Of course, one reason for that is the damaging impact of our adolescent model of adult love that I described in a previous post.  Many people become socially conditioned into a view of love that they equate with an intense yearning for the feeling of being “in love.”  That heightens desire for an idealized lover, especially when he or she is elusive or unavailable.  Longing for the unattainable ideal is more of an enthrallment with your own experience of feeling in love, than a reality-based interest in the real person of your partner.

Beyond that flawed experience that colors most people’s romantic lives, many relationships that begin with a positive charge, emotionally and sexually, crumble under the weight of daily life, with all it’s pressures, conflicting desires, bills to pay, career conflicts, children’s needs, and so on.  Therefore, many assume that boredom with your partner and the corresponding sexual decline is “inevitable.”  And that can reactivate old yearnings or hope for a soul mate who might be out there, after all, beckoning you to a simple, pure, passionate love.  Of course, that’s what leads many people into affairs – a subject I’ll go into in a later post.

But I think there’s another way to envisioning what the soul-mate experience is and how it can grow and develop, as part of a mature adult love relationship; something that’s attainable in reality.  In essence, sustainable adult love blends together erotic desire, friendship, respect and support of each other’s growth and development — as independent, different human beings. Think of the way in which a new substance can arise from the joining of two separate elements, like water emerging from the coming together of hydrogen and oxygen.  Similarly, adult love is the product of two self-sufficient, “non-needy” people.  It’s more of an art that you practice and cultivate, not a set of techniques that you acquire from a how-to book.

So how do you build it?  I think there are three sources of the adult version of a soul  mate: what I call “radical transparency;” “words-into-actions;” and “good vibrations,” sexually-physically.

In brief, radical transparency is a shift away from hiding out, concealment, or secret manipulation that characterizes so many typical relationships.  It’s not that people want to be hidden or deceptive; it’s how you learn to relate to men and women as you grow into adulthood in our culture.   In contrast, radical transparency means two-way openness:  openness to being fully receptive to your partner’s feelings, wishes, desires, and differences from yourself; and, openness in revealing yourself completely to your partner.  If you don’t think that’s hard, try it sometime!

The other two aren’t easy, either.  By “words-into-actions” I mean letting go of trying to control or dominate your partners, whether through overt or subtle maneuvers; and instead, demonstrating equality in your actual behavior, not just in words.  It’s practicing  “power-with” rather than “power-over;” and building genuine mutuality between partners.  For a man, that means behavior that supports a woman’s autonomy, independence, and competency, while valuing her emotional sensitivity and responsiveness.  For a woman, supporting the man’s capacity for emotional connection, openness and vulnerability, while also valuing his strength and solution-oriented tendencies, as well.

In other words, each demonstrates through actions support for the underdeveloped capacities in the other; that is, “underdeveloped” by virtue of how particular tendencies and strengths of each gender are socialized and reinforced.  You demonstrate that, especially, in daily decision making, especially where there are differences or conflicts.  How do you serve the relationship rather than your own ego?

Building “good vibrations” refers to building and sustaining a heightened sexual/physical connection.  That’s also hard to do when you’re conditioned to expect decline in your relationship, and relate to each other in ways that create a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The key here is working to let go of inhibitions, fear, and stop using your sexual relationship as a vehicle for unspoken emotional grievances.  “Good vibrations” between you and your partner build naturally as you become more open and communicative about your sexual desires and needs; and when you take the time and the setting for focusing on each other, physically and sexually.

Typically, couples give short shrift to that part of their relationship when dealing with the pressures and demands of everyday life.  And when sexual interest and excitement wanes as a result, too often they become fixated on finding the right technique or new sexual position to restore it.  While mechanical “functioning” may improve as a result, your sexual relationship with your partner won’t.  Sexual practices and techniques – even taking the little blue pill — enhance your relationship only when they’re linked with the other two practices I’ve described.  For a little more detail about these three parts of adult love, see the extended version of my Washington Post article, “Relighting The Fire.”

In an adult love relationship, both partners recognize and validate each other as separate people.  They experience difference as exciting, not something to be feared or squashed.  That includes our difference from each other in perspectives, outlook, and desires.  In fact, difference provides that exciting edge that helps a relationship stay alive — especially when there’s a larger, shared connection around vision, values, and overall purpose of life together.

The sum total of all this is the “transcendent” experience that people have in mind when they think of a soul mate.  It’s clear that both men and women want that. They want sustained connection and vitality over the long run — the soul mate experience as a reality, not a fantasy.  In fact, surveys, as far back as a 2000 Gallup Poll, along with other research, indicates that both younger and older men and women — straight or gay — report that they want a soul mate who will be their lifelong partner.  They want to avoid breakups and serial relationships, and say they long for lifelong relationships of vitality and connection in all realms — emotionally, sexually, and spiritually.  That’s hopeful news for the prospect of men and women being able to evolve beyond our adolescent practice of love and towards love that is “for adults only.”

The FreePress reports that the legislation calls for new and existing for-profit corporations to elect status as a for-benefit corporation with the purpose, among other things, of creating public benefit.  The bill, called the Vermont Benefit Corporation Act, defines “public benefit” as “a material positive impact on society and the environment, as measured by a third-party standard, through activities that promote some combination of specific public benefits.”

Will Patten, executive director of Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, backs the measure, saying “It’s a no-cost, positive piece of legislation that might have an impact on Vermont’s economy.”  Green Mountain Roasters is reportedly a prime candidate to become a benefit corporation, upon approval by two-thirds of shareholders, should the legislation become law.  Click here for the complete article.

This kind of hybrid corporation makes good sense in this era of economic and organizational turmoil and change — one that calls for out-of-the-box thinking about ways to combine economic success and service to the common good.  Increasingly, economists and others are observing that our institutions and their leadership vision are locked into 20th Century thinking and realities; and that new kinds of thinking and structures are needed to address the complex, interconnected issues facing societies and people today.  Harvard’s Umair Haque, among others, has been addressing these issues in his writings.

And the older one’s say, “These young people just don’t understand how to function within an organization.  They want recognition, promotion, everything before they’ve earned it, like we have.  That’s not how reality is.”

It reminds me of a couple that once said about each other – “It’s not that we see things differently.  It’s worse than that:  We’re seeing different things!”

Exactly.  So, what can we make of this?  Is it simply the current generation gap?  I think it’s more than that.  It’s part of a broader, growing shift in the mentality of adults towards career, personal life and the role of business in society.  But it’s more visible and pronounced in the so-called Gen X and Gen Y workers, who are the offspring of those “older” workers – the Baby Boom generation now at midlife.

Some interesting research and survey data sheds light on what’s occurring.  For example, a study of 3,500 wage earners conducted by the Families and Work Institute of younger workers.  One finding was a dramatic shift among younger workers in how they handle hostile or abusive work environments:  They won’t stay very long in them, in contrast to how older workers traditionally behave – acceptance and suffering.  The younger workers tend to leave, confident that they’ll find something better.  Or, they “play” with the situation, not letting it get to them emotionally, while they craft an exit strategy.

Puzzling to older workers is that younger careerists want to know, “How quickly will I take on new responsibilities? How meaningful will my work be — immediately?”  They look for a collaborative atmosphere in which all members of a hardworking team share responsibilities.  Older people see this as immature impatience, and fail to recognize that younger workers bring a lot of energy and passion to work environments that offer the opportunity for having impact and input.

At the same time, research shows that younger adults value family and personal time as much as career advancement.  They reject the often-debilitating trade-offs between them, while the older generation has more prone to accept – and suffer from – those trade-offs.  For example, the Families and work Institute survey found that, above all else, younger people want to be able to shut the door after work and go home to a stimulating personal life that fuels their energy.  And they won’t work very long for companies that don’t enable them to do that.   Some of that phenomena is reflected in Fortune’s list of “best companies to work for.”

Younger workers often ask prospective employers about flexible work schedules before talking about pay or the 401k plans.  Those kinds of features are more important to them than pay.  In fact, research shows that young adults increasingly say that money is not the measure of success for them.  They want something deeper from their work.  They are more critical about whether they actually enjoy what they do at work.  Overall, they want their work to allow them to thrive as people, and leave them more choices in their lives.

How odd that sounds to many people who accommodated themselves to the careerist culture that still prevails, but which has also generated conflict among those same older careerist who long for more personal meaning and fulfillment (see my post about the “4.0” career.)

The Family and Work Institute’s survey found a dramatic shift, from the early 90s to the present decade, from 80% of younger adults who wanted to climb the traditional career ladder to just 60%.  Moreover – another oddity to those within the older mentality — younger workers also show a trend towards “serial jobs.”

That is, they quit if they want to have a longer vacation or pursue a personal interest or desire.  Then, when they’re ready, they return to their career.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average 18- to 34- year-old invests only 2.9 years in a job before looking to greener pastures.

To the older mentality, of course, none of that computes.

The broader shifts in our culture become more apparent when you look at some data about MBA students and graduates.  For example, a 2007 Hill & Knowlton survey found that 75% of top MBA students say corporate reputation will play a critical role in deciding where they want to work.  The survey was conducted among students at elite business schools in Europe, Asia, and the U.S.  They cited quality of management among the key drivers of corporate reputation.  And 40% of those surveyed rated social responsibility as an “extremely” or “very” important measure of reputation; 34%, having an environmental/green policy.

When asked to name the top factors in career choice, issues of sustainability — corporate governance and ethics, social responsibility, and environmental policy — ranked third, right behind the broad categories of career opportunities and company performance.  ”The best talent, like the most attractive real estate, will always be in scarce supply,” said Paul Taaffe, chairman and CEO of Hill & Knowlton. “The future winners in the corporate world will be the ones who are the quickest to recognize this and take action to enhance and protect reputation.”

Similarly, a 2007 survey by MonsterTRAK found that 80% of younger workers said they want to work in a job that has a positive impact on the environment.  And 92% said they would choose working for a “green” company.  Other research shows that employees working at companies with clear corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs report the most job satisfaction.  They stay at their jobs longer and are more content with senior management then their peers at companies with lackluster CSR programs, according to a survey conducted by Kenexa Research Institute. MBA candidates who consider sustainability a top priority may have more opportunities than ever: The number of CSR job listings has more than doubled over the past three years.

While salary is still a high priority for most MBA students at top business schools, more of them, especially women, cite business’s social responsibility as a top concern.  That’s according to a 2008 survey conducted by the Aspen Institute Center for Business Education, a part of the Aspen Institute Business and Society Program.  The survey was conducted on 1,943 students at 15 business schools around the world—from Wharton to the London Business School to the University of California, Berkeley—on a variety of issues, including business ethics, business school coursework and the corporate recruitment process.

“In a broader sense, the most important finding is that students seem to be taking a more holistic view of the role of business in society,” says Nancy McGaw, deputy director of the Aspen Institute Business and Society Program. “But the findings also suggest that while students may have these values, many of them sense those beliefs are not valued by employers or linked to career opportunities.”  For example, only 50 percent of students who were surveyed felt that recruiters placed a high value on personal integrity, and only 7 percent said they think recruiters place high value on their understanding of sociopolitical issues.

Discussion of business and society issues has become more commonplace in business schools, however.  In 2007, three-quarters of the respondents agree that they feel free to raise issues related to the social responsibility of companies in the classroom – up from 70 percent in 2002.

I think one upshot of these shifts and trends is that we’re witnessing the leading edge of an emerging business model that combines financial success with serving the common good – addressing social problems through products and services that are useful, helpful and enhance well-being.  It parallels a growing shift in the adult mentality, towards building internal well-being and outer success – integrating psychological health, healthy leadership, and global citizenship.

What I call 4.0 is a shorthand way of describing a new evolution I see in people’s attitudes, behavior and desires about their work and career.  Think of 1.0” as more of a survival orientation to work.  It’s how people think about and engage in their work when they’re in situations of extreme hardship, political upheaval, or within socio-economic conditions that limit their opportunity and choices.  That probably describes the situation for the masses of people throughout most of history, and of course it exists today.  In such situations, just earning enough of a living to survive and support yourself and your family is your target, your criteria of  “success.”  Today, the conflicts that people experience within version 1.0 often concern working conditions, discrimination and limited opportunities for getting onto a career path that can lead to something better.

Version 2.0 emerged with the political and economic environments that gave rise to the modern “career”; that is, mostly within increasingly large, bureaucratic organizations from about the late 1800s into the early 20^th Century.  Those organizations required layers of management and administration – white-collar jobs.  Advancement became possible along a defined path, and was available to people who could gain a foothold within it, usually because of educational opportunities and/or social class advantages they were born into.  Seeking recognition, power, status, and material perks from steady advancement define success with Version 2.0.  It still predominates within today’s career culture.  It’s where you find the conditions that generate, for example, work-life conflict, boredom, workplace bullying, hostile management practices, and subtle racial and gender barriers to moving up.

Version 3.0 arose just in the last few decades.  It reflects the desire for more personal meaning and fulfillment through work.  People within this career version are less satisfied with just the money, power and position characteristic of version 2.0.  The 3.0 careerist wants more compatibility and balance between work and life, and is less willing than the 2.0 careerist to stick with an unfulfilling job, or to settle for one when job-hunting.

Surveys illustrate the 3.0 orientation in various ways.  For example, in the pushback against the longer hours companies increasingly pressure you into.  Or against being available via BlackBerry or cell phone 24/7, even while on a vacation.   Also, increasing numbers of people say that moving up is a downer for them; that they dislike their new jobs when they do move up the traditional career ladder.   For example, a recent Families and Work Institute report finds that promotions are being turned down by workers in the thick of their careers.  Workers used to be eager to take on more responsibility, and now they aren’t, as much.

The 3.0 careerists want professional life to nourish the capacity for developing talents or interests outside of work, instead of pushing them aside.  In short, they want less fragmentation and more integration among the different parts of their lives.  More than just having a successful career, they want their careers to serve and support a successful life.

What, then, is Version 4.0?  It’s what I think is a new but increasingly visible evolution beyond 3.0.  In the 4.0 orientation, the person wants not only work that enables more personal self-development, but looks for opportunities to connect with, serve and have impact on something beyond or larger than oneself.   That is, the 4.0 careerist not only wants a career that enables you to integrate personal life goals and values with what you do at work; not only have sufficiently meaningful work, personally, but also be able to have a positive impact on human lives through work.

Consequently, the 4.0 careerist is highly proactive, looking for and seizing opportunities for new learning, and creative growth, within the organization; and having positive impact on something larger than oneself through his or her career.  That is, the 4.0 careerist is oriented toward a sense of service to and connection with the larger human community through the product or service he or she is contributing to.

Just more money, advancement and increasing recognition aren’t sufficient.  In short, the 4.0 careerist wants work that is personally rewarding, but that also contributes to the greater good, beyond his or her own personal gain.  They are attracted to organizations whose philosophy and management practices are supportive of those goals; that value innovation, are transparent, psychologically healthy – and philosophically committed to the “triple bottom line:” financial success, social impact and environmental responsibility.  Career version 4.0 looks to be part of an emerging new business model – one that’s sorely needed in our current business, social and political environment.

Not quite.  We’re socially conditioned into intimate relationships that are basically extensions of the adolescent experience.  That is, the features of normal adolescent romance shapes and defines most of the expectations, behavior, and experience about romance and sexuality that you carry into your adult life.  Few realize it, because most don’t learn any other way.  And that’s a big problem, because adolescent romance is incompatible with building an adult love relationship.

Take a look at some typical features of adolescent romance:  Short-term intense arousal from a new partner.  Infatuation and idealization of the new love, often followed by deflation and feelings of loss.  Intense longing and yearning — especially when the person is unattainable or elusive.  Emotional upheaval and turmoil.  The novelist Graham Greene captured much of this in The Heart of the Matter, in which he described  “…the intense interest one feels in a stranger’s life, the interest the young mistake for love.”

Emotional tumult and intense emotional-sexual arousal by a new partner are part of what a person experiences when such feelings are new - physiologically and emotionally.  That’s a part of normal developmental experience for hormone-driven teenagers.  Dion captured the anguish this can cause in his classic song, “Why Must I Be A Teen-Ager In Love?” The problem is, most people are still singing the same tune at 40.

Men and women tend to become frozen within the residue of adolescent romance by the time they enter adulthood.  It morphs into the Functional Relationship the longer a couple stays together.  The reason is that adolescent love extended into adulthood undercuts sustained the vitality and connection needed for a long-term relationship.  You can see the features of adolescent romance in what adults do when they are seeking or forming a new relationship.  For example, manipulation and game playing; trying to find the right “strategy” to get and possess the partner; jockeying around for control, and so forth.  Generally, we learn to associate intensity of feelings with “real love.”

Even though most people don’t really enjoy being caught up in all this, most learn to accept it as part of “normal” love relationships. But a more accurate understanding is that such experiences reflect an enthrallment with our own feeling of being “in love,” much more than a response to the other.  The former is part of the adolescent experience.

In Western culture, our model love has its origins in the middle ages.  Back then, as de Rougemont described in his classic book, Love In The Western World, romantic love became associated with separation from the love “object.” In effect, marriage became the “enemy” of passion.  And remember, back then, people didn’t live long enough to have much of an adulthood.  It’s no surprise that the quintessential portrayal of romantic love is Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.  The lovers were thirteen and fifteen.

de Rougemont explained that romance and sexuality became split off from marriage during that historical period.  Passion came to be seen as the “enemy” of marriage.  Feelings of romantic and sexual passion became linked with the experiences that first arise with adolescent awakening.

For most, adult expectations, beliefs and behavior in love reflect much of the same sort of  intoxication, tumult, maneuvering and struggle that are part of the adolescent experience.   Most of what we call “love” today consists of variations of these adolescent themes: possessiveness, intense longing, chronic desire for newness and excitement, and fear of loss of identity if you “lose” the other.

We are conditioned into associating love with that hormone-driven intensity of lust, the desire to “possess,” and the tendency to idealize.  This first experience of romance remains the core of adult love relationships.  Our culture reinforces it, through media portrayals of love that are equated with intense excitement within the moment.  At the same time, the message that passion must decline in an ongoing relationship feeds a belief that excitement can only be felt through the experience of newness.

Long after we’ve passed the threshold to adulthood, after we have gotten our careers underway, perhaps begun families, taken on adult financial and other responsibilities, we remain driven by a version of adolescent love.  Adults tend to equate feelings of intense attraction with someone who’s new and unknown.  We expect a struggle to control and possess; or to submit and surrender.  We equate yearning and nostalgia for genuine connection.

The bursting forth of new emotions and desires around being  “in love” is so intoxicating because it’s often then when you feel you’re at your best – in your most alive and passionate state.  In effect, we like being the person we are when we are enthralled with another.  But we don’t know how to evolve this excitement into a lasting form after the new person becomes familiar, or ceases to be a challenge to win over.

As that initial intensity declines, you become vulnerable to losing interest.  Or, you may think that your partner no longer loves you.  It becomes increasingly difficult to navigate the changes that occurring within a relationship and within ourselves over time.

What is normal for the adolescent is crippling for the adult relationship.   We haven’t learned how to transform what we’ve learned to define as “love” into an adult form that sustains emotional, sexual and spiritual vitality.  I’ll say more about that later, in a subsequent post.

When it was over, guess whom he ran into coming out of the same theater?  His boss.

“We know that 55 percent of all U.S. employees are not engaged at work. They are basically in a holding pattern. They feel like their capabilities aren’t being tapped into and utilized and therefore, they really don’t have a psychological connection to the organization,” said Curt W. Coffman, global practice leader at the Gallup Organization, as reported in the Washington Post. And Jean Martin-Weinstein, managing director of the Corporate Leadership Council, a division of the Corporate Executive Board Co., cited findings from a survey of 50,000 workers around the world who were asked questions such as: “Do you love your job? Do you love your team? Are you excited by the work you do every day?”  Thirteen percent came out saying no, no, and very much no.  “They are disaffected, because they are basically completely checked out from the work they do,” Martin-Weinstein said.

Employees who are better utilized are more fulfilled.  They work more productively.  For example, a survey by Sirota Consulting LLC of more than 800,000 employees at 61 organizations worldwide, found those with “too little work” gave an overall job satisfaction rating of 49 out of 100, while those with “too much work” had a rating of 57.  Jeffrey M. Saltzman, chief executive of Sirota, said “When you say you have too much work to do, other things are happening in your head: ‘I’m valued by the organization. They’re giving me responsibility.’ That’s better than being in the other place where you say I’m not of value in this place.”

Boredom is one of the biggest contributors to work-related stress, even in these times of economic downturn and career uncertainties. The less someone works at work, the more internal agony they feel.  Up to 70% of all illness is rooted in stress, and much of that is workplace related, resulting in $300 billion in lost revenue, and 200 million in lost workdays.  Boredom hurts not only the employee but also the employer.  It casts a pall on the whole organization and creates a demoralized de-energized atmosphere. Furthermore, it blocks creativity, which will undercut a company’s ability to stay abreast of the marketplace competition.

Why Do You Become Bored At Work?

I think boredom has three sources, and all of them are debilitating to your spirit.  But knowing what they are can help liberate you from the prison they create:

“I just don’t belong here” — Julia said that to me, after realizing that she never had meshed with her job.  She wasn’t critical of her company or her boss.  They just worked in a way that was too plodding and methodical for her.  For someone else, it might work fine.  This source of boredom results from major disconnect, a mismatch between you and your work.  It might be between the job and your talents, your experience, your values – whatever keeps you performing at your best.  It may include what the job offers for future opportunities, as well.  If the wrong mesh exists between you and your work role or the job environment, prepare to be bored.

What would help her is to not get hung up on feelings of frustration or resentment about the fact that it exists.  In contrast, what helps is becoming pro-active by looking for a different situation; one that provides better mesh between her and the job.  That might be within the same organization or somewhere else.  You might seek out helpful advice and direction from others – maybe within the company or from others in the same career.  And it doesn’t matter whether they’re peers, more senior people, mentors, or even people at lower levels.  Your energy has to be put in the service of creating a positive change rather than trying to rectify an obvious mismatch with a situation that’s not going to change. View your situation impersonally, and you’re more likely to spot a no-win experience pretty accurately.

“I’ve Become Invisible” – Elaine was at mid-level in the marketing area of large media corporation.  She fell out of favor with a new boss because of changes in company politics above her.  Now she found herself essentially sidelined – assigned work beneath her skills and experience.  This kind of boredom results from underutilization.  You’ve been rendered invisible because your talents, skills, and capabilities are not being drawn on, being misused, perhaps even stifled.

Elaine responded to this by sizing it up as a problem to be solved, not a “poor-me” situation to be lamented.  She began calling attention to the situation, and asked for new assignments or reassignment, stressing that she wanted to contribute more to the company.  At the same time she sought out support from others in her network within the company.  She became determined to find out what prospects existed to change the situation.  “Either it changes,” she said, “or I’m out of here. I’m not about to coast along, hoping for something that’s not going to happen.”

Contrast her behavior with Bruce’s, an economist who worked for a federal government agency.  He told me he had become “shelved” and was given no substantive work, because of a political squabble higher up the ladder in his government agency.  So he decided to read books, write academic papers which wouldn’t get published…and collect his paycheck.  That’s typical of negative coping, which can fuel depression and diminished self-worth

“I need more ‘space’” — Lack of opportunity for new learning and development  creates feelings of confinement, another source of boredom.  Today’s career professionals are looking for opportunities for new learning, continued growth and having impact.  When there are too few of such opportunities, you don’t have room to stretch, and you’re going to feel bored.  What helps in this situation is scouting out opportunities for expanding and enlarging your skills, whether in the same company or somewhere else.

A good illustration of that is what Roger, a 35 year-old engineer in an aerospace firm, told me:  “I’m always looking for a challenge that I think is just beyond what I’m capable of.  It’s a little scary, but fun at the same time, to stretch myself.  That’s what I need to keep growing.”

Karen’s another example. “I’d been feeling pretty stagnant and uncreative,” she told me.  As an experiment, she decided to stretch beyond her existing skills and strengths in a new direction, within her organization.  “It was a little risky,” she laughed, “because I volunteered to take on a project that I didn’t know anything about.” It was a gamble, “plunging headfirst,” as she put it.  But her boss was supportive, and she saw that it was an opportunity for new growth.  It paid off.  She did well, and senior management rewarded her for what she had achieved.  She learned that putting herself in a situation in which she had to use herself in new, creative ways produced new growth.

Steps You Can Take

The key is seeing your situation with a clear eye. Step outside of your own narrow vantage point, rather than becoming trapped within it or blocked by feelings of frustration and resentment.  Then, you’re better able to direct your energy towards finding a better situation.

• List any situations, jobs, or creative projects from the past where you felt you were at your best, when things went really well.  Identify the resources or conditions you had going for you that supported your success.  What kinds of people were your co-workers or boss?  Did they help or hinder?  From that information, identify the specifics of the career and work environment that you need to be at your best, which to avoid, and make a list of those.

• Identify any opportunities for greater stimulation or challenge that you can spot within your present situation or organization.  Ask around, or network to find things you may not have noticed yourself. How can you pursue them?

• Meet with your boss and explain that you want to take on a greater challenge; or want to stretch into a new direction.  How do you read his or her response in terms of your future there?

• Seek out an opportunity outside of work, maybe through a course, a seminar or workshop, to learn something that enhances your existing skills or builds new ones.

Putting together all of the above information and feedback, identify the kind of work environment, people, organizational culture, or type of work you need that energizes you.  List them, and compare them with your present situation.

• A public interest research organization discovers that shared staff commitment to consumer protection doesn’t preclude staff relationship conflicts or complaints about management practices. “We all believe in what we’re doing,” the Director tells me, “so we shouldn’t be having these kinds of problems.”

• A social service organization is faced with apparent emotional disturbance of a senior staff member. Increasing amounts of management time are spent trying to deal with the person’s declining performance, absenteeism, and behavior toward coworkers. The Executive Director is unsure how to deal with the problem, and asks me “How do we balance compassion with the needs of our agency, in situations like these?”

Sound familiar? I have observed many nonprofit organizations trying to carry out their public interest or social service missions effectively – but within a workplace and cultural environment that gives rise to problems like these.  Such problems reflect an increasingly common, interwoven mixture of personal and organizational conflicts.  Many are similar to those I find in for-profit companies.  But the unique circumstances of nonprofit groups makes knowing what helps – and what doesn’t – critical to maintaining their internal and external success.

Several new circumstances contribute to this blend of personal and organizational conflicts that nonprofits deal with today. First, they face increasing competition for shrunken financial support in the new economic climate.  Some may operate within a political and social culture that’s hostile to their mission.

As a result, nonprofits feel increasingly pressured to utilize management and fiscal practices from the for-profit realm. These strategies are both helpful and necessary. But they can create new, confusing conflicts for the organization as well, as it attempts to remain true to its mission and values.  Business-oriented strategies can also create confusion for staff, many of whom were attracted to the organization’s ideals, but also may be motivated by career and personal goals which conflict with these ideals.

There’s more: Nonprofits often assume that because they’re committed to socially useful missions, they’re immune to staff or management conflicts or to conflicts about career values.  But they’re wrong. No organization today is immune to forces within the larger society, of which every workplace is a part.

People who may be attracted to missions concerning economic or social justice nevertheless want to be treated justly by their bosses.  Moreover, people who have entered the midlife adult years, from about 35 onward, become concerned about building meaning and purpose in their lives, establishing integration between their work and nonwork lives, as well as concerns about their financial security in these turbulent times. Women and minorities expect equality and respect to be practiced on the job, not just talked about as principles.

All of these issues directly affect a person’s mental health, work relationships, and creative energy in the workplace, often more so in nonprofit organizations because of the explicit ideals embodied in the organization’s purpose and mission.

What Doesn’t Help

Successful dealing with these problems requires simultaneous actions: Creative efforts that build and maintain organizational success. Support of learning and development among staff.  And, joining the ideals embodied in the external mission with positive management behavior internally.

But two responses likely to fail include going the route of traditional organizational consultation; or simply referring a troubled person to any mental health practitioner.  Because the problems I have described tend to be interwoven, piecemeal efforts are not effective.  They may be too narrow in scope, and can even make matters worse.

For example, most management and organizational consultants don’t share the same values with nonprofits, especially those engaged in advocacy-oriented or ideologically committed causes. This often produces a clash between recommendations and the organization’s stated values or mission.  Charges about “selling out” the mission for the sake of organizational efficiency often result.

And when a person is overtly troubled on the job, most mental health professionals are unable to distinguish conflicts that are a situational response to the workplace from those originating within the person, independent of work. This blind spot has consequences for how effective the treatment will be.

When I began studying the link between careers and emotional conflict a few decades ago, this lack of understanding was the norm. Today, unfortunately, it hasn’t improved much. Most therapists still lack sufficient understanding and training about how the workplace culture, career conflicts, and minority or gender issues interact with and impact a person’s emotional issues – exacerbating old ones, masking existing conflicts, or creating new ones.

In short, neither traditional “OD” consultants nor most mental health professionals possess the blended expertise and experience necessary for dealing with this mixture of organizational and personal conflicts.

What Does Help

In my work over the years with nonprofit organizations, and how they contrast with conflicts among for-profit companies, I’ve found that the first step is a commitment to self-examination by leaders and managers .  That is, examining openly the gap between the values and ideals embodied in the mission, and those embodied in how they actually interact and manage within the organization.

Many nonprofits ignore this gap, or think it is irrelevant; often more so, in my experience, than their counterparts in for-profit companies.  Then, they become surprised when they’re accused of contradictions between their management practices and the values embodied by the organization’s mission in the outside world.

So, the first step for leadership — the most obvious but most important: become aware of these issues, these gaps, and face what you want to do about them.  Awareness of the source of problems opens the possibility for stimulating new ideas and effective actions.

Some that I’ve found helpful are:

Embrace the reality that adult men and women want more integration in their lives, especially between their work and non-work lives. That’s not negated by the fact that they work for a mission-driven, nonprofit organization. They, too, want career success, as well as a greater sense of meaning and purpose. Research shows that these, in fact, are the key challenges for adulthood.  In the workplace they take the form of wanting respect and recognition, teamwork, and creative opportunity. They will repudiate arrogance, authoritarianism, and insensitivity on the part of managers — although they share the same ideals and ideology. There are many horror stories about nonprofits whose values embodied in their missions are completely at odds with the tyrannical behavior of their leaders, who would easily qualify for a listing in “Worst Bosses in America.”

When an organization decides to go for outside help, it should look for consultants who share similar perspectives and values regarding the organization’s ideals in particular, or nonprofit activity in general. They do exist, but one may have to hunt around to find them. Inquire about the consultant’s own values, perspectives, and sensitivity to the nonprofit mission; or about his or her experience and savvy about the linkage between personal and organizational conflicts. Because much conflict within nonprofits results from failure to “walk the walk” internally, replicating the problem in the form of the selection of consultant will not resolve it.

Be mindful that success requires leadership practices and policies that are both humanly and organizationally effective. Both are necessary.  And they need to occur within a socially responsible and ethical context, as well. All efforts to deal with management, staff relationship, and personal conflict issues must be rooted in this integrated perspective, or they are bound to recur.

The conflicts I’ve described require nonprofits to give more than lip service to the developmental needs of staff as well as to the realities of organizational life and careers.  I’ve found that the most successfully functioning nonprofits understand and support the needs and strengths of its members. They know that a positive management culture brings out the best in both the organization and it’s staff, at all levels.  In short, successful nonprofit organizations step up to the challenge of practicing their own ideals inside the organization, not just outside.

After all, whether at the office or at home, our internal and external conduct — the “personal” and the “political” — are really one and the same.

It’s easy to be cynical about holiday volunteering.  But for an increasing number of men and women, young and old, volunteering their time, service, and expertise has become an integral part of their lives; an expression of their core values.  And that raises the question: Why do people volunteer?

Moreover, how does it impact your own life, as well as those whom you help? Over the years I’ve explored these questions with men and women, and tried to help them discover the meaning and impact of their volunteer work upon their own lives, both personally and professionally. I’ve found that volunteer work can impact peoples’ values, perspectives, and even their life goals.  For many, it spurs new growth, spiritually and emotionally.

This makes sense.  Over the years, as I’ve investigated the link between career success and emotional conflict, I’ve found that many highly successful, career-oriented men and women acknowledge feelings of inner emptiness, and absence of meaning in their lives. At the same time, many say that their volunteer work is the only arena that provides a sense of meaning and human connection.  Far greater than their career, and – sadly – often greater than their intimate relationships.

This resonates with similar comments I’ve heard from my psychotherapy patients, as well.  It underscores, I think, that the core challenge of adulthood is creating meaning, purpose, and human connection.  That is, a sense of integration and balance between yourself and the larger human community.  That’s no surprise:  The current thinking and research about human development, as well as the increasingly holistic perspectives in medicine, join with current viewpoints of modern physics in agreement that all life is interconnected. Beneath surface differences, we are all one.

Spiritual traditions of both East and West have been ahead of the thinking of psychologists and physicists, in this regard, as well as describing action that follows from it.  For example, in the Buddhist tradition, acting with compassion in daily life is viewed as a natural expression of this awareness. It’s like when you cut your finger, you don’t deliberate about whether to bandage it; or dither over the cost-benefit equation.  You know it’s part of you, and you just do it.

I think psychological health includes acting on this kind of awareness though positive engagement and connection with the diverse human community. Volunteerism is a direct conduit for this because service to others demonstrates your fundamental connection with all living things.

A study of survivors of the death camps during the Holocaust found that most of those who survived had engaged in active attempts to help others in the camps survive, not just themselves. You can argue that volunteerism helps the other as well as yourself because it affirms the reality of interconnection. In fact, volunteerism is really just a more organized form of something all of us do all the time, every day. We’re always giving of ourselves in some way, in some relationship, all the time — as parent, partner, or citizen of the planet. In that sense we are always “volunteering,” though we may not call it that.

Whatever you “practice” in daily life always becomes stronger – for better or for worse. When you volunteer, you help redress the damaging affects of the disconnection and self-interest that pervades our culture, and which fuels much of the violence, intolerance and fear that we see today, especially since the financial meltdown that began in September 2008.  In that particular way you’re defining the impact you want to have on your own future and that of others, because who you want to be in each life situation, in every moment, is the one choice you always have in life.

But there’s a missing source of the outcry.  It’s probably less conscious; certainly less articulated.  It’s that the award gave a new focal point for mounting fears generated by a profound shift the world is undergoing on many fronts: The economic meltdown; global dangers and threats; the impact of climate change.  It’s an interlocking world, in which everyone has to figure out how to compete and collaborate with everybody else.  And it’s a diverse world – not “out there,” somewhere, but right here in people’s community and workplace.  Moreover, shifts in how people conduct their social, sexual and individual lives are visible all around.

In today’s new era of tumultuous change, we’re shifting from an environment of  old-style “command and control,” in private relationships, careers, and organizations, to “collaborate and cooperate.”

This wave-change, this new reality that the future has arrived, is very hard to digest for some. I’m not referring, here, to the Fox crowd — the right-wing commentators and pundits.  Most probably know better; and know what’s going on throughout our society and the world.  They may not like the changes taking place – perhaps symbolized for them by a black man in the White House.  But they’ve chosen to exploit fears among segments of the public hardest hit by these massive changes.  They’re exploiting them for their own avarice and self-promotion.

Of greater concern are those struggling to regain a foothold onto a decent life.  They are terrified about life in the present world – and what’s to come.  They see social changes and governmental forces doing things that counter what they’ve always believed, and that they fear will make their lives even worse. That can turn into anger.  Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne has honed in on the genuine economic fears and resulting anger of many people caught up in “Obama hatred.” http://tinyurl.com/yztlmhs He points out the need to understand and empathize with those who feel left by the wayside, with little hope of ever getting back on track – middle class people, with genuine rage.

When those people hear voices that intensify their indignation fear and anger of this new world environment – without positive help to understand or adapt to it – they become further alienated from society.  They remain angry and scared, but without knowing how to make sense of what’s going on; and without learning how they might embrace the new realities with practical actions and renewed hope. That’s dangerous for them and for our society.

This shift can be hard to understand and deal with. Those who have difficulty doing so need empathy, help, and practical actions; not contempt or derision.  Save the latter for those who use President Obama’s Nobel Prize – or anything else they can find – as fuel for increasing fear, hatred and division.

But I think another, largely overlooked category of corporate behavior deserves inclusion as a human rights violation:  Management practices that damage the mental health of a company’s own employees.

 Unhealthy management and leadership harms employees and, therefore, their work performance.  Most everyone is familiar with the damaging effects of abusive, hostile, arrogant and narcissistic bosses; of manipulative or deceitful leadership behavior, often directed by senior management towards each other; workaholic demands that result in burnout and diminished productivity; intimidation and threats, subtle and overt; public denigration and humiliation; destructive political maneuvering and closet discrimination.  The list goes on.

Typical consequences for individuals include depression, rage, severe stress or anxiety, withdrawal, paranoia and, increasingly, lawsuits.

As a consultant to business leadership and a psychotherapist for 30 years, I’ve helped people at both end of the spectrum — from the mailroom to the corporate suite — deal with the consequences.  Moreover, I’ve seen an increase of such practices since the economic meltdown began in September 2008.

Unhealthy leadership and the culture it spawns typically disseminates downward to drain away high-performing, energized, engaged employee behavior, including the innovative teamwork companies need to stay nimble and competitive – especially today.

Moreover, an unhealthy management culture fuels emotional conflicts among employees who weren’t overtly troubled prior to working in that environment.  Or, it exacerbates prior emotional conflicts that were previously dormant or well-managed.  Defining unhealthy management as a human rights violation would underscore the principle that men and women should have the right to both a physically and psychologically healthy workplace.  It will spur more companies to recognize the link between successful business and a healthy workplace culture.

Some might argue that such practices are less severe than, say, exploitative child labor or unsanitary, environmentally toxic working environments.  Or, that you can leave a job if you don’t like how you’re being treated (try that in this economy).  But similar arguments were also put forth about racial and
gender discrimination by companies, and we’ve expanded our view of workplace human rights to include protection from those.

I think the primary obstacle to thinking of unhealthy management as a human rights violation is something different.  It’s rooted in a socially conditioned perspective about the link between work and mental health.  That is, companies that do acknowledge a link at all between emotional disturbance and the workplace tend to think of troubles that people bring with them to the office. For example, depression, alcohol and drug problems, severe anxiety, uncontrollable anger, and acute family crises.  Of course, many people experience conflicts like these for reasons largely unrelated to the workplace, and they do impact job performance and workplace relationships.

But these are in the category of how the person impacts the workplace.  I find that the more pervasive and insidious conflicts are those resulting from how the workplace impacts the person.

Why Companies Should Pay Attention

Data about the latter has been growing. Over 10 years ago the World Health Organization elevated the status of “workplace stress” (a broad term including the impact of unhealthy management) to that of a “worldwide epidemic.” Today, the impact of an unhealthy workplace environment on the employee is estimated to cost American companies $300 billion a year in poor performance, absenteeism and health costs.

Similarly, a report by the International Labor Organization back in 2000 found that work-related emotional conflicts were already costing the U.S. about 200 million lost workdays each year.  Such conflicts are also one of the most common health problems in EU countries.  A European survey found that 28% of workers reported emotional conflicts caused by work. Similar data have been reported by Canadian businesses. And in Japan, a survey found the percentage shot up from 53% in 1982 to 63% in 1997.  All of these numbers are likely to have grown in the years since they surveys were conducted.

And, they may be just the tip of the iceberg.  Workers often cite the physical symptoms, such as headaches, chronic pain or digestive disorders as their reason for taking leave, when untreated mental health problems are the underlying cause. In fact, research shows that emotional conflict can weaken the immune system and make people more vulnerable to a host of illnesses.

So companies have a clear stake in defining emotionally harmful management practices as a human rights issue. By not taking steps to create more positive, healthier environments they undermine the performance and commitment of workers through the lost workdays, diminished productivity and less innovation.  That generates higher costs to the organization, not to mention hurt the company’s reputation — including its ability to attract and retain high-quality talent and, eventually, it’s success in the global marketplace.

Some companies have been addressing these problems.  But mostly, it’s after they arise, and as an “add-on,” not as a necessity or practice reflecting the human rights of employees. Examples include wellness programs, employee assistance programs, and classes for dieting and stress-management.  These are helpful.  But they fall short of what companies could do at the front end:  reducing the emotionally harmful organizational cultures and management practices that hurt employees and the business in the first place.

Some movement in this direction has recently begun, but it’s mainly pushed by the threat of new laws.  Eleven states have introduced legislation prohibiting workplace abuse by management.  Model legislation, developed by Suffolk University Law School professor David Yamada, defines the scope and features of
the more visible end of the spectrum – abusive, bullying, demeaning behavior.

Some executives will respond only after getting a wake-up call. Then, they realize that their companies are losing their competitive edge or market share and part of the reason is that they’re increasingly perceived as undesirable place to work.  Reactive behavior is better than none at all, but companies would be wise to become more proactive, and deal with this problem at the front end.

The fact is, a positive, healthy management culture will help the company stay competitive and retain the best employees.  That kind of environment supports the innovation, cutting-edge thinking, and the psychological and cultural competencies needed for success in this fluid, globalized economy.

In Synch With Today’s Employees

Leaders who do become proactive are more in synch with surveys and research showing that men and women across generations – from 20-somethings to baby boomers – will commit themselves to organizations that practice positive, healthy management – such as collaboration, teamwork, a clear reward and recognition system, and transparency at all levels. They want companies led by open-mined but confident people who embrace the often-unsettling tension that accompanies new terrain and new challenges.  In fact, the successful executives use that tension to energize and lead, as Robert Rosen has written in “Just Enough Anxiety,” based on studies of 250 CEOs and other senior executives.

Similarly, a survey of 8000 workers across all age groups and occupations by Concours Group found that the most productive, energized workers gravitate towards companies that provide opportunities for ongoing learning, growth and creative challenge. They want their work to have a positive impact on something more meaningful than just the narrower rewards of money, position, or power. They also want the service or product they work on to have a positive impact on people’s lives.

A 2007 survey by MonsterTRAK found that 80% of those surveyed said they want a job that has a positive impact on the environment.  92% said they would choose working for a “green” company. Other research shows employees working at companies with corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs are the most satisfied. They stay at their jobs longer and are more content with senior management then their peers at companies with lackluster CSR programs, according to a survey conducted by Kenexa Research Institute.

And among those entering the corporate pipeline, a 2007 Hill & Knowlton survey found that three-quarters of top MBA students say corporate reputation will play a critical role in deciding where to work. They cite quality of management and social responsibility among the key drivers of where they look.  While the current economic and career climate creates some fears and uncertainties about the choices one is facing, the direction of this overall thrust is nevertheless clear.

Defining unhealthy management practices as human rights violations would raise the bar for corporations regarding their management conduct.  It would encourage them to build the kinds of companies that people will continue to gravitate towards – ones committed to practicing respect, fair treatment, openness, and collaboration; along with support for continuous learning and growth of skills, knowledge and talent.

In fact, companies who make it through the current economic recession in the best shape and best positioned for success will be those whose leaders believe in and support an energized work force, high quality of goods or services, ethical conduct, and socially responsible and environmentally sustainable practices.  And, that all of those rest upon the foundation of the management culture. A healthy one is both good…and good for business.

I’ve heard many expressions of midlife distress, but few as poignant as this one: A 47 year–old married mother of three told me of a dream in which she’s on one of those moving sidewalks, but can’t get off. On either side scenes pass by – it’s herself, living different lives, with different people. Suddenly she recognizes the Grim Reaper standing at the end of the sidewalk, arms outstretched, awaiting her. She wakes up, screaming.

How to best understand it’s meaning? One problem is that much of the research and clinical understanding about midlife is contradictory. Some, like a MacArthur Foundation study, suggest that there’s no such thing as a “midlife crisis” today; that most people sail through it smoothly. Others, like two recent studies, suggest that midlife is a time of universal depression;
sometimes severe.

For example, a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found a 20 percent rise in midlife suicide among 45 to 54 year–olds from 1999–2004 – a rise that exceeded all other age groups in the U.S.

Another study reported an increase in depression during one’s 40s to early 50s, after which happiness rises again. Researchers from the University of Warwick and Dartmouth College studied 2 million people from 80 nations and found this pattern to be consistent across gender, socio–economic levels and among developed and developing countries alike.

Some experts think the rise of midlife suicide may reflect the decrease of hormone replacement therapy among women, the stress of modern life or increased drug usage among midlifers. But they’re groping in the dark.  Such experiences can lead to many outcomes, depending on how the person handles them, not necessarily suicide.

Regarding the rise of “happiness” after midlife depression, some speculate that people may feel happier after their 40s because they’ve learned to count their blessings, or resign themselves to life goals they know they’ll never achieve.

Based on my own work over the last few decades, I find these explanations unconvincing. The data only underscore the need for a new understanding of midlife; a new framework through which people could learn to deal more effectively with the positive and negative changes they encounter. Here’s mine:

What Is “Midlife”Anyway?

First, I think the term “midlife” is a misnomer. Psychologically, it’s really the portal into full adulthood, the time when you face the challenges of “evolving” into a fully adult human. Successfully crossing that portal involves addressing some core questions: “What am I living for?” “What’s the purpose of my life?”

These questions are the source of most adult emotional conflicts, because facing them often arouses tremendous fear, denial or escapism. After all, we’re highly conditioned to define ourselves by what we have rather than who we are. We learn to turn away from looking down the road, where we see Death patiently awaiting us all, as that 47 year–old woman did in her nightmare.  The economic downturn that began in September 2008 has added to the fears about what may lie ahead.

Moreover, “midlife” actually kicks in around 35.  That’s when most people start emerging from younger adulthood, which is really an extension of adolescence in our culture. Until then, you’re dealing with the often–long period of education and training, and getting established in the adult career world. You’re shifting your emotional connection with your family towards becoming more of your own person. You’re learning about intimate relationships, and (hopefully) why they fail. Overall, you’re having to take more responsibility for your actions and decisions.

When you begin to deal with the fully adult challenges you open a Pandora’s box of new questions and conflicting desires. For example, you feel pulled towards integrating the different “parts” of your life. You want to answer that inner voice asking, “Why am I choosing to live the life I’m living?” That is, the work you’re engaged in, your friendships and love relationships, your life–style and other commitments. Your inner voice begins to ask, “Are they what I truly want?”

And most critical of all is whether you’re serving anything larger than your own personal needs and wants.

Facing all that can be difficult, even painful, because we’re so easily trapped within past choices and/or materialistic life–styles and often don’t see any viable alternatives. Then, we may just resign to “what is.” It can lead to what one man said to his wife during a couples therapy session in my office, “Maintaining a certain life–style and juggling all the balls of busy lives and careers – that’s just part of normal life, isn’t it? Can’t do anything about that. Let’s just figure out how to smooth out the bumps.”

Happiness dips during the 40s because dealing with these new conflicts and needs converges with a second psychological shift: Old emotional defenses, rationalizations and self–deceptions from your childhood and adolescence, as well as from your adult decisions, begin to erode and crumble under their own weight. They no longer work so well as you age.

That’s because we always know the truth inside. And truth keeps trying to rise to the surface. We may have remained unconscious about old conflicts – and puzzle over repetitive patterns or underlying unhappiness — but the pull towards resolve them is a strong developmental need, and it tends to blossom more fully during midlife. In fact, the economic meltdown over the last several months has intensified that pull, out of necessity.  So it may prove to be a blessing in disguise for many people.

How People Deal With It

Sadly, though, some head into a downward spiral of midlife despair and resignation. That can segue into depression, from mild to severe.  Suicide attempts may occur in some cases, as the research found. An example of downward drift is a man who realized that he never really liked his career, felt underutilized and unfulfilled; and then was let go by his company. At the same time, he was going through a divorce. He asked me a tearful question in our first meeting that sounded like a Zen koan: “How do you start over when you can’t start over?”

Successful movement through this period of life challenges accounts for some of the data about that upswing of happiness after the 40s, but not all. A larger source of later life “happiness” is more likely masked resignation and accommodation –people who more or less give up trying to grow and change. They decide, consciously or unconsciously, to lope along in the life they’ve been living and define that as happiness.

It’s illusory, though, because over time they tend to become “comfortably numb,” emotionally and spiritually. And, they become increasingly vulnerable to physical ailments, an upsurge of elder–life depression, alcoholism or drug usage.

I’ve worked with many such “happy” people: A woman who feared what changes she might have to make in her life to feel more alive, more vital — until one day she discovered her husband had been conducting an affair for several years, and her world crumbled. Or the man who had become more withdrawn at home, burying himself in work, alcohol and Internet chat rooms – with the silent agreement of his wife.  Meanwhile, he gained weight and developed high blood pressure. When he consulted me, he said that whenever he had tried to “break free,” he reverted back to his “old ways,” so he had decided to just stop trying.

More positively, I see a rise in number of those who grapple with their midlife challenges right from the start. They do some self–examination and work at creating clearer purpose and more integration within their lives, which can open up a sense of renewal. Seen in this light, midlife is really a positive transition zone for forging creative solutions and better trade–offs about your daily life commitments – mortgages, tuitions, salaries, expenditures and so forth – and then restructuring your life choices, values and goals in ways more consistent with an integrated, healthy and authentic life that continues to grow and develop spiritually, emotionally and in your relationships.  That’s positive aging.

How Can You Do That?

Deal With Your Problems – Today

No one enters the thick of adulthood unscathed by childhood. Have you ever met anyone who had perfect parents?  But when your emotional conflicts impact your relationships and behavior, it’s time to find a good psychotherapist. Do it now. Remember what’s waiting for you down the road. If you feel depressed, don’t be so quick to pop pills. A new, large–scale study finds that antidepressant medications work no better than placebos, except for people with incapacitating depression or major mood disorder. Most people’s emotional state is a physiological–emotional byproduct of how you’re “practicing” your whole life.

Design Your Own “Evolution”

A large–scale study of baby boomers by MetLife/Civic Ventures in 2005 found that over half now want their work to contribute to the common good; to provide a greater sense of service. Does that resonate with you? Take an honest look at what you’re really working and living for. With your partner, assess how your career – its rewards and tradeoffs – relates to the rest of your life, including where you find meaning, your longer–term goals, and how you’re using your mental and emotional powers in the world, beyond your own self–interest. What changes would create better alignment?  Especially today, when financial rewards may not be as promising as in years past.

Rethink Your Relationship

Ready for this? If you and your partner have been together a long time take the radical step of confronting whether you want to continue your marriage or relationship. Is this the person you want to stay with the rest of your life? Face the possibility that the relationship you entered years ago and within which you raised children worked for that earlier purpose, but may no longer do so, today.  If so, how could you reconstitute it?  Do you want to?

Maybe a time will come when people choose a marriage partner on the basis of raising healthy children in a stable environment, and then later seek a different partner with whom one feels a greater romantic, soul–mate connection. But for now you can learn whether the two of you can rebuild the kind of relationship that you both want. Get the help of a good couples therapist if necessary.

But if you decide it’s better to end it, do it now, with mutual respect.  Don’t be like the 85 year–old man who, when asked by his surprised nephew — who was in a troubled marriage himself — why he was leaving his wife after 60 years of marriage, replied flatly, “Because I’ve been unhappy with her for 50 years.”

The upshot about midlife is that most are capable of self–directing their lives at this point. What you experience isn’t some inexorable process that simply happens to you. It’s the product of how you manage the changes within your mind/body/spirit; how you deal with the new possibilities that lie ahead.

Oh, and keep in mind Yogi Berra’s sage advice, “When you come to a fork in the road . . . take it!”

A condensed version of this article previously appeared in different form in the Washington Post.

A recent poll shows that the overwhelming majority of those who believe in this conspiracy are Southern Republicans.  I think it’s pretty clear what’s behind this movement, and why some members of Congress go along with it; or refuse to repudiate it.  It’s the simple fact that we’ve elected an African-American President of the United States.  As Chris Matthews has pointed out on “Hardball,”  this alleged “controversy” is not about documentation; it’s about pigmentation.

That’s a polite way of saying “racism.”  I think the “birther” believers are really saying to themselves (and to each other) “Oh my God, there’s a black man in the White House!”  So they’ve got to de-legitimize him. I hope that more public figures expose this for what it is, and not skirt the issue.  Or give credence to it, as Lou Dobbs has been doing on CNN. The larger issue, though, is that our country is undergoing massive transition and evolution in many areas.  We are moving away from a dominant white male culture.  It’s estimated that in about 40 years white people will be in the minority.  Already, five states have non-white majorities.

This is our future — we’re headed towards a multi-racial, multi-ethnic America.  While the fears of those who view this as threatening can be understood, the expression of those fears through hatred, conspiracy theories and potential violence should not be tolerated.

It was February 2006, and the 21-year-old soldier had not been the same since being wounded and coming home from Iraq eight months before. He had violent outbursts and thrashing nightmares. He was devouring pain pills and drinking too much.

He always packed a gun.

‘It was a dangerous combination. I told them he was a walking time bomb,’ said his mother, Teresa Hernandez.

His sergeant told her there was nothing he could do. Then, she said, he started taunting her son, saying things like, ‘Your mommy called. She says you are going crazy.’

Eight months later, the time bomb exploded when her son used a stun gun to repeatedly shock a small-time drug dealer in Widefield over an ounce of marijuana, then shot him through the heart.”

So begins “The Casualties of War,” by Dave Philipps, which appeared recently in the Colorado Gazette

It was forwarded to me by my old friend David Addlestone, who founded the National Veterans Legal Services Program in Washington, DC and led it for many years, until stepping down in 2008.  Addlestone – whom the American Bar Association called “a Human Rights Hero…who dedicated his entire professional career to vindicating the rights of the often scorned warriors…” has fought for veterans’ legal rights for decades, going back to the Vietnam era.

So it’s no surprise that he would be calling attention to this latest human rights tragedy underway regarding the mental health of our returning veterans and the behavior their psychological condition provokes.

Philipps’ article documents chilling accounts of the emotional damage suffered by many vets, often leading to violence, murder and self-destructive behavior – both while on duty and especially after the vets return to “normalcy.”  Unfortunately the military appears to not take very seriously — and even eggs on, in some cases — the mental traumas that the returning soldiers bring with them.  See the rest of Philipps article at http://tinyurl.com/ngo3hz

Our elected officials and our institutions need to address this, perhaps with a war-to-peace transition program that could provide the psychological help these men and women need, as well as ways to reintegrate into civil society. The danger of inaction or inadequate help lies in reinforcing their sense of isolation, misunderstanding and perceived dangers – to which the only responseis to attack and kill, for self-preservation.

I interviewed Scott for an article I wrote in the Washington Post in 2007 and was impressed with his ability to put his business and media savvy and talents in the service of addressing a humanitarian problem.

Even more impressive and significant is his personal story arc: From an awakening out of a self-centered life; which led to an unexpected, almost serendipity experience; which led, in turn, to creating a successful venture — one that’s having tremendous impact on people who are deprived of something as basic as clean water. http://www.charitywater.org

I’m finding that people like Scott are emblematic of a growing evolution within personal values and behavior, today: Redefining success away from self-centeredness, greed and purely personal gain; and towards using your talents to serve the common good.  My study of this evolution suggests that it reflects an emerging new definition of psychological health that fits the needs of our post-globalized era.

“If you come across a garter snake, nearly all of your brain will light up with activity as you process the “threat.” Yet if somebody tells you that carbon emissions will eventually destroy Earth as we know it, only the small part of the brain that focuses on the future — a portion of the prefrontal cortex — will glimmer.” http://tinyurl.com/mqkq4c

In other words, we will tend to acknowledge a threat and react to it when we experience it as more immediate.  But if it appears to lie in the distance somewhere, it doesn’t have the same impact.  In effect, our brain circuitry, from early in our evolution, makes us cavalier about future dangers, even if those dangers are horrendous in their consequences if not headed off by action that begins in the present.  And even if the dangers we’re programmed to react to were relevant in an ancient environment, but minimally present in today’s world.

Kristoff points out that “…all is not lost, particularly if we understand and acknowledge our neurological shortcomings — and try to compensate with rational analysis. When we work at it, we are indeed capable of foresight: If we can floss today to prevent tooth decay in later years, then perhaps we can also drive less to save the planet.”

I think there is even more encouraging evidence, beyond applying “rational analysis.”  In additions – and perhaps more importantly – is the capacity to grow consciousness about our impact on the world, through our actions; and deliberately use our empathy – which is also hard-wired, as brain research shows – to initiate actions that support desired outcomes.  Whether for our own lives or future generations.

For example, part of our early ancestry propels us to seek out multiple partners, because of evolutionary need to reproduce. (Of course, some of us continue to do that, repeatedly!)  But acting contrary to that – or any other impulse that may benefit your own self but hurt others – well, that’s a choice you can make, as your consciousness grows. The latter enables you to define what you value, why, and engage in actions based on conscious values that promoting and supporting life, not just your own.

The more our consciousness grows within us as a species, that, in turn, drives continued emotional, mental, and behavioral evolution.  It leads to thinking about what your “life impact” is; or what you want it to be.  I’m reminded of something Samantha Power said in a college commencement address last year, “Become a good ancestor”

Now there’s a good principle to live by.