Professional Values Under Attack–A Sobering Look At Healthcare

Why Doctors Are Sick of Their Profession is an article that ran recently in the Wall Street Journal.  It’s a sobering look at the human side of the current dysfunction we call healthcare.

The article’s author Sandeep Jauhar MD makes the point that he and many of his physician colleagues are ‘struggling with the loss of their professional values’.  He suggests that in many ways he has become the doctor he never thought he would be: impatient, occasionally indifferent, at times dismissive or paternalistic.  Whether he’s being too hard on himself, I don’t pretend to know.

The causes for the trend are varied and, in many cases, deeply rooted within an industry in need of reform. In many ways the system has beaten down the doctors—imparting cynicism in place of their once noble aspirations.

The doctors are largely part of a system they can’t beat and many don’t want to be a part of.  This article is instructive in two important ways:

***First: it demonstrates how important professionals really are—healthcare just happens to be today’s example.  Absent professional values, things ‘go south’ fast for all stakeholders.  As Jauhar points out, naturally the patient’s experience is negatively impacted when the doctor’s professional values slip.

***Second: to me the answer to having a system ‘beat you down’  is (in part) to remember why you entered the profession in the first place.  In other words, never forget what your purpose is.  Tattoo it on your forehead if you must.  For one’s own mental health, a compelling purpose (on most days) will typically trump a bad system.

It’s interesting to note, from a systemic point of view, that the author suggests emphasizing professional values in the next generation.  That means ‘instilling professional values early on’ in medical school. Couldn’t agree more.  That’s precisely what we’ve helped do at the West Coast Ultrasound Institute. The results are exciting.

Professional values: without them, eventually we’ll all be sick. With them, we’ve got an invaluable  formula for health.

 

Unflattering Trait ≠ Unprofessional

People are sometimes described as unprofessional by their colleagues or associates when they have a trait or characteristic that stands out—-typically in an unflattering way.  Consider:

***the woman with the shrill laugh who seemingly thinks everything is funny (her colleagues initially found this trait to be cute, but over time became repelled by it)   

***the man who is naturally inquisitive and incessantly asks questions. (his peers quickly found this to be aggravating)  

***the supervisor (someone who happened to have a hearing disability) that speaks especially loudly—even when having one-on-one conversations in close quarters. ( even understanding his condition, the staff never quite got used to this and too often felt like they were being yelled at—inappropriately so)

If asked, how would you describe these individuals?  Or what if you were an executive recruiter and one of these people becomes a serious candidate for a position you’re attempting to fill.  As a professional, how do describe (objectively so) the individual to your hiring manager client?  After all, what you say holds sway with the hiring manager.  Say something inappropriate (or misleading) and you could torpedo the candidate. 

Sometimes we’re inclined to describe these types of individuals as unprofessional.  And that inclination is often fueled from our own emotional reaction to them (the importance of mind-set six, once again, raises its head).  From my point of view, when someone has a trait or characteristic that stands out in an unflattering way, it doesn’t make them unprofessional.  ‘Un’ means without or the opposite of.  In effect, in describing someone as unprofessional it suggests that the person has virtually no professionalism.  It would be a rare circumstance in which that would be true.   

Plus, when you suggest someone is unprofessional it suggests that you can’t trust them—whether it be their competence, their judgment, or their character (for more on this see Chapter Four in The Power of Professionalism).  Having a defining personal trait (however annoying) typically doesn’t have much to do with their professionalism and, by default, their trustworthiness.  Simply said, transposing someone’s personality with their character does that person a disservice—and does not reflect well on us as a professional.         

When describing someone who has a trait or characteristic that is unflattering, consider describing  them as a bit unpolished, needing greater refinement, or something analogous which is appropriate to the situation.

Take first impressions.  It’s true that when someone ‘shows up’ disheveled (think: unkept appearance) it invariably creates the wrong impression.  Many will be put off by it. Certainly people don’t initially associate ‘professional’ with that person.  Yet, it’s important to resist the urge to refer to them as unprofessional—for many of the reasons previously stated.    

The point here is not to generalize.  As professionals, it’s important for all of us to be objective. Recall  the woman with the shrill laugh.  Annoying? Sure. Unprofessional? No.

Identity As A Predictor of Behavior

We humans incessantly want to know ‘why’.  Children especially.

Why did so-and-so do such-and-such is an especially popular ‘why’ question centered around human behavior.  Given all the seemingly unexplainable things we humans do, it’s certainly a natural.

In The Power of Professionalism I suggested that an especially helpful way to better understand a person’s behavior is to understand how they view themselves. Said another way, understand the identity the individual has assigned to themselves.

It wasn’t until the mega-talented All-Star outfielder Jose Canseco revealed to baseball manager Tony LaRussa that he saw himself as an entertainer (think: identity) that LaRussa finally understood his flamboyant, and often maddening, outfielder (source: full story page 56, The Power of Professionalism). It wasn’t until that acknowledgement on Canseco’s part that LaRussa truly understand why Jose did what he did.

Fast-forward to last Saturday March 8th. A San Francisco Giants beat writer was being interviewed by Marty Lurie.  Marty hosts the Giants pre and post game radio program show on the weekends in the Bay Area.  The subject shifted to steroids and, naturally, Barry Bonds.

Did he or didn’t he?  And if he did use steroids, why? To be clear, Bonds has never  acknowledged he used steroids, although most believe he likely did.  The ‘did he use’ question was also focus of a protracted federal court case.

The beat writer goes on to share an experience he had with Barry (and his entourage) very late in his playing career.  Barry was ‘holding court’ with this tight-knit group out of ear shot of others. It was Barry ‘unplugged’.  He was authentic and unabashedly forthright as he spoke about his career, his reputation, and his station in baseball history.

During the session Barry never acknowledged that he had used steroids but spoke ‘as if’ he had. After all, he reflected, wouldn’t a player get contact lenses if it enhanced their  performance?, wouldn’t a player doctor the ball if it enhanced their performance?  wouldn’t a player use steroids if it enhanced their performance?

Bonds went on to say that he considered himself an entertainer (think: identity)…just as Canseco did!

What’s the principal thing entertainers are expected to do?  Perform!

Did Barry Bonds use steroids?  I don’t know.  But if he (the entertainer) did, now you know why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your Organization—Is Your Experience There Helping You Become A Better Person?

As part of a recent consulting engagement, I had the privilege to interview a number of employees from one of the world’s best managed companies.  The company—both what they did and how they did it—was really impressive.  They pushed their people—but not in a manipulative or punitive way.  Employees had near-complete autonomy.  The level of responsibility within the employee ranks was off-the-charts.

The intent of the interviews was to find out what the ‘employee experience’ was like.  Virtually every employee said they ‘couldn’t go back’ to the types of jobs they once held before coming to their current employer.  Despite the high expectations, morale was especially high.  The way the company managed was not only admirable; it was a model to emulate.

For context, the company wasn’t solving world hunger.  In fact, the company’s agriculturally-based products were arguably commodity-like.  Nonetheless, employees found their work especially meaningful.  Almost to a person (and regardless of where they served in the organization) each employee’s level of engagement was high—really high.

At the close of our session one of the more seasoned (yet reserved) employees quietly approached me on his way out of the conference room.  He looked me straight in the eye, and said, “you know, I’m a better person for having worked here”.  This gentleman had privately put a bow on the gift (think: feedback) that had been revealed through our ‘public’ employee meeting.  With that, he went back to work.  I was struck, not only by what he said, but by how he said it.

I thought to myself, ‘isn’t that the ultimate for employees…to feel that their work experience has made (or is making) them a better person?’  What a powerful indicator in assessing (among other things) organizational health.  And if the company needed further validation that it was on the right track this gentleman gave it to them in spades.

Fast forward to last week…I received an email from a client; a tell-it-like-it-is, seasoned company president who has been integrating professional values into his organization for some time. (BTW: he was unaware of the experience I just shared.)  After sharing some company updates and some personal niceties, he closed his note with, “…since reading your book and trying to live what it says has made me a much better person as well as an [much better] employer. Thank you.”

This president knows all-too-well that living up to professional ideals isn’t always a bed of roses. Yet he does what needs doing.  Because of it he grows and becomes a better person as a result.

Personally, this is especially rewarding.  Organizationally, it helps validate our approach.  We’re on the right track. Onward!

Minimizing Politics In Your Company

The topic of organizational politics is always a hot one.  I’m sharing a terrific article by Ben Horowitz which speaks to approaches that, when followed, will minimize organizational politics.

This particular article—now over three years old—is definitely centered around the executive suite, but the principles can be applied outside the executive suite as well.

Ben’s blog is one my favorites.  The quality of his writing—and the thinking that drives it—is just terrific. Enjoy.

Helps on the ‘How-To’s In Developing Mind-Set Three

There was a ton of research that went into The Power of Professionalism.  Yet sometimes you miss or overlook a reference that you later wish you would have been able to incorporate into your book.  Carol Dweck’s Mindset is one such reference.

The premise of her book is that mindset has an enormous influence on achievement and success.  Mindset, she believes, trumps talent when it comes to achievement and success.  I couldn’t agree more and have made that very point in The Power of Professionalism.

Dweck believes that there are two primary mindsets—either growth oriented or fixed.   Those with a growth oriented mind-set, she explains, actually expand their intelligence and, of course, their capacity to take on ever-increasing challenges.  Those with a fixed mindset tend to believe that their intelligence is pre-determined –which thwarts them on any number of levels.

Praising children’s intelligence and ability, she argues, doesn’t foster self esteem and can be completely counter-productive in terms of buoying children up over the long term.  She writes that ‘praising effort has a far greater impact’.

To me, Dweck’s book Mindset compliments The Power of Professionalism (and vice versa).

What’s common between the teaching within the two books?

***the emphasis on mindset (especially over talent) as a driver of trust and success.

***the emphasis of one’s view of themselves as a driving determinant in their life.  (Note: In TPOP this is greatly emphasized, although less so in Dweck’s Mindset.)  

*** the commonality (especially) between mind-set three (e.g. professionals know things get better when they get better) and Dweck’s growth mindset.

Are there differences?

***Maybe.  I’m not sure if Dweck believes there are only two core mindsets or there are more than that.  Of course, in TPOP we identify seven.

***In TPOP we identified mindsets (plural) that produced trust. In Dweck’s book her growth-oriented mindset (singular) was focused almost exclusively on ‘success’.  That’s an important distinction…and thus a difference.

***In TPOP we strongly emphasize being something.  Doing something was more the emphasis in Dweck’s Mindset book.

What’s unique about Dweck’s book when contrasted with The Power of Professionalism?   

***the researched based arguments she gives to the ability to grow intelligence.

***the advice she gives to those wishing to instill a growth mindset (or for that matter mindset three) within others.  Especially important–praise effort, not innate ability.

Beefs worth mentioning:

***Just one.  For those that have a ‘success or achievement orientation’, Dweck’s book will be especially pertinent. A great many examples in the book were from people who certainly appear to have had that orientation. Yet there are many who don’t value ‘success’ as the be-all-end-all. For them I’m not convinced that all of what Dweck advances in this book holds true. For instance, Dweck advances the premise that those holding a fixed mind-set begrudge the success of others (page 245 in the paperback version). That’s not my experience at all.

For many ‘personal growth’ is simply not one of their top values. Many of these same people also hold what Dweck refers to as a fixed mind-set. I’ve met many such people in my lifetime. Yet the vast majority don’t begrudge the success of others.

I bring this up as an illustration that, to me, Dweck tends to generalize a bit in this book—the begrudging the success of others being one example.

Bottom line:

Despite some (manageable) differences, the two books complement one another nicely.  Given different circumstances, I would have referenced Dweck’s Mindset book in my first edition. Chapter seven alone (how parents can instill a growth mindset in their kids) is worth the price of the book.  For those achievement-oriented fans of TPOP that want complimentary ideas on how to develop a deeper, stronger mind-set three, this book will help you do that.

Identity–The Secret Sauce For Families

As I wrote about in The Power of Professionalism there is great power in this ‘thing’ we call identity.   Identity answers the question ‘who am I?’ or, in the case of the collective, ‘who are we?’  Knowing who we are (or wanting to become) is a powerful north arrow—especially when things get rocky.

The Power of Professionalism dealt with one’s identity as a professional; although identity is obviously just as powerful in other aspects of one’s life as well.

In a March 2013 New York Times article– The Stories That Bind Us—journalist Bruce Feiler shares how identity becomes the secret sauce for families.  Feiler refers extensively in the article about the importance of family narrative—which formed the basis for the article’s title.  As Feiler points out, family narrative is really important. I wholeheartedly concur.

Yet to me the family narrative is the outward manifestation of family’s all-important identity of themselves.  And that’s the key: when you know who you are a lot of things naturally take care of themselves–whether it’s in the workplace or within a family. Enjoy the article…it’s especially good.

I Really Can’t Put My Finger On It

I recently received an email from a colleague friend who owns and operates a very successful  executive search firm. She’s quite familiar with The Power of Professionalism.  At the very end of her note she added the following PS:  

“I was comparing two people yesterday. I said to myself, ‘Person A is highly professional. It’s not that Person B is unprofessional, but Person A is notably highly professional.’ I really couldn’t put my finger on some detail or example that brought me to this conclusion. Odd.”

Isn’t that the truth?  Often times it’s our intuition that whispers to us how professional someone is. And more-often-than-not the assessment this woman was making is an unconscious process for most of us. 

There’s just something about how the person conducts themselves—which often translates to a lot of little, yet terribly important, things.  Taken in aggregate, it reveals a tapestry that could only have been created by a professional.           

In organizational settings (particularly) we’re prone to compare—it’s the nature of the beast. We compare because we must.  Who do we hire—candidate A or B? Which service provider—A or B–gets the new maintenance contract?       

Differentiating oneself is tough. Yet, I’ve learned that professionalism can be a big differentiator. For trusted professionals the key is to get others to notice—even if the person really can’t put their finger on the ‘why’.