Wouldn't the world be a wonderful place if everyone acted the way we wished they would?  Perhaps, although it would be pretty difficult to mature beyond the two-year-old level; think of the tantrums toddlers throw when they don't get their way.  By encountering people who don't act the way we want (and, relatedly, situations that don't turn out as we'd prefer) we learn how to tolerate and manage disagreement and conflict, and eventually develop an ability to look at situations from multiple perspectives (including the perspective that holds us accountable for our actions rather than blaming them on someone else).

Here's the applicable experience I had this week.  A neighbor with whom I'd had a friendly relationship owns a nearby bike shop. In January of 2009 I went to his store to buy a bike so as to be able to ride down to the Capitol to witness President Obama's swearing in (driving down and parking was out of the question, and the subway was going to be a zoo scene). The store didn't have any bikes that I liked in my price range, but my neighbor said I could order one and he would lend me a bike until mine came in.  I told him I'd need to think about it. I visited another nearby bike shop which had a model that I very much liked, in my price range, available right then, and so bought it.

A few days later my neighbor saw me riding the bike and must have realized that I'd purchased it from a shop other than his own.  I got a frosty reception fom him then and from then on. 

Earlier this week I was driving my car back home from grocery shopping and as I neared my parking space saw my neighbor chatting with a woman in a vehicle that was blocking access to my space.  I waited perhaps 10 seconds but as neither the driver nor my neighbor glanced in my direction or gave any indication of being aware of my presence, I lowered the window and said (quite calmly, in my recollection) "Would you mind asking her to back up a few feet".  He responded (somewhat curtly) "Just give us a minute."  I waited perhaps another 15 seconds at which point the woman driving the car backed up enough to let me access my space.  I pulled in and a few seconds later heard "Goddamn it!".  She had backed all the way up into a telephone pole (which she bumped rather softly).  As I got out of the car my neighbor yelled at me "Look what you made her do!  You're always so impatient!" (reflecting, no doubt, his take on my decision not to order the bike from his shop because it wasn't available at the time I wanted it).  I responded "How is it my fault that she backed into the telephone pole?" to which he answered angrily "Shut up!".  I realized at that point it would be futile to continue any "discussion," and so I went inside my house.  (She, by the way, came out of the car and said "don't worry, I just bumped it").

Clearly my neighbor was holding onto a grudge born years earlier as a result of my "impatience" about the bike purchase.  What a shame!  He allowed a relatively minor incident from years before color his present experience needlessly.  But that's exactly what holding a grudge does....it "preserves" an unhappy experience from the past and resurrects it in the present, allowing no possibility of healing the earlier hurt.

The answer to this problem is Forgiveness.  The Mayo Clinic website has a beautifully worded exposition of the benefits of Forgiveness: "(It's) a decision to let go of resentment and thoughts of revenge.  The act that hurt or offended you might always remain a part of your life, but forgiveness can help lessen its grip on you.  It can even lead to feelings of understanding, compassion, and empathy for the person who hurt you.  Forgiveness doesn't mean that you deny the other person's responsibility for hurting you, or that you excuse the act, and it doesn't minimize or justify the wrong".  It simply allows you to move forward in your life a little less burdened with anger and sadness.

When I next run into my neighbor I intend to approach him and say "I'm sorry if I gave you the impression of being impatient.  I wasn't feeling impatient, but maybe by asking her to move the car I suggested I was".  I could certainly argue that I bear no responsibility for the incident, that it was all a matter of overeaction on my neighbor's part, and that HE should be making peace with ME.  But that way of thinking allows no possibility for "clearing the air," something that I very much wish to do since I don't want to feel uncomfortable every time I run into my neighbor. Forgiving his outburst and then suggesting that it may have been based on a misunderstanding offers a much greater possibility for peace between us.

I could hold on to a grudge and fume every time I see my neighbor, reliving his excessive, inappropriate reaction.  But in what way would I benefit from that?  Forgiveness is usually viewed as something altruistic, but it can, and should, also be viewed from a "selfish" standpoint: how will it help ME???  Moving beyond past grievances opens space for you to focus on other, more positive aspects of life.

When she arrived I asked her to briefly describe the issues in their marriage as she saw them. "Communication" was her reply (the first answer I get nine out of ten times when I ask couples for a summary of their marital problems).  I summarized Hank's description of his grievances and she agreed that his characterization of her behavior was more or less accurate, but she added that he didn't take her concerns seriously, and that he would abruptly cut off discussion when he began to get the slightest bit uncomfortable. I then asked her what God thought of their marriage (they had revealed that the attended church regularly). Tears welled up as she said "He's not happy about it."

Nor, of course, were they, and it was heartbreaking to see how they'd become trapped in a cycle of finger-pointing, anger, and resentment despite the genuine love they professed and frequently exhibited for each other. They, like so many other couples, were focusing on the undesirable behavior of their partners and trying to change it while at the same time complaining about it.

I directed our discussion towards the principle of seeking to understand the motivation for their partner's behavior: what was it trying to tell them about underlying feelings?  Redirecting a couples session in this way is almost never easy; both individuals want to hold on to blaming the other for the situation and as a result often can't really hear what the other is saying.  So yes, in a broad sense this is a "communication problem," but it's more accurately a problem of not listening because each party feels that they have a legitimate grievance.

And they almost always do.  But grievances are usually expressed in attack terms ("You never....you always") and most of us don't respond too well when attacked.  SO what I did with this couple, and do in almost all of my couples counseling, is to lower the temperature of the dialogue, slow it down, and begin to tease out the thoughts and feelings underlying the problematic behavior.  I started with Camille, asking her to tell Hank what feelings arose in her when he shut down (either by walking away or refusing to talk more about an issue). "When you close down like that I feel that I'm going to lose you, and I get panicked and start to feel desperate."  I then asked Hank to repeat what he's heard Camille say. "So when I don't respond to everything you say, you don't like it."  This missed the mark by quite a bit, and retained much of the combative tone that brought them into see me, but after a couple of repetitions Hank was able to hear exactly what Camille had experienced, which visibly softened him to her.  

"Over time, with practice, couples can restructure the way they talk to each other, so that what one says to another is mirrored back, validated, and empathized with.  They move from a staring at exteriors to a sharing of interiors, as they learn to participate in the emotional realm of the other, while holding onto their own, separate experience.  Whenever two people are involved, there are always two realities. These realities will always be different in small and large ways, no matter what.  Nonetheless, the reality of the other person can be understood, accepted, valued, and even loved."*

*From "Getting the Love You Want" by Harville Hendricks

Why are some people "late bloomers" (which I think is a slightly less derogatory description than "clueless"!)? There are four explanations that I most frequently encounter:

1) Family / societal pressures:

Quite often children will express a pasion for something at an early age only to be strongly discouraged by parents: "you'll never make a living being an artist;" "do you know how many basketball players make it to the top? - your chances are one in a million," "being an airline pilot is too dangerous," "why don't you think of something that will give you more security?".  Parents can be hesitant to fully support the interests of their children for fear of encouraging their kids to pursue careers that won't "pay off" or provide adequate security. There may also be an issue around the cost of a certain career: a poor family might discourage a child from dreaming of being a doctor or a lawyer because the resources needed to send a child down such an expensive path might seem out-of-reach,

2) A plethora of interests:

Although being interested in a wide number of things sounds on the surface to be a positive, too often I hear it characterized by clients as "A.D.D."  There's a big difference. True A.D.D. is classified as a disorder because it interferes in a significant way with a person's ability to accomplish important tasks.  Having a multiplicity of interests, and rapidly switching from one to another, does not necessarily impede one's ability to lead a productive life.  But it will impede one's ability to pursue a work life that is easily labeled, which in many settings can be seen as a negative.  I often hear clients with fingers in several pies ask "what should I tell people when they ask what I do?"  This seems a particularly troublesome issue in highly career-oriented Washington.

I recommend two books to people faced with the 'too many interests" dilemma:

The Renaissance Soul: Life Design for People with Too Many Passions to Pick Just One by Margaret Lobenstine

and

One Person / Multiple Careers: A New Model for Work / Life Success by Marci Alboher

3) Perfectionism:

I view most perfectionism as a form of fear: "What will happen if I don't do this exactly right" or "if I don't have this completely figured out?"  Perfectionism is often instilled in children by excessively demanding or judgmental parents who, hoping to help their children achieve success, set unrealistic expectations for them. Because those with perfectionist tendencies are reluctant to undertake projects in which there is a good likelihood of somehow falling short of ideal, they can get stuck in procrastination and depression; after all, how likely is it that one can be sure that any given career will result in success?

4) Lack of inspiration:

Artists frequently refer to a "muse," a person or thing that inspired them to create.  A construct to which more people can relate is the inspiration provided by a teacher, clergyman, wise relative, or some other admired figure able to point to a hitherto-not-considered path.  Many people have yet to encounter such an inspirational presence, but there's no reason that one can't appear even late in life.  However, later in life it's more likely that such inspiration needs to be searched for and less likely that it will simply cross one's path. Think of people you admire and learn about them - you may encounter inspiration by walking in their footsteps.

Here's a short list of well known people who began the careers for which they've become famous later in life. Most of them did a variety of things before finding their "calling".

Grandma Moses (artist) 80

Colonel Sanders (KFC restaurateur) 65

Miguel de Cervantes (author of Don Quixote) 58

Ray Kroc (founder of McDonald's)- 52

Susan Boyle (singer) - 48

Fred Thompson (actor) - 41

Julia Child (chef) - 36

If you haven't an idea of what career(s) to pursue, or what you want to do with your life, don't despair and blame yourself - commit to a program that will help you discover the best path down which to move forward from where you are now.  I'd love to help.

This week I'm readoing Steve Jobs, the fascinating biography of Apple's co-founder.  His energy, passion, exceptional design ability, and perfectionism are legendary, and the book provides numerous anecdotes illustrating those characteristics, but 1/3 of my way into the book I was particularly struck by the following quote:

"If you want to live your life in a creative way....you have to not look back too much.  You have to be willing to take whatever you've done and whoever you were and throw them away."

For purposes of today's post, I would add "and be willing to throw away whatever happened to you."

The principle being articulated here is that the past can have a limiting, narrowing effect on the future. Sometimes that can be a very beneficial thing (once you've touched a hot stove you know not to do it again), but I believe that our culture places too much importance on planning and strategizing based on past learning, as opposed to remaining open to new ways of looking at things, and the attendant possibilities.  After all, to the degree that your mind is planning based on the past it is reducing the possibility of a changed future.  Indeed that's a good part of the reasons why minds do plan - to retain a sense of control, and to minimize the chances of unwanted developments.  This tendency traces back to the evolutionary bias that gave "bonus points" to hypervigilance: those who learned, based on past experience, to be extra alert to signs of danger tended to survive longer and create more offspring.

Yet learning and planning based on the past also carries with it an inherent narrowing of possibility.  Let me cite two clinical example from my work with clients over the past week (using pseudonyms, of course):

Paula has held a number of positions over the course of her career, which has been checkered (in a good way). She now has a high paying job with a prominent not-for-profit environmental organization.  The organization has been under severe financial pressure and, as a result, she has not gotten the long-promised salary increase despite her continuing to do exceptional work.  She began this week's session with "Here I am again, working for people who don't appreciate my contrbutions.  Why do I continue to fall into this pattern? We need to talk about finding me a new job." As we talked she revealed how she'd had a meeting with the CEO just the day before in which he went out of his way to praise her to a large group of senior executives. Yet it was not as prominent a fact in her mind as it should have been because she was viewing her situation through the lens of "Here I am again".  She was downplaying the possibility that the CEO's high opinion of her might work to remedy the salary situation.

Justin, a successful executive in the energy sector, is concerned about the future prospects for his company, given the uncertainties surrounding government funding of clean energy.  He has been trying to figure out a strategy to get him and his family into a more secure situation, and was weighing the pros and cons of considering relocating - but each of the three cities on his list seemed to have some drawbacks.  I made the suggestion that he plan to visit each of them for a week with his wife and daughter and "feel them out" - in essence experiencing them in the present rather than planning them through an intellectual prism.  Of course he would have eventually spent time visiting whatever cities he was seriously contemplating, but doing so earlier rather than later, and placing less emphasis on planning and more on experiencing, would result in a better, less agonizing decision process.

Every day I work to get people to minimize or eliminate preconceived ideas, and to look at situations (whether related to career or to relationships) with as fresh and unbiased a perspective as possible.  There's always the possibility of reining in an idea that seems to radical, but in order to "push the envelope," pay less attention to what's been and more to what is.

The second, "Career Warfare" by David F. d'Alessandro, former CEO of John Hancock takes a more "Outside-in" approach, emphasizing the perils and opportunities presented by the outside world while providing strategies and tactics to prevail in what the author paints as a fairly hostile world.  Terms like "enemy," use people," "attacks," "defection,"  "have some sympathy for your victims," and "No mercy for disloyalty" are rife.  Revenge is savored.  

This perspective is certainly common in hierarchical corporate life, and following D'Alessandro's prescriptions may well pay off, but the approach is inherently manipulative, calculating and, on many levels, exhausting.  D'Alessandro conceptualizes the person on a career path as a product, and he uses product developments and marketing terms freely to illustrate his points:
"Become a product with the right features" on page 24, "Become famous for....,; "become known as" on pages 29 and 34. "The single most important thing you can do for your career is to lay the groundwork for an attractive personal reputation." on page 9.  Focusing a huge amount of attention on the way you're being perceived by the outside world can be psychologically unhealthy, leading to unnecessary stress and angst.  Fortunately, fewer and fewer people ( although still a very large number) are pursuing careers within the kinds of large organizations that inspired "Career Warfare."

The third is "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell, author of the classics "Tipping Point" and "Blink." This is a book about success from a more sociological standpoint, emphasizing the role that such "macro" factors as one's ethnic culture, race, religion, access to resources, familial upbringing, and chance opportunity.  It's a 30,000 foot overview of often unrecognized factors that contribute to individual success.  Some sample eye-opening examples: Bill Gates, the prototypical "self-made man," turns out to have had enormous help from outside: the wealthy parents of the students of the private academy in which he was enrolled bought the school a computer in 1968 (!) when Gates was in the eighth grade.  He was one of a small handful of kids who could have learned hands-on programming back then.  His parents provided consistent support for his technological passion. He also lived near the University of Washington, which had hours of free computer time in which Gates was able to hone his skills.  Gladwell does not wish to take anything away from Bill Gates, but does wish to point out that without the many serendipitous assets he was fortunate enough to be able to draw on, Gates would probably not have been the success he turned out to be.  Conversely, if many more kids back then had had the same resources we might today have many Bill Gates (I am currently reading Steve Jobs, a biography which makes it crystal clear that Jobs, as brilliant as he was, couldn't have achieved the success he did if he were not raised in what was to become Silicon Valley.

"Outliers" is filled with fascinating anecdotes and statistics: 14 of the 75 wealthiest people who ever lived ( among whom are Cleopatra, Czar Nicholas Ii, the Sultan of Brunei, and, yes, Bill Gates) were born in America between 1831 and 1840 - they were fortunate enough to be starting their careers at just the time that the Industrial Revolution was transforming American industry.  Another fascinating piece of information: there is a wildly disproportionate number of star athletes born in the beginning months of the year. the explanation: at age three to five children are generally assigned to grades by birth date, and the ones born early in a year wind up with those born later in the same year.  The earlier-born children are, on average, bigger, stronger, smarter, and more mature than their classmates simply because they've been alive longer.  Right from the beginning of their academic "careers" they excel, and are given the extra attention that exceptional athletes and students generally get.  Equally talented kids born a little later won't on average get the same breaks.  My libertarian friends may not like Gladwell's conclusion, but many factors beyond individual ability and initiative contribute to success, and greater recognition of some of these factors could lead to society producing many more outstanding individuals.

I had been briefed on the situation by the CEO of the company, and so I was anxious to see how Mark (my client’s pseudonym for this post) would lay out his view.  At my first session with Mark 2 weeks ago I explained that I was there to do everything in my power to insure his success, and that because of the strict confidentiality in place he should feel free to say anything that would help me get the most accurate view of the issues involved.

Not surprisingly, Mark had a great deal of difficulty seeing and owning his role in the deteriorating situation at work.  He was not merely defensive, he seemed half unaware of the magnitude of the problem he was facing.  He brought in his most recent employee evaluation and pointed to all of the areas in which he was rated highly, and then went into a long-winded diatribe against a fellow employee who he felt was undermining him.  In fact, almost everything Mark said tended to be long-winded, and this was the first area I tackled with him. 

THINK NOT JUST OF WHAT YOU NEED TO SAY, BUT TO WHOM YOU’RE SAYING IT AND OF WHAT THEY NEED TO HEAR

We did some role-playing and it was immediately apparent that Mark was a detail-oriented person.  His answers to questions had far more background than was necessary for me to a gain a practical understanding of whatever issue we were discussing, and he often went off on tangents that I later understood were his attempts to make himself more likable by revealing personal anecdotes, but which seemed forced and stilted.  Overall, I found it an effort to “stay with him,” and found myself wishing he’d get to the point.  This was assuredly what his fellow workers were experiencing as well.  What finally drove the this home was my alerting Mark to the fact that, despite my having said early in a conversation “I’ve got it” in a rather loud voice, he continued to give me examples of how he was being misunderstood and misinterpreted.    He never even heard me say that because he was so invested in proving his point.  Which relates to my next principle:

WHEN SOMEONE ELSE IS SPEAKING, GIVE THEM AS MUCH FOCUS AS YOU CAN AND MINIMIZE THE EFFORT YOU’RE INVESTING IN WHAT TO SAY NEXT

People are often so invested in proving their point, or being right, that they are listening to another primarily in order to prepare a rebuttal, rather than to actually take in new information, preparing themselves for their next devastating counter-argument.  You can often see this phenomenon played out on panel political talk shows.  Of course, in that setting no one really expects anyone to be listening to each other (unfortunately) - it’s all about making points.  Your workplace is not a political talk show, and you need to listen and take into account what others are saying rather than simply trying to further advance your point - you may discover that good ideas come from people other than yourself! 

WATCH AND LISTEN FOR CUES

Body language is very revealing, but a lot of people have poor skills in reading it, and haven’t invested much time in learning that language (and it can be learned, just like any other language).  An audience (whether of one or of thousands) exhibits cues that indicate whether you are being listened to and with what degree of engagement.  To take an obvious example, someone yawning while you’re talking to her would be a pretty clear example of your not connecting, as would glances away from you, any signs of restlessness, or perhaps seeing premature signs of agreement (e.g. nods which could simply mean that your audience is tired of hearing you and hopes that by agreeing they’ll get you to move on).  Leaning in to you is more likely to indicate engagement than is leaning away, as is face-to-face alignment rather than a turning slightly to the side.  There are, of course, aural cues as well: tone of voice (curious? encouraging? disdainful? annoyed?) is a prime indicator of the interest someone has in what you’re saying.

PREPARE IN ADVANCE

Even if you’re going into a ten minute meeting, give some thought to whom is likely to be there, and to what and how you’re going to speak so that they’re most likely to walk away with what you want them to.  Also, do your best to put yourself in a collegial and receptive, rather than adversarial, frame of mind.  It will not only increase the likelihood of your achieving your objective, it will also ensure more efficient communication and shorter meetings, things for which everyone will be grateful.

Finally, AVOID long monologues about books you've read, movies you've seen, teams you're a fan of, celebrities you admire, and TV shows you love...unless the person to whom you're talking has some knowledge of them, and interest in them, too.

After being licensed I did indeed get a nice stream of referrals from physicians I'd worked with at SEARCH Alliance.  But my East Coast roots started calling me as L.A. slowly began to lose its appeal: believe it or not the constant nice weather had become stultifying, the superficiality of much of the city was bothering me more and more, with most conversations centered around looks, gyms, yoga, and diet, and I was losing good friends to marriage and their moving away.

In 2004 I travelled to Washington DC to visit friends (all of whom I'd known for at least 25 years, and all of whom happened to settle in the nation's capitol).  I hadn't been there in years, and was reminded of what a beautiful city it is.  Also, my interest in politics had never waned, so it was exciting to be at the center.  I hatched the idea of moving there.

It took a year and a half and a half dozen visits before I decided to sell my house in CA and move East. I was not sure about how successful I'd be as strictly a psychotherapist: I'd have no referring sources, nor any word-of-mouth to send people my way.  After pondering the subject for a couple of months I decided to title myself "Life Consultant," drawing on my strong background in business and non-profit as well as my psychotherapist credentials.  I advertised in a chain of local papers emphasizing my career accomplishments and credentiuals; I hired an expert to create an appealing website and good web presence, I solicited testimonials from past clients….it all added up to success, both financial and emotional, success which has grown over the past 5+ years.

PRINCIPLES MY STORY ILLUSTRATES:

1) What you are "called to do" can change dramatically over time.

2) Cultivate and nurture relationships - you never know when someone you've worked with before will cross your path again.

3) Sometimes a change of geography isn't running away from a problem so much as it is  an opportunity to transform your identity.

4) Take a good inventory of your strengths, emphasizing especially the views of others who know you well.

5) You can (and should) explore a field from a distance before jumping into it with both feet; stick your toe in the water first.

6) Unexpected events can derail your career but...

7) You can reinvent yourself - in your 40s, 50s, or even your 60s.

8) Find a niche that you can fit into comfortably and believably.

9) Marketing yourself well is essential to significant success in a new field.

If I had to summarize the book's premise in one sentence I might go to the conclusion of an earlier post of mine: you can't figure out a new career; you need to experience your way into one through networking, research, and experimentation, sometimes boldly.  At the end of each chapter the authors suggest small steps that can be taken (another of my foundational career coaching principles - "Take Small Steps Consistently") to help you move forward.

The book agrees with my contention that, for the majority of people, developing long-range (i.e. ten year) programs is an anachronistic way of approaching career planning (notable exceptions would be those heading for careers in medicine, education, engineering, and to some degree government service).  He recommends thinking broadly of three paths (A, B, and Z) which I'll describe further below.  

The book's first chapter outlines the premise that humans are. at heart, entrepreneurs; that evolution has genetically programmed us to be resourceful survivors, and hence our species' success.  As the world changes at a faster and faster pace we need to tap into these entrepreneurial assets to thrive.

The second chapter, entitled "Develop a Competitive Advantage," suggests that we take stock of three principal factors: our assets, our aspirations and values, and market realities, to point the way towards maximum career opportunity.  Importantly, he emphasizes that assets are not simply experience. It's what that experience has enabled you to do, and thus defines what you bring to the table (for those who have worked with me, the headline idea of your resume).

In Chapter 3 plans A, B, and Z are defined: "Plan A is what you're doing right now.  It's your current implementation of your competitive advantage...within Plan A you make minor adjustments as you learn.  Plan B is what you pivot to when you need to change either your goal or the route for getting there.  Plan Z is the fallback "worst case scenario" position".

Chapter 4 is about the all-important skill of networking.  As might be expected from the co-founder of the world's most powerful professional networking tool, Linkedin, Hoffman provides an easy-to-grasp framework for the concept of networking and the gradations within it, along with many valuable tips on how to network more effectively.  What struck me most in this chapter was how he quantified the "multiplier effect" of networking (an effect I have long discussed and diagrammed for my clients).  For example, when I went to check my "network statistics" on my Linkedin home page I discovered that I had almost 75 THOUSAND second degree connections: friends of friends.  And, amazingly, almost FIVE MILLION third degree connections (connections in which the total of the 4 people in the chain know either you or the person with whom you're looking to connect).

Chapter 5, "Pursue Breakout Opportunities" is an in-depth look at ways to, as I phrase it, "move the (career) ball forward." I think a better title for the chapter would have been "Create Breakout Opportunities," as it is packed with suggestions on initiating actions that can lead to opportunity.  It also places great emphasis on investing in yourself: acquiring new skills and setting aside resources (time and money) to investigate and network into new knowledge and ideas.

Chapter 6, "Take Intelligent Risks," provides a comforting framework in which to think about risk-taking.

Chapter 7, "Who You Know Is What You Know" goes further into networking and provides extremely valuable suggestions on the way to initiate conversations and phrase questions that will help you maximize the value of the people you know.  This chapter also emphasizes one of my primary recommended career-oriented mind-sets: WIN/WIN.  Think of how you can help others, and not just about how they can help you.

The book's conclusion: "The vast majority of professionals do not grasp what it means to run a career like a start-up venture; we believe implementing the strategies discussed in these pages will give you an edge.  But think of them as guidelines, not rules of nature.  Sometimes in order to make something work, you will drive over the guardrail of one of these rules.  One of the key messages we hope you've taken away...is that you are changing, the people around you are changing, and the broader world is changing - so it's inevitable (your) playbook will evolve and adapt....The trick is to never stop starting.  The start-up is you."

Readers of my blog know that I have long emphasized the importance of noticing the positive things that happen in life, things which are often overlooked or overpowered by negative experiences.  But noticing these positive events is only a first step - to have them make a real impact on your mood and on your overall outlook you need to register them in a deeper way than merely noticing them provides.  This is in part due to the fact that evolution has primed us to be much more attentive to negative (i.e. potential harmful) occurences than to positive ones.  Twenty thousand years ago being alert to the manifold dangers in the environment (predators, adverse weather, poisonous plants) was essential to insure survival; stopping and smelling the roses was a lot less so.  

To demonstrate this bias to yourself, think back over the past week and take one minute to list (mentally or, better, in writing) the positive things that have happened to you. Then do the same thing for the negative ones.  Unless you've had a particularly good week, the negative list is sure to be significantly longer.

Research shows that the evolutionary bias we have inherited is so strong that we need to experience at least three, and more commonly five, positive events in order to balance the impact on mood of just one negative one.  The utility of that negative bias, however, has evaporated.  Defensively dwelling on the dangers in the environment is of far less value than seeing and seizing opportunities, which is much more likely to occur when you're in a positive frame of mind.

How to counteract the bias?  One way that is particularly effective is to institute a daily practice of writing down three things that have happened that day for which you are grateful.  They can be things of particular significance ("I'm grateful that I got a raise"), things that are somewhat out of the ordinary ("I'm grateful for the delicious dinner my wife cooked tonight)) or things that are less extraordinary ("I'm grateful about how sweetly my little girl kissed me good night") or even ordinary, quotidien things like a sunset.  The key is to do this daily for at least several weeks.  Undertaking this practice will begin to prime your brain to be more attentive to the positive occurences in, and elements of, your life.

Another way is to spend 20 - 30 seconds focusing on the memory of a recent positive event.  Again, because of evolutionary bias, pleasant experiences fade more quickly from awareness than do unpleasant ones.  Close your eyes and bring to mind an occurence during the last few days that brought you some pleasure.  Immerse yourself in the experience.  Let's say that you're recalling a compliment that a friend paid you.  Where were you when it happened - was it on the phone, face-to-face, in an e-mail?  What was the phrasing of the compliment?  Can you recreate the feeling that you had when you heard it?  Other examples: you recall savoring a delicious dessert, or noticing the cherry blossoms on the tree in the park when you were walking the dog.  What were the sights, the sounds, the sensations (I remember how dark and creamy the chocolate mousse was and how it sort of melted in my mouth; I can recall the feeling of the breeze as it gently carried the petals to the ground, the laughter of the kids playing frisbee and the smell of the pine trees nearby). 

Do try to make time in your day for these very brief exercises.  The cumulative impact of the couple of minutes you'll spend doing them will be surprisingly strong.

One other quite unrelated mood-raising idea that was raised at the symposium that I want to share with you - most people are deficient in levels of vitamin D, particularly at this time of year, and studies have demonstrated a link between low levels of vitamin D and depression.  The deficiency can be traced to less time spent outdoors and, in warmer months, to the increasing use of sunblocks, which filter the ultraviolet rays that are a primary source of the vitamin.  Consider getting your vitamin D levels tested and, if they're low, supplement them with vitamin D3.  But, even if they're not, there will certainly be mood-elevating benefits to more time spent outdoors, particularly if that time is spent at least in part with moderate exercise like walking.