31 May, 2015 Dear Frederic, I read your book, Reinventing Organizations. First off, congratulations on becoming a published author. I’m wondering if you’ve read my first one, FLAT ARMY? Regardless, there are parts of your book I rather enjoyed. But when I came up against ‘Teal‘, I began having my doubts. Particularly as it relates to … well, a lot that has to do with Teal. Its implementation and feasibility in medium and large-sized organizations is of concern to me, so I’d love to understand how it can actually be achieved. (I consider Zappos rather small, at ~1500 employees - and I don’t think ‘Operation Teal’ is fully implemented yet) I won’t belabor this letter to you, but I’d like to propose a public debate. Let’s openly (and publicly) debate #ReinventingOrganizations and #FlatArmy. I’ll take the Flat Army angle, and you can defend ‘Teal‘. I’ll be in Vienna, 5-7 November, 2015, so perhaps we can do it live and in person. (we’ll arrange for someone to record it so others might enjoy in the festivities) If not, let’s figure out a date and place where this can happen. I understand you don’t travel much, but given I’m based in British Columbia, Canada … I thought we might make it happen whilst I’m in Europe. (Unfortunately, I won’t be back again in Europe until 2016) I look forward to your response. Respectfully,     Dan Pontefract Author of FLAT ARMY: Creating a Connected and Engaged Organization and the forthcoming book, DUAL PURPOSE: Redefining the Meaning of Work.   Dan's Related Posts:Did Zappos Just Ruin Their Culture Or Is It A Brilliant Org Redesign?"Oh, you’re one of those. You want to work anywhere, anytime."I’m Showing My Work … My Next Book Is PostponedFlat Army Book Launch Party … A Sea of HumanityIn 2015, Will I …

This on-demand webinar is designed to equip leaders with powerful decision-making skills.

This week, twenty-five years ago, I graduated from high school. Technically speaking, I’m now old. I have no hair, I’m a size 34 waist (ok, probably 35 on Saturday nights) when I should be a 32, and the 12-, 10-, and 8-year olds parading around our home, masquerading as ‘children’ and causing irreparable havoc, occupy 134% of my free time. As I turn 44 years old myself next weekend (hint hint, family), I consider myself at "Peak Dan". I reckon I’ll live to the age of 88, so from here on in, there’s no going back. I’m old, and I’m getting older by the minute. As far as I understand 1st century engineering, the sands of the hour-glass don’t possess an off button. Having been born in 1971, I’m smack in the middle of the GenX cohort age bracket. Translation? I’m halfway between contempt for all that the Baby Boomer’s have achieved (and partially screwed up) and all that is made of the Millennials via their mainstream-media depicted "saviour of the Western world" taxonomy. I’ve become the middle child. I’m not used to this at all. Even though I’ve been tattooed by author Douglas Coupland as a member of the GenX cohort, born between 1965 and 1981, I’ve grown somewhat weary of those in my age bracket, accurately depicted by their pessimistic, itching to outdo yet often skeptical behavior in films such as Reality Bites, Singles or Fight Club. The brooding, nihilistic and jaded attitude of many GenX’ers (but certainly not all) has become a bit too much for my liking. I think I’m ready for a brand change, but not like the disaster that was New Coke. Because I am one of them — those cantankerous GenXer’s — it’s going to take a lot more mindfulness and meditating to undo my own DNA. (In fact, I may have to steal my son’s singing bowl.) Part of my interest these days lies squarely with a Millennial’s disposition. This is the cohort of Earth’s citizens born between 1981 and 2000. My brother, Adam, is a Millennial, born 14 years after me to the same parents. Through his teens and early 20s, I didn’t understand why his attitude was so "half full" when he encountered life’s unpredictable yet certain potholes and storm clouds. I’ve grown to appreciate my brother’s rather easy going attitude, and have become rather envious as he inches into his 30s and I into my mid-40s. Adam turns 30 on June 21! In hindsight, I feel as though I’ve missed out on a decade of happier times when I was in my 20s. My natural temperament was to judge and find fault and compete, arguably any GenXer’s chromosome deficiency. Adam has always been one that naturally produces smiles and understanding in both the darkest and lightest of times. He has often battled the bumps of life in the company of others, asking for assistance whenever needed. I think I’ve come a long way, but Uncle Adam and his Millennial DNA is far wiser than I was in my 20s. Of course Denise and I are raising "goats", too. The homemade herding is providing me with another anthropological inquiry. The "kids" are classified as Generation Z by some, born between 2001 and 2015. So far, whilst they are certainly tech savvy, they’re also exhibiting far more collaborative and sharing-like behaviours than I ever remember exhibiting during the 1980’s. Their competitive streak seems to be higher than their "blue ribbon" Millennial counterparts, but on the surface it might be that they’re a generational mash-up of Baby Boomers and Millennials. Mind you, I think it’s only the good bits. Saltfleet High School, before it was demolished. It brings me to a moment of recollection and reflection. As I mentioned, twenty-five years ago, I graduated from high school. Where the Hell is the reunion? It’s a big deal, isn’t it? Maybe they didn’t invite me. Between 1985 and 1990 I attended Saltfleet High School in Stoney Creek, Ontario. Back then, high school in Canada’s most populated province occurred between grades 9 and 13. The other provinces thought we were just a wee bit slow, what with their own high school tenure concluding at grade 12 and ours at grade 13. I think it just allowed some of us the opportunity to have a beer at lunch, once we turned nineteen and became of ‘legal’ age to drink. There were a few liquid lunches, I was told, on occasion in 1990. Never me though. Never! Like any high school experience for any teenager anywhere, there were millions of fond and not-so-fond experiences to remember. There was the epic outdoor "air band" concert, first kisses at "The Dairy", competitive euchre tournaments on spares, and practical jokes on Mr. Cann. (His first name was John, so ‘them was easy pickings.’) The cafeteria "beaver ladies" somehow mastered the art of serving extra fatty french fries and 550 calorie chocolate chip cookies, while the regal, English-bred vice-principal had to put up with my morning "radio show". That’s right, yours truly was ‘in charge’ of the morning announcements. It came with my post as student council president. (How they let ‘me’ be president is still a mystery.) I attended our goats’ school closing ceremonies this week. Thankfully they have been ‘promoted’ to grades seven, five and three respectively so I can put away the caning manual. But the pomp and circumstance really got me thinking. Why didn’t anyone organize a 25th anniversary reunion for our high school graduation year? Was it because we’re GenX’ers, brooding over life’s miseries? Was it because they bulldozed the school a few years after we graduated — apparently there is no such thing as ‘heritage status’ for 75+ year-old buildings in Stoney Creek — building a new one kilometers away? Was it because "Reality Bites"? Were the five years of high school a forgettable experientia? Nonetheless, twenty-five years later, I feel nostalgic and somewhat culpable. After all, I am Canadian. There were many moments of love, happiness and learning during high school. In retrospect, that half decade was a wonderful experience. Firsts rained down like water does during a North Vancouver January. The nostalgia of high school ebbs and flows, perhaps more so now that I approach the back half of "Peak Dan". I’m now officially closer to death than birth. Introspection indeed breeds lucent visions of yesteryear. In 1990, I left my hometown of Stoney Creek for Montreal. A higher education degree beckoned, and I was on the hunt to marry Mitsou. By 1995 I was married (not to Mitsou) and living in the City of Glass, Vancouver. By 2011, with three goats grazing heavily and a return to ‘small town’ circling our marital headspace, the quaint hamlet of Victoria called. When I departed for Montreal, however, I never returned to Stoney Creek. My parents moved to Ancaster — a town some 30 kilometres away — and then divorced. I never lived with them again, remaining in Montreal for summer breaks and then immediately moving West after marrying. In essence, I divorced Stoney Creek as well during the process.What a GenX kinda thing to do. In that divorce came, perhaps, an unreasonable separation from my high school, and my hometown, and my memories. Hence, in a moment of reflection, I feel partially responsible (culpable, indeed) for not organizing a 25th high school reunion. Sure, there’s an "Old Saltfleet High School" Facebook group, but no one from "Class of 1990″ is on there, let alone chatting up a reunion party. I don’t know Darryl Buckle, but he’s like a 24-hour DJ on that site. I certainly haven’t posted anything. Speaking of Facebook, I’m only connected with a half-dozen or so people from my actual graduation year. With over 200 graduates, that seems odd to me as well. Am I being too much of a GenXer? Probably. Can I learn from Gen Z and the Millennials? I would think so. They probably would have held a 25th reunion party. (Editors Note: ask one of your children to organize a 30th) I’m sorry there isn’t going to be a 25th high school anniversary for Saltfleet graduates of 1990 (or 1989 or 1991, etc.) If you’re a Saracen, from whatever era, it would be great to hear from you. Maybe one day we’ll have some sort of reunion party and reminisce about bush parties, Taco Bell lunch competitions, Mr. Baxter’s tongue (and wandering eye), "the strap", miner niner day, typewriting, yearbook club and those legendary MC Mike DJ’d dances. Maybe it’s a step closer to becoming less like a GenXer. Dan's Related Posts:The Hierarchy of EducationPlease Don’t Let There Be Anonymity After DeathYa, I Cry at Work. Do You?Leadership Lessons From Late Night King David LettermanWhy I’d Work With Google’s Laszlo Bock (one day)

I’ve had music pop star Taylor Swift on my mind for the better part of a year. It could have something to do with my young girls repeatedly playing her latest album, 1989, (bought on iTunes, naturally) since it released. As a consequence, even I know all the words to the song "Out Of The Woods" now. But Taylor Swift is not only a musician, she’s a shrewd businesswoman. She’s not only a shrewd businesswoman, she’s a staunch advocate of people paying for art. Last year, she decided to pull her music from online music streaming service Spotify. Speaking with Time, Swift said, "I think there should be an inherent value placed on art." That decision was made in early November, but clues were dropped earlier in the year of the inherent value she places on art, like music. For example, in an Op-Ed piece penned to the Wall Street Journal, Swift wrote: Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price point is. I hope they don’t underestimate themselves or undervalue their art. Apple recently decided to get into the streaming music business. Playing catch-up to competitors like Spotify, the company purchased Beats in 2014, which came with the streaming service, Beats Music. In June of 2015, Apple retooled parts of Beats Music to announce Apple Music, the company’s attempt to enter the fray of streaming music services. With Swift’s recent decision regarding her music on Spotify - not to mention the Op-Ed piece at the Wall Street Journal - one must have assumed (if you work for Apple) that she would respond at some point. When Apple announced Apple Music on June 8, the company indicated its customers would be able to sign up for a free three-month trial membership. It’s the classic "try before you buy" adage. It sounded good to everyone. Except Taylor Swift. You know, the artist whose latest album, 1989, had sold over 8.6 million copies worldwide by February of 2015, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. Artists just don’t sell albums like that anymore, it seems. While the free three-month trial membership to Apple Music might have looked great to consumers (and to Apple as a way to entice people to purchase its new service) it was the fine print that irked Swift. The artists weren’t going to be paid during this three-month trial period. Their music would be available, but whatever arrangements Apple set up with the music recording industry players resulted in no payment to the musicians (err, the artists) during the trial period. On June 21, Swift penned another column (this time on Tumblr) titled, "To Apple, Love Taylor." In it she wrote: Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation. The column was gobbled up by mainstream and social media outlets. It was everywhere. Seventeen hours later, Apple responded with a couple of tweets, via Eddy Cue, the company’s senior vice president of Internet Software and Services, reporting to CEO Tim Cook: Apple will always make sure that artist are paid #iTunes #AppleMusic We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple That is, the company reversed its decision and any musician (err, the artists) will now be paid during the Apple Music three-month trial period. How is this story a demonstration of open leadership? Let’s start with Taylor Swift. In the case of Spotify, Swift and her management team pulled her music behind closed doors, and seemed to leave it at that. To this day, Swift’s music is not available on Spotify, and neither side has truly openly debated or discussed the situation. In the case of Apple Music, before the music streaming service ever commences operations, Swift openly wrote an opinion piece (via her Tumblr post) that outlined her concerns and wishes. Sure, she stated her music would not be available unless things changed, but the openness and thoughtfulness of the piece gave Apple time to react. She wasn’t writing or sticking up for herself. Indeed, she was writing on behalf of the artists who can’t afford to go three months without being paid. That is a remarkable demonstration of open leadership. The ball then swung into Apple’s court. What to do? Ignore the backlash and the army of Swift supporters? It took 17 hours! Apple could have balked, hidden behind company (and legal) walls or simply ignored the problem. Many organizations do this. Instead, it took all of seventeen hours to reverse the decision. And how did the reversal get communicated? Openly, via Twitter, of course. Peter Kafka of Re/Code caught up with Eddy Cue after the Twitter announcement reversing the decision, and Cue stated to him: I did reach out to Taylor today, and talked to her, and let her know that we heard her concerns, and wanted her to know that we were making changes. She was thrilled to hear from us and that we were making the change, and we were grateful for that. For me, with Cue calling up Swift, it demonstrated yet another example of open leadership in this short but enlightening story. And in the end, Swift publicly responded with another tweet: I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us. What’s the lesson? Be open. It can do wonders for your business and your brand. Maybe both Apple and Swift are now "Out Of The Woods." Originally posted to Forbes. __________ Dan Pontefract is the author of FLAT ARMY: Creating a Connected and Engaged Organization and is Chief Envisioner at TELUS Transformation Office. His next book, DUAL PURPOSE: Redefining the Meaning of Work, will publish soon. Dan's Related Posts:Apple CEO Tim Cook and his Moment of Open CultureLessons in Leadership From Jim Balsillie and Mike LazaridisI Wrote a 90,000 Word Book Entirely in EvernoteThat Decision Is Above My Pay-GradeIf Your Enterprise Social Network Is A Ghost Town It’s Probably Due To Your…

Enjoy this dynamic conversation from December 2010 with Christine Arena, author of the High Purpose Company and CEO of SparkUp, a new technology for engaging stakeholders.

In her book, Show Your Work, Jane Bozarth encourages us to work in the open. On the topic, she recently wrote, "Working out loud takes us off autopilot and forces us to confront assumptions, bad habits, and prejudices. Helping others better articulate decisions helps them learn—and if we’re paying attention, we might learn something, too." John Stepper is another fabulous example of mastering the "work out loud" nascent meme. He even recently published a new book titled, Working Out Loud. He once wrote that, "You need to make [working out loud] purposeful in order to be effective." I’ve looked up to Jane and John for many years now (mostly virtually) as they have perfected the art not only of working out loud, but of building networks to increase their own knowledge and success. It’s been beautiful to watch from afar. For they are beautiful at working out loud. I like to think I’m open. I like to think I’m collaborative. I like to think I’m (mostly) working out loud. But like most of us, I have plenty of room to grow. Consider this entry about being open with my work. My other work. My writing. When my first book, FLAT ARMY, published in May of 2013 I immediately began sketching, researching, and writing the next book. While FLAT ARMY was a book written to help organizations and leaders launch improvements in their culture and employee engagement practices through connected leadership, pervasive learning and collaborative technologies … I not only had the bug to continue writing, I wanted to delve deeply into the concept of purpose. At first, I titled the book, "It’s Work Not Jail" and it was about 15,000 words in when I realized it was the wrong book. At the time, the target audience for the book was employees — not a bad thing — but I had an epiphany on a long bike ride. While I’d love to help the millions of employees out there directly with a new book on purpose (at least the thought of potentially helping them), I felt the concept of purpose was so delicately intertwined with employee engagement, that the target audience needed to shift. Thus, the first book on purpose was mostly scrapped, and I started fresh. (or, perhaps I started over) I recognized through more research, interviews, and personal reflections that purpose is in fact a two-fold process. First, the organization needs to define what its purpose should be. Second, employees need the resolute assistance of leaders to determine how they might evolve from a job or career mindset into what I believe is a ‘purpose mindset’. (Of course, the purpose mindset is aided and abetted by a more wholesome and stakeholder-driven definition of the organization’s new purpose.) This is why my next book is titled DUAL PURPOSE. Since the Spring of 2013, I’ve written and rewritten this next book several times. I’ve ventured into the memory vault of my own prior roles and organizations. I’ve researched till my fingers bled. I’ve interviewed many people — be it on the organizational or employee side of purpose. In April of 2015, I finished the first complete draft. I did a little dance in the kitchen. Even the goats laughed at me. Over the next two months, five different people read the book. Great comments. Insightful recommendations. Cheeky shots at my propensity for long sentences or made-up-words aside, the book was coming along. And then the paring began. It was 100,000 words and was being whittled down to something more manageable. An appendix was even created, so the flow of the book made more sense versus some of the stories that could be read almost anecdotally. Prior to completion (in 2014 and 2015), five other people had read bits and pieces of the book. Again, fabulous feedback was received and incorporated into the book. The cover was designed. I loved it. So fab! I was getting ready to launch. November 10, 2015 was the chosen date. I could taste the anticipation of publishing another book, in hopes of helping organizations and leaders with this concept called ‘purpose’. It was time for endorsements. I didn’t seek out endorsements for FLAT ARMY, instead choosing to define the words flat, army and flat army on the back cover. But for DUAL PURPOSE, I thought it was time to try something different. Over the years I feel as though I have morphed into the world’s most fortunate aspiring writer. I have met many of the heavyweights and rock stars from the leadership and management space. Whether they have been CEO’s, consultants, ex-consultants, ex-CEO’s, academics, industry analysts, authors, broadcasters, and so on … I’m so lucky in some cases to even have developed a relationship. I decided to call on one of them. The galley was issued. (galley is ‘book-speak’ for a not complete book) Some time lapsed. If the leadership and management space had some sort of articulated equivalent, in my mind, I was essentially ringing on the doorbell of Abbey Road, asking one of The Beatles for their approval. Today, I got a response. It was not positive. Not at all. At first I felt as though Lennon might have quipped, "You’re only playing three chords, and your G isn’t that good either." Gutted. For the entire morning I was not a member of Earth. My mind may as well have been on Mars, searching for water. I got on an airplane. Then I got on another one. Before taking off on airplane #2, a flight attendant approached me in my economy class seat and asked: "Would you like to take 3A in business class?" "Would I?" I shrieked. "You have no idea." So, I plopped myself in 3A and pulled out my iPad. I’m on a cleanse now, and although tempted by wine, I had the wherewithal to pass. I re-read Lennon’s long and so very thoughtful email roughly fifty times. Each time I read it, my degree of hopelessness lessened and my sense of forlornness dissipated. The comments were structured and blunt but written in the spirit of making the book better. Lennon wasn’t trying to attack me; Lennon was attempting to help me make the book a much better book. An offer of assistance was included. It was as though Lennon had asked an Indie band to jam with him for a period of time. It doesn’t even pain me to write this, but DUAL PURPOSE will not publish on November 10, 2015. I don’t know when it will publish, but if Lennon thinks there’s a few more chords to utilize and songs to write, that’s good enough for me. I’m working out loud. Thanks Jane Bozarth and John Stepper. And thank you so much, John Lennon. Dan's Related Posts:My Definition of Work and an Update on Book TwoIn 2015, Will I …Three Types of Workplace MindsetsWhat Should The Title Of My Next Book Be?"Oh, you’re one of those. You want to work anywhere, anytime."

Ashley Welch conducted a stimulating conversation with Shannon Horst, CEO of Savory Institute.

My first few days as a team member at TELUS in November of 2008 were rather interesting. "Here’s your office, Dan," said the charming woman, gleefully pointing to a cavernous room that consisted of an oak desk the size of a canoe and a view of the parking lot. "There’s your PC, desk phone…and over here is a table where you can have your meetings." She was a lovely woman, doing as she had always done, perhaps a hundred times over. Of course, I wanted nothing of it, causing a minor stir of incredulity that first day. "What if we gave back the office, and the PC, and the telephone," I asked. "Would that be a problem?" At first, I thought she was about to strike me with the stapler she was holding in her hand. Thankfully, she did nothing of the sort. As a bonus, the stapler looked empty, too, so there would be no staples masquerading as bullets flying past my head. Pedestrians pass in front of the TELUS Corp. building in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Photographer: Aaron Harris/Bloomberg "You mean," she began, "you don’t want an office?" She put the stapler down, and for a moment I truly thought she was about to pick up the soon-to-be orphaned desk phone and start hitting me with it. "Not really," I awkwardly responded. "I’d like to be able to move around, work from home, be in different buildings and generally work from anywhere." She was beginning to go for the phone. "But I do appreciate what you’ve done," I implored with heartfelt sincerity. "I’ll do whatever it takes to ‘send it back,’ if need be." My new friend quickly began to connect the dots. "Oh, you’re one of those," she said. "You want to work anywhere, anytime." "Exactly!" I exclaimed. "I want to work anywhere, anytime." Without skipping a beat, she replied, "I wish I could do that. I really wish I could work anywhere, anytime." These days at TELUS, more people than ever before are working anywhere, anytime. And that type of operating culture is paying dividends in many facets of our overall customer, business, team member and community strategies. Take for example our employee engagement scores. Since formally implementing Work Styles - a flexible work program empowering team members at TELUS with the tools, resources and support to work when and where they’re most productive - we have witnessed employee engagement shift from 57% to 85%. We utilize Aon Hewitt for our twice-annual engagement surveying, and the firm has informed us that our employee engagement score is "number one globally amongst organizations of similar size and composition." Not only are we proud of that distinction, in 2015, once again TELUS was named to Canada’s Top 100 Employers list. But employee engagement is but one aspect that demonstrates TELUS’ flexible working arrangement and model is, err…working. Since 65% of TELUS team members work from home 100% of the time (called at-home team members) or work from a combination of locations including an office and the home (called mobile team members) we have witnessed a significant contribution to the environment and our communities. For example, in 2014: We avoided 5,645 tonnes of CO2e simply by driving less to the office; and We saved 1.3 million hours of commuting time that equated to 22.7 million less kilometers on the road. Furthermore, because we believe in spirited teamwork (whether we’re at an office, at home, at a customer site, or elsewhere) our use of collaborative technologies and reduced travel - and the open leadership principles that we have employed since 2010 - predicts TELUS will save $63.5 million over a 13-year period, monies we can invest into our team members and our Customers First strategy. Would you be surprised to know TELUS has reduced its overall real estate footprint by one million square feet since 2010 as well? As a result, we’ve lowered our real estate costs by $50 million annually, which also helps our 2020 goal of reducing our overall carbon footprint by 25%. Simply put, the efforts applied to the TELUS Work Styles program has not only resulted in a return on investment, it has demonstrated a return on engagement and a return on environment. Perhaps it’s a new triple bottom line. I never did take that office, back in November of 2008. Six-and-a-half years later, I’m still working, anywhere, anytime. And like many other team members at TELUS, I feel a sense of purpose in my work and a deep commitment to our Customers First strategy. Now, where was that stapler? If you’re interested, feel free to download the TELUS Work Styles infographic. Originally published to Forbes. __________ Dan Pontefract is the author of FLAT ARMY: Creating a Connected and Engaged Organization and is Chief Envisioner at TELUS Transformation Office. His next book, DUAL PURPOSE: Redefining the Meaning of Work, will publish May 10, 2016.   Dan's Related Posts:Try Implementing Flexible Work Options to Increase Employee EngagementFive Essential Tips to Effectively Work from HomeAfter Five Years In My Role We’re Hiring My Replacement. Are You Interested?Flexible Working WorksMy Next Role Is …

Everyone encounters it at one time or another: behavior by team members that drives you crazy.

When you fly into Australia direct from another international destination like Singapore, Los Angeles or London, country law dictates the airline must decontaminate the airplane for any potential insecticides before anyone may disembark the plane. If it’s your first time to Australia you might think you’re on the set of the movie Ghostbusters or worse, caught up in an international flu pandemic. Once the landing has completed and the pilot has pulled the plane up to the gate, flight attendants parade up and down the aisles spraying a World Health Organization approved aerosol disinfectant. You have no idea what it is, but there is an implicit trust that Australia — and by association, the flight attendants — know what they’re doing. They’re acting on behalf of the interests of an entire country. I find myself needing to apply some form of disinfectant to the fuselage that makes up my current professional projects. In particular, I’ve recognized over the past several weeks that if I want the Dual Purpose book project to safely and successfully disembark, my own patterns and behaviours must change. I have a case of the sophomore book blues. To combat it and to ensure I improve the final result, I’ve decided to take a sabbatical from all other forms of social. That includes contributing, participating or mingling in personal/professional social networks whether face-to-face or digital. This includes coffees, beers, and lunches. This includes other forms of writing. As hard as it might be for someone who draws his energy from other people, a 60km bike ride today put things into perspective. I need a different strategy. Thus, I’m applying the disinfectant. Call it the ‘sophomore blues sabbatical’. (that should be the name of a band) See you on the other side, whenever that is. Dan's Related Posts:Why Don’t We Tip Flight Attendants?Air Canada Isn’t Collaborating With Its EmployeesI’m Showing My Work … My Next Book Is PostponedRedefining the Social EmployeeThe 10 Winners of Flat Army Copies Are …