Caring for the Carers: Investing in healthcare workforce wellbeing

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

PwC Strategy& Middle East, May 2025

by Irfan Merali, Dr. Christelle Abou Nader, and Andrew AlHamouch

The health of the GCC’s population depends on the wellbeing of its healthcare workforce. It is a key lever for improving the quality of care provided by the region’s 800,000 healthcare professionals, and for reducing the cost of care. Our analysis indicates that improving healthcare workforce wellbeing in the GCC countries potentially could generate US$ 2.5 billion in annual savings.

Healthcare is a rewarding and demanding profession. Long hours, high intensity work environments, and physically demanding tasks contribute to elevated incidences of chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal injuries, and other health problems. Nearly half of healthcare workers globally suffer from burnout. Almost as many experience musculoskeletal issues each year. We find comparable rates in the GCC’s healthcare systems.

These conditions harm healthcare workers and patients. Mental and physical wellbeing challenges drive up absenteeism, turnover, and job dissatisfaction, all of which increase medical errors, lower patient satisfaction, and diminish compassionate care. Research into the effects of burnout among doctors, for example, shows that it is associated with a fourfold decrease in job satisfaction. Doctors experiencing burnout are 2.2 times more likely to have made a recent medical error. Thus, current conditions foster a vicious cycle with systemic and financial repercussions.

As these conditions worsen, healthcare systems become increasingly stretched, with workforce shortages intensifying these pressures. The wellbeing of the GCC’s healthcare workforce is a large-scale issue with system-wide implications that should be investment priorities. Evidence-based research proves that investing in healthcare worker wellbeing yields tangible benefits, including a 17% reduction in absenteeism, an 11% decrease in turnover, and productivity gains of up to 25%. Read the rest here.

Profiles in burnout

strategy+business, March 14, 2023

by Theodore Kinni

Photograph by PeopleImages

After New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern unexpectedly announced her resignation on January 19, the lead on CNN’s analysis read, “Burnout is real—and it’s nothing be ashamed of.” Indeed.

It would have been more surprising if the PM had, as she described it, “a full tank, plus a bit in reserve for those unplanned and unexpected challenges that inevitably come along.” After all, she led New Zealand through a series of major crises, including the covid-19 pandemic and the Christchurch mosque shootings, which were the worst terrorist attacks in the country’s history. She endured extreme abuse online and received an unprecedented number of personal threats—so many that she may be the first ex-PM in New Zealand to require high levels of security. And she became a parent while PM, giving birth to a daughter, now four years old.

Going by The Burnout Challenge, by Christina Maslach and Michael Leiter, Ardern’s five-year-plus run as PM was a perfect storm for burnout. The authors should know. Maslach, who is professor of psychology emerita at University of California–Berkeley, created the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the first and leading burnout assessment, in 1981. Leiter, who was a professor of organizational psychology at Australia’s Deakin University and held the Canada Research Chair in Occupational Health at Acadia University, has been researching burnout—and collaborating with Maslach—for almost as long. Read the rest here.

Bad Apples or Bad Leaders?

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, January 3, 2023

by Charn P. McAllister, Jeremy D. Mackey, B. Parker Ellen III, and Katherine C. Alexander

Leaders typically take responsibility when employees perform poorly but not when employees behave badly. It’s like there’s an unwritten rule that protects leaders when employees engage in deviant workplace behavior. Perhaps this protection stems from the notion that it isn’t fair to hold leaders accountable for the actions of a few bad apples.

Our research suggests that surprisingly often, this view of workplace deviance is misguided. We’ve found that leaders have a strong effect on whether employees engage in deviant behaviors. Thus, when employees act badly, their leaders would be wise to take a step back and consider whether and how they may be complicit in that behavior.

Workplace deviance includes employee behaviors that violate organizational norms in ways that threaten the well-being of companies and their employees. Sometimes these behaviors are directed toward individuals, such as when an employee physically or verbally lashes out at a colleague or gossips with coworkers. Other times, deviant behaviors are directed toward an organization, such as when an employee steals workplace property or leaks confidential company information. The consequences of workplace deviance include productivity and inventory losses, as well as a host of other expenses that ultimately cost organizations billions of dollars annually.

Some leaders dismiss workplace deviance as an unavoidable side effect of apathetic or rebellious employees who either don’t care for or actively dislike their colleagues or employers. These bad apples do exist. Research shows that employees low in the personality traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness are more prone to workplace deviance. So are employees who exhibit socially malevolent personality markers referred to as the dark triad: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy.

Given these findings, it’s easy to conclude that the “bad apple” argument makes sense. The problem is, research into the role of personality in workplace deviance does not consider the role that leaders play in employee behavior. Read the rest here.

What’s Your Return on Visibility?

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, October 26, 2021

by Michael Schrage



Digitalization driven by COVID-19 has accelerated and transformed management’s ability to track what and how workers are doing. This growth in networked visibility significantly increases the risk of institutional and interpersonal conflict, as well as challenges to cultural norms.

Many workers rationally fear that enhanced monitoring empowers management — and micromanagement — at their expense. When experienced as corporate surveillance, monitoring implies a lack of trust and an invasion of privacy, especially when people are working from home. That’s not sustainable; no one wants to feel spied on. Consequently, if not ironically, leaders are being pushed to make visibility far more visible.

While greater transparency around visibility can allay employee fears, it may also expose and provoke clashes in core values. If the interactions on a distributed work team, for example, are appropriately inclusive, but that negatively affects productivity, what happens next? Workers in general — and remote workers in particular — want credible narratives explaining visibility’s benefits, costs, and trade-offs. Opacity around visibility invites credible accusations of hypocrisy.

Visibility, like capital, compensation, and digital transformation, requires explicit purpose and policies. Leaders, not just HR and IT administrators, should explicitly manage visibility as an enterprise asset. Read the rest here.

Tips for leading people at a distance

strategy+business, June 23, 2021

by Theodore Kinni


Photograph by Urbancow

It seems less and less likely that the pandemic will be the impetus for a permanent, wholesale shift to remote work. Sure, employee sentiment polls find that most people like working from home, and anecdotal evidence suggests a few of them will refuse to return to the office if and when their leaders summon them. But the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 16.6% of employed persons teleworked or worked at home because of the coronavirus in May 2021, down from 18.3% in April. Moreover, few CEOs of major companies are wholeheartedly embracing remote work: some, like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan, are rejecting it altogether, and many, including Tim Cook of Apple, are offering some form of hybrid work instead.

This suggests that the title of Harvard Business School professor Tsedal Neeley’s new book, Remote Work Revolution, is something of an overstatement. Indeed, in the book’s introduction, Neeley reports that JPMorgan “is considering a permanently remote workforce”—which isn’t happening. But that doesn’t mean leaders shouldn’t read the book. It is, after all, more and more likely that leaders will be called upon to manage people who are working remotely some of the time. That is, if they aren’t already responsible for distributed teams, salespeople, and other employees whose work takes them on the road, or mixed teams of full-time employees and external contractors. And they will need to be prepared.

“For workers and leaders around the world,” explains Neeley, “untrained remote work isn’t a panacea. In fact, you may have experienced some or all of the many challenges that are inherent in virtual arrangements.” The challenges for leaders include keeping people connected when they aren’t in the same place, building trust and alignment without in-person contact, avoiding Zoom fatigue and other technological pitfalls, creating viable boundaries between work and private lives, and transferring highly coordinated work to distributed settings. Read the rest here.

Supporting employees working from home

strategy+business, January 29, 2021

by Theodore Kinni


Photograph by Kathrin Ziegler

In mid-December, a light appeared at the end of a long, dark tunnel when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency authorizations for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. A month later, that light wavered as the death toll in the U.S. reached 400,000 — having reached 300,000 just five weeks earlier — and the outgoing director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that the worst of the pandemic was yet to come. As Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”

Even as millions of people are getting vaccinated, many employees won’t be returning to the workplace for months to come. Instead, they will continue to work from home with all the distractions, stresses, and fears that they have experienced over the past year. This is not an insignificant problem: 25 percent of respondents to a PwC Workforce Pulse Survey conducted between January 11 and 13, 2021, said their physical and mental well-being deteriorated during the pandemic; more than 20 percent said their ability to disconnect, their work–life balance, and their workloads worsened. These results could be magnified in the weeks and months ahead by spikes in COVID case rates and deaths and continuing economic uncertainties, especially with regards to job security.

This makes one of the WFH (working from home) challenges that leaders face even more acute: How do you assess employee wellness when your only point of contact is a phone call or a computer screen? For answers, I talked to two experts... read the rest here.

Is the gig up?

strategy+business, December 17, 2020

by Theodore Kinni



Photograph by Brothers91

A decade ago, advocates touted the sharing economy as an alternative to corporate capitalism. Digital technology was opening vast, new peer-to-peer marketplaces: TaskRabbit and Airbnb were founded in 2008, Uber in 2009, RelayRides (now Turo) in 2010, Postmates in 2011, Lyft in 2012. These platforms promised that people would be able to make a good living while working when and how they wanted — selling their time and skills, and renting out their cars, spare bedrooms, and that dusty camping gear in the attic.

“You will know by now that things haven’t turned out exactly as expected,” Juliet Schor wryly notes in her new book, After the Gig. Schor, a sociology professor at Boston College, and her team at the Connected Consumption project, funded by the MacArthur Foundation, studied gig workers and platforms of the sharing economy from 2011 to 2017. The result is a more nuanced view than has been offered by previous books on this topic, which typically focus on either how companies can build their own platforms or how platform companies prosper by evading regulation and exploiting workers.

Among the insights: The less you actually need a gig job, the more likely it is that a gig job will work for you. “Workers’ experiences are not uniform, with variation in pay rates, job satisfaction, and how they do the work,” Schor explains. “As we saw these differences playing out at individual companies, we realized that they are explained by how dependent the worker is on income from the platform to pay basic living expenses.” Schor’s team found that supplemental workers — that is, workers who are not financially dependent on their platforms — make more money, have more autonomy, and are more satisfied with their gigs than platform-dependent workers. Moreover, the former group comprises 34 percent of the workers in the sample the team studied; the latter was only 22.5 percent. (The rest, nearly half of platform workers, fall between the two extremes.)

This finding partly contradicts the headlines of worker abuse that have generated a lot of political Sturm und Drang lately. At the same time, it is clear that the gig economy can’t really substitute for a full-time job. As Schor concludes: “With some exceptions, our data suggest that being dependent on a platform is not a viable way to make a living.” Read the rest here.

The Transformational Power of Recommendation

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, November 24, 2020

by Michael Schrage




Image courtesy of Paul Giovanopoulos/theispot.com

Wikipedia defines recommendation engines (and platforms and systems) as “a subclass of information filtering system that seeks to predict the ‘rating’ or ‘preference’ a user would give to an item.” But as a tool, technology, and digital platform, recommendation engines are far more intriguing and important than this definition suggests.

In data-driven markets, the most effective competitors reliably offer the most effective advice. When predictive analytics are repackaged and repurposed as recommendations, they transform how people perceive, experience, and exercise choice. The most powerful — and empowering — engines of commerce are recommendation engines.

Recommendation engines have been essential to the success of digital platforms Alibaba, Amazon, Netflix, and Spotify, according to their founders and CEOs. For companies such as these, recommendation engines aren’t merely marketing or sales tools but drivers of insight, innovation, and engagement. Superior recommendations measurably build superior loyalty and growth; they amplify customer lifetime value. Computing compelling recommendations profitably reshapes human behavior.

The influence and purpose of recommendation engines are not limited to customers or consumption. Large employers, most notably Google, have adopted and adapted recommendation engines as internal productivity platforms to nudge workers to their best decision options. Indeed, in late 2016, Laszlo Bock, the senior vice president of people operations at Google, left the company to launch Humu, a recommendation-engine startup for advising workforce behavior change.

While data remains the essential advisory ingredient, the global recommendations revolution reflects profound and ongoing algorithmic innovation, enabling machine learning and AI to power improvements in deep learning and generative adversarial networks. Successful recommendation engines learn how to learn. The more people use them, the smarter they become; the smarter they become, the more people use them. Done right, recommendation engines enable virtuous cycles of value creation.

The networked nudges and prompts of recommendation engines increasingly influence people’s choices in clothing, entertainment, food, and medicine; they also influence the texts we send, which friends we contact, the customers and prospects we prioritize, the experts we seek, the job candidates we hire, the investments we choose, the memos we edit, and the schedules we follow.

But prompts and nudges shouldn’t obscure the subtle but vital design principle that makes the recommendation-engine value cycle more virtuous: Recommendation is about ensuring better options and choices, not obedience or compliance. Recommendation engines don’t seek to impose optimal, best, or right answers on their users. To the contrary, their point and purpose are greater empowerment and agency. Influence, not control, is the algorithmic aspiration. In this, successful recommendation-engine design depends more on how recommenders seek to influence than on how much they know.

Recommendation engines transform human choice. Much as the steam engine energetically launched an industrial revolution, recommendation engines redefine insight and influence in an algorithmic age. Wherever choice matters, recommenders flourish, and this profound digital transformation of choice will only become more pervasive as recommenders become smarter. Better recommenders invariably mean better choices. Read the rest here.

The Six Dysfunctions of Collaborative Work

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

Connected Commons, June 2020

by Rob Cross and Inga Carboni


Beth was excited when the CEO asked her to take over a high-profile commercialization project that had been struggling. The leader in charge of the effort—one expected to double the technology firm’s revenues in the coming decade—had recently accepted another job. Beth accepted the job on the spot.

In her first week, Beth dug in. She found the project fully funded and staffed by 64 carefully selected people from departments across the company, including engineering, marketing, finance, and quality assurance. The threeday, offsite visioning session held to launch the project had been attended by the entire team and was, by all accounts, a resounding success. Three concurrent work-streams—focusing on research, product development, and marketing and sales—were identified and a well-respected leader was appointed for each one.

Yet, ten months later, the project was badly behind schedule and bogged down. Everyone with whom Beth spoke was frustrated with the slow pace of progress. They were all pointing fingers, but in different directions. The CEO believed the problem was a failure of leadership. The departing project leader blamed team members for not devoting enough time to the project. One team member said the problem was poor meeting management; another said key decisions weren’t being made in a timely manner.

What should Beth do? Appoint new workstream leaders? Relaunch the project? Restructure the group or the work? Add more people to the project team? Schedule more meetings or provide an online work platform? ...read the rest here

Restoring craft to work

strategy+business, August 4, 2020

by Theodore Kinni



Photograph by RubberBall Productions

You’ve probably heard these stories before. There’s the proud janitor at NASA who tells President Kennedy that he isn’t just sweeping up; he is helping put a man on the moon. And the gung-ho stonemason who tells architect Christopher Wren that he isn’t just hammering rock; he is building a cathedral to God’s glory. The stories are popular, even though they probably never happened. And they get told and retold to support the power of purpose. It’s the subtext that bothers me.

Invariably, the moral of these stories is that employers (a label that literally defines the rest of us as something to be used) need to provide employees with a purpose. This suggests that many jobs are, in and of themselves, meaningless. It also implies that people don’t care about the work they do — that they are wastrels.

I don’t know if the relationship between meaningless work and aimless wastrels is one of correlation or causation (or in which direction it might run). But a high-flown and inevitably vague corporate purpose — don’t be evil! — isn’t the solution to either problem. It’s more likely the solution lies in the concept of craft, which Richard Sennett, senior fellow at the Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University, described in his erudite and engaging 2008 book The Craftsman.

“Craftsmanship names an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake” [italics added], wrote Sennett. “Craftsmanship cuts a far wider swath than skilled manual labor; it serves the computer programmer, the doctor, and the artist; parenting improves when it is practiced as a skilled craft, as does citizenship. In all of these domains, craftsmanship focuses on objective standards, on the thing in itself.”

Craft resonates for me in a way that corporate purpose never does. One reason is the fact that I’m a self-employed business writer and editor, who needs to be good at a craft to make a living. Another reason is plain orneriness: Why should I internalize a company’s purpose? Especially when I may only work there for a few years. That’s somebody else’s business (and profit), not mine. Read the rest here.

Fixing the Overload Problem at Work

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, April 27, 2020


by Erin L. Kelly and Phyllis Moen




Image courtesy of Neil Webb/theispot.com

The way that companies expect employees to work isn’t working. Despite growing awareness of widespread and chronic overload and its ill effects, companies often expect professionals and managers to be “on” well beyond traditional work hours — attending meetings at night, responding to requests on weekends and during vacations, and monitoring their phones, texts, and emails whenever they are awake. Many people become exhausted and burned out struggling to meet such expectations. The result is an overwhelming, demoralizing sense that the demands of work are unrealistic and cannot be met with the resources at hand.

Of course, overload is not restricted to salaried, white-collar workers. But we have found that they are acutely susceptible. In our survey of more than 1,000 of these workers in the IT division of TOMO, our pseudonym for a Fortune 500 company generally viewed as a good employer and a decent corporate citizen, 41% of the division’s professionals and 61% of its managers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that there is “not enough time to get your job done.”

Escalating work demands and the exhaustion they produce surfaced repeatedly in the 400 interviews we conducted with TOMO employees from 2010 to 2014. For example, Vanessa, a director at the company, told us that she expects her direct reports to “be accessible 24-7, 365 days a year.” If they aren’t going to be available outside working hours, she said, “they need to let me know.”

Jonathon, a manager who reports to Vanessa, shared multiple stories of work encroaching on his home life and volunteer activities. He said he often takes late-night work calls, some of which wake his wife. Despite the success he has attained at work, Jonathon said he is steering his children away from professions like his that are prone to overload. He believes it is an unhealthy and unsustainable way to earn a living.

Evidence collected at TOMO and in a variety of other workplaces, including consulting companies and medical facilities, suggests that Jonathon is right. We heard story after story of health concerns tied to overload from the IT professionals and managers at TOMO. They told us about heart attacks and strokes, disrupted sleep and related forgetfulness, unexplained hives, and other ills. They also described an inability to muster the energy to exercise and to prepare healthy meals, and work pressures that prompted them to smoke and drink more than they considered wise. In fact, employees in our study who put in long hours reported significantly higher levels of burnout, stress, and psychological distress (feeling sad, nervous, restless, hopeless, worthless, and that everything is an effort) than employees who worked fewer hours.

Unpredictable schedules and always-on availability also contribute to employee overload and deteriorate their well-being. Specifically, employees who have variable schedules that they do not control report significantly higher levels of burnout, stress, and psychological distress, as well as lower levels of job satisfaction, than employees who have fixed schedules or feel more in control of when they work. Studies of all kinds of occupations are now documenting the negative health impacts of very long hours and limited control over work time.

Companies that push employees as hard as TOMO are hurting themselves, too. Talented people quit when they become overwhelmed by work or resentful of unrealistic demands — voting with their feet after being expected to do too much for too long. When they exit, their employers lose expertise, knowledge, and sometimes valuable customer relationships...Read the rest here.

Pride and the pandemic

strategy+business, April 23, 2020

by Theodore Kinni



Photograph by svetikd

My sister-in-law texted two photos to our extended family on March 31. One was of a sign installed on the lawn of the Sentara Northern Virginia Medical Center, a 183-bed not-for-profit hospital in Woodbridge, Va. It read “HEROES WORK HERE” in big, colorful letters. The other was of my nephew, wearing scrubs, gloves, and goggles, in the entrance to the hospital’s emergency room, where he’s been working 12-hour shifts. We’re all worried about him. We’re also damn proud of him.

The daily stream of reports detailing the brave work of medical professionals around the world these past few weeks has been a revelation. Facing a virus without a cure and often working despite critical shortages of personal protective equipment, many of these people have been risking their lives simply by walking into work.

They aren’t the only ones working far from the comparative safety of home in this pandemic. Delivery people, warehouse workers, postal employees, supermarket clerks, gas station attendants, and many others are choosing to go to work. Facing layoffs, union members at General Electric’s aviation plants pressured the company to put them to work making ventilators.

Are they doing it for the money? I hope so, at least in part. But there’s also something else at play here — pride.

“An intrinsic feeling of pride based on the relentless pursuit of worthwhile endeavors is a lasting and powerful motivating force,” wrote Jon Katzenbach in his 2003 book, Why Pride Matters More Than Money. Katzenbach, a managing director with PwC US and founder of the Katzenbach Center at Strategy&, PwC’s strategy consulting practice, explored the institution-building capacity of pride and concluded that it is the “most important motivational element in a company.” Read the rest here.

Too much work, too little time

strategy+business, April 15, 2020

by Theodore Kinni



Photograph by John Lamb


Someday soon, when the economic engines of the world are running again, leaders will reflect on what the COVID-19 pandemic revealed about the ways and means of work in their companies. As they do, they should read Overload, by Erin L. Kelly, a professor of work and organization studies at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and Phyllis Moen, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota.

Overload details the results of a rigorous five-year study conducted within the IT division of TOMO, an alias for an unidentified Fortune 500 company. The randomized field experiment included nearly 1,000 tech professionals and managers in 56 teams — half of whom redesigned their work and half of whom served as a control group, and didn’t.

The impetus behind TOMO’s unusual openness to participating in this experiment was management’s recognition of a pervasive feeling of, as the authors frame it, overload among the division’s employees. Kelly and Moen, whose team operated under the auspices of Work, Family & Health Network, an interdisciplinary research group focused on workplace interventions, define overload as “the sense that work demands are unrealistic, given limited resources.” Their initial survey of the division’s employees revealed that 41 percent of workers and 61 percent of managers agreed or strongly agreed that there was not enough time to get their jobs done.

These are people, who, in addition to long days on the job, were routinely taking calls and working at home, at night, and on weekends. In fact, at least one of the managers had been demanding advance notification anytime the people she supervised weren’t going to be available outside of working hours. This supervisor told the authors that she expected her direct reports to “be accessible 24/7, 365 days a year.” The pernicious consequences of this work intensity? Repeated surveys and more than 400 individual interviews at TOMO revealed high levels of chronic stress and ill health, feelings of powerlessness, work–family conflict, and burnout — all of which negatively affect employee performance, of course. Read the rest here.

The Galvanizing Effect Of The Social Enterprise In Action

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

Forbes, December 27, 2019

by Michael Gretczko



photo: GETTY

I love seeing how the blue water of the Caribbean meets the white sands of Puerto Rico from the air. In October, after landing, I didn’t go to the beach. Instead, I headed into downtown San Juan, where I joined 22 of my colleagues — all just a few years out of school and eager to make a difference not only in our organization, but also in people’s lives in the world at large.

They were in San Juan to participate in our Human Capital People to People (P2P) program; I was there to support them as an advisor and mentor. P2P is a skills-based volunteering initiative where our junior professionals undertake an intensive week-long pro bono engagement to support local nonprofit organizations. As with all of our volunteering programs, we were there to bring our greatest asset — the skills and experience of our people — to help nonprofits address their most critical issues and help drive transformational outcomes.

For me, the week in San Juan was a firsthand example of the benefits that a social enterprise can generate. At Deloitte, we define the social enterprise as a company whose mission combines revenue growth and profit-making with the need to respect and support its environment and stakeholder network. It is a business that embraces its responsibility to the community and serves as a role model to other organizations and its people.

The most obvious beneficiaries of P2P engagements are the nonprofits themselves. Many nonprofits find it challenging to muster the skills, data and resources they need to carry out their missions. They usually have very clear missions and well-articulated programs for achieving them, but they tend to struggle with how to deliver against overwhelming and competing demands with limited resources as well as operational execution challenges. Our teams quickly zeroed in on opportunities to improve back-office operations to create front-office or, more appropriately, mission-driven impacts. Read the rest here.

A Noble Purpose Alone Won’t Transform Your Company

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, December 10, 2019

by Rob Cross, Amy Edmondson, and Wendy Murphy

Consider these two companies: The first is a retail chain with hundreds of locations globally — innovative, but basically a sales platform. The second is a hospital that treats the world’s most devastating cancers. Which do you think has a more engaged workforce?

If you chose the latter, in light of its quest to save lives, you wouldn’t be alone. Yet, when we spent time with both organizations, we discovered that the working environment in the hospital was rife with fear, workforce morale was low, and employee turnover was high. At the retail chain, on the other hand, there was a palpable spirit of camaraderie, employees were energetic and enthusiastic, and customers were very pleased with the service. The retailer had the more engaged workforce by a long shot.

It’s a common misconception, both in businesses and in management articles and books, that a sense of purpose is what matters most when it comes to engaging employees. Many leaders concerned with attracting and retaining top talent believe that nothing motivates people as much as the larger good they might be doing or the chance to change the world. Accordingly, they extol the higher virtues of their companies’ missions and the meaning of the work they offer.

But our work with more than 300 companies over the past 20 years, particularly our research using organizational network analysis (ONA) and our interviews with executives, reveals that purpose is only one contributing factor; the level and quality of interpersonal collaboration actually has the greatest impact on employee engagement. In this article, we’ll explore why collaboration has that effect and which behaviors you can adopt and practice to nurture it. Read the rest here.

How to build a great experience

strategy+business, November 15, 2019

by Theodore Kinni



Illustration by Paula Daniëlse

In 2017, the Marriott School of Business at Brigham Young University announced that henceforth the Department of Recreational Management would be known as the Department of Experience Design and Management. The idea that immersive and engaging experiences produce value and deliver competitive advantage has come a long way in the 20 years since Joe Pine and Jim Gilmore welcomed us to something they called the “experience economy.”

Designing Experiences is the latest in a long line of books that have appeared on the subject. In it, J. Robert Rossman, a professor at Illinois State University, and Mathew Duerden, an associate professor in the aforementioned department at the Marriott School, touch on many of its predecessors (including one in which I had a hand, Be Our Guest) in a concise textbook that serves as both a theoretical foundation and a how-to guide for experience design.

The theoretical foundation, which appears mostly in the first two chapters, bogs down a bit in explaining what constitutes an experience. This murk stems from Pine and Gilmore’s positioning of experiences as an economic activity unique from products and services. Rossman and Duerden carry this forward by arguing that experiences differ from products and services because the person on the receiving end of an experience must be actively co-creating it. “Experience demands conscious attention, engagement, and action — in a word, participation,” they write.

This distinction isn’t clear to me. Is there any product or service we can buy and consume that doesn’t require our participation in some form or other? And even if it were possible not to participate in the acquisition and use of certain products or services (say, buying groceries or cutting the lawn), mightn’t that count as a very good experience for some of us? Read the rest here.

Need to Work Differently? Learn Differently

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

Boss Magazine, October 2019

by Michael Griffiths


Digitization requires a new set of skills and a new set of training for employees

The next time your company holds an all-hands meeting, look around the room — or the arena — and consider this: It’s likely that more than half the people present will need reskilling or upskilling in the next three years.

This probably doesn’t come as a complete surprise to you. The forces of change are transforming every aspect of work, including what is done, who does it, and where it is done.

For example, emerging technologies — especially AI and machine learning — are among the most disruptive of these forces. In fact, 81 percent of respondents to Deloitte’s 2019 Global Human Capital Trends survey indicated they expect the use of AI to increase or increase significantly over the next three years. Unlike some, we don’t believe that AI will eliminate the need for a workforce. Instead, we anticipate the rise of hybrid jobs, which are enabled by digitization, technology, and the emergence of a new kind of job, which we call the superjob. A superjob combines work and responsibilities from multiple traditional jobs, using technology to both augment and broaden the scope of the work performed and involving a more complex set of digital, technical, and human skills.

Hybrid jobs and superjobs can enable your company to be more responsive to customers and adaptable to change. But it requires a more deliberate and agile approach to capability development. Already, many companies are responding to this need: Our research finds that 83 percent of organizations are increasing their investments in reskilling programs, and more than half (53 percent) increased their learning and development budgets by 6 percent or more in 2018.

But will more learning be enough at your company? It’s doubtful. To Work Differently we think your company should first Learn Differently. Read the rest here.

Staying Ahead of Disruption with Workforce Sensing

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

Workforce Magazine, August, 2019

By Daniel Roddy and Chris Havrilla

Plug the word “disruption” into Google Trends and you’ll get a jagged line tracking 15 years of peaks and plunges in search frequency. But for all the shortterm variation in the chart, the long-term trend is steadily rising: there are nearly three times as many “disruption” searches today as there were in 2004. 

The steady rise in searches reflects a reality that won’t surprise most leaders. They face a host of disruptions—social, demographic, environmental, economic, technological, and geopolitical. Not only is it their job to make sure that their companies don’t get blindsided by these breakpoints in the status quo, but they also must be able to respond to them quickly and agilely in order to transform these disruptions into competitive advantage.

Sensing is the foundation on which an organization’s ability to identify, pace, and respond to disruption is built. In hindsight, disruptions seem obvious. By the mid-2000s, it was clear that streaming movies would decimate the video rental industry. But to have realized that a decade earlier, when the MP3 format first emerged for audio, and acted upon it is another matter entirely.

The ability to sense disruptions in their nascent stages and predict how they are likely to affect a company and its stakeholders is crucial to success in business today. This is especially true when it comes to sensing disruptions in the workforce. Read the rest here.

Work Should Generate Energy, Not Sap It

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

Forbes, August 1, 2019

by Michael Gretczko


GETTY

It’s 5:45 a.m. There is a candle flickering in the room. A bass booms. I pump my legs. Left, right, left, right. My heart starts pounding. I suck in air. Soon, I’m pouring sweat.

Does this sound like a nightmare? It’s just the opposite.

I start most of my days at SoulCycle, a 45-minute, high-intensity spin class. It’s my “secular sanctuary,” as one of their founders describes it. The class grounds and focuses my mind, resets and recharges my body with the energy I need for the day ahead. It enables me to bring my best self to my work. (I swear I haven't been paid for my comments — I’m just plain addicted.)

When I travel, I invite my colleagues to ride with me. We become a tribe at these classes. By the time we get to our post-workout coffees, we’re connected in a more intimate and intense way, high-fiving and sharing our sense of accomplishment.

As I reflect on what I love about cycling, I realize there are parallels between what it does and what great organizations strive to do. Both seek to maximize our human potential. Both are focused on enabling us to impact the world around us by unlocking our best capabilities and intentions.

There are three lessons from my spin class experience that align with how leaders of high-performing organizations unleash the energy of their workforces. Read the rest here.

Diversity, Inclusion, and the Alternative Workforce

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

Boss Magazine, August 2019

by Kathi Enderes

The alternative workforce, including outsourced teams, contractors, consultants, freelancers, gig workers, and the crowd, is going mainstream. It’s the fastest-growing labor segment in the EU. By next year, the number of self-employed workers in the US is projected to reach 42 million people — nearly tripling in two years. Alternative workers account for over 10 percent of Australia’s labor pool.

Savvy leaders are well aware of the growth in the alternative workforce. In Deloitte’s 2019 Global Human Capital Trends survey, 41 percent of the almost 10,000 executive respondents said alternative workers are “important” or “very important” to their organizations. But only 28 percent said their organizations were “ready” or “very ready” to address the employment of alternative workers. A mere 8 percent said that they have the processes in place to manage and develop these workers. All this represents an opportunity and challenge for leaders everywhere.

A Wellspring of Talent

The opportunity in the alternative workforce is three-fold:

Filling the ‘skills gap’: The growing ranks of alternative workers offer a valuable pool of skills and capabilities in a time when it is becoming increasingly difficult to fill jobs. Last year, a global study by the Manpower Group reported that nearly half (45 percent) of employers studied were having trouble filling open positions; among companies with more than 250 employees, the percentage rose to 67 percent. That’s a major reason why the employment of alternative workers is spreading beyond IT into a host of other roles. Respondents in the 2019 Global Human Capital Trends survey indicated that they are using alternative workers extensively in operations (25 percent of respondents), customer service (17 percent), marketing (15 marketing), and innovation/R&D (15 percent).

Positively impacting organizational performance: Alternative workers are often highly talented, experienced, and self-motivated, attracted by the freedom, flexibility, and variety provided by working in arrangements other than traditional employment. Respondents to our trends survey who measure the contribution of outsourced teams, freelancers, gig workers, and the crowd reported that these workers have a positive impact on organizational performance.

Increasing diversity: Alternative workers can be a valuable source of diversity. After all, they may be located anywhere in the world, and often they come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences. They can contribute unique perspectives and ideas. Smart leaders not only consider the traditional dimensions of diversity — race, gender, age, and physical ability — they also tap into the deeper value embedded in the hearts and minds of workers. In a complex, global business environment, bringing different hearts and minds together is more important than ever.

So how can your organization tap into the wellspring of alternative workers? Read the rest here.