Did the Livongo Acquisition Cause Teladoc’s Stock to Crash?

in Uncategorized

graph heading down

In August 2020 I posted about Teladoc’s acquisition of diabetes management company Livongo. My report was fairly neutral. At the end, however, I noted, “both companies’ stocks made it onto the markets’ Biggest Loser list on the day of the merger announcement, with Teladoc down 19% and Livongo off by 11% — the second and fourth biggest losers for the day, respectively.”

The Teladoc stock re-emerged as a Wall Street darling, rebounding to a high stock price of $293 in February 2021. Today, it closed at $29.77. 

Well, the entire stock market is down. But not by 90%. 

Some analysts (and, implicitly, Teladoc itself) pin Teladoc’s disappointing financials on Livongo — an exodus of Livongo employees (including leaders), disappointing program metrics, and product integration challenges.

I wouldn’t count Teladoc out, and some prominent investors and analysts are optimistic about the company’s future. But in an Axios article, Jim Kramer (sic?) is quoted:

“I’m not saying Livongo is worthless and Glen Tullman [Livongo co-founder] fooled Teladoc. I’m saying Livongo wasn’t worth near as much and Glen Tullman made a good deal.”

How to Hire, According to Science

in Data, Uncategorized

Interview 101 bookWhen a hiring manager says things like, “I could tell within the first few seconds of the interview…” or “I could tell by the handshake…,” etc., we know they either have not been properly trained on how to hire or simply shouldn’t be in the position of hiring people. Continue reading »

The Long and Short of 4-Day Workweeks

in Uncategorized

Number forA California bill mandating employers with at least 500 employees to pay overtime for working more than 32 hours a week — essentially creating an incentive for employers to adopt a 4-day workweek — just stalled in the state Legislature.

There’s a lot of talk lately about 4-day workweeks, with big pilot programs taking place in the US, Canada, and the UK. (For info about these pilots, see the links at the end of this article.)

I find the idea of shortened workweeks compelling, though I don’t see anything magical about four-day weeks (imagine a world where people work the number of days it takes to do the job?). And I wish folks would specify whether they’re advocating a reduction of weekly hours at the same pay vs. cramming the usual number of hours into 4 days (i.e. 4 8-hour days vs. 4 10-hour days a week). Continue reading »

Burnout: Don’t Be Fooled Again

in burnout, Employee Wellness Programs, industrial organizational psychology, Stress, Uncategorized

Magician holding fireThe prospect of organizational burnout interventions has finally caught the attention of thought leaders. When reading articles comparing organizational approaches (ill-defined strategies targeting workload, job control, rewards, community, fairness, and values) to individual approaches (like mindfulness and resilience training) I’m reminded of The Who’s classic lyrics:

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

We’ve gone from the “superstition” of self-help, to paraphrase Jonathan Malesic in his brilliant book The End of Burnout, to the Gospel According to Maslach. Continue reading »

Emotional Labor, Great Expectations, and The End of Burnout

in burnout, industrial organizational psychology, Stress, Uncategorized

Venn Diagram

Emotional labor was conceptualized by sociologist Arlie Hochschild as work that requires the job holder to fake (surface acting) or modify (deep acting) their emotions. It’s often misinterpreted to mean emotionally intense work.

For example:

Service industry employees instructed to smile and pretend to be upbeat under high-stress circumstances — like interactions with hostile customers — typically engage in surface acting, which has been implicated in burnout.

Relatedly: Jonathan Malesic, in The End of Burnout — besides tracing burnout to job conditions and “work culture” — proposes that consumers, and even co-workers, hold ourselves accountable:

To beat burnout and help others flourish, we need to lower not only our expectations for our own work but also our expectations of what others’ work can do for us.

The book cover for "The End of Burnout"

Click to purchase. (Affiliate link)

Listen Up, Millenials and Boomers: Generation Labels are “Stupid”

in Uncategorized

multiple generations in an office workplace

The supposed distinctions between millennials, Gen-Z, boomers, and other generational strata — especially as they manifest in the workplace — are nonsense at worst, unconstructive at best.

As David Costanza and Lisa Finkelstein write in their article: Generationally Based Differences in the Workplace: Is There a There There?

The fact is that there is (a) minimal empirical evidence actually supporting generationally based differences, (b) ample evidence supporting alternate explanations for differences that have been observed, (c) no sufficient explanation for why such differences should even exist, and (d) a lack of support for the effectiveness of interventions designed to address any such differences.

Writing in The Atlantic, Joe Pinsker described generational labels more bluntly:

They flatten out the experiences of tens of millions of very different people, remove nuance from conversations, and imply commonality where there may be none. The social scientists are right: Generational labels are stupid.

Evidence: You’re foot is on fire — what do you do?

in Employee Wellness Programs, Uncategorized, Wellbeing

feet in shoes that are on fire

In an online discussion, Don McCreary, the senior consultant of Donald McCreary Scientific Consulting, and someone for whom I have the utmost respect, was making a case for “a scientific publishing paradigm that supported the publication and dissemination of negative findings.” To exemplify this need, he offered the example of workplace mental health prevention:

There are so many programs that say they are evidence-based, but there’s no evidence that they actually do what they say they do. Are they marketing us snake oil by relying on the phrase “evidence-based” because they’re too lazy to collect the evidence or is it because they have data to show that the program they’re selling or marketing doesn’t work?”

Claims of “evidence based” in all aspects of wellbeing warrant closer scrutiny.

“Are they marketing us snake oil?” I offered my take:

There are other possibilities, though they may be variations of those Dr. McCreary identified:

  1. Buyers and sellers are naive and/or ill-informed, and believe their products/services are evidence-based, even when they’re not. They feel it’s accurate to call something evidence-based because it draws on a framework for which there’s evidence, because they have internal data demonstrating positive outcomes, or even because they can cite a study showing that an intervention like theirs was effective—none of which justifies calling their program evidence-based.
  2. Employers/purchasers don’t care about evidence and aren’t persuaded by it. But they like buying stuff they can say is evidence-based.
  3. Consumers of services, including many employees, also deem evidence uncompelling. This is borne out by a simple glance at the self-help bestseller list or health food section of a grocery store — endless claims of science-ishness (including mental health benefits!), with no real evidence.

All that said, to make evidence a prerequisite for all employee wellbeing interventions might be an unnecessary and unachievable burden. Someone once said:

If my foot is on fire, I don’t need a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies before I ask someone to throw a bucket of water on it.

Or, as I wrote to Dr. McCreary:

Instead of calling everything evidence-based just to fuel the wellbeing marketplace, there’d be value in broad discussion about “when should a workplace intervention be limited to evidence-based programs/strategies?”

I’ve come to believe it’s okay to implement an intervention if it’s something employees want and we have good reason to believe it will do no harm. This might include, for example, mindfulness programs and physical fitness opportunities, as well as organizational interventions to reduce psychosocial risk factors.

Most HR managers and business leaders don’t know the first thing about evidence — nor should they, any more than a research methodologist should be able to, say, describe the details of workers’ comp regulations and practices.

It will be better to promote education about evidence and the role it should (or should not) play in employee wellbeing strategies, rather than just pretending programs are evidence-based when they probably aren’t.

“Weak Ties” Round Out Your Social Portfolio

in Uncategorized, Wellbeing

tangled spaghetti

Weak social ties are essential to your “diverse social portfolio.” Yet they get short shrift in discussions of connection and loneliness.

Even Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, in his landmark Harvard Business Review article “Work and the Loneliness Epidemic” (which sounded a much needed alarm), bypassed our learnings about weak ties, writing:

“Happy hours, coffee breaks, team-building exercises are designed to build connections between colleagues, but do they really help people develop deep relationships?”

The answer is no, but the next question must be, “Are ‘deep relationships’ the only kind that count?”

Really enjoyed researching and writing this piece for Health Enhancement Systems (HES):

Social Connection: Beyond Besties

Bargain Basement: The Future of EAPs?

in EAPs, Uncategorized

I’ve often argued that EAPs have gotten a free pass —complacently marketing limited, outdated, poor-quality services, albeit at a relatively low price. Employers have willingly played along, readily purchasing this relatively cheap employee benefit so that they can check the box. “We have a mental health strategy.” Utilization is notoriously low, and most employers do little to promote the service beyond handing out a brochure or sending a link to new hires.

Recently, a client asked me, “What will become the key driver in the next 5 years moving employers away from EAPs?”

At a time when a lot of change is going on in mental health services, and market conditions are unprecedented, I can only guess 5 years ahead.

One possibility: EAPs survive as a bargain basement option. I can imagine benefit to more innovative, quality driven mental health service providers—those that may charge many times more than EAPs—helping clarify this distinction for employers.

I don’t foresee employers demanding more of EAPs, unless some jumbo employers collaboratively lead the way—for example, by setting standards thru purchasing consortiums.

Keep an eye on increased influence of organized labor. Maybe they will demand better quality. If I were running a mental health company, I might consider promotion direct to labor organizations as part of the long game. Not sure—it’s not my area of expertise.

A lot depends on consolidation. Do the newer solution providers consolidate and leverage their expanded resources to distinguish themselves from EAPs? Or do jumbo EAPs acquire and merge with some of the newer companies, in which case the future—in terms of quality and pricing—is anyone’s guess?

PS: I’m referring only to external EAPs (vendors). Not the internal employee assistance programs that health care organizations and universities sometimes provide for their employees.