Businesses are continuing to look towards viable workplace wellness strategies, and these programs are increasing in popularity, despite inconclusive evidence regarding their return on investment and effectiveness. Analysts are so bullish on the growth of workplace wellness programs that the sputtering consumer wearable market is banking on their success by speculating on the opportunities being made available as large enterprises continue to expand their employee well-being programs through technology.
According to a government-funded RAND study in 2013, about one in every two American employers offers some form of initiative that promotes employee wellness (Mattke et al., 2013). Going into 2017, this saturation is probably higher. Corporate wellness stakeholders often want to know how much money they will save if they introduce or expand a wellness program for their employees. They look for hard data to support their decisions, and many decision makers continue to rely on return on investment (ROI) as a quantitative measure to gauge program efficacy. However, because proving program ROI has been elusive, it has been suggested by those in corporate wellness trade organizations that other factors should be considered when assessing the long-term benefits of these programs. As an alternative to ROI, there has been an attempt to introduce value on investment (VOI) to capture some of these program’s intangible benefits. These “intangibles” include subjective measures such as: contributions to knowledge, collaboration, innovation, presenteeism, retention and employee engagement (Hight, 2012; Norris, 2003). The contrived VOI model has basically become essential in attempting to financially justify funding and investment in most programs (Norris, 2003).
Workplace Wellness Research for Small and Mid-Size Businesses
For the most part, the primary focus of academic research regarding workplace wellness programs has been large enterprises. However, the findings of these studies are often not generalizable to companies with fewer than 1,000 employees. There is a significant and growing need for models and strategies that can benefit smaller organizations. This need is especially significant considering that a majority of employees in the American workforce serve small and mid-sized companies (McPeck, Ryan, & Chapman, 2009). My recent study “Workplace Wellness Strategies for Small Businesses” attempted to fill the knowledge gap that exists in this area. My purpose was to determine what common strategies are being used by small to mid-sized business (SMBs) that had both effective and viable workplace wellness programs.
Workplace Wellness Strategies in Small and Mid-Size Businesses (SMBs)
Four organizations participated in the study: a beverage distributor, a boutique hotel, a general contracting firm and a service-based company. I conducted in-depth interviews and studied company artifacts. The data collected was compared for similarities, differences and patterns (a comparative case study approach), and data analysis was performed according to the standards of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This process provided me the opportunity to uncover and better understand the commonalities of effective and viable SMB workplace wellness strategies that were demonstrated by these four companies.
My findings found 19 strategies used by these effective programs. Five overreaching concepts are identified that helped organize these strategies:
One of the common characteristics (“concepts”) of the programs studied was their ability to be innovative. The positive company culture within the businesses themselves was another commonality of successful programs. The employee-centric concept referred to the company’s desire to care for the well-being of its employees. All companies that participated in the study also worked proactively to create healthier work environments and provide healthier options for their employees. Finally, the concept of altruism referred to the company’s inherent desire to help others, and included the presence of a selfless leader running the workplace wellness program.
These five primary concepts each had corresponding strategies presented as themes. For instance, innovation was connected with non-traditional approaches, constant iteration and refinement, ideas that were internal to the company, thoughtful use of technology and the “fail fast” concept (often found in lean methodology). Company culture presented themes that include employee influence and involvement, authenticity and leadership that did not directly get involved (in program design), but instead provided autonomy to the right people within the business to run the programs effectively. The concept of employee-centric got expressed through various holistic approaches to employee well-being, starting with the employee’s well-being as a foundation (in contrast to considering economic motives), as well as through shouldering the financial burden of employee health care costs and tailoring their wellness approach to the needs of the employees. Concern for the external and internal corporate environment was shown in themes that described the designation of physical space for well-being considerations, company community involvement and the provision of healthy options for the employees. Altruism related to a selfless program leader, appreciation of program feedback and a program budget that was based largely on recommendations rather than mandates.
Why is this SMB Workplace Wellness Study Important?
I am proud of this study and believe it provides new insights into the characteristics of successful workplace wellness strategies. While some of the themes that emerged will feel familiar to my contemporaries, several rather surprising findings were identified as well. A better understanding of these factors — combined with validation of the more common strategies already well-established — this study gives SMBs programs a new, unique map to improve their workplace wellness strategies. What I have documented is a set of strategies that transcends the cookie cutter advice commonly disseminated by workplace wellness providers (generally tailored for big business) because their motive is to move large corporate clients into their sales funnel.
A poignant example of this is a theme that surprised me: that some of the most successful program ideas were internal. This is contrary to the established belief that workplace wellness ideas get cascaded down from vendors and brokers that offer employee well-being services at scale (Hughes et al., 2011). Although my professional role is working for a provider (Active Wellness), my study was conducted as a doctoral candidate, and in taking an unbiased look at these programs the data suggests health promotion vendors (catering to big businesses) might not be the optimal providers of workplace wellness strategies to SMBs. Another interesting assertion I make is challenging the common wisdom that successful programs rely on involvement from leadership. Historically, it has been generally advised that managers should personally promote wellness initiatives, act as role models and engage with employees in wellness (O’Boyle & Harter, 2014). My study, however, did not support this established view. In the case of the four companies that participated, wellness thrived in environments where leadership passed the responsibility for wellness programs to the right person within the organization. That person was given the autonomy to implement the program in a viable way based on the culture of the organization. Intuitively, one might posit managers within SMBs might not always be the best qualified to lead by example. Running SMBs often is fairly stressful and requires managers to play multiple strategic roles. Therefore, these individuals in many cases should not necessarily champion wellness initiatives if they are already struggling to maintain their own wellness due to high levels of stress (Swaby, 2016).
My sincerest hope is that the findings of this study break new ground and can fuel a positive discussion about the importance of creating healthy workplaces and supporting employees in small and mid-size business — so these businesses can support employee well-being as effectively as larger enterprises. If you would like to learn more about this study on workplace wellness strategies, please feel free to reach out and/or you can view the study in its entirety over at the International Journal of Workplace Health Management by clicking here.
Sources & further reading:
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 77–101.
The year 2016 is almost ready for the history books. It seems like an especially remarkable year for many — for a variety of reasons — good and bad. Over the course of the year I have shared a lot of personal ups and downs, as well as made a commitment to improve the utility of this project. This quarter I have attempted to do that by learning and sharing the wisdom of two extraordinary individuals. One notable for his ability and passion to create experiences and habitats that create joy, and another for being the figurehead of one of the largest and most successful MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) on creating happiness. I hope you enjoy the articles and the ideas from these thought leaders, and the information is able to help you create more joy and happiness in your own life, as well as the lives of those you care about.
Business, Innovation and Entrepreneurship: This quarter I sat down with the legendary Chip Conley to talk about creating and delivering joy (and a lot about festivals too). Chip has written several best sellers, is the founder of the Joie de Vivre Boutique Hotel Group, and holds executive positions in strategy at both Airbnb and Everfest. My interview with Chip can be viewed here.
Health and Wellness: I was also fortunate enough to interview Dr. Raj Raghunathan, a world-renown expert on happiness. Raj wrote the book, If You Are So Smart, Why Aren’t You Happy? He also maintains the online course: A Life of Happiness and Fulfillment. It is one of the top courses offered by Coursera, and has had over 75,000 students. My interview with Raj can be viewed here.
Life Experience: This quarter I made it to the East Coast to present my research on workplace wellness, but the more notable life experience this quarter happened closer to home. I got to expereince an escape room at EscapeSF in San Francisco. I also experienced my first “float” (i.e. sensory deprivation tank) at FLOAT in Oakland.
Contribution: It was exciting to be a small part of a big win for my friend, Chris Tsakalakis. Chris had open-heart surgery in 2009, at which time he wasn’t sure how much time he had left here. Fortunately, he’s now thriving and this year set the American Heart Association’s all-time Heart Walk donation record, bringing in over $100,000 for the charity.
A few weeks ago I was working at the dining room table, which is flanked by our playroom and a makeshift art studio for the kids. My daughter sat next to me as I typed away and said, “papa, you’re always practicing your work; you are a really good worker; I wish I could be a good worker like you.” Being the psychology nerd I am, I talk to her a lot about the importance of deliberate practice, so the idea of practice is a familiar concept around our house. When she shared her observation I felt a little piece of me begin to die inside, but I saved it from peril by uttering these words, “Sloane, you’re always practicing your play; you are really good at playing; I wish I could be as good at play as you.”
We agreed after this exchange to teach each other our respective trades. As such, you might see her popping up more in the life experience section as I get educated in the coming year.
Wishing you and yours an abundance of joy, happiness and play in 2017.
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 Fulfillment, a 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. One of the main reasons 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.
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 that 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.
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.
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.
Most of us want to have fun, it just seems like it is not as easy as it used to be. The reasons are many: guilt (because others aren’t having fun), perceived inappropriateness (because others around us cannot have fun) or lack of time (because our commitment to others won’t let us have fun). Yet, science gives an encouraging nod that we need to make time for fun and should perhaps prioritize it.
Since the term “fun” can be ambiguous and is often used in different contexts, let us first look at the standard definition of the word. Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines fun as: amusement, especially lively or playful. Staying true to the definition we generally connect the word fun to things that are entertaining and enjoyable to do. Fun is also sometimes used interchangeably with play — although there is a distinction as fun is argue that play is a state of mind; a certain attitude we can incorporate into any and every activity (Brown, 2009).
It is important to keep in mind that what is fun for you, might not be fun for somebody else. Therefore, fun can be difficult to investigate using standardized scientific methods. As such, scientific conclusions about the benefits of fun come from subjective observations and less rigorous studies. Nonetheless, there are enough studies that indirectly link to the concept of fun and play that a case can be made that we all need fun.
Here are five reasons science suggests you should have fun:
Fun improves your relationships, both at work and in life
Research shows that when we have fun with others, these experiences have a positive effect on building trust and developing communication. Having fun gives us an opportunity to connect and be creative. When we laugh together, this sends an external non-verbal message that says: “We are alike, we share values” (Everett, 2011). It can also make us look more vulnerable, but at the same time approachable and friendly, which can help build connections and bonds. Drs. John and Julie Gottmann, relationship experts from the Seattle’s Gottman Research Institute, have been studying happy and unhappy couples (and their patterns of behavior) in a systematic way. They found that couples who are happy know how to have fun together. It appears that when we have the ability to create and partake in acts of humor and affection, our conflict resolution skills improve as well.
Studies show that fun activities at work can improve our relationships with co-workers. These strong bonds developed with our colleagues have been linked to improved performance and productivity (Kansal, Puja, & Maheshwari, 2012).
Fun makes us smarter
According to science, one way to improve our memory and concentration is to have fun. Partially, this has to do with the stress reduction that happens when we engage in something we enjoy. However, the benefits of fun activities seem to stretch further than that. The British Cohort Study — a study that has been following 17,000 people born in 1970 — found that reading for fun improves our language skills, and more surprisingly our proficiency in math as well. It appears that fun activities that introduce us to new ideas and concepts foster self-directed learning. The rewards we gain from these experiences might expand beyond the obvious benefits. Scientists are now also exploring if reading for fun can also protect us against cognitive decline as we age.
Fun reduces stress
You probably do not need science to inherently know this already: engaging in enjoyable activities can be an especially powerful antidote to stress. It has been recognized in several studies that spontaneous laughter has a stress-buffering effect that helps us better cope with stress. According to one study, individuals who laughed less had more negative emotions when compared to those who laughed more. In contrast, those who laughed more showed fewer negative feelings even when stressful situations increased (Kuiper & Martin, 1998). Interestingly, this same study found that there is no correlation between having a good sense of humor and displaying stronger or more intense emotions. As such, therapeutic laughter programs are now being developed and evaluated, and are sometimes offered as treatments for depression, stress and anxiety (Kim et al., 2015). It appears that there is some truth to the adage, “laughter is the best medicine.”
Finding fun in physical activity balances your hormone levels
It has been well-established that high stress levels negatively influence our hormones and neurotransmitters (especially cortisol and noradrenalin). Stress also affects our endocrine, metabolic and immune functions. Hormones can have an amazing effect on our mood — this is true for both genders (Koelsch et al., 2016). Certain hormones, such as cortisol, insulin, testosterone and estrogen, can be particularly influential and cause havoc when we have an imbalance. One way to naturally balance hormones is to engage in pleasurable physical activity (e.g. Abbenhardt et al., 2013). In other words, adaptation is not reliant on intense physical activity but rather consistent recreational exercise. When it comes to exercise, find what fun means to you and bake it in to your routine.
Fun can make you more energetic and youthful
Stress is draining — it can suck the life out of us, making us tired and cranky. When we effectively reduce our stress levels, this can often provide us with a new boost of vitality. Having fun and playing have traditionally been connected with children and the early years of our development. However, many philosophers and psychologists emphasize the importance of play as we get older. Plato professed that life must be lived as play, and George Bernard Shaw famously said: We don’t stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.
Fun at Work
Having fun at work might be just as important as having fun in your personal life. Everett (2011) concludes that since we will spend more than 90,000 hours of our lives at work, we might as well have fun there. Some of the benefits of playing on the job include:
– Higher recruitment and retention rates. Organizations that nourish creativity and playfulness in employees have less difficulty recruiting and retaining good staff, and it is an encouraging trend that more modern organizations are balancing work and play than in prior decades (Everett, 2011). For example, here in the Bay Area Google is known for having a fun workplace and is also a very desirable company to work for. Sponsoring fun activities has also been recognized as a measure to prevent burnout (Meyer, 1999).
– Increased job satisfaction. Employees must feel satisfied to be productive. There are many factors that contribute to job satisfaction, which logically also correlates to overall life satisfaction. When we can laugh and have fun at work, we can also build better relationships and help create connections with our workmates. Doing fun things together creates a joint history with our fellow employees. When we have fun together we tend to relate to and identify with our coworkers better. Some authors believe that “teams that play together, stay together,” so it is important to create organizational culture that supports that (Berg, 2001).
– Increased customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is generally closely linked with employee satisfaction. Workers who have something to smile about are usually better equipped to make customers smile than their melancholy counterparts. Fun seems to be contagious — as shown by studies looking at work environments. For example, when a fun work philosophy was adopted at Sprint, this resulted in their call center agents handling 30 percent more calls, and customers expressing an increased level of satisfaction with their services (Karl & Peluchette, 2006).
Everett (2011) also points out that fun should not be made mandatory. It ceases to be fun then, and can actually contribute to feelings of stress among employees. It is important to consider that people’s perceptions of fun (and what fun means to them) may vary and that they do not necessarily want to have fun in a certain way, at a certain time.
[FUN FACT]: Did you know that according to a study from 1998, adults only laugh on average 17 times a day (Kuiper, & Martin, 1998)? If you have a good joke, leave it in the comments so we can help push up this average.
Have you ever thought what you want on your tombstone? Or wondered what gives you the drive to hustle? Are you the benevolent type, but still have enough ego that you want to be remembered for all the good you did in the world? There are many forces that help drive us to pursue, and the desire to leave a legacy is one of the strongest.
This inherent drive to leave a legacy can manifest in a range of ways: from a desire to have children to wanting to lead a visionary movement that transforms a society. Although the manifestation of the process might differ between individuals, most of us seem to have a desire to create a legacy — to leave something behind when we go. Our desire for legacy can be biological, material, and/or it can be expressed as our values and hard-won knowledge that we pass on to family and friends (Hunter & Rowles, 2005).
What is the Meaning of Legacy?
The word legacy comes from a Latin word legatus, translated as ‘embassador, envoy, deputy.’ In the late 14th century, an old French word legacie was used to describe a body of persons sent on a mission. We can therefore look at legacy metaphorically that when we create a legacy, what we are really doing is appointing our spokesperson for the future. Most of us — either explicit or unknowingly — have a desire for either symbolic or literal immortality (i.e. literal immortality is some belief that there is an afterlife). This seems especially strong in those of us that understand death is inevitable (Sligte, Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2013). Our legacy, if adequately left, transcends the realms of our physical life and brings symbolic immortality.
As our awareness of mortality grows, it brings into focus internal concerns and questions about why we exist. For many, this quest for purpose begins once we realize that the opportunity to leave our mark is finite. For others, this realization can lead fear — a threat to one’s sense of self that we will likely soon be forgotten. Thus, people try to negotiate what us scientists call ‘mortality salience’ in different ways (Sligte, Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2013). When reminded of our impending death, we often look for ways to transcend that feeling and employ different psychological mechanisms to reach symbolic immortality. For instance, we are compelled to connect with influential social groups, because a group’s existence generally transcends the existence of a single individual. Furthermore, groups also bolster our self-esteem and nurture our belief that the world meets the standards and values within our worldview — a rationalization that everything will end well. This has been explored in depth by Terror Management Theory or TMT, which was proposed by Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski and Sheldon Solomon (1986).
To create legacy some of us — I fall into the category —turn to our creative side. By introducing new ideas, designs, novel products and original solutions into our current reality we possess the potential to influence societies (and dare I say the world) in a way that will outlive ourselves. Studies have shown that creativity is often used as a force of legacy, especially when the expression of creativity is socially valued — after all, we love our friends… our peers… our ‘tribes’ and most of us either explicitly or secretly want their recognition (Sligte, Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2013).
Why Do You Want to Leave a Legacy?
The crux of legacy is that we look for ways to be existentially reassured our life mattered. We bargain with death as we go through the psychological cycle of grieving our inevitable non-existence (Ross, 1969). We want to leave a legacy because before we can psychologically accept the reality of our own physical annihilation, we put up one hell of a fight. Science suggests a desire to leave something behind when we pass naturally increases as we age (Newton, Herr, Pollack, & McAdams, 2013). Those of us that have had long and productive careers seem to be challenged the most by the process of aging (Wexler & Long, 2009). Intuitively this makes sense; if you worked hard all your life — inevitably making personal sacrifices along the way — you want to believe your life amounted to something in the eyes’ of others because you will not be around to tell your story. You want some recognition for living a dedicated life. Again, various studies suggest the closer to death we get, the more we crave this immortality. A study of women that were faced with a life-threatening illness showed that all subjects consciously started the process of legacy transmission (Hunt, 2007), which could be interpreted that legacy closely links with our relationship to death and mortality.
Many authors also think that the wish to create a legacy is connected both with generativity and narcissism (Newton, Herr, Pollack, & McAdams, 2013). Generativity is a psychological concept, usually regarded as a positive one — generativity often emerges in midlife and can be connected with parenthood or other social roles, such as mentoring. Erikson (1974) defined it as “…the establishment, the guidance, and the enrichment of the living generation and the world it inherits.” Erikson viewed it as a concept that is often focused on the next generation and an inherent individual care for its well-being. Narcissism, on the other hand, is usually viewed as a more negative concept (though there is a distinction between normal and pathological narcissism). Generativity is focused on others, while the concept of narcissism focuses on one self. We could therefore conclude that wanting to leave a legacy on some level is associated with narcissism since you do not need to be remembered to help society. It appears that legacy is likely a combination of both selflessness and narcissism (Rubinstein, 1996).
Many people indeed associate a need for legacy with ego; an act of ego beyond death. In contrast, the desire to selflessly change the world is viewed as more altruistic in nature — those that do things anonymously and do not wish to be recognized for it. Nonetheless, some point out that legacy has the potential to go beyond the ego and be weighted in altruism. It can surpass cultural constraints and become a broader aspect of human development that is a psychological driver of greater good (Hunt, 2007).
One thing about legacy that science seems to agree on is that this desire is somewhat universally seeded in us. Since it is often connected with having children and passing either goods, values, knowledge and/or wisdom onto them, being childless can (in some people) create a feeling of despair and/or sadness as they feel they are no outlets to leave a legacy (Rubinstein, 1996). It was observed that some childless women looked for other ways to meaningfully influence and support others (e.g. family members, community), or alternatively they wanted to create a legacy that related to the whole human species. This desire can sometimes drive very old people to participate in, for example, antinuclear protests even if building more nuclear power plants probably isn’t going to influence them anymore. Some studies show that older people, it can be more important to pass on values and beliefs than material possessions (Hunter, 2007). It is clear that legacy means different things to different people, but that for most of us it is the pursuit of symbolic immortality that drives us.
Sources & further reading:
Erikson, E. H. (1974). Dimensions of a new identity. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
I have generally been an advocate of behavior change science. Designing healthy habits and routines can be an effective way to elicit change in the appropriate environment. However, similar to some of the legitimacy issues executive consulting faced when “life” coaches hit the scene, a wave of unqualified behavioral “designers” have been able to find an audience due to the increased ease at which garbage can be disseminated thanks to the power of the Internet. An important disclosure is I am one of those peddlers, so I am chucking big rocks at my big glass house. That said, it is long overdue to air some dirty laundry — so here we go…
Many popular behavior change interventions are designed for short intervention-behavior lags — i.e. the desired behavior of the user takes place almost at the same time as the intervention is administered. For instance, you see your Fitbit on your arm and get reminded to walk, so you get up from your desk and take a phone meeting outside while walking; or a more common example, a beep in your car nudges you to fasten your seatbelt, you hear the beep and you buckle up. But one of our many dirty little secrets is that these interventions are not particularly useful after the “treatment” has been administered (Rogers & Frey, 2014). For instance, taking the seatbelt example, one study showed that if drivers were reminded to fasten their seatbelt immediately before they drove off, their compliance was significantly better than if they were reminded 5 minutes earlier (Austin, Sigurdsson, & Rubin, 2006). Moreover, and more importantly, a delayed prompt (when there was a 5-minute lag between the prompt and the driver entering the car) the intervention was no more effective than receiving no prompt at all (i.e. the study’s control group). A few minutes seems to be enough for our attention to wander off and for another stimulus to take over — in other words, if an stimuli is not administered in real-time the effectiveness of the behavioral intervention diminishes — if (what people of my sort call) a “trigger” happens after the action that needs changing is taken, the intervention is usually a lot less effective.
Therefore, what behavioral designers and marketers often try to do is alter our thoughts in real time. Real-time stimulus is pretty effective and can acutely change our behavior in the short-term. These tactics are frequently used in conjunction with framing our choice as riskaversion. For example, if you are going to the beach and you get told that by not wearing sunscreen, you will have a higher chance of developing skin cancer, chances are you are more likely to buy sunscreen (for evidence of this see: Detweiler et al., 1999). But, it is questionable at best if you will actually change your habit of generally not buying sunscreen before going out in the sun; in the sunscreen study the perception of risk was only changed in that moment. Changing thoughts in an enduring matter has proven to be much more difficult. Behavior interventions are supposed to be able to bridge time, but if the intervention is not administered just before the target behavior occurs, this is unlikely to happen. For instance, a study that looked at Biggest Loser contestants showed that during the show — when contestants were bombarded with different inputs, interventions and coaches — participants lost considerable weight. Six years later however they gained back, on average, 70% of the lost weight (Fothergill et al., 2016).
The hard reality about behavior change is it is not easy to create persistence — although there are different pathways that have been connected with the process for lasting behavior change. The problem is these complicated pathways are rarely designed well in novel behavior change models. Instead designers look for dramatic results so they can market themselves and their intervention. That is the bullshit part, so what can you do about it?
In their research paper, Todd Rogers and Kerin Frey (researchers from Harvard University) describe some of the features that are likely to bridge time. These include feeling socially accountable (e.g., not wanting to let down family and friends), linking performance with the intervention, pre-committing to a certain behavior and/or deliberately changing perceptions and consequential thoughts (Rogers & Frey, 2014). The importance of this last one (deliberately changing perceptions and consequential thoughts), has been shown to be extremely important for lasting behavioral change. This is why cognitive-behavioral therapy is touted as an evidence-based, efficient technique for changing habits — science continues to support the idea that deliberate practice creates new and lasting cognitive patterns and pathways (Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, & Yee, 2002).
The premise of self-licensing is that when you feel you have invested legitimate effort into something, an internal self-licensing cue can get produced that justifies a negative action, many times in the form of a hedonic action of consumption or self-gratification. Ever remember a time you rewarded your 30 minutes of cardio with a milkshake Jamba Juice. At least one study showed that a self-licensing cue leads to increased snack intake (Witt Huberts, Evers, & De Ridder, 2012). Self-licensing is a distinct behavioral mechanism that has been shown to be associated with unhealthy behaviors — distinct from other self-control failure mechanisms in the sense that the behavioral breakdown is actually masked as a reward.
The rub for you is the phenomenon of self-licensing (sometimes referred to as moral licensing) is widely recognized. Good behavioral designers know when people perform well they will feel liberated to engage in these behaviors (Merritt, Effron, & Monin, 2010). Why do you think most health clubs have a juice bar? Science suggests that even if you simply imagine doing something altruistic, you are more likely to indulge. If you, on the other hand, did not imagine doing a good deed, you are more likely to choose prudent behaviors (Khan & Dhar, 2006). It appears that when we feel virtuous this can often influence our future behavior in a negative way — because, come on, we all like a pat on the back once in a while.
False expectations regarding the future also seem to influence our choices. For instance, if we believe we will have to make a certain choice twice, this influences our decision and might make us more self-indulgent. Studies of consumers performed by Khan and Dhar (2007) showed that participants were more likely to choose an unhealthy snack (a chocolate chip cookie) over a healthy snack (low fat yogurt) if they believed they will have to make the same choice the week after. In other words — in our minds — just projecting we might do something healthy has us doing dumb shit in the present moment. The best advice I have got for you here is to be mindful and simply not do dumb shit. If you are reading this, chances are you are smart, so look at what you are trying to accomplish and gut check yourself to see if you are self-licensing. Since this phenomenon is common with those trying to lose weight I’ll use gym goers as an example. One, your treadmill is lying to you (see: Putting Very Little Weight in Calorie Counting Methods) — if you are looking to create a calorie deficit you are probably already overestimating the calories you have burnt exercising. Two, that fruit smoothie you think is a healthy reward for a job well done — it likely comes close to the caloric intake of a banana split. Not that I am suggesting you drink soda as an alternative, but keep in mind that if that was your guilty pleasure after a hard workout, you would likely be taking in 66% less calories than your average juice bar alternative.
The concept of self-licensing is similar to what some call ego depletion. Ego depletion and willpower have been blogged to death by folks like me so I won’t go too deep here. I am already stoked you have made it this far. The short version though is willpower is seen as a muscle that can get exhausted when we use it a lot (Baumeister et al., 2008). When our willpower’s capacity is temporarily used up, ego depletion causes us to make less restrained choices (like snacking on cookies or cake, instead of more healthy options like fruit or salad). Moreover, and what fascinates researchers is, when we use willpower resources in one area of our lives, this can backfire in seemingly unrelated areas of our lives. For instance, experiments have shown that when people tried to resist the temptation to eat sweets, they subsequently gave up faster on difficult mental exercises (Baumeister et al., 1998).
If you have read this far then by now you either agree or disagree with me that behavior change is incredibly complex and influenced by multiple factors and circumstances. However, to make these complex concepts comprehensible we have really smart thought leaders in this space dumbing down ideas at the cost of holistic comprehension. Take the very popular behavioral model proposed by BJ Fogg (BJ Fogg’s Behavoral Model) — this model has been accused by many that study behavior change as somewhat overly simplistic (although my guess is that for BJ simplicity was his intention). BJ’s model focuses on three elements of behavior: motivation, ability and trigger. In the model, motivation and ability need to be at certain thresholds for a target behavior to be ‘triggered’. BJ also defines subcomponents of each element — in his model, his three core motivators are: pleasure/pain, hope/fear, social acceptance/rejection. What I see as missing in BJ’s model is a road to long-term behavior change, as most of these levers are acute and episodic. The notable exception is social pressure; as I alluded before social pressure has been shown to be a useful method in some cases when we want to cement a certain behavior (we will not go too deep down the rabbit hole of social contagion here, but the science is interesting for those interested). One scientific example is a study that examined people who thought their neighbors could see a report of their energy usage. This group was more likely to reduce their energy usage, and more surprisingly the effect stayed measurable even years after the initial intervention was removed (Allcott & Rogers, 2014) — meaning these folks were still energy conscious even after the reports that their neighbors knew what they were up to stopped coming to their mailbox.
To be fair to BJ, he clearly knows the role environment contributes to our behavior, but the environment’s importance is downplayed in his popular model — and this model is constantly referenced by would-be behavioral designers. In the information regarding his Tiny Habits protocol BJ does mention three things that can change behavior in the long-run: an epiphany (very rare, like: holy shit, I just had a heart attack I should work out more), change of context (hey, what do you know? environment) and taking baby steps (aka BJ’s 2nd baby after his B=MAT model: Tiny Habits).
The truth is BJ just repackaged stuff from Kurt Lewin, that Lewin himself probably repackaged from someone else. We in the business all do this. As a gestalt psychologist, Lewin believed that a person’s environment determines their behavior, which he expressed with his formula: B= f (P, E). Behavior —in his view — is a function of a person (P) and their environment (E). In one of his original books, Lewin actually originally proposed that behavior is a function of a person’s entire situation: B=f(S) …later Lewin expanded situation (S) into person and environment (Lewin, 1936). Lewin’s contribution to behavior change was an emphasis on all the different elements that need to be considered to attempt to understand our behavior. Another gestalt psychologist, Kurt Koffka, summarized this in his famous (though often wrongly translated) saying: The whole is other than the sum of the parts. In other words, it is folly to approach behavior change using a purely reductionist approach. Lewin (1936) found we are often affected differently by the same physical environment, so even though I am admittedly bullish on them, even environmental changes fail us sometime.
However, in my opinion environmental interventions are where we are seeing the highest return on investment with regards to behavioral design. If you have not already, go down the rabbit hole of Brian Wansink’s work. Wansink is continuing to show us through his research how environmental design can influence our behavior. For instance, he popularized mindless eating ideas that suggest we often eat things without being aware of its nutritional value or volume (Wansink, 2004).
A study published this year in JAMA, described a randomized control trial that looked at the efficiency of weight-loss interventions. The hypothesis was that technology-enhanced weight-loss interventions will result in greater weight-loss compared to standard interventions. Surprisingly, the hypothesis was rejected. Participants who received a wearable device and an accompanying Web interface to monitor their diet and physical activity lost less weight compared to those who only received the standard intervention (Jakicic et al., 2016). Other researchers, too, concluded that when it comes to changing behavior, wearables might not be as beneficial as we once believed. I do believe wearables have potential, but it appears they cannot drive health behavior change alone (Patel, Asch & Volpp, 2015). There is a big gap between recording information and behavior change — to be honest after studying this now for over half-a-decade I believe the available data suggests that tracking devices probably cannot bridge this gap. Furthermore, it can take decades for a product to recover from a halo effect (Kerger et al., 2016). To be clear, some wearable devices can indeed deliver change (I am especially bullish on condition specific wearables). Also, some consumer products prove to be useful tools, because (1) they are often bought by people who are already motivated to change and (2) successful behavioral interventions can be built around them (Patel, Asch & Volpp, 2015). Look: the key to sustainability of behavior change is to transform external motivation into internal — all of us know it — the problem is that it is a bit tricky.
Reality: we need to believe and be enrolled to some degree in our own behavior change, or we are generally just wasting our time. “Destination addiction” refers to those that are always chasing something, but find no fulfillment in the process of change. Take for instance someone who buys a wearable because they believe that tracking their progress will add enjoyment to something they really do not enjoy doing. A lot of my life is spent evaluating these wearables. Many of these devices actually do the opposite (i.e. they add dissatisfaction) by adding unneeded friction to a process that is difficult to begin with — in extreme cases these devices even risk changing our identity (Lupton, 2015). Furthermore, whether supported by a wearable of not, canned behavioral interventions run the risk of missing the real cause of a problem because many only focusing on symptoms (for instance, personally I am fat because I drink too much, and I drink too much because my baby cries; how is my Fitbit going to fix my crying baby? I am joking of course, but you get the point). Rigged protocols and behavior change technologies that run on static algorithms cannot always perform a deep and comprehensive assessment about your individual situation. It is rare that a single behavior change model applies to a large population. Also, behavioral interventions that use technology and online platforms often reduce the amount of human contact you are exposed to (to be fair to hardware and software designers, investors want to know a product is scalable and human invention is rarely scalable). What does minimizing human interaction mean for the future behavior change through technology? I am not totally in the hater camp — some studies show that online therapy can be just as effective as face-to-face contact, plus it is more scalable and affordable (Mohr et al., 2012) — these are truths. However, the jury is out about the long-term effects these interventions can have, specifically their lasting effect on the human psychology and the process of socialization we have discussed throughout. Online interventions are very different to personal interventions. From what I can tell online modalities are not evaluated with the same amount of rigor as face-to-face practice. Also, individuals involved in the delivery of such models are not necessarily competent practitioners, especially since interactive computer-based communication has yet to provide an apples-to-apples comparison to face-to-face verbal exchange (Childress, 2000).
So what should you consider when it comes to evaluating behavioral interventions and their appropriateness? Perhaps some of the more obvious things include transparency regarding the intervention so you can determine fit, level of the interventions intrusiveness and the restrictions the intervention will have on your freedom. Our choices are often limited or eliminated altogether when certain goods or behaviors are banned or restricted — when our intrinsic drive is not truly altered and/or the intervention relies on artificial prohibitions, there is a good chance it can backfire (recidivism).
You see, if we can admit we are gaming ourselves, then at least we can enjoy the game. If we look at the world through the philosophical lenses of James P. Carse who wrote the book Finite and Infinite Games, poor behavior change protocols could be described as finite games. Their purpose is to reach a change, to end the process and win (losing weight, for example). When we rig the system in this fashion however, we get the results I previously highlighted in the Biggest Loser study. The game is over and we level set to the mean (i.e. back to our previous state). After all, most change comes with the potential for relapse. In my experience, behavior change protocols rarely have contingencies for this strong possibility. As an example, 80 to 95 percent of people who give up smoking or alcohol relapse within the first 12 months (Brandon, Vidrine, Litvin, 2007). I am not giving extra weight to the idea of Infinite Games by concluding with this concept, but do understanding that:
True change is not a destination; and,
we (and our users) might as well enjoy the ride.
These two ideas (that I hold as truths) will help us architect behavioral interventions for ourselves and others that have real lasting impact and will not fail us in the long-term.
Man, this post was a lot of words. I would love to stop talking now and learn from you in the comments below. What do you think?
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.
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.
So this was not the way I wanted to start the next chapter. As many of you know — and I regretfully inform those who do not — my brother Brian passed away sometime within 24 hours of my hitting send on the previous Live Life Love newsletter. A surreal coincidence to know that as I reported to you how much I enjoyed the experience that he and I had shared, there would never be an opportunity to share another experience with him again. As you might expect, Brian’s death has led to some pretty deep introspection the past few months. As a result, this is a difficult newsletter to write this quarter. The words are not flowing. I could try to end with some catchy quote about life and/or death, but that would be the easy route. The experience has opened an uninvited path to some deep work on my thoughts about the meaning of contribution and legacy. I hope to evolve this “project” into something much bigger than a personal platform. However, for this particular installment I have to go back to basics, which is just remembering to breathe.
Business, Innovation and Entrepreneurship: This quarter’s interview is a compilation about “big data” analytics with four exceptional thought leaders: 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. My collaborative interview focusing on business issues involving “big data” can be read here.
Health and Wellness: My health and wellness interview this quarter is with Dr. Henry DePhillips, who is the Chief Medical Officer of Teladoc. Prior to Teladoc, Dr. DePhillips was the Chief Medical Officer at MEDecision. He also previously served as the Head of Business Development for McKinsey’s international Health Systems Institute, as well as served as Sr. Medical Director at Independence Blue Cross of Pennsylvania. My interview with Dr. DePhillips about telemedicine and telehealth can be read by clicking here.
Life Experience: This quarter I traveled to Baltimore, Maryland, and checked out the American Visionary Art Museum. The museum showcases art from artists who are primarily self-taught. As such, much of the art and installations revealed the personal vision of the artist, rather than following standard conventions.
Contribution: My friend Alex lost his wife Samantha to cancer on November 1, 2013. She was a free spirit and certainly would be at home at the American Visionary Art Museum. When she passed, she left behind an unfinished album of songs, and it was bittersweet to be part of a Kickstarter campaign to get it finished. If you would like to learn more about it, or potentially contribute yourself, you can do so by clicking here.
I would like to conclude by simply saying thank you to the many of you that reached out to me and/or my family these past few months. The warmth that was bestowed upon us was overwhelming and helped us tremendously navigate through this difficult time. I love my brother very much, and take solace that his spirit will be interwoven into this effort as I continue forward. Borrowing from his humility and sense of adventure, I will do my best to increase the utility of information this project provides, as well as seek out new experiences that are worthy of sharing — carrying his memory with me.