 |
|
|
|||||
At its core, public health is about driving healthy behavior changes by building awareness, meeting people where they are, and offering solutions that are accessible and grounded in evidence. Throughout my career, I have worked on issues ranging from foster adoption and drunk driving prevention to tobacco prevention and cessation, always with science as our foundation. But the media landscape, and how people engage with information, has changed dramatically. To remain relevant and effective, public health must evolve. That means rethinking not just what we communicate, but how we motivate, engage, and sustain healthy behaviors. WHY ITS IMPORTANT TO LEAN IN Gamification, using elements of game design in an existing digital product or intervention to engage users and change behavior, has become an increasingly common approach in public health. It can reframe intimidating goals like exercising more, managing stress, and quitting nicotine into smaller, achievable steps that feel tangible and motivating. When implemented effectively, gamification can improve user engagement by supporting intrinsic motivation, learning and skill development, social interaction, and a sense of accomplishment. In many ways, public health cant afford to ignore gamification. Addiction is already gamifiedand its winning. As one example, smart vapes now feature screens, rewards, animations, and puff tracking. These high-tech devices have become top-selling products, with 32% of youth and 33% of young adults reporting using vapes with screens, games, or Bluetooth connectivity in the past month. These products are applying the same engagement strategies used in consumer tech to drive repeat use and ultimately sustain addictive behavior. WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS Mounting evidence supports gamification use in public health. As an example, some randomized trials show that socially incentivized gamified interventions can significantly increase physical activity, compared with non-gamified approaches. Similar approaches have been used to improve medication adherence, chronic disease management, and preventive health behaviors. Participants assigned to team-based challenges or friendly competition sustain healthier behaviors longer than those receiving traditional prompts alone. Progress you can see becomes behavior you repeat. Interventions using gamification share some core principles: making health interactive, trackable, or social. Many effective gamified health interventions align with self-determination theory, which identifies three drivers of motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE BACKING IS NEEDED Well-designed programs dont just reward outcomes; they reward effort, consistency, and resilience. In public health, that distinction matters, because change rarely happens all at once. It happens through daily re-commitments. Public health succeeds when it rewards persistence and practicenot perfection. Campaigns, which often complement an intervention, can also be gamified. The campaign itself can inspire behavior change, while also encouraging sign-up for the specific health intervention. The collective result: stronger outcomes. The approach can be especially relevant for younger generations, who may expect things like daily check-ins, streaks, and digital accountability as part of their digital experiences. We are infusing some gamified elements into EX Program from Truth Initiative, our free, digital nicotine-cessation resource developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic. By implementing elements that mirror gamification principles like check-ins, milestones, progress encouragement, virtual rewards, and social reinforcement, we help participants stay engaged with quitting behavior. These features are designed to reward effort and participation rather than outcomes alone. We know that every try makes you stronger the next time. APPLY GAMIFICATION BEYOND TRADITIONAL HEALTH TOOLS We have also tested creator-led digital experiences that reflect how young people already motivate one another online. As part of You Got This Day, a national moment designed to reframe Quitters Day as an opportunity to recommit after relapse, Truth Initiative worked with Gen-Z creators to create and launch a Snapchat augmented-reality lens called 30 Day Challenge. Developed through Snap Academies, the lens encourages young people trying to quit nicotine to focus on making it one more day without using nicotine, through visual progress tracking, supportive messaging, and social accountability. Rather than relying on financial incentives or competition, the experience emphasizes encouragement, persistence, and community, reinforcing evidence-based support through EX Program. For Gen Z, platforms like Snapchat and TikTok arent channelsthey’re cultural fluency. Designing health interventions that live there brings gamification to young consumers where it already resonates. REASONS FOR CAUTION Evidence points to important caveats to consider when moving toward a more gamified public health approach. Over-reliance on competition can discourage people who fall behind. Extrinsic rewards can crowd out internal motivation, or risk trivializing an important topic for participants. And without strong privacy protections, data-driven health tools can run the risk of eroding trustparticularly among individuals who are already wary of surveillance and misuse. Theres also a risk of superficial engagement. Points without purpose dont change lives. The most effective interventions are grounded in evidence, are culturally relevant, and are responsive to users real-world challengesnot just their attention spans. THE PROMISE Despite these challenges, the promise of gamification in public health is real. This novel approach for public health can become a catalyst for measurable health behavior change. By recognizing how people already engage with technology and then designing public health tools that feel supportive, human, and achievable, were turning participation into progress. In a world where screens dominate attention and traditional health messaging can struggle to break through, gamification can complement proven public health strategies that support sustained behavior change. The future of public health isnt louder messaging, its smarter engagement. Kathy Crosby is CEO and president of Truth Initiative.
Category:
E-Commerce
If you haven’t read the book The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman, youre probably at least familiar with the idea behind it: that people give and receive care in different ways. Some value words, others actions. Some want quality time; others want gifts or closeness. Problems arise when two people in a relationship give and receive care differently. Even the best intentions dont land if theyre expressed in a way the recipient doesnt recognize. This dynamic is well-established in personal relationships, but I’ve also seen a version of it play out between leaders and their teams. Very often, what leaders see as performance issues are really a mismatch in leadership languages. As a leader, I consider it my job to enable people around me to be their bestboth at work and beyond. Applying the idea of leadership languages to these relationships gives me a practical framework for doing that. LEADERSHIP IS EXPERIENCED, NOT DECLARED Just as in personal relationships, leadership is not measured by what you mean to convey, but by what the other person experiences. As leaders, we care deeply about our teams. Yet even the best intentions can get lost in translation when theres a leadership language mismatch. Like there are leadership styles, there are followership preferences. Some people want clear guardrails; others want autonomy. Some value frequent feedback; others prefer independence. When leadership and followership styles align, work feels energizing. When they dont, even talented people struggle. These disconnects often show up as performance problems. But at a deeper level, they are translation problemsmoments when a leaders way of showing support or direction doesnt align with what a team member needs to do their best work. Ive seen this pattern repeatedly, and Im sure you have too: A strong hire struggles. Communication becomes tense. Projects and initiatives stall. Often, a leaders instinct is to treat the problem as a performance issue and institute more structure, clearer expectations, and tighter oversight. But that makes the situation worse, because the problem isnt capability. Its that the leader and team member speak different leadership languages. 5 LEADERSHIP LANGUAGES Every leader Ive met has a unique leadership style, but Ive seen common patterns that lead me to believe we all default to one of these five leadership languages. They all have their advantages, but they also all have the potential to be misunderstood by people who work best with a different leadership language: Direction and controlCharacterized by: Centralized decisions, detailed guidance, and close involvement. How its received: For some, this creates clarity and confidence; for others, it feels like micromanaging. Inspiration and visionCharacterized by: Emphasis on purpose, narrative, and momentum over day-to-day execution. How its received: Motivating for mission-driven teams, but frustrating for those who want clear direction. Empathy and presenceCharacterized by: Leading through listening, availability, and emotional attunement. How its received: Builds trust and a sense of belonging but can slow decision-making. Results and accountabilityCharacterized by: Relentless focus on outcomes, metrics, and performance. How its received: Drives excellence in some people and burnout in others. Servant leadershipCharacterized by: Prioritizing growth and enablement. How its received: Builds long-term capability but requires clarity and boundaries to work well. None of these approaches is inherently good or bad. It’s important for leaders to understand that their preferred style may not match what their team members need. CLARITY IS A LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY Before diagnosing an issue as a performance problem, ask: Has this person succeeded in similar roles before? Does the friction feel procedural? Or does it feel more personal? Are you responding with more of what isnt working? Would this person describe your leadership the way you intend it? Do you see a pattern across multiple people you manage? Taken together, these questions help distinguish true performance gaps from leadership that’s lost in translation. Its on us as leaders to be explicit about how we lead. People should not have to figure out our leadership styles through trial and error. That clarity starts in the hiring process. I’m direct with candidates about how I lead. I even encourage them to talk with people who have worked for me to learn about my leadership style. A leadership language fit is too important to leave to assumption. It may seem like this level of transparency could limit the candidate pool or make people feel excluded, but my goal is to give them agency. My primary leadership language is servant leadership. That works wonderfully for a lot of people. But for people who want more direction and control, Im probably not the best fit. And thats okay. Better to know early on and make decisions accordingly. WHAT TO DO MONDAY MORNING Of course, no organization can have only one leadership language. There will always be mismatchesand leaders can address them with clear assessment and communication: Name your default leadership style. Be explicit about how you lead when youre not consciously adjusting. Ask your team what they need. Ask what helps them do their best work and what gets in the way. Create a simple translation guide. Note how each direct report prefers to communicate, receive feedback, and operate day to day. Revisit strained relationships. Before escalating performance concerns, have a direct conversation about working styles and expectations. Make alignment part of onboarding. Share your leadership language early and invite new hires to do the same. Small moves like these wont change who you are as a leader, but they can change how people experience your leadership. Leadership alignment is one of the most underutilized tools in building high-performing teams. You may be the worlds best leader, but that doesnt mean much unless the way you lead helps the people around you do their best work. Chris Ball is the CEO of 6sense.
Category:
E-Commerce
Monday night’s episode of The Late Show With Stephen Colbert was missing somethingan entire interview. But viewers weren’t left in the dark about whyhost Stephen Colbert told his audience that CBS didn’t air his interview with Texas state Rep. James Talarico due to concerns it could run afoul of shifting Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules. “We were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert said on the air Monday. That didn’t stop him from calling out the move in the episode and poking fun at FCC Chair Brendan Carr and CBSand it didn’t stop him from uploading the entire interview to YouTube. But the incident offers a look at how networks are responding to Trump administration pressure in the wake of ABC’s sidelining of Jimmy Kimmel for six days last fall. Shifting FCC rules According to Colbert, CBSs lawyers were acting in compliance with a recent letter from Carr about the FCC’s equal time rule. It says that a broadcast station granting airtime to a legally qualified candidate for public office must offer the same amount of time to all other candidates for the same office. The January 21 letter suggested that late-night showswhich have been exempted from the rule as bona fide news interview programs (aka, nonpartisan, regularly scheduled newscasts)no longer fit that definition and could be subject to the equal time rule. The FCC has not formally changed how it classifies late-night shows. In a statement to Fast Company, CBS said it did not prohibit the show from airing the interview, but offered legal guidance that airing it could trigger the FCC equal time rule for Talarico’s opponents in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat currently held by Republican John Cornyn. “The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled, the statement said. The Late Show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal time options. An online loophole As CBS’s statement said, The Late Shows solution was to post the interview with Talarico to its YouTube channel rather than air it live on CBS. In the interview, Colbert highlighted that Talaricos recent appearance on The View also prompted the FCC to open a probe into the daytime talk show. Do you mean to cause trouble? Colbert joked. I think that Donald Trump is worried that we’re about to flip Texas, Talarico replied. This is the party that ran against cancel culture, and now they’re trying to control what we watch, what we say, what we read. And this is the most dangerous kind of cancel culturethe kind that comes from the top. On his show Monday, Colbert pointed out that the FCCs bona fide news exemption for late night hasnt been revoked yet; Carr has merely implied he intends to eliminate it. He hasn’t done away with it yet, but my network is unilaterally enforcing it as if he had, Colbert said. That was the element of the story that caught the attention of FCC commissioner Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat at top of the agency. “CBS is fully protected under the First Amendment to determine what interviews it airs,” she wrote. “That makes its decision to yield to political pressure all the more disappointing. Corporate interests cannot justify retreating from airing newsworthy content.” The FCC did not respond to Fast Companys Tuesday afternoon request for comment by press time Tuesday evening.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||