What Women Understand About Effective Modern Leadership

/in , , , /by

In his wonderful book, Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard researcher Daniel Gilbert points out that often our best bet for making decisions we will both enjoy and benefit from, is to ask our peers who have made similar decisions. Gilbert’s advice before embarking on an important decision is to ask someone whom we trust, who has also made the decision we are contemplating, and follow their advice. And, as he points out, once we learn their point of view on the matter, we often refuse that advice on the grounds that our situation is different. We reject their advice claiming, “But I’m unique! How could they possibly know what’s best for me?”

Research finds that this inability to accept outside advice and insight only increases with power. The more power and resources controlled by an individual, the more confident they tend to be in their decision-making, and less they tend to listen and be influenced by outside opinions and points of view. However, in their study women were often an exception.

In two phases of the study, women tended to be more open to outside points of view regardless of their position of power within the organization. In their study entitled “The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy,” Kelly See and her colleagues discovered that women more often reported less certainty in their decisions than men, and solicited the advice and opinions of their colleagues more. Most interestingly, because women more often solicited the opinion and advice of their colleagues, they were viewed by their peers as stronger leaders.

So while they may have lacked confidence in their decisions, women were regarded as more confident and effective leaders precisely because they asked for advice from their peers.

This innate ability hold separate ideas at once, and to solicit external opinions and advice is but one of many of the 21st century traits and competencies needed to be an effective leader in this turbulent economy. As author Tony Schwartz noted in the Harvard Business Review, “An effective modern leader requires a blend of intellectual qualities—the ability to think analytically, strategically and creatively—and emotional ones, including self-awareness, empathy and humility…I meet far more women with this blend of qualities than I do men.”

Schwartz goes on to say, “For the most part, women, more than men, bring to leadership a more complete range of the qualities modern leaders need, including self-awareness, emotional attunement and authenticity.”

At an unprecedented historic time in which much of the educated talent and a majority of the consumer decisions are made by women, we need gender diversity at all levels – and particularly the highest levels of organizations. As gender diversity expert Avivah Wittenberg-Cox researches and argues, some of the most successful organizations who are effectively adapting to change are populated at the highest levels with balanced gender diversity.

[Originally posted on Skip Pritchard’s great blog Leadership Insights]

    ____________________________________________________

Shawn Hunter is President and Founder of Mindscaling, a company building powerful human and digital learning experiences based on the work of best-selling authors. My new book Small Acts of Leadership, is a Washington Post bestseller! You can grab a copy now. Have a meeting coming up? Let’s talk.

Last summer, my son and I bicycled across America with two other dads and their teenagers. We published a new book about it called Chasing Dawn. I co-authored the book with my cycling companion, the artist, photographer, and wonderful human jon holloway. Grab a copy. I’ll sign it and send it to your doorstep.

Make the Comfortable Uncomfortable

/in , , , , , /by

I coach lacrosse with my friend Pete. Coach Pete, who played Division I lacrosse back in the day, certainly looks the part. Big, fast, strong, and possessing a booming voice, one would think the new kids on the team would be intimidated by him, and only the seasoned players would be the ones who would dare to push his buttons, or have the audacity to slack off during drills.

It’s just the opposite. The new kids find him approachable, inviting and encouraging as a coach. Yet the kids who have been playing with Coach Pete for a few years find him sometimes demanding and expecting excellence. He pushes those experienced players the hardest.

Pete has a coaching philosophy worth borrowing. “Make the comfortable uncomfortable, and the uncomfortable comfortable.” What he means is that the new kids are already moderately intimidated by trying a new sport, developing new skills, immersing themselves in a fast, and often chaotic game. They are already on edge, and perhaps even a bit past the positive learning state that creates excellence. When the challenge and chaos of the game exceeds their skill and ability to deal with it, they feel overwhelmed, and move from a state of thriving and learning to a state of retreat. They close down. They drop a pass, take a hit going to a ground ball, and can’t figure out the strange offside rule. The game suddenly isn’t fun.

Inversely, the kids who have played the game for a few years have their posse, their attitude, and their predictable set of moves. These are the ones who need to try new things, who need to cradle and shoot with their non-dominant hand, play a new position, and work on the face-offs that start the game. They need to get out of their comfort zone. They will learn to see more of the game and become better players.

These are emotionally fluent leaders – those who can read people at their current comfort level and present just the right amount of challenge to let their skills and capabilities evolve. Sometimes to accelerate excellence, circumstances need to be chaotic by design – intentionally unstable.

Working in a world of constant change is half the fun of it. Deadlines shift, goalposts move, budgets shrink, markets evolve, new competition emerges, perceptions alter, stakeholders clash, and just when you are ready to deliver, your product is antiquated. After all, it takes a storm to make a rainbow.

Hacking the Super You

/in , , , , /by

superhumanOver the years, my friend Erich and I have probably logged thousands of miles cycling together. In all conditions – cold, wet, early, or in the fading warm July sunlight – we have ridden these Maine roads together. And when you train with someone for long enough you recognize their strengths (he climbs like a scalded cat), odd proclivities (he prefers riding on the right side of someone else), and their hesitations (he often descends cautiously).

We trained for a triathlon together a couple years ago. We would meet and ride the 40km course a couple of times a week, sometimes twice in a day. We got to the point where we knew the entire course in great detail – every crack in the road, every undulation of pavement, when to push and when to recover. And more or less, it seemed we were evenly matched.

On the day of the triathlon I had a fine race and the ride was my strongest leg of the event. I was pleased to finish in the top 10% of riders. Meanwhile, Erich blazed the ride. While averaging nearly 25mph on the hilly course, for some sections he led the entire field chasing only the pace car in front of him. On that day over 800 people raced the event. Only four individuals – all pros – were faster than Erich, and only by mere seconds. I was astonished. He was dumbfounded. He beat me by over 7 minutes on the ride. And he did it in celebration of his 50th birthday.

I had many questions about where this super-Erich performance came from. As I listened to him talk about his ride, he never once made any comparisons to other riders. He never spoke of how he was performing in relation to anyone else. He didn’t talk of the event as a competition. All of his language around preparation and performance was in terms of him versus the course. Actually “versus” isn’t quite the right word. It was more that he spoke of being in tune with how he felt in each moment – riding with the road with a sense of totally embodying the experience.

Another interesting comment Erich made was that during the ride itself he was aware that he was crushing it. He knew, on an innate level of consciousness, that he was absolutely killing the course, but there was no emotion associated with it. He felt not frustration, pain, angst, or struggle – only focus. The celebration and elation would come later. During the ride itself, he was all focused execution, hyper attention to nuance, flowing with the road.

As Steven Kotler describes in his mind-bending book The Rise of Superman, this sense of “deep embodiment” is one of the external Flow triggers of immersion in the moment. In short, Flow is an induced state of energized focus, heightened awareness, complete absorption, and elevated performance. And often, exceedingly high performance accompanies Flow states.

While these states are often spoken of by top adventurers, Flow states are also common among artists, musicians, professional athletes, and yes, even business professionals. According to this McKinsey study, business executives stated that when they were at their most effective – in a state of Flow – they were more than five times more effective than their more mundane, and common, moments of activity while attending meetings, interacting with colleagues, and executing tasks.

Much has been studied and written about the importance of developing a strong creative capability for today’s busy professional in this always-on, bottle rocket economy. IBM’s global CEO study asserts that creativity, mental flexibility, and collaboration have displaced one-dimensional intelligence and isolated determination as core ingredients of competitive advantage in today’s turbulent market. Creativity is treasured among the most-valued traits of sought-after talent. Yet, creativity is hard to teach.

Here’s the thing: Flow states induce creative states. As Teresa Amabile’s 2005 study shows, Flow states often precede creative states. Early findings at Kotler’s Flow Genome Project suggest Flow states later induce up to seven times the creativity in test subjects.

While developing creative triggers can be elusive, finding Flow triggers can be more predictable. We recognize that feeling when we felt hyper-present and alive skiing through the trees, immersed in a book, hypnotized in a provocative conversation, even mesmerized by an addicting video game. These induced Flow states lead to creatively productive states, often in the following hours and days after a Flow event.

Don’t seek on-demand creativity of yourself or those around you. Instead seek those circumstances, environments, and personal and social triggers which induce your own Flow states. To inspire creativity in those around you, start by finding it yourself. Model finding those Flow states you want to encourage in others. Creative productivity will surely follow.

The Power of Shared Truth

/in , , , /by

A small excerpt from OutThink. Enjoy!challenger

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
– Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

I was sixteen years old at the moment the Challenger Space Shuttle exploded high above NASA Kennedy Space Center in Florida, killing seven astronauts including New Hampshire schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe. Sadly, because a schoolteacher was on board, there were thousands of children around the country watching the event unfold on live television. In the months following, Richard Feynman, renowned physicist, was asked to help understand what happened in the Challenger disaster.

He not only gave a famous testimony to Congress describing the O-ring failure that led to the catastrophe, he also led a more quiet inquiry conducting interviews of the NASA engineers and leaders. He devoted the latter half of his book What Do You Care What Other People Think? to his experience working on the Rogers Commission. One of his sober conclusions was that the engineers on the front lines building the componentry had a much different perspective than the leaders in the organization regarding assessment of risk.

This recognition of risk disparity started when Louis Ullian, the range safety officer at Kennedy Space Center began an inquiry into whether or not to place destruct charges on manned Challenger, or other manned rocket flights. It was common practice at the time to have remote destruct charges placed on unmanned rockets in case something went wrong. The thinking was it would be safer to remotely destruct an out-of-control rocket, rather than have an out-of-control rocket dangerously explode on the ground. Ullian discovered a 4% failure rate among unmanned rocket flights he researched, and calculated that manned rocket flights, with their much higher safety standards and preparations, had about a 1% failure rate. However, when he inquired with NASA he was advised the official probability of failure for a manned rocket flight was 1 in 100,000. He told this figure to Feynman, who replied, “That means you could fly the shuttle every day for an average of 300 years between accidents – which is obviously crazy!”

Ullian needed a figure to inform his decision of whether or not to place remote destruct charges on manned rockets and settled on 1 in 1000 as a compromise. However, with NASA management estimating 1 in 100,000, Feynman became interested in finding out what the acting engineers believed the failure probability rates were.

Feyman requested a meeting with a group of engineers and began asking questions about how the rockets worked, were assembled, etc., in order to make a probability assessment. After a couple hours he hit on a better idea: ask the engineers in the room what their opinion of the risk was. He said to them, “Here’s a piece of paper each. Please write on your paper the answer to this question: what do you think is the probability that a flight would be uncompleted due to a failure in the engine.” He collected and averaged the answers in the room: 1 in 300.

Feynman went on to observe that unlike airplanes or cars, which are built “bottom up” using integrated systems that have been tried and tested over time, the space shuttle, as a unique vehicle was built “top down.” That is, it was conceived as a whole and built from individual and unique parts assembled to suit a finished product. In calculating the potential failure probability, the NASA engineers had evaluated the potential failure rate of each individual component, and extrapolated a failure probability of 1 in 100,000. This makes complete sense when you consider that individually the failure probability of an engine blade, electrical cable or bolt is vanishingly small.

What the engineers knew innately from their hands-on perspective, was that the failure probability of the dynamically assembled whole structure was far higher. Yet even with that knowledge available in the minds of the engineers, it didn’t come out until Feynman asked the question. In order to get closer to the truth and gain higher aspirations of everyone in the organization, first we have to find the hidden truths. And the hidden truths are at the edges of the organization with the people who are closest to the work – closest to the potential problem.

We have to ask those at the edges what they believe to be the truth. As leaders in the organization we have the obligation to say out loud that we don’t know the intricacies of complex projects, and we expect and demand that those closest to the detail surface publicly any concerns.

Beware the Joy of Talking

/in , , , /by

Several years ago, a young professor named James Pennebaker at the University of Virginia conducted a series of experiments with his new classes. He would divide them up into groups for just 15 minutes, and ask them to talk about anything they liked. These groups were comprised of students who didn’t know one another, so as you might imagine they talked about their home towns, how they got to the university, what they were studying, and so on. After the group broke up he would ask them to estimate how much talking each person did in the group, how much they enjoyed their group, and how much they learned from others in the group.

Consistently, those who did most of the talking claimed to have learned the most, and liked their peers the most. It seemed the more they talked, the happier they were about the people around them. In fact, as he repeated the experiment he discovered that the larger the group, the greater the effect and the more the biggest talker liked the group. And the effect diminished as the group got smaller, to the point that in a one-to-one conversation, if someone dominated the conversation they both reported disliking it.

Which leads us to an idea Charles Derber coined as “conversational narcissism.” It’s the kind of conversational trap in which we tend to lead the conversation toward our own interests, ideas and concerns. Someone says their child is playing the trombone, and the narcissist says, “Oh, I used to play the trombone. Let me tell you about it.” And off you go for half of an hour lost in memories of their middle school band.

To leave a conversation with both yourself and other people energized, enthused, and even provoked, use supportive assertions and supportive questions. A supportive assertion could be an evaluation such as “That’s awesome!”, or a comment such as “You should check out this article on that.” But even better is something Derber calls the supportive question, which shows active interested engagement in the conversation. A supportive question encourages and deepens the conversation. So the next time someone mentions their child plays the trombone, try saying, “Wow, that’s a difficult instrument. How did she develop an interest in that?”

(You might also enjoy this in-depth article on Charles Derber’s work)

A group of all-stars does not make a team

/in , , , /by

teamworkThey were unbeatable, invincible. The supergroup, the dream team.

There must be thousands of ten year old boys in New England that play soccer. About forty of the best players from the very best teams were hand-picked to be evaluated by the best coaches. Of those top forty, twenty-eight were cut. They picked twelve players to form the all-stars. From thousands down to twelve. Twelve boys were plucked from the masses to form an elite team – an elite team that would make just one appearance at a tournament and then disband.

They had to work out a few kinks in their first match. They won 12-3, allowing three goals. Their second match was 10-0. Their third match, against us, was 14-0. I was surprised someone kept count. Towards the end of the game they were scoring every few seconds it seemed. We would gather the ball out of our net and trudge back to midfield to kick off, to be trampled again by the little Rooneys, Maradonas and Peles. They played in a stampeding rush down the middle of the field. With flashy footwork to be sure, and passing when necessary, but like marauders all eager for a goal. They played like what they were – mercenaries. Hired guns.

All of the other teams at the tournament, were exactly that – teams. Teams that played and practiced, and ate and laughed and traveled together. And there was one team at the tournament called NEFC that had been playing together for years, probably since they were only five years old. They were amazing, and unlike any U11 soccer team I had ever seen. In their match against us they held possession of the ball at least 90% of the time. I do not exaggerate. And when we did somehow intercept a pass, they were upon us, deftly extracting the ball to resume their hypnotic passing.

They were mesmerizing as they glided around the field, passing sharply from one to another to another. After they scored 6 goals against us (in the first half), their coach instructed them to stop scoring. So instead, they would pass up the alleys, to the corners, into the middle to create a scoring opportunity. And then not score. Instead they would pass away from our goal to the outside and back down the far side of the field, all the way back to the goalie. The goalie would reset the ball, and they would commence to pass again up the field to build a scoring position. Again and again, while our players stabbed at the ball and ran in circles chasing their spellbinding passes.

Then their coach told them to play on their off foot – that is, pass and dribble using primarily their less agile, non-dominant foot. It didn’t matter. They didn’t lose the ball. We’re a good team, and we had a great experience at the tournament. But against NEFC it was all clearly a training exercise for them as they continued to hone their skills together.

And so it was destined that the all-star elite team would meet the NEFC team in the tournament finals. NEFC won 6-0, and although I didn’t see the game first hand, I bet their coach again asked them to stop scoring after 6 goals.

That’s excellence, class, precision, and true teamwork. Unlike the all-star team in which every player wanted a heroic goal, it was impossible to tell which player was dominant on the NEFC team. The quality of the team was such that everyone was elevated together. Instead of competing for an alpha team position, the NEFC players supported each other so well, everyone was great.

Think about that. Do you want to be on a team in which everyone is fighting for glory? Or a team in which the camaraderie and support is so tight everyone gets better?

When you give thanks, you grow

/in , , , /by

thankyou

The results were clear: Higher levels of optimism, increased life satisfaction, and decreased negative feelings were all associated with students’ expressions of gratitude.
– Jeffrey Froh, Professor, Hofstra University

Recently, at dinner in our house, we went around the table and mentioned a few things we like about school, our work, our music lessons, our soccer practice, whatever…There aren’t any rules or expectations that we need to talk about loving math or writing, or commuting to work. The kids are free to say they like riding the bus or lunchtime, and I might mention an interesting discussion with someone at work. The point is simply to bring positive experiences, people, and moments to the forefront. And by retelling these experiences we reinforce them and associate these emotions with our work, school and learning experiences.

This kind of intentional thinking, reflection, and sharing of gratitude has demonstrated repeatedly in studies to be linked to helping individuals become socially effective communicators, proactive in building positive social interactions and developing higher levels of on-the-job, on-the-field, and in-the-classroom performance.

For example, Jeffrey Froh, Hofstra University, did this cool study in which he and his colleagues, tracked students in 11 classrooms, and divided them into three groups, asking them for just a few minutes each day to:

  • Group 1. write down things they were grateful for at home and school
  • Group 2. write down things they found to be a hassle and not fun (irritants)
  • Group 3. a control group they asked nothing of

The first group wrote things like: “My coach helped me out at baseball practice,” “My grandma is in good health, my family is still together, my family still loves each other, my brothers are healthy, and we have fun everyday,” and “I am grateful that my mom didn’t go crazy when I accidentally broke a patio table.”

After two weeks, the researchers measured their school performance and engagement from both their perspective and the perspective of their teachers. Essentially, they found these students to be happier (by their own account), having more friends, and more engaged in their work (by the teachers account), and…wait for it, they got better grades – better in comparison to their own previous performance. That’s after only two weeks. The researchers checked in three weeks later after the study was over and found the effects to be still present.

In a powerful follow up study, students were asked to write a letter to a benefactor that feel they may have never properly thanked. It could be a teacher, a coach, or a family friend. The kids worked on their letters three times a week, for two weeks, elaborating on their feelings, and being increasingly specific in their writing about what the benefactor did that they were grateful for. On the friday of the second week, the kids set up a meeting with the person to read the letter, out loud, to that person face-to-face.

According to Jeffrey Froh, “It was a hyperemotional exercise for them. Really, it was such an intense experience. Every time I reread those letters, I get choked up.” And the positive outlook, and heightened engagement was still present when the researchers checked in with the kids 2 months later.

Maybe you can’t easily get your kids to write a letter of gratitude to someone in their life. Here’s a small and simple trick I learned from Dr. Karen Reivich, author of The Optimistic Child. Simply finish these sentences:
• ―Someone who helped me get through a difficult time is _______
• ―Someone who helped me learn something important about myself is _______
• ―Someone with whom I can discuss the things that matter most to me is _______

 

Investing in others is investing in yourself

/in , , /by

“Teaching is the highest form of understanding.”
– Aristotle

tutorSometimes Charlie, who is two years older than Will, comes and helps out at our U11 soccer practice, just as he did this evening. Eleven year old son Will often finds his brother’s presence annoying and intrusive at his practice, but the other kids really like it.

Charlie uses his bigger size, speed and ball-handling skills in a helpful and instructive way. He never tries to score a goal and instead uses his experience and skill to distribute the ball around the field to the younger players. But here’s the thing: I’ve been thinking this isn’t just a charitable exercise for Charlie. I think he may get just as much out of this mentoring opportunity as the younger players. He gets an opportunity to teach, and in the process develops his own skill and confidence.

Often kids who perform below their peers are presented with remedial learning materials that meet their level. So, for example, if a sixth grade child is doing fourth grade level math, they may be asked to work on fourth grade math until they elevate their skills to meet their classmates. It can be humiliating and discouraging to be identified and asked to do remedial work.

But there are other ways to enhance learning in students – by asking them to help others. And interestingly, sometimes being a tutor to another can be a more effective learning tool than being tutored.

Once upon a time (in 1970), two researchers at Stanford tried something a little different. They took two groups of sixth graders. One half were high-performing readers, the other half low performing readers when compared to their sixth-grade peers. The researchers asked both groups to participate in sessions tutoring kindergarten kids with their reading.

All kindergartners who received the tutoring learned reading skills faster than their peers who did not receive tutoring, and later performed better in reading exercises. It made almost no difference to the learner whether their sixth-grade tutor was one of the high-performing students or not. Also, all kindergartners reported looking forward to their sessions with their sixth grade tutors, and described the sessions as fun and enjoyable.

How talented the 12-year-old sixth grader was at reading had almost no effect on how well the five-year-old kindergartner learned from them. All kindergartners improved equally well by having a sixth grade tutor. The better sixth grade students did not necessarily make better tutors.

But here is the real surprise: While the high-performing sixth graders who participated in the tutoring program did enjoy the program and reported a positive experience, those lower-performing sixth graders who engaged in tutoring showed a much higher increase in social attitude, school attendance, and self-esteem. In other words, the tutoring exercise had the greatest positive social impact on the lower-performing sixth grade students – precisely those least likely to be chosen as tutors, but had zero impact on the quality of the tutoring itself. The lower academic-achieving sixth graders were just as effective as their top-performing peers at being tutors to kindergartners.

When we participate in teaching, coaching and mentoring activities, often we gain the opportunity to learn as well. And as this small experiment demonstrates, often those with less mastery are the ones with the highest benefit when they reach out and take the chance to be a coach or mentor to another.

A word of caution of course…if you have never gone ice-climbing, you probably aren’t suited to teach it. But just because you believe you aren’t talented or expert at something, doesn’t mean you don’t qualify as a coach or tutor to another who is much less experienced. And in teaching, you may make the greatest leaps in learning.

Relentlessly Positive, Personal and Specific

/in , , , , /by

Before the game I approached the other coach. Usually we share a few friendly words with the visiting coaches, but I wanted him to understand what he was up against.

So after we exchanged handshakes and said hello, I pulled him aside out of earshot of our teams and said, “Look, I just want you to know we’ve lost every single game this season. We’ve been getting crushed actually. I don’t think the boys are frustrated, and we certainly focus on teamwork, hard work and fair play, but honestly we’ve been getting killed. By everyone. I just thought you should know. So maybe if it looks you’re having a runaway win, please keep that in mind.”

He looked at me and said, “We have too! We’ve lost every game!” Perfect. And so with that understanding between us coaches we opened up another U11 boys soccer game on a beautiful Saturday.

And sure enough, the game was fair and competitive. From the opening whistle both teams had their share of small frustrations and grand triumphs. There was more generous passing, more vocal encouragement between the players, and less complaining about positions. In fact, several players were asking – nearly begging – to play defense. It was a glorious moment of camaraderie.

Early in the second half, we found ourselves in the strange, and foreign, position of leading by one goal. Coach Scott and I agreed we were quietly cheering for the other team to score. And wonderfully, they did score to tie it up. In the end, we astonished ourselves and won the game. Afterwards, the moment of both teams slapping hands and congratulating each other felt honest and earnest. I heard very few complaints about either the referee or opposing players.

I’ve participated in a number of coaching clinics, and read quite a bit of material on youth coaching, and developing talent. Curiously, there remains a fairly large minority of parent volunteer coaches nationally who have the perception that learning constructive coaching techniques from experts, and attending coaching certification and counseling is unnecessary and without value.

And yet, these same studies reflect that once coaches adopt “relentlessly positive” approaches to both skill development on the field and social development with their teammates, some pretty remarkable things happen. To begin with, while up to 26% of kids nationally quit sports, only 5% of kids quit the game when they have a coach trained in Coaching Effectiveness Training (CET). Not only that, those children who started the season with lower self-esteem and played for a “relentlessly positive” coach showed a greater increase in self-esteem over the season.

I had an interview last week in New York with child psychologist Joel Haber who affirmed these methods and reminded that positive coaching still needs to be personal and specific, not just positive. Saying “great job!” isn’t nearly as effective as say something specific such as, “I like the way you always stayed in front of the attacker when defending. You stayed in front of him and pushed the ball to the outside. He never had a chance to get by you. That worked great.”

Joel also reminded me of the downside of negative coaching. When a child leaves the field during a game and you point out something they did wrong, it leaves a powerful emotional wake. It not only conveys the message that you were disappointed, it won’t increase their learning and performance later either. When they go back on the field, their head will be filled with what not to do, instead of what to do. It has a paralyzing effect.

Connect with Purpose, and Connect with Results

/in , , , /by

Here is a brief excerpt from OutThink on the power of integrating the human factor in our work. Enjoy!

TurnerThe profession of radiology has been progressing over the past fifty years in terms of how people are trained, the equipment and technology used, and immediacy of feedback.

Yet despite these advances, error rates often remain statistically significant and frustratingly high depending on the type of reading performed – bone density, chest radiographs, mammograms, gastrointestinal, and beyond. According to Imaging Economics, the reading error rate can vary from 2% to as high as 20%, depending on the scan, the clinician, the environment, and even the time of day. And up to eighty percent of the errors are perceptual errors. That is, the information was present and shown on the film or scan, but not identified and seen by the radiologist.

Yehonatan Turner, M.D., was a radiology resident at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem in 2008 when he decided to experiment with humanizing the process of reading radiology scans, to learn what affect it might have on the quality of the reading and the error rate of the clinicians. He and his colleagues performed an experiment in which they asked 267 patients for their permission to be photographed before their CT scans. A Computed Tomography scan is a more detailed X-Ray exam that focuses on a specific part of the body and yields a more detailed image of what’s inside the body.

Those 267 patient photos were submitted within a total of 1,137 CT examinations and would automatically be presented to the radiologist when evaluating the scan. Seventeen radiologists performed the readings and the results were quite surprising:
   • 80% of incidental findings were not reported when the photo was omitted with the scan
   • Radiologists reported a greater sense of empathy and care when evaluating the scan
   • Duration of scan evaluation did not increase

Anecdotal comments included, “The patient photograph prompted me to relate in more detail to the CT” and “It enabled me to feel more of a physician.”

In other words, accuracy went up, empathy went up, sense of connection with the patient went up, and there was no additional time required. Remember the end result – the purpose – and your impact will soar.