Atul Gawande on the importance of a “positive deviant”

In “The Bell Curve,” an article written for The New Yorker (December 6, 2004), Atul Gawande uses the term “positive deviant” to describe unusually effective performers in the field of medicine. In fact, there are outliers in all fields. To Gawande, it is highly advisable to study outliers and learn from them to improve our own performance.

(Note: To the best of my knowledge, the term “outliers” was first used by Frank E. Grubbs in his article, “Procedures for Detecting Outlying Observations in Samples,” published by Technometrics magazine in 1969.)

In his book, Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance, Gawande describes and defines the concept of “positive deviance” as it relates to improving outcomes in the medical profession. He tells a story about a Save the Children program designed to address malnutrition among children in poor, outlying villages in Vietnam shortly after the Vietnam War:

“The anti-starvation program run by Tufts University professor Jerry Sternin and his wife, Monique, had given up on bringing outside solutions to villages with malnourished children. Over and over, that strategy had failed. Although the know-how to reduce malnutrition was long established—methods to raise more nourishing foods and effectively feed hungry children –most people proved reluctant to change…”

Does this remind of us of anyone?

Gawande goes on:

“The Sternins therefore focused on finding solutions from insiders. They asked small groups of poor villagers to identify who among them had the best nourished children—who among them had demonstrated what the Sternins termed a ‘positive deviance’ from the norm. …The villagers discovered that there were well nourished children among them, despite the poverty, and that those children’s mothers were breaking with locally accepted wisdom in all sorts of ways—feeding their children even when they had diarrhea, for example, or giving them several small feedings each day rather than one or two big ones; adding sweet potato greens to the children’s rice despite it being considered a low class food. And the ideas began to spread. They took hold ….In two years malnutrition dropped 65-85% in every village the Sternins visited.” (page 25)

Given all the problems we human beings face today, the need for positive deviance is greater now than ever before.

o   It all begins with an unshakable faith in what can be accomplished.
o   Next is some highly unorthodox collaborative thinking that generates lots of possible solutions.
o   Finally, selection of what seems to be the best solution and then APPLY IT.

I agree with Albert Einstein: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

 

Fixing Health Care by Learning from the Cheesecake Factory – Atul Gawande’s Latest

There is in fact a consensus out there.  The consensus is that health care costs are too high, and rising too rapidly.  But the consensus evaporates with the question of how to fix it.

One man who has thought a lot about this is Atul Gawande.  Dr. Gawande is a surgeon, he teaches surgery at Harvard Medical School, he led the Surgical Task Force for the World Health Organization (he developed the surgeon’s check list), he is a regular contributor to the New Yorker, and he is a Macarthur Fellow (commonly called the “Genius Grant.”) So, he has hefty credentials.  (I presented my synopsis of his terrific book The Checklist Manifesto at the First Friday Book Synopsis back in April, 2010).

He writes important long-form pieces about health care regularly.  Among his best was a look at why McAllen, TX has the most expensive health care in the country:  The Cost Conundrum:  What a Texas town can teach us about health care.  And he has this must-read piece on the Supreme Court Decision regarding the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”).  It includes this really insightful section:

In 1973, two social scientists, Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber, defined a class of problems they called “wicked problems.” Wicked problems are messy, ill-defined, more complex than we fully grasp, and open to multiple interpretations based on one’s point of view. They are problems such as poverty, obesity, where to put a new highway—or how to make sure that people have adequate health care.
They are the opposite of “tame problems,” which can be crisply defined, completely understood, and fixed through technical solutions. Tame problems are not necessarily simple—they include putting a man on the moon or devising a cure for diabetes. They are, however, solvable. Solutions to tame problems either work or they don’t.

And he ends this piece this way:

Beneath the intricacies of the Affordable Care Act lies a simple truth. We are all born frail and mortal—and, in the course of our lives, we all need health care. Americans are on our way to recognizing this.

One reason he is such a helpful and important author is that he learns from everywhere.  We live in an “everything is connected, learn from everywhere” world, and yet so few of us actually learn from outside our own narrow slices of the world.  Dr. Gawande learns from a much broader swath of the world than most of the rest of us.

Dr. Gawande is observant, curious, and determined.  I suspect that he walks up to people (as he did to the manager of the Cheesecake Factory where he ate a meal), and says, “look, you may not have time for me, but I think a bigger world needs to learn from what you do.  Will you show me?  Will you teach me?”  In The Checklist Manifesto, he described successful checklists from surgeons, and pilots, and chefs, and construction project supervisors, and….  He learns from everywhere!

And, right now, our health care system needs to learn from anywhere and everywhere.  This article reminded me of an example/story in Practically Radical: Not-So-Crazy Ways to Transform Your Company, Shake Up Your Industry, and Challenge Yourself by William C. Taylor, where he describes how a health care company in the Pacific Northwest takes a group of executives and team leaders to a Toyota plant in Japan to watch the way they make cars.

So Dr. Gawande’s latest is:  Big Med: Restaurant chains have managed to combine quality control, cost control, and innovation. Can health care?  This short blog post will not be enough.  I urge you to read his article, and think not only about our health care challenges, but about this question:  “what can I learn from somewhere outside my narrow circle?”

Here are some excerpts of this wonderful essay.  First, his description of the Cheesecake Factory:

The place is huge, but it’s invariably packed, and you can see why. The typical entrée is under fifteen dollars. The décor is fancy, in an accessible, Disney-cruise-ship sort of way: faux Egyptian columns, earth-tone murals, vaulted ceilings. The waiters are efficient and friendly. They wear all white (crisp white oxford shirt, pants, apron, sneakers) and try to make you feel as if it were a special night out. As for the food—can I say this without losing forever my chance of getting a reservation at Per Se?—it was delicious.

Now his curiosity and inquisitiveness kicks in:

I wondered how they pulled it off. I asked one of the Cheesecake Factory line cooks how much of the food was premade.

And then, the problem he seeks to answer:

I’d come from the hospital that day. In medicine, too, we are trying to deliver a range of services to millions of people at a reasonable cost and with a consistent level of quality. Unlike the Cheesecake Factory, we haven’t figured out how. Our costs are soaring, the service is typically mediocre, and the quality is unreliable. Every clinician has his or her own way of doing things, and the rates of failure and complication (not to mention the costs) for a given service routinely vary by a factor of two or three, even within the same hospital.

I’m thinking a lot about problems these days.  I have a few myself…  I just presented my synopsis of The Goal by Goldblatt, and the book pretty much says one thing:

figure out what your problem is, then fix it. 

Goldblatt labels the “big” problem the bottleneck, and offers a path to follow to fix your problems.  And, by the way, he seems to argue that many (most?) problems are not equipment or software problems, but process problems.  That seems to be Gawande’s discovery also.

The successful people in the world do not attain their success because they never have problems and challenges.  They have them.  They just know how to identify them, and then fix them – and then, to find the next one and fix that one too.

So, I encourage you to read this Gawande article to learn about our health care challenges.  But also, to learn how to find, and face, and tackle, and solve your own problems and challenges.

He ends his essay with this:

The critical question is how soon that sort of quality and cost control will be available to patients everywhere across the country. We’ve let health-care systems provide us with the equivalent of greasy-spoon fare at four-star prices, and the results have been ruinous. The Cheesecake Factory model represents our best prospect for change. Some will see danger in this. Many will see hope. And that’s probably the way it should be.

We’ve all got problems to find, problems to solve.  Let’s get to it.

Getting the Basics Right (Like Communication, and Team Building) – It is Still, and Always, Hard To Do

Getting the steps right is proving brutally hard, even if you know them.
Atul Gawande, The Checklist Manifesto

—————-

This week, I am presenting synopses of Made to Stick by Chip and Dan Heath and Tribal Leadership:  Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization, both to law enforcement professionals.  (And my colleague Karl Krayer is presenting another book on communication at the same gathering).

Why?

Because, these professionals, like so many others in practically every arena, deal with these two problems:

#1 – how to build, and maintain, effective teams.

#2 – how to communicate, clearly and effectively, to everyone on the team (and to those outside the team).

The more I speak, the more I listen, the more I “consult,” the more I realize this challenge.  It is not a new challenge, it is not a modern challenge.  It is an old challenge.

We don’t get the basics right.

Team building, communication – these are basics.  And after countless books and training seminars on both, we still have unclear communication and ineffective, dysfunctional teams.

My counsel to you – keep working on both of these.  Pay attention to your team members.  Pay careful attention to your spoken and written communications.  Do you listen, and encourage, and include, and support each one of your team members?  Are your e-mails clear – do you put your sentences together effectively?  Do you speak clearly?

Build Teams.  Communicate clearly and effectively.  These are two of the basics we just have to get right.

The Experts Can’t Figure It Out – Now What Do We Do? (We Still Don’t Know What Caused the Financial Crisis of 2008)

What do we do when the experts simply can’t figure it out?

Here’s a simple question:  are there failing companies?  Yes.  Are there less-than-excellent organizations?  Yes.  Do you do everything you could do, should do, as well as you possibly could – as well as it needs to be done?  The answer, I’m pretty sure, is no.

So, “less-than-excellent” is all around us.  As we reflect on failures and deficiencies, we ask the next question:  why are we not better?  Why are our companies, our organizations, our own lives, not better?

Atul Gawande hinted at it when he wrote:

We have just two reasons that we may fail. 
The first is ignorance – we may err because science has given us only a partial understanding of the world and how it works.  There are skyscrapers we do not yet know how to build, snowstorms we cannot predict, heart attacks we still haven’t learned how to stop. The second type of failure the philosophers call ineptitude – because in these instances the knowledge exists, yet we fail to apply it correctly. 
(Atul Gawande, The Checklist Manifesto:  How to Get Things Right).

Or, to put it in simple terms:  we don’t know; or, when/if we do know, we don’t do.  Back, yet again, to the “knowing-doing gap.”

Now, on the “we don’t know” part of this equation….  Sometimes, we have not yet learned.  On the news last night, there was a report on an amazing breakthrough drug for lung cancer.  It looks like it might actually work, and they profiled a woman (with two young children still at home) who was on her death bed, and she is practically back from the dead.  We now know something we did not know, and she is alive, maybe for quite a while longer.  Wonderful.

And there are, we suspect, so many more such wonderful discoveries around the corner.

But, as much as we have come to rely on the breakthrough discoveries and insights of “experts” – they simply don’t yet know everything.

Which brings me to the paragraph of the day.  This came in on my AtlanticWire Five Best Columns e-mail this morning.  The article referenced is:  What Caused the Financial Crisis? Don’t Ask An Economist.  I end this post with the paragraph summary of the article from the AtlanticWire.  And I remind you that there are some questions for which we simply do not know the answers — yet.  And the more complex the question, the bigger the problem this presents.  It really is quite a paragraph on lack of consensus, the limits of experts and their expertise, and a little on the drawbacks of this contentious age we live in.

Here’s the paragraph (AtlanticWire here; the article linked to from the FiscalTimes here):

Mark Thoma on the disabling divide in macroeconomics  “What caused the financial crisis that is still reverberating through the global economy?” asks Mark Thoma in The Fiscal Times. “Last week’s 4th Nobel Laureate Meeting in Lindau, Germany–a meeting that brings Nobel laureates in economics together with several hundred young economists from all over the world–illustrates how little agreement there is on the answer to this important question.” Economists offered all sorts of conflicting answers like “the banks, the Fed, too much regulation, too little regulation, Fannie and Freddie, moral hazard from too-big-to-fail banks, bad and intentionally misleading accounting, irrational exuberance, faulty models, and the ratings agencies.” This lack of consensus among the world’s most renowned economists is troubling, Thoma writes, because we cannot find a solution to a problem we do not agree on. Perhaps we could try to fix all the potential problems cited. “But that unnecessarily constrains a whole range of activities in the hope that we limit the particular behaviors at the root of the crisis. That’s an inefficient way to fix the problem. And in any case, how do you proceed when some of the causes cited by economists are at odds with each other?” The truth is, macroeconomists have not yet agreed on a single model for the economy. Because economic theories are applied to historical, not experimental, data, economists can come up with multiple theories that explain the past equally well. “This problem is not just of concern to macroeconomists; it has contributed to the dysfunction we are seeing in Washington as well. When Republicans need to find support for policies such as deregulation, they can enlist prominent economists–Nobel laureates perhaps–to back them up. Similarly, when Democrats need support for proposals to increase regulation, they can also count noted economists in their camp.” Thoma says he hoped that a cycle-interrupting cataclysm like the 2008 crisis would provide enough new macroeconomic data to support one theory over another–he thinks it supports demand side over supply side. In fact, economists have just used it to back up their previously held positions and “dig in their heels,” making our debates “larger and more contentious than ever.”

What if the Worst Happens? — What Then?

I’ve been thinking about business, preparing for the expected, and then facing the unexpected…

Many products have faced delays in delivery of products due to the earthquakes/tsunami in Japan.

And now, the tornadoes that have sliced through and devastated portions of cities, specially in Alabama…  What will that do to the economy?

(Of course, the first thought, always, is the human loss – and the tragedy of lives snuffed out, some so very young…)

But the ripple effects on the economy also get our attention.

For some reason, I go back to one of the main ideas in The Checklist Manifesto by Atul Gawande:

We have just two reasons that we may fail. 
The first is ignorance – we may err because science has given us only a partial understanding of the world and how it works.  There are skyscrapers we do not yet know how to build, snowstorms we cannot predict, heart attacks we still haven’t learned how to stop. The second type of failure the philosophers call ineptitude – because in these instances the knowledge exists, yet we fail to apply it correctly  This is the skyscraper that is built wrong and collapses, the snowstorm whose signs the meteorologist just plain missed, the stab wound from a weapon the doctors forgot to ask about. 
For nearly all of history, people’s lives have been governed primarily by ignorance. 

When a company faces a problem of its own making, it is the fault of that company.  Some ineptitude has crept in, gone unchecked, and now created something between a small problem to great havoc.  In this case, the company is to blame, and the company leaders and employees have to learn, quickly and thoroughly, from their mistakes.

But when something happens from “outside” – something the company has no control over, then the company is not to blame.  A tornado; a tsunami…  these are some things no company can control.

There are a few other such examples that are equally disturbing to business success, like…  practically every business is facing the ripple effects of the rising gasoline prices.  If the prices continue to rise, then the ripple effects will be a genuine drain on a whole lot of bottom lines.  This is not the fault of the company, or its own ineptitude.  But the effects may soon be felt in every industry, in every company.

But…  on the other hand, I think there is a simple lesson in all of this.  Maybe every company needs to spend a little time on “what if the worst happens?  Then what do we do” planning.

Because I think I am learning this – there are a whole lot of “what if the worst happens” possibilities out there.

The Secret to Ensuring Follow-Through

Peter Bregman

Here is an excerpt from an especially valuable  article written by Peter Bregman for the Harvard Business Review blog. To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Review’s Daily Alerts, please click here.

*     *     *

[Note: The excerpt begins mid-narrative. To read the complete article, please click here.]

As I finished my pre-offsite interviews, I made a single request of each leader: read The Checklist Manifesto by Atul Gawande.

A physician and writer, Gawande describes doctors who resist the checklist — it’s too simple, insulting even — and then shows us how hospital staff who follow a checklist save more lives than most medical “miracle drugs” or procedures.

Gawande makes a strong case for why experts need checklists, especially for the most mundane of tasks. The more expert we are in something, the more we take things for granted, and, as a result, miss the obvious.

Most of us think we communicate well. Which, ironically, is why we often leave out important information (we believe others already know it). Or fail to be specific about something (we think others already understand it). Or resist clarifying (we don’t want to insult other people).

Thankfully, there’s a simple solution: create a checklist and use it during every handoff.

During the offsite, the leadership team looked at where problems happened in the past and where they were likely to happen in the future. Almost all were during handoffs.

So we developed the following mandatory “handoff checklist” — questions that the person handing off work must ask the person taking accountability for delivery:

Handoff Checklist

• What do you understand the priorities to be?

• What concerns or ideas do you have that have not already been mentioned?

• What are your key next steps, and by when do you plan to accomplish them?

• What do you need from me in order to be successful?

• Are there any key contingencies we should plan for now?

• When will we next check-in on progress/issues?

• Who else needs to know our plans, and how will we communicate them?

Time it takes to go through the checklist? One to five minutes. Time (and trust) saved by going through the checklist? Immeasurable.

We came up with this checklist because it addressed the most common reasons for dropping balls in this particular organization. Your handoff checklist may be different.

Here’s what’s compelling about an established checklist: it not only reduces mistakes, it reduces the need for courage.

Why would we need courage? Imagine you just finished explaining the priorities of a project to someone. Wouldn’t it seem a little patronizing, a little insulting to their intelligence, to ask them to tell you what they understood the priorities to be?

With an established checklist, it’s no longer offensive; it’s standard. And when they answer, often with a slight misunderstanding of the priorities, you can correct them on the spot, saving them two weeks of misguided work and the loss of trust that goes along with it. That’s the power of the checklist.

A few months after the offsite, I called Mary to ask her how it was working. Was the new HR Shared Services organization delivering? Did she miss Lucinda?

“Sure I miss Lucinda,” she told me, “but I don’t need her.”

Then she pulled out her checklist to make sure we were both on the same page for our work going forward.

*     *     *

To read the complete article, please click here.

Peter Bregman speaks, writes, and consults on leadership. He is the CEO of Bregman Partners, Inc., a global management consulting firm, and the author of Point B: A Short Guide To Leading a Big Change. Sign up to receive an email when he posts.

Are We Truly A “Flabby Lot?” – In A 10,000 Hour Rule World, Why Are We So Flabby?

Discipline is hard – harder than trustworthiness and skill and perhaps even than selflessness. We are by nature flawed and inconstant creatures.  We can’t even keep from snacking between meals.  We are not built for discipline.  We are built for novelty and excitement, not for careful attention to detail.  Discipline is something we have to work at.
Atul Gawande, The Checklist Manifesto

The list of posts on this blog referring to the 10,000 hour rule, the need for deliberate practice, the books Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell and Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin, is long.  We have chronicled the ascendancy of, the centrality of  — call it what you will – “work ethic,” “it take s10,000 hours to master anything…” thinking.

But…

The quote that indicts me personally, in a way that I cannot escape, is the one from Gawande:  “We can’t even keep from snacking between meals.”

This morning, Pulitzer winner Kathleen Parker has a column about Wikileaks.  In the midst of this column is this section:

With the exception of our military, we are a flabby lot, and I’m not just talking about girth. We are merely disgusting in that department. I’m talking about our self-discipline, our individual will, our self-respect, our voluntary order.
Note the operative words: self, individual and voluntary.
We don’t need bureaucrats and politicians to dictate how to behave; how to spend (or save); what and how to eat. We need to be the people we were meant to be: strong, resilient, disciplined, entrepreneurial, focused, wise, playful, humorous, humble, thoughtful and, please, self-deprecating. We have all the tools and opportunities a planet can confer.

We are a flabby lot.  And it shows – not in a good way.  We’ve read all about 10,000 hours, but how many of us actually put in the work?

As always, we are back to the “knowing-doing gap.”  We know, we just don’t do…

Take inventory.  Be honest with yourself.  Are you flabby, undisciplined, unfocused?  If so, you’ve got your work cut out for you (as do I).  Let’s get to it.

Good Ideas! Steven Johnson, Atul Gawande, David Edwards, and Neri Oxman at 2010 Boston Book Festival

Boston Book Festival 2010

The Boston Book Festival, which took place October 16, 2010, put on some exceptional panel discussions. One of the most interesting featured four folks who individually could have taken up all the time on their own. The discussion was emceed by Callie Crossley, host of WGBH Radio’s Callie Crossley Show.

The panelists:

Steven Johnson is the author of Mind Wide Open: Your Brain and the Neuroscience of Everyday Life, The Ghost Map: The Story of London’s Most Terrifying Epidemic–and How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World, The Invention of Air: A Story Of Science, Faith, Revolution, and The Birth of America and, most recently, Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation.

Atul Gawande is a surgeon and the author of Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science, Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance, and most recently The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right.

David Edwards is the author of Burning All Illusions: A Guide to Personal and Political Freedom, The Compassionate Revolution, Artscience: Creativity in the Post-Google Generation, and most recently The Lab: Creativity and Culture.

Neri Oxman, one of Fast Company’s 100 Most Creative People. “In the MIT Media Lab’s basement workshop sits a machine that can slice human bone instantly using a blast of water mixed with garnet dust. It’s Neri Oxman’s favorite. “The laser cutter is very feminine, elegant. The water-jet cutter is very masculine. It cuts anything. To be here at 2 a.m. all by myself — it’s really exciting!” This laughing, chic young woman in a flowing Helmut Lang jacket is an artist, architect, ecologist, computer scientist, and designer who is not just making new things but also coming up with new ways to make things.”

To watch this lively and informative video, please click here.

Management Practices and Processes – 2 Lists from Gary Hamel

In Atul Gawande’s The Checklist Manifesto, he reminds us that checklists are needed because: Every day there is more and more to manage and get right and learn.  And defeat under conditions of complexity occurs far more often despite great effort rather than from a lack of it.

Recently, someone asked me just what all is involved in management.  “There is much to get right,” but I remembered these lists from Gary Hamel’s book, The Future of Management.  Yes, this is a lot to work on, to get right, to master.  But here are the lists for every manager to work on:

• The practice of management entails (has entailed):
• Setting and programming objectives
• Motivating and aligning effort
• Coordinating and controlling activities
• Developing and aligning talent
• Accumulating and applying knowledge
• Amassing and allocating resources
• Building and nurturing relationships
• Balancing and meeting stakeholders demands

• Management processes include (have included):
• Strategic Planning
• Capital budgeting
• Project management
• Hiring and promotion
• Training and development
• Internal communications
• Knowledge management
• Periodic business reviews
• Employee assessment and compensations

Peter Bregman suggests, “Don’t regret working too hard”

Peter Bregman

Here is an excerpt from an article written by Peter Bregman for the Harvard Business Review blog. To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Review’s Daily Alerts, please click here.

*     *     *

I was lying in bed, safely reading a magazine, when the fear arose. It started somewhere between my stomach and my chest, and it radiated outward. Like adrenaline coursing through my body after a sudden fright, it was a physical sensation, but it felt slower, deeper, wider, as it radiated to the tops of my arms and legs. It felt hot. I started to sweat. My body felt weak.

I put down the magazine and thought about death.

My mother-in-law, who was in her late sixties, died not long ago after a long battle with cancer; she was first diagnosed in her forties. A few weeks ago I received a call from a friend in her forties, who one morning found a lump in her breast and a few days later had a mastectomy. At lunch last week, a friend told me his business partner came home from vacation feeling a little under the weather; within a week he was dead from an aggressive cancer he never knew he had. That was right after he told me that his father-in-law was recently killed crossing the street.

And now I was reading an article by Atul Gawande [click here] about rethinking end of life treatment. Gawande is not just insightful as he explores what doctors should do when they can’t save your life; he’s also vivid. The first line of his article reads: “Sara Thomas Monopoli was pregnant with her first child when her doctors learned that she was going to die.”

I am, as far as I know, thank God, healthy. But somewhere in the middle of that article it suddenly hit me — not just intellectually, but physically and emotionally: I am going to die.

Each year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an American Time Use Survey [click here] asking thousands of Americans to document how they spend every minute of every day. (The New York Times created a fascinating interactive graphic using the survey as raw material. [Click here] by Bronnie Ware, who spent many years nursing people who had gone home to die. Their most common regret? “I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.” Their second most common regret? “I wish I didn’t work so hard.”

There are two ways to address these regrets. One, work less hard and spend your time living a life true to yourself, whatever that means. Or two, work just as hard — harder even — on things you consider to be important and meaningful.

If you put those two regrets together, you realize that what people really regret isn’t simply working so hard, it’s working so hard on things that don’t matter to them. If our work matters to us, if it represents a life true to us, than we will die without the main regrets that haunt the dying. We will have lived more fully.

*     *     *

To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Review’s Daily Alerts, please click here.

Peter Bregman speaks, writes, and consults on leadership. He is the CEO of Bregman Partners, Inc., a global management consulting firm, and the author of Point B: A Short Guide To Leading a Big Change. Click here to sign up to receive an email when he posts.