3 Most Common Barriers Keeping Conscious Business Leaders on the Hamster Wheel

If there ever was a time to realize creative potential inside companies it is now. A quick look at the top issues facing companies of all sizes reveals the usual short list: attracting and retaining talent, managing reputation, with the need to create flexible workplaces and balance benefits with bottom line. While tempting to view these challenges with concern over the bottom line, doing so sabotages gains possible when entrepreneurial spirit applied to innovation is ignited full throttle. Even conscious business leaders, who keep an eye on the horizon (longer term), getting work done and being attentive to workplace dynamics, are still susceptible to running around in circles.

In case the term 'spirit' is distracting, a definition is in order. Personal spirit refers to three measurable elements: (1) initiative, (2) sense of control, and (3) outlook on life.

Entrepreneurial spirit combines personal spirit with a sense of adventure, willingness to experiment, an insatiable desire to learn and a capacity to bounce forward.

Without entrepreneurial spirit at play, companies plod through the motions, guided by habitual processes and routine. The company runs on auto-pilot so much so that either the purpose of the task is assumed, or the underlying agenda is to explicitly or implicitly control behavior. Either way, the company falls asleep at the wheel numbing leaders into the same repetitive albeit comfortable cycle. Running hard to wind up in the same place.

Context Drives Behaviour and Regulates Entrepreneurial Spirit

The term 'conscious business leaders' applies to a small group since
85% of leaders in the U.S. are operating at the survival level. [See Seizing the Executive Imperative To Expand Consciousness] One source of the hamster wheel is the existence of internal politics. Behind internal politics is the desire to protect personal reputation at the expense of achieving business goals. Aversion to risk, and therefore innovation, is inherent. Entrepreneurial spirit suffocates in working climates where trust is low and expression of diverse ideas is suppressed. In contrast, innovation requires creativity and a comfort with uncertainty.

The Impact of Systemic Barriers

Systemic beliefs add to the pressure of delivering on short-term goals blocking innovation and adaptability. Attracting and retaining talent, or mitigating risks to reputation are restricted to a narrow set of strategies arising from one or more of these three dangerous barriers:

Barrier #3: Focusing on Recurring and Constant Barriers

Characteristic of problem oriented, adrenaline charged companies is the persistent focus on solving problems. Problems love analytical thinking. Innovation on the other side requires exploratory thinking - the opposite of problem solving. Linear thinking doesn't help because problem solving tends to assume that there is a singular root cause. In a complex system, multiple causes exist. Unless perception is expanded you will find yourself running in circles: busy but not productive.

Asking leaders to innovate and apply their entrepreneurial spirit while continuing to focus on barriers keeps everyone running in a loop.

Personal Impact: Leaders find themselves chasing problems. Since what you focus on expands, problems also expand. Adrenaline is addictive as is the illusion of feeling in control. In workplaces designed to control behaviour, business leaders at every level will find themselves repeating the same patterns over and over again.

Insight: Awareness of what you are focusing on helps you develop flexibility in how you perceive (see) the situation. Increasing flexibility gives you more options, while letting go of the need to control everyone else. It is a start at least.

Barrier #2: Falling Unconsciously into Organizational Patterns and Behaviors

Beliefs keep decisions running in a rut and operate without being noticed until you systematically poke them to the surface. For example, walk into a company that believes it exists to purely make a profit and you will find behaviours shaped by those beliefs. Or if, for instance, the core belief is that employees must be told what to do, then selection of metrics and implementation of performance management strategies will reflect that belief. Beliefs drive decisions unless the company and business leaders have deliberately worked with values as a principle-based approach to decision making.

Where habitual patterns operate on unchecked auto-pilot, efforts to explore and experiment (the prerequisites for innovation / entrepreneurial spirit) run smack into complacent thinking. "Do something different, but don't change anything."

Organizational Impact: Take a look at the metrics. Whenever a company focuses on quantitative measures and statistics alone, meaning is likely to be missing. Without meaning there is no inspiration and no fuel to fire up creativity, much needed for innovative responses to uncertainty.

Insight: Reflecting to observe patterns in recurring issues or undesirable results, strengthens ability to pivot.

Barrier #1: Losing Connection to What Matters Most to You

By far the biggest barrier is to sight of what matters most to you as a fully aware and caring human being with a desire to contribute your talent to something meaningful. Yes, food needs to be put on the table but the days of trading your soul for security are gone. Rather than being driven by the need for societal approval or by metrics that manipulate behavior reconnecting to your personal sense of purpose and of inspiration is the only door available going forward.

Insight: Personal reflection to identify what you rely on: social approval, meeting external expectations for instance, enables you to chart a course toward personal fulfillment.

What do you see as the barriers to stepping off the hamster wheel and do what you believe, deep down, you're truly capable of?

Much thanks to Dr. Thomas Juli for reviewing and commenting.

Dawna Jones delivers customized workshops and insights raising leadership and decision making awareness of a wider spectrum of skills and intelligences. She provides dynamic oversight into organizational change initiatives by spotting the patterns, and openings for innovation and fresh approaches to working with complex adaptive systems. Contact Dawna through LinkedIn or directly at www.FromInsightToAction.com

Elections Are Won by Votes, Not Likes and Shares

"Politics is just like show business." - Ronald Reagan

It's hard to argue with that sentiment after the recent US election. However, my interest is more on the side of how the show-business effect impacted Millennial voter turnout than in the antics and theater of any particular candidate.

To that end, it is important to note that in the US only about 50% of the eligible Millennial population actually cast a vote, versus an average of about 57% for the general population, a figure that, in and of itself, is sadly and pathetically low and, in fact, a few points lower than the last US presidential election.

Now, contrast this with the rest of the world, and by world I don't mean the countries where voting is compulsory. I mean the world where voting is mandatory as a public service. In October, The Guardian reported,

In Belgium's most recent election, 87% of the voting-age population turned out. In Turkey 84% voted and in South Korea it was 80%. But in the US, in 2012, just 54% of the voting-age population exercised their right to vote. That is one of the lowest turnouts in any developed country.

If you are interested, I recommend you read the Pew Research Center on this. It's fascinating to see how voter registration varies country to country, and I'm sure you will have, like me, your own take on why.

But back to Millennials.

While I usually hate writing about labels and have never believed the "experts'" view on the monolithic "movement" status of this generation (once again proven by this election), the ganging together of an age group as an aggregated audience is a convenient way to knock off some sacred cows.

To begin with, a critical numerical line has been crossed. According to Pew Research Center from May,

As of April 2016, an estimated 69.2 million Millennials (adults ages 18-35 in 2016) were voting-age U.S. citizens - a number almost equal to the 69.7 million Baby Boomers (ages 52-70) in the nation's electorate.

Yet, here is the critical piece of data...while many were counting on that youth vote to propel a different outcome, the truth is that:

...the high-water mark for Millennials was the 2008 election, when 50% of eligible Millennials voted. By comparison, 61% of the Generation X electorate reported voting that year, as did even larger percentages of older eligible voters. In 2008 Millennials comprised 18% of the electorate, but as a result of their relatively low turnout they were only 14% of those who said they actually voted.

But wait...it gets worse according to Pew:

Millennial turnout was less impressive in 2012, when 46% of eligible Millennials said they had voted. Since the oldest Millennials were 31 years of age in 2012 (as opposed to 27 in 2008), the expectation might have been that turnout would have edged higher. After all, an older, more mature, more "settled" age group presumably should turn out at higher rates. This underscores the fact that young-adult turnout depends on factors besides demographics: the candidates, the success of voter mobilization efforts, as well as satisfaction with the economy and direction of the country.

Depends on more than demographics? My starting point...obvious, no?

And according to the US Census,

Overall, America's youngest voters have moved towards less engagement over time, as 18- through 24-year-olds' voting rates dropped from 50.9 percent in 1964 to 38.0 percent in 2012.

Maybe not so obvious.

Look at the recent Brexit vote in the UK. The data - not surprisingly - seems all over the place. Some sources claim a very low Millennial turnout and others peg the number much higher. VICE reports the numbers at the highest.

I've just got the figures back from our other survey, which is from a fresh sample, and what we found is that turnout among voters eighteen to twenty-four was sixty-four percent. Now that is an estimate, because it's always an estimation, but it comes from an actual survey where people were asked whether they voted or not, and whether they registered or not. We also controlled for over-reporting of electoral participation, because people always have a tendency to tell you that they voted even if they did not. So even when you account for all of that, we find is that turnout among eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds was about sixty-four percent. That would be the highest turnout among eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds for the past twenty-five years.

But every other source had it far lower. The Guardian reported,

We cannot know for certain the demographic turnouts on 23 June, because there was no exit poll. So don't let any figure thrown around under pretence of being cast-iron fool you. That figure does not exist. But we have some guidance. Sky Data put 18-24 turnout at 36% and 25-34 turnout (also millennials) at 58%: but it was projected - representing those who said they were certain to vote and had done so in the past. Data crunched by the FT found that "on a general basis, areas with younger populations had lower turnout" and the Guardian, Telegraph and BBC data all back this up.

Clearly, given the poor performance of polls, none of these numbers, either in the UK or in the US, fill me with deep conviction...yet based on all that I have read, heard, and seen I would say we do have a problem of an engaged younger electorate, but I don't believe it has anything to do with the candidates, the issues, the economy or the general direction of anything.

For one, I give this generation some credit for caring...in fact, for caring deeply about the world. The problem I believe is a lack of understanding of how the levers of power actually work and, as a result, in how to actually make a difference in the world.

For one, we are living in a glut of uncurated, unverified, highly questionable information or maybe better put words...as it's often unclear what's real and not.

Just take a look at how we use Facebook - and not just Millennials. More than a billion people log in to Facebook every day, with most users admitting to more than once-a-day use. millennials are the least likely to share political content (4% or less) and more likely to share memes (6% or more). Baby Boomers are most likely to share political content (7% or more), according to a Fractl study from April 2016.

Although Millennials may not be sharing political content, Facebook remains a major source of news. According to a June 2015 Pew Research Center study:

About six-in-ten online Millennials (61%) report getting political news on Facebook in a given week, a much larger percentage than turn to any other news source. This stands in stark contrast to internet-using Baby Boomers, for whom local TV tops the list of sources for political news at nearly the same reach (60%).

Roughly a quarter (24%) of Millennials who use Facebook say at least half of the posts they see on the site relate to government and politics, higher than both Gen Xers (18%) and Baby Boomers (16%) who use the social networking site.

And Twitter seems to be no less a source of news for many. As reported by California Magazine:

It's the year Twitter catapulted billionaire Donald Trump from being a long shot to being the GOP nominee, in part thanks to his uncanny penchant for newsmaking in 140-character posts, which reaped millions of dollars in free publicity for his campaign during the crowded GOP primaries. The stunningly effective strategy sparked veteran journalist Tom Brokaw to wonder if the billionaire businessman may become the first "to tweet his way to the White House". [emphasis mine]

On the Democratic side, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, boosted by Millennial voters, churned effective social media outreach into a fundraising bonanza - the average donation was $27 dollars - along with mega-rallies, which threatened to upend the campaign of frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, the former Secretary of State, who introduced her 2016 campaign on Facebook, fully graduated to Snapchat, Instagram, and Twitter - this time in Spanish - and celebrated her historic nomination with social media emojis celebrating "The Woman Card," among other things.

Now, to be clear, I do believe that news channels actually amplified the social message, and that is where Trump triumphed as he wasn't bound by the Digibabble that, in my opinion, limited some of the Democratic Party operatives. And, I'd also posit that Trump and Bernie shared the mega-rally strategy, a decidedly analog way to make news and spread the word.

It seems to me there is a critical missing link, a crucial disconnect, an essential gap between what we think we know about millennials, their pursuit of causes, their consumption of news, and their compulsion to share.

The Guardian speculated as follows:

[T]ech can be helpful when encouraging engagement -Facebook's voter status initiative, for instance - and I see that changing your profile picture to a French flag, or a Rainbow flag helps you to feel better and does contribute to a nicer, supportive tone of discourse - it has its place - but when it comes to affecting policy change, it's as good as hovering a pencil over the box and crossing the air.

Bottom line? We have lost touch with reality. People no longer understand how elections work.

John Oliver of HBO's Last Week Tonight said it best:

The one theme that seemed to emerge in the chaos and confusion of the RNC was, feelings were king, and viewers experienced a "four-day exercise in exercising feelings over facts".

We even experienced the following, as reported by Wired and many others:

America's electoral system is already kind of a mess. Now, Twitter trolls are doing their best to make it even more confusing by spreading disinformation about how to cast a ballot on election day. The latest example: Donald Trump supporters are spreading memes on Twitter in both English and Spanish, trying to trick Hillary Clinton supporters into thinking they can vote by text.

Have we become so confused that anyone would take such misinformation seriously?

Why not? When such a large percentage of the so-called news being shared online was laughably false. And let us not forget the increasingly narrow silos of information which, true or not, are skewed one way or another. Vox reported,

Reddit is a popular news aggregator in which users vote about which stories to promote to the front page. And by March of this year, the politics section of the site had become dominated by Bernie Sanders supporters. As a result, if you relied on Reddit for your political news this spring, you basically only saw stories that praised Sanders and criticized Clinton and the Republican candidates.

We live in a world where Reality and Reality TV are often confused with each other, where sharing and liking are considered action, and where our skills at discerning the truth are being challenged, to say the least.

Summing it all up I turn to a statement made by Jennifer Lawrence - not because I think she is an influencer, (next week I will tackle that topic) but because it speaks volumes to the problem we all face:

We're all allowed to be sad that the present isn't what we thought it was. But we mustn't be defeated. We will keep educating ourselves and working twice as hard as the man next to us because we know now that it is not fair. It is not fair in the workplace, so you make it impossible to fail. And like Hillary, it might not work.

But like Hillary, you can still be an inspiration and get important things done. Do not let this defeat you--let this enrage you! Let it motivate you! Let this be the fire you didn't have before. If you are an immigrant, if you are a person of color, if you are LGBTQ+, if you are a woman--don't be afraid, be loud!

Where is the admonition to go out and vote? To get involved in the process. To make a difference by actually making a difference.

Being loud just doesn't cut it...nor does mere sharing, liking, sending disappearing messages, posting, and certainly not whining and whinging.

Perhaps the great poet Robert Frost said it best...Listen:

"Thinking isn't agreeing or disagreeing. That's voting."

So, no matter where you live, voting, taking real action, is the only way to effect serious change.... until the revolution, and we all know where that can lead.

What do you think?

Read more at The Weekly Ramble

Follow David Sable on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidSable

Trailblazing Women: Elizabeth Iorns, CEO of Science Exchange, Part-time Partner at Y Combinator

This interview is part of a series on Trailblazing Women role models (Entrepreneurs and Leaders) from around the world and first appeared on Global Invest Her. You have to see what you can be.

"Creating Science Exchange has been the most rewarding and challenging adventure I have had. I've gone from being an academic scientist to running a Silicon Valley based technology company, with 50+ employees, working with the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world. I am so grateful for the opportunity."

Dr. Elizabeth Iorns is the Founder & CEO of Science Exchange, the Co-Director of the Reproducibility Initiative, and is a part-time partner at Y Combinator. Elizabeth has a Ph.D. in Cancer Biology from the Institute of Cancer Research (UK), and before starting Science Exchange in 2011 was an Assistant Professor at the University of Miami (where she remains an Adjunct Professor). Elizabeth has received a range of honors and recognition, including the Kauffman Foundation Emerging Entrepreneur Award, one of Nature Magazine's 'Ten People Who Mattered', and one of WIRED's '50 Women Who Are Changing The World'. Elizabeth is focused on the development of innovative models to promote the quality and efficiency of scientific research.

Visit her website at https://www.scienceexchange.com and follow her on Twitter @elizabethiorns or @ScienceExchange

Who is your role model as an entrepreneur?

I don't just look at one role model to emulate as an entrepreneur. Being in Silicon Valley, you get a lot of exposure to both experienced and up-and-coming entrepreneurs. You can take pieces of their stories and use them to help you with the challenges you are facing. Being part of the Y Combinator community is incredibly valuable and one of the reasons is because you can usually find an entrepreneur within that network that's faced a similar situation. I've found that a really important component is to be able to look to peers as well as more experienced entrepreneurs for inspiration. I am always inspired by people who are unafraid to take risks, to take their own path. A lot of times when you start something that is going to be disruptive, people tend to dismiss you and think that you are a little crazy. It can take a lot of courage continue on that journey and inspire others to help you. Something that's always inspiring to me is seeing people being able to take a 'crazy idea' and be able to execute on it effectively. Elon Musk is a great example of that.

What is your greatest achievement to date?

For me, the single achievement I am most proud of is obtaining my PhD in Cancer Biology. The program definitely tested my perseverance and was very challenging - I think that's what makes achievement the most satisfying.

"If you feel very strongly that you have a problem you want to solve and are really committed to solving that, then do it! The biggest regrets are always the things you don't do, rather than the things you do."

What has been your biggest challenge as a woman entrepreneur?

In some ways, I have been very fortunate as a woman entrepreneur. My company has been relatively buffered from any discrimination because I have a male co-founder and in some cases, I've found being a woman entrepreneur an advantage, because you stand out from the crowd. However, I have heard a lot of stories that are not ideal and the disadvantages are real. For example, it is harder to build relationships with funders or other entrepreneurs if you are the only woman in that network.

What in your opinion is the key to your company's success?

The key is that we are solving a real problem. Pharmaceutical and other R&D focused organizations increasingly rely on external service providers to discover and develop their products. The global market for pharmaceutical outsourcing now exceeds $250B annually, and has a 7.5% CAGR, with nearly 50% of R&D dollars now spent externally. This shift in R&D from internal resources to external service providers has created significant challenges for the industry. Science Exchange solves these challenges by providing a software platform for ordering services from the world's largest network of scientific service providers. Through Science Exchange, clients gain access to 3000+ qualified service providers, all with pre-established contracts in place that protect client intellectual property and confidentiality. This enables organizations to efficiently access their external R&D partner network and consolidates their research outsourcing spend into a single strategic supplier relationship with Science Exchange. This model has saved our clients thousands of hours of legal, business operations, and scientist time, and driven significant cost savings.

What helped us initially was finding a good client to partner with. We worked with that partner to optimize our offering and achieve product-market fit. That resulted in significant benefit to our client because we were able to solve the challenges they were facing working with their external network of R&D service providers. We were then able to leverage the success of that initial partnership to expand rapidly with new clients.

If you could do 1 thing differently, what would it be?

I try to not look back and think of what I could have done differently too much - there are always unforeseen consequences of doing something differently that you couldn't have predicted. The only thing I can think of immediately is that I would probably have tried to interact with a broader segment of potential clients earlier. In the beginning we saw Science Exchange as a consumer-facing product where we saw scientists as consumers. Now we understand that it's an enterprise product, where we need the buy-in of several stakeholders to get adoption at an institutional level. We could have learned this quicker, if we had of interacted with a broader segment of potential clients earlier on.

What would you say to others to encourage them to become entrepreneurs?

It's all about seeing role models that other people can aspire to. Silicon Valley is the hub of entrepreneurship, where it is almost the social norm that entrepreneurship is the acceptable thing for anybody to do. The network effect is very powerful. I was a Silicon Valley outsider before I came to Y Combinator - that allowed me to tap into the Silicon Valley network really quickly. At the time, there were very few women entrepreneurs in the program. Since then, many women have gone through the program and been successful, and that enables other women to see that this is a path they can take too.

From a practical point of view, it's important to take advantage of any resources available to you to get started. The inertia of not knowing how to set up your company, raise money, having a vesting schedule etc could be overwhelming, so having access to an accelerator program is very valuable.

These questions would have been very overwhelming to me if I hadn't of had the infrastructure available from Y Combinator. An accelerator can really help you to take that next step.

How would you describe your leadership style?

I am very practical. I like to see how each team is accomplishing their goals and look for opportunities to improve. My team knows that I will always do anything it takes to help the company succeed. If they are working late to meet the needs of our customers, or ship some part of the product, then I'll be there beside them.

What advice would you give to your younger self?

At each stage of my career I've questioned my ability to succeed in new and challenging environments and I've had to push myself to take those steps. My advice would be to not be afraid to fail - I've always regretted the things I haven't done more than anything I have done.

What would you like to achieve in the next 5 years?

Over the next 5 years I want to focus on growing Science Exchange into a mature global company working with clients in all major R&D focused industries. We have significant market share in the biotech and pharmaceutical industry and we are currently expanding into cosmetics, agricultural, chemicals and other R&D focused sectors.

3 key words to describe yourself?

•Driven
•Committed
•Curious

------

Watch Anne Ravanona's TEDx talk on Investing in Women Entrepreneurs.

See more Trailblazing Women role models from this Huffpost series

Learn more about Global Invest Her www.globalinvesther.com @GlobalInvestHer

Dominic Barton on Disruption and Leadership

By Dennis ZHU, member of the St. Gallen Symposium's global community

Probably few people on this planet are in a better position than Mr. Barton to talk about disruption, not only because McKinsey is known for offering advices to clients searching answers for future challenges, but also because of who he is. Mr. Barton suffered from his personal setbacks of being rejected three times before he could finally become a McKinsey partner in Toronto; he orchestrated his own career disruption to move to South Korea in 2000 when every mentor of him advised against it; after he took office as the Global Managing Director in 2009, he has to lead McKinsey out of the humiliation of insider trading scandals of its former senior partners with the daunting task of firm-wide culture change.

With both authenticity and humility, a rare combination nowadays among leaders, Dominic Barton shared his view on Disruption and Leadership.

In his view the disruption has always been an integral part of human history and always leads to a better way of life later. The biggest challenge of the current disruptive wave is the fast speed of change, which leaves the society little time to develop a new balanced system to prepare the people with future-oriented skills and to absorb the negative shocks of the change.

There are three types of disruption.

The first one is technological disruption, which is not only about internet, but also about material science and biological science. Nowadays, the top three companies in United States are Google, Facebook, and Apple. Compared with the top three in 1990s which were three automakers in Detroit, the Silicon Valley companies have generated the similar amount of revenue but ten-time higher market capitalization with only one tenth of employment. Clearly quite some people have been out of their jobs because of the technological change. Also the progress in biological and medical science has posed fundamental challenges for the society. Scientists have made it possible for human body to live up to 180 years, though the brain can still only live up to 110 years. The longer life expectancy will lead to explosion in human population and an aging society in the same time.

The second one is the global power shift, especially to Asia. There are three countries in Asia which deserve special attention: China, India and Indonesia. With its 250 Million population, Indonesia is going to make its name other than a sleeping giant. Africa is also a very dynamic continent with huge market potential. For example, the yearly number of babies born in Nigeria is more than all of the new-born babies in whole Europe.

The last one is the demographic change in society. The aging population not only makes the existing social welfare system unsustainable but also harms the cohesion in the society. While the older people are generally more risk-averse than the younger ones, they also tend to vote for more conservative policies against change. As reflected in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election and the Brexit, older people seem to favor populism and nationalism respectively, feeling more pains than gains in the process of globalization and uneven distribution of wealth. Because of the increasing number of elderly people in the society, by one-man-one-vote mechanism in the democracy we may ultimately have to face a situation in which the conservative and protective thinking will dominate the direction of the whole society. A relevant question to ask then is whether we should consider assigning more weight to the voice of the younger people to make sure we are oriented more towards the future? The answer is yet to be found.

As controversial as it may seem, disruption is actually quite normal and beneficial, according to Mr. Barton. Nevertheless, disruption is about exclusion. By definition, disruption is about defining new rules in the society and redistributing resources and wealth among people. In contrast, stability is about inclusion, i.e., taking care of the broadest interests to achieve cohesion among people. Mr. Barton gave a two-fold recipe for coping with technological and demographic disruptions: firstly through education and training to upgrade the necessary skill-sets not only for the young and privileged few, but also for people with less resources to adapt; secondly rebuild a viable social net so that people who cannot cope with the changes may still keep their hopes for a decent life. In the end, winners are welcome to take more, but not allowed to take all. As an effort to increase its touch with the broader base, McKinsey aims to expand its talent pool by recruiting some candidates without university degree as well as older candidates with experience in addition to recruitment of university graduates with top academic performance.

As for the global power shift, people are encouraged to know more about the dynamics in Asia by travelling, studying or working for some time there, if not living there. Meanwhile, the St. Gallen Symposium believes how the power shifts from older generations to the next ones will also largely define the future landscape in politics, business and civil society. Since 1970, it has been facilitating cross-generational exchange between Leaders of Today and Tomorrow. Readers are invited to follow and contribute to the debates on the #disruptiondilemma at www.symposium.org/digitalsymposium.

Watch Barton's take on disruption and leadership at the St. Gallen Symposium event, held on 23 November 2016 at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, here:

3 Ways Millennials Can Take Control of Their Destiny

With the launch of Robinhood just a few years back, millennials have become more involved in stock investing than ever before. With a desire to increase net worth, be fiscally responsible, and also take a little risk while utilizing personal knowledge, these people demonstrate how stocks and Robinhood are allowing millennials to access their dreams all through their cell phones.

The only problem with stocks is that not only are the returns extremely variable and risky, but realistically lay-men do not know how to do them successfully. So if a millennial is trying to establish an investment portfolio with safe large returns, where should they turn?

If you ask Ross Alex, the obvious answer is real estate.

Ross was a typical rowdy high schooler and dropped out of community college twice. During this time, he bounced between jobs at his local mall, bars, etc. in New York. Eventually, Ross knew he had enough, he wanted to be successful and take his life by the reigns. Reaching out to his uncle who was an established investor in Texas, Ross borrowed money and found himself in Las Vegas at a life changing conference and one week later in Houston, Texas pursuing a real estate business.

Real estate is a stable asset. While markets vary, a house has a fairly standard value and when rented can give fixed income each month. These qualities are what make the industry a much better alternative to stocks which can easily go up or down and sometimes both 10%+ during a year. However, most people view real estate as an unobtainable desire, since houses all cost over $100,000 typically right? Wrong.

After sitting down to talk with Ross, he shed light on his investment strategies, which focuses on real estate wholesaling, rehabbing, and owner financing. The wholesale practice means that before you close escrow on a house (the time between signing a contract and actually transferring ownership, you find a buyer to pay more than what you need to pay to the seller. For example, if I contract a house for $100k I then find a cash buyer for let's say $110k within my option period days. The fee you make after assigning your interest in the deal is called an assignment fee. He started making 10-20K per deal with just a few hours of work.

Over the course of a couple years Ross used this methodology in addition to rehabbing (fixing and flipping) to make generate multiple six figures in real estate in his first year and is now focusing on teaching others how to find the same level of success as he has. His advice to all aspiring entrepreneurs, dreamers, and people who know they could be making more with their life is as follows.

1) Take Massive Action

Sitting in College one day before he had dropped out, rather than crafting out a resume and joining corporate America, he talked to the one man he knew had the right mindset and later that week found himself flying to Vegas to go to a seminar with that man, his Uncle Alan. A few weeks later he packed up his life into a single bag and moved from New York to Houston. Within two months he closed his first real estate deal and launched his company ChristianRoss Property Solutions, LLC.

While massive action takes massive commitment and risk, the only way to pick yourself up from a bad situation and completely change your life is to ditch your old mentality and adopt a winning mindset. It is easy to succumb to the pressures and belief that you will always be in the same tax bracket, that rich people get rich and poor people get poor, and that you have to play with the cards you are dealt, but if you take the time to say "No" you no longer need to abide by these rules.

The second you acknowledge that you can act and perform at the same caliber or higher than the people making a million bucks is the second you grab your life and make of it what you want. Look to those who are succeeding and follow in their footsteps. Ross chose real estate and has never looked back, whether you do the same or use a different industry, figure out what needs to be done to make your life better and do it.

2) Never Quit

Whether due to an increase in laziness, the effects of video games and social media, or some other force of nature, people just do not have the attention spans that they used to have. But as the old adage goes 'Rome was not built in a day'. If you ever want to see a substantial change in your life you need to focus so hard on making that change a reality that you are willing to commit 5, 10, 20 years towards that goal even if you do not start seeing immediate results. How would the world be different if Steve Jobs spent 6-12 months trying to launch Apple and then since it did not blow up instantly he just dropped it and moved onto something else? Never take no for answer and never let doubt get in the way of your success.

The truth is massive success comes with massive responsibility. The life of an entrepreneur will be a challenging one. It will come with failure. Learn to embrace it and learn from it. Quitting won't solve anything. As the quote from "Three Feet From Gold" goes "Every adversity, every failure and every heartache carries with it the seed of an equivalent or greater benefit." Ross says he sees far too many aspiring entrepreneurs quit and give up before they have given it enough time and put in enough work. "There is no such thing as overnight success" he says. It just doesn't work like that. Success takes time and it loves preparation. 80% of your success is simply showing up. Make sure you are showing up every day and giving it your all. It is either all or nothing.

3) Align Yourself with the Right People

Throughout my lengthy talk with Alex, one phrase stuck with me, "You are an average of the five people who you associate with." Since humans naturally pick up the mannerisms, actions, mentalities, ambitions, etc. of those around them, it is your most important mission to only associate with people who will help you achieve your goals and make a better life for yourself. Sometimes confuse networking with simply getting to 500+ on LinkedIn, but real networking requires you to be prolific in your connections and deep in relationships. Your network is only as good as its usefulness to you, which comes from providing real value to those around you.

As Ross put it to me, "a baseball team has lots of players, but only a few are starters that impact the team's performance regularly." Rather than worrying about filling up your network with benchwarmers who will maybe catch a pop-fly or hit a homer once in a blue moon, focus on those starters that will directly translate to a better life for you. Similarly, to a baseball team, you need diversity in your main group. The Cubs would not have won if they only had pitchers or second-basemen. Understand the people you need in your life and the different skillsets they need to have, then go out and find them!

The Real Donald Trump--Part II

President-elect Donald Trump is about to move into the White House.. This is the man who has become a case-study and text book model of Narcissism for Psychotherapists. Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) as defined by Wikipedia, 'is a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others' feelings."

Or, a Narcissist can also be defined as one who has to believe he cannot do wrong, cannot admit he has ever been wrong or apologized for any of his failings. So it would be helpful to understand President-elect Trump's failings, in order to understand and perhaps influence (as President Obama says he wants to attempt), just how he might behave as 'our' next President.

In fact, that is why Trump doubles down on any who would question him, accusing the accuser of the same misdeeds. Maria Konnikova implied that Trump was a classic Con Artist in her now famous New Yorker article: "A grifter takes advantage of a person's confidence for his own specific ends--ends that are often unknowable to the victim and unrelated to the business at hand. He willfully deceives a mark into handing over his trust under false pretenses. He has a plan."

That has to be why Trump maintained during the campaign that he would convene a special prosecutor to prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton for her "crimes", when in fact Trump himself has been prosecuted for outright criminal behavior, such as the three Trump University lawsuits that settled. Whereas, Hillary was cleared of all criminal charges for use of a private email server by FBI Director Comey. And we just learned that Trump has admitted to the IRS that his family foundation was "self-serving".

Or, he accused President Obama of not being born in the US for six years, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Was Trump being stupid? No, he was currying favor with the birther movement to gain their support; mainly white male, racist Tea Partiers still fighting the Civil War who wanted to cast doubt on Obama's legitimacy as the first African American President.

"What ultimately sets con artists apart is their intent," says Konnikova. "To figure out if someone is a con artist, one needs to ask two questions. First, is their deception knowing, malicious, and directed, ultimately, toward their own personal gain? Second, is the con a means to an end unrelated to the substance of the scheme itself?"

It is the classic definition of a con game. Distract from the actual behavior by misdirecting our attention elsewhere--preferably to something even more sensational. Mitt Romney, Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and many others have called him a classic con-man.

But no one seems to be asking why he has had to perpetuate so many cons, broken so many contracts, filed multiple bankruptcies, and been involved in so many lawsuits--some 4,000 at last count--on his way to become the celebrity billionaire? The toll on his supporters--even families--must be devastating to maintain that image of success with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

A major reason has to be his very short attention span. Tony Schwartz, ghost writer of Trump's "The Art of The Deal", has described him best: "Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn't seem to be fully understood," Schwartz told Jane Mayer, author of aother New Yorker article.

"It's implicit in a lot of what people write, but it's never explicit--or, at least, I haven't seen it. And that is that it's impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it's impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time," said Schwartz

Trump in fact may only be able to focus on what is in front of him at the moment, hence his need for advisors more capable than he to pay attention, to analyze and make intelligent decisions. It has to be why he has lost so much money in his various ventures (such as the Trump Casinos), stiffed so many investors, walked away from so many debts, so that all the major banks now shun him.

We can now know the reason for his admiration of Vladimir Putin, for instance, who Trump has been trying to cultivate since his 1980 Miss Universe contest held in Moscow. It was really an attempt to buy a Moscow luxury hotel. He has had to turn to Russian oligarchs and Mafia figures in order to fund many of his real estate ventures. How's that for a classic conflict-of-interest as President?

So the question: if once a con-artist, always a con-artist? He's 70 years old, and one doesn't change their behavior at that age. But can he use such talents for the good of US, as he has promised; or once again, for his own self-aggrandizement and wealth?

It doesn't look good. He was quoted in a recent New York Times interview that "Presidents cannot have a conflict of interest," which is blatantly unconstitutional under the emolument clause that prohibits gifts or favors from foreign governments or individuals.

If he is that misinformed about his responsibilities as President, what kind of behavior will result that isn't 'self-serving'?

Harlan Green © 2016

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Ending Cosmetic Testing On Animals Is Good Business

It is often assumed that changing laws that regulate cosmetic industry practices translates in to negative impacts on business especially small and mid-sized companies. But when the changes sought align strongly with what consumers want and with regulatory trends around the world, businesses of all sizes can benefit. This is precisely the opportunity that ending cosmetics testing on animals now presents.

The use of non-animal tests to assure consumer safety has followed an upward trajectory for at least the last 20 years and that trend has accelerated as countries around the world are prohibiting the use of animal tests for cosmetics. The most significant boost to this trend is the closing of the European market to animal tested cosmetics which came into force in March of 2013. An attempt to weaken this ban was thwarted in September 2016 when in response to a legal challenge, the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that cosmetics containing ingredients tested on animals outside of the EU after March 2013 cannot be sold. As the only NGO given permission to intervene on the case, Cruelty Free International played a key role in ensuring the will of the public was upheld in this landmark decision.

While 80% of the world still allows animal testing for cosmetics, roughly half of the global cosmetic market is now firmly closed to animal tested cosmetics. An upward trend in countries turning away from animal testing strengthens the argument that ending cosmetics testing in the US would help ensure a level playing field for US businesses of all sizes. Harmonizing safety testing requirements between nations would allow companies to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and test duplication when accessing international markets to fill the consumer demand for safe and humane cosmetics.

Even companies that don't trade internationally stand to benefit in a cruelty free market place via increased access to cosmetic ingredients that allow them to assure conscientious customers that animals were not harmed in bringing their products to market. A March 2015 Neilson survey found that "not tested on animals" was the most important packaging claim among those surveyed. The same survey also found that consumers placed a high level of importance on products labeled "all natural," - a reflection of the growing consumer scrutiny of ingredients in cosmetic products.

It's no surprise that companies active in creating sustainable and health conscience products are frequently the same companies active in advocating for an end to animal testing for cosmetics. Clearly it would be counterproductive for companies to support regulatory reforms that would force a tradeoff between their products being deemed safe and cruelty free. Smart companies know there is no reason to compromise. Modern non-animal testing methods have proven to be as good or better at predicting human responses than animal tests and, the new tests tend to produce results more quickly at a lower cost than the animal tests they replace.

Perhaps one of the biggest indications of the positive business potential of banning animal testing for cosmetics is the support for cruelty free reform from cosmetic companies of all sizes. The US Humane Cosmetics Act has garnered the endorsement of more than 150 companies including luxury professional hair care brand Paul Mitchell®, global beauty giant The Body Shop, and natural personal care icon Kiss My Face. This month, Cruelty Free International teamed up with Neal's Yard Remedies to generate support for the Humane Cosmetics Act with a special petition.

Neal's Yard Remedies was founded in the belief that it is possible to make effective and safe beauty products that are kind to people, the planet and animals. As a Leaping Bunny certified company, and long-term supporter of the Cruelty Free International global campaign to end animal testing in the beauty and personal care industry, we are proud to support the Humane Cosmetics Act to end cosmetic testing on animals in the United States.

US consumers have waited far too long for US cosmetics policy to match their expectations, and the US is now falling embarrassingly behind other countries including India, South Korea and, most recently Taiwan. Together with the support of cruelty free cosmetic companies of all sizes, the incoming Congress needs to know it's time to end animal testing for cosmetics once and for all.

P.S. Visit NYR Organic US Instagram and Facebook to share a photo of you and your favorite critter using the hashtag #crueltyfreewithNYR between November 2-30, 2016 to show support for the Humane Cosmetic Act and for a chance to win some fabulous NYR products.

4 Reasons You Need to Be on LinkedIn

LinkedIn is the largest professional network in the world. Over 467 million people have accounts on the site, and more are joining every day.

Roughly a quarter of these members log in regularly each month, but why? What is the real value of LinkedIn? If these are questions that you have asked then here are four compelling reasons to join and engage on this thriving social network.

1. Grow Your Network

LinkedIn is like a massive, virtual business networking event that is available 24/7. It is an ideal place to find and connect with a wide range of people from prospective employers to peers, customers to creative talent.

Your LinkedIn network can become the most powerful and wide-reaching Rolodex you could possibly imagine, letting you reach out to people to share resources, introduce yourself or ask for help.

You can research suppliers, identify strategic partners or build relationships with influencers in your industry.

2. Raise Exposure for Your Business

As well as posting updates, writing blog posts and sharing your individual expertise in groups on LinkedIn you can also create dedicated pages for your business and products.

Creating a LinkedIn page for your business allows people to find and follow your brand. By doing so they will receive any updates you post on your company page. Updates could include press releases, new products, promotional offers or information about current vacancies.

Knowing who has actively expressed interest in your company by following its LinkedIn page is a great way to identify people to connect with. You may find recruiters, investors, buyers and partners all looking for more information about your business!

One of the most fundamental reasons to build LinkedIn into your online marketing strategy is that leads from this social network have a great conversion rate.

3. Look for Jobs

When it comes time for a career change LinkedIn is an excellent resource. Your profile should act as an online resume, so be sure to complete as much information as possible and keep it up to date.

There are many ways to research available positions. 3 great ways to start are:
●Message key contacts in your network to let them know you are available, and ask about possible vacancies
●Browse LinkedIn's dedicated Jobs portal
●Visit the official LinkedIn page for any brands that are on your list of most desirable companies to work for and look at their Careers section.

Even if you aren't actively looking for a new job, recruiters often use LinkedIn to identify and research strong prospective candidates for vacancies they are trying to fill. Who wouldn't love to get an unsolicited job opportunity to explore or use to negotiate better terms in their current job?

4. Find Talented Employees

LinkedIn has invested greatly in improving their Talent Solutions. From a simple job posting to complete turnkey recruitment the platform is an affordable way to source candidates for any job openings you have.

You can also choose to be more undercover in your search. Use LinkedIn advanced search to find people with desirable keywords and titles in their profiles. If you are active on the site and regularly read people's updates and engage in relevant groups then the chances are that you will come across individuals who make a positive impression on you.

When viewing people's profiles you can add Notes or Tags to let you organize your shortlist of candidates for easier reference.

Now is a great time to get more active on LinkedIn. The majority of businesses still don't have a strong brand presence or a defined strategy for LinkedIn marketing. With new features and functionality being added all the time, the usefulness of the network is only likely to increase. Make sure your business is ahead of the crowd.

For more networking and online marketing tips and information check out the Magicdust Website Design website. We are a Sydney Web Development agency specialising in online marketing solutions.