Moving from IFTTT to IFTTW

If you’re not yet familiar with IFTTT, you might want to check it out. It’s a ridiculously simple site that allows you to write basic protocol tasks. Want all the photos you take on Instagram to be automatically uploaded to Dropbox? IFTTT allows you to write a “recipe” of triggers and actions to do just that.

The back end dev work on the functionality of this button is still in progress

If only the world were that simple.

The irony is, many of us have been educated and act as if we live in a world that runs on IFTTT-based principles. Seth Godin tells the perfect story about an IFTTT industry that was destroyed in the span of three years. Even science, which defines the conditions under which life can exist through a human lens, gets thrown a loop when some newly discovered bacteria thrives in arsenic.

The world we live in ignores protocol in favor unpredictability. We need to design our behaviors and thinking to deal with what I call IFTTW—If This Then What?

As much as I like a well-conceived strategy, I’m becoming more enamored with the guile of adaptability and resourcefulness. It’s becoming less about the plan, and more about the makeup of your team. This scene from Apollo 13 epitomizes IFTTW thinking.

Certainly you’ve worked with IFTTT personalities—people who need rigid structure in order to function at a high level. The engineer or developer who tells you it can’t be done that way. The teacher who says follow the instructions I’ve laid out. The CEO who insists “This is the way we do things here.” Then there’s another group of thinkers who are able to assess an unseen situation and improvise a solution. I would argue that in today’s digital world—where new technology regularly turns things upside down—the latter group is far more valuable.

In addition to a plan, learn new thinking patterns and create new habits that make you more agile and better able to deal with uncertainty. A team of IFTTW thinkers will be ready for anything.

Has your business or organization encountered an IFTTW situation? (I know we’ve experienced several here at Translator). If so, how did you deal with it?


I just sat through a live webinar hosted by FEI – Front End of Innovation titled “Womenomic Meet Design: A Female Innovation Strategy.” It was a presentation about the findings of a 3 year research project titled “Female Interaction,” a multidisciplinary research project focusing on female interaction design for advanced electronic products. If you haven’t heard about it, it’s quite fascinating. You can check out more information on their site.

While the information was great, my key takeaway wasn’t an insight or idea, but rather a term: Pinking.

“Pinking” refers to the redesign tenets of “for female” products being based in stereotypical color, feel or visual implementations. You know the phenomenon well. There are cameras–and pink cameras for women. There are watches–and watches with flowers for women. There are earphones–and earphones with bling for women. (Not to mention, most often pink bling to be clear.) I know that I have been acutely aware of such narrowmindedness in product design for quite some time now, especially after the #littlemen arrived. I am forced to walk down segregated toy isles and have conversations that include instruction on things like: “no, just because that ball is pink does not not mean that it is a ‘girl toy,’ it means it is a ball that is the color pink.”

Girl Legos

Perfect example of “Pinking.” Why wouldn’t legos for girls include pink shoes?

But more and more people are taking notice, and being vocal about just how silly (on the lighthearted side,) or detrimental (on the serious side) the effects of this fundamental lack of effort or thinking is. A recent post on Sociological Images entitled “Beauty and the New Lego Line for Girls.” points out how the company is terming the focus of introducing new girl themed legos to be on furthering interest in “science.” The goal: get more girls engaged with legos as a foray into engineering and the sciences. Obviously the only way to entice young girls to be interested in building things is to pretty the pieces up.


There were always legos for girls… they’re called legos.

I am thankful for research projects like the Female Interaction project, and for people who are making an effort to be aware of and point out examples of this lack of understanding on the part of product designers, and the companies that produce, promote and stand behind them. And now, we all have a word too. Which will make spreading awareness even simpler, and the discussions more focused. I challenge you to pay attention. What products have you encountered that have been “pinked” to reach the female audience? How could that product have been designed and developed to truly serve a woman audience?

And the uncomfortable question for the day… have you engaged in “pinking” for any of your own products or services? It’s worth the examination.

What did you earn today?

We all need this.

Last week @MarkFairbanks and I had the esteemed honor of participating in Seth Godin’s Medicine Ball Sessions. I call it an honor because it truly was. Not only because we got the opportunity to engage with Seth for 3 full days and learn what’s in his head, but the people that were in attendance were amazing. They came from all walks of life, all types of experience but with one thread that wove us all together; a willingness to see see things differently, own it and do something with it. I don’t know if you’ve had the opportunity to be in the room with mindset peers like that, but it is inspirational and transformative.

I’m certain that you will hear from the both of us over the coming days/weeks about what we learned. Part of why we went was to bring thinking back to share, and there’s plans already in the works, both formal and informal to do just that. But tonight I was going through the notebook full of notes I took (which is something I rarely do, so you know it must be good!) and I came across a starred line that struck me again, just as it did when I heard it:

“What stories did you earn today?”

On a daily basis we question what we got done that day. We berate ourselves over missed opportunities to check tasks off our lists, or determine the worth of our day on a measure of tactical accomplishments. Did I call enough people? Did I deliver those documents? Are the dishes done and the laundry folded?  We execute tasks and spin in actions without really thinking about the impact of them. But talk to any human being, about any subject at all, and if you listen closely you will notice that people are stories not tasks. We speak, explain, complain, live, in stories not checklists.

Stories are sprung from impact. Unfortunately we try to generate this impact from the wrong places. The stories that people respond to are firmly rooted in what the impact is, not the ways in which you make the impact. What was the impact of delivering those documents? To you? To those they were delivered to? That is the real story, and that is what matters. Focusing on delivering the documents gets you delivered documents. Understanding the story that the recipient writes in his/her head about them being delivered earns you a place in their repertoire of worthy storytelling. Knowing that allows you to find other ways to deliver on that impact, making you irreplaceable, not merely someone who delivers documents on time. Or otherwise known as… a commodity. It’s a shift of notice that can make us more impactful people, in all areas of our lives.

Today, I earned the story of it being ok to be silly in the name of having fun, rather than simply carving out time to sing karaoke with my sons. Whatever will I do with that story? :)



Keeping up with The @Joneses

Wikipedia tells us that “Keeping up with The Joneses” is an idiom referring to an individual’s comparison to one’s neighbor as a benchmark for social caste or the accumulation of material goods. As with everything digital, it’s always fascinating to see established human behavior such as this begin to show up (or morph itself) in a new online incarnation. While I believe it may currently be a minority of the online social sphere, there are certainly signs that there is a growing group of distinct users who have a preoccupation with their online social standing and prestige.

1959: Caddy fins. 2011: Klout score.

With that, I present Exhibit A: Klout

The most important thing about Klout (and the debate surrounding it) is not the purported influence it measures, or the fact (according to Klout) that marketers seem to “want it.” It’s that it brilliantly satisfies an emotional drive. Klout is important because it recognizes the core need for ubertweeters to Keep up with The @Joneses. Klout is the ultimate letter jacket for geeks. A daily updated badge of honor that continues to fuel the conspicuous consumption of all that is digitally social.

I’m not convinced this means anything for marketers. A Klout “Perk“—sending a user a branded coffee mug or a 3 oz. sample of styling gel—isn’t anything new. It’s just moved from the warehouse aisles at Costco to a sweet digital user experience for the tiniest sliver of people who happen to tweet a lot. What marketers foolishly fail to realize is that giving out freebies to Klout subscribers isn’t going to buy them any loyalty—that loyalty exists between the user and Klout. Subscribers like Klout because Klout gets them free stuff, regardless of whatever that stuff might happen to be. See my friend @NateStPierre‘s brilliant post on this very subject.

It goes much further than Klout of course. The desire to increase one’s position in the social hierarchy may not be solely American, but we certainly have a knack for it. In the digital age, this presents the opportunity to manifest itself in many ways. For this “soci0-egonomic” group, getting on the list for the iPhone 4S, being jazzed over Google + (that didn’t last long), or scoring an invite for Spotify is a big, big deal. Some Twitter lists have become the equivalent of elite suburban neighborhoods. “OMG, I’m on @edwardboches design list with IDEO.” How else does one explain the constant daily barrage of blog posts with a headline that touts the 3, 5, 7, 8 or 10 reasons why you should do this, not do that, remember this, but forget about that. I recently pulled the following numbers out of the headlines from a very well known blogger’s most popular posts list: 8, 5, 7, 10, 5, 27, 10, 10, 10, 7, 5, 10, 5, 5. I kid you not. These digits were followed by nouns including reasons, tips, secrets, habits, steps, techniques, mistakes, and ways. Twitter is a gold mine for social media hawkers peddling self help advice to users preoccupied with their social standing in the digital food chain.

It was only a little over two years ago that social media felt like a wide open territory, full of opportunity and equality for all. Now, good old human nature has take over, creating cliques and “hipper than thou” scoring systems. It was bound to happen. The outcry on Twitter yesterday to the change in the Klout scoring system was predictable to say the least. When Klout algorithmically says you have influence and bestows you with a high score, Klout can do no wrong. When Klout arbitrarily decides it is time to reshuffle the data and your score drops precipitously, Klout is held in contempt. So it goes.

With an entire generation of digital natives becoming mature, it will be interesting to see what other behavioral manifestations and social status anxieties we’re likely to see migrate online.


¹ Many readers of this blog have no idea what Klout—or the Klout score—is, which is interesting to say the least. You may be surprised that even though you may not know what Klout is, Klout knows who you are and has been tracking your online social activity whether you like it or not. And get this—there’s no way to unsubscribe. According to their site:

The Klout Score measures influence based on your ability to drive action. Every time you create content or engage you influence others. The Klout Score uses data from social networks in order to measure:

  • True Reach: How many people you influence
  • Amplification: How much you influence them
  • Network Impact: The influence of your network
Klout’s tagline “Measuring influence since 2008″ is dubious at best. Klout measures online “influence”. It does not attempt to measure offline influence. Which last time I checked—as warm-blooded hominids—we all still frequent on a daily basis.


Answers Not Needed

This weekend I had the opportunity to attend the pilot session of the “SisU Bootcamp: Your New Mission in the Sisterhood of Success.” The event was ran by the [email protected] and the entire session was amazingly beneficial. But one activity stood out for the applicable lessons it taught.

We ran “forums” in groups of 4. One person presented a problem for an uninterrupted 5 minutes, while the other 3 group members listened. At the end of the alloted time, each of the 3 forum members had 3 minutes to respond to the problem shared. The groups were supposed to wait for the timers to move ahead from one step to another, but being the overacheivers they were in the room, many moved right into the response step without waiting for their timers. Good thing we all did, because here is where the real lessons exposed themselves.

Are answers really the answer?

When the presenter’s 5 minutes were up we were directed on what our response could/could not be. This was not an opportunity for us to advise. Our role was not to direct how to solve the problem. “We all have a mother, we don’t need another one” was our directive. (Absolutely no disrespect to mothers out there, but of course we all knew what she meant!) Instead, our role as forum members was to share “In my experience…” To pull from our own lives and engagements and share those rather than prescribe a solution. That directive changed everything.

We changed direction and readjusted our conversations. As we recapped the experience at the end of the activity, the impact of that one refocus was revealed. Those that had moved ahead, all expressed that their immediate response to someone’s problem was to advise them on how to solve the problem. Every one of us felt that to be helpful and make a difference for the person sharing, we had to tell them how to fix the problem. When the nature of the conversation switched to sharing personal experience, the atmosphere and impact of the conversation was dramatically changed, for the responder and the presenters as well. Sharing your own experience forced a level of connection and empathy merely telling someone how to fix a problem could never do. We were forced to seek the underlying aspects of a challenge shared, not the surface picture of it. It personalized the conversation which allowed for more open discussion, and trust, between parties. And the presenters walked away with not only details and ideas on how to approach their challenge, but that they weren’t alone in dealing with it, which made the problem seem much less personal and more digestible.

I couldn’t help but think of the application of this lesson on how we conduct ourselves with those we are responsible for engaging with in our businesses. So often we approach our discussions and work with others from the “let me tell you what to do, that is what you hired me to do” mentality. And while ultimately we all need to deliver on that, what would be different if we changed our dialogs, our approaches to the work we do to solve those problems, to utilizing this model? What if most of our exchanges were based in an exchange of experiences that require empathy, understanding and leveling rather than Q&A?

The lesson I took away was that truly addressing a challenge doesn’t simply require an answer. Being told an answer requires a leap of faith that it will work. But a related solution inherently brings along a validation and why it will work. It is grounded in similar, sharable experiences and addresses more than surface commonalities.

Try it. Next time you sit down to design, to address a customer complaint, to talk with a co-worker, to write a proposal, start the conversation with “In my experience…” See if it changes your thought process, your approach to the work or answer. But most importantly, pay attention to what gets lost. What is taken out of the equation when we lead with empathy rather than expertise? I’d be interested to hear.

Note: If you aren’t familiar with The Hot Mommas Project, you should really check it out. It is worth it, they are doing some really good work.

Dear Apple, What Happened?

I am an Apple superfan, I’ll own that. It takes a lot for me to admit that the mothership can do any wrong, even when they do. But I have to admit, the magic UX/UI team over at Apple seem to have missed the mark regarding the keyboard on the iPad.

iPhone vs iPad

Functional usage, not merely consistency, drives viability of a design.

Now, I have not conducted any formal, (or informal for that matter) research to support my stance here, but it seems to me that the keypad or keyboard that migrated from the iPhone interface to the iPad has been a point of disappointment for users. I was intrigued by this, so I spent a little more time with apps and activities that required data entry to see what the issues were. It seemed obvious why the two keyboards were the same; familiarity of process and UI eliminate barriers to usage, given learned and familiar visual and functional experience. It’s a cornerstone of UI design. So why does it seem the same keyboard on these two different devices doesn’t work?

Well, I think in this case, size does matter. Now, now… don’t go there. But do think about how the simple increase in real estate and pixel size of the same keyboard changes the utilization of it. Typing on our phones is primarily done with single fingers or thumbs. The size of the screen doesn’t allow for much else. And while the keyboard structure follows suit of its offline predecessor, the constraints of size forced us to learn a new input mechanism. We reverted back to pre-typing class days and to hunting and pecking with 2 fingers. Brilliant.

Fast forward now to the iPad. The keyboard is the same in all aspects except size. We expect to use it in the same manner, but the size of the keyboard doesn’t support our primary, learned mode of use. It’s too big to use our thumbs. In fact this simple increase in size reverts our usage tendencies yet again, but this time to that of our offline keyboards. You would think this would be an easy transition, since it is back to something we already know, right? But not exactly. While the size makes us default to our learned typing skills, the experience of the flat screen vs. physical keys plays a big role in changing the experience. A change big enough that it becomes more of a frustration than an easy, familiar experience. For part of our traditional use of offline keyboards relies on the tactile feedback we get by pushing of keys. There’s no such feedback when using the iPad keyboard. Couple that with trying to use our learned muscle movements of typing on a keyboard whose key placement is not in synch with the offline tool we learned on. Result: It’s clunky and frustrating and uncomfortable.

Now, will we adapt to new modes of input on the iPad keyboard? Yes. Just like we did to typing words through our number keys on our mobile phones, and eventually a flat screen. The point being though, it seems so odd that a core component of the interface, and an important interaction method such as the keyboard, appears to have been simply lifted and replicated from one device to another, with apparently little attention. I think it is a good lesson for those involved in all aspects of digital design. We can’t not question what may appear to be even the most elemental interactions when implementing them across platforms, devices or experiences. That’s why best practices must always be leaned on with a bit of caution. Sometimes it’s just not that simple.

So dear Apple, I am still a superfan. And perhaps this perceived oversight was actually a calculated brilliant plan. I will never know. But I thank you for teaching me a valuable lesson about the design of experiences. You are good. :)

The Art of Deciding What Not to Decide

The world is filled with decision makers. The ability to make decisions is touted as a skill and requirement to move ahead, to get things done, to lead others into movement and action. And no, it’s not the ability to make any decision that is celebrated. It’s those that can quickly and smartly evaluate the options in front of them, layer in expertise and insights and take action; set the course. We are praised for forward thinking, understanding the cause and effect of our choices and basing decisions on immediate return and mitigation of long term rework. It’s smart.

But what happens when there are more decisions, more forks in the road than the road itself? The natural tendency is to move through the list of decision points and make them one at a time. The problem is, in situations where every touchpoint has direct influence on the next—which is especially the case in the digital and social world—it’s not that simple. And it is in these times when discussion spinning occurs, and movement is stalled. We’ve all been there, and (like it or not) contributed to these very scenarios. Our smart “what if” questioning, and “well if we do this, what happens then” discussions begin to turn into a vortex. How do we break out of that? It is these precise moments when we need to tap into the art of deciding what doesn’t need to be decided.


Yep. Take a step back. Recognize what’s happening and shift gears. Put the laundry list of decisions aside and figure out what doesn’t need to get decided. It will provide focus, and give some breathing room for making smarter choices on the points that are most important. But it’s hard to do. It forces us out of the weeds of what we are working on and into a view of the process at a higher, more detached level. I call this approach to non-decision making “art” because it really is fluid, and dependent on the time and place and players. But if I had to wrap some guidelines around it, I think they would be these…

1. Grow antennae for spinning situations. – Learn to recognize the difference between really thoughtful discussion and decision paralysis. Sometimes it’s not that clear, but more often than not you can feel it. Thoughts of “what are we talking about?” or a rising sense of frustration and stalling fill the room. Rather than let those frustrations snowball, pay attention to the nature of the discussions and pinpoint the spinning.

2. Realign goals. – Bring the team back to the beginning. What are you trying to accomplish that all these decisions are working towards? Very often we get overloaded with details because we cloud our main objective with all the options we are considering. Restate the goal, and bring everyone else on board again.

3. Break it down and lay it all on the table. – Here’s the hardest part for those that employ the art of non-decisions. We have to call ourselves, and our team on the slippery slope we are on and disengage. It can feel and sound like derailing, like breaking focus, but it’s not.  Identify all the decisions that need to be made, sift through them again, and see which ones are critical to the step above. Many times you find your attention has been spent on the bright and shiny, the more interesting or the safer decision points rather than the critical. Find those critical points, and focus only on them. By this time, everything is on the table, and the important points are clear to you and your team.

4. Hug it out and promise to visit. – Very often it’s most uncomfortable for people to put things aside, especially in a time of needing to move things forward. The sentiment often is unless everything is considered, a mistake will be made. Reiterate that all those things that are being put aside will be talked about, and decided on, just not now. Have the discussion about what the next set of priorities are and empower the team to bring them to the table when the time is right. Most importantly, pat yourselves on the back for not only doing smart work, but having the wherewithal to do it smartly.

So, how about you? Have you run into situations where the best decision you made was to not make a decision? I’d love to hear of your experience!

Leadership in times of trouble, or tornados.

Before we begin. Side note.

I’ve been having a hard time getting my thoughts out in coherent sentences these days. My brain seems to be working faster than I can type (I knew I should have taken the class in high school!) which has left me with a plethora of half written posts with ideas I really want to talk with you about. And then, in conversations, it dawned on me that I do pretty well with just, well—talking—so why not share that way? Hence my first ever video blog post.

This is a test. It’s low quality, bad backdrop, and way too long. Depending on your feedback, I will either refine and make better next time, or put my camera away and go back to focusing on organizing my words on screen. Or perhaps both, we’ll see.

But watch this one. And then be sure to head over to @SueSpaight ‘s blog post on the same topic, because while I talk about where leadership often fails, she outlines how to make sure it doesn’t.

WWW stands for Why, Who, Where

None other than Ralph Waldo Emerson is said to have coined the phrase “Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.” This metaphor about the power of innovation has stood the test of time, but I wonder if it’s showing some serious post digital threads.

The brief history of digital has pretty much been about building better mousetraps. One-off sites that marketeers either drove users to via paid media and SEO. Or, they just built these digital mousetraps because it was on their list of marketing things to do—more on that later. This strategy seems much in tune with what the internet was originally termed—the information superhighway (or better yet—infobahn—heh). This brings to mind a series of stops along a singular road, where something akin to a mousetrap, bear trap, camouflaged pit with spikes, or even some type of sticky, gooey thing might actually be a decent idea.

Well, that whole information superhighway term didn’t last very long. It quickly became known as the world wide web. Yeah, the web that you’re reading this on right now.

So, isn’t it about time we started using it as a web instead of a mousetrap?

Old school: Set a variety of these with the exact same cheese and you have “integration”.

An IRL web operates by sending signals from different touchpoints across its span. The proprietor of this web (okay, I know it’s a vampiric spider—just bear with me) sits at the center and pays attention to the vibrations sent from the far-reaching corners. In other words, it listens. It gathers information and plans immediate and future actions based on data sent from its glistening web.

Sound familiar?

In a post from last week One-to-Some: A New Mode of Communication, Mike Arauz, senior strategist at Undercurrent, smartly theorizes about the quickly changing nature of communication in the post digital era.

The promise of the social web is a fundamentally new form of communication in which each of us can move fluidly between one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many communication with each bit of information we share.

I think the key word there is fluidly. This conjures up the image of a limitless network of touchpoints, content, sharing and co-creation opportunities that can be traversed almost as quickly as we think. That’s getting into the realm of collective intelligence. (Which, Mr. Arauz touches on in yet another heady post.)

But before we can take advantage of this opportunity, we must rid ourselves of a mindset that approaches www as a what.what.what. In other words, a series of loosely related and not so cohesive tactics.

This is the result of the two-dimensional checklist philosophy that drives marketing departments to build “better” yet unconnected mousetraps both on and offline. This checklist philosophy is a byproduct of The Chain method of organizational communication which has its roots in the military and still dominates much of business management. It focuses on the goal of clearing out your inbox. This is what is considered as success. Or at the very least, it constitutes a moral victory. Someone who goes by the handle of @deziner and I talk about this often, and it stems (no pun intended) from the topic of her recent post on the human need for control.

To take two-dimensional thinking into the third dimension, it’s time to approach all things www with why.who.where, since this will focus on human behavior, user experience, and context rather than a default execution that accomplishes crossing a task off a list. This will get us closer to that sparkly goal of a more collectively intelligent and fluid experience across the web. But I think I’ll let Cynthia Thomas carry that torch in another blog post.

So, are you working on a mousetrap right now? Or are you attempting to spin a web?

Putting the Human Back in Humanity

There’s been talk about a shift in sentiment that has been evolving over what seems to be just the last few months. A backlash if you will against the thinking surrounding social media and the focus on implementation tactics. A level of frustration with the trepidation, nervousness and overarching reluctance to embrace social media for a fear of “doing it wrong.” I have thought a lot about this. And it goes a bit beyond embracing a new channel. I think the core issue is deeply rooted—more than we want to admit. Because I see social media’s influence going way beyond a marketing or engagement tool. It’s actually working towards putting the human back into humanity.

Which side of your brain are you using?

We humans have been busy at work developing our new brains—or Neocortex, for us science geeks. It’s the the part of the brain that is responsible for the ability to think logically, to reason and draw conclusions. It’s what sets us apart from most, if not all other species of life. Because it’s new, and we alone possess this skill, it’s become what we operate under, what is valued, and what we exploit the most in our ways (thank you ego.) Looking at this new skill set, it’s easy to see where humanity’s propensity for control comes into play. Logic and reason relies on rules. Rules require absolutes. Absolutes demand control.

We see this reliance on control affect everything we do. Look at any aspect of how we run ourselves, or the rules under which we operate. Government, education, parenting, business, marketing. It’s all based on control. Control the curriculum, control the message, control the process, control the brand. We’ve disconnected ourselves from each other and and placed more emphasis on the rules. The more rules, the more success. It’s this reliance on rules and control that has become our ingrained safety net, and exactly why social media is scary. The rules change in the social world, at lightning speed, and it forces us out of our relatively new-found comfort zone. We can’t control it. In fact, control is shunned.

But while this new brain is basking in evolutionary success, it is not our only source of definition. There is another side to us simple humans, an entire ancient brain (Limbic Cortex) that houses our intuition, emotions, and feeling. Our ego that relies on our newest toy has pushed aside the relevance of this type of thinking. We haven’t stopped experiencing those “gut feelings” or the influence feelings have on decisions, we’ve just somehow discounted them.

Until now.

This is what social media is doing to us. This is why there is a battle cry to stop thinking about the media and start paying attention to the social. (Sound familiar @augieray ?) Because the connections and emotions that these new technologies have enabled are reshaping basic expectations, and calling to the table a renewed appreciation for the human aspects of humanity. Inclusion, authenticity and freedom to participate are quickly becoming the new definition of success. This leaves rules and control to find a new, supporting role in how we operate. This shift goes beyond how we develop our social media strategies. Those that don’t evolve with these newfound expectations will be exposed and left behind. For example, it is quickly becoming not enough for companies to hire a good, smart voice who is smart in the social space. The expectation is that you at your core—in culture and practice—are engaged and care. And if you are not, you will quickly be found out.

I think what makes us human – is our interconnectedness among people. It’s our ability to form and maintain relationships. It’s the barometer by which we call ourselves human.
– Thomas Jane

The work that needs to be done in this new world is not understanding Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. The work that needs to be done is recognizing both sides of our brain and adapting to a new definition of success and engagement. I hate to break it to you. I know self reflection is hard. But the choice is yours. Where do you and your business priorities lie? Maintaining control and playing by the rules, or jumping feet first,  appreciating the unexpected, and being part of humanity?

I know where I stand. Do you?