SEARCH

I come from a non-profit background. Actually, backing up even further, I come from the background of sober living throughout college in no small part so that I could spend every hour that I wasn’t working or attending class focused on my volunteer work at a smattering of local organizations. I wanted to make a difference. I wanted to be part of change. Part of a solution. When I moved to Albany to pursue a graduate degree 23 years ago, I thought I had a reasonable path mapped out to realize my dreams of being the change I wanted to see in the world. One or two semesters in I realized that as much as I loved my field of sociology, studying systemic disparities and addressing systemic barriers were two very different things. Two years later I entered the professional workforce highly motivated, but also wildly unsure of how I was in fact going to be the change. There was so much that needed to change. And so few of us who seemed interested in changing it. At some point I realized what everyone over the age of 30 had probably been impatiently waiting for me to realize all along: change doesn’t happen through some grand, sweeping motion. It happens incrementally through an ongoing series of small actions. You find a network of good folks, and you, and each one of those good folks do your best to bring the best into the world, one small step at a time. And eventually, there may be change. And even if it’s not visible on the large scale, it impacts the individuals you interact with. And maybe that’s all there ever is. And maybe that’s enough. Dreamers, doers, and change-makers My work in homelessness gave way to work in food insecurity which gave way to work in public health. And really I suppose that could have been the beginning of this post. But I wanted you to understand how deeply connected I feel to the world of wanting to do good. How integral those values are to my sense of self and sense of purpose. Public health, it turned out, wasn’t all that different from social work. You examine societal challenges - many of which probably don’t even register as “health issues” to folks outside the field- and look for multifaceted approaches to improving the well-being of the community as a whole. In a sense, housing insecurity, food insecurity, racial, economic, and sex or gender-based disparities - all the areas I’d previously focused on through a social work lens - were also public health issues. And the field of public health is made up of dreamers and doers who are committed to being the change. Studying and practicing health has the potential to be a financially rewarding career. But not usually if you go into public health. Public health is to the practice of medicine what Legal Aid attorneys are to the practice of law. (Would it surprise you to know that my second job out of graduate school was working at a Legal Aid Society with some of the most brilliant lawyers I’ve ever known?) It is change-making work. It is critically important work. It can be rewarding work when the reward isn’t overshadowed by the exhaustion. But it’s not lucrative. You go into public health knowing you can make one of two things: Money, or a difference. And you consciously choose “difference.” Improve maternal mortality rates. Reduce the burden of preventable disease in lower-income communities. Eliminate racially disparate health outcomes of people living with diabetes. Increase access to nutritious food. Reduce pain. Reduce harm. Improve health outcomes, and by extension, quality of life. Profiteers, exploiters, money-grabbers Ultimately, when I was in my 30s, not partnered, and struggling to pay my mortgage, pay for my medication, and save for a car that was less than 12 years old, I left the non-profit world for government work. Marginally better pay with significantly better benefits meant that for the first time in my adult life, I could think beyond my next paycheck. And after a successful career in government with limited opportunities for advancement during the financial (public health) crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic, I ultimately left government for a job in the private sector. It was still working in learning and development. And it was still aligned with my idea of being part of a change. Was it wrong to want to not only pay my bills, but also save for retirement? (Note that the topic of compensation for those in non-profit and public sector deserves a much greater acknowledgement than fits within the scope of this post). I expected that my biggest struggle was going to be finding myself in meetings with senior leaders in overpriced suits making overtly racist, sexist, and homophobic comments while lauding extremist republican ideals that inflicted harm on the communities I’d worked so hard to serve. I feared that while I could do the work, I wouldn’t fit in culturally, and would have to do a lot of “game-facing.” I was shocked at how wrong I was. The folks in the private sector used unfamiliar words like, marketing, revenue, innovation, C-suite and high-performers. But beyond the new lingo, they weren’t all that different from me. Or my former colleagues in the worlds of the public and non-profit sectors. They were looking for learning solutions to support their employees. They wanted to improve employee engagement, provide opportunities for skill development, develop more effective leaders, provide better experiences for their customers- and yes, of course, also make a profit. I distinctly remember the first time I told a friend and former colleague about work I was doing for a client that was a pharmaceutical company. It may have been my first “Big Pharma” client. I hadn’t even shared much information when my friend responded saying, “Wow! You’ve really sold out, huh? You can’t possibly stay in a job like that that’s so misaligned with your values! What are you going to do?” Yes, that’s right. The once change-maker had sold out to the profit-hungry, greedmongers of Big Pharma (please read the words Big Pharma in a deep, booming, vaguely threatening voice. That’s how they’re intended to be read). We all know about, and love to hate, Big Pharma. I was in deep with the devil. Working for the man. Screwing over the little people left right and sideways to help the rich get richer and hopefully carry me along for the ride. How did I get here? The humans in the room If this was an audiobook, there would be the scratching sound of a tonearm being pulled unexpectedly across a record in play. But it’s not, so I’ll ask you to imagine it. How did I get here? Where is here, exactly? My first Big Pharma client contact was a Black, lesbian woman who was shared her openly critical perspectives on systemic racism within the United States, and also shared her enthusiasm in the efforts her company was making to improve the quality of life for those most impacted by the policies she’d referenced. I probably had more in common with her than I did with the men I'd worked for in government. My second pharma contact was a European woman who engaged me in deep, thought-provoking conversations about healthcare, climate change, and universal income. And the first time I found myself in a room full of Big Pharma employees, it felt like I was in a room full of academics. Or social workers. Or public health practitioners. And the second time, it felt the same way. And the third time as well. And, frankly, every time thereafter. What do I mean by this? Ask people to tell you about their work. What motivates them. How they chose their career path. Why they are in this very specific field. Their mom had an extremely rare form of cancer, and they had no options for treatment. Watching their mother die before the age of 50, and the devastation it had on their entire family motivated them to want to find a better way. They went to school with someone who suffered from a degenerative bone disease that dramatically decreased their quality of life over the years, till they ultimately withdrew from all of their prior activities because they were too painful. They don’t want anyone else to go through this pain. They are a member of the LGBTQ community and watched as their friends, family, and lovers died during the height of the AIDS epidemic. While it is great that people can now live with HIV, they want more than just “living”. In the memory of all those who are lost, they want to find a way to help those not only live, and survive, but thrive. They grew up in a community where access to fresh, healthy food was scarce and the prevalence of obesity and Type 2 Diabetes was much higher than surrounding communities. They want to improve quality of life for those who are currently living in situations that don’t allow them to access healthy foods. They work long hours. And face high pressures. And repeatedly pick themselves back up and try again after failures. Because they want to be the change they want to see in the world. Because they want to reduce pain. Reduce harm. Improve health outcomes, and by extension, quality of life. The messy truth We all want things to be black and white. Simple. Defined by straight lines with clear margins. We want things to be good or bad. Non-profits = good. Corporations = bad. The actual diverse populations of people in each system - left undiscussed. You’re either fighting for good, or you’re contributing to bad. And there is no room for anything in between. Except that in my experience, almost everything - and everyone - is somewhere in between. In my experience, the narratives of the folks at the public health conference aren’t actually that different from the folks at the pharmaceutical conference. I could write a novel on the many mistakes I made and many ways I unintentionally caused harm during my career regarded as noble because I was a professional dreamer, doer, changemaker. I could also probably write a novel about all of the good that has been done by some of those regarded as profiteers, exploiters, and money grabbers based on their type of employment. And the inverse is true as well. And likely every variation that could fall in the middle. I started my career wanting to be part of a solution - even though I wasn’t sure what exactly that solution was. It’s taken me about a quarter of a century, but I've gotten much closer to defining what is that solution that I want to contribute to - to be the change I want to see in the world. I want to facilitate conversation and connection. And to reduce the barriers - the artificial lines and labels we use to simplify the things that are inextricably human, and therefore inherently complex. To welcome people from the black and from the white to enter and explore this delightfully messy, delightfully honest, uncomfortable and unquantifiable, world of gray. I’m still committed to bringing my best into the world, one small step at a time. And eventually, maybe there will be change. Even if it’s not visible on a large scale, maybe it will impact the individuals I interact with. Both the public health professionals and the pharmaceutical company employees. The non-profit workers and the private sector workers. The folks in the black, and in the white, and all of the endless shades of gray. Maybe that's my best solution. And maybe that’s all there ever is. And maybe that’s enough.

We adopted two kittens in October. They are delightful. But they sure have done a number on my sleep habits. Which means that after a night with insufficient sleep sometimes I lie in bed longer than I used to. It starts with a crossword puzzle, moves on to a series of NYT games, and then ultimately onto various news sources. It was one of those such mornings when the headline jumped across my screen: Just 4% of CEOs are prioritizing bringing workers back into the office full time. Huh, I thought, Here we are in 2024 and “return to office” is still headline worthy? But I’m as curious as the next person, so I clicked. It starts off by giving the answer to the debate and informing the reader that, “The return-to-office debate isn’t going away — but one aspect may be coming to a close, and workers won.” I cringed a little. Or at the very least made a face. As someone who wants flexibility for workers, shouldn’t this news make me happy? On the surface, sure, the idea that “the workers won” should be something that would excite me. Except that it’s not true. Or at least, not entirely. Yes, in a world where there are diverse working options to meet the diverse needs of an incredibly diverse workforce, the workers win. But you know who else wins? CEOs. And their companies. And their profits. The positioning of the remote-work conundrum as an “us vs them” has irked me for some time. It’s a false narrative that only serves to divide two groups that surely don’t need any additional assistance in being divided, and in fact, could really benefit from sharing some common ground. Such as, say, the acknowledgement that having every single employee on site in a workplace probably isn’t a top priority for either group. What are the top priorities then? The article goes on to say that the majority of CEOs are instead focusing on, “attracting and retaining talent” as a top priority. Again, I am annoyed wondering, why is this news? What I mean is, we’ve read headline after headline about the employers struggling to retain employees, and employees feeling record levels of burnout and disengagement. That those at the top are focused on trying to create a work environment that not only attracts, but also retains a skilled workforce should be a given, no? Which leads me to wonder if we’re still missing the mark in terms of why anyone considers it important to “bring people back into the office anyway.” Or maybe, just maybe, this headline news is a sign that we’re moving in the right direction. Are we about ready to drop the narrative that the only way to build workplace culture is to do it in a shared physical setting? If not in our shared physical spaces, how can we build culture? The culture argument was the one I heard the most frequently in support of bringing people fully back on-site. And while I don’t know that I am entirely convinced that argument was ever fully sincere, I am glad to see that there is the beginning of an agreement that culture can actually exist across time and space. There seems to be a great deal of room for discussion on what exactly is meant by the term culture, and certainly there are plenty of well-researched articles, blogs, and speeches on the topic. However, it does seem like a lot of the angst around remote work and culture was around the ability to connect without a watercooler, and the ability to collaborate without a conference room. A recent Forbes article accurately noted that, “Team connection is not about friendship or camaraderie, but rather an intentional and enhanced form of relationship that cultivates innovation” and that it’s the “small, consistent rituals incorporated into everyday interactions” that really make a difference. Can this be done across the space-time divide? Absolutely. There are countless organizations who have been doing it - and exceeding at it- for years. I could throw statistics at you, but all of the research suggests that people change their mind based more on feelings than data, so I’ll share an anecdote. Cultures I’ve experienced - in an office and at home For (an undisclosed number of) years I worked for an organization where we all reported to the same office space, five days a week. While there was some flexibility in terms of the hours we worked, everyone was in the office between 8-4 or 9-5. Very rarely, someone would be allowed a 9:30-5:30 exception. But I mean very rarely. We didn’t have a strong organizational culture. Our leadership felt a bit absent. We didn’t align our work according to the mission of the organization. And employees were led in ways that supported them as individuals, rather than as members of a team. In the time I worked there, I rose in seniority. I accomplished a multitude of large, collaborative projects, and made quite a few meaningful relationships with people I am still in touch with today and expect to be in touch with for a long time. Aha! You might be thinking, I knew being in person would serve her well!  In all seriousness, being in person worked fine for me. But the most significant relationships I formed were with colleagues who worked for other organizations, but collaborated with me and my team. Sometimes we would meet in person. And oftentimes we did not. Fast forward a few years when I began working for a fully remote team. I worked there for probably 6 months before I met anyone in person, and had some colleagues I saw for a total of 2 days across a multi-year time span. We worked across different locations and time zones. We had a strong organizational culture, and aligned as members of a team. In the time I worked there, I rose in seniority. I accomplished a multitude of large, collaborative projects, and made quite a few meaningful relationships with people I am still in touch with today and expect to be in touch with for a long time. (Does this paragraph sound familiar to you? It should.) There is no one universal truth, but there are endless options My experience is not universal. No one’s experience is universal. What is universal is that employees do seek to feel engaged and connected.  And what’s also true is that not all employees need to see each other in-person regularly for that to happen. Jim Kalbach, Chief Evangelist of Mural (my favorite online collaboration tool) was quoted as saying, “creativity isn't tied to a location. It is tied to human connection, psychological safety, and trust.” And it’s not just Jim who says this. The overwhelming evidence supports this idea. Near or far, if you want to build culture, collaboration, and innovation, your first stop isn’t an office. It’s psychological safety. And since that looks different for each employee and each organization, it is incumbent upon leadership to listen to and learn about what their employees actually need. So, perhaps now that CEOs have deprioritized returning to their office, and have shifted the priority to attracting and retaining talent, we’ll be seeing more headlines focused on CEOs also seeking diverse strategies to build organizational trust across various workplace structures. Because if they’re serious about retainment - and the all-encompassing culture- they’re going to need it. And you can trust that I’ll be looking for those headlines while I lie in bed. After all, I’ve got those kittens. References: Bellizi, K. (2022, August 16). Cognitive Biases and Brain Biology Help Explain Why Facts Don’t Change Minds. Retrieved February 5, 2024, from https://today.uconn.edu/2022/08/cognitive-biases-and-brain-biology-help-explain-why-facts-dont-change-minds-2/ Maruf, R. (2024, January 10). Just 4% of CEOs are prioritizing bringing workers back into the office full time. Retrieved January 17, 2024, from https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/10/business/return-to-office-2024-ceo/index.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=cnn_LinkedIn-Newsletter Tsipurksy, G. (2023, July 19). The Power Of Psychological Safety And Creativity In Teams. Forbes. Retrieved February 2, 2024, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/glebtsipursky/2023/07/19/the-power-of-psychological-safety-and-creativity-in-teams/?sh=372ea64c5917

“Soft skills still matter!” “Soft skills are more critical than ever!” “AI won’t replace soft skills!” “Maybe the end isn’t coming after all!” Have you seen those headlines recently? Okay, maybe I made up the last one, but you get the idea. In the time that the general public and majority of the workforce have gained a practical familiarity with the newer advances in AI and their potential to play a role in our workplaces, we’ve seen emotions and reactions run the gamut from literally the worst thing ever (“We will all be replaced by robots!!) to literally the best thing ever (“This will make things so much easier and more efficient and prevent me from wasting time on things that can be automated!!”) to varying shades in between. While working full time for my own learning and development consulting firm is a newer endeavor for me, I’ve been in this field for over 20 years (how did that happen?!) and my network reflects that. Which is to say that my network reflects the current trends and themes that are impacting educators, HR professionals, organizational consultants, and DEI practitioners. And most recently, those trends and themes? A lot of them involve AI. The latest article to make its rounds on my feed is Fast Company’s New study finds AI makes employers value soft skills more. Phew! The world breathes a collective sigh of relief as Fast Company reassures us that, “in the AI age, employers expect to increasingly value “soft skills” that enhance human interactions and foster rich, people-centered company cultures.” The article goes on to discuss the future importance of things like ethics, communication, collaboration, and other human-centered soft skills that will facilitate trust, connection, and a sense of belonging. And it’s not just Fast Company that’s providing this reassurance. Forbes, Training Industry, LinkedIn, UpSkilled - the list goes on - are all publishing article after article to reassure us that as AI becomes more central, so-called “soft skills” will become more valuable than “hard skills”. What a relief. The robots may still be asking us to verify that we are not in fact robots as we try to access our bank accounts and social media, but they aren’t slated to replace us yet. That’s a good thing. And if I could leave well enough alone, that might be the end of this post. Or maybe this wouldn’t have even been a post in the first place. But, I’m not (nor have I ever been) one to leave well enough alone (you can ask my mother, she’d be the first to tell you). Why not leave well enough alone, then? The more I read about this trend and the sudden realization that - Oh my God! Even in the age of AI, we will still need people to be able to relate to one another and build trust - the more I found myself frustrated that this was even a revelation worth speaking about. And the framing- the idea that in the age of AI - which seems to implicitly posit “only in the age of AI” or “new in this world of AI” seemed equally troubling. Haven’t soft skills always been important? And therein lies the crux of my argument. Or, maybe it’s the crux of my frustration. Even the name of these skills as “soft” in contrast to “hard” skills (technical skills such as writing code, web development, and financial planning) implies that in being less tangible or quantifiable, perhaps (indeed) they are also less valuable. And who do we associate with soft skills (and perhaps even, being softer as people) versus who we associate with hard skills. Yes, I know. We have all been through enough generic DEI trainings by now that we try to recognize and avert our biases before they happen, but the truth is, those biases are longstanding and deeply ingrained. Caregivers need soft skills. Educators, social workers, nurses, daycare providers, mothers. Soft skills are feminine. Soft skills are. . .for women. Where as leaders, leaders need to be firm, decisive, imposing- anything but soft. This, despite the fact that, “a recent paper by researchers at University College London, Harvard Business School and Cornell University argue(s) that, although functional (or “hard”) skills are important, it is soft skills that differentiate successful executives.” (Hansen, S., Ramdas, T., Sadun, R., & Fuller, J. (2019).) "Soft" is just a word. Don't overthink it. Now you might say, it’s just a word. It doesn’t actually mean anything. If it didn't mean anything, why would learning and development professionals go to such great lengths to find alternative labels for these skills? Power skills! Interpersonal skills! Future skills! Relational skills! They're all euphemisms for "soft skills." Because the truth is, words do mean things. Words are powerful. Words shape what we assign value- and by extension, how compensation is offered based on that value. Every year we hear about the need for better communication in the workplace, more collaboration in the workplace, greater respect and inclusion in the workplace, improved creativity in the workplace - all while learning and development offices struggle to secure the minimum budget needed to meet their most basic needs, let alone make any sorts of advances that would improve employee relations. At the risk of simply reiterating what literally dozens of researchers have said before me, soft skills build trust and morale. Trust and morale boosts engagement and retention. An engaged workforce is a more productive workforce. And employee retention translates to greater savings. It’s a win-win. Long before the advent of AI, and long after the peak of AI, soft skills have been , and will continue to be, critical to the success of our workforce (and dare I say, society). So are we ending on a low note? While it’s true that I can’t leave well enough alone, it’s also true that I am always looking for the potential upside of things. Has softness (skills, careers, stereotypical characteristics of femininity and women) been undervalued for entirely too long? Absolutely. Is it frustrating that seemingly “harder” skills such as AI are almost immediately afforded a level of value and importance (and the financial implications that come along with it)? Again, absolutely. But in this new era, where articles are being published by the dozens offering the hot take that SOFT SKILLS MATTER, where the discourse around a “hard” technology has amplified further discourse around the value of their softer counterpart, maybe I’ll take the wins where I can get them. If the buzz around AI can simultaneously raise awareness on the importance of soft skills, I suppose I’d call that a win-win as well. After all, doesn’t the title of the hottest new article say it all: New study finds (AI makes) employers value soft skills (more)? ;) References: Cardon , P. (2024, January 23). New study finds AI makes employers value soft skills more. Fast Company. Retrieved January 30, 2024, from https://www.fastcompany.com/91012874/new-study-finds-ai-makes-employers-value-soft-skills-more Coleman , R. (2023, November 27). The “Human Imperative”: The Importance of Soft Skills for Leaders in the Age of AI. Training Industry. Retrieved January 30, 2024, from https://trainingindustry.com/articles/leadership/the-human-imperative-the-importance-of-soft-skills-for-leaders-in-the-age-of-ai/#:~:text=Successful%20leaders%20understand%20that%20business,and%20empathy%20are%20increasingly%20important Custodio, C. (2023, September 18). Why leaders need soft skills in the age of AI. Imperial College Business School. Retrieved January 30, 2024, from https://www.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/ib-knowledge/strategy-leadership/why-leaders-need-soft-skills-the-age-ai Darby, F. (n.d.). Why are soft skills so important in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI)? UpSkilled. Retrieved January 30, 2024, from https://www.upskilled.edu.au/skillstalk/soft-skills-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence Gupta, A. (2023, April 9). In the Age of AI, Soft Skills will Shine. LinkedIn. Retrieved January 30, 2024, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/age-ai-soft-skills-shine-ashish-gupta/ Hansen, S., Ramdas, T., Sadun, R., & Fuller, J. (2019). The Demand for Executive Skills. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28959 Westfall , C. (2023, October 17). Why These 6 Soft Skills Still Matter In The Age Of Generative AI. Forbes. Retrieved January 30, 2024, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriswestfall/2023/10/17/why-these-6-soft-skills-still-matter-in-the-age-of-generative-ai/?sh=4d1884e62a91 York, D. (n.d.). Why are soft skills so important in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI)? StrategicCHRO. Retrieved January 30, 2024, from https://strategicchro360.com/the-role-of-soft-skills-in-the-age-of-ai/

In the last three years, there has been seemingly endless documentation of employee disengagement, burnout, and even the coining of a new phrase, “quiet quitting.” These conversations are coupled with claims of “no one wants to work anymore” answered with the response that, “no one wants to work the equivalent of three jobs for the salary of half of one.” Whether you’re an employer or an employee, I think we can all agree that the general sentiment is that the way we’ve been doing things isn’t working, and there’s a massive feeling of unhappiness and disengagement at multiple levels. I’ve seen it with clients, colleagues, and friends. I’m willing to bet you have too. And, you’ve probably talked about it. And listened to others talk about it. And then maybe talked about it some more. Is burnout the next pandemic? Has it been an existing pandemic since long before it was talked about? Maybe. Probably. But there’s an expression about how you see what you’re looking for. Meaning, if you’re looking for burnout, you’ll surely find burnout. (Though I don’t believe anyone has to try very hard to look for it). My point is more on the flipside of the equation - if we look for engagement, satisfaction, or (dare I say it??) joy - will we find it? To be clear, I’m not suggesting that joy is just as common as burnout and that the problem lies entirely within our approach or perspective. But I do wonder where the stories about joy at work are - because surely there must be some, right? Here’s another expression for you: Be the change you wish to see. Y’all. I am currently experiencing joy at work. I’ve been experiencing joy at work for a few weeks now. In fact, it’s been well over a month. I have so much to say about my transition from “following the established career path that demonstrates success” to “establish some work-life balance and be happy” that I suspect it will be the subject of many other musings and ramblings to come. For now, I want to share a specific story of joy at work on a Tuesday afternoon. The short backdrop for this story is that I left my full-time job as a VP of learning and development in mid-June to pursue a career as a free-lance consultant in learning and organizational development. And that is how I found myself on a flight from Denver, Colorado to Philadelphia, PA on Monday evening, about to deliver a workshop on Psychological Safety during Times of Change to a group of leaders the following Tuesday. To clarify, the Colorado part was just because I was returning from vacation, not because I had a work gig there as well. But I share it because it’s relevant. And it’s relevant, because the phrase “Sunday Scaries” didn’t come from nowhere. And anyone who has experienced the Sunday Scaries knows that the only way to generate more anxiety than returning to work on a Monday morning after the weekend is to… return to work after taking a vacation. In fact, I’ve heard more than a handful of people say that the anxiety of returning to work after time out of the office almost negates the benefit of taking time off in the first place. So, there I was, ending my vacation and flying right to work. It didn’t even occur to me that I didn’t have anxiety until I realized the one thing I was worrying about was the size of my suitcase and backpack since I was flying in from vacation. I worried that I might look silly on what others would view as a 1 day work trip when I clearly had well over a week’s worth of belongings. Spoiler alert: No one noticed my bags. And if they did, they didn’t say anything. That night I met a new colleague, and co-facilitator for dinner. Then later another colleague and co-facilitator joined us. The dinner was surprisingly good. The conversation even better. In the morning, I ironed my clothes, reviewed my notes, and got dressed in a way that felt appropriate to be in front of a room full of leaders. I met my colleagues again for breakfast, and then lunch, and then, it was game time. The first participant to walk into the room immediately came up, introduced himself, and shook our hands. Others did the same upon entering. When I introduced myself and told the group that I was excited to be there because I feel so strongly about the topic, I wasn’t lying. And for the next 90 minutes I remained excited. And engaged. And, dare I say it, joyous. The group was engaged and curious and reflective. They took risks and told stories. They made mistakes and helped each other learn. They leaned into areas of discomfort and paused to sit with new ideas. And at the end of the training they were energized, and shared their gratitude for the opportunity to attend the workshop, and the impact that the session had on them. It was a 90 minute session, so it’s safe to say there is still work to be done. But we accomplished a lot in the time we spent together. And I felt like I got to make a difference. When I was in college we did an exercise where we had to write one sentence that we would want written on our tombstones to summarize who we were. That activity was nearly 25 years ago, so I can’t promise to remember my quote exactly, but I believe it was: “She cared and tried to make a difference.” Most of the different streets on my long and varied career path have afforded me the opportunity to make a difference in one way or another. And for that, I am exceptionally grateful. On this particular Tuesday I was once again lit up by the idea that I get to care. And I get to make a difference. And not only does that relieve burnout, stress, and anxiety at work - it creates joy. I’m not entirely sure where this next chapter is going to take me, but I do know that my roadmap will be highly informed by choices and opportunities that allow me to be the change I wish to see. And that change is LESS burnout, disengagement, and Sunday Scaries - MORE connection, engagement, purpose, and joy. What are you feeling at work these days? I would love to hear about the experiences that bring YOU joy and make you feel alive and engaged!