Amazon.com Widgets

Interview with Raj Raghunathan about Happiness

Professor Raj Raghunathan specializes in psychology, marketing, as well as the philosophy of happiness and decision making. He graduated from Birla Institute of Technology and Science and completed his MBA at the Indian Institute of Management. In 2000, he earned his Ph.D. at the Stern School of Business, New York University. He is a Professor of Marketing at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin. Prof. Raghunathan developed an online course called A Life of Happiness and Fulfillmenta 6-week course on Coursera platform. The course includes knowledge from the fields of psychology, neuroscience and behavioral decision theory. It has had over 75,000 enrollments and has been featured as a Top 10 course offered by Coursera. In 2016, Raghunathan also published the book, If You Are So Smart, Why Aren’t You Happy? Raj’s book explores how to become happy and draws on the concepts Prof. Raj calls ‘happiness habits’ and ‘happiness sins’. Raj has received several National Science Foundation Career Grant Awards. He is an associate editor at the Journal of Consumer Psychology, guest associate editor at the Journal of Marketing Research and is on the editorial boards of the Journal of Marketing and the Journal of Consumer Research.


1) The mechanisms of a happy and fulfilling life can now be explained using science. How do you define happiness as an academic? Does it have quantifiable components or is it truly a subjective measure?

Somewhat surprisingly, happiness is both a subjective experience and measurable. The subjective part comes in two ways — the things that make different people happy, and the types of emotions with which people implicitly equate the term “happiness”. The idea that different things make different people happy is, of course, straightforward. Going sailing may reliably make some  person happy, while for others, it won’t float their boat (so to speak).

The idea that different people equate happiness with different terms is a little more subtle. Prof. Barbara Frederickson of the University of North Carolina finds and suggests (based on work by Dacher Keltner, a researcher at UC Berkeley) that “positivity” comes in 10 main varieties including joy, love, serenity, hope, awe, gratitude, laughter and interest. To me, happiness is the same thing as what Prof. Frederickson calls “positivity.” In other words, in my book, you are happy so long as you are experiencing one or more of these (and other) positive emotions.

What is really interesting about all of this is that, as Prof. Ed Diener and his colleagues have found, the simplest way to measure happiness is essentially by asking people how happy they are across a few items (like, “all things considered, would you consider yourself happy right now?”). This is a highly reliable and valid method. For instance, people’s subjective reports of happiness are highly correlated with some objective correlates of happiness, like serotonin (positive correlation) or cortisol (negative correlation) levels. Likewise, people who report higher levels of happiness tend to have a thicker left pre-frontal cortex, and also tend to be thought of as being happier by their close friends, etc.

So, in a nutshell, what might appear at first blush to be a problem for happiness research, namely, that happiness is too subjective, turns out to be not such a big problem after all.

2) In your work, you suggest that being creative and having fun are habits that should be cultivated to reach higher levels of happiness. Since fun is a very subjective concept (i.e. what is fun for one person, is not necessarily fun for somebody else) how do you suggest fun might be studied more rigorously?

As I mentioned in my response to the previous question, while it is true that what is fun for one may not be fun for another, what we subjectively experience when we say we are having fun is more similar than dissimilar across people. So, for example, even if my idea of fun (say, going on a hike) is quite different from that of yours (cuddling up with a book), you will understand what I mean when I say, “Going on a hike is really fun.” You might say, “that’s not what I would call fun, but hey — different strokes for different folks!”

The point is that it’s important to have fun — in whichever way that works for you. Why? Because you are likely to be more creative, more healthy, more productive and more altruistic when you are having fun (more generally, when you are happy) than when you are not.

3) Your work points out that people who are more educated and successful are not necessarily happier. However, one could argue that with expanded education comes broader knowledge and awareness of critical issues (e.g. global warming, poverty, discrimination, injustice, the division of people), and this insight could have a negative effect on one’s sense of happiness. Can one have a thirst for universal knowledge and increase their happiness at the same time? What, in your opinion, is the relationship between seeking truth and happiness?

It is true that more knowledge and more awareness can lower happiness levels. There was a study that a few of my marketing colleagues (including Ziv Carmon and Klaus Wertenbroch) conducted in which they showed that those who spend more effort and thought in coming to a decision about which product to buy are generally less satisfied with the product than those who make it based on lower levels of effort. A main reason for this is that, when you know more, the more you know what else is possible; so, you are less happy with what you have.

The mechanism to which you allude in your question (to conclude why better informed people may be less happy) is a related one. You suggest that being informed and knowledgeable about all of the ways in which the world is screwed up may be a buzz kill. True. And this certainly seems like an important reason why the smart-and the-successful are not so happy. But I also think that there’s merit to the argument that some of the very things that make us smart or successful — like a need to be superior, the desire to control others or outcomes, or that of engaging in elaborate analyses — when taken to unhealthily high levels, can also undermine happiness levels.

A final reason why success lowers happiness has to do with how access to the yardsticks of success — fame, money, power, etc. — can make us more self-centered and materialistic. Several findings show that being self-centered and materialistic are not good form for obtaining happiness.

4) From the perspective of neuroscience, emotions are important for our decision-making processes. In a Business Insider article, you warn ‘mind addiction’ can make us ignore our gut instincts and feelings (see: ‘Mind addiction’ could help explain why smart people aren’t as happy as they could be). From your research, why do you think we have found ways to short-circuit our intuition?

Great question. It’s not that thinking through problems and overcoming emotions is always bad. Clearly, we have all experienced situations where our emotions have hijacked — or at least derailed — our decision-making process. Impulsive consumption behaviors (e.g., overeating) are all examples of this. So, one big reason why many of us become suspicious of emotions is because we do not want to commit this mistake again. But in an attempting to avoid the mistake of being too impulsive, many of us run the risk of becoming “mind-addicted”.

I think society too plays a big role in instilling mind addiction. Take schooling. Children almost never get to learn about how emotions and instincts can be useful in decision-making. That is, pre-college education almost exclusively encourages the “mind” route to solving problems and making decisions.

On top of that, most of the goals we are encouraged to pursue, from individual ones (e.g., saving enough for retirement, losing a certain amount of weight) to societal ones (e.g., increasing GDP) are quantitative in nature. So, we end up never pursuing qualitative goals (like being happy, or enhancing levels of trust in society). This overly quantitative (vs. qualitative) focus also makes us more prone to relying on the mind to solve problems, getting us increasingly out of touch with our instincts and feelings.

A final reason for mind addiction may be that women are not as well-represented in positions of leadership. So, to the extent that listening to, understanding, acknowledging, and utilizing emotions is a more feminine trait than a masculine trait, society reinforces mind addiction.

5) Mindfulness has become a very popular concept recently, and you often mention it in your work as being a habit that can support happiness. Purportedly, Maslow never published the final version of his hierarchy of needs pyramid in which self-actualization is followed by self-transcendence. Do you think that mindfulness practice might ultimately prove to be a useful tool towards self-transcendence? Or, alternatively, do you see this practice as more a simple, yet very effective, evidence-based cognitive technique to help identify that a lot of what makes us unhappy is merely a waterfall of mindless thoughts and we have more power over these than most believe?

Good question again. I personally think mindfulness has the potential to both offer the “lower order” benefit of reducing stress and enhancing happiness and the “higher order” benefit of self-transcendence. What I mean by self-transcendence (and I imagine you do too) is not something that is necessarily mystical or spiritual. Rather, it’s just the subjective experience of not perceiving oneself as separate from something that we would “normally” consider external. So, for example, when we are so involved in an activity that we lose track of time, or do not feel self-conscious (the critical voice in the back of the head is gone), we merge with the activity to experience a state that Prof. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has famously called “flow.” Flow is a transcendental experience in the sense that there is a subjective feeling that one has merged with the activity in which one is involved.

Likewise, being in love is self-transcendental, because one feels this sense of merging with the object of one’s love.

In a similar way, mindfulness can provide a transcendental experience — providing one is able to do it correctly, which may require practice. By “doing it correctly,” I mean doing what is often considered the main aim of mindfulness — “being aware without judgment”. Being aware without judgment means being aware from the perspective of what might be called “bare attention”. Bare attention is very different from mind attention. Mind attention is what leads us to judge, categorize, comment, etc. on whatever is going on. Bare attention, on the other hand, means just being aware of the object of one’s attention without the accompanying commentary. It is difficult to do, but can be learned through practice. Once one is able to successfully take the stance of bare attention, one experiences this transcendental sense of being merged with the object of observation, resulting in what Douglas Harding called a “headless experience”. Sam Harris describes this experience very well in his book, Waking Up, as well.

Interview with Chip Conley about Creating Joy

Chip Conley began his journey in creating “joy” by transforming a seedy motel in the Tenderloin District of San Francisco into the legendary Phoenix hotel. Under the umbrella Joie de Vivre (translated to mean: the exuberant enjoyment of life), the endeavor grew to 40 unique hotels spread across California. He has authored several books, including Emotional Equations, PEAK and The Rebel Rules. Currently Chip serves as the Head of Global Hospitality & Strategy at Airbnb and the Chief Strategy Officer of Everfest, a company that connects the festival community online.


1) Now that you have immersed yourself in the world of festivals, what are the commonalities that make these experiences so impactful and life changing? For instance, there are elements that distinguish the Rise Festival from say, an Outside Lands. What are the essential elements of exceptional festivals that set them apart from a run-of-the-mill collective experience?

There is a French sociologist named Émile Durkheim, and in 1912 he wrote about the nature of pilgrimages. He coined the expression “collective effervescence” that really describes what makes a festival different. He used this term in the context of religious pilgrimages, but I actually think a festival where you become part of the installation — in an environment where people are somewhat out of their customary social environment — that is where transformation tends to happen. When you go to a concert, generally you go there for the day and then you go somewhere else. Collective effervescence happens when your sense of ego almost evaporates and what it is replaced with is a sense of common mission, and a common connection, with other people — that’s the beauty of a festival. The more digital we get, the more ritual we need. In this context, ritual is the IRL experience vs. the URL experience. The URL experience is what we do online, IRL is “in real life,” and I think that the more we are possessed by our gadgets, the more we need to have opportunities for connection in real life. Furthermore, there is no doubt that habitat influences our behavior and what we are willing to accept. A particular festival may have a set of guiding principles (e.g. Burning Man’s 10 Principles). What is really great when a festival does have principles — and they are well-advertised and promoted — is as an attendee you know what you are getting yourself into and also what is expected of you to participate.

2) You are well known for creating physical space and visceral experiences that create joy. Like any good master, you have pulled elements from other disciplines ranging from positive psychology to physical art. What is one of the most profound lessons you have learned along the way? Perhaps one you found the most surprising about the craft of creating joy?

I have always loved throwing parties. I throw the grand opening parties for my hotels, and every five years I throw a party somewhere in the world for just my friends. I did this last year in Baja with 125 friends. It was great. I just threw a party for 20,000 people in Los Angeles for Airbnb. What would normally be considered a conference, we reimagined as a festival and broke conventional rules. This was the third event of this type for Airbnb, and this time we wanted the format to be a bit uncomfortable at first. Not uncomfortable physically, but more like the attendees did not know what they were getting themselves into. A level of curiosity like, “I do not feel like I am in a normal environment.” This level of stress can actually help people to find parts of themselves that they did not know exist. We had the event in a somewhat sketchy area of Los Angeles. There are historic, beautiful theaters that we used as part of the installation. We took over five historic theaters, we took over about seven different retail spaces, and at least three parking lots. We used this environment for workshop spaces, conversation spaces and creative spaces for people to connect. What I believe is that what is remarkable — what creates joy — is when something surprises you and then it delights you. There can be surprise and disappointment or there can be surprise and delight — when it is surprise and delight, it is unexpected. Unexpected delight is memorable. I think interesting juxtapositions do this very well. When juxtaposition is done well, our brain is literally going through a process of having to imagine two things together, for instance, art and spirituality. The blending of ideas can lead to illumination. You see something in a way you never thought of before. The best way to describe someone who is a great festival producer: they are a curator. So, you try to curate an experience, create a habitat for people to have peak experiences. When there is nice mix of unfamiliarity and you push through boundaries — joy comes with that feeling that some level of accomplishment, some level of progress, has taken place. This growth allows you to feel a sense of exhilaration.

3) In your book, The Rebel Rules, you talk about the benefit of sabbaticals to avoid burnout. For many, these opportunities will only manifest a handful of times in a lifetime. As such, in your experience examining both successful “rebels” and those with an affinity for wanderlust, have you identified any strategies for those who embark on soul-searching expeditions to help maximize their outcome?

Creating space (whatever space means in the context of some individual freedom) and seeing what emerges is pretty important. Now, you literally could do that on a weekend. You could say, “Okay, this weekend I am going to put an office message that just says: I’M NOT CHECKING EMAILS THIS WEEKEND.” You hide your phone. For two days you go digital free. You go through a digital detox and maybe you have nothing planned, you literally just allow spontaneity or serendipity to rule those two days. That process might actually start to bring some things up for you, including fear. A lot of us like structure, a lot of us like to have a calendar that is full because it lets us know, “Okay, this is what I accomplished today.” There are a lot of people that need to ‘accomplish’ things to feel alive. So, I think not everyone needs a six-month sabbatical — at least not as a first step. Even if you have the opportunity to take a sabbatical because your life has created a transition, it might be foolish to assume that you know what you are going to get out of a sabbatical. For me, my sabbatical was not really even a true sabbatical, but more along the lines of “what’s juicy for me right now?” For me it was festivals, and I started going on that path, and I went to five festivals in Asia in the winter of 2013 and came back starting Fest300. Then, all of a sudden, out of that emerged the founders of the Airbnb approaching me and saying, “we want to turn our little tech company into a hospitality company, will you help us do it?” I have been doing that for almost four years now. Sometimes you have to make space to grow; I might not have taken the call from Brian Chesky four years ago if I had not taken time for renewal. When you create space, you are in a better place to take the blinders off, which gives you the opportunity to see things you might not have seen otherwise. So making space is one strategy. A second strategy is meditation. I try to meditate twice a day if I can. That experience is my form of a daily sabbatical, because it allows me to decompress and disconnect. It does not have to be meditation — some people like taking afternoon naps, for others it is going for that four-mile run that they do every day. Whatever it is that helps you to break with the linear mind. However, there is not a prescription that is right for everybody. I think for me, knowing my tendencies, having a really open field is probably wise because if I am too prescriptive about what I want at the end of a six-month sabbatical, the end result will be a linear to-do list, which defeats the purpose. With that said, realize your sabbatical probably should be the opposite of what you normally have. For me, I need space to be open to new ideas. For someone else, they may need a sabbatical because they are so lost that the purpose of their sabbatical is more oriented around a mission or some level of achievement.

4) There can be a bit of an underbelly to festival culture, where it is purported that some that identify with this lifestyle and chase experience, do so with hedonistic self-interest. A recent example are some of the complaints coming from Standing Rock (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/standing-rock-north-dakota-access-pipeline-burning-man-festival-a7443266.html). In consideration that this may exist, how does contribution, responsibility and ethics factor into organizing any collective experience?

I think hedonism in moderation is appropriate, self-interest is not necessarily a bad thing. However, festivals can become an addiction, just like so many other things in life. I think one of the things that Burning Man has done quite brilliantly is creating 10 principles that define this community. The main event and other events around the world that are sanctioned to be Burning Man affiliated help this community to hold ourselves accountable when we see people not living up to them. No one is perfect of course, and the Burning Man principles are not right for every festival. The problem with a lot of festivals is they lack principles. Often when you lack principles what you get is the lowest common denominator. Without an inherent culture, you get something that takes people to their basic instincts. Getting back to your first question, I think the part that is truly beautiful is when you see that collective effervescence happen. Collective effervescence means that people are losing their sense of ego and their sense of identity and, in the process, feeling connected to something bigger than themselves. I think that if principles are articulated well, and these principles are lived out in such a way that they help people move beyond their own selfish needs (in the process of experiencing the festival), then principles have the potential to create a better legacy for the event. If an event is something that is purely hedonistic — and it is important to note that there are festivals that survive and do quite well within that environment — you diminish the ability to somehow feel like there is something bigger than your own personal, hedonistic needs. Great festivals elevate people and help people to transcend their own petty grievances and desires. A great festival is a community of people experiencing something together. So, if it’s a collection of individuals as opposed to a community of like-minded people, the risk is, if you look at Maslow’s hierarchy, pretty low on the pyramid with regards to experience. At these type of events the moment that somebody else is attracting you as an individual to something over here, or a new shiny object there, whimsy just takes you over there because you don’t feel any connection to the purpose of the event. Festivals are at their best when they really do help people to feel connected to something bigger than themselves.

So the issue you have highlighted is not a festival problem — the definition of addiction is using something as a distraction, as a means of not feeling something. Festivals can play this role. If you just constantly go to festivals because you cannot live your normal life, or live in real life and/or you are searching for a utopian experience… festivals always come to an end. If you are going to festivals as a way to vacate in some manner, I think you need to ask yourself, “What could I do in my ‘normal’ life to make it better?”

5) If someone wanted to follow in your footsteps in the pursuit of creating joy, but was at the beginning of their journey and was looking for mentorship, what three pieces of advice would you impart on them to begin acquiring the mastery to be successful in this pursuit?

1) Understanding who you were as a little kid always helps, because weirdly there are clues in your childhood that help you understand what it is that gave you that sense of timeless wonder. Timeless wonder is usually a pretty healthy place to seek out in that Joseph Campbell “follow your bliss” approach to life. So, start by doing a personal archeology project about your childhood. Talk to your friends, talk to your brothers and sisters, your parents, whoever you spent time with as a child. Look at pictures of yourself at childhood and get a sense of what it was that gave you bliss. How can you manifest that in your adult life? I was always fascinated about Walt Disney and how he created Disneyland. I was fascinated by creating experiences for kids in the neighborhood, so… I would do just that. I would create a restaurant in my mom’s dining room for instance. There are clues there — find them.

2) Look at who you admire. Who are the people out there in the world as adults who are living their life in such a way that they could be a model for you? Who is actually having joy in how they experience their life? Who is doing it in a way that gives them a sense that they are living their calling? This does not have to be just in the work world; you could live your calling as a political activist, you could live your calling as an Ironman athlete, you could live your calling as a grandmother. Figuring out what it is that gives you that sense of passion in life and seeing it in other people — this helps you develop a better picture of what life might look like for you.

3) The way to bring joy to people is helping them to feel like they are a kid again. The Celebrity Pool Toss has been going on for 25 years now — a fundraiser we do at my first hotel, The Phoenix. It is a fundraiser for TNDC’s afterschool program for kids. We have created a fundraiser based upon the high bidder getting to toss a celebrity in the swimming pool of the hotel. The reason that it has lived for 25 years now — raising over $7 million for afterschool programs — is because it allows people to act like a kid. Auctions are a bit fun too, but the process of actually throwing someone in the pool is very childlike. I think providing people that sense of being able to break out of their normal formality — helping people feel less contained. Burning Man is a somewhat extreme example. Getting the chance to toss people in the pool is a very simple example, but still effective of reconnecting with a sense of freedom that might have gotten lost in adulthood.

A word of caution for those looking to create an event. Some people find joy in being spectators, others in being participants. Some events are better suited for everybody to be a participant, some are suited for some people to be participants and some to spectate. I think a key to success is to make sure people know what they are opting in for. So, if you are creating an event with the aim of creating joy — if your idea centers around everybody participating, you better make sure the attendees know that in advance.

Interview at the Motionsoft Technology Summit about Big Data

This quarter’s Business, Innovation and Entrepreneurship interview is the compilation of getting to discuss “big data” analytics with four exceptional thought leaders at the Motionsoft Technology Summit this year (2016). These four gentlemen in no particular order are: Jafar Adibi, Ph.D., the President, Co-founder, and CTO of re|unify; Jeffrey Cooper, the Senior Manager of Business Development at Samsung; Mark Newman, the President of Heads Up Analytics, and Keith Catanzano, a Partner at 2River Consulting Group. The answers below are summations of their respective answers, as such they are not represented as verbatim but edited for readability and context.


1) When a company is either building a data model (or working with a third party for this type of service), what considerations should an operator have regarding the crossroad of complexity and usability?  There are scenarios where too many disparate and incomplete data sets can make it difficult to find the signal from the noise; what are the trade-offs as the amount of available business intelligence information continues to increase? And what considerations should we take into account to maximize any investment in mining data?

[Jafar Adibi]: You need to figure out what problem you are trying to solve. Clients will come to me with data, rich sets of data, and say, “Jafar, now go figure out something to do. Find something interesting.” Generally, this is a waste of time. People believe finding correlations (any correlations) are going to help their business, but that is often not the case. When you identify your problem, we are better set up to solve it. There are different analytic methods for classification problems, association problems, and other questions that are not necessarily answered through correlative means. Getting to the right question will help you establish what data sets are important.

Then you need to figure out your budget. There will always be noise in your data, especially data from business intelligence. We can build a model to take the noise into consideration. However, using more data is obviously expensive, so that goes back to what are you trying to solve for. We can exclude data that will not answer your question, which saves you time and money. As such, you want to keep return on investment (ROI) in mind as you think about the question you are asking. Ask yourself, “If I answer this question, how much money with I gain/save?” The answer to the ROI question gives you a ballpark on what it might be worth regarding your investment in a data model.

2) It seems to me that a lot of ad hoc advice about using data for business intelligence is disseminated on broad-based assumptions derived from general population data. However, is this not one of the follies of “Big Data”? Companies are basing important decisions on arguably misleading benchmarks, rather than creating a narrative specific to their population (or at least a sample from their specific population); What are strategies to ensure we are making the best decision based on our company’s unique attributes?

[Mark Newman]: The most important thing is to trust your own expertise. You should intuitively know the customers you are trying to attract. You should have an idea of what strategies you are trying to pursue. You should already know what the important problems are you need to solve. What you don’t want to do is look to data to validate some preconceived answer to your problem. Instead, you want to devote your own educated guesses as to what to do — and then you want to use data to test those rigorously to keep yourself honest.

I think there are two ingredients to doing that. The first is to agree with your colleagues on the definitions of the terms that you are using in your data. If all the stakeholders do not agree on the definition of the numbers, then you all are not going to have an organized lexicon/narrative to work with. You have to agree on key metrics that you are going to use to allow for the monitoring of health and progress within your organization.

The second ingredient that you want to have is to follow an experimental approach that is constantly evolving. Your customers and prospects are going to react differently to your products and services over time. Reasons:

  • They might have more experience with you as your brand matures
  • As consumer groups mature, they change their goals
  • Your previous pitches are now stale, and customers react to them differently
  • Different competitors in the marketplace

What works today does not work tomorrow. Instead of some one-and-done, super solution to what you are trying to accomplish — instead you want to have some kind of innovative, incremental approach in the beginning. If you follow that, then over time, the data is going to have a narrative that reflects who you are, and what you are trying to do, and what works best for you.

3) Until recently, most data aggregation efforts have told a fairly unsophisticated narrative, and inspired relatively unremarkable initiatives in an effort to capitalize on data mining. How can we improve our use of data? And, how can companies do better at making data more actionable?

[Keith Catanzano]: What is the question the company is trying to answer? It is important to not just say, “How do you make data actionable?” We are probably all guilty at some point of looking at a data model and saying, “Look at the results, they’re awesome!” I think intriguing insights can be challenging in terms of making data actionable. There is a ton of data out there. Once you find ways to bring yours together, there is a lot you can see using data by way of insights. At some point you need to do something with the insights. In order to do that, obviously, it’s important to know who your customers are [assuming trying to influence their behavior is your goal], but also why are they customers. However, in this use case the why is more important than the who. The “why” is ultimately what you are going to try to make actionable, because to take action you are going to need to pull some type of lever to influence consumer behavior. There are lots of ways to work with communication or outreach in an attempt to accomplish this, but the effort requires the company to take a deliberate approach regarding how data is used to take action.

It is also important to note that making data actionable is generally not a one-shot deal, and architecting a campaign that changes an entire group’s behavior in some way probably will take a series of events that includes multiple levers I mentioned. So to make data more actionable, an organization should sit down and say, “What is the level of energy I want to put into solving or addressing this problem?” And that’s probably both a financial decision and a brand decision. For instance, a brand manager might ask, “Is this the kind of consumer group that we want to continue to attract? Yes; OK, well … indicators show we may be struggling with this particular group, so let’s double down because from a brand perspective, that’s how we want to be seen.” An alternative scenario here is the data suggests (to the brand manager) that too much effort is being spent focusing on the wrong group. Without asking the right questions, the data just suggests that marketing is ineffective. To finish, a company really needs shared responsibility to make data truly actionable. Ultimately, as an organization you determine what resources you want to put against data analytics, but knowing what question(s) you wanted answered first is important to making data actionable.

4) How will health club and health club member data evolve over the next several years — what will prove to be important signals for our industry in addition to financial, transactional and activity data?

[Jeffery Cooper]: So besides activity data from wearables, there will be a lot of contextual data the health clubs can now potentially get. With corporate wellness taking off you are going to see deep integration with insurance companies and insurance data. I believe, along those lines, health clubs will also be integrated more with the medical industry. As prevention becomes more associated with a basic level of fitness, I believe you will see medical data become relevant.

In that regard, I think prevention of chronic diseases is eventually going to drive a lot of people toward health clubs from the medical side of things. Right now, in most cases, doctors cannot write a prescription for a health club, but that could change as more complex sensors begin to validate the efficacy of fitness interventions.

Genomics data is another revolutionary area. You already have things like 23andMe, but there is a company Helix, which has been recently funded. Their idea is to sequence your genes, and license this data back through health care providers and fitness applications. With genomic data, consumers can make better choices (and health clubs can cater to them better). With this data, people can ask:

  • Am I suited for bodybuilding?
  • Am I suited for endurance?
  • From the limited time I have, where am I going to see the best results?

As science becomes more advanced, these companies will snapshot your genome once, and then as the science learns more and more about the genome — health clubs can take preemptive, proactive actions from that data to keep their members healthier longer, keep them out of the hospital and improve their overall quality of life.

5) Why does “Big Data” often fall short on delivering on its value promise?

[Mark Newman]: Personally, I feel that part of the problem is the way output data get reported. I feel that in data science to deliver a static report, it is potentially a sign that we have not done our job properly. The reason for that is because when we deliver a page of numbers, there is often no context to the end-user. When you are able to create/refine a business question, you generally make the presumptive problem simpler than it first appeared. Before you set off looking to get value from data, your organization should come up with your desired thresholds and metrics. Then instead of looking at static reports that, at best, will give you trailing indicators — build a dashboard that gives you real-time intelligence based on the most important metrics for your business. This dashboard should be something that your employees can always go to — not just some report that gets delivered on your desk — but something that is readily available on an ongoing basis. You also need to evaluate and monitor the efficacy of this dashboard on an ongoing basis. For instance, if you have a forecasting dashboard and there is a forecast your company is trying to meet, is the dashboard valuable and helping you meet your forecast?

I believe both dashboards that monitor things that drive your business forward, as well as insights that are actionable, are at least two things that give you some evaluation of whether “Big Data” is helpful and valuable within the context of your own particular situation. The other thing is that you really want to be doing analyses all the time. You want your data strategy to evolve past sending out graphs and numbers — to actually be working to build a story of what’s going on in your organization — and back up your story with reliable and meaningful communication so every stakeholder is seeing the same thing and you can all agree that your chosen data model(s) is providing value and is meaningful within the context of your particular business.

Interview with Dr. Henry DePhillips about Telemedicine

Dr. Henry DePhillips is the Chief Medical Officer of Teladoc. At Teladoc, Dr. DePhillips is responsible for maintaining the exceptional delivery of clinical care delivered through Teladoc’s telemedicine digital health platform. Prior to Teladoc, Dr. DePhillips held several high-level leadership positions in health care. His positions included a previous role as the Chief Medical Officer at MEDecision, working as the Senior Medical Director at Independence Blue Cross of Pennsylvania, and a role as Head of Business Development, North America for McKinsey’s international Health Systems Institute. Dr. DePhillips is a health technology fanatic who is passionate about telemedicine and shifting health care from a provider-centric model to one that better values the needs of the patient.


1) How do you see telemedicine affecting employee burnout and workplace wellness?

What I am seeing is that telemedicine provides employees quick and inexpensive access to services that contribute to their well-being. Employees also generally perceive the telemedicine experience as more enjoyable than traveling to see a physician. Employees like what we provide, so our service grows as it is better understood by employees. When people get the care they need in a timely manner, this reduces workplace wellness issues — concerns like presenteeism — because employees now have easy access to care rather than “powering through” health conditions that could have unwanted consequences if ignored.  These consequences range from getting other employees sick to compounding personal medical issues by not seeking treatment.

2) What are some of the aspects of American work culture you see uniquely contributing to issues of presenteeism and employees “powering through” illness?

There is a combination of cultural factors here in the United States. One is financial, many American employees can no longer afford to miss a day of work. A second is functional. In many U.S. companies that have downsized staff, if someone misses work then there is no longer anyone to cover their role/position — calling in sick is simply not an option. A third is cultural considerations. In America it is a sign of toughness and/or commitment if an employee powers through their illness. For instance, it can be viewed as a “badge of courage” if you come in with the flu. Lastly, there are logistical considerations. In many cases when someone should see a doctor, they are unable to do so because scheduling is difficult given other considerations. This last factor is where I see services like Teladoc playing an important role. With telemedicine it is no longer a burden to see a doctor. With the traditional approach you generally must take time off work, schedule an appointment, travel from work to see your physician. Now, if an employee is in need of care, it is as close as their keyboard or mobile phone. An experience that used to be three to four hours can now be accomplished in 30 minutes with telemedicine — and unless you need to pick up a prescription, your experience can all take place in a virtual environment of your choosing.

3) How do you see telemedicine playing a role in helping improve the patient experience?

With Teladoc you can update your electronic medical record in minutes, request a board-certified physician to meet with you at a time that works with your schedule, interact with your physician using the digital modality of your choice (phone, video conferencing, digital photos, etc.), and have prescriptions sent to a location that is convenient for you. In my opinion, it is simply a better experience.

4) There are reports that over 15 million people now use telehealth, which is a 50 percent increase in usage from numbers reported in 2013. Who is driving this growth?

Telemedicine is still perceived as a rather new way of receiving care, so we have plenty of early adopters (now) but you are going to see increased utilization blossom as we move into the early majority. Those that would rather take a conservative/traditional approach will likely become more open to telemedicine as the technology matures. “Try it once, and you will like it for life,” really applies to our technology. We see that once users try it once they often return, at least here at Teladoc. In certain populations it is a no brainer — single parents with kids, those that travel for business — again anyone with logistical considerations will likely become lifelong users once they try it once.

5) Why do you think there is a significant proportion of physicians that have an aversion to telemedicine?

It is an evolution. It is a work in progress. Health care as an industry tends to be fairly conservative when it comes to technology. Think back to the Marcus Welby, M.D. days and we have not evolved much since then in regards to care. Health care is still a very provider-centric experience. The provider tells you the times that work for them, you go to the provider’s place of practice, the provider basically makes you adhere to what is convenient for the provider. I see telemedicine as the first major shift towards a consumer-centric approach. Under the current antiquated paradigm, a patient has to say, “I am sick, where must I go to receive care?” However, with telemedicine the patient can now ask, “I am sick, how can I most efficiently get the care I need?” And now, care is as close as the smartphone sitting on the bed stand. The doctor now comes to you, at a time convenient for you. At Teladoc, the average time between requesting a visit and being able to see a physician is 10 minutes. My job as the CMO of Teladoc is to make sure that the quality of care that people expect [from the old model] is the best it possibly can be [in the new model] as we go through this evolution. It is important to note, telemedicine is meant to address a subset of medical problems that has been specifically selected to work with telecare, problems that can be accurately and successfully treated using this form. In most cases I believe telemedicine will provide the end-user a superior experience, but there are going to be some specialties where telemedicine doesn’t make sense, and that is okay too.

Interview with John Gengarella about Fitness Technology

John Gengarella is known for his extensive experience in global operations, customer-centric design and application development. He has been connected with highly successful enterprise software businesses for over 25 years. However, John began his career in the fitness industry. Outside of the fitness industry, John has held executive roles including vice president of C3 Energy, Chief Revenue Officer for 24/7 Customer and CEO of Voxify. In 2015, John was appointed the CEO of Netpulse, a company that has been viewed as one of the market leaders in mobile technology for the fitness industry. In addition to his professional work, John is the lead mentor in the non-profit organization StartX, which focuses on the development of Stanford’s top entrepreneurs through experiential education. He is also an angel investor and advisor to various early stage technology ventures.


1) One thing that consistently surprises me is that it usually takes a while for emerging tech companies — ones that specifically focus on health clubs — to realize that the total addressable market (TAM) regarding health clubs is actually fairly modest. In this regard, what lessons can you pass down to anyone thinking about creating technology that caters to health clubs?

I do not agree that it is a small total addressable market. I actually believe it’s enormous.  I think if you look at what’s out there today, you’ve got a handful of groups doing over a billion dollars in sales. If you look at the spend over the entire industry, there are testaments of over a $70 billion TAM. Folks are investing serious money to engage their members. I believe there are 185,000 clubs globally, that’s an enormous market. MINDBODY got a $450 million evaluation, a company that’s focusing on a niche segment of the market — studios.

You can easily build a $100 million company in this space. But it depends on how you define the market. Thirty years ago or so, I had a few clubs. We had index cards that had member’s names on them and you stuffed envelopes with monthly invoices that looked like the things you get at Denny’s. So, if you were assessing the fitness market at that time as an entrepreneur, did you say, “Hey, I’m going to make money on index cards and envelopes,” or did you say, “Hey, I can build a CRM solution, or automated billing system, and completely change the dynamics in a new set of investments in that segment?” I think you have got to look at the market overall and how we’re solving problems. I think if you look at IT spend, for example, that might be a small number. That might only be a billion dollars. But what does an average club spend on marketing? It’s 10x that spend. I bet worldwide clubs spend close to 10 billion annually on member acquisition. I think there is an enormous opportunity for the right entrepreneur in this space. The challenge is you have to go solve a problem. What do I do to engage members? What do I do to attract new members? What do I do to increase my retention? …the same core tenets exist from 30 years ago.

So my assessment is I think the market’s huge. And then, where do you draw the line? Is it Fitbit? Is it Under Armour? I mean the lines are blurring every day, there are tens of billions invested annually in fitness. As a software guy, I’m not as interested in treadmills and those kind of things. The Precors and the Matrixes will make their money selling equipment. 30 years ago, we talked about what was inside our four walls. Today, now we are talking about engagement with members outside of those four walls, as well. The club brand is still alive and well… on your app… on your T-shirt — but the market is changing. It is no longer necessarily simply what is happening in those three hours a week inside the club anymore.

2) As the head of a company that makes a great fitness mobile app — specifically regarding fitness — what is the role of activity trackers as they exist today, when the modern smartphone often rivals the internal hardware of commercial fitness devices?

That’s interesting. There is no question that the Apples and the Samsungs are going to be battling the Fitbits of the world very soon in terms of tracking. You have a few pieces that you’re solving for in this space:

  1. You need a form factor that works
  2. You want as complete of a data set as possible
  3. You want accuracy

I think the biggest challenge for smartphones is form factor. Especially since phones are getting bigger as they also are turning into mini entertainment centers. Also, women often leave their phone in their purse, so it is not constantly tracking activity. I think form factor is a challenge for phones today. What this means is you are also not getting a complete data set. For those who want all their activity tracked, you need to have your phone glued to you 24/7. Accuracy is also an issue. Without separate peripherals you are not going to get heartrate information, at least not accurately. There is still skepticism, even if smartwatches take, that they can accurately track heartrate. 

Phones do have a phenomenal advantage in that they are ubiquitous, and adoption is exceptional. I don’t know anybody that does not have a smartphone today. But what do I get out of that? Do I get the accuracy of my heart rate? Do I get other capabilities that I want to see… capabilities I can get from a wearable that I am in touch with the entire time. Given what we are trying to solve for, it will prove to be an interesting battle.

3) Looking past current wearables on the market today, where do you see digital health taking the health club industry five years from now?

That’s a really interesting question because the potential has become enormous, but just as it has been for the last 30 years, the next five will still be about relationships. What’s the relationship that I have today with my club (as a member)? What’s the relationship that I have with the other members? What’s the relationship that I have with my employer? What’s the relationship I have with my healthcare provider? My doctor? My coach? My team? I think when you look at the evolving way we engage in relationships through technology, you’ll see the digital aspect of that becoming more pervasive. I am not addressing just the customer relations concerns here, but also the relationship an employee has with their employer —  a financial relationship that plays a role in the person’s well-being. The big challenge is going to be the exchange of value. To me, there is a two-way value exchange. For instance, I (employee) let you see my steps on a daily basis, you (employer) give me $300 towards my monthly insurance bill. People love to discuss privacy concerns, but quickly forget it was only a few years ago they were hesitant to store credit card information with Amazon.com. Privacy issues aside, annual healthcare spend is the largest line item on our country’s P & L! Follow the money — over the next five years there will be enormous energy around a digital understanding of each consumer, each member, each employee. I see this evolving into some greater level of personalization that simply does not exist today. How do I get to know a specific person in a meaningful way and understand their needs, provide them value for that exchange, and capitalize on the value associated with that understanding in an ethical way? We’ll answer that question.

4) There is a modern-day narrative that fitness delivery is well-positioned, better than ever, to be on the forefront of the continuum of health care. However, this discussion has been going on for a few years now (e.g. Exercise is Medicine, Exercise is a Vital Sign, etc). In your opinion, do you believe technology has helped, or hindered, progress in this area? 

The challenge is the complexity around data privacy. What are the responsibilities around those that are in charge of the data? How do I protect the consumers’ willingness to share? What level of privacy should I expect in terms of dealing with any manufactured insight, i.e. new personal information generated about me that could effect my livelihood (e.g. credit score)? This problem doesn’t get solved with one “ah-ha” moment. There are going to be step-changes that go along with this because we are a cautious nation when it comes to privacy. There are credit card breaches all the time with little consequence. But, if I let somebody know what your blood pressure is, I can still go to jail. So, I think that we are cautious as a society about health data, but I believe you will see that loosen over time. What are the true risks if I share this information? Truth is, you probably have a great interaction with your doctor and she becomes wonderfully more insightful about your health.

There are valid, historic concerns about the consequences of having a preexisting condition. There’s a scare about how that data can be used and possible negative impacts that could come as a result of someone having that information. Again, fair value exchange becomes important. I’m willing to share, if there is limited risk and I get something in return. Few are going to share data for the fun of it. If people get better care, get a lower rate on insurance, get more personalized programs that are really consistent with their health, they will come around. You can see that today, in the volume of opt-in consumer apps that are out in the market. There will be dissection among the population: those that are willing to share health data and those that are not. There is always a sub-segment that’s going to believe in some conspiracy theory that, “data will always be used against me.” They are not going to participate willingly. Luckily there are many that have a willingness to take that risk. I think the more challenging issues are not around, “Can I collect data and generate insights around this woman’s health and well-being?” The challenges are more going to be around policies and protections that allow the consumers of that information to use it appropriately and ethically. To me it’s not technology that has hindered us so much… people have.  

5) The last couple of questions I have asked you what you think might be different in the future regarding fitness technology, a harder question might be the one I will conclude with: what is going to remain the same five years from now?

Five years from now, mobile will still be the center of our lives. It is the communication mechanism for any audience, whether you are talking about a health club member, you are a member of an airline, a hotel guest, or an Uber rider. Mobile will remain the primary platform for customer interaction in the near future. This bears repeating from my previous answer… thirty years ago, I used to have a few health clubs and the same mandates exist today: a need to acquire new members, a need to retain those members, and a desire to increase the contribution/benefit made to the member base. That’ll be the same in five years… probably for as long as health clubs exist.

With the pervasiveness of availability of information available to the consumer, the fitness industry, like any other mature industry, is becoming more and more competitive. So, the drivers of asset performance will be the same in five years. Mechanisms for personalization will evolve. There will be this quest for personalization. Whether I have a big box or a small box, I will be able to use technology to have the capability to differentiate my offering with personalization, but that is only filling the need that has always been there …building a meaningful connection with your member. 

Interview with Jill Gilbert about Health Technology

Jill Gilbert is a lifelong entrepreneur and the producer of the Digital Health Summit. Jill worked in the film industry for 15 years before moving on to health and technology. After leaving Los Angeles, her initial focus was the crossroads of aging and technology. She created the first comprehensive online directory and resource for senior care, the Gilbert Guide, for which she was praised as the champion of positive change in the aging services industry. In 2015, she launched another event at CES, Robots on the Runway, which focuses on the world of robotics. Her latest project is called Discover Baby Tech, a website and blog that will aim to bring together products and technology for new parents.


1) Behavior change and wearables are two buzz terms often talked about in the same conversation, yet many devices don’t truly deliver on the promise of actively helping someone change their behavior. What’s a favorite example of a digital health product that actively assists the user in building a desired habit?

Activity trackers have become synonymous with the word “wearables.” These devices (activity trackers) will certainly change some people’s behavior, primarily through awareness. Oftentimes, though, they fall short when it comes to behavior change. I’m more excited about closed-loop wearables, devices that are often condition-specific that trigger — or better yet, assist — with the desired next action to treat a particular condition. When you can engineer the need for “change” out of the usage loop, you immediately get a lift with regards to device efficacy. Most behavior change — when it comes to wearables — is going to be as good as the prompt and/or stimulus. The closer we can get the stimulus to inspire (or be) the next desired action in the loop, the closer we get to behavior change being a non-factor. Until activity trackers move our feet for us, I believe they won’t be as successful as other innovations I have seen recently in digital health.

2) It’s clear that the industry is on the verge of some significant breakthroughs. In your opinion, what’s currently being underreported regarding health technology that deserves greater attention?

Mental health is an area where digital health really can play an important role. For instance, pharmaceutical adherence is a huge issue in mental health. Many people with mental health issues suffer when they are not regimented about taking their medication. We are also making strides with regards to digital therapeutics. Cost is a major factor in treating mental health, and advances in the way we can treat people through behavioral modification platforms that are scalable — made possible because of digital health — is exciting. Telemedicine is also making an impact, by allowing patients to benefit from doctors that have excess capacity. Health technology is allowing people to get treatment who are so unwell they cannot leave the house. It is opening up treatment options for those worried about stigma. There are a lot of great things happening here, but it is not getting as much attention as one would think. Look what Lantern is doing, look what Iodine is doing, this is great stuff and not talked about enough. There is also a lot of promising technology to help with addiction as well.

3) Digital health is well-positioned as a valuable tool to help people with their entire continuum of care, with the potential of assisting people in lessening the frequency of doctor visits. What needs to happen so that consumers can have a better coalesced health experience through digital technology?

Interoperability is key. It is so important, and its lack of existence creates so much friction. Because the problem is so complex, we see people design around it (data operability), and what you are left with is disparate solutions. Literally, digital health in a lot of ways is the Wild, Wild West. Yet, on the other side you have hospital systems with antiquated legacy systems that often don’t even have APIs. We are finally making some strides though… Cisco and UCSF have partnered to engineer an integrated health platform that will hopefully get us closer, but the problem is mammoth. We need smart minds and a lot of resources to solve this problem.

4) Technology is inherently always changing. That said, what have been the constants since 2010 that are facets and/or indicators of successful digital health products? In other words, what is foundational for innovators to get right, or avoid getting wrong, in order to be successful in this space?

This sort of piggybacks off my Wild, Wild West comment. This space is inherently complex, and so in a lot of cases processes that work for pure tech start-ups — like creating a minimal viable product (MVP) — fail in this space. Especially if you hope to get FDA approval, there is a lot to navigate and that’s why we always stress strong partnerships. That said, companies still need to be bold. True innovation and breakthroughs come from mavericks who accomplish what others say cannot be done. There is a balance. The good news for innovators is that it is hard for bigger companies to take risks, so often through the “right” type of partnerships a start-up can get significant help from a larger organization. Obviously, there will be unique considerations that depend on the product. A reimbursable product is probably going to have to rely more on outside help than a consumer box product. The good news is there are great partners out there, like Ximedica, whose primary purpose is to help these types of products figure out a proper strategic path and wade through the intricacies of regulation.

5) You have set your sights on baby tech. Why baby tech? And what benefits do you hope to deliver with this next endeavor?

My ideas around baby tech came about from CES, and getting a lot of products sent my way that were meant for babies, new moms, fertility, post-pregnancy, etc. There was/are enough interesting digital baby products out there, and it was clear this is a distinct category worth addressing. Also, I got enthusiastic about it because I was about to become a new mom myself when I first saw this category get exciting. There is so much amazing stuff out there. Moms can go it alone, we have for decades, but [digital products] might help ease some of the burdens. I am creating DiscoverBabyTech.com to share what I know, create a space for product reviews, report new developments in this space and generally create a resource for moms interested in this topic. The plan is to launch next month sometime. We hope to attract people like ourselves to the site, new moms who love tech.

Interview with Edgar Schein about Organizational Culture

Dr. Edgar Schein is one of the most prominent organizational development figureheads alive. He earned his Ph.D. in social psychology from Harvard University and went on to teach at the MIT Sloan School of Management reaching Professor Emeritus distinction. Along with numerous academic publications, Dr. Schein has a long list of books that cover various organizational topics such as group process consultation, career development, and of course, organizational culture. His titles include Organizational Culture and Leadership, Helping, Career Anchors and Humble Inquiry.


1) You have stated recently that the concepts of organizational culture that are often disseminated from your original work on culture need to now be viewed differently. What is one of the biggest misconceptions — regarding the way your work is used today — that you would like to see better aligned with our current understanding of organizational culture?

From the beginning, I have argued that culture covers everything a group learns in its evolution. That includes external understanding of the environment so that you can survive and grow. Internally, that includes figuring out how to get along. I think today’s usage of the word culture is almost exclusively number two. It’s discussed in terms of workplace culture and how to get better engagement; how to get people to work in teams; how to be more service oriented. People use the word, culture, as almost exclusively geared at how to make employees happier and behave differently according to some notion of what management thinks might be better. What gets ignored is the role of culture in defining strategy, and mission, and how we’re going to get organized. All these concepts are also part of culture, and they are almost never really referred to now in most of the current, popular managerial literature.

2) Few (if any) would question the merit of your ideas around leaders needing to be more helpful and the concepts of humble inquiry. In environments that are inherently fast-paced (ex. medicine) what are a couple useful strategies to utilize these methods where time is scarce? 

One misconception is that humble inquiry is a slow, tedious and long-running process. I can see how it could easily be interpreted that way. But, my experience has been that, if a leader — whether it’s a doctor or whoever — who has time constraints, still wants to be a humble inquirer, you can do that by being more personal. So, my best example is, I’ve recently talked to several doctors and they complained bitterly about the degree to which they only have a few minutes with a patient because of all the other stuff they have to do. So, recently, whenever I’ve been with a doctor and we get into this discussion I coach them to lean over, touch the patient on the shoulder, and say in effect to this person, “As you may know, in the present system, I only have ten minutes. So, let’s make those ten minutes count.” My hunch is that, if you say something like that, it would immediately relieve some of the pressure and would enable both of them to be more open and personal — saying what’s really on their mind. So, it’s use of time, rather than the absolute amount of time that I think makes the difference. What I want to teach leaders is to see how they can very quickly personalize their relationship with their subordinate, or client. When successful, what then transpires is good, open communication rather than a formal dance of do I trust the other person, etc., etc. That may take a lot of time in some instances, but there’s nothing arbitrary that says it’s got to take at least an hour, or a day, or whatever. It’s really how you do it that matters.

3) Previewing my own research a bit, I have found during the process of my dissertation — contrary to popular advice that effective workplace wellness requires leadership actively architect “positive” company culture — successful wellness programs in small to mid-size businesses flourish when leadership is not evolved. Successful programs instead seemingly share the commonality of beginning as an internal well-being movement, spearheaded by (what is perceived as) a neutral advocate. You have discussed previously that “concepts” do not have cultures, groups do. A working theory of mine (in this context) is that well-being is better supported by an organization when employees do not feel coerced by tactics pushing them towards a preconceived definition of “wellness.” If that’s true, are there any tactics leadership can use to inspire a healthy culture other than giving this cohort autonomy?

The leader doesn’t have to participate, but they have to believe that whatever is going on at that middle level is worthy of support. So the distinction you have to make is not that leaders have to be involved, but that leaders have to be aware of what’s going on and be supportive. I can give you lots of examples of that. An interesting example (in regards to your question) would be, if you found some middle-level-generated programs that succeed where the leader is indifferent.

There are a lot of touch-feely programs out there. The leader comes in and discovers for the first time you are engaging in one of these type of programs and says, “What? You’re meeting in this group? No more of that.” There are plenty of examples where good programs are being killed that way. The problem is that middle managers and/or their staff do not explain well enough to leaders what they were actually doing. If they learn that the employees really like this stuff, they are generally not going to kill it — unless it really violates some of their own assumptions about what employees should be doing. The programs that I’ve seen killed, for example, are where employees will get into a T-group program sponsored by HR, and then an executive takes notice and sees them engaging in various kinds of emotionally charged feedback activities. The executive gets horrified, and says, “Who launched this program? I’m not going to have any more of that in my company.” That’s the kind of thing that can happen if leaders aren’t well-oriented to what the program will actually involve.

4) In your extensive look at the role culture plays within organizations, what are your thoughts on the impact culture can have on influencing and/or impacting personal well-being (outside of what we discuss above)?

My basic view is that culture covers everything that goes on in the organization unless it’s a brand-new organization and no culture is yet formed. But, assuming that the group or the company has some history, the culture will determine both what people regard to be the right way to work and how to feel about it. So, you can have a culture, which we used to have a lot of in the auto industry and so on, where what the person expects is a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. As long as I get my pay and I have reasonable working conditions, I don’t expect my company to make me happy. I expect my company to give me a living. And, if that’s the cultural norm, as it was in many organizations in the past, then you can’t say this is a bad culture because employees aren’t happy. It is what it is and employees have accepted it. Now, what seems to have happened is, in the last 25 years, is employees are beginning to say, “A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay isn’t good enough for me. If I spend all this time at work, I want to feel better.” That spawned organizations like Great Place to Work. Organizations like Great Place to Work make their money because a lot of employees think this stuff makes a difference. They believe, “How I feel at work is important.” If the boss gets concerned and says, “Gee, I want to be an organization that makes my employees happy because there’s some evidence, at least in some industries, that safety and quality actually is better if employees feel healthier and happier.” There’s enough research now that bosses are beginning to believe that this is real. So, suddenly, they want to change their culture. But, if they’ve spent 25 years building a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work kind of culture, you can’t just now say, “OK. I’m going to bring in a couple of consultants and we’ll create a healthy culture.” It doesn’t work that way because you’ve trained all your supervisors and all your managers to be impersonal, and bureaucratic, and that’s the way the place has worked forever. So, now suddenly, you discover the employees aren’t happy… so what are you doing to do? Well, you might from the very top have to start treating your own subordinates differently because your own subordinates are also part of that cultural system. So, when people say, “I now want healthy and happy employees,” they generally don’t realize that whether or not they can get there depends very much on the culture that’s already there, the culture they have built over however many generations. Therefore, they can slowly begin to evolve their culture in a new direction, but that also means changing your reward system, changing the way people are managed, changing all the fundamentals of the organization.

5) You have recently focused some of your work around humble consulting looking at intimacy as it applies to working relationships. Sheryl Sandberg has discussed that it is the fear of perceived intimacy that holds men back from creating strong professional bonds with female counterparts. Have you unearthed anything in your recent work that might mitigate this risk (other than common sense)?

When my Humble Consulting book comes out, which will be shortly, you will see that I make a big distinction between three levels of relationship. One is sort of the bureaucratic “stranger” relationship. Level two is what I’m calling a more “personal” relationship. Then, level three is what I’m calling “intimate” relationships. So, the question is, are we using intimate in the same way as Sheryl Sandberg? I’m arguing that level two relationships, which are always appropriate, is what you would call a personal relationship. I know you as a whole person… I am responding to you as a whole person. The question of what is appropriate in the workplace between men and women, I think it’s totally appropriate for both to get more personal around the tasks that they have to perform. But, that should not imply they need any more intimacy, sexual or otherwise.

The definition of intimate becomes crucial in this discussion. In U.S. culture, one might think that the word immediately implies this deeper male-female kind of stuff. And, that would certainly be a misuse of a working relationship. Therapists and lawyers aren’t supposed to be intimate with their patients and clients, but they can be very personal in how they structure the relationship so that good information and trust is built up. So, that’s the distinction, but I cannot specifically answer this question because I do not know how Sandberg has defined the word for her work.

The trick is to be aware that society’s rules always apply. What society decides as inappropriate intimacy applies across the board. You can’t say, “Well, in my company, we’re going to use different rules.” The key is for you, or me, or anybody to play by cultural rules because those rules apply to all these situations. Then, within that say, “Okay. I can’t be intimate, but as a boss I can sure have a better relationship with my subordinates by at least getting more personal.”

Interview with Mitesh Patel about Health Incentives

Mitesh Patel is a practicing physician, as well as a faculty member at both the Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation and Penn’s Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics.  Dr. Patel is also an Assistant Professor of Medicine and Health Care Management at the Perelman School of Medicine and The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He is well known for his research on behavioral economics where he and his colleagues are discovering ways to improve and elicit healthy behavior.  Dr. Patel’s thought leadership has been featured on CNN, NPR and in The New York Times, and his scientific findings have been published in several prestigious journals including the Annals of Internal Medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association.


1) As a physician interested in health, what do you make of the recent UCLA study that suggests BMI is a poor performance indicator? Although the extremely high recidivism rates we hear in lay media are generally inflated, programs that focus solely on weight loss programs seem to be falling out of favor. Is there a better approach to gauging and influencing toward behavior that contributes to wellness?

The challenge with using BMI is akin to the challenge of using any kind of score or metric for a population of people. There is always going to be a gray area. For instance, someone with a BMI of 29.9 is overweight, but someone with a BMI of 30 is obese. Even though there is a very, very small amount of difference between the two, when you categorize someone through this lens it can be classified as a significant difference. So this challenge I just described with BMI will be comparable with a lot of other standard measures.

So what many companies, employers and insurers are trying to do is find more holistic ways of looking at people’s health.  That is where it gets complicated, someone might have a low BMI, but have diabetes, and the right intervention is weight loss. This is an example of why using any metric in isolation is challenging. I do believe outside the context of the BMI measure, losing weight for overweight individuals is generally known to be beneficial. There is generally never harm in getting your BMI down to a lower range if you are above 25. However, that said, you certainly can find people with a BMI of say 32 that live to be over a hundred, but on average people in our current population are healthier if they lose weight.

A common problem with some wellness programs is they are often one-size-fits-all. For instance, lose 10 pounds and get a reward, but really we need to do a better job at personalizing to the individual. This highlights the importance of paying attention to how these programs are designed. We are facing complex problems, and oftentimes we are meeting these problems with solutions that are frankly too simple.

2) Outside of monetary incentives, what do you believe is most important for a company/organization to get right to best set themselves up for positively supporting employee well-being?

This brings us back to the importance of the overall design of the program. Is the program designed in a way that it will produce the results the company is expecting to get? Let’s say the goal is to increase everyone’s activity level, so the company gives everyone a free Fitbit, sets up a leaderboard to see how much everybody is doing and then creates a competition because competition can drive people to change behavior. The problem with this hypothetical solution is the program will motivate the people who are the top of the leaderboard — the people that tend to be already motivated — and demotivate the 95 percent of people that are not at the top of the leaderboard. I don’t think this is the right approach because it excludes the people you want to reach the most. We have done a couple studies where instead of setting a high bar, we set a threshold instead. For instance, in one study we set the threshold at 7,000 steps. The average American gets 5,000 steps, so the goal (in this particular study) is about a 40 percent increase in steps for most users. What this does is create a program that will reach more sedentary people than simply people who are already highly motivated to begin with.

3) What excites you the most about how technology is being used today to influence healthy behavior? And, where is it failing?

I think technology possess great potential to help us change behavior. One of the main reasons is that we could not measure these behaviors up until [roughly] 5 or 10 years ago. We didn’t know how many steps people took, we didn’t know if they took their medication (we can now with connected pill bottles), weight measurements were self-reported and often inaccurate. Technology has given us the opportunity to passively monitor, and we can now do that at a large scale. We can measure thousands of people with very low manpower because it can all be automated through technology.  The greatest promise of technology is being able to, on a large scale, automate this idea of passively hovering and get a rich data set so that we can see what is working (and what is not). Furthermore, we can do this while the only expectation for the participant is to continue doing what they are doing, which if you think about it is a big deal.

Where technology is failing is we have not taken the step beyond measuring. How do we actually get people to change their behavior using technology? I call this the “technology delusion.” People sometimes think that you can take someone who is overweight — who is inactive — give them a wearable device and all of a sudden they are going to be a new person. This might work for me or you who are engaged with this stuff, or Quantified Selfers, but it will not be true for people that have an inherent lack of motivation. These devices have not been shown to increase motivation in at-risk populations. That is why the studies I am a part of couple a behavioral change strategy with a technology. The technology is good for recording, maybe helping with feedback loops, but the behavior change component is what is often missing from organizational workplace wellness strategies.

4) There is research to suggest that extrinsic rewards are episodic, and in some cases extrinsic rewards can alter motivation in ways that are counterproductive. Most of this research is based on carrots (incentives) opposed to sticks (penalties), does using the fear of loss mitigate any of the risks generally associated with extrinsic motivation? Besides proving to be more effective, are there other attributes to penalties that position it as a better choice than rewards?

Intrinsic motivation is of course desired, if we can get people to increase that kind of motivation it is where we would start. The problem is it is fairly hard to influence intrinsic motivation, and then sustain that increase. The person really needs a good reason, many times that reason relates to a family event, or a life-changing event; whatever it is, the intrinsic motivation has to come from within the individual.

Extrinsic motivation, giving somebody some type of reward, is generally meant to jump start new habits and then hopefully we can remove the extrinsic motivators. There are some that believe you have to leave the reward in place to see sustainable behavior change. We have found evidence that people who get extrinsic motivation that’s well-designed get better results than our control groups. Furthermore, in some instances we have removed extrinsic motivation and we don’t really see that those people do worse than the control group either. We performed one study where we positioned the reward as a loss, allocated the money up front, and then took it away if the participant did not meet their goal. What is important here is that the lever was not a penalty — no one lost money out of their pockets. So this was not a stick per se but more like a “frozen carrot.” We told all three groups in that study at the end of the month they will get a check in the mail, and they could earn about $42 (a month). The reward was the same among the two non-control groups, but for one group the incentive was framed you get something for your behavior, the other group it was framed you start with a reward but it can be taken away. What was nice about that was it was a reward kind of masked as a penalty, and it made people feel like the money was theirs, a concept called the endowment effect. We find time and time again when people have skin in the game they are more likely to change their behavior.

5) Addressing the potential negative aspects of penalties, how do you coalesce your findings of successfully using the fear of loss to elicit behavior change, with the ethical notion that people should not be (or at least feel) penalized for personal choice?

Certainly there are ethical things to think about when one group is going to get something and another group is not. Those concerns should be discussed and addressed. One way to determine if the reward is causing harm is asking the question, “Do people disengage?” People are generally concerned about framing a reward as a loss, the belief being a group (subjected to the loss) is not going to like it or consider it punitive. We found in our study that even with a frozen carrot, 96 percent of people finished the study and stayed actively involved even 3 months after we turned off the incentive. This engagement is much higher than you would see in many wellness programs currently in use. If the incentive was perceived in a way so punitive that it made participants drop out that might give us pause. However, because of the success of the study it makes us believe that this method is scalable. I am not saying it will be for everybody. We still need a way to make these incentives more personalized. Some people will respond better to losses, some to gains. What we learned at the population level is it appears more respond more favorably to losses, but at the individual level a patient-centered approach will help us further by identifying the right incentive for a particular person, which in turn will increase efficacy. 

Interview with Kate Matsudaira about Productivity and Work

Kate Matsudaira is a startup founder and technology executive with a passion for productivity. She has extensive experience building and managing high performance teams and has held leadership positions in companies such as Decide (acquired by eBay), Moz and Amazon.com. In 2013, Kate started her own company Popforms with the mission of helping employees excel at work through innovative courseware. Popforns was acquired by O’Reilly Media in June 2014. In November 2014, Kate launched the Spark Notebook on Kickstarter after a decade-long journey trying to find “the perfect notebook.” Her goal was to raise $14,000, and she exceeded this by almost 10X raising almost a half-million dollars. Kate can be found musing about productivity, tech, leadership and life at: katemats.com.


1) Throughout your online authoring on goal setting, you discuss the importance of being mindful of your motive. I like that you move beyond the common Simon Sinek clichés of “start with why” and rather focus on the reality that people are going to be moved to action differently by different motivation. What are the best ways of overcoming being “lazy”?

Have you heard the word akrasia? The term means lacking command over one’s self. When someone acts against their better judgment, they kind of simply have this akrasia.  You know you should be doing something, but you don’t do it. I think most people’s lack of progress comes from this concept. Most people know what they should be doing at some level.

I believe there are two main ways people get stuck. The first way is, you know what you should be doing but you’re not sure how to make progress. For example, you know you really want to be a writer but you don’t know how to get a writing job. You have the skills of a writer, but you do not know how you actually make a living writing — or how to take those steps towards your goal. The challenge here is figuring out how to get started.

The second way people get stuck is, you have the knowledge to move yourself forward… you have the capacity to build a plan… but you cannot establish momentum. Using the writing example, you know that you need to create sample work. You need a few paid opportunities through freelance work so you can build a portfolio. You need to build the needed momentum to reach your goal. So, in this scenario the challenge is not putting a plan into place, but rather actually executing on a plan. This category of being stuck is where my notebook really helps, by turning bigger goals into actionable steps.

To overcome being lazy you need a plan. You need action. I think this is one of the bigger lessons for me in my life. When I first started my career, one of the things I would struggle with was that my boss would give me these huge projects. So, I would always ask, “Where do I start?” The goals were so big, and I was so new at what I was doing, I didn’t even know where to begin. I think that’s something that happens with a lot of people. You have these really big goals and you’re so far from the finish line it becomes tough to continue. One of the biggest lessons I learned during that time was to start with small steps.

2) Last year you became a mother. My wife and I just added our second addition to the family. How has parenthood changed the way you approach being productive (now that time is not exclusively your own)?

One obvious change in approach is prioritization. By necessity, I have now learned to say no to a lot more stuff too. When I got pregnant, I became really sick. I had a tough pregnancy. There was simply a lot I could not do during that time. So, at that point in my life, I started taking things off my plate because I physically was not capable of working the way I had in the past. The experience was a good primer for the way I operate now; I was forced to be economical with my time and I became very disciplined.

I have also learned you have got to focus on the task at hand. I talk a lot online about being present. Whether I am on a call, playing with my child or I’m writing an article, that is all I’m doing when I am performing that task. Always quality over quantity (with respect to completing tasks). When I am with my son, I’m not checking my phone. I leave my phone in the kitchen so I am not tempted. I am mindful of maximizing the output from any time spent, whatever the desired outcome might look like of the activity I’m immersed in — if I believe I won’t get positive ROI from time spent on something… I simply don’t do it.

I am up at 5:30 a.m. with my child now. So, time is the thing I don’t have. I have become really disciplined. When I have 15 minutes free, I don’t waste it on things like Facebook, I’m not screwing around with my extra minutes. I’m using all time really effectively nowadays. I have a predetermined plan for those 15 minutes that advantageously pop up. One of the real secrets to time management is knowing what to do with the spare 15 minutes life gives you.

3) Working with Michael Gervais, as well as buying into some of the arguments made by Gary Keller in the book The One Thing, I believe “balance” is a fallacy for high achievers. In my opinion, high achievers find more time than others because there is always more that can be done. You highlight this in your post about making the most of small slices. That said, prevailing science suggests that making time for renewal, and turning down, allows us to be more productive. How does the concept of renewal fit into your productivity paradigm?

You have to schedule it unfortunately. For me, exercise is a release so I try to schedule time to work out regularly. Fortunately, I consider time with my child downtime. I carve out time to spend time with my child and that’s not mentally taxing for me. For me, the time with my family is renewal and I have been really deliberate with how I spend my days. I also make it a point to take vacations every year.

In my car, I listen to good audiobooks, things that make you a better person. I have a pretty long commute, 45 minutes each way, so that’s a good amount of time that I can just kind of unwind if I want. So, I think it just depends on what you need (personally) to unwind. But, for me, I get enough renewal in my life. I’ve built my life around these things because I understand they’re important.  

4) You have an amazing amount of personal systems: for staying on task, organizing yourself and managing incoming information. Personally I feel overwhelmed by the information I have amassed and at times can find it limiting. For example, each year Evernote becomes less useful for me because it contains so much content now. Considering your interests, your proclivity for knowledge and writing, as well as being a continual innovator, what are your strategies to isolate what is important and/or simplify when you need to?

I have this thing I call my Monday Ninja Planning Session and I do it religiously every Sunday night or Monday morning. I start my week with it. I have time on my calendar for it that’s always either 30 or 60 minutes. The sessions are about going over what are the most important priorities and/or things I need to do that week. By engaging in this activity, it really makes sure that I’m not just working on time sucks (e.g. tactical messages in my inbox) or whatever superfluously comes my way. It also means that — by design — I am checking back into my goals every week. I ask myself, “How are my yearly goals going? What is going on with my monthly goals? How does this all fit together?” I make sure that I am actually moving forward with what is important. This method makes you critically look at your productivity and refocuses you to make sure that you’re working on things that matter. Establish this ritual at the beginning of the week, and you find yourself managing your time more effectively.

Also, if you work for someone else, send a status email every week outlining what you are going to do for the week. Make sure what you are working on is mapped with you and your manager’s goals. When I was an employee, this process created an ongoing conversation with my manager and allowed me to track and share my progress in a very tangible and meaningful way.

These are not really ways of simplifying your work I suppose, but rather ways of focusing on what is important which is keystone to being productive.

5) You have now created a movement of people who are going to use your product to aid them in making 2016 their best year yet. What are your plans and goals for evolving the Spark Project and the Spark community in 2016?

That is a really good question and I wish I had a really good answer for you. I am still consistently surprised by the success of the various Spark projects. Frankly, it is awesome. However, when you have a lot of unplanned success — which has led to not being able to fulfill all the orders in time for the new year — I am just trying to do my best just to make sure everyone is happy.

What the future holds is evolving. I am hoping to expand into some complementary products. We already have launched the meeting notes notepad. I also look forward to building other tools to help people be successful, so stay tuned for that. That’s it in terms of physical products for now. In terms of the Spark community, I am hoping to continue delivering strategies and free worksheets that help people achieve their goals (by way of the Spark email newsletter). We will likely use Kickstarter again next year for the 2017 planner because that platform has really worked well for us so far for launching these projects.

 

Interview with Laura Putnam about Employee Well-Being

Laura Putnam is a well-respected consultant, trainer and speaker on the topic of workplace wellness. She also writes on the topic for publications such as The New York Times and Entrepreneur, as well as authoring the book Workplace Wellness That Works. Laura is the CEO of Motion Infusion, a consulting and training firm that provides workplace wellness solutions to foster positive behavior change as well as improve employee engagement, performance and well-being. Laura has received various accolades for her work including the American Heart Association’s “2020 Impact” award.


1) As the workplace wellness industry tries to shift financial evaluation of wellness programs from ROI (return on investment) to VOI (value of investment), what are some ways you have seen organizations evaluate program success that are removed from these two equations that are still meaningful and measurable?

In the shift from ROI to VOI, we might say that there are three evaluation “buckets” to consider. The first bucket, which is what an ROI approach has primarily focused on, is medical cost-containment and risk reduction. This includes tracking the impact of wellness programming on medical costs, disability costs, workers compensation costs, rates of injuries, types of injuries and recovery time. The second bucket is productivity and performance, which includes effects on absenteeism, productivity, energy levels, team collaboration and customer loyalty. Finally, the third bucket is becoming an employer of choice. Companies now recognize that they cannot be competitive, especially when it comes to retention and attraction, without well-designed wellness programming. The reality is that employees, especially Millennials, expect their employers to care about them as people and to also care about making the world a better place. Data points in this third bucket include measuring rates of retention and attraction, job satisfaction scores, levels of employee and leadership engagement, quality of life for employees and even level of connection with a higher purpose.

In order to address the productivity and performance bucket, companies like Goldman Sachs and Google offer wellness programs that help employees to become more focused, more competitive and ultimately more resilient. In lieu of a potentially stigmatizing “reduce your stress” types of programs, they offer “I can become a more effective employee” types of programs. Goldman Sachs’ resiliency program, which is sold as a means to “sharpen one’s competitive edge,” attracts over 500 employees every quarter. The legendary “Search Inside Yourself” program, launched at Google, trains employees how to become both more mindful and emotionally intelligent. In both cases, the companies are less interested in ROI on medical costs and are more interested in performance enhancement.

This idea of using wellness as a means to better oneself and make the world a better place is something I am personally interested in. I love companies like Patagonia and Eileen Fisher that are going after this third bucket of impact. They are both invested in well-being as a means to not only become an employer of choice, but as a vehicle for protecting the environment. While Patagonia does not have a “wellness program” per se, every aspect of doing business breathes well-being and is deeply connected to its mission to “use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.” Eileen Fisher also connects well-being with environmentalism by encouraging employees to become “sustainability ambassadors,” acting as champions of well-being and advocates for protecting the earth.

Companies like Salesforce.com and Square are using impact on the community as a metric for success. Salesforce just hit 1 million volunteer hours. Square has a clean streets initiative, where employees go out and clean the neighborhood. Leveraging the broken windows theory, the idea is that small changes can have a larger impact. So, something “meaningful and measurable” might be as simple as, “how much trash did we pick up?”

2) Big enterprises have some innate advantages to small and mid-size businesses when it comes to providing workplace wellness solutions: economies of scale, access to insurance brokers that provide various free wellness products as value-added services and better access to aggregate employee health data (to name a few). What are some of the advantages smaller companies have to larger companies when it comes to building a workplace wellness program?

In smaller organizations, there are inherently fewer leaders and fewer people. So, it’s much easier to: a) implement a program; and b) shift the culture. If a leader decides to support well-being, then it is easier for that to actually happen in a smaller organization. If an employee has an idea, it’s usually easier for them to be able to move on it. And, certainly, it’s much easier to shift the culture in a smaller organization.

One of my favorite examples is The Sioux Empire United Way in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. A single employee, Colleen Thompson, finance director, decided to take up walking as a way to lose weight and support her newfound commitment to a healthy lifestyle. Rather than just doing it on her own, she invited coworkers to join her. To this day, eleven years later, she and her coworkers are still at it. Everyday – rain, shine, sleet or snow – employees walk together, twice a day, a mile each time. To ensure that weather doesn’t get in the way, they’ve mapped out both an indoor route and an outdoor route. This story is proof that one person can really have an impact, especially within a small organization.

Another important element to this story, of course, is the championing of well-being from the president, Jay Powell. In conjunction with this twice-a-day walk, he decided to try out standing desks with a few employees. Once it proved to be an effective, he extended the offer of a standing workstation to every employee. Because of its small size, the initiative was relatively easy to implement across the office.

3) In your book Workplace Wellness that Works you build a lot of your ideas on a wide range of concepts from established thought leaders. What I particularly enjoyed is in the spirit of a true “da Vinci approach” a lot of the concepts were taken from outside the field. Avoiding folks like Dee Edington and BJ Fogg, who are three “outside” thought leaders we in workplace wellness should get to know (and a quick reason why for each)?

  1. a) Barbara Fredrickson: Dr. Fredrickson is a positive psychologist affiliated with the University of North Carolina. She has really done some incredible studies on both positivity and positivity resonance, which is positivity in the context of others. Her work has really inspired my rethinking of the prevailing “identify what’s wrong and then fix-it” model, which I think creates a depleting experience for people. It’s no wonder why so many employees are opting out of wellness at work! The research suggests that over 80% of eligible employees are choosing not to participate in workplace wellness programs. In some programs, the participation rates are as low as 1-2%. I am convinced that these low rates of engagement are largely due to the overly invasive and negatively oriented wellness programs that we’ve developed.
  2. b) Chip Conley: Chip’s work, especially his book Peak, has had a huge influence on my understanding of the role of culture and how to go about building a positive culture. I am more and more convinced that when it comes to the practice of well-being, we are less “creatures of habit” and more “creatures of culture.” Therefore, as wellness practitioners, we must become experts in culture change – and not just experts in behavior change.
    As CEO of Joie de Vivre, Chip modeled a different way of leading. For starters, he dubbed himself the “chief emotions officer.” In addition, he facilitated open, transparent conversations with employees asking questions like, “Is this a job? Is this a career? Or is this your calling?” And, “If it feels like a job, what can we do here so that it feels like it’s more of a calling?”
  3. c) Arianna Huffington: In the field of workplace wellness, we have placed such a premium on science and research and have not paid enough attention to the importance of being able to share our message in a way that resonates for people. This is exactly what Arianna does so well in her most recent book Thrive. While it is not a perfect book, it speaks to people on an emotional level. In both her writing and her speaking, Arianna uses storytelling, humor and even tonality to deliver her message. These are all the kinds of things that I believe we have to do much more of to change behaviors. It is less about reaching people’s rational minds and more about reaching people’s hearts. This is why the first step in my book is titled “Shift your mindset from expert to agent of change” – and I cite Arianna as an example of an “agent of change.”
  4. d) Michael Gervais: I love Dr. Gervais’s message of imagining what’s possible and then planning from there. This approach dovetails well with a detour from a “what’s wrong with you and let’s fix you” approach toward a “what’s right with you and let’s build on it” approach.
  5. e) Firdaus Dhabhar: Finally, I am enthralled with the research of people like Dr. Dhabar, a researcher at Stanford. His research has uncovered many of the benefits of stress – and that it’s less about stress avoidance and more about acknowledging and even embracing stress. His work underscores the fact that stress can be leveraged as energy. He advocates actually intensifying short periods of stress and then offsetting that with proactive restoration, which really is in line with a lot of the stuff that people like Tony Schwartz, CEO and founder of The Energy Project, have been talking about for a long time.

4) Speaking of a “da Vinci approach” to wellness, for those that have not read your book yet, can you explain the essence of this method? And, can you provide an example or two of the most creative ways you have seen “da Vinci” put into action?

I’m more and more convinced that the only way we are going to have real impact is if we start to integrate wellness and well-being holistically, and not have myopic standalone programs. A great way to do that is by channeling Leonardo da Vinci, the Italian polymath, and taking an interdisciplinary approach toward promoting well-being in the workplace.

On an internal level, you need to engage multiple perspectives from multiple departments. As much as possible, break down silos and reach across to as many different departments as possible:  training and development, organizational development, community outreach, IT, marketing, compensation and benefits, health and safety, facilities, etc.

On an external level, I would encourage you to move away from a one-stop-shop vendor to a team of outside partners, which might include brokers, insurance carriers and even community resources. For example, the American Heart Association provides all kinds of support for organizations that are interested in creating cultures of health.

Schindler Elevator Corporation is a great example of a company that has taken a “da Vinci approach” toward promoting health and well-being in the workplace. Rather than delivering a stand alone wellness programs, Schindler has incorporated well-being concepts into non-wellness initiatives, such as leadership development programs and safety training initiatives. These interdisciplinary programs have partnered the OD department with both safety and HR departments, as well as a number of outside wellness, learning and culture vendors.

5) We are seeing some progressive employers move the corporate wellness conversation from concerns regarding employee “wellness” to thinking about workplace wellness in terms of improving employee “well-being”. Trying to improve population health has already proven to be a complex problem for most, could broadening our focus too fast potentially have risks in the sense that complexity can be inherently paralyzing and might lead to further inaction from organizations simply trying to get started?

Yes and no. Yes, the concept of “well-being” can feel amorphous and overwhelming. Certainly, this broader mission, that encompasses dimensions beyond healthy eating, physical activity and smoking cessation, might lead to inaction.

On the other hand, I think a lot of people are tired of the worn out healthy eating, physical activity and smoking cessation wellness programs. The idea that other factors, like social connections or meaningful work, play into our overall level of well-being is really inspiring and is actually catalyzing organizations and people into action. In my experience, “better health” is not that motivating for most, whereas, becoming one’s best self is. “Wellness” is more focused on (and associated with) the former, whereas “well-being” is more linked on the latter.

The truth of the matter is that well-being moves into areas that companies have already been addressing for a long time. Therefore, this shift actually allows for an opportunity to connect with pre-existing programming (like safety training and leadership development). This is certainly what I have seen in cases like Schindler.

I think the key is for each organization to first define what “well-being” means and based on this definition, identify the areas to focus on. For example, HubSpot, a fast-growing technology company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, organizes its well-being programming around three different areas: physical activity, healthy eating, and mindfulness/stress reduction. The City of Sioux Falls, on the other hand, has organized its programming around five areas of well-being: physical, emotional/social, career, financial, and community.

This broader landscape of well-being provides each organization an opportunity to identify its “signature” program. For example, Treehouse, a technology company based in Portland, Oregon, has designed a four-day workweek for its employees. The CEO insists that people actually take the day off on Fridays to spend time with their families or engage in leisure time activities – not work. What he has found is that employees are more productive – and the program serves as a great recruiting tool. While Treehouse cannot possibly compete with the Google’s of the world in terms of salary, they can say, “Well, if you work at Google, are you going to have a four-day workweek? Probably not. But, here at Treehouse, you will.”

Ultimately, whether we’re talking about wellness or well-being, it comes down to carving out regular practices to be embraced by all levels of employees. Companies like LinkedIn have walking meetings as a regular practice. At Eileen Fisher, employees regularly begin meetings with emotion-boosting activities like a moment of silence. At Campbell’s Soup, former CEO Douglass Conant modeled the practice of saying thank you. It is fabled that during his 10-year tenure, he wrote over 20,000 thank you notes to employees. In his view, this practice played a key role in the company’s turnaround. The company went from having lost 54% of its market value to its stock rising over 30%.