The COVID Crisis and Adult Development

by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey - How developmental thinking can help us manage pandemic fears and move forward

Watch the webinar in whole, or watch Part I (with Lisa Lahey) and Part II (with Robert Kegan).

Three Takeaways, To Get Started

• Start with yourself and acknowledge where you are and how you feel.

  • Our emotional life is informed by our individual developmental perspective. Some of us may be self-authoring (recognizing that our identity exists outside of our relationships and emotions) while others may have a socialized perspective (defining the self through relationships and emotions).

  • Our developmental state informs how we make choices about how we outwardly express our feelings. For example, someone with a socialized mindset may not feel it’s OK to talk about how they’re feeling, because those around them don’t signal that showing and talking about emotion is acceptable.

• We need to take different kinds of care of each other amid this crisis.

  • Fear and uncertainty can often override our ability to be compassionate and empathetic. To combat this, Lahey recommends starting to take care of yourself. “When we have an unchecked self-protection system, it will always override our ability to love and be compassionate. Despite our best intentions, sometimes we may have a hard time being there for ourselves and one another,” she says. “The antiseptic to this emotional contagion is to turn the channel on to how we can be self-aware and provide empathy and kindness to ourselves and then to others.”

• Recognition and re-cognition are necessary to move forward

  • Recognizing emotions, naming them, and using that understanding are all necessary for compassion to take root. “All evolution of consciousness as we understand it always involves moving what was subject to an object,” Kegan says. “When you’re subject to something, you can’t see it. When you can see it, you can finally begin to care for and feel responsibility for it. That [accompanying] shift of mind and heart leads to new kinds of recognitions and enables a bigger capacity to care.”

Additional Resources

More on the Unlocking Immunity to Change Course

Usable Knowledge on understanding organizational growth

Learn more about personal growth and organizational change

LEADERSHIP & ORGANISATIONS

How to Spot When an Employee Is Secretly Struggling

The COVID-19 world is marked by a high degree of uncertainty and existential fear, a dearth of social interaction, the convergence of professional and personal space, a lack of physical activity and an obsessive focus on hygiene and social distancing. For professionals, it amounts to a toxic combination that elevates stress levels and increases the risk of burn-out. Virtually no one – and no organisation – is immune.

Now more than ever, every manager should become sensitive to the mental health of their teams, not to mention themselves. But few managers have formal training in this arena, which means their ability to directly intervene in the most severe cases is limited. What managers need first and foremost is a set of tools to help identify when an employee is seriously struggling. They can then take appropriate steps to ensure the sufferer has access to the necessary resources, before the problem becomes so big that it’s overwhelming.

This sounds straightforward, but it’s actually a complex and delicate matter. Especially during the early stages of burn-out, people are reluctant to be emotionally open with their manager for fear of being judged a “stressed-out employee”. For a manager to approach the issue head-on with blunt questions may backfire. Therefore, we advocate for a three-step system that we call “emotional triaging”.

1. Check-in with the team

Several studies indicate that group emotions have a direct effect on group behaviour, with regards to cooperation and performance but evaluating them needs to be done according to good professional standards. Checking-in is an intentional practice for a team to start a meeting. When the team is aware of potential personal distractions, it’s easier to focus on the primary task or project itself. Checking-in increases self-awareness and the cohesion of teams as team members become less judgmental. Be aware that certain team members might struggle more in sharing, such as introverts, outsiders or junior employees.

We suggest a pragmatic approach for emotional checking-in that can work even in the virtual space. Ask team members to self-evaluate on a scale of 1-10 (e.g. via a Zoom poll) in response to questions such as “What is your energy level? What is your stress level in the current working environment?” Adding one or two explorative questions can give further insights into the emotional well-being of the team. For example: “What are the three challenges you consider as the most important to address at the moment for you and the team?”

2. Individual deep dives

However, some employees might still feel intimidated. Drawing them out will require individual attention and sensitivity. Hence, we suggest including deep dives as part of regular conversations. The objective is to explore further for early signs of stress. Avoid directly asking “Are you stressed?” as this might trigger a denial or defensive behaviour. A better way to start is to be open about how stress is affecting you, establishing from the outset that the topic is not taboo. This shows vulnerability and triggers reciprocity in others.

From there, consider asking open questions such as “How do you manage your current workload, tons of e-mails and the virtual work? What do you consider as the main challenges in the current situation?” These general questions can start a short discussion in which you can explore potential stressors.

These virtual conversations are much better managed if both parties have audio and video enabled. That way, you can pick up on red flags in the employee’s body language.

In scanning for early warning signs, managers can use our “Stress APGAR” framework to evaluate stress levels.

• Appearance: Visibly evident sleep disturbance, dejected posture and bodily pain (PHYSICAL)

• Performance: Impairment of cognitive performance (due to time pressure, information overload and uncertainty) (MENTAL)

• Growth:  Loss of a sense of purpose, direction and hope for a better future (SPIRITUAL)

• Affect control: Uncontrolled outbursts and irritability (EMOTIONAL)

• Relationships: Deterioration of relationships and social isolation (SOCIAL)

In contrast to the original APGAR (a well-known health scoring method from neonatal medicine), the Stress APGAR is not an assessment tool but rather a guide for managers to ask the right questions. For example, managers can consider asking:

Appearance – How do you keep your energy up? How are your sleeping patterns? How do you maintain your physical and mental fitness?

Performance – How do you cope with the workload at the moment? How do you manage the performance pressures we face?

Growth – What gives you purpose and meaning at the moment? What are your and your team’s development objectives?

Affect control – How do you cope with frustration? Do you get easily upset/incensed when discussing work issues or personal topics?

Relationships – How do you experience your key relationships at work? Do you ask for and accept help from others?

Our Stress APGAR framework can be incorporated into your usual one-to-one conversations, especially with colleagues you are already concerned about.

3. Show compassion and know your limits

In the last step of emotional triaging, you need to consider appropriate actions.

Some team members already have a strong coping mechanism in place. Take care not to favour them above others who are having a tougher time. Instead, use them wisely as a possible source of help for their stressed-out peers, either through coaching or relieving colleagues of tasks that might be adding stress.  

Stress sufferers can be separated into two categories based on the Stress APGAR framework. People who satisfy at least two of the five criteria should receive more of your time and attention. You should especially be concerned if you recognise some of unhelpful coping mechanisms such as ignoring individual issues (denial), inability to ask for and accept help (heroism) and the tendency to protect others at their own expense (helper syndrome). You must remain in closer contact with these workers and strongly encourage them to access resources for help, such as mental health professionals.

Employees who meet only one or none of the Stress APGAR conditions may be regarded as minor cases, whose stress management can perhaps be sufficiently improved by the compassion and support you can provide. They are still at risk, however, especially if they are either unaware or unable to seek support (e.g. overloaded agenda and professional/personal life conflicts).

Beyond the crisis

COVID-19 is a literal “stress test” for individuals, teams and organisations everywhere. The current crisis challenges managers to rapidly and radically increase their mental health awareness, so that they can prevent their teams from being defeated by stress. Practices such as the above can help companies and managers remain at that high level of awareness, if they are continued after the pandemic passes.

Thomas Hellwig is an Adjunct Professor of Organisational Behaviour at INSEAD. He is a trained physician with a doctorate in psychotherapy and an MBA from INSEAD.

Caroline Rook, a former INSEAD Dutch Alumni Research Fellow and Visiting Scholar, is a Lecturer in Leadership at Henley Business School and a resilience researcher.

Don’t miss our latest content. Download the free INSEAD Knowledge app today.

Follow INSEAD Knowledge on Twitter and Facebook.

• COVID-19

The Stress of This Moment Might Be Hurting Kids’ Development

But relationships, routines, and resilience can help - By Pamela Cantor, M.D. 06/03/2020

Today, we don’t know how and when the social unrest will end. The coronavirus has been with us for weeks and will likely be with us for many months to come, with all the attendant uncertainties around health, the economy, food insecurity, and our education system. The ongoing pressures of this crisis may affect the developing brains of the young people living through it.

For years, I have worked to teach educators about the developing brain, how children’s development is malleable into adulthood, and how children and adolescents grow and learn and thrive. Nurture drives nature, and context—the environments, experiences, and relationships in our lives—drives the development of who we become.

Those lessons from the science of learning and development hold special relevance for educators deciding what they can do now and once schools reopen. I want everyone to know something that I learned in medical school: adversity doesn’t just happen to children. It happens inside their brains and bodies through the biologic mechanisms of stress.

When we experience stress, the hormone cortisol is released, producing that familiar feeling of fight, flight, or freeze. This feeling is intense when it happens, but if the stress is mild or tolerable, it’s adaptive. It makes us alert and helps us prepare for an event like a test or a performance. This is the limbic system in the brain at work—attention, concentration, focus, memory, preparation.

LEADERSHIP & ORGANISATIONS - BLOG

Aim for Transformation, Not Change

Distinguishing transformation from change

The words “transformation” and “change” are often used interchangeably. Moreover, “transformation”, once considered inspirational, is now viewed suspiciously – a codeword for technology, cost cutting and ending of careers. Conflating these two important concepts blurs what each one can do.

While “change” seems future-oriented, it is firmly embedded in the past. It often tries to produce a better version of what already exists. Attachment to the past shows up in the language used in organisations. How often have you heard?

• It’s a complex M&A, probably the hardest we have ever made

• Leadership needs to be more agile

• Our response times need to be faster

• We need greater presence on social media

These comparatives require a reference point in the past. When it comes to organisational change, the constraints of the past are built into the change process. Indeed, many leaders experience a heavy drag, or resistance, when trying to drive change. To wit, in some organisations, the term “change initiative” is sarcastically referred to as “it ain’t gonna happen”.

The striking contrasts

The following table shows the many ways “transformation” contrasts with “change”.

TransformationChange

Invent and create an attractive future. Fix or mend the past. Designs new fields of performance by creating new uncontested market advantage. Try to improve performance by ameliorating the quality of players and products on the existing field. Generate a fundamental shift in perspective that activates the imagination and leads to insight. Take a step-by-step programmatic approach in attempting to get from state A to state B. Asks "what if?"Asks "what's wrong?"

Often triggers thoughts such as:

"What else is possible?"

"Can we see exponential unmet needs?"

"How could this be adapted?"

Often triggers thoughts such as:

"Not another change initiative..."

"When will it end?"

"What does this mean for me?"

Nokia’s attachment to the past

No example demonstrates the addiction to changing the past better than the colossal downfall of Nokia. Valued at over US$250 billion at its peak in 2000, it ended up selling its phone business, the core of its operations, for only US$7.2 billion in 2013.

Many factors contributed to Nokia’s failure, but it was the inferiority of the Symbian system, the operating heart of the Nokia phones, which led consumers to turn to Apple and Samsung. Put simply, Nokia completely missed the importance of software. While the company focused on ameliorating its hardware, Apple saw the transformative potential of the touchscreen and the app ecosystem.

A transformational moment, similar to that of Pichai’s Duplex demonstration, took place when Steve Jobs went on stage to introduce the revolutionary iPhone in January 2007, revolutionising the mobile phone market.

As Nokia started to lose market share to Apple, the Finnish multinational continued to focus on change. It clung onto its relatively “Neanderthal” operating system, trying to upgrade it, so it could compete with Apple’s iOS. Launching a major upgrade to an operating system is a complicated process that typically takes several years. Despite this reality, senior management remained fixated on pulling the proverbial rabbit out of the hat.

The transformative process

Transformation is based on the assertion that the future is generated through actions taken in the present moment. The pre-requisite for transformation is a willingness to identify and surface the axioms, fundamental beliefs and cognitive constraints that underpin a corporation’s relative competitive success.

Tackling these questions enables the organisation to pinpoint what puts a lid on possibilities. From a practical and experiential standpoint, the hidden part of the iceberg shows up in the ideas and conversations that are considered safe vs. unsafe.

In the case of Nokia, research showed that its fear-driven leadership approach killed the possibility of authentic dialogue within the business. For example, teaming with another software vendor to come up with an alternate touchscreen design in response to the iPhone wasn’t considered until it was too late.

The importance of building transformative capability advantages

In a disruptive world, corporate survival will increasingly depend on the ability of firms to transform themselves. This is especially true for traditional businesses that have experienced a long-term decline of their operating margin and must now rejuvenate their core business. Corning is an example of a company that transformed itself. The 167-year-old firm that used to make glass enclosures for light bulbs has successfully expanded and innovated into areas such as optical communications, display glass, advanced optics and pharmaceutical applications.

In my experience helping senior executives transform complex global organisations, I have found that companies often mistakenly work on change when the real unarticulated need is for transformation. In practice, transformation or change is not an either-or game. But every firm needs to be clear about what it’s working on.

Vip Vyas is the CEO of Distinctive Performance. He is a thought partner and advisor to boards and executive teams. He can be contacted at vip.vyas@distinctive-performance.com.

Diego Nannicini (INSEAD MBA '14J) is an Associate Consultant at Distinctive Performance. 

Follow INSEAD Knowledge on Twitter and Facebook.

Related Articles

• Overcoming Resistance to Digital Change October 20, 2017

• Preparing Teams to Lead Innovative Change October 11, 2017

• Strategic Change Is All in the Timing July 5, 2017

Overcoming Resistance to Digital Change

Going digital requires a lot of change management, and perhaps more time and energy is spent here than on anything else. Why would that be the case? As we’ve discussed in the earlier parts of this series, organisations on the digital journey may need to rethink core roles and processes. The result is that as much as companies may aim for external disruption in these changes, there is also likely to be severe internal disruption. This is why “cool” digital ideas may not seem so cool or friendly to internal stakeholders. In fact, they may be very hostile. Also, these changes may involve deeper learning curves, with initial losses of efficiency and/or effectiveness, as the core system is in transition (i.e. things are likely to get worse first before they get better, and the trough potentially deeper than other sorts of change). Finally, the integration needs of digitising companies may be greater than other forms of change, with more unintended consequences of digital changes (i.e. knock-on effects to other systems and processes or partners).

For these reasons, the journey may be a bumpy one. The pace and extent of change can unsettle staff and manifest itself in the form of resistance, and according to our interviews with digitising companies, that resistance can be especially strong among middle managers. This level in the organisation seems to be particularly troubled by digital transformation. But this begs the question of why? Is the reasoning fairly obvious (digitisation as a threat) or is more going on? We found, in fact, three factors.

The first reason we came across was certainly the perceived threat of the change. For example, one participant explained that the shift for organisations to be driven by data and analytics is a direct assault on middle managers sense of control. “You're basically saying your customer is your expert now and your customer knows what's best. Maybe what [managers] thought was the right thing to do doesn't matter as much anymore,” said one. There is also the threat of learning new technologies.

The second reason is seemingly obvious but underappreciated: time. Time to learn, to set up new routines or collaborate more broadly is now of the essence. But the lives of most middle managers are filled with meetings, reports and a bureaucracy that they need to feed on a daily basis. Who has time for retooling? They are also shackled to metrics and legacy incentives that focus them on near-term results or legacy processes. This leaves middle management with little time to get up to speed with other organisational initiatives. One interviewee told us “we don’t really have a reward system for things like that [involvement in digital initiatives]”. Ultimately, meeting their official targets is what they are appraised on. “It’s a time and a priority issue,” they continued.

The third is value. Middle management may resist for the simple reason that a digital idea or initiative lacks value. Organisations can certainly be swept up in what appear to be game-changing new technologies that might not become big hits. Therefore, digital leaders need to be careful not to confuse personal threat and rigidity “resistance” with honest “questioning” of the value proposition behind a new digital initiative.

The change agent’s to do list

As we established in our interviews, not all middle managers are driven by purely self-protection. Neither are they clueless about the importance of things digital. It is likely that their personal lives are filled with an abundance of digital technologies, so they understand the potential.

So what should change agents do? Our interviews with executives actively involved in shaping the digital future of their companies revealed three strategies they could employ.

First, create a sense of opportunity, not only threat. One interviewee told us that what middle managers are looking for from their leaders is a “clearly established sense of what you’re trying to achieve”. They want clarity from their leadership to fully understand the strategy and absorb the changes to see how they can apply their skillsets or learn what needs to be learned.

The same participant continued, “What can happen within digital is that because there’s so much uncertainty, you don’t pay enough attention to your strategy, what are you really trying to achieve and how do we innovate within that.”

Second, create a narrative to educate. Constant education is essential to digitisation, which means digital leaders need to get into the corridors, lunch rooms, meeting areas, virtual chatrooms and engage people. The importance of engagement cannot be underestimated as far as one interviewee was concerned: “Within the last 12 months, I think we achieved a lot in terms of probably 50 percent of the middle management is now accepting what we are doing…They say ‘okay, we understand what they are doing. We understand how they are doing it’. We are also…taking people from the middle management and saying ‘okay, you are responsible for managing the investment into this and that.’”

Education may, in fact, need to go further. Firms should consider systematic efforts (time and resources) to help middle managers get up to speed on new digital technologies and methods. This does not mean turning a middle manager into an expert in data analytics, but some training in specific skills may be valuable and perfectly adequate. Unless the education sector can quickly produce an overabundance of new talent with such digital skills (which seems unlikely), some retraining may be necessary.

Finally, resistance may not fade away completely unless digitalisation activities are taken seriously and allocated real power and status. Leaders, therefore, need to make sure that digital roles and structures have the power to do their work and push the organisation along, not just pull.

“In the past, the digital leaders were not as important as the [core business] leaders and we are now better [positioned] in the structure and have more power. This is one important part,” said one interviewee.

In summary, our interviews suggest that managing digital change requires more appreciation of integration issues and internal disruption consequences, and the clear building of expectations. Managers need to understand exactly why people resist (fear, but also a lack of time and recognition, and serious questions about value) and address their worries accordingly. Finally, we need to think seriously about retooling methods for middle managers.

Charles Galunic is a Professor of Organisational Behaviour and the Aviva Chaired Professor of Leadership and Responsibility at INSEAD.

Follow INSEAD Knowledge on Twitter and Facebook.

• The Digital Journey

Related Articles

• The Human Factor in Digital Transformation Projects

  October 5, 2018

• The Structures That Can Support Your Digital Journey

  December 14, 2017

• Scanning and Responding to Digital Change

  September 22, 2017

Comment

Nicolas LOCHET, 26.10.2017 at 02.24 pm

Agile Coach

Although an interesting article, I think we miss the point here.

First the article focuses on digital change, but I think that the real change is not just digital. We are faced with a paradigm shift in the way we view organizations. A shift that is brought by Agility. Rather than basing everything on the assumption we can predict (and control) things, we base management on the assumption that things will change. This is not just limited to digital but true in all domains (contrary to what is often thought Agile is not just about IT and digital even though it mostly came from that). If you think about it, the fact that things will change and that you can't predict things should be obvious even in your day-to-day life (and if you wan't to learn more about that you should study complexity theory).

Secondly, if indeed middle managers don't feel at ease with the change organizations face nowadays, the main reason has nothing to do with what this articles mentions (although those are good points of course!). The main reason is that to be able to react to change and adapt, organizations are slowly decentralizing and making employees more autonomous. The consequence is that if people can decide and organize on their own, organizations don't really need middle managers anymore. Thus the real resistance is based on the fact that middle managers see their role disappearing.

Now on how to manage that, we have to realize that if we don't need middle managers in their traditional sense, we do need people who can give purpose or who can help other people to develop themselves. There really is a future for middle managers who evolve from the traditional command and control approach they have been taught to new roles of servant-leaders and developer of people.
Indeed if we want autonomy without chaos and still want alignment it is important to give a common vision and work on a shared culture.
If we want intrinsic motivation and do not rely on extrinsic motivation (with the stick and carrot) as we used to, we need to provide purpose, mastery and autonomy (as Dan Pink explained in his book "Drive").
In the end, middle managers have definitely a role to play in this to create the framework necessary for the motivation of all.

MIT-Edu: Team Contract

A team contract is an agreement between you and your teammates about how your team will operate — a set of conventions that you plan to abide by. The questions below will help you consider what might go into your team contract. You should also think back to good or bad aspects of team project experiences you’ve already had.

Below are some questions to consider. Your contract doesn’t have to answer all the questions below, but must answer at least the boldfaced questions. Focus on the issues that your team considers most important.

All team members should write their names at the end of the contract, to indicate that they agree with it.

A skimpy team contract is a bad idea. If you have very little in your team contract, and your team has problems working together later in the group project, then your TA will not be sympathetic to your plight.

Goals

• What are the goals of the team?

• What are your personal goals for this assignment?

• What kind of obstacles might you encounter in reaching your goals?

• What happens if all of you decide you want to get an A grade, but because of time constraints, one person decides that a B will be acceptable?

• Is it acceptable for one or two team members to do more work than the others in order to get the team an A?

Meeting Norms

• Do you have a preference for when meetings will be held? Do you have a preference for where they should be held?

• How will you use the in-class time?

• When will you meet before the Thanksgiving holiday?

• How often do you think the team will need to meet outside of class? How long do you anticipate meetings will be?

• How will you record and distribute the minutes and action lists produced by each meeting?

Work Norms

• How much time per week do you anticipate it will take to make the project successful?

• How will work be divided among team members?

• How will deadlines be set?

• How will you decide who should do which tasks?

• Where will you record who is responsible for which tasks?

• What will happen if someone does not follow through on a commitment (e.g., missing a deadline, not showing up to meetings)?

• How will the work be reviewed?

• What happens if people have different opinions on the quality of the work?

• What will you do if one or more team members are not doing their share of the work?

• How will you deal with different work habits of individual team members (e.g., some people like to get assignments done as early as possible; others like to work under the pressure of a deadline)?

Decision Making

• Do you need consensus (100% approval of all team members) before making a decision?

• What will you do if one of you fixates on a particular idea?

INSEAD Case Studies:

Because of your Good Looks

Summary

A male employee is accused of making and inappropriate remark to a female colleague. She withdraws her complaint when she learns it was based on a misunderstanding. The company nonetheless takes action against the male employee.

Teaching objectives:

Illustrate the impact of misundertandings in the workplace. Provide a basis for discussing the ethics of accusation.

Keywords: Ethics, Discrimination, Sexual Discrimination, Gender, Misconduct

A single mother working in investment banking puts in fewer hours than her colleagues. When she is up for promotion, her boss says she is putting in the hours. He believes she will be fired unless he lies.

Teaching objectives: Illustrate a management dilemma: Is dishonesty warranted in the workplace? Is it ever “ethical” to be “unethical”? Would a good leader lie on behalf of an employee?

Keywords: Lie, Work-Life Balance, Dishonest, Investment Banking, Ethics, Deontology, Single Mother, Q41718

How the Pandemic Divides Us - The Greater Good Magazine

Physical distance protects us from COVID-19, but it also gives rise to some of the ugliest human tendencies.

BY JOHN A. TERRIZZI, NATALIE J. SHOOK | MAY 19, 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic is unlike anything that most of us have seen in our lifetimes. The virus is more easily transmissible than the flu, it has a higher mortality rate, and there is currently no vaccine to protect us against it.

In April, hundreds gathered in Sacramento to protest shelter-in-place rules.© Josh Edelson / AFP via Getty Images

As such, behavioral change is our means of defense. Health organizations from around the world have unanimously recommended self-quarantining and social-distancing practices in order to mitigate the spread of the disease. Although these measures are effective in guarding against pathogens and infectious disease, they are not easy. Social isolation can be painful. Even the most introverted among us require some social interaction.

Foiling our affiliative needs has consequences for both our physical and psychological well-being. However, quarantine has social consequences, as well—ones that reveal a great deal about how we humans respond to the threat of infectious diseases. Physical distancing may be a natural reaction to infectious disease, but it can unfortunately give rise to some of the ugliest human tendencies: partisanship, prejudice, and xenophobia.

Activating our biological and mental security systems

The physiological immune system is an example of an evolved solution to infectious disease. It is analogous to a security system. When an infectious agent enters our body, the immune system attempts to identify and remove the intruder.

As crucial as the physiological immune system is, it is not our only defense against infectious agents. We also have a set of prepared psychological responses that are believed to promote disease avoidance. One of them is disgust, a universal human emotion identifiable in all cultures. Disgust is responsible for the revulsion that you experience when you taste sour milk or the nausea that you experience when you hear somebody clear phlegm from their throat. Its function is to encourage us to avoid potentially contaminated objects and people, thus preventing entrance of pathogens into our bodies.

• MORE COVID-19 COVERAGE

  See Greater Good's Guide to Well-Being During Coronavirus.

  Read Vivek Murthy discuss how loneliness hurts us and what to do about it.

  Discover how COVID-19 worsens the divide between urban and rural America.

  Learn how we can cooperate in the face of a threat.

However, the behavioral immune system is not always accurate. Just as a smoke detector may go off when there isn’t a fire, disgust can be triggered when there isn’t an infectious agent. Evolution doesn’t provide us with a window to the truth; it’s concerned with error management. It is in the business of minimizing the probability of costly errors (like ingesting infectious agents). The result is that we are prone to magical thinking when it comes to contamination. For example, if someone were to write “cyanide” on an unopened bottle of water and offer it to us, we would have difficulty drinking it even though we knew that it wasn’t really poison. Why take chances? Our behavioral immune systems are stubborn bodyguards who will sacrifice truth for survival.

This finicky disease-avoidance system has important implications for the way that we think and the way that we interact with others. As Francis Bacon pointed out, our mind is “a crooked mirror.” We don’t see things for what they are. We are vulnerable to certain beliefs, and we unconsciously and unintentionally seek out information that supports those beliefs (we have a “confirmation bias”). Imagine a detective coming to your door and informing you that your mother has been arrested for murder. How much evidence would it take for you to believe that she was guilty? Would you need fingerprints? DNA? Video footage? Would that be enough? If a stranger was the suspect, would you hold them to the same standard of evidence? Not likely.

In short, your mother is one of US and the stranger is one of THEM. Humans are categorical thinkers. We construct Dr. Seussian worlds that are populated with THISs and THATs. The labels we apply to things provide us with structure and enable us to distinguish between things. Our categories also provide us with predictability, and humans desire a world that is stable and predictable. If we know that an organism is a CAT and not a DOG, we know that the organism most likely meows—and so we’d be quite surprised if the CAT barked.

Just as we categorize non-human animals (like CATs and DOGs) and objects (like THISs and THATs) in our environments, we also categorize ourselves and others. We divide people into USs and THEMs. We are so prone to social categorization that when we are randomly assigned, by the flip of a coin, to wear a particular color shirt (like red vs. blue), we will exhibit ingroup bias. We will favor and share our resources with those who have the same color shirt as us because we naturally assort into groups. We prefer friends and partners who share our characteristics, beliefs, and attitudes.

Though we generally prefer a structured and orderly world, the world we live in is actually quite messy. Things don’t often fit conveniently into the socially constructed categories of THISs and THATs. People don’t fit conveniently into the categories of USs and THEMS. What happens when these lines become blurred, when categories become contaminated?

When categories get confused

In a classic 1927 study described by Ivan Pavlov, dogs were rewarded with food when presented with a figure of a circle. As you would expect, they quickly became fond of the circle. The dogs were then presented with an oval and were not rewarded. The dogs quickly learned to discriminate between the circle and the oval. However, once the experimenter tampered with the oval to make it look more and more like the coveted circle, there was a point at which the dogs could no longer discriminate between the stimuli. When presented with the ambiguous stimulus, not quite a circle but not quite an oval, the dogs did not know how to respond. The dogs’ predictive model failed. The dogs began to act erratically, squirming and squealing.

The desire for predictability and categorical certainty is not particular to dogs. We all suffer from it to varying degrees. Some of us are so fastidious that we develop obscure phobias like brumotactillophobia, the fear of foods touching. Though most of us aren’t quite as orderly as brumotactillophobes, we do generally prefer some sense of tidiness. We sort our silverware and our laundry and we get frustrated when we can’t locate a sock’s partner. As the aphorism goes, there is “a place for everything and everything in its place.”

• Greater Good’s Guide to Well-Being During Coronavirus

  Practices, resources, and articles for individuals, parents, and educators facing COVID-19

  Read It Now

Infectious disease may hold the key to understanding our orderly nature and our tendencies to categorize things as THISs and THATs and people as USs and THEMs. Like us, the microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, etc.) that cause infectious disease are in the business of survival and reproduction.

Unfortunately for us, their reproductive strategies can involve hijacking our bodies and commandeering our resources, which can interfere with our own abilities to survive and ultimately reproduce. As a consequence, humans and infectious microorganisms are locked in an evolutionary arms race. Infectious diseases have been developing more and more effective ways to break into our bodies, and we have been evolving more and more complicated security systems to keep them out.

In times of turbulence and uncertainty, when our lives are threatened, we have an even greater desire for certainty. We seek out information that provides us with affirmation and avoid ideas and people that we believe are dangerous. This may be particularly true when there is a disease threat.

Infectious agents can capitalize on our social behavior. They can manipulate our bodies into sneezing and coughing, which are convenient ways to propel themselves to other hosts who are in close proximity. Indeed, one of the most common routes of disease transmission is person-to-person contact. As such, the behavioral immune system encourages us to be cautious about social interactions. We prefer people who look like US and think like US. If we are liberals, our friends and partners tend to be liberals. If we are conservatives, our friends and partners tend to be conservatives. This assortative sociality, selecting friends and partners based on similarity of physical and psychological characteristics, is exaggerated when disease threat is high.

Some of the key facial characteristics of our expression of disgust are a protruding tongue, raised upper lip, and a scrunched nose, which are all consistent with the potential ingestion of a contaminant. Disgust, however, also results in a lowered brow, an almost squint. This is the same type of ocular expression that you might see in a coin collector who is trying to make a distinction between a “fine” coin and a “very fine” coin. Just as a coin collector sifts through coins, disease threat causes us to make fine-grained distinctions between USs and THEMs. In areas of the world where there are more types of infectious disease and more life lost to infectious disease, we tend to be more socially exclusive. We divide ourselves into smaller and smaller subgroups. We cordon ourselves off from outside social interaction. The USs and THEMs become better defined.

When fear becomes hate

This cultural quarantining is nature’s way of stemming the spread of infectious disease, but it has a nasty side effect. It fosters prejudice and xenophobia. When we are primed with a disease threat, we become more prejudiced toward outgroups.

The COVID-19 pandemic began in Wuhan, China. In a tweet on March 16, President Trump referred to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus.” A week later, he attempted to mitigate the damage by tweeting, “It is very important that we totally protect our Asian American community in the United States, and all around the world. They are amazing people.” On March 23rd, however, Trump tweeted, “THIS IS WHY WE NEED BORDERS!” While border policies are always a matter of debate, the president’s inconsistent messages may be helping to fuel hate crimes against Asian Americans. Russell Jeung, a professor of Asian American Studies at San Francisco State University, created a website to track these incidents. Within one month of its official launch, they have catalogued nearly 1,500 incidents of discrimination against Asian Americans across the country.

Social media platforms are not immune to the effect that infectious disease has on our social behavior and beliefs. In the time of COVID-19, we gravitate to social media to get our affiliative fix. It provides us with virtual social comfort in this time of physical social isolation.

• The Science of Happiness

  What does it take to live a happier life? Learn research-tested strategies that you can put into practice today. Hosted by award-winning psychologist Dacher Keltner. Co-produced by PRX and UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center.

  Subscribe 

There is, however, a risk: Social media platforms can become echo chambers. Just as disease threat causes us to be cautious with our social interactions, it makes us cautious about the ideas that we expose ourselves to. We follow people who share our beliefs and block the people who offend us. As a consequence, our social media platforms can become breeding grounds for conspiracy theories. The result is that we become more and more polarized.

Ironically, this polarization can backfire. It can make us more vulnerable to infectious disease. For example, those who are more sensitive to disgust and are germ-averse are more likely to hold anti-vaccination attitudes.

All of these psychological forces have converged during the COVID-19 pandemic to generate some dangerous trends. Social-distancing practices have become politicized. Political figures have occasionally refused to self-quarantine and wear face masks at politicized events.

Importantly, the conspiracy theories that are emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic are not limited to a particular political party. Anti-vaccination groups in California are protesting the social-distancing practices and are concerned that the government is conspiring to inject the world’s population with infected vaccinations. Likewise, conservative groups who are concerned with constitutional liberties are protesting the social-distancing practices in Pennsylvania and Michigan because they believe that the government is using fear to exert control and take our freedoms and our guns.

If we are not careful, the polarization and resulting misinformation surrounding COVID-19 will result in more lives lost. Indeed, early evidence suggests that media figures who have downplayed COVID-19 have had elevated cases of the virus among their viewers.

In our fight against COVID-19, we are walking a tightrope. On one hand, we must engage in social distancing and limit social interaction so that we can mitigate the spread of this disease. On the other hand, we need to recognize that these steps can evoke some of the ugliest social behavior in humans, splitting us into antagonistic camps. The truth is that COVID-19 is a non-partisan, global, human problem. We won’t stay healthy by turning on each other.

How Challenging Stereotypes Can Save Black Lives - The Greater Good Magazine

When police stereotype African Americans, the results can be deadly. But new studies suggest ways to help all of us see each other as complex human beings.

These results suggest that at least some police are engaging in racial profiling—that is, they are making assumptions about individuals based on stereotypes and then using that to inform their actions. These traffic stops can turn deadly, as we’ve seen numerous times during the past few years.

Black people killed by police or white vigilantes. Clockwise from bottom left: Philando Castile, Trayvon Martin, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, and Ahmaud Arbery. Credits: CBS, Trayvon Martin Foundation, @Queenbreonna, Ben Crump Law, Gwen Carr family photo, Bland family, via Associated Press, and Arbery family photo.

This reality is on the minds of the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets to protest against police brutality and for reforms following the death of George Floyd, an African-American man in Minneapolis who was detained by police, one of whom knelt on his neck for over eight minutes. His killing raised the specter of Philando Castile, a black man who was killed by a police officer during a 2016 traffic stop in Minnesota.

The data suggest their deaths are part of a larger pattern. In an oft-cited 2004 study, Jennifer Eberhardt and her colleagues demonstrated that even quickly glimpsing a black face causes civilians and police officers alike to imagine seeing weapons. Several studies of police officers found that exposure to negative stereotypes (mainly equating black people with guns) made them more likely to shoot black suspects. That’s probably a factor in why, according to a recent study led by Frank Edwards of Rutgers University’s School of Criminal Justice, African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people.

Unfortunately, stereotyping is natural and automatic. In order to make sense of the world around us, we often take mental shortcuts, which psychologists call heuristics. One of them is the availability heuristic, where we learn to see the world based on generalizations we make from the information that is available to us. When something is fresh on your mind, it’s more likely to influence your thinking.

For instance, many Americans have been exposed to negative portrayals of Arabs or Muslims in the news media and entertainment, and so they become more likely to stereotype these people as fanatics or terrorists. Something similar has been historically true of black men. Because the American public is repetitively exposed to images of black men as criminals, studies have found, we are more likely to see them that way.

That’s the bad news. There’s good news, too. We can change our stereotypical thinking by simply exposing people to information and images that counter stereotypes. As U.S. cities erupt in rebellions against police violence, it’s a good time to ask what we can do to see beyond our prejudices.

Anti-stereotype practices

York University social psychologist Kerry Kawakami is one of North America’s leading academics conducting research into stereotyping and how we often create automatic associations between particular traits and groups of people. For years, she has done research into how being exposed to “counter-stereotypic information” can help change our automatic assumptions about certain groups.

“Some of my earlier work looked at trying to teach people non-stereotypical associations,” says Kawakami. “We would show [study participants] an image of a black or white person and we would tell them to choose traits not typically associated with that group in our culture.”

In a 2000 study, Kawakami and her fellow researchers asked participants to respond “NO” when they saw a picture of an African-American person paired with an associated stereotype (such as the word “lazy”). They were also asked to respond “YES” when they saw a picture of an African-American person with a non-stereotypical word (e.g., “hard-working”). This task—simply negating the negative stereotypes and affirming the non-stereotypical traits instead—successfully reduced participants’ automatic activation of prejudice.

• Anti-Racist Resources from Greater Good

  Articles, podcasts, and other resources that explore our potential to reduce prejudice in society and in ourselves

  Read It Now

Nilanjana Dasgupta and Shaki Asgari studied how to reduce the unconscious stereotypic beliefs that women have about their own in-group—other women. In one experiment, they found that exposing women to women in counter-stereotypic leadership positions (real-life faculty and deans, as well as historical figures) led them to associate women with the qualities of leadership more than women who were not given the same exposure. Exposure “to women leaders did not simply reduce stereotypic beliefs among study participants, but rather activated more counter-stereotypic beliefs, such as positive beliefs about women as leaders.”

In another study, Dasgupta and Asgari monitored participants who attended either a coeducational college or a women’s college. The participants in both groups had statistically equivalent scores on a test used to measure “implicit” bias—that is, reflexive and unconscious associations.

After a year in both environments, the students at the women’s college were not found to hold any implicit gender stereotypes, while the other group of students who attended the coeducational college showed stronger stereotypical beliefs.

The struggle against police violence

Could these scientific insights and practical experience help reduce police violence toward the black community?

Many studies find that training that offers counter-stereotypes holds at least the potential to save black lives. Some police departments have tried to address unconscious stereotypes with trainings against implicit bias, but it’s not clear that these trainings work in reducing real-life shootings. However, there is some promising research suggesting that we can reduce people’s tendency to see certain races as a threat.

Social psychologist E. Ashby Plant and her colleagues randomly assigned college students to play computer games where they pretended they were police officers. In the game, participants saw black and white faces paired either with a weapon or a non-weapon, such as a camera. The researchers designed the game so that participants were greeted with an equal number of white and black faces paired with weapons—thus trying to break the implicit association between weapons and black faces. They then asked a control group to play a game involving swatting insects on flowers.

The next day, all participants came back to the lab to play the same training game. In fact, players who experienced the counter-stereotyping training—which put weapons in the hands of whites and blacks equally—were much less likely to show racial bias in deciding who to shoot. In short, the game appears to help break the automatic association between black faces and threats.

Of course, the college students in that experiment were not trained police officers. In a series of three studies published in 2012, Jessica J. Sim and her colleagues examined how training may affect racial bias in the decision to pull the trigger, comparing police and civilians. In the first experiment, one group of participants read articles about black criminals. Afterward, they showed a “pronounced racial bias” in the decision to shoot. This wasn’t true of another group that read about white criminals.

• Bridging Differences Playbook

  Learn research-based strategies to promote positive dialogue and understanding

  Read It Now

However, the researchers offered this task to both civilians and police officers—and discovered that the civilians showed more bias than the police. Their next two studies looked at the content of police training. When training reinforced the association between African Americans and danger—if it involved images of black men holding guns—bias was higher. Officers whose training didn’t make this association didn’t show the same level of bias.

In other words, according to this paper, police training seems to actually restrain the potential for violence, compared to civilians without training—but the training can still be done in a way that fuels stereotypes. This creates an implicit bias that can increase the likelihood of violence against stereotyped populations.

The double-edged sword of stereotyping

Stereotypes might affect police violence in another, unexpected way. In a study published last year in Law and Human Behavior, researchers asked almost 800 police officers about how stereotyped they felt, with questions such as, “How much do you worry that people may think of you as racist?” They were also asked about the use of force and how important it was to treat members of the community with respect.

The result? Officers who felt stereotyped as racist were much more likely to endorse violence—in part because they didn’t feel legitimate as authority figures, which might make them more sensitive to threats to their authority.

“Police are typically trained to use their moral authority as peace officers to resolve conflicts,” says lead author Rick Trinkner in an announcement about the paper. “But if that moral authority is called into question, they may feel they have limited tools to gain compliance, leading to more harmful actions with potentially disastrous results.”

In other words, stereotyping of anyone seems to increase the possibility of violence. Police officers are also influenced by the culture that surrounds them, and there is quite a bit of evidence that suggests a more racially biased society leads to more biased police. One 2017 study by Eric Hehman and his colleagues examined the implicit and explicit racial biases of over two million Americans, as well as the use of lethal force against African Americans by police. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the police in places with stronger implicit racial prejudices and stereotypes among white residents were more likely to kill black people.

In the final analysis, suggest many researchers, the issue of stereotyping and use of force seems to boil down to people being able to see each other as complex, individual human beings. That requires effort—but it’s an effort that could save lives.

Get the science of a meaningful life delivered to your inbox.Submit

About the Authors

• Zaid Jilani

  
  
  
  

  Zaid Jilani is Greater Good‘s Bridging Differences Writing Fellow. A journalist originally from Atlanta, he has worked as a reporter for The Intercept and as a reporter-blogger for ThinkProgress, United Republic, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Alternet.

  
  
  
  

• Follow

  Jeremy Adam Smith

  UC Berkeley

  
  
  
  

  Jeremy Adam Smith edits the GGSC’s online magazine, Greater Good. He is also the author or coeditor of four books, including The Daddy Shift, Are We Born Racist?, and The Compassionate Instinct. Before joining the GGSC, Jeremy was a John S. Knight Journalism Fellow at Stanford University. You can follow him on Twitter!

Why Intelligent Minds Like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs Embrace the Rule of Awkward Silence

Love them or hate them, Elon Musk and Steve Jobs are known as two of the most brilliant minds the business world has ever seen. 

Yet, despite their ability to process information, think critically, and identify key insights--many of which helped Tesla and Apple reach valuations into the billions of dollars--both men became known for an unexpected habit:

They've embraced the rule of awkward silence.

The rule of awkward silence is simple: When faced with a challenging question, instead of answering, you pause and think deeply about how you want to answer. 

But make no mistake, this is no short pause. You might go five, 10, or even 15 seconds before offering a response. Which, if you're not used to doing it, will feel very awkward--at first.

Garrett Reisman, an engineer and former astronaut who left NASA to join SpaceX, described how Musk uses this technique in a recent interview.

"If you pose to [Elon] a serious question," says Reisman, "he'll consider it. And he'll kind of go into this, almost like a trance--he'll stare off into space and you can see the wheels turning. And he's focusing all of his intellect, which is considerable, on this one question."

You can actually see this happen almost anytime Musk himself gives an interview. In fact, it's not uncommon for Musk to take from between five to even 15 seconds to think before giving an answer. (Just check out the 20:00 mark of this interview.)

Apple co-founder Jobs was known to do the same. In fact, there's a perfect example captured on video over 20 years ago.

It was 1997, and Jobs had just returned to Apple after being ousted from the company over a decade earlier. He was conducting a Q&A at the company's Worldwide Developers Conference when an audience member took a shot at him, telling Jobs, "You don't know what you're talking about" and sarcastically asking what the famous founder had been working on for the past seven years.

Jobs's reply?

He takes a sip of water ... and sits. 

And thinks.

For 10 seconds.

After making a short joke, he pauses again.

This time for eight seconds.

What follows, after Jobs reflects on the question and contemplates the criticism, in what amounts to 20 seconds of awkward silence, is a masterful demonstration of how to respond to an insult. (I broke down Jobs's entire response here, if you're interested.)

As these examples illustrate, the rule of awkward silence is a great tool of critical thinking. It can help you to give deeper, more analytical, more thoughtful answers. It can help you get to root problems more effectively, which leads to greater understanding. 

But the rule of awkward silence offers another major advantage, and it has much to do with the way our brains process emotions.

Emotional intelligence and the rule of awkward silence

Emotional intelligence is the ability to identify, understand, and manage emotions--and the rule of awkward silence is a great way to show it.

When it comes to calm and rational thought, we typically engage a part of our brain known as the prefrontal cortex. But when we feel attacked or under pressure, we engage another part of our brain known as the amygdala, which tends to take over in a type of "emotional hijack."

That's not always bad, as our emotions can help us get out of difficult situations. 

The problem comes when those emotions go unchecked, and we say or do things that we later regret.

Think back to the example of Steve Jobs responding to the insult. This was one of Jobs's first major appearances after rejoining Apple. By the time he left many years previous, he had built a reputation as being arrogant and unable to work well with others. With the wrong response, he could have lost the confidence of his company, investors, and the public before his turnaround plans got underway.

Instead, by embracing the rule of awkward silence, he was able to keep his emotions under control and deliver a perfect response.

Think also about Musk's interview style, and the lessons we learn from it.

When it comes to answering challenging questions, you might be tempted to just spit out anything, even if doesn't make much sense. Or, you might say what you think the other person wants to hear instead of what you truly believe.

But is that what you really want? Or would you prefer to take some seconds to pause, to think things through, and then to respond in a way you're proud of later?

So, the next time someone asks you a challenging question, try to take your time before giving an answer. In doing so, you will:

• Buy yourself time to think

• Put yourself in the driver's seat

• Keep yourself calm

• Increase your confidence

• Produce better, more quality answers

• Say what you mean, and mean what you say

The more you practice, the awkward pause won't feel so awkward anymore--and the more you will be able to make emotions work for you, instead of against you.

JUN 18, 2020

Like this column? Sign up to subscribe to email alerts and you'll never miss a post.

The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/20-years-ago-steve-jobs-demonstrated-the-perfect-w.html

Steve Jobs: The Perfect Way to Respond to an Insult

Of course, we shouldn't discount all critical feedback. But insults are designed to hurt, not help. So how should you respond when someone insults you?

There's a remarkable demonstration that teaches you how to respond effectively to an insult, and it features an unlikely source:

Famous Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.

In 1997, Steve Jobs had just returned to Apple, the company he had been ousted from over a decade before. He was answering questions for developers at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference when one audience member took a shot at him:

"Mr. Jobs, you're a bright and influential man," he begins.

"Here it comes," responds Jobs, as both he and the audience chuckle.

Then, the famous insult:

"It's sad and clear that on several counts you've discussed, you don't know what you're talking about. I would like, for example, for you to express in clear terms how, say, Java and any of its incarnations addresses the ideas embodied in OpenDoc. And when you're finished with that, perhaps you can tell us what you personally have been doing for the last seven years."

Ouch.

For most of us, a public attack such as this one would leave us at least a little flustered. But Jobs's response is a perfect demonstration of what to do in this situation.

Here are some highlights of lessons learned.

He takes a pause.

The first thing Jobs does is probably the hardest.

He takes a pause, sits in silence ...

And thinks.

In what seems like an eternity to the audience (and in reality lasted about 10 seconds), Jobs takes a sip of water and reflects on both the criticism and the question.

"You know," he begins his reply. "You can please some of the people some of the time, but ... "

Another pause, this time for about eight seconds.

I've written extensively on the value of the pause--a technique that involves taking a few moments (or sometimes more) to stop and think before taking action. The pause is so valuable because it allows you to get your emotions under control and think things through before you say or do something that you'll regret.

Jobs's initial pause gives him the time he needs to compose himself and come back with a thoughtful and remarkable response.

He agrees with his accuser.

"One of the hardest things when you're trying to effect change is that--people like this gentleman--are right! ...In some areas," explains Jobs.

For years, psychologists and other academics have argued that the best way to change a person's mind is not to attack their position but, rather, to find common ground.

Jobs does this perfectly by acknowledging that this man is (gasp) right! There are surely features with OpenDoc (the program in question) that he isn't familiar with.

But becoming familiar with every feature of every app is not the CEO's job, as he goes on to explain.

He helps everyone see the big picture.

Jobs goes on to outline his role at Apple: It's not to know the ins and outs of every piece of software. Rather, it's to see the big picture, to reiterate the vision, and to keep everyone on course:

"The hardest thing is: How does that fit into a cohesive, larger vision, that's going to allow you to sell eight billion dollars, 10 billion dollars of product a year? And one of the things I've always found is that you've got to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. You can't start with the technology and try to figure out where you're going to try to sell it."

This extremely compelling vision of working backwards from customer experience may have been innovative at the time ...

But, as history proved, it was right.

He uses vulnerability to his advantage.

In reference to working back to the customer, Jobs continues:

"And I've made this mistake probably more than anybody else in this room. And I've got the scar tissue to prove it. And I know that it's the case."

Jobs not only explains his vision, he uses his own learnings to help establish his credibility. In essence, he begs stakeholders (and shareholders) to benefit from his experience.

He praises his people.

"There are a whole lot of people working super, super hard right now at Apple," Jobs exclaims. He names a few examples, before going on to credit the whole team, literally "hundreds of people."

"They're doing their best," says Jobs.

With these words, Jobs gets behind his team. He acknowledges them. He praises them.

He lets them know he's got their backs. This inspires the team (and others) to get behind him, too.

He finishes strong.

Jobs's final words are motivating.

"Some mistakes will be made, by the way. Some mistakes will be made along the way. And that's good. Because at least some decisions are being made along the way. And we'll find the mistakes, and we'll fix them," Jobs says to applause.

He then comes full circle to the original questioner:

"Mistakes will be made ... some people will not know what they're talking about, but I think it is so much better than where things were not very long ago.

"And I think we're going to get there."

Resources:

The COVID Crisis and Adult Development by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey

How to Spot When an Employee Is Secretly Struggling by Thomas Hellwig,

Aim for Transformation, Not Change by Vip Vyas

Overcoming Resistance to Digital Change by Charles Galunic

The Stress of This Moment Might Be Hurting Kids’ Development

Team Contract by MIT-Edu:

.INSEAD Case Studies:

How the Pandemic Divides Us - The Greater Good Magazine

How Challenging Stereotypes Can Save Black Lives - The Greater Good Magazine