Understanding ain’t believing and yes there are economic consequences!


This is a "thought bubble". It is an...

Recently, I came across this academic article differentiating belief and understanding and it triggered an explosion of thoughts.   When I teach, I  often encounter students who fail to grasp the topic and naturally their puzzled looks make me try to explain the idea again, differently.  I  never considered the possibility it wasn’t  my explanation that confused them, but maybe the ideas themselves.

Lost in Space

Our brains are wired to discard irrelevant information and to some degree if the new information doesn’t jive with what we know or believe–the ultimate cognitive dissonance occurs. Or as the Lost in Space robot would say: “That does not compute!”

As a teacher, I found the article unsettling on multiple levels.  First, because I never considered the potential conflict when preparing my lessons.  Second, what I confirmed talking to a High school math teacher in a large public school in Berwyn, IL:  Teaching helps students meet standards not to understand.

Personally, my limited experience as a public school teacher proved deeply challenging. In choosing to help students understand  not merely to pass.  I taught a vastly diverse population of 4th graders in a suburban Chicago classroom.  Student  IQs ranged from 5-95% on the chart, and the socio economic status of their families were equally diverse with many receiving subsidized breakfast and lunch. One student was severely ADHD, had lost his mother and his medication was constantly being adjusted. I had my hands full and could never figure out how to insure that every kid understood.

My own preference for immersive learning as a young student, in which my students allowed us to  play it out and learn by doing made school fun.  An approach, I actively sought to replicate in my teaching.  Returning to study education later in life, I was first dumbfounded to learn that so little was understood about effective teaching methods.  This isn’t really as mysterious a problem as I pose.  One of the oldest professions remains mysterious becasue the  purpose or objectives of education continue to evolve.  Sure there is wide agreement that everyone should have a command of the basics, the three Rs–Reading wRiting and aRithmetic.  How do you measure competency in these subjects?  what methods make it possible for students to gain competency or even mastery? If you have had a child in school, then you are familiar that new methods continue to be introduced.  Similarly, schools are held accountable to new standards and competency measurements.  Yes, the rules for private and charter schools differ from those demanded by the public.
Surprise, understanding information and knowing something are not the same thing. There are somethings you understand but could never articulate and vice versa some things you know but don’t necessarily understand.  For example, we know or learn how to drive without ever understanding how the car we drive actually works.  We may understand what someone else may be feeling without knowing precisely.
The areas where our understanding and knowledge most align come from ideas that involve multi-sensory learning experiences. It’s one thing to watch someone do something or find the results and another to reproduce them.  I can watch Tiger Woods, study his swing, stance and then when I attempt to hit the ball I discover just how much I don’t know.
This post won’t be able to address the issues fully.  I’m wondering where and how we might be able to resolve some of these contradictions and do it to help more people achieve. Sure high scores matter, but don’t we also want higher understanding that makes it possible for more people to solve more problems  when and where ever they encounter them? Teaching for understanding should count, in fact it’s a great book too!  But I’m also making a quick case for multi-sensory learning that allows more of us to connect what we know to things we understand.
Take history.  The recent Steven Spielberg movie on Abraham Lincoln attempted to show us more of the reality of the politics during the Civil War, but it also brought to life the words Americans are frequently taught.  We know about the civil war, we know that it was about slavery and we may know the Gettysburg address too.  But how does knowing that help me understand the world I encounter today?  How does learning history help me?
Imagine  learning history by role play? Being asked to study and recite the lines of Gettysberg address makes it easier for us to recall them and ponder them. Playing out the issues allows us to wire our brain to make our own meaning, personalize the lessons to connect to our pre-existing experiences.  The challenge may be that owning and personalizing the results takes time but it also complicates the  expectation of a singular correct answer or take on history.  Personalized meaning may prove more useful, stickier and authentic but it makes passing a standardized test much more difficult.
In fact, the accumulation of specific representations of  ideas and details are the only measures of learning that society at large respects and values. Today we value a passing grade and top performance measurable on a singular dimension.  Daniel Goleman‘s work on multiple intelligences increased the appreciation of talents beyond traditional accumulation of facts, but don’t celebrate them as equal achievements. High scoring SAT,  ACT and GPA scores open doors to further academic study and elite higher education opportunities.
This little monograph published in 2006 warrants more attention. In part, our system reflects the consequences of  the larger failure by the education system to differentiate student responses based on their belief and understanding versus answering according to the expectation of the testers.  The consequences of teachers teaching students to pass the test  may help some students further their schooling and many of them may gain understanding in the process.  But what about the others , where school material doesn’t match their knowledge of what matters  outside of school?   Teaching without understanding fails them and represents a failure of the investments to realize the returns of a capable society.
But there’s more.  Personally, this piece opened two divergent avenues of thought.  One,  given the growing research into the workings of the human brain how might cognitive processes  guide our behavior in the face of two truths. Two, findings by the economist James Heckmann whose work focuses on the development of human skills, abilities and health capacities for example demonstrate  the different values of those who graduate highschool and those that pass the GRE.

Two truths

T​he concept of holding two truths at once parallels the paradox of knowing what is right and yet believing it wrong​.

The FMRI of psychopaths who suffer from false delusions or paranoia, found their brain processes to differ from the general population. Interestingly, FMRI scans of democrats and republicans show each population to process information differently.  Both research illustrates the power and influence of different beliefs and explain the differences in our thinking and actions.  The reconciliation or rationalization process literally works differently based on early wiring of beliefs.
Carol Dweck, a noted childhood development scholar’s research explores the opportunities that emerge to rewire in adolescence.  Writing a response for the Boston review to research by James Heckmann that emphasized the value of larger emphasis on interventions to foster huma skills ad capacities, she writes:
“The success of the adolescent interventions derives from their laser-like focus on particular non-cognitive factors and the beliefs that underlie them—knowledge stemming from psychological theory.”
I often explain that my life changed when I began graduate work at the University of Chicago​.  I discovered what thinking felt like relative to merely learning.  I experienced integration of knowledge I was accumulating, the adding to and reconciling of my previous understandings with new, deeper understanding  of how things worked.
Many things I believe don’t require me to defend or explain.The best explanation I can muster extends from the recognition by the researchers on the primacy of self-centered meaning making.  My truth, what I know and what I believe begins with discovery.  The child who asks incessantly why seeks to make more sense of what they encounter.  The information they receive forms a foundation that like the sand on the beach slowly gets replaced with each new wave of information.  The emotional issues that cloud our thinking
 I’m sharing this article with the hope that you may have some additional insight into the topic or further my own knowledge surrounding  the significance of reconciling belief and understanding.

 

Advertisements

Social Impact Strategies: Muscle, Teeth and Bone


In the advent of the sequester bringing the expiration of the continuing budget resolution on March 27, and theWashington DC

2013 budget battles raging in Washington, my concerns echo many others. This gridlock loses sight of opportunities and mechanisms to create demonstrable, sustainable solutions to larger societal issues.

OK, I realize that a $3.6 trillion Federal budget, makes it hard to understand

$85 billion mandatory across-the-board federal budget cuts. Reportedly, the cuts spare many aid programs serving the poorest and most vulnerable Americans.  Putting aside personal politics, little doubt exists that current needs outstrip the quantity and quality of dedicated resources to meet them. Particularly troubling, the March 1 cuts disproportionately affect low-income Americans  adding additional burdens on resource strained charities. The emotions released by the congressional battle further complicate objective program evaluation and consideration of where and what programs warrant

cutting vs. preserving.  It also avoids honest discussion of  historic questions.

What should and can be the net value, or efficacy, of federal funded grants and programs to meet these needs?

The complex interactions, mechanisms and incentives by which government, private enterprise and the third sector operate in the social arena make alternative scenarios and innovation difficult but not impossible.  Change may come based on a new budget requirement that I hope will unleash much-needed adjustments to the system at every level.  I’ll do my best to explain, and in return ask you to consider your own role in perpetuating the divide, and how your investments could be redirected and the benefits redistributed.

How effectively are you using your muscle, teeth and bone?

 The preview: Conscious Government Capital

Effective 2014, a May 2012 budget instruction the White House issued to the heads of executive departments and agencies, requires all Federal grant-making agencies increase the role of evidence in their grant-making formulas. The memo suggested three approaches:

  • Encouraging use of evidence in formula grants,
  • Evidence-based grants, and
  • Pay for Success.

These were in addition to a model developed by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) that ranks programs based on evident  returns on investment.

 Wow! Competitive advantage and grants will flow to agencies whose programs demonstrate greater levels of evidence of their effectiveness.  Program providers who can prove their outcomes will get paid for their successes.  This slight change in policy does more to jumpstart accountability within a sector slow to measure itself.  It also energizes and attracts the interest of unusual bedfellows—players in the larger capital markets.

Debating organizational responsibility for the whole of society typically pits private vs. public players’ activities against one another. Each watches and fights the efforts and right of the other to create the future. In the process, advocates arguing for greater checks and balances exclude careful inspection of a third vital force. I’m describing the third leg’s impact, specifically, the  poorly understood effects and poorly coordinated activities supported by charitable donations, well-meaning grants and volunteer contributions.

Writing for The Daily Beast , Ken Stern eloquently shares his observations on the inefficiency of our current philosophy around charitable giving.  Puzzled by  the surety of faith and absence of critique on this third sector’s intermediary role in our lives, he writes:

“The public—and private—investment in the social sector is one of the critical elements of the American social compact, yet it is one of the oddities of public life that each year we renew this investment without ever pausing to ask the same questions that we ask of every other public and private investment: what are we getting in return, is the investment structured correctly, is the money going to the right places?”

The answers reflect different levels of engagement and interaction ranging– from passive to active. The vast charitable landscape and ease with which individuals establish personal private charities further dissipates impact on any single issue.  Consider where your donations flow relative to your top concerns.

Can additional accountability changes revitalize the third sector and elevate its stature sufficiently to offer a significant counterweight to break the deadlock in Washington?

New mechanisms open new opportunities.  How can performance partnership pilots (such as those embedded into Health care reform and now promoted by all Federal agencies) create new paths and alternative realities?  Can these channeled resources provide the necessary fuel and impact to reinvent  health care systems and access, guaranteed quality education,  preserve the environment, resolve energy issues etc?  Of course commitment levels vary and weaken foundations’ abilities to impact and sustain significant changes that contain or alleviate complications.

These problems and their complexity challenge everyone and explain the growing continuum of investment, participation and contributions in this space. Engagement ranges from  Muscle, using influence; Teeth, making your mark; and Bone, establishing a connective, resilient structure.  Which is right for you and your organization?

 Muscle

Historically, the heaviest lifting done to eradicate disease and increase economic livelihoods succeeded through comprehensive coordination.  In Colonial times, governments leveraged their authority to build necessary infrastructure and disproportionately benefit business and economic interests. These changes rippled improvements and improved the lives of the general populations too.

Today, spiraling entitlement program costs and accumulated  tax credits, tariffs and sector supports  produce exclusive benefits difficult to sustain, making everyone ill at ease.  Intricate problems don’t make them impossible to resolve.  Downstream economic benefits often justify providing credits and supports to resource consuming and output producing organizations. But, as Ken Stern observed, increasing social needs now exceed the capacity and political will of government to act alone to meet them.

Ken Stern is not alone in his assessment of what holds back resources, devoted to this sector from realizing greater impact.  In 2011, the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that demand for aid from nonprofits increased at a faster pace than philanthropic giving by companies.

“Because of the small growth, many nonprofits aren’t getting the money they need to do their job…”

 The spirit of personal choice permeates the landscape of charitable giving. Gates and Buffet use their muscle, their influence, to secure significant commitments from fellow billionaires by encouraging that they too dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy. The Giving Pledge lists the pledging individuals, but does not pool funds or support a particular set of causes or organizations. It only asks individuals to give the majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes or charitable organizations either before or after their death.

Are there clear  benefits using this approach?  It extends charitable activities supported by these donors and the charities reach by introducing much-needed attention and critical dialogue to the merit of these activities.  Stern points to the ever-increasing number of non-profits and specialized, if not duplicitous charities that result. Each carve out a niche and unintentionally work at cross-purposes.

So why did Warren Buffet, known for his prowess in picking great companies that anyone can run, turn over his charitable fortune to Gates to invest? Simply, he empathized with Gates’ action plans that address the absence of good measures of charitable efficacy.  Their charitable interests transcended seeing their  millions merely alleviate pain and suffering  in the manner of many religious charities, whose good work largely continues unquestioned.

Teeth

The concept of Social Impact or making measurable differences quickly captured Gates’ imagination and energy.  Recently, Gates wrote about the value of impact measurement for the WSJ and makes clear that if you aren’t monitoring progress than it’s pretty difficult to make any.

Strategic philanthropy can be defined by dedication personal resources to a singular focused charity, or channeling them to an agreed purpose or outcome that creates real opportunity and situational impact.  Defining the purpose clearly, defining the outcome and agreeing on the measure of success helps every donor make a mark, boost their efficacy and ultimately diminish the problem.

Hunger in America, provides an interesting case in point. Sadly, this problem re-emerged after national awareness generated by the media had it licked in an earlier era. The successful campaign attracted high level politicians’ attention and secured commitments to adapt pre-existing Federal support programs to meet these needs. The result was the Federal Food Stamp program administered by the Department of Agriculture  in  coordination with the farm support programs.  Today, multiple federal public assistance programs exist not from inefficiency but out of a growing understanding of the problem and efforts to target services to specific critical populations, e.g. low-income pregnant and breastfeeding women and new mothers and their infants; distribution of temporary hunger relief through food pantries and the school lunch program as well as households in poverty.

Feeding America, in their online FAQs, document how today, food assistance needs exceed the capability and capacity of  SNAP , Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program and the other programs.

In spite of ample effort and dedicated coordination and volunteer efforts, the gap has not closed but grown with the economic downturn. The persistent number of households living with food insecurity lives daily with uncertainty not knowing where their next meal let alone access to basic nutrition will come.

Good news once again, activists have kicked up a media frenzy to draw both volunteers and the interest of politicians to rectify this situation. Learn more at TakePart and the film A place at the table. Will and should government assume leadership to resolve?

 Bone

The coordination and interconnections necessary to move beyond marked progress and end the problem requires much more than charitable resources.  It also reflects the long-term trend the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported in July 2011:

“[Increasingly,] companies are zeroing in on social issues that threaten their bottom lines, like people’s ill health, high transportation costs, or diminishing fresh water. They are also focusing on causes that help them tap into new markets, appeal to their customers, and use their employees’ skills.”

Case in point, CSX donated $1 million  to the Future Farmers of America, one of a few key national groups it supports. Tori Kaplan, assistant vice president for corporate social responsibility, explained their desire to attract young people with the skills and interests it needs were participating in FFA.

“We’re hoping to foster relationships with FFA where the students would look at transportation and its connection to agriculture as a viable career,” she says.

The numerous partnerships between Non-governmental organizations often supported by philanthropy, the business sector and the government provide the three legs that create a stable platform for society.  Each leg keeps the other in check and accountable.

These partnerships go beyond what Feeding in America highlights on their site. They depend on investments to rewire the mechanisms that created the problem and create value to attract capital to create more mutual sustainable system. That requires a deeper assessment of  problem inter-dependencies. Desperate people engage in desperate behavior to get their needs met. Reduce if not remove the reasons for their desperation and the resources used to combat them can be used more productively.  Instead of relying on redistributing waste, kindness and surpluses to satisfy unmet needs create greater efficiency, employment and opportunity for understanding and accomplishment.

Leveraging the efficiency and accountability of capital markets offers new hope to create sustainable solutions.  Social impact bonds, or pay for performance success instruments offer such a mechanism to make all parties publicly accountable. The example demonstrated how investing in social services for released offenders that successfully integrate into their communities and find meaningful work at a living wage, produced measurable benefits of increased safety and lower future incarceration costs.

The full circle encompasses economic measures of societal impact, and look beyond the benefits to the target population or social service recipients. It means everyone benefits from the success, not just the immediate clients.  In spite of several programs demonstrating this full complement of returns, it took recent calculation of the benefits and the costs to produce the necessary investment instruments to support their funding. In the UK they call them pay for performance or social impact bonds and now slowly appearing in the US.

 Next?

Regardless of how your corporate charitable activities uses its muscle to invest in community causes and provide valuable volunteers, have you looked for more tangible benefits beyond risk avoidance or raising the positive sign on your public profile.  Maybe it’s time to ratchet up your game. Chances are your employees already sit on boards of numerous non-profits and use their teeth to place their mark and  extending with charitable matches your firm’s resources to mutual benefit.

More interesting opportunities come  when going beyond the marginal resources at your disposal in  corporate foundations.  Why not leverage the full force of the economic assets at your discretion?  The Chronicle of Philanthropy noticed a shift evident in 2011 when corporations appeared to concentrate their support in favor of bigger, higher-profile gifts to fewer organizations.

“in part because of a long-term trend of companies zeroing in on social issues that threaten their bottom lines, like people’s ill health, high transportation costs, or diminishing fresh water. They are also focusing on causes that help them tap into new markets, appeal to their customers, and use their employees’ skills.”

Case in point, Walmart. Over the last several years, Walmart’s amount of charitable cash donations, over $342 million in 2011 topped the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s Corporate giving list .  In 2013, they joined the Partnership for a healthier America changing their own business practices  to align their efforts to make healthy food affordable for families.  This is the public private partnership that helped Walmart leverage its supply chain efficiencies and prowess while also gaining toe holds in communities who fought their incursion.  Key opportunities cited by the Washington Post following Michelle Obama’s recent Walmart visit included:

  •  Wal-Mart  opened 86 new stores in “food deserts,” areas where accessibility to affordable healthy foods is limited.
  • Launch of its “Great for You” icon, which will appear on more than 1,300 of its house brands of foods and beverages in U.S. stores, making it easier to identify nutritionally sound choices.
  • Cutting salt and sugar in its house brands and encouraging national brands to do the same.

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest food retailer, holds at least one-fifth of the grocery market, according to trade magazine The Packer.

Lots of ideas here, but would love to hear what I may have missed, or other stories that show evidence of more creative innovative approaches to improve the overall system!

 

To win the game, we have to change the game


I can’t imagine the pressure on a CEOs when their organization misses the targets t120918053535-out24-shareholder-value-gallery-horizontalhey set for themselves.  How can they not take the failure personally?  More importantly, how do they turn the fail into opportunity?  Frequently, they publicly declare to the world renewed commitment to their strategy, reassure everyone that  management  knows what it’s doing and asks stakeholders to have a little faith.

A glorious future beats a glorious past.

This past week, Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway released his annual shareholder letter and so did another hedge fund billionaire, Edward Lampert, the Chairman and now Chief executive of Sears Holdings comments.  2012 was tough on both companies.

Buffett reminded shareholders of his long-term management contribution:

“Over the last 48 years (that is, since present management took over), book value has grown from $19 to $114,214, a rate of 19.7% compounded annually.”

Lampert acknowledged his pride in the company associates for their resiliency in 2012 and then expressed the following:

“After reporting poor results for 2011, culminating in a very poor fourth quarter, we declared that we would take significant actions in 2012 to restore confidence in and financial stability to the company, while, at the same time, remaining focused on transforming Sears Holdings and creating long-term value for our shareholders.”

The vast differences between the diverse portfolio holdings of one  make comparisons to a single narrow industry portfolio holding company difficult, but it’s the philosophy of these two successful financiers that caught my attention.  Buffet’s reputation and success remains untarnished as he acknowledges sub par performance, meaning below the returns of the S&P 500.  Likewise, Lampert’s nod from his board to take the CEO reigns indicates their great faith in his judgment.

Both of these leaders inspire others to believe but how much do they expect shareholders to understand?  Rereading both of their letters, a wonderful clarity of mission and dedication to longstanding strategies can’t be missed.

Buffett draws readers attention to three elements that unlock the portfolio’s Intrinsic business value: one qualitative and two quantitative measures–per-share investments and per-share pre-tax earnings from businesses other than insurance and investment.

Lampert talks about creating long-term business value with an interesting description of EBITDA.  He shares an analysis of  value added by closing non-performing stores that reduced investment in non-performing stores but provided upside when the real estate sold.

An initial read shows just how similarly these two financial wizards think.  But who needs inspiration? How will sharing beliefs in these fundamental principles help hold the relative  position?

Which rubber and which road matter

Theory doesn’t always make for good practice and now matter what plans you make, until put into motion it’s impossible to know the results. The best predictors can’t incorporate every possible condition and inevitably some expectations go unrealized.

That’s where belief really counts. Funny, ever wonder why people believe what they believe?  It turns out that believing doesn’t require understanding; but it does color our interpretation.  Make believe, the imaginary is anything but real. Our beliefs and the way we interpret or make meaning of our reality is largely but not exclusively determined by the most recent experience and current context. This is the Halo effect at work which predisposes us to favor what we believe and what we first hear or see.  No experience? Ambiguity gets resolved unconsciously, consistent with context.

The more diverse  and numerous our experiences, the greater the number of differences or nuances in our understanding which results in unpredictable results.

Change the frame or limit the context of shareholder value to  financial expressions like EBITDA will reduce the variance in meaning. Formulas and standard accounting practices assure investors of an equivalence which makes EBITDA meaningful regardless of their depth of understanding, while also increasing the power of their belief in the financial measure to provide great meaning.

But accepting an idea doesn’t mean we believe it. Ever take a test that resulted in a wrong answer?  Perhaps, you asked why your answer was wrong, convinced you had it right.  Maybe your answer didn’t match the expected answer and so the first evaluation was incomplete.  Your answer didn’t make sense to the grader though it was still correct. An equilateral is both a square and a rectangle. Since different experiences lead to different beliefs both generate even greater diversity of understanding.

Big ambiguous ideas like shareholder value may be easy to believe but harder to understand and harder still to set clear, consistent actions into motion.Easy to measure share holder value at a point in time, but CEOs tasked to deliver it going forward need to provide greater clarity, less ambiguous and more specific associations and not risk letting recent experiences or context prove its meaning. What actions does the CEO wish to inspire, what associations does their message need to imply or offer guarantee?

Shares imply ownership and the value suggest material wealth.  For Berkshire Hathaway, a shareholder owns parts of lots of different companies with an assurance based on Buffets statements and reputation that their wealth will grow.  For Sears Holdings? Shareholders own a portion of physical tangible business components that are much harder to guarantee growth.

Align beliefs with understanding

If I yell Fire, everyone reacts almost immediately and reaches the same conclusion–flight.  There’s no visible delay between the declared message and the actions it produces.  The brain wastes no time finding the best match and cues our nervous system and muscles to respond.  No conscious awareness of decision or choice seems at play, move first,  think later. The instantaneous assessment of the environment places Fire in context, and fits a pattern in our memory, and a complete script presents itself making our next moves clear.  We are off following it without questioning its veracity, or applicability. We pay attention to what the script tells us not the ambient information surrounding us, unless of course that information boldly interferes with the expectation found in the script.

Simple question, which scenario came to mind for you?

1. I yell fire when the tinder in the hearth finally catches, and you left the fire pit at the campground to go find matches or more kindling nearby.

2. I’m cooking over a grill and yell Fire when the grease from the chicken has dripped off the foil, landing on the hot coals.

3. I yell fire when I smell something burning and see smoke in great quantities billow around the curtain on the stage in front of us.

I’m betting that your imagination took you to scenario three, the one that represents a scary, fearful situation. Especially since the idea was raised in a wider discussion of shareholder value or returns, a topic that triggers a similar set of automatic reactions depending on the experience or understanding of the listener.

The financial media pundits provide language that makes sense to their readers without appealing to the experience or context of employees or customers.  Our word choices even with the best of intentions don’t guarantee translation of similar expectations and in the case of shareholder value don’t make it easy to make a move without understanding more.

Leaders use of language creates expectations across a diverse set of audiences with vastly different understanding.  To get the people in your organization to produce the necessary EBITDA should the burden of understanding be drilled down to the lowest level of the organization?  Telling them about the challenge or demanding the performance may set the expectation, but leadership needs to do more.  They need to engage in the language and experiences that will trigger the scripts and make it possible for employees to believe their doings and their actions help. I have faith that Lampert is on the task.  It was his words that inspired this post.  His articulation of the convergence of new behaviors made possible by technology supported knowledge, a  complex transformation experience currently shared by many businesses.

Lampert isn’t the only one with an offensive strategy attempting to get out ahead of the curve.  JCPenney, Best Buy and now Barnes & Noble are all experiencing the loss of faith by shareholders that parallels the lost faith of their customers and employees.  As Buffet remarked in his letter, this is not a time for waiting.

“The risks of being out of the game are huge compared to the risks of being in it.”

Lampert’s plans?

“…we will use technology and training to encourage and embrace feedback to improve and make it much more transparent to everyone, thereby increasing accountability at the store and associate level.”

Both of these successful men know what can happen when you yell Fire.  Let’s just hope that the script that gets activated keeps their stakeholders on the same page.  Challenging but not impossible.