Reconstructions

We are currently undergoing major renovations in our home. One thing I have learned: retro-fitting older houses can be more complicated, and costly, than building new construction.

It is now 2015 and the time for considering New Year's Resolutions. It is comforting to know there is a regular time table for motivating us to reflect upon our lives and potential improvements we can make, whether they are minor adjustments or major transformations. Unlike house renovations, we can't  tear the whole thing down and start over. We are always, in a sense, retro-fitting, which may be why it's so difficult.

There are many approaches to change and various models, theories and strategies work for different people and during differing times in our lives. However, they all have one thing in common---the need for action.  Recognizing the problems and considering changes are important first steps. Analyzing the issues; reflecting upon what you wish to change and why; and carefully considering what it means to change: these are all worthy endeavors. But without action, they are ineffective.

Prior to my work in consulting, I was a psychotherapist. I sometimes encountered people who could conceptualize and articulate their issues in great detail, with insight, yet were unable to take the steps needed for making change.  One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons from these years highlights a potential problem:

I  believe in seeking help, like when confronting changes that seem overwhelming,  if feeling stuck, or simply wanting an objective point of view.  As a consultant, my business is all about engaging others in making change. Gaining clarity and insight is often the spark needed for getting started.  To avoid the trap of "analysis paralysis", however, one must move into action.

Happy New Year and welcome to 2015!  It may be a good year for some retro-fitting.

Martin Luther King, Jr.- Keep his vision alive!

His life was short, but he accomplished a tremendous amount.  He serves as a model of what can be achieved through commitment, nonviolence and perseverance.  Long live MLK!

Be careful of "Rock Star" leaders

Here in Massachusetts we are having an interesting discussion/scandal (depending I guess on where you sit) regarding the President of Westfield State University. Apparently he likes to spend money. The university's money; and he has a history of this, which is what got him fired, or, shall I say, caused him to leave the University of Hawaii. He threatened to sue...they paid him 1.4 million dollars plus lawyers fees to leave.  Here is a link to one of the many stories on the topic in the Boston Globe:  Evan Dobelle came to Westfield State with record of excess.

I don't presume to know all the ins and outs on Evan Dobelle, given my reliance upon media stories which don't always get it right. But a couple of comments in this story really caught my eye...

"The consultant who recruited Dobelle to Westfield said Dobelle was so impressive he was 'almost out of our league,' recalled a member of the hiring committee"

and, also:

 "...some considered him a 'rock star' of higher education".

Really? University Presidents are now Rock Stars? I guess I tend to be skeptical.  I think there are really very few leaders of such stature. Furthermore, it tends to get us in trouble. Leaders who are treated as rock stars begin to believe their own mythology. They tend to think they are better than they are. And those surrounding such leaders can lose their judgment when they are busy swooning over these larger than life beings.

True, there are great leaders in business and academia as well as other sectors of our lives. However, that shouldn't stop us from doing our homework, questioning credentials, and challenging behaviors that appear out of step.

And oh the mighty, they do fall.

Can you hear me now?

Active listening is considered a fundamental skill for leaders. This is evident in its prominence in Communication Skills workshops and seminars. There we find exercises designed to help people become better listeners: make more eye contact; stop talking so much; reflect back the other person's comments; don't interrupt.  These are some of the strategies suggested.

These are actually pretty useful techniques for getting people to tune in more to others. But they sometimes seem insufficient;  as though they are not getting to the real reason so many leaders are not good listeners.

One approach is for leaders to become more "mindful".  Yes, I know, mindfulness is all the rage now... the popular media has picked it up, so you know it is becoming a trend. But, mindfulness has  been around for ages in eastern philosophies. It hit the US big time in the 60s, is increasingly more integrated into healthcare services (alternative/complimentary therapies), and is now permeating the workforce. So maybe there is just something to it.

What does mindfulness have to do with listening skills? It's simply this:  being a good listener requires self-understanding and self-control.  It requires being "in the moment", or being "present".  Why is this difficult? Because, leaders are often busy thinking about what just happened, or preparing for what is to come next.  However,  being an active listener means you are sitting with another person or persons, attending to what they are saying to you...NOW.  You aren't  preparing your rebuttal, or waiting for the person to finish so you can talk.  You are listening, inquiring, reflecting with an open mind.  You are curious. You are listening to understand.

So, what if instead of listening skills training we opt for "being in the moment" seminars.  It may be a harder sale to the training department. But, hey, it may just be worth a try.

I trust my employees.........really?

It is a beautiful day in New England. I am sitting on my back deck, with my laptop, working. Since I work for myself, this is acceptable. I check in with my boss (me) and ask if today is a good day for working outside.  My boss answers, "Why yes, Betty, its a beautiful day, you have lots of emails to get through, a blog to write and some other important computer-related work, so go for it."

Of course, most people work in companies in which working at home, sitting on the back deck,  is not an option. Though I submit that it could be much more of an option, if companies trusted their employees more.

Yahoo CEO, Marissa Mayer, made a big stink when she asked all employees to come back into the office. No more telecommuting. Her argument was that people needed to see each other--be in close proximity so that they could collaborate, create a more cohesive team environment.  I know that argument. One hears it a lot.  And I think it has merit.  Virtual teams have many challenges and it simply is not the same as being able to walk down the hall and see a colleague for a spontaneous chat about a project; or have face to face meetings where everyone is in the room and you don't have to struggle with wondering who is really paying attention and who is secretly checking emails or  Facebook posts. 

But does it have to be an either/or situation---office vs. home? Might there be other options?  How about 3 days in the office and 2 days at home?  How about telecommuting for certain jobs that really don't require significant face time? And how about teams who are scattered all over the globe--does it really matter if I am on a conference call sitting in my office in Company X vs. on my back deck, if I am communicating with people who are not in the same location anyway?

I think a big issue here is trust.  I honestly think most companies just don't believe their employees will work hard when out of sight. Maybe they are right. Maybe we won't. But, on the other hand, maybe we will.

Telecommuting may be a unique situation, but it is probably worth seriously considering whether you trust your employees. I mean, do you REALLY trust your employees? If so, do your policies and practices reflect this trust? And if you can't honestly say that you do trust your employees, it might be worth trying to figure out why.

Personal Leadership

It is probably fitting that I will be attending a Memorial service this Memorial Day weekend.  The service is for my mother-in-law, Mary Wolfe, who died on her birthday at the age of 95.

Mary was one of those special ladies.  She was not CEO of a company, a war hero or a major political figure.  She was instead an elegant woman of integrity, grace and personal leadership.

Like many women her generation, Mary was a stay-at-home mom, who made sure her children were fed, dressed, well-behaved and educated.  She provided good healthy dinners for her husband and children at 6:00 every evening. She indulged her grandchildren, including my two kids, with her time, sunny disposition and endless delicious meals and treats. She seemed happy and took pride in her role.  When her 3 children went off to college, she decided she had to receive a college education herself so that she could keep up with them; she must have been the oldest graduating student in her class at Skidmore College in 1969.

Mary demonstrated leadership in her life and community. She was a major force in her church, taking on roles such as directing the preschool program, Sunday school classes or the numerous charitable events that occurred in their semi-rural upstate New York community.  She was never one to say no if asked, and her boundless energy never ceased to amaze me.

We often forget to acknowledge the people in our lives who exhibit strong leadership every day. People who demonstrate committment, take on responsibilities for their communities, families and friends. People with strong integrity, compassion and engagement.

Thank you, Mary, for your personal leadership. You are loved and dearly missed.

Consultant, do no harm!

As a Consulting Psychologist, my goal is to help people.  As a matter of fact, my practice is heavily influenced by Edgar Schein's "Process Consultation" approach, in which the first of 10 principles is:  "Always try to be helpful".  So in my work in organizations, my goal is to be helpful: To help the individual I am working with, his or her coworkers, and other key stakeholders in the company.  Despite the Showtime series "House of Lies",  I imagine most consultants have this goal--to help our clients.

However, there is the law of unintended consequences.  And there are sometimes conflicts of interest. So how do we ensure that we are always helpful....or, at minimum, do no harm?  I suggest we be careful; very, very careful.

A good example of potential harm that is sometimes overlooked is with the introduction of 360s as a management tool.  I have discussed 360s in an earlier blog posting .  So what is the potential harm?  There is growing consensus on the benefits of 360 assessments, but there is also some research that suggests caution. For example, a 360 report containing a high percentage of very negative feedback can be overwhelming to someone with a fragile personality, particularly if it is not delivered sensitively and appropriately. Implementing a 360 assessment considered confidential, when in reality it is not, can also cause harm if, for example,  the leader retaliates against someone for honest but not-so-flattering comments.  Using 360s for performance appraisal rather than development can be risky;  one should be cognizant of the potential risks in this situation and ensure the implementation process is well-designed to mitigate any potential harm.

Companies need great leaders and this is especially challenging today given the rapid changes and complexities of our global economy. Assessments that help leaders better understand themselves and others can provide significant value to companies. As consultants we can really help; but we must understand the risks as well as the benefits of this sensitive work, and companies need to understand this as well. Sometimes providing this information is uncomfortable; sometimes we must make the difficult decision to walk away from a situation we know is not right. We can provide great value, but first, and most importantly, we must  DO NO HARM!

A Physician (and Psychologist) share personal perspectives

  More on healthcare, leadership and culture...

Today  there was an interview in the Boston Globe with a Physician whose mother died. He felt there were errors made and wanted to speak out to help prevent these things from occurring.  http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/02/04/jonathan-welch/YDxG225lt80x7i4UG0MJbL/story.html  

His answer to this question stuck out for me:

Q. Do you think smaller hospitals, like the one in Wisconsin that treated your mother, make more errors than big, teaching hospitals?

A. I don’t know if size necessarily has a lot to do with it. What I think really matters at the end of the day is culture. I think you need [hospital] leadership to say: “This is important to us. We’re not going to have people die unnecessarily on our watch, and we’re going to listen to patients and families.” 

So, my thoughts....What will it take to ensure every hospital creates a culture that emphasizes listening to patients and families? What leadership is required?

This resonated with a personal experience I had many years ago.  My first husband died of metastatic melanoma as a young man. He received excellent care, by many providers and more than one hospital over many years; but the disease did eventually take his life. 

Despite this good quality care, he had one experience that almost led to a preventable early death. As his wife, by his side constantly, I could see things that were going wrong. He was misdiagnosed. He was being "observed" and not receiving active treatment in part because it was the weekend, the hospital was understaffed and they were waiting for the full array of hospital staff ("experts") to arrive on Monday morning. 

But that may have been too late. 

I was forced to  confront a resident who was over her head and not willing to get the help needed. I became pushy, persevered; no longer concerned with politeness, I raised my voice. I demanded a specialist. I demanded a CT scan. I insisted they get someone in who could deal with the situation. [At that point, I am pretty sure she was offended, but I no longer cared...we were talking life or death here].

Later in the day, when it was confirmed that he had been misdiagnosed, (he had a brain tumor that was causing swelling, delirium and eventually a seizure) and the situation was stabilized, I was commended by the medical staff for "catching" the problem before it was too late.

The point is not that I know more about medicine, I don't. The point is: I knew more about my husband. I knew what he was like "well" and I knew he was deteriorating.

I agree with this physician--Hospital leadership needs to set the expectation that staff listen to patients and families. It needs to be a core value. It needs to be supported. It may prevent unnecessary deaths, and it also will lead to an overall much better hospital environment.

The human side of healthcare transformation

I just attended the Mid-Winter Leadership Forum co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Hospital Association (MHA)  and the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE)- Massachusetts chapter. It was quite interesting and it is exciting to be in Massachusetts where there are many innovative initiatives underway.

The title of the conference:"Making Connections: Crafting a New Healthcare System", was clearly meant to highlight Collaboration and Transformation. There were presentations of several innovative Massachusetts-based collaborative initiatives in which payors and providers have come together to provide better quality, cost effective solutions.

I was a little surprised, however, at the few references to the human aspect of transformation throughout the conference day, especially given the title "Making Connections". For example, what is effective leadership in these initiatives? How do leaders in healthcare organizations contribute to, or hinder, these transformations? What is the role of the physician leaders, healthcare executives, nurse managers and other leaders in ensuring the successful transition throughout these massive changes? What about those on the front lines?
 
Peter Straley, President & CEO, of Health New England, Inc. came closest to addressing the personal side of change by noting that what was really needed was to change the culture in which we grew up. YES!  A new vision...a new way of viewing and operating in a healthcare system within which we have been living.

Transforming healthcare is not about new technologies or new payor systems ALONE. Yes, those are critical, as are needed structural and systemic changes for delivering high quality care, more efficiently, effectively and at a lower cost. But, transformation requires personal change. It is about changing the culture. It requires collaboration, communication and compromise. It requires a new way of thinking. In essence, it is about changing behavior. And this is often the most difficult change of all.

Taking a Stand: Martin Luther King, Jr.

Today we celebrate a leader who died tragically and way too young: Martin Luther King, Jr.  We celebrate his accomplishments in moving civil rights forward and mourn our loss of a great man.

This 7 minute video is part 1 in a 3 part series in which Dr. King is interviewed by Mike Douglas on TV in 1967. The focus of the interview is primarily on his stance in opposing the Vietnam War, which was not particularly popular even among some people who supported his work on civil rights.  He speaks eloquently on the topic and remains steadfast with his convictions.

One section of the video I find particularly inspiring (around 5:20)  is when he is questioned as to whether his stance on the war may cause people to turn away from him, people who might otherwise support him. His response, in essence, is that people who really support equality will not change their views because some leaders in the civil rights movement take positions on other issues they don't agree with. He paraphrases a quote by T.S. Eliot in saying "...there is no greater heresy than to do the right thing for the wrong reason...".

In my mind, MLK was great not just because of the causes he supported and acted upon, but because he did not let the end justify the means. He remained an advocate of nonviolent resistance and his speaking out against the Vietnam War came from a genuine belief that the war was wrong. He did not waver even when his positions were not popular.  This is what integrity is all about.

Bully, Brute or Jerk: The importance of language

I recently attended a 4 day training seminar led by Dr. Laura Crawshaw of the Boss Whispering Institute. Dr. Crawshaw works with what she calls "Abrasive Leaders" and has developed a focused coaching approach for helping companies and individuals who are struggling with difficult management situations.

One notable issue  raised during the course of the training was the importance of language, and specifically why Dr. Crawshaw does not use the term "bully" when referring to these leaders.  Interesting.

It is true, there are psychopaths, bullies, narcissists and obnoxious people in the workplace, and, unfortunately, some are in high places (e.g. the executive ranks). However, it is also true that many people who exhibit controlling, berating and unprofessional behavior are not criminals or psychopaths; many are not even "jerks" but basically well-liked people behaving badly at work.  They may be acting this way because of learned behavior patterns, pressure on the job, a lack of insight and/or because their behavior has been rewarded over time.  In other words, they may not fully understand the impact of their actions.

Why are these linguistic distinctions important?  Primarily because how we intervene in these situations will depend upon how we define the problem.  A psychopath will not respond to behavioral coaching; a person with a serious psychiatric problem may require psychiatric treatment.  A real bully may need to be fired.  An "Abrasive Leader" may be someone who, when confronted with the negative perceptions that coworkers have of his or her behavior,  is motivated and able to turn that behavior around. Probably not without help,  but through  appropriate measures such as good management strategies and mentoring or coaching.

Language does matter.  It influences how we interpret the world and, therefore, how we choose to act.

Political leadership: moving beyond individual heroes

It is September 2012 and election day is fast approaching.  It is an interesting time to examine leadership in the political arena.

What can we apply from our knowledge of leadership in business and nonprofit settings to the political context? How are the issues similar, or different?

When applying leadership theory to the current political situation, I am struck by the importance of context and systems theory.  No leader operates in a vacuum. Even in business, but especially in politics, the larger setting in which the leader operates is critical.  A CEO entering a new organization has to contend with an executive team, an existing structure, an organizational history, a culture and sub-cultural groups, a diverse employee base and many other factors, both internal and external to the organization,  that will impact his or her success.  This is even more  true of the political context which is more complex and demanding.

So, when we think about the presidential election and the end result, we cannot think only of the individual leader i.e. the President. That is one individual, granted one with significant power; but one individual who works within a very large and multi-faceted system, that includes: other branches of the government, our business and social/cultural institutions and the global world in which we live.

In essence, we need to appreciate the total context in which leadership operates within our political system.  We live in a heterogeneous, and multi-cultural world. Collaboration and compromise for the greater good is the only way we will solve the critical problems we encounter. We don't need, nor should we expect, an individual hero to save the day, whether it is the economy or our foreign policy matters. We need a strong, competent visionary president, but we also need ethical, committed leaders in all branches of the government. Leaders who will keep us moving forward, even when it requires compromise or taking an unpopular position. We also need an educated, informed and engaged population that exercises critical thinking and understands the complex issues we face as a nation and a world. Wishful thinking? Maybe....but then again, I have always been an optimist!

Bringing ourselves to work

There is always a bit of controversy within the management community regarding the relationship between personality and leadership. This is especially true when discussing the selection of new leaders, because the role of personality and leadership success is hard to determine precisely as there are many factors that contribute including: experience, technical/business expertise, specific match between job requirements and the candidate, cultural fit AND personal qualities like cognition, motivation and personality.

Yet, when reviewing personality assessments with my coaching clients, I am always impressed by the interplay between one's personality and work behavior.  For example, the leader who is highly extroverted, social and spontaneous will bring this to work. Yes, it is "personal". Yes, it is not the same as education, training or work history. However, these characteristics impact one's work. And there is the potential for positive or negative impacts. It may be that the extroversion aspect of the leader helps him or her engage with others and develop the strategic relationships critical to success.  On the other hand, he/she may be less effective in work situations that require long periods of focus, reflection and analysis that are needed for complex decision-making. 

This is just one example, and, of course, there are many others.  The bottom line is this:  we bring our whole selves to work. Like it or not, when we arrive at work, our personalities arrive with us.  Of course, we moderate our behavior according to the context; what's appropriate at home is not necessarily appropriate at work. Nonetheless, understanding "who we are" as people will help us to be better at our jobs. It also, of course, helps us to be better at our lives.

Supreme Leadership.....or Not?

 Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court has received quite a bit of scorn in the aftermath of the decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).  Many conservatives believe he sold out.

This is a person who was appointed by former President George W. Bush. President Obama actually opposed his appointment; yet Roberts provided the deciding "swing" vote declaring the individual mandate is legal as a tax.

So the question is:  Is he exercising strong leadership or is this political activism or betrayal? Our political climate has become so polarized that it is indeed difficult to even speak of leadership without resorting to partisanship.  However, we must remember that the Supreme Court is supposed to be nonpartisan. Yep, that is the idea. Their role is to interpret the law and exercise judicial restraint. Their purpose in reviewing the individual mandate was to determine whether it was constitutional, not whether it was good policy. I am going to give Chief Roberts the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was acting according to what he believed was right. This has nothing to do with whether I agree with the decision. 

The issue that resonates most for me in this situation is the incredibly difficult positions in which we place our leaders. We idolize them, then shoot them down. When we agree with their decisions, we hail them as brilliant. When we disagree, they become scoundrels.  We don't always stop to think about the complexities of the decision, or what we might do in a similar situation.  We have the luxury of criticizing after the fact.

This issue also seems to illustrate the Social/Cognitive Psychology phenomenon known as the "Confirmation Bias".  That is, we select or favor information that confirms our biases.  In other words, we start with a set of beliefs, then go out in search of information to confirm those beliefs, which means we are naturally being selective about the data.

We all do this, by the way, but it is a limited way of looking at the world. It keeps us set in a particular mindset and does not allow for new ideas.  We should question our knee-jerk reactions to decisions as a way of counter-balancing the Confirmation Bias.  Questions to ask ourselves:  Are we being selective in the information we seek vs. looking for the best data?  Is there an alternative point of view that we are overlooking?

Compared to what?

 

I attended Harvard as a graduate student, so I like to check in on what is happening during commencement week. One of the speakers at Harvard's graduation this year was Congressman Barney Frank, who apparently graduated from Harvard with quite a few degrees.

Graduation speeches are always a challenge, and they can be memorable or sleep-inducing.  Though I didn't attend the commencement, the wonders of modern technology (i.e. "Youtube") gave me access to his speech (as well as Andy Samberg's which was certainly more entertaining).

One point made by Frank has really stuck with me, and it is the notion that idealism and pragmatism are not opposites, and they are both highly needed today. There seems to be a significant tension today between these two issues and it occurs on both sides of the aisle to some extent.  There are liberals who will not vote for Obama because of their ideals and the fact that he has caved in on some liberal issues.  There are conservatives who will not vote for Romney because he is not ideologically pure on conservative issues. There are elected officials who will not vote on any issue that requires compromise, even if it is disastrous to our country.

Now its a free country and people are free to vote for whomever they want, or to not vote at all. I understand the sentiment of those who bow out because they cannot find a suitable candidate.  But the question Frank raised, "Compared to what?" is really an important one.  We are a very heterogeneous country.  I  will likely never vote for a president with whom I totally agree.  There will always be issues near and dear to my heart that will not be popular among the whole of society.  Should I not vote because of this?

It is easy to blame the politicians and say "they're all bums", as I hear so frequently these days.  The highly polarizing environment of Washington is distressing, and it is standing in the way of the progress of our country. But I think this view is a cop out. They aren't "all bums",  they are people we elected to represent us. So to a large extent, we are responsible.

When voting for a President, Congressional candidate or a specific issue such as healthcare, debt reduction or financial reform, it is important to ask ourselves "Compared to what?".  What is the alternative? What happens if we don't vote for this person, issue, or reform? What happens if we stomp our feet and refuse to budge. This is the essence of leadership: making the difficult decisions.

At the root of this question is the reality that we cannot always get everything we want, and instead we sometimes need to compromise.  It may not be pretty, and it certainly isn't perfect,  but if it moves us in the right direction, then it may be worth it.

The New Face of Learning

I am currently teaching a course on Organizational Culture.  This course is taught through an online platform, Blackboard, asynchronously, which means as a class we do not all "meet" at the same time.

I recently had a discussion with some folks which is becoming more and more familiar--something to the effect of: "Do you really think the quality of education is as good if you don't meet face to face?".  To be honest, it is usually people of my generation (boomers) who are likely to question the value of online education.  However, it is certainly a fair question.

The Experience of People

Tom DeLong

Attended a dinner meeting provided by the New England Society for Applied Psychology last nite. The speaker was Tom DeLong from the Harvard Business School. Tom had an energetic and interactive style of presenting which was fun, and he based his presentation on the usual HBS case-based style of teaching which centered on succession planning in a professional services firm.  

There were a number of interesting tidbits but what seemed to resonate most, were the 3 questions he posed as being most relevant for people like us who work with high-achieving professionals:

1. How do people experience you;
2. How do you experience people; and (most importantly)
3. How do people experience themselves when they are with you.

Interesting.  

What do you think, Dr. King?

Martin Luther King, Jr. as a young man

              Today we celebrate the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr.   

 He had a dream. Did his dream come true?

Psychology, Leadership & the Big Ideas

I recently attended a seminar through the New England Society for Applied Psychology in which Sarah Cliff, Executive Editor of the Harvard Business Review spoke. Her presentation was entitled, "On the Psychology of Leadership and Managing People"-- a topic which is indeed near and dear to my heart.

Ms. Cliff described leadership and management trends evident throughout the history of the journal, some of the noteworthy ones being: Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Ed Schein's organizational culture, career anchors, OD; Dan Goleman on Emotional Intelligence, Martin Seligman on Resilience, Chris Argyris, Peter Drucker, John Kotter, and many more.

Recent trends noted include: technology, globalization, the increasing pace of change and lack of job security--all of which we know have a big impact on leadership today.

One comment really stood out for me:

"Truth: We have not been overwhelmed by BIG, EARTH-SHATTERING management ideas in the past 12 or 13 years."     

Thanksgiving: a time to pause and reflect

Betty and Curtis in Granada, Spain.

I love my work. What's not to like? I have a great boss (that would be me), I get to use my talents, and I help people and companies get better at what they do.

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving and in honor of our national tradition, we use this day to give thanks.  Despite the fact that I love my work, I am most thankful for those "other things".  I guess rather than be a person who lives to work, I work to live.

I am most thankful for my family--my husband,  kids, parents, siblings, in-laws, uncles and aunts who are still around, cousins, nephews and nieces.  I am not yet a grandparent, but I am already thankful for the grandchildren I hope to have someday (I am an optimist).

I am also thankful for friends--both old and new. Like many baby boomers, I have recently reconnected with friends who I had lost touch with--I am enjoying these re-connections quite a bit.

I am particularly thankful for my health and the health of my family and friends.  I know that illness and death are a part of life; and like most people, I do not enjoy this aspect of life. But I also know there are people around me to help with these more difficult times, and for that I am thankful.

I  recently visited Spain with my husband. I am thankful I have the opportunity to travel and also a spouse who enjoys traveling with me.

As corny as it sounds, it can be quite a useful exercise to sit and count your blessings.  It is easy to get caught up in the stresses of our busy lives, making it that more important to pause, reflect, and remember those things most important to us.