I quit my job. I was an associate vice president of operations for the neuroscience department at Memorial Hermann with 20 years of experience and a team of 200 behind me. I supported amazing physicians. I built new offices. I brought new capabilities and technologies to hospitals. I was helping people — administrators, staff, healthcare workers and patients. It was all so exciting — and I quit.

My intentions were good: I wanted to make an even bigger impact, one I thought I could find in a health-tech startup. But when my team dwindled from 200 to 10 overnight, I thought: I made a huge mistake.

Sure, I would have the chance to make an impact on patients if the product took off — millions of them. There were people out there who would be thrilled to take on that task, one with such an undoubtedly laudable mission, but I realized quickly that I didn’t love the day-to-day work. I realized in that “mistake” that a business’ external success isn’t where I find the most joy. In leaving my job I lost the chance to develop and mentor a large team. There weren’t established ladders for employees to climb because we were still building the infrastructure. I couldn’t help them identify and strengthen their talents because we were all wearing many hats and scrambling to make it all work with what we had.

In the past, I thrived in that startup, make-it-work-with-what-you’ve-got culture, but this time, something was missing. In those days, I learned a lesson: My true passion was people, not operations. In a big organization like Memorial Hermann, it was all so intertwined that I couldn’t see my passion clearly.

I thought a role in HR might make the perfect fit, but it turns out companies want HR employees who actually have HR backgrounds. Finally, I turned to a classmate for help. He had led HR for an international oil and gas company and connected me with colleagues of his, but he was also very honest. “You need to talk to these people to understand what their needs are, tell them who you are and find your path,” he said. “But, you know, I don’t think that it’s the path of an individual contributor in an HR department.”

He was right. And it turns out that I was wrong, not only in the idea that I should be in HR, but also in the idea that I could no longer thrive in a startup. In fact, I launched my own business, Chief Gigs — and I’m doing the best work of my life now as a business coach helping companies figure out how to unleash the talents of their people and put the right people in the right seats.

Today my work is truly fun and infinitely rewarding. I love helping companies put the pieces of their talent puzzle together. And I never would have gotten here — to this work that is making an impact not only on businesses like Fortune 1000 companies, nonprofits, startups and investment groups but on individual careers — had I not quit my job and made what I then thought was a poor choice. Turns out that misstep was actually just a step on my path.
 

Tips From the Business Coach:

Wendy Fong, partner and principal of Chief Gigs, offers a few pieces of advice to business leaders on building talent within your organization.

• Hiring someone who thinks like you isn’t always your best move:  “People’s biases are so strong, and they don’t know it. Employers tend to hire others who are like them. I found entire teams all centered around the same behavioral tendencies. That approach doesn’t offer a diversity of thought or opinion — key components to better ideas and a stronger organization.”
   
• Diversity of thought is imperative, but that doesn’t mean it’s always easy on leadership.  “You have to be able to work with different people with different work styles. They might be introverted. They might need time to think through ideas. They might want to talk through an idea with you. They might need a lot more detail than you’re willing to give. In the end, they’re going to be better able to do their job if you’re willing to invest the time in understanding — and supporting — how they work.”
   
• Ask Yourself: “How Do Others See Me?”  “Do a little research on the Predictive Index profile. It’s Iike magic. It’s a behavioral assessment like DiSC or Myers-Briggs, but the output is so intuitive. The Predictive Index consists of only two questions and takes about five minutes to complete. The Predictive Index asks: ‘Who are you?’ In other words, who do you think you are as a person? And, ‘How do you feel you’re expected to act at work?’ Let’s say you’re an independent decision-maker. You may seem overly aggressive to your colleagues or to your direct reports. The Predictive Index identifies your strengths and what I like to call ‘cautions,’ and provides insights and self-coaching questions to allow for self-reflection and adjustments.

To hear more of Fong’s story, listen to her interview on the “Owl Have You Know” podcast:

Janet Moore believes there is something interesting about everyone she meets. A look inside her office reveals plenty of interesting things about the communications leader and educator herself.

As a full-time faculty member, Moore’s expertise in leadership communication shapes the academic experience of nearly every MBA student, guiding them to develop executive presence and the ability to communicate with impact. The objects in her office, from artifacts collected on global adventures to awards recognizing her storied career, reflect the many facets of her vibrant life and work. Here are a few of the objects that make the environment almost as lively as its occupant.

1. A hand-woven Otomi tapestry. Moore, a former international lawyer and avid world traveler, once practiced law in Mexico. It was there she received the colorful stitched art.
2. An honorary consul plaque. As honorary consul to the country of Georgia, she promotes their economic and cultural relations in the state of Texas.
3. A flag for every country she’s visited or worked in. (Over 50!)
4. A luchador-style owl mask that she received while taking the first MBA@Rice Global Field Experience to Mexico City. The mask hints at her fun-loving spirit. (Case in point: She tried it on for us.)
5. A copy of “Think Faster, Talk Smarter: How to Speak Successfully When You’re Put on the Spot” by Stanford Professor Matt Abrahams. Moore’s shelves are full of must-read recommendations, but this title is her recent standout pick.
6. A large glass bowl that Moore uses to convey the idea of “executive presence.” Think of it this way: The objects you place in the bowl represent your substance (i.e., your skills, values and identity); but other people always view and evaluate those objects through an outside layer (i.e., your appearance, body language, behavior and speech) — which is represented by the glass bowl itself.

For Moore, an expert in leadership communication, personal style is a way to tell stories — both for yourself and others. She references Madeleine Albright (whom she learned from at Georgetown), whose carefully selected brooches conveyed specific messages. On the day of our photo shoot, Moore is wearing a golden bracelet that her mother wore when she defended her dissertation.

If you want to learn more about leadership and the power of personal style, stop by to see Janet Moore. You’ll leave feeling more confident about telling your own story.

Image

Texas’ Unemployment Rate Is Among the Nation’s Worst — But Experts Say It Signals a Growing Economy

Texas has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country — despite leading in job growth — which experts say indicates an upward economy.

According to Dean Peter Rodriguez, lower unemployment can mean people are exiting the workforce. Texas’ high rate reflects more people moving to the state and staying, which expands the labor pool and benefits employers, especially smaller firms. However, job growth is slowing in Texas, following national trends. So, while the high unemployment rate indicates a rapidly growing labor force and economy, hiring seems to be slowing in line with the rest of the nation.

Oct. 3, 2023 | Maia Pandey

Image

There’s a Reason a Killer Money-Saving App Still Doesn’t Exist

Budgeting apps like Mint have struggled to build a sustainable business of helping people spend less. Mint shut down Jan. 1, 2024, joining other failed personal finance apps. The problem is that few people want budgeting help, and even fewer will pay for that help. Apps battle high costs of aggregating financial data and low engagement from users.

As marketing professor Utpal Dholakia says, “Someone is going to become really, really rich if they can figure out how to get unmotivated people interested in really thinking about money.” Banks now offer free budgeting tools but lack the excitement of social media. Budgeting isn’t a “dopamine hit,” says Mint’s founder; it’s an adult responsibility. Motivating the unmotivated to budget remains an elusive pot of gold.

Nov. 16, 2023 | Imani Moise

Image

U.S. Institutions Under Fire for Their Support — or Silence — on Israel

Companies, universities, and politicians have struggled with how to respond to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Condemning violence on both sides or expressing support for Israelis and Palestinians has drawn criticism. Professor Vikas Mittal says companies should avoid statements that take sides, given how quickly they spread online. He advises saying nothing or, before speaking, taking a few days to carefully deliberate.

Mittal cautions against “condemning this or that” and says companies should listen first rather than quickly commenting. In this heated moment, there are messaging risks either way organizations respond (or don’t respond).

Oct. 14, 2023 | Laura Meckler, Tim Craig and Aaron Gregg

Image

Upstarts Challenge a Foundation of Modern Investing

A recent argument has erupted among finance professors over changes made to some very important data created by researchers Kenneth French (Dartmouth) and Nobel Prize-winning economist Eugene Fama (Chicago). These data help investors decide which stocks to buy based on factors like company size and share price. While some researchers are worried that the changing data was not fully explained and could lead to manipulated results, others like Rice Business professor Robert Dittmar say they should be careful criticizing such respected work.

Dittmar quotes a line from the TV show “The Wire”: “You come at the king, you best not miss.” He says most attempts by other researchers to perfectly re-create Fama and French’s data have failed, showing how complex their calculations are.

As a result of the controversy, Fama and French have provided more transparency by releasing their previous data versions online. They have defended the reasons behind updating their groundbreaking research on market factors, like finding undervalued stocks.

Mar. 11, 2024 | Mary Childs and Justina Lee

Image

‘Portfolio Careers’ are Becoming More Popular. Is it Just Rebranding Hustle Culture?

Professor Scott Sonenshein says the popularity of portfolio careers started rising around 2014 with the sharing economy and gig platforms. His early research found people with multiple jobs had diverse backgrounds — from high-skilled consultants to Uber drivers.

This trend accelerated during the pandemic, as people sought control amid uncertainty. Sonenshein says economic necessity still drives many to patch together multiple income streams. But increasingly, portfolio careers appeal to people seeking meaningful, engaging work and better work-life balance. This autonomy does pose a risk, however. The lack of built-in boundaries and structures for success can lead some to constantly work and fall into the traps of hustle culture.

Dec. 10, 2023 | Anisa Purbasari Horton

See All the Latest News from Rice Business

Meet current students

from five of our nine degree programs. (You’ll meet more students from the full-time, EMBA and professional programs in the fall issue.) Get to know where they’re from, where they live, what they do, what they’re reading and listening to, and five words to describe themselves.

Marcela Aguilar, Ph.D. ’26

Inquisitive, Resilient, Analytical, Empathetic, Determined

Born in San Salvador, El Salvador. Her dissertation explores the role of accounting in the informal economy, specifically focusing on how it shapes economic and social dynamics within informal micro-businesses in developing countries. Currently reading “Poor Economics” by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo. Recently selected as a 2024 Deloitte Foundation Doctoral Fellow

Natalie Stone, MAcc ’24

Energetic, Hardworking, Compassionate, Organized, Adventurous

Born and raised in Houston about 10 minutes from Rice. Will start work at Ernst & Young in their Boston office in the fall of 2024. Just finished reading “A Flicker in the Dark,” a murder mystery with a big twist in the end. “I highly recommend.”

Spencer Kresie, Undergraduate Business Major ’25

Curious, Innovative, Connected, Ambitious, Informed

From Plano, Texas. Has a summer job with FTI Consulting’s Dallas office in their corporate finance – restructuring branch. Hopes to stay in the management consulting sphere as a full-time analyst after graduation. Spencer is also earning an entrepre- neurship minor and completing an Arabic Language Certificate. Listening to the podcast, “How I Built This,” with Guy Raz.

Dart Bebel, Hybrid MBA ’25

Curious, Observant, Goal-oriented, Kind, Authentic

Born in LA. Lives in Austin. Runs growth marketing at Vacasa, the largest full-service vacation rental management company in North America. Favorite memory on campus was MBA night at Rice Stadium, watching the Owls win the Bay- ou Bucket football game! Listening to the podcast “The Old Man and the Three,” with JJ Redick and Tommy Alter. Reading “Positive Intelligence” by Shirzad Chamine.

Nova Wang, MBA@Rice ’24

Driven, Authentic, Perceptive, Committed, Passionate

Born and raised in Vermont. Lives in Boston. Works as a FP&A financial analyst at Public Consulting Group. Reading “Greenlights,” a memoir by Matthew McConaughey.

This year is the perfect time to reflect as we celebrate 50 years since Houston Endowment funded Rice University to establish the business school and reinforce Jesse Jones’ legacy to the city.

Walking across campus has always allowed me the chance to take a break, take a meeting and take a look around. These days, I notice big changes since I arrived at Rice in 2016 — the Moody Center for the Arts, Brockman Hall for Opera, Ralph S. O’Connor Building for Engineering and Science, and the almost-finished Cannady Hall, west of Anderson Hall at the School of Architecture. And soon, our new building will break ground (more on that in the fall issue of the magazine). It’s an exciting time, and really, the new buildings are less about change and more about progress — that steady march forward to assess the current challenges and prepare to solve future ones.

Image

This year is the perfect time to reflect as we celebrate 50 years since Houston Endowment funded Rice University to establish the business school and reinforce Jesse Jones’ legacy to the city. It’s remarkable that we’ve accomplished so much growth and transformation during that time. In truth, the school had a second wind in April 1996 after an external review committee found that this “glittering opportunity” of a school was not meeting its potential. We were at a “critical juncture” for the school and the university.

That critical juncture was a true turning point for our school — and thanks to that committee, and the current work of our faculty and community, we are mapping out the school’s future by seizing opportunities, deepening engagement and communicating our vision widely. Most importantly, we must be relevant to our students, to the university and to Houston.

Today, our vision is to be recognized for our impact on how individuals and organizations succeed and improve the world — through our faculty’s research and our graduates’ actions.

With doubled enrollment, an online and Hybrid MBA, an undergraduate business major, an increase in tenured and tenure-track faculty over the last 10 years, and a new building connected to McNair Hall breaking ground soon, we are delivering graduates into the workforce to solve organizational challenges and serve the needs of their communities.

I am so proud of what we have become, and I invite you to read more about our progress since 1974 on the timeline on page 30. As deans have before me, I have joined with the leadership team and the board of advisors to chart our course for the next 50 years. I hope you’ll be part of the journey.

— Peter

Image

Image

More than one-third of the world’s population is cooking meals over open fires, without access to modern cooking technology. The result: health risks associated with indoor air pollution. It’s a topic not often discussed, but Dymphna van der Lans ’02 is speaking up.

Dymphna van der Lans remembers the day her family got a set of encyclopedias and placed them on a low shelf so she — at 8 years old — could access the world. She sat down that day and dove in to read about China. “My world was still so limited to my family and my school and my surroundings,” says van der Lans, who is from the Netherlands. “I couldn’t really comprehend that there was a country out there that was so significantly different from my own lived experience. I had this realization at a very young age that I didn’t know the world, and it was there to be explored.”

She describes that moment as a spark — one that would eventually lead her to adventures in China, India, Kenya, and island nations in the Caribbean and the Indian and Pacific Oceans. She learned to speak Chinese — studied it fully, in fact — during her undergraduate years at Peking University and at Leiden University, where she earned a master’s in Chinese language, economics and law.

But the more van der Lans explored the world, the more she discovered about the complex issues that face both the planet and those inhabiting it: the energy transition, disrupted supply chains, armed conflicts and threats to wildlife.

These issues are regularly examined by researchers and debated in media outlets. But when van der Lans began working with the UN Foundation as the CEO of the Clean Cooking Alliance (CCA), she faced a challenge no one seemed to be talking about — global access to “clean cooking” with modern technologies and fuels that prevent deadly indoor air pollution.

When van der Lans talks about clean cooking, she isn’t referencing the debate over gas versus electric, which many assume. She is focused on the millions of people living largely in remote areas of the Global South who are cooking over open fires or on clay stoves. These cooking methods require hours of daily preparation and can expose cooks and other family members to dangers in their own homes like severe burns, smoke inhalation and exposure to harmful indoor pollutants. “People have no idea,” van der Lans says, “including lots of people who come from regions where it’s a prevalent issue.” In Nepal, for example, 69% of households use biomass fuels (wood, charcoal, dung and agricultural waste) and open fires for cooking.

“It’s unacceptable to me,” van der Lans says, “that we’re building the technologies to check washing machine cycles and refrigerator levels on our phones, but we have yet to make clean and safe food preparation accessible to a third of the global population. There’s no department or ministry dedicated to this problem, so it falls through the cracks.”

As a result, she says, the issue of clean cooking never gets appropriate attention or appropriate funding.

Van der Lans is set on changing that.

Rejoice Ntiriwaa tells a story of her childhood. Her least favorite chore in her home in Effiduase Koforidua, in the eastern region of Ghana, was to help her grandmother dress the family’s clay stove with mud. It was, Ntiriwaa says, a task she “detested with all her being.” She didn’t like that clay stove and the time it took away from her childhood activities, but she later realized it was a true hazard when she learned that her great-grandmother had to undergo surgery to treat a cataract caused by smoke emissions. “What would have happened to her if she had not been able to pay for the procedure at that time?” she says in Vantage Point, a newly launched digital magazine from the CCA.

Image

Luckily for Ntiriwaa’s great-grandmother, a surgery was feasible, both physically and financially. But women across the globe may fare far worse without access to modern cooking equipment, often succumbing to cancer or other issues related to indoor air pollution brought on by preparing meals for their families. The fact that women face illness while working to feed themselves and their families did not sit well with Ntiriwaa.

It doesn’t sit well with van der Lans either. “Anytime you have inefficient combustion particles float up in the air,” she says, “they make their way into the lungs of women and the babies they carry on their backs.” Van der Lan’s team of 50 works on policy with local governments and helps industries think through the challenges of access to clean cooking, including embracing cultural norms in the process.

“We know that the technologies exist, we just need to make sure women have access to them and that they are affordable.”

CCA also works with entrepreneurs — including women who have experienced the issue firsthand — to support new solutions and has trained more than 5,000 women entrepreneurs, youth and educators. “There are a lot of women in Africa, specifically, who are young entrepreneurial spirits and advocates who have lived through this issue and are now putting their intellect, energy and power behind addressing the problem. They are developing technologies specific to their culture and regions and then running the companies that build and distribute that technology. Our job is to support them — financially and otherwise — in achieving their organizational goals.”

Ntiriwaa is one of those women. After a childhood spent preparing the family clay stove, she went on to become an engineer, researcher and lecturer at Cape Coast Technical University in Ghana, focused on bioenergy, renewable energy systems design and alternative cooking fuel, not just in the home but in business as well.

“Seventy percent of the dirty fuels in this country are used by small and medium-sized businesses that process food, yet they suffer attention deficit in the engineering design of efficient stoves,” Ntiriwaa says in Vantage Point.

“Our research team conducted a survey, and the results showed that the design characteristics, such as ergonomics, fuel neutrality and ability to support the weight of meals, are among the primary factors influencing people’s choice of cooking energy. We need to fund regional research because different cultures and traditional foods call for different cooking techniques.”

That funding is important — CCA itself has invested US$17.8 million in research, resulting in more than 60 peer-reviewed publications on the impacts of household air pollution and the benefits of clean cooking — but perhaps more so is the empowerment of women to be a part of the process. “Women make many cooking decisions at the household level, so empowering them to understand the clean cooking value chain improves their way of life,” says Ntiriwaa, who earned one of CCA’s 2022 Women Leaders Awards. “Collectively, their demand for stoves and fuels would begin to shift to cleaner options, forcing suppliers to think of new ways to meet end users’ needs. Their contribution is significant, regardless of where they are in the clean cooking value chain.”

CCA has a goal: universal clean cooking access by 2030. They aim to achieve it through investment in entrepreneurs and industries willing to tackle the problem, by raising awareness to drive consumer demand and by using data to drive policy.

Image

This is not an issue with one simple solution. It requires systemic change. Thanks to recognition and support from local governments and agencies like the Alternative Energy Promotion Centre, CCA has launched projects in key areas where the issue is most prevalent. In Nepal, for example, with nearly 70% of its population using biomass fuels and open fires, CCA worked with local governments to create a detailed plan to help the area transition completely to clean cooking by 2028. The plan includes financial assistance for families and ongoing government support. This will enable nearly 1 million homes to transition to electric cooking appliances. It will also facilitate the adoption of off-grid systems in rural areas. The goal is for 100% of homes in the region to use clean cooking methods within the next four years.

It can feel like a daunting task. But CCA is making massive strides. According to its 2023 Industry Snapshot, investments in clean cooking enterprises grew to an all-time high of $215 million in 2022. Revenue in clean cooking industries also broke records with $104 million in 2022. CCA itself has issued more than $8.4 million in grants to companies, more than $2 million for gender-focused projects and has reached 40 million people through campaigns.

When van der Lans took the CEO seat six years ago, she attended a Conference of the Parties (COP), the annual UN Climate Change Conference, and found only one session on clean cooking hidden away in a back room. When she attended the most recent COP in Dubai in December 2023, there were 20 sessions focused on clean cooking, including one at center stage. CCA estimates that through their work, they have reached 100 million people with information on the importance of clean cooking. She’s proud that the issue is receiving increased and appropriate attention. At the same time, she knows there’s work to do and is concerned that all the attention in the world doesn’t mean much if the solutions aren’t funded. “Raising the issue and creating awareness and educating people means nothing, zero, if it doesn’t lead to more funding to address the problem.”

Van der Lans aims to end the harm that unsafe and polluting cooking methods have on women’s health and economic prospects. To that end, she wants clean cooking solutions to become so widely understood that she no longer has to explain the problem. And she hopes people think more often about the lesson we all eventually learn, as she did at 8 years old with an encyclopedia in hand: Many people around the world face challenges that are vastly different from our own lived experience. They grapple with problems that often go unnoticed. For many, even accomplishing the basic task of boiling water presents hardship that deserves our attention and action.

Q1: Your research mainly focuses on healthcare payment systems and insurance. Can you talk about the history of our national payment systems? How did they come about?

If you look at the early 1900s — when people paid mostly out of pocket — healthcare costs averaged maybe $150 to $200 per year in today’s dollars. Our procedures were not very complicated. They didn’t cost millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars. And people didn’t live as long as they do today. There were many diseases we’ve since learned how to treat.

So, doctors would come to your home. They’d probably give you an aspirin or some kind of antibiotic, and that’s the most they could do. That changed as technology advanced, but our payment system stayed the same until World War II. When people came back from the war, it became clear that a lot of older people could no longer pay for their healthcare.

Private insurance came in and then Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s. And insurance would pay for your hospital visits. The system had no incentive to be efficient. If insurance is paying, the doctor has no incentive.

Imagine taking your car to a mechanic and saying, “Fix everything.” What kind of bill is that mechanic going to come up with? And that went on until the 1980s when healthcare became more transactional, and costs exploded.

I think we are moving toward a “capitation” payment system. In this system, like what Medicare Advantage does, healthcare institutions will receive a fixed amount — let’s say $10,000. And they’re responsible for everything that relates to an episode of care — let’s say a kneecap replacement. When that happens, now they have all the incentives to keep me healthy. They’re going to encourage me to exercise. They’re going to encourage me not to drink as much, and so on and so forth.

Q2: I like the car mechanic analogy. Has the healthcare industry learned a lot from sectors like car manufacturing in terms of how to make their operations more efficient?

Yes. Car manufacturing is the best example.

Some history, again: For whatever reason, the manufacturing sector started using computers a lot earlier than healthcare. Why is that important? Well, by looking at data, you can figure out what the problems in your system are and where the bottlenecks and quality issues are. It’s impossible to do that when everything is handwritten.

The Affordable Care Act changed that. Obamacare was basically the final push to force all hospitals to implement what’s called electronic medical records. If you go to your doctor now, they take notes when they’re talking to you. Sometimes, they have a tablet; they start filling in, checking boxes, and all that. It all goes into a database that we can look at and see how efficient a given clinic is in the first place.

Because of how slowly the healthcare sector adopted digital record-keeping practices, a lot of operational improvements were delayed compared to other manufacturing systems.

Q3: Can you share an example of how operational research can make a real difference in healthcare?

There are so many examples I can give you. When I was at the University of Rochester, we were looking at the causes of lengthy treatment times in the emergency room. We had to dig deep into their database to figure out where patients are spending time. From there, we used somewhat standard management tools to understand where the bottlenecks are, and then we’d try to find ways to decrease the hospital’s load.

Emergency rooms, unfortunately nowadays, are anything but emergent unless you’re dying. If you’re dying, they take care of you. Otherwise, you register, and go through triage, usually done by a nurse. The level of triage you fall in kind of determines your priority in the waiting line.

As researchers, we said, “Look: there are so many triage patients coming into the emergency room who could have gone to a primary care physician or to urgent care.” So, we said, “Why don’t we start treatment in triage?” Let’s say you walk in with arm pain. Why don’t we just order an X-ray before you even get to see a doctor? By the time the doctor sees you, the X-rays will be ready — because in the emergency room, doctors and beds are the bottleneck. Not X-rays.

We’re trying to reduce unproductive time. To be clear, I don’t know what is feasible from a medical point of view. Can I even order an X-ray while you’re in the waiting room? I wouldn’t know that.

The people who can come up with these ideas are those who actually work in the system on a daily basis. Our job as researchers is to help healthcare professionals identify these opportunities.

Q4: What are some of the biggest hurdles and opportunities we face in Houston, specifically?

As you know, we have a very good city healthcare system — hospitals, universities, medical schools. I don’t think Houston has unique problems that we don’t see elsewhere. The biggest problem, if you ask me, is insufficient insurance coverage. Healthy living in Houston is also a problem.

Otherwise, I think the healthcare system here is in good shape. We have a very good Medicaid system called Harris County Health. There are a lot of initiatives that help the Houston community. But we face the same challenges as other places. Healthcare costs are climbing, and it’s not clear what exactly we can do to stop it.

Q5: Would more of the efficient bottlenecks you’re describing lower overall costs?

Yes, they do somewhat. But the answer to rising healthcare costs is not so simple. In simple economic terms, the healthcare industry has what’s called an “incentive misalignment.” You want to be healthy. And insurance companies want you to be healthy. How do you stay healthy? You go to the gym. You eat healthily. You seek mental services when you need them. But hospitals don’t get paid for these things, and so are currently not incentivized to focus on them.

There’s also a disconnect between healthcare providers. An example: You break your leg, you go to a hospital. They operate on you, and you’re discharged. But then you start physical therapy. And when you’re getting physical therapy, everything depends on what kind of surgery you got, what the doctor decided to do and how the hospital took care of you. If your leg gets worse during therapy instead of better, it could be that the hospital didn’t do the right thing in the first place. But nobody would be penalized for not doing the right thing. Our payment system does not incentivize quality of care.

And from a patient perspective, if the costs of care keep increasing, you’re less likely to see a doctor. Or, if you are informed you’ll need to undergo treatment, you might decide against it, given its cost. And some health-related issues might be a matter of convenience. But if left untreated, a lot of conditions can create other problems down the road, which will magnify the cost of care, in the end.

Q6: Much of what you’re saying is specific to the United States. But I’m sure you have a very transnational perspective. You’re a native of Turkiye. You’re speaking with me from London.

Yes, definitely. Whatever you see in America — it’s one system. And there are other ways of doing this. Take the U.K. Until World War II, their system was very similar to the U.S. Obviously, they were more directly impacted by the war. They were bombed all over and lost a lot more people. Their economy got hit really hard. And after the war, they nationalized all the hospitals by running them through “trusts” (i.e., nonprofit organizations). That way, the government can pay hospitals and keep track of quality issues.

There are similarities and differences wherever you go. If you ask me — completely my opinion based on what I’m seeing in healthcare — the U.S. needs to get rid of prices. If Hospital A does a surgery and Hospital B does the same surgery, they should get paid the same amount regardless of insurance. Where they should be competing is on quality. If Hospital A ends up with better surgery outcomes, they should get additional money. And Hospital B should lose some of their money.

The problem in the U.S. is that every insurance company goes around and negotiates with all these hospitals about how they’re going to charge for every single operation. There are thousands of different things that institutions have to negotiate. Compared to the U.K. system, that’s the biggest difference. And that’s where we see the biggest inefficiencies in U.S. healthcare.

Q7: Is there anything else you’d like to say about your research? Do you enjoy the work you do?

I’ll say two things. First, healthcare is not just about health. Healthcare is the economy. In strict monetary terms, healthcare keeps everybody healthy so that they can work. We aim to keep young people healthy so they can become adults and contribute. So, when you don’t provide health insurance for people, the whole economy suffers, not just that person’s life.

Even more, if you’re not changing jobs — a job you hate — because you don’t want to lose your health insurance, then you’re not doing a job where you’ll probably be more productive and contribute more to the overall economy. Healthcare is basically the backbone of the economy. So, whenever I hear people say they oppose universal healthcare, I’m just amazed. I can’t really fathom what they’re missing in this.

Second, in terms of research and my personal experience, healthcare operations has been a great field to research. With all due respect to people who research the supply chain, Amazon has billions of dollars to fund research. That’s not the case in healthcare. Healthcare needs people who have the flexibility and training to look at systems and ask systematic questions.

It’s a great area of focus for universities and scholars.