"We are Family"

The 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates were loaded with talent, but by June 1st of that year, they were sitting in fourth place in the NL East Division with a Win-Loss record of 23-21, six games behind the Division leading Montreal Expos.  Their game against the San Diego Padres was delayed due to rain, and the clubhouse was rather morose and disengaged.  Nobody really wanted to be there on that night.  Willie Stargell, the Pirates' team leader (and future Hall of Famer) decided that the team needed a wake-up call.  During rain delays, the Three Rivers Stadium staff usually played the newest episode of "This Week in Baseball" on the scoreboard or played hit songs over the public address system.  On this night, they were playing music.

Pirates reliever Kent Tekulve tells what happened next, "Willie happens to be sitting at the far end of the dugout where the phones were at.  There was one phone for the bullpen. And there was one phone for the press box. Well, Willie just reaches up and grabs the press box telephone."  

Stargell tells the Pirates PR Director, Joe Safety, "Joe, when this song is done, I want you to make the announcement that this is the official Pirates clubhouse song."  The song was the pop music hit "We are Family" by Sister Sledge.  And that's what Safety did - once the song came over the public address system, the scoreboard announces, "We are Family, The Official Song of the 1979 Pirates."  Stargell originally thought of it as a joke, but the team responded and ended up winning the game.  The Pirates ended up finishing the season with a Win-Loss record of 98-64, winning the NL East by two games over the Expos. They beat the Cincinnati Reds to win their ninth National League pennant, and then they came back from a 3-1 deficit to defeat the Baltimore Orioles to win their fifth World Series title.  They were World Champions, and "We are Family" had become their theme song.

Stargell, at the age of 39 years, became the first (and so far only) player to win the National League's Most Valuable Player (MVP), the National League Championship Series MVP, and the World Series MVP in a single season.  Stargell said of the "We are Family Pirates", "There's really no words to put into the way I feel. We had to scratch, we had to crawl, and we did it together because we are family.  We didn't mean to be sassy or fancy, but we felt the song typified our ballclub."

The 1979 "We are Family Pirates" is a great story.  But can we really say that the team was really a family?  I see and hear both organizations and employees within organizations describing their culture like a family ("Welcome to the [insert company name] family").  Several years ago at a previous organization, I heard employees talking about how the organization had become too corporate and lamenting the fact that the older culture was more like a family.

If you look at how much time we spend at work (I've seen statistics suggesting that approximately 1/3 of our life is spent at work), it's tempting to want to feel like we can be ourselves at work and that we can rely upon the emotional support from our co-workers, just like we would do from the members of our family.  Unfortunately, most experts suggest that comparing an organization to a family is neither appropriate nor realistic.  As Joshua Luna writes in the Harvard Business Review (see his article, "The Toxic Effects of Branding Your Workplace a Family"), "While some aspects of a family culture, like respect, empathy, caring, a sense of belonging can add value, ultimately trying to sell your organization's culture as family-like can be more harmful than psychologically satisfying."  

Luna goes on to suggest that when we try to describe an organization's culture like that of a family, the personal and professional lines begin to blur.  Not everyone wants to feel a deeper family-like connection with their fellow employees.  There are things that we would probably share with our family members in confidence that we would never share with colleagues at work.  In addition, making a comparison between an organization and a family assumes that family life is always positive and nurturing, and that's unfortunately not always the case.  Some families are dysfunctional, so why would we want that kind of environment at work?  

We wouldn't think twice about bending over backwards to help a family member out, and that may be true when it comes to some of our colleagues at work too.  Loyalty and teamwork are certainly positive aspects of an organization's culture, though too much loyalty can have negative aspects too.  For example, blogger Johnny Handsome suggests that a family-like organizational culture brings with it unspoken expectations and pressure to behave in ways that encroach upon our personal lives. He writes, "While these expectations are rarely articulated, they are palpably present, creating an environment where declining to participate can lead to feelings of guilt and fear of being perceived as not a team player."  Joe Pinsker, writing for The Atlantic magazine (see "The Dark Side of Saying Work is Like a Family"), adds, "When I hear something like We're like a family here, I silently complete the analogy: We’ll foist obligations upon you, expect your unconditional devotion, disrespect your boundaries, and be bitter if you prioritize something above us."

We know that diverse teams are stronger and more productive (see my previous posts, "How groups can make better decisions..." and "What's good for the hive is good for the bee").  Pinsker writes, "Families can be unwelcoming to outsiders, especially when it comes to differences in class, race, or sexuality."  Tessa West, author of Jerks at Work: Toxic Coworkers and What to Do About Them, suggest, "Family implies a degree of similarity, of being a good culture fit."  We all have biases and opinions, and we often share those with our family members.  The lack of diversity of thought within an organizational "family" can be counterproductive.

It can be difficult at times to hold a family member accountable.  Family members tend to overlook negative or even harmful comments from other family members.  Cynthia Pong, a New York-based career coach says, "I have seen that happen in the workplace, excusing people who've maybe been around the company for some time, and really not holding them to account for the highly problematic things they may be saying or doing."  Luna emphasizes, "You don't fire a family member, nor do you put them through performance improvement plans."  Similarly, studies have shown that employees who work in a family-like culture are less likely to report any wrongdoing.  Luna adds, "Numerous examples and research show that overly loyal people are more likely to participate in unethical acts to keep their jobs and are also more likely to be exploited by their employer."  

I think that organizations should focus on creating a culture that focuses on empathy, a sense of belonging, and a shared purpose.  Luna suggests that organizations should be more like a sports team and less like a family, writing that "in doing so, you retain a culture of empathy, collectiveness, belonging, and shared values and goals, while outlining a performance-driven culture that respects the transactional nature of this relationship."  In order to take advantage of all the positive aspects of a family culture and avoid all of the negative ones, organizations should:

1. Define high performance and focus on purpose.  Organizations should shift from the family-like culture of "We're all in this together" to the sports team-like culture of "We share the same purpose."

2. Set clear boundaries.  As Luna writes, "The grayer the policy, the more opportunities for misunderstanding.  Make sure employees understand what's expected when it comes to work hours and what lies beyond standard work hours."

3. Mutually accept the temporary and professional nature.  Luna makes an important point here.  He suggests, "We have to be realistic about the relationships employees build with their employers and remember that it is transactional.  Most won't stay at the same company for their entire career, and that's completely okay."

I want to close with some final thoughts from the blogger Candace Coleman ("The Pitfalls of Projecting a Family Culture at Work"), who writes, "Organizations that want to convey a family-like dynamic may have good intentions. However, doing so can open the door for blurred professional and personal boundaries, limit professional growth, and lead to excessive conformity. All of this can be detrimental to employee wellbeing and job satisfaction, which can undermine the company’s success.  Instead, leaders should focus on developing organizational culture that promotes collaboration and a shared purpose and provides a wellspring of support and respect that employees need to thrive."

"Everything else is just sand..."

I came across an online video (courtesy of one of my LinkedIn connections) that I thought was great, so I wanted to share it here.  In the video, a teacher is using a glass jar filled with golf balls (among other things) to make an important point to his students.  Here's the link to the video: A Valuable Lesson For a Happier Life.  I think the original story comes from Stephen Covey, but I am not 100% sure.

The teacher starts with an empty glass jar, to which he adds several golf balls.  He then turns to the students and asks, "Is this jar full?"  Some students nod, others answer "Yes".  Not every one agrees though.

Next, the teacher adds a smaller jar full of pebbles.  He asks again, "Is the jar full now?"  More students nod and say "Yes" this time.

The teacher then reaches into his bag and pulls out a small jar filled with sand.  He then pours the sand into the jar with the golf balls and pebbles.  He asks one last time, "Is the jar full?"  Everyone answers in the affirmative this time.

At least in the version of the video I watched, he next pulls out two bottles of beer, opens one, and pours the contents into the jar, which by this time, is obviously full.

The teacher then turns to the students and offers a simple, yet powerful explanation.  The golf balls represent the most important things in our life, such as family, friends, health, and our hobbies.  The pebbles represent other important things (but not quite as important as the golf ball things) in our life, such as our job, our home, or our car.  The sand represents everything else.  The small stuff that is just not that important (sorry, sand).

The metaphor is that if you spend all of your time and energy focusing on the small things, you won't have time in your life for the most important things.  If the teacher had started by filling the large empty jar with sand, he wouldn't have had any room left over for the golf balls or the pebbles.  So it is true for life.

At the very end, one of the students raises his hand and asks the teacher, "What does the beer represent?"  The teacher replies, "I'm glad you asked.  It goes to show you that no matter how full your life may seem to be, there is always room for a couple of beers with a friend."

Making lists and checking them twice...

I can't believe that I missed that October 30th was National Checklist Day!  One of our superb facilities project managers reminded me in his daily e-mail update.  Actually, to be 100% honest, I didn't even know there was such a day of recognition until he told me.  I've posted at least a couple of times in the past on checklists (see "Aviation checklists - an interesting observation" and "Today, I was a doofus...maybe I should use a checklist?").  They are an important tool utilized by most High Reliability Organizations.  

If any of you have ever read the excellent book, The Checklist Manifesto  by Atul Gawande, you will at least have read about the significance of October 30th in the history of checklists.  On October 30, 1935, Boeing was set to debut the most technologically advanced aircraft ever made, the Model 299 (also known as the B-17 Flying Fortress) at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio.  The large, shiny aircraft raced down the runway in front of an anxious and excited audience.  It lifted off the ground, started its climb, and then promptly crashed after making it to just 300 feet.  Two of the country's top test pilots (Army Air Corps Major Ployer Peter Hill and Boeing's Leslie Tower) died in the crash.  The audience, which consisted of several top military generals, were stunned.  A subsequent investigation revealed the cause - the test pilot Major Hill had forgotten to release the gust lock, a device that keeps the rudder, elevators, and ailerons from moving due to excessive wind while the airplane is parked on the ground. Hill had tried to unlock it shortly after take-off, but it was too late.

Importantly, the Army Air Corps wanted to make the Model 299 its principal bomber aircraft.  However, the generals came under intense pressure from critics who thought Model 299 was too complex to be flown - there were at least 30 steps that had to be completed in sequence just to make the plane ready to fly!  The Army Air Corps had to think of something to change that if the Model 299 was going to ever fly again.  

According to Gawande, the Army Air Corps leaders asked their own test pilots for potential solutions ("Deference to Expertise").  The test pilots came up with an incredibly simple yet ingenious solution - a checklist.  He writes, "They created a pilot’s checklist.  Its mere existence indicated how far aeronautics had advanced. In the early years of flight, getting an aircraft into the air might have been nerve-racking but it was hardly complex. Using a checklist for takeoff would no more have occurred to a pilot than to a driver backing a car out of the garage. But flying this new plane was too complicated to be left to the memory of any one person, however expert."

The test pilots' plan called for them to check off each item listed on a piece of paper that included all the major steps to prepared the plane for take-off.  Using the checklist would ensure that nothing was overlooked and every step was completed.  The new procedure worked great, and it was soon adopted for use on all the rest of the Army Air Corps' airplanes.  More importantly, the checklist saved the Model 299, which did, in fact, become the principal bomber used during World War II, primarily in Europe.  In fact, the B-17 Flying Fortress dropped more bombs than any other aircraft during World War II.

The checklist has since been adopted as an important safety tool in just about every industry out there.  If you want to learn more about the events of October 30, 1935, check out David Kindy's article in the Smithsonian's Air and Space Quarterly, "On. Set. Checked."  If you want to read more about how checklists are used in health care, check out either Atul Gawande's book The Checklist Manifesto or Safe Patients, Smart Hospitals by Peter Pronovost.  Next year, I will be sure not to forget National Checklist Day!

Trick or Treat!

Trick or Treat!  I wanted to re-post one of my older posts from October 31, 2018 and wish everyone a Happy Halloween.  One of the many great things about working in a children's hospital is that you get to wear your Halloween costume to work - and it's completely acceptable!  In the spirit of Halloween, I want to talk about one of my all-time favorite television shows growing up - the cartoon series, "Scooby Doo, Where Are You!", which was produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions from 1969 to 1970 (surprisingly, this now iconic series aired for only two seasons before going into syndication and generating a number of spin-offs).  The show featured the adventures of Scooby Doo and Mystery, Inc., a group of four teenagers who solved mysteries which frequently involved ghosts, monsters, and the supernatural.  Shaggy Rogers (I bet you didn't know his last name was Rogers!) and his best pal, Scooby Doo, once gave some really great advice:

Hold on, man.  We don't go anywhere with 'scary,' 'spooky', 'haunted,' or 'forbidden' in the title.

It seems fairly intuitive and simple, but the advice is really great.  Unfortunately, most of the mysteries that Scooby Doo and his friends were trying to solve involved going to places with the words 'scary,' 'spooky,' 'haunted,' and 'forbidden' in the title!  That happens a lot of times in the real world too.   Despite our best intentions, the world can be a dangerous place.  And no matter how hard we try, there are times when we are going to have to choose to take risks.

I like to read and write a lot about so-called High Reliability Organizations.  High Reliability Organizations (HROs) are usually defined as organizations that have succeeded in avoiding serious accidents or catastrophes in dangerous environments - the kind of environments where accidents are not only likely to occur, they are expected to occur.  The important point to realize, however, is that these same HROs don't seek to avoid risk - indeed, they could not exist if they did.  Rather, these organizations manage that risk in such a way that when (because it's always a matter of "when" and not "if") accidents occur, the adverse impact on the organization is significantly attenuated. 

Shaggy and Scooby Doo tried hard every episode to avoid taking a risk.  However, the whole purpose of Mystery, Inc. was to solve the mystery, and solving the mystery required taking a risk.  Scooby and his friends usually did a good job of managing risk - I wouldn't say that Mystery, Inc. was a great example of a High Reliability Organization, but they usually did pretty well in the end.  There was always the line from the villain in the end, "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids."

So, in the spirit of Halloween, take a leadership cue from the gang at Mystery, Inc.  Manage your risks.  Solve the mystery.  And have fun.

Michael Jordan, Chocolate, Coffee, and the Nobel Prize

The famous mathematician Paul Erdös (perhaps best known to non-mathematicians for the eponymous Erdös number - see my post "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon") reportedly once said, "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems."  I had to laugh at that, because I can totally relate.  However, I can't imagine that there is any true, cause-and-effect relationship between coffee consumption and academic productivity.  As any scientist (or mathematician) knows, causation and correlation are two completely different concepts.  Confuse these two concepts at your own peril.

There is a famous study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between a country's per capita chocolate consumption and the number of Nobel laureates (winners) in that country.  The study's investigator, Franz Messerli, found a correlation coefficient of +0.791 (with positive 1 being perfect correlation, so +0.791 is actually quite good) between the number of Nobel laureates per 10 million inhabitants and the chocolate consumption in kilogram per year among 22 countries.  He then suggested a potential reason, stating the potential (and still theoretical) benefits of dietary flavonoids found in chocolate on learning and memory.  

Incidentally, another investigator found a similar correlation between chocolate consumption and Nobel laureates even after controlling for other factors, though he also found that per capita coffee consumption did not correlate with the number of Nobel laureates.  It's an interesting idea, but one that demonstrates yet again that studies of this kind (analyzing large data sets) should only be used to generate new hypotheses, not prove them.  I don't think anyone would use the results of this study to suggest that a government should encourage (or even mandate) its citizens to eat more chocolate!  

I don't necessarily need data to convince me that Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player that I've ever seen play in my lifetime.  Jordan made everyone around him better.  Actually, that's an understatement.  He made everyone around him great!  And it seemed like he could take over any game that he was playing in and exercise his will to win.  Jordan's Chicago Bulls drafted power forward Stacey King out of the University of Oklahoma with the 6th overall pick in the 1989 NBA Draft.  King averaged 8.9 points per game (PPG) in his first season with the Bulls and was named to the NBA All-Rookie Second Team that same year.  However, it was his performance on March 28, 1990 that stands out for me.  King and Jordan together combined for 70 points in the Bulls' win against the Cleveland Cavaliers.  King was quoted in the L.A. Times and said, "I'll always remember this as the night that Michael Jordan and I combined to score 70 points."

That sounds great, but there's a catch.  The stat sheet for the game on March 28, 1990 shows that Jordan scored 69 points, while King scored just 1 point.  So, to be 100% honest, they both combined to score 70 points.  But that doesn't come anywhere close to telling the real story.  For the real story, you have to dive a little deeper into the data.  It's almost always a good idea to have someone with content expertise review the data and the conclusions that are trying to be made.

When it comes to data analytics then, remember these important points.  First, correlation is not causation.  Second, analyzing large data sets should only be used to generate new hypotheses, not prove them.  Third, don't jump to conclusions until someone with content expertise has reviewed the data and the conclusions that are trying to be made.

Containment: Deference to Expertise

The very nature of the environments that high reliability organizations (HROs) exist in precludes any kind of script, checklist, or playbook that covers every possible issue.  So how do HROs deal with this drawback?  They push decision making, especially in times of crisis, as much as possible to the frontline leaders and managers.  The true experts - the individuals who know their systems the best - are found on the frontlines and not in the board room!  Moreover, there is no way that an executive leader can have a full understanding of all the information that is at the frontline.  Even with the best communication plans and systems, the individuals who will have the most up-to-date and most accurate information will be the ones on the frontline.

Here is a list of all the posts in which the main (or at least a major) theme is "Deference to Expertise":

1.   "Brace for Impact" (September 18, 2016)
2. "Did he really say Shut up and listen?" (November 30, 2016)
3. "HRO: Deference to Expertise" (December 5, 2016)
4. "You know what to do..." (January 29, 2017)
5. "...plans are useless, but planning is indispensable" (August 9, 2017)
6. "Sua Sponte" (November 7, 2018)
7. "Biblical Org Charts" (November 14, 2018)
8. "The goal of all leaders should be to work themselves out of a job" (September 29, 2019)
9. "Taming the chaos" (February 23, 2020)
10. "Study the past" (March 11, 2020)
11. "Hungry, hungry hippos" (May 27, 2020)
12. "We rely upon your ability...you know what to do" (August 16, 2020)
13. "The bureaucracy paradox" (February 21, 2022)
14. "The definition of power is the transfer of energy" (May 7, 2022)
15. "Serve and thou shall be served" (July 23, 2022)
16. "We were soldiers once..." (July 30, 2022)
17. "The six thousand mile screwdriver" (October 22, 2022)
18. "Why Ted Lasso is the perfect HRO leader" (May 22, 2023)
19. "Player, Manager, Coach" (May 24, 2023)
20. "The few and the proud" (September 7, 2023)
21. "White elephants and wheelwrights" (November 3, 2023)
22. "The power of empowerment" (November 14, 2023)
23. "The Nelson Touch" (February 19, 2024)
24. "Leadership is not about solving problems??" (March 28, 2024)
25. "Turning around the ship..." (May 5, 2024)
26. "Better, stronger, faster, and flatter?" (August 28, 2024)
27. "Empowering employees doesn't mean leaving them alone..." (September 7, 2024)
28. "Improvise, Overcome, Adapt" (September 13, 2024)
29. "Fix the environment, not the people..." (September 27, 2024)

Containment: Commitment to Resilience

High reliability organizations (HROs) are 100% fully committed to resilience.  Resilience is defined as the capacity to quickly recover or "bounce back" from difficulties.  By their very nature, HROs are highly complex and tightly coupled.  In other words, these organizations are highly interdependent - a small error in one part of the organization can impact a completely separate part of the organization.  Furthermore, these small errors are often compounded and magnified.  HROs also exist in unforgiving environments where learning by experimentation is often neither feasible or safe.  In reality, by developing resilient systems with multiple back-ups and mitigation plans, HROs have made themselves even more complex and more tightly coupled!  But that is okay, especially if it means that mistakes and errors can be contained.  Errors will happen, but HROs are not paralyzed by them.

Here is a list of all the posts in which the main (or at least a major) theme is "Commitment to Resilience" (focusing on organizational resilience, not personal resilience):

1. "HRO: Commitment to Resilience" (November 22, 2016)
2. "Still I Rise" (February 12, 2017)
3. "Be like Young" (June 14, 2017)
4. "Enter the Dragon" (April 28, 2019)
5. "Failure is not an option!" (April 17, 2020)
6. "For want of a nail..." (April 14, 2021)
7. "The grit in the oyster" (April 11, 2021)
8. "The Oak and the Reeds" (April 9, 2022)
9. "Disappointed but not defeated" (February 13, 2023)
10. "Be like water" (September 1, 2023)
11. "The Legend of the Spider" (March 22, 2024)
12. "Resilience and grit" (October 1, 2024)