Thank you! Yes, my hope is that it will be a useful heuristic for us as managers.
I really like this point that you made: “If I were a software engineer, I would feel empowered with this new set of people analytics and productivity data. I can finally use the data to show that I am being pulled in multiple directions and that the endless multitasking is making me less productive.”
A lot of our discussions in class have focused on how managers can use the data gathered as part of people-analytics efforts. It’s also crucial, though, that we use people analytics to empower front-line workers to advocate for themselves, for two reasons. First, it is the right thing to do. Second, workers will be more likely to advocate for the use of people analytics, and less likely to oppose new efforts, if they see a direct benefit to themselves.
Perhaps we’ll see an Uplevel case at HBS someday!
A very interesting company! I have studied usage-based insurance in the context of auto insurance before, but I didn’t know that it was already coming to health care.
My question is: To what extent does the general public understand the way in which “Vitality Age” is calculated?
For Vitality to achieve mass-market adoption in the United States, I think most Americans would need to believe that their “Vitality Age” is legitimate. If they aren’t confident in its accuracy, then they will just discount the score, which could lead to one of two bad (for the company) outcomes: (1) they refuse to start using Vitality’s insurance in the first place, or (2) they engage in less healthy behavior. (If you don’t really buy the score you’ve been given, why not eat that extra doughnut?)
Of course, we’ve talked in class about the challenge of attempting to explain calculations to non-experts. I wonder how Vitality approaches this challenge.
Toni, I loved your hook about “the halcyon days of our pre-quarantine innocence.” How I miss those days!
Your point about the importance of trust is a very important one. You mention the need to measure levels of trust, which I agree can be very helpful. I also wonder whether organizations can apply theory about the *structural* determinants of trust in an organization (I imagine such a literature exists) as a complement to their people-analytics efforts.
For example, I have read a bit about how in Germany, strong labor-management relations have been a key contributor to the country’s economic success. Structured negotiations between unions and employer associations help facilitate harmonious relations.
When it comes to people analytics, perhaps dialogue between groups representing different interests within the organization is part of the solution to the trust issue.