Younger workers: “These older people just don’t get it. They expect us to just fall into line, follow bureaucratic rules, and they don’t show us respect for what we know or what we can do.”

The older workers: “These young people just don’t understand how to function within an organization. They want recognition, promotion, everything before they’ve earned it, step-by-step, like we had to do. That’s not how reality is.”

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

In a way, they are. Different career orientations are like lenses through which you view the world. In my recent post on the rise of the 4.0 career, I wrote that this shift is most visible among Generation X and Generation Y workers, but that it’s a broader movement as well, originating with baby boomers and the 60s generation who are now moving through midlife. But as the 4.0 career orientation grows, it’s also spawning the above differences in perception. In this post I describe the younger generation’s contribution to the 4.0 career transformation. It began before the economic meltdown and will continue to have an impact on organizations and personal lives in the years ahead, post-recovery.

To recap a bit, what I call the 4.0 career orientation includes but extends beyond the 3.0 career concerns that emerged in the last 20 years. The latter are about finding personally meaningful work and seeking a good work-life balance. In essence, the 3.0 careerist is focused on self-development. In contrast, the 4.0 orientation includes but also moves beyond those more personal concerns. It’s more focused on having an impact on something larger than oneself, contributing something socially useful that connects with the needs of the larger human community. The vehicle is opportunity for continuous new learning and creative innovation at work. The 4.0 orientation links with the movement towards creating successful businesses that also contribute to the solution of social problems. In effect, the 4.0 careerist thinks of work as a vehicle for change and influence upon the larger human community.

Who Are The Younger Workers?

Generation X includes those born between 1965 and 1980, while Generation Y includes those born from 1980 onward. Within the latter group, those born from about 1980 to the early 1990s who are now in or about to enter the working world are also known as Millennials.

This younger generation of workers in general is driving the evolution towards the 4.0 further, and in ways that companies need to heed, based on evidence from research and survey data, as well as from observations of leaders and managers in many organizations. Generations X and Y are the backbone of the transformation towards 21st-century leadership and “triple bottom line” success of organizations.

Here are some of the features that Generations X and Y have in common:

Flexible, Open, Collaborative… and Aggressively Seeking New Responsibilities

Younger careerists expect intellectual fairness at the office and anticipate that the best ideas, wherever they hail from in the company, should and will triumph. And they tend to define “best” in evidence-based ways. This makes them more open to and expectant of a collaborative work style, whether among peers or between superiors and reports. As internet entrepreneur Michael Fertik has written, “Immediate feedback loops are part of their social and work lives. They anticipate that transparent and honest feedback will filter out the best ideas and people in the office.”

A Pew research report focusing on the Millennials in particular finds them confident, highly connected and open to change. Similarly, a study by Johnson Controls Inc., reported by GreenBiz.com, finds the younger generation “urban, flexible, collaborative, environmentally sensitive and unconventional.”

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

An interesting take on the younger end of the spectrum was recently offered by Fertik, who describes the “Generation After-Lehman,” or Gen AL, born from about 1982 to 1986, who graduated from college between 2003 and 2009. Fertik argues that the Gen AL expects less day-to-day fun and short-term reward than their slightly older counterparts. Wherever in the world they hail from originally, they have more of an immigrant, hardscrabble outlook. They expect to work harder and to be paid less at first, and they are hungrier to develop marketable skills and a trajectory for their careers.

More Than Money

Research shows that younger adults think like entrepreneurs, value relationships, are tech-savvy and creative, and are environmentally conscious and mobile — both at work at in their personal lives. This theme is more than seeking work-life “balance.” They see the workplace as an extension of themselves and their home life — a place that supports what they value — and they want it to be green. The Johnson study reports that they are looking for companies where they can find meaningful work and opportunities for learning, because of quality of life issues and who their work colleagues are. Some of those phenomena are visible in features of companies at the top of Fortune magazine’s list of “best companies to work for.”

Younger workers will 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.

Generation X and Y workers value family and personal time as much as career advancement. They reject the often-debilitating trade-offs between them, while the older generation is more prone to accept — and suffer from — those trade-offs. For example, a 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.

Climbing the Traditional Career Ladder – Not So Interesting

The Family and Work Institute’s survey also found a dramatic shift, from the early 90s to the present decade, from 80 percent of younger adults who wanted to climb the traditional career ladder to 60 percent and declining. Moreover — odd to many older people — younger workers trend towards “serial jobs.” That is, they might 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. And Taleo, an HR software company, found that 41 percent of those who are no longer working for their first employer out of college left in less than two years.

Green and Sustainable Practices — Required

Younger workers expect and assume that the companies they work for care about the environment and the greater good beyond financial profit. They expect to be engaged and included in making a positive impact as employees. Consequently they seek out innovative companies that want to have impact through corporate social responsibility and green practices.

MBA students are opting for curricula that include more “green” courses so that they can be better prepared to join a business world that they perceive will be more socially conscious. A 2007 Hill & Knowlton survey of MBA students found that environmental policy, ethics and social responsibility were among the top factors in career choice. “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 percent of younger workers said they want to work in a job that has a positive impact on the environment. And 92 percent said they would choose to work for a “green” company.

More recently, a poll by Experience Inc. shows that more students are hoping for a job with a green-minded company. It found that 81 percent of students believe there is value in working for an environmentally aware company, while 79 percent would likely accept a job at an eco-friendly company over a conventional one. And within the workplace itself, the Johnson Controls report found that 61 percent want to work in natural light or with a combination of natural and artificial lighting. They want to be able to “…see and feel the greenness in their workplace and mere compliance isn’t enough,” according to Marie Puybaraud, the author of the report.

Positive Management Culture – Necessary

The Hill & Knowlton survey found that 75 percent of top MBA students say corporate reputation regarding its management culture and social responsibility 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. For example, 40 percent of those surveyed rated social responsibility in particular as an “extremely” or “very” important measure of reputation; 34 percent rated having an environmental/green policy as such.

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 than their peers at companies with lackluster CSR programs, according to a survey conducted by Kenexa Research Institute. Companies are responding: The number of CSR job listings has more than doubled over the past three years.

Similarly, a 2008 survey conducted by the Aspen Institute Center for Business Education, a part of the Aspen Institute Business and Society Program, found that corporate responsibility is now a top priority for most MBA students. 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.

The Upshot

In essence, the younger careerist wants to help create social change through business and finance rather than merely profit from it. “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 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 seven percent said they think recruiters place high value on their understanding of sociopolitical issues.

But this is changing. The business community increasingly recognizes that to be globally competitive, you need to understand the risks and the opportunities that natural environments and human needs pose for your business. And discussion of business and society issues has become increasingly commonplace in business schools. In 2002, 70 percent of the respondents said that they felt free to raise issues related to the social responsibility of companies in the classroom. By 2007, it had grown to 75 percent, and it’s probably higher today.

Generations X and Y will continue to drive and further evolve personal and organizational requirements towards the 4.0 career. They are the cutting edge of an emerging business model that combines financial success with serving the common good, one that addresses social problems through products and services that are useful, helpful and enhance well-being of this planet’s citizens.

So I’d like to move the “conversation” along and state outright that, yes, promoting the common good is, indeed, un-American. And, that recognizing it as such is a good thing. Here’s why: The Republican/Tea Party’s stated vision for “taking America back” is a doctrine of extreme self-interest and greed. It both reflects and fuels what I described in a recent post as a “social psychosis” in personal and public life.

This “pro-American” vision is maladaptive to the realities of today’s world and our own changing society. Self-interest and the pursuit of individual power are twin agents for subversively undermining a healthy, thriving society. But that vision is likely to be with us for some time, with potentially devastating consequences.

However, there’s also a rising shift towards serving the larger common good throughout our society. I described the evidence for this in a subsequent post. And it is, indeed, un-American, with respect to the extreme Republican/Tea Party doctrine.

That is, serving the common good goes against grain of thinking that “getting all I can and keeping it for myself” somehow lifts all boats. It reflects, instead, the view that a thriving society requires active, rational use of governmental policy, along with business and individual responsibility, to promote economic and human development for all, not just the privileged few. It reflects embracing the reality of a rapidly transforming, interconnected global society, and acting in ways that are adaptive to it.

Ironically for legislation battles, some recent research finds that positive rather than adversarial interactions actually enhance specific mental capacities you need for solving problems. I’ll say more about the political implications of that later, but first let’s take a look at the ratcheting up of adversarial positions in the aftermath of the election.

Posturing “For the American People”

• In a recent NPR interview, Texas Gov. Rick Perry asserted that Texas has benefited from policies of “freedom,” which he described as lower taxes, getting rid of government regulations, and cutting spending. When asked how that reconciles with Texas having a low high school dropout rate, a high incarceration rate, high numbers of impoverished people, and low spending for social services – and whether his philosophy is that having no social safety net is just fine, because it costs less – Gov. Perry didn’t disagree.

• On Fox News Sunday, following the November 2 election, Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, refused to take government shutdown or default on U.S. debt off the table — despite common knowledge that default, in particular, would trigger worldwide economic meltdown.

• Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, also stated, following the election, that “our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term.”

In response, New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote, “Not jobs? Not the deficit? Not the two interminable wars?” And, Blow added,

The Republican majority in the House arrives with this aim: make no deals and take no prisoners. A May poll released by the Pew Research Center found that a plurality of Republican voters said that they were less likely to vote for a candidate who ‘will compromise with people they disagree with.’ They want either steamrollers or roadblocks, not consensus-builders.

All four Republicans vying to take over the House energy committee are climate change deniers; all salivate at the prospect of deregulating the fossil fuel industry. Highlighting their confused state of mind, Bracken Hendricks recently argued in The Washington Post that conservatives should fear climate change the most, especially if they hate big government.

The Power of Disorganized Thinking

Speaking of that confused state of mind, the research I mentioned above, from the University of Michigan, found that the cognitive capacities known as “executive functioning,” needed for solving problems, actually increase after people interact in positive, engaged ways. But there’s no increase at all when those interactions are adversarial and competitive. This illustrates the benefit of empathy – stepping into the other person’s mentality and perceiving their point of view from the “inside.” Doing that enhances more productive compromise and effectiveness with respect to solving problems. Not a bad prescription for good legislation for real problems.

However, adversarial interactions go hand in hand with increasing self-aggrandizement, power-seeking and loss of perspective. All of that moves you farther away from reality. And that’s what we see: The Republican/Tea Party says it intends to pursue lower taxes, reduce debt, eliminate regulations on corporations, block climate change legislation, and reduce spending – yet somehow maintain the services and programs the society requires in order to keep functioning. Such contradictory positions illustrate the power of emotionally-driven, disorganized, even delusional thinking.

The late historian Tony Judt wrote in his recent book Ill Fares The Land, about the societal danger of  ”uncritical adulation of wealth for its own sake.” He pointed out such thinking precludes the idea that taxes might be a contribution to the collective goods that individuals could never afford in isolation, such as roads, firemen, policemen, schools, lamp posts, post offices, as well as soldiers, warships, and weapons.

We Need More “Un-American” Thinking

I advocate more “un-American” activity for helping our country to function effectively in a changing world. Today’s challenges, especially in the aftermath of 9-11 and the 2008 economic meltdown, require high-level cognitive and emotional awareness that fuel actions serving the common good. Limited, simplistic slogans aren’t solutions to our challenges — ranging from the impact of India’s and China’s economic growth to very personal stresses and dilemmas that hit you in daily life.

Tom Friedman recently highlighted the former, writing

What if (India and China) are just finishing a 20-year process of getting the basic technological and educational infrastructure in place to become innovation hubs and that we haven’t seen anything yet?

He anticipates disruptive business models

…coming out of (India) — to a neighborhood near you. If you thought the rate of change was fast thanks to the garage innovators of Silicon Valley, wait until the garages of Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore get fully up to speed.

And on the personal level, Bob Herbert noted in The New York Times that

Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work…(Americans)…are riddled with fears and anxieties of many kinds. They are worried about the economic well-being of their families, the cost of securing a decent education for their children, their prospects for a comfortable retirement, the continuing threat of terrorism, and the debilitating effects of endless warfare.

The doctrine that serving the common good is something that only “socialists” could care about is not going to render invisible, Herbert writes,

…the needs, the hopes, the fears and the anxieties of the millions of Americans who are out of work, who are struggling with their mortgages or home foreclosures… and who lie awake at night worrying about what the morning will bring.

Policies that glorify greed and self-interest and portray that as somehow beneficial for all of society reflect both a myth and an emotionally deformed attitude. We should remember that the “un-American” theme of serving the common good has always been part of American culture, interwoven with individual efforts to face and solve common problems. For example, people helped each other survive in early settlements, and on frontier homesteads. They’ve take in orphaned children, and helped each other during the Depression. They respond with help to each other after natural disasters. The list goes on.

What should be debated is how to best use the powers and resources of government, public and private institutions to forge a more effective, functioning society – one that leads to greater well-being and security for all its members.

By the “common good,” I’m referring to a broad evolution beyond values and actions that serve narrow, self-interests; and towards those guided by inclusiveness — supporting well-being, economic success, security, human rights and stewardship of resources for the benefit of all, rather than just for some.

It’s like a stealth operation, because it hasn’t become highly visible yet. But polls, surveys and research data reveal several strands of change that are coalescing in this overall direction. I describe each of them below, and they may appear to be unrelated. Yet I think they’re driven by an underlying perspective — that we’re all like organs of the same body, and the body doesn’t thrive if any of the organs are neglected or diseased.

It’s an awareness of interconnection of all lives on this planet, and a pull towards acting upon that reality in a range of ways. They include rethinking personal relationships, the responsibility of business to society, the role of government in an interdependent world.

A 21st Century Mindset

The rise of the common good reflects a sense of “global citizenship” and an obligation to be a “good ancestor” to future generations who inhabit this planet. In fact, it embodies behavior and policies that fit the needs for effective functioning — both personal and political — in our post-9-11, post-economic meltdown world.

That is, in previous posts I’ve argued that this new era of unpredictable change in a non-equilibrium world requires new criteria for psychological health and resiliency, beyond just effective stress-management and coping. Others have emphasized the new mindset that’s needed for effective business and leadership strategies in this interconnected era.

For example, Matt Bai has described in the New York Times that “Now we live in an integrated world where American jobs rely on the economic policies of governments in Asia or Latin America, while our security is subject to the whims of a cleric living in a cave,” and “With global interdependence comes a certain lack of control, a vulnerability to disparate influences.”

Similarly, CUNY professor and blogger Jeff Jarvis refers to a “great restructuring of the economy and society, starting with a fundamental change in our relationships — how we are linked and intertwined and how we act…”

And Umair Haque writes in his Harvard Business School blog about the new principles of a new economy, “built around stewardship, trusteeship, guardianship, leadership, partnership,” adding that “As interaction explodes, the costs of evil are starting to outweigh the benefits.” In effect, transparency will become the antidote to evil.

Let’s look at some of the seemingly disparate themes of the massive shift underway that has spawned the current “social psychosis.”

The New Norm of Racial-Ethnic Diversity

As you read these words, the country is becoming more diverse. Some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite. Already, five states have a majority nonwhite population. New York Times columnist Charles Blow captured a slice of this at the time of the passage of health care legislation, writing that “A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.”

Nearly 20% of counties in the U.S. have or are close to a nonwhite majority. This shift is steadily changing the social landscape. The trend is towards movement in the direction of tolerance, acceptance, and valuing — rather than fearing or hating — the increasingly diverse composition of American society. And that includes the rising numbers of those with multi-racial/ethnic backgrounds. Moreover, research finds that the latter group tends to be open-minded and more oriented to inclusiveness and openness.

Volunteer Service

Data show that the number of volunteers is steadily growing among all age groups. During 2009, about 64 million Americans did volunteer work (defined as unpaid volunteer activities through an organization.) That’s nearly 27% of the populations, and reflects a steady year-by-year increase, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report. And a rapid rise of volunteerism has occurred in the last decade among men and women in their 30s and 40s. Today, people describe volunteerism as part of their sense of responsibility to help others in need, not something for padding their resume.

Donations of Organs by Living Donors to Strangers

That number is steadily rising. For example, kidney donations from living donors have outnumbered those from deceased donors since 2003. Some states, such as Wisconsin, offer tax deductions for expenses related to living organ donations.

Hands-on Philanthropy

This trend is towards wanting contributions to have visible, direct impact upon people’s lives. More are turning away from writing checks to well-heeled organizations like universities or cultural centers. This trend is visible among venture capitalists who bring a high-impact perspective to “venture philanthropy,” as well among average citizens, who increasingly contribute to international organizations that help people become more self-sufficient in daily life. For example, through micro-finance, providing small loans to individuals starting businesses in impoverished countries. Or purchasing a goat for a family that relies on small farming for their livelihood. Or, paying the salary of a schoolteacher in an impoverished part of the world.

Responsibility for a Healthy Planet

Despite the continued denial of the reality of climate change and the human contributions to it by the GOP, a denial unmatched among major political parties around the globe, pressure continues to build, both politically and on a grass-roots level, for actions that reverse or halt climate change and promote sustainable living. Among the latter are groups like 350.org, the Alliance for Climate Protection, and community alliances of citizens, businesses and government such as Bethesda Green, in Bethesda, Md. This trend is underscored by the steadily rising financial contributions to environmental organizations.

Support for Human Rights

Data show a steady increase of both financial contributions to and membership in such organizations as Human Rights Watch, Save the Children, Amnesty International, Mercy Corps International and others. Even in the absence of effective action, consciousness continues to build around the perspective that violations of rights to safety, dignity, and personal freedom for another — anywhere in the world — affect oneself, as well. In addition, the view of security and human rights is expanding to include not only freedom from violence and terrorism, but also the rights to health care, support of older citizens, rights to adequate housing, food, fair wages and other conditions. A recent UN report examines these issues with respect to responsibilities and actions of member nations.

Personal Success

I’ve previously written that men and women increasingly want a “4.0 career ” — one that provides more than personal recognition, power and financial reward. They want meaningful work, opportunities for continued learning and growth, a positive management culture and a team-oriented, ethical environment. They want to have impact on something larger than just their own personal success. These themes are especially pronounced among younger workers.

The Social Impact of Business

Business leaders have already bought into the need for sustainability, and many are contributing to the rise of a new business model, one that addresses social problems and serves the common good, as well as achieving financial success. The “green business” movement reflects this shift, along with the concept of the “triple bottom line.” Related trends include sustainable investing, social entrepreneurialism, corporate social responsibility, building a psychologically healthy management culture, and transparency via open access to information and corporate disclosure policies.

Acceptance of Gay Relationships and Gay Marriage

Acceptance of gay relationships has steadily increased, while opposition to gay marriage has steadily decreased, when tracked over the last several years, according to data from the Pew Research Center. Between one-quarter and one-third of gay and lesbian couples are raising children, a steadily rising number. And the most current surveys indicate that about half of all Americans support gay marriage.

Families and Relationships Are Transforming

A majority of Americans now say their definition of family includes same-sex couples with children, as well as married gay and lesbian couples. Regarding intimate relationships, surveys by the Gallup organization and other groups find that the quality of the relationship is more important to people today than simple allegiance to the institution of marriage. Census statistics and other data confirm this, showing, for example, a steady decline in the marriage rate over the last several decades, while cohabitation has steadily risen in each of those same decades. About half of all households today are headed by people who are single. And unmarried couples are as likely as married couples to be raising children: it’s currently approaching 50%.

Some surveys report that at least 30% of those polled admit to having had an affair. Aside from the accuracy of that figure, the upshot is that affairs are no longer viewed as immoral in today’s culture. Moreover, attitudes towards prostitution are also shifting towards greater acceptance and focus on the rights of sex workers.

So — these are just some of the pervasive shifts underway. My read is that they link around an underlying theme – that our culture is evolving in both consciousness and action, and that evolution will grow and strengthen over time. That’s why the current social psychosis will fade. That’s not only hopeful, but important: The rise of the common good is both a necessary path for survival and security on an interdependent planet; it’s also the path towards personal psychological health, success and well-being in this new world era.

A great deal of the criticism is justified, and it’s coming from both right and left. It includes not only his personal leadership but more broadly, the role and response of the federal government.

But I think there’s another, additional basis for the criticism:  The psychology of people’s fears when they’re confronted with such disasters, and how that shapes what they look for in a leader.

That is, the psychology of the criticism directed at Obama reflects something deeper than questions about BP’s performance and/or untrustworthiness, given the cozy relationship big oil has had with the federal government.  It’s also deeper than debate over what government’s proper role should be in dealing with this or other man-made disasters.

To explain, let’s take a look at some criticisms coming from both the left and the right:  On May 17, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews erupted in anger at the oil disaster. He railed about the profits BP reaps as it fails to fix it, but also criticized the Obama administration for letting BP control the disaster response.  Calling this “disaster capitalism,” (from Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine) he questioned why the President doesn’t just “nationalize that industry and get the job done,” adding that in China, “they execute people for this.”

That’s typical of Matthews’ sometimes over-the-top passion, but he’s been making solid criticism of the President for, in essence, looking like an observer, standing on the sidelines, instead of getting in there and doing something.

Similarly, other critics have openly wondered why Obama hasn’t shown more passion, like pounding the table, showing outrage; perhaps shouting.

Some conservative critics have implied the same, but link their criticism with an attack on Obama’s entire presidency, as you might expct.  For example, the title of Peggy Noonan’s May 29^th op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, stakes out her position: “He Was Supposed to Be Competent: The spill is a disaster for the president and his political philosophy.”

Noonan makes the connection crystal clear, in case you didn’t get the message from the title.  She calls this “…his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president’s political judgment and instincts.”

She adds that Obama has been “…chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen.  How could there not have been a plan? How could it all be so ad hoc, so inadequate, so embarrassing?”

Getting to the emotions of the issue, Noonan says that Obama “…attempted to act out passionate engagement through the use of heightened language—”catastrophe,” etc.—but repeatedly took refuge in factual minutiae. His staff probably thought this demonstrated his command of even the most obscure facts. Instead it made him seem like someone who won’t see the big picture.”

Then, there are the remarks of conservative columnist George Will.  Appearing on ABC’s This Week, he placed himself somewhere in the middle…sort of, saying that President Obama “is being unfairly blamed” for oil spill response, “and it sort of serves him right,” he added.  He’s apparently defending the President’s leadership and “lack” of passion, while arguing that it just goes to show that big government can’t do the job, so, one assumes, it’s better to leave it in the hands of private enterprise – which created the problem to begin with.

I think that one strong thread weaving together these critiques is not just that President Obama and the government have not responded quickly enough, but that Obama himself has not shown the emotional outrage and arm-waving that are so important for doing….well, what, exactly?  That’s the question they don’t address.  What’s the outcome they’re looking for? Or do they just want to be reassured by what looks and sounds “passonate?”

I think many of the complaints about Obama’s coolness, his being too cerebral, too measured and reasoned in his responses are fueled by this: A wish for a strong “Big Daddy.”  A commanding, strong-sounding, protective figure who will somehow “take command” and “do something” to fix things and make us safe again.

That kind of wish is largely unconscious.  It’s likely driven by unacknowledged, terrifying  feelings of helplessness, similar to what lies behind much of the denial about climate change.  Then, the emotions of fear and longing for safety trump your ability to stop and ask what, exactly, do you want a display of more “passion” and pounding the table to result in, with respect to solving the problem?

When you realize that the best minds and technologies are working on this – even with the criticism that corporate greed and government collusion with the oil companies have created this disaster – that realization should point you towards supporting all efforts to create the best solutions asap.

That is, it would steer you towards crying out for fact-based, results-oriented leadership, which is what Pres. Obama is now, apparently, trying to deliver.  That requires being focused on the reality of the situation, mobilizing the means we have to achieve the results, and creating a strategy that works.

That’s where reasoned criticism is important.  Unlike the flailing of those who psychologically long for a Commanding Father to make you feel secure, some are actually proposing constructive critiques.

For example, David Gergen, a truly bi-partisan figure who’s served both Republican and Democratic administrations, has posted both a strong critique of Obama’s leadership as well as specific, strategic actions by the Feds to take over the strategy and structure of the whole operation.

He writes:

It’s time for the White House to get in the driver’s seat and get us to safety – fast ….Even if BP were reliable, the problem has clearly become too big for it to handle… (and)…this catastrophe is increasingly threatening the nation’s welfare.

Gergen proposes 10 actions.  For example:

• Set up a daily command center in Washington where a presidentially-appointed leader runs the show, calls the shots, coordinates the overall effort, briefs the president and briefs the country.
• Have two deputies, one to direct the leak-stoppage and the other to direct the clean-up. Ex-CEOs and generals would be excellent candidates.
• Provide the country with the kind of daily briefings that the military has mastered for wartime – bring in people who are smart, straight and tough.

Gergen’s 10-point list is well worth reading.  His critique and proposals are the kind that are sorely needed in our polarized, self-serving political culture.  If the President embraced them it would be consistent with the strong, rational leadership that many people believed him capable of to begin with.  And that’s a psychologically positive wish for a leader!

But gradually, we’re paying attention. I’m not  referring to us in the mental health professions here — In fact, we’ve been asleep at the wheel  in that respect, and are now, finally, coming around to recognize that climate change and other disasters are more than interesting academic subjects for discussion and research; that we have a responsibility for direct action.

Ironically, awareness of such mental health consequences has been addressed by broader groups of scientists; non-psychologists or psychiatrists  Here’s a good, very recent example:  Joe Romm, whose blog Climate Progress is consistently the best source of information and clarity about climate issues, has just put up a guest blog post on the human dimensions of oil spills, written by Drs. Thomas Webler, Seth Tuler, and Kirstin Dow.  They write:

In the past two years, we have studied how oil spills have impacted every aspect of human society—from individuals’ psychological and physical health to the practices and beliefs of cultures and everything in between.

Among the areas they focus on in their guest blog post are the mental health impacts and the social, cultural and social justice impacts of previous oil spills.  Regarding the mental health impacts:

Oil spills and spill responses can cause high levels of stress and psychological trauma, including post-traumatic stress. The economic impacts on livelihood and family aspirations, anxieties associated with exposure to toxic chemicals, the stress of engaging in a large scale court battle, and the loss of valued landscape and ecological systems all contribute to stress on coastal residents and clean up workers.

And,

In Prince William Sound, people talked about feeling that a part of them died when the Exxon Valdez oil inundated the area.  Dangerous levels of post-traumatic stress were reported among cleanup workers and residents in Alaska.  The news talk shows today are already replete with people expressing sadness and anger about this event.

Their entire piece is well-worth reading – it’s sobering and informative, as is another substantive report by The Interagency Working Group on Climate Change and Health.  It presented findings regarding a wide range of health effects of climate change, including mental health and stress-related disorders:

Climate change may result in geographic displacement of populations, damage to property, loss of loved ones, and chronic stress, all of which can negatively affect mental health….

The most common mental health conditions associated with extreme events range from acute traumatic stress to more chronic stress-related conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated grief, depression, anxiety disorders, somatic complaints, poor concentration, sleep difficulties, sexual dysfunction, social avoidance, irritability, and drug or alcohol abuse.  The chronic stress-related conditions and disorders resulting from severe weather or other climate change-related events may lead to additional negative health effects.

It’s a hopeful sign that some professional, advocacy organizations have begun addressing this issue.  For example, both Physicians for Social Responsibility and  Psychologists for Social Responsibility have described mental health risks from climate change to including increase in violent behavior, panic, group hysteria, depression, post-traumatic stress, anxiety, hopelessness and other symptoms.

Of course, the deniers will continue to disparage and, well…deny.  Actually, when they are compelled to do that it may be a good indicator that public awareness of the mental health effects of climate disasters is growing.  For example, Fox’s Sean Hannity’s recent ridicule of the mental health issues described in the Interagency Working Group’s report  For a slightly humorous take on psychology of climate change deniers and the consequences, see this piece that I wrote with Ev Ehrlich for the Huffington Post.

Needless to say, denying reality is never a good coping strategy, for the present or the future.  And yes, that’s a mental illness symptom.

In previous posts on the theme of “becoming sane in a turbulent, interconnected, unpredictable world,” I described why conventional emotional resiliency doesn’t work in the 21^st Century; and what that means for building a psychologically healthy life in today’s world.

In this post I’ll explain why many of the conflicts men and women deal with today stem from this contradiction:  The criteria for adult psychological health accepted by the mental health professions and the general public doesn’t really describe an adult. Nor, for that matter, does it describe psychological health.

A contradiction, to be sure, so let me explain: As we entered the world of the 21^st Century our definition of psychological health was largely defined by the absence of psychiatric symptoms. The problem is, that’s like defining a happy person as someone who’s not depressed.  Moreover, sometimes what appears to be a psychiatric symptom reflects movement towards greater health and growth in a person’s life situation.

But more significantly, our conventional view of psychological health is, in effect, a well-adapted, well-functioning child in relation to parents or parent figures.  Or, a sibling who interacts appropriately in a social context with other siblings. Either way, it describes a person functioning within and adapted to a world shaped and run by “parents,” psychologically speaking.

That is, we pretty much equate healthy psychological functioning with effective management or resolution of child- or sibling-based conflicts. For example, resolving and managing such child-based conflicts as impulse control; narcissistic or grandiose attitudes; and traumas around attachment, from indifference, abandonment, abuse, or parenting that otherwise damages your adult capacity for intimacy or trusting relationships.

Healthy resolution of sibling-type conflicts includes learning effective ways to compete with other “siblings” at work or in intimate relationships; managing your fears of success or disapproval; containing passive-aggressive, manipulative or other self-undermining tendencies; and finding ways to perform effectively, especially in the workplace, towards people whose approval, acceptance and reward you need or crave.

It’s no surprise, then, that many people feel and behave like children in a grown-up world. Examples permeate popular culture.  A good one is the popular TV show, “The Office.” It often portrays the eruption of these sibling-type conflicts, as the workers act out their resentments or compete with one another to win the favor of office manager Michael, another grown-up child who is self-serving and clueless about his own competitive motives and insecurity.

Unconscious child-type conflicts are often visible within intimate relationships and family life, as well.  They provide a steady stream of material for novels and movies. You can see, for example, fears of abandonment in a man who demands constant attention and assurance that he’s loved; or low-self worth in a woman who’s unconsciously attracted to partners who dominate or manipulate her. Of course it’s critical that you learn to become aware of and manage effectively whatever emotional damage you bring from your early experiences into adulthood. We all have some.  That’s a good starting point for adult psychological health, but it’s not sufficient.  A well-adapted member of a community of other “children” and “siblings” within a psychological world of “parents” is not the same thing as a healthy adult.  Especially not within today’s interconnected, non-linear world.

So – without a picture of what a healthy adult would feel, think and do in the current environment, you’re left with questions but few answers. For example:

• How can you maintain the mental focus to keep your career skills sharp and stay on a successful path at work when you suddenly acquire a new boss who wants to take things in a new direction? Or if your company is acquired by another, or goes out of business?
• How can you best respond, mentally, if you have a new baby and a drop in family income at the same time that globalization sidetracks your career?
• How can you handle the pressure to work longer or do more business travel when your spouse faces the same demands?
• What’s the healthiest way to keep your relationship alive with fresh energy – or avoid the temptation of an affair?
• And how do you deal emotionally with the threat of terrorism — always lurking in the background of your mind — while enjoying life at the same time?

We now live within a world where the only constant is change, and where a new requirement is being able to compete and collaborate with everyone from everywhere about almost everything.

Doing that with self-awareness and knowledge of how to grow and develop all facets of your being – that’s the new path to adult psychological health.  But you need to know where to find the path.

Learning From The Business World?

Actually, I think we can learn a lot about what’s needed for psychological health from changes occurring in the business world. In many respects, the most progressive companies are ahead of the game.  They’ve had to learn ways to build sustainable practices, in the face of climate change. They’ve learned to develop models of collaboration and connection; ways to engage with and learn from diverse people and talents.

They’ve had to develop strategies for navigating through a tumultuous, global economy and remain successful, while dealing with anxieties that are part of charting a course in unknown territory, as Robert Rosen has described in Just Enough Anxiety.

All of the above applies to the men and women I work with, both through executive consulting and in psychotherapy.  They’re in the trenches, dealing with constant change and conflict in their business or career environment, and in their personal lives.  Some are looking for ways to have clear impact from their work and talents, beyond just acquiring power or money, or even “meaning.”  Some are company leaders figuring out how to link long-term financial success with environmental and social responsibility.  Others are individuals trying to heal emotional conflicts in their personal lives, or find ways to help their children prepare for a future whose biggest constant will be change.

Trends in the business community are relevant to a new model adult psychological health, because each of us needs to develop ways to deal with new domestic and global uncertainties that can hit home any day, in our individual lives, and the business world has been gradually doing this already.  That is, progressive businesses can teach us something about psychological health is because they’re already illustrating it.

Take the example of Google. If it were a person, Google would display in many respects the model of a psychologically healthy adult relevant to today’s world. Its corporate culture and management practices embody such qualities like transparency, flexibility and collaboration with diverse people.  Non-defensiveness, informality, a creative mind-set and nimbleness, all aimed at aggressively competing for clear goals within a constantly evolving environment.

Similarly, a successful and psychologically healthy life reflects building those qualities into your emotional attitudes, mental perspectives and behavior; especially such capacities as cooperation and service to something larger than yourself.

If you confine your view of psychological health to good “management” of your conflicts – the old 20^th Century view – that will keep you too focused on self-interest, especially power, money, possessions.  And that will take you down a dead-end today.  Focusing on self-interest is an ineffective strategy in today’s interconnected world. It leaves you feeling like a vulnerable child rather than an adult when forces outside your control disrupt your world and your self-centered goals.

Of course, we have to take care of ourselves. But banking just on self-interest to achieve long-term success and internal well-being is like expecting to get to your destination while standing in place because you’re more comfortable there.

A successful and psychologically healthy adult subordinates self-interest to the common good; to serving something larger than just yourself; not just your narrow goals. This is based on the awareness that your own well-being is intertwined with that of others who share this global community; that all of us are parts of an interdependent whole, like organs of the same body.  The psychologically healthy adult learns to become proactive, innovative and creative; enjoys growing and developing within a changing environment, and with diverse people; values positive connection and is flexible in situations of conflict.

Overall, being a healthy adult – the “parent,” yourself — requires broad, tolerant perspectives and purposeful actions in the service of clear objectives. That’s the foundation for supporting the well-being and survival of the global community, including future generations. In effect, it’s being an engaged global citizen.  That may sound like a tall order, but those are human, not super-human capacities.  They exist within most everyone.

A good way to describe the path to psychological health – including external success and internal well-being – is learning to “forget yourself.”

Yes, that’s a paradox.  In future posts I’ll explain what I mean, and what it looks like in your work, your relationships, and in your actions as a global citizen.

In Part I of “Becoming Sane in a Turbulent, Interconnected, Unpredictable World,” I wrote about why you need a new kind of emotional resiliency for success and well-being in today’s world.  Here, I’ll extend those thoughts about resiliency to psychological health in general.  Just as we need to redefine resiliency, I think we need to reformulate what a psychologically healthy adult looks like in this transformed world.  Here are my ideas about that:

Throughout most of the last century, adult psychological health has been largely equated with good management and coping skills: Managing stress within your work and personal life; and effective coping with or resolution of whatever emotional conflicts you brought with you into adulthood – and we all bring along some.

So, in your work that might include being clear about your career goals, and working your way up a fairly predictable set of steps to achieve power, recognition and financial success – all the things that we’ve equated with adult maturity and mental health.

At home, it would mean forming a long-term relationship that withstands the power struggles and other differences that often lead to affairs or even divorce.  You would assume that the healthy adult doest that via compromise at best, or disguised manipulation at worst.  In addition, you would accept “normal” decline of intimate connection and vitality over time.

But the fallout from the worldwide upheaval over the last few years have turned all those criteria of health upside down.  To be clear, it’s important to be able to manage conflicts that could derail your career or personal life.  But doing that isn’t enough to ensure future success, sanity or well-being in this turbulent and highly interdependent world we now live in.

Massive, interconnected forces within this globalized, unpredictable world add a host of new emotional and behavioral challenges to living a psychologically healthy, well-functioning and fulfilling life.

I deal with the fallout almost daily: People who’ve functioned pretty well in the past, but now feel as if they’re standing on tectonic plates shifting beneath them. Despite their best efforts, they struggle with mounting anxiety about the future of their own and their children’s lives, and confusion about their values and life purpose.

There’s the former Wall Street financial executive who told me he’d always defined himself by “making it through the next end zone” in his career, working long hours to ensure financial success. Now, as his company – and career – crumbled, he found that in addition to sacrificing time with his family, he had sacrificed his health: He has diabetes and high blood pressure. “Kind of a reverse ‘deal-flow,’ ” he lamented to me.

And the management consultant, pressured to ratchet up her travel to keep her career on track. “I’d been coping with everything, I thought,” she told me, “though I don’t like needing Zoloft to do it.” Instead of her career becoming more predictable as she gained seniority, her career propelled her into an even wilder ride. “Now I don’t have enough time for my daughter or my husband,” she said. “What kind of life is this? . . . My husband’s checked out, emotionally. And what am I teaching my daughter?”

Or the lawyer, who’d prided himself on “eating what I kill, and I’m a good killer.” He told me he has “more money than I ever dreamed of,” but also says that, “secretly, I hate what I do for a living.” But what’s the alternative, he asks, without “looking like a dysfunctional failure if I opt out?” After a failed marriage, he entered therapy and had begun to realize how his father’s unfulfilled dreams of “success” have impacted his own life — when suddenly his father died. “I’m in a tailspin,” he says; depressed and confused about what his own purpose in life is.

All of these people were on the kinds of life paths they expected would bring them predictable rewards. But counting on that linear upward climb is now hazardous to your mental health.

In fact, following that old path can make you more vulnerable to dysfunction and disturbance in the days ahead.  That’s a prime reason for building the new pro-active resiliency that I wrote about.  It provides a necessary foundation for what you need going forward.

Life In A Changing World

To better understand the mental health impact of what’s been happening in people’s lives, let’s look at it in a bit more detail.  Men and women are discovering — often painfully — that the emotional attitudes, goals and behavior they thought would lead to successful, fulfilling and psychologically healthy lives suddenly leave them at a loss. They’re faced with new psychological challenges posed by the globalized, environmentally fragile, diverse and unpredictable new environment.  And they don’t know how to respond.

We’ve all become starkly aware that unforeseen circumstances can create widespread turmoil in all sorts of ways. For example, the actions of some mortgage lenders in the U.S. triggered worldwide economic turmoil and upheaval that began in the fall of 2008 and has affected everyone’s lives. Entirely new global business paradigms can create upstart competitors or put you out of business. Turbulent shifts in weather patterns, water and food shortages, and civil strife resulting from climate change impact everyone.  And the threat of terrorism is a scary backdrop in everybody’s lives.

It’s as if we’ve all been deposited in the Brad Pitt movie “Babel,” in which the inadvertent actions of two goat-herding boys have tragic consequences for lives on three continents. Welcome to the “butterfly effect,” where a small change somewhere far away can produce far-ranging consequences. That’s part of the “new normal.”

Moreover, the interconnected world impacts us in other ways, as well:  People become almost instantly aware of human rights violations or natural disasters wherever they occur.  Not to mention personally embarrassing moments that become instantly available thanks to Google and YouTube. And, if you wish, your moment-to-moment activities are available around globe through your Facebook and Twitter posts.

Other examples of the transformed world include companies shifting to green business, because the impact of climate change has highlighted the need for sustainable business practices, in order to stay competitive in a shifting global economy. More broadly, a new business model that combines financial success with serving the common good receives increasing attention.  It’s been raised in discussion at a recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and promoted by singer-social activist Bono and other social entrepreneurs.

These are among the many features of our “non-equilibrium world.”  They have the potential to impact your career and relationships in major ways; and, therefore, your mental health.

The latter impact is visible in the workplace, in which the management and business culture is increasingly unpredictable. The new conditions require you to be more pro-active, innovative and creative on behalf of your own career development; and not take anything for granted.

At the same time, both younger and older workers say they want their work to have impact on something larger and more meaningful than just their own personal gain, but without giving that up, either.  And outside of work, men and women increasingly seek relationships of respect, mutuality and authenticity, regardless of whether they take the form of traditional marriage.

All of these shifts create new challenges for your psychological health. Just trying to “cope” with stress isn’t enough. Trying to “balance” work and life doesn’t work very well. Nor does managing your emotional conflicts from childhood help you find the healthiest ways to deal with new conflicts brought about by our interconnected world.

In subsequent posts on this theme of “Becoming Sane…” I’ll explain why our 20^th Century understanding of psychological health is unable to support positive human development in our 21^st Century world.  And, in contrast, what you can do to build psychological health in this new era.

Now I’m not an economist (see former Undersecretary of Commerce Ev Ehrlich’s blog for such matters).  But I started thinking about Bernanke’s comments — and the reactions from some Republicans and assorted “anti-tax patriots” who came out with guns blazing (metaphorically….so far) — from a psychological perspective.  I find some psychological attitudes and ideology about the role of individuals in society driving the reactions to what Bernanke raised.  They’re visible as well in the angry, hostile response to the health care legislation and, more broadly, the fear and loathing of “government takeover.”

Here’s what Bernanke said:

“These choices are difficult, and it always seems easier to put them off — until the day they cannot be put off anymore. But unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.”  And, “To avoid large and ultimately unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.”

In The Washington Post story reporting Bernanke’s speech, writers Neil Irwin and Lori Montgomery point out that:

“…the economic downturn — with tumbling tax revenue, aggressive stimulus spending and rising safety-net payments such as unemployment insurance — has driven already large budget deficits to their highest level relative to the economy since the end of World War II. This has fueled public concern over how long the United States can sustain its fiscal policies.

The upshot of what we’re facing appears to be this: Our current way of life is unsustainable.  So what’s a possible remedy, according to Bernanke and others?  Raising taxes, not lowering them.  Cuts in Medicare benefits.  Raising the retirement age.  And bringing rising health care costs down.  To  do any or all of that requires a different mentality about our responsibility and obligations to others in our society.  And it’s not pleasant.  That’s the psychology part.

That is, we’re highly attached to the ideology that we are and should be separate, isolated individuals; that each of us should look out for one’s own self-interest.  And we define that largely by material acquisition and money.  Hence, opposition to “redistribution” of wealth, even though that’s exactly what we do via taxes that support all the services that we expect society to give us.  We also define our self-interest as psychologically healthy, mature, even; the hallmark of a succesful life.  Those that don’t do as well are not my problem.

Except now they are:  We’ve been hit with the reality that our world is so interconnected that someone else’s “problem” is also our own.  To consider subordinating some of our personal wants and goals for the larger common good feels foreign and frightening.  Yet that’s exactly what we’re faced with doing. It begins with shifting our mental perspectives towards recognizing that we’re all in the same boat — not just we Americans, but all of us in this global community.  And it means stimulating the emotional counterpart of that perspective — the hard-wired capacity for empathy.  And then, making the sacrifices that result from embracing the new realities.  The economic collapse has made the need for those shifts very apparent.  We’re faced with learning to sacrifice in ways that we’re not used to doing, in order to thrive as individuals and a society in the world as it now exists.

But such shifts meet with strong, ingrained resistance and denial.  They’re fueled  by unrealistic, almost delusional notions that pursuing self-interest at all costs will lead to success and well-being. So, for example, Republicans pounced on the suggestion of increasing taxes.  They also went after remarks by Paul A. Volcker earlier this week, who spoke very directly in favor of higher taxes.  He said that the U.S. might have to consider a European-style sales tax, known as a value-added tax, to close the budget gap.  He said “If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes.”

That’s a pretty direct, unvarnished statement of reality.  But Republicans accused Obama of plotting a big tax hike, for nefarious purposes.  ”To make up for the largest levels of spending and deficits in modern history, the Administration is laying the foundation for a large, misguided new tax, a first-time American VAT.” Sen. Charles E. Grassley said in a statement.

Onward goes the struggle between facing reality and dealing with it, or not facing it….and still having to deal with it

Rich points out that the “tsunami of anger” today is illogical, in the sense that the health care legislation is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare.  He also reminds us that the new anger and extremism predated the health care debate:

The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.

He’s pointing out that major changes are occurring in the demographics of our country.  These changes – and others, concerning what people look for in relationships and in their careers —  are beginning to have major impact on us psychologically, including our psychological health.  For some, they generate tremendous fear that can give rise to hatred and aggression; a desire to “take back our country.”

Rich points out that:

Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

Then, in a similar analysis, Charles M. Blow writes in his column:

It’s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of “take our country back.” The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

Blow cites a recent Quinnipiac University poll that found Tea Party members to be just as anachronistic to the direction of the country’s demographics as the Republican Party. For instance, they were disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and “less educated … than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.”  Blow points out that this is at the very time

when the country is becoming more diverse (some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite), less doctrinally dogmatic, and college enrollment is through the roof. The Tea Party, my friends, is not the future.

Well said.  Mounting demographic and psychological research are confirming and extending what Rich and Blow describe.  In fact, several strands of change have been underway and coalescing into a changing psychology of people – their emotional attitudes, mental perspectives, values regarding work and relationships, and behavior towards people in need or who suffer loss.  These are shifts within a wide range of thought, feelings and actions.  Here are some of them:

Volunteer service – Data show that the number of volunteers is steadily growing among all age groups.  People describe volunteerism as part of their sense of  responsibility to help others in need, not something for padding their resume

Donations of organs by living donors to strangers.  That number is steadily rising.  For example, kidney donations from living donors have outnumbered those from deceased donors since 2003.

Hands-on philanthropy — Increasingly, donors want their contributions to have more visible, direct impact upon people’s lives.  They are turning away from contributions to already well-heeled organizations like universities or cultural centers.  On the rise are such examples as purchasing a goat for a family in an impoverished part of the world to provide its livelihood; or  paying the salary of a schoolteacher in a Third-World country.

Responsibility for a healthy planet.  Differences about global warming notwithstanding, the last several years have witnessed a steady shift towards feelings of greater responsibility for the planet’s health, across the board.  For example, grass-roots environmental activism now spills across traditional socio-economic lines, as well as across racial-ethnic differences; steadily rising financial contributions to environmental organizations; and increasing alliances between business interests and environmental groups.

Redefining “success” As I wrote in a previous post about the “4.0 career,” men and women increasingly want careers to provide more than personal recognition and financial reward.  They want meaningful work, opportunities for continued learning and growth, a positive management culture and a team-oriented, ethical environment. Research shows they want to have impact through their work on something larger than their own personal success.  These themes are especially pronounced among younger workers – the leaders of tomorrow.

Relationships are transforming. Surveys by the Gallup organization and other groups find that the quality of the relationship is more important to people today than simple allegiance to the institution of marriage.  Census statistics and other data confirm this, showing, for example:

• Steady decline in the marriage rate over the last several decades, while cohabitation has steadily risen in each of those same decades.
• About half of all households today are headed by people who are single.
• Unmarried couples are as likely as married couples to be raising children: it’s currently approaching 50%
• Between one-quarter and one-third of gay and lesbian couples are raising children; also a steadily rising number.
• Surveys find that at least 30% of those polled admit to having had an affair.  It’s not that people view affairs as desirable – especially when children are involved –  but they aren’t viewed as immoral, either.  See my recent post about six different kinds of affairs people have today, and their consequences.
• Attitudes towards gay relationships and gay marriage are changing.  Although surveys tend to show opposition to gay marriage, that, too, is shifting.  While  acceptance of gay relationships has steadily increased, opposition to gay marriage has steadily decreased, when tracked over the last several years.

These are just some of the pervasive shifts occurring are you read these words. All have implications for our emotional lives, our mental attitudes, and our actions.  I think this evolution underway requires us to re-think what constitutes psychological health in this changing world.  Our criteria have to change as people are faced with adapting to living, working, and relating to others in a very different world.

Charles M. Blow stated it well, at the end of his column.  Referring to the extremeists, he writes:

You may want “your country back,” but you can’t have it. That sound you hear is the relentless, irrepressible march of change. Welcome to America: The Remix.

What’s different about the emerging 4.0 career is that it’s an expansion beyond looking for greater meaning and sense of “purpose” through one’s work.  It also includes a desire for impact on something larger than oneself, beyond one’s personal benefit.  It’s becoming visible in the pull men and women report towards wanting to contribute to the common good -  whether it’s through the value and usefulness of a product or service.

The 4.0 career is part of the emerging new business model focused on creating “sustainable” enterprises.  It’s part of what’s known as the new “triple bottom line” — financial, social and environmental measures of success.

In this and in future posts l’ll describe some 4.0 career themes and how men and women illustrate them.  This is important because the transformations now underway in global societies, which became more dramatically apparent following the economic nosedive in September 2008, have tremendous implications for career survival and success.  The unstable, unpredictable new world upon us makes the 4.0 career orientation the path towards both outward success and personal well-being in the years ahead.

As a step towards finding the 4.0 career path, consider this little historical nugget: Thomas Jefferson left instructions that his tombstone engraving should make no mention of his having served as President.  Incredible, you say?  Well, if you visit his gravesite at his Charlottesville, Virginia homestead, you’ll see that it’s true:  His tombstone describes him as founder the University of Virginia; the author of the Declaration of Independence; and the sponsor of Virginia’s Act for Religious Freedom.  Jefferson saw those three as his real achievements.  He believed that they had more impact on the world than his “career position” as President.

Observing this is a good starting point for thinking about the kind of impact you want to have on the world through your career – the broad scope of your creative capacities, your talents, your skills, your experience.  That is, think of what you do and it’s consequences upon human lives beyond your own; not just the position or title you acquire (or are trying to hold on to); or the financial/material assets you accrue.

Looking further down the road, what kind of legacy are you creating right now, at each moment?  In short, what do you want to be remembered for?  Thinking about that will also point you to look at how much “space” your career – as it currently exists — occupies in your life, relative to your values and to other potential uses of your energies that are important to you.  These reflections will begin to broaden your perspective about what’s important to contribute through your life, long-term, how to integrate that into your work, and what would help you get from here to there.

As you look at that whole picture from the standpoint of your life impact, factor in everything that affects and is affected by your current work.  For example, does your community or geographic location, including things like your daily commute, really work for you, in relation to the long-term impact you hope to have?

What impact would working more from home have, if you could arrange that?  Or, if you became more accessible to your children’s schools and activities?   What would be the impact of giving more time to cultivating friendships, community connections, or your personal interests? Asking yourself such questions helps shape your definition of what you really want to be living and working for, and how to make it happen

The essence of the 4.0 career orientation is that it’s more integrated.  It grows from being conscious of the reality that your life is an interconnected, integral part of the physical, social and political world we live in.  That helps you realize that you’re steadily creating your “life footprint” all along the way.  Here’s a step you can take to bring that into focus:

Create Your “Life Footprint”

Bring into your awareness the reality that your life is finite.  Imagine that you know how much time you have remaining, and use that to guide you towards identifying the life priorities and actions that you need to alter, or focus more on, in order to create the “footprint” you want to have left upon the world.

Think of your mission as becoming a “good ancestor.”

• How do you want to use your mental and emotional and creative energies in your remaining time?
• What legacy will your actions and decisions create?
• Are you satisfied with that?  If not, what can you alter, beginning now?

Below are a few exercises you can do with your partner and on your own, to help you evolve towards the 4.0 career.

By Yourself:

• Recall the talents or interests that got your attention when you were young.  List them, and reflect on what happened to them along the way.  What would you like to reclaim, reactivate, or develop now, in order to create greater impact through your work?  What changes or sacrifices would that require?

With Your Partner:

It’s essential that you and your partner/family undertake any shifts you want to make as a team.  If you’re not aligned with each other, it’s not going to work for you as a couple or family.  Set aside a block of time to talk with your partner about your deepest desires and aspirations for your lives, individually and together.  Listen to each other; ask questions, but hold off commenting or judging on what you hear.  Just learn from each other.

Some guides for beginning the dialogue:

• Why do you think you’re here, on this planet, at this moment in time?
• How did you come to the career you now have? Why do you continue to do it?
• What parts of your work have the most impact on the organization’s service or product?
• Does your organization’s service or product align with your own values?
• What parts of your work stifle or limit your capacities?
• What could make your work more meaningful with respect to the larger mission?
• Did you turn away from any passions or interests that pulled you when you were younger, which you regret not having pursued?
• If so, how could you try to reclaim them?

Some additional suggestions:

• Make a list of the talents, experiences, unfulfilled creative needs and challenges that you would like to incorporate into the next phase of your career in order to build the legacy you desire.
• For each item on your list, write down what changes you would need to make in your career/personal life to make that occur.
• What are the resources you currently have; what ones would you need to acquire to make those changes (related to education, financial, location, life-style, etc.)?

With your partner, compare and discuss where you are aligned…and how to deal with where you aren’t.

In his review, Dwight Garner explains that Judt is describing the “political and intellectual landscape in Britain and the United States since the 1980s, the Reagan-Thatcher era, and he worries about an increasing and ‘uncritical adulation of wealth for its own sake.’ What matters, he writes, ‘is not how affluent a country is but how unequal it is,’ and he sees growing and destabilizing inequality almost everywhere.”

It’s heartening to see at least one “public intellectual” – a vanishing breed – lay out in a direct, forceful argument the accumulating toll of greed and self-centeredness that has dominated our recent political and social landscape.  Judt describes these themes as “elevated to a cult by Know Nothings, States’ Rightists, anti-tax campaigners and — most recently — the radio talk show demagogues of the Republican Right.”

Judt observes, for example, that the notion that taxes might “be a contribution to the provision of collective goods that individuals could never afford in isolation (roads, firemen, policemen, schools, lamp posts, post offices, not to mention soldiers, warships, and weapons) is rarely considered.”  Click here for the full Times review.

I think Judt’s theme about serving the “common good” is growing throughout our culture.  It’s increasingly visible, for example, in the recognition that humans are “wired” for empathy and for serving something larger than their just their own needs — many of which are socially conditioned to begin with and fuel self-centeredness and narcissism.

In that vein I wrote about healing our “empathy deficit disorder” in my previous post, and author Jeremy Rifkin has argued much more broadly and in great depth about the rise of an “empathic civilization” in his major, well-documented new book.

I also see the awakening of interconnectedness and service to the common good increasingly visible in the rise of a new business model – one that combines having impact on the common good as well as achieving financial success.  The green business movement incorporates much of this emergence, as well as related trends towards sustainable investment, social entrepreneurialism and venture philanthropy.  I would add to those the growing recognition of the need for a psychologically healthy management cultures, as well.

Interesting, also, in Judt’s book is his argument that the left and right have switched sides, in a sense.  That is, he explains that today the right pursues radical goals, and has abandoned the “social moderation which served it so well from Disraeli to Heath, Theodore Roosevelt to Nelson Rockefeller.” He argues that it’s now the left that is trying to conserve “the institutions, legislation, services and rights that we have inherited from the great age of 20th-century reform.”  For another interesting take on the “reversal” of the left and right from the 1960s to the present, see economist Ev Ehrlich’s two-part essay on his blog, Ev Ehrlich’s Everyday Economics.

It sounds lame, but true: We’re sure living through some interesting times….

I made it up, so you won’t find it listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.   Given that normal variations of mood and temperament are increasingly redefined as “disorders,” I’m hesitant to suggest adding another one. But this one’s real.  It’s based on my decades of experience as a business psychologist, psychotherapist and researcher, from which I’ve concluded that EDD is a pervasive but overlooked condition. And it has profound consequences for the mental health of individuals and of our society.

Our increasingly polarized social and political culture over the past year  has prompted me to post this — an expansion and revision of  an article I wrote for The Washington Post a couple of years ago about our nationwide empathy deficit.  It’s worse than ever, but ignored as a psychological disturbance by most of my colleagues in the mental health professions.

First, some explanation of what I mean by EDD:  People who suffer from it are unable to step outside themselves and tune in to what other people experience, especially those who feel, think and believe differently from themselves.  That makes it a source of personal conflicts, of communication failure in intimate relationships, and of the adversarial attitudes — including hatred — towards groups of people who differ in their beliefs, traditions or ways of life from one’s own.

Take the man who reported to me that his wife was complaining that he didn’t spend enough time with their children; that she had most of the burden despite having a career of her own. “Yeah, I see her point,” he says in a neutral voice, “but I need time for my sports activities on the weekends. I’m not going to give that up. And at night I’m tired, I want to veg out.” As we talked further, it became clear to me that he simply didn’t experience what his wife’s world was like for her.  His own reality – his own needs – were his only reality.

Or the computer executive who prided himself on having a stable family life, then casually told me that, even though he recognized the environmental threats posed by worldwide climate change, he couldn’t care less. “I’ll be long gone when New York is under water,” he said. And when I asked him whether he cared about how it might affect his kids or grandkids, he replied with a grin: “Hey, that’s their problem.”

Then there’s the woman who works in the financial industry who told me she’s indifferent to how American Muslims might feel: “I think they’re all terrorists,” she said, “and would like to kill us all, anyway … ”

These may sound like extreme examples, but I hear variations of those themes all the time. EDD keeps you locked inside a self-centered world, and that breeds emotional isolation, disconnection and polarization.  That’s highly dangerous in today’s interconnected, globalized world, and it plays out in ways both small and large:  For example, in troubled intimate relationships – when partners become locked into adversarial and oppositional positions; in warfare between groups with different beliefs – like the current polarization over political and social issues; and in current global threats – Sunnis and Shiites killing each other; Palestinians and Israelis locked into a death-grip with each other. Not to mention looming worldwide disasters or continued depletion of the resources and health of the only planet we have.  The noted writer Jeremy Rifkin’s recent book, The Empathic Civilization, provides a strong argument for an emerging empathic civilization in human consciousness, that counters the usual assumption that self-interest and greed are dominant forces among humans.

Empathy vs. Sympathy

Empathy differs from sympathy. Sympathy reflects understanding another person’s situation — but viewed through your own lens. That is, it’s based on your version of what the other person is dealing with. (“Yeah, I can sympathize with your problem with your elderly mother, because I have my own problems with mine …”). That self-centered focus is similar to what some people think love is when they’re really enthralled with their own feeling of being “in love,” rather than in love with the reality of who their partner is.

In contrast, empathy is what you feel only when you can step outside of yourself and enter the internal world of the other person. Without abandoning or losing your own perspective, you experience the other’s emotions, conflicts, or aspirations from within the vantage point of that person’s world. That kind of connection builds healthy, mutual relationships – an essential part of mental health.

How Do We Develop EDD?

Most people learn that acquiring and achieving things are “normal” — even “healthy” – ways to live. EDD grows when people focus too much on acquiring power, status, and money — for themselves.  Nearly every day we hear or read about people who’ve been derailed by the pursuit of money, power or recognition, and end up resigning their jobs, in rehab or behind bars.

But many of the people I see, whether in psychotherapy or executive consulting, struggle with their own versions of the same thing through too much emphasis on acquiring — both things and people. That’s going to promote vanity and self-importance.  Then, you become increasingly alienated from your own heart, and equate what you have with who you are.

That’s a killer for empathy, because now you’re prey to the delusion that you are completely independent and self-sufficient. You lose touch with the reality that all humans are interconnected and interdependent — all organs of the same body, so to speak.  Your sense of being a part of the larger interwoven community — absolutely necessary for survival in today’s world — fades away. So does your awareness that we have to sink or swim together, help each other, and sustain the planet we inhabit — or else we’re all in deep trouble. The net result is the decline of empathy for other human beings who are on the same boat you are. You don’t recognize that we’re all one, bound together. You only see yourself.  And I think that’s a bona fide emotional disorder in our times.

Sometimes, a person’s sudden realization of interconnection jump-starts the growth of empathy. At such times, people automatically respond from the heart. For example, the response of citizens to the massive earthquake in Haiti, or to Hurricane Katrina. Or what I witnessed recently when some passers-by stopped to help the victims of an auto accident. When empathy is aroused, you let go of your usual attachment to yourself and you want to help; connect in some way. I sometimes suggest to people to think of  this, as an example: When you cut your finger, you don’t say, “That’s my finger’s problem, not mine”; nor do you do a cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether to take action. You respond immediately because you feel the pain.

Empathy Is Hard-Wired

Overcoming EDD is easier than you may think. In fact, recent  research shows that the capacity to feel what another person feels is “hard-wired” through what are called “mirror neurons.” Functional magnetic resonance imagery (fMRI) shows that regions of the brain involving both emotions and physical sensations light up in someone who observes or becomes aware of another person’s pain or distress. Literally, you do feel another’s pain or other emotions. Similar research shows that generosity and altruistic behavior light up pleasure centers of the brain usually associated with food or sex.

Just as you can develop EDD by too much self-absorption, you can also overcome EDD by retraining your brain. That is, research also shows that your brain is capable of being trained and physically modified through conscious practices. This is known as neuroplasticity. You can “grow” specific emotions and create new brain patterns that reinforce them. As you redirect and refocus your thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the direction you desire, the brain regions associated with them are reinforced. What’s more, changing your brain activity reinforces the changes you’re making in your thoughts and emotions. The result is a self-reinforcing loop between your conscious attitudes, your behavior and your brain activity.

This may sound like science fiction, yet such studies show that you can learn to “reprogram” your brain. In effect, what you think and feel is what you become. And it means you can learn to grow empathy and overcome EDD.

Practices For Building Empathy

Here are a few practices you can do to help overcome your EDD in everyday life – whether with your intimate partner, friends, enemies, or strangers:

Empathy For Your Intimate Partner:

Envision a characteristic or behavior of yours that you know your partner dislikes. Imagine shifting your consciousness into your partner’s perspective and mentality, even though you may disagree with that perspective or are convinced it’s “wrong.”

Immerse yourself in your partner’s perceptions of you. Try to experience them fully. At the same time, hold on to your own views. Don’t let either negate the other.

Then, try to understand your partner’s feelings or attitudes as a reflection of who he or she is, based on all the forces and influences and choices that have shaped him or her. Don’t judge.

Empathy For Someone You Dislike:

It’s especially challenging to generate empathy towards someone you flat-out dislike – maybe even hate. Or, with whom you’ve had big-time conflicts: perhaps an ex-spouse, or someone at work. But you can do it by extending the above practice.

Tell yourself how or why that person might have developed negative attitudes or feelings about you. Imagine what the conflict feels like from within his or her perspective.

Entertain the idea that you are only partially right; perhaps wrong altogether.

Next, open yourself to seeing yourself through the eyes of that person. Just observe, without judging him or her, defending yourself, or agreeing with any of it.

Empathy For Strangers You Encounter:

It helps you expand your capacity for empathy by practicing it towards people you don’t even know:

Identify a situation or encounter with someone who’s a stranger, especially one who may be very different from yourself. Try to put yourself within the consciousness of that stranger. The checkout person at the grocery store could be an example.

Think of ways that he or she is probably like you — someone who desires love, who’s probably experienced some kind of loss or disappointment along the way, or who has aspirations he or she hopes to fulfill.

Focus on those commonalities that show you how this person is much like yourself — beneath surface differences.

Empathy For People From Foreign Cultures Or Whose Way Of Life Is Alien To Your Own:

You might establish a direct personal connection with someone through a charity that links you with a specific recipient of your contribution (e.g., www.alternativegifts.org; or www.greatgifts.org); or a microfinance organization that provides small business loans to specific individuals in developing countries who cannot otherwise qualify (e.g. www.kiva.org; www.microplace.com)

Empathy Fuels Your Mental Health

From empathy, tolerance grows. Tolerance of differences is an essential element of psychological health. By focusing on developing empathy, you can deepen your understanding and acceptance of how and why people do what they do, and build greater respect for others.

This doesn’t mean whitewashing the differences you have with other people, or letting them walk over you. Rather, empathy gives you a stronger, wiser base for resolving conflicts when you have them. You’re able to bridge differences more effectively and with less destructiveness. And beyond that, empathy makes you mindful of your commonality and connection with fellow humans — people who suffer and struggle with life in many of the same ways you do. It trumps self-centered, knee-jerk reactions to surface differences like religion, race, or ideology.

And that might put you in a frame of mind where you resonate with the title words of the old Elvis Costello song, “What’s So Funny ‘Bout Peace, Love, and Understanding?”

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.

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.

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.