A meeting cadence is how often a meeting is held. For example, if you and a direct report check in every Friday morning, that’s a weekly cadence. If you have a request to meet every other month, that’s a bimonthly cadence.
The challenge for every company is how frequently meetings should take place. In an increasingly distributed workforce where a face-to-face Zoom is sometimes the only interactions you’ll have with your team, these are often overscheduled in the hopes that these “in person” meetings will be beneficial to building relationships and team morale.

Meeting Cadence

You want your team to know what everyone is working on, but you also want to allow for enough freedom for everyone to work autonomously.  Here are a few examples of some common meetings and how frequently they might meet. <ul><li>One-on-One Meetings: Weekly meeting cadence</li><li>All Hands: Quarterly meeting cadence</li><li>Daily standup meeting: Every day</li><li>Leadership Teams: Monthly meeting cadence</li></ul>

Different Companies, Different Needs

<ol><li>What is the goal of this meeting?</li><li>Can this meeting happen asynchronously?</li><li>Is this a high-priority or urgent task?</li><li>Do these types of meetings regularly run over the allotted time?</li><li>Do we run out of items to discuss in these types of meetings?</li></ol>

Five Questions To Ask Before Making a New Meeting Request

Once you’ve determined that you’ve got a weekly cadence for one project and another weekly cadence for an all-staff check-in, that doesn’t mean these have to be formatted in the same way. You have to decide if the meeting is information seeking or information giving, which we alluded to earlier. This matters a lot when you’re determining how to best check-in.

Change Your Cadence: Asynchronous vs Synchronous Meetings

These meetings fall into any of the following categories:Seeking Information<ul><li>A kickoff meeting for a new project</li><li>A project team meeting to discuss next steps</li><li>Management meeting to check in on how teams are running</li><li>A one-on-one with a direct report to check in on goals and tasks</li></ul> For information giving meetings, those might be: <ul><li>A daily standup</li><li>A project update</li><li>A company’s annual report</li></ul>

Information Seeking And Giving

Research shows that 15% of an organization's time is spent in meetings. Imagine moving that 15% towards actionable tasks that can increase revenue in your business? Less meetings and more money? An easy win. A whopping 73% of people admit to multitasking during meetings. Let your employees spend more time doing their work and less time passively listening in.

Fewer Meetings = Better Meetings

<ol><li>Do create an agenda. Make sure everyone knows what will be covered in advance so they can attend better prepared.</li><li>Don’t leave room for questions at the end. Instead, use Slack or email for any follow-ups since there’s never enough time at the end of the meeting to get to everyone’s questions.</li><li>Do invite-only key players to a meeting. It’s much easier to communicate in smaller groups.</li><li>Don’t go over the allocated meeting time.</li></ol>

Four Do’s and Don’ts For Your Meetings

How often should you meet with your remote team? What can be an asynchronous update vs a synchronous meeting?  Here's how to decide how many meetings you need.

remotework

Remote Work

career

Career

corporateculture

Corporate Culture

leadershipandmanagement

Leadership & Management

Meeting Cadence: What’s Right For Your Remote Team?

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy are the noise before defeat.”

Strategy is the overarching plan or set of goals. Tactics are the specific actions or steps you undertake to accomplish your strategy.
A personal strategy might be to get into a particular career, whereas your tactics might include choosing your educational path, seeking out a helpful mentor, or distinguishing yourself from the competition.
Without a strategy, you run the risk of ambling through life, confused about your progress. Without tactics, you become dependent on pure luck to implement your strategy.

Strategy And Tactics Are Complementary

“Without a strategy, facing up to any problem or striving for any objective would be considered negligent. Certainly, no military campaign, company investment, or government initiative is likely to receive backing unless there is a strategy to evaluate…. There is a call for strategy every time the path to a given destination is not straightforward.”

About Geoffrey P. Chamberlain offers his perspective on the components of strategy, useful when the strategy is more about a personal goal. He identifies seven parts:
<ul>
<li>A strategy is used within a particular domain.</li>
<li>A strategy has a single, well-defined focus.</li>
<li>A strategy lays out a path to be followed.</li>
<li>A strategy is made up of parts (tactics).</li>
<li>Each of a strategy’s parts pushes towards the defined focus.</li>
<li>A strategy recognizes its sphere of influence.</li>
<li>A strategy is either intentionally formed or emerges naturally.</li>
</ul>

The Components of Strategy

Even the most elegant, well-planned strategy is useless if we do not take thoughtful steps to achieve it. While the overall goal remains stable, the steps we take to achieve it must be flexible enough to adjust to the short-term realities of our situation.
Tactics often center around the efficient use of available resources, whether money, people, time, ammunition, or materials. Tactics also tend to be shorter-term and more specific than strategies.

About Tactics

If you don’t have a strategy, you are part of someone else’s strategy.”

Strategy and tactics are two terms that get thrown around a lot, often used interchangeably. But what exactly do they mean, what is the difference, and why is it important? In this article, we look at the contrast between strategy and tactics, and the most effective ways to use each, whether you're trying to win a war, start a business, or reach any other important objective.

productivity

Productivity

strategy

Strategy

problemsolving

Problem Solving

Strategy vs. Tactics: Why the Difference Matters

The skills needed to succeed in today's work environment are constantly changing. A Gartner analysis revealed that in 2018, U.S. job postings in IT, finance, and sales roles needed an average of 17 skills. The same types of roles now require an average of 21 skills, including eight new skills. At the same time, 29% of the skills may be obsolete the following year. Organisations are struggling to keep up with changing skills and must find or develop the skills they need.

The work environment is shifting rapidly

Most organisations use one of two approaches to ensure employees have the necessary skills:<ul><li>Reactive: Organisations often scramble to build new skills as needs arise. By the time HR can put together a learning solution, the business has moved on.</li><li>Predictive: Over 50% of HR leaders attempt to predict the business' future skills need, but it may lead to misplaced investments in wasted training or outdated skills.</li></ul> A third approach is a dynamic approach. Organisations that use a dynamic skills approach can apply 75% of the new skills they learn, as opposed to only 37% of the predictive system.

How organisations manage their shifting skills need

The dynamic approach embraces ambiguity, makes peace with imperfection, and frees up HR, managers, and employees to move fast in responding to the things they know and can anticipate. To find the skills gaps as they arise, regularly bring together input from employees, leaders, and customers who can report on the specific skills needs. The skills-sensing network can monitor changing needs and help employees to close the skills gaps.

How to adopt a dynamic approach to reskilling

Many organisations respond to rapidly changing skills needs by supporting formal training. While formal training has its place, it is too slow for many in-demand skills. By the time the training is delivered, the need has changed. A faster solution is needed. For example, <ul><li>Identifying skills adjacencies that can be used as a stepping-stone.</li><li>Upskill selected influential and motivated employees, who can then coach their peers on new skills.</li><li>Delivering learning to employees when the need arises.</li></ul>

Jumpstart skills development

The key to developing skills dynamically is to ensure both the organisation and employees are moving in the same direction. However, over 60% of employees don't believe their organisation is effective at helping them understand how information about skills needs applies to them. <ul><li>Leaders need to share with employees how skills evolve and how these changes might impact specific roles. It can help employees make informed decisions about their development.</li><li>Connector managers can connect employees to the right people and resources when it is needed.</li></ul>

Foster transparency between employees and the business

A few leading organisations have started to ask employees to document skills as part of a portfolio throughout their careers. Employees make use of an HR-supplied portal that tracks current skills, knowledge and experience, alongside career goals and development aspirations. Leaders can use this information to fill critical roles and help employees develop opportunities based on their profiles.

Rethinking the boundaries to skills gaps

The skills needed for today's working environment are changing rapidly. The current strategy to reskill and upskill is too slow. It requires organizations to rethink the boundaries of solutions to skills gaps.

Instead of trying to predict the skills of the future, leaders must embrace a more flexible mindset.

education

Learning & Education

Organizations Need a Dynamic Approach to Teaching People New Skills

When someone on your team asks for a raise (assuming they're deserving), but you don't have the budget to increase their pay, can you give someone a promotion to keep up their morale? Just saying "no" to a pay raise or lying to them and saying it could happen in a few months will likely not end well. Instead, redirect the conversation toward the real cause. If you can fix that, you will have a greater impact.

Feeling undercompensated

The best way to find out why someone wants a raise is to ask them. Questions that can help to uncover the issue.<ul><li>What's your least favourite part about your job?</li><li>What's one thing we could do to improve how our team works?</li><li>How do you experience your workload? Do you feel overworked or underworked?</li></ul> Ensure that you are actively listening. Rephrase the message to confirm you understand it.

Get to the root cause

You may be unable to increase their financial compensation, but you can instead focus on providing them with career growth. Studies show that growth is a significant perk people want at work, even more than money. <ul><li>Introduce them to a mentor further along in a similar career.</li><li>Buy them a book or course that will help to develop them.</li><li>Empower them to take on a project to solve an important problem.</li></ul>

Give them new projects to work on

If you are transparent about your company's financial situation, when raises are considered, and your limitations, your employee looking for a raise will be more willing to wait. Transparency creates a deeper level of trust between employers and employees. However, a lack of transparency could lead to a toxic culture that causes people to leave.

Be more transparent

How to deal with one of your team members feeling undercompensated but giving them a pay increase is not an option. 

Should you give someone a promotion without a raise? In the 9th edition of Ask LH, we discuss what to do when you can't give someone a pay increase.

moneyandinvestments

Money & Investments

humanresources

Human Resources

Promotion without a Raise? What to Do When Money is an Issue

After an interview, a follow-up email to your candidates can do wonders for your recruiting efforts.
Maintaining communication with your candidates keeps them engaged while respecting and appreciating them after setting aside time for you. Taking a proactive approach to follow-up emails can also help you land better talent. While not all recruiters may have the time to write individual follow-up emails, understanding the art of writing a template can help.

Follow-Up Email

After an interview, send the ideal candidate a follow-up email. <ul><li>Subject line: Write the purpose of the email. Keep it formal and concise. For example, "Follow-up on your interview." or "Thank you for your time this morning."</li><li>Intro: Mention the person by name. Thank them for their time/follow up with something that came up during the interview.</li><li>Body: In about 100 words, deliver on your subject line.</li><li>Closing. End the email on a positive note. For example, "Thanks again", "Let's stay in touch!".</li></ul>

The structure of an ideal candidate follow-up email

Hi [CANDIDATE NAME], I wanted to thank you for giving us a chance earlier today to get to know you better and talk about the [JOB] opening. I was impressed with your experience and, although we haven’t made any decisions yet, I was glad to see that [COMPANY] and you share some common values. We’re still conducting interviews until [DATE]. After that, you can expect to hear back from us before the [DATE]. Thanks again, it was great meeting you. [SIGNATURE]

Template to thank a candidate after the interview

Hi [CANDIDATE NAME], Thank you for giving us a chance to get to know you better and talk about the [JOB] opening. Unfortunately, the hiring team will be moving forward with other candidates. At the moment, we’re looking to hire someone with a different business profile. However, I would like to keep your resume on our records to let you know as soon as we have a job opening that fits your profile. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any doubts or feedback. Thank you again for your time. I enjoyed getting to know you and wish you the best of luck. [SIGNATURE]

Job Rejection Template

Hi [CANDIDATE NAME], I want to thank you for giving us a chance to get to know you better and talk about the [JOB] opening. The team enjoyed meeting you and, after finishing our interviews, we’d like to offer you the role of [JOB TITLE] at [COMPANY]. I’m sure you’ll fit right in with the rest of the team, and we’re excited to have you with us if you decide to accept the offer. We’re excited to introduce you to the team and start working together. Best,[NAME] It's good to write a longer email to flesh out more ideas.

Job Offer Template

Simple tips to determine if your candidates have the behavioural traits and skills needed for the role

books

Books

business

Business

communication

Communication

personaldevelopment

Personal Development

Hiring the Best in Class

A follow-up email to ideal candidates helps to keep them engaged and leave the door open for future engagement.

When it comes to recruiting, it's vital to hone your candidate communication strategy. Here's how to write a great candidate follow-up email.

marketingandsales

Marketing & Sales

A Recruiting Must-Know: How to Write a Candidate Follow-Up Email

For the first time since 2008, volume is missing from high-volume hiring, leaving most organizations using traditional recruitment strategies unprepared. As a result, employers are now having to quickly adapt to the current situation — with no true guideline for doing it the right way.
Companies are consequently increasing wages, offering sign-on bonuses, and covering tuition fees in a bid to get candidates through the door and to keep hold of current employees. And yet, all over the world, the talent pools for hourly roles continue to dry up.

A Hiring Crisis

The heightened risk of getting sick, along with low wages, inflexible work schedules, and the increasing number of remote vacancies are all contributing to the talent crisis affecting the high-volume hiring. 
But the lack of candidates for hourly jobs, which are mostly entry-level in nature, is the result, not the cause, of the broken talent acquisition practices that have been in place for years. Again, the pandemic has simply brought these issues to light.

People Don’t Want To Work For Others

In the current context, the lack of candidates at the top of the funnel seems like the most pressing problem. Yet if we look beneath the surface, we see that across industries, companies in the high-volume-hiring space are struggling with high attrition, poor-quality hires, and high drop-off rates throughout the recruitment funnel.   These problems are constant, and fixing them could put an end to the shortage of workers, as fewer people quitting means fewer seats to fill.

High-Volume Hiring No Longer Works

Traditionally, attraction and selection have been treated as two distinct challenges. Companies have always benefited from high volumes of candidates, so they rarely had to worry about not having enough talent to choose from.  Now, as talent pools shrink, employers realize that this approach to recruitment is deeply flawed. At the same time, they’re becoming anxious about people having more leverage over their job preferences. Translation: You can’t attract candidates unless you make your brand, workplace, and offering attractive.

The Employers Are In A Flux

Selection processes, whether powered by a single recruiting platform or multiple tools, tend to be linear in how they screen out candidates. A candidate needs to meet the threshold set for each stage to progress to the next. However, in a rapidly-changing labor market, this approach sets you up for failure.  To future-proof your hiring, you need to take a holistic approach to recruiting and move from a rigid, linear process to a flexible, agile one.

Fixing the Faulty High-Volume-Hiring Process 

<ul>
<li>Matching. First, matching should help you identify the right applicants, as well as get them excited about the role.</li>
<li>Automation. In a tight labor market, you want a process that’s quick and enables you to offer job security as fast as possible.</li>
<li>Candidate experience. You should build an engaging application experience that reflects your employer brand and helps job-seekers learn about the business and the role before applying.</li>
<li>Business intelligence. When hiring at scale, controlling your process and having full visibility into your data is essential.</li>
</ul>

The Four Areas To Focus On

Discover the world of business and economics.

economics

Economics

The Hourly Hiring Crisis Is a Process, Not a People, Problem   - ERE

Our brains want to feel in control, and physical proximity is one way we can have that control. So even though we have the tools to bridge any virtual distance, it's still a natural tendency to give preferential treatment to those in arm's reach, or at least a few desks down. As a leader working to make all your team members develop and grow, you need to be careful that you aren't falling into this all-too-human trap, especially if you work in a hybrid environment where some workers are in the office and others aren't.

Proximity/distance bias

Similarity bias draws us to people who are like us, causing us to miss out on new, diverse relationships at work. It can even lead us to hire, promote, or offer more career development to people we can see ourselves in. Not good. We need to go out of our way to feel connected to everyone, not just people like us. So, try to create shared experiences. It can be harder to create shared experiences in a remote environment, which means you need to be intentional about it.

Similarity bias

One trick our minds use to sift through everything thrown at us is to latch onto the first piece of information we get about a particular topic, decision, pattern. When the American workforce went remote in March 2020, it was sudden—and not necessarily smooth. Even though systems have since been implemented to address all these things, lots of people still latch onto that anchor.

Anchoring bias

When we know what to expect, we know how to respond—and our brains like knowing how to respond. That's part of why shifting to remote work can be difficult: we've been working in person for years, decades in some cases, and it's hard for us to think of work in any other setting.<ul><li>﻿Be aware of your preferences toward how you've done things in the past. Ask yourself:</li><li>What's a process that made sense in person but may be holding you back? </li><li>Who on your team would enjoy brainstorming ways to make remote work more fulfilling and productive?</li><li>How can you involve your team in creating new remote traditions?</li></ul>

Status quo bias

This is the mental shortcut that results in us seeking out, preferring, and remembering things in a way that suits what we already believe. The term has been particularly popular over the past several years, in reference to how people choose their news sources.If you or your team don't love remote work, this means you're less likely to spot remote work successes—and more likely to spot shortfalls that you believe arise from your new working environment. We need to get away from this tendency to use remote work as a scapegoat.

Confirmation bias

Understand yourself and those around you.

psychology

Psychology

5 cognitive biases to conquer in remote work

Good technical design decisions are very dependent on context. 
Teams that regularly work together on common goals are able to communicate regularly and negotiate changes quickly. These teams exhibit a strong force of alignment, and can make technology and design decisions that harness that strong force. As we zoom out in a larger organisation, an increasingly weak force exists between teams and divisions that work independently and have less frequent collaboration. Recognising the differences in these strong and weak forces allows us to make better decisions.

The Forces Of Architecture

Technology governance and what is considered ‘good architecture’ is mostly considered with a ‘one size fits all’ approach.
<ul>
<li>Many organisations try to apply the same strict governance at all levels - limiting tech choices, and disempowering teams. </li>
<li>Others have allowed teams complete autonomy at all levels, meaning teams are left to make their own choices with no constraints at all. </li>
</ul>
Neither of those approaches are ideal.

One Size Fits All Approach

Within a domain we have multiple teams, each being responsible for some capabilities and underlying systems within the domain. 
Sometimes this is perfectly aligned, with each team being custodians of a neatly bounded set of systems. More often this is imperfect in reality, with custodianship of some systems being shared across teams - often for legacy reasons. For teams within a domain, there is a very strong force of alignment.

Within A Domain: Strong Forces

In the middle ground we have our vertical structure, with multiple domains. The social distance between the people in one domain and another is getting stretched. 
This makes negotiation and reaching alignment more strained and slower, and so necessarily this impacts our technology choices and approaches.

Within A Vertical: Weakened Forces

When we zoom out to all of the organisation - the force of alignment between the verticals is very weak indeed. It is quite hard to make changes atomically across the landscape - mostly because the prioritisation of work for each vertical is deliberately independent. 
Coordinating work at this level is necessarily much slower and limiting. This means our design decisions and approaches need to adapt accordingly.

Whole Of Organization: Weak Forces

<ul>
<li>Within a single domain, there should be a small set of technology choices agreed upon.</li>
<li>Often this follows Default Trial Retire for each class of technology required.</li>
<li>Informal governance through technology leadership is usually highly effective.</li>
</ul>

Technology Choices: Domain (strong force)

<ul><li>At a vertical level, there would be a slightly larger set of agreed technology choices, to cater for the differing needs of the multiple domains.</li><li>It is beneficial for the vertical to be able to move people closer to high priority work, so keeping aligned on technology is important here.</li><li>More formal sharing of solution options and proposals keeps choices aligned effectively.</li></ul>

Technology Choices:  Vertical(Weakened Force)

<ul><li>The weakest force for aligning and governing technology choices is at the Whole of Org level.</li><li>Solution options and proposals encourage dialog and improve alignment.</li></ul>

Technology Choices: Whole of Org (weak force)

<ul><li>Within a single domain, even across 3-5 teams, we should have high bandwidth communication and a short distance to empowered leadership.</li><li>This means that when a change needs to be made to shared code or infrastructure, we can quickly inform and prepare for the changes.</li><li>The coupling introduced by shared code and infrastructure has less impact, and the benefits often outweigh the costs.</li></ul>

Shared Code And Infrastructure: Domain (strong force)

Sharing code, artefacts, and infrastructure can often be managed at a vertical level - but the drag introduced should be carefully monitored.

Shared Code And Infrastructure: Vertical (weakened force)

Shared code at a whole of organisation level is limited to highly stable, highly useful things. Mostly these things are limited to libraries which can be distributed and versioned, and changed carefully.Shared infrastructure is similar - at an org-wide level, shared infrastructure must have very high value, and be well-encapsulated (“as a service”, self-service). It should very rarely need a core change in response to a need from a single team.

Shared Code And Infrastructure: Whole of Org (weak force)

<ul><li>Within a single domain - with high degrees of alignment in terms of practices and technology - it can be quite reasonable for teams to contribute code across team boundaries, with a type of collective code ownership extending to the whole domain.</li><li>Custodianship of each system should still be clearly understood, usually best kept within one team.</li><li>At a vertical level, it is common for code contribution to happen across systems, e.g. pull requests in source control - with only small amounts of delay and re-work required.</li></ul>

Code Contribution models: Domain Level

<ul><li>At the whole of org level, it is often quite difficult (and sometimes harmful) to effectively manage contributions that cross verticals.</li><li>This is particularly true where systems are complex in nature, highly critical or sensitive in terms of accuracy, performance, privacy and compliance.</li><li>When completely new system features are being established, it can work well to collaborate across verticals even doing pair-programming together.</li></ul>

Code Contribution models: Whole of Org (weak force)

<ul>
<li>Domain (strong force): Systems that are owned within a single domain are relatively easy to change in a closely coordinated way. </li>
<li>Vertical (weakened force): Changes that must be coordinated across multiple domains within a vertical should be rare, but can be managed when absolutely necessary. </li>
<li>Whole of org (weak force): The impact of highly-coupled integration (e.g. ETLs, database integration) is very high, and should be absolutely avoided.</li>
</ul>

Integration Patterns: Connecting Systems Together

Understanding the strong and weak forces of team architecture

teamwork

Teamwork

The strong and weak forces of architecture

<ul><li>Remote work lacks the distractions, annoyances, and soft abuses that come with co-workers and middle managers.</li><li> They don’t have to commute </li><li>Can be evaluated mostly on their actual work rather than on the optics-driven albatross of “office culture”. </li></ul>

Why do people like working from home?

<ul><li>When we are all in the same physical space, we are oftentimes evaluated not on the execution of our role but on our diplomacy—by which I mean our ability to kiss up to the right people rather than actually being a decent person.</li><li>It’s much harder to be a jerk over Slack, email, and text when someone can screenshot it and send it to HR (<a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/5/20995453/away-luggage-ceo-steph-korey-toxic-work-environment-travel-inclusion">or to a journalist</a>).</li></ul>

The necessity to be nice

<ul><li>The anti-remote crowd seems to believe that the responsibility of a 9-to-5 employee isn’t simply the work but the appearance, optics, and ceremony of the work.</li><li>Making people work late is much harder when you can’t trap them in one place with free food, a Ping-Pong table, a kegerator, or laundry services—benefits that you champion instead of monetary compensation.</li></ul>

Why are people still compelled to come back to offices?

to understand why organisations compel their employees back to work despite enough evidence against it. 

Like it or not, the way we work has already evolved.

Why Managers Fear a Remote-Work Future

We agree to many requests not because we want to do them, but because we don’t want to be seen as rude, arrogant, or unhelpful. Often, you have to consider saying no to someone you will interact with again in the future—your co-worker, your spouse, your family and friends.

Why We Say Yes

The words “yes” and “no” get used in comparison to each other so often that it feels like they carry equal weight in conversation. In reality, they are not just opposite in meaning, but of entirely different magnitudes in commitment.When you say no, you are only saying no to one option. When you say yes, you are saying no to every other option.

The Difference Between Yes and No

Saying no is sometimes seen as a luxury that only those in power can afford. And it is true: turning down opportunities is easier when you can fall back on the safety net provided by power, money, and authority. But it is also true that saying no is not merely a privilege reserved for the successful among us. It is also a strategy that can help you become successful.

The Role of No

Over time, as you continue to improve and succeed, your strategy needs to change.The opportunity cost of your time increases as you become more successful. At first, you just eliminate the obvious distractions and explore the rest. As your skills improve and you learn to separate what works from what doesn’t, you have to continually increase your threshold for saying yes.

Upgrading Your No

Most of us are probably too quick to say yes and too slow to say no. It’s worth asking yourself where you fall on that spectrum.If you have trouble saying no, you may find the following strategy proposed by Tim Harford, the British economist I mentioned earlier, to be helpful. He writes, “One trick is to ask, “If I had to do this today, would I agree to it?” It’s not a bad rule of thumb, since any future commitment, no matter how far away it might be, will eventually become an imminent problem.”

How to Say No

More effort is wasted doing things that don’t matter than is wasted doing things inefficiently. And if that is the case, elimination is a more useful skill than optimization.I am reminded of the famous Peter Drucker quote, “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.”

The Power of No

Not doing something will always be faster than doing it.

motivationandinspiration

Motivation & Inspiration

timemanagement

Time Management

The Ultimate Productivity Hack is Saying No

Find 100+ Career Tips & Insights - Curated from inspiring sources like Books, Podcasts & Articles - Genuine Insights from like-minded Users like You!