The GOAT is coming back...

I woke up this morning to the news that former (and I say "former" since he officially retired about two months ago) Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback Tom Brady is returning to football for at least one more season.  I know that Brady is a polarizing figure - most people either love him or hate him!  However, I don't think there is any question or controversy that Brady is one of the, if not the, greatest quarterbacks who ever played the game.  

Brady is a seven-time Super Bowl champion (in fact, he's won more Super Bowls as a player than any other team in the history of the NFL - his former team, the New England Patriots and the Pittsburgh Steelers have each won the Super Bowl six times), five-time Super Bowl Most Valuable Player (MVP), three-time NFL MVP, and college football National Champion (he led the University of Michigan to the college football national championship in 1997).  Brady holds the NFL records for most career quarterback wins, most career passing attempts, most career passing completions, most career passing yards, and most career passing touchdowns.  

We tend to throw around labels such as "greatest of all time" loosely.  Based on the evidence, I think that when it comes to Tom Brady, such labels are appropriate.  Here's the question though.  Even if there's no argument that Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time, is it fair to say that he is the greatest football player of all time?  In order to answer that question, we have to decide whether the quarterback is the most important player on the team.

Harvard Business School professor, Boris Groysberg, recently answered this question in a study published in the Harvard Business Review.  I've posted about Groysberg in the past (he previously conducted a number of studies on the so-called "Portability Paradox", the concept that "superstar employees" fail to achieve a similar degree of success when they move to new organizations).  More specifically, Groysberg and his colleagues set out to determine which individual was the most important for the success of an NFL franchise - the quarterback, the head coach, the general manager, or the owner.  

The quarterback position has become increasingly important over the last couple of decades.  Since the 1970 NFL draft (which was the year that the Pittsburgh Steelers selected Hall of Fame quarterback Terry Bradshaw with the number one pick), teams have selected a quarterback with the first overall pick in the draft 26 times.  Quarterbacks are usually the highest-paid players on the team by a substantial margin.  The quarterback is the leader on the field, and most quarterbacks also serve as one of the team captains (making them leaders off the field too).

However, one could certainly argue that the head coach, general manager, and owner are equally important too.  The head coach influences all three phases of the game - offense, defense, and special teams, making key decisions both on and off the field.  It's no coincidence that the NFL's championship trophy is named after legendary head coach Vince Lombardi!  The general manager is in charge of evaluating and recruiting talent, through free agency, the draft, or via trades.  The general manager puts the team together (including the quarterback), so that the head coach can implement and execute the strategy for winning.  Finally, the owner is the individual who sets the ultimate tone for the team's identity and mission. 

Groysberg's team analyzed 38 seasons worth of data and found that the four leaders (quarterback, head coach, general manager, and owner) accounted for 68% of the variance in NFL team performance.  Owners were the least important (accounting for 11% of the variance), while the quarterback was the most important (accounting for 37% of the variance).  General managers and head coaches accounted for 22% and 29% of the variance, respectively.

They analyzed the data further, dividing the 38 seasons into two groups in half (19 seasons in the 20th century versus 19 seasons in the 21st century).  Quarterbacks significantly increased in level of performance in the 21st century.  The NFL game has changed significantly, with greater emphasis on offense (and passing, in particular), which likely accounts for this trend.

What are the lessons for those of us who aren't working in the NFL?  Groysberg suggests that the capability to execute has become critically important for all organizations, not just for teams in the NFL.  The classic view of leaders of coming up with great ideas, visions, and strategy is certainly still true today, but the need to execute on the vision and strategy is equally important.  The take-home message is that organizations need to have strong "quarterbacks" who excel when it comes to execution and operations.

Is Tom Brady the greatest quarterback of all time?  Absolutely.  Is he the greatest football player of all time?  In my mind, it's hard to argue otherwise.  

Soup bowls and light bulbs

During the early days of the pandemic, I picked up a biography of the inventor Thomas Edison by Edmund Morris.  By all accounts, Edison was a genius and prolific inventor with over 1,000 patents to his name.  He is credited with the invention of the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and most famously, an early version of the electric light bulb.  

Edison was once asked by a reporter how it felt to have failed 1,000 times when trying to invent the light bulb, and he is said to have replied, "I didn't fail 1,000 times, I just found 1,000 ways how not to build a light bulb."  There are so many different versions of this quote, that I suspect that's not exactly what he said.  Regardless, his persistence and resilience are without question and ultimately were foundational to his prolific success as an inventor.  Here are a few additional quotes:

"Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time."

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up."

"When you have exhausted all possibilities, remember this - you haven't."

"Negative results are just what I want. They’re just as valuable to me as positive results. I can never find the thing that does the job best until I find the ones that don’t."

There's no question that Edison was a man who was far ahead of his time.  He is also known for applying the scientific principles of management and organizational behavior to the process of invention.  Edison established his laboratory in Menlo Park, New Jersey in 1876, and while he is credited with most of the inventions produced there, the team of scientists and engineers that he directed performed most of the work.

I recently learned about another of Edison's innovations in a Medium post by Andrew Martin.  He had a unique way of interviewing potential job candidates for his Menlo Park laboratory (which reminds me a lot of the way that Google famously interviews potential employees).  Consistent with his tendency to micromanage everything at Menlo Park, Edison insisted on being personally involved with choosing every member of his staff.  He reportedly would ask job candidates to eat a bowl of soup in front of him!  

I know what you are thinking.  No, candidates didn't show up at Menlo Park, sit in front of Edison in his office, and have a bowl of soup placed in front of them.  Rather, they were invited out for dinner as part of the interview, and Edison would order a bowl of soup for the candidate (note that going out to dinner is a frequent part of every job interview, particularly after the initial screening interview).

Edison would closely observe whether the candidate added salt and pepper to their soup before first tasting it.  He immediately rejected the individuals who seasoned their soup before tasting it!  He reasoned that these individuals relied too much on assumptions.  Martin explained further, "Edison immediately rejected the premature seasoners, as he reasoned he didn't want employees who relied on assumptions. In his opinion, those who were content to abide by preconceived notions had no place in his business, because the absence of curiosity and willingness to ask questions were antithetical to innovation."

Apparently, Edison also liked to ask candidates (during the dinner conversation) random trivia questions, such as where prunes came from, what was felt, and who invented printing.  These questions were his informal way of assessing the individual's intelligence and creativity.

Again, Edison's interview technique reminds me a lot of how Google approaches interviews.  While a bit bizarre, Edison's technique is pure genius.  The overwhelming evidence suggests that interviews, at least as they are typically conducted, are pretty much useless!  Even so-called behavioral-based interviewing techniques aren't as effective as most people think (see this Inc post by Adam Grant).  Most studies suggest that the best way to identify the best person for a job is to actually have that individual perform the job.  For a lot of reasons, the "on the job" test is not very practical (however, medical schools and residency training programs have started using the multiple mini interview technique, which frequently includes some kind of skills assessment using simulation).  

The important point here, and my take-home message, is that (1) unstructured interviews are useless, (2) structured interviews are better than unstructured ones, but still not quite as helpful, and (3) more research needs to be performed on the best ways to identify talented individuals who are an appropriate fit for a particular position in an organization.  I suspect that we will continue to see more research in this area, which is desperately needed.  For now, perhaps we should take a cue from the "Wizard of Menlo Park" and require everyone to eat soup!

Murphy's Law, the U.S. Navy SEALs, and High Reliability Organizations

The word "mindfulness" is thrown around a lot these days.  I have both personally used and have come across this term in my own research in a couple of different contexts, most recently referring to the epidemic of burnout in health care workers, with "mindfulness" being one recommended strategy to mitigate burnout.  Here in this context, the word generally refers to a number of different techniques, including meditation, relaxation, deep breathing, and stress reduction, all with the goal of reducing stress, anxiety, and emotional exhaustion.

"Mindfulness" has also been used in the context of organizational safety.  Mindfulness, in this context, is an important attribute of what the organizational psychologist Karl Weick and many others call high reliabilty organizations (HROs).  I generally prefer the term "situation awareness", a concept from the human factors literature first popularized by the industrial engineer Mica Endsley.  "Mindfulness" and "situation awareness" essentially describe the same concept.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines "mindfulness" as "the quality or state of being mindful" or "the practice of maintaining a nonjudgmental state of heightened or complete awareness of one's thoughts, emotions, or experiences on a moment-to-moment basis."  On a side note, don't you just love how dictionary's define words using other words that you have to look up too! "Mindful" here means "awareness."  Today, I want to focus on the former Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, which seems to refer to the Karl Weick / Mica Endsley version, as opposed to the latter definition, which seems to refer to the burnout version.

Keith Grint (see also his work on "wicked problems" and my post, "What style of leadership works best?" for more about Grint's work on leadership and management) and his colleagues, Amy Fraher and Layla Jane Branicki recently examined the role of mindfulness in high reliability organizations in a study involving United States Navy SEALs, an elite commando unit whose main function is conducting small-unit special operation missions in a variety of different environments.  The selection and training of U.S. Navy SEALs continues to be a subject of interest for investigators in psychology, leadership, and organizational behavior (see, for example, studies on resilience, mindsets, and combat stress and the so-called "fog of war").  Given the level of high performance exhibited by Navy SEALs in their day-to-day operations, it's easy to understand why there is so much interest in learning from this prototypical high reliability organization.

Pertinent to the topic of discussion, most high reliability organizations (aircraft carriers, nuclear power plants, and air traffic control towers) are usually highly regulated through the use of rules and regulations, standardized processes, and checklists.  However, Karl Weick and Kathleen Sutcliffe have shown that the reliable performance of these organizations is more often due to "mindfulness", which they define as the capacity to detect and correct errors (awareness) and the ability to adapt to unexpected events before small events turn into catastrophic failures (resilience).  They describe five hallmarks of "mindfulness" in their classic book, Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty:

1. Preoccupation with failure

2. Reluctance to simplify

3. Sensitivity to operations

4. Commitment to resilience

5. Deference to expertise

Grint and his colleagues extend Weick and Sutcliffe's findings further, adding a sixth hallmark of high reliability organizations - Comfort with uncertainty and chaos.  As Weick and Sutcliffe explain, "ugly surprises are most likely to show up."  I am sure you've heard of Murphy's Law - "If anything can go wrong, it will."  The world is filled with uncertainty, and high reliability organizations not only understand this, but they also are comfortable with it.

They conducted their study in three phases.  During the first phase, the research team conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve active or retired Navy SEALs, focusing specifically on how these SEAL teams work in such a high-risk field and make sense of unusual and escalating crisis situations.  Two broad themes emerged from this initial phase - "comfort with uncertainty and chaos" and "a positive orientation toward failure."  

Were these common characteristics of all Navy SEALs?  If so, were these characteristics identified in individuals who were selected as SEAL candidates, or did SEALs develop these characteristics during the rigorous training program? In order to answer these questions, the team collected over 600 pages of research documents from governmental studies involved SEAL recruitment, selection, and training processes during the second phase of the study.  Notably, while several SEAL candidate screening tests had been developed over time, none of them identified or screened for attitudes towards uncertainty, chaos, failure, or even the other HRO characteristics listed above.

During the third and final phase of the study, the research team reviewed and analyzed over 6 hours of video footage from a number of documentaries and government-sponsored recruiting videos that were in the public domain (see the Discovery television mini-series, Navy SEALs: BUDS Class 234, as one example (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL Training, or BUD/S is a 24-week selection and training course for all Navy SEALs, with a completion rate of less than 25%).  Three broad areas emerged for further categorization and analysis - physical failure, mental failure, and team failure.  

Importantly, the researchers found that Navy SEALs were indeed preoccupied with failure, one of the defining characteristics of a high reliability organization.  However, what they didn't expect to find was that the SEALs were more focused on adjusting to failure.  They had accepted that failure is not only likely, but it is also highly probable.  All the SEALs acknowledged that it was most important not to quit after failing, but to use that failure as a learning opportunity and moving on.  The researchers stated that "learning from failure implies a willingness to take risks and embrace unconventional thinking."  Key to this "learning from failure" was the acceptance and comfort with uncertainty and chaos, which "allows them [the Navy SEALs] to innovate, experiment, and even fail as long as they prepared as much as possible, gave their best effort, and learned from the experience."

Building upon the HRO research performed to date, the research team developed a concept they called "mindfulness in action" to explain their observations, which consists of attributes of both individual mindfulness (comfort with uncertainty and chaos) and collective (group) mindfulness (freedom to fail - a positive orientation towards failure).  In so doing, they added "comfort with uncertainty and chaos" as the sixth characteristic of high reliability organizations.

Before I end this post, I would like to return to the definitions of mindfulness that I mentioned in the first few paragraphs.  As I think about both the "burnout version" of the definition (think meditation and deep breathing) and the "HRO version" of the definition (think "situation awareness"), it seems that they are maybe not as different as I originally stated.  Let me explain.  You can't begin to (1) pay attention to discriminatory detail, (2) engage in the present, (3) be flexible to opportunities, and (4) be open to emerging realities (to use the oft cited definition of mindfulness by Ellen Langer, known as the "Mother of Mindfulness", i.e. the "HRO version") unless you have first opened your mind and placed yourself in a different state (as in the "burnout version" of mindfulness)!  As it turns out, Karl Weick thought so too (see "Organizing for Mindfulness: Eastern Wisdom and Western Knowledge").

I believe there is a lot we can learn from high reliability organizations.  But then, if you've been reading my post over the years, you already know how I feel!  Grint and his team ended their research paper with a very powerful statement, and so I will end with it as well.  "If we can manage to maintain high levels of safety, reliabilitym and success in HRO environments such as nuclear safety, aviation, and in this case, Navy SEALs, it is likely that equivalent levels of high performance are achievable within a wide range of reliability-seeking organizations in less risky contexts."  In other words, there's hope for us!

International Women's Day 2022

Today, March 8th, we celebrate International Women's Day!  While there were forerunners to this special day, International Women's Day was first celebrated officially by the United Nations in 1977.  While we celebrate the social, economic, cultural, and political achievements of women, today also serves as a call to action for accelerating women's equality. The theme for this year's celebration is "Gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow."

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women in the workforce (please see the links to reports by McKinsey & Company and the Brookings Institution for more information on this particular issue).  However, in spite of these challenges with the pandemic, according to McKinsey's "Women in the Workplace 2021" survey, gender diversity improved on almost every level in the corporate hierarchy during 2020.  Unfortunately, while we've made demonstrable progress in the past several years, it's clear that we have a long way to go to achieve the vision of gender equality, both within and outside of the health care industry.  

McKinsey & Company calls it the "broken rung" (referring to the "corporate ladder").  Women are promoted to manager, which is often the entry level to the upper echelons of management, at far lower rates than men.  For every 100 men promoted to manager, only 86 women are promoted, which means that far fewer women are available for promotion to higher level management positions.  As a result, women are underrepresented at the senior-manager, director, and vice-president levels compared to men.  

There is no question that a diverse workplace is a better workplace.  Several studies have shown the benefits of having women in the workforce, particularly in positions of leadership.  Organizations with women in leadership positions have been shown to outperform organizations with less diversity.  On average, these organizations have 48% higher operating margins and 45% higher earnings per share compared to their peers.  Gender-diverse teams make better business decisions up to 73% of the time when compared to their less diverse peers.  

As it turns out, one of the most effective ways that we can address gender diversity and equality issues in the workforce is to increase the number of women in leadership positions.  It seems obvious, but the studies show that when women are in leadership positions, the number of women in the workforce also increases.  Again, McKinsey's "Women in the Workplace 2021" survey found that women leaders are more supportive of their teams compared to their male peers (see the Figure below).

Women leaders are twice as likely as men to spend time outside of their normal job responsibilities to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion at least weekly.  They are also more likely to champion work-life integration and actively intervene to address burnout.  A study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that hiring women into senior leadership positions is associated with a reduction in gender stereotypes in organizational language.  In other words, hiring women into leadership creates a work environment that is more inclusive and favorable to fostering the growth and development of future women leaders!  There is a "critical mass" or tipping point (probably occurring when 20% of the individuals in an organization are women) at which the work environment becomes more inclusive and less tolerant of bias, discrimination, and outright harassment.  When women are in positions of leadership, this "critical mass" likely occurs at a much lower percentage of the workforce.  

Gender inequality has been deemed the "greatest human rights challenge of our time" by the United Nations.  What can we as leaders do to celebrate International Women's Day every day?  Mary Sharp Emerson, writing in a post earlier this year for the Harvard Professional Development blog suggested that senior leaders (who are still predominantly white men) can lead the way forward by making sure that women have the same opportunities for advancement, promotion, and career growth as their male co-workers:

1. Establish clear (and transparent) job performance evaluation criteria

2. Analyze corporate HR data by gender and by race

3. Actively prepare women for leadership roles

4. Develop nuanced strategies for sponsorship

5. Discover the value of diverse leadership styles

6. Be willing to engage in honest discussions of gender and racial bias

Today, we celebrate women everywhere and remind ourselves of the work that still lies ahead.  "Gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow." #BreaktheBias

Don't lose your cool!

If you've been reading my blog posts in the past, you know that I have been reading a lot about the philosophy of Stoicism (see for example, "To be a Stoic in today's world - part 1", "Hard winter training", or  "I wish" for posts specifically covering topics on Stoicism).  I subscribe to the Daily Stoic blog by Ryan Holiday, and I read passages from his book, The Daily Stoic: 366 Meditations on Wisdom, Perseverance, and the Art of Living every day.  I recently started reading several books from some of the ancient Stoic philosophers (for example, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, The Enchiridion by Epictetus, and Letters from a Stoic by Seneca).

Today's lesson from Stoicism included the following passage from Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, which he in turn copied from the ancient Greek tragedy Bellerophon, by Euripides:

"You shouldn't give circumstances the power to rouse anger, for they don't care at all."

Bellerophon was a hero from Greek mythology (considered "the greatest hero and slayer of monsters, alongside Cadmus and Perseus, before the days of Heracles").  He is best known for killing the Chimera, a fire-breathing monster with a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail.  He also captured the winged horse, Pegasus and earned the disfavor of the gods after he tried to ride Pegasus to Mount Olympus.  It is this latter feat that is the subject of Euripides' lost tragedy, Bellerophon.  

Enough of the history lesson, let's get back to Stoicism.  One of the fundamental tenets of Stoic philosophy is the concept of control.  Specifically, you should always (and only) focus on what is inside your control, not on what is outside your control.  Epictetus famously stated, "Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our actions."  

We are in control of our actions and our response to events, and not to the events or circumstances themselves.  Have you ever sat in an airport waiting for a flight that has been delayed?  It seems to be a fairly common occurrence these days.  The last time my wife and I were on vacation at the beach (which seems like ages ago), there was a large storm moving slowly across the southeastern portion of the United States.  Our flight back home kept getting delayed - the inbound aircraft was apparently waiting on the tarmac in Atlanta.  We waited for several hours in the airport.  Finally, late in the evening, we heard from the gate attendant that the inbound aircraft was landing shortly and that we would be boarding soon.  As we waited in line to board, we watched as the flight crew exited the plane and slowly walked away from the gate.  The gate attendant then announced that the flight crew had "timed out" and that the flight was going to be re-scheduled for the morning.  Ugh!

My wife and I watched as a number of passengers on our flight became quite unruly.  One woman started yelling at the gate attendant.  Admittedly, both the airline and the gate attendant could have handled the situation better.  However, regardless of how much yelling the woman did, she was still not going to fly out that night.  

Marcus Aurelius would argue that the woman made the mistake of giving her circumstances the power to rouse her anger.  As Ryan Holiday writes, "Circumstances do not change as a result of how angry you get at them."  Epictetus tells us that we have the power to choose how we respond to circumstances.  We don't have any power over how those circumstances arise or play out.  We can choose to be angry - but why?  Will that make the situation any different?  Probably not.

We should always focus on what we can control and what we can change.  If something is out of our control (or if we can't change it), the Stoics tell us that we shouldn't waste any time or energy on it.  It's not easy to do, but there is no point in losing your cool over something that you have absolutely no control over.

"It's better to be lucky than good..."

One of our daughter's elementary school teachers used to give all the students in her class a peppermint candy before every test.  She claimed that the peppermint "woke everyone up" (i.e. increased their level of alertness), so that they would perform better on the test.  Later, that same daughter tested that theory in her science fair project (just for the record, she concluded that peppermints didn't improve test performance).  Regardless, my wife, who is a middle school math teacher, still gives her students a peppermint before every major test.

We are all superstitious to some extent.  Most of us believe in luck, and a lot of us own "good luck charms."  Famously, the basketball superstar, Michael Jordan, used to wear his old University of North Carolina gym shorts underneath his Chicago Bulls uniform for good luck.  If you're a golf fan, you know Tiger Woods always wore a red shirt on Sundays (typically the last day of the tournament), again for good luck.    The University of Notre Dame football team famously has worn green jerseys (the official school colors are blue and gold) for big games.

If you have ever crossed your fingers, uttered the phrase "knock on wood", searched the ground for a four-leaf clover, or carried any form of "good luck charm" (rabbit's foot, medallion, etc), there's a good chance that you believe, at least partially, in superstitions.  The dictionary defines superstition as a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief (as an aside, the singer Stevie Wonder has a great song called Superstition that lists a number of common superstitions - check it out here).  

Studies have shown that people are more likely to resort to superstitions when they are feeling uncertain, stressed, or lack control.  We experience a number of these feelings when we are in situations where we have to perform at our best (e.g. before a major exam or an important game).  It is during these same situations where we often resort to our belief in good luck, and it is that belief in luck that gives us a reason to be optimistic, hopeful, and confident that things will work out in our favor.  That, in essence, is what gives "luck" its power.  Feeling optimistic, hopeful, and confident actually increases the chance that we will be successful - optimism, hope, and confidence fuels better performance.  If "luck" is the source of that optimism, hope, and confidence, by extension it is that same "luck" that drives us to better performance!

Three investigators from the University of Cologne actually tested this relationship in a study published in the journal, Psychological Science ("Keep Your Fingers Crossed! How Superstition Improves Performance").  They conducted four separate experiments, all of which tested performance on a certain skill-based task (e.g., putting a golf ball or a memory task similar to the game Concentration).  Study participants were randomized to one of two groups - experimental group, in which luck-related superstitions were activated by a saying ("break a leg"), action ("cross your fingers"), or a lucky charm and a control group (no luck-related superstitions).  Activating a good luck superstition in these ways all significantly improved subsequent performance on one of these skill tasks or tests of memory.  Based on surveys conducted during these experiments, the investigators showed that the performance-enhancing effects of luck were mediated by an increase in the participants' perceived level of confidence in completing the task!

This is obviously just one study, but other investigators have found similar results and made similar conclusions.  I still believe, rather strongly, that there is no substitute for talent, hard work, dedication, and commitment.  As Thomas Jefferson once said, "I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."  I also believe, again rather strongly, that we make our own luck (see one of my older posts from 2017, "Good luck is the twin of hard work").  Perhaps this study (and the others like it) suggest that we all use a little superstition too.  

Givers and Takers - One Last Time

You've probably figured out by now that I really, really enjoyed Adam Grant's book, Give and Take.  It's probably one of those books that I will read over and again many times - it's really that good.  While researching some of the points he made in his book, I came across a couple of interesting quotes that build upon what I talked about in my last post, The Giving Tree.

An anonymous person said, "Givers need to set limits, because takers rarely do."  

The author Mary Anne Radmacher said, "As we work to create light for others, we naturally light our own way."

Grant's concept again, as I discussed last time, is that the workforce can be divided into givers, takers, and matchers.  The givers are the ones who are most successful, but only if they are what Grant calls otherish givers and not self-sacrificing givers.  Otherish givers balance serving others with serving themselves.  They clearly are more altruistic than either the takers or the matchers, but they avoid the pathological altruism that contributes to burnout and loss of productivity.  Here then is one potential strategy to avoid burnout - set limits and balance your own welfare with that of the ones you are trying to help.  

Grant frequently talks about a study he conducted at a telephone call center.  The call center solicited donations from alumni, and the rate of rejection was very high (approaching 90%).  Callers were required to ask for a donation at least three times during a call, and as you can imagine, the simple act of facing constant rejection was burning them out.  The rate of turnover at the center was very high, even though the job was one of the highest paying jobs for students on campus.

Grant found that, contrary to his previous research, the givers were dropping out and failing at a much higher rate than the takers!  When he visited the center, he noticed a sign on one of the caller's desks (clearly one of the givers):

What was going on here?  Grant thought that the givers were burning out because they weren't able to see a connection between what they were doing (soliciting donations from alumni) and who they were helping (the students at the university).  The takers were completely fine with working at a job with a high wage.  The givers were not motivated by the money - they needed something more.

Grant brought in letters from some of the students who had received scholarship money from the school (which came from alumni donations).  When these letters were read aloud at the weekly staff meetings, the givers quickly caught up with the takers.  Calls increased, and more importantly, donations increased too.  Next, Grant actually brought in some of the scholarship recipients to meet with the callers face-to-face.  Shortly thereafter, givers doubled the number of calls per hour and minutes on the phone per week, and average weekly donations increased from $185 to just over $500!  Making a connection between the work and the individuals they are trying to help was one of the key factors in avoiding burnout.

The researchers Olga Klimecki and Tania Singer go on to suggest that givers develop signs of burnout (and even compassion fatigue) when they work with people in need and are unable to make a difference, for whatever reason.  I suspect that this is a major driver of burnout in health care, particularly when our health care delivery system is measured by things that may not necessarily be in our span of control (I've posted on this subject before, see for example, "You give to get to give" and "Invest your money wisely...").  There is nothing more frustrating, more de-motivating, more stressful than being held accountable for something that is beyond your control.  Unfortunately, physicians and nurses are often placed in that exact situation.  And it's not just in health care - I suspect that the so-called Great Resignation (also known as the "Big Quit") is in large measure due to employee burnout.

Susan Scott, author of Fierce Leadership said, "Burnout happens, not because we're trying to solve problems but because we've been trying to solve the same problem over and over and over," which brings me to my final point about the key drivers of burnout in health care.  Health care providers are more likely to develop burnout when they feel like they are not making a difference.  As just one quick example, I once had a long conversation with a frustrated pediatrician whose patient with chronic lung disease kept getting worse because her parents refused to quit smoking.  The child kept getting admitted to the hospital for lung problems that were directly attributable to secondhand smoke exposure.

We have a lot of work to do in health care to address the burnout epidemic.  Building on my last post, we can all start by being otherish givers.  As leaders, we need to do a better job at "connecting the dots" so that our workers can witness the impact of what they do on a daily basis.  Also, we should stop holding individuals accountable for things that are just not under their control.  Lastly, we need to find a way to break the repetitive cycle where we force our workers to solve the same problems over and over and over again.