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 maladaptive strategies 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. “

Image Credit: Medium

Why do some people seem to genuinely enjoy life—through setbacks, stress, and even hardship—while others struggle to find contentment even in comfort?

I wrote an article last fall in which I said that the pursuit of happiness may be misguided in the sense that even if we find it, it tends to be temporal. And that is particularly so if that “happiness” is connected to money or other material possessions. A more meaningful pursuit may be to find purpose.   On the other hand, we do observe people who seem to be “happy,” or at least content with their lives. To the extent that it is possible to live happy lives, what does research tell us leads to such contentment? And what doesn’t provide that outcome?   It appears that there are a handful of things that people who consistently enjoy their lives have in common.  

Attitude Not surprisingly, one of those things is simply their attitude about their lives. This is complicated because none of us wakes up in the morning and says, “Today, I’m going to be a pessimist and think my life sucks no matter what happens.” Our attitudes are influenced by many things, external and internal, but the really interesting thing is that for people who can see life through a more positive lens, they actually feel more content regardless of the circumstances! My father, for example, was an eternal optimist, despite many data points to challenge his perspective. He faced many successes and difficulties, some severe, in his life, but he always verbalized that he was incredibly fortunate and that there was some level of positivity to everything that happened. He did this consistently and hearing himself say it did, in fact, influence how he actually felt. Even for those of us who default to a glass half empty perspective, probably the simplest way to support a positive attitude is by noting gratitude.  

Social Connection We are social creatures and genuine connection with others not only supports contentment, it also supports physical health. Studies show that loneliness is equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes per day in terms of cancer risk! Importantly, the power of social connection can be fully realized with a single, meaningful relationship or even multiple, “casual” connections such as pleasant conversations with someone at the supermarket, with an Uber driver, etc. Regardless, we are deeply wired, for evolutionary reasons, to connect with others, and doing so affects our neurochemistry, which affects our emotional state.  Key point: although online interaction can provide some meaningful social connection, it does not provide the same neurochemical benefits that face to face interactions and physical touch do.

Limited Stress Interestingly, the absence of stress is highly predictive for contentment, while the chronic presence of stress, like loneliness, not only mitigates against happiness, it actually makes both physical and psychological illness more likely! Similar to attitude, stress is strongly correlated to how we feel about or react to a given circumstance. Two different people may face the same situation and one person is crippled by stress and the other feels little or no stress at all. People who experience healthy levels of stress tend to do two things. First, they limit the stressors in their lives that they can control such as exposure to toxic people, workplaces, etc. Secondly, they tend to be good at self-calming and self-regulation through practices such as meditation, breathing, yoga, etc.  

Physical Activity I wrote a recent article about the ongoing collective decline in mental health in which I noted that from an evolutionary perspective, we have spent almost all of human history living very active lives, mostly outdoors. Now, many of us live sedentary lives, mostly indoors, for which we were not designed. Extensive amounts of time on social media also negatively impacts happiness. The research is overwhelming that exercise and other physical activity not only promotes physical health, but that is has substantial implications for emotional and cognitive health as well. Physical activity also helps the body metabolize stress, which, like meditation, turns out to be critical in helping our mind-body return to homeostasis. The good news is that what is required to support contentment and wellness is very doable by most people. It does not require hours per week in the gym. It can be walks or gardening or recreation.  

Mindfulness People that enjoy their lives tend to spend more of their attention and effort in the present. The therapeutic definition I use for mindfulness is simply: awareness, in the moment, without judgment. Because content people spend less time regretting the past or worrying about the future, they are able to notice what’s happening in the now. This is really important because much of our stress, and almost all of our worry, are related to things that aren’t actually happening in the moment. In fact, the more time we can live mindfully in the present, by definition, the more our feelings will be unencumbered by regret and worry.  

Purpose and Control Not surprisingly, people who have found purpose in their lives and some level of control over how they live, tend to be more content and satisfied with their lives. While happiness supported by the factors noted above can be real and worthwhile, it tends to be less sustainable and resilient to environmental challenges than purpose, which tends to better endure life’s ups and downs. As for control, the research suggests that being able to spend a meaningful amount of time how we want to spend it is far more valuable than money related to our wellbeing. In fact, some of the least happy people in society are those who have earned large amounts of money, but have sacrificed their time and relationships in the process.  

So, whether we use the word “happiness” or “contentment” or “enjoyment,” etc., there are people whose sense of their own lives tends to be more positive than that experienced by other people. We know that factors such as attitude, social connection, limited stress, physical activity and mindfulness support a greater sense of wellbeing and, thus contentment. We also know that once our basic needs are met, that neither money nor status nor material acquisitions correlate with happiness. And, as I noted in my article on happiness vs. purpose, “when we pursue purpose and meaning in our lives, we are more likely to experience alignment between our values and our behaviors and feel more satisfied with our life, both of which are probably more valuable and sustainable than happiness in isolation.” Even if we manage to achieve a kind of contentment, having meaning in our lives might be the more powerful objective.

Image Credit: Banner.org

An elderly member of my family, who has identified with one church or another for most of her life, recently stopped attending her church because her pastor was showing too much love for folks who don’t look like or live like she does. He was being too…. Christian.  

This pastor was advocating a New Testament love and acceptance for those in the LBGTQ+ community, immigrants, people of color, people of different political persuasions, people who have sinned (everyone), etc. Apparently, he was too committed to Jesus’ message.  

So, how does someone who has been a “Christian” all her life, who has accepted Jesus Christ as her savior, abandon a church and a pastor for showing too much Christian love? In short, she was in church for about an hour a week, but watching and listening to right wing media for dozens of hours per week.  

Over the last few years, I have observed her shift from a relatively open-minded, loving Christian to a “Christian” who fears immigrants and Democrats, believes LGBTQ+ citizens are immoral and dangerous (out to convert the rest of us), the COVID vaccine was made with microchips and has killed tens of thousands of Americans, the 2020 presidential election was stolen, and various consumer products are made with “baby-parts.”  

It has been both fascinating and horrifying to watch this devolution in a once-loving, rational person, who also happens to be a close family member. It is also a case-study in the power of othering and ensuing tribalism through hate. My personal sense is that she first had to be made to feel fear before she could move on to hate, and the Youtube videos, far right and conspiratorial websites, and news channels she watches were more than happy to oblige. If nothing else, they have a deep understanding of human psychology and frailty.  

Equally fascinating, the same media bubble has convinced her that government programs and policy that support the poor and otherwise disadvantaged folks are part of an evil, socialist plot, even though she herself is able to live a relatively stable life because of Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), and subsidies for utilities, transportation, and even the internet through which she accesses the messages telling her all of these services are part of an evil, socialist plot. That is the power of tribalism. If facilitates a kind of mental gymnastics that makes it possible to criticize, if not hate, other people who benefit from social services and subsidies, but somehow makes it okay for oneself (and others in the same tribe) to benefit from the same evil plot—all without any apparent dissonance.  

Being able to observe this process with a family member, and individuals around her who have gone down the same path, has helped me understand how this kind of manipulation can lead to extreme outcomes such as overt cruelty and even genocide. If othering and tribalism are severe enough, it becomes possible to not only exile others, but to even kill those who are different, because, they’re not just “different,” their differences are seen to pose an existential threat.

Observing this radical change in a person so close to me has been like a violent car wreck that I’d rather not see, but can’t turn away from. It is both macabre and fascinating at the same time – sociopathology in real time.