Healthcare Transformation

[Re]Building Trust

Why healthcare companies should be re[building] trust now.

Trust is more important than many leaders realize. I’ve been thinking about it in light of the 2019 allegations of wrongdoing in healthcare report and corresponding settlements being chalked up to the cost of doing business. 

The impact of wrongdoing whether it’s excessive charges, abusive billing practices and the mistreatment of patients and their data is likely having a much bigger impact than most healthcare executives realize. 

Healthcare Consumers

Healthcare companies undermined the trust Americans have in the system at a time when we are asking for more and need more data and engagement from patients and healthcare consumers. Granted there are other factors that have contributed to the mistrust felt more broadly but healthcare companies will need to rebuild that trust in order to transition into value based care models.

Employees

Employees of these companies are likely impacted too. The wrongdoing is not accidental but rather a function of the business practices that likely don’t align with the company’s stated values

How do employees reconcile what they believe versus what they do? They can’t reconcile it. The wrongdoing is likely contributing to the anxiety felt by the employees working within those companies. The impact of the stress and anxiety will only get worse until there is better alignment in the values and the work performed.

Profits

Did you know that companies with high levels of trust outperform their competitors by as much as three [3] times? Healthcare companies have relied too heavily on having a captive consumer. When people are sick, they surrender to the process to get better and deal with the fallout after the fact. 

That’s not going to work going forward. New approaches to medicine and healthcare services require participation from all consumers – not just patients. How is your company going to convince consumers to trust your organization and the process when there is no immediate need?

Trust

What is trust? The one common theme that I have found to describe trust is that trust happens when you’re willing to accept the risk of vulnerability or in other words, the risk of being harmed in some way. The perceived risk has to be lower than the probability of being harmed.

How do you convince someone to take the risk on your organization or you? Trust is earned by repeating actions that conveys trust. 

The book Trillion Dollar Coach, written about Bill Campbell’s work with leading Silicon Valley companies and executives, identifies five [5] key elements of trust:

  1. Keep your word: The commitment and/or fulfillment of one’s promises. Be accountable for mistakes, apologize and make amends when things go wrong.
  2. Loyalty: A strong feeling of support or allegiance. Establish clear boundaries and when you’re unclear about what’s okay and not okay, ask rather than ask for forgiveness after the fact.
  3. Integrity: The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles. Have the courage to practice your values and do what is right versus what is easy, fast and fun.
  4. Ability: The possession of the means or skill to do something. Avoid overpromising and underdelivering.
  5. Discretion: The quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid causing offense or revealing private information.

Trust can’t be won with one large gesture. It has to be built over time with actions that are consistent with the key elements of trust. Just remember – trust can be undermined faster than it is earned.

Be generous

Best advice from Dare to Lead for developing trust within an organization is for everyone to extend the most generous interpretation possible to the intentions, words, and actions of others.

Even if you believe that you are trustworthy, most only trust a handful of people. Chances are your assumptions about a situation, interaction or person are wrong. Default to truth but when in doubt, look for the data and trust the facts.

Healthcare is Hard

It shouldn’t be so difficult….

I’m hearing this statement a lot this week and my guess is that you might be thinking the same thing too.

Let me start by giving you some context from my week.

Leadership

I was invited to interview for a spot an in upcoming national leadership summit and in preparation, was given sample interview questions. One of the questions: “how have you overcome challenges such as discrimination?” 

The reality is that I haven’t overcome discrimination [age and gender] in Corporate America but rather learned to survive it. The stats help tell the story. However, I was concerned about my answer because overcoming and surviving are two very different experiences. 

When I consulted my coach about it, her response was “it shouldn’t be so hard”. Being a subject of discrimination is hard, taking about it is hard and for some, listening to others talk about discrimination is hard. For many, it raises feelings of fear, blame and shame.

Some leaders are reportedly calling out the behavior. I’m not sure exactly what that entails but I do know that clarifying intentions during planning helps people think about their objectives and potential biases.

I’ve also started sharing some of my stories with colleagues. It’s helped to lower their defenses and made the issues easier to discuss. Sharing our challenges gives others perspective and helps leaders take the right corrective actions.

We can’t change what we don’t understand.

Physician Referrals

In the spring, I participated in a film for a public health event. The physician creating the film asked me about the role physicians should play in promoting health to their patients. He wanted to know whether they needed to be health and fitness gurus or what?

Physicians are highly trained professionals. Healthcare executives want physicians to be working at the top of their knowledge and skillset [aka: medical license] so that everyone gets the most from their expertise. Diet and exercise are foundational to health but they’re at the bottom in terms of knowledge and skill.

The problem is that in shifting to Value Based Care, physicians need to have a way to mitigate medical risk rather than only treat patients when they’re sick. Hence, the question.

What is the best way to engage physicians in maintaining the health of their patients?

We already have a universal measurement for healthy weight – Body Mass Index [BMI]. It’s something that is routinely calculated and/or captured in Electronic Health Records [EHRs]. A BMI outside the normal range is a clinical indication that something in the patient’s diet is off.

So what are physicians doing with the BMI result? I’ve never asked the question. So I’m wondering if physicians are offering patients a referral to a Dietitian and if not, why not? Dietitians are the experts in nutrition.

To solve some of the chronic health issues, we need to think about why it’s so difficult now and what needs to change to make the process easier for physicians, clinicians and patients. More specifically:

  1. Who is currently doing the work vs. who should be doing the work [considering knowledge and skills]?
  2. Is there a problem with the referral process and if so, how can we make it easier and/or better?
  3. When should digital health solutions be introduced into the discussion with patients?
  4. Who should be choosing the digital health solutions recommended to patients?
  5. Do physicians/clinicians need to monitor the patient’s progress or is the standard data collected at time of service enough? Think about what’s novel vs. necessary.

US Veterans Service

David Shulkin MD, Former Secretary of the US Veterans Affairs, wrote a new book called It Shouldn’t be this Hard to Serve your Country.

In a recent interview, he mentioned that there are back channels working in the Trump Administration to privatize the VA health system. Reportedly, his work didn’t support that effort which is why he is out.

Verily just announced their VA project to help lower the cost and improve the outcomes for total joints.

Healthcare Finance 2.0

Can healthcare companies do well and do good?

We’ve reached a crisis point in healthcare and we can’t financially engineer our way out of it by simply shifting risk and costs. It’s time for healthcare finance 2.0.

We need to start looking at the big components that make up the financial framework. Historically it’s been hard for publicly traded and for profit companies to strike a balance between maximizing shareholder return and serving the broader needs of Americans.

With business leaders calling for a new version of capitalism that balances the needs of all stakeholders, it gives us the opportunity to challenge our old financial frameworks and business practices.

I’ve compiled a few questions and insights to help you think about the changes needed for the industry to move toward value based care.

1/ How much profit could healthcare companies generate by serving all stakeholders?

Under the new rules of capitalism, the healthcare industry should be considering all stakeholders including patients, providers, employees, vendors and payers in their policies and business practices.

Leading retailers such as Nordstrom and Patagonia have achieved sustained financial success by serving all their stakeholders.

They do well by doing good. Both companies invest in technology to better serve customers and work closely with their vendors to reduce their environmental impact.

Plus they give back a portion of their profits to the communities they serve. They realize that without customers that can afford their products, they don’t have a business.

2/ How should healthcare providers be compensated?

Risk sharing arrangements [capitation and bundled payments] are tough models to sell because there are so many variables that can affect a patient’s outcome that are beyond the direct control of physicians.

In Dare to Lead, Brene Brown talks about vulnerability and how many of us are tasked with engineering vulnerability out of systems. The reality is that we can’t engineer all the risk out of healthcare no matter how many apps, sensors and devices we incorporate into the delivery of care. 

Healthcare is still about people and people are fallible. We can’t penalize providers for issues that they can’t influence or control.

Eric Topol MD may be correct in calling for a new organization that gives physicians a collective voice about their pay and public policies that affect the health and wellbeing [aka: medical risk] of Americans.

Rather than just expecting healthcare providers to do more for less pay, we need to engage with them in prioritizing the digital health solutions that will mitigate vulnerabilities now, near and far.

3/ How can we empower healthcare consumers?

The Gates Foundation published an article recently about governments and foundations needing to take targeted action to solving problems rather than making broad sweeping changes. 

Some healthcare organizations are taking steps to give community based vendors priority but as an industry, we can do more.

Leading retailers also invest heavily in their people whereas healthcare organizations often do the minimum required.

Speaking from experience, healthcare organizations are in a better position than vocational programs to offer formal training programs, mentorships, jobs and meaningful career paths.

Investing in people is better than pursing and jailing patients for medical debt when they have no means to pay. Plus improving someone’s financial health often helps improve their physical and mental health too.

Execution Vs. Kickbacks

Why good execution trumps kickbacks

The Trump Administration is considering relaxing the federal fraud and abuse regulations for kickbacks and bribes. Even though I still believe people are generally good, the thought of it is cause for concern. 

Simply speaking – when there is a big pot of money and no clear rules on how it can be used or earned, bad things happen. There are plenty of examples in healthcare as well as in other industries that serve a broader public interest. Just think back to 2008 for a minute.

The question that remains is whether or not there is a valid business reason to relax the federal bribery and kickback regs. The Ambulatory Surgery Center [ASC] industry is probably the most relevant example for this discussion. 

Ambulatory Surgery Centers [ASCs]

In case you’re not familiar with these entities, ASCs are free standing surgical facilities that perform routine surgical cases requiring less than a 23 hour stay. 

ASCs are thought to be an extension of a surgeon’s practice and therefore, frequently owned at least in part by the physicians who work there. Current federal regulations require disclosure so that patients understand the financial relationship. 

In short, ASCs give surgeons a legal way to participate in the full profits [and losses] of providing surgical services to their patients. There is no need for bribery or kickbacks.

Bribery and Kickbacks

Even though technically there is no need, bribery and kickbacks have been used to incentivize physicians to use one or more facilities.

Patients have been bifurcated by payer and treated at the facility that pays the physician the most money. Federal anti-kickback regulations have helped protect the Medicare population from these practices. However, the commercial population is a whole different story because the impact of economic credentialing is less severe than federal debarment.

Economic Credentialing vs. Federal Debarment

Economic credentialing and federal debarment are similar in that they exclude a provider from participation in a specific network. Federal Debarment is more punitive for providers because few providers can afford to operate without servicing patients funded by government programs, and more specifically Medicare.

Commercial payers have had a harder time excluding providers from their networks because they have to remain competitive with other health plans in the market to get the more lucrative contracts with employers.

So relaxing the federal kickback and bribery regulations reduces the risk of federal debarment and increases the potential for schemes that maximize provider reimbursement.

Value Based Care

The argument for relaxing the federal fraud and abuse guidelines is to better facilitate value based care arrangements. The desired outcome of value based arrangements is to increase the quality and reduce the cost of care. 

If we think about the Strategic Execution Framework, how would relaxing federal regulations translate into the structure of the organization?

I’ve put together a sample outline of the structure needed to support a value based care transformation to help you answer the question.

Purpose: We provide patients needing routine surgical services a high quality, cost effective alternative to inpatient services.

Long Term Intention: We will continuously expand the scope of services provided and improve the quality of our care by investing in our people, facility and processes. We will also strive to deliver the outstanding service patients expect and deserve.

Identity: Our employees are service oriented, committed to continuous learning so that they are prepared for what’s next and have the courage needed to help the organization step into the future.

Key Values: Service, Learning, Growth and Courage

Long vs. Short Term Intention

During the height of the Out-of-Network strategy [and kickbacks] in the ASC industry, I asked several physicians how long they thought the scheme would last. Most thought only a few years. 

Some had a short term intention because they were close to retirement. Others lost site of the bigger picture and consequently, paid a big price in the end. 

Relaxing the federal fraud and abuse regulations seems like another short term intention that could run amuck. Kickbacks are not a substitute for good strategic execution.

Strategic Execution

Strategists often leave the Operators in charge of execution. It rarely works. In fact, it only works 10% of the time. 

Strategic Execution requires specialized knowledge and skill to develop the structure and culture needed for long term success.

I’ve been reading the Nordstrom Way lately. Nordstrom success has everything to do with their strategic execution.

I’ll share some more insights from the book in a future Rush Weekly.

Default to truth

Why do we default to truth when someone is lying? Most people default to truth until their doubt and the facts tell them otherwise. 

My default belief has been set using the 80/20 rule. 80% of people tell the truth and do the right thing. Based on Talking with Strangers by Malcolm Gladwell, it’s a reasonable starting point.

However, I was in a meeting with healthcare executives when the physician founder challenged my belief. He believed only 20% of people do the right thing and that most will act in their own self interest. 

Work vs. Life

So which is it? It’s something that I’ve been rumbling with since that meeting. Let me start this discussion by sharing some additional input from colleagues that will help you understand why.

The Director of Health and Safety for a large employer organization believes 60% of physicians fudge the facts to turn medical claims into worker’s comp claims to get higher reimbursement [aka: payment].

A Finance Executive in private equity shared that he believes everyone seeking financing from them is lying. The only way they get to the truth is doing careful due diligence even if the company has been audited. They don’t put much faith in auditors either.

What I learned is that context matters. These people don’t believe everyone is lying all the time but in a professional context [and more specifically when money is involved] their default level of trust is lower. Whether it’s experience that has raised their level of doubt or use of data, they have learned to verify the facts rather than trust what people say.

Life

In the broader context of life, we don’t always have data readily available to tell us whether or not someone is lying or telling the truth. 

No one is good at spotting a liar. Looking someone in the eyes, reading their body language or talking to them doesn’t make you a good judge of truth. In fact, these attempts to discern truth blur whatever facts are available and consequently, rarely result in the right answer.

We have to believe people are generally good even if they tell a lie or two. Society wouldn’t function if we didn’t.

However, when we have doubt, we need to look to the data and trust the facts so that our feelings and biases don’t blur our judgement.

As with any Malcom Gladwell book, Talking with Strangers is brimming with great stories – and yes facts. 

#metoo

Talking with Strangers includes several stories about rape and why it’s hard for people to discern the facts in legal cases. The stories clarify the laws in each case, highlight the added issues if someone is intoxicated and discusses what constitutes consent.

Post #metoo everyone should have a clear understanding of these cases to help guide their behavior and to judge the facts. It’s worth your time to read the book.

Change is in the air

How will Amazon and Walmart change healthcare?

With Amazon and Walmart entering the healthcare provider business, it is safe to assume the industry is in for some big changes.

For now Amazon Care will be beta tested with 50,000+ employees living in the Seattle area but you can only imagine that it will be soon available to Haven employees and then Prime members.

Healthcare entrepreneurs and legacy providers have so many questions and likely fears about what’s to come. Your guess is as good as mine.

However, you might get some insights by thinking through some of the questions that will likely surface during the beta test. 

Questions such as:

1/ Is the medical information being shared sufficient to facilitate the continuum of care?

2/ What other types of services do employees need?

3/ What is the best way to deliver those services?

4/ Who is the best provider of those services?

5/ What medical needs are predictable?

6/ Are employees open to health and wellness product recommendations?

7/ What other medical products should be offered on Amazon to enable self-care?

8/ When do employees schedule in-person appointments?

9/ What are the most highly sought after appointments?

10/ Do we have enough contracted providers available to meet demand and service expectations?

Now think about what they do well, what they will likely buy and what they will likely need to complete the marketplace.

Amazon vs. Walmart:

As you likely know, Amazon and Walmart serve different customers and do so in a different way. Amazon operates a marketplace with the same type of product offered at different prices whereas Walmart strives to offer the lowest priced product to their customer. 

Start by thinking about what Amazon offers all consumers:

1/ Consumers see the full marketplace of products relevant to their search.

2/ Results are displayed by most relevant.

3/ Filters can be used to narrow the options.

4/ Recommendations and reviews provide verified consumer feedback.

5/ Consumers can filter for products included in Prime.

Now think about how that translates to healthcare.

1/ Heathcare Consumers would see all licensed providers: contracted or not.

2/ Healthcare Consumers would be able to search and use filters to narrow their search.

3/ Healthcare Consumers would be able to read service details, reviews and recommendations.

4/ Healthcare Consumers could filter for providers included in [……..]


In what?

Amazon could administer other networks [Medicare and Commercial Networks] and/or develop a Prime healthcare network that resolves the confidentiality issues of existing networks.

Pricing + Contracting

With Amazon, it’s not necessarily a race to the bottom for healthcare providers. Prime rates are not always the cheapest but free shipping and the ease of dealing with Amazon customer service makes membership and the added cost worth every penny.

Healthcare providers should be thinking about who they serve and how to differentiate their serves in the marketplace.

Review your data to help answer questions:

1/ Why do patients choose you? Simply asking if they use Amazon or shop at Walmart might give you some good insights too.

2/ What do they say about the experience? Collect feedback about care and service separately.

3/ Do you have unpaid patient balances? Your patients may be underinsured or dissatisfied with your service or maybe your business practices need refining. 

Commercial payers understand that it is not a one size fits all marketplace. If the patient population you serve puts a higher value on your care and services, they do too.

Engineering vs. Design

What’s the difference? 

Both engineering and design start with a problem but the approach to solving the problem is different. 

Engineering is about distilling data and allowing the data to dictate the solution. The problem with an engineering only approach is that there is usually more than one way to solve the problem. Hence the need for design and design thinking.

Design thinking uses brainstorming to surface all the different ideas, rapid prototyping to test the more viable ideas and iteration to apply the lessons from the prototypes.

Design often gets stifled in the healthcare industry. From my experience there are two reasons:

1/ The situation has become dire and something needs to be done quickly.

2/ The executive team is committed to one management philosophy that leaves little room for creativity.

Getting painted into a corner is never good place to start. So how do you get out of it?

Data

Everyone needs quality data to make sounds decisions whether in a clinical or business role. When the data is bad, we end up wasting resources solving problems that don’t exist and overlooking the real issues.

Did you know that only 30% of the analytic results in healthcare organizations are accurate? 

It was one of the stats that I learned from Health Catalyst recently and based on my own experience seems about right.

Part of the issue is the old adage “Garbage In/Garbage Out” and the other part is a lack of consistency in defining and extracting the data elements. 

Good design makes data capture as painless as possible and helps to standardize the dataset to make the data meaningful, actionable and readily accessible to all users. 

Start with why

Lean is good but can be limiting without design thinking. There isn’t much difference between Just In Time inventory and Kanban. Yet when one fails, we try the other without giving enough thought to why.

Just in time inventory in healthcare has never worked all that well because it’s too complex for the endusers to maintain. Implementing Kanban with a client made me realize that the system wasn’t going to work much better if at all for the same reasons.

The user’s needs were never really considered in how the system was implemented and once the implementation was started there was no iteration to refine it. Sound familiar? 

Just in Time inventory and Kanban are good frameworks but there is no one size fits all solution. Design thinking is about considering all the issues underlying the problem, the stakeholders and the patients served to solve the problem.

Leading with Purpose

Some of the richest people in the world made their fortunes by making products and services cheaper.

Jeff Bezos, Founder of Amazon, is the richest man in American. As you likely know, a lot of products on Amazon cost less than the same or similar products at local retailers. Plus you can acquire everything almost as quickly from the comfort of your home. The Walton family members [Walmart] are also in the top 20 of wealthiest.

Running a profitable business takes a lot of work to refine systems and processes but it is possible to do so and to make money. That’s the lesson that the industry should be taking from Amazon and Walmart.

What I hear from entrepreneurs especially those new to the industry is a passion to take on the cost of healthcare challenge. They are taking their inspiration from Amazon and Walmart and thinking about how they can make things cheaper and better for healthcare consumers. 

Healthcare entrepreneurs are thinking about value and leading with purpose.

Evolution vs. Revolution

We’re getting more insight into as to where political and business leaders are looking for ideas to help lower the cost of healthcare in the US. 

LA Care came up this week because it’s a public option currently available on the California exchange that competes for members with insurers offering plans in the same service areas. It is operating similarly to how a Medicare public option would be expected to operate. 

Many leaders see LA Care as evolutionary because since inception the plan has been slowly improving the health and welfare of their members and reducing the cost of healthcare. The biggest issue that remains is healthcare reimbursement.

LA Care utilizes county resources as well as physicians and other healthcare providers contracted with commercial payers. Consequently, the plan hasn’t been able to lower their contracted rates and cost of healthcare enough to make their model truly transformative.

The Medicare public option could be revolutionary but it is unlikely to get industry support given that many of the largest healthcare companies are publicly traded and have a financial responsibility to their shareholders.

Change is going to happen whether you want it or not.

~Ed Catmull, Co-Founder of Pixar

A Radical Challenge

If you subscribe to the Weekly Rush then you know, I have been reading Creativity Inc lately. One of the stories that the author Ed Catmull shares in the book is about giving his creatives at Pixar a radical challenge to lower the cost of their production. No easy task given the talent and complexity of the processes involved.

Ed was surprised by the positive response to the challenge. Reportedly, his creatives took it on and took the challenge to a whole new level once they understood how they fit into the bigger picture.

60% of Americans don’t necessarily want a single payer system but they want to pay less for their healthcare. Rather than fighting against the use of Medicare rates, as an industry we should embrace it as our radical challenge to lower the cost of healthcare.

The opportunity to address a problem is often missed because we don’t get to the root cause and understand all the implications to fix it. Instead we often layer on more solutions and consequently, more cost.

Vendors don’t help matters because they don’t want to address staff reductions as a benefit of their solution. It’s a sensitive issue and often a roadblock to closing a sale.

To embrace the challenge, we need to need to look at everything we do with a fresh lens and question:

  • Does the task still need to be done?
  • Does the process/system work well? If not, what’s the problem?
  • What needs to change or what could be changed to fix the problem or streamline the process to make the task even easier?
  • Could a vendor change the user interface or packaging to make the process easier?
  • If you eliminate the task or make a process easier, how do existing resources get redeployed?
  • What is the impact on total cost and revenue?

If you’re saying there is no way to reduce cost and make money if you only receive Medicare rates. Ask yourself why not? Make a list of all your reasons and challenge every single one.

It’s not about just improving what we do now. Constraints challenge people to think about what they are doing and to create better ways to do it.

How matters

How matters more than most leaders thought.

Corporate America is changing. Business leaders are realizing that they need to think beyond the bottom line.

Some investors are pushing back but what they might not realize yet is companies can do even better when they consider the social and environmental impact in their policies and business practices.

Haven

Haven Healthcare is the new healthcare company formed by Chase, Amazon and Berkshire Hathaway that is led by Atul Gwande MD. Dr. Gwande has been sharing his experiences, thoughts and insights about the cost and quality of healthcare in his books and articles for more than a decade. 

Since formation, the company has been working to understand the needs of their patient population so that they can “create new solutions and work to change systems, technologies, contracts, policy, and whatever else is in the way of better health care.”

The “whatever else” in this case likely refers to the way American Corporations have focused solely on the bottom line. It should come as no surprise to any of us that Jamie Dimon, CEO of Chase is one of the leaders championing this change. 

He is likely getting some good data and management insights to support his position. Hopefully we’ll learn more about that when the Forbes article is published next month. Until then, you might want to check out this book.

Dying for a Paycheck

We’re likely going to hear about some of the work published by Stanford Professor, Jeffrey Pfeffer.

In Dying for a Paycheck, he shares countless stories and stats about the management practices that “literally sicken and sometimes kill employees” and that also negatively impact productivity and the bottom line. Wellness programs can’t compensate for the fundamental issues that exists in many workplaces and unfortunately, are not bending the healthcare cost curve as expected.

Researchers in Denmark are reportedly using prescription drug data to draw correlations between prescription drug use and the effects of entrepreneurship, organizational change, compensation and more.

My guess is that Haven is using their medical data to investigate the policies and business practices of the operating companies and drawing similar types of insights. It could be game changing for Americans and the healthcare industry.

Times change, we need to change as well. 
~ Nelson Mendela

Changing how

A lot of this might seem like common sense, but without data it is harder to convince people change is necessary.

I was an online learning provider during the dot com boom/bust days. We helped clients enhance their operations while providing a path for a brighter future for their employees. How you ask?

Our training solution provided the much needed training to those responsible for the revenue cycle and financial management of healthcare organizations. Most had never received formal training on the systems or best practices which from a financial perspective is a recipe for disaster.

Staffing decisions are emotional but became so much easier with data about the time spent on course work, modules completed and assessment results – all stats we needed to report as a CPE provider.  

We enrolled everyone in their required training modules and gave them time on the job to complete the course work. Some just didn’t complete all of their modules and not surprisingly, they underperformed in those areas of their job. It was a clear indication that they had no interest in the work.

Rather than terminating their employment, it was my opportunity to start a conversation about the right career path for them. There are really only three career options: 

1/ Develop functional depth

2/ Transition to a cross functional role

3/ Retrain for something entirely new

Even though the organization had less than 100 people, we were able to offer all of these options within the organization and financially, we had some of the best years. 

Investments in fundamentals and people pay off in companies of all sizes.

Training investments help people perform better on the job and prepare for a brighter future. Many of the people who successful completed our courses have already transitioned into new jobs. They didn’t have to experience the stress of having their job eliminated as some are experiencing now.

Industry leaders need to be making these types of fundamental investments to be profitable and accountable to all constituents going forward. Those leading in a strong viking and victim culture such as in law, finance and tech might find it harder to make the mental shift but it is time for change.