When you look in a mirror, who do you see? Not what, but who? How you see yourself may be influenced by how you perceive others see you. And your self-image may vary, depending upon which self you’re looking at. As we often have multiple relationships, roles, and responsibilities, we typically have multiple selves. Many of us see a professional self that is separate and distinct from a personal self. And our professional self-image can be impacted by our employer’s mission. If you feel good about the mission of the organization to which you devote time and talent, then you may feel good (or at least better) about your professional self-image.
Thirty-plus years of conversations with payers and 20-plus years of conversations with manufacturers reveal that most senior executives have a positive professional self-image. These positive perceptions are not limited to how well they do their jobs, but are also about what they do — the very nature of their work. Most are proud of their organization’s mission.
Manufacturers’ mission and self-image
Improving lives is the common thread of manufacturers’ mission statements. Whether the products keep people healthy, treat diseases, or even save lives, manufacturers’ products are helping people. Product directors are often passionate about bringing their products to market and exuberant when these products are innovative. Many embrace their organization’s mission and truly believe they are making a difference.
Interestingly, providing information to help people manage their health is less common but increasingly found in manufacturers’ mission statements. Direct-to-consumer advertising is not new to manufacturers, but providing information to help consumers make more informed decisions elevates this act. No doubt, many senior managers think more highly of themselves when reflecting on both the products and information they bring to market.
Payers’ mission and self-image
Paradoxically, improving lives is also a common thread of payers’ mission statements. Their services keep people (and communities) healthy and help them become healthier. This is achieved by making quality health care more affordable, more accessible. Access decision makers enthusiastically manage the market’s access to products. And just like the product directors on the industry side, many access decision makers embrace their organizations’ missions and also believe they, too, are making a difference.
Providing information to help people manage their health has been a key objective for decades and is found in some payers’ mission statements. Not surprisingly, health information from payers counters that which is provided by manufacturers; counter-detailing promotes less-expensive, equivalent products or generics.
Person–organization fit
When a person’s values are aligned with their organization’s values, there is person–organization fit. Is self-selection at play? Are individuals drawn to manufacturers and others to payers because the organization’s mission aligns with their personal values? Probably not. You’ve probably never heard a child say, “When I grow up, I want to work for a manufacturer or a payer.” And when entering the job market, most people are looking for a “good” job and often less concerned about the organization’s particular mission as long as they deem it not to be unethical or illegal. More likely, a person’s professional self adopts the values of the organization. In a sense, product directors and access decision makers arguably wind up drinking different flavors of Kool-Aid.
But what happens when there isn’t a person–organization fit? Well, it depends.
Let’s first imagine a conflict of values for a person working for a manufacturer. At first, a person may feel conflicted when the organization prices a product higher than that person’s own perceived value of the product, or when the organization brings a me-too product to market. For some, this conflict may be resolved by the belief that the financial success of these products will fuel R&D that yields other innovative products that improve people’s lives.
Now let’s imagine a conflict of values for a person working for a payer. At first, a person may feel conflicted when the organization restricts access to a product more so than the person thinks necessary or desirable. For some, this conflict may be resolved by the belief that appeals and grievances can result in exceptions and, eventually, less-restrictive policies. For others, resolution may come with a belief that access restrictions yield financial savings that make room to cover other products, including innovative and expensive products that improve people’s lives.
It is not hard to see how kind, caring, smart people can achieve a person–organization fit when working for a manufacturer or a payer. If we could randomly assign people to work for manufacturers or payers, we would likely find no differences in person-organization fit. Value alignment is pretty easy because these organizations map their products or services back to the value of helping people. Kind, caring, smart people want to help people.
Mirror, mirror on the wall
When you look in a mirror, everything is reversed — what appears to be on the left is what others see on the right, and what appears to be on the right is what others see on the left. And that presents a challenge if you were to make a more accurate self-portrait. What you need is a photo of yourself or a special mirror that reverses the image to see yourself as others see you.
Sometimes our tribal nature has us view the other group as the enemy. Hopefully, manufacturers and payers can look at one another and see themselves. Doing so may reduce friction and achieve a paradox mindset that finds win–win opportunities to improve lives, even while seemingly contradictory goals like innovative care and affordable care are simultaneously pursued.
No Comments