+
upworthy

leadership

Jamey Stillings, Wikipedia/ Canva

There's a new way to give tough love.

The “sandwich technique,” also known as a “compliment sandwich” or “feedback sandwich,” has been a tool for delivering criticism since the 1940s. But it really became something of a workplace staple after 1984, thanks to Mary Kay Ash’s book “People Management.”

The idea seems sound enough. The deliverer of the criticism would first offer a compliment to the recipient, followed by the actual feedback, then another bit of praise. This should theoretically allow the criticism to be received without bruising any ego or hurting any feelings. Everybody wins.

But according to organizational psychologist and bestselling author Adam Grant, the compliment sandwich “doesn’t taste as good as it looks.”

In various interviews, podcasts, social media posts and even a Substack article, Grant has chalked up the compliment sandwich ineffectiveness to two major shortcomings.

One being that people are simply too familiar with it. So whatever compliment is given, no matter how genuine it may be, people know what’s coming next and they begin “waiting for the other shoe drop.” Knowing the compliments are obligatory can actually make someone take the criticism ever more personally.

Two: the opposite can happen. Because people tend to remember the first and last parts of a conversation, the criticism might be downplayed or outright buried underneath the positive feedback. This goes especially for narcissists, Grant notes.

Luckily there is a kind, yet efficient way to give some tough love. And it all boils down to one simple sentence:

“I’m giving you these comments because I have very high expectations and I know that you can reach them.”

The phrase comes from a 2013 study conducted by researchers at Stanford,who were able to increase a student’s openness to criticism by at least 40% just by using those 19 words.

As Grant explains, this strategy works because it conveys an intention to help a person become the best version of themselves. “It’s surprisingly easy to hear a hard truth when it comes from someone who believes in your potential and cares about your success.”

Of course, using the exact words isn’t mandatory. The point is focusing on helping someone improve, rather than attacking or patronizing them.

To that point, Grant also has a few other helpful pointers, like not assuming a position of superiority, asking if the person is open to feedback first (Grant attests they usually welcome it) and lastly, keeping the language transparent, not manipulative.

At the end of the day, most people want to grow, become better people, and live up to their potential. Remembering that one little truism can go a long way.

Barbados prime minister Mia Amor Mottley at the U.N. General Assembly, 2021

We are accustomed to seeing heads of state from large, economically powerful nations making headlines, but this week we're getting a taste of the powerhouse leadership some smaller countries can offer.

Mia Amor Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, gave a speech to the United Nations General Assembly that is earning her accolades across the internet and around the world.

A two-minute clip was shared by Twitter user Ben Phillips in which Mottley quoted Bob Marley and asked who will "get up" and "stand up" for the people suffering around the world from the pandemic, climate change, poverty and food insecurity.

"It is not because we do not have enough," she said. "It is because we do not have the will to distribute that which we have."

Prime Minister Mottley called for the leaders of the world to go beyond words and take collective action.


"It is not beyond us to solve this problem," she continued. "If we can find the will to send people to the moon and solve male baldness, we can solve simple problems like letting our people eat at affordable prices."

Mottley's whole speech is worth watching, but the viral clip comparing our push to cure baldness with our efforts to feed people is timely, as it comes a few days after the first U.N. Food Systems Summit. The U.N. describes the inaugural summit as "a historic opportunity to empower all people to leverage the power of food systems to drive our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and get us back on track to achieve all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030."

Next to water, food is our most basic human need. Having inadequate food and nutrition hinders people's ability to function, which in turn impacts our ability to address every other global challenge we face.

The term "food system" refers to every process and person involved in cultivating, making and distributing food, from farmers to pickers to truck drivers to supermarket workers. Unsustainability in any part of a food system can keep people from getting the nutrition they need. Tackling food systems is crucial if we hope to meet goals such as eradicating poverty, providing universal education, creating sustainable communities and achieving peace on our planet.

Such collective action has to take place at the leadership level, of course, but there are also actions each one of us can take toward a more equitable, sustainable world. One simple thing we can all do is participate in Sustainable Sundays—enjoying a climate-friendly meal and supporting sustainable food systems wherever we live. That means choosing locally grown foods that are in season, perhaps from a farmer's market, community food cooperative or your own garden. It might mean eating sustainably sourced seafood or finding a simple plant-based recipe to try.

Many of the challenges facing humanity require bold, high-level action on the part of the world's governments, but that doesn't mean we don't all have a part to play in creating a better world for all. Small steps lead to big strides, and it's up to each of us to do what we can individually to make progress toward our collective goals.

As Prime Minister Mottley said in her final words to her fellow leaders, "We cannot solve every problem of the world, but we must solve those within our purview immediately."

🇧🇧 Barbados - Prime Minister Addresses United Nations General Debate, 76th Session (English) | #UNGAwww.youtube.com

Bill Gates has always been passionate about providing vaccines to the parts of the world that lack resources. On Friday he came through again by announcing that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is committing $150 million toward efforts to develop and distribute a low cost COVID-19 vaccine to some of the poorer countries of the world.

According to Vox, this latest financial commitment brings the total Gates has dedicated to the pandemic to around $500 million. He is hoping the funds will keep vaccine costs down to increase accessibility beyond just the wealthier populations. As Gates told Bloomberg, "We're trying to make sure we can end it not just in the rich countries." Gates is working with the Serum Institute, which is the most prolific vaccine producer in the world, to make 100 million doses that would not exceed $3. In general, companies producing the vaccine have agreed to keep the profit margin low."



The affordability will also be influenced by which vaccines prove to be the most effective. There are over 100 vaccines being developed worldwide, and 28 have made it to human trials. The cost will be hire if companies like Moderna and Pfizer provide the best solution, as they are developing RNA vaccines, which typically cost more to produce.

In an interview with WIRED, Gates said, "Because of the way you manufacture them, and the difficulty of scaling up, they are more likely — if they are helpful — to help in the rich countries. They won't be the low-cost, scalable solution for the world at large." There are pharmaceutical companies like Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Novavax that are pursuing a more affordable solution so that it would be available to a wider range of economic demographics. He says, "Those are the ones most scalable and low-cost."



The Gates Foundation is also heavily involved in GAVI, a worldwide vaccine alliance, by pledging $1.6 billion dollars to the organization over the next five years. This is on top of the $4 billion has given to GAVI over the past few decades.

Not only is Bill Gates using his fortune to help contain the pandemic, he has also been very outspoken interviewing for what seems to be every news outlet there is. One of his concerns is the involvement from the United States regarding the global scale of the pandemic. He has spoken with multiple high ranking officials in the White House, but the U.S. has yet to show up to any of the GAVI meetings. Gates is hoping this is not a sign of "vaccine nationalism," which is if a country hoards vaccines that could be used to help other parts of the world. It is not so far fetched if you recall how cutthroat people were about toilet paper not too long ago.

With all the time, money and effort Bill Gates is putting into helping the world recover from COVID-19, in the grand scale of things wearing a mask doesn't seem like that much of a sacrifice. Even if you are one of the people who think the whole thing is a hoax or a conspiracy, wear the mask anyway just in the off chance all those doctors and scientists know what they are talking about.

I live in Washington, the state with the first official outbreak of COVID-19 in the U.S. While my family lives several hours from Seattle, it was alarming to be near the epicenter—especially early in the pandemic when we knew even less about the coronavirus than we know now.

As tracking websites went up and statistics started pouring in, things looked hairy for Washington. But not for long. We could have and should have shut everything down faster than we did, but Governor Inslee took the necessary steps to keep the virus from flying completely out of control. He's consistently gotten heat from all sides, but in general he listened to the infectious disease experts and followed the lead of public health officials—which is exactly what government needs to do in a pandemic.

As a result, we've spent the past several months watching Washington state drop from the #1 hotspot down to 23rd in the nation (as of today) for total coronavirus cases. In cases per million population, we're faring even better at number 38. We have a few counties where outbreaks are pretty bad, and cases have slowly started to rise as the state has reopened—which was to be expected—but I've felt quite satisfied with how it's been handled at the state level. The combination of strong state leadership and county-by-county reopenings has born statistically impressive results—especially considering the fact that we didn't have the lead time that other states did to prepare for the outbreak.


Of course, not everyone sees it that way. We have the same anti-mask, anti-lockdown, anti-public health advice folks we see elsewhere. We have conspiracy theorists, COVID deniers, "masks are tyranny" protesters, and even a county sheriff who publicly refused to enforce the governor's stay-at-home order. But Inslee has stood firmly on the side of public health regardless of who whines about it. While pandemic responses are always going to be imperfect and filled with uncertainty and inconsistency (that's the nature of dealing with a novel virus), the comparative results speak for themselves.

We've seen other governors stand their ground under intense pressure from both constituents and the federal government as well. For example, Michigan's governor, Gretchen Whitmer, was criticized by President Trump for her response, yet when her state became one of the epicenters, she took an aggressive and consistent stance, didn't back down, and now Michigan's numbers are significantly lower than states that have taken a lax approach. For instance, Michigan's daily case increase is now a small fraction of what they are in Florida, where Governor DeSantis has moved aggressively toward reopening, focusing far more on economic recovery than limiting the spread of the virus.

Whitmer's leadership hasn't gone unnoticed, either. She's made a name for herself—as has Michigan's Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson—for standing strong in the face of criticism from the president. And she's using the spotlight to call for a stronger federal response and for the government to lead by example.

"I'd like a national mask-up campaign," she told CNN's Alisyn Camerota. "I think that if everyone endorsed this, it's a simple cost effective thing that we could do to really mitigate spread. But the symbols that come from the very top matter and it changes behavior. If we can take the politics out of mask wearing we can save a lot of lives and in doing so save the pain, the economic pain, that we are feeling across this country."

National leadership is vital in a pandemic, and our national leadership on coronavirus has been...well, lacking. A pandemic response was always going to be a challenge in a large country with 50 diverse states, but when state borders are invisible lines that anyone can cross at any time, we need to all be on the same page about how to prevent the spread. While outbreaks require a local response, a state-by-state approach to figuring out when and how to apply or ease mitigation measures makes little sense. (And making states compete with one another for needed medical equipment is just downright bizarre. Seriously.)

No response is going to win praise from every person, but epidemiologists, virologists, and infectious disease experts have prepared their whole careers for this moment. Political leaders must listen to them, follow their lead, and mold responses around their advice—otherwise we end up right where we are, with 25% of the world's COVID-19 cases and deaths, despite only being 5% of the world's population.

Thankfully, some governors are taking their public health responsibility seriously. Here's to the leaders who have stepped up and stood up in the face of resistance, allowing health professionals to guide the way and implementing protective policies accordingly, no matter how much or how loudly some people complain about it.