It might surprise you to know that the mortality statistics for treatment of some heart problems in US are better on days when top cardiologists are at conferences than when they are not. These counter-intuitive data were published by Anupam Jena a healthcare economist at Harvard and relate to treatments administered following heart attacks.
What explains this finding?
It’s too early to pronounce on the exact cause, but it doesn’t appear to be that top cardiologists are more prone to riskier interventions. Instead it appears that differences in nonprocedural care may be implicated as the benefit was seen in patients who did not undergo a surgical procedure.
Maybe it is a case of too much information or experience clouding the analysis and obscuring key facts? Not seeing the wood for the trees, if you will.
This issue chimes with my experience of running a business peer-advisory group and has been the topic of some discussion at our meetings over the year and frequently is the basis for a successful coaching session.
We agreed that time and again the non-expert input of a peer can really help resolve a problem by providing a refreshing clarity as to the underlying cause of a problem, or alternative pathways to a solution. And the group setting based on trust, support and challenge really does encourage initial assumptions to be tested often leading to fresh insight by seeing through the data to the crucial facts or dependencies.
Its also partly about cognitive diversity - the power of diverse thinking styles or experiences to be at least additive, and more often the output is greater than the sum of the parts.
If you would like to explore how joining my group can help you see the wood for the trees in your business, then please reach out