“A goal casually set and lightly taken is freely abandoned at the first obstacle.” –Zig Ziglar.
Here’s a thoughtful resource to help think through our goals: the individual aspect, team aspect, and everything else. It’s inspired by Zig Ziglar, posted by CurveFinder®Sprints, and was brought to my attention during Seth Godin’s altMBA.
“They’re not good.” “Who hired them in the first place?”
Have I ever said this?
The culprit MIGHT be lack of skillset—but, it MIGHT not be. Someone saw the skillset in them which is why they were hired in the first place.
Possessing the skillset is different from pulling it off the shelf and putting it to use. When they CHOOSE to leave the skillset on the shelf, that’s when everyone else around gets frustrated.
Robots have on-off switches. Humans also have on-off switches, but they’re controlled by emotions and sonder.
Humans crave connection. Connection builds bridges and creates richness in life. Warmth and love can pull people in a way that marching orders can’t push.
The next time emailing marching orders isn’t enough, could the Universe be signaling a reminder about the other part of my job: connection?
There’s in a leap in our step when we’re doing something that was our own idea.
In contrast, it can feel like trudge (at best) when the same work is imposed on us by someone else.
As consultants, marketers, coaches, and leaders: it’s not our job to say it…it’s the client’s/customer’s/team’s job to feel like it was inevitable that they figured it out on their own.
Clearly state the problem. Show them what “good” can look like. Nudge them with the right questions. Then, step back and keep the answers in your back pocket.
The sage on stage lectures. The guide on the side creates forward motion.
Neil Minkoff, Marc Hixson, Kim Gwiazdzinski, and Jim Clement authored an intriguing article in AJMC last month about stop-loss.
Apparently when payers can’t absorb the risk (from high-cost patients), they can push the cost onto stop-loss carriers. When the shock claims become too high even for the stop-loss carriers, they can pass on a certain amount to reinsurers. This is the nutshell version of something that is much more complex.
Ultimately, payers make patients pay the price (either literally or figuratively).
I couldn’t help but notice that the organizations that are meant to absorb the cost aren’t able to absorb the cost themselves.
The authors raise an interesting point: what is the point of coverage? Is it to absorb shock claims IF they occur or WHEN they occur?
One would think that payers are ready for the shock claims WHEN they occur, although this sadly doesn’t seem to be the case.
What principles of microeconomics can show up to address this problem? Would spending less in other areas allow payers to invest more on the latest high-quality drugs?
When Medical/Legal Review shreds your creative work to pieces and you’re left to pick up the remains, thank them. They might be on to something.
Elements OMITTED from market access projects are as much a part of a project as those included.
In graphic arts, this is called “negative space.”
Silence has power because it creates space for forward motion.
Simply provide enough details so as not to confuse or bore the customers.
What do you want your customers to do? What do they need to know/be reminded of in order to do that? What do they need to tell their managers and colleagues in order to get the job done?
Allow them fill in the negative space.
When opportunity knocks at the door, how shameful would it be to not answer?
COVID-19 vaccines are our golden opportunity at overcoming this deadly pandemic. If we want it to work, virtually ALL of us need to take it virtually NOW.
Despite this, Kaiser Family Foundation’s research suggests that 1 in 5 adult Americans will definitely not take the vaccine or only take it if required.
Side effects are the top concern among those that are hesitant.
At the next meeting, when the opportunity arises, ask your colleagues: “Did you take the vaccine? I did.” Spread the optimism.
Since you’re still reading this (thank you!): did YOU take the vaccine? I did!
We all know a good story when we see one, but professionals know how to create it.
Author of the bestseller DataStory, Nancy Duarte, brilliantly lays out the structure of a story in 3 simple acts:
>> ACT 1 (beginning): there is a problem or opportunity identified in the data
>> ACT 2 (middle): it’s messy to proceed because the data presents problems and/or opportunities
>> ACT 3 (end): the product/recommendation addresses the problem at its roots, creating a solution with positive outcomes
I can see the science behind why this works: tension and release creates forward motion.
The vast majority of market access projects involve just a single round of tension and release.
For longer projects, it’s a matter of the same motion done repetitively: tension>> release>> tension>> release>> tension>> release….
“No.”
This one-word feedback from the Client became the kiss of death for one market access professional as he broke down in shame. He was scrambling to cover up for his proposal, until his colleague came along.
His colleague, on the other hand, took the feedback as “no, not YET,” and started thinking of other ways that might make more sense.
Same feedback taken differently by different people.
The universe is a reflection of ourselves.
Market Access is a team sport.
It’s up to the TEAM MEMBERS to take the ball to the goal post.
It’s up to the TEAM MEMBERS to create such a project that brings in revenue.
Soccer players get it, why don’t we?
When someone is caught doing something good, it moves the heart in a way that Herman Miller’s (even the gold-coated ones) and Armani’s can’t.
At the next meeting, catch someone doing something good. Make it known to them. Right there on the call, privately in a 1:1 text or phone call, or whatever other way that makes sense.
Notice how the conversations pivot. Notice whose spark is lit (good-finding nourishes BOTH of us).
Good-finding doesn’t just help transform laggards into winners. It helps transform winners into ultra-winners.
>>The risk difference for erectile dysfunction among the watchful waiting cohort compared to the radical prostatectomy cohort was 0.50 (P < 0.001).
>>There were 50 additional cases of erectile dysfunction per 100 patients in the watchful waiting cohort compared to the radical prostatectomy cohort. This was statistically significant.
Both of these sentences mean the same thing, but which one actually makes sense?
Taking time to make sense of data is an investment that pays off in dividends. It can even save lives.
How can decision-makers take action if they can’t even figure out what they’re looking at?
Context creates meaning.
