We’ll call him Joe. I miss Joe. I met him in his early 60s, a pleasant, dapper, rotund man with a jovial demeanor and well-groomed mustache. He was always on time to his appointments and came with crisp reports on his subjective state of health. Whenever I saw Joe on my clinic schedule, I knew at least that part of my day would be good.
Joe lived a conscientious lifestyle. He paid attention to food and movement, and cultivated relationships that held him up in life. When I think of Joe, I remember feeling unworried about his habits and longevity. So it bugged me that his blood pressure was never well controlled. On maximum doses of four medications, it was consistently 140/90 (ideal is 120/80 or less), and it just would not come down. Luckily for me, his previous doctor had done all of the appropriate work up, including sleep study, kidney imaging, stress testing, etc. Eventually they decided together that this was as good as it would get, and Joe would just focus on doing the healthiest things he could every day and get on with life. I concurred.
So when I got the call months later that he was dizzy, my heart sank. We agreed he would come in that day and we’d figure out next steps. I was prepared to call the emergency department and my cardiology friends to let them know I was sending him over for a cardiac event. But on arrival he didn’t look ill or unwell, just moved a little more slowly. His mood was great, though, maybe even better than usual. I asked him why, what had changed? “I retired!”
His blood pressure was 90/60. He was still taking all four of his blood pressure medications, like the diligent patient that he was.
Back then, in a typical primary care practice seeing a patient every 15 minutes, I did not consistently ask deep questions about people’s work stress and meaning, like I do now. Turns out, Joe had a lot of mental stress at work. He managed it well, though–never lashed out at people, never let it affect his performance. Colleagues threw him a big party and he retired feeling satisfied, looking forward to his next life chapter. And it wasn’t until later that he realized how much his work had cost him in health. Over the next several days, we learned that he only needed a low dose of one medication to keep his blood pressure in the 110/70s. The dizziness went away. I think he was getting ready to go on a cruise. I left the practice soon thereafter, and I don’t know about Joe now. I hope he’s still happy and well.
I remember this story so clearly because until recently, it stood out as unique–that my patient could correlate such a dramatic improvement in a crucial vital sign and a leading risk factor for heart disease to retiring from a stressful job.
Not so unique anymore, though. This year, no fewer than four of my patients have experienced the same thing, but in the opposite direction. Having never had high blood pressure before, they all called me with new symptoms: headache, fatigue, full body tension, and just feeling off. Before calling, they thought to monitor their blood pressure, and all of them reported consistent home readings well above 150/90. And they all knew exactly when it started, all correlated with severe work stress escalation. Adjuvant factors included increased travel, longer work hours on global calls, less time for exercise, and continued business eating. It’s all a downward spiral, for sure, and I submit that the underlying cause, the change that makes four people present suddenly in these six months, is our post-pandemic work environment. While I welcome the increased flexibility and autonomy of a hybrid office model, I’m not sure the net effect is good for us long term. Work-life boundaries have perforated, if they even still exist at all. Given the volume of articles in business periodicals progressing from ‘quiet quitting’ to overt labor force decimation, it’s quite clear to me that we have not invented a kinder, more effective work culture. More and more I hear and feel an ‘us versus them’ gulf growing between workers and leaders–yet another relationship domain affected by polarization. It’s as if the short term, profit driven, make money at any cost prepandemic ethos, suppressed and reassessed (I thought?) during three years of acute obligatory disruption, became an abscess that has now ruptured and resurged–exploding like ‘pus under pressure,’ as we say. Organizations scramble to restore anteCOVID earning and productivity status, still measuring success and achievement with the same metrics as before nature showed us how vulnerable we and all of our systems are. We have learned nothing.
All of these patients are now taking at least one blood pressure medication, pulling hard on their stress management skills, and maybe reassessing whether staying in their current roles is worth the cost to their health and relationships. We connect regularly and I always ask, how much longer can you keep this up? How will you know when enough is enough? What will you do then? I don’t recommend that people quit their jobs–that is not my place. But I ask the important questions, lovingly and bluntly.
What does it cost us indeed, as a society, to be killing our workers this way? When will we recognize that sacrificing people in the short term actually wrecks collective success in the long term? When will our culture value people over profit? I hold leaders accountable for their relational output at work, and I also recognize that they–as we all–are simultaneously agents and victims of our complex adaptive systems. Culture does not change easily.
If I have any hand in it, however, more of us will move closer to challenging and changing the most toxic aspects of business culture, one organization, one team, one person, one interaction at a time.
On our way to any destination, what helps and hinders our progress?
I am currently halfway through reading The Human Element: Overcoming the Resistance That Awaits New Ideas by Loran Nordgren and David Schonthal, which I recommend. It describes “the four Frictions” that keep us from adopting new ideas or behaviors: Inertia, Effort, Emotion, and Reactance. How fascinating and helpful! It makes sense to think of friction as something that hinders motion and progress, something to be overcome. We consider kinetic energy wasted when friction converts it to heat, and experience real consequences of equipment failure, injury, and stagnation from the burn of chafing contact in motion.
Then again, when is friction desirable? Imagine hiking, mountain climbing, or attempting to traverse any path with the surface covered in a sheet of smooth ice or a thick oil slick. Either we get nowhere, or somewhere we don’t want ‘way too fast. Even for Olympic speed skaters, blade contact with the most pristine ice track still requires some friction–an ideal amount–to gain enough purchase to push against and maintain control.
I submit that in movement of any kind–physical, political, behavioral, emotional, etc–we need optimal friction. Stability requires friction; we depend on it for orientation, to know where we start. Optimal friction coefficient over an ideal surface area provides traction–enough resistance to push against, the stability to launch forward with power. Tire treads, soccer cleats, chalk on a pool cue–we know how to modify objects for maximal traction and performance.
How can we modify our mindsets similarly? What does it cost us to make everything too easy, to remove all friction on the path to achievement? For three years I have exercised in my basement, doing things I know, challenging myself minimally. I have gained strength and maintained confidence in my movements, and also stagnated in my fitness. Joining a fitness community pushes me; I get to reassess my assumptions of capacity and limits. It introduces healthy friction. The tribe here gives me something to test against, strengthening through challenge, elevating my achievement. Additionally, I feel positive peer pressure to eat healthier, a perennial stuggle for me. Communing with folks who care for their bodies with whole foods increases the psychological discomfort (friction?) I feel from eating junk–even when I’m not with them–and voila, my nutrition patterns are changing for the better.
What is the relationship between friction, traction, and drag?
Friction can help or hinder. Traction requries an optimal quantity and distribution of friction for both stability and mobility–I think of it as a kind of potential energy. We understand the concept of traction easily from common vernacular, but what about ‘drag’, other than as late 20th Century social slang? I love the internet, where you can Google, “What is drag in physics” and get it directly from NASA:
“Drag is a mechanical force. It is generated by the interaction and contact of a solid body with a fluid (liquid or gas). It is not generated by a force field, in the sense of a gravitational field or an electromagnetic field, where one object can affect another object without being in physical contact. For drag to be generated, the solid body must be in contact with the fluid. If there is no fluid, there is no drag. Drag is generated by the difference in velocity between the solid object and the fluid. There must be motion between the object and the fluid. If there is no motion, there is no drag. It makes no difference whether the object moves through a static fluid or whether the fluid moves past a static solid object.”
So drag is the resistance of the milieu to movement of an object. It is the cultural current against which innovation swims upstream, a result of the inherent viscosity of any given system. I think of it as another form of friction, but one that only hinders.
If I’m trying to change, to move something, what are the sources of negative friction, positive traction, and drag? Of these, which are modifiable and not? Where and how can I gain a foothold or grip, to push or pull myself onward? Where do I need to apply some lubricant and relieve or release a counterproductive grind? How does the environment need to change, or how can I change my orientation within it, so I may glide more easily toward my goal?
“Drag is generated by the difference in velocity between the solid object and the fluid.” Hmmm. So if I claim my role as change agent, then I must decide how much drag I’m willing and able to tolerate, how much I can afford in cost of fuel for thrust, and what velocity of change will satisfy me. I have to think that my vector matters, also. Head on opposition to a strong and established current, versus a hard left diversion, versus introducing a small fork or bumper in the terrain… I can consider all of these and more, depending on my goals and the ambient conditions.
OH this is such a fun thought experiment! Framing my goals, plans, and actions in terms of friction, traction, and drag allows me to step back from my own tunnel vision, to see a complex adaptive system perhaps more concretely and objectively, even dispassionately. Whether it’s my own personal health habits or the professional culture of medicine, this analogy feels helpful. I wonder how it will continue to manifest hereafter?