The music world is mourning the recent death of American country folk singer-songwriter, John Prine today. Prine died yesterday of complications related to COVID-19. He is frequently cited as one of the most influential songwriters of his generation. He was particularly well-known for his often humorous lyrics about love and life in general, but he had a serious side. Some of his songs had a social commentary too. One of his most famous songs (which he co-wrote with Steve Goodman, who is perhaps best known for writing the song, "City of New Orleans" which was covered by Arlo Guthrie in 1972 and Willie Nelson in 1984) was covered by the country and western singer, David Allan Coe - "You Never Even Call Me By My Name" - if you spent any time in a roadhouse bar or listen to country music, you will recognize the chorus:
But I'll hang around as long as you will let me
I never minded standing in the rain
You don't have to call me darlin', darlin'
But you never even call me by my name
It's a great song - and despite what David Allan Coe says, it has all the necessary elements of the perfect country and western song! Today, however, I want to highlight one of John Prine's songs, "That's The Way The World Goes Round" which he released in the late 1970's (both Miranda Lambert and Norah Jones have covered the song). The New York Times listed the song as one of Prine's "15 Essential Songs". The song's lyrics are a great example of Prine's unique ability to inject humor into a song that deals with a serious issue. As Rob Tannenbaum writes today in the New York Times piece, "Even when circumstances are bad in Prine songs, he favors optimism and acceptance."
That's the way that the world goes 'round
you're up one day
and the next you're down
it's half an inch of water
and you think you're gonna drown
that's the way that the world goes 'round.
In other words, you can't control all that is happening in the world around you. Not today. Not tomorrow. But you can control your attitude and how you react to what's going on in the world. You can either act like you're drowning in a half inch of water, or realize that it's just a half inch and you will be just fine - no need to panic. Stay positive. Be optimistic. What happens will happen. That was John Prine's underlying message. It's one that the ancient Stoic philosophers would appreciate. And certainly today, as we continue to deal with the illness that eventually killed one of the greatest songwriters of our generation, it is one we would do well to remember too.
Wednesday, April 8, 2020
Sunday, April 5, 2020
Do ordinary things extraordinarily well!
There's a scene at the end of the 2001 movie, Black Hawk Down that I found really powerful and think about from time to time. The character SSG Matt Eversmann, played by the actor Josh Hartnett is saying goodbye to a fallen comrade. He is telling a story about a conversation he had with a friend at home before he deployed to Somalia, "Why do you want to go off and fight someone else's war, do you think you're a hero?" Hartnett's character says, "I didn't know what to tell him at the time, but if you asked me now, I'd say, 'Hell no. No one asks to be a hero. It just sometimes turns out that way."
We are heading into the high school and college graduation season. I suspect that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most of these will be re-scheduled or held virtually. Regardless, high school and college graduates everywhere are likely thinking about the next journey in their lives. Many want to change the world! I know that's how I felt when I graduated from college.
Unfortunately, too many of these young individuals think that the only measure of success is to do extraordinary things - perhaps be the first person to walk on Mars, become President of the United States, play professional sports, or even find a cure for COVID-19. Many of these same individuals think that if they don't do something great, they won't have lived a meaningful and successful life.
The problem is that the vast majority of these high school and college graduates will never become famous. Not everyone can be the first person to walk on Mars, of course. And the chances of becoming President are less than one in a million! But here's the thing, you don't have to be a hero to live a life full of meaning. As the writer Emily Esfahani Smith recently wrote in the New York Times, "The most meaningful lives, are often not the extraordinary ones. They're the ordinary ones lived with dignity."
You shouldn't measure your life by whether you do extraordinary things. Success should be measured by doing ordinary things extraordinarily well. Mother Teresa once said, "Not all of us can do great things. But we can do small things with great love."
Emily Esfahani Smith writes further, "You don't have to change the world or find your one true purpose to lead a meaningful life. A good life is a life of goodness - and that's something anyone can aspire to, no matter their dreams or circumstances."
Let us all strive to live a life of goodness, by doing small things with great love.
We are heading into the high school and college graduation season. I suspect that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most of these will be re-scheduled or held virtually. Regardless, high school and college graduates everywhere are likely thinking about the next journey in their lives. Many want to change the world! I know that's how I felt when I graduated from college.
Unfortunately, too many of these young individuals think that the only measure of success is to do extraordinary things - perhaps be the first person to walk on Mars, become President of the United States, play professional sports, or even find a cure for COVID-19. Many of these same individuals think that if they don't do something great, they won't have lived a meaningful and successful life.
The problem is that the vast majority of these high school and college graduates will never become famous. Not everyone can be the first person to walk on Mars, of course. And the chances of becoming President are less than one in a million! But here's the thing, you don't have to be a hero to live a life full of meaning. As the writer Emily Esfahani Smith recently wrote in the New York Times, "The most meaningful lives, are often not the extraordinary ones. They're the ordinary ones lived with dignity."
You shouldn't measure your life by whether you do extraordinary things. Success should be measured by doing ordinary things extraordinarily well. Mother Teresa once said, "Not all of us can do great things. But we can do small things with great love."
Emily Esfahani Smith writes further, "You don't have to change the world or find your one true purpose to lead a meaningful life. A good life is a life of goodness - and that's something anyone can aspire to, no matter their dreams or circumstances."
Let us all strive to live a life of goodness, by doing small things with great love.
Wednesday, April 1, 2020
"I wish"
There's a scene in the movie, The Fellowship of the Ring that someone reminded me of just the other day. The nine characters in "the fellowship" (the group that was assembled to destroy the "One Ring" - trust me, it's a GREAT story but even if you've never read the LOTR or watched the movies, you'll be able to follow my line of reasoning) have just entered the fabled "Mines of Moria." They are lost and waiting for their leader, Gandalf, a powerful wizard, to figure out how to lead them out of the mines. One of the main characters, Frodo, a hobbit, is lamenting the fact that he was tasked with carrying the ring.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
It is a powerful scene, and the statement made by Frodo is one that many of us are making today. But Gandalf's response is one of hope and reassurance. It is one of the pillars of the Stoic philosophy - that is, the fundamental notion that we can't always control - indeed, we rarely can control - the nature of the crises that we are forced to face. However, the one thing we can absolutely control is our response and attitude.
As one of the founders of Stoicism, the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus said, "It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters." Viktor Frankl, Holocaust survivor and author of Man's Search for Meaning expands further on this theme, "Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."
I have thought a lot about where I am today. I am here in Chicago, working long hours at a new job in a children's hospital in a brand new city and living, at least for the moment, without my wife and family. It would be easy for me to complain and feel sorry for myself, and indeed, there have been some times these past five weeks when I probably have done so. But here's the thing - no matter what I am doing now, I can be thankful that I am here, working with a great team of dedicated, committed, compassionate health care workers and administrators. I can be thankful that the vast amount of evidence suggests that children are less likely to have serious and significant illness from COVID-19. And, I can be thankful that our local and state government leaders are helping our community to be as absolutely prepared as we can be for something like a worldwide pandemic.
Could we have been better prepared as a country to deal with this pandemic? Absolutely. Do I wish that our nation's leaders were managing this crisis as well as some of our local and state leaders? Absolutely. But can I change any of that now? Nope.
So yes, while I do wish that all of us didn't have to be living through COVID-19, I am thankful that we are here now to make a difference. After all, it's really not up to us to decide whether we are here or not. But it is up to us to choose how we respond - with compassion, with grace, with commitment and dedication to our patients, and with professionalism.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
It is a powerful scene, and the statement made by Frodo is one that many of us are making today. But Gandalf's response is one of hope and reassurance. It is one of the pillars of the Stoic philosophy - that is, the fundamental notion that we can't always control - indeed, we rarely can control - the nature of the crises that we are forced to face. However, the one thing we can absolutely control is our response and attitude.
As one of the founders of Stoicism, the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus said, "It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters." Viktor Frankl, Holocaust survivor and author of Man's Search for Meaning expands further on this theme, "Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."
I have thought a lot about where I am today. I am here in Chicago, working long hours at a new job in a children's hospital in a brand new city and living, at least for the moment, without my wife and family. It would be easy for me to complain and feel sorry for myself, and indeed, there have been some times these past five weeks when I probably have done so. But here's the thing - no matter what I am doing now, I can be thankful that I am here, working with a great team of dedicated, committed, compassionate health care workers and administrators. I can be thankful that the vast amount of evidence suggests that children are less likely to have serious and significant illness from COVID-19. And, I can be thankful that our local and state government leaders are helping our community to be as absolutely prepared as we can be for something like a worldwide pandemic.
Could we have been better prepared as a country to deal with this pandemic? Absolutely. Do I wish that our nation's leaders were managing this crisis as well as some of our local and state leaders? Absolutely. But can I change any of that now? Nope.
So yes, while I do wish that all of us didn't have to be living through COVID-19, I am thankful that we are here now to make a difference. After all, it's really not up to us to decide whether we are here or not. But it is up to us to choose how we respond - with compassion, with grace, with commitment and dedication to our patients, and with professionalism.
Monday, March 30, 2020
This year especially, Happy National Doctor's Day!
Today, March 30th, is the day we celebrate all of our physicians on National Doctor’s Day. This year, more than any year I expect, we are thinking very differently about what it means to be a physician - indeed, what it means to be a health care worker - in our communities, our cities, our country, and or world. For today, all across the world, physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals are literally putting their lives on the line to take care of their patients. They are heroes, in every sense of the word.
A few years ago, I wrote a post on National Doctor's Day that I re-read this morning. The words that I wrote then are even more profound today, so I'd like to share them with you again today, though slightly edited for brevity's sake:
My first faculty appointment following fellowship was at the Children's Medical Center at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta, Georgia (the hospital and university have since gone through a number of name changes and are now called Children's Hospital of Georgia and Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, respectively). One of the things that I remember most about my time at MCG was a plaque in the old library building dedicated to one of the school's early founders, Dr. Milton Antony. Dr. Antony is buried at the historic "Old Medical College of Georgia" site (which is now on the National Register - see here), and I believe the plaque was originally at his burial site. The plaque recognized Dr. Antony's contributions to medicine in the city of Augusta, the state of Georgia, and the Southeast region. Notably, Dr. Antony founded the Southern Medical and Surgical Journal, which is still published today by the Southern Medical Association as the Southern Medical Journal. The plaque contains the following inscription:
In memory of Milton Anthony, M.D., Founder of this College. A martyr to humanity and to the duties of his profession, during the fatal epidemic of 1839. Cheered by Religious Faith through the Griefs and Trials of this life, he passed from the cure of the sick to the sleep of the just, amid the tears and blessings of the poor. True to his own favorite maxim that a virtuous will is almost omnipotent, he overcame by study the defects of education and, patiently toiling to eminence, bequeathed to posterity a noble example of genius and industry, animated and directed by Patriotism and benevolence.
What impressed me then, and why I remember the plaque to this day, was the fact that Dr. Antony gave his life in service to his poor patients during a Yellow Fever epidemic in the year 1839. How many other physicians have died, doing their duty in providing care to the sick? How many physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals are putting their lives on the line today in this global COVID-19 pandemic?
For many of us in health care, we were called to our respective professions because we wished to serve. Caring for patients is one of the most ancient of callings. Today, that calling goes beyond merely caring for our patients. So many of our physicians today are, without even a second thought, stepping up to care for patients with COVID-19. Some physicians have even lost their lives as a result.
Today, of all days, celebrate what these individuals are doing. They are heroes. Happy National Doctor's Day! Stay safe and be well.
A few years ago, I wrote a post on National Doctor's Day that I re-read this morning. The words that I wrote then are even more profound today, so I'd like to share them with you again today, though slightly edited for brevity's sake:
My first faculty appointment following fellowship was at the Children's Medical Center at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta, Georgia (the hospital and university have since gone through a number of name changes and are now called Children's Hospital of Georgia and Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, respectively). One of the things that I remember most about my time at MCG was a plaque in the old library building dedicated to one of the school's early founders, Dr. Milton Antony. Dr. Antony is buried at the historic "Old Medical College of Georgia" site (which is now on the National Register - see here), and I believe the plaque was originally at his burial site. The plaque recognized Dr. Antony's contributions to medicine in the city of Augusta, the state of Georgia, and the Southeast region. Notably, Dr. Antony founded the Southern Medical and Surgical Journal, which is still published today by the Southern Medical Association as the Southern Medical Journal. The plaque contains the following inscription:
In memory of Milton Anthony, M.D., Founder of this College. A martyr to humanity and to the duties of his profession, during the fatal epidemic of 1839. Cheered by Religious Faith through the Griefs and Trials of this life, he passed from the cure of the sick to the sleep of the just, amid the tears and blessings of the poor. True to his own favorite maxim that a virtuous will is almost omnipotent, he overcame by study the defects of education and, patiently toiling to eminence, bequeathed to posterity a noble example of genius and industry, animated and directed by Patriotism and benevolence.
What impressed me then, and why I remember the plaque to this day, was the fact that Dr. Antony gave his life in service to his poor patients during a Yellow Fever epidemic in the year 1839. How many other physicians have died, doing their duty in providing care to the sick? How many physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals are putting their lives on the line today in this global COVID-19 pandemic?
For many of us in health care, we were called to our respective professions because we wished to serve. Caring for patients is one of the most ancient of callings. Today, that calling goes beyond merely caring for our patients. So many of our physicians today are, without even a second thought, stepping up to care for patients with COVID-19. Some physicians have even lost their lives as a result.
Today, of all days, celebrate what these individuals are doing. They are heroes. Happy National Doctor's Day! Stay safe and be well.
Sunday, March 29, 2020
"You know what to do, just do it"
General Norman Schwarzkopf once said, "The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it." There is nothing wrong to be afraid or anxious about making decisions, particularly during times of crisis (for a very thorough and in-depth study of this topic, see the book, "Making Decisions Under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training", edited by Janis A. Cannon-Bowers and Eduardo Salas). However, the truly great leaders are the ones that rise above their fears to go ahead and make the difficult decisions.
If you have been reading my blog over the years, you know that one of my favorite television mini-series was the 2001 HBO series "Band of Brothers" (based upon the book of the same name by Stephen E. Ambrose - also one of my favorites), which was produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks. The series tells the story of the men of E ("Easy") Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division from the start of their jump training in the United States and on through to the end of the European Theater of World War II. I recently watched one of the later episodes, "The Breaking Point" which occurs shortly after the famous Siege of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. The episode is a character study of good versus bad leadership during a crisis. The Company's Commanding Officer is 1st Lieutenant Norman Dike, who is the "bad leader" in the story, while the Company's First Sergeant (later promoted) Carwood Lipton is the "good leader." Lipton describes Dike's shortcomings poignantly as follows:
"He wasn't a bad leader because he made bad decisions. He was a bad leader because he made no decisions."
In both examples, the quote by General Schwarzkopf and the episode in "Band of Brothers", there is a suggestion that leaders should not succumb to the so-called "paralysis by analysis." Some times, executive leadership requires executive action. There are times when leaders will be forced to make a decision without limited information. At these crucial points, they may have to make a decision based on their "gut feelings." As the early 19th century German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote:
"He who deliberates lengthily will not always choose the best."
The question then becomes, why are some leaders hesitant to make decisions - and for that matter, why are all of us sometimes hesitant to make decisions? There are countless studies that have tried to answer this exact question, but I want to focus on just three of them. I've covered one of these studies in a previous post ( "The Tyranny of Choice"). So, let's talk about this one first. Sheena Iygengar and Mark Lepper published "When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?" in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2000. In their study, consumers were asked to select a gourmet jam from either a set of six types of jam or a larger set of 24-30 types of jam. Consumers were more likely to buy the gourmet jam when confronted with a limited number of choices. Only 3% of the consumers bought jam when confronted with the larger set of choices, while 30% of the consumers bought jam when confronted with the limited set of choices! Moreover, the consumers reported a greater degree of satisfaction after they made their selection when confronted with the limited set of choices. In other words, one of the reasons why we have difficulty making decisions, particularly under stressful conditions, is that we are seemingly paralyzed by the number of choices. Based on this study then, leaders can make their jobs easier by narrowing their focus (i.e., set priorities) and limiting the number of decision choices. Where feasible, pushing decision making authority to front line leaders and managers (see "HRO: Deference to Expertise" and "You know what to do...") can help facilitate better decision making for the times when the executive leader has to be the one to make the decision.
The second study that I want to review speaks more to the fact that we are incredibly uncomfortable making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. In a study by Amos Tversky and Eldar Shafir published in 1992 in the journal Psychological Science ("The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty"), college students were offered the choice to purchase a trip to Hawaii over winter break. There was a catch though (there's no such thing as a "free lunch" after all) - the students were told that they had taken a test before the break. If they passed, nothing further was required. However, if they failed the test, they would have to take the exam on the first day back from winter break. The vacation offer was only good for one day. Just over half of the students who passed the exam decided to purchase the vacation offer (conceivably as a reward for their test performance), while a slightly larger percentage who failed the exam decided to do so (conceivably as a consolation for failing the exam). Here's where it gets interesting. In a different group, students were told that they wouldn't find out their exam scores until after the offer to purchase the vacation had expired. Less than a third of the students chose to purchase the vacation when they didn't know how they fared on the exam! In other words, adding the element of uncertainty changed the decision to purchase the vacation offer significantly!
As I stated above, it is rare that a leader will have access to all of the information that he or she needs to make an important decision. However, by recognizing that (1) uncertainty makes us all uncomfortable and (2) that's completely okay is important. Sometimes the mere recognition that uncertainty is uncomfortable is all we need to push ourselves into making a decision. In the second part of the Tversky and Shafir experiment, students were told that they could pay money (a non-refundable $5 fee, which after all, is a lot of money for a college student) in order to delay the decision on purchasing the vacation package for a day until after they found out their exam scores. In other words, we will go to unbelievable lengths at times, just to get more information to make decisions! Leaders should avoid that temptation to eliminate all uncertainty and instead focus their efforts and energy on making the decision with the information that they have at hand.
The third and final study was published by Timothy Wilson and colleagues in 1993 in the journal, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ("Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction"). Here again, college students were given the choice of two different posters showing famous works of art to hang in their dormitories. Half of the students were asked detailed questions about why they liked or disliked one poster over the other. The remaining half of the students were told just to pick based on their gut instinct. Those students who went with their gut were much more satisfied with their decision several weeks later. In other words, we may have a tendency to over-analyze decisions to the point where we make a decision that we will later regret. Our first hunch or gut feeling really tells us how we really feel, and we should learn to pay attention.
I am not saying that we should always go with our gut instinct. I am also not saying that we shouldn't be careful about the decisions that we make. I am simply calling attention to the fact that leaders have to make decisions, at times when they are pressured to do so with limited time and limited information. The best leaders acknowledge their limitations, use what information that they have to conduct a quick analysis, and then act decisively. At times, that means going with a gut feeling. We usually know what to do - in these cases especially, it's important to just do it.
If you have been reading my blog over the years, you know that one of my favorite television mini-series was the 2001 HBO series "Band of Brothers" (based upon the book of the same name by Stephen E. Ambrose - also one of my favorites), which was produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks. The series tells the story of the men of E ("Easy") Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division from the start of their jump training in the United States and on through to the end of the European Theater of World War II. I recently watched one of the later episodes, "The Breaking Point" which occurs shortly after the famous Siege of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. The episode is a character study of good versus bad leadership during a crisis. The Company's Commanding Officer is 1st Lieutenant Norman Dike, who is the "bad leader" in the story, while the Company's First Sergeant (later promoted) Carwood Lipton is the "good leader." Lipton describes Dike's shortcomings poignantly as follows:
"He wasn't a bad leader because he made bad decisions. He was a bad leader because he made no decisions."
In both examples, the quote by General Schwarzkopf and the episode in "Band of Brothers", there is a suggestion that leaders should not succumb to the so-called "paralysis by analysis." Some times, executive leadership requires executive action. There are times when leaders will be forced to make a decision without limited information. At these crucial points, they may have to make a decision based on their "gut feelings." As the early 19th century German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote:
"He who deliberates lengthily will not always choose the best."
The question then becomes, why are some leaders hesitant to make decisions - and for that matter, why are all of us sometimes hesitant to make decisions? There are countless studies that have tried to answer this exact question, but I want to focus on just three of them. I've covered one of these studies in a previous post ( "The Tyranny of Choice"). So, let's talk about this one first. Sheena Iygengar and Mark Lepper published "When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?" in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2000. In their study, consumers were asked to select a gourmet jam from either a set of six types of jam or a larger set of 24-30 types of jam. Consumers were more likely to buy the gourmet jam when confronted with a limited number of choices. Only 3% of the consumers bought jam when confronted with the larger set of choices, while 30% of the consumers bought jam when confronted with the limited set of choices! Moreover, the consumers reported a greater degree of satisfaction after they made their selection when confronted with the limited set of choices. In other words, one of the reasons why we have difficulty making decisions, particularly under stressful conditions, is that we are seemingly paralyzed by the number of choices. Based on this study then, leaders can make their jobs easier by narrowing their focus (i.e., set priorities) and limiting the number of decision choices. Where feasible, pushing decision making authority to front line leaders and managers (see "HRO: Deference to Expertise" and "You know what to do...") can help facilitate better decision making for the times when the executive leader has to be the one to make the decision.
The second study that I want to review speaks more to the fact that we are incredibly uncomfortable making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. In a study by Amos Tversky and Eldar Shafir published in 1992 in the journal Psychological Science ("The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty"), college students were offered the choice to purchase a trip to Hawaii over winter break. There was a catch though (there's no such thing as a "free lunch" after all) - the students were told that they had taken a test before the break. If they passed, nothing further was required. However, if they failed the test, they would have to take the exam on the first day back from winter break. The vacation offer was only good for one day. Just over half of the students who passed the exam decided to purchase the vacation offer (conceivably as a reward for their test performance), while a slightly larger percentage who failed the exam decided to do so (conceivably as a consolation for failing the exam). Here's where it gets interesting. In a different group, students were told that they wouldn't find out their exam scores until after the offer to purchase the vacation had expired. Less than a third of the students chose to purchase the vacation when they didn't know how they fared on the exam! In other words, adding the element of uncertainty changed the decision to purchase the vacation offer significantly!
As I stated above, it is rare that a leader will have access to all of the information that he or she needs to make an important decision. However, by recognizing that (1) uncertainty makes us all uncomfortable and (2) that's completely okay is important. Sometimes the mere recognition that uncertainty is uncomfortable is all we need to push ourselves into making a decision. In the second part of the Tversky and Shafir experiment, students were told that they could pay money (a non-refundable $5 fee, which after all, is a lot of money for a college student) in order to delay the decision on purchasing the vacation package for a day until after they found out their exam scores. In other words, we will go to unbelievable lengths at times, just to get more information to make decisions! Leaders should avoid that temptation to eliminate all uncertainty and instead focus their efforts and energy on making the decision with the information that they have at hand.
The third and final study was published by Timothy Wilson and colleagues in 1993 in the journal, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ("Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction"). Here again, college students were given the choice of two different posters showing famous works of art to hang in their dormitories. Half of the students were asked detailed questions about why they liked or disliked one poster over the other. The remaining half of the students were told just to pick based on their gut instinct. Those students who went with their gut were much more satisfied with their decision several weeks later. In other words, we may have a tendency to over-analyze decisions to the point where we make a decision that we will later regret. Our first hunch or gut feeling really tells us how we really feel, and we should learn to pay attention.
I am not saying that we should always go with our gut instinct. I am also not saying that we shouldn't be careful about the decisions that we make. I am simply calling attention to the fact that leaders have to make decisions, at times when they are pressured to do so with limited time and limited information. The best leaders acknowledge their limitations, use what information that they have to conduct a quick analysis, and then act decisively. At times, that means going with a gut feeling. We usually know what to do - in these cases especially, it's important to just do it.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Money can't buy me love, but can it buy me happiness?
I believe it was Sir Paul McCartney who said, "I don't care too much for money, money can't buy love." Nobody said it better. But if money can't buy love, can it at least buy happiness? In other words, does having more money make people happy?
My wife and I have been extremely fortunate throughout our lives. Even during the early years of our marriage when money was tight, we always knew that there was the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. We always knew that if things got really difficult for us financially, our family would certainly help us. As I look back on all those years and compare them to now, I really can't say that being financially more secure has made me any happier.
We had a conversation recently about our respective retirement plans, specifically relating to the recent stock market declines related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Watching our retirement savings fall steadily lower each day could certainly put anyone in a bad mood. But here's the thing - that was always money for the future. While we certainly earned the money, it was never money that we actually "saw" in our pockets. So even if it seems like the last 5 years didn't really happen, at least from the perspective of our retirement plan, that's okay. We will still be okay. It may take a few years to build up our retirement, but we will be fine.
I am also not naive enough to realize that what is true for my wife and I, may not be true for everyone. As I said at the beginning, we have been incredibly fortunate. We will be okay. I worry about others who do not share in that fortune. However, I am amazed that, at least anecdotally, it is those individuals who are more financially secure than we are that are the ones who are crying the loudest about the current stock market woes. In other words, it seems that the wealthiest individuals are the ones who are most concerned about their stock market portfolio these days.
Which begs the question, does money "buy" happiness? Are those who are wealthy happier than those who are not? You won't be surprised (at least if you've been reading my blog) that there are a number of studies that have tried to answer this exact question. A couple of years ago, investigators at my alma mater, Purdue University, conducted a statistical analysis using data from the Gallup World Poll that involved over 1.7 million individuals living in over 160 countries around the world. They published their findings in the journal, Nature Human Behavior. They controlled for a variety of demographic factors, including the region and average income where individuals lived. Subjective well-being was measured using a validated scale. Income was measured in U.S. dollars and was adjusted for average purchasing power by region.
What these investigators found may surprise you. Consistent with other studies on this topic, they found that there was a positive association between subjective well-being and income. However, this relationship peaked at a certain level of income. As it turns out, once an individual made more than $95,000 per year, there was no further increase in a measure called "life evaluation," which really means life satisfaction. In fact, increases beyond this salary was associated with a slight decrease in life evaluation. These findings differed slightly by country and region of the world, but the relationships certainly held true. Emotional well-being had an even lower peak - in other words, emotional well-being increased with income up to approximately $65,000, at which point it slightly decreased with further increases in income. As reported by Purdue University, "This may be because money is important for meeting basic needs, purchasing conveniences, and maybe even loan repayments, but to a point. After the optimal point of needs is met, people may be driven by desires such as pursuing more material gains and engaging in social comparisons, which could, ironically, lower well-being."
So, based on this study, it would appear that money can buy happiness, but only up to a certain point. I think the better conclusion is this - if you are doing okay, don't worry about what is happening with the stock market. It will come back, even if it takes a few years. Worry instead about those individuals who don't have any extra money to fall back on. Worry about those who are much less fortunate than all of us.
My wife and I have been extremely fortunate throughout our lives. Even during the early years of our marriage when money was tight, we always knew that there was the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. We always knew that if things got really difficult for us financially, our family would certainly help us. As I look back on all those years and compare them to now, I really can't say that being financially more secure has made me any happier.
We had a conversation recently about our respective retirement plans, specifically relating to the recent stock market declines related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Watching our retirement savings fall steadily lower each day could certainly put anyone in a bad mood. But here's the thing - that was always money for the future. While we certainly earned the money, it was never money that we actually "saw" in our pockets. So even if it seems like the last 5 years didn't really happen, at least from the perspective of our retirement plan, that's okay. We will still be okay. It may take a few years to build up our retirement, but we will be fine.
I am also not naive enough to realize that what is true for my wife and I, may not be true for everyone. As I said at the beginning, we have been incredibly fortunate. We will be okay. I worry about others who do not share in that fortune. However, I am amazed that, at least anecdotally, it is those individuals who are more financially secure than we are that are the ones who are crying the loudest about the current stock market woes. In other words, it seems that the wealthiest individuals are the ones who are most concerned about their stock market portfolio these days.
Which begs the question, does money "buy" happiness? Are those who are wealthy happier than those who are not? You won't be surprised (at least if you've been reading my blog) that there are a number of studies that have tried to answer this exact question. A couple of years ago, investigators at my alma mater, Purdue University, conducted a statistical analysis using data from the Gallup World Poll that involved over 1.7 million individuals living in over 160 countries around the world. They published their findings in the journal, Nature Human Behavior. They controlled for a variety of demographic factors, including the region and average income where individuals lived. Subjective well-being was measured using a validated scale. Income was measured in U.S. dollars and was adjusted for average purchasing power by region.
What these investigators found may surprise you. Consistent with other studies on this topic, they found that there was a positive association between subjective well-being and income. However, this relationship peaked at a certain level of income. As it turns out, once an individual made more than $95,000 per year, there was no further increase in a measure called "life evaluation," which really means life satisfaction. In fact, increases beyond this salary was associated with a slight decrease in life evaluation. These findings differed slightly by country and region of the world, but the relationships certainly held true. Emotional well-being had an even lower peak - in other words, emotional well-being increased with income up to approximately $65,000, at which point it slightly decreased with further increases in income. As reported by Purdue University, "This may be because money is important for meeting basic needs, purchasing conveniences, and maybe even loan repayments, but to a point. After the optimal point of needs is met, people may be driven by desires such as pursuing more material gains and engaging in social comparisons, which could, ironically, lower well-being."
So, based on this study, it would appear that money can buy happiness, but only up to a certain point. I think the better conclusion is this - if you are doing okay, don't worry about what is happening with the stock market. It will come back, even if it takes a few years. Worry instead about those individuals who don't have any extra money to fall back on. Worry about those who are much less fortunate than all of us.
Sunday, March 22, 2020
"...all of this has happened before"
The ancient Roman philosopher-king, Marcus Aurelius wrote in his book Meditations, "Remember to bear in mind constantly that all of this has happened before. And will happen again - the same plot from beginning to end, the identical staging." He was referring at the time to the Antonine Plague of 165 CE, which scholars now feel was likely due to either smallpox or measles. The virus was said to have started in the East, likely in China. It spread quickly to the east, west, north, and south. It crossed borders and traveled across oceans, until it became a worldwide pandemic.
Ryan Holiday also referred to the Antonine Plague in his "Daily Stoic" blog post this past week, "The only thing that spread faster than the contagion was the fear and the rumors. People panicked. Doctors were baffled. Government officials dawdled and failed. Travel was delayed or rerouted or aborted altogether. Festivals, gatherings, sporting events - all cancelled. The economy plunged. Bodies piled up."
Sound familiar? History, as I have often said (see "Past is Prologue" and "Study the Past"), repeats itself. These kinds of worldwide pandemics are not new - just read about the Bubonic Plague (the so-called "Black Death") during the Middle Ages, the Spanish Flu of 1918, or even the cholera pandemics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The stories of these pandemics from the past are eerily familiar to those of us dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic of today.
The lesson here, which I think bears repeating. We live in a global society. Indeed, based on what I can tell from the pandemics above, we have always lived in a global society. What happens in one part of the world absolutely impacts what happens on the opposite end. That was the way it was during the Antonine Plague, the Black Death, and the Spanish Flu, and that is the way it is today. We are all connected - in many ways, we are even more connected now than we ever have been in the past.
Any attempt to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world simply will not work. We are all interconnected. Just look at what has happened with our supply chains. Why do we hear so muchg about shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE)? Just take a guess where most of the PPE we use today is made? China. What about the recent concerns about a shortage of the nasal swabs that are so essential to testing for COVID-19? Guess where they are made. Italy.
Consider the so-called "butterfly effect" from chaos theory. It is metaphorical for sure, but illustrative of what I am talking about here. It states that when a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil, there will be a tornado in Texas. Why does this happen? Again, speaking purely in metaphors, small events in one part of the world can have drastically different effects in another simply because we are all connected in a large-scale system. The decisions that are local and national leaders make today will have an impact on what happens all around the world.
We would do well to remember this lesson. "All of this has happened before." And it will surely happen again.
Ryan Holiday also referred to the Antonine Plague in his "Daily Stoic" blog post this past week, "The only thing that spread faster than the contagion was the fear and the rumors. People panicked. Doctors were baffled. Government officials dawdled and failed. Travel was delayed or rerouted or aborted altogether. Festivals, gatherings, sporting events - all cancelled. The economy plunged. Bodies piled up."
Sound familiar? History, as I have often said (see "Past is Prologue" and "Study the Past"), repeats itself. These kinds of worldwide pandemics are not new - just read about the Bubonic Plague (the so-called "Black Death") during the Middle Ages, the Spanish Flu of 1918, or even the cholera pandemics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The stories of these pandemics from the past are eerily familiar to those of us dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic of today.
The lesson here, which I think bears repeating. We live in a global society. Indeed, based on what I can tell from the pandemics above, we have always lived in a global society. What happens in one part of the world absolutely impacts what happens on the opposite end. That was the way it was during the Antonine Plague, the Black Death, and the Spanish Flu, and that is the way it is today. We are all connected - in many ways, we are even more connected now than we ever have been in the past.
Any attempt to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world simply will not work. We are all interconnected. Just look at what has happened with our supply chains. Why do we hear so muchg about shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE)? Just take a guess where most of the PPE we use today is made? China. What about the recent concerns about a shortage of the nasal swabs that are so essential to testing for COVID-19? Guess where they are made. Italy.
Consider the so-called "butterfly effect" from chaos theory. It is metaphorical for sure, but illustrative of what I am talking about here. It states that when a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil, there will be a tornado in Texas. Why does this happen? Again, speaking purely in metaphors, small events in one part of the world can have drastically different effects in another simply because we are all connected in a large-scale system. The decisions that are local and national leaders make today will have an impact on what happens all around the world.
We would do well to remember this lesson. "All of this has happened before." And it will surely happen again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)