If you are a leader in a large, corporate setting, your greatest risk is related to your youngest employees who are likely: suffering poor mental health, disengaged, and about to quit.

A recent paper from researchers at Dartmouth and the University of Glasgow found that, for workers under 25, mental health is now so poor, it is equal to or worse than those who are unemployed or disabled, and is roughly 15 points lower than those 55 or older. This despair is particularly acute for women, minorities, and those with less formal education. Additional research shows that about two thirds of Gen Zers report at least one mental health symptom, 60% are taking a psychotropic medication, and 42% have actually been diagnosed with a mental health condition. A full 85% are worried or very worried about the future.

What is causing this historically unprecedented despair among today’s youngest workers?

Within organizations themselves, the researchers see an increasingly poor work environment, with limited opportunities for autonomy, mentorship, and growth, and unprecedented micromanagement via technological surveillance, all in the face of declining wage-based buying power, declining or non-existent benefits, and reduced job security.

The paper notes that “there has been a growth in job demands and a reduction in worker job control,” and that, “employers are successfully deploying new technologies to minimize “break’ times, and exert greater control over production processes, often aided by close technological monitoring of work processes, which limit worker control and autonomy over ever-more-demanding processes.” While companies may think they are leveraging “productivity,” they are also effectively eliminating opportunities for creative thought, collaboration, innovation, problem solving, and a sense of purpose, which by definition are not “surveilable,” and, which are at the core of job satisfaction. Probably more importantly, most Gen Z employees struggle to see meaningful purpose in their work as what they do is becoming more about discreet tasks, which are rarely visibly connected to bigger picture outcomes.

Globally, young people have also gotten the worst “raw deal” of any generation since boomers’ parents and have lived their entire lives under the gloom of multiple existential threats such as climate change, a pandemic, the “great recession,” growing wealth gaps, and frighteningly divisive zero-sum politics. This has all transpired in the world of social media, which, is understood to be its own substantial threat to mental health and wellbeing[1], with both correlational and experimental research showing associations between heavy social media use and higher rates of depression, anxiety, and loneliness. Gen Zers are also suffering more than other generations from what psychiatrist Anna Lembke describes as the “physiologic distress of overabundance,” which refers to the overwhelming quantity, access, potency, and novelty of everything from food to smart phone content and apps to pornography to alcohol and other drugs. All modern humans are experiencing constant dopamine cycling, but Gen Z was born into a world of dopamine burnout, which like other factors, leads to depression and anxiety among other symptoms. And, of great significance, young people today are more removed from deep, human connection than at any time in modern history. Young people spend less time with other people, particularly in long-term relationships, than any generation alive and likely any generation in human history. As the NY Times columnist David Brooks recently noted, “you can build a culture around loving commitments, or you can build a culture around individual autonomy, but you can’t do both. Over the past six decades or so, we chose autonomy, and as a result, we have been on a collective journey from autonomy to achievement to anxiety.”

For many young workers, all of these factors are exacerbated by significant student debt, insecure housing, and an inability to achieve historical markers of “adulting” such as marrying, buying a home, and having children. In fact, in the 2025 Gen Z Home Buying report, “Nearly 1 in 3 (30%) have even thought about squatting or living in their car out of desperation [and] another third (36%) say they would consider marrying someone just to afford a home.” As for home ownership, “nearly half of Gen Z (49%) believe homeownership is so far out of reach that there’s no point in trying to save now,” while 79% believe they are simply priced out of homeownership under any circumstances.

Importantly, the Dartmouth and Glasgow researchers make it clear that while mental health is declining among youth at large, for the first time, this decline is prevalent among those who are actually employed, noting, “we have confirmed that the mental health of the young in the United States has worsened rapidly over the last decade, as reported in multiple datasets” and “we can conclude that the reason that mental despair now declines in age is because of the recent decline in the mental health of workers under the age of forty and especially those under twenty-five.”

To be clear, not all Gen Zers are struggling and some are thriving. Regardless, for those who are experiencing despair, it is not a result of some sort of defect or character flaw. They are simply facing far more headwinds than any generation in the last 100 years. They certainly do not possess an inherently less robust work ethic than their elder peers. They are simply and rightly pessimistic about the cost-benefit of a system in which there is little long-term value in sacrificing their time, effort, and wellbeing when there is currently far more cost than benefit.

So, what are employers to do?

While employers cannot control the myriad global realities contributing to the poor mental health and despair felt by so many young workers, they absolutely can control many factors in the work environment. Even ignoring altruistic motivations for creating a better, more sustainable work environment, there are profound self-serving reasons that leaders should care about supporting wellbeing among their youngest employees. First, as noted many times by Gallup, disengaged workers are extremely costly to the organizations that employ them—and employees who are feeling despair are rarely engaged. Second, the cost, both overt and covert, of replacing workers who quit is crippling, with the initial financial outlay alone usually exceeding the annual salary of the employee, and the downstream, indirect costs being potentially magnitudes greater. Third, it is becoming clear that so far AI by itself is a very poor replacement for human beings, with a recent study by MIT finding that only about 5% of current AI investments are providing a positive ROI. If you as a leader think that you can afford to drive young employees out of your organization with a low-quality work environment and simply replace them with bots, you are very likely to create expensive and even profound downstream problems for yourself. Moreover, who will fill your future mid-level and senior management if your youngest employees are disengaged, dispirited and feel no affinity toward their employer even if they stay? Who will be the source of new, innovative ideas? Who will be the foundation of any net-positive value for your organization? Who will comprise the market that buys your products and services and those of other companies in your eco-system if your employees (or former employees) are living in a distressed, hyper-fragile economic state?

These are not hypothetical questions. The future of your organization, both short and long-term, is meaningfully dependent on what happens to your Gen-Z workforce. Ignoring their distress is likely at your own peril.

[1] Social media is designed to generate comparisons of a user’s real life to false, curated lives as well as to feel a general sense of inadequacy and repeating cycles of dopamine highs and lows, which drives behavior that is beneficial to social media companies.

Image credit: KScott30

It is clear that the frequency of estrangement among family members has increased fairly significantly over the last few decades, with one in four people currently reporting being estranged from at least one other family member (Recek, et. al., 2023).

There are a number of reasons for this, including:

• Changing Social Norms: Modern society places greater emphasis on individual autonomy and personal boundaries. This can lead individuals to prioritize their mental health and emotional well-being, sometimes at the expense of maintaining challenging or toxic family relationships.
• Generational Differences: Differences in values, beliefs, and lifestyles between generations—such as attitudes toward gender roles, sexuality, and politics—can result in misunderstandings and conflict, sometimes culminating in estrangement. Moreover, Millennials and Gen-Zers are simply less willing to “endure” family dysfunction.
• Mental Health Awareness: Increased awareness and dialogue around issues like narcissism, emotional abuse, and trauma have empowered individuals to recognize and act on harmful family dynamics.
• Socioeconomic Factors: Financial stress and generational economic inequalities within families can also contribute to breakdowns in relationships.
• Technology and Communication: While technology can bridge distances, it can also facilitate avoidance or escalate conflicts through miscommunication or social media disputes. Social media also frequently validates the choice to cut off contact with “toxic” people.

So, while there may be good reasons for eliminating contact with parents, siblings, or other family members, there are also potentially significant downsides. To be clear, it is not healthy to continue to engage with anyone who is abusive or significantly compromises one’s mental health and, in those cases, ceasing all contact may be the best choice. Moreover, in the past, due to different social norms and limited options, many people stayed in relationship with other people, even though they were truly miserable, frightened, demeaned, etc. That was not desirable then and it isn’t desirable now.

On the other hand, it appears that many people are currently choosing to completely cut off all contact with family members for transgressions and relational mistakes, that, while potentially significant, may not be justification for completely ending the relationship. Even when a parent, child, sibling or other family member can be profoundly challenging, often as a result of their own unresolved family of origin and other mental health issues, estrangement is a “nuclear” option that also results in its own set of problems and lost opportunities.

For example, even dysfunctional families and family relationships are often a source of refuge and human connection in a world of intense ambiguity and uncertainty. In other words, a parent may drive a child crazy, but there is often a bond with that parent that cannot be easily replicated via other relationships. When one completely breaks those ties we not only lose our connection to family identity and support, we experience relational loss and often the grief that accompanies that loss. And the people we leave behind also typically feel emotional distress and loss. In fact, in my practice, some of the most intense grief I see is felt by parents who have lost access to their adult children. Importantly, by definition, both parties end up grieving in isolation, rather than as a shared experience. Of course, to clarify again, if someone is being harmed, the abuser’s wellbeing is not the responsibility of the abused. I am referring to situations that, while distressing and even infuriating, may not justify the “nuclear” option which could result in a cure that may be worse than the disease.

Additionally, once the ties are cut, from that point on, estranged individuals experience all life events, good and bad, without being able to celebrate or navigate those events with those who are estranged. As a result, family narratives and histories fundamentally change, not just in the moment, but intergenerationally. Marriages, births, deaths, moves, new jobs, and other meaningful events occur as unshared markers of one’s life journey that become memorialized in the context of estrangement. This often leads to some level of regret even when there have also been benefits from separation.

Of equal significance, estrangement precludes opportunity for relational repair (and the growth that comes from that) and further impacts the individuals involved whose identities and self-perceptions now include the notion of unresolvable conflict and a “failed relationship.”

And, unfortunately, recent research shows that family estrangement is significantly associated with lower life satisfaction and higher levels of depression among those who are estranged (Hank, 2024). In other words, while estrangement may by motivated by a desire to improve mental health, in some cases it may achieve the opposite.

So, what are some alternatives to estrangement?

Often, a decision to break ties with a family member happens “in the heat of the moment” as part of some relational rupture. Although understandable from an emotional perspective, these decisions can be relatively impulsive even when the hurt is deep and real, and even when there have been repeated similar situations in the past. In other words, we are more likely to choose the nuclear option when we are the most emotionally activated.

If we can manage to avoid or even forestall a full relational break to begin with, there are a number of options that can provide relief and safety from genuine relational stressors without ending the relationship including:

• Mediation and Therapy: Professional support through family counseling, mediation, or therapy can provide tools for conflict resolution and healing. This can be incredibly valuable because it can facilitate communication and resolution in a less triggering environment with a third person who is not emotionally invested in the relationship nor personally affected by its challenges.
• Boundary Setting: In most cases, one can set many potential boundaries short of estrangement while maintaining some level of contact even if the relationship changes. This process can also be facilitated in a therapeutic setting.
• Changing the Relationship: In some cases it may be possible to redefine a relationship, even in fundamental ways, that allows for some level of contact at much lower risk.
• Shared Healing: Over time, with the buffer of boundaries, a commitment to repairing previous ruptures can move the relationship toward greater functionality and reward, strengthening ties and obviating the need for some boundaries.

In short, while there are situations in which cutting all ties with a family member is a preferable option, estrangement presents its own challenges and psychological distress. Moreover, once there is no contact or interaction in a relationship, life gets lived in the context of estrangement rather than connection, and downstream changes in both individuals and their families are often difficult to unwind. Additionally, the presence of loss, grief and regret can be as distressing as the relationship was before the ties were cut and depression may even be worse. As such, it is important to be extremely judicious before choosing the nuclear option, particularly when other options may be acceptable and even desirable. Sometimes even significant relational discomfort is ultimately preferable to the discomfort of no relationship at all.

A Note on Reconciliation

In most cases, reconciliation after estrangement is actually possible, particularly if both parties are willing to reconcile with an eye toward a revised relationship and reconnecting is actually safe. This can happen even when there has been zero contact over a period of time, or, if there has been contact, but it has been “negative.” Most humans would rather be in relationship with family members than not. We are evolutionarily hard wired for that connection. While some people reconcile on their own, it is often very helpful to have the effort facilitated by a therapist because many of the land mines that led to estrangement in the first place still exist and can trip up even well-meaning family members trying to rebuild connection.

References

Hank, K. (2024). Emerging Ideas. Family estrangement and its association with life satisfaction and depressiveness in adulthood. Family Relations, 73(5), 2937–2944. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.13063

Reczek, R., Stacey, L., & Thomeer, M. B. (2023). Parent–adult child estrangement in the United States by gender, race/ethnicity, and sexuality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 85(2), 494-517.

Image credit: burodenelzen.nl

We know from observational and experimental research, and brain imaging, that EMDR decreases activity in areas of the brain that are typically disrupted by traumatic stress such as the thalamus, hypothalamus, amygdala, and caudate nucleus, all of which are located in the interior regions of the brain, and all of which are involved in emotion, fear response, sleep, and memory, and in the case of the caudate nucleus, also influence motor control. We also know that EMDR activates activity in hippocampal and higher cortical areas of the brain related to problem solving, analysis, memory processing, and meaning-making. This combination of effects appears to recalibrate brain function, returning it to a state that is closer to what we would see pre-trauma—and the effects are lasting.[1]

EMDR theory itself labels what is happening in the brain during therapy as Adaptive Information Processing (AIP), which it is believed is directly related to be generated by bilaterial stimulation (BLS). Initially, BLS was achieved through eye movement, which is usually considered to be preferable if possible, but is often now achieved through other means as well such as bilateral tapping, buzzers, alternating sounds, etc.

Imaging Studies

There are numerous imaging studies (fMRI, EEG, SPECT, MRI) for EMDR, showing that it changes brain activity and structure, reducing hyperactivity in fear centers like the amygdala and increasing activity in frontal regions, which helps process traumatic memories by normalizing brain networks involved in emotion regulation and memory consolidation. These studies reveal that EMDR normalizes the hippocampus and amygdala function supporting its effectiveness for PTSD. 

Types of Imaging Used

• fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging): Shows changes in brain activity and blood flow during tasks, revealing reduced amygdala response and increased prefrontal cortex activity after EMDR.
• SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography): Used to observe regional cerebral blood flow, showing patterns of activation in areas like the anterior cingulate gyrus and thalamus after treatment.
• EEG (Electroencephalography): Measures electrical activity, showing shifts in brain activation from emotional to more integrated areas during EMDR sessions, correlating with symptom improvement.
• MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging):Used for structural analysis, though changes in volume (like the hippocampus) might take longer to appear. 

Key Findings

• Amygdala & Fear Response: EMDR reduces the exaggerated response of the amygdala (the brain’s fear center) to trauma cues.
• Prefrontal and Dorsolateral Cortices (PFC and DLC) Activation: Increases activity in the PFC and DLC, which helps with emotion regulation, higher cognitive functions, and executive control.
• Hippocampal Function: Helps normalize the hippocampus, a key memory structure often affected in PTSD.
• Memory Reprocessing: Imaging suggests EMDR helps move traumatic memories from limbic (emotional) areas to neocortical (semantic/narrative) networks, integrating them better. (This may partially explain how trauma memories and sensations become less intense and acute after EMDR treatment).
• REM Sleep: Sleep studies show that REM sleep improves after EMDR treatment.
• Attention: Executive function and increased ability to focus, particularly over time, improve after EMDR treatment. (This is likely a combination of decrease in threat response networks and increase in neocortical activity).

Conclusion
Neuroimaging studies and other research provide biological evidence that EMDR therapy is far more than a psychological technique; it induces real, measurable changes in brain function and structure, helping to desensitize and reprocess (EMDR) traumatic memories for better neurocognitive and mental health outcomes.

References

de Jongh, A., de Roos, C., & El-Leithy, S. (2024). State of the science: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 37, 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.23012

P.F. Rousseau, M. El Khoury-Malhame, E. Reynaud, X. Zendjidjian, J.C. Samuelian, S. Khalfa, Neurobiological correlates of EMDR therapy effect in PTSD, European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, Volume 3, Issue 2, 2019, Pages 103-111, ISSN 2468-7499, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2018.07.001

[1] While this brief article focuses on trauma, there is expansive, peer-reviewed research that also validates EMDR for treatment of depression, anxiety, addiction, ODC, and other mental health symptoms/conditions.

In popular culture, and even in therapeutic environments, we frequently refer to emotions and feelings as “positive” and “negative.” This is natural because some emotions feel better than others and some frankly feel really uncomfortable. However, although it’s natural to categorize emotions that way, it actually gets in the way of psychological health—and healing when emotions are connected to psychic wounds.

This polemic labeling of emotions creates two significant problems for our mental health. One substantial downside is that when we identify an emotion or feeling as “negative,” our natural response is to avoid or resist or suppress it because it is a “bad” emotion. The second, noteworthy problem, is that the very act of labeling the emotion as “bad” or “negative,” whether or not we avoid it, tends to result in more stress and diminished psychological wellbeing. One peer reviewed study from 2023 found that “negative judgments of negative emotions were uniquely associated with worse psychological health concurrently and prospectively.” While it may seem counter-intuitive to embrace difficult or uncomfortable feelings, part of being an evolved, emotionally healthy human being, is to have access to a broad palate of feelings that reflect the reality of life experiences—and to feel and express the emotions that make sense in given circumstances. In fact, research over the last 15 years makes it clear that acceptance, without judgment, of unpleasant or difficult emotions is actually necessary for psychological health and wellbeing, because it mitigates avoidance, it normalizes the experience, and it shortens the duration of emotional distress.

Unfortunately, because we label emotions as positive and negative, we are biased toward honoring and welcoming emotions that feel good, while short-changing, judging, or actively avoiding emotions that are uncomfortable. A recent report from Cornell University found that “labeling emotions as ‘bad’ contributes to our negative feelings, making us feel even worse.” In other words, the nature of the emotion is not predictive for our psychological wellbeing. However, how we feel about (meta-emotion) and label the emotion is predictive for our psychological health. Our propensity to label difficult emotions as “negative” is, in itself, bad for us!

Avoidance is particularly pernicious. As a client once presciently said, “When we bury emotions, we bury them alive.” Not only do they not go away just because we buried them, they often “Zombify” and eventually crawl to the surface as different/more intense emotions than when they were suppressed, frequently in a dysregulated state. Over time, they might also manifest psychogenically as migraines or gastrointestinal symptoms or addiction or even autoimmune disorders among many other “medical” conditions. To paraphrase the comedian Bill Burr from one of his comedic bits, “I’m not old enough to die, but I’m emotionally repressed enough to drop dead of a heart attack.”

At least as importantly, when we in some way avoid, diminish, or pejoratively judge emotions because they are “negative,” we fail to experience life as it actually is, while living inauthentically. Moreover, we can short circuit human connection and psychological healing when we interact and behave from a place of denial. Additionally, the very act of pushing back against or avoiding an uncomfortable feeling can intensify the discomfort we feel. A Buddhist perspective on this dynamic suggests that the difference between pain and suffering is resistance, so although our avoidance may be well intentioned, as the Cornell report noted, it can actually make us feel worse! A possibly more compelling argument for letting in difficult emotions is that it is the variety of emotion that gives meaning and texture to lived experience—to our quality of life. Without occasional despair, we can’t appreciate the wonder of joy. Moreover, the dialectical nature of life makes it possible to be simultaneously sad and grateful or to feel love for someone who has hurt us. It is that complexity and nuance that is often at the heart of humanity itself, but only if we embrace all emotion.

It is also likely that, similar to physical pain and discomfort, we actually need to acknowledge and feel psychic discomfort, which serves as a warning that something is not right or safe or healthy in our lives.

Of note, the importance of accepting and feeling a broad palate of emotions does not negate the value of “positive thinking” and certainly doesn’t negate the value of a positive attitude, which research clearly shows often results in choices and behaviors that support desired, positive outcomes. However, it is important that positive thinking doesn’t manifest as purposeful avoidance of unpleasant feelings. Positive thinking and acceptance of difficult emotions can co-exist.

So, why do we label emotions the way we do?

As noted previously, one obvious answer is that some emotions feel better or worse than others, so we associate those feelings with positive and negative, but that explanation is not sufficient. More importantly, Western psychology has led us to fear many of the emotions that are part of being human via the idea that we have to immediately intervene when we are feeling difficult emotions or symptoms—that we have to quickly apply “tools” so we will feel better. More pernicious is the psychiatric/diagnostic lens we use to label symptoms and emotions as pathological rather than natural, normal human feelings under given circumstances. For example, if someone is feeling intense grief related to a significant loss for more than a year (with some other criteria), the DSM 5 (Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association), labels that “Prolonged Grief Disorder, when the grief may be totally appropriate—and which is a very personal, individual process regardless. Other examples relate to anxiety, depression, anger, insecurity, sexual desire, etc.

What might be an alternative way to label emotions?

Rather than the highly judgmental classification of positive and negative, we might refer to emotions as pleasant and unpleasant (but necessary), or intense or less intense, regardless of the emotion. Maybe we simply remove the polemic all together and refer to emotions as diverse or varied or insightful, none of which are good or bad, but all of which reflect possible ways of feeling if we’re just paying attention!

One metaphor for thinking about the power, and adaptiveness, of all human emotions, is to think about artwork with paint or markers or crayons. The smaller the palate of colors, the less complex the hues of the artwork. What one can create (and express) with four colors is vastly different than 12 colors or 32 colors.

It’s clear that judging and avoiding emotions can be detrimental, but what are some overt benefits of embracing difficult emotions?

1. Emotional Awareness/Intelligence: Recognizing and accepting “negative” emotions can lead to greater emotional awareness and intra and interpersonal intelligence. This awareness helps individuals understand their feelings and the underlying causes, promoting personal growth and greater understanding of others.
2. Better Mental Health: Studies indicate that judging certain emotions as negative/inappropriate can lead to diminished psychological health. Accepting these feelings, rather than suppressing them, is linked to better psychological outcomes.
3. Effective Coping: Accepting and feeling unpleasant emotions can motivate individuals to make necessary changes in their lives.
4. Quality of Life: Embracing the wide variety of emotions open to us, including those that don’t “feel good,” connects us to our humanity as emotionally evolved and well-balanced humans, whose life experience is nuanced and full.

In summary, we don’t have to like or enjoy all emotions. But it is important, if not essential, to create space for all the things we feel, especially the misnomer of “negative” emotions, because that is where we typically hold distress, injury, loss, etc., and those are the feelings that are most likely to become toxic or dysregulated when they are suppressed and later reappear. When we can sit with, name, and validate those sometimes unpleasant feelings, we support emotional growth and alignment between what we are experiencing and what we are feeling—and a nice benefit is that we are likely to feel discomfort for shorter durations. Moreover, when our experiences include being wounded, honoring these emotions is also typically an important part of healing.

So, let’s stop referring to emotions as positive and negative and honor all of them as foundational for psychological health and the gift of a full human experience.

A Note about Children

We begin socializing children toward this idea that some emotions are not okay or acceptable very early in life. We discourage the open display of “negative” emotions and even go so far as to say things like “there’s nothing to be scared of” and isolating or punishing children when they act out in anger. We also often try to shut down displays of sadness and crying. This not only sets children up for an unhealthy relationship with feelings as adolescents and adults, it misses a crucial opportunity for learning social-emotional and executive functioning skills. Naming, validating, and processing difficult emotions as children results in regulated and affectively skillful adolescents and adults. And when that doesn’t happen, they end up in my office struggling to navigate intra and interpersonal issues across all domains of their lives.

References

Ford, B. Q., Lam, P., John, O. P., & Mauss, I. B. (2018). The psychological health benefits of accepting negative emotions and thoughts: Laboratory, diary, and longitudinal evidence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 115(6), 1075–1092. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000157

Hall, S. (2023, May 24). Why it’s important to accept negative emotions. Evidence-Based Living. Cornell University. https://evidencebasedliving.human.cornell.edu/blog/why-its-important-to-accept-negative-emotions/

Willroth, E. C., Young, G., Tamir, M., & Mauss, I. B. (2023). Judging emotions as good or bad: Individual differences and associations with psychological health. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 23(7), 1876–1890. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001220

Image Credit: Kassandra Estrada

I work with couples as part of my practice as a psychotherapist and based on that experience as well as what I’ve learned from other therapists, training, and my own personal experience, I’ve come to understand some things that likely apply to most relationships.

First, relationships can survive some very intense and distressing problems if both partners actually want it to survive—and they act in good faith, i.e., no hidden agendas, they have a resolution orientation, they don’t want to hurt the other person, etc. That sounds like stating the obvious, but that is frequently something partners haven’t fully explored yet. The reverse is also true. Relationships can be ended by even mild challenges if either or both partners don’t want it to survive. The viability of relationships is less about the specific issues that partners are dealing with, although some are certainly more disruptive than others; it’s about the extent to which they believe they’re better off in the relationship than out of it, and whether or not there is something solid to build on.

Here are some of my observations, in no particular order.

• Couples therapy is often not initially about saving a relationship. It’s about finding the clarity to determine if being in the relationship is preferable to being out of it. Then, if both partners prefer to be in the relationship, therapy can help to make that union more rewarding and sustainable.
• Some of the most overwhelming challenges in a relationship are not actually about the relationship. They are about what each individual brings to the relationship from to their own personal history and mental health journey.
• Sometimes one partner brings the other partner to couples therapy to “fix them” or in hopes that the therapist will side with them. That is rarely a productive place to start.
• Sometimes people leave or end relationships that are “better” for them than the alternative and sometimes people stay in relationships that are harmful because they fear being alone more than they fear being hurt. Both cases reflect an inability to accurately compare the status quo to an alternative.
• Our deep, human need for intimate, relational connection underlies both the joy and the pain of romantic partnerships.
• Getting ourselves or someone else to change small behaviors is often possible. Changing who someone else is, is rarely possible, and even when it happens, is hard to sustain.
• When we can commit to hearing/understanding our partner, we are more likely to be able to accept who they are. Sometimes this requires temporarily subordinating our own need to be heard/understood.
• Relatedly, acceptance of who someone is, although hard, rather than trying to change them, is usually much more productive and less exhausting. It can even lead us to understand things about the other person that are endearing or uniquely valuable.
• Changing ourselves, even in profound ways, is possible when the desire for change is greater than the inertia of the status quo. This may simply mean that the perceived benefit of a change outweighs the benefit of not changing or the pain of the status quo becomes greater than the pain of change.
• The relationship has to be worth the effort. Sustaining romantic partnerships is usually hard work, with moments and periods that don’t feel very rewarding. In order to do the work, partners have to believe the relationship itself is worth it.
• Partners are not the same people with the same needs over time. Sometimes relationships last because they also change.
• It’s very hard to resolve difficult problems when partners are exhausted, or mad at each other or hurt. Exhaustion and anger get in the way of compassion and understanding. Sometimes, relational work requires cooling off periods.
• Sometimes ultimatums work, but they can be high risk. The partner giving the ultimatum has to be prepared to walk away if the other partner doesn’t capitulate. It’s not a good idea to “fake” an ultimatum.
• Upset partners can solve problems; partners who no longer care typically don’t have the necessary motivation to solve problems.
• Resolution is not worth loss of identity, dignity, or agency. It’s usually temporary and leads to resentment anyway.
• Many things are possible when partners act in good faith. On the contrary, hidden agendas and manipulation sabotage connection.
• Relationships can even survive fury if the fury is about what someone did rather than who the person is.
• Relatedly, contemptuous, personal attacks are toxic to relationships (see Gottman’s Four Horsemen)
• Relationships flourish when partners engage in conflicts with a genuine desire to achieve resolution rather than to “win.” The problem with winning is that, by definition, there is a loser, and that is not good for the relationship.
• Attachment style matters. When one partner is anxious and the other is avoidant, even if the relationship lasts, it will typically be filled with dissonance and distress.
• Similarly, genuine personality disorders on the part of one partner (narcissism, anti-social, borderline) may be survivable by the other partner, but often at great personal cost.
• Not all problems are created equal. Some “nuts and bolts” problems might never be solved and the relationship can still be okay. Problems related to intimacy and compatibility, however, if left unresolved, might be insurmountable.
• All relationships have conflict (and if they don’t, there is probably avoidance). Conflict is fine. It can even be an opportunity for growth. Conflict without healthy resolution is a problem.
• All relationships will experience some level of “rupture” to connection and intimacy. Fortunately, they can survive even severe rupture if the partners are capable of repair after the rupture.
• Some problems don’t merit being “resolved.” No partner should endure abuse in order to “work on” a relationship.
• Romantic partnerships can survive in the absence of physical intimacy, but they tend to evolve into something other than romantic partnerships.
• Hetero relationships benefit from being socially sanctioned. They are not easier to manage, but they can be fully open in all situations.
• Not all feelings are equal. Anger, frustration, and even despair don’t feel good, but resentment, envy, and jealousy are corrosive.
• Sex matters. In romantic, monogamous relationships, sexual exclusivity often defines what makes the bond unique or sacred.
• Relational skills matter, but they matter less than kindness, empathy, compassion, intimacy, and good faith.
• “Trust issues” sabotage relationships because they sabotage intimacy.
• When one partner takes an emotional risk (is vulnerable) and receives a supportive response, the relational bond deepens. However, when vulnerability is met with dismissal or indifference (or worse), it doesn’t simply leave things unchanged—it actively harms the relationship.
• Sometimes the most important thing a partner can do is temporarily subordinate their needs to the other partner.
• Relational success isn’t necessarily about longevity. Sometimes it’s about skillfully and kindly ending a relationship.

Of course, the items above comprise a partial list of what I’ve learned, and an even smaller list of what there is to know overall about relationships. While working with couples, I’ve seen a wide variety of issues and approaches in relationships that contribute to my observations above. Also, most of the adult individuals I work with bring relational issues into individual counseling as well. Human connection really matters to us!

I’ve seen wonderful, inspiring things happen in relationships. I’ve seen people behave well and badly. I’ve seen relationships end. And I’ve flat out told individuals that they are abusing their partner and that I can’t work with them as a couple as long as the abuse continues (while providing resources and advocacy for the abused partner).

Working with couples (and individuals as well) is a privilege. Being invited into the inner sanctum of intimate relationships is something most people rarely experience and a powerful way to learn about people and how they relate to one another. One other thing I’ve learned is that we humans are capable of deep, deep love for others. We are capable of compromise and sacrifice. And we can love, lose, and love again. At any age and under any circumstances.

Photo credit: villagenetwork.org

As parents, we will make a whole lot of mistakes before the parenting journey is done. And the journey is never really done; it just changes.

In my experience working with parents and children, both in educational settings and as a psychotherapist, it has become clear that many different parenting styles and choices can be “successful” if the goal is to produce healthy, well-adjusted adults. In fact, if we do certain things well most of the time, we can do other things not-so-well and still support our children on the road to being well-functioning adults.

Of all the things we have to do such as keep them safe and feed them well and teach them skills, when all is said and done, there are two things we cannot mess up if we want our children to experience overall well being, be able to form and maintain good relationships, and engage life with confidence and self-esteem as emotionally evolved, resilient and healthy humans.

The first thing we have to get right is that we can’t make our children surrender authenticity for acceptance. From the day they are born, they are assessing whether or not our love and acceptance are contingent upon them being a certain way or behaving in certain ways. If they are forced to sacrifice what they think, how they feel, what they value, who they are, etc. in order to be accepted, they will often grow into adults who struggle mightily with low self-esteem and even shame, having learned that “I don’t matter enough to be accepted as I am.” As children who have been forced to sacrifice authenticity, they may appear compliant and low maintenance, but that is typically related to coping rather than being well-adjusted.

The second thing we have to get right is attachment. This is a powerful psychological concept based on how, as children, we bond to key caregivers, which are often, but don’t have to be, parents. This article does not afford the space to go into significant detail, but in short, as children (and later as adults) we form emotional/relational bonds that are broadly secure or insecure. Children with secure attachment feel protected and safe and that they can depend on the caregiver. Insecure attachment is typically subdivided into three additional styles: anxious/ambivalent, avoidant, and disorganized, which is basically a combination of anxious and avoidant. Insecure attachment leads to a host of relational problems and behaviors, both as children and later in life.

We support secure attachment in our children simply by consistently meeting their emotional and physical needs in a responsive, nurturing environment. A bonus is that when we validate authenticity, we also support secure attachment, which leads to better emotion regulation, independence, self-esteem, appropriate risk taking, and social skills among other benefits. In essence, we support secure attachment as parents by being a secure and dependable base from which children can explore and return to for reassurance. Providing reasonable, logical boundaries can also support a sense of safety for children. However, any discipline that results in a child feeling physical pain or bad or humiliated about him/her/themself rather than evaluating what they did, can result in long term, negative outcomes. Pain can modify behavior, but when it is caused by an adult that is supposed to be the source of safety and unconditional love, it is profoundly confusing and hurtful to a child. In fact, it can even be traumatizing.

Importantly, meeting children’s needs does NOT make them dependent or “needy.” In fact, the research is clear that children who develop secure attachment through having their needs consistently met, become much more independent and self-sufficient as adolescents and adults. Moreover, such independence and confidence are further supported by consistent opportunities to exercise autonomy and explore without adult intervention.

I estimate that 70 or 80 percent of the adult clients I see are dealing with downstream effects of having had to sacrifice authenticity for acceptance or insecure attachment or both. I hear things like, “I wasn’t coddled and I got physically punished, but I turned out okay.” Except that they are in counseling because they can’t maintain relationships or they feel intense lack of worthiness or are struggling with anxiety, etc.

Fortunately, adults can heal at some level from almost anything, but everyone is better off if the work they have to do as adults is around the edges rather than rebuilding after neglect or abuse or other forms of trauma and the resulting shame, deep sense of inadequacy, anxiety, depression, insecure attachment and other symptoms they have carried with them from childhood. We can avoid that for our own children by committing to validating authenticity without conditions and supporting secure attachment. Our kids will survive a host of our other mistakes if we get those two things right.

Graphic credit: weekplan.com

The new, 2025 Microsoft Work Index report was released a couple of weeks ago and two major themes are 1) a growing shift toward AI enhanced work, and 2), something Microsoft has coined the “infinite workday.” This blog will address the second point.

Unlike other research related to the workforce, in addition to surveying workers, Microsoft is able to vacuum up billions of data points from real time use of its Microsoft 365 office apps. In other words, rather than just asking workers how they spend their day, this data tracks, at a microscopic level, what people are actually doing. Although the data is anonymized, it’s also a little creepy that your largest tech vendor is watching your every move.

Probably the most compelling finding of the research is that the workday literally never ends. That has been an anecdotal feeling for a long time, but the MS data shows that the average worker sends and receives 50 or more messages per day outside of normal business hours and over half of “meetings” aren’t on an already full calendar; they happen spontaneously. As the report’s authors note, “The modern workday has no clear start or finish,” with robust use of MS 365 apps beginning at 6 am or earlier and a surprising number of meetings happening after 8 pm, with nearly a third of workers checking email again by 10 pm. This is also likely influenced by workers across global geographies and remote work.

Another disturbing finding is that regardless of when work is happening, it is a non-stop, chaotic flurry of interruptions, with workers being pinged by some MS app every 105 seconds, or nearly 300 times in a typical eight hour “workday.” Keep in mind that this only includes apps that Microsoft can track. As the report aptly notes, for many people, work is as much about “navigating chaos” as it is about actually doing something productive and coherent. The MS study also finds that the timing of interruptions, particularly via messages and meetings, spikes when people are most likely to be productive. For example, email and Teams messages, as well as meetings, spike from mid to late morning, precisely when most people have the greatest energy and focus. In other words, workers are using the highest performance part of the day to deal with massive volumes of messages and meetings rather than on things that truly bring value. One fascinating data point reveals that editing of PowerPoint slides spikes 122% in the ten minutes before scheduled meetings. This suggests that the tsunami of digital noise in the days and hours leading up to presentations prevents workers from dedicating necessary focus to what they are going to present, resulting in a last-minute scramble.

Interestingly, other recent research by Gallup has found the lowest level of worker engagement in over a decade. Although that surely has something to do with poor management, lack of trust and purpose, and other culturally related issues, it is almost certainly also related to the fact that the nature of the workday itself likely makes purposeful engagement extremely difficult. It would appear that technology has taken a cultural value that places more importance on being busy than being productive and turbo charged it to ridiculous levels. Based on the MS research, focus on any one task for more than a couple of minutes is a mirage, both due to constant interruption and the fact that just “navigating the chaos” sucks huge amounts of any individual’s bandwidth, leaving little left for truly thoughtful, meaningful, and coherent work.

This reality is not just a “wow, that’s crazy” phenomenon. Because we know that employee engagement is essential to organizational success, leaders must very intentionally address the out of control and fragmenting demands on worker attention created by the modern workplace. If you want your people doing work that actually matters and that results in meaningful outcomes, part of your job is protecting them from what the Microsoft report calls overwhelming “digital noise” that “hijacks” focus and productivity. This is fascinating coming from the company that sells the tools that are being used to support busyness, but not necessarily engagement and quality work.

Several years ago I wrote a book about leadership based on my, at that time, 20 years of experience as a senior executive. There was and is some good stuff in that book. It’s also true that more has changed in the last five years, than in that first twenty.

What have I learned—or figured out—since then? A lot. Here are ten things.

1. Leadership is more about people than it is about anything else. Period.
2. Empowerment creates far greater success than control does.
3. You have more choice when it comes to doing things that don’t feel right to you than you think you do. And if you don’t, you’re not in the right place.
4. Doing the right thing is based on values, not rules or policy.
5. Long term effectiveness as a leader is about influence and relationship, not positional authority.
6. You will win over more people with authenticity than certainty.
7. Vulnerability is not weakness. It is self-aware courage.
8. The most important thing you can provide a team is psychological safety.
9. Risk is unavoidable. Embrace it. How you approach risk can be the difference between paralysis and competitive advantage.
10. Leadership affords privilege. Make it about service.

And a bonus learning: People you are accountable to (other executives, owners, boards, trustees, investors) are sometimes wrong. They are typically siloed with limited perspective and narrow ideas of “success.” This may be one of leadership’s greatest challenges: influencing those with more “power” or resources than you have to pursue a path that is more in their interest, but that they cannot yet see.