Please read and cherish this incredibly cynical essay in Aeon, “Stupefied: How organisations enshrine collective stupidity and employees are rewarded for checking their brains at the office door.” I’m going to superblockquote a chain of some of my favorite parts. Please tell me this doesn’t describe every hospital you’ve ever worked in:
No matter how hard you search there is little – if any – leadership to be found. What most executives actually spend their days doing is sitting in meetings, filling in forms and communicating information. In other words, they are bureaucrats. But being a bureaucrat is not particularly exciting. It also doesn’t look very good on your business card. To make their roles seem more important and exciting than they actually are, corporate executives become leadership addicts. They read leadership books. They give lengthy talks to yawning subordinates about leadership. But most importantly they attend many courses, seminars and meetings with ‘leadership’ somewhere in the title.
But often there are very weak reasons for following ‘industry best practice’. For instance, when the Swedish armed forces decided to start using Total Quality Management techniques, some officers naturally asked: ‘Why?’ The response: ‘This is presumably something we benefit from, since this is what they do in the private sector.’ In other words, we should do it because others are doing it.
Applying methods and policies wholesale because they worked somewhere else without then evaluating those changes is a critical role of most middle managers.
At the outset of our research, we suspected that organisational life would be full of stupidities. But we were genuinely surprised that otherwise smart people would go along with collective stupidity, and be rewarded for doing so. Mindlessly following rules and regulations – even if they were completely counterproductive – meant that professionals would be left alone. Using empty leadership talk would get ambitious people promoted into positions of responsibility. Copying other well-known organisations meant a firm could be seen as ‘world-class’. Launching branding initiatives meant that executives could focus on the easier work of manipulating surface images and avoid the much messier realities of organisational life.
This is just brutal.
Working in a stupefied firm often means blinding others with bullshit. A very effective way to get out of doing anything real is to rely on a flurry of management jargon. Develop strategies, generate business models, engage in thought leadership. This will get you off the hook of doing any actual work. It will also make you seem like you are at the cutting edge.
This is what people are hoping to master when they go back for that MBA.
Literally every business/leadership/whatever book I’ve ever read should have been a few blog posts or a short essay. While a lot of people have been piling on recently and calling BS on the organizational psychology and tedious bureaucracy that compose the contemporary large organization, I’m actually tempted to pull the trigger this time and read the book (if only for the refreshingly direct approach).
Let’s start with this premise: In the 21st century, the medical school basic science curriculum is probably best learned through guided self-study and likely not whatever your school is trying to teach you (especially if that involves the blind leading the blind via TBL). How much you can fulfill this ideal will unfortunately depend on how cooperative your school is with reality.
Among young adults with a BMI between 25 and less than 40, the addition of a wearable technology device to a standard behavioral intervention resulted in less weight loss over 24 months. Devices that monitor and provide feedback on physical activity may not offer an advantage over standard behavioral weight loss approaches.
That’s the conclusion of a 2-year 471-participant randomized controlled trial in JAMA of how wearable tracking technology affects weight loss.
Wrinkles: Only 75% completed the study. And both groups did lose weight: 3.5 kg in the “enhanced intervention group” and 5.9 kg in the control.
One wonders if meeting your goals with a wearable might cause some people to skip working out or quit an exercise session earlier than they might otherwise do (at least on occasion). The study also didn’t use one with any of the gamification principles that some people have promoted as making exercise more “fun.”
The public apparently likes the 16-hour shift cap:
After people hear arguments both in favor and against eliminating the 16-hour shift limit, voters’ opposition holds firm at 86%, 79% strongly opposed,” she said. “Eight in 10 would support decreasing the shift limits for second-year residents from 28 hours to 16 hours as well.
These are results from a probably biased Public Citizen survey, a group that vocally opposes the FIRST and iCompare trials that are testing loosening the shift restrictions in surgery and medicine programs across the country.
What I find confusing is that the contemporary discussion always centers on whether or not shift limits are good for residents and/or for patient care. But this focus is always on the impact of shift length on acute fatigue and sleep-deprivation. Nothing about total shift burden, especially when you know that the residents in these studies aren’t magically conforming to the 80 rules that are frequently ignored.
I don’t know about most residents, but one imagines a physician to be a lot more likely to do okay on a long shift if (s)he weren’t chronically fatigued working 80+ hours a week. The focus on shift length I think misses the larger and probably more important issue about general overwork, burnout, and chronic fatigue. It’s like being worried about how fresh the oil is in a car without a transmission.
When you get federal student loans from the government for medical school, you don’t just get one loan: you get at least one per year. Back in the day when graduate students still received subsidized loans, many borrowers would receive three: one subsidized, one unsubsidized, and often a small “low-interest” (5%) Perkins loan. Now, in practice, holding on to multiple loans doesn’t really affect your daily life much. Your federal loan servicer (the company that takes your payments) will apply your payments automatically across all of your DIRECT loans for you (your Perkins loans, if you have any, will be due separately from the rest).
Consolidating your federal loans into a DIRECT Consolidation from federal government (as opposed to private refinancing, discussed here) does make things look nice and tidy in that you’ll now have a single loan with a weighted-average interest rate based on the rates of the individual loans it replaced, but this paperwork trick isn’t particularly meaningful in and of itself. Unlike private refinance options, you’re guaranteed to not save a single dime on the interest rate. In fact, a slight rounding change could give you a trivially higher rate (it’s rounded up to the nearest one-eighth of 1%).
But there are definitely a few reasons to consider consolidating your loans, particularly as early as you can, in large part due to government’s newest income-driven repayment plan: REPAYE. (Sidebar: please read this for more info about REPAYE and why it’s generally a good idea of residents if you’re not already familiar with the program). And there’s a double reason if you’re considering PSLF.
In short, starting a consolidation when you finish medical school will do three things to save you money:
- Reduce the amount of capitalized interest on your loan, which reduces the rate at which it will grow for a long time
- Temporarily increase the amount of your REPAYE unpaid-interest subsidy
- Help you achieve loan forgiveness a few months faster
We’ll discuss each of these in detail followed by brief step by step instructions. Stay with me.