Humans have been discussing some version of “happiness” at least since the 4th century BCE, although Aristotle wisely framed it as living a good life or living well, which, to him, meant being true to a set of values and virtues that made both the individual and those around him better off. He referred to this as “eudaemonia.” It’s not known if Aristotle actually created the word, but it roughly translates to pursuing the best conditions possible for a life worth living. Importantly, this concept was not about personal reward, although one might feel that, but rather about creating a better life for the collective good. Surprisingly, even in the 4^th Century BCE, Aristotle’s writings implied that he understood that achieving eudaemonia required some level of privilege or even luck. Today we might refer to this as “living with purpose or meaning.”

Interestingly, this notion of happiness being connected in some way to virtuosity and the greater good was preserved for well over a millennium, up through the Enlightenment as multiple philosophers described “happiness,” which didn’t show up in the English language until the 15^th century, AD, as still connected to alignment between virtuous behavior and the collective good, with “happiness” being a reward for such values and behavior.

Post-enlightenment, happiness, or at least the pursuit of happiness, began to be seen as a “right.” However, it was still primarily focused on civic benefit rather personal happiness at the expense of others. It was not until the 19^th century that happiness began to be seen as a personal pursuit or even an emotion. This came just in time for the industrial revolution, which put capitalism in overdrive, and accelerated the shift in happiness from “eudaemonia” to something much more self-focused and materialistic. This trend continued through the latter part of the 20^th century until the classical notion of happiness had been obliterated and replaced with individualistic pursuits of pleasure, wealth, and materialism. The combination of zero-sum capitalism and, in the 21^st century, social media, put the nail in the coffin for anything society-wide resembling happiness as virtuosity for civic benefit and the greater good. Some refer to zero sum capitalism as “late stage” capitalism, but either way, it refers to a state in which fewer and fewer people actually benefit from that economic system and collective benefit has been structurally weaned out of the model. It drives notions of “happiness” that are less and less attainable and unfulfilling even when they are attained.

So… this is why the pursuit of happiness, as it is understood today, is probably not the best way to go if we want to “feel good” or have a life worth living. Extensive research on what drives a sense of well being in life clearly shows that beyond basic means, it is not connected to wealth and certainly not connected to acquisition of materialistic possessions. It is not connected to professional status or power. The most important variable for flourishing in life is human connection (in particular feeling loved and that we matter), followed closely by having purpose and meaning in life. As such, rather than dedicating ourselves to the pursuit of self-referential happiness, which even when we achieve it, is temporary and fleeting, it probably makes much more sense to dedicate ourselves to supporting relationships and choosing actions that give us purpose and meaning in our lives, which, by the way, are likely to benefit others as well. Aristotle was on to something.

Image Credit: sacredmysticaljourneys.com

Most of “modern” management theory, going back to the industrial revolution, has been about “controlling” employees—controlling their activity, time, access to information, productivity, etc. Even more recent concepts such as “management by objectives,” “performance management,” and even Six Sigma, were about maximizing the value an employee brought to their employer through their labor by optimizing use of resources, time, information, process, etc. More importantly, these approaches are based on the notion that someone in an organizational hierarchy “knows better” than the employee, and therefore must closely manage the employee’s efforts based on some management protocol. And, relatedly, in these models, the employee’s input is not particularly valued. The hierarchical organizational structure that drives these top-down approaches to management, has existed, with little significant evolution, since the turn of the last century. The only significant change has been related to flattening the hierarchy while preserving a less vertical chain of command—and that is frequently more about cost than about distributing power.

Now that we are operating in a world that is not only defined by constant change, but also by tectonic instability, neither the hierarchical leadership model nor the discounting of insight, perspective, knowledge, and experience of those “lower” in the hierarchy is sustainable. Even if the vertical model of control could operate quickly enough—and it can’t—the narrow, siloed perspective of those “at the top,” is wholly inadequate for the kinds of difficult, rapid, risk-based decisions and actions required in the current environment.

The answer is what I call Radical Autonomy. The current reality is so volatile, ambiguous, complex, and uncertain, that traditional leadership structures are simply unworkable. And a key point here, is that radical autonomy requires a shift from management and traditional power-based leadership to leadership in which success is achieved through others who are empowered to operate with “radical” levels of autonomy. In this model, most of a leader’s efforts are directed toward ensuring that others have the resources, support, information, skills, and freedom, to innovate, create value, and solve problems in a culture that honors psychological safety, collaboration, risk-taking, tolerance for ambiguity, freedom to fail, agility, purpose and entrepreneurship.  In short, the leader’s primary responsibility is to leverage fully engaged human capital as his/her/their greatest competitive advantage and as a hedge against rapid change and instability. This organizational structure for radical autonomy is neither hierarchical no flat, but “fluid,” which is based on competence, shared interest, collaboration, engagement, radical autonomy, and desired outcomes. It is not based on seniority, title, or even expertise. While radical autonomy at least initially introduces additional risk, sticking with traditional hierarchy represents existential threat.

Of course, neither leaders, nor those they lead, can switch from a highly controlled environment to radical autonomy overnight. Such a shift requires a purposeful, thoughtful campaign in which all parties can learn to think and operate differently. The Transformation Collaborative™ can support such a process through our Leadership Discovery program and our “vested partner” approach to helping organizations reinvent themselves.

Higher education continues to find itself in a palpable crisis of leadership in at least two ways. First, we are seeing a significant loss of continuity as more and more college presidents go through revolving doors. Second, regardless of how long they are in the role, very few actually have the skills, traits, temperament, etc. for the role as it exists now. Presidents and chancellors whose preparation and competence may have been adequate 20 years ago, and certainly 30 years ago, find themselves thoroughly unprepared for what they are facing today. One outcome of course, is simply that they are out of the job much more quickly and thus unable to make an impact regardless of their intentions.

Depending on whose recent numbers you use, the average college president tenure has fallen from about a decade to either 5.9 years (American Council on Education) or 4.5 years (the Chronicle of Higher Education). However, even the lower Chronicle number overstates the average tenure because it purposely excludes presidents who stepped down for reasons the Chronicle could not identify, what they call “job hoppers,” and interim roles (which were caused by turnover). Although it’s difficult to land on an exact number, the average tenure, including all presidents in all sectors of higher education, leaving for all reasons, is probably closer to three plus years.

So, what’s going on?

First of all, in some cases, presidents are doomed by governance structures, political realities, and strategic and operational challenges that almost no one could survive. Many colleges are now rife with highly politicized and inflexible camps embodied in faculty, students, alumni, boards, unions, legislatures, and even outside groups that actually have nothing to do with the institution itself. In many cases these groups are motivated by narrow agendas that they see as more important than the institution itself and will engage in activities that are designed to weaken or remove college CEOs. In other cases, presidents are faced with years of mismanagement and/or financial exigency from previous administrations or interference from regents and other political figures that either must be addressed with extraordinary means related to survival or are simply not “fixable” within the mechanisms available to the CEOs.

Secondly, even in situations which are not insurmountable, very few leaders are equipped to meet the challenges their schools actually face. There is frankly a profound misalignment between the traits, skills, behaviors, and experience that most college leaders need vs. what they actually bring to the job. And a badly broken executive search process continues to produce the same inadequate candidates through a very expensive protocol that is pricey on the front end and devastatingly expensive on the back end. So, presidents and chancellors are shown the door because they were either set up or don’t have the capacity to do what they were hired to do, then they get replaced by folks who are equally incapable of meeting the actual challenges of the job. Presto. Average tenure drops to a little over three years, compromising continuity, while cycling through many leaders who are not right for the job to begin with.

How do we break the cycle?

As noted above, some amount of churn is now inevitable no matter what because certain stakeholder groups are willing to “destroy the village to save it,” and some institutions are foundationally unviable regardless. Having said that, there are also many cases where the right person in the right institution can be game changing. To get there, colleges and universities have to abandon the traditional search process, because in most cases it is frankly incapable of delivering the right candidates, and at worst, it is culpable in supporting a fraud on the institutions using it. While there are some individuals who have been “raised in higher education” who are capable of effective leadership in today’s reality, they are unicorns and represent a tiny fraction of what is needed. Colleges and universities have to look outside of the academy, and even then, truly exceptional candidates are few and far between.

Wherever future college presidents and chancellors come from, they will need to bring value in ways nearly foreign to most institutions of higher education. They must be extremely skillful in management of constant change; they must relate to people in their institutions and organizations with empathy and care; they themselves must be self-aware and comfortable with vulnerability, transparency, and humility. They must be genuine and believable, even in the midst of skepticism and cynicism. Ultimately, they must leverage human capital as the institution’s most powerful asset and competitive advantage. They must recognize that their success comes through the directly supported success of others. They have to ensure that the people they lead have clarity around mission and purpose—a reason to be fully engaged and committed. They must drive a shared, powerful vision of why the institution matters and what is possible. And, when it comes to discreet skills, it is no longer about what college CEOs knew or were able to do in the past. It is now about business and revenue development, ROI, marketing, partnership, negotiation, political skills, building culture, crisis management, innovation, change management, and execution. Even skill with strategy is no longer adequate. Leaders today must be able to lead transformation and reinvention as a perpetual process, with strategy as a tool, not a discreet outcome. And doing that in cultures typically found in IHEs is not for the faint of heart. Effective leaders have to be successful in spite of environments that are typically not structured to support that success. Astonishingly, if one just looks at the numbers and dynamics related to school closures and mergers over the last 15 years, it appears that many colleges and universities will actually choose failure over change, which itself requires very unique leadership to overcome.

Recent research by Gallup suggests that most organizations still use criteria for assessing “leadership potential” that disadvantage women.

Examples include everything from expectations of availability outside of working hours and extensive travel to technical and performance based measures that men are more likely to demonstrate (because they’ve been socialized and supported in those areas), but that don’t actually correlate with effective leadership traits, skills, and behaviors. In other words, women tend to possess characteristics that support effective leadership, but those characteristics are less likely to be valued when deciding who gets chances in leadership roles!

The reasons that women are often less able to “accept” certain requirements of leadership positions is not because they aren’t capable or don’t want them, but that most family structures still require that women assume greater domestic, particularly parenting responsibility, than men do in the same families. For example, Gallup reports that “Women with children are more than twice as likely as their male counterparts to have had to decline or delay a promotion because of family obligations. In addition, women with children are 2.9 times as likely as men with children to have seriously considered leaving their job because of childcare issues.”

Interestingly, similar numbers of men and women say that they would be open to longer working hours, additional responsibilities, and travel, for example, as part of leadership roles, but a smaller number of women can actually accept those challenges.

So, how can organizations support the promotion of more women into leadership roles?

First, senior leaders in organizations today – the vast majority of whom are still male and mostly white – must redefine the criteria they use for identifying and promoting individuals into leadership roles. Forget focusing on employees who have traditionally achieved and overachieved performance objectives, i.e., who have “hit their numbers.” Such employees may become great leaders, but if so, it won’t be because of their performance on discreet tasks. On the other hand, if executives look for things like communication and coaching skills, empathy, patience, creativity, and perseverance as criteria for future leaders, they will not only choose more women, they will get better leaders overall.

Relatedly, organizational leaders must learn to meet leadership candidates where they are, providing flexible options. For example, women rate both work-life balance and wellbeing higher than pay and benefits when deciding what jobs and roles to pursue and accept. This does NOT mean it is okay to pay women, or anyone, less, simply because you provide flexibility. It does mean that when considering which employees to offer leadership opportunities, flexible work arrangements will attract more women candidates. And, as Gallup notes, it is about more than just policy. It’s about culture. Employees who leverage flexibility cannot be punished for doing so or considered less than employees to choose more traditional schedules, work locations, etc.

In short, women tend to naturally possess characteristics that support effective leadership if organizations will only recognize that and adjust traditional criteria so that women are more likely to be offered, and accept, increasing leadership responsibility. Moreover, those same criteria support more powerful leadership regardless of a leader’s gender, so revising the lens through which leadership candidates are evaluated and selected will not only result in more women in leadership roles, it will result in more effective leadership overall.

Image Credit: Chronicle of Higher Education

We’ve heard a lot lately about how the sheen has worn off the traditional college degree. Multiple surveys now show that fewer than half of Americans believe that higher education is net positive for our country, let alone for each individual graduate. What’s going on? Well, the three most powerful forces are political, economic, and structural.

Politics

The growing polarization, demonization and tribalism in our society is equally reflected in views on higher education as it is in other milieus.

The lion’s share of the decline in favorability is among those who describe themselves as Republicans. Astonishingly, less than 15 years ago, nearly 60% of Republicans had a favorable view of higher education. Now that figure is 33%. That precipitous decline is less about actual change in the role or function of colleges and universities and more about the fact that republican politics have associated higher education with elitist, liberal, democratic forces, which are “bad,” so therefore higher education is bad. While there are legitimate things to criticize about higher ed from across the political spectrum, the free-fall in republican opinions of higher education cannot be explained by objective changes in higher ed alone.

Economics

A more tangible criticism of higher education, and larger contributor to market-driven declines in enrollment, is economic. Over the last 40 years, the cost of going to college has increased 180% after accounting for inflation. At the same time, state level funding for public colleges, where most students go to school, has declined. As a result, the burden of paying for college largely shifted to students and families, who until recently, willingly filled the gap with borrowed money. For students without the ability to pay who have attended private colleges, the debt incurred is often high five figures and, about 20% of the time, six figures! The increase in tuition and debt has happened at the same time that opportunities for “college level employment” have stagnated and even declined. National unemployment is technically low, but full-time, professional level employment for recent college graduates is poor.

According to a Strada education report released in early 2024, “While typical college graduates fare substantially better in the labor market than workers with only a high school education, half are underemployed. Even 10 years after graduation, the majority of those who were initially underemployed still have not secured a college-level job.” So, young college graduates are not just struggling with their first job out of college, but underemployment for the youngest Millenials and older Gen Zers is incredibly sticky, lasting for a decade or more.

So, many (52%) of graduates end up with work that often does not even support basic living costs, let alone the ability to pay back substantial student debt. And, of the half of graduates who are underemployed, 88% are severely underemployed, which as defined by Strada, means work for which they only need a high school diploma, and often is not even full time. It is also true that for at least 16 majors, early career income averages $40,000 or less per year even for graduates who are employed full time in their field. The financial coffin corner would be something like a degree in early childhood education or social work from an expensive private college.

Of course, there are still four-year college degree options that are very favorable for graduates—particularly those who do not have to go into substantial debt. However, the bifurcation between degrees that really pay off with full time employment right out of school vs. those that are often a net-negative is growing.

Structure

For most students, most four-year degree options in most institutions are not only expensive with often marginal economic reward, but running the gauntlet of unfriendly, inflexible, poor service systems for a minimum of four years, is just not viable. Compared to several decades ago, fewer students live lives that allow for the typical time, schedule, and financial commitments required for four-year degrees. As a result, many folks are choosing not to attend college, even if they want to, because the typical college structure is simply not workable, and for many, the economic calculus is not viable either.

Interestingly, from a cost and employment perspective, the most dependable return on investment in post-secondary education is currently related to technical training for jobs that are high-skill, but do not require bachelor’s degrees—or in some cases, even any college. Examples range from allied health to welding and many other “vocational” fields, but the bottom line is that a 12-month program in HVAC or a 24-month program in nursing leads to full employment and a much more likely ticket into the middle class than many four-year degrees. Even shorter programs in high demand fields such as electrical lineman or cyber-security can provide ROI that crushes some four-year degrees.

In short, there are some very good reasons that a growing number of Americans are souring on higher education, particularly the traditional four-year degree. Families with means will continue to send their children to college, but for the vast majority of Americans who cannot pay the grindingly high cost of traditional higher education today out of pocket, their view of higher education will likely remain skeptical, if not outright negative, and their buying decisions will reflect that. Parts of post-secondary education will continue to grow, while traditional higher education will continue to shrink.

Image Credit: BridgeAlliance.US

Disengagement? Turnover? Burnout? It’s a Leadership Problem.

In a recent article about increasing employee dissatisfaction at work, it was noted that leaders were struggling to understand why this is happening, even in the face of raises, increased paid time off, scheduling flexibility and other recent “improvements” for employees. The fact that leaders are confused is foundational to the leadership crisis we are facing across many organizational contexts.

The disconnect between historical leadership development, skills, and styles on one hand and the actual leadership needs in contemporary organizational settings on the other hand is disconcerting. What’s even more disconcerting, however, is the apparent ignorance of the disconnect itself! There is no deep mystery about what is going on, but the notion that something cryptic or baffling is at play is as troubling as the problem itself. This would be analogous to health care providers not knowing that COVID is caused by a respiratory virus, then being confused about why patients are sick.

Click here to see the full article at the Transformation Collaborative™.

Image Credit: Alexstanhope.com

The title of this article specifically refers to thriving, which is very different than surviving. What we know about humans is that we can survive incredibly difficult environments. We can survive trauma. We can survive malnutrition. We can even survive situations specifically designed to break our spirits and bodies—think concentration camps or solitary confinement in prisons. However, we cannot thrive in those environments. The reason is fairly straight forward. Our wellbeing is not just about attitude. Environmental inputs matter. A lot.

We can learn skills to mitigate stress. Our bodies can adapt, at least for a while, to inadequate nutrition. We can even learn to survive torture. However, to thrive, some foundational inputs have to be in place. For example, if we have access to healthy foods; if we have secure housing; if we have relationships with people who care for us and have our best interests at heart; if we have work and other activities that provide purpose and opportunities to learn and grow, then we can maximize our potential—and thrive.

Understanding the power of inputs is really critical because we often attempt to deal with circumstances, relationships, etc., that cause us pain and suffering by trying to apply tools to deal with the pain and suffering rather than by trying to change the inputs that are hurting us. Sometimes, such as with complex trauma, we develop pathologies that compromise our ability to advocate for ourselves. Sometimes it’s more simple. My father, who was a clinical psychologist, used to say that, “Some people prefer the certainty of misery over the misery of uncertainty.” We just prefer the devil we know or we fear change more than we fear a debilitating status quo. On the other hand, because inputs are so important, if we do truly want to thrive, in many cases, we will have to make environmental changes to things that affect our wellbeing.

As a former CEO, and current organizational consultant, and a psychotherapist who works with both individuals and groups comprised of people who are being genuinely hurt by the organizations they work for or by relationships in their lives, it is clear to me that, although we can use interventions to improve our ability to regulate emotion or tolerance for distress or mindfulness or interpersonal skills, that is often not enough to progress from surviving to thriving. We can decrease both the frequency and severity of psychological symptoms such as depression or anxiety or obsessive thoughts, but ultimately, true liberation often requires that we remove or separate ourselves from the inputs that cause our symptoms. We can often survive a toxic workplace, narcissistic partner, dangerous neighborhood, etc., but we cannot thrive in those contexts. Enduring just takes too much emotional and physical bandwidth and our mind-bodies absorb the toxicity like a like a body of water absorbs toxic chemicals. Moreover, in the same way we can’t clean up a toxic lake unless we stop the noxious chemicals pouring into the water, we can’t heal a damaged soul until we remove the poisons in our workplace, relationships, domestic lives, etc.

Obviously, there are situations in which people cannot alter their environment appreciably because they are dependent on someone else for basic needs, or they do not have full mobility or freedom of movement. Those are tragic situations and some are, at least temporarily, intractable. Relatedly, in many cases, the negative effects we experience from toxic environmental factors weaken us to the point that we do not believe that we have options that we actually have. One of the insidious products of noxious psychological environments is often the detrimental impact on our own sense of agency. In fact, the most toxic people in our lives actually want to steal our agency! It’s a means of control.

So, what do we do? First of all, not everyone is in a position to make substantial life changes in a given moment, but most of us do have options if we are willing to risk what we have for what we might have. And, sometimes, altering inputs in our environment such as leaving a job or ending a relationship, may initially make things worse in some ways before they get better, but that is often necessary in order to get to a place where inputs are additive rather than subtractive to our wellbeing.

Relatedly, we may have to redefine what “success” or “normal” means or what role money or status plays in our lives, etc., but once we redefine those things, then many options become available that weren’t visible or available before. This process is often directly connected to identity. In other words, we stay in toxic places or debilitating jobs or with toxic people because we have tied who we are to the role we play. For example, I counseled an executive who had achieved the heights of “success” based on Western values of wealth and power and status. However, he had basically sold his soul to his work and the growing dissonance was beginning to cripple him emotionally, not to mention cause substantial physical health issues and compromise his personal relationships. It wasn’t until he was able to accept that success might be about something other than money or status or power that he was able to let go of things that he had been led to believe were almost sacred. Importantly, he also had to let go of his very identity and validity being tied to his job. Of course, if he had to make a mid-six figure income or have a C-Suite job or live in a million-dollar home, then yes, his options would be limited. But once he realized that success might be related to living his values, being there for his family, and making a positive difference to others in the world—even if that meant living a less materialistic life—then many choices became possible.

Moving on from subtractive, if not toxic, inputs, can also be achieved over time. Start with incremental change. Address individual parts of your life one at a time. End a toxic relationship, then leave a demeaning boss, then move to where you really want to live, etc.

It also helps to approach change from a more productive context. Instead of asking yourself, “What do I want my next job to be?” or “Who do I want to have a relationship with?,” ask yourself, “What do I want to be true in my life—that will help me thrive—and what roles do my work or relationships or where I live play in achieving those life truths? And maybe even more importantly, these questions have to be asked in the context of who do I want to be rather than who/what do other people say I should be.

In short, we are often told how critical our own attitudes are for shaping how we feel about our lives—and there is truth in that. I’ve found that three pillars of wellbeing, and of thriving, are attitude, behavior, and environment. However, I’ve also found that attitude and behavior by themselves cannot overcome constant environmental inputs that make us sick or crush our souls. At some point, if we’re being poisoned on a regular basis, we have to remove the poison, or we can’t heal, let alone thrive.

Image Credit: Empathy Project Cornell University

I’ve recently had an opportunity to observe two leaders, both women, demonstrate qualities that reflect core elements of what is needed in leadership today—elements that we feature in the Transformation Collaborative’s™ Leadership Discovery Program. It’s truly a pleasure to watch.

I mention their gender because my sense is that women, when allowed to play to their strengths, are more naturally attuned to how leaders bring value in today’s environment, which has become far more about empowering success in others, than it is about traditional male attributes of dominance, unilateral decision making, confidence over competence, devaluation of emotion, and other traits that, over time, tend to alienate people more than support engagement and personal growth.

In traditional organizations, women have historically had to act more like men, which is not only problematic in terms of the behaviors women have had to emulate, but also because those behaviors often engender deep dissonance for the women themselves. Traditional models of leadership were and are arguably misplaced even in previous operating environments, but today, particularly with Gen Zers and millennials, who have chosen not to buy into much of the nonsensical expectations and compromises of earlier work environments, traditional models of autocratic leadership are not just ineffective, but often detrimental, both to organizational outcomes and the people in them. Beyond generational issues, we are all living in a socio-economic system that, by design, creates chronic stress and conspires against wellness. Employees bring that distress and resulting mental health challenges into the workplace, which has a direct impact on the kinds of leadership choices that generate engagement and productivity vs. those that exacerbate disconnection and limit employee contribution.

At the Transformation Collaborative™, we believe that leaders in today’s environment generate the greatest, most valuable outcomes by maximizing human capital, including mining leadership capacity in others, by supporting their personal growth, self-discovery, emotional intelligence, health, wellness, & resilience, compelling people leadership, and commitment to supporting success in others in the context of clearly defined moral imperatives—i.e., doing what’s right actually matters. While both men and women can lead in the way described above, it is probably clear to most readers that, women, if allowed to follow their intuition and natural proclivities, are much more closely aligned with the leadership values and traits identified by the TC than are men. One can question how much of that is innate vs. socialized, but the end result is that women are typically more attuned to things such as emotional intelligence and supporting growth and self-discovery in others. They are more naturally empathetic and nurturing (and socialized to be so) than are men, and as unusual as those concepts sound in the context of traditional leadership, they have become critical to effective leadership now and in the future. Relatedly, my sense is that, typical organizational dynamics aside, women are more comfortable achieving success through others and feel less need to take credit for what those around them achieve than are men.

As both an executive and a psychotherapist, I have experienced the irrational and detrimental attitudes toward simply being human in organizations fostered by traditional leadership models and I’ve seen the devastation in individuals who’ve lived, in some cases, entire lives, in denial of their most basic humanity. In men, traits such as empathy and vulnerability have traditionally been seen as weakness and it’s probably impossible to calculate the damage that has caused for men and the people around them. Although people of any gender can be deeply wounded when they are forced to sacrifice authenticity for acceptance, in my counseling practice I regularly see the devastating effects on men, often who have been seen (and seen themselves) as bullet-proof and hyper-masculine, who eventually can no longer sustain the dissonance and pain of denying their reality and their humanity. I mention this not just because I observe it, but because it’s germane to any discussion of leadership today.

It’s one thing for leaders to develop traits and choose behaviors that are simply ineffective. It’s another thing entirely to follow a path that is actually damaging, both for the leader and the organization they lead.

Back to the two female leaders I’ve had the pleasure of recently observing, their primary focus on people, rather than process or “numbers,” has resulted in deep engagement and commitment to their respective organizations on the part of people who work for them. In some cases, this goes beyond employee retention and includes a human connection that engenders deep gratitude and loyalty. In a time of dramatic turnover, “quiet quitting,” and what Gallup has noted is a crisis of disengagement among employees (less than a third of American employees are engaged at work), it is absolutely essential that leaders support human needs in others if their organizations are going to succeed. No leader, no matter how technically talented, driven, committed, etc. can come close to achieving what the people they are leading can collectively accomplish given the right support. And if those people are not engaged, then the organization will only achieve a small fraction of what would otherwise be possible.

In short, the Transformation Collaborative™ is passionate about its leadership model because it is based on building leader capacity to drive transformative change & innovation, value creation, deep employee engagement, sustainability with a focus on human factors, and organizational health & wellness. We don’t see “employees” or “labor” or an expense line on a P&L. We see people, who, at their best, not only succeed professionally, but thrive as valued, valuable human beings! Leaders who can contribute to that achieve something far beyond traditional measures of success. They also create meaning and purpose for themselves, which doesn’t depend on external validation and is far more sustainable than traditional markers of success.

—

Note: Because all organizations operate within a societal context that still values money, growth, power, and competition, and typically defines “success” within the same framework, leading based on the humanistic model described above requires no small amount of courage. It requires leaders to take the long view, which most boards, investors, etc., do not, regardless of what they say, and it requires leaders to achieve operational metrics indirectly, by empowering people, who then achieve metrics as a result of their commitment, engagement, sense of purpose, etc. In brief, in the myopic, short-term, numbers driven, zero sum context in which many organizations operate, leaders can be punished for doing the right thing, even if they ultimately also achieve performance goals. It can be a lonely journey, but being a force for good is a much better way to live.

Image Credit: Kassandra Estrada

The article linked below is from the October, 2023 edition of Counseling Today, and reflects some of my key takeaways from both my graduate counseling program and the first 1,000 hours or so of my counseling experience. The path to becoming a psychotherapist included my own mental health journey, resulting in me becoming what we often refer to in the field as a “wounded healer.”

“About a year into my healing journey, I started to think seriously about becoming a counselor. This career choice was not something I had considered before, but after I found myself in need of and benefiting from psychotherapy, I wanted to help others who found themselves in similar situations. “