During a recent keynote speech for the United Way, my topic was finding the hidden gems among our co-workers.

During my decades in not-for-profit organizations, I have depended upon volunteers. Max DePree, former CEO of Herman Miller Furniture, beautifully articulated in his book Leadership Jazz, a technique for interacting with people that resonated with me.

You might wonder what jazz or business furniture has to do with leadership. Well, as a former professional trumpet player, I can tell you that, just like jazz music, leadership is about improvisation, collaboration, and, most importantly, finding the unique contributions that each volunteer can bring to the table.

De Pree’s philosophy is simple yet profound: leadership is not about being the loudest voice in the room or the one who has all the answers. It is about discovering and nurturing the hidden gems within your team—the talents, skills, and qualities that often go unnoticed but can make a world of difference when brought to light.

Each of us has these hidden gems. Sometimes, like unique gifts that we receive nestled in bubble wrap, these hidden gems are special hidden talents, passions, and interests, and we must remove the bubble wrap to find them. To do that often means getting to know the people we work with more closely.

Sometimes, these talents are under layers of routine, doubt, or simply under the demands of everyday work. As leaders, we must dig deep and uncover these treasures. Then the organization benefits, and the individuals grow and find personal fulfillment.

The beauty of jazz is that much of it is not on the written page. There is room for improvisation, for each musician to shine in their way while contributing to the group’s harmony.

In the same way, effective leadership allows for flexibility and creativity. It is about setting the stage for your team members to improvise, to bring their flair and ability to the challenges at hand. It is about recognizing that leadership is not a solo act but a collective effort where everyone has a role to play.

So, how do we, as leaders, uncover these hidden gems? Here are three practical steps:

Create a culture of trust. People need to feel safe and valued before revealing their true talents.

Listen Actively. Often, we are so busy directing and instructing that we forget to listen. Take the time to hear what your team members are saying. Listen for their words, their ideas, concerns, and aspirations. That is where you will find those hidden gems.

Encourage experimentation. Give your team the freedom to try new things, take risks, and explore their potential. Allow people to experiment without fear of failure. Then, they will be more likely to discover and develop their unique talents.

When you start to uncover these hidden gems, the impact is profound. Not only do you empower individuals to reach their full potential, but you also help to create a more dynamic, innovative, and resilient team. You will find that the solutions to your toughest challenges often come from the most unexpected places.

United Way’s vision and mission are extremely important. It is an organization where people of diverse backgrounds and opinions can come together to volunteer and support projects that help families, particularly growing children, to have success early in life.

It is about finding those compassionate, empathetic, inspirational givers who will ignite your folks to help ease the pain suffering, and challenges that we all either have or may experience in our lives. We live in a world of givers and takers where it feels like the takers are winning more and more frequently. Let’s inspire our people to unfold the bubble wrap and find the givers amongst us.

As National Women’s Month drew to a close and faded into the other 11 months that are not dedicated exclusively to Women, I received a solicitation from an Email friend regarding a new book written by author, Phyllis E. Greenberger, titled “Sex Cells.”  The author had a list of credentials regarding advocacy for women’s health that was as long as my forearm, and the fact that her latest book was published by Mayo Clinic Press was all I needed to respond positively to read and comment on her work.

The core of her book is that, despite all the work that has been done during the past thirty or so years, women are often still treated medically like men. She maintains that “Every woman can point to a time her pain wasn’t taken seriously or a medical professional didn’t seem knowledgeable about women’s health.” With her focus on biological sex differences, Ms. Greenberger, “continues to be struck by the lack of understanding of the topic, even among medical professionals.”

Consequently, the book provides the readers access to “the wide-world of sex-specific medical issues . . .how women pay the price, with a close look at the impact that it has on minority populations. “Told with humor, ferocity, and passion, ‘Sex Cells’ appeals to anyone interested in health, women’s rights, and public health policy.”

Having personally been involved on the administrative side of healthcare for nearly four decades with a focus on research directed primarily toward women, this topic captivated my interest. During my time at our research institute, the work was focused on breast, cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers plus heart disease, diseases that the author referred to as “bikini medicine” because it was limited to breast and genital health.  Interestingly, however, our research not only looked at the genomic differences, we also studied the impact of behavioral modification on these various maladies.

It was during this time that we began asking female patients suffering from these diseases to visit the researchers and explain what they were going through. This was intended to personalize their challenges and encourage the scientists to look at individual women instead of just numbered test tubes and aliquots. In other words, we attempted to personalize, humanize, and feminize their work.

We found genetic differences associated with race, ethnicity, and sex that would alter not only the severity of the disease but also the detection and eventual prevention and cure of certain diseases that were very different than those formerly acknowledged in the field.

During this time, as the author so skillfully pointed out, it was clear to us that generally, research on an international level was challenging in its history due to its lack of inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials. Ms. Greenberger also addressed how women can begin to advocate for themselves in the doctor’s office.

She elaborated on the disparities women face in medical treatment that continue to this day. These disparities are even more prevalent among female minorities. Equal but not the same as the primary thesis of “Sex Cells.”

Her chapter titles ranging from “The History of the Mystery, The Heart of the Matter, Neurological Stew, to a Brighter Tomorrow,” address topics and content that display the gravity of the challenges which are all carefully explored and amplified.

Phyllis Greenberger has been at the forefront of advocacy for women’s health for decades, and this book is a strong example of her dedication to enlightening her readers about the challenges of women’s health.

As Louse Otto-Peters, a German suffragist and women’s rights activist said, “The history of all times, and today especially, teaches that . . . Women will be forgotten if they forget to think about themselves.”

This book “. . . is a comprehensive tale of scientific stonewalling, intrepid advocacy, and the still-pitched battle to get the scientific and medical world to recognize that women are not small men.”

Dan Buettner, a New York Times bestselling author, has spent two decades studying places in the world where longevity seems to be a given, and people simply forget to die. They live into their late 90’s and early 100’s as healthy, productive participants in their communities. The other thing he discovered was that the vast majority of them were happy people leading happy lives.  

In his first book, Dan found that only 10 percent of longevity is dictated by genes, and the centenarians did not live longer because of workout gyms, fad diets, supplements, or whatever. “Long life was not something they pursued. It was something that ensued” because of their environment, their support systems, and several other naturally connected things.   

They had a great sense of purpose to their lives, were nudged into physical movement about every 20 minutes because of where they lived, and were completely energized by being in what he described as “Like-tribes” in the right communities that helped keep them on the right track. They lived in interconnected, mutually supportive clusters of people allowing them to do the right thing long enough not to get disease            .

He also attempted to determine where the happiest places were in the world. What he found might throw some of you for a loop, but for many of us, it’s that not so common, “common sense” that our grandparents, parents, and friends have shared with us throughout our lives.

            Buettner worked with Google, Gallup, and the University of Pennsylvania and found some fun examples from about 50 billion Google searches regarding happiness. Generally, people who own dogs are happier than cat owners. (Sorry, Taylor) People who liked action movies or comedies seemed to be happier than those looking for romance movies.  

From his world observations, he found that gender equality is important. It makes men happier when women are treated equally. Education for both men and women was an important key to happiness because educated girls become educated mothers and produce better everything. Plus, countries where there is complete equality are where the happiest people live.  

They found that healthcare . . . not America’s sick care, but genuine health care which includes prevention and wellness is a great predictor of happiness. 

Mike Norton, a professor of business administration from Harvard asked these two questions on three continents: Do you think life is short and hard or long and easy? The people who selected long and easy were always happier, but they were also more civic-minded and generous. They were 40% happier, 30% more likely to vote, and 60% more likely to donate money. That’s a good psychographic profile to seek out for your next fundraising event. It will save you time if you ask those two questions and then only invite the generous, civic-minded, happy people.  

Happy people place their values on family, some type of belief system, face-to-face conversations, walking to the church, market, and friend’s homes, laughter, and seven hours of sleep a day. They also take all their vacation days and try new things.  

So, own a dog, socialize, stay married if you can, pick a job you love over money, give something back, and most importantly, choose where you live because that is the single most important happiness indicator. If you live in an unhappy place and move, you will be exponentially happier within a year. 

They also recommend meditation, financial security over consumption, big windows for lots of light, a front porch, and having a best friend at work. 

Dr. Carl Jung said, “Eat without gluttony, drink without drunkenness, love without jealousy, argue but don’t go to bed mad, and occasionally, with great discretion, misbehave.” 

Check off your happiness boxes and make some changes because it’s never too late, and they can make a tremendous difference. You can choose to be happy every day.  

Why are things the way they are? The University of Eastern Finland recently released a paper by Sipra Manninen, Samli Koponen, Timko Sinervo, and Sanna Laulainen in the Journal of Advanced Nursing on the impact of ostracism in the workplace. We all have experienced this phenomenon in several ways, but my personal experiences pale when compared to those individuals who had a different skin tone, religious belief, any type of physical anomaly, or were just less self-assured people.

Ostracism is, as defined by Oxford, exclusion from society or a group, and it comes from the Greek ostrakismos which has the same meaning.  Although it typically causes no visible physical damage, the emotional and psychological impact can be intense and often heartbreaking. It most certainly can harm the individual’s mental health, self-esteem, and personal well-being in ways that are long-lasting and deep.

Many of our adult behaviors can be traced back to experiences relating to these exclusions or outright rejections from our peers.  Ostracism can occur in personal situations, the workplace, or on societal levels. It can be both unintentional and intentional and can influence the individual’s perception of the world around them for a lifetime.

Because we are inherently social human beings, finding one’s tribe and being comfortable in that scenario can provide a sense of emotional and mental well-being. Conversely, when someone is ostracized, it often triggers feelings of sadness, despair, and loneliness that can have a significant impact on feelings such as anxiety and depression.

The Finnish article was directed toward ostracism in the healthcare workplace, and it described examples like the impact of exclusion from social activities, lack of communication or the withholding of information, being overlooked in meetings, and how these slights can negatively impact the workplace. All of these actions can create what can only be described as a toxic work environment. This can result in decreased job satisfaction, underperformance in the form of less productivity, and even higher turnover rates.

Because our coping skills are less developed as children and young adults, that same behavior in school or social settings can result in academic underachievement, withdrawal, behavioral problems, and more prevalent actions recently due to the addictive and anonymous nature of social media, such as self-harm and even suicide that can be both intentional and unintentional.

If you’re the kid who is not invited to the party or gathering where all of your friends are. If you’re excluded from a club about which you were passionate. If you’re not part of the in-crowd at a dance or a meeting where you were previously a key player, you are being socially ostracized. The worst part of this is there may be no real concrete reason for being cut-out, and if there is a reason, it may be even more hurtful.

As we look at the numerous scenarios that have brought our country to this point in terms of philosophical separation, we can reflect on what contributed to the two political camps, and within those camps, we will find people who were ostracized at various times in their lives. There are reasons why certain groups feel more of an affiliation with others and this is often based more on the previously felt pain caused by being eliminated from situations that were meaningful to them.

If we could take a deep look at the personalities of the leaders that are controlling life and death decisions in our world, they are dealing with deep issues that have roots in their past. The desire to dominate, eradicate, decimate, and eliminate entire countries, groups of people, or societies is not normal.

Only through encouraging inclusivity, open communication, and the promotion of empathy can we help mitigate the negative impact of ostracism. By working to create a more compassionate and inclusive society through fostering understanding and empathy, we can create a world where everyone feels valued, accepted, and capable of reaching their full potential.

In September 2019, a team of highly trained medical professionals implanted a new heart valve into the aortic opening of my heart. This TAVR (Transcatheter Aortic Valve) procedure involved placing the valve through my femoral artery. The physicians guided a catheter, carrying the engineered valve, through the artery to my heart. Inside the catheter was a folded replacement valve, which they securely positioned within the old valve, and opened like an umbrella in a tropical drink.

They informed me that my valve was made from both synthetic and bovine materials and was expected to last from seven to an undetermined number of years. If it failed, replacement was a viable option. A myriad of questions crossed my mind. Was the bovine donor raised in a specialized environment for medical purposes?

            Was it grass-fed? Did they treat it like the Kobe cows, with massages and special care? Heck, after reading about Kobe beef, I’m inclined to think that, except for their ending, I’d like to be a Kobe cow. These cows supposedly drink beer, get massages with rice wine, and listen to classical music. So, what about medical cows and pigs or bovine and porcine donors being prepared for humans?

Recent studies involving individuals in their final moments, explored the use of compassionate animal organs—particularly porcine organs—for human transplants. These studies provided valuable insights into the necessary adaptations for these animal organs to be effective in humans. Physicians and scientists meticulously reengineered these organs for compatibility with the human body.

Naturally, pig and cow organs must undergo testing in non-human subjects before human trials. The preparation of one of these organs for transplantation into a monkey, for instance, requires about 69 genomic edits. I’m not a scientist, but even writing this column takes about 39 edits.

Not that any of us reading (or writing this) can fully understand, but before these organs can function, they must undergo engineering to eliminate glycan antigens, to overexpress human transgenes, and to inactivate porcine endogenous retroviruses. Yeah, I know. I didn’t understand that either. It’s perfectly okay. I’ve been working with genetic scientists for about 20 years, and much of this is still very mysterious to me.

What they have discovered, however, is that including human transgene expressions in the reengineering process could enable successful preclinical studies of renal (kidney) xenotransplantation (pig transplants) in nonhuman primates. This single discovery could bring us closer to clinical trials of genetically engineered porcine renal grafts. What?

In other words, we’re getting closer to being able to use specially grown pigs with genetically altered kidneys to be implanted in humans. What would the impact of that be? Each year, more than 97,000 people in the United States need kidney transplants, but only about 10,000 to 15,000 people actually receive transplants from donors. Just like that cow who gave up its life to give me a few more years, there could be enormous positive strides in life-saving transplants from altered pig kidneys.

So, between AI connected to our brains, bionic limbs and eyes, and porcine and bovine spare parts, we might just be able to extend this life thing long enough to figure out our purpose. I think we have a long way to go before we stop the abhorrent behavior that has been so rampant recently.

The genetic difference between a chimpanzee and a human being is about 1.2 percent. There is a zero-percentage difference genetically between humans of different races, colors, creeds, and religions. When will we accept each other as one race, the human race? More importantly, when will we stop killing each other because of our stupid, man-made prejudices and bigotry?  What we are seeing in Gaza, Israel, Ukraine, and even in places like Maine in the United States is symbolic of our need to rip the scales from our eyes and admit that we are a single race that requires two things to thrive, the love and respect of our fellow human beings.

Reality and delusion are the terms used to describe two contrasting aspects of human perception and cognition, and they may be the root of most of the challenges we are facing as a species today. What’s real and what’s not?

When we analyze the meaning of reality, we are referring to the state of things as they exist. This state of existence can be objectively independent of our own prejudices, personal perceptions, or varied interpretations. Reality is the actual, precise existence of something.

This interpretation of reality typically refers to something that is consistent and shared by multiple observers who have measured and confirmed it via empirical, factual, verifiable evidence. The moon is round. So are Mars, Venus, Saturn, the Sun, and all the other planets. The earth is not flat. That would just be a total embarrassment to the rest of the universe.

Yet there exists an entire community of “flat-earthers,” who, in spite of confirmation by thousands of verifiable sources, do not believe the earth is round. Even taking into account the need to deny gravity, distorted horizons, and sun and moon rotation theories, they still hold on to their beliefs. Consequently, the flat earth concept might be a subject that could be described as a delusion.

The author, Philip K. Dick wrote, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

When I used to query my leadership classes as to the color of my necktie, (That was when people other than morticians, bankers, lawyers, and television newscasters wore neckties.) there would be some variables regarding the description of the color. They would sometimes select shades and nuances of color based upon Crayola names. Generally, if it was blue, they would agree that it was blue. My point was that somewhere along the years of man’s existence, we agreed that blue was the color.

Now, even something so simple as that color decision has come into question. This is due to alternative facts, false narratives, and social media challenges. As a society, the fact that my necktie is blue has become a source of disagreement, and a point of contention. 

Albert Einstein said, “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”

Delusion is, however, a belief that is not in concurrence with objective reality. They are often defined as fixed or false beliefs that are resistant to reasoning or contrary evidence. The interesting thing about delusions are their complete subjectivity. On the far end of the mental health scale, because they involve distorted interpretations of reality, they would have typically been associated with pathological conditions such as schizophrenia or other disorders. Now, however, these oftentimes total distortions of truths have become a simple path to getting something you want, something that might not otherwise have been possible by embracing actual real facts.

The problems with this type of distortion acceptance or promotion is multi-faceted. Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, Isolation, strained relationships, functional impairments, emotional distress, and professional and legal consequences are just a short list of possible outcomes that result from delusional thinking.

Obviously, conspiracy theories rank very high on the list of feeders to delusional thinking. Recently, a 71-year-old man from the Chicago area who, according to his wife, listened constantly to talk-radio, decided that he had to murder a six-year-old Muslim boy by stabbing him 26 times. He also stabbed the boy’s mother about a dozen times. He had been their landlord, and the boy was running over to hug him when he was assaulted. Will this man use as a defense that talk-radio radicalized him? That he was delusional? Or will he say, “The boy and his mother deserved to die because their beliefs were not congruent with his?”

As we look in the mirror each day, make sure we take an inventory of what delusions we might personally be accepting. It could save a life.

The moves on my personal career chess board went something like this: Band director to arts manager, then tourism director to health care executive. Looking objectively at my employment progression, one might struggle to identify some type of intelligent connectivity and continuity that makes sense, but it was indeed a rich experience pathway that resulted in a unique brand of leadership that could not have been predicted.

First and foremost, it armed me with a very deep level of understanding and experience in human relationships that addressed things like personal growth, happiness, and positivity. As a junior and then senior high school band director, I learned compassion, patience, and persistence, and was forced to become a master counselor to help my students achieve sometimes incredibly challenging goals.

When I entered healthcare management, my most often replicated thought was “Why do they do things this way?” It took me a while to find the answer to my question. The vast majority of the individuals involved in healthcare were adept in things like math, science, and other left-brain skills. My career path was heavily weighted in emotional quotient skills, and human interactions that nurtured my students, encouraged artists in creativity and uniqueness, and promoted entrepreneurial activities through our tourism business membership.

One of my first healthcare administrative fellows quoted a line from one of his professors that became our mantra, “Don’t give people what they will like. Give people what they will love.” There was also a masculine/feminine component to this philosophy as well because the vast majority of healthcare leaders were men, but the majority of employees were female, the majority of healthcare decision-makers were women, and the road to recovery and healing always included nurturing. These realities resulted in my taking a very different view of what healthcare leadership should look like, and it was opposed to many of the traditional “Dr. House” approaches that had been followed for many years.

The absolute power of humanness in healthcare had to be the core of the relationships between the patients and caregivers. That human touch is what fostered healing. This meant developing programs with empathetic understanding relating to the patient’s emotional needs. It also meant encouraging genuine connections between our healthcare professionals and their patients. That required pointing out over and over again that it may be the employee’s 127th tumor, but it was the patient’s first, and that meant compassion, tenderness, and empathy had to be part of the care.

The capacity to understand and share the feelings of others represented a very challenging new world order because that sharing also meant vulnerability, personal exposure to emotional pain, and transcendence of traditional roles as the caregivers embrace the holistic care of their patients. The acknowledgment and validating of patients’ emotions, fears, and concerns, allowed our healthcare professionals to create an environment that promoted healing. It also reassured the patients that they were being seen, cared for, and heard. Most importantly it instilled hope and reduced anxiety. That alone allowed white blood cells to do their work.

It didn’t take long to realize that with the establishment of provider-patient relationships, healing could begin more quickly. These relationships required the providers to understand their patient’s uniqueness. What were their cultural backgrounds, family circumstances, and personal preferences? By doing this type of homework and then allowing patients to actively participate in their healthcare decisions, a bond was formed that resulted in a patient-centered type of care that created incredibly positive statistical outcomes that still hold today.

By our acknowledging the psychosocial impact of illness, healthcare professionals were able to offer support, guidance, and resources to help the patients get through their challenges. By addressing these spiritual and emotional needs, our patients experienced resilience which facilitated their recovery and added to the overall quality of their lives. Honestly, as the neurosurgeons used to say, “This is not rocket science.”