On Lab Medicine: A Model for Quality Improvement

What do gopher holes have in common with quality improvement? More than you might think! In a paper available on Lab Medicine’s advanced access, Dr. Yaolin Zhou writes about a novel framework for quality improvement initiatives called EPIDEM, or “explore, promote, implement, document, evaluate, and modify.”

Read the paper and let us know what you think! 

In the Line of Fire: Transforming Data into Decisions

Hello everyone. Back again!

This time, I’ve got something to talk about that’s a little more serious. I don’t like to deviate from fun lab-related memes and insights,but every now and then something really strikes a chord. Enough so to talk to all of you about it. Some of you reached out to me after my post discussing clinician burnout and suicide in healthcare and that felt great; connecting with people who had some powerful stories to share really validated that conversation. Today, I want to talk about guns. Specifically, the public health epidemic of gun violence, the current conversation about whose “lane” (read:responsibility) belongs to whom, and what role those of us in laboratory medicine play.

I was horrified to see the recent shooting and murder of three in my Chicago home at Mercy hospital in the Near South Side. I won’t rehash the details that are on the news. Emergency resident physician Dr.Tamara O’Neal, newly minted Chicago Police Officer Samuel Jimenez, and pharmacy resident Dayna Less were all shot and killed point-blank by a gunman in the Mercy Hospital emergency department. A place that is supposed to be for healing, safety, and hope. Senseless.

Image 1. Victims of the Mercy Hospital shooting: (L-R) emergency room Dr. Tamara O’Neal, Chicago police Officer Samuel Jimenez, and pharmacy resident Dayna Less. These were all new to their careers, whose lives were abruptly ended by senseless gun violence. Source: ABC7 Chicago.

This now presses the start button on America’s newest tradition: a very short-lived, ill-timed, and often tone-deaf debate about the firearm subculture in our nation. Okay, bias check: you should know that I am not a fan of guns of any kind. If it were up to me, they would either belong in museums or find more useful lives melted and repurposed as metal used to reinforce hurricane-prone buildings or safe hypodermic needles for patients in need. That said, this isn’t a gun debate article; nor is it an open forum to discuss gun control, the second amendment, the NRA, or anything political. I respect opinions and educated civil discourse, but this piece today is focused on health—public health.

The epidemic of gun violence in America is a problem. The American Public Health Association (APHA) posted on their website extensively on the topic of gun related deaths which “kill more than 38,000 people and cause nearly 85,000 injuries each year. As a longtime advocate for violence prevention policies, APHA recognizes a comprehensive public health approach to addressing this growing crisis is necessary.” (Read their fact sheet here)Furthermore, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published a position paper on the topic in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal (read it here)where they establish a comprehensive set of recommendation from a conglomerate of clinical medical specialty organizations. Increasingly now more than ever does this prevalence of gun related injury and death present itself as a major health concern: a public health epidemic. I could talk to you about the number of mass shootings in our country, or the epidemiologic incidence of gun-related deaths compared to other countries, even the policy discussion around gun ownership and regional policies regarding safety and gun control—it doesn’t matter. All the charts and graphs any recycled article on the subject will just fade into the mist of “yet another shooting.” That’s not okay. I don’t want to drown you in data. Better put, I can’t. See, the problem is you’ll see the same pieces of information regarding the gun debate as you scroll through the news on your social media. Something new I want to add to this conversation is the overwhelming emphasis on the simple truth that this is a public health issue.

Image 2. In the US, we fund approximately as much research for gun violence as we do for drowning and falls. Of the three, mortality related to gun violence is about the same as sepsis—and that’s heavily documented. Source: Journal of the American Medical Association.

This unfortunate new reality is no different from other public health programs that have addressed various issues over the past decades. What do deaths from motor vehicle accidents, fires, smoking-related ung cancer, obesity and type 2 diabetes, heart attacks, antibiotic resistant bacterial infections, and traumatic brain injuries have in common? Per the American Foundation for Firearm Injury Reduction in Medicine (AFFIRM), they were all public health crises that pushed medicine past a breaking point in clinical burden and forced us to invest in research which conclusively provided results to address related mortality and morbidity. AFFIRM is a non-profit organization which is building a coalition in medicine for the purpose of researching and addressing this newest public health issue. They argue that,without medical evidence we won’t be able to find solutions to the senseless loss of life from gun violence. Death from car accidents gave us the seatbelt and tickets for disobeying its required legal usage. Death in home fires got us the smoke detector and regulations surrounding their installation. Lung cancer deaths led to smoking cessation programs, increased taxation, and policy changes regarding access to cigarettes. Sugar-related morbidities created a conversation about healthy diets, public policies addressing food deserts, and taxation programs for drinks with added sugar. Heart attack deaths gave us longitudinal studies for best care practices and lifestyle recommendations.Resistant bugs established a new discussion on antimicrobial stewardship. Brain injuries gave us new guidelines for concussions. I could go on. That’s only the tip of the public health iceberg. The point is that if there is an epidemiological trend where people are literally dying, data married with health metric-oriented research create solutions!  

But let’s add deaths from gun violence to that list. What then do they all have in common, besides the concern for improving public health? Save for the tragically evident lack of a solution, the similarity becomes clear: there is lobby, interest, power, and support. Cars didn’t always have seat belts, cigarettes used to be cheap and doctors used to smoke at work,no one talked about cheeseburgers giving you heart attacks and diabetes decades ago, and helmet-clashing football players didn’t always receive the treatment they needed. Why? Because some entity—corporate, societal, etc.—wasn’t keen on“buying in.” Much like it takes justification and convincing for administration to buy your fancy chemistry analyzer, so do the public and oppositional lobby groups which require swaying toward the intervention(s) being proposed.

Image 3. The Dickey Amendment passed in 1996 was a small rider in a bill that was part of a larger budgetary spending bill. Effectively, it completely disallows public health research into gun related deaths, gun violence, or any publication that would endorse gun control or limitations. Source: 104th Congress.

Often, the data stacks high enough to influence decisions on its own. But that isn’t the case with gun related mortality. I see gun related violence as sort of the opposite of the vaccine debate: with the flu shot there seems to be too much data and not enough stories to convince the anti-vax movement to realize the significant threat being addressed. On the other hand, gun related violence exhibits far too many stories without any significant amounts of data. Possibly, this might be related to the limitations placed upon the CDC since the mid-1990’s that forbid them from using funds “to advocate or promote gun control.” Yes, really. Just last month, I wrote about the newest advancements in influenza testing and the best practice of vaccinating annually.I cited thousands of deaths related to vaccine-preventable or epidemiologic illness; 80,000 dead from influenza last year, thousands from swine flu over a decade ago, etc. But when you try and cite proper, medical data regarding guns in public health, its … not so easy. No data, no research. No research, no change.

Many of you have undoubtedly read about the current social media “discussion” regarding whose “lane” gun violence is to navigate: The National Rifle Association (NRA) asserted in a tweet that doctors, discussing the issue only within their field should leave it to more “qualified” groups like them. That’s been a tinder box of vitriol the medical community, for lack of a better term, is up in arms about. I followed and read tons of comments about this as it unfolded, hearing from endless doctors, nurses, and laboratorians posting with blood spattered scrubs, decimated trauma bays, and emptied blood bank refrigerators that this growing epidemic is enraging clinicians about. Earlier, I highlighted similarities between public health problems and their respective solutions citing that they all shared oppositional lobby groups. What better profession to handle the topic in question than medicine—whose associated lobby power from professional societies like ours to Big Pharma amass one of the largest voices in policy making in America. And another thing, as gun violence is a public health concern, whose literal job is it to address health, mortality, and morbidity? All of ours. Nurse educators lead patients through lifestyle modifications they can employ to curtail some effects of diabetes, physicians manage patient treatment regimens balancing input from pharmaceutical tools to professional guidelines,clinicians like us strive to provide the best resources available by advancing hemoglobin A1c levels or point of care testing. We all play roles in every single healthcare matter that translates to life or death, so why not this one?

So, I touched on it a little here, but what role does the medical laboratory professional play? Besides bullets in tissue section, how does the public health epidemic of gun violence reach the lab? I wasn’t so sure, until I read a story about Dr. Julie Melinek, a forensic pathologist with UC Davis and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. In response to the NRA’s“stay in your lane” tweet regarding gun deaths, Dr. Melinek tweeted “Do you have any idea how many bullets I pull out of corpses weekly? This isn’t my lane. It’s my [expletive] highway.” She proceeded to turn her phone off and work for a few hours. When she returned, things were viral. In an interview with Medscape, she discussed this story and the topic at large with editor-in-chief Dr. Eric Topol. She talked about the epidemiologic role clinicians of all specialties play in risk assessment and harm reduction,saying “…if we see something that’s dangerous for the pediatric population,like a toy that breaks apart or is a choking hazard, we report it to the Consumer Product Safety Commission and it gets recalled because it’s a hazard.”She and Dr. Topol explored the ways clinicians can advocate for patients and public health at large, concluding with some poignant words, encouraging those of us in medicine to reach out to elected officials. The internet facilitates such an easy way to communicate, she says that it becomes paramount to voice the opinions held within the medical community to those in policy-making; especially clinicians who may own guns or be active NRA members! Because, ultimately, this isn’t about gun ownership or second amendment rights—its about the health, well-being, and safety of our patients.

Dr. Melinek represents a single voice within the pathology community. You’ve read my posts about lab management values, interdisciplinary team work, attainable goals, and utilization of data to make clinical decisions. Those of us in lab medicine find ourselves at the forefront of translating data into decisions. When quality control measures on instrumentation fail to correct after countless interventions, do we continue running assays? No! We work-up and investigate what root cause is the problem and fix that if possible; thinking outside the box, looking at lesser-than-obvious causes, investigating all possible solutions, etc. In pathology we’re the first to implement new, highly advanced tests and corroborate with other specialties about what the new changes mean for patient care and management of diseases (i.e. 5thgeneration high-sensitivity troponins and evolving to a new standard of care for acute coronary syndromes). We’re also the first to notice trends that impact patient outcomes and the first to provide solutions: think back to the last time you spent a few minutes reading your labs metrics and goals posted somewhere at work. Dr. Melinek collecting bullets from her autopsy patients is no different than forensic pathologists historically noting trends in mortality statistics, iatrogenic, environmental, and other causes of death.And, when those trends get published and presented, they call for further research and investment into public health interventions that may prevent those deaths in the first place. Pathology, public health, epidemiology, and laboratory medicine are built for this. We’re the tangible bridge between what gets discovered and what gets researched. We’re also in a privileged position to have a bird’s eye view of a larger clinical, epidemiologic picture as pathologists see populations of patients.

In a recent Lablogatory post, ASCP’s Lotte Mulder (ASCP Leadership Institute and Patient Champions programs) wrote about Moral Capacity, Courage, and Resiliency. Specifically, she said “It is not enough to understand and recognize a moral dilemma, it is important to act on it… it is critical for leaders to understand that culture influences moral and ethical behavior.” If America’s gun violence problem is one that desperately needs data, then why shouldn’t we, then, be professional and cultural leaders and advocate through data collection, analysis, and translation like we always do? Let’s use our tools and our talent for lab medicine, in partnership with the growing coalition of clinical professional specialties, and cultural humility for the populations we protect, and address this once and for all.

Thank you.

–Constantine E. Kanakis MSc, MLS (ASCP)CM graduated from Loyola University Chicago with a BS in Molecular Biology and Bioethics and then Rush University with an MS in Medical Laboratory Science. He is currently a medical student actively involved in public health and laboratory medicine, conducting clinicals at Bronx-Care Hospital Center in New York City.

Moral Capacity, Courage, and Resiliency

Leaders’ decisions and actions have moral ramifications, both on an individual and an organizational level. There are three factors of moral development, namely moral capacity, moral courage, and moral resiliency.

Being able to recognize a dilemma as a moral issue is one of the critical aspects of leadership. Such awareness is referred to as moral capacity, which influences the characteristics and recognition of a moral issue. There are multiple aspects that influence a leaders’ moral capacity. The first aspect is their previous experiences with moral dilemmas and how much they learned from them. The second is to what extent a leader is able to see and understand the multiple perspectives of an issue. The third is how leaders view their role and whether or not that incorporates a moral view.

It is not enough to understand and recognize a moral dilemma, it is important to act on it. Such moral courage is especially important when under pressure to act immorally. Such pressure can come from peers, supervisors, or the entire organization. Therefore, the more moral courage someone has, the more likely it is that they take a moral action or make a moral decision. One important aspect of moral courage is the notion of willpower. Willpower is a muscle that people can practice with small tasks, such as drinking a glass of water before breakfast. The more people practice it on small tasks, the more likely they are to use it during challenging situation, such as making a moral decision when pressured to do otherwise.

Moral resiliency is an extension of moral courage. While moral courage focuses on the strength to make moral decisions in the short-term, moral resiliency is a process through which leaders continuously adapt their moral compass and actions. Moral resiliency is this what creates sustainable moral decision-making.

Depending on how leadership effectiveness is defined, moral behavior can either make leaders more or less effective. When looking at effectiveness in the short term, it is possible that moral behavior can impede effectiveness if measured in terms of money or short-term success. However, when looking at effectiveness in the long term, moral behavior increases leaders’ effectiveness. The more honest, and thus morally, people behave, the more effective they are. In a world that is becoming more globalized, it is critical for leaders to understand that culture influences moral and ethical behavior. In other words, what is moral in one culture might be immoral in another. To increase leaders’ effectives it is therefore important to understand the cultural implications of behavior and to be aware of the differences in appropriate and effective behavior.



-Lotte Mulder earned her Master’s of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. She’s currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership. At ASCP, Lotte designs and facilitates the ASCP Leadership Institute, an online leadership certificate program. She has also built ASCP’s first patient ambassador program, called Patient Champions, which leverages patient stories as they relate to the value of the lab.

Overview of Working with Different Generations: Composite of Current Workforce

There are currently five different generations at work today: Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, Millennials, and Generation Z. This means that in any work environment, you can have a group of people between the ages of 15-80. This is an exciting time to be working because we can all learn from many different generational experiences, values, and communication styles.

The two largest generations in the work place are the Baby Boomers and the Millennials. This is because these are both the largest generations in terms of population. However, with the Baby Boomers slowly moving into retirement, the Millennials are about to take over.

Traditionalists are still present in the workforce for a few reasons. First, they have tremendous experience and organizational knowledge and many organizations are trying to keep them around so that they do not lose that information. This means that Traditionalists are often Presidents of organizations or members of their Board of Directors. Secondly, Traditionalists are loyal to their organizations and they generally keep working as long as they can because of their values of security and getting the job done.

Generation X and Z are also in the workplace, but neither is very large. However, Gen Xers serve an important purpose because they are flexible and adaptable and because they value work-life balance and constructive feedback. They understand both the world without technology, so that can relate to Baby Boomers, and the world of the internet and social media, so they learn technology fast, which is appreciated by Millennials. Generation Z is only now starting to enter the workforce, so little is known about their work styles. However, they are expected to be independent, entrepreneurial, determined, and loyal.

The key to working with multiple generations is respect. Everyone wants to be respected and appreciated for what they bring to an organization. Being open and flexible to learning about different generational values and communication styles, will set any leader and employee up for success. Provide everyone with positive and constructive feedback and create a work environment that allows for more flexibility in terms of work hours, work location, and dress code whenever possible. Finally, realize that what motivates you personally is not necessarily what motivates other, especially if they are from different generations. Working with a diverse group of generational workers is a great benefit, to both the organization and to individuals.



-Lotte Mulder earned her Master’s of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. She’s currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership. At ASCP, Lotte designs and facilitates the ASCP Leadership Institute, an online leadership certificate program. She has also built ASCP’s first patient ambassador program, called Patient Champions, which leverages patient stories as they relate to the value of the lab.

Reflective Judgment

Reflective judgment—the ability to evaluate and process information in order to draw plausible conclusions—is one of the most critical leadership skills. People move through three different phases (pre-reflective judgment, quasi-reflective judgment, and reflective thinking) as they learn to develop their judgment skills.

During the pre-reflective thinking period, people acquire knowledge through experience, observations, evaluation, and authority figures. All information collected is seen as absolute and the truthfulness of the data is not questioned. Problems and challenges views through this lens are resolved with well-structured assumptions and people are certain about the effect of their solutions. This phase has three stages itself. People in the first stage see knowledge as absolute and concrete. Different beliefs are not seen and/or believed. The second stage is exemplified by a similar view, namely that knowledge is certain and absolute, but it is understood that knowledge is not always immediately available. People in this stage also heavily rely on authority figures to get their knowledge from and there is no critical thinking. The third stage embodies knowledge that is either certain or uncertain for a short period of time. If knowledge is uncertain, people in this stage rely on personal beliefs. Authority figures still play an essential role in providing information and all their information is seen as absolute.

The second developmental phase for reflective judgment is the quasi-reflective thinking phase. During this period, people start to recognize and understand that not all information is completely accurate or absolute. Additionally, people acknowledge that claims from authority figures also contain some uncertainty. This uncertainty can be caused by missing or incomplete information or by the methods that were used to gather information. People in this phase use evidence to draw conclusions, but they do not yet understand to process of how to get to a sound conclusion. In this phase, there are two different stages. During the first stage, people understand that knowledge is not absolute or certain. People also acknowledge that there is always a sense of ambiguity in knowledge. In the next stage, context starts playing a significant role. People start to understand that knowledge is bound by a certain context and that it is therefore more subjective than initially assumed. Conclusions are sometimes delayed, because knowledge is created through individual perceptions of reality. During both these stages, information from authority figures are thus not seen and absolute, but as more subjective and uncertain.

The third developmental period of reflective judgment is reflective thinking. In this phase, people understand that knowledge is never certain or absolute. However, instead of becoming stuck because of this understanding, people in this phase work to make conclusions that are reasonable. Knowledge and knowledge claims are actively evaluated based on their context. Critical thinking is an important part of this phase, as knowledge is judged and reflected upon prior to making conclusions. This phase also has two different stages: in the first stage, people understand that knowledge is not absolute and certain. However, information is evaluated and judged by comparing evidence and different opinions about the information. During this stage, the solutions people create are based on certain criteria, for example if the solution is pragmatic. During the final stage of reflective judgment, knowledge is created and accepted through a reasonable inquiry process that promotes critical thinking. The solutions are evaluated based on their probability and reasonableness.



-Lotte Mulder earned her Master’s of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. She’s currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership. At ASCP, Lotte designs and facilitates the ASCP Leadership Institute, an online leadership certificate program. She has also built ASCP’s first patient ambassador program, called Patient Champions, which leverages patient stories as they relate to the value of the lab.

Leadership Development Characteristics

Several characteristics can influence a leader’s effectiveness: self-regulation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, self-awareness, and implementation intention.

Self-regulation is one of the most essential skills a leader can have. Being able to control behavior, emotions, and cognitive processes allows leaders to adapt their behavior to specific situations and interactions. Self-regulation is similar to willpower, as both act like a muscle, meaning that leader can exercise it to make it stronger. For example, a leader can practice not to be the first one to speak even though it might be their automatic behavior. Learning how to control behavior in insignificant situations will build up the ability to control them when it is critical. Increasing a leader’s willpower and self-regulatory processes will increase a leader’s situational effectiveness as it helps a leader maintain consistency and focus to deal with challenges that arise.

A leader’s goal orientation plays a significant role in their approach to learning, which, in turn, increases leadership effectiveness. Leaders with a learning goal orientation focus on developing their competence through developing new skills. Such an orientation increases a leaders’ efforts and persistence when facing challenges, which, in turn, improves the chance of a successful outcome. Goal-orientation, therefore, indicates the current and future potential of a leader.

Internal beliefs about how well one can complete a task or handle a challenge is referred to as self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is important in leadership development because it forms the attitude towards development, which guides if a leader will participate in developmental opportunities. In other words, if a leader has a self-efficacy view that they are able to communicate effectively in all situations, this leader is unlikely to participate in opportunities to further increase their communication skills.

Self-awareness is related to self-efficacy as it revolves around the understanding of a leader’s own strengths and development areas. Self-awareness essential to leadership effectiveness because leaders need to be aware of how others respond to their communication, behavior, and leadership styles. Understanding other people’s reactions through their self-awareness, leaders can adapt their behavior to the needs of each situation and person.

Implementation intention relates both to goal orientation and self-regulation. One of the challenges of leadership is starting a task or finishing one. Implementation intention strategies can help leaders with this challenge by establishing certain behaviors that lead to goal completion. Whereas goal intention is focused on reaching a specific outcome, implementation intention revolves around performing a particular behavior when encountering a certain situation. For example, a leader’s goal intention might be to stop procrastinating on answering challenging emails, while their implementation intention might be to write a draft immediately after reading a challenging email and rereading and sending the answer an hour later. Implementation orientation guides leaders towards behavioral actions that are easy to understand and act upon. Such an orientation will guide leaders to adapt their behaviors to be more effective and will allow them to fulfill their goals proactively.

When looking at this list of leadership development characteristics, which could you further develop in order to increase your leadership potential and effectiveness?



-Lotte Mulder earned her Master’s of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. She’s currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership. At ASCP, Lotte designs and facilitates the ASCP Leadership Institute, an online leadership certificate program. She has also built ASCP’s first patient ambassador program, called Patient Champions, which leverages patient stories as they relate to the value of the lab.

History of Generations: Millennials

Of all the generations, it is my personal experience that this generation has received the most pushback regarding their work style, work ethics, and its influence. However, this generation is absolutely essential in today’s work environments. They bring a different perspective to work because they care about self-expression and having a purpose.

Millennials are typically born between 1981 and1999.. Their parents are Baby Boomers or Gen Xers. This is the first generation that has never known work without computer, even though not every household had (and has) one. Schools started to invest in computer labs and computer training and it started to become mandatory in the Western World to submit homework that was typed instead of handwritten. This generation was young, or sometimes not even born yet, when the internet connected the world and information became was readily and widely available. One of the characteristics of Millennials is valuing instant gratification, because they are used to having the world at their fingertips. Another is self-expression, due in large part to the widespread use of cell phones and social media.

Because of the internet and globalization, this is the most diverse generation. This is another great benefit they bring to organizations, because they create a diverse work force with people from different ethnical, educational, and socio-economic backgrounds.

This generation was told that they could achieve anything they wanted, so they are creative, optimistic, and focused. They experienced tremendous academic pressures and school shootings, which caused many students to feel unsafe in school. This led many millennials to live by the notion “You Only Live Once” (YOLO), which is also embedded in their professional lives through a focus on purpose and professional development opportunities.



-Lotte Mulder earned her Master’s of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. She’s currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership. At ASCP, Lotte designs and facilitates the ASCP Leadership Institute, an online leadership certificate program. She has also built ASCP’s first patient ambassador program, called Patient Champions, which leverages patient stories as they relate to the value of the lab.


When the Millennial generation is discussed, most sources agree they share these common traits:

  • live in a world of technology, have never known a world without computers, and get most information from the internet
  • Are rewarded for participation, not achievement, yet are achievement and career oriented
  • Experience enormous academic pressure
  • Want to make a difference in this world and find a career with a purpose

I was thinking about writing this post as I went to the gym for a personal training session.  As I was stretching and lifting weights, I noticed all the millennials in the fitness center!  It occurred to me that instead of relying on what researchers say are important to them, I could do my own small survey. I decided to use the KISS Principle.  In other words, “Keep It Simple Stakenas!”  I focused on one question with three parts, “What are the three most important things to you in your life as a millennial?

When I was done with my workout, I began to walk up to people who looked like they could be millennials.  Of course I made a few errors, and fortunately, they were Gen Xers and received my first question as a compliment.

Those that I interviewed who chose to elaborate all seemed to center on one shared opinion.  They sought a cause greater than themselves and a strong desire for meaningful experiences, such as learning about different cultures, people, and travel.  One stated, “I want to be the best citizen of the world that I can be.”

The first response in the first interview took me by surprise.  When asked what the most important things to her were, she said, “wifi.” The second person I interviewed immediately said, the “phone,” then finished with Family and Friends. Five of the 12 interviewed stated that their career was important and work-life balance.

As I grouped the interview answers in topics of importance, I found a common thread. I learned that 11 of the 12 people I interviewed shared what I have called “The 4 F’s,” Family, Friends, Fitness and/or Faith.

Millennials will always be there if you need a “charge!”  They understand that “wifi and cell phones” carry with them opportunities for friendships, family connections, careers, education, and even access to ways of worship regardless of your faith.

God Bless Our Millennials!



-Catherine Stakenas, MA, is the Senior Director of Organizational Leadership and Development and Performance Management at ASCP. She is certified in the use and interpretation of 28 self-assessment instruments and has designed and taught masters and doctoral level students.