy now, for Casey hit the ball.
Opening Day - Part I
Today officially marks the start of the 2019 Major League Baseball season (technically, the first game was held in Japan last week between the Oakland Athletics and Seattle Mariners, but everyone else starts today). It's always an exciting time for me - I am a die-hard Chicago Cubs fan, and I am a season ticket holder (split with several others) for my hometown Cincinnati Reds.
In honor of Opening Day, I read the famous poem, Casey at the Bat by Ernest Lawrence Thayer. For those of you who aren't familiar with this poem, Casey is a superstar slugger who plays for the Mudvillle baseball team. It's a classic tale of the tragic downfall of a hero and says a lot about the fact that fame is fleeting and fickle. Even the best of us have bad days. Unfortunately, nobody is immune to criticism. Casey would do well to learn that too. The poem suggests that he is a bit of a braggart.
There is a lot to learn here in this one poem - it's not just a baseball poem. The poem ends with those famous words - "there is no joy in Mudville, mighty Casey has struck out." Here's hoping there is joy in Chicago and Cincinnati today!
It's not too long, so I am posting it here today:
The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the Mudville nine that day:
The score stood four to two, with but one inning more to play,
And then when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same,
A pall-like silence fell upon the patrons of the game.
A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to the hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, “If only Casey could but get a whack at that—
We’d put up even money now, with Casey at the bat.”
But Flynn preceded Casey, as did also Jimmy Blake,
And the former was a hoodoo, while the latter was a cake;
So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat,
For there seemed but little chance of Casey getting to the bat.
But Flynn let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despised, tore the cover off the ball;
And when the dust had lifted, and men saw what had occurred,
There was Jimmy safe at second and Flynn a-hugging third.
Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell;
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
It pounded on the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,
For Casey, mighty Casey, was advancing to the bat.
There was ease in Casey’s manner as he stepped into his place;
There was pride in Casey’s bearing and a smile lit Casey’s face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt ‘twas Casey at the bat.
Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt;
Five thousand tongues applauded when he wiped them on his
shirt;
Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip,
Defiance flashed in Casey’s eye, a sneer curled Casey’s lip.
And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the
air,
And Casey stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.
Close by the sturdy batsman the ball unheeded sped—
“That ain’t my style," said Casey. “Strike one!” the umpire said.
From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled
roar,
Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore;
“Kill him! Kill the umpire!” shouted someone on the stand;
And it’s likely they’d have killed him had not Casey raised his
hand.
With a smile of Christian charity great Casey’s visage shone;
He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on;
He signaled to the pitcher, and once more the dun sphere flew;
But Casey still ignored it and the umpire said, “Strike two!”
“Fraud!” cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered
“Fraud!”
But one scornful look from Casey and the audience was awed.
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles
strain,
And they knew that Casey wouldn’t let that ball go by again.
The sneer is gone from Casey’s lip, his teeth are clenched in hate,
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate;
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey’s blow.
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children
shout,
But there is no joy in Mudville—mighty Casey has struck out.
In honor of Opening Day, I read the famous poem, Casey at the Bat by Ernest Lawrence Thayer. For those of you who aren't familiar with this poem, Casey is a superstar slugger who plays for the Mudvillle baseball team. It's a classic tale of the tragic downfall of a hero and says a lot about the fact that fame is fleeting and fickle. Even the best of us have bad days. Unfortunately, nobody is immune to criticism. Casey would do well to learn that too. The poem suggests that he is a bit of a braggart.
There is a lot to learn here in this one poem - it's not just a baseball poem. The poem ends with those famous words - "there is no joy in Mudville, mighty Casey has struck out." Here's hoping there is joy in Chicago and Cincinnati today!
It's not too long, so I am posting it here today:
The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the Mudville nine that day:
The score stood four to two, with but one inning more to play,
And then when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same,
A pall-like silence fell upon the patrons of the game.
A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to the hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, “If only Casey could but get a whack at that—
We’d put up even money now, with Casey at the bat.”
But Flynn preceded Casey, as did also Jimmy Blake,
And the former was a hoodoo, while the latter was a cake;
So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat,
For there seemed but little chance of Casey getting to the bat.
But Flynn let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despised, tore the cover off the ball;
And when the dust had lifted, and men saw what had occurred,
There was Jimmy safe at second and Flynn a-hugging third.
Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell;
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
It pounded on the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,
For Casey, mighty Casey, was advancing to the bat.
There was ease in Casey’s manner as he stepped into his place;
There was pride in Casey’s bearing and a smile lit Casey’s face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt ‘twas Casey at the bat.
Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt;
Five thousand tongues applauded when he wiped them on his
shirt;
Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip,
Defiance flashed in Casey’s eye, a sneer curled Casey’s lip.
And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the
air,
And Casey stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.
Close by the sturdy batsman the ball unheeded sped—
“That ain’t my style," said Casey. “Strike one!” the umpire said.
From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled
roar,
Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore;
“Kill him! Kill the umpire!” shouted someone on the stand;
And it’s likely they’d have killed him had not Casey raised his
hand.
With a smile of Christian charity great Casey’s visage shone;
He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on;
He signaled to the pitcher, and once more the dun sphere flew;
But Casey still ignored it and the umpire said, “Strike two!”
“Fraud!” cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered
“Fraud!”
But one scornful look from Casey and the audience was awed.
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles
strain,
And they knew that Casey wouldn’t let that ball go by again.
The sneer is gone from Casey’s lip, his teeth are clenched in hate,
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate;
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey’s blow.
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children
shout,
But there is no joy in Mudville—mighty Casey has struck out.
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
The times you waste just watching television...
My wife was out of town this past weekend. I didn't feel much like doing work, and I had already finished doing a few chores around the house. So, I turned on the television to see what movies were playing. I ended up watching two movies back-to-back. It was probably a waste of time (especially as I had seen one of the movies once before at the local movie theater), but I did enjoy both movies. The themes were fairly consistent, and I thought it would be worth talking more about them both here.
The first movie (which was the one I had seen at the movie theater) was The Martian, a 2015 movie starring Matt Damon, based on the book of the same name by Andy Weir. Basically, Damon stars as astronaut (and botanist) Mark Watney, who is part of a NASA mission to the planet Mars in the year 2035. The crew is forced to abort the mission and leave Mars emergently during a strong dust storm (it's more like a planetary cyclone). Due to an incredible sequence of events, the crew believes that Watney is dead and leaves him behind. Of course, Watney is not dead (the crew doesn't learn this until a few months later), and he is forced to improvise and adapt to his new environment on Mars (most of the equipment was left behind). He ends up growing potatoes in the Martian soil (after building a farm inside the crew's surface habitat ("Hab"), extracts water from the hydrogen in leftover rocket fuel, and finds and uses the satellite communication equipment from the long since abandoned Mars Pathfinder mission probe to contact NASA's Mission Control on Earth. Unfortunately, the next mission is not scheduled to come for another 4 years. NASA tries to organize an earlier mission to re-supply Watney, but is unsuccessful. I won't spoil how the movie ends, but needless to say, Watney ends up returning home to Earth.
The movie's final scenes show Watney talking to a group of NASA astronaut trainees. He is teaching them survival skills and makes the following statement, which I think applies more broadly to leadership in general:
At some point, everything's gonna go south on you and you're going to say, this is it. This is how I end. Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work. That's all it is. You just begin. You do the math. You solve one problem and you solve the next one, and then the next. And If you solve enough problems, you get to come home.
Sounds pretty easy, doesn't it. Solve a big problem by breaking it up into several smaller ones. And then solve each small problem one at a time. It's a strategy that certainly works in the movies, but I have also found that it works with real-life crisis situations too (and for that matter, everyday situations as well). Anyway, it was a great movie to watch the second time.
The next movie was the 2016 science fiction movie, Passengers, starring Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt (Laurence Fishburne and Andy Garcia make appearances as well). It was either this one or the 1999 movie, The Mummy, which I have seen at least 1,000 times (figuratively). After watching the movie trailer for "Passengers", I thought I would watch it instead. The movie takes place in the future aboard a large spaceship that is transporting over 5,000 passengers and crew to a distant Earth colony called Homestead II (presumably there was a successful colonization of Homestead I). Everyone is in deep space hibernation because the trip is supposed to take 120 years. About 30 years into the trip, an asteroid collision causes damage to the ship and inadvertently wakes up one passenger, a mechanical engineer named Jim Preston (played by Chris Pratt). Jim walks around the ship looking for everyone, eventually figuring out that (1) he is alone and (2) there is at least 90 years of travel left before anyone else will be waking up. He spends the next year all alone, except for a lot of robots, holograms, and an android bartender named Arthur. All good so far!
Jim gets very lonely and nearly goes crazy. In his despair, he comes close to committing suicide by opening an airlock without wearing a spacesuit. However, he ends up going back inside the ship, where he encounters a beautiful woman in one of the hibernation pods, Aurora Lane (played by Jennifer Lawrence). He goes back and forth - even discussing the pro's and con's with Arthur - about whether to wake Aurora up from hibernation. He reads all about her, learning that she is an author. He even reads several of her stories. He is alone and desperate for human companionship. Still pretty good.
Well, at this point, based on the teaser trailer, I was thinking that Preston would wake up Aurora and then Arthur would go all HAL 9000 on everyone. Together, the two humans would fight off the evil computer robots and save all of the humans. Well, not quite. It turns out the movie is a romance thriller! Jim and Aurora fall in love (I sort of thought that would happen, but I was still waiting for the robot rebellion). Aurora accidentally learns that it was Jim who woke her up, and not an accident. She gets very angry. They break up. The ship starts falling apart. They fix the ship. They fall back in love. End of story. Sort of - I won't spoil it all for you.
Here is what intrigued me about this second movie, which was actually not a bad movie. What would I have done in Jim's situation? In other words, given the choice between dying alone (there was no way of going back into deep space hibernation) or waking someone else up, which essentially sentences him or her to death, which would I choose? It's an interesting dilemma. I can't imagine spending the rest of my life alone in deep space with nobody but an android bartender (albeit, a good one) to talk with. However, I can't imagine putting someone else in that predicament either. We all need human companionship, even if we crave solitude at times.
So, at the end of the day, I enjoyed watching both movies. I probably could have gotten a lot of work done, but some times it's okay to relax, unwind, and do nothing but watch some television.
The first movie (which was the one I had seen at the movie theater) was The Martian, a 2015 movie starring Matt Damon, based on the book of the same name by Andy Weir. Basically, Damon stars as astronaut (and botanist) Mark Watney, who is part of a NASA mission to the planet Mars in the year 2035. The crew is forced to abort the mission and leave Mars emergently during a strong dust storm (it's more like a planetary cyclone). Due to an incredible sequence of events, the crew believes that Watney is dead and leaves him behind. Of course, Watney is not dead (the crew doesn't learn this until a few months later), and he is forced to improvise and adapt to his new environment on Mars (most of the equipment was left behind). He ends up growing potatoes in the Martian soil (after building a farm inside the crew's surface habitat ("Hab"), extracts water from the hydrogen in leftover rocket fuel, and finds and uses the satellite communication equipment from the long since abandoned Mars Pathfinder mission probe to contact NASA's Mission Control on Earth. Unfortunately, the next mission is not scheduled to come for another 4 years. NASA tries to organize an earlier mission to re-supply Watney, but is unsuccessful. I won't spoil how the movie ends, but needless to say, Watney ends up returning home to Earth.
The movie's final scenes show Watney talking to a group of NASA astronaut trainees. He is teaching them survival skills and makes the following statement, which I think applies more broadly to leadership in general:
At some point, everything's gonna go south on you and you're going to say, this is it. This is how I end. Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work. That's all it is. You just begin. You do the math. You solve one problem and you solve the next one, and then the next. And If you solve enough problems, you get to come home.
Sounds pretty easy, doesn't it. Solve a big problem by breaking it up into several smaller ones. And then solve each small problem one at a time. It's a strategy that certainly works in the movies, but I have also found that it works with real-life crisis situations too (and for that matter, everyday situations as well). Anyway, it was a great movie to watch the second time.
The next movie was the 2016 science fiction movie, Passengers, starring Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt (Laurence Fishburne and Andy Garcia make appearances as well). It was either this one or the 1999 movie, The Mummy, which I have seen at least 1,000 times (figuratively). After watching the movie trailer for "Passengers", I thought I would watch it instead. The movie takes place in the future aboard a large spaceship that is transporting over 5,000 passengers and crew to a distant Earth colony called Homestead II (presumably there was a successful colonization of Homestead I). Everyone is in deep space hibernation because the trip is supposed to take 120 years. About 30 years into the trip, an asteroid collision causes damage to the ship and inadvertently wakes up one passenger, a mechanical engineer named Jim Preston (played by Chris Pratt). Jim walks around the ship looking for everyone, eventually figuring out that (1) he is alone and (2) there is at least 90 years of travel left before anyone else will be waking up. He spends the next year all alone, except for a lot of robots, holograms, and an android bartender named Arthur. All good so far!
Jim gets very lonely and nearly goes crazy. In his despair, he comes close to committing suicide by opening an airlock without wearing a spacesuit. However, he ends up going back inside the ship, where he encounters a beautiful woman in one of the hibernation pods, Aurora Lane (played by Jennifer Lawrence). He goes back and forth - even discussing the pro's and con's with Arthur - about whether to wake Aurora up from hibernation. He reads all about her, learning that she is an author. He even reads several of her stories. He is alone and desperate for human companionship. Still pretty good.
Well, at this point, based on the teaser trailer, I was thinking that Preston would wake up Aurora and then Arthur would go all HAL 9000 on everyone. Together, the two humans would fight off the evil computer robots and save all of the humans. Well, not quite. It turns out the movie is a romance thriller! Jim and Aurora fall in love (I sort of thought that would happen, but I was still waiting for the robot rebellion). Aurora accidentally learns that it was Jim who woke her up, and not an accident. She gets very angry. They break up. The ship starts falling apart. They fix the ship. They fall back in love. End of story. Sort of - I won't spoil it all for you.
Here is what intrigued me about this second movie, which was actually not a bad movie. What would I have done in Jim's situation? In other words, given the choice between dying alone (there was no way of going back into deep space hibernation) or waking someone else up, which essentially sentences him or her to death, which would I choose? It's an interesting dilemma. I can't imagine spending the rest of my life alone in deep space with nobody but an android bartender (albeit, a good one) to talk with. However, I can't imagine putting someone else in that predicament either. We all need human companionship, even if we crave solitude at times.
So, at the end of the day, I enjoyed watching both movies. I probably could have gotten a lot of work done, but some times it's okay to relax, unwind, and do nothing but watch some television.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
A cup of Joe, rough sandpaper, a soft chair, and a clipboard is all you need
I am reading a book right now about animal behavior by the Dutch/American author and biologist, Frans de Waal called "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?". It's still too early for me to provide any kind of review or commentary, but so far it seems like it will be an interesting book. de Waal is famous for several books on primate behavior, including "Chimpanzee Politics" (a book about the Machiavellian tendencies of a group of chimpanzees at the Royal Burgers Zoo in Arnhem (the book has been highly recommended by a number of management and leadership experts, and it was reportedly very influential on former U.S. Speaker of the House New Gingrich) and most recently, "Mama's Last Hug: Animal Emotions and What They Tell Us About Ourselves". His most recent book was named after one of the female chimpanzees at the Arnhem Zoo, Mama. There was a video of then dying 59-year-old Mama recognizing one of the founders of the chimpanzee colony at the Arnhem Zoo, Jan van Hoof, who came to visit her in the final week of her life. Mama immediately recognizes and responds to van Hoof - it's really a heart-warming and emotional video.
What is striking to me about de Waal's work is how very similar we are to the other members of the animal kingdom. Animal behavior (and when I say "animal", I certainly include humans, as we are members of the animal kingdom too) is a fascinating subject. It seems that we can be very easily manipulated. I recently came across two fascinating studies that show how easy humans can be manipulated, in this case through the sense of touch. Apparently there is an entire field of research focusing on how sensorimotor experience, especially those that occur early in life, can impact conceptual knowledge. For example, touching an object with a rough surface - say, the bark of a tree or sandpaper - can help us understand the concept of roughness. More importantly, touching a rough object can help us to understand the metaphorical concept of roughness. Consider a common idiom, "I've had a rough day" or even, "She has a rough road ahead." As it turns out, the sensations we feel when we touch a rough object, such as the bark of a tree, are linked with our conceptual understanding of what it is like to experience a "rough day."
The first study, "Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgements and decisions" appeared in the journal Science in 2010. The first set of experiments focused on how the weight of objects are linked metaphorically with the concept of seriousness and the degree of importance of a topic (think about "I am dealing with a weighty matter." or "Do you appreciate the gravity of the situation?"). Random people on the street were asked to evaluate a job applicant by reviewing the resume on either a heavy clipboard or a light clipboard (the resume was exactly the same in both conditions). Participants who reviewed the resume on the heavy clipboard were more likely to rate the candidate as better qualified for the job and state that the candidate was more seriously interested in the position than participants who reviewed the resume on the lighter clipboard. Similarly, participants who were given the heavy clipboard were more likely to express concerns about how well the candidate would get along with co-workers (because the candidate was "too serious").
In the next set of experiments, random people on the street were asked to read a passage about a social interaction between two co-workers. Before reading the passage, study participants were asked to complete a simple five-piece jigsaw puzzle - the pieces were covered in either rough sandpaper or made of smooth wood (imagine walking down the street and being asked to do this!). Participants in the sandpaper arm of the study were more likely to rate the interaction between the two co-workers as less coordinated and difficult (i.e., "rough" or "coarse") than participants in the smooth jigsaw arm.
In the last set of experiments, study participants were asked to evaluate the interaction between a boss and employee. However, they were first asked to examine either a soft blanket or a hard block of wood. Participants who touched the hard block of wood were more likely to rate the boss as being "too rigid," "hard," or uncompromising compared to the participants who touched the soft fuzzy blanket. The investigators next extended these findings to an additional condition by asking them to rate the same interaction between boss and employee while sitting in either a hard chair or a soft chair. Again, participants sitting in the hard chair rated the boss as being rigid and uncompromising. Finally, participants were asked to participate in a negotiating game (bartering about the price of a new automobile) while sitting in either a hard chair or soft chair. Participants who sat in a hard chair were more likely to stick with their original price, while participants in the soft chair were more likely to adjust their price during the negotiation.
Collectively, these studies show that our interpersonal perceptions and decisions can be influenced by our sense of touch! Absolutely mind-blowing! The same group of investigators published a similar study, again in the journal Science, in 2008 called "Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth". Rather than focusing on texture (hard vs. soft, rough vs. smooth), these experiments focused on the sensation of temperature (warm vs. cold) and how temperature is linked with metaphorically with interpersonal warmth ("That person is cold hearted!"). Study subjects were asked to hold a warm cup of coffee before participating in a similar series of experiments. Again, participants consistently rated individuals better on a number of personality traits and were more accommodative in a negotiation game when holding a warm cup of coffee - physical warmth led to feelings of interpersonal warmth!
I don't want to read too much into these two sets of experiments. However, the findings are intriguing and certainly worthy of consideration. I know, at least, that the next time that I want something from someone, I will be giving him or her a warm cup of coffee ("cup of Joe"), a nice, smooth, light clipboard to hold, and big, comfortable, soft chair to sit in while he or she evaluates my proposal. Maybe I will play some soft music in the background too.
What is striking to me about de Waal's work is how very similar we are to the other members of the animal kingdom. Animal behavior (and when I say "animal", I certainly include humans, as we are members of the animal kingdom too) is a fascinating subject. It seems that we can be very easily manipulated. I recently came across two fascinating studies that show how easy humans can be manipulated, in this case through the sense of touch. Apparently there is an entire field of research focusing on how sensorimotor experience, especially those that occur early in life, can impact conceptual knowledge. For example, touching an object with a rough surface - say, the bark of a tree or sandpaper - can help us understand the concept of roughness. More importantly, touching a rough object can help us to understand the metaphorical concept of roughness. Consider a common idiom, "I've had a rough day" or even, "She has a rough road ahead." As it turns out, the sensations we feel when we touch a rough object, such as the bark of a tree, are linked with our conceptual understanding of what it is like to experience a "rough day."
The first study, "Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgements and decisions" appeared in the journal Science in 2010. The first set of experiments focused on how the weight of objects are linked metaphorically with the concept of seriousness and the degree of importance of a topic (think about "I am dealing with a weighty matter." or "Do you appreciate the gravity of the situation?"). Random people on the street were asked to evaluate a job applicant by reviewing the resume on either a heavy clipboard or a light clipboard (the resume was exactly the same in both conditions). Participants who reviewed the resume on the heavy clipboard were more likely to rate the candidate as better qualified for the job and state that the candidate was more seriously interested in the position than participants who reviewed the resume on the lighter clipboard. Similarly, participants who were given the heavy clipboard were more likely to express concerns about how well the candidate would get along with co-workers (because the candidate was "too serious").
In the next set of experiments, random people on the street were asked to read a passage about a social interaction between two co-workers. Before reading the passage, study participants were asked to complete a simple five-piece jigsaw puzzle - the pieces were covered in either rough sandpaper or made of smooth wood (imagine walking down the street and being asked to do this!). Participants in the sandpaper arm of the study were more likely to rate the interaction between the two co-workers as less coordinated and difficult (i.e., "rough" or "coarse") than participants in the smooth jigsaw arm.
In the last set of experiments, study participants were asked to evaluate the interaction between a boss and employee. However, they were first asked to examine either a soft blanket or a hard block of wood. Participants who touched the hard block of wood were more likely to rate the boss as being "too rigid," "hard," or uncompromising compared to the participants who touched the soft fuzzy blanket. The investigators next extended these findings to an additional condition by asking them to rate the same interaction between boss and employee while sitting in either a hard chair or a soft chair. Again, participants sitting in the hard chair rated the boss as being rigid and uncompromising. Finally, participants were asked to participate in a negotiating game (bartering about the price of a new automobile) while sitting in either a hard chair or soft chair. Participants who sat in a hard chair were more likely to stick with their original price, while participants in the soft chair were more likely to adjust their price during the negotiation.
Collectively, these studies show that our interpersonal perceptions and decisions can be influenced by our sense of touch! Absolutely mind-blowing! The same group of investigators published a similar study, again in the journal Science, in 2008 called "Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth". Rather than focusing on texture (hard vs. soft, rough vs. smooth), these experiments focused on the sensation of temperature (warm vs. cold) and how temperature is linked with metaphorically with interpersonal warmth ("That person is cold hearted!"). Study subjects were asked to hold a warm cup of coffee before participating in a similar series of experiments. Again, participants consistently rated individuals better on a number of personality traits and were more accommodative in a negotiation game when holding a warm cup of coffee - physical warmth led to feelings of interpersonal warmth!
I don't want to read too much into these two sets of experiments. However, the findings are intriguing and certainly worthy of consideration. I know, at least, that the next time that I want something from someone, I will be giving him or her a warm cup of coffee ("cup of Joe"), a nice, smooth, light clipboard to hold, and big, comfortable, soft chair to sit in while he or she evaluates my proposal. Maybe I will play some soft music in the background too.
Friday, March 22, 2019
Invest your money wisely...
There are all kinds of articles on the Internet that provide recommendations on how to invest money wisely (see, for example, "7 principles to invest your money wisely no matter what your age" or "How to invest: The smart way to make your money grow"). Investment guru (the so-called "Oracle of Omaha"), Warren Buffet, once provided two simple rules for investing: "Rule No. 1: Never lose money. Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No. 1." The bottom line for investing (and this goes for almost anything - money, time, or talent) - we should be investing in the things that will help us achieve our goals.
With these simple investing rules in mind, I remain baffled with what is going on in the world of health care. For example, I read this morning that according to a recent national survey, a growing number of Americans would very much like to see a greater level of government spending on health care. Approximately 70% of survey respondents felt that the government is spending "too little" on improving national health, which is increased compared to similar surveys conducted in 2016 (in which 62% of Americans felt that government was spending "too little" on improving health) and 2014 (in which 56% of Americans felt that government was spending "too little" on improving health). Importantly, while individuals who self-described themselves as Democrats were more likely to say that we don't spend enough on improving health, there was a significant increase across both party lines. In other words, the feeling is pretty widespread.
More on the survey in a minute. The ABC News political analyst, Matthew Dowd tweeted out something this morning that is relevant to the current discussion: "On the metric of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, we are not doing well. America ranks in the world: 64th in life expectancy, 27th in healthcare, 23rd in freedom index, and 19th in happiness index. It is time we look to other countries, and reform our structures." While Mr. Dowd doesn't outright say it, he is alluding (I think) to an oft-repeated concept that the U.S. spends far more on health care compared to every other developed country, yet fares far worse on outcomes such as infant mortality and life expectancy. As an example, we are one of the only countries in which overall life expectancy is declining!
Similarly, a few weeks ago, the noted physician and author, Eric Topol tweeted out the following: "The #US now spends more than $11,000 per person for healthcare, while the #UK ~ $4,000. Yet life expectancy has declined in the #US for each of the past 3 years, while it continues to increase in the #UK." In order to support his case further, Dr. Topol added the following graphic from @OurWorldInData:
It's a pretty amazing graph with some pretty amazing statistics. But here is my point, and I don't think I can emphasize it enough. I absolutely and 100% agree that the U.S. health care delivery system needs to be improved in a MAJOR way. However, to say that outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality are measuring the quality of health care delivery is not completely accurate (I would even venture to say that life expectancy and infant mortality have very little to do with the actual delivery of health care). Do I believe that these are important measures to follow? Absolutely. Do I think the U.S. needs to be doing much better in these two measures? For certain. Do I think investing more money in health care will impact these measures in a significant way? Absolutely not.
Dr. Sanne Magnan published an article on October 9, 2017 entitled "Social determinants of health 101 for health care: Five plus five" that really deserves a look. Dr. Magnan makes the following major point - "As a determinant of health, medical care is insufficient for ensuring better health outcomes." As a matter of fact, medical care contributes very little to the modifiable determinants of a healthy population (probably only accounting for 10-20 percent of healthy outcomes). The so-called "social determinants of health" (healthy lifestyle choices, socioeconomic factors, and environmental factors) account for 80-90 percent of population health outcomes, such as life expectancy and infant mortality. In other words - life expectancy and infant mortality are measures of health, not health care delivery.
Back to my original point about investing. The simple fact is, that we, as a nation, are investing our money poorly. If we really want to make an impact on health, we should be spending more money on addressing the things that will actually have an impact on health. If we really want to improve the health of our population, we need to invest wisely on addressing the social determinants of health - for example, lifestyle choices like whether to smoke or drink alcohol, whether or not to wear a seatbelt, whether or not to eat healthy foods. Similarly, we need to make sure that everyone in the U.S. has access to nutritional, healthy foods, clean water, good housing, and good preventative care. Does our health care system bear some responsibility for prevention? Absolutely. But to say that the health care delivery system is completely at fault is the wrong approach.
Dr. Elizabeth Bradley, a health policy researcher and President of Vassar College wrote an excellent book on this very subject a few years ago, called The American Health Care Paradox: Why Spending More is Getting Us Less. The book should be required reading for anyone in the health care profession and can be summarized with just one graph:
What Dr. Bradley is saying is essentially this - yes, the U.S. spends far more on health care compared as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) compared to every other country in the world. However, almost every other country spends far more compared to us on social services - i.e., things that directly impact the social determinants of health. In the graph above, if you combine the total social services expenditures with the total health care expenditures, the U.S. does not look all that different than other countries. In other words, if the goal is to improve health, we are investing our money in the wrong place! As the New York Times suggested in their review of Dr. Bradley's book, "the reason the richest country in the world doesn't have the best health is because it takes more than health care to make a country healthy."
As it turns out, in the aforementioned national survey, the majority of Americans also feel that the government invests "too little" in things such as "assistance to the poor" (71%), "dealing with drug addiction" (69%), and "social security". It's not rocket science. Unfortunately, words do not always translate to action. We need to do better.
With these simple investing rules in mind, I remain baffled with what is going on in the world of health care. For example, I read this morning that according to a recent national survey, a growing number of Americans would very much like to see a greater level of government spending on health care. Approximately 70% of survey respondents felt that the government is spending "too little" on improving national health, which is increased compared to similar surveys conducted in 2016 (in which 62% of Americans felt that government was spending "too little" on improving health) and 2014 (in which 56% of Americans felt that government was spending "too little" on improving health). Importantly, while individuals who self-described themselves as Democrats were more likely to say that we don't spend enough on improving health, there was a significant increase across both party lines. In other words, the feeling is pretty widespread.
More on the survey in a minute. The ABC News political analyst, Matthew Dowd tweeted out something this morning that is relevant to the current discussion: "On the metric of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, we are not doing well. America ranks in the world: 64th in life expectancy, 27th in healthcare, 23rd in freedom index, and 19th in happiness index. It is time we look to other countries, and reform our structures." While Mr. Dowd doesn't outright say it, he is alluding (I think) to an oft-repeated concept that the U.S. spends far more on health care compared to every other developed country, yet fares far worse on outcomes such as infant mortality and life expectancy. As an example, we are one of the only countries in which overall life expectancy is declining!
Similarly, a few weeks ago, the noted physician and author, Eric Topol tweeted out the following: "The #US now spends more than $11,000 per person for healthcare, while the #UK ~ $4,000. Yet life expectancy has declined in the #US for each of the past 3 years, while it continues to increase in the #UK." In order to support his case further, Dr. Topol added the following graphic from @OurWorldInData:
It's a pretty amazing graph with some pretty amazing statistics. But here is my point, and I don't think I can emphasize it enough. I absolutely and 100% agree that the U.S. health care delivery system needs to be improved in a MAJOR way. However, to say that outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality are measuring the quality of health care delivery is not completely accurate (I would even venture to say that life expectancy and infant mortality have very little to do with the actual delivery of health care). Do I believe that these are important measures to follow? Absolutely. Do I think the U.S. needs to be doing much better in these two measures? For certain. Do I think investing more money in health care will impact these measures in a significant way? Absolutely not.
Dr. Sanne Magnan published an article on October 9, 2017 entitled "Social determinants of health 101 for health care: Five plus five" that really deserves a look. Dr. Magnan makes the following major point - "As a determinant of health, medical care is insufficient for ensuring better health outcomes." As a matter of fact, medical care contributes very little to the modifiable determinants of a healthy population (probably only accounting for 10-20 percent of healthy outcomes). The so-called "social determinants of health" (healthy lifestyle choices, socioeconomic factors, and environmental factors) account for 80-90 percent of population health outcomes, such as life expectancy and infant mortality. In other words - life expectancy and infant mortality are measures of health, not health care delivery.
Back to my original point about investing. The simple fact is, that we, as a nation, are investing our money poorly. If we really want to make an impact on health, we should be spending more money on addressing the things that will actually have an impact on health. If we really want to improve the health of our population, we need to invest wisely on addressing the social determinants of health - for example, lifestyle choices like whether to smoke or drink alcohol, whether or not to wear a seatbelt, whether or not to eat healthy foods. Similarly, we need to make sure that everyone in the U.S. has access to nutritional, healthy foods, clean water, good housing, and good preventative care. Does our health care system bear some responsibility for prevention? Absolutely. But to say that the health care delivery system is completely at fault is the wrong approach.
Dr. Elizabeth Bradley, a health policy researcher and President of Vassar College wrote an excellent book on this very subject a few years ago, called The American Health Care Paradox: Why Spending More is Getting Us Less. The book should be required reading for anyone in the health care profession and can be summarized with just one graph:
As it turns out, in the aforementioned national survey, the majority of Americans also feel that the government invests "too little" in things such as "assistance to the poor" (71%), "dealing with drug addiction" (69%), and "social security". It's not rocket science. Unfortunately, words do not always translate to action. We need to do better.
Monday, March 18, 2019
Bracketology and March Madness
The 2019 version of the NCAA Men's College Basketball Tournament bracket was released last night, starting what has become an annual tradition known simply as "March Madness". Just about everyone I know is busy filling out their tournament bracket, all the television and radio sports personalities are arguing about who deserved to be in the tournament's 68 team field as well as who should have been seeded higher, and work productivity nationwide is about to experience a precipitous decline. "March Madness" typically coincides with Internet delays and office computer system shutdowns as employees look up the win-loss records of teams in the tournament, research what all the experts are saying about each team, and watching games or looking up scores during the tournament itself. Some experts estimate that lost productivity in the United States during the month of March costs between $175 million to $1 billion!
"March Madness" even affects casual fans who may never even watch a college basketball game during the regular season. A quick review of an online research library database used by faculty and students at over 75 libraries in the United States showed the number of articles accessed online decreased by about 6 percent starting on the Monday following "Selection Sunday". Apparently that trend continued at colleges and universities whose teams were still "alive" in the tournament during the month of March. Moreover, the number of articles accessed dropped even further (close to a 20% decline) on the day after these teams won a game. In contrast, the number of articles accessed returned to baseline if the team lost.
Filling out tournament brackets has become extremely popular - probably because you really don't need to know too much about college basketball to fill one out. I still remember when one of my daughters filled out her bracket based upon a coin flip - her bracket was closer to what actually happened that year than the rest of the family! There was another time when our youngest daughter filled her bracket out based on which team mascots seemed more powerful (as an example, a tiger would beat out a bulldog or a blue devil would beat a billiken). Apparently, the odds of filling out a perfect bracket are 1 in 9.2 quintillion. If those kinds of numbers don't mean anything to you, just consider that the billionaire Warren Buffet once offered $1 billion for anyone who filled out a perfect bracket.
Surprisingly, "March Madness" has its roots, not in college basketball, but in high school boy's basketball. Apparently, the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) first started holding statewide tournaments in boy's basketball in 1908. The tournament became extremely popular in the 1930's, and a former high school basketball coach named Henry V. Porter first coined the term "March Madness" in a newspaper article in 1939:
A little March madness may complement and contribute to sanity and help keep society on an even keel.
The IHSA trademarked the phrase in 1989, and the NCAA acquired a license to use "March Madness" for its tournament in 1996 after a series of contentious legal battles. The name has stuck, and it perfectly describes what happens during the month of March. Perhaps Henry Porter was correct too. In other words, maybe the reason that we all go a little mad during the month of March is because it's a good way for us to escape all of the difficulties in our daily lives. Perhaps our madness during the month of March does keep us on an even keel. Now, I better go fill out my bracket before the play in games start!
"March Madness" even affects casual fans who may never even watch a college basketball game during the regular season. A quick review of an online research library database used by faculty and students at over 75 libraries in the United States showed the number of articles accessed online decreased by about 6 percent starting on the Monday following "Selection Sunday". Apparently that trend continued at colleges and universities whose teams were still "alive" in the tournament during the month of March. Moreover, the number of articles accessed dropped even further (close to a 20% decline) on the day after these teams won a game. In contrast, the number of articles accessed returned to baseline if the team lost.
Filling out tournament brackets has become extremely popular - probably because you really don't need to know too much about college basketball to fill one out. I still remember when one of my daughters filled out her bracket based upon a coin flip - her bracket was closer to what actually happened that year than the rest of the family! There was another time when our youngest daughter filled her bracket out based on which team mascots seemed more powerful (as an example, a tiger would beat out a bulldog or a blue devil would beat a billiken). Apparently, the odds of filling out a perfect bracket are 1 in 9.2 quintillion. If those kinds of numbers don't mean anything to you, just consider that the billionaire Warren Buffet once offered $1 billion for anyone who filled out a perfect bracket.
Surprisingly, "March Madness" has its roots, not in college basketball, but in high school boy's basketball. Apparently, the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) first started holding statewide tournaments in boy's basketball in 1908. The tournament became extremely popular in the 1930's, and a former high school basketball coach named Henry V. Porter first coined the term "March Madness" in a newspaper article in 1939:
A little March madness may complement and contribute to sanity and help keep society on an even keel.
The IHSA trademarked the phrase in 1989, and the NCAA acquired a license to use "March Madness" for its tournament in 1996 after a series of contentious legal battles. The name has stuck, and it perfectly describes what happens during the month of March. Perhaps Henry Porter was correct too. In other words, maybe the reason that we all go a little mad during the month of March is because it's a good way for us to escape all of the difficulties in our daily lives. Perhaps our madness during the month of March does keep us on an even keel. Now, I better go fill out my bracket before the play in games start!
Sunday, March 17, 2019
A Blessing on St. Patrick's Day
It's been a hectic few days with a lot of traveling, so I am going to leave you today with a favorite Irish blessing in honor of St. Patrick's Day. I am not sure when I first heard this particular blessing, but it was likely first told to me by one of my groomsmen on our wedding day.
May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face;
the rains fall soft upon your fields
and until we meet again,
may God hold you in the palm of his hand.
Blessings and tidings to you all. Today we are all Irish.
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Feeling lucky and blessed
I had the opportunity today to visit a children's hospital in the Dominican Republic. A few years ago, one of our former residents and neonatology fellows organized a pediatric conference for the pediatricians and nurses in his country. Several faculty members from my institution speak at the conference, which has been held every 2 years for the past six years. It's a great opportunity for us to re-connect with a very good friend and colleague, and hopefully the attendees find our lectures meaningful and educational. I was fortunate to attend this year, and a few us traveled earlier today to one of the two children's hospitals in the capital city of Santo Domingo. It was a great experience, and one that I am sure none of us will soon forget.
There are apparently two children's hospitals in the city - one is primarily a public hospital (we visit that one tomorrow) and the other is a so-called private hospital (though 80% of their patients are, in fact, enrolled in the public health system). The hospital is only five years old, but I was amazed by how much its leaders have accomplished in such a short time. Some of the statistics are staggering - they have approximately 160 beds, including a 6-bed pediatric intensive care unit and a 7-bed neonatal intensive care unit. There are about 80 physicians on the medical staff, of which approximately half are general pediatricians (the rest being medical subspecialists and surgeons). More surprising to me was the fact that there were only 150 nurses! In other words, they have more hospital beds than they do nurses! I guess that shouldn't surprise me too much - one nurse can take care of more than one patient (and usually does, even in an American pediatric intensive care unit). But still. That doesn't leave much wiggle room, considering the nurses have to staff the beds 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.
The Pediatric intensive care unit was about what you would expect - it was full and every single one of the patients was on a ventilator. One patient was on continuous renal replacement therapy (kidney dialysis). There was one physician and two nurses working in the unit during our visit. I asked what kinds of patients they typically see - lots of tetanus (something we rarely, if ever, see in the U.S.), dengue fever, sepsis (mostly from staphylococcal infections), and trauma. I was impressed with how well the patients were doing - these providers were doing a fantastic job!
The emergency department was something completely different altogether. We walked into one of the rooms - they called it the "respiratory room." There were about ten children sitting side-by-side, each being treated with a nebulizer, presumably for acute asthma. The room next to the "respiratory room" was the "shock room." We have a similar room in our hospital at home - it's where critically ill patients go to be resuscitated. On a busy night, we can safely care for up to three critically ill patients at a time. The "shock room" in the Dominican Republic had around seven or eight patients, all receiving IV fluids and supplemental oxygen.
We had a great conversation with the hospital administrative staff. They talked about some of their challenges, and we shared some of ours (mostly because they asked). I really left the hospital feeling both lucky and blessed. Lucky and blessed, not just because I work in a hospital with an abundance of resources, but also lucky and blessed because I had the opportunity to see how a hospital operates in a different country. Sure, there were differences. But there were many similarities too. We are all not so different after all. And that's what really matters most.
There are apparently two children's hospitals in the city - one is primarily a public hospital (we visit that one tomorrow) and the other is a so-called private hospital (though 80% of their patients are, in fact, enrolled in the public health system). The hospital is only five years old, but I was amazed by how much its leaders have accomplished in such a short time. Some of the statistics are staggering - they have approximately 160 beds, including a 6-bed pediatric intensive care unit and a 7-bed neonatal intensive care unit. There are about 80 physicians on the medical staff, of which approximately half are general pediatricians (the rest being medical subspecialists and surgeons). More surprising to me was the fact that there were only 150 nurses! In other words, they have more hospital beds than they do nurses! I guess that shouldn't surprise me too much - one nurse can take care of more than one patient (and usually does, even in an American pediatric intensive care unit). But still. That doesn't leave much wiggle room, considering the nurses have to staff the beds 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.
The Pediatric intensive care unit was about what you would expect - it was full and every single one of the patients was on a ventilator. One patient was on continuous renal replacement therapy (kidney dialysis). There was one physician and two nurses working in the unit during our visit. I asked what kinds of patients they typically see - lots of tetanus (something we rarely, if ever, see in the U.S.), dengue fever, sepsis (mostly from staphylococcal infections), and trauma. I was impressed with how well the patients were doing - these providers were doing a fantastic job!
The emergency department was something completely different altogether. We walked into one of the rooms - they called it the "respiratory room." There were about ten children sitting side-by-side, each being treated with a nebulizer, presumably for acute asthma. The room next to the "respiratory room" was the "shock room." We have a similar room in our hospital at home - it's where critically ill patients go to be resuscitated. On a busy night, we can safely care for up to three critically ill patients at a time. The "shock room" in the Dominican Republic had around seven or eight patients, all receiving IV fluids and supplemental oxygen.
We had a great conversation with the hospital administrative staff. They talked about some of their challenges, and we shared some of ours (mostly because they asked). I really left the hospital feeling both lucky and blessed. Lucky and blessed, not just because I work in a hospital with an abundance of resources, but also lucky and blessed because I had the opportunity to see how a hospital operates in a different country. Sure, there were differences. But there were many similarities too. We are all not so different after all. And that's what really matters most.
Sunday, March 10, 2019
"Dad is hangry again!"
It is a well-known fact in the Wheeler family. Dad gets hangry. According to Merriam-Webster, "hangry" is a "clever portmanteau of hungry and angry." It's an adjective describing a mood that we all get when we don't get enough to eat. It's one of those words that hasn't been around for all that long (apparently it was first used in The London Magazine in 1992), but it has gained widespread popularity because it is a great description of a very common feeling that we all get.
It really all comes down to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. We simply cannot attend to our psychological needs (e.g., creating friendships and feeling accomplished) or our self-fulfillment needs (e.g., realizing our full potential or being creative) without first attending to our basic physiological needs, such as food and water:
Maslow's Hierarchy certainly has a number of skeptics - almost any theory does. However, my wife pointed me towards a very interesting study that seems to provide some degree of support for the concept of attending to one's basic needs first. Apparently, a prisoner's chance of parole depends, at least partially, on whether the judge who is reviewing his or her case is tired and hungry!
The study Extraneous factors in judicial decisions was published in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011. The investigators observed and monitored the parole hearings in over 1,100 cases at four prisons in Israel. Only 8 judges were involved, and the study took place over a ten-month period. Judges worked for a full day - the hearings were spread out over 3 distinct periods, each separated by a short break for a morning snack or lunch. At the beginning of each session, prisoners had a 65% chance of being paroled. By the end of the session, the chance of being paroled had dropped to zero percent! The investigators suggested that by the time they were ready for a break, judges opted for the easiest decision to make, which in these cases was to deny parole.
The study's lead investigator, Jonathan Levav, suggested that the same effect could "happen anywhere where there is sequential decision-making and some kind of status quo or default that allows people to simplify those decisions." In other words, this bias towards the "easy way out" because of either mental fatigue or just plain being hangry could impact the decision making process in situations such as college or medical school admissions, grant reviews, peer review of manuscripts, or even (as the author's suggest) medical consultation. Our decisions could be adversely impacted if we don't attend to our basic needs on Maslow's Hierarchy!
The lesson is clear. Never make an important decision when you are tired or mentally drained. Never make decisions on an empty stomach. And never, ever let Dad get hangry!
It really all comes down to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. We simply cannot attend to our psychological needs (e.g., creating friendships and feeling accomplished) or our self-fulfillment needs (e.g., realizing our full potential or being creative) without first attending to our basic physiological needs, such as food and water:
Maslow's Hierarchy certainly has a number of skeptics - almost any theory does. However, my wife pointed me towards a very interesting study that seems to provide some degree of support for the concept of attending to one's basic needs first. Apparently, a prisoner's chance of parole depends, at least partially, on whether the judge who is reviewing his or her case is tired and hungry!
The study Extraneous factors in judicial decisions was published in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011. The investigators observed and monitored the parole hearings in over 1,100 cases at four prisons in Israel. Only 8 judges were involved, and the study took place over a ten-month period. Judges worked for a full day - the hearings were spread out over 3 distinct periods, each separated by a short break for a morning snack or lunch. At the beginning of each session, prisoners had a 65% chance of being paroled. By the end of the session, the chance of being paroled had dropped to zero percent! The investigators suggested that by the time they were ready for a break, judges opted for the easiest decision to make, which in these cases was to deny parole.
The study's lead investigator, Jonathan Levav, suggested that the same effect could "happen anywhere where there is sequential decision-making and some kind of status quo or default that allows people to simplify those decisions." In other words, this bias towards the "easy way out" because of either mental fatigue or just plain being hangry could impact the decision making process in situations such as college or medical school admissions, grant reviews, peer review of manuscripts, or even (as the author's suggest) medical consultation. Our decisions could be adversely impacted if we don't attend to our basic needs on Maslow's Hierarchy!
The lesson is clear. Never make an important decision when you are tired or mentally drained. Never make decisions on an empty stomach. And never, ever let Dad get hangry!
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
"Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck..."
Someone once said that the devil doesn't come dressed in a red cape and pointy shoes, but as everything you've ever wished for in life. I like the Dalai Lama's version better - "Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck." There's a really great basketball player who is currently learning this lesson in a very hard and a very public way.
Kyrie Irving seemed to have everything going for him - he won the National Basketball Association's Rookie of the Year Award in the year after he was drafted first overall by the Cleveland Cavaliers. He is a six-time NBA All-Star (even winning the All-Star Game's MVP Award in 2014), 2016 Olympic Gold Medalist, and NBA Champion while playing for the Cavaliers in 2016. He even starred in his own film called Uncle Drew (based on a popular Pepsi commercial).
All of this just wasn't enough - in July, 2017 Irving requested a trade, reportedly because he wanted to be the number one star player on his own team (instead of playing alongside basketball great, LeBron James). The divorce, as they say, was very public. Irving reportedly told a source at ESPN that he had grown "tired of being Robin to James' Batman." Both Irving and James traded several thinly veiled shots at one another in social media. The relationship between the two stars was essentially broken. Irving was ultimately traded to the Boston Celtics on August 22, 2017.
So how has Irving's tenure with the Celtics been so far? Well, his first game of his first season with the Celtics is somewhat illustrative. While he had a good game statistically (22 points and 10 assists), he missed a game-tying three-pointer at the buzzer against his former teammates with the Cavaliers. Things started looking much better until March of his first year, when a left knee injury forced him to the bench for the remainder of the season. How did the Celtics do in his absence? They missed the NBA Finals by one game, losing the 2018 Eastern Conference Finals to the Cleveland Cavaliers four games to three.
Okay, how about his second season with the Celtics? Well, the preseason favorites for winning the 2019 Eastern Conference Finals are currently in fifth place. As of this past weekend, they have only won one game since the mid-season All-Star Break. And everything points to Kyrie Irving leaving as a free agent at the end of the season. This past Sunday, Irving was reportedly overheard saying, "I won't miss this shit when I'm done playing" while walking to a game with the Houston Rockets at TD Garden in Boston. The Celtics lost (it was never close), and Irving said very little during his post-game interview.
Again - be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Irving wanted to be the focal point on a professional basketball team. He wanted to be a team's star player, the leader of his own team. He no longer wanted to be in the shadow of LeBron James. He got his wish. And he is failing to deliver. In a big way.
I think it's fair to say that Kyrie Irving forgot one very important key to good leadership. When you are a leader, "It's not about you." Plain and simple. Leadership is a responsibility and NOT "a platform for adulation and unbound privilege." "If you don't care about those you lead - you have no business leading them." Leadership is not defined by a position of power. Leadership is not about being the best on the team either. If you are looking for a better example, just look at the person that Kyrie Irving wanted to get away from - LeBron James just recently moved up into the top 10 of NBA Assists Leaders, making him the only individual in the history of the NBA to be in the top 10 for both scoring (Points Leaders) and assists (Assist Leaders). You don't get to be in the top 10 of Assist Leaders by playing selfishly. You get on that list by putting the needs of your teammates above your own.
I like using sports as metaphor for leadership. I don't think that we can always apply lessons from the sports world to health care, but in this case, I think we can. As the old adage goes, be careful what you wish for, because you just might get what you wanted.
Kyrie Irving seemed to have everything going for him - he won the National Basketball Association's Rookie of the Year Award in the year after he was drafted first overall by the Cleveland Cavaliers. He is a six-time NBA All-Star (even winning the All-Star Game's MVP Award in 2014), 2016 Olympic Gold Medalist, and NBA Champion while playing for the Cavaliers in 2016. He even starred in his own film called Uncle Drew (based on a popular Pepsi commercial).
All of this just wasn't enough - in July, 2017 Irving requested a trade, reportedly because he wanted to be the number one star player on his own team (instead of playing alongside basketball great, LeBron James). The divorce, as they say, was very public. Irving reportedly told a source at ESPN that he had grown "tired of being Robin to James' Batman." Both Irving and James traded several thinly veiled shots at one another in social media. The relationship between the two stars was essentially broken. Irving was ultimately traded to the Boston Celtics on August 22, 2017.
So how has Irving's tenure with the Celtics been so far? Well, his first game of his first season with the Celtics is somewhat illustrative. While he had a good game statistically (22 points and 10 assists), he missed a game-tying three-pointer at the buzzer against his former teammates with the Cavaliers. Things started looking much better until March of his first year, when a left knee injury forced him to the bench for the remainder of the season. How did the Celtics do in his absence? They missed the NBA Finals by one game, losing the 2018 Eastern Conference Finals to the Cleveland Cavaliers four games to three.
Okay, how about his second season with the Celtics? Well, the preseason favorites for winning the 2019 Eastern Conference Finals are currently in fifth place. As of this past weekend, they have only won one game since the mid-season All-Star Break. And everything points to Kyrie Irving leaving as a free agent at the end of the season. This past Sunday, Irving was reportedly overheard saying, "I won't miss this shit when I'm done playing" while walking to a game with the Houston Rockets at TD Garden in Boston. The Celtics lost (it was never close), and Irving said very little during his post-game interview.
Again - be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Irving wanted to be the focal point on a professional basketball team. He wanted to be a team's star player, the leader of his own team. He no longer wanted to be in the shadow of LeBron James. He got his wish. And he is failing to deliver. In a big way.
I think it's fair to say that Kyrie Irving forgot one very important key to good leadership. When you are a leader, "It's not about you." Plain and simple. Leadership is a responsibility and NOT "a platform for adulation and unbound privilege." "If you don't care about those you lead - you have no business leading them." Leadership is not defined by a position of power. Leadership is not about being the best on the team either. If you are looking for a better example, just look at the person that Kyrie Irving wanted to get away from - LeBron James just recently moved up into the top 10 of NBA Assists Leaders, making him the only individual in the history of the NBA to be in the top 10 for both scoring (Points Leaders) and assists (Assist Leaders). You don't get to be in the top 10 of Assist Leaders by playing selfishly. You get on that list by putting the needs of your teammates above your own.
I like using sports as metaphor for leadership. I don't think that we can always apply lessons from the sports world to health care, but in this case, I think we can. As the old adage goes, be careful what you wish for, because you just might get what you wanted.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
The Periodic Table of Leadership
I received an e-mail alert from The Economist magazine this week that caught my attention. Apparently, the "Periodic Table of Elements" turns 150 years old this week. I am not sure that there are too many of my friends, family, or colleagues that knew that fact, except of course for my father, a retired chemist and notable "Periodic Table" enthusiast! I suspect that the Periodic Table brings up bad memories of high school and/or college chemistry for many individuals. If I were being totally honest, chemistry and I just didn't have any chemistry together. I never really quite grasped the concept of atomic orbitals or electron shells, and if it wasn't for "LEO the lion goes GER" I would have never mastered oxidation-reduction reactions. But even if my dislike of college chemistry bordered on hatred at times, I can honestly say that I always appreciated the exquisite order and symmetry of the Periodic Table. It really is a beautiful thing how ordered our universe really is, and in many respects, it all starts with the Periodic Table.
Reading about the history of the Periodic Table brought back a lot of memories. Some bad, of course, but many good ones too. For one, I always enjoyed watching my father get so passionately excited about talking about it (we even bought him a t-shirt with the Periodic Table on it one year for Christmas). I only wish that everyone could get as excited about their profession the way that he did (and still does to this day, just ask any of his grandchildren) about chemistry. So, today I decided to write in honor of the almighty Periodic Table and the individual who is generally credited with its original description, the French chemist, Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier.
I know what you are thinking. And you are right. It's a bit of a stretch to connect the dots on the Periodic Table of the Elements and leadership. However, I am going to try. For example, did you know that there is a Periodic Table of the Elements of Leadership and Management"? It's true! There is a certain order to the leadership and management elements, though perhaps not quite as ordered as the actual chemical elements. It's a bit artificial, I will give that to you. I can appreciate how much work that was involved in creating this version, but I think the key concept is perhaps lost in the details. The important point to keep in mind is that there are certain leadership behaviors, or elements, that are foundational to good leadership.
What is an element anyway? At least in the world of chemistry, elements are the simplest substances that can't be broken down in any kind of chemical reaction. Elements can only be changed into other elements. Every substance in the world is based upon these chemical elements. Of course, some elements are more important than others. For example, there are 92 elements found in the Earth's crust - nearly 98% of the Earth's crust is made up of 8 important elements (oxygen itself makes up nearly half).
In a similar way, Scott Edinger wrote an online article for Forbes magazine in which he suggested that there are 8 key leadership elements too (there are many, many more leadership elements, but Edinger believes that there are the most crucial):
1. Character (Edinger believes that "character" is the oxygen of leadership)
2. Inspiring/Motivating
3. Results orientation
4. Communication skills
5. Strategic focus
6. Professional and functional expertise
7. Interpersonal skills
8. Leading change
That's a pretty good list, I think. What would be on your key list of leadership elements?
Reading about the history of the Periodic Table brought back a lot of memories. Some bad, of course, but many good ones too. For one, I always enjoyed watching my father get so passionately excited about talking about it (we even bought him a t-shirt with the Periodic Table on it one year for Christmas). I only wish that everyone could get as excited about their profession the way that he did (and still does to this day, just ask any of his grandchildren) about chemistry. So, today I decided to write in honor of the almighty Periodic Table and the individual who is generally credited with its original description, the French chemist, Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier.
I know what you are thinking. And you are right. It's a bit of a stretch to connect the dots on the Periodic Table of the Elements and leadership. However, I am going to try. For example, did you know that there is a Periodic Table of the Elements of Leadership and Management"? It's true! There is a certain order to the leadership and management elements, though perhaps not quite as ordered as the actual chemical elements. It's a bit artificial, I will give that to you. I can appreciate how much work that was involved in creating this version, but I think the key concept is perhaps lost in the details. The important point to keep in mind is that there are certain leadership behaviors, or elements, that are foundational to good leadership.
What is an element anyway? At least in the world of chemistry, elements are the simplest substances that can't be broken down in any kind of chemical reaction. Elements can only be changed into other elements. Every substance in the world is based upon these chemical elements. Of course, some elements are more important than others. For example, there are 92 elements found in the Earth's crust - nearly 98% of the Earth's crust is made up of 8 important elements (oxygen itself makes up nearly half).
In a similar way, Scott Edinger wrote an online article for Forbes magazine in which he suggested that there are 8 key leadership elements too (there are many, many more leadership elements, but Edinger believes that there are the most crucial):
1. Character (Edinger believes that "character" is the oxygen of leadership)
2. Inspiring/Motivating
3. Results orientation
4. Communication skills
5. Strategic focus
6. Professional and functional expertise
7. Interpersonal skills
8. Leading change
That's a pretty good list, I think. What would be on your key list of leadership elements?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)