![\"A](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/levin-press-conference-cartoon-branded.webp\")
A political career can thrive on Congress’s failure. What would make success depend on doing the work voters elected someone to do?
\n","content_html":"\nDoes American politics ever feel like an enormous amount of effort spent on getting nowhere?
\n\n\n\nYou can watch a member of Congress deliver a spectacular denunciation of everything that’s wrong with Washington. Maybe you’re nodding along. Maybe you’re exhausted before they’ve finished the first sentence. Either way, when it’s over, you’re left with a common question: did anything happen?
\n\n\n\nSomeone certainly had a good television appearance. Whether the rest of us got anything out of it is harder to tell.
\n\n\n\nWhen I spoke with Yuval Levin, director of social, cultural, and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute, I asked whether some members of Congress eventually give up on the job they ran for.
\n\n\n\nI could imagine the sequence. Someone runs for office intending to represent people and accomplish something. They get to Washington, discover how little they can change, and begin thinking about what comes next. “If this place is so screwed up and the reality is that things will never change, I can at least do well for myself.” They start making noise. They raise their profile. And when they’re out of Congress, perhaps a television job. Maybe a book deal.
\n\n\n\nIn my conversation with Yuval, I didn’t want to assume that everyone who enters politics is running a scam. Most probably arrive wanting to do the work. And someone can arrive sincere without remaining immune to disappointment. Spend enough time trying to accomplish something, watch other people get rewarded for an activity that looks considerably easier, and you may start reconsidering how you’re spending your days. You don’t have to wake up one morning and decide to become a villain. You can just keep adjusting.
\n\n\n\nYuval’s answer challenged my picture of the frustrated legislator giving up and preparing for a television career. Ambitious people try to succeed, he pointed out. What does Congress make available as a way to succeed? If the institution limits your opportunities to do serious legislative work, but your title still attracts an audience, where do you put your ambition?
\n\n\n\nAnd that, constant reader, raises a possibility worse than the one I started with. Your representative’s alternative career doesn’t have to begin after they leave Congress. It can begin while they’re still there…while they ostensibly are in the public service and dedicated heart and soul to working for your interests.
\n\n\n\nAnd unfortunately, isn’t this how we sometimes feel when we see some of these big names on TV “owning” the other side, but no actual legislating going on in Congress?
\n\n\n\nThe office supplies the title, the access, the hearing room, the camera, and a rotating cast of people to be appalled by. Your representative doesn’t necessarily need to solve the problem to remain its most recognizable opponent. Another failure can give them another occasion to explain how hard they’re fighting, how unreasonable everyone else is, and why they need your support.
\n\n\n\nCongress can have a terrible week while the congressperson has an excellent one.
\n\n\n\nWith the November 3 midterms approaching, we’re about to make consequential decisions about who gets those offices. Their positions matter. So does their character. But the question that interests me is what happens after they win. Will getting ahead require them to become better at governing with other people? Or can they do just as well explaining, indefinitely, why those people make governing impossible?
\n\n\n\nYuval’s diagnosis begins with the concentration of power inside Congress. As party leaders gain control over the agenda, ordinary members have fewer opportunities to turn expertise and negotiation into influence. Becoming unusually good at a policy area offers less of a career path if you can’t get that work considered.
\n\n\n\nThat can sound like an excuse politicians make for themselves. You have an office in the United States Congress, a staff, and a vote. How powerless can you possibly be?
\n\n\n\n![\"Sam](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/sam-rayburn-original-display-scaled.webp\")
We can go further back, but for the sake of brevity, let’s start in 1961. Sam Rayburn was Speaker of the House. His fellow Democrat John F. Kennedy was entering the White House. Democrats held a substantial House majority. You might think they could at least get their program to a vote.
\n\n\n\n![\"Congressional](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/howard-smith-portrait-1965-display-scaled.webp\")
But another Democrat, Howard Smith, chaired the Rules Committee, which controlled whether much of that legislation could reach the floor. Democrats held eight of its twelve seats. Smith and fellow southern Democrat William Colmer could join the four Republicans to produce a six-to-six deadlock. Rayburn could have a majority in the House and still be unable to get key bills to a vote.
\n\n\n\nHis solution was to change the arithmetic. He pushed to enlarge the committee from twelve members to fifteen, adding two Democrats and one Republican. After a bitter fight, the House approved the change, 217–212. It didn’t guarantee Kennedy’s bills would pass. But, it did reduce Smith’s ability to keep the House from deciding.
\n\n\n\nIn the 1970s, reform-minded Democrats confronted powerful chairs across the committee system. They made chairmanships subject to secret-ballot votes in the party caucus. In 1975, House Democrats voted three entrenched chairs out of their chairmanships. Junior members gained more room to work through subcommittees. Yet the same reform period strengthened Speaker Carl Albert. He gained authority to nominate the Rules Committee’s chair and Democratic members, subject to caucus approval. The House still formally elected the committee. Members could do more inside committees while leadership gained a firmer grip on what came out of them.
\n\n\n\nBy the 1980s, Speaker Tip O’Neill and his successors faced a different headache. More members wanted to offer amendments, and Republicans were using floor tactics to disrupt Democratic plans and force embarrassing votes. Democratic leaders responded by using the Rules Committee to restrict which amendments could be offered. The reforms that had opened up participation were followed by measures to contain it. From leadership’s perspective, this made the House more manageable. From a member’s perspective, it meant another decision about their work was being made before they got to the floor.
\n\n\n\n![\"Newt](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/newt-gingrich-original-display.webp\")
Then, in 1995, Newt Gingrich became Speaker with a new Republican majority and a promise to bring the Contract with America to House votes within a hundred days. Leaving the timetable to independent committee chairs would have put that promise at their mercy. He bypassed seniority in selecting some chairs and used leadership task forces to develop legislation outside the standing committees. And, new six-year limits on committee chairmanships also made it harder for a chair to build a permanent power base. Gingrich had spent years fighting Democratic control of the agenda. In office, he tightened the leadership’s control over it.
\n\n\n\nThere isn’t an uncomplicated golden age to return to though, and there’s a lot more to all of the stories I’ve just shared. The accordion of consolidations and redistributions of power is ongoing. A change that frees members from one person’s control can make them more dependent on someone else. In the timeframe that is most important to us, recent history and now, more of those decisions have moved toward party leadership.
\n\n\n\n![\"Two-panel](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/levin-power-shift-branded.webp\")
Take a seemingly modest goal: your representative wants to change a bill. They’ve studied it, drafted an amendment, and found colleagues who agree. The next step is a debate and a vote, right? Not so fast, buster.
\n\n\n\nGetting permission to offer the amendment can be a fight of its own.
\n\n\n\nThe Congressional Research Service’s 2022 explanation of House floor amendments lays out the sequence. For major bills, the Rules Committee, working with majority-party leadership, proposes the terms of debate. Under a structured rule, those terms specify which amendments members will be allowed to offer. Members submit their proposals to the committee and try to get them included.
\n\n\n\nThen the full House votes on the rule. Once it adopts that rule, the permitted amendments can come up for debate. An amendment left off the list ordinarily doesn’t get its own floor debate and vote.
\n\n\n\nSo, let’s be clear. Your colleagues may have read your amendment. They may even support it. The obstacle isn’t necessarily persuading them that it’s a good idea. It’s getting permission to put that idea before the House for a decision. A vote approving the debate rules can close off your proposal without anyone having to vote on its substance.
\n\n\n\nYou are a duly elected member of Congress. You’ve been sent to Washington to represent your constituents and to legislate. Maybe you’ve spent months researching a topic, drafting an amendment, and drumming up support. But all of that can come to nothing because the Rules Committee leaves your amendment out and the House accepts those terms. Your colleagues vote on the process. They never have to debate your idea.
\n\n\n\nSo, what do you think you would be inclined to do? Keep fighting the good fight? Or, perhaps give in to a little disillusionment?
\n\n\n\nNow, there are good reasons to organize the work of Congress. A legislature with hundreds of members cannot consider every suggestion indefinitely, and party leaders are elected by their colleagues. Coordination isn’t inherently a theft of authority. But controlling the agenda also means controlling which kinds of effort have a chance to pay off.
\n\n\n\nLong before Lyndon Johnson managed the Senate’s schedule, he took over a debating club. Its members could argue about legislation, vote on it, and go home. Nothing they voted on became law.
\n\n\n\n![\"Young](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/lyndon-johnson-1933-1935-original-display-scaled-e1793403876883.webp\")
Robert Caro tells the story in The Path to Power. In 1933, Johnson was a twenty-four-year-old congressional aide. The Little Congress was a society where aides could practice speaking and parliamentary procedure. By then, a few dozen people might turn up at its monthly meetings. Officers advanced through an orderly succession, and the next Speaker was supposed to be the person whose turn had come.
\n\n\n\nJohnson had no interest in waiting for his turn. He quietly recruited newly arrived aides and found that the bylaws allowed other employees on the legislative payroll to join too. Mailmen and elevator operators appeared at the election. He won. Older members challenged some voters’ eligibility and accused him of stealing it. All this for a debating club.
\n\n\n\n![\"A](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/huey-long-1935-loc-display.webp\")
But winning an obscure title was only the beginning. He changed monthly meetings to weekly ones, invited prominent politicians, and organized debates on legislation the real Congress was considering. Reporters had a reason to attend: the aides preparing their bosses for actual legislative fights were rehearsing the arguments. Crowds grew to two hundred or more. Huey Long came to speak, accompanied by the cameras and attention Johnson wanted.
\n\n\n\nAnd Johnson controlled the opportunity. Previously, anyone could speak. Now, he assigned the speakers. Even after his one permitted term ended, he maintained control through successors. People who opposed his candidates could find themselves left out of future debates. He had made the club worth participating in, then made the chance to be heard depend on him.
\n\n\n\nWhen he reached the actual House in 1937, he couldn’t simply repeat the takeover. Seniority stood in his way. But in the 1940 election, Democratic candidates needed campaign money, and Johnson had access to wealthy Texas backers. Given a modest assignment to assist the congressional campaign committee, he brought in $45,000 within a week. Donor instructions directed the money to recipients on lists he had prepared. The committee chairman signed the checks. Johnson sent telegrams ahead of them so recipients would know who had arranged the help. He hadn’t become Speaker. He had become someone colleagues had a reason to remember.
\n\n\n\nIn the Senate, the things colleagues needed included committee seats and a chance to get their bills considered. As Democratic leader in 1953, Johnson helped newly elected senators onto major committees instead of making them wait years. That created opportunities. It also made Johnson the person who could provide them. Caro follows both sides of this bargain in Master of the Senate.
\n\n\n\nConsider a banking bill in 1955, when Johnson was majority leader. Banking Committee chairman William Fulbright and his colleague A. Willis Robertson wanted it through the Senate without amendments that could undo their work. Johnson told Robertson he would not move it to the floor without assurance that amendments would be dropped. Senators who wanted the bill to pass gave up most of their proposed changes. When Robertson reported that the three remaining amendments could be defeated, Johnson accepted that arrangement. The committee’s leaders got help moving their bill. Johnson gained control over how it moved.
\n\n\n\nThere is no innocent age of politics hiding in this story. Johnson sought publicity, rewarded loyalty, and made colleagues dependent on him. But notice what they needed him for: access to money, committees, and legislative decisions. His influence grew because other people were trying to accomplish something and he could help or hinder them. Concentrating authority could make the institution work more effectively while leaving individual members less independent.
\n\n\n\nFor a less powerful member, the gap between the title and the work can be harder to escape. Suppose you’ve spent months understanding a problem and finding colleagues who might support a solution. If all of that effort rarely gives you a path to any kind of decision or resolution, the institution is teaching you how you should or should not spend your time and effort in the future.
\n\n\n\nYou still have your title. You can still speak. You can still become famous. You just can’t actually do much of what you got into politics to do.
\n\n\n\nUnder those circumstances, becoming better known might start to look like the sensible part of the job. At least you can see whether it’s working.
\n\n\n\nPut yourself back in the position of the member whose amendment never made the list. You still have to return home and explain what you’ve been doing. Congress has made one kind of accomplishment difficult. It hasn’t made every kind difficult.
\n\n\n\nImagine you’ve promised to help communities replace deteriorating water systems. The need is real. People have been waiting. The campaign promise wasn’t especially complicated: fix the pipes.
\n\n\n\nThen comes a possible deal. In this hypothetical, it would help some communities now, but others would have to wait. To get enough votes, you’d also have to accept a spending concession you campaigned against. Now you have to explain who gets help, who doesn’t, and why you agreed to something you recently criticized. Someone from the other party gets to stand beside you and claim credit. One of your own supporters asks why you didn’t hold out for more.
\n\n\n\nNow imagine walking away and announcing that Washington refuses to fix the pipes.
\n\n\n\n![\"Fictional](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/levin-water-deal-cartoon-branded.webp\")
You can probably hear that speech already. The need is urgent. The opposition is disgraceful. You refuse to back down. For the people waiting on clean water, the difference is consequential. For someone watching a short clip, the refusal may look more committed to helping them.
\n\n\n\nSome deals deserve to fail. But notice how much easier it can be to explain the refusal than the achievement. A compromise comes with things to defend. An unfulfilled demand can remain perfect.
\n\n\n\nBuilding an audience around failure can work with people who already share the frustration.
\n\n\n\nPassing the bill requires cooperation from people with different demands. If I need your vote, I have a reason to understand what you need. Your objection might reveal a defect in my proposal. Even if I remain convinced that you’re wrong, your ability to withhold something I need forces me to decide what I’m willing to change to get a result.
\n\n\n\nThis is what gets lost when a few leaders do the bargaining and most members are left to defend or denounce the result. Members get less practice working through those disagreements themselves. Meanwhile, an audience is available that will reward them for having made no concessions at all.
\n\n\n\nA leader can keep your amendment off the floor. You don’t need that leader’s permission to post a video about it. That gives a member a way to challenge concentrated power. It also gives them a way to live quite comfortably with it.
\n\n\n\nA 2025 Center for Effective Lawmaking working paper, led by Michael Kistner and colleagues, examined congressional communications from 2009 through 2022. In their models, negative partisan attacks received roughly twice the retweets and Facebook shares of a member’s average message. Yet the researchers generally found no corresponding increase in approval among constituents overall. There was a positive association among constituents of the member’s own party. Picking fights could look successful to the people already on your side without improving how the constituency as a whole judged your work.
\n\n\n\nAn online following can also gather around a narrow preference, and its members may live nowhere near the district. None of them needs to be fake for the signal to be misleading. They can be sincerely delighted by something that does very little for the people the member was elected to serve.
\n\n\n\nNor does the member have to notice whose approval they’re collecting. In a twist on the famous New Yorker cartoon:
\n\n\n\n![\"Two](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/levin-dogs-online-cartoon-branded.webp\")
A political career can become successful enough on its own terms that failure to govern stops being something the politician needs to correct. It becomes something they know how to use.
\n\n\n\nAnd then who has a reason to reopen the legislative process? Leaders would have to give up some control. Members who thrive on denouncing the results would have to take more responsibility for producing them. The people with the clearest reason to want a different arrangement may be the ones still waiting for the pipes.
\n\n\n\nNone of this means a member shut out by leadership should accept their exclusion politely. Publicity can force an ignored problem onto the agenda. A sharp hearing can expose something we’d otherwise never learn. Outside pressure may be the only way a member can get someone with authority to pay attention.
\n\n\n\nWhat we need to see is a purpose for the attention beyond getting more of it. If the member is mobilizing pressure, what are they asking someone with authority to do? What would count as progress? When the strategy fails, what do they try next?
\n\n\n\nSometimes the purpose is to prevent something. Blocking a harmful law is real work. So is oversight, and so is helping constituents receive benefits they’re owed. Congress could pass a great many terrible bills and become highly productive in exactly the wrong sense. An agreement doesn’t become good just because both parties sign it, either. Powerful people can agree at someone else’s expense.
\n\n\n\nThe question is whether members have meaningful ways to influence those decisions, and whether they use them. We can demand more of our representatives while also demanding a Congress in which doing the work gives them a chance to accomplish something.
\n\n\n\nAt this point, it’s tempting to simplify this and say that we just need better people. Less vanity. More courage. Someone who will do the work even when the work is difficult and the rewards go elsewhere.
\n\n\n\nI’d like those people too. But if we keep narrowing the route through which serious effort can accomplish anything, we’re making the job harder for precisely the people we say we want.
\n\n\n\nMembers need usable opportunities to turn expertise and agreement into decisions. Can a committee’s work reach the floor? Can a member obtain consideration for a serious amendment? If they persuade colleagues across factions, does that earn an opportunity to act, or merely an invitation to wait?
\n\n\n\nThe House has experimented with this idea. Its Consensus Calendar, as described by CRS for the 2021–2022 Congress, offered a conditional route toward floor consideration for bills with at least 290 cosponsors that remained unreported by their main committee. Both measures designated from the calendar for floor consideration passed the House, but neither became law.
\n\n\n\nAttaching your name to a bill isn’t the same as negotiating an agreement or committing to move it. The calendar’s limited results don’t establish a cure. But the design asks a useful question: can persuading colleagues to support a proposal buy access to a decision?
\n\n\n\nYuval emphasizes the value of bargaining, and this is where I think we have to be careful. Making agreement harder can encourage negotiation when the participants need an outcome. It can also make obstruction more rewarding when they don’t.
\n\n\n\nImagine being told that the delay is good because it forces everyone to take your interests seriously. That sounds reasonable until you’re the person still waiting on the water system, and the people prolonging the argument aren’t paying much of a price for it.
\n\n\n\nWho bears the cost of waiting?
![\"Black-and-white](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/leonidas-dyer-loc.webp\")
American history gives us a much grimmer example. On January 26, 1922, several hundred Black spectators crowded the House gallery for debate on Leonidas Dyer’s anti-lynching bill. Some cheered despite the gallery rules. The House passed it, 230–119. The proposal would allow federal prosecution of lynchers and penalties for officials who failed to protect victims or prosecute their killers.
\n\n\n\nThen it reached the Senate. Southern Democrats blocked it with a filibuster, and Republican leaders declined to keep fighting for it. Dyer introduced anti-lynching legislation again in subsequent Congresses. The people asking for federal protection kept waiting.
\n\n\n\nThat delay did not force the opponents to accommodate those people’s interests. It delivered the outcome they wanted: no federal anti-lynching law. The danger facing Black Americans did not just disappear simply because senators could not agree. For those resisting federal action, preventing a decision was an accomplishment. For those seeking protection, it was another failure.
\n\n\n\nA procedural obstacle earns its defense by the work it induces. If it pushes people to accommodate interests they would otherwise ignore, it may improve the decision. If it allows someone to block a decision indefinitely while gaining attention from the stalemate, slowness alone is no evidence of wisdom.
\n\n\n\nThere is still something to build on. Research from the Center for Effective Lawmaking, using data from 1973 through 2016, found that members who attracted a larger share of cosponsors from the other party were more effective at moving their legislative proposals forward. Those who cosponsored across party lines were also more likely to receive that support in return.
\n\n\n\nWhen was the last time you heard about a bill with strong, named bipartisan support? Yeah, it’s been a while, and it’s getting rarer. But, it’s exactly the kind of work it takes to get bipartisan support that makes our elected representatives effective, and the fact that we’re seeing less of it is why we feel American politics is broken.
\n\n\n\nThe research gives us a reason to take the less visible work seriously. Persuading someone from the other party can help a member move a proposal. A Congress that makes that effort matter has something to offer ambitious people besides another chance to be on television.
\n\n\n\nWorking relationships still matter. We need ambition to have a credible route through that work. And members have responsibility for opening the route: they vote on their institution’s rules and its leadership. They aren’t spectators who happen to have unusually good seats.
\n\n\n\nOf course, all of this gives those of us outside Congress another task. We’re supposed to recognize good legislative work while doing our own work, taking care of our families, and occasionally thinking about something other than politics.
\n\n\n\nDuring my conversation with Yuval, I admitted that I wasn’t as informed a voter as I’d like to be. I have work and a family. And, the constant shouting in the media turns me off and makes it easier to disengage. I don’t think the answer is to tell everyone in my position to spend more evenings watching politicians shout.
\n\n\n\nBut we can ask for a more useful account of what our representatives do. Choose an issue they say matters. Look for an explanation of what they tried, who they needed to work with, and what changed because of the effort. If they opposed a proposal, what harm did they prevent, and what alternative did they pursue? If leadership blocked them, what are they doing to give members more room to legislate? A newcomer won’t have a congressional record, but can still explain how they expect to turn a demand into action.
\n\n\n\nA serious answer might be disappointing. It might reveal a small achievement, an unresolved problem, or a concession we dislike. At least it gives us something to judge. A promise to keep fighting can leave the most important part unanswered: fighting toward what, and how will we know whether you’re getting there?
\n\n\n\nThe more uncomfortable test comes when someone we supported actually reaches an agreement. We remember the promise. We may have defended it to a friend. Now our representative is standing beside someone we dislike and explaining why a smaller result is a victory.
\n\n\n\nIt’s easy to feel played. Why did we put our confidence in this person if they were going to give something up? The politician who refused the deal has a much easier answer: they never stopped fighting for us.
\n\n\n\nMaybe the bargain really was a betrayal. We shouldn’t applaud automatically. We should expect the representative to explain the trade: what was gained, what was conceded, who bears the cost, and why this was better than the available alternatives. Then we have to be willing to hear the answer before deciding that the concession itself proves our trust was misplaced.
\n\n\n\nThis matters before November 3, but it will matter after the votes are counted too. An election can replace the people in the seats. It can’t, by itself, make us stop rewarding an entertaining explanation for why the job remains undone.
\n\n\n\nIf the only success we’ll reward is a politician returning with every demand intact, we should expect a lot of intact demands. And very little else.
\n\n\n\n![\"Eric](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/eric-pratum-yuval-levin-square-display.webp\")
This essay grew out of my conversation with Yuval Levin for The Unfolding Thought Podcast. You can listen to the full conversation here.
\n\n\n\nMeeting people unlike you can change your understanding of the world. It can also leave you much too confident that you understand it.
\n","content_html":"\nMeeting people unlike you can change your understanding of the world. It can also leave you much too confident that you understand it.
\n\n\n\nI was warming up our U11 club soccer goalie at practice one night when I asked whether he’d been going to the club’s goalkeeper sessions. He had. I asked whether a particular coach was running them, but he wasn’t sure who I meant.
\n\n\n\nI described the coach as having somewhat long hair.
\n\n\n\nGoalie: “Is he like you?”
\n\n\n\nMe: “How?”
\n\n\n\nGoalie: (hesitating) “Kind of short.”
\n\n\n\nI’m six feet tall. This seemed like relevant information.
\n\n\n\nI pointed out that, while I’m not super tall, I am taller than average.
\n\n\n\nHis dad is considerably taller than I am. The goalie himself, although a bit shorter than me, is very tall for his age. I suspect both had something to do with my being classified as short. I pointed that out too. Apparently, goalkeeper practice now included a defense of my height.
\n\n\n\n![\"Illustrative](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/height-reference-v2.webp\")
At six feet, I’m taller than about 85% of American men. His father is farther out toward the tall end of the curve. I’m closer to the average, but that doesn’t mean I’ll feel more typical to a kid who sees his dad every day.
\n\n\n\nHe sees people of all sorts of heights. My guess is that his deep, recurring exposure to one especially familiar person carries more weight in his idea of what a grown man looks like.
\n\n\n\nI have a measurement. He has a dad.
\n\n\n\nWhat I’m interested in is how often the rest of us do some version of this with things that are considerably harder to measure.
\n\n\n\nWe have our families, coworkers, friends, the people we went to school with. We hear their stories, watch their choices, learn what matters to them. Eventually, some of that becomes our understanding of how people are. And because we know these people well, that understanding feels earned.
\n\n\n\nAnd then we meet someone who doesn’t fit.
\n\n\n\nWhat do we do with that person?
\n\n\n\nIn my conversation with sociologist Ilana Redstone, author of The Certainty Trap, she told me about a friend who was having a serious disagreement with her husband.
\n\n\n\nThe friend had a professional-development trip coming up. Her husband had a guys’ trip of his own planned around the same time. Given the strain in their marriage, he suggested that neither of them travel.
\n\n\n\nIlana got angry on her friend’s behalf. This was a work opportunity, something her friend didn’t do often. His recreational trip wasn’t the same thing. The proposal sounded controlling.
\n\n\n\nThen, her friend came back with more context. Her husband was worried about what being apart during that conflict might mean for their marriage. Ilana could now see a reason for his proposal that didn’t depend on him being manipulative.
\n\n\n\nShe hadn’t decided that he was necessarily right. She no longer needed a bad motive to explain his proposal.
\n\n\n\nThe correction came from the same friend. Nobody needed to have lied. Ilana had heard something true and supplied an explanation it didn’t establish. We all do this. Constantly. The proposal to cancel the trips was one thing. The motive she attributed to it was another.
\n\n\n\nThis is what makes her work more useful to me than a general appeal to be nicer. She wants us to get specific about what we think we know. What happened? What do we think caused it? What are we trying to accomplish? Which of those are we actually disagreeing about?
\n\n\n\nDuring our conversation, I connected this to culture. The people around us can agree about the missing part so thoroughly that we start treating an explanation we supplied as a fact. Now we have each other’s agreement as another reason to be certain.
\n\n\n\nThat doesn’t require a room full of people who look alike.
\n\n\n\nLet’s say you go to college and meet people whose lives have been very different from yours. Different religions, nationalities, family circumstances. You learn things you couldn’t have learned at home.
\n\n\n\nBut look at what everyone you’re meeting has in common: they arrived at that university.
\n\n\n\nImagine a university where the typical student scored between 1,200 and 1,400 on the SAT. Some scored lower and some higher, but most of the classmates you get to know come from that band. You could meet people from twenty countries while spending most of your time inside a narrow slice of the distribution.
\n\n\n\n![\"SAT](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/sat-selection-range-v2.webp\")
The university didn’t just select a set of SAT scores with shoes, jackets, and backpacks hanging off them. It selected people, along with the backgrounds and experiences they bring.
\n\n\n\nAnd this isn’t just about how biased or blind smartypants college people are. If I knew everyone on a poor block in Los Angeles, that wouldn’t make it a representative sample of the country either, even if we looked like a Little Rascals version of a United Colors of Benetton ad.
\n\n\n\n![\"Eight](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ilana-neighborhood-branded.webp\")
I grew up listening to Canadian radio and watching Canadian TV, then went to college 20 minutes from the border. My friends and I often crossed into Canada to go to comedy clubs.
\n\n\n\nFor someone with less exposure than I’d had, those trips could feel like finally finding out what Canadians are like. But the Canadians we met were the ones at those clubs. Anyone too young, too far away, uninterested in comedy, or just unwilling to leave the house at night was missing. That last group now includes me. Apparently, I’m not just short. I’m also old…and boring.
\n\n\n\nDuring my MBA studies, I had a classmate from Saudi Arabia. I don’t recall having met anyone from there before, and I’d never had any deep interactions with a follower of Islam. Did getting to know him teach me far more than I knew before? For sure.
\n\n\n\n![\"With](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ilana-shape-filter-branded-v2.webp\")
But even if I’d gotten to know 20 Saudi classmates, I’d still have met 20 people who had made it to the same American university. I’d know more about their experiences without knowing how typical those experiences were of Muslim men in Saudi Arabia.
\n\n\n\nThe mistake comes when I turn “this is what my friend is like” into “this is what those people are like.” Limited experience becomes the basis for a claim about millions of strangers.
\n\n\n\nMalcolm X wrote in his autobiography about how his pilgrimage to Mecca challenged his beliefs about race and Islam. He had been a prominent minister in the Nation of Islam. Yet, years as a minister had not prepared him for the diversity of skin colors and interracial fellowship he encountered on the Hajj.
\n\n\n\nKnowing my groups well gives me a convincing reason to trust my judgment. I’m not making things up. I can name names. I can tell stories.
\n\n\n\nThat’s what makes this blind spot so easy to miss. Meeting people unlike me can correct something I was wrong about and give me more confidence in a much larger claim I’ve never tested.
\n\n\n\nI mistake the range of people I know for the range of people there are.
\nBut even when someone makes it into my circle, I can miss what distinguishes their experience from other people’s.
\n\n\n\nIn Persuade, Andres Lares and his coauthors tell a story about Australian courtroom wigs. Jeff Cochran asked Peter Dunning, who served as Queensland’s Solicitor-General, why lawyers wore them. Dunning explained that the wigs helped put everyone on the same level by reducing distinctions of appearance and status. So everyone looks the same, and the arguments can do the work, right?
\n\n\n\n![\"A](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ilana-koala-wigs-branded.webp\")
Nope. Dunning acknowledged that he could tell an expensive wig from a cheap one.
\n\n\n\nIf I walked into that courtroom, I might see a room full of people dressed alike. Someone who worked there could see distinctions I hadn’t learned to recognize. We could be looking at exactly the same people and noticing different things.
\n\n\n\nI can get to know someone whose life differs considerably from mine without understanding how their life differs from other people I would put in the same group. I might notice the religion we don’t share while missing differences in class, upbringing, or religious practice that matter enormously to them.
\n\n\n\nAnd my experience doesn’t come with a list of everything I failed to notice. I can feel increasingly familiar with a group while remaining unaware of distinctions its members navigate every day.
\n\n\n\nThese gaps matter when I start making decisions for people I think I understand.
\n\n\n\nIn a study of wealth perceptions, wealthier American participants assumed that the social circles and economic status of others was closer to their own than they were in reality. Those estimates were associated with seeing the economic status quo as fairer and opposing redistribution because they didn’t see those in difficult financial situations as being in nearly as difficult of a position as they actually were.
\n\n\n\nThe study doesn’t establish that wealth or wealthy friends caused these views. It does give us a reason to question how readily we turn the people around us into an estimate of everyone else.
\n\n\n\nSuppose I’m enthusiastic about a program that reimburses workers for job-training courses once they finish. My friends can see how they’d use it. They can pay tuition, arrange their schedules, and wait for the money to come back.
\n\n\n\nThen someone the program is meant to help points out that they can’t pay the tuition up front. Even if they could, they can’t afford to give up shifts to attend the classes.
\n\n\n\nI can ask what would make the program usable for them. Or I can decide they’re making excuses and don’t really want to improve their situation.
\n\n\n\nThe program may still help plenty of people. But I’ve taken someone’s explanation of why it wouldn’t help them and turned it into evidence that something is wrong with them.
\n\n\n\nI’d need evidence for that judgment. Disagreement alone doesn’t supply it. If agreement shows that I’ve understood the group, while disagreement shows that something has gone wrong with the person, what could anybody say that would change my mind?
\n\n\n\nI have given myself the right to decide whose experiences count when judging a policy meant to help those very same people.
\nThat is a strange place to end up after thinking that I’ve opened my mind by traveling, meeting new people, and educating myself.
\n\n\n\nIn the public preface to her forthcoming book, Presumption of Guilt, Ilana argues that institutions can treat contested interpretations as settled, turning disagreement into evidence of ignorance or moral failure. I can arrive at a version of that on my own, with nothing more sinister than a lot of people I know well and trust.
\n\n\n\nAn unfamiliar view can sound unreasonable simply because I don’t know anyone I respect who holds it. But would someone who held that view have made it into my circle? Would I have stayed in the conversation long enough to find out anything else about them? I may be doing some of the filtering myself.
\n\n\n\nThis is why the answer can’t simply be to collect more acquaintances. Ilana has made that objection herself: bringing another perspective into the room doesn’t necessarily make an unquestioned premise available for discussion. I can invite someone in and still rule out what they have to say.
\n\n\n\nA wider circle can help me discover that my picture is incomplete. It can’t decide every argument for me. Even an excellent survey of what people believe wouldn’t establish what I ought to believe, or which competing value ought to prevail.
\n\n\n\nI can give myself a very good story about why I understand outsiders. I’ve lived overseas twice: briefly in Germany and Sweden, then for a longer stretch in Germany.
\n\n\n\nWhen I lived in Germany, people made fun of my accent. To be fair, my accent in German is terrible. I know I can be difficult to understand. There were times when I asked people on the street for directions and, once I started talking, they walked away rather than dealing with the conversation.
\n\n\n\nIn Sweden, I couldn’t speak the language and couldn’t get a job. There were Iraqi refugees there at the time, and I could recognize some shared difficulties in being an outsider trying to function in a place where you couldn’t communicate easily.
\n\n\n\nI knew something about struggling to function in another language. I didn’t know what it was like to be an Iraqi refugee, or to be Black in America, or to be a woman in many societies, or to face other forms of exclusion I hadn’t experienced.
\n\n\n\nThose experiences did help me notice how much of ordinary competence depends on being able to make yourself understood, and on other people being willing to try. I can use that to become more attentive to someone struggling through a conversation. I can also decide that I already know what they need because I’ve been the outsider too.
\n\n\n\nIn 25 experiments by Tal Eyal, Mary Steffel, and Nicholas Epley, asking people to imagine someone else’s perspective did not consistently help them judge that person’s thoughts or feelings more accurately. Sometimes people became more confident without becoming more accurate. In the final experiment, talking to the person did improve accuracy.
\n\n\n\nImagination still has a use here. Ilana suggests trying to imagine how someone could arrive at a position I find objectionable without being stupid or malicious. If I can see another route to their conclusion, my explanation for why they hold it has some competition.
\n\n\n\nBut an explanation I’ve imagined is still something I came up with. Finding a possible route to someone’s position isn’t the same as finding out how they actually got there.
\n\n\n\nMy experience can help me think of a question I wouldn’t otherwise have asked. It doesn’t let me answer on the other person’s behalf.
\n\n\n\nAnd their answer may disappoint me. They may not share the priorities of my friends. They may interpret a familiar experience differently. They may have a view I continue to think is badly mistaken, for reasons I should be able to explain without claiming to know their character.
\n\n\n\nBut if someone shows up who doesn’t fit my understanding of their group, I can’t make respecting their experience depend on their confirming mine.
\n\n\n\nThat person doesn’t have to become the new rule. But I do have to let them count.
\n\n\n\n![\"Eric](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ilana-square-thumbnail.webp\")
This essay grew out of my conversation with Ilana Redstone on The Unfolding Thought Podcast.
\n\n\n\nA decision can prevent the evidence that would prove it wrong. What would it take for people, companies, and research institutions to let discovery change their own judgment?
\n","content_html":"\nMy contribution to German intellectual history was going to involve vegetables.
\n\n\n\nDuring my first master’s degree, in Germanics, I became interested in the vegetarianism and the back-to-nature thinking of certain German writers and philosophers around the end of the nineteenth century. I wanted to investigate how these interests fit together. After explaining this to a professor though, he gave me a quick and sharp verbal slap:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n“You’re getting a German degree, not a food science degree.”
\n
He may have been right. When I told this story to the psychologist Adam Mastroianni on The Unfolding Thought Podcast, I said I probably would have written a terrible paper. I still have no grounds for promoting it to a lost masterpiece. Please do not organize a conference on my behalf. The catering would be difficult.
\n\n\n\n![\"At](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/germans-and-vegetables-watermarked.webp\")
I wrote about something else.
\n\n\n\nThe paper I wrote could be evaluated. The paper I did not write could not. My professor helped decide which of those outcomes anyone would get to see. We cannot tell whether he spared me a bad paper or stopped me from writing a worthwhile one.
\n\n\n\nA funded project can embarrass the person who funded it. A rejected project often cannot. The rejection can prevent us from collecting the evidence that would show it was a mistake.
\n\n\n\nThe point is this: the rejected project might have been worthwhile. My unwritten essay might have been great. The girl you never asked out might have said yes. We don’t know, because we stopped the process before it could give us an answer.
\n\n\n\nNot getting an answer is different from being right.
\nThat does not make the rejection wrong. We have to choose without knowing everything, and some possibilities deserve more of our time than others. But making a reasonable choice is different from proving that our way of choosing works. If we keep judging it only by the projects it allows us to see, how would we discover its mistakes?
\n\n\n\n\n![\"Cover](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/adam-the-strangest-idea-cover.webp\")
Adam’s publisher describes his forthcoming book, The Strangest Idea in the World, as an exploration of the psychological obstacles to discovery. In our conversation, he described the difficulty of noticing what we do not understand, questioning whether anyone else understands it, and pursuing answers that may initially sound ridiculous.
\n\n\n\nAn organization can make its own judgment much harder to test. The people who decide which work deserves support may also decide whether anyone gets to investigate how well they choose.
\n\n\n\nSuppose an employee proposes funding a few projects her department’s standards would typically reject. The managers that she needs to approve the funding might reject the project using the very assumptions her experiment is meant to test.
\n\n\n\nFor the sake of illustration, imagine a parent that is wrong about something and a child asking them to just consider some details that would show that the parent is in fact wrong. But rather than dealing with the proposed test, the parent simply responds, “I’m the parent. Listen to me.” How could the test here possibly prove anything when the decision making authority relies upon the flawed premise that needs to be tested?
\n\n\n\nBack to work, those managers need not be dishonest. They may sincerely believe the rules protect everyone’s time. But the experiment could show that some of their work is unnecessary or their budget would do more good elsewhere. The people who stand to lose authority are being asked to pay for the evidence.
\n\n\n\nAdam argues that scientific models should be specific enough to build on and overturn. I want to apply that demand to the institution doing the investigating. Who can fund a test of its judgment, and who can act if the evidence goes against it?
\n\n\n\nWe get through most of the day without understanding very much of it.
\n\n\n\nUsing something successfully can give us an exaggerated sense of understanding it. In their research on the illusion of explanatory depth, Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil asked people to rate their understanding of familiar mechanisms, explain them, then rate their understanding again. Trying to explain often exposed how little they understood.
\n\n\n\nIn a talk I give on culture change, I use an example from a 2006 study by psychologist Rebecca Lawson. She gave participants diagrams with the wheels, seat, and handlebars already in place and asked them to add the frame, pedals, and chain. A bicycle is familiar enough that this can sound almost insulting. Two wheels. A seat. Handlebars. How hard could it be?
\n\n\n\nThe drawings below, reproduced in Scott H. Young’s explanation of the illusion, show some of the results. The bicycles are recognizable. Getting anywhere on them would be another matter.
\n\n\n\n![\"Four](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/bicycle-test-lawson-2006.webp\")
The point I make in that talk is that people often assume that because they know something works, they know why it works. But that is rarely the case. They know it works. That’s where their understanding stops.
\n\n\n\nAdam used the toilet as an example in our conversation. Most of us know what to do with one. Explaining its mechanism in enough detail to build it is another matter.
\n\n\n\nYet the toilet works. Why interrupt a successful relationship?
\n\n\n\n![\"Rodin’s](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/thinker-toilet-watermarked.webp\")
I wanted to know what gets us from thinking we have an explanation to recognizing that we need one. A working toilet gives us little reason to investigate. Neither does a hiring process that produces good employees—unless we ask whether the process deserves the credit.
\n\n\n\nAdam has made the selection problem explicit. In “Against All Applications”, he imagines an employer pleased that 75 percent of its hires are good hires. What if 75 percent of the original applicant pool would have been good hires anyway? The hiring process could be expensive and elaborate while contributing nothing. He proposes testing it by hiring randomly and comparing the results with the selections the employer would otherwise have made.
\n\n\n\nExtreme and unrealistic? Yes. But, you get how this would actually show if your hiring process actually improves anything, right?
\n\n\n\nBob Hoffman gave me a useful way to see the difference between actions that actually improve outcomes and actions that just happen to accompany them when he joined me on The Unfolding Thought Podcast.
\n\n\n\nIf you run a pizza shop and want to juice business, you might run a promotion with discount coupons. The coupons being redeemed at a high rate would probably tell you if your promotion was successful, right? So, where would you distribute the coupons in order to get the highest redemption rate? You’d distribute them to people already in line at the pizza shop.
\n\n\n\nThe redemptions are real. What they cannot tell you is how many purchases the coupons caused. You chose people who were already there, so your impressive result never had to answer the question the owner actually cared about: did the promotion bring in business?
\n\n\n\n![\"A](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/pizza-queue-meme-v2.webp\")
Back to hiring, if your hiring process results in 3 out of every 4 hires being successful, how do you know that 3 out of every 4 wouldn’t have been successful if you’d just hired randomly? You don’t unless you test it. But, the people deciding what tests are worth approving disapprove of this test on the grounds that their hiring process is so obviously positive.
\n\n\n\nSupport changes what happens next, and therefore what future evaluators get to see.
\n\n\n\nImagine two teams asked to investigate different approaches to a problem. One receives experienced staff, repeated attempts, and a patient sponsor. The other receives a junior employee on Fridays. Eventually the first approach works better. That difference is real. What does it prove about the original choice?
\n\n\n\n![\"Two](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/resource-bias-watermarked-1024x683.webp\")
If the organization forgets what it supplied to each team, the difference can look like a discovery about the approaches themselves. The annual report records which one worked. The junior employee’s Fridays disappear from the explanation.
\n\n\n\nFunding decisions can also change who gets another chance. In a Dutch study discussed in Adam’s essay on grants, Thijs Bol, Mathijs de Vaan, and Arnout van de Rijt compared applicants just above and below an early-career funding threshold. Over eight years, near-winners received more than twice as much subsequent grant money. Their publication and citation records showed no corresponding jump. And, winning made them more likely to apply for the next funding opportunity.
\n\n\n\nA replication across fourteen programs and six funders also found an advantage of earlier funding for later funding. Much of it reflected who reapplied. Its results also challenged the comforting interpretation that rejection makes the surviving researchers stronger.
\n\n\n\nThis is a particularly nasty twist. An institution can help people advance, then congratulate itself for having identified their promise. It can also discourage people, observe the exceptional ones who return, and congratulate itself for having strengthened their character.
\n\n\n\nEverybody gets a moral. Some people do not get a career.
\n\n\n\nIn our conversation, Adam described one of his studies on when people want conversations to end. The research asked participants afterward about their experience. I wanted to know whether those answers reflected what they had felt in the moment or the story they assembled later.
\n\n\n\nHe had worried about this too. At one point, he ordered foot-operated buttons so participants could privately signal to the researchers the moment they wanted out of the conversation.
\n\n\n\nLo and behold, the buttons clicked. Loudly.
\n\n\n\nThis is an unfortunate feature in a device whose purpose is to silently communicate “I would like to stop talking to this person” without communicating it to that person.
\n\n\n\n![\"Two-panel](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/foot-button-meme-continuity-final.webp\")
Big surprise, they did not end up using the buttons. Adam explained that they instead focused on the account people took away afterward, which mattered for how they would approach later conversations. That is a question worth studying. It just does not tell us exactly what someone wanted at each moment of the exchange.
\n\n\n\nAdam could explain why he chose that question. Now consider what happens when researchers have a reason to ask a different one, but their organization will only pay for the original.
\n\n\n\nImagine a team testing instructions for assembling an object. It randomly assigns people to hear Script A or Script B and counts the steps they complete correctly. To keep the comparison controlled, listeners cannot ask questions.
\n\n\n\nNow suppose a participant breaks the rule and asks, “When you say left, whose left?” The instructor answers, and the task proceeds easily.
\n\n\n\nThe extra help means this result cannot show that one script was superior. But it suggests another question: would people do better if the instructions allowed for clarification?
\n\n\n\nSuppose the team works for a department whose job is to produce scripts. Its director will fund another script comparison, but considers questions a sign that the instructions need more work. He may be quite sincere. Writing better instructions is his job.
\n\n\n\nThe team records the interruption correctly and returns to testing scripts. The organization can keep learning which script works best without testing the rule that makes everyone listen without asking questions.
\n\n\n\nChris Argyris called learning that questions an organization’s underlying rules and objectives double-loop learning. Here, the people best placed to notice the limitation have no power to investigate it, and the person with the power sees it as somebody else’s responsibility.
\n\n\n\nThis was what Adam noticed in my Germanics story. The organization of a university is not a description of how reality has divided itself. Departments develop expertise, but their boundaries do not accurately describe the real world.
\n\n\n\nBeing more open-minded about what kinds of experiments you approve sounds like a solution until we ask who pays for being wrong.
\n\n\n\nIn Adam’s strong-link argument, a few exceptional discoveries can outweigh many unproductive attempts. But what an institution can afford across its portfolio may be disastrous for a person’s reputation that is tied to the attempt.
\n\n\n\nA company can fund ten uncertain projects and be delighted when one succeeds. Nine people can still learn that they should have chosen something easier to defend if they are not adequately protected from a test failure. Or the scientist who discovers the flaw in a prestigious program can do work of enormous value while becoming the person nobody wants on the next program.
\n\n\n\nThe organization can afford for an idea to die. The person attached to it may not be able to afford to deliver the news.
\n\n\n\nCelebrating failure alone will not fix these issues for the individual driving an attempt at discovery.
\n\n\n\n![\"Imagined](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/edison-failure-meme-final.webp\")
The sponsor has obligations too. If you authorized an investigation under acknowledged uncertainty, you cannot fairly behave afterward as though you commissioned certainty and received a defective shipment.
\n\n\n\nOh my goodness, could I tell you stories and stories and stories about being told to run an experiment, only to have it dismissed as a complete waste of time when the results came in. Few things in my career have infuriated me more than the intellectual dishonesty of approving a test and then calling it pointless because the new version didn’t beat the control…or because the test beat the control, which, you know, we totally should have predicted and therefore it shouldn’t have been an experiment at all.
\n\n\n\nYou can ask whether the work was competent, whether its conclusions follow, and whether another attempt would be worth making. You should. You also have to retain your own name in the history of why the question was worth asking.
\n\n\n\nThe person paying for discovery is buying the possibility of an answer they would not have chosen.
\n\n\n\nIf every acceptable answer must leave the sponsor’s judgment, budget, and self-description intact, what exactly are we being paid to investigate?
\nThere is a wonderfully convenient abuse of everything I have just argued: whenever your work disappoints, announce that the organization is using the wrong definition of success.
\n\n\n\nThis is why the ability to change a question has to coexist with a durable record of the question you actually asked. New understanding does not authorize editing the past.
\n\n\n\nIf the original hypothesis failed, it failed. If the experiment was inconclusive, it was inconclusive. If you did not carry out the experiment competently, the fact that the experience inspired another idea does not erase that failure. A better question may be a valuable result of the work, but its value requires an argument of its own.
\n\n\n\nThe interruption in the assembly experiment is a reason to test clarification, not evidence that one script won. A new question earns its place through a specific observation and an account of what we could learn next.
\n\n\n\nUnconventionality offers no exemption from this problem. A charismatic founder can dismiss criticism more efficiently than a committee. A private patron can favor familiar people while describing the preference as taste. An independent lab can become a place where everyone is free to disagree with the founder in ways the founder finds exciting.
\n\n\n\nAdam’s Science House prototype deserves attention because trying a different arrangement can teach us something that defending the familiar one cannot. The alternative must remain open to the same scrutiny. Being smaller, stranger, or outside an institution is a reason to investigate what it enables, not proof that it works.
\n\n\n\nA good process does not abolish judgment. It gives judgment somewhere to encounter its limitations.
\n\n\n\nI asked Adam about constraints. You cannot support everything. You have to choose. My suggestion is to start with a rule that makes consequential decisions repeatedly, rests on uncertain evidence, and could be tested at a manageable cost. The organization need not reopen every rejection to investigate whether one of its rules deserves the authority it has.
\n\n\n\nThere is a limit to what another procedure can do. In “Shame them, shun them, ban them, beat them!”, Adam argues that rules cannot make people care about finding the truth. People can ignore evidence as readily as a requirement to consider it. Another committee may just be another committee to disappoint.
\n\n\n\nBut caring is not enough if the evidence never gets produced. A script director willing to change his mind may never encounter a reason to do so if every study must begin by accepting his rule against questions.
\n\n\n\nSuppose the head of training can fund a small follow-up without that director’s approval. The researchers randomly assign people to receive the same instructions, with one difference: some can ask for clarification. They record errors and the total time involved, including time spent answering questions. Fixed instructions might work better. Or questions might prevent enough mistakes to justify the extra time. The result could also be inconclusive.
\n\n\n\nBefore the test begins, the head of training agrees to review the rule when the results arrive. She has authority to change it and a budget to try the change in practice. If the evidence favors allowing questions, the script director can dispute it, but his objection does not automatically end the discussion. His department could keep writing instructions while losing its veto over clarification.
\n\n\n\nNow the experiment can change a decision. If an outside institution funds the study and uses the findings while the original one refuses, that may be valuable too. But we should credit the institution that changed, rather than congratulate the other for having tolerated dissent. Making room for alternatives and learning from them are separate accomplishments.
\n\n\n\nThis will still require people willing to reconsider. The head of training can be wrong too. The arrangement gives evidence a route to a consequential decision; it cannot guarantee the decision will be wise. And some commitments are values rather than empirical claims. A university can value a particular education without claiming it maximizes earnings. But if a process claims to select better people or make better work possible, that claim should be open to testing.
\n\n\n\nOtherwise, every applicant must demonstrate merit while the method used to judge merit need only demonstrate longevity.
\nCorrection need not mean permanent upheaval. If the test favors clarification, the script department can keep writing instructions while giving up its rule against questions. Its expertise remains useful even when one of its decisions needs to change.
\n\n\n\nAn institution that helps discover a better way to do its work has contributed something even if the better way makes part of the institution unnecessary. Recognizing that contribution is more demanding than praising innovation. It asks people with authority to support a future in which their present authority may matter less.
\n\n\n\nMy professor may have understood a limitation in my preparation that I had not yet learned to recognize. Casting him as the villain would give me a flattering part while dodging the uncertainty that makes the story interesting.
\n\n\n\nWhat I would want to preserve is the distinction between this is not the right project for you now and there is nothing here. The first can be excellent guidance. The second is a claim about the world that requires more evidence than a departmental boundary provides.
\n\n\n\nI might have written a terrible paper about Germans and vegetables.
\n\n\n\nThe unwritten paper cannot testify for either of us.
\n\n\n\n![\"Adam](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/adam-mastroianni-episode-thumbnail.webp\")
This essay grew out of my conversation with Adam Mastroianni for The Unfolding Thought Podcast. You can read Adam’s work at Experimental History.
\n\n\n\nGeoffrey Moore built one of business’s most durable frameworks by correcting a model that did not fit the evidence. What happens when leaders stop treating frameworks as aids to thought and begin treating them as reality?
\n","content_html":"\nGeoffrey Moore built one of business’s most durable ideas by noticing what a familiar chart left out.
\n\n\n\nThe Technology Adoption Life Cycle drew its categories from Everett Rogers’s research on the diffusion of innovations. Innovators tried a new technology first. Early adopters followed them, then the early majority, late majority, and laggards. High-tech marketers turned those categories into a smooth market-development story: win over one group, use it as a reference for the next, and keep moving from left to right.
\n\n\n\nMoore says that story was abstracted largely from flagship successes. He and other Silicon Valley operators had also lived through ventures that disappeared or left their shares worthless. Those failures did not look like a smooth market-development story. When Moore recast the curve, he drew gaps between the groups and made one much larger than the others.
\n\n\n\nThat gap became the chasm.
\n\n\n\n![\"Two](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/technology-adoption-life-cycle-watermarked.webp\")
\n![\"Cover](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/crossing-the-chasm-3rd-edition-cover.webp\")
\nThe familiar framework in Crossing the Chasm did not begin with Moore defending a model. It began with him deciding that an accepted model had become too elegant to describe what companies were actually experiencing.
\n\n\n\nAfter my conversation with Geoffrey Moore for The Unfolding Thought Podcast, I kept returning to the same thing: he built the chasm by distrusting a framework that looked more orderly than the world it was supposed to explain. We talked about chasms, tornados, and staircases. But the larger question is what happens when people stop treating those images as aids to thought and begin treating them as reality.
\n\n\n\nThe chasm exists as an idea because Geoffrey Moore was willing to break a framework that no longer fit the evidence.
\nMoore calls these root metaphors, borrowing and broadening an idea from Stephen C. Pepper’s World Hypotheses. Pepper used root metaphors to describe the organizing images beneath entire systems of thought. Moore applies the idea more practically to frameworks such as the chasm, the tornado, and the staircase. The point is not literary. A metaphor gives people a shared picture of a complicated situation, directs attention, and helps them act before they have an ironclad case. It makes some relationships obvious, some actions sensible, and other possibilities harder to see.
\n\n\n\nThis is the old distinction between the map and the territory. The map is useful precisely because it leaves most of the territory out. It gives us something small enough to carry, share, and use. But the thing that makes it useful is also what makes it dangerous. If we forget what was left out, we start treating lines someone drew on a map as if they were features of the landscape itself.
\n\n\n\n![\"Comparison](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/map-is-not-the-territory.webp\")
\nNot every framework puts its metaphor in the title, but every framework simplifies. I am using framework broadly here. A metaphor, a model, and a dominant logic are not the same thing. What they share is that each selects which relationships matter, which facts deserve attention, and which actions seem reasonable.
\n\n\n\nEventually, people stop saying, “This situation resembles a chasm.” They say, “We are in the chasm.” The comparison has become geography.
\n\n\n\nThat is when a framework can become the problem, especially after its assumptions have been built into the budgets, metrics, roles, and routines through which the organization operates.
\n\n\n\nManagement frameworks are reductive. That is their purpose.
\n\n\n\nNo leader can absorb every relevant fact, understand every relationship, anticipate every response, and calculate every possible result before making a decision. Herbert Simon’s work on bounded rationality begins with this constraint. Karl Weick, Kathleen Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld describe sensemaking as turning unclear circumstances into a situation we can understand in words and use as a springboard into action. We simplify because we have to. A good framework makes the simplification usable.
\n\n\n\nIn an author’s note in Crossing the Chasm, Moore writes that experienced technology executives often told him the book had not really taught them anything they did not already know. It had gathered their “scattered intuitions and rueful learnings” into a coherent framework. They passed the book to colleagues partly to spread the vocabulary. Some companies made it required reading simply so everyone could discuss the market from a shared starting point.
\n\n\n\nThat is an enormous organizational advantage. Before the framework, six people may be carrying six partial understandings that take an hour to explain and still do not quite connect. After the framework, one person can say “the chasm,” and the group can retrieve an entire pattern of customers, risks, and strategic choices. The word compresses experience.
\n\n\n\nMoore called this “metaphor-market fit” in our conversation. The metaphor feels intuitive enough that people can use it without stopping to reconstruct the argument every time.
\n\n\n\nThis becomes especially valuable when a company faces something new. In Crossing the Chasm, Moore describes the choice of a first mainstream market as a “high-risk, low-data” decision. The company must make a consequential commitment with little useful hard information and no direct experience from which to predict what will happen.
\n\n\n\nWaiting for certainty can paralyze a company. Pretending certainty exists gives it false confidence. A framework gives people a provisional way to act, investigate their assumptions, and revise the description as reality supplies information.
\n\n\n\nThe evidence is incomplete, the capabilities are changing, and businesses still have to make decisions. So leaders reach for a comparison.
\n\n\n\nCalling AI a tool leads toward training people to use it. Calling it a coworker leads toward questions about roles, supervision, and responsibility. Calling it an employee leads quickly toward headcount and replacement. Calling it infrastructure suggests that the company itself needs to be redesigned around it.
\n\n\n\n![\"Four](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ai-metaphor-changes-decisions.webp\")
\nAll four comparisons can be useful. The problem begins when a company chooses one, builds the budget and operating plan around it, and then treats evidence that does not fit as resistance or confusion rather than a reason to revisit the original description.
\n\n\n\nWe need the map. We also need to remember that we drew it.
\n\n\n\nMoore told me that strategy first describes a situation and then prescribes what to do. If the description is wrong, a coherent and competently executed strategy can make the wrong prescription look rational.
\n\n\n\nI think this happens more often than leaders admit. Teams can spend hours debating tactics without noticing that the metaphor supplied a questionable account of the problem before the meeting even began.
\n\n\n\nConsider the language of Crossing the Chasm. A chasm is dangerous terrain. You have to get across it. Moore adds a D-Day metaphor, a beachhead, concentrated force, invasion, and adjacent territory. Once that description is accepted, many of the prescriptions begin to feel self-evident. Pick one narrow market. Concentrate resources. Establish a defensible position. Expand from there.
\n\n\n\nChange the metaphor, and different actions begin to look reasonable.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOne metaphor is not always better than another. Each draws attention to a different part of the situation and leaves another part harder to see. The cognitive scientist Dedre Gentner’s structure-mapping theory helps explain why. An analogy transfers relationships from something familiar into something less familiar. The metaphor brings a pattern of inference with it. Once the market is a chasm, the logic of crossing comes too.
\n\n\n\nThe metaphor does not stay inside one person’s head. William Ocasio’s attention-based view of the firm argues that what decision-makers do depends on which issues and possible answers receive their attention. The company directs that attention through its rules, resources, relationships, and procedures.
\n\n\n\nOnce a framework is built into planning templates, budgets, and meeting agendas, it has become part of the organization’s attention system. It helps determine which facts are easy to see, which questions sound intelligent, and which possibilities never make it into the room.
\n\n\n\nA framework has no agency of its own. The danger comes when people encode its assumptions in budgets, metrics, roles, and decision routines. At that point, challenging the framework also means challenging the organization built around it.
\n\n\n\nI see this in marketing. We draw a funnel to describe one possible path toward a purchase, then build the reporting system around it. Before long, behavior the funnel cannot explain gets treated as a tracking problem, rather than evidence that customers were not actually moving through the world in the shape of our diagram. By then, questioning the framework also means questioning the system built around it.
\n\n\n\nTHE FRAMEWORK SERVES REALITY
\n\n\n\nContradictory evidence causes the description to change.
\nREALITY SERVES THE FRAMEWORK
\n\n\n\nContradictory evidence is filtered, renamed, or dismissed.
\nA framework becomes a problem when it starts protecting itself from the world it was built to explain.
\nMoore said something during our conversation that I think matters more than it gets credit for:
\n\n\n\nAll metaphors have an efficient frontier.
\nWithin some boundary, a metaphor clarifies more than it distorts. Its efficient frontier is the point at which that balance reverses. Past it, the same metaphor begins creating more confusion than insight.
\n\n\n\nMoore is unusually direct about the limits of his best-known model. Chasm crossing is a particular transition in the adoption life cycle, not a permanent operating method. Microsoft did not follow his niche strategy, and its inherited market position made it a terrible precedent for the ordinary challenger. The book is also explicit that crossing the chasm is a B2B model.
\n\n\n\nDigital consumer services often spread differently. Rather than forcing them into the chasm model, the book adds a separate Four Gears framework for acquisition, engagement, monetization, and enlistment. Moore marked the boundary and built another tool instead of asking a famous model to explain a market it could not.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations have good reasons to ignore those boundaries. A successful framework gives them vocabulary and confidence. People know it, leaders know how to present it, and teams know how to operate within it. The more familiar the model becomes, the harder it is to revisit when conditions change.
\n\n\n\nA framework can fail in at least two ways. It can be stretched beyond the conditions it was built to explain. It can also be used to answer a question that exists at a different level.
\n\n\n\n\n![\"Cover](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/the-infinite-staircase-cover-1.webp\")
\nMoore develops the second problem through the staircase metaphor in The Infinite Staircase. Physics, chemistry, and biology occupy the lower stairs. Desire, consciousness, values, and culture emerge above them. Language, narrative, analytics, and theory appear higher still.
\n\n\n\nThe precise number of stairs is not Moore’s point. He told me he could have chosen ten or twelve rather than eleven. Higher does not mean better or more important. It means that each level depends on the levels below without being reducible to them. An explanation that works on one stair does not automatically explain another.
\n\n\n\nBusinesses make this mistake when they use language and theory to manufacture something that exists through shared experience. A company writes a values statement and assumes it has created values. It publishes a culture deck and assumes it has created a culture. It teaches a leadership framework and assumes it has created judgment.
\n\n\n\nLanguage alone can name, examine, and reinforce what people experience together. Employees learn what an organization values from what leaders notice, reward, tolerate, and do when the stated values become expensive. A statement can remain perfectly coherent while the culture teaches the opposite lesson every day.
\n\n\n\nA workshop on collaboration will not overcome a compensation system that rewards individual wins. Saying people come first will not rebuild trust after employees watch leaders treat them as expendable. Those are not communication problems. They are evidence that the framework and the lived reality do not match.
\n\n\n\nThe most common story about failed innovation is that leaders could not see the new technology coming. Polaroid is a more interesting case because it could see digital imaging very clearly.
\n\n\n\nMary Tripsas and Giovanni Gavetti’s historical study of Polaroid’s response to digital photography drew on company archives and interviews. Polaroid invested in digital technology early. By 1989, it had leading work in image sensors and lossless compression. It had a functioning high-resolution digital camera prototype by 1992.
\n\n\n\nPolaroid had leading-edge digital-imaging research capability. It failed to develop several of the manufacturing, product-development, marketing, and distribution capabilities needed to turn that research into the right business.
\n\n\n\nPolaroid’s success had been built on the economics of instant photography. The company could sell cameras relatively cheaply and earn recurring revenue from film. Its leaders understood imaging through that relationship between hardware and consumables. A standalone digital camera that did not create continuing film sales looked unattractive inside the model that had made Polaroid successful.
\n\n\n\n![\"Comparison](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/polaroid-story-flattened-vs-documented.webp\")
\nManagement kept interpreting digital products through analog economics. It favored products that preserved a printing or consumables component while the company underinvested in low-cost electronics manufacturing, rapid product development, and new distribution channels. Despite having a working prototype in 1992, Polaroid did not announce its PDC-2000 megapixel camera until 1996, by which point more than 40 other firms were already selling digital cameras.
\n\n\n\nThat created a reinforcing loop. The old business model directed investment away from the capabilities a standalone digital business required. The absence of those capabilities then made the new business look even less viable from inside Polaroid. The framework shaped the company’s capabilities, and the missing capabilities appeared to confirm the framework.
\n\n\n\nC.K. Prahalad and Richard Bettis called this kind of governing worldview a dominant logic. Experience in a successful core business creates mental maps for allocating resources. Over time, the company’s planning, compensation, staffing, and structure can reinforce them. Decades of success had given Polaroid’s framework evidence, believers, vocabulary, and an organization designed to make it true again.
\n\n\n\nThe most dangerous framework may be the one that once explained the business brilliantly.
\n\n\n\nEven the Kodak story we use to warn against old frameworks has been flattened into one. Kodak did not simply invent digital photography and ignore it. Natalya Vinokurova and Rahul Kapoor’s archival study of Kodak’s attempts at strategic renewal documents decades of investment in digital imaging and other attempts at renewal. Kodak led the United States digital-camera market in 2004 and 2005.
\n\n\n\n\n\nIt still failed, but the management problem was more complicated than blindness. Kodak had to find a viable path from an extraordinarily profitable legacy business into a market with uncertain timing and worse economics.
\n\n\n\n\n\n“Do not be Kodak” teaches leaders to look for denial. It may leave them unprepared for the harder case: a company can see the disruption, invest heavily, and still fail to find a new business capable of sustaining the enterprise. Seeing the transition did not guarantee that a business with film-like economics existed on the other side.
\n\n\n\nMoore described three ways of testing a framework and said we should use all three at some point in the process.
\n\n\n\nTEST 01
\n\n\n\nWhat does the evidence actually show? Which observations support the framework? Which do not? Are we taking failed ventures as seriously as flagship successes, the way Moore did when he redrew the adoption curve?
\n\n\n\nThe question sounds obvious. It becomes difficult once the framework determines which data the organization collects and what people are willing to recognize as evidence.
\nTEST 02
\n\n\n\nAn explanation should fit with the broader body of credible knowledge around it. A sales model that works only if we ignore how customers buy, a culture model that contradicts what incentives reward, or an AI strategy that assumes capabilities the technology does not possess has a coherence problem even before the results arrive.
\n\n\n\nCoherence is not proof. A completely wrong worldview can be internally consistent. It is one test.
\nTEST 03
\n\n\n\nThe framework should improve our ability to act. Does it help people make better decisions? Does it predict anything useful? Are the results durable, or do they look good only inside the measurement system the framework created?
\nThe three tests still leave one question unanswered. A framework can correspond with the facts, cohere with what else we know, and produce results while serving a bad purpose. Moore kept returning to another question near the end of our conversation:
\n\n\n\nWhat is it most important for you to be in service to?
\nAccuracy and usefulness do not tell us whether a framework’s purpose is worth serving. A model can work for one department while moving costs onto everyone else, or produce growth while damaging customers or employees. Leaders still have to ask who benefits, who pays, and whether the framework is making consequences disappear because they fall outside the map.
\n\n\n\nThose questions are useful only if an organization can tolerate their answers. A framework has to remain answerable to the world and to the purpose it is supposed to serve, even when the evidence threatens a plan, an executive’s judgment, or expertise built around the model.
\n\n\n\nStart by stating what the framework leads us to expect and what evidence would show that expectation is wrong. Then give someone both permission and protection to bring that evidence into the room.
\n\n\n\nThe statistician George Box warned that a person “must not be like Pygmalion and fall in love with his model.”
\n\n\n\nThe discrepancy between the model and the world is where learning begins.
\nThat is why intellectual humility becomes an operating requirement. It cannot remain a private virtue or a vague reminder to keep an open mind. The organization needs ways to surface evidence that does not fit and revise plans before defending the framework becomes more important than understanding what is happening. Otherwise, the people with the most authority can explain away each discrepancy until reality makes the correction for them.
\n\n\n\nThat is how the chasm entered Moore’s original map. The smooth adoption curve could not explain why promising ventures kept failing between early enthusiasts and mainstream customers. Moore did not dismiss those failures as noise or somebody else’s poor execution. He treated them as evidence that the accepted model could not see something important.
\n\n\n\nAI will keep changing faster than any one of our current metaphors. When its behavior no longer fits the category a company chose, leaders should treat that mismatch as information, not as a reason to defend the budget, organization, or strategy built around the old description.
\n\n\n\nWe need the map, and we need the metaphor. But when the world stops matching either one, our job is not to explain away what does not fit, blame somebody else’s execution, or hide consequences that fall outside the frame. Reality may not be refusing to cooperate. The framework may no longer be serving us. The discipline is to remain more committed to the world than to the idea that once helped us see it.
\n\n\n\n![\"Geoffrey](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/geoffrey-moore-episode-thumbnail.webp\")
Deep work is performed by individuals, but organizations decide whether it is socially permitted. Shawn Vanderhoven’s research shows why distraction is a leadership problem, and why AI can either protect the time we need to think or consume it.
\n","content_html":"\nYears ago, I tried working the way all the productivity books told me to work.
\n\n\n\nI configured Outlook to check my email only twice a day. I opened Slack only a few times. Everyone I worked with knew that if something was genuinely urgent, they could call or text me.
\n\n\n\nAlmost no one did.
\n\n\n\nThe system worked. I could concentrate. I was able to stay with difficult work for longer than a few minutes at a time.
\n\n\n\nMy boss told me explicitly that I seemed aloof.
\n\n\n\nAnd I was punished for it.
\n\n\n\nI was ostracized. People spoke badly about me when I was not around. I was put on a performance improvement plan despite delivering exceptional results. I was responsible for more revenue and more revenue growth than either of the other two people with my job title, yet I was paid 25 percent less.
\n\n\n\nThe organization benefited from the results while penalizing the way of working that helped produce them. The habits that made me more productive also made me less integrated into the team. I eventually hated working there. I spent two and a half years trying to make it work. The day they put me on the PIP, I quit. That was one step too far.
\n\n\n\nAt the time, I thought I had solved the problem: control the notifications and protect the calendar. I had solved the mechanical part. I had not accounted for what my availability meant to everyone else.
\n\n\n\nThat is why so many people can follow all the productivity advice and still be unable to do meaningful work. Focus is governed by the people around us.
\n\n\n\nYou can block your calendar and turn off every notification. If the people around you treat unavailability as a problem, you still do not have permission to focus.\n\n\n\n
We usually treat concentration as a matter of personal discipline. Turn off notifications. Block your calendar. Put your phone in another room. Learn to say no. Wake up earlier. Find the right application, routine, or method.
\n\n\n\nThose practices can help. They do not change what happens when your manager changes your priorities, a colleague treats every message as urgent, a client expects an immediate answer, or your team interprets delayed responsiveness as a lack of commitment.
\n\n\n\nWe experience distraction individually, so we assume we should fix it individually.\n\n\n\n
In most workplaces, though, the people around us help create distraction and enforce the expectations that keep it going.
\n\n\n\nShawn Vanderhoven came to a similar conclusion through a three-year study of leaders and teams. In my conversation with him for The Unfolding Thought Podcast, he explained that he and his collaborators began by asking a straightforward question: what prevents people from doing their best work?
\n\n\n\nA consistent answer was that people could not get deep. They were asked to switch tasks continually. Priorities kept changing. The people around them, often without intending to, made sustained attention nearly impossible.
\n\n\n\nVanderhoven and his team then studied leaders from 150 companies who appeared to create the opposite conditions. In Pause: How to Lead Brilliant Work in a Busy World, he reports that teams led by people who deliberately pause spend three times as much time on their largest projects.
\n\n\n\n![\"Pause:](\"https://cdn2.penguin.com.au/covers/original/9781911709664.jpg\")
The important word is led.
\n\n\n\nVanderhoven is not saying that individuals have no responsibility for their attention. In our conversation, he acknowledged that unusually disciplined people can create a substantial amount of focus even in distracting environments. The problem is that they often pay for it socially. They are described as detached, unresponsive, inflexible, or difficult.
\n\n\n\nThat describes what happened to me. My system protected my concentration, but it did nothing to protect my standing with the group.
\n\n\n\nWork depends on other people. We need information, decisions, cooperation, and trust. We also want our managers and colleagues to see that we are contributing. Once a group treats immediate availability as evidence of cooperation, focus starts to look like withdrawal. That becomes especially problematic in a remote environment, where managers cannot see you sitting at your desk, attending meetings, having conversations, or look over your shoulder to see what you are working on. They might read your apparent disconnection as you being out mowing the lawn or getting groceries while they are paying you to work.
\n\n\n\nThe problem is not imaginary. Sophie Leroy’s research on attention residue found that when people switch away from unfinished work, part of their attention remains with the original task. They might have moved to the next meeting or message physically, but not cognitively. Research on collaboration overload has also shown how structures intended to increase cooperation can slow decisions, overwork employees, and place especially heavy demands on high performers.
\n\n\n\nMicrosoft’s 2025 examination of workplace activity describes what this looks like at scale. Its telemetry showed a workday crowded with email, messages, meetings, and app switching. In the accompanying survey of 31,000 knowledge workers across 31 markets, 48 percent of employees and 52 percent of leaders said their work felt chaotic and fragmented. The widely repeated figure of 275 daily interruptions applies to the most heavily pinged 20 percent of users, so it should not be mistaken for the experience of every employee. Even with that qualification, the larger pattern is hard to miss: many companies have made near-continuous access to coworkers feel normal. Microsoft calls it the infinite workday.
\n\n\n\nIf distraction were primarily an individual failure, personal productivity advice would be enough. We could teach people to manage their notifications and calendars, then hold them accountable for concentrating.
\n\n\n\nBut a notification is only the final delivery mechanism. Someone decided to send the message. Someone created the expectation that it should receive a quick response. Someone scheduled the meeting, added another priority, or delegated a task without discussing what it would replace.
\n\n\n\nVanderhoven calls the trail of distraction a leader leaves behind a digital wake. A manager might be highly focused on an important outcome while remaining unaware that each new request is fragmenting the attention of several other people. The manager experiences momentum. The team experiences interruption.
\n\n\n\nThis can happen even when every request is reasonable. In fact, that might be the harder problem we have to solve.
\n\n\n\nStephen Covey’s familiar illustration of priorities used a jar, large rocks, and pebbles. Put the large rocks in first, then allow the pebbles to fill the remaining space. Vanderhoven argues that the modern workplace has outgrown the illustration. The problem is no longer too many pebbles. We have more large rocks than the jar can hold.
\n\n\n\nMost of the opportunities in front of us might be genuinely worthwhile. The proposed campaign could work. The product improvement could matter. The client request is legitimate. The new AI initiative might eventually be essential. We still cannot do all of them well at the same time.
\n\n\n\nOnce the jar contains more large rocks than it can hold, calling all of them priorities stops being useful. Someone has to decide what will not get done.\n\n\n\n
That decision belongs to leadership because employees cannot resolve conflicting organizational commitments on their own. If a manager announces three priorities while leaving ten existing obligations untouched, the team does not have three priorities. It has thirteen pieces of work and an additional burden: deciding which promises it is safe to break.
\n\n\n\nOne of the practices Vanderhoven describes is exposing this hidden workload. After leaders identify the work that supposedly matters most, they ask people to put everything else they are still expected to do on the table. Only then can the group decide what to stop, shrink, postpone, or reassign.
\n\n\n\nUntil the hidden work is visible, a new priority is simply another demand. Putting everything on the table reveals what the organization is actually committed to doing.
\n\n\n\nIf distraction is social, it can be tempting to solve it by reducing the number of people, conversations, and interruptions around us. I understand the impulse. It is essentially what I tried years ago. The problem is that too much isolation carries its own cost.
\n\n\n\nIn my earlier episode of The Unfolding Thought Podcast with Neel Doshi, he told me about an engineer who realized he had not spoken with anyone at work in four days. That might sound like an extraordinary opportunity for deep work. It could also produce loneliness, detachment, and the sense that the work is no longer connected to anything larger than the task itself.
\n\n\n\nShawn made a useful distinction in our conversation: struggle can come from too much connection or too little. A person in meetings all day might be unable to think. A person working almost entirely alone might spend just as much cognitive energy wondering whether anyone sees the work, whether it matters, and whether they still belong.
\n\n\n\nA randomized experiment by Ethan Bernstein, Jesse Shore, and David Lazer helps explain why neither extreme works. The researchers compared groups with constant interaction, no interaction, and intermittent interaction. Constant interaction raised the average quality of solutions but made it less likely that a group would discover the best one. Isolation encouraged exploration but produced less consistent performance. Groups that interacted intermittently got the benefits of both. They could learn from one another without losing the independent exploration that led to better solutions.
\n\n\n\nWhat I take from that study is that good work needs a rhythm. We need time when nobody else can get at the problem through us, and we need regular points at which other people can challenge what we are seeing. Either extreme makes failure more likely.
\n\n\n\nA workable social contract defines when access is actually necessary and when concentration will be protected. It does not require everyone to disappear.
\n\n\n\nImagine two similar companies adopting the same AI tools. One uses them to remove administrative work and return time to research, judgment, and thought. The other turns every saved hour into more assignments and expects every employee to cover more ground. Both can report a productivity gain, but they are building very different kinds of companies.
\n\n\n\nShawn described this. AI makes it possible for him to take on work outside his normal expertise. The output might look good enough, particularly when he does not know the field well enough to recognize what is missing. When AI works in an area he understands deeply, however, he can see the distance between a plausible draft and excellent work.
\n\n\n\nAI can produce an answer. The harder question is whether the user knows enough to judge what it produced, another thing Neel Doshi and I touched on in our podcast discussion.
\n\n\n\nThe research so far gives us good reason to take that problem seriously. A field experiment involving 758 Boston Consulting Group consultants found substantial improvements in speed and quality for tasks within the capabilities of the AI system used in the study. For a task outside that capability frontier, however, consultants using AI performed worse. The researchers call this the jagged technological frontier: two tasks that appear similarly difficult to a person might fall on opposite sides of what AI can do reliably.
\n\n\n\nThis does not mean the productivity gains are imaginary. In a study of 5,179 customer-support agents, access to a generative AI assistant increased issues resolved per hour by about 14 percent on average. The largest improvements went to less experienced and lower-performing workers, while the most experienced workers saw little benefit. The results suggest that AI can spread effective practices, but they also show why it is misleading to speak of a single universal productivity effect.
\n\n\n\nA 2025 study of 319 knowledge workers adds another caution. Higher confidence in generative AI was associated with less self-reported critical-thinking effort, while greater confidence in one’s own ability was associated with more. This was a survey, not a causal experiment, so it does not prove that AI weakens thought. It does suggest that the way people understand their own responsibility changes when a confident machine enters the workflow.
\n\n\n\nLeaders can easily misread all of this. If AI reduces the time needed to produce an artifact, they might conclude that people need less time for the work. But production is only one part of knowledge work. Someone still has to choose the problem, define what good looks like, examine the result, notice what is absent, understand the consequences, and take responsibility for the decision.
\n\n\n\nBetter tools can increase the need for thought because they give us many more possibilities to evaluate. A cheap draft is useful only if someone still knows how to decide whether it is good.
\n\n\n\nWhen AI saves five hours, the important management decision comes next: will those hours improve the work, or will they simply be filled with more work?\n\n\n\n
Suppose an AI tool saves an employee five hours each week.
\n\n\n\nWhat happens next?
\n\n\n\nDoes the employee spend some of that time investigating a harder question, improving the work, learning something new, or talking with the people affected by it? Or does the organization immediately add five hours of additional assignments?
\n\n\n\nI think most companies will not answer explicitly. The calendar will answer for them. Once people can produce drafts and analyses faster, managers will ask for more of them. A person who can monitor three agents will be asked to monitor ten. The saved time disappears because there is always another worthwhile thing the company could do. It gets replaced by more volume, not more quality.
\n\n\n\nYou can see the sensitivity to that tradeoff in the reaction to apparent “AI slop.” Someone comments on a social media post and gets told it must have been written by AI, even when it was not. This has happened to me. The person is reacting to the feeling that you are pushing quantity ahead of quality.
\n\n\n\nThis is how AI could accelerate a company into having almost no deep work at all. It will not need to distract people in the familiar way. It can remove individual tasks while increasing the number of active projects, decisions, reviews, and conversations competing for attention.
\n\n\n\nMicrosoft’s infinite-workday report makes the same danger unusually explicit: AI might offer a way out, but without a redesigned rhythm of work, companies risk using it to accelerate a broken system.
\n\n\n\nWe should use the capacity, but we also need to decide what we want it for.
\n\n\n\nAn AI-generated meeting summary should let some people skip the meeting. A first draft should leave more time to challenge its assumptions, not automatically create demand for three more drafts. Faster research should make room for a better decision about which evidence matters. Automated administrative work should give some time back to the work that still requires expertise.
\n\n\n\nNone of those outcomes will happen because the tool makes them inevitable. They happen when leaders choose not to consume every minute the tool saves.
\n\n\n\nLeaders do not need to redesign the entire organization before they can improve the conditions for deep work. They do need to stop treating concentration as a private preference that employees should defend by themselves.
\n\n\n\nIf a new priority does not remove or shrink anything already on someone’s plate, it is another assignment. Put the existing work next to the new request and decide what stops.
\n\n\n\nBefore assigning new work, ask what the person is currently doing, what accepting the new task would displace, and what help would make the change possible. The question is not simply whether the new request matters. It is whether it matters more than the work it will replace.
\n\n\n\nTeams need to know what deserves an immediate response, which channels carry urgent requests, when delayed responses are acceptable, and how protected concentration will be communicated. A leader can use personal credibility to make focus socially safe. Employees should not have to appear uncooperative in order to think.
\n\n\n\nDo not rely on constant availability to create connection, and do not rely on isolation to create focus. Give people predictable stretches to work independently and purposeful opportunities to compare, question, and reconnect.
\n\n\n\nDo not measure the change only by counting output. Look at whether decisions improve, people learn faster, or the most important work receives more attention. If every efficiency gain creates another commitment, AI has not protected attention. It has increased throughput.
\n\n\n\nA useful place to begin is with the question Shawn recommends that leaders ask their teams:
\n\n\n\nWhat is distracting us right now, and what can we do together to win that attention back?\n\n\n\n
Individuals still have responsibility for how they use their attention. No organizational policy can make someone care about excellent work. No manager can remove every interruption, and no team can protect unlimited periods of concentration.
\n\n\n\nBut people cannot productivity-hack their way out of a culture that continually places belonging, responsiveness, and focus in conflict.\n\n\n\n
AI is making this conflict harder to ignore. We are able to create more, answer faster, and take on work that once seemed beyond our capacity. None of that tells us which opportunity deserves attention, when a plausible answer needs another hour of thought, or how to protect the relationships that make difficult work worthwhile.
\n\n\n\nThose are leadership decisions.
\n\n\n\nIf a company consumes every minute AI saves, it might become faster while also becoming busier and shallower. Reserving some of the time for judgment, learning, and concentration would be a deliberate choice. It will not happen on its own.
\n\n\n\nAI will give many of us more time to think. Whether anyone is allowed to use it that way will depend on the people around them.
\n\n\n\n![\"Shawn](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/shawn-square-thumbnail-2.webp\")
Listen to my full conversation with Shawn Vanderhoven on The Unfolding Thought Podcast.
\n\n\n\nShawn’s book, Pause: How to Lead Brilliant Work in a Busy World, written with Anne Vanderhoven, is available from Amazon and other booksellers.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/deep-work-social-contract-feature.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership","Unfolding Thought"]},{"id":2295,"title":"How to Get on Podcasts as a Guest: A Host’s Guide","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/how-to-get-on-podcasts-as-a-guest/","slug":"how-to-get-on-podcasts-as-a-guest","published_at":"2026-08-23T13:00:00+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-23T14:33:57+00:00","excerpt_html":"Want to get on podcasts as a guest? Start with fit, not exposure. A podcast host explains how to choose the right show, pitch one focused idea, and make the conversation worth booking.
\n","content_html":"\n\n\n\n\nA lot of people want to be guests on podcasts. A lot of them either do not know how to pitch a show or do a poor job of it. The result is a flood of emails that give the host almost no reason to keep reading.
\n\n\n\nI host The Unfolding Thought Podcast, and I get guest pitches all the time. This guide explains what a careful host is actually evaluating. Does the idea fit the audience? Is it focused and strong enough to support a conversation? Can the guest carry that conversation? Will both people help the finished episode reach its audience?
\n\n\n\nThis article will help you choose shows worth your time, pitch one conversation instead of your whole body of work, and give a careful host enough reason to research you further.
\n\n\n\nPodcasts have a very long tail. The same is true of quality. Some shows are excellent. Many are young, lightly produced, or hosted by people who are still learning how to interview. Others simply treat each episode as another slot to fill.
\n\n\n\nA weak pitch can still get you booked. That may be the problem. Shows that accept almost anyone are often the same shows that do little preparation before recording and almost nothing after it.
\n\n\n\nThat is not useful practice or useful exposure. It takes your time and leaves behind a public example that may not show you well. The goal is not any yes. It is a worthwhile show and a host who can see a real episode in your idea.
\n\n\n\nGood writing in your pitch helps. It cannot rescue the wrong idea for the wrong show.
\n\n\n\nMost weak podcast outreach begins with a person who wants exposure. They write a bio, add a topic list, perhaps attach a PDF, and look for anyone willing to book them.
\n\n\n\nA host starts with the audience: Would this conversation be worth their time?
\n\n\n\nBuzzsprout surveyed 271 podcasters in 2026 and asked what makes them say yes to a guest. Topic relevance was selected by 87.8 percent. Prospective guest audience size was selected by only 14.4 percent.
\n\n\n\n![\"How](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/how-podcasts-pick-guests-watermarked-balanced.webp\")
Podseeker reached a similar conclusion after analyzing 8,757 pitches. Wrong fit accounted for 36 percent of declined pitches.
\n\n\n\nStart by finding the shows where a specific part of what you know can support a conversation the audience would actually choose to hear.
\n\n\n\nBefore writing an email, be able to answer four questions:
\n\n\n\nGetting booked is not one decision. The pitch should make the host want to research you. Your work, prior interviews, and public track record should make the host reply. If a cold email earns an immediate yes, you should probably evaluate the show as carefully as it evaluated you.
\n\n\n\n![\"The](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/host-decision-sequence-watermarked.webp\")
“Business podcast” or “leadership podcast” is not enough. Two shows in the same category can want completely different guests.
\n\n\n\nThe Unfolding Thought Podcast is built around long, in-depth conversations. Another show may examine origin stories. Another may want useful tips that can be explained in 20 minutes. Some podcasts move quickly and stay close to the surface by design. None of these formats is inherently better, but the same pitch will not fit all of them.
\n\n\n\nBefore reaching out:
\n\n\n\nIf the host sends you a guest-information page, read it before you continue. I have one for The Unfolding Thought Podcast. I send it to approved prospects so they can decide whether the show is right for them. Ignoring information like that suggests the guest is more interested in being booked than in the conversation being good.
\n\n\n\nImagine trying to cram the whole story of a 200-page novel into a 60-minute recording. You might be able to tell most of the story, but you will not be able to explore it. You will end up stating facts and losing the insight and drama.
\n\n\n\nDiscuss only the chapter where you encountered a real crucible moment, where the two main characters fell in love, or where the bad guy stalked his way through the silent house. Suddenly, there is space to explore. And, you might just leave the listener wanting more.
\n\n\n\nThe same principle applies even if you have never written a book. Your career, research, company, method, and life story are the book. The pitch needs one chapter.
\n\n\n\n“I can discuss leadership, culture, innovation, resilience, AI, and high performance” is not an episode. It is a shelf of books.
\n\n\n\n“Most high performers mistake exhaustion for commitment, and the data they ignore can show the difference” gives a host something to investigate.
\n\n\n\nA useful cold pitch can be short. It needs five things:
\n\n\n\nThen ask whether the conversation would be useful. Do not make the host sort through six possible topics, a full biography, three attachments, and a calendar link before deciding whether there is an episode here.
\n\n\n\nThe two podcast guest pitch examples below show the difference between describing a person and proposing an episode.
\n\n\n\nThis is how a typical pitch I receive goes.
\n\n\n\nI represent a successful founder, author, and sought-after speaker with expertise in:
\nThey would bring a unique perspective to your audience.
\nHere is their biography and a list of topics. [likely an attached PDF]
\nLet me know when you would like to schedule.
\nThis may be polished, but it gives the host no episode to evaluate. “Unique” is asserted. The subjects are broad. The sender has not shown that they understand the show. The host must do all the editorial work.
\n\n\n\nThis is also anonymized and condensed from a real pitch.
\n\n\n\nA previous guest thought this idea might fit your audience.
\n[Guest] argues that recovery is not the opposite of performance. It is part of performance, and many leaders mistake exhaustion for commitment.
\nTheir work with high performers gives them a practical way to explore the claim.
\nHere is one representative interview. [link to Apple, Spotify, etc podcast episode]
\nWould that conversation be useful for your audience?
\nThe second email works because the host can see the episode. The premise is clear, there is something to test, and one link gives the host a way to judge the guest. The email asks for consideration, not a calendar slot.
\n\n\n\nIf the pitch is a strong fit and you hear nothing, wait about a week and follow up once. Keep it short. Restate the proposed conversation or add something that makes it more timely or easier to evaluate. Do not send a string of “just checking in” messages.
\n\n\n\nSilence can mean busy, not interested, not now, or not a fit. One useful follow-up gives the host another chance to see the idea. Repeated nudges do not improve the idea.
\n\n\n\nThe exception is when you sent an email rather than a form submission and have reason to think it went to spam. In that case, send one short message through a social channel: “I emailed you about podcasting together. It may have gone to spam, so I wanted to check. No pressure.” That is a nudge to look for the email, not a second pitch. Send it once.
\n\n\n\nBefore replying to a cold pitch, a careful host is likely to search for you. The host is trying to answer one question: Can this person sustain a good episode?
\n\n\n\nIf the host finds past interviews, the questions are simple: Are you clear? Do you answer what was asked? Can you tell a story? Do you have a point of view? Do you rely on filler words? Does the finished conversation sound heavily repaired in editing?
\n\n\n\nIf no interview exists, create some evidence. Record a conversation with someone willing to challenge you or start with smaller shows that fit you well. Speaking at an event can help too. Practice until you can explain the idea without sounding as though you are reciting it.
\n\n\n\nFame is not the issue. Uncertainty is. With no public evidence that you can carry a conversation, a cold pitch to a selective show has much farther to travel.
\n\n\n\nPodcast audience data is frustratingly opaque. Apple Podcasts and Spotify provide listening data to the publisher, not to a prospective guest. Completion rates and many host-platform download totals are also private.
\n\n\n\nFor example, The Unfolding Thought Podcast gets most of its listening through Apple Podcasts and Spotify. An outsider cannot verify those numbers. A full episode on YouTube may show only 20 to 100 views, but that public count does not show what percentage of the conversation people watched. Our short clips commonly receive 500 to 5,000 views. They may draw little commentary while still holding a strong percentage of viewers through the full clip.
\n\n\n\nThis screenshot from our YouTube analytics shows views alongside average percentage viewed.
\n\n\n\n![\"YouTube](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/youtube-views-average-percentage-viewed.webp\")
One clip received 3,301 views, but viewers watched 42.8 percent on average. Another received 1,994 views, but viewers watched 89.5 percent on average. That is a massive difference in attention. From outside the channel, you see public subscriber and view counts. You do not see how many subscribers actually watch, or whether the average viewer watched 10 percent or nearly all of a clip. Focus on quality and fit well before you focus on numbers.
\n\n\n\nTreat public metrics as clues. They are not proof. Review the podcast channels, YouTube, the website, social channels, clips, reviews, consistency, guest quality, and production. Only after you understand the show should visible audience size influence the decision.
\n\n\n\nA show may create more reach for your ideas through clips than through complete episodes. That can be a useful outcome, not a consolation prize.
\n\n\n\nOur clips deliver a full point rather than merely teasing the episode. A viewer does not need to hear the complete discussion to understand and share one useful idea.
\n\n\n\nClips also show whether the podcast treats distribution as part of the work or simply uploads something after recording. Are the clips carefully chosen? Are they titled and captioned well? Do they deliver a complete idea, or do they feel like random excerpts posted to check a box?
\n\n\n\nIf the show invests in distribution, expect it to want the same from you. Share the episode and clips. Participate in the posts around them. Help the strongest ideas travel.
\n\n\n\nMake sure you can speak in complete, clip-worthy thoughts. You do not have to manufacture controversy. A clear claim or concrete example often gives the editor enough to use.
\n\n\n\nBolder claims and predictions can help, but every show draws the line differently. Research it before deciding how hard to push.
\n\n\n\nBefore you send the email, check the following:
\n\n\n\nIf several of these are missing, do not polish the email yet. Fix the offer or choose a better show.
\n\n\n\nStart with one show that clearly fits and expand outward. Look at related shows. Trace where its guests have appeared, then examine the podcast appearances of people in adjacent fields. Use Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, podcast directories, and guest platforms to broaden the list. Before pitching, confirm that the show still publishes and interviews guests. Make sure it covers ideas you can address specifically.
\nThere is no defensible universal threshold. First evaluate the fit and the likely value of the conversation. Then look at production, consistency, distribution, and clips. Use visible audience size only as a tiebreaker.
\nNo, but evidence helps. A strong cold pitch is easier to accept when the host can hear how you think and speak. If you are unproven, build that evidence on smaller, relevant shows or through a recorded interview, talk, or discussion of your own.
\nLong enough to show fit, premise, authority, and proof. In many cases, 100 to 175 words is enough. A complex idea may need more, but length should come from useful specificity, not biography.
\nA good guest brings a relevant idea and explains it clearly. They support it with experience or evidence and respond to the host instead of reciting. They also help the finished episode reach the people it can serve.
\nEvery appearance takes your time. It also takes the host’s preparation and the production team’s work, then asks an audience to give up part of its day.
\n\n\n\nA worthwhile pitch accounts for that before it is sent.
\n\n\n\nFind a show where one focused part of what you know belongs. Give the host enough to see the episode, enough evidence to research you, and a reason to believe you will help the finished work travel.
\n\n\n\nA yes from the wrong show is not a win. The useful outcome is an episode that should exist.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/podcast-guest-host-guide-featured-blended-v2.webp","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Uncategorized"]},{"id":2214,"title":"When an Institution Stops Defining Its Own Values","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/when-an-institution-stops-defining-its-own-values/","slug":"when-an-institution-stops-defining-its-own-values","published_at":"2026-08-20T18:00:00+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-22T21:56:14+00:00","excerpt_html":"An institution can keep its name, leaders, and mission while outside systems quietly redefine what its values mean. Jonathan Rauch’s Cross Purposes reveals the leadership problem.
\n","content_html":"\nAn institution does not have to collapse to lose itself. It can keep its name, buildings, leaders, members, and mission statement. It can even become more visible and powerful.
\n\n\n\nThe loss occurs when its people stop looking to the institution to decide what its own values require. A church can preach forgiveness while a political tribe defines who deserves it. A company can celebrate quality while its incentives teach that speed is what matters. A university can defend inquiry while status rewards only safe conclusions.
\n\n\n\nWhen the stated value conflicts with the system that supplies attention, belonging, reward, and threat, the mission statement is rarely the deciding force.
\n\n\n\nThat is the leadership problem I kept returning to after my conversation with Jonathan Rauch for The Unfolding Thought Podcast. Rauch’s recent book, Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy, is explicitly about Christianity and American democracy. It is also a case study in how an institution can remain recognizable after an outside system has begun defining what its values mean.
\n\n\n\nRauch is not a Christian arguing that Americans should return to church. He is a gay, Jewish atheist who once expected declining religious influence to reduce dogmatism and social conflict.
\n\n\n\nIn 2003, he wrote approvingly about what he called “apatheism,” a growing indifference toward religion. He expected less religious conviction to produce less dogmatism.
\n\n\n\nHe now calls that one of the dumbest things he ever wrote.
\n\n\n\nThe need for identity, meaning, moral certainty, community, and transcendence did not disappear as institutional religion weakened. Rauch believes much of that energy migrated into politics. To understand why that migration is so consequential, we have to distinguish the levels at which religion and politics ordinarily operate.
\n\n\n\nPolitics is primarily an effort to order the world we inhabit. It concerns laws, institutions, resources, power, and choices whose consequences we can observe, debate, and experience. Religion is concerned first with questions that cannot be settled with certainty through ordinary evidence: why we are here, what ultimately matters, what makes a life good, what we owe one another, and whether reality contains purposes beyond us. Those answers have to be held, at least partly, through faith.
\n\n\n\nIn that sense, religion sits beneath politics as a foundation, while politics operates above it as an application. “Higher” does not mean more important. It means closer to visible collective action. Our answers to ultimate questions constrain which political goals feel permissible, which compromises feel moral, and which uses of power feel legitimate.
\n\n\n\nReligion does not need laws or police power to exert that influence. If a person believes that “thou shalt not kill” expresses an ultimate moral obligation, the belief itself constrains behavior. Families, congregations, and cultures can reinforce the standard long before the state becomes involved. When enough people share such a belief, politics often translates it into law, establishing an expectation that applies even to people who do not share the faith.
\n\n\n\nThis does not mean every religious rule is good, correct, or worthy of becoming law. It means belief systems shape the boundaries within which politics operates. A legislature can govern a religious institution’s conduct. It cannot make someone believe, and it cannot vote ultimate meaning into existence.
\n\n\n\nReligion exerts that influence through story, ritual, repetition, family, community, prohibitions, and ideals. A religious tradition embeds moral meaning beneath conscious argument. It teaches people what feels sacred, shameful, natural, and right, even when they cannot explain every step in the reasoning. That cultural and social learning, accumulated over generations, is difficult to reproduce when the formal belief system is removed.
\n\n\n\nWhen religion weakens, the needs it served remain. For many people, politics begins doing two jobs: ordering common life while also supplying identity, belonging, transcendence, and moral certainty. But politics is a product of the world it is trying to govern. It can make rules, distribute resources, and allocate power. It cannot adequately answer questions about what lies beyond that world.
\n\n\n\nContingent political judgments then begin hardening into articles of faith. Disagreement feels like a battle over reality. Compromise becomes moral surrender. Opponents become enemies of the good rather than citizens with a different judgment.
\n\n\n\nRauch’s reversal is that politics does not simply become more important after religion weakens. It begins filling the role of religion without necessarily possessing the practices longstanding religious traditions developed to restrain fear, pride, vengeance, and tribal certainty. It can inherit religious intensity without inheriting humility, forgiveness, self-examination, and coexistence.
\n\n\n\nWhat remains can still look religious even as politics increasingly supplies its meaning. Rauch’s framework helps explain how.
\n\n\n\nIn Cross Purposes, Rauch describes three broad forms of Christianity. “Thin” Christianity has become too indistinct to inspire or form people. “Sharp” Christianity replaces spiritual distinctiveness with fear, partisan identity, and political combat. “Thick” Christianity remains demanding and recognizable while developing enough confidence in itself to coexist with people who believe differently.
\n\n\n\nRauch applies that framework to several Christian traditions. He criticizes portions of mainline Christianity for becoming difficult to distinguish from secular progressivism, and portions of white evangelical Christianity for becoming difficult to distinguish from Republican politics. His point is not simply that one party corrupted a church. It is that institutions can import an outside politics from either direction and then mistake that politics for their own mission.
\n\n\n\nNone of this means a religious institution has been captured whenever its members enter politics, support a party, or vote for a flawed candidate. Politics forces choices among imperfect options. People can make policy tradeoffs without adopting a politician’s character or allowing a party to define their faith.
\n\n\n\nA vote is an outcome, not proof of formation. Institutional formation becomes visible when the standards used to interpret the vote begin moving with the coalition. The question is not simply whom people support. It is whether the outside system starts deciding what their own tradition means.
\n\n\n\nSupport for Donald Trump among white evangelical Protestants illustrates why the distinction matters. In a 2020 Pew Research Center survey, 80 percent said he fought for what they believed in, yet only 15 percent said “morally upstanding” described him very well and just 31 percent liked how he conducted himself apart from his positions. A 2016 study by political scientist Michele Margolis found that white evangelical Republicans who affirmed more core evangelical beliefs were less likely to prefer Trump during the Republican primary but more likely to support him once he became the nominee. Both findings are consistent with political tradeoffs. Neither, by itself, proves institutional capture.
\n\n\n\nThe more revealing evidence concerns moral standards. In 2011, 30 percent of white evangelical Protestants told the Public Religion Research Institute that an elected official who behaves immorally in private can still behave ethically in public office. In 2016, the figure reached 72 percent. But PRRI’s comparisons over time also show Republicans, white mainline Protestants, white Catholics, and Democrats shifting with political circumstances. The pattern is not unique to one faith or party. People across groups can revise standards around a favored coalition.
\n\n\n\nIdentity can move with the coalition too. A Pew panel study followed the same respondents from 2016 to 2020. Among white adults who did not initially identify as born-again or evangelical, 16 percent of those expressing a warm view of Trump adopted the evangelical label by 2020, compared with 1 percent of those with consistently cold or neutral views. That does not prove insincerity. It shows political and religious identity moving closely enough together that we should ask which was defining the other.
\n\n\n\nThat question also complicates what surveys mean by “Christian.” Identity, belief, practice, and participation are not the same. A 2021 study published in Sociological Forum found that Christian nationalism was significantly associated with support for Trump among voters who did not attend religious services, but not among churchgoing voters. The study does not establish that nonattenders are insincere or churchgoers more virtuous. It shows that Christian-nationalist ideas can exert political force even when detached from the institution and practices that might otherwise shape what the identity means.
\n\n\n\nThis is where Rauch’s distinction between Thin and Thick Christianity becomes especially useful. If we say “Christian” when we mean anyone who accepts the label, we may be combining people formed by regular worship, communal accountability, and demanding moral commitments with people for whom Christianity functions mainly as a cultural or political identity. Christianity can become thinner even while the number of people claiming the identity remains substantial.
\n\n\n\nTaken together, these studies do not prove that politics replaced religion. They show what leaders should examine. When moral standards and group labels begin tracking an external alliance, which institution is defining which? My reading of Rauch is that this does not arise from an inherent flaw in Christianity. It arises when people who claim a faith become less bound by its central moral precepts than by political identity. For some people claiming a white evangelical identity, religion can supply the label while politics exerts more force over judgment and behavior. The identity survives after the formative discipline weakens.
\n\n\n\nBut why does an outside system gain formative authority in the first place?
\n\n\n\nBecause the systems competing to form us do not receive equal time or reach us with equal frequency. The institutions and media that occupy most of our time, repeat their interpretations most often, and tie those interpretations to belonging and status will exert the greatest influence. A value heard for an hour or two each week has little chance against a worldview reinforced every day.
\n\n\n\nSome of the most important passages in Cross Purposes come from pastors who believed they had lost authority inside their own churches.
\n\n\n\nOne estimated that a church might have a congregant’s attention for two hours each week while political television had the same person for twelve. Others told Rauch that members arrived already formed by political media and then evaluated sermons, pastors, and other Christians according to that political worldview.
\n\n\n\nBy the time people arrived at church, they were not waiting for a pastor to explain how to see the world. Many arrived with a political worldview already in place and used it to judge the church.
\n\n\n\nExperiments with partisan news support this mechanism. In one randomized experiment, regular Fox News viewers who were paid to watch CNN for a month changed what they knew and considered important on subjects CNN covered. Many of those effects receded after they returned to their normal viewing. Another field experiment found that exposure to partisan news changed consumption and immediate knowledge even when most policy positions and partisan attitudes remained stable.
\n\n\n\nRepetition does not instantly erase every prior belief. It decides which facts and interpretations are most available, most familiar, and most likely to frame the next judgment.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations often behave as though communicating a value is the same thing as forming people around it. Write the value on a wall. Put it in onboarding. Ask the CEO to mention it at the annual meeting. Assume the culture will follow.
\n\n\n\nCulture does not work that way.
\n\n\n\nResearch on organizational climate and culture describes culture as the assumptions and values that guide organizational life, while climate consists of the meanings people attach to their repeated experiences. People learn what matters by watching decisions, exceptions, rewards, punishments, promotions, and the behavior that produces status.
\n\n\n\nSteven Kerr made the same point more bluntly in his classic 1975 paper, “On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B”. Organizations routinely say they want one behavior while rewarding another. People notice what actually pays off.
\n\n\n\nA company says quality comes first but pays bonuses based only on volume. It gets volume.
\n\n\n\nA leadership team says it wants candor but punishes the person who raises an inconvenient concern. It gets silence.
\n\n\n\nA business says customers come first but protects a high-performing salesperson who repeatedly harms customer relationships. It teaches everyone that revenue comes first and customers come second.
\n\n\n\nRauch’s pastors describe the same conflict in church life: a church teaches humility, forgiveness, and love of enemies while partisan media can reward certainty, humiliation, fear, and victory. If the second system receives more attention, creates more belonging, and confers more status, repeating the stated values more loudly may have very little effect.
\n\n\n\nThis is not primarily a communication problem. It is a competition between formative systems.
\n\n\n\nLeaders can see which system is winning by following attention, reward, threat, and the exceptions made when a stated value becomes costly.
\n\n\n\nThe goal is not to isolate people from outside influence or give leaders control over private belief. Institutions need outside ideas and criticism, and they do not deserve deference merely because they are institutions. The danger is unrecognized capture. The test is whether an institution’s actual decisions give members a coherent basis for evaluating the competing systems trying to shape them.
\n\n\n\nWhen an institution wants to know which system is actually forming its members, it should look at the moments when following its stated values imposes a cost. That is where the ability to lose becomes decisive.
\n\n\n\nPolitics becomes especially dangerous when it begins doing the work of religion. In ordinary democratic politics, elections are part of an ebb and flow of shared power. One coalition governs for a time. Another loses, remains legitimate, and has a chance to persuade voters and govern later. Defeat can be consequential without becoming an answer to ultimate questions.
\n\n\n\nOnce politics is asked to supply identity, meaning, transcendence, and moral certainty, an election no longer feels like a temporary decision about who governs. It feels like a battle for the country’s soul. If one side represents salvation and the other evil, perhaps even Jesus and Satan, accepting defeat does not feel like restraint or power sharing. It feels like allowing evil to triumph.
\n\n\n\nThe structure is the same regardless of which party casts itself as the defender of good. Opponents stop being citizens who judge policies differently and become evidence of corruption. Political affiliation becomes a proxy for moral worth. Friendship across political lines gets harder because the disagreement appears to reach all the way down to what kind of person someone is.
\n\n\n\nValues are easiest to honor when they cost nothing. The revealing moment comes when honesty threatens the sale, quality threatens the schedule, fairness threatens an ally, or restraint threatens a political victory. If the same value repeatedly disappears under pressure, the organization may not have a value. It may have a preference that survives only when the surrounding system permits it.
\n\n\n\nIf losing means annihilation, domination begins to look like self-defense.
\n\n\n\nPolitical scientists use the phrase “losers’ consent” to describe the willingness of people who lose an election to continue accepting the legitimacy of the democratic system. It is not an instruction to accept a fraudulent or unfair result. Research suggests that consent is sustainable when the route back to power remains genuinely open. James Fearon’s model of self-enforcing democracy makes that logic explicit; studies have found that alternations of power can narrow the legitimacy gap between winners and losers and that people are more likely to accept outcomes when elections are free and fair. This also places obligations on winners. Research on mutual forbearance describes why democratic competitors sometimes refrain from exploiting every legal advantage when doing so would make future competition less credible. Repeated losses can reduce trust, while affective polarization can deepen the divide between winners and losers. Across these findings, the practical requirement is the same: procedures must be fair and the possibility of participating meaningfully tomorrow must remain believable.
\n\n\n\nThe same principle applies inside an organization. People can accept a rejected proposal, a missed promotion, or a strategic decision they opposed if they believe the process was fair, dissent has not destroyed their future, and the next decision has not already been rigged against them. Healthy institutions do not prevent people from losing. They preserve a path by which people can lose, remain legitimate participants, and try again.
\n\n\n\nRauch argues that the Christian teachings he summarizes as “do not be afraid,” respect the equal dignity of every person, and forgive rather than destroy opponents can help make political loss survivable. A reader does not need to accept the theology to see the institutional function. Groups that can tolerate uncertainty, preserve the standing of dissenters, and remain bound by their commitments when they lose are less likely to treat every decision as an existential war.
\n\n\n\nA tradition that teaches people how to lose without abandoning conviction can keep politics from becoming a religion. When that formative work weakens, politics absorbs religious intensity and every contest begins to feel ultimate.
\n\n\n\nCan an institution retain strong convictions, accept limits on its power, and coexist with people who reject its beliefs?
\n\n\n\nRauch’s constructive counterexample comes from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its negotiations with LGBTQ advocates.
\n\n\n\nIn 2015, church representatives, Republican and Democratic legislators, Equality Utah, the ACLU of Utah, and other faith communities supported Utah Senate Bill 296. It extended employment and housing protections to LGBTQ Utahns while defining protections for religious institutions. The participants did not resolve their disagreement about marriage or sexuality. They identified protections they could enact together while continuing to disagree. The compromise was not a universal template: it omitted public-accommodations protections, and the ACLU criticized its unusually broad exemptions.
\n\n\n\nThe relationships built through that process supported later collaboration. Rauch treats the federal Respect for Marriage Act as another application of the same approach: protect same-sex marriages while preserving specified religious-liberty protections. Both the ACLU and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argued that important protections remained incomplete, though for different reasons. Compromise did not require anyone to pretend the disagreement was unimportant.
\n\n\n\nRauch connects the church’s approach to its theology of moral agency. His interpretation is that protecting another person’s meaningful ability to choose can be a religious obligation even when the person makes a choice the church considers wrong. That gives compromise a foundation inside the institution’s own identity instead of treating it as reluctant surrender to secular pressure.
\n\n\n\nCompromise is not automatically virtuous. Some proposed compromises preserve injustice, ask only the vulnerable party to concede, or weaken rights that should not depend on negotiation. The example supports something narrower and more useful:
\n\n\n\nConfidence in an identity may make negotiation easier. A brittle institution experiences disagreement as erasure. A more secure institution can distinguish changing a law, losing a vote, or accommodating a neighbor from surrendering its reason for existing. The pattern leaders should look for is not weak identity, but strong identity capable of surviving constraint, disagreement, compromise, and loss.
\n\n\n\nThe leadership lesson from Rauch’s case is not that organizations should become less political, more religious, or more ideologically neutral. Organizations have different purposes. A civil-rights group should advocate. A church should teach a faith. A political party should seek political power. A business should make choices about customers, employees, investment, and risk.
\n\n\n\nEvery institution should understand what is actually shaping its members’ judgment about the mission.
\n\n\n\nLeaders can begin with five questions.
\n\n\n\nYour annual values presentation is competing with compensation plans, customer demands, professional networks, social media, managers, coworkers, and daily experience. Which source has enough repetition and credibility to define what people believe is really happening?
Ignore what the organization says it celebrates. Who gets promoted, protected, invited into important meetings, forgiven for mistakes, and trusted with resources? Those decisions teach the culture what success means.
Every institution makes exceptions. Look for the direction of the exceptions. If quality is always sacrificed to speed, candor to harmony, or fairness to a high performer’s results, the exception may be the operating value.
Strong cultures need boundaries. They also need a way to distinguish disagreement from betrayal. When every dissenting idea becomes evidence that someone is not truly part of the group, leaders lose access to corrective information and members learn to conceal what they see.
Can a leader lose an argument and continue supporting the team? Can a business lose an account without breaking its standards? Can a movement lose a fair vote and continue using legitimate procedures to contest the next one? Commitments that survive loss are more credible than commitments that appear only in victory speeches.
These questions do not prevent outside influence. They make the influence visible enough to evaluate.
\n\n\n\nIt would be easy to dismiss Cross Purposes as an argument about Trump, white evangelicals, or the proper relationship between Christianity and democracy if you have not read it.
\n\n\n\nRauch is examining what happens when an institution no longer gives its members a strong enough account of its own purpose to resist being redefined by another system.
\n\n\n\nThe sequence matters. As the institution’s formative force weakens, another system begins defining reality for its members. Its standards start moving with that outside system. Loss begins to feel existential, domination becomes defensible, and obedience to the outside system is mistaken for fidelity to the mission.
\n\n\n\nThat can happen from the political right or left. It can happen through donors, customers, algorithms, compensation plans, professional status, or fear. It can happen without anyone consciously deciding that the mission should change.
\n\n\n\nBy the time leaders notice, the institution may still look much as it always did. The name remains. The meetings continue. The values are repeated. The organization may even be winning.
\n\n\n\nThe test is not whether members can recite the institution’s values. It is whether those values still govern when another system offers more belonging, status, power, or protection from loss.
\n\n\n\n\n\nAn institution does not lose itself only when it changes its mission statement. It can lose itself while repeating the statement more loudly than ever.
\n\n\n\n![\"Jonathan](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/jonathan-square-thumbnail.webp\")
This essay draws on my conversation with Jonathan Rauch for The Unfolding Thought Podcast and his book, Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/institution-values-feature-1.webp","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books","Leadership","Unfolding Thought"]},{"id":2201,"title":"If Integrity Requires Heroism, the System Is Already Broken","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/integrity-requires-heroism-system-is-broken/","slug":"integrity-requires-heroism-system-is-broken","published_at":"2026-08-13T13:00:00+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-22T23:04:53+00:00","excerpt_html":"Robert Coram’s biographies of John Boyd, Bud Day, and Victor Krulak celebrate moral courage. They also reveal a management failure: when routine truth-telling threatens a career, personal integrity is compensating for a broken system.
\n","content_html":"\nRobert Coram’s biographies praise people who chose principle over career. They also expose a failure that should scare all of us:
\n\n\n\nToo many institutions need exceptional courage to hear ordinary truth.
\nIn 1967, Lieutenant General Victor “Brute” Krulak went to the White House with an argument President Lyndon Johnson did not want to hear.
\n\n\n\nThe United States was prosecuting the Vietnam War through search-and-destroy operations and attrition. Krulak believed the decisive contest was for the security and allegiance of the people living in South Vietnam’s villages. The Marines could and should fight large enemy formations, he argued, but destroying units and counting bodies would not by itself defeat an insurgency.
\n\n\n\nRobert Coram reconstructs what happened next in Brute, his biography of Krulak. According to that account, Krulak told Johnson that American strategy was producing unnecessary casualties and that responsibility reached the top of the government, “including you, Mr. President.” If the president did not change course, Krulak warned, he would lose the war and the next election.
\n\n\n\nJohnson rose, placed a hand on Krulak’s shoulder, and ushered him out without another word.
\n\n\n\n![\"Lieutenant](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/victor-krulak-editorial.webp\")
![\"Cover](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/brute-cover.webp\")
Coram argues that the confrontation helped cost Krulak a fourth star and the job he wanted most: Commandant of the Marine Corps. Johnson later selected another Marine. Krulak retired as a three-star in 1968.
\n\n\n\nKrulak’s confrontation with Johnson is not a neat parable about a truth-teller and a villain. Coram does not write neat parables. His biographies preserve achievement, ambition, contradiction, collateral damage, and uncertainty in the same frame.
\n\n\n\nA president responsible for a war needed the information Krulak carried. Admiring Krulak’s courage is not enough. Why did delivering necessary information have to resemble a career-ending act of heroism?
\n\n\n\nWhen I interviewed Coram for The Unfolding Thought Podcast, he explained what he had looked for in the military figures he chose to write about. He wanted people who reached a fork in the road, did what they believed was right, and paid a price.
\n\n\n\n![\"Robert](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/robert-coram-editorial-v2.webp\")
A moral fork tells us what a person does when duty, self-interest, loyalty, and fear point in different directions. It reveals more than a résumé, values statement, or performance review ever could. Coram found versions of that test in Krulak; in fighter pilot and military theorist John Boyd; and, at an almost unimaginable physical extreme, in Medal of Honor recipient and Vietnam prisoner of war George E. “Bud” Day.
\n\n\n\nThe fork also tells us something about the road builder, not just the traveler.
\n\n\n\nWhen people must repeatedly choose between doing good work and preserving a viable career, the institution is not merely discovering their character. It is manufacturing the conflict. It is making personal courage compensate for defects in how information travels, how authority responds, and how careers are governed.
\n\n\n\nSome moral choices will remain costly in any organization worth serving. No process can make courage unnecessary. But when routine truth-telling predictably requires career-threatening heroism, the price is no longer just evidence of the employee’s virtue. It is a leadership metric.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations often talk about candor as if it were a personality trait:
\n\n\n\nDecades of organizational research describe a more relational problem. New York University professor Elizabeth Morrison defines upward voice as employees voluntarily communicating suggestions, concerns, or information about problems to people higher in the hierarchy.
\n\n\n\nSilence is not the absence of information. It is the withholding of information that may already exist somewhere lower in the system.
\n\n\n\nThat means a quiet meeting is ambiguous. Everyone may agree. Or the people who disagree may have decided that the cost of speaking is not worth paying.
\n\n\n\nIn a study of 3,149 employees and 223 managers, James Detert and Ethan Burris found that managerial openness was more consistently related to improvement-oriented voice than transformational leadership was. Employees’ sense of psychological safety helped explain the relationship. The effect of leader behavior was especially strong among high performers, the very people an organization can least afford to train into silence.
\n\n\n\nPsychological safety does not require every leader to be gentle or every employee to feel comfortable. Amy Edmondson originally defined it as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. That makes it easier to ask for help, report mistakes, and challenge an assumption. It does not make every assertion correct, remove performance standards, or exempt anyone from the consequences of deliberate misconduct.
\n\n\n\nCoram’s account of Krulak contains a small scene that makes the larger problem visible. During a visit to Vietnam, Krulak asked Marines what they thought. They gave him answers he did not expect and did not like. Afterward, he asked his son, Navy chaplain Victor Krulak, what was wrong with the battalion.
\n\n\n\nHis son suggested that people elsewhere might have been telling the general what he wanted to hear.
\n\n\n\nCoram writes that the possibility appeared not to have occurred to Krulak, even though Krulak himself knew that subordinates often manage what senior officers see.
\n\n\n\nKrulak’s blind spot makes his confrontation with Johnson more instructive. The same person can be unusually willing to carry unwelcome truth upward and still make it difficult for truth to travel upward to him.
\n\n\n\nCandor is not secured by placing one brave person in the hierarchy. It has to survive every level of the hierarchy.
\n\n\n\nJohn Boyd made the decision point explicit.
\n\n\n\nCoram’s Boyd follows the fighter pilot from the cockpit to the Aerial Attack Study, energy-maneuverability theory, the F-15 and F-16 development battles, and the body of work later associated with the OODA loop. Boyd’s accomplishments depended on extraordinary concentration, technical insight, a network of allies, and an appetite for conflict that often made him nearly impossible to ignore and just as difficult to manage.
\n\n\n\n![\"John](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/john-boyd-editorial.webp\")
![\"Cover](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/boyd-cover.webp\")
He divided officers into people who wanted “to be” somebody and people who wanted “to do” something.
\n\n\n\nCoram shows Boyd applying that test to Air Force officer James Burton. Burton had refused an order to alter a chart comparing aircraft performance because the alteration would create a lie. He was removed from his Pentagon job and passed over for promotion. Boyd told him he had reached a fork: he could pursue the promotion and its trappings, or continue the work he believed was right. He could not, Boyd said, have a normal career and do the good work.
\n\n\n\nAs a moral challenge, “to be or to do” draws a clear line. As an organizational condition, it should be alarming.
\n\n\n\nWhy should a normal career and good work be incompatible?
\nWhat information will never reach a decision-maker if the price is obvious before anyone speaks?
\nHow many capable employees will make the sensible choice, protect their families and futures, and leave the unaltered chart in a drawer?
\nHero stories can mislead managers. We admire the outlier who accepts the sacrifice and then quietly build systems that assume the next person will do the same. When the next person does not, we call it a character failure rather than asking what the incentives were designed to produce.
\n\n\n\nBoyd also shows why an institution cannot simply reward combativeness. He could be brilliant, abrasive, domineering, and wrong. His crusades imposed costs on colleagues and family members who did not choose them.
\n\n\n\nAn organization that depends on finding a hero is fragile. A stronger one preserves the function Boyd and men like him serve: challenging assumptions, demanding evidence, and testing doctrine, without requiring every reformer to become him.
\n\n\n\nCoram told me that one of his four military subjects did not fit his moral-fork rule: World War II fighter pilot Robert Lee Scott Jr.
\n\n\n\n![\"Brigadier](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/robert-lee-scott-official-editorial-v2.webp\")
![\"Cover](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/double-ace-cover.webp\")
Scott was a real combat pilot and a double ace. He flew guest missions with pilots of the American Volunteer Group, the original Flying Tigers, and later commanded the regular Army Air Forces’ 23rd Fighter Group. His 1943 memoir, God Is My Co-Pilot, became a bestseller and then a film. He also told stories so fluently and so often that the border between experience, performance, and memory could become difficult to locate.
\n\n\n\n![\"Cover](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/god-is-my-co-pilot-book.webp\")
In one late version of the book’s origin story, Japanese rounds struck Scott’s aircraft from behind and drove rivets from the armor behind his seat into his back. After landing, he was supposedly operated on without anesthesia in a candlelit cave, where the title appeared to him on the cave wall. Coram found that the cave revelation was absent from the original book, that he could find no injury record, and that Scott had not received a Purple Heart. Those absences do not prove that every element was invented, but they leave the later account without the evidence that should support it.
\n\n\n\nScott matters here because moral courage is not a method for determining truth. Neither sincerity, confidence, sacrifice, nor opposition to authority proves a claim. Institutions need people to raise unwelcome information, and they need disciplined ways to test it.
\n\n\n\nA useful truth-telling system has to protect both candor and evidence.
\n\n\n\nIf only safe claims can be voiced,
evidence is filtered before examination.
If every contrarian claim is celebrated as brave, dissent becomes theater.
\nA serious truth-telling system protects the messenger long enough to evaluate the message.
\nThe most revealing moral fork in Coram’s body of work may not belong to a pilot or general.
\n\n\n\nIn his memoir Ink, Coram recalls working in 1959 as an untrained attendant at Georgia’s state mental hospital in Milledgeville. By then, it was less a hospital in the ordinary sense than a vast custodial city. The institution averaged more than 11,800 patients in the late 1950s. It sprawled across roughly 200 buildings and 2,000 acres and, by the 1960s, was described as the largest mental hospital in the world.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/georgia-insane-asylum-milledgeville.webp\")
That scale did not produce more care. The New Georgia Encyclopedia records overcrowding, “conscious neglect,” and an institution often able to meet only basic daily needs rather than provide appropriate treatment. In a place that large, abuse could disappear into wards, bureaucracy, and sheer numbers.
\n\n\n\nThat helps explain the importance of Jack Nelson’s investigation for the Atlanta Constitution. His 1959 reporting documented experimental drugs given without patient or family consent, major surgery performed by a nurse without supervision, and staff and doctors drunk on duty. The series would win the 1960 Pulitzer Prize.
\n\n\n\n![\"Cover](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ink-cover.webp\")
Coram admired Nelson. He understood that this was what a newspaper could do: enter a closed institution and force powerful people to answer for what happened inside.
\n\n\n\nThen, Coram writes, a doctor ordered him to dispose of boxes of medicine to hide them from Nelson’s reporting. Coram believed the labels, dates, and drugs might matter to the investigation. He flushed the pills down a patient toilet, carried the packaging to a dump, and said nothing when the reporter returned.
\n\n\n\nHe believed the material might be evidence. He recognized the choice. He obeyed the institution anyway.
\n\n\n\n“I wanted to help him,” Coram writes. “But I did not.”
\n\n\n\nI do not read that sentence as a verdict on the young man. I read it as a warning to anyone who designs work for other people.
\n\n\n\nMost employees are not Bud Day. They should not have to be.
\n\n\n\nThey have mortgages, health insurance, reputations, visas, commissions, pensions, children, and an accurate understanding of what authority can do to them. They watch what happens to the first person who raises a problem. They notice whether the concern is investigated, whether the leader becomes curious or offended, and whether the messenger’s next assignment quietly disappears.
\n\n\n\nThe employee who remains silent may be making a moral mistake. The organization that makes silence rational is making a management mistake.
\n\n\n\nCoram’s biographies also complicate the idea of individual sacrifice by showing who else pays.
\n\n\n\nBud Day endured five years, seven months, and thirteen days as a prisoner of war, including periods of prolonged torture. Dorie carried that captivity into public life, organized with other POW families, preserved information, kept their household functioning, and later lived beside the physical injuries and recurring nightmares that came home with him. Mary Boyd and her children experienced a different version of cost: absence, volatility, financial strain, and the work required to preserve the ideas for which John Boyd received public credit.
\n\n\n\n![\"George](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/bud-day-editorial.webp\")
![\"Cover](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/american-patriot-cover.webp\")
Those family accounts do not erase Day’s courage or Boyd’s achievements. They complete the ledger.
\n\n\n\nWe recognize, celebrate, and talk about a few heroes, but the cost of their heroism is paid not only by them. It is also paid by the people around them.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations usually record the visible price: the stalled promotion, the resignation, the lost command. The cost that migrates into a home, a colleague’s workload, a customer’s risk, or a caregiver’s life often disappears from the scorecard. Calling the employee heroic can become a way of praising a sacrifice the institution has no intention of accounting for.
\n\n\n\nValues statements are useful only if the operating system makes them credible. Here are six ways to make candor less dependent on individual courage.
\n\n\n\nAn open-door policy still requires an employee to walk through the boss’s door.
\n\n\n\nNASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System was designed around a different insight. Aviation workers can voluntarily report safety incidents to an independent program that keeps identities confidential, removes identifying details, and offers limited protection from penalties for qualifying unintentional violations. Deliberate and criminal acts are not sheltered. The design does not confuse learning with impunity; it reduces the personal risk that prevents useful safety information from entering the system.
\n\n\n\nMost organizations do not need a miniature NASA. They do need a channel whose independence, confidentiality, response time, and escalation rules are real rather than decorative.
\n\n\n\nDo not wait for a natural contrarian to challenge the plan. Assign the function.
\n\n\n\nBefore commitment, ask one group to assume the decision has failed and construct plausible reasons why. Gary Klein’s premortem works because it gives knowledgeable skeptics permission to voice reservations before failure converts them into hindsight. Rotate the dissent role so that disagreement does not become one person’s identity or one person’s career risk.
\n\n\n\nRequire the decision owner to state what evidence would change the decision. “Convince me” is not a standard; it is an invitation to contest status. A falsifiable threshold is a standard.
\n\n\n\nIf the senior leader announces a preference first, every answer that follows has been contaminated by information about what the hierarchy wants.
\n\n\n\nCollect judgments independently before discussion when possible. Ask for disconfirming evidence, not just concerns. Replace “Does anyone disagree?” with questions that require content: What assumption is carrying the most risk? What would we expect to see if we are wrong? Who has information that does not fit the current story?
\n\n\n\nThen wait long enough for an answer.
\n\n\n\nRecord the decision, material assumptions, competing interpretations, predictions, unresolved concerns, owner, and review date. The purpose is not bureaucratic self-protection. It is to keep the organization from rewriting what it once believed after the outcome is known.
\n\n\n\nScott’s stories show how repetition can harden a satisfying account. A contemporaneous record gives later reviewers something other than confidence and status to examine.
\n\n\n\nIn my conversation with former Royal Australian Air Force fighter pilot and Afterburner CEO Christian “Boo” Boucousis on The Unfolding Thought Podcast, the debrief was the central subject. Boo described an operating rhythm used after every mission, successful or not: compare the objective with the actual result, identify the cause of any gap, and choose a concrete action for the next mission. His organization applies the same discipline to business teams. The purpose is to convert experience into usable intelligence while keeping rank and ego from controlling the account.
\n\n\n\nThe simplicity is deceptive. A useful debrief has to remain a professional inquiry rather than a trial, a victory lap, or a briefing in which subordinates discover what the leader wants them to say. Preserve competing accounts. Separate facts from inference. Assign changes and return to see whether they occurred.
\n\n\n\nNonretaliation cannot be measured by counting how many people were formally fired for speaking up. Career penalties are often quieter: a missed invitation, a lower-visibility assignment, exclusion from information, an unexplained performance downgrade, or the conclusion that advancement now lies elsewhere.
\n\n\n\nTrack whether people who raise consequential concerns remain, advance, and continue to contribute. Ask them what happened after they spoke. Review whether concerns were acknowledged, investigated, and closed. Hold leaders accountable for retaliation and for teaching teams through visible behavior that candor is futile.
\n\n\n\nThe Government Accountability Office’s recent review of federal disclosure systems reaches a similar practical conclusion: accessible confidential channels, credible protection against retaliation, consistent accountability, and visible leadership commitment all influence whether people trust a speak-up system.
\n\n\n\nCoram is right to admire Krulak’s willingness to carry an unwelcome judgment to Johnson. The choice revealed the general’s sense of duty and the relative value he placed on career and country. We need people who will act that way when a consequential truth has no safe route to power.
\n\n\n\nAdmiration can stop the inquiry too early.
\n\n\n\nThe leader’s question is not only, Will someone be brave enough to tell me? It is also, What expectations have I created about what happens to people who tell me something I do not want to hear?
\n\n\n\nA sound institution cannot remove every moral fork. It can keep routine evidence, doubt, error, and disagreement from becoming tests of personal martyrdom. It can make candor ordinary enough that exceptional courage is reserved for exceptional circumstances.
\n\n\n\nWhen doing the work and keeping a viable career repeatedly point down different roads, the organization has confused a character test with a management system.
\n\n\n\nMoral courage is a virtue. It should not be an operating system.
\n\n\n\nAI is not just another technology. Like the Reformation, it is changing how we understand work, authority, human value, and our place in the world.
\n","content_html":"\nAI is not just changing what machines can do. It is changing how we understand our own value, our place in the world, and what it means to be human.
\n\n\n\nOn Christmas Day in 1521, a communion wafer fell onto the floor of a church in Wittenberg.
\n\n\n\nThis was not an ordinary Mass. Andreas Karlstadt had come dressed in the clothing of an ordinary person, not the vestments of a priest. He gave laypeople both the bread and the wine and invited them to take Communion even if they had not confessed. Many had not observed the required fast. Some were even said to have drunk brandy. About a thousand people reportedly came to participate in a service that openly broke with the religious practice they had known all their lives.
\n\n\n\nUnless you understand the world these people inhabited, those details can sound like minor violations of church etiquette.
\n\n\n\nThey were not.
\n\n\n\nFor a Christian in early sixteenth-century Western Europe, the Mass was the moment when a priest did something no ordinary person could do. He consecrated bread and wine. In the inherited theology of transubstantiation, the substance of the bread became the body of Christ while the appearances of bread remained. The wafer still looked and tasted like bread, but worshippers understood themselves to be encountering the real presence of Christ.
\n\n\n\nThe priest’s vestments marked him as someone set apart for that responsibility. Confession prepared a person to receive the sacrament without approaching God while burdened by unforgiven sin. Fasting prepared the body for the encounter. Laypeople usually received Communion infrequently, often only at Easter. When they did receive it, they ordinarily received only the bread, placed in the mouth by a priest. These practices were not random rules layered around a symbolic meal. They expressed an entire understanding of the relationship between God, the Church, the priest, the body, sin, and salvation.
\n\n\n\nKarlstadt challenged almost all of it at once. His ordinary clothing questioned the spiritual difference between a priest and everyone else. Communion without confession rejected the requirement that communicants first seek forgiveness through priestly confession. Eating and drinking beforehand treated the required bodily discipline as unnecessary. Giving the wine to laypeople challenged a practice that had separated priest from congregation for centuries.
\n\n\n\nHe was not simply asking them to treat the wafer as ordinary bread. At that point, Karlstadt still affirmed Christ’s real presence in Communion. He was asking them to inhabit a new account of who could approach and handle the sacred.
\n\n\n\nThen two consecrated wafers fell, one onto a man’s coat and another onto the floor. Karlstadt told the people to pick them up.
\n\n\n\nThey would not.
\n\n\n\nThese were not defenders of the old order. They had come because they believed reform was necessary. They were willing to defy the canons of All Saints, inherited ritual, and their own political ruler. Yet touching the Host meant touching what they had spent their lives believing was the body of Christ. That was a boundary their bodies would not let them cross. Karlstadt had to retrieve the wafers himself.1
\n\n\n\n![\"Worshippers](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-reformation-wafer-wp-1536x1024.jpg\")
The people in that church had changed their minds before they had changed their instincts. They were ready to reject the old rules, but not yet ready to touch what those rules had taught them was sacred.
\n\n\n\nThat is what a real change in worldview looks like. An old system can lose its intellectual authority before it loses its hold on the body.
\n\n\n\nThis is the part of artificial intelligence I think we are missing.
\n\n\n\nWe keep comparing AI to the printing press, electricity, radio, the internet, and social media. Those technologies did astonishing things. They changed what people could do, how quickly they could do it, how far an idea could travel, who could speak, and how people behaved.
\n\n\n\nThe crucial word is how. Those technologies also affected identity and meaning, sometimes profoundly. But their central effect was to change how human beings acted in the world. They changed the conditions of life without generally making people across almost every level of society wonder whether human contribution itself was becoming unnecessary.
\n\n\n\nAI is becoming a different kind of event because people believe it will not merely change their work. They believe it may eventually do their work better than they can and remove the need for them to do it at all.
\n\n\n\nOnce that premise takes hold, the questions escalate quickly.
\n\n\n\nIf AI can perform enough of my work to make my role unnecessary today, or will be able to soon, what is my place in the world? What is my purpose? What am I worth? If work is one of the main ways I contribute to other people, what happens when that contribution no longer requires me? What is a human life for then? Do human beings matter anymore? Do I matter? Will my children?
\n\n\n\nThose are not forecasts about what AI will actually accomplish. They are questions people can begin asking as soon as they believe replacement is coming. A life can be reorganized by an expectation before the prediction comes true.
\n\n\n\nMachines have threatened jobs before, sometimes on a vast scale. What is distinctive now is that generative AI has carried replacement anxiety into an unusually broad range of occupations built around language, interpretation, judgment, creativity, and leadership. The question can reach a manager, doctor, lawyer, teacher, artist, writer, programmer, executive, or public official in essentially the same form: if the ability that made me useful can be reproduced without me, where does my value now reside?
\n\n\n\nAI does not need to replace all of those people for the worldview to begin changing. It only has to make replacement feel plausible.
\n\n\n\nThat is why I think the Protestant Reformation gives us a better comparison than the printing press.
\n\n\n\nI am not saying AI is a religion. I am not saying the twenty-first century will repeat the sixteenth. I am saying both events force people to reconsider a world that had made sense. They destabilize the institutions that explained what was true, who could know it, what made a life valuable, and where an ordinary person fit within the whole.
\n\n\n\nThe printing press was an extraordinary technology that helped the Reformation spread. The Reformation was the crisis of meaning.
\n\n\n\nAI is the technology. The crisis gathering around it is about how we make meaning.
\n\n\n\nTo understand why the Reformation changed so much of western and central Europe so profoundly, we have to begin by taking the world before it seriously.
\n\n\n\nMany people in late-medieval Latin Christendom did not merely hold a list of Catholic beliefs. They inhabited a world in which visible and invisible reality were joined.
\n\n\n\nThe church building made that world physical. A parishioner could look from the ordinary people crowded into the nave, to saints painted on a screen, to the crucified Christ above it, to images of the Last Judgment, heaven, hell, and purgatory. Beyond the screen, at the altar, the priest brought Christ into the church in the consecrated bread. Diarmaid MacCulloch describes this as a floor-to-ceiling account of the Christian story. Creation, sin, suffering, death, judgment, and eternal life were not ideas discussed somewhere else. They surrounded a person while that person stood in church.2
\n\n\n\nThe same system organized life outside the building. Church bells marked the day. Fasts, feasts, Advent, Lent, Easter, and Christmas gave the year its shape. Baptism brought an infant into the Christian community. Confession and penance addressed sin. Church law helped govern marriage, sex, and inheritance. Guilds, monasteries, and confraternities joined work, charity, status, and prayer.
\n\n\n\nPurgatory offered an account of what happened to the saved who still needed to be purified after death. Masses, prayers, alms, pilgrimages, relics, and indulgences gave the living something meaningful to do for parents, spouses, children, and friends who had died. A family paying for a Mass was not simply purchasing a service from a church. Within that world, the family was still caring for someone it loved.
\n\n\n\nThis was why the Church mattered. It did not merely tell people what to believe on Sunday. It explained where the dead had gone, why suffering existed, how guilt could be forgiven, which work was holy, who had authority, how time should be lived, and what a human life was for.
\n\n\n\nThat system was neither uniform nor peaceful. Clergy could be corrupt. Popes pursued money and power. Local practices varied, and reform movements long predated Luther. Still, the late-medieval Church was not an empty shell waiting for one brave man to expose it. It met real spiritual needs. Even its abuses drew power from needs people genuinely felt.
\n\n\n\nThat was true of indulgences. An indulgence addressed punishment for sins already forgiven. Within the larger account of confession, penance, and purgatory, it made sense. An indulgence campaign connected fear for the dead with papal authority, local politics, banking, and the financing of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.3
\n\n\n\nWhen Luther challenged the indulgence campaign in 1517, he pulled on a thread connected to almost everything.
\n\n\n\nAt first, he was arguing about repentance, grace, punishment, and pastoral care. He was not yet presenting a complete new church. But the disagreement could not remain narrow because his opponents eventually made authority the issue. If the pope and the accumulated teaching of the Church supported the practice, what right did a provincial friar have to contradict them?
\n\n\n\nThat question forced another: what if the pope was wrong?
\n\n\n\nThen another: what if a church council could be wrong?
\n\n\n\nThen another: what if the practices through which Christians had sought forgiveness, cared for the dead, distinguished holy lives, and understood salvation were not merely imperfect, but based on a fundamental error?
\n\n\n\nThe controversy stopped being about the proper use of indulgences. It became an argument about who could say how reality worked.
\n\n\n\nLuther’s answer altered the structure of the Christian life. He argued that a person was justified by God’s grace through faith, not by accumulating merit. Scripture, not the pope or accumulated tradition, was the final authority against which doctrine had to be judged. Baptism and the shared priesthood of believers gave ordinary Christians a spiritual standing that did not depend on membership in a separate religious caste. Monastic vows did not create a higher class of Christian. Ordinary work performed in faith could be a vocation.
\n\n\n\nEach claim answered a theological problem. Together, they changed where a person stood in the universe.
\n\n\n\nWithin Lutheran and other Protestant accounts, a monk or nun was not necessarily closer to God than a parent, farmer, merchant, or servant. Priests remained important, but no longer belonged to a spiritually superior estate. Clergy could marry. Care for the dead changed when purgatory and Masses for souls were rejected. Images that had mediated sacred presence could be condemned as idols.
\n\n\n\nA monk who had understood his vows as a path to holiness could discover that the path itself was a mistake. A nun who had been given to a convent by her family could be told that leaving, marrying, and raising children might be more faithful than remaining. A priest could become a husband and father. A family that had endowed Masses for its dead could learn that those Masses accomplished nothing. A craftsperson could hear that ordinary labor was a calling from God, while a student preparing for an ecclesiastical career could watch that entire career structure collapse.
\n\n\n\nThis was not liberation in one clean direction. It was disorientation.
\n\n\n\nIn Wittenberg, the changes moved so quickly that some students questioned whether their education had any point. The attack on private Masses threatened clerical livelihoods. When monasteries closed, land changed hands, men and women had to find new places in households and local economies, and poor relief had to be reorganized. When reformers removed images, they did not merely redecorate churches. They stripped away objects through which generations had understood sacred history and encountered the holy.45
\n\n\n\nWestern and central Europe did not move together from one worldview to another. It fractured.
\n\n\n\nCatholics, Lutherans, Reformed Protestants, Anabaptists, and others offered incompatible accounts of the Eucharist, baptism, salvation, church government, and political obedience. Families divided. Refugees crossed borders. Rulers and churches built rival settlements through catechisms, schools, law, discipline, and force. Religious fracture became entangled with political revolt, state formation, persecution, and war. Catholic reformers also clarified doctrine, built institutions, and renewed their own account of authority.5
\n\n\n\nThe world had not become meaningless. It had become a place in which the old sources of meaning no longer settled the most important questions.
\n\n\n\nThe printing press helped claims move faster and farther. It made controversy cheaper to reproduce and harder to contain. But the press was not the thing that caused a priest to marry, a family to stop paying for Masses for the dead, a ruler to seize a monastery, or a worshipper to stare at an empty space where a saint had stood.
\n\n\n\nThe Reformation did those things because it changed what the world meant.
\n\n\n\nThe modern world is not united by one church, one theology, or one account of salvation. We disagree about religion, morality, politics, human nature, and almost everything else.
\n\n\n\nYet our institutions still depend on a mostly unspoken account of the person.
\n\n\n\nWe use human performance to distribute income, status, opportunity, and recognition. Schools reward writing, reasoning, memory, and problem solving. Professions issue credentials meant to prove knowledge and judgment. Employers pay more for abilities that are difficult to acquire and scarce in the labor market. People build identities around being able to do something that someone else needs.
\n\n\n\nAsk someone what they do, and the answer will usually be a job.
That is not an accident. For many people, work provides income, but it also provides structure, community, status, competence, and a way to explain one’s contribution. Becoming good at difficult work changes a person. The failures, repetitions, corrections, mentors, and unusual cases become part of how that person sees the world.
\n\n\n\nThis account of human value has always been morally incomplete. A person is not worth more because that person writes better, calculates faster, remembers more, or earns a higher salary. Still, our schools, firms, professions, and labor markets regularly behave as though useful performance is evidence of both economic and personal value.
\n\n\n\nThen a machine begins producing the performance.
\n\n\n\nThat is the disruption.
\n\n\n\nThe most important thing about generative AI is not that it can make a document, image, plan, diagnosis, or recommendation more quickly. It is that those outputs often functioned as evidence of a human capacity. A finished essay implied that a student had read and synthesized. A legal analysis implied that a lawyer had interpreted. A diagnosis implied that a clinician had reasoned. A strategy implied that a leader had decided. A painting implied that an artist had imagined and made.
\n\n\n\nNow the artifact can appear without proving what we thought it proved.
\n\n\n\nThat is destabilizing enough. But the fear goes further. If a machine can produce every economically valuable performance better than the people who once produced it, what are the people for? What is their purpose? Where do they find the recognition that tells them they matter? What is the meaning of a life that appears to be needed by no one?
\n\n\n\nAI did not invent the weakness in our assumptions. It exposed how much meaning we had asked work and performance to carry.
\n\n\n\nAI cannot actually do all the things people fear it will do. It makes elementary mistakes. It invents facts. It often needs a human to define the problem, gather the right information, recognize an error, and take responsibility for the result. A strong performance on a benchmark does not mean a system can replace a person in the messy conditions of a real job.
\n\n\n\nAll of that is true, but it does not answer the argument I am making.
\n\n\n\nI am not arguing that AI will eliminate every profession or that a machine is already more valuable than a person. I am arguing that a large number of people now fear that their future usefulness is being placed in competition with a machine. Because our institutions have taught people to locate identity, security, and recognition in useful work, I think that fear can become a question about personal value.
\n\n\n\nThis is not a fringe anxiety. In 2025, Pew Research Center found that 52 percent of American workers were worried about AI’s future workplace impact, and 32 percent expected it to leave them with fewer opportunities. In a separate survey, 64 percent of American adults expected AI to mean fewer jobs over the next 20 years. Across 31 countries, Microsoft and LinkedIn found that 45 percent of knowledge workers worried AI would replace their job.7910
\n\n\n\nThe fear reaches the next generation. In a 2026 study, Common Sense Media found that 57 percent of parents with children under 18 believed AI would make it harder for their children to find jobs. Nearly half of the young people surveyed worried about AI’s effect on their economic future, 49 percent thought it would make finding a job harder for them personally, and 59 percent thought people like them would have a harder time.11
\n\n\n\nThose surveys do not show that AI will cause mass unemployment. They do not show that workers believe their lives are literally worth less. They establish something important here: people already believe the ground is moving beneath them.
\n\n\n\nThe anticipation becomes part of the event.
\n\n\n\nSo, what happens when you believe there may be no job for you to get? What do you study? Do you borrow money for a degree? Do you spend years mastering a profession that may not want beginners by the time you arrive? Do you save for a future you cannot picture? Do you have children when you are not sure how they will support themselves or where they will find a place to contribute?
\n\n\n\nThese questions can change decisions before any forecast is proved. In Deloitte’s 2025 survey of more than 23,000 Gen Z and millennial respondents across 44 countries, more than six in ten of the respondents who used generative AI worried that it would eliminate jobs and said the concern was motivating them to seek work they considered safer from disruption.12
\n\n\n\nThe International Labour Organization offers an important counterweight. It estimates that one in four jobs worldwide has some exposure to generative AI, but says transformation is more likely than full replacement. Exposure is not disappearance. A task is not a job, and a benchmark is not a workplace.6
\n\n\n\nStill, the distinction between transformation and replacement does not settle the question of meaning. An OECD survey found that most workers using AI thought it complemented their abilities, while about half of the users in finance and almost half in manufacturing also believed it had made some of their own skills less valuable.8
\n\n\n\nThink about that. A person can become more productive and feel less valuable at the same time.
The fear is already entangled with people’s sense that they matter. In an American Psychological Association survey, workers worried that AI would make their duties obsolete were substantially more likely than other workers to say they did not matter to their employer or coworkers. The survey cannot prove that AI anxiety caused those feelings. It does show that fear of obsolescence and felt insignificance are arriving together.13
\n\n\n\nThis is how a worldview begins to shift. The new account does not have to be true, complete, or stable. It only has to make the old account stop feeling certain.
\n\n\n\nNow imagine believing that the work through which you expected to contribute may no longer need you.
\n\n\n\nYou do not have to lose your job for that belief to change you. A student can look at the field that once promised a future and wonder whether it is foolish to enter. A midcareer professional can look at years of accumulated skill and wonder whether the market will still recognize it. A parent can look at a child and wonder what preparation could possibly be enough. Someone choosing whether to start a family can wonder whether the next generation will have any economically useful place at all.
\n\n\n\nThe actual labor market may eventually prove some of those fears wrong. It may produce new roles, new industries, and forms of work we cannot yet name. But a worldview is not only a description of what is objectively true. It is the set of assumptions through which people decide what is worth doing.
\n\n\n\nIf I believe no employer will need my skill, the belief changes whether I develop it. If I believe entry-level work will vanish, the belief changes whether I pursue the profession. If I believe my children will enter a world in which machines outperform them at every economically valuable task, the belief changes how I imagine their future.
\n\n\n\nFor many people, a job has been the most ordinary proof that there is a place for them. Someone needs what I can do. Someone will exchange part of the world’s resources for my contribution. Other people can describe me through the role, and I can describe myself through it.
\n\n\n\nWhen that proof becomes uncertain, the question is larger than, “How will I earn money?”
\n\n\n\nIt becomes, “Where am I needed?”
\n\n\n\nThe Reformation created a similarly profound disruption in vocation. Before it, monks, nuns, and priests occupied a religious estate set apart from ordinary household and economic life. Protestant reformers attacked that hierarchy. A monastery was not necessarily a place of higher holiness. Marriage, parenting, civic office, farming, craft, and household labor could all be callings in which a person served God and neighbor.
\n\n\n\nThat change supplied one influential inheritance for the modern idea that ordinary work can express a calling. The later history is long and complicated, and our current habit of identifying ourselves with jobs cannot be credited to the Reformation alone. But the connection between work, identity, contribution, and purpose remains powerful. We want work to mean something because we want our lives to mean something.
\n\n\n\nAI presses directly on that connection.
\n\n\n\nThe important issue here is not whether AI will actually eliminate a particular job. It is what happens when a teacher, programmer, designer, accountant, lawyer, doctor, manager, or writer begins to believe the activity through which that person contributed will no longer require a person.
\n\n\n\nThe question changes from, “How will I do my work?” to, “Why would anyone need me to do it?”
\n\n\n\nThat is the difference between a technological adjustment and a worldview-changing event. A new tool changes the method. The belief that human contribution itself is becoming unnecessary changes the person who imagined having a place in the world.
\n\n\n\nIt is not only what AI is capable of doing that matters. It is what people think its capabilities mean about them.
\n\n\n\nThe Reformation forced people to ask how grace, faith, sacraments, penance, merit, and the Church’s mediation fit together in the relationship between a human being and God. What made one life holy and another ordinary? Who could speak with spiritual authority? What did freedom mean, and what obligations remained?
\n\n\n\nAI presses a different question, but one at a similar depth: why does a person matter?
\n\n\n\nFor a long time, we have answered partly by pointing to abilities. Humans reason. Humans use language. Humans create art. Humans solve problems. Humans understand one another. Humans exercise judgment.
\n\n\n\nBut even if a person had no grand theory of human uniqueness, there was usually a simpler answer available: I can do something that other people value.
\n\n\n\nFor many people, some role, task, trade, service, form of care, or exercise of judgment offered a way to contribute. The work might not be glamorous or deeply fulfilling. It might even be miserable. Still, being needed offered a basic form of recognition. There was a place for me because there was something I could do.
\n\n\n\nNow a system can produce behavior associated with many of those abilities.
\n\n\n\nWe can respond by moving the boundary. Perhaps humans reason better in unusual situations. Perhaps humans possess consciousness, embodiment, emotion, moral responsibility, relationships, or a lived history that a machine lacks. Those differences may be real and essential.
\n\n\n\nBut notice what happens if our defense of human value remains a performance contest.
\n\n\n\nIf people matter because they write better, then an improvement in machine writing weakens the argument. If people matter because they diagnose more accurately, the argument becomes vulnerable to the next medical benchmark. If people matter because they create beautiful images, every advance in image generation appears to subtract from human uniqueness.
\n\n\n\nThat should make us question the argument, not the people.
\n\n\n\nA child does not have to outperform a model to possess dignity. A person with dementia does not lose value as memory fails. A disabled person is not less human because a machine can perform an activity that person cannot. A worker’s worth cannot be identical to the market scarcity of a skill.
\n\n\n\nAI is not making human life less valuable. It is exposing how often we confused value with superiority, dignity with productivity, and meaning with economic usefulness.
\n\n\n\nThat could be a healthy correction.
\n\n\n\nIt could also be brutally destabilizing in societies that distribute income, status, health, housing, and opportunity according to market value. Telling people that their dignity is unconditional does not pay a mortgage when an employer has decided their skill is no longer scarce.
\n\n\n\nThe economic and existential questions therefore cannot be separated.
\n\n\n\nIf work is one of the main places people experience contribution, and if our institutions treat productive output as the basis for security and respect, AI can create a crisis of meaning even while increasing total wealth. A society can become more productive while many of its members feel less necessary.
\n\n\n\nThe problem is not simply that a machine might become more like a person.
\n\n\n\nThe problem is that we built a world in which people were valued as imperfect machines.
AI makes that world harder to defend.
\n\n\n\nIf a machine can eventually do all economically valuable work better than all of us, the fear is not merely that we will lose our salaries. The fear is that we will lose the most ordinary evidence that somebody needs us. What is my value then? What is my purpose? What is a life for when its contribution appears unnecessary? Those questions may rest on a false account of human worth, but that does not make them less real to the person asking.
\n\n\n\nA worldview is not replaced by proving that the old one has a flaw. It is replaced when people and institutions learn to live inside another account of who they are.
The Reformation was not a technology. It was a collection of religious, political, economic, and social movements within Latin Christendom. It unfolded across generations through churches, rulers, cities, families, wars, markets, and competing doctrines. AI is a technology being deployed around the world in societies with very different histories and accounts of human meaning.
\n\n\n\nI am not arguing that a model company is a new church, a programmer is a new Luther, or a chatbot is a religion.
\n\n\n\nNor am I arguing that radio, electricity, industrialization, the internet, or social media left human meaning untouched. They had enormous effects on human life and identity. But they primarily transformed our how: how we moved, worked, communicated, produced, consumed, and organized daily life.
\n\n\n\nAI can press more directly on our why. Why am I needed? Why does my work matter? Why should I develop an ability a machine may soon perform better? What gives a person purpose when useful performance is no longer distinctly human? The other technologies changed the conditions in which we pursued meaning. AI is beginning to make people question some of the sources from which they drew meaning in the first place.
\n\n\n\nThe analogy is not between a model and Luther. It is between two periods in which an inherited account of a person’s place in the world stopped settling the most important questions.
\n\n\n\nBefore we decide how to use AI, we need to understand what kind of change it is.
\n\n\n\nTreat AI as another technology and familiar questions follow. How do I use it? How do I work faster? Which skills should I learn? Which jobs will grow? Which rules should govern it?
\n\n\n\nThose questions matter, but they are about how.
\n\n\n\nThey do not answer the question AI has placed underneath them: what really is my worth?
\n\n\n\nThe Reformation matters as an analogy because it shows what happens when a civilization’s inherited answer to a question like that stops feeling certain. People do not simply update a belief and continue living as before. They reinterpret their past. They reconsider their obligations. They make different decisions about work, family, authority, education, community, and the future. The disruption travels outward from an altered account of who a person is and what a life is for.
\n\n\n\nThe parent wondering whether a child will ever find work is not merely planning for a new labor market. The parent is trying to imagine whether the child will have a recognized place in the world. The professional afraid that years of expertise will become worthless is not merely calculating future income. The professional is asking whether the life spent developing that expertise still adds up to something. The young person looking at a machine that can write, code, draw, diagnose, and advise is not only choosing a major. That person is trying to identify a form of contribution that will still prove there was a reason to develop into someone.
\n\n\n\nWe should not dismiss those fears by insisting that AI will create new jobs. It may. We should not intensify them by pretending we know that human labor will disappear. We do not.
\n\n\n\nThe deeper problem is that both answers leave the same assumption untouched: a person’s worth depends on remaining economically useful.
\n\n\n\nAs long as that is the answer, every improvement in AI will feel like a reduction in human value. Every new benchmark will move the boundary behind which we try to protect our importance. We will say that machines can write but cannot reason, then that they can reason but cannot judge, then that they can judge but cannot care. If our worth always rests on the next task a machine cannot perform, we have made human value contingent on the machine’s limitations.
\n\n\n\nThat is not a stable place to stand.
\n\n\n\nWe have to put the more difficult question at the forefront: what makes a human life valuable even when that life is not the most efficient way to produce an output?
\n\n\n\nAnswering it will require more than reassuring slogans. We can say that every person has dignity, that relationships matter, that care matters, that experience matters, and that responsibility matters. But we also have to ask whether we believe those things deeply enough to live by them when productivity points in another direction.
\n\n\n\nThis is hard work because the old account is built into us.
\n\n\n\nReturn one last time to Wittenberg.
\n\n\n\nThe people at Karlstadt’s service had accepted enough of the new theology to break rules that had ordered Christian practice for generations. Yet when the wafer fell, the old world was still present in their hesitation. Their explicit beliefs had changed before their embodied understanding of reality had changed.
\n\n\n\nWe can see the same divide in ourselves.
\n\n\n\nMost of us would reject the claim that a person’s worth equals a salary, a title, or the scarcity of a skill. We know that a child matters before the child can work. We know that an older person does not become worthless upon retirement. We know that illness, disability, unemployment, or dependence does not erase someone’s humanity.
\n\n\n\nYet when a machine performs a valued skill better or faster, many of us feel the threat personally. We do not experience it merely as a new method. We experience it as evidence that we may be worth less.
\n\n\n\nOur stated belief is that human value exceeds useful performance. Our reaction reveals how much of the old worldview remains in the body.
\n\n\n\nSaying that the old account of our worth was flawed is not enough. We have to learn to live inside another account of who we are.
\n\n\n\nIf we can answer the question of human worth in a way that survives being outperformed, we do not have to treat every advance in AI as evidence of our own disappearance. We may still have serious reasons to worry about jobs, income, power, and inequality. But we will not have to confuse the loss of a task with the loss of a self.
\n\n\n\nIf we cannot answer it, we will keep defending our value through whatever work machines have not yet mastered. That territory may continue to shrink. Long before every job is actually replaced, we may experience ourselves as replaceable altogether.
\n\n\n\nAnd then the question, “What is the point of life?” will no longer sound rhetorical.
\n\n\n\nThe printing press, radio, electricity, the internet, and social media changed what people could do and how they could do it. AI is changing how people understand their own purpose, value, and place in the world.
\n\n\n\nAI is changing the why.
\n\n\n\nAI does not merely execute strategy. It operationalizes a philosophy of purpose, knowledge, and value, whether leaders have articulated one or not.
\n","content_html":"\nEvery AI deployment turns vague values into executable instructions. If leaders do not define purpose, knowledge, and reality, the system will borrow its philosophy from metrics, training data, and vendors.
\n\n\n\nImagine a leadership team announcing its AI strategy in one sentence: We will achieve the same growth with 15 percent fewer people.
\n\n\n\nThat may be a target. It may even be a responsible response to difficult economics. But it is not a compelling account of what the organization hopes to become. It tells employees which cost should fall, not which capability should rise. It describes subtraction as though subtraction were a future.
\n\n\n\nMichael Schrage raised a version of this problem in our recent conversation. The trouble with treating AI chiefly as a source of efficiency is not only that the ambition is small. It is that the ambition supplies the system with a purpose. The tools are then asked to optimize labor cost, cycle time, or output without anyone having to say what the work is ultimately for.
\n\n\n\nAI does not make philosophy irrelevant. It makes philosophy operational.
\n\n\n\nOnce a model can recommend, rank, route, generate, negotiate, or act, words such as value, quality, loyalty, productivity, and risk can no longer remain inspiring abstractions. They have to become instructions. Someone, somewhere, must decide what counts as evidence, which categories matter, which tradeoffs are acceptable, and whose outcomes deserve priority.
\n\n\n\nIf leadership does not make those choices deliberately, the choices do not disappear. They are inherited from the data, the metric, the workflow, or the vendor.
\n\n\n\nThe danger is not only that AI will fail. It is that AI will faithfully optimize a purpose no one examined.
\nIn his MIT Sloan Management Review essay, “Philosophy Eats AI,” Schrage argues that AI systems inevitably embody positions on three old philosophical questions.
\n\n\n\nTeleology asks what the system is for. Is a customer-service agent meant to close tickets, reduce expense, restore confidence, preserve a relationship, or help a customer make a better decision? These purposes overlap until they do not. At the moment of conflict, the system needs a priority.
\n\n\n\nEpistemology asks what counts as knowledge. Which evidence may the system trust? Does a recorded click outweigh a customer’s explanation? Is a prediction sufficient grounds for action? How should the system treat uncertainty, disagreement, or information that does not fit its prior patterns?
\n\n\n\nOntology asks what kinds of things exist in the system’s world. Is a person a customer, a user, an account, a risk score, a member of a household, or a participant in a community? Which relationships are visible? Which are erased because the database has no field for them?
\n\n\n\nThese questions can sound academic until a system denies a loan, selects a job candidate, prioritizes a patient, assigns a sales lead, or decides which employee appears unproductive. Then ontology becomes a data model, epistemology becomes an evidence rule, and teleology becomes an objective function.
\n\n\n\nPhilosophy has entered production.
\n\n\n\nThe practical mistake is to imagine that a technically neutral system waits for human values to be added later. There is no neutral ranking, neutral threshold, or neutral definition of success. Every deployment encodes a view of what matters, even when that view arrives disguised as a default setting.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations need metrics. The problem begins when a proxy stops being treated as a partial representation and becomes the reality the system is permitted to see.
\n\n\n\nSuppose a company defines loyalty as repeat purchases. That definition is measurable and useful. It is also incomplete. A customer might repurchase because switching is difficult, because a contract traps them, or because every alternative is worse. The metric registers all three as loyalty. An AI trained to increase the number may improve retention while degrading the relationship that retention is meant to represent.
\n\n\n\nThe same problem appears when knowledge work is reduced to visible activity. Messages sent, documents produced, tickets closed, or hours online are traces of work. They are not the work itself. Judgment often creates value by preventing unnecessary activity, reframing the question, or recognizing that the requested output should not exist.
\n\n\n\nAI makes this confusion more consequential because it can optimize the proxy continuously and at scale. A weak metric in a monthly report can mislead a meeting. A weak metric embedded in an autonomous workflow can reorganize behavior across the company.
\n\n\n\nWhen a metric becomes the target, it can become the organization’s working definition of reality.
\nThis is why the familiar warning that “the map is not the territory” becomes a governance issue. The model will travel the map it is given. Leaders remain responsible for asking what the map excludes, who drew its borders, and whether arriving at the marked destination would actually count as progress.
\n\n\n\nTechnical debt accumulates when short-term engineering choices make future systems harder to change. Organizations now face a related problem: philosophical debt.
\n\n\n\nPhilosophical debt accumulates when fundamental questions are left unresolved but systems must still be built. The team does not agree on what a qualified lead is, so it automates the current scoring rule. Leaders have not settled what good service means, so the agent optimizes handle time. No one can define productive collaboration, so the dashboard counts individual output.
\n\n\n\nEach choice is defensible as a temporary convenience. Together, they harden into an operating philosophy no one remembers choosing.
\n\n\n\nThe debt is easy to miss because the system can perform well by its own measures. It can become faster, cheaper, and more consistent. But consistency is not the same as correctness. A system can scale a category error with extraordinary reliability.
\n\n\n\nThis is one reason vendor selection alone cannot be an AI strategy. Vendors can provide capable models, safeguards, and implementation patterns. They cannot decide what your customers should become, what obligations you have to employees, or which forms of value your business should protect. When leaders leave those questions blank, product defaults fill the space.
\n\n\n\nThe stakes rise as AI moves from answering questions to taking action.
\n\n\n\nA conversational model can produce a flawed recommendation that a person ignores. An agentic system can convert the same flaw into a sequence of actions before anyone notices the premise. It can segment customers, change offers, move money, contact suppliers, or alter a workflow. Greater autonomy shortens the distance between an assumption and its consequences.
\n\n\n\nThis does not mean every decision needs executive review. That would defeat much of the value of automation. It means the boundary between machine discretion and human judgment must reflect the moral and strategic weight of the decision, not merely the model’s confidence.
\n\n\n\nA model may be highly confident that a customer belongs in a low-value segment. Confidence does not answer whether the category is fair, whether the treatment will become self-fulfilling, or whether the company wants to build a relationship in which past value sets the ceiling on future attention.
\n\n\n\n“Human in the loop” is therefore too vague to be a governance principle. Which human? At what point? With what information? Empowered to question which premise? Accountable to whom?
\n\n\n\nExpert judgment should not be a ceremonial inspection step attached to the end of an automated process. It must help define the categories, evidence, exceptions, and purposes that shape the process from the beginning.
\n\n\n\nSchrage asks a bracing question in the episode: How do you contribute meaningful value when you are no longer the smartest creature in the room?
\n\n\n\nOne answer is that intelligence and judgment are not interchangeable.
\n\n\n\nA model may generate more options than a team, retrieve more information than an expert, and expose patterns no individual could detect. It still cannot relieve leaders of the obligation to decide what deserves to be optimized. In fact, greater machine capability makes that obligation harder to avoid.
\n\n\n\nCritical thinking in an AI-enabled organization is not simply the ability to spot hallucinations. It is the ability to examine the frame:
\n\n\n\nThese questions are sometimes dismissed as slowing innovation. Used well, they do the opposite. They prevent a company from scaling a misunderstanding.
\n\n\n\nOne of Schrage’s most exciting practices is the promptathon, a collaborative setting in which people use generative AI to explore problems, alternatives, and opportunities together. The important word is collaborative.
\n\n\n\nMost workplace AI adoption begins as private experimentation. Individuals learn to write faster, summarize more, or automate pieces of their jobs. That can produce real gains, but it also keeps the organization’s assumptions hidden inside personal workflows.
\n\n\n\nA well-designed promptathon can surface those assumptions. Different functions can ask the same model to describe a valuable customer, a successful project, or an acceptable tradeoff. The disagreement among the answers is not noise. It is evidence that the organization has been using shared words without a shared meaning.
\n\n\n\nThat makes the promptathon more than a prompt-engineering exercise. It can become a form of institutional philosophy conducted through prototypes. Teams can test how a definition behaves before embedding it in a system. They can compare what sales, service, finance, operations, and customers each mean by “value.” They can discover which disagreements require leadership decisions and which can remain productively plural.
\n\n\n\nThe goal is not consensus on every abstraction. It is enough clarity to know which purpose governs a particular system, which evidence it may use, and when competing values require escalation.
\n\n\n\nAI governance often begins with inventories, risk levels, privacy reviews, and technical controls. Those are necessary. They do not answer the prior question of what the system should be trying to accomplish.
\n\n\n\nBefore a consequential AI system enters production, its owners should be able to produce a short philosophy brief. It need not quote philosophers. It should answer seven practical questions:
\n\n\n\nThe brief will not eliminate disagreement. Its value is that it makes disagreement inspectable before software turns it into routine.
\n\n\n\nThe strongest AI strategy is not “What can this model do?” It is “What should this system make possible, for whom, and at what cost?”
\nNear the end of our conversation, Schrage plays with the difference between effect and affect. Organizations want cost-effective AI, systems that achieve an outcome with fewer resources. He argues that they should also want “cost affective” AI, systems designed with human feeling, motivation, and identity in view.
\n\n\n\nThe phrase is more than wordplay. Technology changes not only what people produce, but how they experience themselves while producing it.
\n\n\n\nAn AI system can make an employee more capable, curious, and willing to exercise judgment. It can also make the same employee passive, monitored, and reluctant to think beyond the recommendation. A customer agent can help someone understand a difficult choice, or it can perfect the art of moving them through a funnel. Both systems may reduce cost. Only one enlarges the person.
\n\n\n\nThis suggests a more ambitious way to measure return on AI. Alongside time saved, errors reduced, and revenue created, ask whether the system improves the human capacity around it. Do people make better judgments after using it? Do teams ask better questions? Can customers act with greater understanding? Does expertise become more transferable, or merely more concentrated in the machine?
\n\n\n\nSchrage has long argued that companies should ask not only how to create more valuable innovation, but how innovation can create more valuable people. That shift changes the unit of analysis. The person is no longer a cost adjacent to the technology. Human capability becomes one of the technology’s intended outputs.
\n\n\n\nAI capability will continue to spread. Competitors will gain access to similar models, interfaces, and agents. The durable advantage will not be possession of the tool alone.
\n\n\n\nIt will be the clarity to give powerful tools a purpose worth pursuing, the discipline to distinguish evidence from convenience, and the imagination to define value as more than whatever happens to be measurable.
\n\n\n\nLeaders sometimes hope AI will help them avoid hard choices by revealing the objectively best answer. More often, it reveals how much judgment was concealed inside the question. It forces a company to say what a good customer relationship is, what productive work looks like, which risks are acceptable, and what kind of organization it intends to become.
\n\n\n\nThose are philosophical questions, but they are not luxuries. They are design requirements.
\n\n\n\nAI cannot decide what your business is for. It can only make your answer more consequential.
\n\n\n\n![\"Michael](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/michael-schrage-headshot-1.webp\")
This essay grows out of Eric Pratum’s conversation with Michael Schrage on The Unfolding Thought Podcast. Watch or listen to “Why Philosophy Will Matter More Than AI.”
\n\n\n\n\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-cannot-decide-feature.png","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership","Unfolding Thought"]},{"id":2073,"title":"AI Doesn’t Transform Work. Management Systems Do.","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/ai-doesnt-transform-work-management-systems-do/","slug":"ai-doesnt-transform-work-management-systems-do","published_at":"2026-07-24T22:43:41+00:00","modified_at":"2026-07-24T22:43:47+00:00","excerpt_html":"AI can turn knowledge work from craft into process. Whether that produces a golden age of work or an AI slop factory depends on what leaders redesign around it. About an hour into my conversation with Neel Doshi, he described a chief technology officer who had a puzzle. The company’s engineers were coding faster with […]
\n","content_html":"\nAI can turn knowledge work from craft into process. Whether that produces a golden age of work or an AI slop factory depends on what leaders redesign around it.
\n\n\n\nAbout an hour into my conversation with Neel Doshi, he described a chief technology officer who had a puzzle.
\n\n\n\nThe company’s engineers were coding faster with AI. The expected business improvement never appeared.
\n\n\n\nNeel asked the question that should have come before the rollout: If accelerating engineering did not accelerate the company, what made anyone think engineering was the bottleneck?
\n\n\n\nThis is question about AI at work separates output from performance.
\n\n\n\nAI can help a person write more code, produce more slides, generate more campaign concepts, summarize more meetings, and answer more email. Every one of those activities can increase while the organization stays exactly where it was or gets worse. The code waits for a decision. The slides create another review cycle. The campaign concepts converge on the same familiar ideas. The meeting summary gives ten people ten more things to read.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe problem is not that the tool failed. The problem is that we accelerated one part of a system and called it transformation.
\n
The early evidence on AI productivity is real, but it is not uniform.
\n\n\n\nIn a study of 5,179 customer-support agents, researchers found that a generative AI assistant increased issues resolved per hour by 14 percent on average and 34 percent among novice and lower-skilled workers. The tool appears to have helped less-experienced workers apply practices that stronger workers had already learned.
\n\n\n\nA separate experiment with 758 consultants found similarly large gains on tasks that sat within AI’s capabilities. People with AI completed 12.2 percent more tasks, worked 25.1 percent faster, and produced higher-quality results. But on a task outside that capability frontier, the people using AI were 19 percent less likely to reach the correct answer.
\n\n\n\nThen, there is the uncomfortable counterexample. In a randomized trial involving experienced open-source developers working in codebases they knew well, AI use made them 19 percent slower. Before the work, they expected AI to make them 24 percent faster. Afterward, they still believed it had made them 20 percent faster. The tools have improved since that 2025 study, and METR’s 2026 follow-up says newer systems probably produce more benefit, but selection effects made the size of that benefit impossible to estimate reliably.
\n\n\n\nThese findings do not cancel one another out. Together, they tell us something more important: “Does AI improve productivity?” is an underspecified question.
\n\n\n\nWhose productivity? On what task? At what level of experience? Measured at what point in the workflow? Over what period? At what cost to the next person in the system?
\n\n\n\nThe practical unit of analysis cannot be the prompt or even the worker. It has to be the system that turns work into an outcome.
\n\n\n\nIf AI helps a copywriter produce twice as many drafts but the client still approves one campaign a month, draft production was not the constraint. If an engineer produces code faster but product decisions, security reviews, and customer adoption do not move, coding was not the constraint. If managers use AI to generate more feedback but employees need more time to interpret generic advice, the organization has transferred effort rather than eliminated it.
\n\n\n\nActivity is easy to accelerate. Throughput is harder.
\n\n\n\nNeel’s most provocative claim was this:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n“What AI can do for knowledge work is what mechanized factories did for manufacturing.”
\n
Manufacturing moved from craft toward process. Neel believes AI can do the same for knowledge work.
\n\n\n\nIt is an illuminating analogy, but only if we resist the easiest interpretation of it. Process does not mean that knowledge work becomes perfectly repeatable. It means we become more explicit about how work moves, where variation enters, who evaluates it, and how the system learns.
\n\n\n\nModern manufacturing was never as deterministic as it looks from a distance. Materials vary. Machines drift. Conditions change. People discover better methods. Systems such as the Toyota Production System and Six Sigma were built to notice and manage variation, not to pretend it had disappeared.
\n\n\n\nGenerative AI makes the variation more obvious. The same instruction can produce different answers. A model can perform brilliantly on one task and fail on another that looks almost identical. Its capabilities change. The surrounding data change. The meaning of “good” often depends on context that exists only in the heads of customers, operators, and subject-matter experts.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThat means expert judgment is not a final inspection step tacked onto an AI process. Judgment is part of the production system.
\n
This is where the factory analogy can mislead us. The worst version of industrialization reduces the person to a monitor of the machine: wait for output, check a box, fix the occasional defect. That would turn a great deal of knowledge work into the cognitive equivalent of watching a conveyor belt.
\n\n\n\nThe better analogy is a production system in which the people closest to the work can stop the line, diagnose a problem, change the method, and teach the improvement to everyone else.
\n\n\n\nAI can make knowledge work more process-like without making people more machine-like. But only if leaders distribute the authority to question and improve the process. Otherwise, we will not get continuous improvement. We will get continuous generation.
\n\n\n\n![\"Four](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/four-modes-of-ai-augmentation.webp\")
Neel described four broad modes of augmentation. Most organizations begin in the lower-left corner and mistake that starting point for the whole field.
\n\n\n\nNeel offered a useful definition of transformational change: performance gets worse before it gets better.
\n\n\n\nPeople need to learn new tools, but that is the smaller part of the problem. They also have to learn how to delegate to a system that does not understand responsibility, how to evaluate fluent output that may be subtly wrong, how to break work into parts, how to give useful feedback, and how to decide when a human conversation is the shortest route.
\n\n\n\nIn the middle of that learning curve, an experienced person can reasonably think, “I could have done this faster myself.” Sometimes they are correct.
\n\n\n\nEconomists have described a related pattern as the Productivity J-Curve. General-purpose technologies often require investments that ordinary productivity measures do not capture well: redesigned processes, new skills, new organizational structures, and new business models. During the investment period, measured productivity can stagnate or decline. The gains arrive later, if the complementary changes actually work.
\n\n\n\nThat gives leaders a reason to tolerate a dip. It does not give them permission to romanticize failure.
\n\n\n\nNot every valley leads somewhere. A team can get worse because it is learning, or because the use case is poor, the tool is unreliable, the work is badly designed, or the underlying problem was never worth solving. Calling every disappointment “transformation” is how a temporary experiment becomes a permanent drain.
\n\n\n\nA responsible performance dip has boundaries:
\n\n\n\n“Use AI more” satisfies none of these conditions. It is not a strategy. It is not even a complete instruction.
\n\n\n\nOne of the people Neel spoke with during an AI transformation was an engineer who had not talked to another person in four days. She was producing work, but the way the company had introduced AI was removing the collaborative part of the job, the part she enjoyed.
\n\n\n\nIt is tempting to dismiss this as a preference. Some people like quiet, independent work. Not every task needs a meeting, and collaboration can become its own form of bureaucracy.
\n\n\n\nBut knowledge work depends on more than the sum of individual outputs. Teams combine perspectives, expose assumptions, carry tacit context, notice weak signals, and decide what is worth doing. Those functions can be slow. They are also where much of the organization’s judgment lives.
\n\n\n\nRecent research makes the tradeoff clear.
\n\n\n\nIn one experiment, access to AI ideas helped individuals write stories that evaluators found more creative and enjoyable. Across the group, however, the stories became more similar to one another. Everyone could improve locally while the collective pool of ideas narrowed.
\n\n\n\nAnother set of experiments found that human-AI collaboration improved immediate task performance but was followed by lower intrinsic motivation and more boredom when people returned to solo work. That does not prove AI will make work demotivating; the studies used bounded online tasks. It does warn us that the experience of performing better and the experience of developing capability are not the same thing.
\n\n\n\nThe collaboration evidence is not uniformly negative. A field experiment with 791 Procter & Gamble professionals found that individuals working with AI matched the performance of two-person teams without it. AI also helped technical and commercial professionals produce more balanced solutions, crossing some of the functional boundaries that usually shaped their ideas.
\n\n\n\nThat is a meaningful benefit. It also raises a management question: If AI can reproduce some benefits of a team for one task, what human capabilities still need a team to develop over time?
\n\n\n\nThe answer will differ by work. The point is to ask before collaboration disappears by accident.
\n\n\n\nNeel recommends that leaders describe the goal as “AI native and people first.” It is better language than “AI first” because it refuses to rank the tool above the people, customers, and purpose of the organization.
\n\n\n\nBut a phrase this appealing can become decoration. To mean anything, it has to change decisions.
\n\n\n\nI would look for six signs.
\n\n\n\nDo not lead with prompts written, licenses activated, hours “saved,” drafts produced, or agents built. Measure cycle time from need to usable outcome, downstream rework, error rates, customer response, decision quality, revenue, cost, or whatever the system exists to accomplish.
\n\n\n\nThe closer the metric is to clicking the AI button, the easier it is to mistake motion for value.
\n\n\n\nNeel noted that he can detect weak AI writing about his own research but may not recognize errors in an explanation of quantum physics. That should determine where AI is used and who reviews it.
\n\n\n\nThe person who can judge the output needs enough context, time, and authority to change the process, not merely approve what the system hands them.
\n\n\n\nWhen everyone begins with the same model, the model can become a hidden agenda setter. It defines the first set of possibilities, and people refine from there.
\n\n\n\nFor work that depends on novelty, teams should sometimes think independently before using AI, deliberately seek disconfirming views, and compare genuinely different approaches. Faster convergence is valuable only after the search space is rich enough.
\n\n\n\nIf people are expected to learn only after their normal work is finished, the organization is choosing nights and weekends as its AI strategy.
\n\n\n\nProtected practice time, real tasks, feedback from experts, and permission to discard a weak use case are investments in capability. A one-hour prompt-training session followed by an adoption quota is not.
\n\n\n\nLeaders cannot remain at the level of saying, “Build an agent for that.” They need direct experience with the tool’s strengths, failure modes, and demands on judgment.
\n\n\n\nMore importantly, they need to change the calendars, approvals, meeting habits, decision rights, and incentives that keep everyone else working in the old way. Technology added on top of an unchanged management system usually becomes one more layer of work.
\n\n\n\nNeel’s hopeful scenario is a “golden age of work” in which AI helps more people solve problems and improve the systems around them. That requires more than promising not to eliminate jobs.
\n\n\n\nPeople need consequential choices to make, skills to build, colleagues to learn with, and evidence that their contribution changed the outcome. A job can survive while everything motivating about it is removed.
\n\n\n\nThe cost of producing a plausible draft has collapsed. The cost of deciding what deserves attention has not.
\n\n\n\nAs generation becomes abundant, several things become scarcer: trustworthy judgment, distinctive ideas, shared context, willingness to revise, and the motivation to take ownership of an outcome. Those are not soft concerns around the edge of AI adoption. They are the constraints that determine whether faster generation becomes value or noise.
\n\n\n\nNeel is right that AI creates an unusual opening. Organizations can use it to give more people access to context, coaching, and the ability to improve work that once felt fixed. They can also use it to increase output, centralize control, weaken apprenticeship, and fill every channel with artifacts no one needed.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe technology does not choose between those futures. The management system does.
\n
![\"Eric](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/neel-doshi-episode.webp\")
Experience is only evidence. A debrief turns what happened into a better next decision, but only when people can tell the truth, test their explanations, and change what they do.
\n","content_html":"\nSomething Christian “Boo” Boucousis said during our recent conversation on The Unfolding Thought Podcast has been sticking with me: fighter pilots debrief everything.
\n\n\n\nThey debrief good missions. They debrief bad missions. They debrief missions interrupted by weather or equipment problems. They do not wait for something dramatic to go wrong, and they do not assume that doing the work again means they learned from doing it the first time.
\n\n\n\nMost businesses do.
\n\n\n\nThink about a project that did not go as planned. Maybe it was a marketing campaign that did not produce enough qualified leads. Maybe a product launch was late. Maybe a good employee left, a client relationship deteriorated, or a strategy everyone liked never produced the expected result.
\n\n\n\nWhat normally happens next?
\n\n\n\nPeople explain. The audience was wrong. Sales did not follow up. The client changed the brief. Someone missed a handoff. The market shifted. We did not have enough time. The technology did something strange.
\n\n\n\nAny one of those explanations might be true. Several might be true. But, more often than I think most leaders would like to admit, the explanation is accepted because it is plausible, not because anyone really tested it. The meeting ends, everyone goes back to work, and a few months later the organization encounters a suspiciously similar problem wearing different clothes.
\n\n\n\nThat is experience. It is not necessarily learning.
\n\n\n\nExperience is only evidence. It becomes learning when it changes what you do next.
\nBusinesses like to say they are iterative. Agile companies work in sprints. Marketing teams run experiments. Product teams release versions. Leaders collect metrics and talk about continuous improvement.
\n\n\n\nBut repetition and iteration are not the same thing.
\n\n\n\nIf you run the next sprint with the same assumptions, incentives, decision rights, and behaviors, you did not iterate. You just started over. If you collect customer feedback, put it in a report, and then proceed with the plan everyone already preferred, you did not close a feedback loop. You documented feedback.
\n\n\n\nBoucousis makes a useful distinction between speed and velocity. Speed is movement. Velocity includes direction. A business can answer emails faster, create more content, ship more features, and hold more meetings while moving very quickly in the wrong direction.
\n\n\n\nThis is one reason a good debrief actually begins before the work. You need to know what you are trying to achieve well enough for reality to disagree with you.
\n\n\n\n“Launch the campaign” is not a useful objective. That is an activity. “Create 40 qualified sales conversations from this audience without taking acquisition cost above the level we agreed upon” is an objective. It gives you a result to compare with an intention.
\n\n\n\nThe same is true of meetings, hires, technology implementations, and nearly everything else. “Install the CRM” tells you what people will do. It does not tell you what should be different when they are done. Without that difference being made explicit, the team can complete every task, celebrate the launch, and still have no reliable way to know whether the work was worth doing.
\n\n\n\nHuman beings are very good defense attorneys for our own decisions.
\n\n\n\nWhen a result is poor, circumstances were difficult. When a result is good, our strategy was smart. We might not say it that bluntly, but most of us can find a story that protects what we already believed about ourselves, our teams, and our choices.
\n\n\n\nThis is not because everyone is dishonest. It is because the story arrives almost immediately. We experience the result through our own expectations, identities, incentives, and incomplete view of what happened. By the time the meeting begins, each person might already have a different version of reality.
\n\n\n\nThe Plan-Brief-Execute-Debrief model Boucousis uses tries to slow that down with four questions:
\n\n\n\nThe sequence is important. Start with what you intended. Then describe what happened before explaining it. Otherwise, the explanation has a way of changing the standard by which the result is judged.
\n\n\n\nYou have probably seen this. A team misses its revenue goal, but the conversation quickly shifts to how much awareness the campaign created. A project is late, but everyone focuses on how much they learned while building it. A new system is barely used, but the implementation is called a success because it went live.
\n\n\n\nAwareness, learning, and launching might all be valuable. They are not substitutes for the result you said you wanted before the work began.
\n\n\n\nThis is also why success needs to be debriefed. Success is much easier to accept and therefore easier to misunderstand. A good result can hide a bad process, an unrepeatable advantage, a near miss, or an assumption that happened not to hurt you this time. Research on after-event reviews found that people who examined successes and failures improved more than those who reviewed failures alone.
\n\n\n\nIf the campaign worked, you still need to know why. Otherwise, you may take the wrong lesson from it and confidently repeat the part that mattered least.
\n\n\n\nWhenever a conversation turns toward systems, context, and root causes, someone worries that personal responsibility is about to disappear. If everything is a system problem, can anyone ever be held accountable?
\n\n\n\nOf course they can.
\n\n\n\nA person may have ignored evidence, violated a standard, failed to prepare, or simply not done the job. A leader may also have created incompatible incentives, withheld information, assigned responsibility without authority, or punished someone the last time they raised an uncomfortable issue. Both can be true.
\n\n\n\nThe point of a debrief is not to make responsibility disappear. It is to make responsibility more accurate.
\n\n\n\nMost organizations use accountability too late. They invoke it after the result, when everyone is looking for the person who should own what went wrong. Real accountability starts before execution. It requires a clear objective, an owner, visible constraints, agreed evidence, and the ability to question the plan before everyone commits to it.
\n\n\n\nIt also requires people to be able to say what actually happened.
\n\n\n\nIf telling the truth about the work is dangerous, the debrief is theater.
\nBoucousis describes debriefing as nameless and rankless. I like the intention, but rank does not disappear because the highest-ranking person says it has. Everyone watches what happens to the first person who contradicts the leader, admits an embarrassing mistake, or says that the favored strategy did not make sense.
\n\n\n\nIf that person is humiliated, interrupted, ignored, or quietly punished later, the organization still learns a lesson. It is just not the lesson the leader intended. People learn that protecting the story is safer than examining the result.
\n\n\n\nPsychological safety sometimes gets described as making everyone comfortable. That is not how I think about it. It is what makes productive discomfort possible. Research on debriefing and psychological safety connects it with speaking up, sharing information, and learning from errors. Safety makes the evidence available. Accountability makes the evidence matter.
\n\n\n\nA few years ago, I wrote about how businesses tend to self-diagnose and then go straight to a specialist. Revenue is down, so the company decides it has a website problem and hires someone to build a new website. Six months later, the website is new, the underlying problem remains, and everyone is looking for the next solution.
\n\n\n\nA debrief should help with this, but only if people resist the desire for an explanation that feels cleaner than reality.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations like a single root cause because a single cause creates a sense of control. The campaign failed because the offer was weak. The product was late because one team missed a handoff. The client left because the account lead did not communicate.
\n\n\n\nMaybe. But complex outcomes usually emerge from several conditions interacting with one another. A weak offer might have worked with a different audience. A missed handoff might not have mattered if the project had enough slack. Poor communication might have been recoverable if months of inconsistent delivery had not already weakened the relationship.
\n\n\n\nThe goal is not to make the past look inevitable. The goal is to improve what the organization believes before it acts again.
\n\n\n\nSometimes that means ending the debrief with, “We do not know yet.” I would rather hear that than a confident story supported by little evidence. “We do not know whether the audience or the offer was the primary constraint, so our next test will separate them” is a useful conclusion. It turns uncertainty into a better next action.
\n\n\n\nThis is where red teaming can help. The red team is not there to complain or to make the meeting more dramatic. Its job is to ask what would make the preferred explanation false, which assumptions the next plan depends upon, and what an outsider might notice that the team has learned to ignore.
\n\n\n\nAI lowers the cost of doing things. We can produce analysis, copy, code, plans, reports, experiments, and variations much faster than before.
\n\n\n\nThat sounds like an unqualified advantage until you remember that organizations already have trouble learning from the amount of work they do now.
\n\n\n\nWhen production becomes cheaper, the bottleneck shifts. Judgment, attention, and organizational memory become more valuable because the business now has more actions, results, and explanations to sort through.
\n\n\n\nAI can help an organization remember. It can also help the organization repeat a bad explanation much faster.
\nAI can compare a stated objective with the reported result. It can find contradictions across accounts, identify causes that recur across projects, retrieve a prior lesson during planning, and red-team a proposal before reality does it for you. Research systems such as Reflexion have even shown that an AI agent can use feedback, create a reflection, retain it as memory, and improve a later attempt.
\n\n\n\nBut storing a meeting transcript is not the same as creating organizational memory. A report is not intelligence simply because it contains more information. The lesson has to show up when someone is about to make a relevant decision, and it has to change what the person or system does.
\n\n\n\nAI also cannot decide which purpose is worth pursuing, which tradeoff is acceptable, or whether a local success damaged the larger system. If the destination and values are vague, AI can help you move faster without helping you move in a better direction.
\n\n\n\nI do not think every project needs a long, ceremonial meeting. In many cases, 15 focused minutes would be an enormous improvement over the hour-long status meetings people are already attending.
\n\n\n\nI would make the team answer these questions:
\n\n\n\nThat final question matters. A corrective action is still a hypothesis. It might be reasonable and still fail. If no one checks, the organization can turn a mistaken lesson into a new standard operating procedure and call that learning.
\n\n\n\nThe advantage is not simply moving faster. It is learning faster.
\n\n\n\nA business with a high learning rate does not need every decision to be right. It needs wrongness to become visible, discussable, memorable, and useful. It needs leaders who can tolerate evidence that complicates their own story. It needs success to be examined instead of merely celebrated.
\n\n\n\nWhen the debrief is over, ask one last question: What changed because of this conversation?
\n\n\n\nIf the answer is nothing, you had a meeting. You did not debrief.
\n\n\n\nThis essay develops ideas from my conversation with Christian “Boo” Boucousis, CEO of Afterburner and a former Royal Australian Air Force fighter pilot. Watch or listen to “Why Fighter Pilots Debrief Everything” on The Unfolding Thought Podcast.
\n\n\n\n![\"Christian](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Boo-headshot.jpg\")
\n When a small youth soccer club develops excellent players, success can dismantle the proof of its work. The deeper problem is a system that cannot reliably recognize development before status absorbs it.
\n","content_html":"\nWhat happens when a small youth soccer club develops a team that becomes better than the supposedly elite clubs around it?
\n\n\n\nIn an open system, the team would earn stronger competition and the club would gain status. In much of American youth soccer, there is no automatic path upward. The club’s best players are more likely to leave for organizations that already possess the right league badge. The original club can point to those departures as evidence that its coaches did good work, but the team that produced the evidence has been dismantled.
\n\n\n\nSuccess can make the institution that created it weaker.
\n\n\n\nThat paradox reveals an information problem disguised as a competition problem. Parents are buying player development they cannot directly inspect, so they rely on league badges, wins, roster placement, facilities, and social proof. Then, when a smaller club produces convincing evidence of development, the system can move that evidence to organizations whose status has already been established.
\n\n\n\nA system that cannot reliably elevate good development or expose poor development cannot tell parents which is which. Eventually, the appearance of development becomes easier to sell than development itself.
\n\n\n\nThis was the tension I kept hearing in my second interview with Rory O’Neill on The Unfolding Thought Podcast. Rory has spent years coaching and building youth soccer programs. Much of our conversation concerned closed leagues, pay-to-play, promotion and relegation, and the incentives around player movement. Underneath those issues is a harder question: how can a market reward good development if the people buying it cannot confidently recognize it?
\n\n\n\nIn a simple purchase, one person may play every important role. I buy a sandwich, eat it, decide whether it was good, choose whether to return, and suffer the consequences if it makes me sick.
\n\n\n\nYouth sports divide those roles among several people:
\n\n\n\nThose forms of power can point in different directions. A child may need harder competition, less playing time, a different position, more unstructured practice, or an honest explanation that progress has stalled. None of those experiences is guaranteed to make the payer happy today.
\n\n\n\nCalling the parent “the customer” is commercially accurate and developmentally incomplete. Calling the child “the customer” sounds principled but ignores who controls the revenue. The mistake is assuming that one word can describe a relationship in which payment, benefit, expertise, choice, and risk are divided.
\n\n\n\nWhen satisfaction is visible and development is not, the system learns to sell satisfaction.
\nEconomists describe some expert services as credence services. Even after buying them, the customer may not be able to determine whether the right service was provided. Most patients cannot independently evaluate a medical diagnosis. Most car owners cannot inspect a transmission repair. Most parents cannot watch a practice and determine whether the coach made the right tradeoffs for a player’s development over several years.
\n\n\n\nYouth development is especially difficult to judge because the result is partly counterfactual. The relevant question is not simply, “Is this player better than last year?” A growing child receiving almost any regular practice may improve. The harder question is, “How much better would this child have become in a different environment?” Families never get to observe both futures.
\n\n\n\nWhen buyers cannot inspect the underlying quality, they look for signals. A winning record is a signal. A famous coach is a signal. Travel is a signal. Facilities are a signal. Being selected for an “elite” roster is a particularly powerful signal because it tells the parent that another authority has already evaluated the child.
\n\n\n\nSignals are not useless. A strong league may provide better competition. A selective roster may contain better players. Winning may reflect good coaching. The danger comes when a signal becomes easier to produce and sell than the result it is supposed to represent.
\n\n\n\nThat distinction matters in a closed system. MLS NEXT membership is awarded through an application and evaluation process that considers philosophy, governance, coaching, player development history, affordability, geography, and other factors. Those are reasonable things to examine. But membership is still a selected certification, not a competitive rank that every club can continuously earn on the field. To a parent, the badge can therefore look like objective proof even though the route to obtaining it is more complicated.
\n\n\n\nA player’s development may take ten years. A club’s renewal decision arrives every season. A parent’s frustration can arrive after one lineup.
\n\n\n\nThe shorter loop produces louder information. The club sees a complaint, a departure, or an unpaid invoice immediately. It may not know for years whether a technically gifted 12-year-old learned to solve problems, whether a late-maturing player received enough patience, or whether a confident 15-year-old learned to accept responsibility.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations tend to manage what they can observe. Research on performance measurement and incentives has long warned that measurable proxies can distort behavior when they are mistaken for the harder-to-measure goal. In youth soccer, renewals, wins, league status, and roster size are easy to count. Development is not.
\n\n\n\nThis does not require bad people. A caring coach can know that a player needs a difficult truth. A well-intentioned director can know that a team should emphasize learning rather than a weekend result. But if telling the truth causes the family to leave, while reassurance protects the revenue that pays the coach, the business model has made honesty expensive.
\n\n\n\nA coach can be serving the child and risking the customer at the same time.
\nRory argues that promotion and relegation would make American soccer more meritocratic. A team that performs well could earn stronger competition. A club could not preserve status without repeatedly earning it through open competition simply because it already belonged to the right league.
\n\n\n\nThat would create useful information. Results would have consequences, and success could open a path that is currently controlled by membership decisions. In that sense, promotion and relegation is not just a sporting preference. It is a mechanism for testing claims.
\n\n\n\nBut a more objective team hierarchy is not the same as an objective development system. A club can win by recruiting the strongest current players rather than improving the players it has. It can favor early-maturing children, use conservative tactics, narrow positions, and reduce experimentation. A standings table can tell us which team won. It cannot tell us how much each child learned.
\n\n\n\nThe United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee’s American Development Model emphasizes age-appropriate development, access, quality coaching, fun, and attention to skill and effort. Those goals remind us that competitive results are one signal among several. Replacing a league badge with a winning record would improve one feedback loop while leaving the larger measurement problem intact.
\n\n\n\nConsider a small club that develops an unusually strong team. If that team cannot earn access to a higher level of competition, its best players may leave for clubs that already possess the desired badge. The original club can point to those departures as evidence that its coaches did good work, but the team that produced the evidence has been dismantled.
\n\n\n\nSuccess has made the institution that created it weaker.
\n\n\n\nThat is more than an issue of fairness. It is a loss of information. Parents evaluating the original club no longer see the strong team. They see the remaining roster and the higher-status clubs that absorbed its players. The visible proof migrates away from the people who created it.
\n\n\n\nThere are attempts to address this. The MLS NEXT Development Grant Program can reward a qualifying elite academy when a player reaches specified professional milestones. That is meaningful progress, but eligibility is narrow and the grant goes to the immediately preceding qualifying academy. Many origin clubs and earlier coaches remain outside the mechanism.
\n\n\n\nInternational soccer offers a broader idea. FIFA’s Clearing House distributes training compensation and solidarity contributions to clubs involved in a player’s development. The details are complex, and no payment system perfectly identifies causal contribution. The important principle is that development should leave some value behind for the institution that helped create it.
\n\n\n\nIf success causes your best evidence to leave, the system is not rewarding development. It is consuming it.
\nNo single measure will solve this. That is the point. When the goal is complex, a responsible system uses several imperfect signals and makes their limitations visible.
\n\n\n\nA club that claims to develop players should be able to show more than trophies and placements. It should be able to explain what it is trying to develop, how coaches assess progress, and what families should expect when the child’s needs conflict with the team’s short-term result.
\n\n\n\nFIFA’s talent-identification guidance calls for a clear philosophy, defined player profiles, comprehensive scouting environments, player observation, data analysis, structured selection, and a process that can operate over the long term. A child cannot be reduced to one tryout, one coach, or one team result. Neither can the quality of the environment developing that child.
\n\n\n\nTransparency will not remove conflict. It can make conflict more honest.
\n\n\n\nBefore a season begins, clubs can separate the development promise from the status promise. They can explain how playing time is decided, what “elite” means, what evidence coaches use, and how a family can appeal or seek an independent view. They can make it easier for a child to move when another environment would be better. They can reward coaches for long-term progress and candor, not only wins and renewals.
\n\n\n\nParents also have a role. If we say we want development but punish every decision that makes our child uncomfortable, the club learns what we actually value. If we treat a badge as proof, we help turn the badge into the product. If we demand guarantees that no honest coach can make, reassurance will eventually displace judgment.
\n\n\n\nThe goal is not to make parents passive. It is to give them better information and clearer expectations so that dissatisfaction can reveal a real problem rather than merely the distance between a development process and an imagined outcome.
\n\n\n\nThe same information problem appears in schools, healthcare, consulting, nonprofits, elder care, and business services. One person may pay, another may use the service, a third may evaluate quality, and the consequences may arrive after the contract ends.
\n\n\n\nCustomer satisfaction matters in all of those settings. It can tell us whether the payer received the experience they expected. It cannot, by itself, tell us whether the institution fulfilled its purpose. Leaders need to ask who pays, who benefits, who can judge quality, who decides whether the relationship continues, and who bears the cost if it fails. If the answers name different people, the most visible feedback is not necessarily the most important.
\n\n\n\nAmerican youth soccer does not lack people who care about children. It lacks a reliable way to keep care, truth, revenue, and development pointing in the same direction. Until development becomes more visible and more valuable to the institution producing it, status will remain easier to market than progress.
\n\n\n\nThe question is not whether American youth soccer has coaches capable of developing players. It is whether the system can recognize their work before success dismantles the proof.
\n\n\n\n![\"Rory](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/rory-oneill-episode.jpg\")
AI infrastructure creates a mismatch between fast, reversible technology bets and long-lived grid investments. The real question is who pays when uncertain demand forecasts are wrong.
\n","content_html":"\nWhat happens when a technology company explores building the same data center in several states, encourages each one to compete for the project, chooses the place that offers the best combination of price and speed, and walks away from the rest?
\n\n\n\nLong before the decision is made, utilities and communities have already begun studying substations, transmission, generation, reserve capacity, land, incentives, and staffing. That planning costs real money. Some equipment and contracts may need to be reserved years before anyone knows whether the server racks will arrive.
\n\n\n\nWho bears that cost when the company chooses somewhere else? Usually not the company that created the competition.
\n\n\n\nThe company keeps the option to change its mind. Utilities, communities, and ratepayers can be left with the cost of preparing for a future that never arrives.
\n\n\n\nThat is the less obvious infrastructure problem underneath the AI boom. It is not simply that data centers need enormous amounts of electricity. It is that technology companies can make fast, reversible bets while the systems competing to serve them must begin making slow, difficult-to-reverse commitments.
\n\n\n\nThat was the tension I kept hearing in my interview with Peter Kelly-Detwiler on The Unfolding Thought Podcast. Peter has spent decades in electricity markets. He describes data centers that place enormous interconnection requests because access to power may determine whether an AI investment succeeds. He also describes utilities trying to distinguish committed demand from speculative demand when the cost of guessing wrong can remain on customer bills for decades.
\n\n\n\nThe cloud has encouraged us to think of computing as nearly weightless. A company adds capacity, moves a workload, or releases a new model, and the change appears to happen everywhere at once. The physical system beneath that experience moves differently.
\n\n\n\nPower plants, transmission corridors, and substations are not software deployments. They require land, equipment, permits, financing, engineering, and public consent. Once built, they are expected to serve customers long enough to recover their cost.
\n\n\n\nMeanwhile, the demand forecast is changing at software speed. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s 2025 update estimated that U.S. data centers used about 4.7 percent of the nation’s electricity in 2024. Its reference case reaches 11.8 percent in 2030, while the modeled range runs from 9.5 to 15.3 percent. The authors caution that those bounds are not a confidence interval and that the most extreme assumptions are unlikely to occur together. The uncertainty is not a flaw in the research. It is evidence of the problem planners face.
\n\n\n\nThe North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s 2025 long-term assessment says data centers account for most of the projected increase in electricity demand over the next decade. It also describes projects that slow down, disappear, or consume far less than originally requested. In Texas, planners reduced projected demand from newer data centers after operating sites used, on average, about half of the capacity they had requested.
\n\n\n\nThe same forecast can therefore contain a real signal and a large amount of noise. The system may need much more power. It does not follow that every proposed megawatt will appear where and when an application says it will.
\n\n\n\nA developer benefits from preserving options. If it can apply for capacity in several regions, it can compare timelines, incentives, energy prices, regulatory conditions, and construction risks before choosing a site.
\n\n\n\nThat is rational behavior for the developer. It becomes a system problem when every option is treated as a commitment.
\n\n\n\nIf five utilities each prepare to serve the same project, society may reserve equipment, engineering time, and capital for four facilities that will never exist. If every utility heavily discounts every request, the one project that is real may arrive before the grid is ready.
\n\n\n\nTraditional forecasting tries to estimate which future is most likely. That is necessary, but it cannot answer the more important governance question: who should carry the cost when the forecast is wrong?
\n\n\n\nThe problem is not uncertainty. The problem is allowing one party to create uncertainty while another party pays for it.
\nWhen a utility builds dedicated infrastructure for a large customer, the customer is receiving something more valuable than electricity. It is receiving an option on future capacity.
\n\n\n\nAn option has value even if it is never exercised. Equipment may be ordered. Other customers may be told that capacity is unavailable. A transmission plan may be changed. Capital that could have served another need may be committed.
\n\n\n\nThe contract should make that option visible. Deposits, milestone payments, minimum-demand charges, exit fees, and long-term commitments are not punishments for innovation. They are ways to keep a private option from becoming a public liability.
\n\n\n\nThis principle is now moving into regulation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has called for cost-recovery agreements that protect other customers if infrastructure is built for a large load that does not arrive as planned. The point is straightforward: the party best positioned to judge whether a project is real should retain a meaningful share of the risk that it is not.
\n\n\n\nA forecast should guide an investment. A contract should decide who carries the risk if the forecast is wrong.
\nPeter uses the phrase “compute heat rate” for the electricity price at which the value of additional computation no longer justifies operating the data center. The concept matters because it reveals how differently an AI company and an ordinary customer may value the same megawatt-hour.
\n\n\n\nFor most businesses and households, electricity is a meaningful operating expense. For a company racing to train or deploy a valuable model, electricity can be the input that determines whether billions of dollars of chips produce revenue or sit idle.
\n\n\n\nThat can make time-to-power more important than the price of power. It explains the interest in co-located generation, private power plants, batteries, and temporary arrangements that let a project begin operating before the larger grid connection is ready.
\n\n\n\nThere is nothing inherently wrong with paying for speed. The problem comes when the price is hidden in another customer’s bill, in reduced reliability, or in infrastructure that remains after the business case disappears.
\n\n\n\nA data center is often described as a load, as though it were simply an enormous appliance. That leaves out an important possibility. Some computational work can move in time, move to another location, or briefly draw on onsite storage and generation.
\n\n\n\nThat flexibility can be valuable because the grid is built for its most difficult hours, not its average hour. A facility that avoids adding to the annual peak can consume more total electricity without requiring the same amount of new capacity.
\n\n\n\nElectric Power Research Institute modeling found that shifting portions of data-center demand away from constrained hours reduced peak demand, the need for firm capacity, and the average price of electricity supplied to the facilities. EPRI is also testing operational approaches through its Data Center Flexible Load Initiative.
\n\n\n\nFlexibility should not be treated as a hopeful description. It should be a measurable operating commitment. Different workloads have different latency, availability, and geographic constraints. A promise to reduce demand is useful only if the grid operator knows how much, how quickly, for how long, and with what consequences.
\n\n\n\nThe same is true of reliability. NERC’s work on emerging large loads warns that data centers can change consumption quickly enough to create risks the grid was not designed to manage. The facility cannot claim the reliability benefits of grid connection while treating its own electrical behavior as someone else’s problem.
\n\n\n\nUncertainty does not justify paralysis. It should change the order in which investments are made.
\n\n\n\nSome improvements create value across many possible futures. Better sensors and dynamic line ratings can reveal when existing transmission lines safely carry more power. Advanced conductors can move more electricity through an existing right-of-way. Storage can reduce short peaks and improve power quality. More planners, engineers, and regulatory capacity can shorten decisions without pretending the decisions are simple.
\n\n\n\nThe Department of Energy describes these grid-enhancing technologies as faster ways to unlock capacity from infrastructure that already exists. They do not eliminate the need for new generation and transmission. They buy time, improve utilization, and remain useful if a particular data center never appears.
\n\n\n\nLarger dedicated investments should follow stronger evidence of commitment. They can be staged against financing, land control, equipment orders, construction progress, and binding load agreements. The evidence required should rise with the irreversibility of the decision.
\n\n\n\nThe grid does not need certainty about AI. It needs commitments proportional to the uncertainty AI creates.
\nThe AI electricity debate is often framed as a choice between acceleration and restraint. Build everything quickly and risk higher costs, stranded assets, and reliability problems. Move slowly and risk losing investment, innovation, and economic opportunity.
\n\n\n\nThat framing is too narrow. The more useful question is how to make a sequence of decisions that remains sensible across several plausible futures.
\n\n\n\nWe do not need to know exactly how many proposed data centers will be operating in 2035. We need connection rules that distinguish curiosity from commitment. We need contracts that put project risk close to the party creating it. We need flexible operating agreements that make new demand useful to the grid when possible. We need public investments that retain value even when a private forecast fails.
\n\n\n\nAI may transform the economy. It may also pass through investment cycles that make today’s confident forecasts look naive. The grid has to function in either case.
\n\n\n\nThat is why the deepest infrastructure skill is no longer prediction. It is designing commitments, options, and safeguards so that we can build before uncertainty disappears without pretending uncertainty has disappeared already.
\n\n\n\nA household should not become an involuntary venture investor merely because someone else’s investment happens to plug into its grid.
\n\n\n\n![\"Peter](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/peter-kelly-detwiler-episode.jpg\")
Organizations become brittle when a process survives after its purpose has faded. Leadership means separating fidelity to purpose from fidelity to process and protecting room for alternatives.
\n","content_html":"\nAn institution can be orderly, disciplined, and increasingly ineffective at the same time.
\n\n\n\nThat kind of failure is hard to see because it still looks like competence.
\n\n\n\nThe weekly report arrives on time. Every project clears the required stage gate. The dashboard is green. The audit finds no missing fields. Yet customers are leaving, quality is slipping, decisions take longer, and the people closest to the work have learned that raising an anomaly creates more trouble than ignoring it.
\n\n\n\nNothing is obviously broken because the organization has become excellent at demonstrating fidelity to its process. The difficulty is that fidelity to process and fidelity to purpose are not the same thing.
\n\n\n\nThat distinction is what I kept returning to after my conversation with Eliot Frick on The Unfolding Thought Podcast. Frick makes a much larger philosophical argument about whether modernity has entered the final stage of its life. His description of late-stage systems is immediately recognizable in organizations.
\n\n\n\nA system begins with generative power. It solves problems that could not previously be solved. Its methods become credible because they work. Over time, however, the methods become inseparable from the system’s identity. When results deteriorate, the system rarely concludes that its operating assumptions may be exhausted. It concludes that people are no longer following them faithfully enough.
\n\n\n\nSo it adds oversight, tightens compliance, and treats deviation as the cause of decline. The process that once produced the outcome becomes the ritual through which the organization proves it still deserves to exist.
\n\n\n\nMost recurring processes began for a reason. Someone shipped defective work, exposed the company to risk, made an expensive decision without enough evidence, or forced other people to reconstruct information that should have been recorded. A checklist, review, approval, or report was created to keep that failure from recurring.
\n\n\n\nWhen the process works, the original problem becomes less visible. New employees encounter the solution without experiencing the conditions that made it necessary. They know the form must be completed but not what judgment the form was meant to improve. They know who must approve a decision but not what uncertainty that approval was supposed to reduce.
\n\n\n\nThe process is therefore a kind of organizational memory. It preserves an answer after the question has faded.
\n\n\n\nThat can be useful. We do not want every generation of employees to rediscover fire safety or financial controls from first principles. But a memory becomes dangerous when the organization cannot distinguish the enduring purpose from the historical method. Conditions change while the ritual remains. Eventually, people measure whether the process occurred because they have lost the ability to measure whether it still helped.
\n\n\n\nEvery successful institution develops an operating grammar. It creates categories, incentives, reporting systems, professional language, and approved ways of reasoning. This grammar lets large groups coordinate. It also makes the organization increasingly good at recognizing what it already knows how to see.
\n\n\n\nJames March described a related tension as the difference between exploiting old certainties and exploring new possibilities. Exploitation improves what the organization already knows how to do. Exploration searches for something better but produces uncertain returns. March’s warning was that adaptive systems often refine exploitation more quickly than exploration. That can make them effective in the short run and self-destructive over time.
\n\n\n\nThe problem is not that managers foolishly choose the old over the new. The old process comes with evidence, owners, budgets, benchmarks, and political support. The alternative begins as a question. One side can produce a forecast. The other can only promise learning.
\n\n\n\nThe imbalance compounds. The more an organization invests in a process, the more careers, systems, and explanations depend on that process remaining legitimate. Evidence that fits the current model is easy to absorb. Evidence that challenges the model arrives looking incomplete, undisciplined, or irrelevant.
\n\n\n\nA failing institution often becomes more faithful to its process as it becomes less capable of producing its purpose.
\nDeclining results ought to create curiosity. In practice, they often create rigidity.
\n\n\n\nBarry Staw, Lance Sandelands, and Jane Dutton’s work on threat rigidity describes two common responses to adversity: information processing narrows and control constricts. Organizations rely more heavily on familiar knowledge, reduce the number of voices involved, centralize authority, and formalize procedure.
\n\n\n\nThose responses are understandable. A threat creates urgency, and coordination can matter more during an immediate crisis. The problem comes when a short-term crisis response becomes the operating model for a system whose assumptions are failing. The organization reduces variation at precisely the moment it most needs alternatives.
\n\n\n\nThis creates a cruel feedback loop. The system produces weaker results. Leadership tightens the system to protect performance. Tighter control suppresses dissent and experimentation. The organization receives less information about why the system is failing. Its leaders become even more convinced that inconsistent execution is the problem.
\n\n\n\nPeople who question the process are then easy to cast as undisciplined. Yet they may be carrying the information the process was designed to exclude.
\n\n\n\nFrick makes a surprising argument about stories of collapse. We assume that someone predicting the end of a system has escaped its influence. Often the opposite is true.
\n\n\n\nThe defender says the institution must be saved. The critic says it must be destroyed. Both keep the institution at the center of the imagination. The defender uses its categories to explain what must continue. The critic uses the same categories to explain what must end. Neither has necessarily described what could make the old conflict less important.
\n\n\n\nThis pattern appears in organizations whenever two factions fight over control of a process whose usefulness neither side is examining. One department wants stricter enforcement. Another wants the process abolished. Both assume the available choices are compliance or rebellion.
\n\n\n\nThe opposite of defending a failing system is not attacking it. Both can keep the system at the center.
\nA more useful question is what problem the process was built to solve and whether that problem still exists in the same form. If it does, perhaps the method needs repair. If it does not, the fight over the method may be consuming attention that belongs somewhere else.
\n\n\n\nThomas Kuhn’s account of scientific revolutions is helpful here. Transformative ideas do not always emerge by accumulating better answers inside the accepted model. Anomalies build until a different framework can organize them.
\n\n\n\nA new framework may not defeat the old one by its own measures. It can change which observations matter, which problems deserve attention, and what counts as an explanation. Questions that once felt decisive can become smaller or disappear.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations routinely make this transition harder than it needs to be by requiring every experiment to justify itself with the current system’s metrics. But those metrics contain assumptions about value, time, quality, and risk. An idea that tests the assumptions cannot always prove itself using measures designed to preserve them.
\n\n\n\nThis does not mean experiments should escape accountability. It means their first obligation may be to produce information rather than scale, efficiency, or immediate financial return. Leaders need to know what the experiment is trying to learn and what evidence would cause it to stop. That is different from demanding that it look like a small version of the established business.
\n\n\n\nFrick uses the word “aperture” for a protected opening through which unfamiliar possibilities can develop. The metaphor matters because most new ideas do not begin with enough power to survive the full force of an established institution.
\n\n\n\nA leader does not need to believe every unconventional proposal. Most will be incomplete, and many will fail. Leadership requires preventing the current operating system from eliminating all unfamiliar ideas before any can produce evidence.
\n\n\n\nAmy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety helps explain one condition for such an opening. Teams learn when people believe they can take interpersonal risks. That does not mean conflict disappears. It means uncertainty, error, and disagreement can enter the conversation without immediately becoming evidence that someone does not belong.
\n\n\n\nAuthenticity matters too. Research by Charlan Nemeth, Keith Brown, and John Rogers found that a genuinely held minority position produced better quantity and quality of solutions than several forms of assigned devil’s advocacy. An organization does not receive the full benefit of dissent by appointing someone to perform disagreement inside a meeting whose real boundaries remain untouched.
\n\n\n\nLeadership does not require knowing what comes next. It requires refusing to let the present eliminate every alternative.
\nProtected exploration does not have to mean an innovation lab separated from the real work. It can begin with a few operating choices:
\n\n\n\nThese practices will not reveal the next paradigm on command. That is not the promise. Their value is that they preserve variation long enough for the organization to learn from it.
\n\n\n\nJim Dator’s four generic futures include continuation, collapse, discipline, and transformation. Frick’s argument rearranges that sequence, but the categories remain useful. Organizations are usually comfortable planning for continuation. They can imagine collapse because fear supplies the story. They understand discipline because tightening control feels actionable.
\n\n\n\nTransformation is harder because it cannot be fully described in the language of the system it may replace.
\n\n\n\nThe practical question is therefore not whether modernity, an industry, or a company is truly at the end of its life. The better question is diagnostic: are our institutions still producing results, or are they spending more of their energy demonstrating loyalty to the way those results used to be produced?
\n\n\n\nA process deserves protection when it remains connected to purpose. When that connection is gone, enforcing the process more intensely will not restore it. Leadership begins by noticing the difference and preserving enough room for another possibility to become visible.
\n\n\n\n![\"Eric](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/eliot-frick-episode.jpg\")
Most of modern life depends on trusting things we never verify. Fake news exploits that necessity, and blanket distrust cannot solve it.
\n","content_html":"\nMost of what holds modern life together is something we rarely notice: we trust what we have not verified.
\n\n\n\nWhen we pay for a product, we trust that the thing inside the box is the thing described on the outside. We trust that it will not poison us, catch fire, or quietly fail in a way the seller already knew about. We also trust that if the product turns out to be bad, the seller or manufacturer will make it right.
\n\n\n\nThey may have warranties, contracts, reputations, and laws encouraging them to do so. But none of those lets us verify the product before every purchase or guarantees that someone will behave honorably afterward. The transaction happens first. Proof, if it comes at all, comes later. Every ordinary purchase therefore includes a small, unsecured loan of confidence.
\n\n\n\nThe same thing happens when we eat at a restaurant, turn on a faucet, board an airplane, fill a prescription, or cross a bridge. We do not run a chemical analysis on lunch. We do not inspect the water system, audit the maintenance log, or calculate the load-bearing capacity beneath our feet. We rely on long chains of people and institutions whose work we will never personally examine.
\n\n\n\nTrust is not merely a soft virtue. It is infrastructure. It lets us act without requiring every person to become an investigator, engineer, chemist, lawyer, and auditor before breakfast.
\n\n\n\nNews used to sit inside that same background of ordinary trust. A reader could disagree with a newspaper or think a television network was biased while still assuming that reporters were trying to describe events that had actually happened and that editors would not knowingly publish an invention as fact. That trust was never perfect and never deserved to be absolute. But it was substantial enough that a headline could function as information rather than the beginning of a forensic investigation.
\n\n\n\nNow the same screens, formats, and social signals carry reporting, opinion, advertising, satire, propaganda, and synthetic material produced at almost no cost. We still have to trust because nobody can verify everything. Yet we are less certain which signals deserve that trust. That is what makes fake news such a difficult problem. It exploits a habit we cannot simply abandon.
\n\n\n\nThat was the idea I kept returning to after my conversation with Ming Ming Chiu on The Unfolding Thought Podcast. Chiu studies how people communicate, create, mislead, disagree, and learn together. At first those subjects may look like separate research programs. I think they belong to one problem: how do groups remain open enough to think together without becoming easy to manipulate?
\n\n\n\nThe usual answer to misinformation is some version of “be more skeptical.” That is directionally right but structurally incomplete. A society in which nobody trusts anyone may circulate fewer lies. It will also struggle to circulate knowledge, organize work, or solve problems. We need a better process for deciding what deserves trust without destroying trust itself.
\n\n\n\nEvery claim carries more possible questions than we have time to ask. Who produced it? What did they observe? What did they omit? Which incentives shaped the presentation? Could an alternative explanation fit the same evidence?
\n\n\n\nTrust compresses those questions. It substitutes a working judgment about a person, institution, or process for a complete investigation. That is not intellectual laziness. It is how finite people operate in a world with more information than any one mind can evaluate.
\n\n\n\nThis is why falsehood cannot be understood only as bad content. It is also an attack on the systems people use to economize attention. A fabricated story borrows the visual grammar of journalism, the intimacy of a friend’s recommendation, or the authority of a confident speaker. It tries to collect the benefit of trust without paying the costs that make trust warranted.
\n\n\n\nA society that trusts nothing may be harder to deceive. It will also be unable to do much of anything.
\nThe dependence runs both ways. Lies need a background of truth to remain cheap. If every email were fraudulent, email fraud would stop working. If every headline were invented, headlines would lose their power. Deception is parasitic. It needs ordinary reliability to create the expectation it violates.
\n\n\n\nChiu and his colleagues make a useful distinction between personal lies and fake news. A personal lie often tries to become invisible. It may be designed to end an inquiry, avoid a consequence, or keep someone from acting. Fake news is usually built for the opposite purpose. It wants attention. It wants movement. It asks the reader to click, share, fear, donate, vote, buy, or join.
\n\n\n\nThat difference changes the writing. A message built to travel may address “you,” ask questions, activate emotion, or attach itself to an identity. It does not have to offer the most coherent account of reality. It has to become consequential before careful judgment catches up.
\n\n\n\nWe also make a mistake when we treat every share as evidence of belief. People pass information along for many reasons. They may find it funny, alarming, identity-affirming, or simply worth asking others about. Someone can share a claim while still wondering whether it is true. Yet distribution systems often collapse all of those motives into the same observable event: engagement.
\n\n\n\nThat ambiguity is useful to a manipulator. The platform sees circulation. Other people see apparent social proof. The original sharer’s doubt disappears from view.
\n\n\n\nWe tend to imagine propaganda as an attempt to make most people believe the same false thing. Sometimes it is. But mass agreement is not always necessary.
\n\n\n\nA scammer does not need everyone to respond. A political operation may need only a small number of people to become more afraid, more cynical, less likely to vote, or more willing to act. A fabricated health claim may be commercially successful if it reaches one unusually vulnerable audience. The relevant question is not always, “How many people believed this?” It may be, “Did the right person act?”
\n\n\n\nMisinformation does not need universal belief. It needs the right person to act.
\nArtificial intelligence makes that problem more precise. A message no longer has to be merely plausible to a demographic category. It can be adjusted to an individual’s interests, language, anxieties, and prior responses. In a series of experiments involving 1,788 participants, researchers found that language-model-generated messages became more persuasive when they were personalized with information about the recipient.
\n\n\n\nThe old economics of persuasion required choosing a message that was acceptable to many people. The emerging economics can generate many messages and discover which one moves each person. This is not just a bigger megaphone. It is a feedback system.
\n\n\n\nIf deception exploits trust, the obvious defense is to withdraw trust. But skepticism applied without discrimination can deepen the same problem it is meant to solve.
\n\n\n\nPeople rarely stop trusting altogether. More often, they transfer trust. When institutions, journalists, scientists, and unfamiliar people are treated as presumptively corrupt, identity becomes the shortcut. The trustworthy source becomes “someone like us.” A community that rejects external authority may become more dependent on insiders, even when those insiders have weaker methods and stronger incentives to distort.
\n\n\n\nThat is one reason echo chambers are resilient. They do not eliminate trust. They concentrate it and make it conditional on belonging. Evidence from outside the group becomes suspicious because of where it came from. Evidence from inside acquires credibility because it confirms the relationship.
\n\n\n\n“Trust nothing” therefore cannot be the foundation of media literacy. Nobody has enough time or expertise to verify everything from first principles. The more durable goal is calibrated trust: confidence that rises and falls with the quality of the process, not with the familiarity of the speaker.
\n\n\n\nThis is where Chiu’s work on creativity and disagreement becomes unexpectedly relevant.
\n\n\n\nIt is tempting to treat politeness as a matter of tone, useful for comfort but secondary to whether an argument is correct. Chiu’s research suggests something more consequential. In a study of group problem solving, disagreement was associated with more small creative advances, while rude actions were associated with fewer. In a separate study of online political debates, polite disagreement was associated with receiving more audience votes and winning more often.
\n\n\n\nThe point is not that civility makes a claim true. It is that respectful communication helps keep potentially useful contributions in the system long enough to be examined. Rudeness changes what people are willing to say, how carefully others listen, and whether a partial insight survives contact with the group.
\n\n\n\nCorrectness is not self-executing. A correct person who cannot be heard, or who causes everyone else to retreat into defensive positions, may contribute less to a group’s eventual understanding than an imperfect person who makes continued inquiry possible.
\n\n\n\nThis distinction matters online, where we frequently confuse aggression with rigor. Humiliating someone for sharing a false claim may establish the responder’s intelligence to an audience. It may also make the original sharer less willing to reconsider, and it signals to everyone watching that uncertainty carries social risk.
\n\n\n\nIf our goal is truth rather than performance, the question is not merely whether a correction is accurate. It is whether the correction improves the group’s ability to think.
\n\n\n\nOne of Chiu’s own practices offers a practical starting point. When he disagrees with someone, he first asks, “What is this person saying that I think is right?”
\n\n\n\nThat question is not an obligation to manufacture agreement. It is a way to separate respect for the person from acceptance of the claim. It forces the listener to understand before attacking and gives the conversation a piece of shared ground. From there, the evidence, logic, and assumptions can be tested more directly.
\n\n\n\nRespect people. Test claims.
\nThe same separation can shape platforms and institutions. Friction should be attached to the moment a claim moves, not to a person’s basic membership in the conversation. Ask whether someone has read the article before sharing it. Surface the source. Show the date. Make uncertainty visible. Add a pause before a highly emotional claim is amplified.
\n\n\n\nSmall prompts can matter. A meta-analysis of 20 experiments involving 26,863 participants found that brief reminders to think about accuracy reduced intentions to share false news by about 10 percent. That will not solve coordinated deception. It does show that some sharing happens because the environment makes reaction more immediate than reflection.
\n\n\n\nA ten percent reduction may sound modest. At the scale of a social platform, modest changes in the probability of sharing can alter what millions of people encounter. More importantly, an accuracy prompt does not require treating every user as an enemy. It interrupts an action while preserving the relationship.
\n\n\n\nIndividuals cannot outwork industrial-scale deception. Media literacy matters, but no curriculum can make every person an expert in medicine, economics, climate science, warfare, law, and every other subject that may appear in a feed. Personal vigilance is one layer of defense, not an excuse for platforms and institutions to avoid responsibility.
\n\n\n\nHealthy information systems need provenance, transparent moderation, meaningful appeal, and friction that reflects the possible harm of amplification. They need institutions willing to show their work and correct errors without pretending that error and fraud are the same thing. They need education that teaches people how knowledge is made, not only how to spot a suspicious headline.
\n\n\n\nMost of all, they need norms that let scrutiny and cooperation coexist.
\n\n\n\nChiu’s research points toward a useful symmetry. Misinformation becomes powerful when it exploits our relationships while bypassing our judgment. Productive disagreement does the reverse: it protects the relationship so that judgment can become more demanding.
\n\n\n\nThat is disciplined trust. It does not ask us to believe people because they are familiar, polite, or on our side. It asks us to preserve enough mutual regard to investigate claims together, then place confidence in processes that expose themselves to evidence, correction, and challenge.
\n\n\n\nThe opposite of fake news is not a world in which nobody believes anything. It is a world in which trust is earned, claims encounter thoughtful friction, and disagreement helps us get closer to the truth instead of driving us farther apart.
\n\n\n\n![\"Eric](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ming-ming-chiu-episode.jpg\")
Teen births fell, but stable lives did not automatically follow. Better statistics can conceal income volatility, a weakened cash floor, and institutions that still make ordinary shocks catastrophic.
\n","content_html":"\nFor decades, one of the most familiar explanations for persistent poverty in America began with the timing of childbirth.
\n\n\n\nHave a child too young, the story went, and education becomes harder, work becomes less stable, marriage becomes less likely, and poverty becomes more difficult to escape. Delay parenthood, finish school, find work, and the odds should improve.
\n\n\n\nYoung women changed their behavior.
\n\n\n\nThe teen birth rate fell 78 percent between 1991 and 2021. In her episode of The Unfolding Thought Podcast, sociologist Kathryn Edin describes an even more striking generational shift inside the birth cohort she helps lead. About 40 percent of the mothers had given birth before age 22. Among their daughters, the figure was about 15 percent.
\n\n\n\nThen Edin adds the sentence that should unsettle the entire causal story: the young adults are not doing well.
\n\n\n\nThe long-term verdict is not yet in. The Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study is collecting its age-27 wave during 2026. But the evidence already presents a challenge. If people change the behavior that was supposed to explain the outcome, and the outcome does not improve proportionally, the explanation was incomplete.
\n\n\n\nTeen parenthood can make an already difficult path harder. That is not in doubt. What deserves more scrutiny is the leap from “this event increases risk” to “this event explains the system.”
\n\n\n\nA better statistic can be a genuine achievement while still concealing an unstable life.
\n\n\n\nThe appeal of a behavioral explanation is that it offers both a cause and a remedy.
\n\n\n\nIf early childbirth causes poverty, reducing early childbirth becomes an anti-poverty strategy. If dropping out causes poverty, increasing enrollment becomes an anti-poverty strategy. If unemployment causes poverty, moving people into jobs becomes an anti-poverty strategy.
\n\n\n\nEach proposition contains truth. None is sufficient.
\n\n\n\nA sequence of milestones can describe the lives of people who became economically secure without identifying what made those milestones valuable. Education pays when the credential is credible, the institution is affordable, and the labor market rewards it. Work pays when hours are dependable, wages exceed the cost of showing up, and one sick child does not end the job. Delayed parenthood creates options when the intervening years contain real opportunities to build a life.
\n\n\n\nOtherwise, the sequence becomes a set of instructions for waiting.
\n\n\n\nA policy can change the sequence of a life without changing the odds that govern it.
\nEdin’s most important distinction may not be between poverty and prosperity. It may be between low income and instability.
\n\n\n\nAnnual income compresses twelve months into one number. Two households can report the same income while living in different economic worlds. One receives a predictable paycheck every other Friday. The other moves through full weeks, shortened weeks, canceled shifts, emergency expenses, and months when earnings and bills arrive in the wrong order.
\n\n\n\nThe Federal Reserve’s 2024 household survey found that 29 percent of adults experienced at least occasional month-to-month income variation. Eleven percent said that variation made it difficult to pay bills. Among adults with family income below $25,000, 19 percent struggled with bills because their income varied.
\n\n\n\nThe damage is not limited to the missing dollars. Volatility creates secondary costs.
\n\n\n\nAverages treat these events as fluctuations around a mean. Families experience them as a sequence in which one disruption changes what becomes possible next.
\n\n\n\nPoverty is not only a shortage of resources. It is a shortage of planning horizon.
\n\n\n\nThe honest account of welfare reform is neither triumph nor catastrophe.
\n\n\n\nEdin credits the Earned Income Tax Credit with helping make low-wage work pay. Research by Bruce Meyer and Dan Rosenbaum found that EITC expansions accounted for a large share of the increase in employment among single mothers during the period they studied. More mothers entered formal employment, and many families benefited.
\n\n\n\nAt the same time, the replacement of Aid to Families with Dependent Children with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families removed the guarantee of cash assistance and gave states much wider discretion over the funds.
\n\n\n\nA Congressional Research Service analysis estimated that 79 percent of people eligible for family cash assistance received it in 1994. By 2018, 26 percent did. A more recent CRS review notes that the number of families receiving assistance fell from 5.1 million in 1994 to about 1 million in 2024. It also explains that caseload reduction itself helped states meet federal work standards, whether or not the families outside the program were employed.
\n\n\n\nThat is a measurement problem disguised as an administrative success.
\n\n\n\nA smaller caseload may mean fewer families need help. It may mean fewer eligible families receive it. It may mean the application process is harder, the benefit is less useful, or the state spent the money elsewhere. The number cannot tell us which story is true.
\n\n\n\nA safety net has not succeeded because fewer people touch it. It has succeeded when fewer ordinary shocks become catastrophes.
\nThe young adults in Edin’s cohort have absorbed the message. They are delaying children, trying to finish school, and trying to establish themselves in the labor market.
\n\n\n\nBut the institutions supporting that sequence are uneven.
\n\n\n\nCollege is not one experience. A student who attends full time with family support is not following the same path as a student moving in and out of courses around changing work schedules. Starting college is not finishing. Finishing is not necessarily obtaining a credential with labor-market value. Edin describes young adults trying to follow the script in fits and starts, including some who attended for-profit trade schools and were left with credentials that did little for them.
\n\n\n\nThe safety net introduces another paradox. Much of it is organized around dependent children. Several major benefits are available only, or far more substantially, to households raising children. Young adults who delay parenthood may therefore spend precisely the years when they are trying to build stability with less support than they would receive after having a child.
\n\n\n\nThis is not an argument for early parenthood. It is an argument against a system that tells people to postpone a milestone and then withholds much of its support during the postponement.
\n\n\n\nThe success sequence is usually presented as personal discipline. Its results depend on public and economic structure: stable work, useful education, affordable housing, transportation, health coverage, and enough cash continuity to survive a setback without abandoning the plan.
\n\n\n\nThe success sequence assumes a success structure.
\nEdin complicates the story further when she describes what motherhood meant to the women she interviewed.
\n\n\n\nMany did not treat a child as a casual decision or marriage as unimportant. They often held marriage to an extraordinarily high standard and saw motherhood as one of the few available roles through which they could create meaning, identity, and a contribution that mattered.
\n\n\n\nThat finding is easy to mishandle. It does not make the economic demands of early parenthood disappear. It does reveal an assumption embedded in middle-class advice: people can defer meaning because institutions will provide other credible sources of progress while they wait.
\n\n\n\nA good job offers more than wages. It offers mastery, relationships, identity, and a future a person can imagine inhabiting. Education can do the same when it provides belonging and visible progress rather than repeated administrative friction. Communities do it by giving people places to gather, contribute, and be known.
\n\n\n\nWhen those institutions fail, postponement is not experienced as patient investment. It can feel like life has been placed on hold without a reliable date for its return.
\n\n\n\nNear the end of the episode, the conversation moves from income and family formation to bowling alleys, libraries, cafés, religious congregations, nonprofits, and the places where people repeatedly encounter one another.
\n\n\n\nThese can sound like amenities beside the seriousness of wages and housing. They are part of the economic system.
\n\n\n\nA large Nature study of social capital and mobility found that economic connectedness, measured through friendships across class lines, was strongly associated with upward mobility. A companion study found that institutions matter not only because they expose people to one another, but because their structure affects whether exposure becomes friendship.
\n\n\n\nA room containing different kinds of people is not yet a relationship. A program that makes people interact once is not yet social infrastructure. Trust is built through repeated contact, shared work, and enough time for people to become more than categories to one another.
\n\n\n\nThose relationships can carry information, references, transportation, childcare, expectations, and the quiet confidence that someone will answer when a plan goes wrong. They extend the planning horizon.
\n\n\n\nThe decline in teen births is real progress. The mistake would be treating it as proof that the original theory of poverty was correct.
\n\n\n\nA more serious evaluation would ask what happened after the statistic improved:
\n\n\n\nThose measures are less tidy than a birth rate, poverty line, enrollment count, or welfare caseload. They are closer to the thing policy is supposed to improve.
\n\n\n\nA stable life is not one in which nothing goes wrong. It is one in which ordinary problems remain ordinary.
\n\n\n\nEdin’s work asks us to look past the apparent solution and investigate the life that followed. Young women changed. The statistic changed. If the promised mobility does not follow, the next question is not what else is wrong with them.
\n\n\n\nIt is what we failed to change around them.
\n\n\n\n![\"Eric](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/kathy-edin-episode.jpg\")
When organizations blame a person, they often stop investigating the system that made failure likely. Real accountability assigns responsibility in proportion to the power to repair.
\n","content_html":"\nA project misses its deadline. A customer leaves. A machine fails. A campaign spends the budget and produces almost nothing.
\n\n\n\nThe review begins with a reasonable question: What happened?
\n\n\n\nBut the question rarely remains open for long. Someone was careless. Someone did not communicate. Someone lacked urgency. Someone should have known better.
\n\n\n\nOnce the organization has a name, it also has a remedy. Give feedback. Add training. Put a note in the performance review. Replace the person if the failure was serious enough. The meeting ends with the satisfying feeling that accountability has occurred.
\n\n\n\nThen a different person encounters the same incentives, the same missing information, the same overloaded process, and the same failure happens again.
\n\n\n\nThe organization did not solve the problem. It purchased narrative closure at the cost of understanding.
\n\n\n\nIn her episode of The Unfolding Thought Podcast, Factor.AI co-founder Lindsay McGregor describes what she calls the blame bias: our tendency to explain poor performance through the character of the person closest to the outcome, even when the surrounding system did more to produce it.
\n\n\n\nThat insight is often softened into a pleasant leadership slogan: blame the system, not the person. But the implication is more demanding than the slogan. System thinking does not remove accountability. It expands accountability beyond the person with the least power to change the conditions.
\n\n\n\nBlame is what organizations use when they want the appearance of accountability without the work of learning.
\n\n\n\nEvery meaningful organizational outcome has more causes than can fit comfortably into a meeting.
\n\n\n\nA missed deadline may involve a poor individual decision. It may also involve an unrealistic estimate, a sales promise made without delivery input, shifting priorities, a dependency no one owned, incentives that rewarded saying yes, and a reporting process that made trouble visible only after recovery was impossible.
\n\n\n\nBlame compresses that causal field into a person. It converts a difficult investigation into a familiar moral story: a responsible person would have produced a different result.
\n\n\n\nSocial psychologist Lee Ross gave the fundamental attribution error its name in 1977. We tend to overestimate stable traits when explaining another person’s behavior and underestimate the situation in which the behavior occurred. In ordinary language, we see what someone did and quickly decide what kind of person would do it.
\n\n\n\nDistance makes the story easier. An executive sees a careless operator. A person standing beside the machine sees the awkward control, the rushed handoff, the warning light everyone has learned to ignore, and the production target that makes stopping the line feel dangerous.
\n\n\n\nThe executive may have more authority and more data. The operator often has more causal knowledge.
\n\n\n\nBlame gives an organization a culprit. Accountability gives it a next action.
\nMcGregor illustrates the power of context through NUMMI, the automobile plant General Motors and Toyota operated together in California.
\n\n\n\nThe plant’s previous workforce had been described as unreliable, antagonistic, and nearly impossible to manage. Toyota reopened the facility with many of the same workers but a different operating system. Employees were trained to identify problems, stop production, suggest improvements, test ideas, and treat quality as something they helped create rather than something management inspected after the fact.
\n\n\n\nThe people did not receive new personalities. The work gave different behaviors a reason to emerge.
\n\n\n\nA California Management Review study of NUMMI describes how broad job classifications, teamwork, job rotation, employee involvement, and continuous improvement replaced direct supervision as the primary mechanism for performance. The point was not simply to be nicer to workers. It was to make their judgment part of the production system.
\n\n\n\nW. Edwards Deming estimated from his experience that 94 percent of troubles and possibilities for improvement belonged to the system and were therefore management’s responsibility. The number should not be treated as a universal law. Its distribution of responsibility is the more important point.
\n\n\n\nThe higher a person sits in the organization, the more power that person usually has to shape goals, incentives, workload, information flow, staffing, tools, decision rights, and consequences. Yet performance conversations often place the greatest explanatory burden on the people with the least authority over those conditions.
\n\n\n\nA system explanation does not say nobody is responsible. It asks whether responsibility has been assigned in proportion to power.
\n\n\n\nThere is an obvious objection. Some people lie, neglect their obligations, mistreat colleagues, or knowingly violate an important rule. A leader who explains every action through context can become as unserious as one who explains everything through character.
\n\n\n\nSystem thinking should not erase agency. It should improve diagnosis.
\n\n\n\nFour questions belong in the same review:
\n\n\n\nAn employee can be responsible for deception while a manager is responsible for a target that rewarded it. A manager can be responsible for ignoring a warning while an executive team is responsible for a culture in which delivering bad news ends careers. These responsibilities do not cancel one another.
\n\n\n\nA system explanation does not erase individual responsibility. It reveals who had the power to prevent recurrence.
\nBad actors create another system problem: they are memorable.
\n\n\n\nMcGregor describes the remote employee discovered to be working two full-time jobs. The violation is real. The leader’s anger is understandable. The danger comes next, when the organization redesigns work as though every employee were waiting for a chance to cheat.
\n\n\n\nMore monitoring appears. Decision rights narrow. Work becomes visible through activity rather than results. Approval steps multiply. The system may catch another offender. It also teaches conscientious employees that their judgment is not trusted and that appearing busy is safer than experimenting with a better way to work.
\n\n\n\nControl is not free. It consumes attention, delays decisions, encourages performance theater, and transfers discretion away from the people closest to the problem.
\n\n\n\nResearch by Richard Ryan and Edward Deci on self-determination theory identifies autonomy, competence, and relatedness as conditions that support intrinsic motivation and healthy self-regulation. A control added for one exceptional case can weaken those conditions for everyone else.
\n\n\n\nThe design question is not whether to trust people blindly. It is how to contain misconduct without making the misconduct the model of human behavior on which the entire organization is built.
\n\n\n\nWhen leaders design for the worst employee they can imagine, they often create the worst workplace everyone else has experienced.
\nThe deepest cost of blame is not hurt feelings. It is lost information.
\n\n\n\nJames Reason distinguished the person and system approaches to error in a foundational article on human error. The person approach treats errors as products of inattention, carelessness, poor motivation, or moral weakness. Its remedies include retraining, new procedures, discipline, and shame. The system approach begins with the fact that people are fallible and asks how working conditions can prevent an error or limit its consequences.
\n\n\n\nA blame-oriented review teaches employees to manage exposure. They disclose less, describe uncertainty more carefully, and wait until a problem is undeniable before attaching their names to it. The organization receives cleaner reports and worse knowledge.
\n\n\n\nAmy Edmondson’s study of psychological safety and learning behavior found that teams where people felt safe taking interpersonal risks engaged more in behaviors such as discussing errors, seeking feedback, and experimenting. Learning behavior, in turn, helped explain performance.
\n\n\n\nThis does not mean every mistake should feel comfortable. It means the organization must be able to hear an accurate account before it decides what the account requires.
\n\n\n\nSystems also determine what counts as evidence.
\n\n\n\nIn the Toyota system McGregor describes, pulling the andon cord made a problem visible and could stop production. A manager optimizing only for short-term output might see fewer cord pulls as improvement. A manager responsible for learning might worry that fewer pulls meant employees had stopped surfacing problems.
\n\n\n\nThe same number can therefore describe two different organizations. One has fewer problems. The other has fewer reported problems.
\n\n\n\nMost performance systems are much better at counting completed work than adaptive work. They measure units, calls, revenue, utilization, deadlines, and hours. They rarely measure useful questions, early warnings, experiments, prevented errors, or ideas that improved the process.
\n\n\n\nWhen the visible score rewards output and the invisible score contains learning, people rationally protect output. Then leadership interprets the resulting silence as evidence that the system works.
\n\n\n\nA learning review should not begin by assuming innocence. It should not begin by assuming guilt either. It should begin by preserving the size of the question.
\n\n\n\nUseful reviews ask:
\n\n\n\nIf the review ends only with feedback for the employee, the organization has probably stopped one level too soon. If it ends only with a vague promise to improve the culture, it has stopped several levels too early.
\n\n\n\nAccountability becomes real when it creates an obligation to repair. The employee may need to change a behavior. The manager may need to change the work. The executive may need to change the incentive that made the behavior predictable. Each owner should leave with an action proportionate to the power that owner had over the conditions.
\n\n\n\nBlame survives because it is emotionally efficient. It turns ambiguity into certainty, causation into character, and management failure into an employee problem.
\n\n\n\nLearning is slower. It asks leaders to understand work they may have only seen through dashboards. It makes them examine controls they approved, incentives they praised, and constraints they never personally experienced. It may reveal that the person who made the visible mistake was adapting to a less visible mistake in the design.
\n\n\n\nThat is not softness. It is a more exacting form of accountability because it refuses to confuse punishment with prevention.
\n\n\n\nBlame asks who deserves the pain. Accountability asks who owns the repair.
\n\n\n\n![\"Episode](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/3ff3784f-0f1c-4f0f-b574-f2dc25a935b1-scaled.png\")
Organizations often ask strategy for guarantees. But strategy begins where prediction ends, and avoiding the possibility of failure usually means avoiding a real choice.
\n","content_html":"\nA leadership team asks for a strategy. What it really wants is a guarantee.
\n\n\n\nThe executives want to know which campaign will produce the forecasted revenue, which technology will create the promised efficiency, which market will grow, and which reorganization will solve the problem without creating another one. The strategist can provide research, models, experience, and a recommendation. What the room wants is certainty.
\n\n\n\nSo everyone participates in a familiar performance. Assumptions become projections. Projections become targets. Targets become commitments. The presentation grows more precise as the underlying situation remains stubbornly unpredictable.
\n\n\n\nIf the plan works, its authors were prescient. If it fails, they can point to the data, the methodology, the consultant, or the industry standard. Every decision was defensible. No one quite decided.
\n\n\n\nThis is not strategy. It is responsibility laundering.
\n\n\n\nIn his episode of The Unfolding Thought Podcast, strategist Steve Kozel describes strategy as a series of nested choices. At any altitude, he argues, strategy requires multiple feasible options, an understanding of the situation, a desired effect, and a choice among the alternatives.
\n\n\n\nThat definition carries a consequence organizations often try to avoid: if the alternatives are genuinely feasible and the future is genuinely uncertain, the choice can be wrong.
\n\n\n\nA strategy that cannot fail is not a strategy. It is either an operating procedure, a foregone conclusion, or a story told to make uncertainty feel controllable.
\n\n\n\nThere are decisions for which certainty is a reasonable expectation. Payroll should run. An invoice should calculate correctly. A proven manufacturing process should stay within tolerance. When cause and effect are stable and repeatable, leaders should demand reliability.
\n\n\n\nStrategy is different because it concerns choices whose value depends on reactions that have not happened yet. Competitors respond. Customers reinterpret what they want. Employees change the plan while implementing it. Technology alters the economics. The choice itself changes the environment in which its success will be judged.
\n\n\n\nFrank Knight drew a useful distinction in Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Risk describes situations in which probabilities can be estimated. Uncertainty describes situations in which the probabilities themselves are not reliably knowable.
\n\n\n\nMost organizations are comfortable managing risk. They create ranges, reserves, scenarios, and controls. They struggle when uncertainty cannot be converted into a percentage. The absence of a reliable probability feels like the absence of management.
\n\n\n\nBut uncertainty is not a temporary defect in the strategy process. It is the condition that makes strategy necessary. If the correct action and its outcome were already known, the organization would not need a strategist. It would need an operator.
\n\n\n\nA plan becomes strategy only when it contains a consequential choice and accepts the possibility of being wrong.
\nThe demand for certainty is not simply a reasoning error. It serves an organizational purpose.
\n\n\n\nA confident forecast lets a project receive funding. A familiar methodology reassures procurement. A famous consultancy gives an executive cover. A dashboard suggests control. A best practice allows everyone to say the decision met the accepted standard.
\n\n\n\nThese things reduce personal exposure even when they do not reduce uncertainty. That difference matters.
\n\n\n\nKozel calls the deeper pattern “Fear OS,” an unspoken operating system in which people are expected to maintain control, avoid failure, produce positive metrics, and explain the world as though it were more rational than it is. Under those conditions, the safest decision is often the one whose failure will be easiest to defend.
\n\n\n\nThis helps explain why a company can be filled with intelligent people and still repeat choices no one strongly believes in. Each participant is responding rationally to a local incentive. The analyst avoids an unsupported recommendation. The manager protects the quarterly number. The executive selects the respectable vendor. The board receives a forecast with enough detail to feel governed.
\n\n\n\nThe organization has not eliminated uncertainty. It has distributed responsibility so thoroughly that the eventual result will seem to belong to no one.
\n\n\n\nBest practices are valuable when the goal is dependable execution of a known activity. I want the people operating an airplane, administering medication, or securing financial data to use procedures that have survived serious scrutiny.
\n\n\n\nThe problem begins when leaders ask best practice to answer a strategic question.
\n\n\n\nMichael Porter’s explanation of strategy centers on a unique position, trade-offs, and fit among activities. Strategy requires choosing what not to do. An organization that copies the accepted practices of its category may become more competent. It does not become meaningfully different.
\n\n\n\nThis is the contradiction Kozel surfaces in the episode. Organizations want a proven solution and an advantage. They want evidence without experiments. They want innovation without the waste, ambiguity, and failed attempts through which new knowledge is produced.
\n\n\n\nIf every competitor follows the same research, hires the same experts, adopts the same technology, and optimizes against the same benchmark, best practice becomes a convergence mechanism. It improves the category while compressing the differences within it.
\n\n\n\nBest practice can improve execution. It cannot explain why the company should win.
\nNone of this means leaders should become casual about evidence or celebrate failure as a cultural virtue.
\n\n\n\n“We are experimenting” can become its own form of responsibility laundering. Teams can use the language of learning to excuse poor preparation, unclear goals, oversized bets, and projects that continue long after the original hypothesis has collapsed.
\n\n\n\nA real experiment is more demanding than a confident plan because it must say what is not known and how the organization intends to learn it.
\n\n\n\nAmy Edmondson describes an intelligent failure as an undesired result in new territory. The attempt should pursue a meaningful goal, rest on an informed hypothesis, and be no larger than necessary to produce the needed knowledge.
\n\n\n\nThose constraints turn experimentation from a slogan into a management discipline.
\n\n\n\nThe purpose of an experiment is not to make failure harmless. It is to buy information at a price the organization can afford.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations often claim to learn while protecting the belief that produced the disappointing result.
\n\n\n\nA campaign misses its target, so the team changes the creative. A product struggles, so marketing receives a larger lead goal. A transformation stalls, so managers schedule more training. The response corrects activity without reconsidering the governing assumption.
\n\n\n\nChris Argyris distinguished this kind of correction from deeper learning. Single-loop learning asks how to perform the existing approach more effectively. Double-loop learning asks whether the underlying goals, rules, and assumptions still deserve to govern the work.
\n\n\n\nIn his work on defensive reasoning, Argyris argued that capable professionals often respond to difficulty by avoiding examination of their own contribution to it. Expertise can make the defense more articulate without making it less defensive.
\n\n\n\nThis is why adding more data does not necessarily make an organization more empirical. Data can test a claim. It can also decorate a conclusion the organization is unwilling to reconsider.
\n\n\n\nDouble-loop learning creates a more uncomfortable review:
\n\n\n\nIf every review ends with a better way to execute the same idea, the organization is not learning strategically. It is becoming more efficient at defending the past.
\n\n\n\nEven leaders who understand this problem face a structural disadvantage.
\n\n\n\nJames March’s classic paper on exploration and exploitation in organizational learning describes the tension between refining what an organization already knows and searching for new possibilities. Exploitation produces clearer, nearer, and more predictable returns. Exploration is uncertain, delayed, and frequently disappointing.
\n\n\n\nThat asymmetry gives the known approach an advantage in every budgeting cycle. The established product has revenue. The existing channel has benchmarks. The familiar process has owners. The new option has a hypothesis.
\n\n\n\nMarch warned that adaptive processes can become effective in the short run and self-destructive in the long run because organizations refine exploitation faster than exploration. The company becomes increasingly competent at a world that is becoming less relevant.
\n\n\n\nThis is another reason certainty can be dangerous. It does not merely misdescribe the future. It systematically moves resources toward whatever already has a history.
\n\n\n\nThe most dangerous experiment is the one an organization is already running while pretending the outcome is guaranteed.
\nAn honest strategy does not replace confidence with vagueness. It makes confidence proportional to evidence.
\n\n\n\nIt names the choice. It explains why this option is preferable to other feasible options. It distinguishes what is known from what is assumed. It defines the risk the organization is accepting. It makes clear who owns the decision. It identifies the earliest evidence that would justify changing course.
\n\n\n\nIt also separates commitments from predictions.
\n\n\n\nA leader can commit to allocating resources, protecting an experiment, reviewing evidence, and changing direction when the premise no longer holds. A leader cannot honestly commit that customers, competitors, employees, regulators, and technology will behave according to the forecast.
\n\n\n\nThis kind of strategy can sound less impressive in the room. It replaces false precision with boundaries, hypotheses, and decision rules. It admits that expertise improves a choice without making the future obedient.
\n\n\n\nThat is not weaker leadership. It is leadership willing to remain responsible after the illusion of control has been removed.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations do not need more comfort with failure in the abstract. They need a more precise relationship with uncertainty.
\n\n\n\nPreventable mistakes should be prevented. Known processes should be reliable. Large irreversible choices deserve more scrutiny than small reversible ones. Evidence should shape judgment wherever evidence exists.
\n\n\n\nBut strategy cannot wait until the uncertainty has disappeared. By then, the choice may be obvious, the advantage may be gone, or the organization may have spent years perfecting the wrong thing.
\n\n\n\nThe discipline is to decide without pretending to know, act without becoming reckless, and learn without protecting the assumptions that made the action possible.
\n\n\n\nStrategy is not a promise that the future will obey. It is a commitment to choose, learn, and remain accountable before certainty arrives.
\n\n\n\n![\"Episode](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/stevekozelLogo-scaled.png\")
In May 2025, leaders from across the home healthcare industry gathered to wrestle with a difficult question: What will home healthcare look like in 2035? And more urgently, what does that mean for us right now? We used structured scenario planning to explore not one, but three radically different futures: But these weren’t just theoretical […]
\n","content_html":"\nIn May 2025, leaders from across the home healthcare industry gathered to wrestle with a difficult question:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhat will home healthcare look like in 2035?
\n
And more urgently, what does that mean for us right now?
\n\n\n\nWe used structured scenario planning to explore not one, but three radically different futures:
\n\n\n\nBut these weren’t just theoretical exercises. These futures were backcasted step-by-step from real signals we’re seeing today and from the hard truths industry leaders are already living.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe result is not a prediction.
\n\n\n\nIt’s a strategic tool: a way to think more clearly, act more confidently, and avoid solving tomorrow’s problems with yesterday’s logic.
\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/home-healthcare-2035-report.png\")
If you’re a leader, innovator, or decision-maker in:
\n\n\n\nThis report was built for you.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWe’ve compiled the full findings—including visuals, strategic takeaways, and recommendations—into a concise report.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOr visit the report page to learn more before requesting it.
\n\n\n\nYou’ll walk away with:
\n\n\n\nThe future isn’t fixed. But it is arriving.
\n\n\n\nLet’s get ready for it while we still have time to shape it.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Slide1-optimized.webp","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":2119,"title":"Organizations Cannot Change Until They Grieve What Is Ending","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/organizations-cannot-change-until-they-grieve-what-is-ending/","slug":"organizations-cannot-change-until-they-grieve-what-is-ending","published_at":"2025-03-17T13:02:00+00:00","modified_at":"2026-07-28T18:15:35+00:00","excerpt_html":"A leadership team learns that the future it planned for is not going to arrive. The market moved. The merger did not create the expected value. A technology changed the economics of the business. Customers stopped behaving the way the strategy assumed they would. The product that once organized the company’s identity is becoming less […]
\n","content_html":"\nA leadership team learns that the future it planned for is not going to arrive.
\n\n\n\nThe market moved. The merger did not create the expected value. A technology changed the economics of the business. Customers stopped behaving the way the strategy assumed they would. The product that once organized the company’s identity is becoming less important every year.
\n\n\n\nSo the leaders schedule a strategy session.
\n\n\n\nThey bring in new data, debate scenarios, revise the forecast, rename a few priorities, and leave with a transformation plan. Yet the plan still depends on the future they were supposed to have abandoned. The same products must remain central. The same people must retain authority. The same capabilities must be protected. The same story about why the organization matters must survive.
\n\n\n\nThe strategy is new. The future underneath it is not.
\n\n\n\nIn her episode of The Unfolding Thought Podcast, futurist and death doula Juli Rush brings an unusual idea into the work of foresight: sometimes a future has to be treated as something that is dying.
\n\n\n\nThat language may sound too intimate for a strategy meeting. I think that is precisely why it is useful.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations are usually comfortable discussing change as an analytical problem. They are much less comfortable discussing it as a loss. But a future can disappear before a company, community, or person has emotionally and structurally stopped living inside it. When that happens, more evidence does not necessarily create movement. The organization may understand what has changed and still be unable to act as though it understands.
\n\n\n\nWe like to imagine that a strategic plan is a neutral description of choices, resources, and expected results. It is also a collection of promises.
\n\n\n\nIt promises a salesperson that a market will continue to value the relationships she spent twenty years building. It promises a product leader that the expertise which made him important will remain important. It promises an executive that the organization he knows how to lead will still exist. It promises employees that the sacrifices they made were part of a story that leads somewhere.
\n\n\n\nThose promises are rarely written in the plan. They are still real.
\n\n\n\nThis is one reason organizations can acknowledge a change intellectually while rejecting its consequences operationally. They accept that the market is different, then preserve the budget built for the old market. They say the business must become more customer-centered, then leave decision rights with the functions furthest from the customer. They describe a legacy product as declining, then require every new investment to protect its revenue, status, and internal constituency.
\n\n\n\nThe future in a strategy is not just a forecast. It is a promise about what will matter, who will matter, and which sacrifices will have been worthwhile.
\nResearch on organizational identity helps explain why this is so difficult. In one study of employees going through a corporate takeover, people adjusted better when they could experience either continuity with a valued identity or the gain of a credible new one. When neither path was available, strong identification with the old organization could deepen the loss.
\n\n\n\nThe implication is not that leaders should preserve everything people value. That would make meaningful change impossible. It means that ending a plan can also disturb status, competence, community, memory, and identity. If leaders discuss only the business case, they leave the rest of the transition to happen underground.
\n\n\n\nWhen change stalls, leaders often assume the missing ingredient is information.
\n\n\n\nThey commission another market study. Add detail to the transformation roadmap. Ask finance for a more precise forecast. Build a larger dashboard. Bring in a consultant to repeat what people inside the organization have already been saying.
\n\n\n\nSometimes better evidence is exactly what is needed. Sometimes the evidence has already done its job.
\n\n\n\nThe problem is that evidence can tell us a choice is no longer working without dissolving our attachment to it. In Barry Staw’s classic research on escalation of commitment, people became more willing to invest in a failing course of action when they felt personally responsible for having chosen it. More information did not automatically produce better correction. Responsibility could become a reason to defend the past.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations make this effect collective. A strategy acquires sponsors, specialists, reporting lines, incentives, rituals, and language. Entire careers grow around making it appear sensible. By the time the evidence turns, the organization is not reconsidering an isolated decision. It is reconsidering part of itself.
\n\n\n\nThis is why a declining initiative can survive years of disappointing results. Each round of investment is described as the final adjustment needed to prove the original idea. Each delay protects the people involved from having to decide what the ending means.
\n\n\n\nThere is an important difference between uncertainty and ambiguity. Uncertainty means we do not yet know which outcome will occur. Ambiguity can mean we do not even agree on what is ending, what remains, or what the loss should be called.
\n\n\n\nPsychologist Pauline Boss developed the idea of ambiguous loss to describe losses that resist clean resolution. The organizational version is obviously not equivalent to the disappearance or psychological absence of a loved one. The concept is still useful. A company can announce a transformation while leaving the former system half-alive. People lose familiar roles but continue to be measured against their old responsibilities. A strategy is declared over, but no one can say which commitments are actually released.
\n\n\n\nNothing has clearly died, so nothing can be fully grieved or replaced.
\n\n\n\nIn business, grief rarely announces itself as grief.
\n\n\n\nIt sounds like a request for more proof. A concern about timing. A debate over scope. A warning that customers are not ready. An insistence that the old process needs one more quarter. A proposal to run the new model without taking resources from the old one.
\n\n\n\nAny of those objections might be valid. Treating every disagreement as an emotional reaction is a convenient way for leaders to avoid criticism. But treating every objection as an analytical judgment is equally convenient. It allows the organization to negotiate indefinitely with a future that has already left.
\n\n\n\nResistance is often grief with an operational vocabulary.
\nThe popular habit of assigning organizational change to a neat sequence of grief stages is not especially helpful. Grief is not a predictable staircase, and employees are not patients to be managed through denial on the way to acceptance. People can support a strategic decision and still mourn what it removes. They can be excited by a new role and miss the competence they felt in the old one. They can disagree with the decision for sound reasons while also feeling threatened by it.
\n\n\n\nThe useful move is not diagnosing people. It is making the losses discussable.
\n\n\n\nWhat will employees no longer be proud of? Which relationships will become less central? What expertise will carry less authority? Which customer, community, or tradition will feel abandoned? What story about the organization will no longer be true?
\n\n\n\nIf leaders cannot answer those questions, they probably do not yet understand the change they are asking other people to make.
\n\n\n\nRush has since formalized her work as a framework of Hospice, Vigil, and Compost. Those three words describe work that conventional strategy often skips.
\n\n\n\nHospice begins with a difficult distinction: what needs more effort, and what needs an ending?
\n\n\n\nLeaders are rewarded for fixing, growing, and sustaining things. Ending something can feel like admitting that the prior investment was mistaken. That makes it tempting to label every failing system a turnaround opportunity.
\n\n\n\nBut purpose and mechanism are not the same. A university can remain committed to learning while ending a program. A company can remain committed to customers while retiring the product through which it once served them. A nonprofit can remain committed to a need while admitting that its intervention no longer produces the intended result.
\n\n\n\nHospicing a future does not mean declaring the work worthless. It means stopping the attempt to make one mechanism immortal.
\n\n\n\nPractically, I would ask leaders to make the ending specific:
\n\n\n\nWithout that specificity, “letting go” becomes another slogan sitting on top of unchanged budgets and power.
\n\n\n\nOrganizations are often impatient with the space between an ending and a replacement.
\n\n\n\nA product is discontinued on Monday and the new growth narrative is presented on Tuesday. A reorganization is announced with a slide explaining why everyone should be excited. A founder leaves, and the company immediately declares that the culture will not change.
\n\n\n\nThat speed is meant to create confidence. It can also communicate that what people invested in the old future is inconvenient.
\n\n\n\nA vigil does not require months of therapeutic meetings or ceremonial language that feels false to the organization. It requires enough attention to distinguish what should end from what should be honored.
\n\n\n\nWhat did the old strategy make possible? Which capabilities did it create? What did people learn while making it work? Which relationships and values should survive its end? What harm did it cause that should not be romanticized?
\n\n\n\nThis matters because organizations frequently make one of two mistakes. They preserve the old system so completely that the new future cannot emerge, or they denounce the old system so completely that people who built it hear the change as an indictment of their contribution.
\n\n\n\nNeither produces honest learning.
\n\n\n\nThe vigil is where a company can say, “This served us, and it cannot take us where we need to go.” Both halves of that sentence matter.
\n\n\n\nCompost is not preservation. The original form does not survive.
\n\n\n\nWhat survives are elements that can become useful in a different system.
\n\n\n\nA legacy product may contain customer knowledge the new team needs. A discontinued program may have built a community that should not disappear with its budget. A failed strategy may reveal a capability the organization undervalued because it was attached to the wrong outcome. A departing leader may carry relationships and tacit knowledge that cannot be transferred through a folder of documents.
\n\n\n\nComposting asks a harder question than, “What lessons did we learn?” Organizations answer that question too easily. They produce a list, thank the team, and return to work.
\n\n\n\nThe better question is, “Where will the lesson live?”
\n\n\n\nWill a decision rule change? Will a metric disappear? Will authority move? Will a capability receive funding? Will a hiring profile change? Will a customer promise be rewritten? If the old strategy taught something but nothing in the operating system changes, the organization did not compost the experience. It buried it.
\n\n\n\nThere is an obvious danger in bringing the language of grief into organizational life. Leaders can use it to make a decision feel humane without making the decision itself more honest.
\n\n\n\nA ritual cannot compensate for a deceptive explanation. Listening sessions do not create dignity if the outcome was predetermined and leaders pretend otherwise. Honoring the past is not meaningful if employees absorb every cost while executives protect their own roles. Asking people to grieve can become insulting when the organization refuses to name who chose the change and who benefits from it.
\n\n\n\nIf nothing stops, loses funding, or gives up authority, the ending was symbolic.
\nThe work of ending a future does not replace strategy. It makes strategy testable.
\n\n\n\nA responsible ending should show up in the allocation of money, attention, people, and decision rights. It should release someone from an obsolete expectation. It should create room for a new experiment that the old strategy would have crowded out. It should make clear which part of the organization’s identity is a purpose worth carrying and which part was only one temporary expression of that purpose.
\n\n\n\nMost strategy processes begin with some version of, “What future do we want?”
\n\n\n\nIt is a necessary question. It may not be the first one.
\n\n\n\nBefore an organization can choose a future, it may need to identify the future it is still trying to recover. The market position that is not coming back. The growth curve that depended on temporary conditions. The career ladder built for work that no longer exists. The cultural story that stopped matching employees’ experience. The strategy that succeeded once and became an identity long after it stopped being an advantage.
\n\n\n\nRush’s insight is not that organizations should become preoccupied with endings. It is that beginnings become more credible when endings receive real attention.
\n\n\n\nThe future is not built on an empty site. It is built amid structures, promises, loyalties, and expectations that already occupy the ground. Some deserve to be restored. Some deserve to be repurposed. Some deserve a careful ending.
\n\n\n\nThe strategic discipline is knowing which is which, and having the courage to make the distinction operational.
\n\n\n\nSometimes the most responsible beginning looks a little like a funeral.
\n\n\n\n![\"Episode](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/juli-rush-podcast-cover.jpg\")
In this seventh business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum guides you through a Root Cause Analysis—a practical framework for identifying and addressing the deeper issues behind your challenges. Often, quick fixes and surface-level solutions fail to create lasting change. Root Cause Analysis helps you dig deeper, asking “Why?” multiple times to uncover […]
\n","content_html":"\nIn this seventh business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum guides you through a Root Cause Analysis—a practical framework for identifying and addressing the deeper issues behind your challenges.
\nOften, quick fixes and surface-level solutions fail to create lasting change. Root Cause Analysis helps you dig deeper, asking “Why?” multiple times to uncover the fundamental problem and develop actionable solutions. Through this guided exercise, you’ll learn to approach challenges with clarity, explore meaningful solutions, and take the first step toward resolving recurring issues.
\nWhether you’re managing workplace challenges, personal relationships, or systemic problems, this episode will help you break free from cycles of frustration and create lasting impact.
\nMentioned in the Episode:
\nLinks:
\nStart at the beginning of the series:
\nVisit the Unfolding Thought website: https://unfoldingthought.com/
\nLearn more about Root Cause Analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis
\nJoin the Conversation:
\nHave thoughts or questions about this episode? Reach out to Eric at eric@inboundandagile.com or connect on social media.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/70ce08fc-c634-4a99-92c7-b858190cc672-scaled.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Unfolding Thought"]},{"id":1284,"title":"Scenario Planning – Business Meditation","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/10-scenario-planning-business-meditation/","slug":"10-scenario-planning-business-meditation","published_at":"2025-01-08T06:00:00+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-28T15:38:41+00:00","excerpt_html":"In this sixth business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum guides you through Scenario Planning—a strategic tool for exploring possible futures and making better decisions in the face of uncertainty. Scenario Planning helps you anticipate different ways the future might unfold, so you can prepare for opportunities and mitigate risks. Through this guided […]
\n","content_html":"\nIn this sixth business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum guides you through Scenario Planning—a strategic tool for exploring possible futures and making better decisions in the face of uncertainty.
\nScenario Planning helps you anticipate different ways the future might unfold, so you can prepare for opportunities and mitigate risks. Through this guided exercise, you’ll imagine three distinct scenarios—best-case, realistic, and worst-case—and outline actions to help you navigate each one.
\nWhether you’re managing a complex challenge, planning for growth, or making a difficult decision, this episode will help you gain clarity, confidence, and control over what lies ahead.
\nMentioned in the Episode:
\nLinks:
\nStart at the beginning of the series:
\nVisit the Unfolding Thought website: https://unfoldingthought.com/
\nLearn more about Scenario Planning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenario_planning
\nJoin the Conversation:
\nHave thoughts or questions about this episode? Reach out to Eric at eric@inboundandagile.com or connect on social media.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/7c830dad-a364-4ff3-8f01-69c76209af43-scaled.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Unfolding Thought"]},{"id":1282,"title":"Force Field Analysis – Business Meditation","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/9-force-field-analysis-business-meditation/","slug":"9-force-field-analysis-business-meditation","published_at":"2025-01-07T06:00:00+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-28T15:38:51+00:00","excerpt_html":"In this fifth business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum introduces Force Field Analysis, a practical tool for identifying and managing the forces driving or restraining progress toward your goals. Through this guided exercise, you’ll learn how to identify the positive forces pushing you toward success and the negative forces holding you back. […]
\n","content_html":"\nIn this fifth business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum introduces Force Field Analysis, a practical tool for identifying and managing the forces driving or restraining progress toward your goals.
\nThrough this guided exercise, you’ll learn how to identify the positive forces pushing you toward success and the negative forces holding you back. By amplifying the driving forces and reducing the restraining ones, you can focus your energy where it matters most and make meaningful progress.
\nWhether you’re tackling a work project, personal challenge, or strategic decision, this episode will help you unlock new insights and create balanced strategies to move forward.
\nMentioned in the Episode:
\nLinks:
\n\nStart at the beginning of the series:
\nVisit the Unfolding Thought website: https://unfoldingthought.com/
\nJoin the Conversation:
\nHave thoughts or questions about this episode? Reach out to Eric at eric@inboundandagile.com or connect on social media.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/907f587a-be69-4d2c-8791-2b4d80ca42a8-scaled.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Unfolding Thought"]},{"id":1280,"title":"Backcasting – Business Meditation","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/8-backcasting-business-meditation/","slug":"8-backcasting-business-meditation","published_at":"2025-01-06T06:00:00+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-28T15:39:03+00:00","excerpt_html":"In this fourth business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum guides you through a Backcasting exercise—a practical tool for mapping out the steps between your present and your long-term vision. Backcasting flips traditional planning on its head. Instead of starting with today and moving forward, you begin with your ideal future and work […]
\n","content_html":"\nIn this fourth business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum guides you through a Backcasting exercise—a practical tool for mapping out the steps between your present and your long-term vision.
\nBackcasting flips traditional planning on its head. Instead of starting with today and moving forward, you begin with your ideal future and work backward to uncover the milestones and actions needed to achieve your goals. Through this guided exercise, you’ll create a clear roadmap for success and learn how to keep your daily actions aligned with your ultimate vision.
\nWhether you’re planning for professional growth, a major project, or personal aspirations, this episode will help you connect your future goals to meaningful actions you can take today.
\nMentioned in the Episode:
\nLinks:
\n\nStart at the beginning of the series:
\nVisit the Unfolding Thought website: https://unfoldingthought.com/
\nJoin the Conversation:
\nHave thoughts or questions about this episode? Reach out to Eric at eric@inboundandagile.com or connect on social media.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/4a22cbaa-e070-495d-bd4d-7e5daf1d4f42-scaled.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Unfolding Thought"]},{"id":1278,"title":"Visioning – Business Meditation","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/7-visioning-business-meditation/","slug":"7-visioning-business-meditation","published_at":"2025-01-05T06:00:00+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-28T15:39:14+00:00","excerpt_html":"In this third business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum guides you through a Visioning exercise—a powerful tool for clarifying your goals and aligning your actions with your aspirations. Visioning is more than setting goals. It’s about creating a vivid mental picture of your future and using that clarity to make intentional decisions […]
\n","content_html":"\nIn this third business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum guides you through a Visioning exercise—a powerful tool for clarifying your goals and aligning your actions with your aspirations.
\nVisioning is more than setting goals. It’s about creating a vivid mental picture of your future and using that clarity to make intentional decisions today. Through this guided exercise, you’ll explore your desired future, identify the milestones needed to achieve it, and uncover the first actionable steps to start your journey.
\nWhether you’re a leader, entrepreneur, or someone looking to bring focus and purpose to your work or life, this episode will help you harness the power of a clear vision.
\nMentioned in the Episode:
\nLinks:
\nStart at the beginning of the series:
\nVisit the Unfolding Thought website: https://unfoldingthought.com/
\nJoin the Conversation:
\nHave thoughts or questions about this episode? Reach out to Eric at eric@inboundandagile.com or connect on social media.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/d59e122c-d0f3-48fe-9f43-c6492aa56a07-scaled.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Unfolding Thought"]},{"id":1276,"title":"Immunity to Change X-ray – Business Meditation","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/6-immunity-to-change-x-ray-business-meditation/","slug":"6-immunity-to-change-x-ray-business-meditation","published_at":"2025-01-04T06:00:00+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-28T15:39:24+00:00","excerpt_html":"In this second business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum introduces the Immunity to Change X-Ray, a framework developed by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey to uncover the hidden barriers preventing meaningful change. The Immunity to Change framework reveals how unconscious fears and competing commitments hold us back, even when we’re motivated to […]
\n","content_html":"\nIn this second business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum introduces the Immunity to Change X-Ray, a framework developed by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey to uncover the hidden barriers preventing meaningful change.
\nThe Immunity to Change framework reveals how unconscious fears and competing commitments hold us back, even when we’re motivated to improve. Through a guided exercise, you’ll explore your own commitments, uncover the big assumptions driving them, and learn how to test these beliefs to unlock progress.
\nWhether you’re a manager, parent, or someone striving to make lasting changes in your personal or professional life, this episode will help you take meaningful steps forward.
\nMentioned in the Episode:
\nLinks:
\nStart at the beginning of the series:
\nVisit the Unfolding Thought website: https://unfoldingthought.com/
\nJoin the Conversation:
\nHave thoughts or questions about this episode? Reach out to Eric at eric@inboundandagile.com or connect on social media.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/548b5e5e-3aec-4978-9c96-84d881ae4f64-scaled.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Unfolding Thought"]},{"id":1274,"title":"GROW – Business Meditation","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/5-grow-business-meditation/","slug":"5-grow-business-meditation","published_at":"2025-01-03T21:21:18+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-28T15:39:39+00:00","excerpt_html":"In this first business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum introduces the GROW framework, a simple yet powerful tool for clarifying challenges and taking actionable steps forward. GROW—an acronym for Goal, Reality, Options, and Way Forward—is widely used by coaches and managers to empower individuals, foster accountability, and generate meaningful solutions. Through a […]
\n","content_html":"\nIn this first business meditation of the Unfolding Thought series, Eric Pratum introduces the GROW framework, a simple yet powerful tool for clarifying challenges and taking actionable steps forward.
\nGROW—an acronym for Goal, Reality, Options, and Way Forward—is widely used by coaches and managers to empower individuals, foster accountability, and generate meaningful solutions. Through a guided exercise, you’ll have the opportunity to apply GROW to your own challenges, uncover new possibilities, and identify your next steps.
\nWhether you’re a leader, manager, or simply looking to gain clarity in your personal or professional life, this episode will help you unlock the power of focus and intentionality.
\nMentioned in the Episode:
\nLinks:
\nStart at the beginning of the series:
\nVisit the Unfolding Thought website: https://unfoldingthought.com/
\nJoin the Conversation:
\nHave thoughts or questions about this episode? Reach out to Eric at eric@inboundandagile.com or connect on social media.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/357beb62-ab49-4f8f-b9b8-1c87d358d8e5-scaled.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Unfolding Thought"]},{"id":1272,"title":"Unfolding Thought","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/4-unfolding-thought/","slug":"4-unfolding-thought","published_at":"2025-01-03T21:01:51+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-28T15:39:48+00:00","excerpt_html":"In this introductory episode of Unfolding Thought business meditations, Eric Pratum shares what makes this series of episodes different and why it might be just what you need to spark new ideas and gain actionable insights. Designed for busy professionals, these short, focused meditations offer a unique opportunity to explore new concepts, strategies, and ways […]
\n","content_html":"\nIn this introductory episode of Unfolding Thought business meditations, Eric Pratum shares what makes this series of episodes different and why it might be just what you need to spark new ideas and gain actionable insights.
\nDesigned for busy professionals, these short, focused meditations offer a unique opportunity to explore new concepts, strategies, and ways of thinking in just 10 minutes a day. Whether you’re commuting, preparing for your day, or taking a quiet moment to reflect, these sessions provide practical tools and thought-provoking exercises that you can adapt and apply immediately.
\nIf you’ve ever started a business book but struggled to finish, or if you’re looking for concise, impactful ways to grow as a leader and thinker, this series is for you.
\nMentioned in the Episode:
\nLinks:
\nJoin the Conversation:
\nHave thoughts about this episode or ideas for future meditations? Share them with us on social media or email Eric at eric@inboundandagile.com.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/319f2e01-5956-4cf6-9e2f-6a816c023239-scaled.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Unfolding Thought"]},{"id":1021,"title":"In times of great stress","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/in-times-of-great-stress/","slug":"in-times-of-great-stress","published_at":"2024-11-25T22:35:59+00:00","modified_at":"2024-11-25T22:36:03+00:00","excerpt_html":"All living things prepare for the future, each in their own way. Plants sprout seeds, lay roots, and bear fruit to secure their species’ survival. Humans grow, consume, learn, build, mate, and nurture the next generation. Even viruses—barely qualifying as life—exemplify this drive, programming themselves to replicate and spread. Unlike the steady flow of rivers […]
\n","content_html":"\nAll living things prepare for the future, each in their own way. Plants sprout seeds, lay roots, and bear fruit to secure their species’ survival. Humans grow, consume, learn, build, mate, and nurture the next generation. Even viruses—barely qualifying as life—exemplify this drive, programming themselves to replicate and spread. Unlike the steady flow of rivers shaping landscapes or the silent spinning of celestial spheres, living systems inherently aim to grow, adapt, and improve. Their existence is marked by a relentless forward motion, a preparation for what comes next—even if that preparation is unconscious.
\n\n\n\nBut there is a universal exception: stress. In times of great stress, all living things—from plants to people to societies—shift their focus from building for the future to surviving the present. The seeds, roots, and growth stop. The energy once devoted to thriving is diverted to enduring. Stress calls life to attention, forcing an all-consuming focus on the immediate threat, often at the expense of long-term stability.
\n\n\n\nThe Biology of Stress: When Growth Halts
\n\n\n\nA moment of danger, whether real or perceived, forces the body to abandon everything nonessential. Digestion, reproduction, tissue repair, and long-term planning all take a backseat to immediate survival. This is why the zebra running from a lion doesn’t stop to graze or tend to a wound—it funnels every ounce of energy into outrunning the threat. The same principles apply to plants, which stop producing seeds during a drought. Stress forces life to choose between sustaining itself for tomorrow or simply staying alive today.
\n\n\n\nFor humans, this trade-off goes beyond biology. Faced with immediate crises, we naturally abandon plans for the future, focusing instead on what must be done to get through the day. Consider the individual experiencing financial hardship: retirement savings disappear, replaced by desperate attempts to cover rent or buy groceries. Exercise routines and creative pursuits are shelved. Stress robs us of the luxury of foresight, narrowing our world to the here and now.
\n\n\n\nIn small doses, this response is essential—it saves lives. But prolonged stress creates compounding damage. A body perpetually in fight-or-flight mode breaks down, its systems stretched beyond their limits. The same is true for groups, organizations, and societies. While the individual zebra’s stress response may end when it escapes the lion, human systems often stay locked in this heightened state, cycling through new threats with no opportunity for recovery.
\n\n\n\nStress Beyond Biology: Societies Stuck in Survival Mode
\n\n\n\nStress is no longer just an individual experience; it has become a defining feature of modern systems. Organizations, communities, and entire nations often now themselves trapped in perpetual fight-or-flight cycles. The reasons vary, but the pattern remains consistent: the focus on the long-term disappears, replaced by an overwhelming need to manage immediate threats.
\n\n\n\nConsider the political landscape of the United States. In the lead-up to the 2024 election, rhetoric from both major parties was clear: “If the other side wins, that will be the end of democracy.”. Every cycle, the stakes seem to rise: not just a choice between policies, but a battle for survival. This persistent framing pushes politicians, media, and citizens alike into survival mode. Instead of crafting ambitious agendas or long-term strategies, political actors are increasingly consumed with short-term wins: blocking the opposition, preserving power, or simply surviving the next news cycle. In his book, Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, Robert Sapolsky shows us why: under stress, even systems as complex as democracies abandon the future in favor of the now.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/9780805073690-676x1024.jpg\")
The effects ripple outward. The zero-sum mindset in politics infects public institutions and discourse, eroding trust and collaboration. Grand visions for the future—whether infrastructure projects, climate initiatives, or social reform—take a backseat to reactive governance. Stress reshapes not only what decisions are made but also how people relate to one another, creating an environment of perpetual tension and diminishing returns.
\n\n\n\nThis same dynamic plays out in organizations. High-stress environments, whether driven by financial pressures, market competition, or internal dysfunction, lead businesses to adopt survival-focused strategies. Decision-making becomes risk-averse, innovation slows, and long-term goals are sacrificed for short-term stability. Research confirms this: high-stress workplaces see higher rates of burnout, turnover, and failure. As Sapolsky notes, “hard times” do not always produce “stronger systems”—they more often cause collapse.
\n\n\n\nWhether in politics, business, or personal life, the lesson is clear. Systems that remain trapped in survival mode cannot thrive. Without the ability to pause, plan, and invest in the future, stress becomes self-perpetuating—a force that halts not only growth but also hope.
\n\n\n\nThe Long Shadow of Sustained Stress
\n\n\n\nStress, when prolonged, doesn’t just freeze progress—it actively erodes the foundations needed for future growth. A society perpetually locked in survival mode forgets how to dream, a business caught in reactive decision-making loses its capacity to innovate, and an individual overwhelmed by crisis sacrifices their long-term well-being for fleeting stability.
\n\n\n\nIn organizations, the statistics are sad. Businesses under chronic stress—be it financial instability, leadership turnover, or competitive pressure—are far more likely to fail. Under stress, leaders focus on patching leaks rather than building a seaworthy vessel, abandoning innovation, collaboration, and strategic vision. The result is often stagnation at best, collapse at worst.
\n\n\n\nFor societies, the costs are even greater. Political systems locked in survival mode erode public trust and institutional stability. Obstructionism and short-term policy-making replace the ambition that once built interstate highways or sent humans to the moon. Nations caught in these cycles often fail to address generational challenges like climate change, economic inequality, or social cohesion, creating compounding crises that further deepen collective stress.
\n\n\n\nBiologically, stress offers a paradox: it is essential for short-term survival, but if sustained, it becomes a slow poison. The same is true of human systems. Without intentional recovery and recalibration, stress becomes a self-reinforcing loop. This is why Sapolsky emphasizes the importance of breaking out of survival mode. For individuals, this might mean reintroducing long-term habits like exercise, creative pursuits, or social connection. For organizations and societies, it requires something far more complex: leadership capable of thinking beyond the immediate crisis and fostering resilience.
\n\n\n\nThe long shadow of sustained stress darkens both the present and the future. But history shows that recovery is possible—if individuals, organizations, and nations can recognize the danger of being stuck in survival mode and take deliberate steps toward renewal.
\n\n\n\nBreaking Free: Moving Beyond Survival Mode
\n\n\n\nIf stress is the enemy of long-term vision, then recovery is its antidote. But breaking free from survival mode requires more than just a pause—it demands intentional effort to restore balance, rebuild trust, and rekindle the capacity to think beyond the immediate crisis. Whether for individuals, organizations, or entire societies, the path forward begins with recognizing the patterns of stress and deliberately shifting priorities.
\n\n\n\nIn organizations, recovery often starts with leadership. Leaders who can acknowledge the impact of chronic stress and create space for recalibration set the tone for transformation. This might mean prioritizing sustainable practices over quick wins, encouraging innovation even in uncertain times, or fostering a culture that values resilience as much as results. By focusing on resilience rather than reaction, these organizations have not only survived but thrived.
\n\n\n\nFor societies, breaking out of survival mode requires a similar shift. It begins with leaders and institutions that can articulate a vision for the future, moving beyond the rhetoric of fear to inspire collective action. Grand projects—whether infrastructure investments, education reform, or climate initiatives—have historically served as antidotes to societal stress, reminding people of their shared purpose and the possibility of progress. Yet such projects require trust, collaboration, and a willingness to think beyond electoral cycles—qualities increasingly eroded by stress-fueled polarization.
\n\n\n\nAt the individual level, recovery is deeply personal but no less critical. Sapolsky’s research highlights the importance of returning to activities that build for the future: exercise, learning, relationships, and creative pursuits. These habits, while seemingly mundane, are the building blocks of long-term resilience. They remind us that life is more than survival—it is growth, connection, and the pursuit of meaning.
\n\n\n\nRecovery is not easy, particularly when systems are entrenched in stress. It requires conscious effort to reject the short-term mindset and rediscover the habits of planning, dreaming, and building. But history and biology alike suggest that recovery is not only possible—it is necessary.
\n\n\n\nThe question, then, is not whether we can recover from stress, but whether we will choose to. For organizations, societies, and individuals alike, the answer lies in redefining what it means to thrive—not just in moments of calm but in the face of uncertainty itself.
\n\n\n\nThe Framework for Resilience: Balancing Stability and Innovation
\n\n\n\nRecovering from survival mode and fostering long-term growth requires more than temporary relief—it demands a systemic approach to resilience. One way to conceptualize this is through a framework that balances the need for immediate stability with the pursuit of innovation and progress. This balance is the cornerstone of thriving individuals, organizations, and societies.
\n\n\n\nChoosing Growth Over Survival
\n\n\n\nResilience is not the absence of stress; it is the ability to transform stress into momentum. In a world increasingly defined by uncertainty, the choice between survival and growth looms larger than ever. For individuals, organizations, and societies, the stakes are the same: remain stuck in survival mode or embrace the difficult but necessary work of building a sustainable future.
\n\n\n\nAt the individual level, breaking free from survival mode starts with reclaiming agency. This could mean finding small but meaningful ways to reconnect with long-term goals: starting a creative project, re-establishing relationships, or simply making time for reflection. Each action, however small, reinforces the idea that life is not just about enduring but also about growing.
\n\n\n\nFor organizations, the call to action is to prioritize resilience over reaction. This means investing in the systems and cultures that allow teams to innovate, adapt, and thrive even under pressure. Leaders have a unique role to play here, setting the tone by balancing short-term needs with long-term goals. Organizations that resist the urge to focus solely on survival—and instead foster creativity, collaboration, and purpose—are the ones that will emerge stronger.
\n\n\n\nAt the societal level, the challenge is perhaps most urgent. In an era of political polarization and global crises, it is easy to remain trapped in cycles of fear and obstruction. Yet history shows that societies achieve their greatest advancements when they dream big. Rebuilding trust, fostering dialogue, and pursuing collective projects that inspire hope are critical steps toward reclaiming a vision for the future. Whether through tackling climate change, investing in education, or forging global partnerships, the path to resilience requires bold, unified action.
\n\n\n\nAs Sapolsky reminds us, stress is a biological imperative—it forces living things to prioritize the immediate. But it is not our destiny. Humans, unlike any other species, possess the capacity to reflect, plan, and build. The choice to focus on the future rather than the present is what defines civilizations, organizations, and individuals who thrive.
\n\n\n\nNow is the time to make that choice. To build systems that balance stability with growth, to foster connections that sustain us, and to envision futures that inspire us. Stress may demand survival, but resilience demands something greater: the courage to dream and the commitment to act.
\n\n\n\nThe Opportunity Ahead
\n\n\n\nStress may be a universal experience, but it does not have to define us. Throughout history, the greatest advancements—whether technological, social, or cultural—have emerged not in the absence of challenges but through the deliberate choice to confront them with vision and purpose. This is the opportunity stress presents us: to reflect on what matters, to focus on what endures, and to act with courage in the face of uncertainty.
\n\n\n\nThe path forward is not about perfection or avoiding adversity. It is about resilience—embracing the messy, unpredictable process of building something better. Whether as individuals daring to dream, organizations committing to innovation, or societies choosing collaboration over division, our ability to rise above survival mode defines our legacy.
\n\n\n\nThe question is not whether stress will come, but how we will respond when it does. Will we retreat into fear and stagnation, or will we use it as a catalyst to imagine, create, and grow? The answer is not predetermined. It is a choice we make, every day, in the decisions we take and the futures we dare to build.
\n\n\n\nLet this moment be one of action. Let it be a reminder that stress may halt growth, but resilience ignites it. And in that ignition lies the power to shape not just our survival, but our shared destiny.
\n\n\n\nThe question is not just how we survive today, but how we thrive tomorrow. History is written by those who choose growth over fear—what story will you write?
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/9780805073690.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Uncategorized"]},{"id":985,"title":"Better Decision-Making for Leaders Through Mindfulness","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/better-decision-making-for-leaders-through-mindfulness/","slug":"better-decision-making-for-leaders-through-mindfulness","published_at":"2024-11-15T21:01:05+00:00","modified_at":"2024-11-16T18:30:24+00:00","excerpt_html":"If you would like to listen to or watch a recording of this article, you can do that here: In today’s fast-paced, content-rich, distraction-laden world, leaders often struggle to make clear decisions under pressure. Many feel they’re constantly reacting, without ever stepping back to assess the bigger picture. But there’s an often-overlooked solution to this: […]
\n","content_html":"\nIf you would like to listen to or watch a recording of this article, you can do that here:
\n\n\n\nIn today’s fast-paced, content-rich, distraction-laden world, leaders often struggle to make clear decisions under pressure. Many feel they’re constantly reacting, without ever stepping back to assess the bigger picture. But there’s an often-overlooked solution to this: mindfulness.
\n\n\n\nWhy mindfulness matters for decision-making
In a world full of distractions and constant demands, it’s easy for leaders to lose focus and make reactive decisions. Our colleagues, families, and friends depend on us to make sound decisions, especially if we hold positions of power or influence. To be effective decision-makers, we must focus our attention on the most important issues.
\n\n\n\n\nEveryone knows what attention is. It is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration, of consciousness are of its essence. It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others. – William James, writing in 1890
\n
As leaders, the decisions we make shape the direction and success of our teams and organizations. Effective decision-making is critical because it impacts every aspect of our roles, from setting strategic goals to managing daily operations and responding to unexpected challenges. This need has grown with the rise of knowledge workers and the increasing role of AI in handling routine tasks. As routine tasks become automated, the value of human decision-making increases, making our ability to make sound decisions even more crucial. Many leaders face significant obstacles that hinder their decision-making abilities, such as stress, emotional reactivity, information overload, or plain old distraction. These challenges can lead to suboptimal decisions, affecting not only our performance but also the well-being of our teams.
\n\n\n\nThis is where mindfulness comes in. While mindfulness is often associated with relaxation and stress reduction, its benefits extend far beyond that. Mindfulness is about being fully present and aware in the moment, thereby enhancing our ability to make clear, balanced, and informed decisions. When you are practicing mindfulness, you are not cutting out something. You are instead bringing to the forefront of your consciousness what the mind is already doing, noticing and processing innumerable things. When you are being mindful, you can more effectively choose when and what to focus on instead of being distracted and then wrapped up in one thought or feeling, one shiny object or another, one phone or computer notification, one question or appeal for attention from another person…and another and another seemingly unendingly.
\n\n\n\n| Mindlessness | Mindfulness |
| Reacting without thinking | Pausing to consider options |
| Easily distracted by thoughts | Focused on the present moment |
| Impulsive decisions | Thoughtful, intentional decisions |
| Operating on autopilot | Conscious awareness and control |
Most people are rarely mindful—in fact, many operate on autopilot. It’s similar to dreaming. Think of a time when you were dreaming: you had no control over what thought came next, and you were fully absorbed. This is how many of us go through daily life.
\n\n\n\nMindlessness
Psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s research on attention shows that our ability to focus depends on factors like mental fatigue and distraction. The more tired or distracted we are, the harder it becomes to focus on anything. Mindfulness will help you make clearer, faster decisions, even in high-pressure situations. By reducing the experience of distraction, it allows you to focus on what truly matters, improving your ability to lead your team effectively and reducing costly mistakes.
A 2020 study found that the average person has over 6,000 thoughts per day—about one every 9 seconds. With so many thoughts constantly flowing through our minds, it’s no wonder that staying focused can be such a challenge. Mindfulness helps us manage this overwhelming influx by training our attention on what matters most, so we’re less likely to get swept away by the next thought that arises.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/mindlessness-1024x576.png\")
Think about yourself for a moment. How long can you truly focus on writing an email or listening to a colleague before another thought interrupts—even if just for a second? While you may maintain focus longer in some situations, as Kahneman’s research shows, attention is clearly a bigger challenge today than ever before. This constant flitting from one thought to another impacts our ability to maintain focus on tasks, which in turn affects our decision-making. When we’re not fully present for the appropriate amount of time to do a specific job, our decisions can become fragmented and less effective.
\n\n\n\nThe goal of mindfulness isn’t to stop your thoughts but to become aware of them. Like the earlier metaphor of dreaming, the aim isn’t to stop the dream but to become conscious of what’s happening around you, so you’re not swept away by one thought while missing the bigger picture. By noticing when our minds wander, we can train ourselves to refocus on the task at hand, which improves our ability to make thoughtful, clear decisions.
\n\n\n\nTry this 60-second mindfulness exercise.
I’d like you to try a simple mindfulness exercise:
After your exercise:
How was that experience for you? Did you notice your mind wandering and then successfully bring your focus back to your breath?
This simple exercise is the foundation for sharpening your decision-making during high-stakes meetings, negotiations, or when managing competing priorities. With regular practice, you’ll find that you can stay calm, focused, and intentional even in the most difficult situations.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/emotional-flooding-1024x576.png\")
Overcoming flooding
University of Washington professor John Gottman has researched what his institute calls “emotional flooding.” This happens when someone is so overwhelmed by their emotions that their decision-making skills are overpowered. Emotional flooding happens more often than you might think—it’s not just limited to heated arguments or intense grief. It can occur even in people who seem emotionally reserved.
Research from the Gottman Institute shows that pausing for just two seconds between a stimulus and a response can significantly improve performance. This applies to everything from answering simple questions to handling complex, high-stakes conversations.
\n\n\n\nAs a leader, you’re constantly required to make quick decisions, prioritize tasks, and navigate high-pressure situations. Mindfulness gives you the mental space to pause, process, and respond thoughtfully, allowing you to stay calm and clear-headed, no matter the challenges you face. When we’re mindful, we are less likely to react impulsively and more likely to provide thoughtful, well-considered responses—both qualitatively and quantitatively better.
\n\n\n\nConsider a scenario where a colleague asks you a challenging question. By pausing for a couple of seconds before responding, you give yourself the opportunity to process the question more thoroughly and provide a better, more thoughtful answer. If pausing remains at the level of a hack or trick though, you will inevitably forget about it and revert to your old, very common habits. This is why you need to practice mindfulness. So that when you have a decision to make, you do so with awareness, intention, and the ability to stay focused on the task at hand, thereby actually doing your job better.
\n\n\n\nAs a leader, your ability to manage distractions and focus on what truly matters is key to success. Mindfulness helps you control your thoughts, keeping you focused on strategic priorities and reducing the risk of making reactive, impulsive decisions that can harm your team or organization. By practicing mindfulness regularly, you’ll sharpen your focus and decision-making abilities, allowing you to handle complex leadership challenges with greater ease. You’ll be able to think more strategically, make quicker decisions, and guide your team more confidently.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/elephant-and-rider-1024x576.png\")
The rider and the elephant
In his book The Happiness Hypothesis, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explains that the mind consists of two parts: the elephant (the impulsive, unconscious mind) and the rider (the rational, conscious mind). While the rider can guide the elephant, it’s only possible if the elephant allows it. When the elephant becomes scared, angry, or agitated, it takes control, leaving the rider merely along for the ride. The elephant is in control when you’re on autopilot—like when you pull into your driveway and realize you don’t remember the drive or when you impulsively yell at someone and later regret it.
Most likely, your rider was distracted and didn’t even bother to try to direct the elephant or was over-powered and simply could not direct the elephant. The elephant, your unconscious mind, just did what it believed was best, which was kept you on the road and got you to your destination. It’s the elephant that’s in command when a hockey goalie launches at the puck before ever consciously knowing or seeing where it was going, when a musician plays an incredibly fast riff on a guitar or piano, when you burn or cut your finger and are pulling your hand back almost before you even realize it. It’s the elephant that’s in control when you’re emotionally flooded, and more often, it’s the elephant that’s in control when your phone buzzes and you reflexively look at it or a colleague asks you a question and you just start speaking.
\n\n\n\nOur unconscious mind often dictates our actions and decisions, sometimes without our conscious awareness. As Haidt says in his book, to make better decisions, we need to:
\n\n\n\n“You” are simply not as smart as you think you are.
It’s difficult to equate human thoughts to bits in a computer because the human brain does not function like a computer, but we can use this analogy for illustration purposes.
While our minds process up to 11 million bits of information per second according to some estimates, our conscious brain can handle only a fraction of that—about 50 to 400 bits (depending on who is doing the comparison and exactly how they’re making it). This gap explains why so many of our decisions happen on autopilot. Mindfulness helps bridge this divide, increasing our capacity (Kahneman) and our ability to consciously act upon our goals (Haidt).
\n\n\n\nThis disparity in conscious and unconscious bandwidth means there’s a lot going on under the surface that we simply are not conscious of. We know our heart beating, much of our breathing, reaction times, and many other functions are handled unconsciously, but so is a lot of everything else that we do. You can notice this when you’re talking to someone. In most cases, the words come out of your mouth before you consciously think them. It’s almost as if it’s not you choosing the words, but you know it’s you. It’s just not the same “you” that deliberates over a decision and then makes a choice. It’s the elephant, the unconscious you that processes millions of bits of information and then decides what to say before the conscious you, the rider that only processes 50 bits per second, has time to catch up. It’s the elephant turning right or left before the rider even realizes they’ve come to a fork in the path.
\n\n\n\nUnderstanding how much happens in our unconscious mind—and how often we let the elephant guide our choices—helps us see why it’s so easy to go on autopilot, reacting instead of thinking. By becoming more aware of our thoughts, we can better manage our responses and make more intentional and better decisions that our colleagues need to be able to rely upon us for.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/overhead-water-1024x576.png\")
Your mind as water
I suggest you try this exercise by reading a single paragraph and following the directions before moving on to follow the directions in the next paragraph. If you are using a timer, give yourself at least a minute to test out the directions in each paragraph. If you are not using a timer, follow the directions in each paragraph for as long as you feel that you’re having to work at it, but not so long that you have a feeling of not being able to stick to it successfully anymore.
Exercise 1
Close your eyes and imagine your consciousness as a giant lake that you are looking down on from a high vantage point. This lake is vast, with no edges in sight. Everything within your view is water. This represents the space where all your thoughts and feelings arise. If you can see anything on or above the surface, you are aware of it. It’s in your consciousness. Now, we know there’s a lot below that surface as there is in any sufficiently large body of water. Sadly, we just can’t see past the surface.
Exercise 2
Now imagine a spot on the water with ripples radiating out, like when a fish breaks the surface of a still lake. These ripples represent your thoughts. Something rises from your unconscious mind, breaks the surface, and you’re suddenly aware of it. These could be thoughts about your breathing, the sounds around you, your sweaty hands, or a memory from work.
![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/overhead-water-ripples-1024x576.png\")
Exercise 3
As you visualize these ripples, notice how your mind jumps from one thought to another without you deciding to do so. One moment you’re picturing the lake, the next you’re thinking about an itchy foot, then suddenly you’re wondering why the neighbor is talking so loudly. Often, we get so caught up in one set of ripples that we forget about the rest of the lake—the other thoughts and ideas floating around.
If the average person has just over 6,000 thoughts per waking day and struggles to focus on a single thought for long, what often happens is similar in this visualization to zooming in and getting caught up in one set of ripples, then another, and another. This can happen in meetings, conversations, or while working on tasks, leading us to lose sight of our broader goals. One of the problems with this is that we rarely feel distracted or unable to focus. We’re simply doing what we do all the time. We’re thinking and doing. But, isn’t that also what happens while we’re dreaming? We’re certainly thinking, and as far as we experience it in the moment, we’re doing something–even if not physically. As far as we’re concerned when we are wrapped up in a dream, we are doing something, but as I’ve stated, we move from thought to thought unintentionally, effectively becoming the recipients, or victims, of whatever thoughts we receive and become wrapped up in rather than the intentional directors of our thoughts and actions.
\n\n\n\nWhat’s the problem with watching a TV show and having a memory pop up about high school, then focusing on the show again only to pull out our phones and google the cast, then deciding that we should check our work and personal email while we have our phones out, then checking social media only to end up doom scrolling for the next 10 minutes? We don’t notice that this aspect of our minds is such a problem because we get our tasks done–we answer that colleague’s question, we finish the email we’re writing, we sit through and participate in the meeting. What we’re rarely doing though is intentionally focusing. More often than not, what we’re actually doing is allowing ourselves to get distracted and just returning over and over and over to the same task–sending that email response to a colleague but not giving it our best thought because our mind has just come from the show we’re watching to the email and is flitting back and forth while we type for example.
\n\n\n\nThe goal of mindfulness is to be aware of all these ripples on our mental lake—our thoughts and feelings—without getting caught up in them. For example, being aware of the motivation to pull out our phones or think about that old memory without being drawn in unintentionally. By being aware, by being conscious, we can choose where to direct our focus, rather than being constantly pulled from one distraction to another.
\n\n\n\nLet’s see an example of how the mind focuses
Let’s take the concepts I’ve discussed and get a more visual experience of this. For this exercise, I’ve noted in [bolded brackets] when I would spend some time on what has just been described and how much time I would put toward that.
Exercise 1
Sit or stand as if you were going to repeat one of the last exercises, but this time keep your eyes open and pointed at something simple. Don’t look at your device or anything that is moving or has intricate patterns, shapes, colors, or writing. Focus on something like a chair, a spot on the wall or the carpet in front of you, or a simple decoration. [30-ish seconds]
Exercise 2
Now, while you keep your eyes pointed there, let the focus of your attention move around your visual field to take in other things you can see. For example, if I were in my office, I might look at the carpet in front of me or the puff guard on my mic and then, keeping my eyes on that spot, consciously notice the items behind or off to the side. To give myself a better chance of really focusing my mental attention, I might then ask myself: What are those things? What are the colors and shapes? What are the objects? Keeping my eyes in the same spot, I can then shift my attention to things closer to me on my desk, such as my keyboard and some papers. [1-3 minutes]
![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/bokeh-1024x683.png\")
Exercise 3
Now, if you haven’t done it already, keep your eyes in the same spot and consciously back out your mental focus. Try to just be aware of all the shapes, colors, and patterns in your visual field. You can’t visually zero in on more than one thing, but you can be aware of everything. You’re trying to not get lost in the thing you’re staring at and stop noticing everything around it in your visual field. [1-3 minutes]
Mindfulness is somewhat akin to this exercise. All of those objects are there, and if you think about it, you can take all of them in at varying levels of detail. The closer some object is to the point you’re focusing on, the more detail you get. The further out toward the periphery, the less detail your mind can pull in from your eyes.
\n\n\n\nYou can point your eyes at a single thing, and even though you can tell yourself right now that you know everything else is there, that’s not generally how we experience life. When you’re at your desk typing, you’re mostly looking at one spot on the screen and maybe thinking about what your fingers are doing. You’re more than likely oblivious to all the other things in your visual field, the feeling of sitting in your chair, or anything else. You’re mentally wrapped up in that typing until a notification pops up to the side, and suddenly, your attention is pulled there, and your train of thought for your typing quickly evaporates into nothingness.
\n\n\n\nThe more you practice mindfulness, the easier it will become to be aware of all the thoughts and feelings that occur to you, even though you cannot really take in more than one very deeply at any one time. When you’re in a state of mindfulness, you have a better chance to choose what to focus on rather than just reacting and getting lost in a thought.
\n\n\n\nTo bring this explicitly back to decision-making, you cannot control when, for example, a colleague walks into your office or calls you on Teams. But once engaged in that conversation, you can be aware of all the thoughts and feelings popping up on the surface of your mental lake. This awareness allows you to choose to focus on the task at hand rather than letting your mind wander, which can result in lack of engagement, poor decision making, and potentially hurt feelings if the other person notices you’re not paying attention.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/conference-room-1024x576.png\")
Pattern matching makes mindfulness hard.
Our brains are notorious resource hogs. Despite being relatively small and lightweight, they consume a significant amount of our body’s energy. This is not true for many other species because they lack or have very simple versions of many of the structures that make our brains so powerful, such as the prefrontal cortex. As humans evolved, our brain’s intense energy consumption needed to be optimized. More energy used by any part of the body means more energy must either be consumed through eating or drinking or taken from some other part of the body. And since food has often been scarce and predators common through human history, our brains having the ability to do more was great, but not if it meant that we lacked the calories needed to power that brain for the time periods needed or if that energy consumption from our brains meant that we lacked the energy to run from a predator. To conserve energy, our brains developed ways to reduce unnecessary mental effort.
This is where pattern matching comes into play. Rather than processing every detail, our brains look for familiar patterns and quickly categorize them. This conserves energy for novel or unexpected situations that might require immediate attention. In doing this, we are effectively taking what the rider could have done with its low number of bits that it can process at any one time and turning it over to the elephant that has much more processing bandwidth, but also makes decisions to for example ignore, react, or take some other action before our rider realizes that for example we didn’t pay attention to anything our colleague said in the last 5 minutes.
\n\n\n\nImagine walking into a new conference room for the first time and seeing chairs around the table. Your rider does not spend time examining each one to see how it is unique. Instead, your elephant recognizes the pattern, a seat with four legs and a backrest, and says, “Rider, nothing to pay attention to here.” This pattern matching helps you save mental energy and conscious bandwidth so that you can focus on the things that have historically been more important, thinking about the unfamiliar things in our environment: people we do not know, objects that are foreign, sounds from the darkness around us in the forest, and so on.
\n\n\n\nHowever, this same mechanism can lead to issues, especially in leadership. Imagine a colleague who frequently complains but rarely takes action. You might start to pattern-match their behavior, tuning them out before you’ve gathered enough information to know if this encounter will be different. Alternatively, an employee known for being reliable might have an off day, but you might miss the signs because you’ve categorized them as always dependable. And again, why do you do this? It’s easier to let the elephant set the direction so that the rider doesn’t have to expend any more energy than necessary.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/treated-like-everyone-else-1024x576.png\")
Pattern matching means saved time and energy, but also missed opportunities and bad decisions.
Pattern matching can cause us to overlook important details and make assumptions that aren’t always accurate. This can lead to missed opportunities, poor decision-making, and strained relationships within our teams. I know that we’ve all been in situations, where we’ve felt that someone wasn’t giving us their full attention, but how about this for another possible situation of pattern matching? Whether you’re male, female, black, white, straight, gay, or whatever, have you ever felt like you were getting the “All ______ people are like that” treatment?
For example, I’m an American that has lived in Germany twice and Sweden once. And, I’ve done a fair amount of traveling in my life. Even if I make allowances for some sense of insecurity or simply just misunderstanding on my part, I can tell you without a doubt that I have been pattern matched to “All Americans are like that” numerous times. In most cases, this is harmless. In some, it’s not, but regardless of whether harm is done or not, it certainly doesn’t feel good for me, and it leads those doing the pattern matching to not engage with and appreciate me in the ways that make me unique from the pattern they match me to. And yet, our brains are built to do this so that we can put our energy toward the things that we perceive as being new or novel and not the things that we think we already understand well. If “all Americans are like that” or “all women are like that” for example, I consciously or unconsciously believe I can focus on something else.
\n\n\n\nAs leaders, it’s crucial to be aware of this tendency and consciously challenge our assumptions. Mindfulness can help us stay present, notice these patterns, and make more intentional decisions.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/taking-a-second-1024x576.png\")
So, how do you make better decisions with mindfulness?
Next time you have a chance to make a decision, you can do something as simple as take a moment to become aware of your thoughts and feelings. You can visualize your mental lake. You can take a breath before responding. Or, you can do what I like to do, which is to ask myself, “What am I doing? (I might for example not truly be paying attention to the task in front of me.) And, what do I think about this?” This can help to break out of pattern matching. And sometimes, whatever it is that just came to mind is worth your attention, but you taking a second to ask yourself what you think about it gives you the opportunity to weigh it against everything else you have going on and say for example, “I’ll get to that later,” rather than just getting distracted by something new.
Practical uses of mindfulness for better decision making
One of the simplest metaphors for focus and decision-making is to think of the mind as a muscle. While we could talk about different mental “muscles”—like empathy or critical thinking—let’s keep it simple. Most of us struggle with focus. Our minds jump from notifications to memories, emails, grocery lists, and more, often without us realizing that we’re not giving full, uninterrupted attention to any one thing. Imagine training your ability to focus and make decisions just like you would train your body for running or weightlifting.
The simplest way to improve the strength of your mental focusing and decision-making muscles is to:
\n\n\n\nDaily practice
What you make time for daily has the biggest impact on your life. We all make time to eat, sleep, work, talk to our families, scroll through social media, or check the news. Some of these activities help, while others harm. But what we do every day has a greater impact than, say, the weightlifting we might do once a week.
![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/mindfulness-for-better-decisions-1024x576.png\")
To incorporate mindfulness into your daily routine:
\n\n\n\nI think of this as roughly equivalent to physical training. If I’m doing a general mindfulness meditation, it’s somewhat similar to doing a general workout like a walk, run, or bike. Focusing on something specific, like your breath, is similar to working a specific muscle group, like doing a back or biceps workout. Consistency and structure are just as important for training your mental muscles as they are for anything else in life.
\n\n\n\nIt’s difficult to set aside time for daily practice. If you don’t exercise a muscle though, it’s much more difficult to use it well when needed. If you never walk or jog, it’s hard to sprint for the airplane as the gate is closing. If you never do pushups or pullups, it’s harder to push your kids on a swing or lift them up as much as you and they might like. The same is true of your mind. If you don’t practice mindfulness, it will be harder to focus and make the high-value and critical decisions you’re likely being paid good money to make.
\n\n\n\nDaily use
There’s no trick or hack that will work in the long run. Sure, you can follow a 5-step process or a 3-question decision tree. But the most reliable way to use mindfulness daily for better decision-making (after practicing regularly) is to recognize when mindfulness would be most especially valuable. Then, ask yourself a few simple questions or direct your mental energy toward what matters, and use those mental muscles.
Many of us have found ourselves in situations where we realize we could put down our phones and pay attention to our child or close our laptops and focus on a meeting. But switching your focus isn’t always the right move. It’s simply another set of ripples on the surface of your mental lake.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/overhead-water-many-ripples-1024x576.png\")
To evaluate competitors for your attention and intentionally put your focus on one, ask yourself two questions:
\n\n\n\nNow, I want to say that–for the mindfulness Puritans–focusing on one thing at a time is not explicitly mindfulness. Practicing mindfulness is seeing all of those ripples on your mental lake, being aware of everything in your consciousness. For most of us, mindfulness is a means to a greater end. By practicing mindfulness, you gain the ability to focus intentionally on what matters, so you can give your full mental power to the task at hand.
\n\n\n\nConclusion
No matter who you are—whether you’re a critical thinker, emotionally volatile, or something else—you and the people who depend on you will benefit from better decision-making. This might mean improving the quality of your decisions while increasing the speed at which you make them or being more focused and mentally present in your life.
Imagine facing a sudden crisis at work: a client is upset, the team is stressed, and decisions need to be made quickly. Instead of reacting impulsively, you take a moment to center yourself, refocus, and address the situation calmly. This mindful pause allows you to make thoughtful decisions that are best for your team and your client
\n\n\n\nIn today’s fast-paced world, mastering mindfulness is not a luxury—it’s a necessity. By becoming more present and intentional in your decisions, you’ll not only improve your leadership but also experience greater clarity and calm in both your personal and professional life.
\n\n\n\nTo unlock the full potential of your leadership, I encourage you to start practicing mindfulness today. Even small, daily exercises can help you make clearer, more intentional decisions and improve your focus over time.
\n\n\n\nAnd if you have any questions, send me an email at eric@inboundandagile.com.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/mindfulness.png","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":872,"title":"AI-Driven Task Displacement","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/ai-driven-task-displacement/","slug":"ai-driven-task-displacement","published_at":"2023-05-18T16:08:57+00:00","modified_at":"2023-05-18T16:09:01+00:00","excerpt_html":"While many people say things like “AI will not replace people”, “it will create more abundance”, “it will change what we do but not the need for us”, etc, I’d like you to consider the history of the horse. In the 1800s, horses were used to move carriages, people, equipment, and more. In places like […]
\n","content_html":"\nWhile many people say things like “AI will not replace people”, “it will create more abundance”, “it will change what we do but not the need for us”, etc, I’d like you to consider the history of the horse.
In the 1800s, horses were used to move carriages, people, equipment, and more. In places like New York City, a horse taxi that used a single horse and could carry typically 1-2 people + a driver required the driver or business owner to have at least 3 horses. 1 for trips, another to rotate out with (because horses need rest), and a third in case you had a problem with 1 of the first 2. A horse-bus (it’s a thing) might have used up to 6 or 7 horses at a time to pull the horse-drawn version of those famous London, double-decker red buses. All of these horses cost money, required housing, and needed to be fed and otherwise cared for. They also defecated everywhere to the extent that there were predictions that the amount of horse feces in NYC streets would reach the third story windows of nearby buildings.
![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20th-century-farm-horse-in-action.jpg\")
Enter the automobile. Sure, they were unreliable and expensive at first, but as they improved, they replaced horses not just on city streets, but on farms and in other places as well. Soon enough, they were cheaper and easier to own than horses, and because horses are not super adaptive to work tasks beyond pulling, carrying, and hauling (all things the automobile quickly did net-net better or cheaper), there was nowhere for horses to go, but to be relegated to tasks that were economically relatively unimportant and for which there was low demand (racing, show training and jumping, and so on).
\n\n\n\nHorses could not retool or retrain. Their territory, the tasks they specialized in, were encroached upon by technology, and in some sense, horses went into technology-driven unemployment. While he was not talking about technology at the time, John Stuart Mill famously said, “Demand for commodities is not demand for labor.” Just because people needed to get themselves and things from one place to another did not mean that they needed horses to do it.
\n\n\n\nAs AI continues to evolve, I think you should consider whether or not humans will reach the position of the horse in more and more areas that we previously thought we (and not technology) were ideally suited for. When humans are displaced by technology, people won’t stop wanting things, but they won’t need other people to produce those things for them.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20190828-095551-RH-ATM-B-copy_NOISY_CMYK-655x1024.jpg\")
When ATMs were first developed, many people said they would kill the job of tellers. In reality though, demand for tellers went up. Why? Because while ATMs displaced tellers from their traditional roles, ATMs freed up tellers to do higher-touch tasks that ATMs could not. This is the type of story you will often hear from people that say that AI will not replace humans. It might displace us, but demand will remain for things that humans and not technology can do.
\n\n\n\nOkay, maybe, but do you believe that humans are so unique that we will never get to a place that the horse encountered where there is no remaining task that is uniquely suited to humans that is also in high enough demand that most people can both be employed and make a reasonable wage?
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/mcdonalds-1024x683.jpg\")
Look at self-service kiosk-based ordering in places like McDonald’s or order-via-app at Starbucks. These businesses are able to employ the same number of front-line service workers while selling more product. And, sure maybe they have to employ more burger flippers or baristas, but we all know that many aspects of making food or drinks can be automated too. And, any price v. quality tradeoffs that currently weigh in favor of humans will only increasingly shift in the direction of technology such that more and more businesses will, in the words of JSM, be able to sell more of their commodities, but not need to employ nearly as much labor.
\n\n\n\nNow, maybe you say that human beings value more than price. Sure. Many people do, but while many might like a handmade sofa or custom-tailored suit, more people choose IKEA and are able to access their goods at a much lower cost than those that choose to buy handmade. Demand for “humanmade” products in many areas is simply much less than it once was. Because while humans by default value others’ hard work, they value access and price more in most cases. Think of someone in the third world getting access to a pair of Nikes for the first time. They can buy the Nikes for $X or they can buy some handmade shoes of the same quality for $3X. Which do they choose?
\n\n\n\nAs technology increasingly displaces humans, we must shift to areas unique to us, but just because there is still the need for a manager at McDonald’s when the cashier position is replaced by technology does not mean that I might be qualified today, even able to be trained to do that job, or that that job is in an area I can or am willing to live in. Horses ran out of places they could be displaced from and to. The same will happen to humans.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/closed-no-workers-1024x576.jpg\")
Think of the difficulty of finding employees in recent years. Everywhere I’ve been in the country, people have said that they can’t find enough employees, and yet, many people weren’t working. Why? One reason was that the match between skills needed and skills available did not exist. Technology-driven task displacement will only exacerbate this.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/minwage11.jpg\")
A further complicating factor is minimum wages. Labor Department research long ago showed that increases in minimum wage often have a perverse impact on people at the lowest end of the skill spectrum. If I run a Subway shop and employ high school students for $Y/hour and the minimum wage goes up 25%, I might find that it’s not worth employing those high school students because the quality of their work simply is not up to the level I’m required to compensate them. As a result, I might not employ those high students and instead employ a recent graduate, which takes that graduate out of the mix for jobs they might actually be better suited for. The outcome is people at the lower end of the skill spectrum not being gainfully employed and employers at the higher end of the skill spectrum not being able to find people they need to.
\n\n\n\nOr, let’s say I can’t find that recent graduate. I might not employ the high school students. I might simply employ no one and choose to do what I’ve seen from many service businesses in the US in recent years. I’ll just close my doors at certain times or on certain days because I’d rather sell a product that my customers are willing to pay for than sell one that is below the quality they’re paying for and have that result eventually in people not wanting to buy from me at all. The outcome is fundamentally the same. I need a certain quality of labor at a certain cost. I can’t find it, and yet, some segment of the market remains unemployed. In this case, I’m just waiting for the day that I can afford to replace my potential human labor with a cheaper alternative
\n\n\n\nAdd to this that–as technology-driven task displacement occurs and more people are left looking for new jobs, retraining, having to move to where work is available, and so on–there will be a greater supply of humans and, I believe, in many cases a static or even decreasing level of demand for those humans. When supply is high and demand is low, it creates less incentives for employers to either pay well or to provide a high-quality work experience. This will further drive people out of the labor market. It’s as if the horse is still needed, but the job sucks so much that they refuse to do it. They’d rather lay around.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/bankruptcy-1024x780.webp\")
If I have $50k in college loan debt and have to work a crap job or do nothing at all, I might actually choose at some point to leave the labor market, file Chapter 7 or 13 bankruptcy, and then file an adversary proceeding to claim that repayment of my loans would cause undue hardship. If I have for example a BA in Business Administration, $50k of college debt, can only find a sandwich-making job paying $15/hour that might not be enough to even live on, and have the only other option being to move to an expensive city like San Francisco where a bartending gig might pay $60/hour or go back to school to get a new degree, a judge might reasonably say that working a low-paying job I’m ill-suited, moving to an expensive city far away to work a higher-paying job I’m ill-suited for, or taking on yet more debt is really no option and therefore void my loan obligations.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nGreat for me. I’m still unemployed though, because like the horse, technology encroached on the tasks I could uniquely do until there were no more tasks left for me to be displaced to or the available options were so unattractive that I simply chose not to participate in the labor market anymore.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/horse-bus.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Change"]},{"id":830,"title":"How we train kids to be unaccountable coworkers","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/how-we-train-kids-to-be-unaccountable-coworkers/","slug":"how-we-train-kids-to-be-unaccountable-coworkers","published_at":"2023-03-06T21:15:12+00:00","modified_at":"2023-03-06T21:15:20+00:00","excerpt_html":"I’m going to take you on a longer-than-necessary journey here, but please stick with me. It will be worthwhile. The Industrial Revolution Prior to the industrial revolution, nearly every business had 2 types of workers: Owners and employees. In most organizations, that was it. Due to most everything having to be done by hand, there […]
\n","content_html":"\nI’m going to take you on a longer-than-necessary journey here, but please stick with me. It will be worthwhile.
\n\n\n\nThe Industrial Revolution
\n\n\n\nPrior to the industrial revolution, nearly every business had 2 types of workers: Owners and employees. In most organizations, that was it.
\n\n\n\nDue to most everything having to be done by hand, there was a low limit on how large a business could get. There was only so much people could work on and so much value that could be produced. Part of this restriction was due to errors. Manually performed work is inherently error prone. Think for example of the so called Wicked Bible that omitted the word Not making the commandment, “Thou shalt commit adultery.”
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Wicked_Bible-1024x1024.jpg\")
When work had to be performed manually, you were going to run into problems. If your work product has high error rates, people don’t want to pay a lot for fear they might get a lemon. Until the industrial revolution, this hesitation led people to not purchase things or to pay less than they otherwise might have.
\n\n\n\nAdditionally, management systems simply were not developed enough for a person to be able to add value to the work of a large set of people with whom they could not immediately and frequently interact. Think of for example Scrooge and Marley’s money lending business with Scrooge sitting in the corner watching Cratchit do his job. Without the benefits of an adding machine, calculator, electric lights, a time management system, and so on, Scrooge’s ability to add value only stretched so far, which could be one of the reasons he is portrayed as such a terrible manager. He was micro-managing, being a tyrant, etc, and Cratchit’s ability to produce value was limited due to having to do everything by hand. No calculators, computers, or anything else. If this were not the case, Scrooge could have had a whole building of Cratchit’s working away, whose shoulders he did not have to look over in order to ensure that their work product was error free.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Scrooge_and_cratchit-1024x681.jpg\")
With the industrial revolution though came the ability to increase both quality and quantity of work. If I have a machine stamping the soles of shoes, I know that–once I get the machine set up correctly–it will do the job the same way every time. Humans naturally deviate. As this revolution occurred, employers were able to hire more employees to either work the machines or be treated like machines in that they only did a single task in an assembly line or division of labor scenario, which is less error prone than when a single person handles multiple tasks. At some point in this revolution and growth of the size of businesses, people like Scrooge simply did not have enough time or ability to add value to the work of all of those employees.
\n\n\n\nThe widespread adoption of the assembly line greatly accelerated this shift toward more workers and less owners. Because while the assembly line–and variations of it–had been in use as far back as the Venetian Arsenal in the 12th century and even Ancient China, it was not until the industrial revolution when it began to be used to produce more than just a few items.
\n\n\n\nWith the introduction of division of labor and machinery to automate work, you not only had an increase in the number of workers you could hire due to the amount of revenue you could generate, you also had higher quality products you could charge more for and specialized skillsets in your workforce that the owner-manager did not possess.
\n\n\n\nEnter the managerial class
\n\n\n\nFor the first time in history, large numbers of businesses became stratified into–not a two-tier Owner-Employee organization but rather–a three-tier Owner-Manager-Employee organization. In this new structure, the owner’s responsibility was to the vision for and financial viability of the company with value adding oversight duties being shunted off to the managers. This was new and unusual, because until this time, the only people that could generally be trusted to shepherd the well-being of the company were people with an ownership stake. This new managerial class had no ownership, but still had to exercise responsibility.
\n\n\n\nWhile this shift was occurring, a man by the name of Frederick Winslow Taylor revolutionized business with his 1909 book The Principles of Scientific Management, which built on a long evolution of business and efficiency thinking to espouse the viewpoint essentially that humans and their processes should be molded to machines rather than the other way around.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/frederick-taylor.jpg\")
With the advent of scientific management came systems of control and communication that are highly efficient, but somewhat dehumanizing. All in the span of 100-200 years (less in some places), workers went from being craftspeople that knew how to do everything related to a job and who had a direct relationship with their employers and customers to people that worked on only a single piece of a job (for example only installing car fenders rather than building the whole car) and who had no relationship with their employers or customers.
\n\n\n\nI cannot find the exact quote, but in The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith said something like:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMan will become the minimum his environment requires.
\nParaphrasing Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.
And in this case, man’s environment had removed the understanding of the whole product or process and replaced it with an understanding only of installing the watch face, attaching the wiper blades, and so on, which is far more boring and less fulfilling than actually building something yourself and seeing people use it. This robbed the worker of the intellectual understanding of–and attachment to–the achievement that comes from really producing something because you never actually got to see your final product, and when you did, you had only done a small part.
\n\n\n\nAs a result, it became ever more important to motivate workers externally. No longer was it just enough to do a good job because you couldn’t see the good job you had done playing out in the world. Scientific management espoused incentives and methods of control that treated employees like animals or machines. This created an environment in which management had to compel workers to work harder, better, faster even when they felt it was not worthwhile. And when their shifts were done, they were dismissed with something completely unrelated to the accomplishment of a job and instead something that fit the needs of the machine, a whistle or a bell.
\n\n\n\nIs it any wonder then that–come to today–so many people that work inside of machine-like businesses are dissatisfied with their jobs? For example, 90% of clergy express high satisfaction, while 39% of dry-cleaning workers do. Clergy own most or all of the process from beginning to end of their work and interact with their “customers”, seeing the outcomes of their efforts. Dry-cleaning workers conversely often do not interact with customers, work on a whole process from beginning to end, or see the outcomes of their efforts. The same is true of many industries and specialties.
\n\n\n\nSchools and industrialization
\n\n\n\nMany people have made the point that schools are like factories, so for the most part, I will not rehash that here. However, I will point out that–when you design a high throughput system–you cannot deal with edge cases very well. When you have an assembly line building clocks, you cannot accommodate a worker with slightly worse vision or a slower swing of the hammer. The worker fits or they don’t, and if they don’t, they are out.
\n\n\n\nThe same is true of the product as well. You cannot accommodate production of a product that has variation to it. You produce the same thing over and over, and if a product has any variance, you get rid of it.
\n\n\n\nThe same is true of schools. This is where so many children fall through the cracks. Whether you think of them as workers or products, if they don’t fit, they’re out.
\n\n\n\nIf you have children, you’ve likely seen that they are at times well ahead or behind their peers, but generally not in everything. Rather, they might be behind in math for six months while ahead in reading, and then, it switches. If you’re a teacher though with 20, 30, or more students, it is difficult to slow down to help kids that are behind because that takes away from everyone else, and you’re on a schedule, and you have standardized tests coming up, and on and on and on. Too many demands, too many students, too little time.
\n\n\n\nIf a kid is ahead, that might seem great, but instead of capitalizing on their skill or success, the teacher typically has to have them wait on everyone else. And if that student is like I was (and like a lot of kids generally are), they’re not going to sit still and just wait. They’re going to put their energy into something. This is where you might get kids that could be good at something falling out of the educational factory not because they are lazy or stupid or anything else, but because they don’t fit the mold the school requires. They have “too much energy”, “cannot focus”, etc. Much of it likely due to the fact that they are bored as a result of having to wait.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Students_school_factory-1024x769.jpg\")
Our school system trains children to be unaccountable workers because schools are filled with children that are being pumped through the system regardless of whether they care about a specific topic, if they are ahead or behind, and more. This introduces from an early age in children resignation that they are not in school to satisfy themselves, but rather to satisfy the desire of others. Ask many children why they go to school, and a sadly, large percentage of them will say because they “have to”, “mom/dad make me”, or some variation rather than because “I get to learn” or “I enjoy it”. They go because something outside of them (people that hold power over them) tells them to do it, and once they are there, other powerholders tell them what to do.
\n\n\n\nWhen you’ve gone through 12 years of compulsory education, learning that what you want is less important than what some authority figure wants, you’ve received a lot of reinforcement that it’s only worth doing something when someone, who has power over you, tells you to do it. You learn to just do what others tell you to do because they hold power over you. Passion, skill, understanding, and anything else be damned.
\n\n\n\nAnd, no matter where you’re at in your studies, you get told to pass on to the next thing by what? The ringing of a bell or whistle just like in a factory.
\n\n\n\nWhat happens at work?
\n\n\n\nWhat we see in the work world is a lot of workers that have been habituated to only doing things that someone, who has power over them, tells them to do. Additionally, we see a lack of ownership of the duties they’re given, because honestly, it is harder to take responsibility for something that you might not be enthused about doing, but have been told to do, is it not?
\n\n\n\nCruelly, we see some of these workers become managers and learn by example from their teachers, school administrators, and eventually managers that the way to manage people is to treat them like bigger children that should be passed through the factory system with little regard for their unique skillsets, desires, or abilities. Instead, they should be made to fit the mold of every other worker. And, if they don’t fit, they’re out of the company.
\n\n\n\nThis creates an environment in too many companies in which people are there because they have to be. They need to pay the rent, college loans, and more. They’re not there because they want to be. And then while there, they’re treated like what they care about–or are good at–does not matter unless they just happen to be lucky and care about–or are good at–their jobs, or they are in a culture and/or have a boss that does not treat them like they are part of an assembly line.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/unhappy_employee-1024x769.jpg\")
The outcome of this is that too many organizations are less successful or productive than they could be. You have managers that other-ize their workforces. Believe me, I hear it all the time. “Why won’t these people just do their jobs?” or “I’ve given them everything they need, and they’re still underperforming/won’t do what I say/act like children/whatever.” You have employees that are disengaged, not looking for new or innovative solutions, and worse believe that every job is like this.
\n\n\n\nWorse still, you also have employees that are at the end of the day wiped out from doing work that does not energize or excite them. And, instead of bringing light and joy to those around them after an invigorating day of doing something they love, they instead bring their frustrations home with them.
\n\n\n\nWhere it works
\n\n\n\nThere are people and organizations that do not fit this mold. Some were lucky to have parents or go to schools that did not treat them like they were passing through a factory. Others did, but they found something they were passionate about and were able to succeed at that thing. Some managers actually add value rather than just bossing people around or wielding power over them. And, some companies actually have cultures that encourage people to bring some of their uniqueness to bear in the service of shared goals.
\n\n\n\nI wish it were as simple as saying that everyone should just “follow their passion”. The reality of it though, I believe, is that most of us have to work. We have bills to pay. We can avoid community groups (church, neighbors, whatever) that make us uncomfortable. We can not talk to the other folks in the gym or when we’re out walking our dogs. We can skip joining that soccer or bowling team or taking that dance class or getting that drink with some acquaintances after work. But, we generally do have to work, and it’s even part of our development that we most often want to work because work gives us the opportunity to feel productive and have our time and efforts be valued. And, work is the place where we can actually experience that the right way to do things is not to treat each other like non-humans or pieces of a machine, but rather as contributors to a greater good.
\n\n\n\nIf you are a leader, you can work to establish a culture that strips away all of that factory training your staff has taken on and instead help them to realize that true motivation does not come from a powerholder telling them what to do, but rather from connecting what you are good at and care about to a shared goal and understanding that your work matters. When you do this, you’ll see more job satisfaction, more productivity, and more new and innovative solutions in place of what used to just be people taking orders.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/happy_boss_and_employee.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":822,"title":"Company culture & levels of alignment","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/company-culture-levels-of-alignment/","slug":"company-culture-levels-of-alignment","published_at":"2023-02-24T14:17:58+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-24T14:18:24+00:00","excerpt_html":"After writing recently about cultural misalignment and how that impacts employee stress levels, I was thinking about levels of alignment around culture. My proposal is that there are 4 levels of alignment around culture in an organization: Level 1 – Leadership As discussed in my other post, employees can afford to not be explicitly aware […]
\n","content_html":"\nAfter writing recently about cultural misalignment and how that impacts employee stress levels, I was thinking about levels of alignment around culture.
\n\n\n\nMy proposal is that there are 4 levels of alignment around culture in an organization:
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/cultural-alignment-levels-1024x1024.png\")
Level 1 – Leadership
\n\n\n\nAs discussed in my other post, employees can afford to not be explicitly aware of the culture’s underlying basic assumptions because they are only required to act in accordance with the culture. Leadership on the other hand has to guide the organization and help to shape its culture.
\n\n\n\nWhen organizations encounter new and novel circumstances for which there is no prior experience or knowledge, leadership needs to advocate for a specific type of response (an artifact) and potentially even a value. For example, “I believe we should do this…” Espoused values and beliefs are always open to debate, but those that are supported by underlying basic assumptions are much less likely to be argued with because those beliefs and values are simply statements about the way the world works.
\n\n\n\nNew beliefs and values though will typically be seen as something coming from another party. When we encounter a new situation and the CEO says that we should handle it a certain way, I as an employee might not see that as the natural solution, but rather as the CEO’s value or belief. I will not internalize it until my experience confirms that his solution is just the way that those situations should be handled. In this way, leadership guides the ongoing evolution of the organization’s culture.
\n\n\n\nOnce new beliefs, values, or basic assumptions are set and felt by the employees though, they begin to limit the ability of leadership to deal with circumstances in any other way because a departure from an existing belief, value, or basic assumption would demonstrate misalignment to the employees and contribute to the stress or underperformance mentioned in my other post.
\n\n\n\nLevel 2 – Integrated
\n\n\n\nIn the most common scenario, you have employees at this level that have been around the bend with you so many times that they have experienced certain solutions that just work or are simply the preferred way of doing things in your situation. These are the people that understand whom to call, how to respond, how to manage projects, etc when specific situations arise. They have been there done that so to speak and learned that the way the organization has responded works.
\n\n\n\nOne of my clients has what they call The Woodard Way. They instill The Woodard Way in their staff through a 3-month training program that everyone goes through and then repeated reminders for how everything they do comes back to a specific approach and why it works.
\n\n\n\nCulture is a process of social learning. It is not something you do alone. And, culture is also learning from the mistakes of others without having to pay the dues, which is what you want from all of your employees. Ideally, they do not have to make all of the mistakes in order to learn the same lessons, but rather can learn from others what the organization has experienced works or does not.
\n\n\n\nLevel 3 – Learning
\n\n\n\nGenerally, people do not spend a significant amount of time at this level, and the better job you do hiring for cultural fit and onboarding your people, the less time they will spend here. My company for example is small so we do not have a robust onboarding process. We do however work in organizational culture and alignment, so we are much more sensitive to instilling in new coworkers our values and preferred behaviors than other organizations our size might be.
\n\n\n\nFundamentally, when you ask yourself how long it will be before a new hire can fly on their own, the answer is for the most part the amount of time they remain at the learning level. After that point, if not before, you should be able to clearly see progress toward level 2 or that they are slipping down to level 4.
\n\n\n\nLevel 4 – Misaligned
\n\n\n\nThis is largely the level I described in my other post. I know I have been there more than once, so I’m guessing you have been there at least once. I hope that you at least liked your colleagues and felt like you’re one of them. Often, misaligned people do feel lonely and isolated though unfortunately.
\n\n\n\nAt this level, performance is likely an issue. The person delivers work that is not what was expected and/or handles situations in a manner inconsistent with the organization’s norms. They and those around them have likely expressed at least some level of dissatisfaction, and as much as you might wish to work on it, you are likely better off parting ways.
\n\n\n\nAs unfortunate as it is, when there is misalignment, it is not often due to an issue with espoused beliefs or values. Most values are idealistic and things that the majority of people would support–truth, love, and the American Way sort of things. The problem comes in the manifestation of those values, and that is generally determined by the underlying basic assumptions.
\n\n\n\nFor example, the company and I both say we value truth. Due to my experience though, truth is best communicated one on one because I have an underlying basic assumption that growth is hampered by embarrassment, and pointing out a problem with truth in front of a group would embarrass the person having the problem. The organization however has come to learn that truth is best arrived at through open debate. What we might see in this scenario is that I appear to shy away from stating the truth and do not seem to be living the value. I know though that I’m just waiting to have the hard conversation one on one. And what I appear to see is that I just work with a bunch of jerks that are more interested in arguing and being mean to each other than they are in actually living the truth value.
\n\n\n\nLevel Management
\n\n\n\nOne of the most interesting things about culture is something that I’ve already stated. Leadership helps to establish culture, but once it is established, culture limits the leadership’s options. As a result, it is incredibly important to be deliberate about hiring and onboarding, to be as consistent and aligned as possible when dealing with new circumstances, and to be as proactive and sensitive as possible about identifying and acting on misalignment.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Alignment_PSF.png","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":812,"title":"Misaligned Company Cultures and Stress","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/misaligned-company-cultures-and-stress/","slug":"misaligned-company-cultures-and-stress","published_at":"2023-02-24T01:29:00+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-23T20:29:36+00:00","excerpt_html":"I once took a job at a company with a lot of great people and customers, but from the start, something wasn’t right. Looking back on it, it was obvious that there was a cultural alignment issue. At the time though, what I could see was a lot of baffling behavior on the part of […]
\n","content_html":"\nI once took a job at a company with a lot of great people and customers, but from the start, something wasn’t right. Looking back on it, it was obvious that there was a cultural alignment issue. At the time though, what I could see was a lot of baffling behavior on the part of others, and I experienced a lot of confusion on the part of others about my behavior.
\n\n\n\nI would work hard on something and actually do a good job, but my effort would not be valued. I would be asked to work on things that simply made no sense to me. And no matter how much talking we did, it seemed like we were never on the same page when it got time to deliver.
\n\n\n\nAfter trying to make it work for 2 years, I finally admitted to myself that it was a bad fit and decided to move on. And, don’t get me wrong. It was a hard decision, I did not enjoy the journey, and I had a hard time not just blaming the other party/parties, but the rational part of me knew then–and knows now–that the issue was not that either party was bad or at fault per se. It was a bad cultural fit.
\n\n\n\nUnfortunately, I worked with people there that experienced the same thing and took it harder. For the sake of privacy, I won’t get into details except to say that I’m about as low anxiety of a person as you can get. On the Big 5 personality trait of Neuroticism, I’m 14th percentile, and I’m 1st percentile in Withdrawal, so I typically experience little anticipatory anxiety and rarely have a long lasting negative emotional state. It wasn’t like that for others though unfortunately.
\n\n\n\nThe Impact of Stress
\n\n\n\nThink of a seesaw. When one side is down, your stress level is low, and your non-stress level is high. I’m calling it non-stress here because there are a lot of things that are the opposite of stress.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Non-stress-1024x576.png\")
For all people, even people like me, there are times of stress. Like happiness, sadness, etc, stress comes and goes. It’s like weather. The personality traits I mentioned above are more like climate. Despite the fact that my climate might have a naturally low balance of stress response, storms do blow through.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Stress-1024x576.png\")
When you get into a stressful situation, many things occur. Your body shuts down nearly everything that you do not need to survive right now, so for example, your kidneys stop processing fluid, and your body actually begins breaking down your immune mechanisms. Who needs an immune response that might keep you from getting a cold when you might not live beyond today?
\n\n\n\nIn ideal circumstances, you get into a stressful situation, you deal with it, and it passes after a reasonable amount of time. Some people hold onto their stress response longer than others, but in the ideal circumstances, this is periodic, and they are able to move on.
\n\n\n\nHighly stressful situations though create stronger stress responses though, and therefore, the swings between non-stress and stress are larger.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/stress-response-1024x576.gif\")
The more often you swing between stress and non-stress, the more wear and tear it puts on your body to adjust. In our visual, it’s a fulcrum. In your body, it’s all of the mechanisms that flood hormones into your blood to stop or restart activity, turn on or off organs, and so on. The more this happens, the more difficult it becomes to switch, and you find yourself simply staying in stress for longer, taking longer to come down when something has stressed you out. It’s like your climate-level balance of stress has gone up.
\n\n\n\nWhen you get into stress response, your body shuts down what it does not immediately need and even goes so far as to break down your immune response mechanisms. Imagine a baby on the end of a very high seesaw with mom underneath doing everything she can to protect that baby if it falls off, but not really being able to do anything because she’s too far away. Nonetheless, her attention is still 100% focused on something she cannot do anything about.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/moderate-stress-response-1024x576.png\")
When you have frequent stressful situations though and that fulcrum begins to wear out, so that you find yourself staying in stress for longer (with a higher climate balance of stress as I’ve put it), your body does not just recruit mom to watch the baby. Your body recruits everybody in the neighborhood.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/extreme-stress-response-1024x576.png\")
Now, everyone that should be doing a job, earning some money, participating in the neighborhood watch, mowing their lawns, and more are instead doing anything they can to get you out of danger instead of doing their jobs.
\n\n\n\nThis is one way that stress contributes to illness. Your body is so focused on dealing with the stress, and its ability to do so has gotten so worn down by repeated bouts of stress that it’s less and less effective despite throwing more and more at it. And while your body is focused on fighting the stress, viruses are getting through the cracks, plaques are building up in your arteries, and more.
\n\n\n\nCompany Cultures and Stress
\n\n\n\nWhen you work in a situation like I was in, you will experience stress more often. You will be working hard, in that non-stress position, turn something in, get a reaction you were not expecting, and go into stress response. The more often you are misaligned, the more often this is going to happen. Hopefully, you get along with your coworkers, but more than likely, the misalignment also contributes to there being THEM and YOU, so not only might you be having work problems, you’re also alone.
\n\n\n\nAnd, as studies have shown, lonely and isolated people also have lower immune response.
\n\n\n\nIf you read my post about levels of culture, you will see that this is all the more likely to happen when you take a job in a new/different kind of culture, but you believe you’re aligned on values. You will think that–based on X value–you will know what to expect, but due to underlying basic assumptions that no one talks about and few people (certainly not you due to you being new) understand explicitly, you will run into situations in which it appears that your colleagues are not acting in alignment with the values.
\n\n\n\nThis creates that stress response. To you, the values say A + B = C. You experienced A + B = D. And now, you’ve run into a challenge.
\n\n\n\nThe more that you deal with this, the harder it will become to deal with the stress, and the more likely it is that you get to a point where these occurrences contribute to a lower overall level of both health and satisfaction. And, all because you took a job where you are misaligned with the company.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/leadership-stress-1024x576.jpg\")
Company Culture, Stress, and Leadership
\n\n\n\nAsk any leader and they will say that they want a strong culture, everyone aligned around values, etc. Look at how most of them act though. Many people have said some version of:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDon’t pay attention to what people say. Pay attention to what they do. Behavior never lies.
\n
Even if leaders say they want a strong culture, alignment, and more:
\n\n\n\nEven if only for financial reasons though, it is in leadership’s best interests to ensure organizational culture is strong. The last time I saw these numbers, the cost of healthcare added $1,500 to the price of every car sold in the United States. That means, if you buy a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla, you’re paying around 10% just for the healthcare expenses of the employees that worked on the car. As a consumer, I certainly would like to pay a bit less for products if I could, and healthcare expenses are a major contributor to prices.
\n\n\n\nIn the United States, these are currently the top 4 chronic healthcare conditions:
\n\n\n\nAll of those have proven ties to stress.
\n\n\n\nWith the cost of healthcare being a major expense for employers and sickness being a major reason that someone might either not come to work or not be able to do their job well, it is in employers’ best interests to improve their employees’ health as much as possible. And, stress is a major contributor to health that leadership can have influence on through things like ensuring that you hire people aligned with–and cultivate people aligned around–your culture.
\n\n\n\nTo not do so risks significant pain for the individual employee and lower overall success for the organization…although you might not realize why if you don’t bother to focus on these things.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/misalignment-stress.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":800,"title":"3 Levels of Culture","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/3-levels-of-culture/","slug":"3-levels-of-culture","published_at":"2023-02-23T18:37:06+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-23T18:40:16+00:00","excerpt_html":"Decades ago, Sloan School of Management professor Edgar Schein developed a model for understanding and analyzing organizational culture. His model divided an organization’s culture into three levels: Encountering culture When you first encounter a culture, you are presented with the artifacts and have almost no ability to understand them. For example, if you visit your […]
\n","content_html":"\nDecades ago, Sloan School of Management professor Edgar Schein developed a model for understanding and analyzing organizational culture. His model divided an organization’s culture into three levels:
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/culture-levels-1024x691.jpg\")
Encountering culture
\n\n\n\nWhen you first encounter a culture, you are presented with the artifacts and have almost no ability to understand them. For example, if you visit your partner’s family for dinner for the first time and find that they fight constantly throughout the meal despite the fact you were told they are a very loving group, you likely cannot understand how fighting and being loving go together if you come from a family that perhaps did not argue through meals.
\n\n\n\nAt the level of value, the idea of being a loving family sounds the same, but because of your experience, you define loving through the behavior of not arguing. The reason for this might be a basic assumption that your family has that is that you can demonstrate your love for a person by being concerned about their mental well-being in the immediate moment. Does your family ever talk about that though? Probably not. They more than likely avoid arguing because “that is just what you do” or “that is the way it is.”
\n\n\n\nThis group though might have a basic assumption around love that runs more like, “You demonstrate love by focusing on the long-term outcomes.” So for example, if you’re about to make the wrong decision, I need to tell you so, and if you won’t listen, I need to make you listen. That is love in my world.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/confusion-1024x951.jpg\")
Understanding culture
\n\n\n\nIn order to understand artifacts, you cannot just understand the values. You have to have enough experience with the culture to feel (if even you do not recognize) the basic assumptions.
\n\n\n\nHaving moved numerous times in my life, I have encountered this many times. I would move to a new place, see someone do something that would not be a typical response where I’m from, and wonder more or less “what is with these people”. The thing is that–when you’re from a city in the west and you move to the south for example–you might find that the average person generally lacks the ability to deal with a disagreement head on and instead will just think or say to themselves “bless their heart”.
\n\n\n\nTo you, it looks like they’re just avoiding conflict. When in reality, it might be that for example people in Seattle or New York or whatever other city have learned that you don’t get anywhere avoiding confrontations. And, people in Atlanta have learned that you don’t get anything out of most confrontations. They might value the same things–such as getting their jobs done or working toward a better future for their communities–but their experiences have taught them that their way of getting to those end goals is better than the alternative.
\n\n\n\nHiring and culture
\n\n\n\nWhen you hire someone, they might very well align with your organization on values, and the artifacts you and they see might appear to align. For example, your company–like mine–values diversity of behavior and thought, and your candidate says, “That’s so cool. I’ve worked with some really valuable people that weren’t like everyone else in the company, but we never really got anywhere with them because our management treated everyone like a cog in a machine. So, those different people just didn’t fit in.” On the surface, all good, but once the person starts, you find that something is not working. This is where basic assumptions rear their ugly heads.
\n\n\n\nIt turns out that–while your company values diversity of behavior and thought–it has an underlying assumption that it’s okay to go down a lot of unsuccessful paths on projects because those multiple failed attempts will result in arriving at the best possible outcome. Coming from the cog-and-machine environment though, your new hire might very well have learned through experience that you arrive at the best possible outcome when you limit all of the brainstorming or trying new things and instead stick to schedules and best practices. You both value diversity of behavior and thought, but your experience has led you to the conclusion that there are different times and places for those things.
\n\n\n\nYour best chance of avoiding hiring problems related to culture alignment is to ask questions that get to the candidate’s worldview. Don’t just talk about what you value or believe. Get down to why things are the way they are. Why is it better or worse to do X? Why is it better or worse to communicate in Y way? And so on.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/job-interview-2-1024x528.jpg\")
Leadership and culture
\n\n\n\nUnlike when you are a worker, you must have an explicit understanding of basic assumptions when you are in leadership. One reason is what I’ve already said about hiring. You can align around values and beliefs, but basic assumptions dictate how those values and beliefs are acted out. Additionally, as a leader, you must have a clear understanding of your company’s basic assumptions, or else, you will struggle to understand why your people act the way they do sometimes.
\n\n\n\nAs a worker, you have no need to have explicit awareness of your company’s basic assumptions. To do so would be like the difference between simply knowing that gravity acts in a certain way versus knowing why it acts in a certain way. In my example of the arguing family, most families almost never talk about arguing or not arguing. Arguing, or not, is just what they do. They have learned that that is the best way to act.
\n\n\n\nFrom the leader’s position though, you must get down to basic assumptions and have a clear understanding of them. Otherwise, you and someone else can seemingly agree on espoused beliefs and values, but still be in conflict that it seems is not resolvable.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/rice-terraces.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":776,"title":"Diagnosing Your Business Challenges","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/diagnosing-your-business-challenges/","slug":"diagnosing-your-business-challenges","published_at":"2023-02-14T18:52:36+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-14T18:57:20+00:00","excerpt_html":"Recently, I’ve been thinking about “The Innovators Prescription”. It’s a good book and worth your time. What has been on my mind though has been the dichotomy between–and process of going from–a primary care physician to a specialist and how we do not follow a similar model in the business world. In healthcare, we can […]
\n","content_html":"\nRecently, I’ve been thinking about “The Innovators Prescription”. It’s a good book and worth your time. What has been on my mind though has been the dichotomy between–and process of going from–a primary care physician to a specialist and how we do not follow a similar model in the business world.
In healthcare, we can expect to go to a primary care physician, have some level of diagnosis performed, and then be recommended to a specialist if appropriate. For example, you had a cold back in November, your cough persisted, you saw your primary care physician, they prescribed something and said to come back in X weeks if it did not get better, it did not get better, you went back, and they referred you to a pulmonologist.
In business, we self-diagnose and go straight to the specialist. When you have a revenue problem, you diagnose it as a website or brand issue, go to the website or brand solutions provider, get your prescription, and go on your merry way.
![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/1y4wi3.jpg\")
Unsurprisingly then, many organizations never overcome the challenges that they face because they really are not very good at diagnosis–unlike a primary care physician that might not specialize in for example knee or lung issues, but who does specialize in 1) dealing with the most common challenges and 2) knowing how to identify a problem and point you in the right direction. This is one reason that so many businesses jump from problem+solution to problem+solution.
They have a problem. They misdiagnose it. They go to the solutions provider they think they need to solve the problem they believe they face. They get that solution. And 6 months later, 1 of 2 things occur. Either, they move on to the next problem+solution set (which more than likely is just a new manifestation of the previously unsolved underlying challenge) or they blame their solutions provider for not fixing their problem. When more than likely, the work they got was appropriate for the price and circumstances, but it was not what was needed in order to address the actual challenge.
Some businesses try to build their version of the hospital, where you have all specialities under one roof, but you still face a challenge here. In most cases, you go to for example a big marketing agency for a specific job like an ad campaign or a new brand. You do not go to them for diagnosis, and having worked at marketing agencies, my experience is that they generally are not good at diagnosis…even if they have people within the business that could do that job. And, even if you are open to being diagnosed and the one unicorn employee in the agency is able to provide that diagnosis, that hospital (marketing agency) is incentivized to keep you in house rather than to recommend you to a specialist, so you often cannot even trust the diagnosis.
![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/under-one-roof.jpg\")
The same thing happens in management consultancies, specialty business service providers (like accounting or HR shops), and more. Those are all either the equivalent of going directly to the ophthalmologist and telling her you need a specific eye surgery (which she provides of course) or going to the hospital and having them try to keep your options limited to only the services they provide under one roof.
What most organizations need is a primary care physician.
\n\n\n\nRarely, do the trusted advisors in the business world provide all services. The best ones though specialize in diagnosis so that your business can get the challenge it faces actually resolved rather than doing what I have experienced both as an employee in some businesses and also as a solutions provider for others, which is jumping from problem+solution to problem+solution, getting everyone’s hopes up that this is the thing that will unlock your organization’s potential, and then wearing down your social and leadership capital due to never getting to the other side where people can just buckle down and focus on the challenges in the business’ mission and vision rather than the challenges that just get in the way of actually doing the job.
\n\n\n\nA little self-promotion
\n\n\n\nIncidentally, this is something that originally attracted me to my company Bigwidesky, something we specialize in, and something I’d like to think I have gotten better at over the years, so if you are open to exploring if the challenges you face have underlying causes that you might not be seeing, I’d be happy to chat.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/the-innovator-s-prescription-a-disruptive-solution-for-health-care.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":770,"title":"Company Culture Does Not Just Happen","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/company-culture-does-not-just-happen/","slug":"company-culture-does-not-just-happen","published_at":"2023-02-10T17:04:41+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-14T19:02:08+00:00","excerpt_html":"Most people treat their company culture like it’s something that is inevitable, like something that will arise or change regardless of what they do. This occurs at both the leadership and the worker levels. At the leadership level, not seeing that culture is something that you do rather than something that just happens crushes the […]
\n","content_html":"\nMost people treat their company culture like it’s something that is inevitable, like something that will arise or change regardless of what they do. This occurs at both the leadership and the worker levels.
\n\n\n\nAt the leadership level, not seeing that culture is something that you do rather than something that just happens crushes the ability of the group to move toward a preferred future, toward a better culture.
\n\n\n\nGeorge Washington Carver said:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhere there is no vision, there is no hope.
\nGeorge Washington Carver
At the worker level, not seeing that culture is something that you do rather than something that just happens contributes to a sense of helplessness, to a sense of victimhood.
\n\n\n\nParaphrasing the Bible, Ralph Waldo Emerson said:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhere there is no vision, a people perish.
\nRalph Waldo Emerson
And both of these contribute to finger pointing. Leadership points to the workers, saying they just won’t do or be the way they are supposed to do or be. And, workers point to leadership, saying they lack vision, are tyrants, don’t want things to be better or different, don’t care about the staff, etc.
\n\n\n\nMost of the time, both are wrong. Most people want to be part of a strong culture, but because they lack the understanding that culture is not inevitable–it is something you do–they fail to realize that they contribute to the undesirable situations they wish would change.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/uncertain-future-1024x682.jpg\")
The culture problem is multifold.
\n\n\n\nOne
\n\n\n\nIf you believe that something is inevitable, you lose the understanding of and motivation for doing the work that actually brings that thing about. Why work on your company culture when it’s just going to be (or become) what it is (or will be) regardless of what you do?
\n\n\n\nThe reality is that a culture becoming something good was often the result of people in the past struggling to make it so. Rarely, do good things like a healthy culture just happen.
\n\n\n\nTwo
\n\n\n\nIf you believe that culture (or anything) is inevitable, you lose your sense of the past and the future. As far as the past goes, none of the struggle that occurred to make your culture what it is today matters because essentially “it would have happened like this anyway”. Sadly, a consequence of this is that you lose the opportunity to learn from the lessons of the past, because again, the struggle didn’t matter, so why worry about doing anything better or different moving forward?
\n\n\n\nAs far as the future goes, you see only one possible future. Your culture is going to be what it’s going to be regardless of what you do. So, you’ve lost the ability to see, discuss, or work with others toward multiple possible futures, which invariably would require work from you in order to realize one over another. No work is required for you to realize the inevitable future, so you do not need to engage with others in any culture-related struggle.
\n\n\n\nThree
\n\n\n\nThis all leads to an inability to process facts. If you see something as being inevitable, you will move or interpret facts to suit the narrative that supports your view of the past, present, and future. And when the facts cannot be moved or interpreted, you will simply disregard them.
\n\n\n\nWe can see this in our broader culture in our inability to focus on anything, but narratives. When a fact challenges a narrative and we refuse to even admit that fact into consideration, this degrades our trust in “truth”, authority figures, and facts on the whole. It’s as if you can have your facts, and I can have mine. Mine are right. Yours are wrong, so yours aren’t facts. When in truth, mine are potentially Facts In Name Only.
\n\n\n\nOften, we’re not actually talking about facts, we’re talking about narratives. And narratives cannot generally disprove one another. Facts disprove narratives.
\n\n\n\nThe most obvious early examples of this played out in authoritarian and communist countries decades ago, but you see it increasingly in the west now. So many things are about what I believe and not about what is demonstrably true.
\n\n\n\nFour
\n\n\n\nIf you lose the sense that culture is something that you do and instead see it as just happening, you lose the ability to understand why others would act in some greater interest. You cannot understand why they struggled the way that they did in the past.
\n\n\n\nIn fact, you have to embody the spirit of the culture you wish to be a part of, and part of that embodiment is participating in the work it takes to make the culture a reality. The culture you see as inevitable actually won’t come about if you do not live both the spirit of the struggle to realize it and also the spirit of that future in which it has come about.
\n\n\n\nNot living the spirit actually is a large contributor to people espousing a desire for a different culture, but unintentionally working against its realization. This is because their actions support the current paradigm or the alternative futures that they themselves refuse to see. This leads to people thinking that they supported something the whole time (for example, a movement toward a different culture), it didn’t happen, and that the reason it did not happen was that someone else did something to stop it…when in reality, the individual’s non-participation here was part of what stopped it.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Uncle_Sam_pointing_finger-762x1024.jpg\")
What to Do About Company Culture
\n\n\n\nFrom leadership’s seat, you have to develop a vision and communicate that it takes everyone to make a culture.
\n\n\n\nWhether you’re in leadership or anything else though, the key thing to realize is that you are a part of culture and a part of change. Your company’s culture does not just happen to you, and it certainly does not just happen on its own. It is a combination of the people, how they work together and interact, how they make each other and clients feel, and more.
\n\n\n\nCulture is an active process of cultivation and practice. You live it everyday. If you are not happy with your company culture, you play a role in making it what it will be tomorrow.
\n\n\n\nTo do anything less is to lose sight of the struggles of the past, the lessons you can learn from others, and the understanding that tomorrow can be better than today.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/interconnected-1.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":715,"title":"The Real Reason ‘No One Wants to Work Anymore’: Misaligning Employee Expectations & Reality","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-real-reason-no-one-wants-to-work-anymore-misaligning-employee-expectations-reality/","slug":"the-real-reason-no-one-wants-to-work-anymore-misaligning-employee-expectations-reality","published_at":"2023-01-27T21:48:46+00:00","modified_at":"2023-01-30T23:38:28+00:00","excerpt_html":"Are you struggling to find the employees you need? Like me, do you constantly hear from executives that “no one wants to work anymore”? You’re not alone. In nearly every meeting I attend with executives around the U.S., these issues come up. But, what if the real reason is something that no one is talking […]
\n","content_html":"\nAre you struggling to find the employees you need? Like me, do you constantly hear from executives that “no one wants to work anymore”? You’re not alone. In nearly every meeting I attend with executives around the U.S., these issues come up.
\n\n\n\nBut, what if the real reason is something that no one is talking about?
\n\n\n\nThe real reason ‘no one wants to work anymore’
\n\n\n\nThe problem is poor alignment between what a job is advertised to be and what the employee actually experiences. On the outside, companies present an inspiring mission or vision.
\n\n\n\nLook at almost any organization’s website, and you will see an inspiring mission or vision:
\n\n\n\nWhat most companies present on the outside is a Call to Adventure. It’s the inspiring message that tells you there is a dragon out there that needs to be slain, you’re the one that can do it, and when you come back from that adventure, you and your community will be better for it.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/heros-journey-1024x576.jpg\")
But, what most employees experience is far from that.
\n\n\n\nOne solution – Make the work mean something
\n\n\n\nThe solution is to make the work mean something. Companies need to help employees see the part they play in realizing the company’s mission. This can be done in a number of ways, but the most important thing is that businesses need to show their employees that their work matters.
\n\n\n\nYou don’t have to make everyone’s job exciting per se. You don’t have to give your call center manager the most innovative work in the business.
\n\n\n\nBut, you do need to help your employees see the part they play in realizing your mission.
\n\n\n\nThe most obvious contributor to employees not seeing this–and some potential employees not wanting to work for you–is that most businesses don’t bother to show their employees that their work matters. Employees all too often feel either like their job is meaningless or that it should mean something and no one realizes that.
\n\n\n\nWhen you feel like you are a cog in a machine, you feel unseen. You feel like you are just one of many. And, you likely cannot see what your purpose really is. So while you’re spinning and doing your job, you do not sense any greater connection to a larger purpose or that anyone recognizes your value.
\n\n\n\nYou can change this for your employees by better communicating what your company makes real in the world and how each person plays an important part in that. And if you can do that, you stand a better chance of actually being able to get people to want to work at your company rather than just seeing you as another paycheck that maybe they’re no longer so motivated to seek out.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/call-to-adventure.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":484,"title":"Create Your Dream Job: How to Write Your Own Job Description","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/a-fully-comprehensive-way-to-write-your-own-job-description/","slug":"a-fully-comprehensive-way-to-write-your-own-job-description","published_at":"2023-01-22T17:39:49+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-02T21:56:40+00:00","excerpt_html":"Are you looking to create the ideal job that aligns with your strengths, interests, and abilities? Writing your own job description can be a powerful way to take control of your career and create a position that benefits both you and your employer. I’ll walk you through the steps of how to write your own […]
\n","content_html":"\nAre you looking to create the ideal job that aligns with your strengths, interests, and abilities? Writing your own job description can be a powerful way to take control of your career and create a position that benefits both you and your employer. I’ll walk you through the steps of how to write your own job description, including identifying a need for a new position, creating a job title, describing the role’s alignment with the company’s mission, and listing the job duties and qualifications. I’ll also provide a template and example to help guide you through the process. Follow these tips and take the first step towards finding your dream job.
\n\n\n\nThe steps to writing your own job description
\n\n\n\nStep 1: Identify the need for a new position.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/telescope-1024x651.jpg\")
For you to really take control of your career and have the best opportunities, you need to demonstrate vision, passion for that vision, and an understanding of what your organization needs to achieve its goals. In 20 years of my career to this point, I have been lucky to have the freedom to both explicitly write my own job description at times and also to develop my own job without writing the job description other times. What responsible owners and managers generally need to see though is how what you do–or will be doing–solves a problem for the organization.
\n\n\n\nFor example, my manager left the company I worked at years ago, and I was left as the most senior member of the team, but not by much. After discussing with my management, I crafted a job description that helped them to see how their overt need for a manager of that team aligned with both my current skill set and the skills and experience I could acquire if given the right support over the coming months.
\n\n\n\nTo do this, I research what managers of that type of role did at other organizations, what responsibilities they typically had before taking on a managerial role, and what I would need to do to develop from where I was to where the company needed me to be. I did this using job board searches and by reaching out to connections of connections on LinkedIn to ask if I could do an informational interview with them.
\n\n\n\nStep 2: Create a job title and description.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/writing-on-paper-1024x622.jpg\")
Picking a job title
\n\n\n\nAfter clearly identifying, documenting, and being able to make the argument for your position, it is time to choose a descriptive and professional title. To do this, I recommend surveying titles at your existing company and performing searches on job boards.
\n\n\n\nWhile Wizard of [pick a topic] or Head of Excellence and whatnot might all be applicable and interesting, they also might present some difficulties for colleagues, clients, and the market to understand. For example, let’s say that you are a high-powered project manager with the Head of Excellence title. Will you colleagues know to come to you for high-level project management guidance versus going to someone with a title like Head (or Director, VP, etc) of Project Management? And while I hope you stay at your current employer forever, the reality is that you might very well move on, but will potential future employers be able to quickly get a sense of what you do if you have a wacky title?
\n\n\n\nWriting the job description
\n\n\n\nAt this point, keep your job description as brief as possible. You’ve hopefully searched job boards for similar roles, and you likely have pages of examples of roles, responsibilities, descriptions of what the day to day looks like, and so on. Those are all valuable, but the shorter you can make this the better at this point.
\n\n\n\nYou have the need and how it aligns with the company. You have a professional and descriptive job title. Now, write 1-2 paragraphs that outline the purpose for the job and the main responsibilities of the position. For example:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Chief Futurist role exists to leads the practice of Futurism and establish a consistent company viewpoint on this practice. The main responsibilities for this role are establishing the vision for what Futurism is and how we deliver it, leading high priority client projects in this area, and mentoring and managing our team of Futurists.
\n
Someone reading your high level description should be able to walk away with a strong understanding of what they can rely upon you to accomplish. This is not the How of your job. It is more like the central themes and goals.
\n\n\n\nNext, you get into the How by describing the specific duties and tasks you will be responsible for. This is where your job board research comes into play again.
\n\n\n\nMost job listings have innumerable bullet points listing everything people in those roles might have to do, skills they should possess, and so on. Pick the most relevant ones for your new roles and then adjust and add to them based on your vision for the role and how you see it aligning with what the company needs. The length of this list depends on what is appropriate for your company and role. As with many things though, I recommend you keep it as short as reasonably possible.
\n\n\n\nStep 3: Explain how the job aligns with the company’s mission and values.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Alignment-1024x557.png\")
By this point, you’ve explained the need for the role, established a descriptive and professional title, written the brief role summary, and documented duties and tasks. The next step is for you to explain how your job supports the company’s goals and values.
\n\n\n\nGoal Alignment
\n\n\n\nThankfully, while many companies lack actual strategies to achieve their goals, few lack goals themselves. Many are unrealistic, more like dreams, but they still exist. So whether your company’s goals are to grow 10% in revenue this year, become the premier provider of paper products in the Northeast, or something else, your responsibility is to explain how your job will help the company achieve those goals.
\n\n\n\nIf for example your company’s goal this year is for revenue to grow 10%, but your job is largely an internally facing role, you can still impact revenue by ensuring that your work is delivered with such high quality, on time, and more that clients want to spend more money with you. Additionally, you might be able to ensure that your company has higher efficiency and/or saves money somehow around your work, so while you might not deliver more revenue, you can deliver more profit.
\n\n\n\nValue Alignment
\n\n\n\nNext, you have to align your new job with the company’s values. This can be difficult because most companies lack real values. They more than likely have unrealistic dreams or generic platitudes, that can be read any number of ways, such as “Respect” or “People First”. Still though, if you want success in this endeavor, you have to align your role with the company claims to value.
\n\n\n\nMy company for example has a value about consulting your network. The basic idea is that we want people that are always learning and who will build networks around them that make them and us better. As a result, if I were making an argument for a new leadership position, I could align it with this value by saying that a key aspect of me being in this job will be finding new ways of doing our work and new partners so that we are always improving and constantly bringing new things to the market.
\n\n\n\nHow you contribute to success
\n\n\n\nYou have likely done this throughout your job description, but you need to ensure that you have a clear statement about how your job will contribute to the company’s success. Will you being in your new role generate sales? Will it improve work product quality? Will it open new markets? Is there a need in the business not currently being met?
\n\n\n\nState clearly how your role will contribute to the company’s success, and you will help executives imagine how what you are asking for aligns with greater company needs.
\n\n\n\nStep 4: Describe the required qualifications and skills.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/qualifications.jpg\")
Next up, it’s time to list the education, experience, and skills that are necessary for someone to be successful in this role and why they are important for this role. Thanks to you job board searches, you should have a large list of options. This is the space where you list “Bachelors degree in Marketing, Business, or a related field required” and so on.
\n\n\n\nYou cannot reasonably pitch to have a job if you do not have the qualifications, so ensure that the education, experience, and skills are both appropriate to you and also actually necessary for the role. There is no value is listing for example that a BA is required when it’s not. Similarly, if you have 20 years of experience, but someone could do the proposed job with 5 years, you need to list 5 not 20.
\n\n\n\nStep 5: Provide a plan for pitching the job to your employer.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/pitch-1024x536.jpg\")
At this point, your job description itself is likely complete or nearly complete, so beyond editing and refining, your next steps are to:
\n\n\n\nIf you have a boss already, but maybe you are pitching a role that would not report to them anymore, you might need to take political or power dynamics into account. There is no use for example pitching a role to your CEO if they’re going to go talk to your current boss and hear that that person knows nothing about your pitch. That might not look too good for you.
\n\n\n\nAs you prepare, ensure that you understand the need, how the company will benefit, and so on so that you can make a cogent and compelling argument. Also, prepare for any objections so that you are not stopped in your tracks at the first question.
\n\n\n\nAssuming that the person you are pitching to has little knowledge of what you will talk to them about, begin the conversation with a statement of why you want to speak with them such as, “I have identified a need and an opportunity in [this area] and have a proposal for how to address that I would like to speak with you about.” Once you have described the need and opportunity, explain your understanding of how this aligns with the company’s goals and values, and be sure to ask if the person you are speaking to sees the issue in the same way.
\n\n\n\nIf they do not see the issue in the same way, take the time to understand how they see it because you might not still be able to move forward with your pitch. You need information about their perspective though before deciding.
\n\n\n\nIf they do see the issue in the same way you do, explain your pitch for a new role at a high level and then ask if they have any questions and/or would like you to get into details. This is not the time for you to give them a monologue. It would be better to let them talk as much as they are willing to so that they feel heard.
\n\n\n\nStep 6: Follow up after the pitch.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/follow-up-1024x614.jpg\")
If your proposal is accepted, thank your employer and follow through on any next steps that are necessary to implement the new position. Typically, this involves an action plan with specific deadlines, and it might very well include a plan for how to replace you in your current role or otherwise cover the work you are currently doing.
\n\n\n\nIf your proposal is not accepted, consider whether there are any changes you can make to increase the chances of it being approved in the future. If at all possible, ask why your proposal was not accepted so that you understand if there is anything to be done and/or where you might not have been in alignment with the needs of the company.
\n\n\n\nConclusion
\n\n\n\nTo conclude, writing your own job description is a great way to take control of your career development and find job satisfaction. By identifying a need, creating a job title and description, and presenting your proposal to your employer, you can create a position that aligns with your strengths, interests, and abilities. This can lead to more motivation and engagement in your work, as well as the opportunity to develop new skills and add value to the company. Take the time to create a job description that works for you and your employer, and you may find yourself in a fulfilling and enjoyable job tailored just for you. Encourage readers to share their experiences with creating their own job descriptions in the comments below, or to contact you for more information on how to do so.
\n\n\n\nIf you are writing your own job description and have questions, please shoot me a line at eric@inboundandagile.com. I would be happy to help if I can point you to any resources.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/job-description.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":683,"title":"Book Review: The End of Average by Todd Rose","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/book-review-the-end-of-average-by-todd-rose/","slug":"book-review-the-end-of-average-by-todd-rose","published_at":"2023-01-21T00:18:47+00:00","modified_at":"2024-11-25T19:14:12+00:00","excerpt_html":"Introduction Imagine being an American military pilot in the 1950s, seated in the cockpit of a sleek, jet-powered plane. Every dial, every lever, every control panel has been meticulously designed—for someone else. This wasn’t an oversight or a manufacturing error. It was the deliberate product of designing for the “average” pilot—a mythical figure that turned […]
\n","content_html":"\nIntroduction
\n\n\n\nImagine being an American military pilot in the 1950s, seated in the cockpit of a sleek, jet-powered plane. Every dial, every lever, every control panel has been meticulously designed—for someone else. This wasn’t an oversight or a manufacturing error. It was the deliberate product of designing for the “average” pilot—a mythical figure that turned out to represent no one at all. The result? American pilots performed worse than their less technologically advanced opponents, dying at a much higher rate as a result.
\n\n\n\nThis real-life dilemma, vividly recounted in Todd Rose’s The End of Average, is just one example of how designing for averages has consistently failed us—in aviation, education, business, and beyond. But this isn’t just about planes or students or job candidates. It’s about you and me. Every time we’re measured, assessed, or categorized by metrics built on averages, our individuality is erased, and opportunities for our unique potential are missed.
\n\n\n\nTodd Rose argues it’s time to overthrow the tyranny of the average and embrace the principles of individuality—a concept that has profound implications for personal growth, hiring, education, and even how we live our daily lives. In this review, I’ll share why The End of Average is a book that could change the way you see yourself and others—and why it matters for the work I do, helping people and organizations unlock their potential by embracing what makes them distinct.
\n\n\n\nThe Problem with “Average” Thinking
\n\n\n\nAt its heart, The End of Average dismantles a deeply ingrained belief: that the “average” is a reliable guide for understanding people. Rose demonstrates how this thinking has shaped everything from our schools to our workplaces, often with harmful results. He starts with a striking story: in the 1950s, Air Force cockpits were designed based on the average measurements of pilots. Yet, as Lieutenant Gilbert S. Daniels discovered, not a single one of the thousands of pilots he measured matched the so-called “average” dimensions. The solution? Adjustable cockpits that embraced individual variability—a design philosophy that not only improved performance but also saved lives.
\n\n\n\nThis lesson, Rose argues, has far-reaching implications. Whether it’s standardized tests labeling students as “bad at math” or job applicants dismissed for lacking a degree while possessing the skills, we’ve all been boxed in by systems built for mythical averages. Rose’s central message is clear: no one is average. And when we measure people as if they are, we do them—and society—a profound disservice.
\n\n\n\nThe Jaggedness Principle: Why You’re More Than a Single Metric
\n\n\n\nOne of the book’s most compelling concepts is the “jaggedness principle.” Human abilities—whether physical, intellectual, or emotional—are multidimensional and rarely correlate neatly. For example, a student may excel in creative problem-solving while struggling with rote memorization. Does that make them “below average”? Rose says no—it makes them jagged, and our systems need to account for this complexity.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/jagged-profile-2-1024x924-1.png\")
Rose illustrates this principle by telling the story of Norma, which was a project developed by Dr Robert Latou Dickinson. He took the measurements of numerous women, averaged them together, and then had artist Abram Belskie sculpt a figure based on them. When they ran a contest to find the American woman that best fit Norma’s size, they only really came up with one person (Martha Skidmore), and even she did not match all of the averages.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/norma.webp\")
Additionally, Rose argues that our reliance on averages in evaluating students and job candidates can lead to inappropriate ranking and labeling, resulting in a disservice to individuals who may excel in certain areas but not others. He illustrates how this average-based thinking can lead to students being labeled as “bad at math” or job candidates being rejected for not finishing their final class, despite having all the needed knowledge and skills for the job.
\n\n\n\nA Call to Rethink Everything
\n\n\n\nFrom education to hiring, Rose argues that designing for individuality isn’t just the right thing to do—it’s also the smart thing. Schools that customize learning pathways see better engagement. Companies that hire for potential, not pedigree, outperform their competitors. And individuals who embrace their jagged profiles are more likely to thrive, not just succeed.
\n\n\n\nThis idea is a game-changer for anyone looking to break free from limiting labels, build better teams, or foster innovation in their organizations. Rose doesn’t just critique the status quo; he offers a roadmap to a more inclusive and effective future. And while the book is light on specific prescriptions, that’s part of its power—it invites you to apply its principles to your own challenges and opportunities.
\n\n\n\nStrengths and Weaknesses: A Balanced Perspective
\n\n\n\nWhat makes The End of Average truly stand out is its blend of powerful storytelling and compelling data. Todd Rose masterfully illustrates abstract concepts through engaging examples like the Air Force cockpit story and the tale of “Norma,” the mythical average woman whose measurements became a misguided ideal. These anecdotes bring his arguments to life, making the book not just thought-provoking but also deeply relatable.
\n\n\n\nThat said, the book isn’t without its limitations. Critics might point to Rose’s tendency to lean more on diagnosis than prescription. While he’s brilliant at exposing the flaws in average-based thinking, his guidance on how to implement the principles of individuality can feel broad. For readers seeking a step-by-step manual, this may be frustrating. But for me, this ambiguity works in the book’s favor—it invites readers to think critically and adapt the principles to their own unique contexts.
\n\n\n\nAnother challenge lies in the book’s data presentation. At times, the storytelling overshadows the rigor of the research, which may leave analytically minded readers wishing for more nuance. But for a general audience, this trade-off makes the book approachable and impactful.
\n\n\n\nWhy This Book Matters to My Work—and Yours
\n\n\n\nReading The End of Average was a revelation, not just as a reader but as a professional deeply invested in unlocking human potential. My work revolves around helping people and organizations embrace their unique strengths and find innovative solutions to their challenges. Rose’s ideas affirm what I’ve seen time and again: when we let go of rigid, average-based frameworks, we unlock extraordinary possibilities.
\n\n\n\nFor example, in organizations, designing teams or strategies around the assumption of uniformity often leads to missed opportunities and disengagement. By embracing individuality—whether through personalized learning programs, flexible hiring criteria, or adaptive workflows—we create environments where people can thrive. This is not just theory; it’s a tangible, actionable philosophy that can transform workplaces, schools, and communities.
\n\n\n\nTake the Next Step
\n\n\n\nIf you’ve ever felt trapped by labels, undervalued because you didn’t fit a mold, or frustrated by systems that seem to miss the point—you need to read this book. The End of Average will challenge you to rethink how you evaluate others and, more importantly, how you evaluate yourself. It’s not just a book; it’s an invitation to be part of a movement toward a more individualized, inclusive, and effective future.
\n\n\n\nReady to dive in? You can purchase The End of Average on Amazon here and join the growing conversation about individuality and potential.
\n\n\n\nStay Connected
\n\n\n\nI’m passionate about exploring how these ideas intersect with our daily lives and work. If you enjoyed this review, subscribe to my writing for more insights, book reviews, and strategies for embracing individuality in life and business. Follow me on Goodreads to see what I’m reading and share your thoughts on the books that inspire you.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/end-of-average.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":680,"title":"Book Review: Profit First by Mike Michalowicz","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/book-review-profit-first-by-mike-michalowicz/","slug":"book-review-profit-first-by-mike-michalowicz","published_at":"2023-01-19T15:27:20+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-02T21:59:21+00:00","excerpt_html":"Some that read this know that I read a lot of books, almost 150 last year and a little over 180 the year before. Profit First is my first 5-star book of the year. To me, 5 stars means that everyone should read it, not just people that are interested in this topic. I enjoyed […]
\n","content_html":"\nSome that read this know that I read a lot of books, almost 150 last year and a little over 180 the year before.
\n\n\n\nProfit First is my first 5-star book of the year. To me, 5 stars means that everyone should read it, not just people that are interested in this topic. I enjoyed the whole book. The topic is meaningful. It’s presented in an approachable and understandable manner, and if you listen to the audio version, I think hearing it from Mike himself adds an element that I believe I might feel is missing if I went to the written word version.
\n\n\n\nThe Fundamentals of Profit First
\n\n\n\nThe basic idea behind Profit First is that many businesses budget ineffectively and would be better served by budgeting for their profit (and as the book explains, several other things) immediately upon receipt of funds rather than for example waiting until the end of a month, quarter, or year and hoping that there is some money left in the bank account that we can call profit. Mike makes the argument that businesses should determine how much they want to allocate to profit (and again, other things as well such as operating expenses, taxes, etc) and then have those funds immediately–and ideally automagically–sequestered into bank accounts dedicated to each specific use.
\n\n\n\nIn the book, Mike points out that many businesses think of their money management like this:
\n\n\n\nSales – Expenses = Profit.
\n\n\n\nWhen, they should think of it like this:
\n\n\n\nSales – Profit = Expenses
\n\n\n\nThere are numerous arguments for this, all of which I found compelling, but the one I will share is that business owners often put in the investment of blood, sweat, tears, time, heartbreak, anxiety, etc and then also typically take home the smallest paycheck. If you are putting in all of that effort, and especially when you are commonly the most valuable employee that will work nights, weekends, and whatever else without thinking twice about it, you deserve the benefit of knowing you’re going to get paid.
\n\n\n\nMany business owners object to this initially in that they feel that you have to make investments to grow and so on or that they cannot afford to set aside profit first because they won’t be able to pay for other things, but instinctively, I align with Mike’s argument that–if you can’t afford it–you don’t have a viable business. And, one of the things you need to be able to afford is profit.
\n\n\n\nYou can have $100 million per year running through your business, and maybe you impact a lot of people because of that, but if you can’t take home a profit because your expenses eat up everything, can we really call you successful? Even if you say that you’ll make up the money when you sell, think about what will happen when someone buys your business. If the profit margins aren’t there, they are going to have to make some changes in order to recoup their investment, and it’s easier to cut from the bottom line than it is to grow the top line generally, so whoever buys your business will simply do some of the things that you should have done in the first place in order to make your business more profitable.
\n\n\n\nWhy wait? Why not make your business more profitable today and enjoy the benefits that go along with creating opportunities, giving people jobs, realizing a mission, working for yourself, and more?
\n\n\n\nOdds and Ends
\n\n\n\nMost of the books I go through are audiobooks, and Mike calls out in the audio version of this book that he has added some things that you won’t get in the paper or ebook version. Having not seen the written word version, I cannot say for sure, but it seemed pretty obvious what the additions were, and I enjoyed them, so I suggest the audio version. I also enjoyed that Mike read it himself. It’s nice to hear the intonation and energy he brought to his own book.
\n\n\n\nIf you’re interested in more about Profit First, you can check it out on Amazon here or on Goodreads here.
And as always, you can connect with me on Goodreads if you are interested in seeing what I’m reading now.
Business is drunk on personality testing. You take Myers-Briggs and find out you’re an INFP or some such nonsense. You take Enneagram and learn that you’re a Challenger. And, thanks to this. Your behavior suddenly makes sense. “No wonder I don’t always get along with people. My personality test says that I tend to be […]
\n","content_html":"\nBusiness is drunk on personality testing.
\n\n\n\nYou take Myers-Briggs and find out you’re an INFP or some such nonsense. You take Enneagram and learn that you’re a Challenger.
\n\n\n\nAnd, thanks to this. Your behavior suddenly makes sense.
\n\n\n\n“No wonder I don’t always get along with people. My personality test says that I tend to be aggressive.”
\n\n\n\n“Big surprise that I get overlooked at work. I’m an introvert.”
\n\n\n\nNever mind that a supposedly aggressive person might be tame around their grandmother or that that introvert likes to get loud when playing poker with their buddies. We’ll just overlook that.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/overlook-that-1024x576.png\")
The reality is that numerous studies over decades have shown that personality tests predict <10% of behavior. The reason for this is fivefold:
\n\n\n\nOne, context matters more than supposed personality traits at the level of individual situations. For example, maybe you argue hard in the board room or a court of law, but are easygoing around your kids. Why? The context requires different behavior from you.
\n\n\n\nTwo, you cannot reduce many things in life down to a single variable and have much reliability. Can you judge your health based solely on your cholesterol level? Sure, it’s important, but what about your physical activity, blood pressure, diet, stress level, and so on? Or, how about IQ? Raw brain power is important of course, but is a high IQ all it takes to pick out a “smart” person, a hard worker, or something else?
\n\n\n\nThree, the trait has to be limited in scope and very specific to predict anything well. If you were seeking someone to model swimsuits, you would be better off asking someone with high body-esteem, because that is more specific, than someone with simply high self-esteem, which is simply too multi-faceted.
\n\n\n\nFour, a person has to be pretty extreme in a trait for it to predict well. If for example you are a 95% in extraversion, we are more likely to be able to predict how you will act in most situations than if you are a 75% in extraversion. The reason is that your trait is less likely to be dampened by any situational specifics.
\n\n\n\nFive, traits predict general patterns better than individual actions. It’s a little like the difference between weather and climate. Just because your climate has gotten warmer or dryer does not mean that you will not have colder or wetter days. The same is true of traits. Hire someone that tests high in flexibility, put them in a chaotic situation, and you might find that their reaction is to try to build some stability by implementing prescriptive or restrictive rules. But when they go home, they might very well revert to being flexible with their family.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/people-are-complex.png\")
I share all of this because you are not as simple as a single measurement or personality trait.
\n\n\n\nYour height does not describe you with any level of confidence that I could make real judgments about you.
\n\n\n\nYour hair or skin color does not describe you well enough that I can draw conclusions with high confidence.
\n\n\n\nThe same is true of your cholesterol level, your waistline, or any number of other things.
\n\n\n\nAnd, it is most definitely true with personality tests.
\n\n\n\nYet, employers seek to reduce the evaluation of job candidates–and even current employees–down to very few measurements so that they can simplify how they think about us, and we invite that because we’ve bought this line that our Myers-Briggs or DISC or whatever explain so much about us.
\n\n\n\nSlowly but surely, we can change this though by refusing to others and ourselves people down to simplistic and broad measurements. You are not just a number or a skin color or a personality type. You are more than that, and so is everyone else.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/personality-tests.png","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":660,"title":"Human beings are hardwired for threat detection, but our businesses do not have to suffer for it.","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/human-beings-are-hardwired-for-threat-detection-but-our-businesses-do-not-have-to-suffer-for-it/","slug":"human-beings-are-hardwired-for-threat-detection-but-our-businesses-do-not-have-to-suffer-for-it","published_at":"2023-01-13T17:50:36+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-02T22:00:06+00:00","excerpt_html":"Human beings are hardwired for threat detection. Some more so than others. And, some have whatever genetic level of anxiety or neuroticism they were born with amped up by the circumstances that brought them to today. So, some people might actually be predisposed to be, let’s say, risk takers, but for all intents and purposes, […]
\n","content_html":"\nHuman beings are hardwired for threat detection.
\n\n\n\nSome more so than others. And, some have whatever genetic level of anxiety or neuroticism they were born with amped up by the circumstances that brought them to today. So, some people might actually be predisposed to be, let’s say, risk takers, but for all intents and purposes, what you or I see is someone who is risk averse, skittish, pick-your-particular-flavor-of-threat-detection-behavior because maybe they grew up without a stable home, were in an abusive relationship, have been attacked, or something else.
\n\n\n\nAgain, at the end of the day, we all have some level of predisposition for avoiding threats, but some have that level amped up by their experiences.
\n\n\n\nImagine a young mother 5,000 years ago needing to decide if this stranger that just walked into her village might be a threat to her child. Or, imagine that child’s young father seeing that stranger and not knowing if he can leave for the hunt that day or if he needs to stay close for protection. Some people in those circumstances decided they were safe and left to do what they needed to (hunt, farm, barter, whatever), and their child (or whatever they were protecting) was harmed. Others stayed close to home, did not get done what they needed to, and suffered due to for example their family not having food or income.
\n\n\n\nThey could not predict the future. They could only place a bet. Some of them made the wrong bet by leaving, so maybe they didn’t pass on their genes because their child was murdered. And, some of them made the wrong bet by not leaving, so maybe their child starved because food was not brought home for the day when it was really needed, and again, their genes were not passed on.
\n\n\n\nUltimately though, if your child went hungry or your household had a little less income for a single day, you stood a chance of recovering, but if your child was–let’s say–killed by that stranger, there was no recovery from that. As a result of the ability to recover being different from one choice to the next, human beings are on average more averse to threats than we are attracted to opportunity because permanence of opportunity is unreliable. The permanence of death is quite reliable though.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/bpa-free-round-symbol-green-leaves-vector-illustration_545399-1412-edited.webp\")
This is just one small contributor to the extreme attention we now pay to levels of protection that would seem odd to someone from decades or centuries past. That is not to say that for example seatbelts are unnecessary or that there is any problem with making bottles BPA free, but every potential threat piled on top of the next–no matter how small–creates a slippery slope, where we increasingly come to think of these threat avoidance measures as being necessary, and we forego potential benefits in favor of staving off threats.
\n\n\n\nYou or I might think for example that it’s harmless to just walk my daughter around the corner to play at the neighbor’s when she could have just walked by herself, but society leads me to believe it’s not acceptable to just let my daughter walk alone, so I go along with that expectation despite not feeling it is necessary. It’s safer and harmless right?
\n\n\n\nBut, as Todd Rose says, “Today’s collective illusions (the thing that no one believes, but goes along with, because we think everyone else believes it) become tomorrow’s norms.” And those norms just get built upon with more collective illusions, which again become norms. It’s a positive feedback loop.
\n\n\n\nWe’re working our way toward a society that values protection at all costs. No risk taking. No weighing of the costs and benefits. It’s like the extreme version of Dick Cheney’s 1% doctrine. If there is any chance of threat, that’s too much.
\n\n\n\nAnd sadly, the media through which we increasingly engage with and understand the world amplify the collective illusions because that natural, human threat detection tendency reacts more strongly to the negative stories we encounter than the positive stories. This is why Hans Rosling said, “Good news is not news.”
\n\n\n\nAll of your information (let’s call them “news”) outlets are selling something. TV and websites need visitors so that they can sell ad space. Forum and social media users are selling a viewpoint. And, so on. If they weren’t selling something, they wouldn’t care about getting your attention.
\n\n\n\nAnd sadly, if you’re one of those people that actually does not follow the collective illusion, if you think there are some gambles worth taking, you are now put in a position of being seen as untrustworthy because obviously you’re just not concerned about the environment or animals or children or God-knows-what. You’re too cavalier, but they (someone else) care even though you don’t. Clearly.
\n\n\n\nIn today’s environment, that “compassion”, that moral high ground wins in all arguments even if it’s over-protection and comes at the cost of other benefits that could be gained, such as for example teaching my daughter within a relatively safe setting how to navigate the world alone. No, protection today over long term protection or competence in the future, right?
\n\n\n\nWithin our businesses, this manifests not as an environment in which people can say and do hard things and where they can be safe to make mistakes while working toward our collective goals. Instead, this manifests as workplaces where you cannot say certain things because they make others uncomfortable, where–instead of being encouraged to do–you are mandated to no do.
\n\n\n\nThe downstream implications of this are workplaces in which most people do not feel comfortable being themselves because they have been told making the wrong joke, using the wrong phrase, looking at someone the wrong way is an unforgivable offense. So, people do not open themselves up and fully commit. Why commit when you cannot be yourself? And certainly, if I’m not committed and if I fear punishment for making mistakes, why work hard to try new things, to innovate?
\n\n\n\nAt the societal level, I don’t expect this to change. This is human nature, and the machinery we have built around us support it. The structures and the collective illusions we have built within most businesses support it.
\n\n\n\nWhat you can do though if you question some of this security-at-all-costs is not stay silent.
\n\n\n\nIf you’re silent, that makes the collective illusions even stronger and more likely to become norms for the next generation. If you at least say something though, you create the opportunity that other likeminded people can find you and that–maybe, just maybe–someone predisposed to avoid that threat starts to question the value of avoiding it over the value they could get from spending their time and energy elsewhere.
\n\n\n\nWithin a business, that gives you the opportunity to build a culture in which people can be themselves, commit, find the mission and people they truly align with, and achieve something that every other organization foregoes in the interest of immediate “protection”.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/spider-man-spider-sense.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":649,"title":"What I Learned Guesting in 44 Mastermind Groups This Year","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/what-i-learned-guesting-in-44-mastermind-groups-this-year/","slug":"what-i-learned-guesting-in-44-mastermind-groups-this-year","published_at":"2022-12-27T09:54:54+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-02T22:00:23+00:00","excerpt_html":"I joined a mastermind network earlier this year and began guesting in meetings outside of my market in May. With 44 total guest appearances, that is an average of 5.5 90-minute meetings per month. The format for these meetings varies from group to group, but one of the most consistent things is that it is […]
\n","content_html":"\nI joined a mastermind network earlier this year and began guesting in meetings outside of my market in May. With 44 total guest appearances, that is an average of 5.5 90-minute meetings per month.
\n\n\n\nThe format for these meetings varies from group to group, but one of the most consistent things is that it is a 90-minute meeting once each month rather than for example the half or full day that some groups put in.
\n\n\n\nAfter having guested in 44 of those groups, this is what I have learned about what it takes to both run and also be a solid contributor to a mastermind meeting.
\n\n\n\nLeading a Great Mastermind Meeting
\n\n\n\nUndoubtedly, it is more difficult to lead and build something than it is to take advantage of it after-the-fact. And, there are many more ways to do something poorly than there are to do it well. Fortunately, if you are motivated by opportunities for improvement, this is why the statement that the path to success runs through failure is so true. Hopefully, if you are a mastermind leader, you can use some of this information to make your investment return as much as possible.
\n\n\n\nWithout further ado, what I believe it takes to lead a great mastermind meeting:
\n\n\n\nRespect the participants’ time.
\n\n\n\nIt is difficult to start meetings or anything else on time. I get that. We’re all running from one thing to the next, and it is nice to be able to ease into things with some personal conversations, discussions about the weather, or whatever else, but most mastermind groups are made up of people that are executives and CEOs, whose time is expensive. And, they’re paying to be there, so start your meetings on time, set an agenda, and stick to it. If anything I already mentioned, like personal conversations, are valuable to your potential outcomes, make a deliberate and overt decision to have that be part of the agenda.
\n\n\n\nPrepare for the meeting.
\n\n\n\nUnlike most participants, the meeting leader has to prepare. If you’re meeting in person, you have to secure the space and likely food or beverages. If it’s virtual, you still need an agenda and featured topics, members, or guests. Sadly, no one is going to take care of these things except the meeting or group leader or someone they delegate to.
\n\n\n\nWhile not having food or beverages is not the worst thing in the world, not having a feature and having to ask, “Does anyone have anything they want to discuss?” is nearly always a meeting and value killer. It can occasionally result in valuable conversations, but that is far from guaranteed. And in my experience, that almost always results in a wasted meeting.
\n\n\n\nDo not go into the meeting without a planned and prepared feature member, speaker, or topic.
\n\n\n\nEstablish continuity.
\n\n\n\nIn addition to developing a consistent format that you stick to, one of the least common, but most valuable, things I have seen group leaders do is a checkin at the beginning and end of every meeting. Typically, this takes the form of going around the room, asking for a 1-10 score/status on your personal and business life (lives?), and then soliciting an answer to a general question like, “What is the biggest news at home or at work from the last month?”
\n\n\n\nThe continuity piece comes in the ability to extend a conversation about one of these issues over multiple meetings. For example, I experienced one group speaking with a participant about what was going on in their business because their score had been low for months, but in this particular meeting, they finally raised it.
\n\n\n\nRather than just having a topic-of-the-month and not much more than the individuals or the format that tie things together, this checkin allows for participants to extend consideration of and discussion about a topic over a longer time, which also helps with the next item.
\n\n\n\nBuild community.
\n\n\n\nThe best groups I have guested in had members that demonstrated that they were invested in the group, the time, and their fellow members. This exhibited itself in how open and vulnerable some of the featured members were and how frank, but clearly caring, the other participants were with their questions and recommendations.
\n\n\n\nThe worst groups I have guested in had members that knew little to nothing about one another, featured members that had not prepared, and discussions that rarely got beyond the feedback that you could get from anyone on the street. Additionally, some of the worst groups typically had a majority of members that said that they wanted to be in person more, wanted greater depth of conversation, and so on. But as far as I could tell, they were not making an effort to drive to a meeting place, really focus on giving genuine help, or otherwise investing their time and effort. They might have wanted those things, but the individuals had either gotten tired of making the effort without it being reciprocated, or they simply talked the talk and never followed it up with action.
\n\n\n\nI believe that a large portion of the potential for community in a group of 10-20 people from different industries, who often have no pre-existing connections to one another, comes from the natural predispositions of the members to genuinely invest in one another and connect one on one rather than for example from some already existing community standards that the members opt into or adopt when they join. That being said, the behaviors and activities that I could see fostered a strong sense of community were:
\n\n\n\nSet standards.
\n\n\n\nYears ago, my wife and I went to Thailand. At one of the temples, they would not let us in because we were both wearing shorts. The fact that we had to purchase and don pants in order to enter the temple felt like an unnecessary restriction, but by enforcing a certain dress code, officials at that temple were working to establish a specific environment that generated certain outcomes.
\n\n\n\nAt any point in life, we can feel that some rules are silly or unnecessary, but in most cases, groups have rules and standards because those things facilitate achievement of the group’s goals. The same should be true of a mastermind group.
\n\n\n\nSome of the basics should be:
\n\n\n\nBeing a Valuable Mastermind Participant
\n\n\n\nLet’s be honest. It’s not that difficult to just show up and follow some rules. It is more difficult to be completely open and honest about personal flaws, insecurities, or sensitive topics, but that is also manageable if trust can be established.
\n\n\n\nAfter guesting in 44 groups, this is what I believe it takes to be a good participant in a mastermind meeting:
\n\n\n\nInvest your time and attention.
\n\n\n\nIt does not matter whether you’re a CEO, a hairdresser, or a stay-at-home parent. We’re all busy. We’re all short on time. Don’t disrespect your fellow participants by showing up late, not sticking around, or not paying attention. You and I have both paid to be here. Don’t waste my money and time because you don’t value yours.
\n\n\n\nI get it that–especially with a virtual meeting–you’ve got your email and Google and who-knows-what-else right there. And for in-person meetings, you have your phone and smartwatch or whatever else. But, we’re all paying to be here, and some of us are really investing a lot in you and ourselves. If you’re multi-tasking, you’re not invested. If you show up late or leave early, that detracts from the flow and the quality of conversation. And if you really aren’t invested in being helpful, I could just as easily have talked to anyone. Why pay to be a member of a group of leaders if I cannot get better advice than what I might otherwise find on the street?
\n\n\n\nLove the problem, not your solution.
\n\n\n\nI have a bad habit, a common one but still a bad one. When I think I have the answer, I so want to be right. And when I think I have the solution to your problem, I tend to forget that maybe there are important details I don’t know about. And, I probably stop asking questions that might help me better understand the issue. Unfortunately, the same is true of a lot of people.
\n\n\n\nSome of the best run mastermind meetings I have been in ask for the featured member to answer a standard set of questions in advance so that the other participants do not come in blind. They can have spent some time reviewing the topic or issue and letting it rattle around in their heads so that they come to the meeting prepared. Then at the meeting, the member is asked to give a synopsis of the issue and what they are seeking from the group. And finally, the group has two time blocks dedicated first to asking clarifying questions and second to making recommendations.
\n\n\n\nTwo of the most valuable aspects of the time for clarifying questions are that this often helps break the featured member free from their existing way of thinking about the challenge, so that they might actually solve the problem themselves, and it aids in the other members getting a better understanding so that they can give advice that might actually be unique and useful.
\n\n\n\nAsk questions.
\n\n\n\nIf you think you know better than someone else, if you think you have the answer, you stop asking questions and demonstrating curiosity. And most of the time if you just tell someone what to do rather than having them come up with the solution themselves, you make it much more difficult for them to take responsibility for their actions.
\n\n\n\nThe reason is that, if what you recommend does not work, it’s your fault not theirs. It was your idea. And if what you recommend does work, you’ve encouraged that they seek creative solutions from others rather than believing that they can solve their own problems.
\n\n\n\nLet’s be honest. In a group that includes a CPA, a lawyer, a banker, a management consultant, a marketer, and so on, there are a lot of challenges that each person might encounter that are unique to that industry or vertical. And if you are outside of the issue, it is unlikely you will have a better solution than the person that brought the challenge to the group. That being said, you might have a new way of thinking about the situation, so rather than saying, “Try this,” or, “Do that,” consider asking, “Have you thought about…” and, “What do you mean when you say…”
\n\n\n\nStick to the format and structure.
\n\n\n\nMy goodness, people. It’s not that hard. Almost no groups that I have guested in have been able to successfully follow through on this though.
\n\n\n\nGroup leader: “We spent a lot of time on introductions last meeting, so even though we have a few guests this time, let’s just do the shortest elevator pitch description of yourself you can do. Name, role, and industry. That’s it.”
\n\n\n\nInevitably, one or two people follow the format at first, the third forgets and doesn’t follow the format, the fourth tries to get back on track, and from the fifth on it’s just abandoned altogether. So, what could have been 20 people introducing themselves in 10 minutes or less turns into a 30-minute segment in which a feel people at first said 10 words over a 30-second intro and some of them say hundreds over 5-minute soliloquy.
\n\n\n\nThere is such as thing as positive constraints. These are generally defined as limitations that benefit the situation. Whether you are in a debate club, the NFL, or a court of law, an agreed upon set of rules that we all follow allows us to get more out of the engagement than we would without those constraints. The same is true in mastermind groups.
\n\n\n\nIf your group–or your group leader–provide some guidance for the benefit of the group, just follow the damn rules.
\n\n\n\nDon’t sell. Help.
\n\n\n\nWhether in the meetings themselves or in one-on-one discussions, the number one reason participants ever gave me for feeling the meetings were not valuable was that other participants were too salesy. While I hesitate to judge too much because I honestly did not experience much of that, I can imagine what it would be like. And as it relates to some of these points more broadly, you as a member of a group–and your fellow members as well–simply are not going to get as much out of the time as you could if you are more focused on overt lead generation than on actually trying to help your fellow meeting participants deal with the challenges they face.
\n\n\n\nI hope this has been helpful–whether you are considering joining a mastermind, you’re a leader, or you are just a participant yourself. If I can help you with anything mastermind related, shoot me a line at eric@inboundandagile.com.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/mastermind-table.png","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":636,"title":"The best books I read in 2022","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-best-books-i-read-in-2022/","slug":"the-best-books-i-read-in-2022","published_at":"2022-12-23T05:20:00+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-02T22:00:37+00:00","excerpt_html":"Note: These are the best books I read, not the best books that I read that came out in 2022. I typically read books in order of publication date, and my list of books to read as of this writing stands at 265. So when I add a new book that was published in let’s […]
\n","content_html":"\nNote: These are the best books I read, not the best books that I read that came out in 2022. I typically read books in order of publication date, and my list of books to read as of this writing stands at 265. So when I add a new book that was published in let’s say 2010, I’m going to end up reading it before a book that has been on my list longer, but was published in 2015. So, if you’re looking for my opinion on the best books of 2022, maybe come back in a year or two.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/bookshelf.png\")
I started to get serious with tracking my reading in Goodreads a few years ago. In recent years, I’ve read a substantial amount. This is due in large part to the fact that I tend to have 3-5 hours every morning before work in which I can listen to audiobooks. So between doing that at double speed, reading the occasional ebook and paper book, and reading to my children every night, I’ve gotten a few pages put away over time. Last year, it was 184 books and over 63,000 pages. This year, 146 books and over 50,000 pages so far.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Screenshot-2022-12-16-at-11.02.54-AM.png\")
![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/The-New-Common-Denominator-of-Success.jpg\")
The New Common Denominator of Success is a speech given by Albert E.N. Gray numerous times throughout his career. You can actually find the speech online for free if you just search for it.
\n\n\n\nI first read it online and then was motivated to purchase a copy because I felt it was so powerful.
\n\n\n\nOne of the key concepts in Gray’s speech is that there are things in our jobs that no one likes doing. If you are–like Gray–a salesperson, you very likely do not enjoy cold calling or following up with unresponsive leads. One of the primary things that separates successful from unsuccessful people though is that successful people do the things that are hard, the things that they do not like to do, because they know that is what it takes to succeed.
\n\n\n\nIn essence, this is similar to the 10,000 hours of deliberate practice idea popularized by Malcolm Gladwell. The very top echelon of people in any field might actually spend less time practicing their craft, but they are more deliberate and they do the things that are hard because they know that is what it requires to achieve their goals.
\n\n\n\nGray’s speech takes maybe 10 minutes to read and is a great way to communicate what success requires.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Nonzero.jpg\")
Nonzero by Robert Wright is a fascinating book.
\n\n\n\nThe name speaks to the central argument, which is that the growth of communications, civilizations, and even globalization to some extent create value and accelerate value creation. For example, when you live in a village of 150 people and have no communications or trade with people outside, you benefit only from the knowledge, thinking, innovation, work, etc of those 150 people. But when your 150-person village communicates and trades with the next 150-person village, you benefit from the fact that they can produce and sell something to you for cheaper than you can produce it, that some of their people might develop an innovation that you could not have come up with on your own, and more.
\n\n\n\nFundamentally, this is a history book that argues that there is a non-zero-sumness to human development that results in greater and faster transformations of everything from technology to morality and beyond.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Competing-Against-Luck.jpg\")
Competing Against Luck is not as intriguing of a book as those above, but you should read it simply because it introduces Jobs to Be Done research, or what they call Jobs Theory quite a bit in the book.
\n\n\n\nJobs Theory posits that every product is a service because people do not buy a product because they want to own that product. They buy a product because it does something for them. Or, as Harvard Professor Theodore Levitt put it, “People don’t want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole!”
\n\n\n\nUltimately, when you connect with people on the job they need to get done rather than for example features, benefits, personas, or any other common marketing, sales, and strategy frameworks, you can better succeed in selling your product or service because people need hydration, they need to feel like others want to look at or be them, they need to make their children happy. They don’t simply need water bottles, fancy watches/clothes/cars, or McDonald’s milkshakes simply to own them. They have a job they need the product to help them get done.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Immunity-to-Change.jpg\")
Immunity to Change is the number 1 or 2 best book I read all year.
\n\n\n\nThe core of the argument is that we often fail to change because we misdiagnose the challenges we face as needing technical rather than adaptive solutions.
\n\n\n\nFor example, every year in the United States, millions of people commit to lose weight in the New Year, and on average 107% of the weight that is lost is gained back. So if you and your family all lose 100 pounds, you as a collective gain back 107 pounds.
\n\n\n\nThe reason for this is that most people that commit to change identify the solution as a technical one. For example, Lose Weight = Don’t Eat M&Ms or Go On The Mediterranean Diet. For the hustle bros, it might be Become A Success = Take Cold Showers.
\n\n\n\nThe reality of many things that are difficult to change though is that our behavior (eg. an unhealthy diet or lifestyle) likely gives us benefits that we might not recognize. As in, perhaps you hate your job, but cannot find another one, and you and your spouse disagree on how to parent your children and are not getting along well as a result. So everyday when you get home from work, you don’t want to fight anymore. Your day was already terrible, so you open a 6-pack, grab a bucket of KFC, and sit in front of the TV for a few hours–while your children run wild in the background–before you eventually fall asleep and repeat the cycle the next day.
\n\n\n\nIn this case, what is your unhealthy lifestyle doing for you? It might be helping you find some peace and relaxation that you need as a result of not getting it in other places. So, you can say you’re going to start running or eating healthy or whatever else, but as soon as you have that next bad day and you find yourself needing some peace and relaxation, you will go back to the unhealthy lifestyle.
\n\n\n\nTo solve problems like this, you need not a technical solution like Do X or Don’t Do Y, but rather an adaptive solution that takes into account the needs your behavior serves. In the example above, you would need to find a solution that helps you still get that peace and relaxation while also serving the desire to lose weight.
\n\n\n\nAt work, if you’ve ever tried to guide someone that was a bad communicator or couldn’t stick to deadlines and found that they just wouldn’t change no matter how much they said they would, it is likely because they needed an adaptive rather than technical solution.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/You-Already-Know-How-To-Be-Great-1.jpg\")
You Already Know How to be Great might be the best book I read all year. It’s this book or the book above.
\n\n\n\nAlan Fine is the co-creator of the G.R.O.W. model, which was initially developed based on Timothy Gallwey’s Inner Game. The basic concept is that most guidance is provided from the outside in. Coaches and bosses say, “Next time the client talks to you like that, do this.” As in, “I (someone or something outside of you) know better than you do, so listen to me.” So rather than focusing on what you know and how you feel when you’re in the arena performing, you’re instead trying to think about what someone else told you and how and when to use that information. Instead, the G.R.O.W. model takes an inside out approach in that it asks the performer to focus on what they already know, feel, and experience and to use that to improve their performance.
\n\n\n\nFor example, rather than telling a colleague that delivers a bad report, “Just do it like this next time,” I might ask them what they notice when reports go well or poorly and then have them focus on the things that they do when the repots go well so that they can improve and accentuate those.
\n\n\n\nUsing this model helps to shift responsibility for success and failure from the coach to the performer and is a powerful way to get people motivated about change and improvement.
\n\n\n\nIf you are a Goodreads user, I encourage you to connect with me there. And/or if you have recommendations for books, shoot me a line at eric@inboundandagile.com.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":616,"title":"This is a light bulb.","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/this-is-a-light-bulb/","slug":"this-is-a-light-bulb","published_at":"2022-12-16T16:04:28+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-02T22:00:55+00:00","excerpt_html":"Light bulbs are amazing. Because of light bulbs, you can work, read, play, and do other things when the sun is not out. And, if you have the right kind of light bulb, you get heat too. Thanks to light bulbs, you benefit, the people around you benefit from them, and you each benefit from […]
\n","content_html":"\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/lightbulb-847x1024.png\")
Light bulbs are amazing. Because of light bulbs, you can work, read, play, and do other things when the sun is not out. And, if you have the right kind of light bulb, you get heat too. Thanks to light bulbs, you benefit, the people around you benefit from them, and you each benefit from the activities of each other.
\n\n\n\nFor example, you can work later into the evening making yet another pair of shoes, and because you have that pair of shoes to sell, your family has just a little bit more income, which allows you to pay for your daughter’s education. And because your daughter can read by the light of that bulb, she tells you things you never knew about the world that open up new ways of thinking and better ways of making those shoes that generate money for your family.
\n\n\n\nWe all benefit from something as simple as a light bulb.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/dsc_8048_5817160691_o-1024x685.jpg\")
A light bulb is a fragile thing. Incandescent bulbs in particular have thin glass and a delicate filament.
\n\n\n\nDue to this fragility, it’s easy to break a light bulb. You can drop it, smash it, knock it, throw it, bump it against something, or breathe on it the wrong way. Believe me. I’ve seen it. There are thousands of ways to break a light bulb.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/lightbulb-breaking.png\")
There are very few ways to make a light bulb, and it’s difficult. Have you ever tried?
\n\n\n\nWhen I was in elementary school, one of my science fair projects was a light bulb. It was a peanut butter jar that had been turned upside down. The lid was secured to a block of wood so that you could remove the jar (bulb) portion as needed, which I had to do a lot by the way. There were nails secured to the lid through the block of wood and wires attached to those. Between the nails, I connected bits of wire to use as the filament. The power source was a motorcycle battery.
\n\n\n\nIt looked something like this.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/3345787_orig-1024x765.jpg\")
One of the problems with my homemade light bulb was that the filament sure would light up and get hot, but it would burn out after less than a minute of being on. Also, the battery had to be charged, and I couldn’t just use my light bulb anywhere. It didn’t plug into existing sockets. There were no replacement parts available for cheap in stores. You see where I’m going here.
\n\n\n\nIt was a great experiment, but the thing I built on my own–despite being less fragile–was much less useful than the light bulbs created by and based on standards that many people have contributed to.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/light-bulb-laying-down-1024x635.png\")
Your organization’s culture is like a light bulb. More than likely, it took several (maybe even a lot) of people a substantial amount of time to build that culture. Whether they knew it or not and whether it was intentional or not, they tried a lot of things that did not work and arrived at something that finally did.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/edison-on-failure-1024x767.jpg\")
Like Edison’s first light bulb, like my light bulb, and like light bulbs today, are there things to be improved upon with your organization’s culture? You bet there are. There always are.
\n\n\n\nBut, like a light bulb’s light and heat, does your organization’s culture provide benefits that might be harder to find in a culture of your own creation? You bet it does.
\n\n\n\nAnd, as in the case of a light bulb, are you better off with a culture that has grown over time as opposed to just tearing it down and starting from nothing? Well, do you want to benefit from the successes and failures of others or do you want to start over from scratch?
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/quote-learn-all-you-can-from-the-mistakes-of-others-you-won-t-have-time-to-make-them-all-yourself-alfred-sheinwold-52-25-16.jpg\")
Unfortunately, when you look at a light bulb, it’s easy to not see how fragile it is, how difficult it was to create, and how hard it would be to replace. And because of this, we undervalue the miracle that is that light bulb just as many of us undervalue the miracle that is our organization’s culture. That is until we break it and find out that it is not so easy to fix or replace.
\n\n\n\nIf you find yourself thinking that your organization’s culture really does not do a good job providing what you believe it should, maybe think about how hard it would be to replace it with something of your own creation. And maybe even think about–despite how flawed that culture might be–how a lot of time, effort, and learning went into creating it and if maybe, just maybe, it’s something worth building upon rather than than tearing down and starting over alone.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":611,"title":"Present a Message that Connects to Users on a Deeper Level","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/present-a-message-that-connects-to-users-on-a-deeper-level/","slug":"present-a-message-that-connects-to-users-on-a-deeper-level","published_at":"2021-05-19T16:05:31+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-02T22:01:12+00:00","excerpt_html":"As part of my work with Bigwidesky, I joined Pathmonk’s podcast recently. Their podcast focuses on real-live insights from top business leaders sharing real success stories (and failures) always backed by data in ~20 minutes. They run a great show and host really detailed conversations with founders, business owners, and leaders to dissect growth strategies […]
\n","content_html":"\nAs part of my work with Bigwidesky, I joined Pathmonk’s podcast recently.
\n\n\n\nTheir podcast focuses on real-live insights from top business leaders sharing real success stories (and failures) always backed by data in ~20 minutes.
\n\n\n\nThey run a great show and host really detailed conversations with founders, business owners, and leaders to dissect growth strategies and execution. They also look behind the curtain to show the personalities as well.
\n\n\n\nThe interview closes with a rapid fire session and there was no prep on my side as to what to expect. If you’re interested to know what it’s like at Bigwidesky, how we think, how we’re different, etc, check out the interview:
\n\n\n\nOften, Google Ad Grant management for nonprofits can hit you for a one-time application and setup fee of $500-$5,000. Depending on your needs and arrangement with a person or agency, you might then have ongoing expenses. After a common one-time setup fee, it is possible–but not generally advisable–to move forward with no ongoing management. At […]
\n","content_html":"\nOften, Google Ad Grant management for nonprofits can hit you for a one-time application and setup fee of $500-$5,000. Depending on your needs and arrangement with a person or agency, you might then have ongoing expenses.
\n\n\n\nAfter a common one-time setup fee, it is possible–but not generally advisable–to move forward with no ongoing management. At the low end of need for ongoing management though, quarterly to annual updates/work on your grant will often cost $500-$2,500 each time.
\n\n\n\nEven if your organization, website, or account do not need deep, active ongoing management, most Google Ad Grants benefit from monthly management. Typical monthly Google Ad Grant management for nonprofits will run you $100-$2,500 per month depending on the exact fees charged by the person or agency you’re working with and specifically how much work running a Google Ad Grant for your nonprofit is.
\n\n\n\nApplying for and securing a Google Ad Grant
\n\n\n\n![\"Google](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/download-1-675x377.png\")
You can generally get access to a Google Ad Grant within 1-2 weeks of beginning the process. During this time, you or the person or agency working on this will often invest less than 10 hours.
\n\n\n\nTo secure a Google Ad Grant, you must first join Google for Nonprofits. Once accepted, you can then apply for a Google Ad Grant. Then, you can finally begin setting up and managing your grant.
\n\n\n\nApplying to Google for Nonprofits typically does not take more than a few hours at the very most. There have been times in the past when I had to spend hours on the phone with Google Ads support, but those have fortunately been few and far between. At the time of this writing, being accepted into Google for Nonprofits is generally not taking more than a few days.
\n\n\n\nFrom there, applying for a grant does not require much information and usually takes less than an hour with acceptance coming within a matter of days.
\n\n\n\nIf you have someone on the outside handling this process, they will need to provide contact information for someone within the nonprofit so that Google can confirm the nonprofit actually wants into the program and wishes to work with the person submitting the applications.
\n\n\n\nSetting up a Google Ad Grant
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Google-Ad-Grants-1-675x377.png\")
When you first get access to your Google Ad Grant for your nonprofit, I recommend that you connect it to your Google Analytics and Google Search Console accounts. These are not required, but generally, doing this will make your life much easier.
\n\n\n\nAfter that though, the simplest quick start option is to setup dynamic search ads for your whole website. Basically, dynamic search ads allow Google to determine what keywords the pages on your website should rank for, and then, Google dynamically creates ads for searchers. Now running dynamic search ads in conjunction with standard ads requires its own special knowledge, but because the unique benefit of a Google Ad grant is getting you in front of new people and getting them to your website without having to pay for it, I almost always setup dynamic search ads immediately and then begin working on keyword research and manually creating ads.
\n\n\n\nFor some nonprofits, dynamic search ads can take 2-4 weeks to begin sending traffic to the website. For most, your ads will start showing and you will begin receiving traffic within a matter of days. In typical one-time account setup, this would be the time in which your person or agency would do their keyword research, write ads, and get the account fully built out. For most nonprofit websites, it is not unusual for this whole process to take a total of 1-2 months from when you first get access to your Google Ad Grant. In that time, your person or agency will most likely spend between 10-100 hours building out your account so that it is comprehensive and will best take advantage of the free traffic Google can send you through this program.
\n\n\n\nPeriodic management of Google Ads Grants
\n\n\n\nI do not recommend this as a default, but there are nonprofits that simply are not in a position to generate positive ROI from the expense of monthly Google Ad Grant management. In these cases, I most often will recommend quarterly or bi-annual work. This work looks similar to monthly Google Ad Grant management except that is happens less often.
\n\n\n\nTypically, I will recommend periodic management for a nonprofit when the grant simply does not generate much traffic and/or trackable online conversions–most often online donations.
\n\n\n\nThe most common reasons your grant does not generate much traffic, revenue, or other online conversions are:
\n\n\n\nIn my experience, creating more and better content and improving the website experience so that more people convert are often not within the scope of typical Google Ad Grant management. That is not to say that your person or agency could not do these things. Hopefully, they can, but if you paid for example $2,500 to get setup and then have been paying $1,500 per quarter for management, do you have enough budget for copywriting, design, and code work on your website in order to improve the performance of the traffic the grant is bringing you? If you do not, it is not ideal, but you might need to lower your ongoing management expenses by reducing the frequency.
\n\n\n\nThere is however one big drawback to this approach that you need to be aware of. If you fall afoul of the Google Ad Grant eligibility requirements and someone is not monitoring that, it is possible that you would lose your grant during one of those times when someone is not actively managing it.
\n\n\n\nMonthly management of Google Ad Grants
\n\n\n\nUnless you know your budget does not allow for it, you should generally default to monthly management rather periodic management as described above. Even if your grant drives low traffic, revenue, or other outcomes, it likely would be to your benefit to just reduce the scope of ongoing management so that your grant has frequent attention and you run less risks of losing it.
\n\n\n\nAt the low end, it is not unusual for a Google Ad Grant to take ~6 hours per month for management. That is roughly 1 hour per week plus some additional time for unplanned work, fixing tracking issues, reporting, strategy discussions, etc.
\n\n\n\nAt the upper end, a Google Ad Grant for a large or complicated website or nonprofit can easily take upwards of 50 hours. The reason for this is that for example your website might have deep and broad content and also wish to integrate your ads with fundraising or messaging calendars. I have for example managed grants for websites with over 5,000 webpages, which required a lot of different topics to be managed, new ads and keywords constantly created, and ads updated to align with messaging and fundraising calendars.
\n\n\n\nHow do you keep management costs low?
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Google-Data-Studio-675x339.png\")
In almost every case in which a nonprofit needs to keep costs low, you will benefit from your person or agency setting up automated reporting using a system like Google Data Studio. Doing this allows you to save budget by not paying someone to manually create reports every month.
\n\n\n\nAdditionally, if your circumstances do no require frequent analysis and discussion, you can lower your expenses by foregoing monthly analysis and other discussions. While many of us benefit from regular updates on progress, if you can learn from your person or agency how to interpret an automated report, you can save time in meetings and put that toward the actual ongoing management of your Google Ad Grant.
\n\n\n\nWhy you might not want a Google Ad Grant
\n\n\n\nIf your website has few webpages, thin content, and a poor user experience and you have little intention or budget to improve those things, it’s entirely possible that now is not the time to invest in a Google Ad Grant.
\n\n\n\nRecently, I went through the process of applying to Google for Nonprofits and then securing a grant only to have a nonprofit determine that they did have the budget for actual setup of the account. Unfortunately, that was money down the drain for them.
\n\n\n\nIn the past, I have managed grants for some organizations that were only able to spend ~$1,000 per month of the potential $10,000 per month, and while they were generating 500-2,000 visits to their website per month, they were not able to track what the grant was accomplishing–specifically how much revenue is was generating. While the grant was bringing new people to the website (essentially for free) and undoubtedly generating revenue, they were not able to track the revenue, and as a result, it simply was not their highest priority.
\n\n\n\nExplore Google Ad Grants for your nonprofit
\n\n\n\nIf you and your nonprofit are interested in exploring Google Ad Grant, send me an email at eric@inboundandagile.com. If I can point you in the right direction so that you can get your grant setup on your own, I would be happy to. If you would like to talk about working together on your grant, I would love to.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Uncategorized"]},{"id":695,"title":"A fully comprehensive way to write your own job description","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/a-fully-comprehensive-way-to-write-your-own-job-description-original/","slug":"a-fully-comprehensive-way-to-write-your-own-job-description-original","published_at":"2012-12-04T12:57:00+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:00:01+00:00","excerpt_html":"In the last five years, I’ve been asked to write my job description at least twice that I can recall. You’d think this would be a blessing because you get to create your own position. Unfortunately, it rarely is, so I’ve written this to help you avoid the mistakes too many people make in this situation. […]
\n","content_html":"\nIn the last five years, I’ve been asked to write my job description at least twice that I can recall. You’d think this would be a blessing because you get to create your own position. Unfortunately, it rarely is, so I’ve written this to help you avoid the mistakes too many people make in this situation.
\n\n\n\nA job description should detail what a business needs from you, not what you can do. Some bosses ask you to write your own job description because they want you to feel control, they’re too busy, or they really don’t know what someone in your position should do and are hoping you’ll tell them.
\n\n\n\nIt’s particularly bad in the digital marketing space – where typically managers either are chasing trends and buzzwords or are clueless when it comes to new engagement opportunities, tools, processes, and more.
\n\n\n\n![\"Start](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Start-your-job-description.jpg\")
The best way to start your job description
\n\n\n\nList every task or responsibility you could possibly imagine you, or your company, wanting in your job description. In the recent past, I’ve written variations of these:
\n\n\n\nWrite as many as you can. You’re brainstorming. No idea is stupid.
\n\n\n\nOnce you have your list, group similar tasks into responsibilities. In the list above, I can reasonably group the first three into a single responsibility. Act as a team leader to both the team staff and the rest of the company. Continue doing that until you’ve eliminated all tasks and only have responsibilities.
\n\n\n\nTasks in a job description distract from the long-term vision and make it more like a manual. Any time you realize you’re getting into the specifics of how to do the job, pull back and rewrite it or group things together to answer these two questions. What am I doing? Why am I doing it? (I’ve added more potential questions to help you at the end of the post.)
\n\n\n\n![\"Job](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Job-desription-needs.jpg\")
Shape your responsibilities to fit the company’s needs.
\n\n\n\nOne of the key failings of job descriptions we write for ourselves is that we write them to suit what we want and need and not what the company needs. In the list above, I remember removing Represent the company in industry publications and blogs because, as much as I thought that would be great for me, it wasn’t what the company needed from someone in that position.
\n\n\n\nImagine that I had left it in and my boss had supported it. That would have started an unfortunate downward spiral that goes like this.
\n\n\n\nIf you can write your job description to fit the company’s needs, you can get picture of whether you’re the right person to do the job. If you’re not, can you grow into it? Do you want to? Finding out now ensures that you don’t end up in the downward spiral, and it gives you the opportunity to talk with your company about what you really want to do, while showing them that you recognize the needs of the business. Both of these are good things.
\n\n\n\nWhen you’re done with this stage, the ideal job description will have 8-12 responsibilities. Any more and you’re probably being unrealistic about how much one person can do. Any less and you show you’re not sure what you should be doing.
\n\n\n\n![\"Be](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Be-the-trailblazer.jpg\")
List the skills that pay the bills.
\n\n\n\nLook at the list of responsibilities and write down every skill and personal trait someone would need to satisfy these. If one of the responsibilities is Lead improvements in weekly client reporting, you might reasonably list skills and personal traits like:
\n\n\n\nOnce you’ve listed the job responsibilities, skills and personal traits should be simple. Just make a list. Think of the keyword-type of things you would search for in an online job search like “Excel,” “No travel,” “Passion for marketing,” etc.
\n\n\n\nWhen you’ve got your list, split it into two sections – Skills and Personal Traits. For my tastes, Skills is just a list of words and short phrases that shows that the person in this job needs experience with X, Y, and Z. Personal Traits is a little more wordy and gets into the personality of the employee. Who are they? What do they like? Where do they thrive? Why do they love this type of work? How do they do their job so well?
\n\n\n\n![\"Time](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Time-for-research.jpg\")
Time for some job description research.
\n\n\n\nEvery job description needs a Title, Department, Reporting Structure, Location, Compensation (base, bonus, commission, etc), Vacation, and Scope.
\n\n\n\nDepartment, Reporting Structure, and Location should be straightforward. What department will this job be in, who will the person report to, and where will they work?
\n\n\n\nFor Title, I use Linkedin Advanced Search and Google Trends to find relevant titles. If you know for example that you’re moving to the Director level and that you’ll be working in digital analytics, doing multiple Linkedin searches for variations of Director of Digital Analytics, Marketing Analytics Director, etc shows you how many people have that title. Google Trends gives you an idea of how frequently people search for that title so that you can see if it’s growing or shrinking in popularity.
\n\n\n\nPicking an unpopular title guarantees:
\n\n\n\nFor Compensation and Vacation, my favorite tool is PayScale. For free, you can create a report based on what you currently know about the position and then find out what people get paid in your area, how much vacation they have, whether they get commissions or bonus, and more. Almost everything is on a range at PayScale though, so you need to assess your fitness for the job and then put an appropriate smaller range on your job description.
\n\n\n\nWhile writing this up, I saw that $85,000 (at the 10% mark) to $130,000 (at the 90% mark) per year was the range for a test report I created and that the majority of people in that position had 2 weeks of paid vacation, but that some had up to 6 weeks. If I was writing a job description for the position, I would look at how well I could do the job compared to everyone else that might be able/willing to do it and then set my goal Compensation and Vacation there. For the purposes of the job description, I would place an appropriate range around that to give my employer room to adjust and also to avoid the potential negative psychological impacts of me being over-optimistic and them bringing me down to Earth by adjusting it down.
\n\n\n\nIf you set your sights unrealistically high, either you will be disappointed when your company adjusts down or your company will be disappointed when they realize they’re overpaying you.
\n\n\n\nTo finish your research, look at everything you’ve written so far and consider the scope of the position. Should you be working with people from the entire company, with all of the clients, or just a subset? Should you be only focused on a region or territory or thinking about, traveling to, or otherwise working with the whole country or world? How about effect within the company? Will you being making decisions that change the direction of the company or focused on a specific aspect of the business?
\n\n\n\n![\"Put](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Put-together-your-job-description.jpg\")
Putting together your job description
\n\n\n\nAs of now, you should be able to list these in your job description:
\n\n\n\nThe last big step is to look at everything you’ve put together and write the Position Summary, which I typically place before Responsibilities. The key here is to now put away everything you’ve been working on and write a 3-5 sentence, high level description of the job you want. Don’t worry about whether it gels with everything in the job description. Just write what your dream job would be.
\n\n\n\nOne Position Summary template I really like is:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe [Job Title] focuses on [Client X, Company issue Y, Vertical Z, etc]. He [insert one thing you would dream of being able to do every day]. Additionally, the [Job Title] [insert the first thing that you would love to do that is also critical for the business]. He [a personality trait and set of skills that make that describe the ideal candidate]. Finally, the [Job Title] [write about the business effects of this person’s work].
\n
Once you’ve done this, paste the Position Summary into your job description and make final changes to align the Summary and everything else you’ve put together. Hopefully at this point, there are very few differences between your Position Summary and the Responsibilities. If there are though, keep in mind that a job description has to address the needs of the business or else you’ll end up in the downward spiral I showed earlier.
\n\n\n\nIf you can’t align the job description with what you really want to do or are suited to do, talk with your company. This is an opportunity to build a clear development path while also helping your boss see that you understand, and are committed to, the needs of the business. Managers appreciate that. It’s a huge advantage to have employees that get the big picture of the business.
\n\n\n\n![\"Final](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Final-notes.jpg\")
Final notes
\n\n\n\nIf you get stuck at any point, try answering these questions:
\n\n\n\nAlso, consider using these verbs in your job description:
\n\n\n\nAnd lastly, these are some of the guidelines I recommend sticking to:
\n\n\n\nHave you ever written your own job description? Are there other recommendations or guidelines you would add to this?
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":439,"title":"3 ways you’re killing your website & how to fix it","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/3-ways-youre-killing-your-website-how-to-fix-it/","slug":"3-ways-youre-killing-your-website-how-to-fix-it","published_at":"2012-11-20T11:13:14+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:00:35+00:00","excerpt_html":"In a world where 70% of customers visit your website before making their first purchase decision, it’s no longer okay to say, “I don’t get that website stuff,” and also not pay someone to fix problems. If even 10% of those potential customers I just mentioned that visit your website decide not to buy, that’s […]
\n","content_html":"In a world where 70% of customers visit your website before making their first purchase decision, it’s no longer okay to say, “I don’t get that website stuff,” and also not pay someone to fix problems. If even 10% of those potential customers I just mentioned that visit your website decide not to buy, that’s a 7% decrease in sales.
\nFor me, a 7% decrease in sales is tens of thousands of dollars. For that amount of money, I can justify spending either my own time or my own money to fix all potential problems.
\nHere’s how to fix the biggest problems I see with most broken business websites.
\n![\"Broken](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Broken-links-everywhere.png\" "\\"Broken")
Fix broken links.
\nAfter spending two minutes on a friend’s business site and encountering just the right number of broken links in just the right places the other day, I gave up trying to find what I needed and actually just went to Google. Google sent me to a competitor’s site, where I found what I needed.
\nAnd, I spent two minutes on the site. Your potential customers won’t put up with more than one or two broken links to things they actually want to see before they just go back to Google and search for it – where by the way they’ll be shown all of your competitors.
\nDon’t let this be you. Go to your homepage, hold down control, and click every link you can find. Holding down control ensures they all open in new tabs so that you don’t have to navigate back and forth. Then, on each new page, hold down control, and click every link. If you find a bad link, remove it or find the correct URL and fix the link.
\nYou can also check Google Webmaster Tools (if you’ve submitted your site and preferably your sitemap) or use a service to crawl your website, but if the website is under 100 pages, I actually prefer to do this by hand so that I get a feel for the user experience.
\n![\"All](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/All-the-widgets.png\" "\\"All")
Your widgets are hanging out.
\nWant to show that you’re on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, MySpace, Friendfeed, Orkut; that you have popular posts, comments, activity; and that you like other blogs, have a family, take pictures, and have a mission statement?
\nGreat, but don’t.
\nSidebars are like signs on the freeway. They are very important, but if they have too much going on, drivers stop paying attention to the road and never get where they need to go (ie. they crash). Keep your sidebars simple and only include what is really valuable to your visitor.
\nThings get worse when your widgets and badges are broken. A broken sidebar widget is like a busted or graffitied shop window. Who cares if the shop is open… If the business owner doesn’t take enough pride in his business to fix his windows, no one is going to bother patronizing his business. Plain and simple.
\n![\"Talk](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Talk-to-your-customers.png\" "\\"Talk")
Look at it from the customer’s perspective.
\nI’m just as guilty of this one as anyone. I get working on a website, put in a ton of hours, and suddenly realize that it doesn’t address anything my customers want. It’s too wordy, too cool, over-designed, and filled with jargon, and your website probably is too.
\nEvery once and a while, it helps to get a customer’s perspective. With one client that ran a retail store, we posted a message on Facebook that said, “We’re giving 10% off one item each to the next man and woman that come into the store and spend 15 minutes giving us their opinions on our website.” In 9 minutes, we had the first man, and in 13, we had the first woman. It costs the store $20, and we guessed we made $5,000 in additional sales over the next 3 months.
\nTwo of my other favorite options are UserTesting.com and mturk (or SmartSheet if you prefer, but it’s the same thing really). With UserTesting.com, you get a real, quality walkthrough of your website, but it’s fairly expensive compared to the other options. With Mechanical Turk, you can get a lot of answers cheaply.
\nEither way, your website needs to address your customers’ interests not yours, and very often, the only way to find out whether it does is to give your customers an incentive to give you the feedback you need to win yourself that extra 7% of new business.
\nDon’t ignore it.
\nIt always surprises me when someone says, “I’ve never heard/heard of/watched/etc this show/song/person/etc,” and says it as if they’re proud of their ignorance. When did it become cool to not know things?
\nThe same goes for your website. Being ignorant isn’t cool, and even worse, it costs you money, and honestly, do any of the things I listed above really sound so difficult that even the average business owner couldn’t do it themselves?
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Conversion Rate Optimization"]},{"id":391,"title":"What are you afraid of?","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/what-are-you-afraid-of/","slug":"what-are-you-afraid-of","published_at":"2012-10-29T02:41:44+00:00","modified_at":"2023-02-02T22:01:57+00:00","excerpt_html":"I know someone that won’t leave their house when it’s dark and their spouse isn’t in town. Another person won’t visit their family across the country because flying scares them so much. Yet, another hides all of their money IN CASH around their business and home because they’re afraid it’s not safe in a bank. […]
\n","content_html":"I know someone that won’t leave their house when it’s dark and their spouse isn’t in town. Another person won’t visit their family across the country because flying scares them so much. Yet, another hides all of their money IN CASH around their business and home because they’re afraid it’s not safe in a bank.
\nI hope you’re asking yourself now:
\nI can’t help but wonder what the real value of those fears are. How does entertaining those fears make any of those people’s lives better?
\n![\"Get](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Get-over-your-fears.jpg\" "\\"Get")
Fear is a tough thing. It makes your heart race, makes your feel vulnerable and uncertain, and worse, but most of your fears are irrational, and they hold you back from experiencing, achieving, and reaching everything that you really could with your life.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":235,"title":"Free: The Future of a Radical Price by Chris Anderson","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/free-the-future-of-a-radical-price-by-chris-anderson/","slug":"free-the-future-of-a-radical-price-by-chris-anderson","published_at":"2012-10-12T05:45:15+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:00:42+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Entrepreneurs, product managers, and marketers. When? As soon as you can reasonably get to it. Why? Free is an excellent discussion of the move to freemium, open source, and all around free products. Best Quote Piracy happens when the marketplace realizes that the marginal cost of reproduction and distribution of a product is significantly […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nEntrepreneurs, product managers, and marketers.
\nWhen?
\nAs soon as you can reasonably get to it.
\nWhy?
\nFree is an excellent discussion of the move to freemium, open source, and all around free products.
\nBest Quote
\n\nPiracy happens when the marketplace realizes that the marginal cost of reproduction and distribution of a product is significantly lower than the price asked. In other words, the only thing propping up the price is the law protecting intellectual property. If you break the law, the price can fall, sometimes all the way to zero.
Review
\nI really enjoyed Chris Anderson’s Free. It jibed with what I feel has been a predominant change in many markets. At the same time though, I have read several biting critiques of the book and been told by an equal number of people, “That’s crap,” so apparently, the market is divided on this book.
\nFor my part, I do not see it as particularly difficult to swallow that companies are able to offer something free because the unit cost is essentially so low that it’s not worth tracking anymore or because the value of the growth they get for being free can be traded for something like advertising revenue or the revenue from a complimentary, non-free product. Nonetheless, many of the critiques that I have read seem to not be able to draw the distinction between free and non-free products from one company. For example, Anderson talks about how Google can offer free services – search, YouTube, etc – and monetize the eyeballs on the free product with advertising dollars. Most of the criticism leveled at Free appears to be of the “if you’re not the customer, you’re the product being sold” type, which makes sense, but seems inappropriate here.
\nLast Word
\nI would recommend this book to anyone in business, but also anyone that is interested in how societies, markets, and the world change. I really like The Long Tail, and I think that Free is better. I believe you will too.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":416,"title":"You have a problem with analytics","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/you-have-a-problem-with-analytics/","slug":"you-have-a-problem-with-analytics","published_at":"2012-10-12T04:16:03+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:00:49+00:00","excerpt_html":"Years ago, I made a small name for myself through blogging about social media and tweeting pretty much anything that I could find on Reddit. I got to the point that I was getting a fair number of job offers, as well as just a lot of praise, so what did I do? I blogged […]
\n","content_html":"Years ago, I made a small name for myself through blogging about social media and tweeting pretty much anything that I could find on Reddit. I got to the point that I was getting a fair number of job offers, as well as just a lot of praise, so what did I do? I blogged and tweeted more. It got to the point that I would be out with my friends or family and spend most of the time on my phone because I knew that, if I blogged and tweeted more, I would see more progress. Even when I’d walk from one place to another, I’d be glued to my phone.
\nUnfortunately, I never questioned whether it was the volume of blogging and tweeting that led to my progress or if maybe it was something else like me being a first mover or having the right personality or connections or something else. Had I questioned that, I might have seen the cost-benefit problem that was going on. While I was getting noticed and seeming to move my career along, I missed out on experiences with friends and family. I often wasn’t there when important things happened, and if I was, I was too busy on my phone to really be involved.
\n![\"Not](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Not-asking-the-right-questions.jpg\" "\\"Not")
This is one of the things that frustrates me about “analytics” the most.
\nJust because you can A/B test tweeting at 8am vs 9am or emailing on Mondays vs Tuesdays doesn’t mean that the answer tells you anything useful. When we see graphs of the best times to post to Facebook, we have to ask ourselves if the time a post goes live on Facebook has anything to do with its performance. Perhaps, it’s the day of the week, the topic, the phrasing, the thumbnail image, or something else?
\nOne of the most frustrating drivers of this seeming need to A/B test everything is the fact that it’s so easy now. With EdgeRank Checker or PageLever, I can see how my Facebook posts do. With Radian6 or any number of other monitoring tools, I can see how my brand does across the web. With Unbounce and Google Content Experiments, I can see how my landing pages perform, but A/B testing and even performance testing over time does not give us science fact. It simply gives us more questions.
\nIf I blog and get job offers, do I get more offers when I blog more? If so, did I get more offers because I blogged more or because of the topic or time that I published or something else?
\nIf you email your donors with a blue template and get more donations, was it the blue template or something else that cause the increase in donations?
\n![\"You](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/You-need-science.jpg\" "\\"You")
This is not to say that you shouldn’t invest in analytics.
\nYou should, but you should invest in analysis that means something and people that ask the right questions. Just because someone knows how to gather a million tweets on political topics doesn’t mean they can tell you anything about how the election is going to go. That is one reason that I trust people like my friends at Analytical Ones or the folks at Edison Research (the people behind the presidential election exit polls).
\nAnalytics done right helps you make better decisions. Analytics done wrong helps you make decisions… aimless, pointless, potentially harmful decisions.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":198,"title":"The Art of Seduction by Robert Greene","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-art-of-seduction-by-robert-greene/","slug":"the-art-of-seduction-by-robert-greene","published_at":"2012-10-11T05:45:44+00:00","modified_at":"2024-12-02T21:01:29+00:00","excerpt_html":"Does mastering the art of seduction make you a better leader—or just a more effective manipulator? Robert Greene’s The Art of Seduction is a provocative exploration of influence, power, and the subtle psychological dynamics that govern human relationships. Blending historical anecdotes with bold strategies, Greene positions seduction not merely as a romantic tool but as a […]
\n","content_html":"\nDoes mastering the art of seduction make you a better leader—or just a more effective manipulator? Robert Greene’s The Art of Seduction is a provocative exploration of influence, power, and the subtle psychological dynamics that govern human relationships. Blending historical anecdotes with bold strategies, Greene positions seduction not merely as a romantic tool but as a broader mechanism for persuasion. Yet, I was left with this question: Can these lessons elevate your ability to connect with others, or do they risk encouraging a manipulative mindset?
\n\n\n\nThis review dives deep into the book’s lessons, highlighting its strengths, uncovering its ethical quandaries, and exploring its practical applications. By the end, you’ll know whether The Art of Seduction deserves a place on your shelf—or if it’s a title best skipped in favor of Greene’s more universally applicable works like The 48 Laws of Power. Let’s untangle the allure of this book and uncover whether it truly delivers on its promise to teach the ultimate art of influence.
\n\n\n\nWho Is This Book For, and When Should You Read It?
\n\n\n\nRobert Greene’s The Art of Seduction isn’t for everyone, but for the right reader, it offers insight into human nature and influence. If you’re an aspiring pickup artist, this book might feel like a goldmine of strategies. I am however not in that group. For those like me interested in broader applications, such as business or professional networking, the value is more nuanced, requiring a discerning eye to extract lessons that go beyond the realm of romantic manipulation.
\n\n\n\nWho?
\n\n\n\nWhen?
\n\n\n\nWhile Greene weaves an engaging narrative filled with historical figures and timeless lessons, it’s important to approach this book with clear intentions. If you’re looking to sharpen your professional skills, you may find yourself wading through a heavy emphasis on romance that doesn’t always align with the modern workplace. That said, those who sift through these sections may uncover principles of persuasion that are applicable far beyond the confines of seduction.
\n\n\n\nWhy Read The Art of Seduction? (WIIFM: What’s In It For Me?)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/why-read.webp\")
The Art of Seduction promises a fascinating dive into the psychology of influence, seduction, and power. But does it deliver on its promise? For readers willing to navigate its romantic-heavy themes, Greene’s work offers a treasure trove of insights into human nature—if you know where to look.
\n\n\n\nWhat Makes It Worthwhile?
\n\n\n\nThe Caveats
\n\n\n\nWhile the book shines in its storytelling and psychological depth, there are aspects that can detract from its value:
\n\n\n\nWho Will Benefit Most?
\n\n\n\nIf you’re intrigued by the psychology of persuasion and enjoy learning through historical case studies, The Art of Seduction delivers in spades. However, if you’re looking for actionable advice tailored to modern leadership or business, this may not be your first pick.
\n\n\n\nUltimately, what you gain from this book depends on your ability to filter its content through your own ethical lens. If you’re willing to engage with its ideas critically, you may find surprising lessons that transcend its romantic facade.
\n\n\n\nA Closer Look at the Content: Themes, Archetypes, and Lessons
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/archetypes-1024x1024.png\")
At its heart, The Art of Seduction unpacks the art and science of influence by exploring both the psychology and tactics of seduction. Greene divides his work into two main parts: the seductive archetypes and the seductive process. Together, they form a roadmap for captivating, influencing, and persuading others—though the tone and context often lean heavily toward romantic manipulation.
\n\n\n\nKey Themes
\n\n\n\nThe Seductive Archetypes
\n\n\n\nIn the first section, Greene introduces several archetypes, each representing a distinct style of seduction. These figures provide a framework for understanding how seduction works and how to adapt it to different contexts:
\n\n\n\nEach archetype is illustrated with historical examples, from Cleopatra’s mesmerizing appeal to Casanova’s relentless pursuit. While these characters provide vivid lessons, they also highlight the book’s focus on romantic contexts, which may feel limiting for readers seeking professional insights.
\n\n\n\nThe Seductive Process
\n\n\n\nThe second part of the book focuses on the steps involved in seduction, from setting the stage to cementing influence. These stages include:
\n\n\n\nStrengths of the Content
\n\n\n\nWeaknesses of the Content
\n\n\n\nDespite these limitations, the book provides a fascinating lens through which to view seduction as a universal tool for influence. Whether or not readers embrace all of Greene’s advice, the themes and archetypes he presents remain thought-provoking and ripe for adaptation in various contexts.
\n\n\n\nPersonal Reflections: A Balanced Perspective
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/strengths-weaknesses.webp\")
Reading The Art of Seduction by Robert Greene left me with mixed feelings—fascination at its depth of research and storytelling, but also discomfort with its overemphasis on manipulation and romantic seduction. As someone drawn to books for professional and personal growth, I couldn’t help but feel this book falls short in offering practical guidance for those seeking influence beyond the realm of romance.
\n\n\n\nWhat Resonated
\n\n\n\nGreene’s ability to distill complex psychological dynamics into accessible lessons is undeniable. His detailed exploration of archetypes, like The Charmer or The Enigma, offered valuable insights into different styles of influence and how they can be tailored to various situations. The historical anecdotes were particularly compelling, providing both entertainment and an understanding of how these principles have been applied successfully in the past.
\n\n\n\nAdditionally, Greene’s writing shines in its ability to highlight the subtleties of human interaction. Concepts like mirroring someone’s mood or creating intrigue through calculated mystery are universally applicable. If approached thoughtfully, these lessons can be adapted to modern contexts, such as professional networking or leadership.
\n\n\n\nWhat Fell Flat
\n\n\n\nFor me, the book’s heavy emphasis on romantic seduction overshadowed its broader applications. While Greene occasionally gestures toward professional settings, the romantic lens is ever-present, making it difficult to extract lessons for business or leadership without significant reinterpretation. At times, the tone even felt exploitative, like a handbook for manipulation rather than genuine connection.
\n\n\n\nThe ethical implications of some strategies also gave me pause. Encouraging emotional dependency or indulging someone’s whims to gain influence may achieve short-term results but could easily erode trust in the long run. As someone who values authentic connections, I found myself questioning whether these tactics align with modern relationship-building practices, both personally and professionally.
\n\n\n\nFinal Thoughts on Greene’s Style
\n\n\n\nGreene’s work is undeniably engaging, but it often feels like style over substance. While the book is rich in examples and historical context, it lacks a clear framework for translating these lessons into actionable, ethical strategies for the reader. Compared to his other works, like The 48 Laws of Power, The Art of Seduction feels narrower in scope and less relevant to a modern audience.
\n\n\n\nWould I recommend it? That depends. If you’re a history buff or intrigued by the psychology of persuasion, there’s value to be found here. But for anyone looking for practical, actionable insights into influence—especially in professional contexts—I’d recommend Greene’s other books first.
\n\n\n\nActionable Takeaways: Applying The Art of Seduction in Modern Life
\n\n\n\nDespite its romantic-heavy focus, The Art of Seduction offers lessons that can be thoughtfully adapted to modern contexts. Below are some actionable takeaways for applying Greene’s principles in ethical and practical ways—whether you’re looking to refine your professional influence, improve interpersonal dynamics, or simply gain a deeper understanding of human behavior.
\n\n\n\nFinal Note on Practicality
\n\n\n\nThe lessons in The Art of Seduction work best when adapted thoughtfully. Rather than seeing the book as a strict guide, view it as a collection of ideas to explore and reinterpret in ways that align with your personal values and professional goals. By doing so, you can harness the art of influence without compromising authenticity or trust.
\n\n\n\nFinal Verdict: Should You Read The Art of Seduction?
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/romantic-seduction-broader-influence.webp\")
Robert Greene’s The Art of Seduction is a polarizing book—provocative, insightful, and at times, unsettling. It offers a fascinating exploration of influence through the lens of seduction, blending historical anecdotes with strategies designed to captivate and persuade. But whether or not it’s worth your time depends largely on what you’re hoping to gain from it.
\n\n\n\nWho Will Enjoy This Book?
\n\n\n\nIf you’re a fan of historical storytelling or intrigued by the psychological dynamics of influence, this book is a captivating read. Its vivid examples of figures like Cleopatra, Casanova, and Napoleon provide timeless lessons on human interaction, making it a rich source of inspiration for anyone interested in persuasion.
\n\n\n\nWho Should Skip It?
\n\n\n\nFor those looking for straightforward, actionable strategies for modern leadership or business influence, The Art of Seduction might feel too niche or ethically ambiguous. Its heavy emphasis on romantic manipulation overshadows its broader applicability, and readers seeking Greene’s trademark insights might find his other works, such as The 48 Laws of Power, more universally relevant.
\n\n\n\nThe Bottom Line
\n\n\n\nMy Recommendation
\n\n\n\nIf you’re short on time or prefer content that is actionable and relevant to today’s professional landscape, skip The Art of Seduction and explore Greene’s other works instead. But if you’re intrigued by the psychological underpinnings of influence and don’t mind sifting through the romantic emphasis, this book might just spark some unexpected insights.
\n\n\n\nStay Connected
\n\n\n\nI’m passionate about exploring how these ideas intersect with our daily lives and work. If you enjoyed this review, subscribe to my writing for more insights, book reviews, and strategies for embracing individuality in life and business. Follow me on Goodreads to see what I’m reading and share your thoughts on the books that inspire you.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/71lrbuPRRjL._UF8941000_QL80_.jpg","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":171,"title":"Some thoughts on quitting","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/some-thoughts-on-quitting/","slug":"some-thoughts-on-quitting","published_at":"2012-10-08T21:21:32+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:00:55+00:00","excerpt_html":"Rand posted last night about his thoughts on firing employees and how SEOmoz handles it. Having managed teams and left companies of my own choice, I found it to be an interesting read. On one hand though, talking about the financial, emotional, and team impacts of firing leaves the picture incomplete if you don’t look […]
\n","content_html":"Rand posted last night about his thoughts on firing employees and how SEOmoz handles it. Having managed teams and left companies of my own choice, I found it to be an interesting read. On one hand though, talking about the financial, emotional, and team impacts of firing leaves the picture incomplete if you don’t look at how someone choosing to leave a company also affects everyone.
\nCompanies and individuals are rarely transparent about the reasons people quit though, which I honestly find disturbing, but I think that too many employees are concerned about slander, libel, defamation, etc and are simply unsure about the legality around sharing information about why they left a company, so they keep their mouths shut.
\nI’ve never been averse to leaving a company – or any relationship for that matter – when I believed that it was the best thing. That being said, leaving a company at the first sign of disagreement or problems is counter-productive as well. It leaves you without the ability to deal with complex personal and professional conflicts, a track record that might make you look like a mercenary, and a lack of experience in being part of a company for a long period and everything that goes along with growing and changing with it.
\nRunning away versus walking away
\nA former manager of mine once made a clear distinction between leaving a company because you need to get away and leaving a company because there’s something they can’t give you. He called it “running away versus walking away.” The difference between the two is this:
\nIn the first case, there is a 90% chance that your friend will find he’s still not happy at his new company. Why? Because he didn’t go to the new company because of something about them – because he loved their mission or because it was always his dream to work there. Instead, he went there to get away from a problem. In the second case, there’s a 90% chance that your friend will find happiness because he’s not running away from something and is able to better decide what’s right for him, if the new company will give him what he needs to leave somewhere that he is already happy.
\nWhen an employee tells me they have a problem, this is a sign that I have a chance to fix things. If he doesn’t like working with me, I can attempt to change our relationship, have him report to someone else, or make some other change. If he doesn’t like working with certain coworkers, I can try to limit their contact or can facilitate repairing a damaged relationship. If he wants to leave after giving me a chance though, running from the company almost certainly ensures that she’s not going to find happiness, so I always recommend that you be as open and honest as possible with your management along the way, and if in the end there is still a problem, they should help ease you out of the company and into a better situation. Sadly, I believe that most people do not feel they can trust their management enough to be open with them and this is one reason that so many go running from rather than walking from or running toward.
\nI have in the past sent job openings at other companies to my own staff members when I knew they could make more money somewhere else, they would be happier there, or they would get something they needed that I/we could not provide. I have also introduced them to hiring managers and recruiters looking for their skills. Being able to be open, honest, and helpful with my teams has ensured that as few gaps as possible were left when they departed and that they found what they were looking for. Unfortunately, I have also had employees leave without me having the opportunity to fix problems and/or support them in their search, and sadly in every case, I’ve found out later that that next job they took wasn’t right either.
\nGuidelines for employees before quitting
\nJust as Rand says that SEOmoz’s firing process is amazingly hard, giving your company and boss a chance to rectify things, while as well working on your own responsibility and reactions in these situations, is also extremely hard, but being both an employee and a manager, I’ve found that you get so much more out of working with people to find solutions than you do out of avoiding or otherwise not addressing problems.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":421,"title":"How to build a broken lean startup machine","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/how-to-build-a-broken-lean-startup-machine/","slug":"how-to-build-a-broken-lean-startup-machine","published_at":"2012-09-13T05:23:20+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:01:00+00:00","excerpt_html":"I wasn’t familiar The Lean Startup movement until this year, which is one reason that I didn’t push back when I once joined a company (this was before the book but after the movement had a name), and my boss told me that they didn’t want to buy me a laptop because they were “trying to do […]
\n","content_html":"I wasn’t familiar The Lean Startup movement until this year, which is one reason that I didn’t push back when I once joined a company (this was before the book but after the movement had a name), and my boss told me that they didn’t want to buy me a laptop because they were “trying to do the whole Lean Startup thing.” Come to find out later that my boss wasn’t really familiar with the Lean Startup concepts either and just assumed that it meant that you should be a cheap ass.
\nThis is the first problem with being a Lean Startup. People think that just because they understand the words in the name of the approach or idea that they understand the concept. I’ve encountered the same issue with things like The Tipping Point or Blink.
\nJust because you understand the words in a name does not mean that you understand the concept itself.
\n![\"Rinse](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Rinse-and-repeat.jpg\" "\\"Rinse")
This is how to build a broken Lean Startup machine.
\nIt blows my mind – it really does – that people waste money and time jumping from movement to movement without ever fully embracing and learning the concepts behind them, but then, this shouldn’t be all that shocking. A retiring consultant friend of mine once told me:
\n\nIf you’re at an organization that has gone through restructuring or changes in mission or vision every few years, just look at the bookshelves of the executives. You’ll notice that rudderless companies make a major change to their business every time an influential book comes out and a new movement starts.
And, I couldn’t agree more. The frustrating thing is when changing priorities are coupled with incompetence and misunderstanding. That reduces morale and turns your employees into disheartened, dispassionate workers.
\n![\"The](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Lean-startup-silver-bullet.jpg\" "\\"The")
This is how to build a working Lean Startup process.
\nBe smart. Be nimble. Give the people on the ground, doing the work, the power. Invite your customers in. A/B test smartly with a plan, and make it possible to turn on A/B tests only for a segment of your customers. Most importantly, let go of the reigns.
\nWhether it’s being a Lean Startup, adopting something older like Just In Time or whatever else comes next, the thing that will torpedo your business more often than not in a time period when every employee has access to social media and is approached by customers wanting help is not letting them act on your behalf and live out their passion through your brand, but rather dictating to them how things should always be done.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":231,"title":"What Every BODY is Saying by Joe Navarro","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/what-every-body-is-saying-by-joe-navarro/","slug":"what-every-body-is-saying-by-joe-navarro","published_at":"2012-09-12T05:07:10+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:01:06+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone interested in face-to-face communication and anyone that might think they could improve there. When? Put it in your queue. Why? It is a simple and straightforward book about body language. Best Quote The problem is that most people spend their lives looking but not truly seeing, or, as Sherlock Holmes, the meticulous English […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone interested in face-to-face communication and anyone that might think they could improve there.
\nWhen?
\nPut it in your queue.
\nWhy?
\nIt is a simple and straightforward book about body language.
\nBest Quote
\n\nThe problem is that most people spend their lives looking but not truly seeing, or, as Sherlock Holmes, the meticulous English detective, declared to his partner, Dr. Watson, “You see, but you do not observe.”
Review
\nJoe Navarro’s What Every BODY is Saying is a very good book on nonverbal communication – how you use your hands to convey something or protect yourself, what you feet say about what you’re really thinking, the meaning of arm or facial movements, and more. Navarro goes just in depth enough to make you feel that you have a good beginner’s understanding of body language. Unfortunately, the book suffers a little bit from covering too many topics honestly, so it did drag for me in a few parts.
\nSome of the things you’ll learn in Navarro’s book are already well known – how people shield their bodies or avert their eyes in certain circumstances. Other things, like how your feet often are a solid giveaway of how you’re feeling, were new and very interesting to me, and in the high points of the book, Navarro had me completely engaged.
\nLast Word
\nI recommend this book more as a piece of entertainment for business people than as a must-read business book. Certainly, it has applications for both your personal and professional life, but ultimately, I think you’ll get the most out of What Every BODY is Saying just by taking a step back from your standard business book and enjoying something a little different for a change.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":194,"title":"Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Don’t by Jim Collins","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/good-to-great-why-some-companies-make-the-leap-and-others-dont-by-jim-collins/","slug":"good-to-great-why-some-companies-make-the-leap-and-others-dont-by-jim-collins","published_at":"2012-09-11T02:04:47+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:01:12+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Any manager or aspiring entrepreneur. When? Now. Why? This book should be required reading for every business student. Best Quote The purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline. Review I first read this book a few years ago. Then, I revisited it recently and was impressed the second time […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAny manager or aspiring entrepreneur.
\nWhen?
\nNow.
\nWhy?
\nThis book should be required reading for every business student.
\nBest Quote
\n\nThe purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline.
Review
\nI first read this book a few years ago. Then, I revisited it recently and was impressed the second time as the first.
\nThe main thrust of this book is that many companies never become great simply because they are good, and good is good enough. They lack the discipline, vision, and leadership to make that leap from merely good to clearly great. This is something that you can learn a lot from, especially when you recognize that it is all too common for us to want to change things and to want to do great, but then to compromise and accept good instead.
\nCollins addresses several characteristics of great companies in his book, and you can learn a lot just from reading about them:
\nLast Word
\nGood to Great was referenced by a lot of people when I was studying for my MBA, and for some stupid reason, I didn’t read it. I should have, and if you haven’t read it, you should by it now and get started. In fact, get the ebook or audio version so that you can get started now. Jim Collins’ book is worth that much.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":380,"title":"Free marketing techniques or no marketing budget?","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/free-marketing-techniques-or-no-marketing-budget/","slug":"free-marketing-techniques-or-no-marketing-budget","published_at":"2012-09-09T01:34:39+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:01:17+00:00","excerpt_html":"One of the most consistent misconceptions non-marketers have about marketing, whether in-house or through an agency, is that us marketers can “do marketing” for free. I’ve had non-marketing managers tell me, “We need to cut the marketing budget and still hit our numbers.” I’ve also had clients ask, “What can we do for free?” “We’ve […]
\n","content_html":"One of the most consistent misconceptions non-marketers have about marketing, whether in-house or through an agency, is that us marketers can “do marketing” for free. I’ve had non-marketing managers tell me, “We need to cut the marketing budget and still hit our numbers.” I’ve also had clients ask, “What can we do for free?”
\n“We’ve never spent a dollar on marketing.”
\nIt seems like every time you see a successful startup founder talking about Pandora, or Pinterest, or Hit-Startup-X, they say, “We’ve never spent a dollar on marketing, and we’ve grown our business successfully.”
\n![\"Marketing](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Marketing-frustration.jpg\" "\\"Marketing")
Yet, they have a CMO, VP of Marketing, marketing associates, an email tool, and more, don’t they? Don’t they?
\nBut unfortunately, too many people listen to the startup folks say these things and think that marketing should be free. After all, viral is free, isn’t it? Email is free, isn’t it? Landing pages, SEO, community management, and more are free, aren’t they?
\nNo. No, marketing is not free.
\nOf all the things that I’ve ever done in marketing, nothing that was successful was ever free… not even close. I ran one email program for a client that generated enough revenue in two emails to cover their entire annual marketing budget, but that involved writers, designers, coders, and more. Another client spent tens of thousands of dollars every month just on analytics around their market and competitors in an effort to provide the best customer service in the industry, and guess what, they’re considered to one of the best as a result.
\nThe best marketing involves an investment just like the best product development, manufacturing, sales, and more all involve an investment. Just hiring people and telling them to make due without any budget isn’t going to get you very far. You’d be better served by not hiring a marketer at all and spending the money on simply creating a product that begs to be talked about, that begs to be loved, and has to be shared with friends and family.
\n![\"Focus](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Focus-on-making-a-great-product.jpg\" "\\"Focus")
For that matter, why not just make a great product in the first place?
\nThe best marketing is a great product, and when you have a great product, it makes not spending money on advertising, tools, writers, and more so much easier. Your marketing person can at least get by with doing their own outreach, creating their own landing pages, guest blogging, and more all with their own time and no additional expense. Even though all of that is extremely time consuming, your great product at least allows their “free” efforts to have some legs.
\nBut, if you can’t ensure that your product is great in the first place, telling your in-house people or your agency that they need to cut their budget and still hit performance goals is just plain crazy.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":114,"title":"Three Secrets on How to Earn Money from Google AdSense","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/three-secrets-on-how-to-earn-money-from-google-adsense/","slug":"three-secrets-on-how-to-earn-money-from-google-adsense","published_at":"2012-09-02T03:06:08+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:01:24+00:00","excerpt_html":"While there are stories of people making an entire income off of AdSense, it is unlikely that that will ever happen unless you fully optimize ever possible aspect of your website and your AdSense account. To help you in those efforts, follow these three principles. Find a Profitable Niche The niche in which you want […]
\n","content_html":"While there are stories of people making an entire income off of AdSense, it is unlikely that that will ever happen unless you fully optimize ever possible aspect of your website and your AdSense account. To help you in those efforts, follow these three principles.
\nFind a Profitable Niche
\nThe niche in which you want to get involved in Adsense is the best way to determine how much money you are likely to earn. Different niches have different profitability potential, so you need to be careful on your selection. In most cases, niches dealing with finances and health matters are more profitable that others like those dealing with history or local news. Obviously, the most profitable niches are going to be very competitive, but when you appropriately select the keywords and optimize them on your site, you will score a coup on the competition and, in turn, make good money.
\nDrive Traffic to Your Site
\nIf you want to make money with AdSense, then you should think about how to bring traffic to your site. There are several ways that you can get more traffic within a short period of time, but the best way is finding organic search traffic. You want to target visitors seeking certain information rather than just social visitors. The choice of keywords you target determines the amount your site might receive. If you select solid keywords and optimize them correctly, then expect good money…if you CRO your site.
Create a Solid Website with Effective Ad Placement
\nIt falls upon you to ensure that your ads are placed in the most effective places for the best results. When designing your website, you should know where to place the ads for high visibility and high return. Generally, ads that appear on the upper part of the landing page are more effective than those below. For example, ads on the upper left of the webpage are more effective than those on the lower right. Wider ads are also more effective, as are ads that display images or video. Ads that are placed directly above the primary content, those that appear at the bottom of the page, and above the footer are more effective. Using colors that match the colors of your website is also more effective. This is where website design and where to place ads will lead to a better payout from AdSense.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Advertising"]},{"id":227,"title":"Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/outliers-by-malcolm-gladwell/","slug":"outliers-by-malcolm-gladwell","published_at":"2012-08-12T04:47:23+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:01:52+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Business people and people that enjoy intellectual media. When? Just put it in your queue above Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey. Why? It might change the way you think about building to success. Best Quote Practice isn’t the thing you do once you’re good. It’s the thing you do that makes you good. […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nBusiness people and people that enjoy intellectual media.
\nWhen?
\nJust put it in your queue above Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey.
\nWhy?
\nIt might change the way you think about building to success.
\nBest Quote
\n\nPractice isn’t the thing you do once you’re good. It’s the thing you do that makes you good.
Review
\nMalcolm Gladwell’s Outliers was good enough that I have now read it twice, which is unusual for me because I have such a large reading list.
\nIn his book, Gladwell examines many aspects that work together to create the outliers that become truly great. What does it take to be Michael Phelps, Bill Gates, or another high performer?
\nLast Word
\nMostly, I find this book fascinating. I believe that Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin is a book better suited to applying to your daily life. Nonetheless, Outliers is a great book that I believe it well worth the read.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":410,"title":"I hate the “What would it take to keep you here” conversation","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/i-hate-the-what-would-it-take-to-keep-you-here-conversation/","slug":"i-hate-the-what-would-it-take-to-keep-you-here-conversation","published_at":"2012-08-12T03:24:33+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:02:16+00:00","excerpt_html":"I’ve left jobs I loved and jobs I hated. Leaving both types sucks, but leaving a job I love makes me feel sick. I remember coming to the decision that it was time to leave a great job for a new opportunity and really feeling pained. It got even worse when I told my boss. […]
\n","content_html":"I’ve left jobs I loved and jobs I hated. Leaving both types sucks, but leaving a job I love makes me feel sick. I remember coming to the decision that it was time to leave a great job for a new opportunity and really feeling pained. It got even worse when I told my boss.
\nThe questions and self doubt:
\nIt’s terrible. It really is.
\nBeing on the other side is really weird too though. I’ve had people that work for me quit and nearly quit for heaps of reasons:
\n![\"I](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/I-can-work-with-that.jpg\" "\\"I")
Sometimes, you can keep people from leaving.
\nBut, why do it? In the case that your employee found a better opportunity, it’s good for both parties to wish them well and end your working relationship on a good note. Sure, it’s flattering to them if you try to keep them, but if they decide to stay and then realize that they made a mistake, you’ve got a problem.
\nIf your employee isn’t happy about something with their job and they gotten to the point they’re willing to quit, this shows at least one of two things and possibly both.
\nIn either case, it doesn’t matter whether it’s compensation, management style, cultural fit, growth opportunities, or anything else. Your employee has chosen to leave in order to get away from something rather than to get closer to something, and trying to keep them is no guarantee that things will change no matter how hard you try.
\nIn the third case, there are few instances when you can keep an employee that chooses to leave their job due to a life change, and the only legitimate one that I’ve ever encountered is an employee relocating for their spouse. That one was easy, “We’d love to keep you if you’re okay with working remotely.” “Yeah, that’d be great.” “Awesome. Consider it done.”
\nIn all other cases I’ve encountered though, how can you keep a mother that wants to be homes with her children, a son that wants to take care of a sick family member, and so on from doing so without feeling bad and potentially engendering some ill will? You can’t.
\n![\"My](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/my-personal-preference.jpg\" "\\"My")
My preference is to avoid the conversation altogether.
\nIf you think your employee is considering leaving, talk to them about it. This is the time to find out if you need to let someone go or make changes to keep them. It’s too late when they’re the one to approach you.
\nIf you’re the one leaving, talk to your boss early. Telling them about problems that you have with them, the company, or your position on the same day you say that you’re quitting is really crappy. You don’t give them any opportunity to change. If you’ve made the decision to go, make it clear to them that, while you would love to stay, your decision is for the best, and you’d like to be clear. You’re leaving.
\nNot being open and honest early can burn bridges and cause a lot of bad decisions down the road. Once your or your employee have made a decision to leave though, the decision has been made. There’s almost no talking to be done. Just make the parting as easy as possible.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":191,"title":"The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcolm Gladwell","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-tipping-point-how-little-things-can-make-a-big-difference-by-malcolm-gladwell/","slug":"the-tipping-point-how-little-things-can-make-a-big-difference-by-malcolm-gladwell","published_at":"2012-08-11T01:37:29+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:02:21+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone interested in how society and movements grow, change, and decline. When? You’re probably gonna to miss out on some of the significance of this if you’re under 20 or so. That’s not to say that there aren’t some 15 year olds out there that wouldn’t completely get this book of course. I just […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone interested in how society and movements grow, change, and decline.
\nWhen?
\nYou’re probably gonna to miss out on some of the significance of this if you’re under 20 or so. That’s not to say that there aren’t some 15 year olds out there that wouldn’t completely get this book of course. I just believe that an older mind would probably appreciate this more on average.
\nWhy?
\nThe Tipping Point is fascinating.
\nBest Quote
\n\nA study at the University of Utah found that if you ask someone why he is friendly with someone else, he’ll say it is because he and his friend share similar attitudes. But if you actually quiz the two of them on their attitudes, you’ll find out that what they actually share is similar activities. We’re friends with the people we do things with, as much as we are with the people we resemble. We don’t seek out friends, in other words. We associate with the people who occupy the same small, physical spaces that we do.
Review
\nComing from a marketing background, this book is very interesting because it gives you some idea of how you might be able to take advantage of, or even create, a movement or a viral success. Malcolm Gladwell gives several examples of how ideas, diseases, crime, and more have spread through society and then abruptly stopped. He attributes these to the work of three different types of people:
\nLast Word
\nThe tipping point is the moment of critical mass when something crosses the threshold from indie trend to mainstream movement. You should read The Tipping Point if only for the fact that you need to be able to recognize societal changes that might affect you or your business…if not also being able to use them to your advantage.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":370,"title":"What you need to know about a link disavowal tool","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-a-link-disavowal-tool/","slug":"what-you-need-to-know-about-a-link-disavowal-tool","published_at":"2012-08-08T06:04:16+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:02:26+00:00","excerpt_html":"After the Google Panda update and especially following the Google Penguin update, webmasters began pooping themselves over low quality links pointed at their sites. Many webmasters have purchased links from Fiverr, participated in link wheels, or otherwise come by craptastic links, so even without using a tool like Open Site Explorer to see who was […]
\n","content_html":"After the Google Panda update and especially following the Google Penguin update, webmasters began pooping themselves over low quality links pointed at their sites. Many webmasters have purchased links from Fiverr, participated in link wheels, or otherwise come by craptastic links, so even without using a tool like Open Site Explorer to see who was linking to them, most of those webmasters knew they had low quality inbound links.
\nThen, people started catching on to Negative SEO, and we suddenly seemingly had confirmation that low quality links pointing to your site could actually harm you.
\n![\"Put](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Put-this-in-perspective.jpg\" "\\"Put")
Putting Negative SEO in perspective
\nNegative SEO is a tactic that supposedly works, but Google has more or less completely denied that it does despite the algorithm updates and SERP changes that seem to suggest that is not true.
\nIf we both run marketing blogs and you’re beating me in the rankings, I can buy a whole bunch of crappy links pointing to your site, use Xrumer and other tools to build low quality links, and otherwise make it look like you might have been trying to game the search engines. Under Google’s recent algorithm changes, this could earn you a penalty or all out exclusion from search results, which would hopefully bump my website up.
\nBad, right?
\nRight.
\nThis all has caused a lot of people to scream for a link disavowal tool.
\nBasically, webmasters want a way to give Google a list of links and say, “You see those links over there? Yeah, they’re not mine, so please don’t penalize me for them.”
\nThe problem with this is that:
\nSo, look at what happens. Google does a decent job of figuring out what websites are good and bad, but plenty of bad results sneak in now and then, don’t they? Google can just release a link disavowal tool, make webmasters feel like they’re caving and doing them a favor, and then match up the sites requested for disavowal with their algorithmically generated crap site list, and badda bing badda bang badda boom, they’ve suddenly got a new, hopefully higher quality list of crap sites.
\n![\"I'd](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Little-worried.jpg\" "\\"I'd")
I’d be concerned.
\nWell, I have a few concerns:
\nWhen Google does eventually announce a link disavowal tool, I bet that it will work to everyone’s advantage if they just stay as far away from it as possible and, if someone absolutely feels the need to use it, that it would be best for everyone if they are as conservative as possible.
\nVery few webmasters really have the time or knowledge to analyze their link profile, and that lack of knowledge could become a major pain for the rest of us.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Search Engine Optimization"]},{"id":111,"title":"Three Musts When Using Social Media for Business","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/three-musts-when-using-social-media-for-business/","slug":"three-musts-when-using-social-media-for-business","published_at":"2012-08-02T02:26:13+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:02:32+00:00","excerpt_html":"You’re a savvy business owner, so you’re using social media. Unfortunately, you can’t say for certain whether or not it’s really worth your time. If you’re asking yourself what you should be doing and what you should be getting out of social media, the following three musts are for you. Use Social Media to Find […]
\n","content_html":"You’re a savvy business owner, so you’re using social media. Unfortunately, you can’t say for certain whether or not it’s really worth your time. If you’re asking yourself what you should be doing and what you should be getting out of social media, the following three musts are for you.
\nUse Social Media to Find New Ideas
\nBusiness owners are some of the best idea people in the world. They find a need in their community and figure out how to address it, but the most aware business owners recognize that they can learn a lot and get a lot of new ideas from others. Whether just monitoring, dipping in a toe, or spending hours in social media, you can pick up a lot of new ideas in social media.
\nUse Twitter searches, Topsy, Social Mention, and other services to search for your company, your competitors, your industry, and mentions of your local area. Find people that are having relevant conversations and jump in to see what you can learn from them. And, don’t forget to keep track of what people say so that you can see what new ideas get mentions most.
\nInvolve Your Whole Staff
\nHubSpot, Dell, Cisco, and Zappos are perfect examples of companies that involve their whole staff in social media, which not only takes the burden of the leadership, marketing, and PR departments, but also makes handling customer service and spreading awareness of the company easier because they have more than just one person supporting multiple channels. Imagine that you run a shoe store and have one employee that is really passionate about photography and another that loves music. Ask your photographer is she would like to contribute to your Instagram, Facebook, and other accounts that can host images. Ask you musician if he would like to share his love of music or if he wants to help create videos for the business that you can then share on YouTube and other channels. This helps to share the burden, since social media is time consuming, and ensures that both people with passion for social media and people with diverse interests get the opportunity to connect you to different parts of your potential audience.
\nGive Sneak Previews of Upcoming Products and Services
\n
Offering sneak previews of your new products or services online to your potential customers is one of the best ways to build demand even before a launch. The customers can provide vital feedback that can be extremely helpful in ensuring a smooth and better launch. You can post photos of your new products or services on your social media sites and ask for comments from customers.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Social Media"]},{"id":223,"title":"Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/talent-is-overrated-by-geoff-colvin/","slug":"talent-is-overrated-by-geoff-colvin","published_at":"2012-07-12T04:23:57+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:02:37+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone that is interested in ever improving themselves in anything and anyone that might ever want to be a parent. When? Now. Why? This book left the strongest impression on me of almost any book I have read in the last few years. Best Quote Research confirms that merely putting in the years isn’t […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone that is interested in ever improving themselves in anything and anyone that might ever want to be a parent.
\nWhen?
\nNow.
\nWhy?
\nThis book left the strongest impression on me of almost any book I have read in the last few years.
\nBest Quote
\n\nResearch confirms that merely putting in the years isn’t much help to someone who wants to be a great performer.
Review
\nGeoff Colvin’s Talent is Overrated is the perfect companion for Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers. They discuss very similar topics, while Colvin’s book goes much more deeply into the hard work aspect of becoming great. Colvin’s thesis is that the truly great get there not just by putting in the time, but by putting in the time deliberately. Great violinists don’t practice just the things that are fun. They practice the things that need practiced most whether they are fun or not, and they do this over and over until they become masters. The same goes for athletes, business people, and more.
\nI was so impressed by Talent is Overrated partially because it is extremely well researched and written, but even more so because it made me wonder how great I could be at something if I was more deliberate or maybe even how great my children could be if I helped them to be more deliberate. Think about it. If success is a determiner of happiness and success could be achieved with dedicated and deliberate practice, wouldn’t you go out of your way to do that for yourself and your family?
\nLast Word
\nI wholeheartedly recommend Talent is Overrated to anyone that thinks they might be even remotely interested. Even for non-business people, I really believe that you will find this fascinating simply when looking at it through the lens of your personal life and your family’s.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":402,"title":"The truth about companies where everyone is a marketer","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/truth-about-companies-where-everyone-is-a-marketer/","slug":"truth-about-companies-where-everyone-is-a-marketer","published_at":"2012-07-11T16:47:39+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:02:42+00:00","excerpt_html":"Companies like SEOmoz and HubSpot make marketing look easy. Not only do a number of their employees blog and participate in relevant conversations on other blogs, Quora, and a number of other sites, but they also have very responsive social media outlets on Facebook and Twitter. Seeing that and then reading things like this from […]
\n","content_html":"Companies like SEOmoz and HubSpot make marketing look easy. Not only do a number of their employees blog and participate in relevant conversations on other blogs, Quora, and a number of other sites, but they also have very responsive social media outlets on Facebook and Twitter. Seeing that and then reading things like this from my friend Marcus make some of us think, “We need to do that. I could do that. Let’s do it.”
\nAfter all, if you can make everyone in your company a marketer, that will not only reduce marketing’s workload, but also give you so much more content and perspectives to work with, right? Right? Wrong.
\nGood marketing requires planning and coordination.
\nThe thing that you don’t think about when you read social media books and blogs about new marketing is that the central leadership role of the CMO, CCO, VPM, or even just community manager is more important than ever. Without standards and guidelines and then a quality filter (ie. your head of marketing), blog posts go out that have bad formatting, terrible writing, and are off message; emails get sent that don’t align with your strategy; and updates get posted to Twitter and Facebook that ultimately make you look bad.
\nI won’t link to any examples because there’s no need to shame anyone, but have you ever seen something from a company in social media, email, on a blog, etc and thought, “That’s a little weird coming from them”? There’s a good chance that company tried to make someone a marketer, when they really weren’t, and didn’t put the proper planning and coordination in place to ensure that their content aligned with the business’ goals.
\n![\"Your](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Your-CEO-is-your-problem.jpg\" "\\"Your")
Sadly, the marketing problem is often the CEO.
\nI’ve seen too many organizations where the CEO charged in with passion, which is great, and promptly messed everything up, which is not great.
\nMaking everyone a marketer doesn’t mean there should no longer be internal controls, guidelines, filters, or a gatekeeper. Just because your CEO calls the shots doesn’t mean that your lowly community manager doesn’t know better how your blog subscribers will react to his writing, so when you do try to make everyone a marketer, your CEO might have to slow down and be forced to take a No or simply just guidance from the real marketers.
\nGet yourself a schedule, a gatekeeper, some training, and the power to tell people No.
\nIt’s so easy to avoid this problem too. As long as your CEO recognizes the need for quality and consistency, she should be willing to stick to a plan. Once you have the CEO on board, you can make everyone a marketer and still ensure that you don’t have those embarrassing things happen.
\nIf not though, all bets are off.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":187,"title":"Permission Marketing: Turning Strangers Into Friends and Friends Into Customers by Seth Godin","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/permission-marketing-turning-strangers-into-friends-and-friends-into-customers-by-seth-godin/","slug":"permission-marketing-turning-strangers-into-friends-and-friends-into-customers-by-seth-godin","published_at":"2012-07-10T03:07:33+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:02:48+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Every marketer, product person, and manager. When? Now. Why? This is one of the best marketing books I have ever read. Best Quote Marketing by interrupting people isn’t cost-effective anymore. You can’t afford to seek out people and send them unwanted marketing messages, in large groups, and hope that some will send you money. […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nEvery marketer, product person, and manager.
\nWhen?
\nNow.
\nWhy?
\nThis is one of the best marketing books I have ever read.
\nBest Quote
\n\nMarketing by interrupting people isn’t cost-effective anymore. You can’t afford to seek out people and send them unwanted marketing messages, in large groups, and hope that some will send you money.
\nInstead, the future belongs to marketers who establish a foundation and process where interested people can market to each other. Ignite consumber networks and then tet out the way and let them talk.
Review
\nI first read Permission Marketing 2 years ago and was blown away. Recently, I revisited it in audiobook form and was still very impressed. Even though it was written in 1999, it is still one of the best books for marketers looking to build their foundation in permission marketing.
\nSince this book was published, forward thinking marketing has grown into inbound marketing, content marketing, and more – the value of all of which will be debated for years. Regardless though, Seth Godin helped to push marketing leaps and bounds ahead of where it had been as soon as Permission Marketing came out.
\nLast Word
\nA permission mindset is not the only thing I look for when hiring a marketer, but it is a huge qualifier. Paid media, PR, branding, and other aspects of marketing all have their place at the table, but if a young marketer does not have at least a basic grasp of permission, it tells me that either their education was poor or they’re more interested in short term, zero-sum games than long terms benefits.
\nIf you haven’t read Permission Marketing, buy it today.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":363,"title":"How much money can you make blogging?","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/how-much-money-can-you-make-blogging/","slug":"how-much-money-can-you-make-blogging","published_at":"2012-07-08T04:32:51+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:02:53+00:00","excerpt_html":"A lot and none. I’ve been blogging since early 2007 and have made money and gotten recognition from it, but not in the way that most aspirants think of it. The fact of the matter is that making money directly from blogging is nearly impossible. I’ve run AdSense, participated in affiliate campaigns, been paid for […]
\n","content_html":"A lot and none.
\nI’ve been blogging since early 2007 and have made money and gotten recognition from it, but not in the way that most aspirants think of it. The fact of the matter is that making money directly from blogging is nearly impossible. I’ve run AdSense, participated in affiliate campaigns, been paid for my writing, and more, and the money I can attribute to directly to my blogging is easily less than $200 per year on average.
\nAt the same time, my income has quadrupled, I’ve spoken at conferences and events like the DMA and Social Slam, and I’ve secured a position as a knowledgable and dependable marketer and analyst. Those results easily outweigh the direct financial benefits of blogging, but I would never have realized them if all I had been focused on was making money from blogging.
\n![\"How](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/How-can-you-make-money-blogging.jpg\" "\\"How")
How can you make money blogging?
\nAs trite as it sounds, don’t focus on the money. The thing is that you can afford to not focus on the money is you don’t delude yourself into thinking that your blog is your business. It’s not. It is a vehicle for you and your business.
\nDo great work. Create a great product. Make your customers so happy that they blog about you.
\nThen and only then, when your business is so good that you can afford to spend time on blogging, write about what you know best. If you’re a web startup CEO, don’t blog about marketing and social media unless that’s where you really add value. Stick to leadership, company building, or leadership. If you’re a market analyst, stick to that. How do you add value by blogging about tools, or engagement, or management?
\n![\"I](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/I-dont-know.jpg\" "\\"I")
Yeah, I don’t know either.
\nStick to what you know, and don’t focus on the money.
\nThe best bloggers create crap content now and then, and they’re writing about their areas of expertise, so how can you or I compete if we don’t stick to what we know best?
\nSimple answer – we can’t, and it gets even worse if trying to market yourself or your company or, worse, make money from blogging comes at the expense of actually doing great work.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Social Media"]},{"id":107,"title":"Must use social media tools to grow your online business","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/must-use-social-media-tools-to-grow-your-online-business/","slug":"must-use-social-media-tools-to-grow-your-online-business","published_at":"2012-07-01T07:20:54+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T17:21:18+00:00","excerpt_html":"By this time, the question of whether or not you should be using social media to grow your online business has been answered definitively, and it was a yes. The question that remains in most people’s mind though is How. How do you actually use social media to grow your online business? Customer Communication Platform […]
\n","content_html":"By this time, the question of whether or not you should be using social media to grow your online business has been answered definitively, and it was a yes. The question that remains in most people’s mind though is How. How do you actually use social media to grow your online business?
\nCustomer Communication Platform
\n\nSome people don’t like the phone. Others don’t like email. Others don’t like face-to-face communication, and on, and on, and on. Social media introduces a whole new set of channels through which you have the opportunity to communicate with your customers, and while some people do not like using social media, 950 million people using Facebook, hundreds of millions using Twitter, and millions more using other channels confirm that there is a large potential audience there for you.
\nThe thing to look for when using social media to grow your online business is not how easy can you make it or how many possible places can you spread your message to, but rather what does each audience in each different channel want to communicate about. Tailor your content and your communication style to each audience and each channel in order to make your message as relevant and meaningful as possible.
\nMonitor the Competition
\nSocial media is one of the best platforms to help in monitoring competitors without going out into the field to carry out a market research analysis of them. Your competitors will tell their customers what they are doing and, in turn, those customers will possibly say something about your competitors over social media. Such information is important as it will help you know what you competitors are up to and how other people are reacting to any new developments they have. From there, you can then adjust your business accordingly to keep abreast with the competition.
\nUse tools like Topsy, Social Mention, Twitter searches, IFTTT, and others to monitor what your competition is saying, what people are saying about them, and what people are saying about you.
\nIncrease Search Engine Ranking
\nPrior to social media being widely accepted, search engines primarily used factors like inbound links and textual analysis in order to determine which pages should rank highest in search results. The problem with this is that very few people manage websites, so if you’re counting how many links a website has pointing at it as a sign of how popular it is, you’re missing all of the votes of people that don’t run websites.
\nNow that so many people use social media, social signals like tweets and Facebook likes act as votes of popularity and value. The more social signals search can see your website has, the better it will rank in search results.
\nBuild Credibility
\nThe key to building credibility in social media is to first build a trusting relationship with your customers. Once rapport is established, then your customers can feel comfortable including you in the constant information and feedback stream that is a Facebook, Twitter, or other social media feed. There are several ways that will help you be able to build your reputation and credibility for your customers to totally trust in you. These include:
\nBlog post and webpage headlines can make or break a visitor’s time on your website. A bad blog post headline is like an uninteresting email subject line, a boring book title, or a poorly written newspaper or magazine article headline. When those are boring, you don’t want to open the email, read the book, or […]
\n","content_html":"Blog post and webpage headlines can make or break a visitor’s time on your website. A bad blog post headline is like an uninteresting email subject line, a boring book title, or a poorly written newspaper or magazine article headline. When those are boring, you don’t want to open the email, read the book, or look at the article, do you?
\nThe same goes for your blog post and webpage headlines, but we have to add to this the fact that writing on the web isn’t just how humans. You also have to write with an eye for what people search for so that search engines know to match up your webpages with a searchers search results. You make this possible by using the language your customers use rather than industry jargon. If your customers say CD, you write CD and not album. If your customers say tennis shoes, you write tennis shoes and not sneakers.
\nWhy? Because when I search for tennis shoes in Seattle, Google will show me the results that talk about tennis shoes and not sneakers.
\nHow to Properly Write Headlines for SEO
\nHow you write the headlines for your site has a significant influence on the amount of traffic that you’ll get. They have to be written in a way to attract traffic to your site now and must be versatile enough to attract traffic to your site in the future as well. Here are a few steps you can employ to be successful:
\nKeys to Writing Solid Headlines
\nThe headline (also known as the title tag) tells the search engines and readers what your website is about, so it must contain some elements that are related to your business and subject matter. The title tag will help readers decide whether to visit your website or not when it shows up in their search results. For a title tag to be effective, you should consider the following when writing it:
\nResearch from SEOmoz and several other companies has shown a strong correlation between optimized headlines and increased traffic from search engines, social media, email, and other channels. The reasons for this are that optimized headlines are easier for search engines to relate to a searcher’s intent, and they are more attractive for people in any channel to click on.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Foresight-Icon-Black.png","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Search Engine Optimization"]},{"id":306,"title":"The 2 BEST WAYS to learn something new","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-2-best-ways-to-learn-something-new/","slug":"the-2-best-ways-to-learn-something-new","published_at":"2012-06-20T04:44:10+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:03:05+00:00","excerpt_html":"Last year at TED, Eli Pariser gave a talk on how Google, Facebook, and other internet-based services are increasingly filtering the web to only show up things that we generally agree with and are interested in. In a world increasingly concerned with happiness and relevancy and speed, how do you learn something new if […]
\n","content_html":"Last year at TED, Eli Pariser gave a talk on how Google, Facebook, and other internet-based services are increasingly filtering the web to only show up things that we generally agree with and are interested in.
\nIn a world increasingly concerned with happiness and relevancy and speed, how do you learn something new if information is constantly being filtered for you?
\nYou look like the sum of your actions.
\nI’m a married, middle class, liberal, educated, white guy, marketer that runs, rides bikes, and plays guitar now and then, so what types of things do you think I Google? Here are a few examples from the last few months:
\nAnd, what kind of people do you think I friend on Facebook and what type of statuses do I tend to like, share, or comment on more than others?
\nSo, you can see that, even if I wanted information outside of my comfort zone, Google and Facebook would be unlikely to give it to me because they want to keep me happy with their services and therefore try to keep them as relevant as possible by showing me what they think makes me happy. Let’s say that my colleague implores me to learn more about the Republican presidential candidates because he believes I should be more open minded, so I google them. More than likely, Daily Kos will outrank Fox News in my search results even if Fox News has the overall better page for my search. Why? Because, Google thinks I’d be happier with their service if I get a search result that suits my interests.
\nSo, maybe I avoid Google and post a Facebook status, “Can someone please tell me about some good ideas the Republican presidential candidates have?” Which of my friends are more likely to see my status and even be able to respond? The ones that have the most in common with me, which Facebook judges based on whom I interact with most frequently, and if my conservative friends aren’t as likely to see my question, I’m not likely to get the best possible answer, but I’ll never know that because I don’t know what I don’t know. I can’t see the missing information. I only know that, when I get an answer, I get an answer – not whether or not it is THE BEST answer.
\n![\"Your](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Your-thoughts-and-actions.jpg\" "\\"Your")
Let your thoughts be your actions.
\nMost of us spend 8+ hours every day in front of a computer screen. If we sleep an average of 8 hours every night, that leaves at most 8 hours for commuting, eating, exercising, spending time with family, and everything else, so if we’re really lucky, we might get one or two hours every day where our information sources are not being actively filtered – one or two hours every day when we can see billboards, commercials, magazine articles, friends, and more that bring us new or conflicting ideas. But, do we go out of our way to find competing opinions and ideas, to introduce ourselves to something outside of our comfort zone? No.
\nYet, we ask ourselves questions about other’s politics, their religious beliefs, their sexuality, their cultures, and more. We’re just too busy and not really interested enough in spending the time to learn about them, and this leads our information gateways – Google and Facebook – to increasingly believe that we are what we do and not what we think, but we can change that.
\nTry this exercise for one day – just one day.
\nWhenever you think about anything around which you have an opinion, write in a notebook, make an evernote, send yourself a text, or somehow otherwise make note of it. Later in the day, do both of these things. Go to a search engine you never use – Bing, DuckDuckGo, Blekko, etc – and learn about an opposing opinion AND ask the most informed person you know for a 2 minute CliffsNotes version of the other side of the story.
\nThat day won’t be too extremely shocking. It’s the next day or week that really starts to open your eyes.
\nThe next day, skip reading your normal news or listening to your normal radio station and go back to those websites and friends that gave you answers and now read about and ask about more and different topics. Even if you don’t agree with the viewpoints you’re given, you’ll find yourself more informed and less filtered by what a machine thinks you want.
\nI tried this while living overseas in 2004 – though I’ll admit that personalization at that point was very minimal – and I’ve never gone back. Sure, I use Google while logged in without being too concerned, and I have largely friends like me on Facebook, but I no longer rely on the filters to bring me the best information. I now have a habit of going to websites I don’t agree with to get their point of view and asking friends I might have otherwise just dismissed or argued with to help me understand the full picture better.
\n![\"Practice](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Practice-matters.jpg\" "\\"Practice")
Be deliberate and diligent.
\nIn Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin and Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, both authors discuss that deliberate practice – and lots of it – is often one of the largest contributing factors to world class achievement. Much the same, the development of your mind and life – such that you are not a filtered, sheltered, and biased human being – depends on you taking the approach above and applying it every day.
\nDon’t like bleeding heart liberals? Fine, but how will you ever know why if you don’t stay informed (outside of your bubble) about them. Hate the Defense of Marriage movement? Fine, but have you gone outside your liberal village to find out what really drives those people? If you don’t ever do that, how can you make an informed decision about why and whether or not to hate?
\nThis goes beyond politics.
\nPolitics is obviously an easy example, but progressing in music, sports, your career, and other things hinges on two things:
\nNothing more and nothing less will ensure that you learn something new better, faster, and more effectively than anyone else around.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":240,"title":"Drive by Daniel Pink","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/drive-by-daniel-pink/","slug":"drive-by-daniel-pink","published_at":"2012-06-12T23:27:20+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:03:24+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? People managers and anyone interested in interpersonal communication. When? Put it in your queue. Why? Drive is a fascinating book. Best Quote The monkeys solved the puzzle simply because they found it gratifying to solve puzzles. They enjoyed it. The joy of the task was its own reward. Review I loved this book in […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nPeople managers and anyone interested in interpersonal communication.
\nWhen?
\nPut it in your queue.
\nWhy?
\nDrive is a fascinating book.
\nBest Quote
\n\nThe monkeys solved the puzzle simply because they found it gratifying to solve puzzles. They enjoyed it. The joy of the task was its own reward.
Review
\nI loved this book in part because it gave me such an interesting look into what motivates me, my colleagues, my family members, and even my clients and customers. Having worked in marketing in several different verticals, I found some of Daniel Pink’s analysis and stories matched perfectly with what I have experienced. For example, let’s say that my employee is doing something they enjoy, and I want to reward them for it, so I give them a little bonus. They’re super happy and start working even harder, and I see that, so I resolve to give them a bonus every time they do that one thing.
\nAfter a while, they come to expect the bonus and therefore think of they activity in terms the money it results in and not the pleasure that it previously produced. So, what happens? At some point, they get decreasing marginal returns and decide that it’s not worth doing that activity instead of other things unless they get paid more. In this case, paying someone for doing something they enjoyed actually results in worse performance because, as soon as you introduce money into the equation, they start to think of things only in terms of money.
\nOf course, this is a greatly oversimplified example of one aspect of Daniel Pink’s Drive, but it really stuck out to me, and as I do work in a business that frequently deals with rewards, I found it highly relevant.
\nLast Word
\nDrive is a great book about what really motivates and demotivates people. Buy it.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":184,"title":"The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-48-laws-of-power-by-robert-greene/","slug":"the-48-laws-of-power-by-robert-greene","published_at":"2012-06-09T04:25:41+00:00","modified_at":"2012-06-09T04:25:41+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? You should read this book if you’re interested in people, power, and politics. When? I would be interested to find out what a high schooler thinks of this book, but in reality, it’s probably best for someone early in their career. Why? Read this book if you want lots of historical examples of failed […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nYou should read this book if you’re interested in people, power, and politics.
\nWhen?
\nI would be interested to find out what a high schooler thinks of this book, but in reality, it’s probably best for someone early in their career.
\nWhy?
\nRead this book if you want lots of historical examples of failed and successful power games.
\nBest Quote
\n\nPlaying with appearances and mastering the arts of deception are among the aesthetic pleasures of life. They are also key components in the acquisition of power.
Review
\nThe 48 Laws of Power sits best with readers that view life and relationships as more about power than about goodwill, karma, or doing what is right. That being said, the examples that Robert Greene gives are really interesting and educational for anyone looking to improve their standing in personal or professional relationships. You can easily take the stories from ancient China, or Italy, or other places and apply them to your every day life.
\nI caution readers of this book though that a lot of it comes across as heartless and honestly not a good fit for how I see the world. Nonetheless, there is a lot to learn…especially when you recognize that Robert Greene even states in the book that a leader is doing the best for himself and others when he uses all of his skills to his advantage because he can improve not only his own standing, but theirs as well.
\nLast Word
\nRead The 48 Laws of Power if you are interested in power games and how to improve your standing with power, attention, deception, and any other talents, but if you can’t handle a heartless read or an amoral examination of relationships, skip the book. It will be too hard to get through.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":353,"title":"Learn to blog like a professional","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/learn-to-blog-like-a-professional/","slug":"learn-to-blog-like-a-professional","published_at":"2012-06-07T15:33:52+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:03:30+00:00","excerpt_html":"There was a point early in my career, where I built a Twitter presence that (at the time) was on the Top 100 Most Followed list and a blog that was one of the more respected social media and marketing outlets in Washington state. For the bean counters, that was somewhere around 7,500 Twitter followers […]
\n","content_html":"There was a point early in my career, where I built a Twitter presence that (at the time) was on the Top 100 Most Followed list and a blog that was one of the more respected social media and marketing outlets in Washington state. For the bean counters, that was somewhere around 7,500 Twitter followers and over 2,000 daily unique visitors all without advertising and no guest blogging.
\nI learned a lot from that experience, but maybe more importantly, what I got from it was a lot of connections and two jobs at agencies that increased my income, visibility, responsibility, and opportunities to learn. Once I was on the path to success though, I did not see the need to continue investing in my blog because I was busy enough that I had to make a choice – keep investing in the blog in the hope that I get more and bigger opportunities while potentially squandering the new opportunities I had just gotten or let the blog languish and focus on making the most of the new opportunities. I chose the latter. That was 2008.
\n![\"Blogging](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Blogging-is-not-a-magic-pill.jpg\" "\\"Blogging")
Since then, blogging has acquired this image of being a magic pill.
\nThere are bloggers like Rand, or Fred, or Mark, or Seth that write prolifically and seem to soar above the rest of us as a result, and what do you do when you want success for yourself? You model success. The problem that so many people run into is that it’s not the blogging that makes these guys successful. They all have their own businesses, and those take up the majority of their time. They just also happen to blog, and let us not forget perhaps the most important thing here.
\nThey happen to run great businesses, and running a great business is what makes them popular and successful. Their blogs are simply vehicles for sharing their businesses and their greatness. A blog is almost never a business itself.
\n![\"It's](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Its-all-about-me.jpg\" "\\"It's")
“I’m going to start blogging to market myself.”
\nAnd, that is the thing that really baffles me. Blogging can be great, but it’s a business tool. It’s almost never a business in and of itself, so why start investing your time in blogging before you know that either you are producing great work or your business is really worth promoting?
\nMy recommendation is this. Build a great business. Do great work. Produce something that is so valuable that other people blog about you or it first. Then maybe, start your own blog to market yourself or your business.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Social Media"]},{"id":93,"title":"7 Simple Ways to Use Pinterest for Business","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/7-simple-ways-to-use-pinterest-for-business/","slug":"7-simple-ways-to-use-pinterest-for-business","published_at":"2012-05-31T04:50:44+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:03:35+00:00","excerpt_html":"Although many businesses struggle to use social media to their benefit, the ones that effectively harness it make huge gains in at least awareness and retention, if not also revenue. With Pinterest being the latest large social media tool, there is again an opportunity for you to gain ground in social media before your competitors […]
\n","content_html":"Although many businesses struggle to use social media to their benefit, the ones that effectively harness it make huge gains in at least awareness and retention, if not also revenue. With Pinterest being the latest large social media tool, there is again an opportunity for you to gain ground in social media before your competitors learn how to use it.
\nTo best ways to use Pinterest for your business are:
\nThe best thing about Pinterest is that it is new and exciting, gaining the attention of many Internet users by taking advantage of the concept that people like to look at images rather then read large blocks of text. Once you create an account and start pinning, you’ll find adding and maintaining your Pinterest boards to be quite addictive and lots of fun. Imagine taking such an enjoyable activity and being able to increase your sales with it; it’s a win-win situation for everyone.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Social Media"]},{"id":300,"title":"THE 2 ways to get over fears","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-2-ways-to-get-over-fears/","slug":"the-2-ways-to-get-over-fears","published_at":"2012-05-19T04:32:34+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:03:41+00:00","excerpt_html":"In September, Seth Godin wrote about Talker’s Block and how no one gets it – unlike Writer’s Block – because we’re so accustomed to speaking and having our words mean little. They rarely get recorded and come back to bite us so we don’t have to get over fears of talking and therefore never get […]
\n","content_html":"In September, Seth Godin wrote about Talker’s Block and how no one gets it – unlike Writer’s Block – because we’re so accustomed to speaking and having our words mean little. They rarely get recorded and come back to bite us so we don’t have to get over fears of talking and therefore never get Talker’s Block.
\nAs a little FYI, I’m not one of those do-something-every-day-that-scares-the-shit-out-of-you guys. Those people annoy the crap out of me, but some of them don’t simply do things that scare themselves just to satisfy the edict. They actually think about the outcomes of their efforts, and for that, I won’t go so far as to say that movement is stupid.
\nYou are a fearful thing
\nWhether it’s spiders, or snakes, or tigers, or something else, you are afraid of it. Yet, when was the last time you were in a situation where one of those could have actually harmed you? Similarly, if you are one of the great majority, you fear speaking in front of people more than death.
\nBoth of these two types of fears are born into every human being. Our ancestors didn’t have guns or armor or vehicles or houses. They huddle under lean-tos for shelter and ran at the first sight or sound of danger. What else could they do? They were weak compared to the true predators surrounding them. At the same time, many cultures promoted homogenization of thought and character, so stepping out of line by saying or doing something different caused you to be shunned and socially punished, which could result in less food, attention, mating opportunities, wealth, and more.
\nAnd, these fears stay with us. Society and our own nature promote them.
\nHow do you get over fears?
\n![\"There](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/There-is-nothing-to-fear.jpg\" "\\"There")
Number one – There is nothing to fear.
\nI spend a lot of time teaching others – speaking, training, presenting, developing my team, coaching teens, and more – and I’ve been very fortunate to not only only be skilled at a few things, but to also have had a life thus far that provides me with opportunities to try lots of things. I hope that’s not bragging. I’ve been very fortunate. I:
\nI say all that to put into perspective that I have fears, but I get over them, and when things go wrong, I survive, and you will too. What’s to fear about approaching a celebrity or hot chick (which I don’t do because I’m married) or speaking in front of a crowd when I nearly plunged to my death from 750 feet? Why not support someone that dreams to move overseas when I’ve done it with no plan and no experience and know what it’s like? How about helping people get over fears of speaking in front of others? The people in the audience are more afraid than they are.
\nYour fears of almost everything are born into you. You fear speaking up for yourself in a meeting because your conditioning tells you not to. You fear approaching the A-lister because you’re worried about being judged. You shrink from the spider in your apartment, but can’t explain why. But, the consequences of those things are nothing nowadays. What happens if you speak up for yourself? Your case is heard. What happens if the A-lister rejects you? Nothing. They’re not in your circle and they don’t influence your friends. What’s that spider going to do? Bite you? You can squish it.
\n![\"Act](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Act-on-your-fears.jpg\" "\\"Act")
Number two – Act on your fears.
\nIf you’ve ever worked with kids, you know what it’s like to say, “There’s nothing to be afraid of.” Yet, you still fear. Heck, I still fear, but one big difference between the winners and the losers is that winners don’t let fear hold them back. Losers do. You don’t have to “do something that scares the shit out of you every day,” but you have to train yourself to recognize the reality of your fear.
\nIrrational or inconsequential fear should be acted upon immediately. The longer you let yourself not talk to that person because you’re afraid, the harder it becomes, but the sooner you say something to them, the sooner you know whether or not it was a good idea. And, if you’re successful, you gain more confidence for the next time. If you’re not successful, you have more information to improve the next time.
\nWhat do you get if you don’t act? NOTHING.
\nAbove, I listed a number of the bad things that have happened to me, but seriously, am I still here? Am a smart and confident person? Yes, and you are too when you act on your fears.
\n![\"Fear](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fear-is-an-opportunity.jpg\" "\\"Fear")
What do you have to lose if you try to get over your fears?
\nNeither of us are stupid. We’re not going to put ourselves in harm’s way without being reasonably certain that the likelihood of something going terribly wrong is miniscule.
\nKnowing that, what’s stopping you?
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":220,"title":"The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-black-swan-by-nassim-nicholas-taleb/","slug":"the-black-swan-by-nassim-nicholas-taleb","published_at":"2012-05-12T03:51:29+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:03:46+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? People that like economics, sociology, psychology, politics, or being brainy. When? Whenever you get to it. There’s no rush. Why? The Black Swan is at the very least interesting for purely intellectual reasons. Best Quote When you develop your opinions on the basis of weak evidence, you will have difficulty interpreting subsequent information that […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nPeople that like economics, sociology, psychology, politics, or being brainy.
\nWhen?
\nWhenever you get to it. There’s no rush.
\nWhy?
\nThe Black Swan is at the very least interesting for purely intellectual reasons.
\nBest Quote
\n\nWhen you develop your opinions on the basis of weak evidence, you will have difficulty interpreting subsequent information that contradicts these opinions, even if this new information is obviously more accurate.
Review
\nI tried to read this book once, but gave up not because it wasn’t interesting. It was. But rather, because I could not see how I would apply it to my work, and honestly, my time comes at enough of a premium that I don’t choose to make time for things that I’m not going to make use of in my career. A month or two after giving it up, Kim Alfreds strongly recommended that I go back to it, which I did. I’m glad that I finished reading it because it was a good book, and I can definitely apply what I learned to things in my personal life, but strictly within my career, I’m at a loss for how I’m really going to use this information.
\nThe Black Swan is all about the idea that some things, and increasingly more things, are simply unpredictable. The name itself stems from the fact that Europeans believed that a defining characteristic of a swan was that it is white until they saw a black swan in Australia. They had no way to predict that swans could be black because it simply wasn’t in their model that that could be a possibility. Similarly, Taleb argues that many things in life are unpredictable because we do not possess the faculties to take every potential event into account.
\nLast Word
\nI found Taleb’s argument fascinating, if at times a little over my head honestly, but in the time since I have read this book (now twice), I still have not encountered any situation in which I have used the information outside of a normal intellectual debate. As such, you should read The Black Swan is a worthwhile read if it sounds interesting to you and you don’t already have something that will more directly impact you to read.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":150,"title":"Dogbert’s Top Secret Management Handbook by Scott Adams","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/dogberts-top-secret-management-handbook-by-scott-adams/","slug":"dogberts-top-secret-management-handbook-by-scott-adams","published_at":"2012-05-08T05:08:57+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-16T12:47:56+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone that has ever worked for a business with more than 5 people. When? Anytime. Why? Because it’s hilarious and so cynical that anyone can relate to at least one part of the book, if not multiple parts. Best Quote If you are not a manager, put this book down right now. Review You […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone that has ever worked for a business with more than 5 people.
\nWhen?
\nAnytime.
\nWhy?
\nBecause it’s hilarious and so cynical that anyone can relate to at least one part of the book, if not multiple parts.
\nBest Quote
\n\nIf you are not a manager, put this book down right now.
Review
\nYou will enjoy this book if you are a manager or work in a business that is in any way the least bit corporate. Yes, it’s cynical, and yes, not every aspect of the book will match your environment, but having worked for a 200 person company that I really enjoyed, I still found the book hilarious.
\nIf you are a manager, you will especially enjoy Dogbert’s Top Secret Management Handbook because you can guarantee that one or more of your bosses has some of the negative management characteristics Dogbert describes, and despite your best intentions, you do too. This is as one Goodreads reviewer said, “A compendium of helpful management tips outlining strategies for doing little work, taking all the credit and inflicting mental anguish on employees.”
\nLast Word
\nDogbert’s Top Secret Management Handbook is short and goes by fairly quickly especially if you get the audiobook, which I recommend. Take a break from your normal business books, and let your brain relax a little bit with some business-related humor and cynicism.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":337,"title":"Book Review: Blink by Malcolm Gladwell","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/book-review-blink-by-malcolm-gladwell/","slug":"book-review-blink-by-malcolm-gladwell","published_at":"2012-05-06T23:42:41+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-16T12:48:02+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone interested in how we make decisions. When? Put it in your queue. Why? It’s a fascinating book, and at something like 3,400 words, it is also a quick read. Best Quote We have, as human beings, a storytelling problem. We’re a bit too quick to come up with explanations for things we don’t […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone interested in how we make decisions.
\nWhen?
\nPut it in your queue.
\nWhy?
\nIt’s a fascinating book, and at something like 3,400 words, it is also a quick read.
\nBest Quote
\n\nWe have, as human beings, a storytelling problem. We’re a bit too quick to come up with explanations for things we don’t really have an explanation for.
Review
\nIn Blink, Malcolm Gladwell examines how we make decisions – with the major focus being on split second decisions. He uses military engagement, police shootings, soda taste tests, art forgeries, and many other examples to show how humans do a better job with split second decisions than they do with more data and more time to think in many cases, but he also demonstrates how we frequently use split second decision making skills at times when they are wholly ineffective. Examples of this are times when we are agitated and therefore do not have as much energy or attention to devote to a decision as well as times when we’re primed for a specific response.
\nBlink is a great taste test for anyone looking to learn a little about decision making, but it won’t give you so much that you feel you have to abandon the book if it’s note your cup of tea.
\nLast Word
\nI found Blink very intriguing and wish that Malcolm Gladwell had gone into further detail about nearly every point he touches on. Yes, I know that he’s really just referencing others’ works, and that’s fine by me. I’m not however the type of person that is going to sit down and read the latest from the annals of psychiatry or anything like that. It won’t happen, so having something like Malcolm Gladwell pull together all of these disparate and seemingly related stories is something I find valuable.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":84,"title":"How to successfully market your small business using Facebook","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/how-to-successfully-market-your-small-business-using-facebook/","slug":"how-to-successfully-market-your-small-business-using-facebook","published_at":"2012-05-01T02:22:24+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:03:52+00:00","excerpt_html":"You know you have to be on Facebook. There’s no question about that. The problem you and thousands, probably tens of thousands, of business owners face is, “I’m on Facebook. Now, what do I do?” Profiles are for individuals. Pages are for companies and other organizations. Since you have a small business, you’ll want to […]
\n","content_html":"You know you have to be on Facebook. There’s no question about that. The problem you and thousands, probably tens of thousands, of business owners face is, “I’m on Facebook. Now, what do I do?”
\nProfiles are for individuals. Pages are for companies and other organizations.
\nSince you have a small business, you’ll want to create a page by going to the main Facebook Pages page and clicking on Create Your Own in the upper right. The only cases in which I recommend only using a Facebook Profile are when you’re a public figure of some sort like a politician, celebrity, or sports star. In those cases, you can just allow people to subscribe to the updates you post publicly on your profile, and this way, you don’t have to bother splitting your attention and time between a profile and a page.
\nInteract with Your Fans through Asking Questions
\nFor you to attract and maintain friends and customers on Facebook, you have to give them an experience that they 1) value and 2) can’t get anywhere else. Sadly, most small businesses think they can just post pictures of the latest products or bits of information about what happened recently at the company, and people will love that. The truth is that posting about products often makes people feel like you’re just asking them to by and that the goings on in your office, store, or whatever else have to be really exciting. Otherwise, your posts are just noise.
\nLet’s say you run a showroom that sells bath furnishings. Your customers are people remodeling, or building, their own bathrooms and their contractors. When one of them comes into your showroom, pick up on what they really like. Then, after they leave, see if they like you on Facebook…hopefully, you asked them to before they left though. Post a picture of something you think they might like and mention the person with something like, “We thought that Lin Wormley might love this for his new bathroom. What do you think, Lin?”
\nWhen you mention one person by name, it’s common for others to take notice, so you might get some likes or even comments from other people. I worked on some things like this with a coffee shop once. Frequently, we would post a beautiful looking latte or even a new odd creation from a barista, and we would tag a customer, whose name we had just learned. The thing that we had to ask for from the staff was, “Give us a customer’s name, talk to them while you’re making their drink so that you learn about what interests them, and then tell them that we’ll give them a shout out on our page the next time we have something they’ll like.”
\nPost Interesting Content
\n\n
As a Facebook marketer, you need to attract friends, start a conversation, and keep it going. Conversation pieces need to be selected carefully and should be of public interest. Make sure that what you post or share in terms of videos, photos, audio, or ideas is interesting and will keep people talking about it. Be vigilant about the content you post on your Facebook page, keeping it fresh and up to date.
\nOne of the best ways to figure out what’s working for you is to set a schedule where you have a content type – video, audio, trivia, news, etc – combined with a message type – question, statement, customer call out, humor, etc. Put together a schedule where you cycle through every possible combination of these and then see which ones got the most response. For bonus points, you can also track this by time of day and day of week to really see what works for you and your audience. Once you find out, focus on the things that give you the best return.
\nFacebook Insights will give you a lot of information on what’s working, but my preference is to use something like PageLever or Edgerank Checker because these and other similar services do almost all of the measurement work for you.
\nHave Contests to Promote Fan Building
\nWe all love to win things, and we love the thrill of knowing that we just might be picked for a contest or competition. It makes us feel special. You need to create this feeling for your fans. If you’re a local furniture shop, hold a contest where everyone that likes your page and gives you their email address will be entered to win a certain piece of furniture or a $100 gift card. If you’re a plumber, give away an hour’s worth of work anytime that person wants it.
\nOne of the keys here is to not just get people to like your page and give you their email address (hello email marketing), but also to make sure that your page is worth liking whether you were to give away something or not. Having a page that posts engaging, interesting, and compelling content ensures that your new fans will not just unlike you as soon as the contest ends.
\nConclusion
\nWhile social media is great and Facebook can do a lot for you, don’t forget that you don’t ultimately control your Facebook page like you do your store or website or email list. If Facebook decides to make a change to how it works tomorrow, you can’t do anything about it. As a result, you should cultivate the best page you can, but remember to motivate your fans to sign up for email, give you a call, or connect to you through as many other channels as you have so that, if anything ever does happen to your Facebook page, you’ll have another channel to connect to your customers through.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Social Media"]},{"id":261,"title":"EntreLeadership by Dave Ramsey","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/entreleadership-by-dave-ramsey/","slug":"entreleadership-by-dave-ramsey","published_at":"2012-04-17T04:34:49+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-16T12:47:59+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone interested in leadership or growing a team or business. When? Put it in your queue. Why? This is a well-written book from a passionate and experienced entrepreneur/writer/speaker/trainer. Best Quote Zig Ziglar says, “People say motivation doesn’t last, well neither does bathing, that is why we recommend both daily.” Review I didn’t want to […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone interested in leadership or growing a team or business.
\nWhen?
\nPut it in your queue.
\nWhy?
\nThis is a well-written book from a passionate and experienced entrepreneur/writer/speaker/trainer.
\nBest Quote
\n\nZig Ziglar says, “People say motivation doesn’t last, well neither does bathing, that is why we recommend both daily.”
Review
\nI didn’t want to like this book. Dave Ramsey seems like a great guy, but for some reason, I want to find something to disagree with him about. Unfortunately, he has written a book that demonstrates passion, focus, dedication, and his own his ethics, and I find that difficult to question.
\nIn EntreLeadership, Dave Ramsey talks through his trials and tribulations as a real estate agent and leadership and management trainer and speaker over 20 years in business. Whether you agree with his conservative, Christian values or not, they shine through bright and clear and help you to see that Dave Ramsey advocates that leaders build employees that are not clock punchers or seat fillers, but rather entrepreneurs and leaders in their own right. He conveys this through discussing management techniques that he has developed and problems that he has handled in the past.
\nLast Word
\nI was impressed by EntreLeadership mostly Dave Ramsey seems to have put so much of himself into it that you come away feeling like he’s been right there guiding you the whole time. Reading EntreLeadership is like having Dave Ramsey there giving a private training, so while I wouldn’t say that you should run out right now to get this book, I do recommend that you put EntreLeadership on your reading list and get to it soon.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":215,"title":"Made to Stick by Chip & Dan Heath","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/made-to-stick-by-chip-dan-heath/","slug":"made-to-stick-by-chip-dan-heath","published_at":"2012-04-12T03:19:33+00:00","modified_at":"2012-04-12T03:19:33+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone that needs their ideas to affect others – teachers, managers, entrepreneurs, preachers, parents, activists, etc. When? Put it in your queue. If it takes you a long time to go through your reading list, move Made to Stick to the top. Why? Made to Stick is a great examination of why some ideas […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone that needs their ideas to affect others – teachers, managers, entrepreneurs, preachers, parents, activists, etc.
\nWhen?
\nPut it in your queue. If it takes you a long time to go through your reading list, move Made to Stick to the top.
\nWhy?
\nMade to Stick is a great examination of why some ideas stick and others do not. This is immensely valuable for anyone that works in an idea or attention business.
\nBest Quote
\n\nThe Curse of Knowledge: when we are given knowledge, it is impossible to imagine what it’s like to LACK that knowledge.
Review
\nThe best thing that you can learn from this book is that less is more. As a person that lives and dies by their ability to effectively share an idea, taking the lessons of Made to Stick to heart will take you leaps and bounds ahead of those around you. When you need to make a sale, leave your audience wanting more. Need to raise money? Make your pitch as simple as possible. Lecturing your teen? Shorten your lecture. People don’t want to hear you talk. They want to hear themselves talk.
\nThe worst thing you can do is ignore the curse of knowledge. Chip and Dan’s book gives example after example of why we have such a hard time believing that everyone will see it our way if we just give them enough information. Coming away from this book, you will hopefully be able to persuade your audience using an elevator pitch rather than a speech.
\nLast Word
\nKnowledge can be a curse when you’re in the idea business. You get blinded by what you know and take for granted that not everyone shares the same knowledge set or relates to it in the same way, and as a result, you do your best to give enough information to persuade your audience with facts and grand arguments and plenty of background. When in reality, shortening and narrowing your idea is often more effective.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":144,"title":"How to Talk to Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere: The Secrets of Good Communication by Larry King","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/how-to-talk-to-anyone-anytime-anywhere-the-secrets-of-good-communication-by-larry-king/","slug":"how-to-talk-to-anyone-anytime-anywhere-the-secrets-of-good-communication-by-larry-king","published_at":"2012-04-08T04:05:51+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:03:57+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone interested in increasing self-confidence, meeting more people, and improving their personal or professional relationships. When? As soon as you realize that face-to-face communication is important for your life. Why? How to Talk to Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere is so short, written by a very experienced and confident conversationalist, and to the point that it’s a […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone interested in increasing self-confidence, meeting more people, and improving their personal or professional relationships.
\nWhen?
\nAs soon as you realize that face-to-face communication is important for your life.
\nWhy?
\nHow to Talk to Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere is so short, written by a very experienced and confident conversationalist, and to the point that it’s a shame not to take the little bit of time you need to breeze through it.
\nBest Quote
\n\nYou cannot talk to people successfully if they think you are not interested in what they have to say or you have no respect for them.
Review
\nLike How to Win Friends and Influence People, How to Talk to Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere really seems like feel-good self-help book that will tell you just to be nice, and if you do it well, good things will come to. It’s not. Yes, there are lessons in Larry King’s book that deal with being nice, smiling, and acting like you’re interested in others, but there is much more to it than that.
\nLarry King is one of the best interviewers around. He knows how to get information out of the most belligerent, reserved, or weird people you can find. How to Talk to Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere teaches you how to:
\nLast Word
\nHow to Talk to Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere is a short, fast read from one of the most seasoned and experienced people in the field of, well, talking. The lessons Larry King imparts are simple, but if you apply them to your life, I guarantee that you will find yourself getting ahead faster than ever.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":336,"title":"Management Tips: The 4 worst words to hear","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/management-tips-the-4-worst-words-to-hear/","slug":"management-tips-the-4-worst-words-to-hear","published_at":"2012-04-06T22:37:20+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:04:03+00:00","excerpt_html":"“Whatever you say, boss.” Okay, they don’t have to be those exact words, but you know that, as a manager, you have problems as soon as you start to hear anything like that. Which of your conversations are crucial? I read a great book not long ago on the topic of crucial conversations. One of […]
\n","content_html":"“Whatever you say, boss.”
\nOkay, they don’t have to be those exact words, but you know that, as a manager, you have problems as soon as you start to hear anything like that.
\nWhich of your conversations are crucial?
\nI read a great book not long ago on the topic of crucial conversations. One of the big things that stuck with me was the idea of Fight or Flight.
\nWhen we have personal conflicts that we are not willing to discuss or deal with, the most frequent responses are Fight and Flight. In Fight, we try to justify, tell the other person why they’re wrong, and otherwise make a disagreement worse by being aggressive, uncooperative, or attacking. In Flight, we don’t deal with the problem. Instead, we ignore it or just give in.
\nIf you can’t think of a time when you’ve experienced Flight, just recall anytime that you didn’t agree with someone’s choice, and when things went badly, you said, “Hey, I didn’t make that decision.” If you just let the person make the decision without talking with them about your thoughts. You were in Flight mode. If you tried to talk to them, but ended up arguing instead of really communicating, you were in Fight mode.
\n![\"Building](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Building-a-cohesive-team.jpg\" "\\"Building")
Building a cohesive team
\nFor years, you’ve been told about the importance of building a strong team with a unique culture and people that share a vision. The thing that baffles me is the headstrong managers that think this means just getting everyone to go along with their vision. It’s like some of us tell ourselves, “If everyone says yes, I’ve done my job.”
\nIn most cases, no. No, you haven’t.
\nGetting people to agree with you has little to do with them saying yes and a lot to do with them feeling yes. Think about it. How many times have you disagreed with someone and eventually said, “Alright, whatever you want. Do it your way”? That is flight, and that kills teams.
\nYour people are not unthinking objects.
\nI read once that people with autism have a difficult time viewing others as more than objects in their environment – no different from a pen or a door. If the other person does not explicitly say what they are thinking or what they want, the man (or woman) with autism can’t interpret what is left unsaid, and stay with me here, this is where managers go wrong. The worst managers in this respect are high energy and high passion. They do a bad job reading their people because they are so busy and so fast moving that they don’t take the time to notice what their employees are really saying when they say, “Whatever you say, boss.”
\nSo, while high energy and passion work well on the individual level, they can often be team killers.
\nOften, consensus is not necessary, but when you say you value it and that it’s important to your team moving forward, don’t be stupid and just stop at yes. You have to know that your team actually believes in the direction you move them. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of yesses and little, to no, actual support. Going down that path leads you to a team of disheartened, unthinking, uncaring employees lead by a clueless leader with a false sense of Team.
\n![\"Answer](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Answer-to-your-problems.jpg\" "\\"Answer")
The answer
\nEvery time you communicate with your people from today onward get to a shared yes, and don’t force agreement. Teams don’t succeed as a result of one person, but they do fail as a result of one person – You, the boss. So, if you can’t get to a shared yes when it’s necessary, step back and begin a conversation. Don’t force your views. Don’t justify. Don’t argue, and don’t deal with any of that from your people.
\nRequire and expect genuine, thoughtful conversation, and accept that while you won’t always get it, you are also not always right – whether your people say, “Whatever you say, boss,” or not.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":75,"title":"How to effectively optimize your email newsletter for a higher conversion rate","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/how-to-effectively-optimize-your-email-newsletter-for-a-higher-conversion-rate/","slug":"how-to-effectively-optimize-your-email-newsletter-for-a-higher-conversion-rate","published_at":"2012-03-31T01:49:23+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-16T12:47:47+00:00","excerpt_html":"Regardless of the studies you read, somewhere north of 90% of all internet users check email. Roughly the same percentage use search engines, so you can’t afford to ignore either. The thing is that there is a major difference between email and search engine optimization. Search engine optimization is great for building awareness and acquiring […]
\n","content_html":"Regardless of the studies you read, somewhere north of 90% of all internet users check email. Roughly the same percentage use search engines, so you can’t afford to ignore either. The thing is that there is a major difference between email and search engine optimization.
\nSearch engine optimization is great for building awareness and acquiring new customers while email is best at retaining and upgrading existing customers.
\nYour marketing plans should include search, social, PPC, and other awareness building channels to get new sales and email sign ups, but once you have those sales and sign ups, optimizing your email campaigns can result in increased revenue per customer and in greater overall profitability. Just as an example, one email campaign that I helped to optimize just last year resulted in enough revenue to pay for an entire year’s worth of a full digital marketing program.
\nKnow Your Audience
\n![\"Know](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Know-your-audience.png\" "\\"Know")
By knowing more about your audience, you can send special offers only to those that haven’t bought in a while, use calls-to-action that appeal more to men or women or people in certain parts of the country, design different versions of your email to go to people that love sports or gaming or anything else. The more that you can increase the relevance of your email to the recipient, the greater chance you will have of them responding.
\nProvide Incentives
\n![\"Provide](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Provide-incentives.png\" "\\"Provide")
Create an incentive by offering a sign-up bonus, weekly or monthly bonuses, discounts or bonuses on every purchase your subscribers make, giving them access to very relevant information about your business and affiliates, among other freebies. Reward your customers with a coupon if they like your posts on your social media pages, or enter them into a jackpot when they refer their friends to your website.
\nWARNING – Do not overuse incentives though. You don’t want to become like American car dealers that can’t sell anything unless it’s severely discounted, and you don’t want to be one of those services that always sends a 10% off coupon after I abandon my cart. Use incentives only to move you toward your goal and only when they are highly relevant to the recipient.
\nPromote
\n![\"Promote\"](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Promote.png\" "\\"Promote\\"")
Conversely, you can put in your email newsletter that people that like your Facebook page sometimes get access to deals no one else sees. If I receive your emails, what do you think I’m going to do when you tell me that?
\nUse Creativity
\n![\"Use](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Use-creativity.png\" "\\"Use")
However much you write unique and interesting content though, no one will read it if the headline is boring and flat. You can test the creativity of your newsletter by reading it and honestly gauging if you would read through it all if you were a customer. Another way to test subject lines, headlines, and other parts of your marketing is to use PPC to see which headlines get clicked on more, split test your email sends to see which subject lines get opened more, or even email a few of your subscribers and say, “If we wrote about X or Y, which would be more interesting to you?”
\nImplement a Mobile Version
\n![\"Implement](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Implement-a-mobile-version.png\" "\\"Implement")
When I design emails, I generally try to keep them to 480 pixels in width. This ensures that they fit easily on iPhones and most Android devices, and it’s typically not so narrow that it looks odd in Outlook, Hotmal, Gmail, and other email providers.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Email Marketing"]},{"id":325,"title":"The lie of the social media conversation","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-lie-of-the-social-media-conversation/","slug":"the-lie-of-the-social-media-conversation","published_at":"2012-03-30T01:49:06+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:04:08+00:00","excerpt_html":"Over 10 years ago, The Cluetrain Manifesto gave us the phrase “markets are conversations,” and with the advent of social media, we stretched that to imply that both individuals and brands should be conversing, but despite well-worn examples of some brands conversing with their customers, I’m not convinced there really is a social media conversation for […]
\n","content_html":"Over 10 years ago, The Cluetrain Manifesto gave us the phrase “markets are conversations,” and with the advent of social media, we stretched that to imply that both individuals and brands should be conversing, but despite well-worn examples of some brands conversing with their customers, I’m not convinced there really is a social media conversation for brands.
\nBrands don’t want to converse with their clients. They want to sell more stuff. For every @ComcastCares, Zappos, or Microsoft help channel, how companies completely ignore online engagement opportunities? I, myself, have written about Comcast, Logitech, Men’s Wearhouse, and Sandals customer service only to have not one of them even acknowledge the posts, and in the case of Men’s Wearhouse, I was praising them, which would have been a softball for any of their customer service representatives monitoring blogs.
\n![\"Social](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/social-media-is-complicated.jpg\" "\\"Social")
Individuals engaging in social media feels normal. It’s a lot like talking to friends, or at least people you have something in common with. Brands engaging in social media feels odd, but we want it to be right. If brands can talk to you through social media, they should. Shouldn’t they?
\nValuing social media is really hard.
\nThe problem is that we expect brands to respond to tweets, Facebook Page complaints, blog posts, and more, but they don’t want to, and they have to justify spending time on paying attention to you in social media, which is hard to value properly, rather than a plethora of competing channels that are significantly easier to value:
\nI worked specifically on social media measurement for 2 years of my career and have spent a large portion of the following 3 years continuing to work in this space, and while social media is measurable, it is difficult because we don’t always have comparable cross-channel metrics and sometimes have to set company-specific conversions or valuations. For example, in every social media channel, you can value activity partially by the users driven from those channels into your website, phone system, or other more traditional channels. If X spend $X in salaries, tools, or vendors on Twitter and Y number of twitterers visit your website and buy products or service worth $Z, you have an easy ROI calculation.
\nBUT that’s not everything. How much is customer service on Twitter worth? Well, if you spend $A answering questions that help B number of twitterers that do not call in and use up employee time answering their questions individually, just look at how much money you spent answering those questions on Twitter and how much you saved by not answering them individually.
\nNow, how about the branding, awareness, goodwill, and all of those other fuzzy things?
\n![\"Cat](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Cat-got-your-tongue.jpg\" "\\"Cat")
Cat got your tongue?
\nThought so.
\nYou get buzz metrics from social media, but that doesn’t make branding, awareness, or goodwill any more measurable. Rather, it just means that we get tough-to-measure metrics paired with still-somewhat-foreign media, and that equals out to a reluctance to budget marketing dollars toward these channels.
\nAnd, so it comes back to markets.
\nWhether you like it or not, brands value markets they can measure first, markets they understand second, and only then markets they’re told are supposed to be valuable third, and social media in most cases falls into that third category.
\nSo, next time Frigidaire, or Dairy Queen, or your local dry cleaner does not pay attention to your social media praise or hatred, don’t be shocked. You have been sold the lie of the social media conversation, and they make decisions based on dollars.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Social Media"]},{"id":257,"title":"Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/steve-jobs-by-walter-isaacson/","slug":"steve-jobs-by-walter-isaacson","published_at":"2012-03-17T03:47:15+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:04:14+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone that has the remotest interest in business, management, entrepreneurship, self-improvement, Apple, Steve Jobs, etc. When? Reasonably soon. Why? It was a very good book. Best Quote I hate it when people call themselves “entrepreneurs” when what they’re really trying to do is launch a startup and then sell or go public, so they […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone that has the remotest interest in business, management, entrepreneurship, self-improvement, Apple, Steve Jobs, etc.
\nWhen?
\nReasonably soon.
\nWhy?
\nIt was a very good book.
\nBest Quote
\n\nI hate it when people call themselves “entrepreneurs” when what they’re really trying to do is launch a startup and then sell or go public, so they can cash in and move on.
Review
\nMy dad and I listened to this book on a cross country drive. My dad is a smart and curious guy, but he’s not a business man per se (despite being an entrepreneur) nor is he particularly interested in business. That being said, he found Steve Jobs to be very interesting as did I.
\nIsaacson has written a compelling, complete, and sometimes biting biography of one of recent history’s most influence businessmen. While many people wear their What Would Steve Do bracelets and seemingly bow at the Jobs alter, I have yet to meet a person that has read this book that says they would want to work with him, and that is one of the strongest aspects of Isaacson’s story. He seems to have been so true to the reality of Jobs and his life that readers really get a sense of what kind of person he was.
\nLast Word
\nOn one hand, there is a lot to learn about business from this book, but on the other, Steve Jobs is purely a curiosity read. It’s so entertaining and engaging, and you might just come away from it with a few ideas for your business, so go out and get your copy soon.
\n","featured_image":"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/About-Header-Image-1.png","author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":211,"title":"The 4-Hour Workweek by Timothy Ferriss","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-4-hour-workweek-by-timothy-ferriss/","slug":"the-4-hour-workweek-by-timothy-ferriss","published_at":"2012-03-12T02:18:31+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:05:27+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Read The 4-Hour Workweek if you are interested in productivity, efficiency, or entrepreneur. When? Don’t rush. Why? It’s a good book, but not everyone loves it. Best Quote For all of the most important things, the timing always sucks. Waiting for a good time to quit your job? The stars will never align and […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nRead The 4-Hour Workweek if you are interested in productivity, efficiency, or entrepreneur.
\nWhen?
\nDon’t rush.
\nWhy?
\nIt’s a good book, but not everyone loves it.
\nBest Quote
\n\nFor all of the most important things, the timing always sucks. Waiting for a good time to quit your job? The stars will never align and the traffic lights of life will never all be green at the same time. The universe doesn’t conspire against you, but it doesn’t go out of its way to line up the pins either. Conditions are never perfect. “Someday” is a disease that will take your dreams to the grave with you. Pro and con lists are just as bad. If it’s important to you and you want to do it “eventually,” just do it and correct course along the way.
Review
\nWhen I first read this book in 2010, I was very impressed. Some of The 4-Hour Workweek comes across like a get rich quick sales pitch from a young guy with far too much bravado. Once you get past that though, it’s easy to see that Tim Ferriss’ book is packed full of strategies and tactics that really can help you do a better job in your current position, make yourself more efficient, and help you to progress faster in a lot of different situations.
\nThe most important aspect of the book is actually its structure:
\nLast Word
\nAlthough I prefer audiobooks, I highly recommend that you get the paper or ebook version of the expanded and updated 4-Hour Workweek because this book is much easier to digest when you’re actually reading it, and the expanded and updated version has actual case studies from Tim Ferriss’ readers demonstrating the viability of his approach in many other circumstances.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":138,"title":"Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind by Al Ries and Jack Trout","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/positioning-the-battle-for-your-mind-by-al-ries-and-jack-trout/","slug":"positioning-the-battle-for-your-mind-by-al-ries-and-jack-trout","published_at":"2012-03-07T22:28:42+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:05:33+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone that has never taken a marketing class should read this book. When? As soon as you begin doing any marketing or product development work. Why? Positioning is a great Marketing 101 explanation of branding, extending, and even developing a product. Best Quote Today’s marketplace is no longer responsive to the strategies that worked […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone that has never taken a marketing class should read this book.
\nWhen?
\nAs soon as you begin doing any marketing or product development work.
\nWhy?
\nPositioning is a great Marketing 101 explanation of branding, extending, and even developing a product.
\nBest Quote
\n\nToday’s marketplace is no longer responsive to the strategies that worked in the past. There are just too many products, too many companies, and too much marketing noise.
Review
\nIf you studied marketing and/or work in it, you can probably skip this book, but if you do read it, you’ll probably enjoy it. I found the stories and examples rather simple, but the person that said I must read it, and isn’t a marketer by the way, thought it was amazing. The thing that marketers will enjoy in this book is all of the solid stories about how large brands tackled their problems.
\nSome main points that really stick out:
\nLast Word
\nEven though you might find yourself thinking, “Yeah, I know this already,” Positioning is a great reference book to have on your bookshelf. I will recommend it to young marketers I work with in the future, and I recommend it to you.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":68,"title":"How and Why to Set Up rel=”canonical” on a WordPress Blog","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/how-and-why-to-set-up-relcanonical-on-a-wordpress-blog/","slug":"how-and-why-to-set-up-relcanonical-on-a-wordpress-blog","published_at":"2012-02-28T07:00:00+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:05:40+00:00","excerpt_html":"When you create multiple pages with the same, or highly similar, content, search engines algorithmically pick up on the similarities and either exclude all but one of those pages from search results or show all, but only 1 each time a relevant search is performed. So, you’re asking, “What’s the problem with that?” Let’s say […]
\n","content_html":"When you create multiple pages with the same, or highly similar, content, search engines algorithmically pick up on the similarities and either exclude all but one of those pages from search results or show all, but only 1 each time a relevant search is performed.
\nSo, you’re asking, “What’s the problem with that?” Let’s say that you have a website that sells rugs, and in an effort to show up in the search results for everyone, you decide to duplicate one of your pages and just change a few words, so you have a whole list of pages with titles and topics like this:
\nIf the content on each page is essentially the same, search engines pick up on that quickly and decide to show me, the searcher, whichever one they think is relevant. Let’s say your page is the best rug page ever, so I decide to link to it from my blog. Then, my neighbor does a search and finds one of the other pages from the list and links to it from his blog. Now, you have 2 incoming links, but to two different pages, so when the next person searches, the search engine does not have a strong link signal to determine which page is better, but your competitors might only have one page that is awesome and happens to have 10 incoming links. All else being equal, your competitor’s page will outrank you in the search results and will likely get more traffic.
\nOne way to combat this is to use the rel=”canonical” tag in your page header. Rel=”canonical” tells search engines that the canonical, or main, version of the page exists a the link the canonical points at, so when one of the pages on your list gets linked to and search engines follow the link, they can see from your page header that the real version exists somewhere else.
\nThe result of this is that all inbound links to the non-canonical pages count for the canonical version, so when you’re going up against a competitor in the search results, you don’t have one page with 5 links and another with 3 links and another with 8 links going against one competitor page with 10 links. Instead, you have one canonical page with 16 inbound links outranking the competitor page.
\nHow Do You Set-Up a Canonical URL?
\nA canonical link tag can be added to the header of the HTML page. Just be sure to remember the following:
\nOn the header of the other pages with less priority or less preference, simply add a tag to show the URL you want Google to index it.
\nJust add rel=”canonical” link to the head portion on the non-canonical variation of each HTML page and indicate the page of your preference.
\nIf you’re using WordPress, install an SEO plugin, such as WordPress SEO, to ensure that the canonical tag is always present.
\nWant a little more information?
\nWho? Anyone interested in entrepreneurship, leadership, or management. When? No rush. Why? It’s an interesting book from a successful, serial entrepreneur. Best Quote Happiness is really just about four things: perceived control, perceived progress, connectedness (number and depth of your relationships), and vision/meaning (being part of something bigger than yourself). Tied with Without conscious and […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone interested in entrepreneurship, leadership, or management.
\nWhen?
\nNo rush.
\nWhy?
\nIt’s an interesting book from a successful, serial entrepreneur.
\nBest Quote
\n\nHappiness is really just about four things: perceived control, perceived progress, connectedness (number and depth of your relationships), and vision/meaning (being part of something bigger than yourself).
Tied with
\n\nWithout conscious and deliberate effort, inertia always wins.
Review
\nTony Hsieh writes in Delivering Happiness that he wanted to complete it without a ghost writer, which is admirable in a way, but ultimately, it shows as the book wonders, has odd tangents, and does not keep a consistent tone or message. Despite those problems though, Delivering Happiness is a valuable read and one that I recommend to many people.
\nTony is a serial entrepreneur – having seemingly stumbled into a dot com advertising success early in his career, made an attempt at running an investment fund, and then moved into the leadership position with Zappos after his fund invested in them. There is a lot to learn from him, and he carries a strong message of culture, training, customer service, and passion that has been told in one form or another of the follow-your-dreams talk nearly everyone of us got several times during our youth, but of course, someone that has actually lived that and been successful always renews our belief that following your dreams really is all that it takes.
\nLast Word
\nWithout a doubt, Delivering Happiness is worth reading. There are a lot of valuable lessons, and Tony comes across as a great guy. That being said, I wouldn’t put this book at the top of any reading list as I think it could have benefited from a more experienced writer.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":248,"title":"The Snowball by Alice Schroeder","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-snowball-by-alice-schroeder/","slug":"the-snowball-by-alice-schroeder","published_at":"2012-02-14T05:44:34+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:05:45+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone interested in Warren Buffett, investing, the stock market, finance, and probably entrepreneurship. When? Put it in your queue. Why? Being one of the richest and most financially successful men the world, he’s someone you probably want to learn about. Also, it’s a very well written and interesting book. Best Quote If you are […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone interested in Warren Buffett, investing, the stock market, finance, and probably entrepreneurship.
\nWhen?
\nPut it in your queue.
\nWhy?
\nBeing one of the richest and most financially successful men the world, he’s someone you probably want to learn about. Also, it’s a very well written and interesting book.
\nBest Quote
\n\nIf you are investing in your education and you are learning, you should do that as early as you possibly can, because then it will have time to compound over the longest period. And that the things you do learn and invest in should be knowledge that is cumulative, so that the knowledge builds on itself. So instead of learning something that might become obsolete tomorrow, like some particular type of software [that no one even uses two years later], choose things that will make you smarter in 10 or 20 years.
Review
\nFrom the first few minutes of The Snowball, Alice Schroeder had me hooked. She created a very well-written and intriguing biography of a highly successful and interesting man. Honestly, before I read this book (or listened to it actually), I knew very little about Warren Buffett. Now, not only do I know quite a lot, I also am interested in a number of aspects of investing, management, and entrepreneurship that I had not been before.
\nThe Snowball is one of the most absorbing reads I have had in the last few years. Alice Schroeder takes her readers from Buffett’s childhood and filing his first tax return to owning a tenant farm in high school all the way through college, his work life, and every personal detail you could imagine. Along the way, you get some very interesting stories about people like Akio Morita (or Sony), Bill Gates, and more, and of course, there are fascinating dives into Buffett’s curious habits as well as personal stories such as him seemingly having two wives at once.
\nLast Word
\nWhile I would not rush out to get this book, The Snowball is a must read. Whether you’re interested in business, Warren Buffett himself, or simply a good biography, you will find Alice Schroeder’s book well worth your time.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":208,"title":"The Long Tail by Chris Anderson","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-long-tail-by-chris-anderson/","slug":"the-long-tail-by-chris-anderson","published_at":"2012-02-12T01:03:22+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:05:52+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Every entrepreneur, marketer, and product manager. When? Now. Why? The Long Tail is one of those books that puts changes to world markets in perfect perspective. Best Quote The three main observations: the tail of available variety is far longer than we realize it’s now within the reach economically all those niches, when aggregated, […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nEvery entrepreneur, marketer, and product manager.
\nWhen?
\nNow.
\nWhy?
\nThe Long Tail is one of those books that puts changes to world markets in perfect perspective.
\nBest Quote
\n\n\nThe three main observations:\n\n
\n- the tail of available variety is far longer than we realize
\n- it’s now within the reach economically
\n- all those niches, when aggregated, can make up a significant market – seemed indisputable, especially backed up with heretofore unseen data.
\n
Review
\nSome people have greatly criticized this book by saying that Chris Anderson took one step too far by trying to force the Long Tail model onto market that do not conform to it. I disagree with their critiques.
\nHaving been exposed to this idea as a result of statistics courses in college and then my work in SEO, I did not find this idea all that shocking. That being said, The Long Tail was a very impressive book. It is extremely well written, and if you’re not familiar with the topic, it is the book to read in order to help understand changes in media and marketplaces of all types and why it is that your one big bet is unlikely to succeed, but your 1,000 little bets all just might.
\nLast Word
\nWhether you agree with the critiques of The Long Tail or not, Chris Anderson’s book is a must read that will give entrepreneurs, marketers, and product managers significant insight into market fragmentation, indie success, and the growth of niche upon niche upon niche.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":134,"title":"How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people-by-dale-carnegie/","slug":"how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people-by-dale-carnegie","published_at":"2012-02-07T22:15:26+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-16T12:47:55+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Everyone should read this book. When? At the earliest, when you’re in high school. Early in your career is best though. Why? How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie will help you understand why, despite their best intentions, people sometimes do not do what you want, or ask them, to do. […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nEveryone should read this book.
\nWhen?
\nAt the earliest, when you’re in high school. Early in your career is best though.
\nWhy?
\nHow to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie will help you understand why, despite their best intentions, people sometimes do not do what you want, or ask them, to do. Recognizing this will help you get ahead in personal and professional situations.
\nBest Quote
\n\nRemember that a person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language.
Review
\nI didn’t want to read How to Win Friends and Influence People honestly. The title makes it sound way too much like a stereotypical self-help book. “Do good things and good things will come to you,” “Think positively, and you’ll have success,” etc. Thankfully, it was not like that at all.
\nHow to Win Friends and Influence People is one of the most valuable books you will ever read. Applying the principles you learn in this book will help you be perceived as a more sympathetic person, make better decisions about people’s motives, and have greater insight into interpersonal dynamics.
\nWithout giving too much away, here are a few highlights of the book:
\nFinal Word
\nThe most valuable thing you will learn from How to Win Friends and Influence People will be how to be a happy, healthy person that has happy and healthy relationships that lead you more quickly and easily to success, and while the title might make the book sound hokey, I wholeheartedly recommend that you get it and begin reading today.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":63,"title":"Beginner’s guide to CRO","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/beginners-guide-to-cro/","slug":"beginners-guide-to-cro","published_at":"2012-01-31T01:10:59+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:05:58+00:00","excerpt_html":"Are you wondering why your website seems doesn’t convert more people even though you’ve been putting more time into it? It’s time to go back to the drawing board and evaluate if what you’re doing to draw more people to your site is having any effect on getting those visitors to convert. This is the […]
\n","content_html":"Are you wondering why your website seems doesn’t convert more people even though you’ve been putting more time into it? It’s time to go back to the drawing board and evaluate if what you’re doing to draw more people to your site is having any effect on getting those visitors to convert. This is the start of conversion rate optimization – CRO.
\nWhat is CRO?
\nA conversion can simply be defined as the successful completion of a specific action on a particular website by a visitor. These actions include online services such as buying products or acquiring services, signing up for online media services such as an e-newsletter, submitting forms and other kinds of services that the website offers. A conversion rate is then defined as the total of your conversions divided by the total number of visitors visiting the website.
\nCRO can be defined as the process of carrying out a comprehensive analysis of a website and coming up with improvement strategies and testing the strategies with the aim of increasing your conversion rates. It involves identifying possible reasons why visitors are not converting, then coming up with a solution that will fix the problem. The solutions are then tested to ensure that they satisfactorily solve the problem before they can be permanently employed. This will necessitate a thorough study of the visitor behavior and expectations in order to understand specific visitor needs and lay out strategies to meet these specific requirements.
\nResearch has found CRO is particularly important because a slight increase in the conversion rate can yield huge profits in some websites with large volumes of traffic. However, if your site registers low traffic, then the profits could be less but still significant to allow you operate smoothly and increase your market share power.
\nReduce Conversion Killers
\nThe key to reducing conversion killers lies in the ability to identify them and coming up with appropriate strategies to mitigate them.This will involve identifying where the visitors find it difficult using the site and establishing the reasons as to why they may not take the desired action.
\nA good first place to look is your web analytics package. Google Analytics and other software will show you what are your most common exit pages, time on site, and you can even set up tracking to find out if people fill out the first 3, or 4, or 5 fields in a sign up or check out form and then abandon the process. This data is extremely vital as it helps in determining the performance of your website and enables you to make the proper adjustments to effectively realize your goals.
\nOnce you are comfortable with Google Analytics, it’s time to try out a tool like ClickTale or CrazyEgg that will show you heat mapping of where people spend the most time on your pages and more. These tools help to identify where your visitors are looking or not so that you can see if that really cool graphic you put up or that super simple sign up form or anything else is actually having a positive effect on conversions.
\nOffer Compelling Content
\nTo influence your visitors in a positive way, you have to give them the content they want, when and where they want it. This doesn’t always mean giving them a blog post to read. Sometimes, it’s putting your call to action in a new spot based on that particular visitor’s behavior or offering a how-to video right when they’re wondering how your product actually works. To do this, I recommend surveying your users. You can use a pop up, a post check out questionnaire, an email to visitors, or even a somewhat larger scale approach.
\nWatch “Replicate Google’s Panda Questionnaire” from Moz’s Whiteboard Friday.
\nWhen the visitors visit your website, you should never leave them clueless on what is going on your website. It is for this reason that you should include a call to action that should be clearly visible and informative of what you want them to do at your website. You need to do this discreetly by reducing distractions such as too many links, unnecessary text, and images that is likely to distract the visitors.
\nAbove all, your customers should be able to trust you. To do this, offer credible services and products so that your customers can trust you and feel comfortable to conduct business with you.
\nCreate an Action Plan
\nTo successfully implement any proposed changes aimed at improving conversions, an action plan is necessary. The action plan should help you identify the areas that need change, provide solutions on how it should be done, identify the individuals capable to aiding you in completing these tasks, and create a more refined website that compels the visitor to make a conversion. However, when creating an action plan, utmost caution should be taken to ensure that no loopholes are created, as they will make it difficult for the team to identify potential conversion killers.
\nMost importantly, creating a plan and projections for outcomes helps you measure and continue to improve. Like most things in life, it’s not likely that you’ll get this perfect the first time around.
\nSummary
\nThe most important things in CRO are to learn to identify conversion killers, create a plan for how to remove them, and measure the outcomes so that you can continue to improve. Simple changes to your design, contact, calls-to-action and more can result in huge increases in revenue and more.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Conversion Rate Optimization"]},{"id":265,"title":"Should you pay outsourced workers hourly or by deliverable?","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/should-you-pay-outsourced-workers-hourly-or-by-deliverable/","slug":"should-you-pay-outsourced-workers-hourly-or-by-deliverable","published_at":"2012-01-18T04:59:21+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:06:04+00:00","excerpt_html":"In 2010, Seth Godin wrote about hourly work versus linchpin work. Essentially, his thesis is that you should pay someone a fair hourly rate when there are substitutes for what they do – his example being when you need to see a podiatrists and there happen to be 6 good ones in town – and […]
\n","content_html":"In 2010, Seth Godin wrote about hourly work versus linchpin work. Essentially, his thesis is that you should pay someone a fair hourly rate when there are substitutes for what they do – his example being when you need to see a podiatrists and there happen to be 6 good ones in town – and that you should pay someone for the value (to you) of the work being done when there are no substitutes regardless of how much time it takes them to do the work.
\nThe problem that you and many others encounter is that you never know whether there are really substitutes because you typically outsource work that you do not know how to do yourself – coding, design, copywriting, accounting, etc. If you don’t know a lot about how to do the work, how do you determine whether or not there are really substitutes? If you for example need a website designed for your suede shoe company, can you hire any good web designer or do you need someone that has specific experience in your vertical?
\n![\"Outsourced](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Outsourced-work-substitutes-300x200.jpg\" "\\"Outsourced")
Find an outsourcer marketplace
\nIf you don’t know what something is worth and whether or not there are substitutes, find comparables by going to a marketplace. If you need a design, visit 99 designs and search for your type of business and the deliverable you need. If you need articles written, go to Textbroker or any number of other places where writers of all levels spend their time. Find people in your industry there and ask them what their experience was. Doing this will save you a lot of heartache as you might be able to avoid their missteps.
\nBusiness people love fixed costs
\nEntrepreneurs especially love knowing they’re getting something for a certain amount regardless of whether it’s a fair price or not, and often, they’re way too high or way too low, which results in either wasted budget or such low quality work that you end up having to have someone else redo it or you yourself spend hours and hours making up for the crap you just paid someone to serve you.
\n![\"My](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/My-experience-with-outsourced-website-design-300x168.jpg\" "\\"My")
My experience with an outsourced website
\nAt one point in my past, I had to create a website for a business. None existed before this. Unfortunately, the person that held the purse strings had a very specific idea of how he wanted things done. Design, coding, and implementation were to be split up, and we couldn’t spend more than $2,000 on design. Coding and implementation would be figured out later.
\nI begged, and I pleaded. Having developed websites myself and managed people that did the same, I knew that having a combined team – or even individual – of designer, coder, and implementer would be best as it would keep costs down and ensure that we had no transitional problems, no finger pointing with one person saying the previous person did bad work, and so on. Alas, I lost that battle. I also made my case for a larger design budget because I had been through similar website development projects and knew that this business needed a design that would top $2,000 by quite a bit. You can guess how that argument, I mean discussion, went.
\nNot being the ultimate decision maker, I found a designer that fit the budget and spent hours upon hours upon hours explaining and re-explaining what we needed and why the designs weren’t quite right. One thing you’ll also find when you pick the wrong type of worker – on the low end – is that you often end up questioning why they did not make the changes you made explicit… no matter how many times you state them. The additional $1,000 or $2,000 that I would have liked to have spent on a better fitting designer was easily spent on my salary for the time I had to devote to the project.
\nYou know what happened in the end with the design? It was just okay, and who took the bullet for not having a spectacular design?
\n![\"I](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/I-took-the-bullet-300x200.jpg\" "\\"I")
You guessed it. I did.
\nThen came time for someone to code the website, and again, my budget was $2,000, but this time around, I got lucky and found someone that was a good fit for both the budget and the job needed, but when it got to implementation, things went south again. Due to frustrations over the design and the fact that I had maxed my budget, implementation was brought in house and would be done by people that had almost no experience with website development or server management.
\nIt was at this time that I started to want to shoot myself. When the coder handed over the site, everything worked perfectly. For weeks and then months after that time, the site proceeded to break every time we tried something new just in the testing phase, and our guy – not knowing much about website development – couldn’t tell us if it was him, our coder, or a ghost in the machine.
\nIn the end, we spent $4,000 on outsourced labor, used at least160 hours of my time, and dedicated another person to the project for well over 300 hours… all because we made bad decisions about the value of what we needed and whether or not there were substitutes.
\n![\"If](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/If-I-Could-Do-It-Over.png\" "\\"If")
If I could do it over
\nI would have made a stronger case for the special needs that we had. It as a unique company in a vertical that was accustomed to world class website design – not $2,000 design. I knew we needed a great designer and that we needed a team or an individual that could do the project end-to-end to ensure quality, but I didn’t do my research to the extent that I could show data, which is what I needed. There’s no guarantee that things would have been any better if I had made a stronger case, but looking back on this, I know that it was my mistake to not visit a marketplace, gather numbers, and get supporting evidence. Unfortunately, my lack of foresight on the project led us all to waste hundreds of hours in order to save a few thousands and only in the end come out with a mediocre product.
\nShould you pay outsourced workers hourly or by deliverable?
\nDo your research. Get your data. And, make your decision based on the needs of your own project and circumstances – not based on budget or preconceived notions from people that don’t know anything about what you’re working on.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Leadership"]},{"id":244,"title":"The 50th Law by Robert Greene","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-50th-law-by-robert-greene/","slug":"the-50th-law-by-robert-greene","published_at":"2012-01-14T05:23:28+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:06:09+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Anyone interested in people, power, or politics, and anyone interested in 50 Cent. When? No rush. Why? In a similar way to how a well written biography is intriguing, this book is also an intriguing examination of the power principles that supposedly underpin 50 Cent’s life. Best Quote By a paradoxical law of human […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nAnyone interested in people, power, or politics, and anyone interested in 50 Cent.
\nWhen?
\nNo rush.
\nWhy?
\nIn a similar way to how a well written biography is intriguing, this book is also an intriguing examination of the power principles that supposedly underpin 50 Cent’s life.
\nBest Quote
\n\nBy a paradoxical law of human nature, trying to please people less will make them more likely in the long run to respect and treat you better.
Review
\nTo me. The 50th Law is Robert Greene’s best book. The 48 Laws of Power comes across as too much of a laundry list, and The Art of Seduction made me feel slimy. I want to note though that the narrator/reader of both of those audiobook did not help at all though. This book shares a lot of characteristics with those books, but has a central character that is at least intriguing and in the public space, so reading this book makes you feel a bit like you’re getting a little insider information on 50 Cent.
\nI do not fully agree with 50 Cent’s worldview, but clearly, he is highly accomplished, apparently very smart, and has experiences that I will never get close to, so whether you agree with how he views the world should be a second consideration after the fact that you can easily learn a lot about how people very different from your view and experience life just by reading this book.
\nOne of the main things that stuck out to me in this book was 50 Cent’s view of fear. Fear makes you weak. It causes you to make bad decisions, not take chances you need to in order to succeed, and take chances that you would have been better off passing on. This is one reason that 50 Cent has focused so much time on learning from others very different from him, doing things that make him uncomfortable, and not accepting weakness in those around him. Letting fear reside within himself or people around him creates more opportunities for failure.
\nLast Word
\nAs I said, I don’t really view the world in the same way that 50 Cent does, but there’s a lot that you can learn from The 50th Law, and at the very least, I think that you’ll enjoy the writing and personal stories woven in.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":201,"title":"Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/crucial-conversations-tools-for-talking-when-stakes-are-high-by-kerry-patterson-joseph-grenny-ron-mcmillan-and-al-switzler/","slug":"crucial-conversations-tools-for-talking-when-stakes-are-high-by-kerry-patterson-joseph-grenny-ron-mcmillan-and-al-switzler","published_at":"2012-01-11T05:46:44+00:00","modified_at":"2026-08-20T23:06:15+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who? Everyone should read this book. When? Now. Why? Even the best communicators have things they could work on, and honestly, can you say you’re a great communicator already? Best Quote People who are skilled at dialogue do their best to make it safe for everyone to add their meaning to the shared pool–even ideas […]
\n","content_html":"Who?
\nEveryone should read this book.
\nWhen?
\nNow.
\nWhy?
\nEven the best communicators have things they could work on, and honestly, can you say you’re a great communicator already?
\nBest Quote
\n\nPeople who are skilled at dialogue do their best to make it safe for everyone to add their meaning to the shared pool–even ideas that at first glance appear controversial, wrong, or at odds with their own beliefs. Now, obviously they don’t agree with every idea; they simply do their best to ensure that all ideas find their way into the open.
Review
\nI really, really liked the information shared in this book, but hated the format. It’s written as if you’re watching examples being played on on video or on a stage, so it’s very dialogue heavy with bookend analyses, and being an audiobook person, the fact that they have voice actors playing it out really rustled my jimmies.
\n![\"That](\"https://inboundandagile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Rustled-my-jimmies.jpg\" "\\"That")
This book really helped me to deal with some tough conversations that I was avoiding, and I wholeheartedly believe that it will help you. Start with Heart, Learn to Look, and Pool of Shared Meaning are some of the easiest concepts to remember and apply, and in just the few months since I have read Crucial Conversations, they’ve had an impact on me.
Last Word
\nHonestly, this is one of the better business books that I’ve read in years. It’s not revolutionary. It’s not going to bring anything to light that you shouldn’t already know, but it will give you a great walk-through of successful tactics for dealing with your own conversational difficulties and those of others, so I say got out and buy Crucial Conversations now.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]},{"id":129,"title":"The Art of War by Sun Tzu","url":"https://inboundandagile.com/the-art-of-war-by-sun-tzu/","slug":"the-art-of-war-by-sun-tzu","published_at":"2012-01-07T19:16:50+00:00","modified_at":"2025-07-16T12:47:54+00:00","excerpt_html":"Who should read The Art of War by Sun Tzu? If you are interested in business strategy, military strategy, personal dynamics, or leadership, read this book. When should you read The Art of War by Sun Tzu? Early in your career. I recommend reading this in college or early into your first post-college job. Why […]
\n","content_html":"Who should read The Art of War by Sun Tzu?
\nIf you are interested in business strategy, military strategy, personal dynamics, or leadership, read this book.
\nWhen should you read The Art of War by Sun Tzu?
\nEarly in your career. I recommend reading this in college or early into your first post-college job.
\nWhy should you read The Art of War by Sun Tzu?
\nYou can learn a lot about positioning yourself in your company, your group of friends, and even within your family.
\nBest Quote
\nBecause it seems particularly relevant to current times:
\n\nNo long war ever profited any country: 100 victories in 100 battles is simply ridiculous. Anyone who excels in defeating his enemies triumphs before his enemy’s threat becomes real.
Review
\nThe Art of War by Sun Tzu is an ancient military treatise. As such, it uses the language of battle to impart lessons that apply to many of life’s situations. The text itself is thirteen chapters, each focusing on a different style of military engagement. In the version that I read, ancient stories highlighting the strategies from each chapter break up Sun Tzu’s original text. If you are like me, this helps significantly because it is not particularly easy to relate to Sun Tzu’s text by itself, and the stories help you to work out the value of each of Sun Tzu’s teachings.
\nThe Art of War can teach you a lot about business strategy and workplace dynamics, but the things that really stuck out were:
\nYou’re not going to sit down for an afternoon and lazily thumb through The Art of War. Sun Tzu does not give a lot of explanation for his strategies and approaches, and the copy can feel very dispassionate so it’s also not going to be something that you can sit down and understand without really focusing.
\nFinal word
\nI recommend that anyone interested in improving their personal or professional relationships or in working on leadership skills read this book. If you are like me, you won’t find it to be the most thrilling, but it is worth your time if you apply what it teaches you.
\n","featured_image":null,"author":"Eric Pratum","categories":["Books"]}]}![U.S. Congress, 1965.](\"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rep._Howard_W._Smith_(D-VA)_(cropped).jpg\"){kind=link}
![U.S. Congress / Wikimedia Commons.](\"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Newt_Gingrich_official_portrait.jpg\"){kind=link}