Leadership Lessons from D-Day

Today, June 6th, 2026 is the 82nd Anniversary of D-Day, the first day of the Allied Forces liberation of Europe during World War II.  General Dwight D. Eisenhower is properly credited for planning and leading Operation Overlord, the code name for the opening phase of the operation, which began with the Allied landings at Normandy on D-Day, June 6, 1944.  I've posted a few times in the past to honor the soldiers, sailors, and airmen that participated in the battle that was the "turning point" during the European Theater of World War II (see, in particular, "Ike's Back-up", "...plans are useless, but planning is indispensable", "D-Day", and "Logistics wins wars!").

I've always been very interested in D-Day and the lessons on leadership that studying Operation Overlord can provide, even to those of us who aren't in the military.  I highly recommend the historian Stephen Ambrose's two books, D-Day and Band of Brothers (Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg produced a HBO mini-series based upon Ambrose's book called "Band of Brothers" - one of my all-time favorites!).  I also highly recommend The Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan.  I am looking forward to reading Normandy '44 by James Holland in the very near future (it's currently at my bedside), as well as Leadership, Management, and Command: Rethinking D-Day by Keith Grint (I've posted on Grint's model of Leadership, Management, and Command for Wicked, Tame, and Critical problems in the past).  Finally, I am really looking forward to seeing the new D-Day movie "Pressure" starring Brendan Fraser and Andrew Scott.

There's a lot to say about General Eisenhower (the same can be said about President Eisenhower, by the way).  No one but a brilliant strategist and tactician with superb organizational and managerial skills could have possibly orchestrated and supervised combat operations that began with an airborne invasion involving over 1,200 paratroopers, followed by a multi-national amphibious assault involving over 5,000 ships and boats and nearly 160,000 soldiers from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Poland, France, and other forces from the Allied nations of World War II.  Suffice it to say, however, I think there are three key leadership points to be made:

Planning is indispensable, Plans are not

As the former heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson once said, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face."  Alternatively, the Prussian war general Helmuth von Moltke (the Elder) said, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."  Adaptability and agility are both key leadership traits here.  The writer Cicely Simpson has called adaptability "the secret sauce of leadership".  Adaptability is defined in this context as "the capacity to recognize when a situation has changed, relinquish what's no longer working, and orient toward what's actually needed now".  Simpson suggests that it is a combination of flexibility and versatility.  Agility is defined as the ability to manage and deal with change.  The recently released movie "Pressure" tells the story of how Eisenhower and his meteorologist James Stagg had to make last second adjustments to their original battle plans due to changing weather conditions at Normandy.  Again, having a plan is absolutely important.  But both the leader and the plan should be adaptable and agile enough to adjust due to unforeseen circumstances.

Unity of command is necessary

The French general Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "Nothing is so important in war as an undivided command.  There should be only one army conducted by one chief...Better one bad general than two good ones."  The D-Day invasions required unprecedented collaboration and cooperation, not only between the different branches of military service, but between different Allied militaries, each having their own leadership hierarchy.  Eisenhower was named the "Supreme Allied Commander" for a reason.  He had the final say in all of the major decisions, but he was also the one who would be held accountable for those same decisions (he famously wrote, "If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone" in a letter that he would send if the mission had failed).  There was no other way to manage the clash of personalities and differing interests - and there were many - but, everyone knew that Eisenhower was ultimately in charge.  That's important for leading during any crisis (see Grint's "Command" during "Critical" problems), but even when not leading in a crisis, it's important to know and understand the "rules of the road" in terms of the team's roles and responsibilities, authority, and accountability.  I personally like the "Responsibility Assignment matrix", also known as the RACI matrix, which I feel should be generated anytime a group of individuals gets together to accomplish some task or solve a problem as a group.  It always helps to know who is making the decision.

Empower your front-line leaders

"Deference to expertise" is one of the key defining characteristics of a so-called High Reliability Organization (HRO).  Paratroopers in the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions landed off-course during the initial hours of D-Day.  They didn't wait for orders - instead, they improvised and adapted in order to complete their missions.  In contrast, the German soldiers defending Normandy were unable to adjust - they had to wait for orders from the top.  Famously, the German Panzer tank divisions couldn't be used without permission from Adolf Hitler himself, who was still in Berlin at the time!  

The bottom line is that General Eisenhower was the absolute best leader for the mission.  Through a combination of planning, adaptability, agility, trust, and empowerment, the operations on D-Day were successful.  Today, we remember General Eisenhower's leadership and take it as a lesson for what we can do as leaders today.  Today, we also honor the sacrifices of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who sacrificed their lives on that day 82 years ago.  D-Day marked the beginning of the end - the liberation of Europe from Nazi Germany. 

Blind Taste Tests and the Universal Laws of Success

Now that all of our children are adults, we try to do something fun and unique over the Christmas Holidays.  For example, last year, we each randomly drew a dinner course (cocktail, appetizer, soup/salad, main course, side dish, dessert) and country out of a hat and made an international dinner together.  A couple of years ago, we conducted a blind taste test of different wines.  We selected six different wines from different vintners (all the same varietal - Cabernet Sauvignon) at six different price points, ranging from $5 (very, very cheap wine - I think the label on the bottle just simply said "Wine") to about $120.  Let's just say that the one family member who never drinks wine ended up scoring the highest and winning the contest!

Albert Laszlo-Barabasi mentions another more famous blind taste test involving wine in his most recent book, The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success.  Laszlo-Barabasi is a physicist at Northeastern University and author of a number of books on network science, including one of my favorites, Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life.  Laszlo-Barabasi argues that success is often less about individual merit alone.  Instead, success often depends upon social dynamics, networks, timing, and cumulative advantage.  He talks extensively about his "five laws of success":

1. Performance ("how good you actually are") drives success ("how much recognition or reward you receive") - but when performance is hard to measure, networks drive success

When results are objectively measured, the best performer usually wins.  For example, think of all the events in track and field.  It's easy to determine who the winner is - it's always the individual who runs the fastest race or jumps the farthest (or highest).  Contrast those events with figure skating, where performance is subjectively measured by a group of judges.  It's not as easy to figure out who really won.  Just look at the controversy around the ice dancing finals at the recent 2026 Winter Olympics.  Similarly, when it comes to business, politics, art, or academia, performance is almost always subjectively measured, and as a result, people rely more on reputation and personal connections.  Laszlo-Barabasi cites a number of examples, including the world of wine!  Professional wine tasters may not always be reliable when it comes to selecting the best wines, particularly in a blind taste test.  Studies have shown that they can be fooled by items on the wine label (such as the reputation of the vintner) or even the fanciness of the bottle itself.

2. Performance is bounded, but success is unbounded

Laszlo-Barabasi suggests that human performance has natural limits.  For example, there is a reason that it took so long to break the 2 hour barrier in a marathon, which was recently accomplished by two runners, Sabastian Sawe of Kenya and Yomif Kejelcha of Ethiopia at the 2026 London Marathon.  Notably, Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya broke the 2 hour barrier in an exhibition in 2019, though his marathon was not an actual race, but rather a highly controlled, optimized environment with rotating pacemakers and laser-guided pacing.  Given human's physiologic constraints, there will never be a day when someone runs a marathon under an hour.  But while performance has limits, recognition of that performance does not.  A good book can become an overnight bestseller if it was written by a bestselling author, while a great book written by a relatively unknown author may never get read by a large audience.  Similarly, a good wine by a well-known vintner may get all of the best ratings, while at the same time, a great wine made by a lesser known vintner does not.

3. Previous success multiples future success

Laszlo-Barabasi talks about the principle of "cumulative advantage" here, where the "rich get richer" (see also my post on the "Matthew Effect").  Success creates more visibility, more opportunities, more trust, and better network connections, all of which make future success easier.  Momentum matters.  Graduates of prestigious universities often get better job offers.  Famous researchers are often cited more, and they are often successful at getting their research published in the best journals (even when the studies are mediocre at best).  A vintner who has made a good wine in the past will likely sell more wine at higher prices in the future.

4. Team success depends on diversity and balance, but credit usually goes to one person

We know that almost everything that is accomplished in today's society requires a team effort.  Unfortunately, society tends to reward a single visible leader, often calling that leader a "genius" or superstar.  CEO's receive the lion's share of credit for corporate profits.  Scientists are awarded the Nobel Prize, even when the discoveries were made by teams of collaborators.

5. With persistence, success can come at any time

Laszlo-Barabasi uses the label "Q factor" to describe an individual's underlying ability to produce high-impact work.  Because the value of any new idea is largely random, an individual's personal Q factor determines whether that idea becomes a mediocre project or a monumental breakthrough.  The key insight here is that even the most brilliant, high-impact idea will fail to make a dent in the world if executed by someone with a low Q factor. Conversely, a high Q factor allows someone to consistently produce high-impact work even if their individual ideas in a given moment are mediocre.

Laszlo-Barabasi would agree that talent and effort are important.  However, performance must be visible, validated, and socially amplified in order to turn it into success.  Laszlo-Barabasi's five laws of success probably have more to do with how performance is subjectively evaluated than the actual quality of the performance itself.  Whether that performance is ice skating, conducting and publishing a research study, or making wine doesn't really matter.  I will return to the topic of blind taste tests again in an upcoming post.

Workslop

When I was a third-year medical student (many years ago), I rotated for a month on the pediatric neurosurgery service.  I rounded every morning with the senior resident (who actually was the only resident that month) on all of the hospitalized patients that were being treated by the neurosurgeons.  My job was to write the daily progress note in the medical chart, which I did while the resident examined the patient.  The resident basically told me what I should write on the first day of the rotation, and after that I knew what the expectations were for what the daily progress note should look like.  Here is a good example:   

AF/VSS.  Doing well, overall stable post-op course.  Continue present plan.

Just to be clear, "AF" is short-hand for "afebrile" (no fevers) and "VSS" is short-hand for "vital signs stable."  I will admit that there's nothing in that note that could be considered helpful!  The note technically fulfilled the documentation requirements, but in reality my note added almost no clinical value for the next provider (or anyone who had to review the medical record in the future).  

As it turns out, there's a term to describe what I wrote - it's called workslop.  Apparently, the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) has popularized the term.  I am starting to see a lot of articles on workslop, specifically in the context of AI.  For example, the writer Jill Lepore recently wrote an article for The New Yorker magazine on slop (see "The prehistory of A.I. slop").

Interestingly, the editors at Merriam-Webster's online dictionary named slop as their Word of the Year in 2025.  They define slop as digital content of low quality that is produced usually in quantity by means of artificial intelligence.  Journalist Meghan Bobrowsky at the Wall Street Journal perhaps said it best when she said, "AI Slop is Everywhere".  She writes, "Over the past few weeks, my Instagram has been filled with AI-generated cat soap-opera videos" and fully admits that she spends at least "a few mindless minutes" scrolling through the videos at the end of her day.  Given the purported demand for this kind of digital content, she concludes, "But if the early results - and my own scrolling habits - are anything to go by, it's about to get a lot sloppier."

We hear a lot about AI and how AI is going to replace jobs.  Organizations have invested heavily in AI, but according to a recent study from the MIT Media Lab, 95% of organizations have yet to see any measurable return on their investment.  Workslop may help explain why.  

As a team of investigators from BetterUp recently stated in an article published by Harvard Business Review (see "AI-generated 'workslop' is destroying productivity"), "Employees are using AI tools to create low-effort, passable looking work that ends up creating more work for their coworkers."  They surveyed 1,150 employees across several different organizations and found that 41% reported receiving a specific instance of AI-workslop that adversely affected their work.  Using this data, the investigators estimate that employees in organizations today spend on average 2 hours every day dealing with AI-workslop, which equates to about $186 per employee per month in lost productivity.  For an organization of 10,000 workers, this translates to over $9 million per year in lost productivity!

The aforementioned investigators admit that they focused on the impact of workslop on productivity, but they suggest that "what should really worry leaders is the impact workslop can have on human relationships."  They found that over 50% of workers perceive colleagues who send workslop as less capable, less trustworthy, and less intelligent.  In other words, AI-workslop negatively impacts collaboration, trust, and engagement.  

Some CEOs actually are mandating AI use by the employees in their organization, while other CEOs are telling their employees to "embrace AI or become irrelevant".  Unfortunately, these kinds of  mandates and recommendations will likely increase the prevalence of AI-workslop.

In a follow-up article, again published in Harvard Business Review (see "Why people can create AI 'workslop' and how to stop it"), the BetterUp team suggest that the proliferation of AI-workslop is a failure of leadership and results from a combination of unclear AI mandates and overwhelmed teams.  They had a number of suggestions to make organizations more resistant to AI-workslop.  First, leaders should dial back on unclear, blanket mandates to use AI.  Just like any new technology, implementation of AI requires training and education of the employees within the organization.  Building a culture of trust and psychological safety within the organization is equally as important.  Employees should be able to admit openly that they used AI to develop a work product and feel safe asking for feedback on its quality.  

The BetterUp investigators concluded, "The greatest irony of all is that to make AI work at work, we need to get better at being human.  Leaders need to make space for the unpolished, slower-but-more-rewarding work of human collaboration.  Without organizational changes that enable agency and trust, rather than AI mandates for overburdened teams, we'll all drown in the sludge of workslop." 

“Skin in the Game”

I've been sitting on this post for quite some time, as I wasn't sure whether I wanted to write it or not.  It's a long story, as I have very mixed feelings on the topic.  However, a recent report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) prompted me to finish this post.  The report ("Changes in nonprofit hospitals' finances, operations, and quality of care after using management consultants") used several different data sources to quantify non-profit hospitals' spending on management consultants over a nearly 12 year period.  They next evaluated whether the use of these management consultants had any significant impact on finances, operations, or the quality of care delivered.

The investigators compared 306 US nonprofit hospitals that used a management consultant for the first time in 2010-2022 with 513 matched hospitals that didn't use a management consultant during 2009-2023.  More than 20% of nonprofit hospitals hired a management consultant during the study period, paying an average of $15.7 million for these services.  All told, the nonprofit hospitals in the study spent $7.8 billion on management consultants between 2009-2023.  Financial performance (e.g., revenue, expenses, margins, cash reserves), operational performance (e.g., inpatient utilization, staffing, executive and worker compensation), and quality of care measures (e.g., 30-day mortality, readmission rates) did not appreciably change after the consulting engagement.  In other words, nonprofit hospitals spend exorbitant amounts on management consulting fees with very little return on their investment!

I've read a lot about the management consulting industry over the past few years.  A few years ago, I posted a reply to someone else's post on LinkedIn about the 2023 book, The Big Con: How the Consulting Industry Weakens Our Businesses, Infantilizes Our Governments, and Warps Our Economies by Mariana Mazzucato and Rosie Collington and an accompanying review that appeared in the Wall Street Journal by Barton Swaim (see "The Big Con Review: The Conquering Consultants").  The main premise of the book is that management consultants are becoming increasingly influential in both business and government, but rather than adding value, they are instead oftentimes weakening the organizations that they are trying to help.  As these organizations outsource strategy and other operational functions to the consultants, they lose in-house expertise, creating a vicious cycle in which the organization becomes even more dependent on the management consultant.  If you read the 2014 book The Firm: The Story of McKinsey and Its Secret Influence on American Business by Duff McDonald, you will learn that this is the exact business model for these consultant firms.  They essentially work to make organizations dependent on the consultants for key business functions.

If you are interested in reading further, there are two additional books that I've found to be worthwhile on this subject.  The first is the 2023 book When McKinsey Comes to Town: The Hidden Influence of the World's Most Powerful Consulting Firm by Walt Bogdanich and Michael Forsythe, and the second book a older (published in 2005), but still worth a look, Martin Kihn's  House of Lies: How Management Consultants Steal Your Watch and Then Tell You the Time.  Kihn's central argument is that management consultants frequently repackage common sense recommendations as high-priced expertise, offering fancy slide presentations instead of practical solutions.  The title is self-explanatory - these consultant firms often "borrow" information from clients, reframe it in polished language, and then sell it back to them as strategic insight.

Last, but not least is an old video clip from a 1992 talk that Steve Jobs gave at the MIT Sloan School of Management.  Jobs said that one of the biggest issues with the recommendations that management consultants make is that they are never around long enough to see their recommendations put into action.  They never get the opportunity to learn from their mistakes if the recommendations are not the right ones.  He said, "I think that without owning something over an extended period of time, like a few years, where someone has a chance to take responsibility for one’s recommendations, where one has to see one’s recommendations through all action stages and accumulate some scar tissue for the mistakes and pick one’s self up off the ground and dust one’s self off, one learns a fraction of what one can."  Jobs suggested that management consultants just don't have enough "skin in the game."

As you are reading this post, I may have led you to believe that I am against the practice of bringing in management consultants in general.  That's not necessarily the right conclusion.  I have had some great engagements with management consultants.  However, as I reflect, the engagements that have been the most successful are the ones with a specific, focused problem to solve (e.g., "Let's improve efficiency of operations within the call center").  The ones that have fallen short (in some cases, far short) of success are the ones that have tried to take on too much (e.g., "Let's transform the organization's culture").  

Back to the JAMA article - if these management consultants were brought in to transform the organization by driving improvements in financial metrics, operational metrics, and quality of care, I can't imagine that they would be successful.  As a matter of fact, there is a well-known statistic provided by McKinsey that 70% of organizational transformations fail.  What's not clear is whether organizational transformations succeed any better when management consultants are involved.  The data published in JAMA would suggest that is not the case.

"Here am I. Send me!"

Today, May 25, 2026 is Memorial Day in the United States of America.  The first national observance of what would become Memorial Day occurred on May 30, 1868, when General John A. Logan, Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, a fraternal organization composed of veterans who had served in the American Civil War, proclaimed "Decoration Day" to honor all of those Union soldiers and sailors who had died during the American Civil War.  "Decoration Day" as a national observance followed many local observances that had started shortly after the end of the war.  Statewide recognition soon followed, beginning with New York in 1873.  By 1890, every (formerly) union state had adopted the observance.  The two world wars turned the "Decoration Day" into a day of remembrance to honor all those who had died while serving in the U.S. military.  Congress officially changed the official holiday to "Memorial Day" and the date to the last Monday in May in 1968.

Notably, two other days celebrate those who have served or are currently serving in the U.S. military.  We celebrate Armed Forces Day on the third Saturday of May to honor all of those men and women currently serving in the U.S. military.  We celebrate Veterans Day on November 11 to honor all of those men and women who have previously served in the U.S. military.

I have always enjoyed Memorial Day.  I grew up in Indianapolis, and we used to listen to the Indianapolis 500 automobile race on the radio every Memorial Day weekend (the race was always - and I believe still is - blacked out on the local television stations).  There's nothing quite like the Indy 500 in all of sports! We often hosted a Memorial Day barbecue with family and friends at our house.  I can still taste the hot dogs, hamburgers, and cherry pie with homemade ice cream!

As I've grown older, I have come to realize how important it is that our nation honors those who have died in service to their country.  I've frequently posted something about what Memorial Day has meant to me over the years (see last year's post, "The price of freedom..." for the links to a number of these posts over the years).  I recently read a great book (all of his books are great, by the way) by Admiral William McCraven, who retired from the U.S. Navy in 2014 after a distinguished 37 year career.  Admiral McCraven is perhaps best known for his May 19, 2014 commencement speech at the University of Texas (the so-called "Make Your Bed" speech), which I posted about several years ago (see "If you want to change the world, don't ever, ever ring the bell").  His latest book, Duty, Honor, Country, & Life: A Tribute to the American Spirit is a collection of his speeches, essays, and poems that all honor those who serve, both as members of the U.S. military and civilians alike.  The title is adapted from General Douglas Macarthur's farewell speech delivered at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on May 12, 1962.  

General Macarthur said, "Duty, Honor, Country — those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn."

Admiral McCraven talks about a verse from the Holy Bible (Isaiah 6:8) in his chapter, "Send Me" (based on a toast that he gave to members of the U.S. military at an annual meeting of the Alfalfa Club):

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"

And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

There's a powerful scene from the 2014 film Fury, starring Brad Pitt, Shia Leouf, and Logan Lerman, that includes the same verse.  Admiral McCraven says that this same Bible verse is read by a priest, minister, or rabbi during every "Dignified Transfer" ceremony, as a fallen military member's casket is carried by six pallbearers and loaded onto an airplane for the return of his or her remains back home.  During his toast, Admiral McCraven said:

"The soldiers say 'Send me,' because they believe.  They believe that we are the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.  They believe that we are the good guys - the knights in shining armor, the guardians of liberty.  They believe that we will free the oppressed, protect the innocent, and lift up the downtrodden.  They believe that we are willing to lay down our lives for the good of the country and the world.  They believe because they have seen their parents and grandparents before them fight Nazism and fascism, totalitarianism, communism, and terrorism.  They believe that the men and women in this room are the tellers of truth, the upholders of the law, the defenders of the constitution - and everything we do is right and just and honorable and good...Ladies and Gentlemen, would you please stand and raise a glass.  To those who believe and say 'Send me' - to the troops!"

So today especially, we honor and cherish the memories of those brave men and women who gave their last full measure of devotion to what it means to be an American.  As you sit down with family and friends, enjoying the beautiful summer weather, sitting by the pool, grilling, or whatever you are doing, please take a moment to pause and remember that those whose day we are celebrating made a clear, deliberate choice to serve, and if necessary, die for their country.  "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends."  Today we honor those who stood up and said, "Send me."  They believed that ours is a cause worth dying for.  And it is still a cause worth dying for.

There is no better way to honor and cherish their memory than to continue their cause.  "It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.  It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the greatest task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." [from The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln]

Our work has only just begun.  Our toughest days lie ahead, but we are up to the test.  Here are we.  Send us.  "Rest easy shipmates.  We have the watch."

Magic Power

When I was growing up, I used to love going to rock-n-roll concerts.  One of my favorite bands was the group Triumph, a rock and roll power trio from Toronto, Canada.  Guitarist Rik Emmet (who has to be one of the most underrated guitar players of all time) and drummer Gil Moore shared lead vocalist duties, with bassist Mike Levine often providing back-up vocals.  At a time when most rock-n-roll bands were writing songs about "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll", Triumph's music stood out for positive and motivational themes, with hit song titles such as "Magic Power", "Lay It On The Line", "Fight the Good Fight", "Never Surrender", and "Follow Your Heart".  They were known for their melodic vocals, technical musicianship, and elaborate live shows.  While I had heard them on the radio, I first saw them play on a live television broadcast of the 1983 Us Festival in San Bernardino, California.  I was blown away!  "There's only three musicians playing THAT?!???"  I ended up seeing them play live multiple times over the years.

My favorite Triumph song had to be "Magic Power", a single from their 1981 album Allied Forces.  The lyrics speak to the power of music to give all of us clarity, inspiration, and emotional healing.  Just check out the first few lines of the song:

Something's at the edge of your mind

You don't know what it is

Something you were hoping to find

But you're not sure what it is

Then you hear the music

And it all comes crystal clear

The music does the talking

Says the things you want to hear

Music is magic.  Music is emotion.  And music has the power to heal.  

I was thinking of Triumph's "Magic Power" while I was reading a section of the latest book by Arthur C. Brooks, The Meaning of Your Life.  I've posted about Brooks and his research on happiness a number of times in the past (see "The mathematics of happiness", "Are you happy?", "All shall be well", and "Real friends are useless" for just a few examples).  In a wonderful chapter of the book called "Surround Yourself with Beauty", Brooks talks about research by Rollin McCraty that studies the effects of different forms of music on mood and stress (see "The effects of different types of music on mood, tension, and mental clarity").  A total of 144 study subjects completed a psychological profile before and after listening for 15 minutes to four different types of music (grunge rock, classical, New Age, and designer).  Subjects listening to grunge rock showed significant increases in hostility, sadness, tension, and fatigue, with concomitant reductions in caring, relaxation, mental clarity, and vigor.  The results for New Age and classical music were mixed, while designer music (music designed to have specific effects on the listener) produced significant increases in caring, relaxation, mental clarity, and vigor with concomitant decreases in hostility, fatigue, sadness, and tension.  

All of that is well and good, but does music have the "magic power" to make you happy too?  As it turns out, listening to a song that you love triggers your brain's limbic system to release dopamine.  Think of the limbic system as your pleasure and reward centers of your brain and dopamine as the neuromediator that regulates your happiness.  Music has all kinds of positive effects on our mood and well-being (see Adam Croom's review article, "Music, Neuroscience, and the Psychology of Well-being: A Précis" in the journal, Frontiers in Psychology).

According to a study by music psychologist Michael Bonshor, the happiest-sounding songs have certain tempos, chords, and musical keys.  Dr. Bonshor developed a formula to determine the "Happiest Song of All Time".  Apparently, "Good Vibrations" by the Beach Boys scored the highest and was ranked by Dr. Bonshor as the happiest song in history.  The top ten scientifically happy songs according to his formula are:

1. "Good Vibrations" by the Beach Boys

2. "I Got You (I Feel Good)" by James Brown

3. "House of Fun" by Madness

4. "Get The Party Started" by P!nk

5. "Uptown Girl" by Billy Joel

6. "Sun is Shining" by Bob Marley

7. "I Get Around" by the Beach Boys

8. "YMCA" by Village People

9. "Waterloo" by ABBA

10. "September" by Earth, Wind & Fire

So, next time you are feeling down, check out the "magic power" in any of the songs in the list above.  Listening to music may not help you solve all of your problems, but it will certainly make you feel a little better.  Here's another lyric from Triumph's song "Magic Power" that sums it all up:

She climbs into bed

She pulls the covers overhead

And she turns her little radio on

She's had a rotten day

So she hopes the DJ's

Gonna play her favorite song

Makes her feel much better

Brings her closer to her dreams

A little magic power

Makes it better that it seems

Music is magic.  Music is emotion.  And music has the power to heal.

Oenophiles strike back!

According to Google AI, an oenophile (pronounced ee-nuh-file) is a connoisseur or lover of wine, derived from the Greek roots oinos (wine) and philos (loving).  While I am certainly not a wine connoisseur (at least not yet), I am a wine enthusiast and someone with a deep appreciation for wine.  As I have discussed a number of times in previous posts (see "Raitis tammikuu", "The world is changed...", and "The bullwhip effect (again)"), the wine industry has been struggling the past few years, as alcohol consumption in general has dramatically decreased.  As I mentioned most recently in my post, "Eat your ice cream", red wine consumption is no longer considered healthy!  The Office of the U.S. Surgeon General released a new advisory last year declaring that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.  The advisory called out in particular the risks associated with several types of cancer, especially breast cancer in women and cancers of the digestive tract in both men and women.  The advisory states, "The more alcohol consumed, the greater the risk of cancer. For certain cancers, like breast, mouth, and throat cancers, evidence shows that this risk may start to increase around one or fewer drinks per day."

As I mentioned in the same post ("Eat your ice cream"), part of the problem with all of these observational studies on physical health and wellbeing are that they at times can provide conflicting information.  For example, the so-called French Paradox which was popularized in the 1980's and 1990's was based on the observation that people living in France have comparatively lower rates of coronary heart disease, including deaths, despite a higher intake of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat.  The suggested explanation for the French Paradox was that people living in France also consumed higher amounts of red wine.  The anti-oxidant properties of compounds found in red wine negated the negative effects of the higher intake of cholesterol and saturated fats.  Unfortunately for oenophiles everywhere, the purported benefits of these anti-oxidants are negated by the amount of alcohol consumed when drinking red wine.

I suggested that sooner or later, there would be yet another study that suggested that red wine can indeed provide health benefits.  I was therefore not surprised to see another report come out suggesting that individuals who consume even moderate amounts of red wine live longer!  Of course, the study was first reported in the magazine Wine Spectator, who may be a little biased.  However, the report came from a 2026 study of 340,000 British adults, which found that moderate wine drinkers had a lower risk of early death and heart-related diseases compared to those consuming other alcohols, with benefits most pronounced in red wine drinkers.  The study results were presented at the Annual Scientific Session of the American College of Cardiology in New Orleans in March.  The study investigators noted that people who, on average, drank up to 10 (for women) or 20 (for men) 5-ounce glasses of wine per week were 8% less likely to die of any cause and up to 21% less likely to die from cardiovascular causes during a 13 year follow-up period compared to both non-drinkers or occasional drinkers.  Importantly, people who consumed the same average weekly amounts of other kinds of alcoholic beverages (beer, cider, spirits) were 9% more likely to die of cardiovascular disease and had a slightly higher risk of dying from non-cardiac diseases, such as cancer.

In addition to the antioxidants found in red wine, the study investigators suggested that people who drink wine (i.e., oenophiles like me!) live healthier lifestyles than people who consume other kinds of alcoholic drinks.  As Zhanglin Chen, the study's senior author, suggested, "People who drink wine in light to moderate amounts tend to have healthier overall lifestyles.  For example, they may eat more fruits and vegetables, exercise more or be less likely to smoke, and these habits can also contribute to lower risk."  Another recent study showed that regular exercise may actually offset at least some of the health risks associated with alcohol consumption (the study was recently published in the journal Sports Medicine).  It's tempting to speculate that red wine consumption, especially in moderation, could maximize the benefits of the antioxidants found in red wine, while the regular exercise could minimize the risks of the alcohol.

Ezekiel Emanuel, an American oncologist, bioethicist, and health policy researcher, suggested another possible benefit to wine consumption in his book, Eat Your Ice Cream.  Drinking wine is often a highly social activity, and there are definitely health benefits to spending time with friends and family!  As Dr, Emanuel reported, "It's important to cultivate family, friends, and other social relationships for a long, healthy, and happy life."  I've posted a lot about the so-called "Loneliness Epidemic" several times in the last year (see, in particular, my posts, "The Loneliness Epidemic", "To be of importance to others is to be alive...", and "We all need the human touch...").  There are now a countless number of studies that provide convincing evidence that fostering and maintaining close personal relationships through marriage, family, and friendships is one of the most important drivers of happiness and vitality. 

The Harvard Study of Adult Development provides important evidence on this point.  Robert Waldinger, who has led the study for over two decades, states, "The surprising finding is that our relationships and how happy we are in our relationships has a powerful influence on our health.  Taking  care of your body is important, but tending to your relationships is a form of self-care too. That, I think, is the revelation."  Spending time with others, particularly fellow oenophiles, could therefore be one of the secret ingredients to living a long and happy life!

I suspect that there will be other studies providing conflicting evidence.  For now though, I will stick with Dr. Emanuel's recommendation to have the occasional indulgence of things that may or may not be healthy for me (depending on which study you read), including red wine.  But never alone and always with friends and family, of course!