A case for building our leadership skills



Let me ask you a question: When was the last time you used the Krebs cycle in the hospital?

Now another question: When did you last have to persuade your boss to give you additional resources?

My guess is that your need for additional resources comes up more frequently than the Krebs cycle. It’s interesting that we spent so much time in our training focused on biochemical pathways and next to nothing on leadership skills, such as ways to motivate our health care teams or the most effective way to provide feedback – skills that we use on a regular basis. Yet, these skills are just as critical as understanding the science behind our daily work.

Dr. Nasim Afsar-Manesh
Dr. Nasim Afsar-Manesh
I’ll give you an example. I’ve been involved in quality improvement and operational work for a decade, so I often find myself in front of groups of health care professionals convincing them to implement new pathways and protocols.

In the past, I would present my case in the following way:

1. Highlight the importance of the ask.

2. Leverage data to prove the point.

3. Illustrate large-scale implications of the ask.

4. Make the ask.

I’ll use a project to increase DVT prophylaxis rates to illustrate this point:

1. Highlight the importance of DVT prophylaxis: I would focus on statistics that would surprise the audience, such as “Hospital acquired venous thromboembolism leads to significant morbidity and mortality, including more than 100,000 deaths.”1

2. Leverage data to prove the point: “Worldwide, only 40%-60% of patients who require DVT prophylaxis actually receive it in the hospital.2 Our performance leaves tremendous room for improvement – we’re currently at 68%.”

3. Illustrate large-scale implications of the ask: “If we do this, it enhances our reputation as a group, and it will improve hospital revenues.”

4. Make the ask: “I have an evidence-based protocol that we need to implement to achieve results.”

Through leadership courses over the past couple of years, I’ve changed my approach significantly. By leveraging concepts from behavioral economics, we can significantly improve the effect of our work. Here’s how I would conduct that same meeting:

1. Connect with the audience in a genuine way: Start off with “You are quality-minded providers who have taken on major challenges in the past and successfully delivered results, like the time you reduced the rates of catheter associated urinary tract infections.”

2. Make the ask: “I’m here to talk to you about improving our DVT prophylaxis rates. Here’s the protocol we need to implement.”

3. Leverage data to prove the point: “DVT prophylaxis rates at the hospital across town (or at another unit in the hospital) are at 82%. What do you think our numbers are? We’re actually at 68%!”

4. Illustrate large-scale implications of the ask: “We all know this. Patients under our care will die or be seriously harmed if we don’t improve our practice. The hospital will also lose money, which will ultimately impact us. So, we have two options: a) We can continue what we’ve been doing – work as hard as we can and our practice will not improve. b) Or we can decide today to pilot this new protocol and change our practice and performance.”

Let’s look at the changes above in greater detail:

Connect with the audience in a genuine way: Instead of highlighting the importance of the ask with statistics, use an attention getter to connect with the group. Highlighting the fact that the group is “quality-minded” and has surmounted challenging obstacles in the past reinforces the providers’ sense of identity.3 This helps the group think more openly about the proposal.

Make the ask: Now that you’ve captured their attention, make your ask, clearly and concisely, upfront. Remember, in today’s health care settings, we have short attention spans. You’re minutes away from someone getting paged away from the meeting or people checking their emails or the latest Facebook post. Don’t schedule the protocol review as the last item on the agenda.

Leverage data to prove your point: Data are powerful, but only if presented in the right way. Use questions to keep your audience engaged (“What do you think our numbers are?”), particularly around data, where most people decide to switch their attention to their smartphones. Based on your access to data sources, find another unit or institution with a higher performance than yours. State that upfront. It anchors,the group to a higher number, so, when you reveal your current performance, the gap is highlighted. 3,4 In the first case, when the lower national average of 40-60% is presented initially, the group will be happy that their performance is in fact better at 68%.

Illustrate large-scale implications of the ask: There are two concepts at work here: First, loss aversion.3,4 We tend to experience greater psychological burden with losses versus gains. Changing the framing from the fact that the hospital will lose money, versus making money in the first case, changes how we perceive the information. Second, active choice.3 Emphasizing that a decision has to be made today and giving the group a choice around it increases the likelihood of walking out of the meeting with a decision.

With some simple, yet thoughtful, modifications, the message takes on a more effective tone, and, based on my experience, it is significantly more impactful.

So, while I’m a fan of biochemical pathways that enable us to generate energy, I also hope we can integrate leadership lessons into our day-to-day learning and life.

Dr. Afsar is an assistant clinical professor in the departments of medicine and neurosurgery and the associate chief medical officer at UCLA Hospitals.


1. The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism. Office of the Surgeon General (US); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (US). Office of the Surgeon General (US). 2008.

2. Cohen AT, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, et al. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): A multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2008;371(9610):387-94.

3. Soman D. The Last Mile. 2015.

4. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge. 2009.

Next Article: