Written by Mona Liza Santos, Award-Winning Children's Author & Emotional Literacy Advocate Mona Liza Santos is an award-winning children’s author and founder of World Love Press. She has written more than 40 books focused on emotional literacy, kindness, confidence, and cultural identity, inspiring families, educators, and young readers worldwide through heartfelt storytelling and meaningful life lessons. What can a children’s author contribute beyond the stories they publish? Writing has led me to think about the conversations, activities, and connections that can grow around a book. Through my own journey, I have found ways to extend that work into free kindness resources, support for fellow authors, and a new online space for community and creativity. Here are seven approaches other authors can adapt to their own work. How bedtime rhymes became the beginning of my work During the pandemic, I started making up rhyming sentences to help my son fall asleep. Whenever the words rhymed, he became focused. I noticed I had his attention, and I kept going. At the time, I was thinking about my son and those moments together. I had no idea they would lead me into writing children’s books or eventually founding World Love Press. My process began with my own ideas, a pen, and paper. I worked through the sentences and edited them myself. I paid attention to how the words sounded and whether they expressed what I wanted to say. As I continued writing, I wanted to explore more of the experiences children encounter while growing up. Feelings, friendship, kindness, cultural identity, and belonging became important themes in my work. So did laughter, adventure, and imagination. That beginning still guides me. Before deciding what to create, I try to think about the person I hope to reach. What does community building look like for a children’s author? For me, community building means giving people opportunities to connect with the ideas in our work and contribute something of their own. That could involve a conversation after a reading, an activity a teacher can use, or a resource a family can explore together. It can also mean attending another author’s event, buying their book, and taking an interest in what they hope to share. Through World Love Press, I am bringing my publishing work together around emotional literacy, kindness, creativity, and belonging. I am also developing ways to carry those ideas into resources and shared experiences. I want to create things people can use. To do that well, I need to listen, make adjustments, and remain open to learning what would be more helpful. Why are emotional literacy and creativity part of this mission? Emotional literacy is an important focus of my writing because I want children to have opportunities to recognize feelings, find words for them, and consider what someone else might be experiencing. A character who feels left out, disappointed, proud, or uncertain gives readers something to discuss. A parent or teacher might ask, “Why do you think they felt that way?” A child may notice something the adult did not. I want to leave room for those responses. Creativity matters to me, too. Children should be able to enjoy an imaginary world, laugh at a funny character, and make up an ending of their own. A story can be meaningful while still being playful. When I think about a more caring community, I imagine one where children can express their feelings, contribute ideas, and remain curious about other people. Those are opportunities I hope my work helps create. 7 ways children’s authors can build more caring communities Authors will approach this differently depending on their interests, resources, and the people they hope to serve. These are the practices I am using and developing in my own work. 1. Start with a need you can understand Pay attention to the questions and experiences of the people you want to reach. A child may keep asking about a situation they do not understand. A parent may be searching for words to explain something difficult. A teacher may want a story that begins a conversation without making any child feel singled out. Before deciding what to create, ask what would be helpful. Listen to the language people use and the parts they find difficult. You do not have to address every problem. Understanding one situation can give your work a clear direction. It can also help you recognize when an idea needs more thought or input from someone with a different experience. 2. Make room for conversation When I write about feelings or friendship, I think about what readers might want to discuss afterward. A useful question can be simple. “What would you have done?” invites a child to consider a character’s choice. “Was there anything you didn’t understand?” gives them permission to ask. Adults can let the conversation move at the child’s pace. Sometimes there will be plenty to say. Sometimes a child will simply want to enjoy the story. For authors, it helps to consider whether we have left room for the reader’s interpretation. Have we explained every feeling or given the reader something to notice? Have we rushed toward a solution when the situation deserves more space? A story can offer a comfortable starting point. The conversation that follows belongs to the people sharing it. 3. Invite children to create something themselves I would love for a child to finish a book and think, “I have an idea, too.” We can encourage that by offering simple starting points. Invite children to invent another character, draw a place from their imagination, or make up a few rhyming sentences. Give them room to make choices. Their character may look nothing like the one you imagined. Their ending may surprise you. For authors developing activities, this means considering how much direction is useful and where to leave space. A page does not have to be filled with instructions to give a child something worthwhile to do. The experience can be as simple as sharing an idea and having someone take an interest in it. 4. Turn your mission into practical resources One way I have extended the themes in my writing is through intentional kindness toolkits and activity guides. These free materials include resources for different age groups, from transitional kindergarten through high school, along with guides for families, educators, workplaces, and communities. I wanted to give people a starting point they could use without having to plan everything themselves. Someone may care deeply about encouraging kindness but have limited time to develop an activity from scratch. When creating a resource, begin with a clear purpose. What will someone discuss, try, or practice? Then consider what they need to carry it out. An activity about inclusion might invite participants to think about how they welcome someone new. A discussion about thoughtful language might explore what makes an apology meaningful. Keep the instructions understandable and consider whether the activity requires time or materials people may not have. The easier it is to understand the first step, the easier it is to participate. Readers can explore my free resources through National Days and Toolkits. 5. Support other authors through your actions I have supported other children’s authors by attending their events, buying their books, and celebrating their successes. These actions matter to me because I know there is work behind a finished book that readers may never see. Showing up is one way to acknowledge that effort. It also gives me the chance to enjoy someone else’s creativity. I can hear what inspired them, learn about their writing journey, and discover a story I might otherwise have missed. For authors who want to build community, this is a practical place to begin. Read another author’s work. Attend an event when you can. Share a success you are happy to see. There is room to be proud of our own books and excited about someone else’s. Supporting another author is something we can do throughout our careers, whatever stage we have reached ourselves. 6. Give other storytellers room to be heard I am building on that support by creating space to celebrate children’s authors through interviews. I want to ask why they started writing, what their mission means to them, and what they hope children will find in their books. I am also interested in the future they imagine for themselves. What would they love to write next? What are they still learning? What do they hope to contribute? These are things I am curious about as a fellow author. A finished book gives us one part of the story. I want to hear about the experiences and decisions that brought the author to it. For anyone developing author features, thoughtful questions are only part of the work. Listen to the answers. Represent the author accurately. Give them room to explain their experience in their own words. My hope is that readers will discover books they want to share and feel a connection to the people who created them. I also want participating authors to feel that their work has received thoughtful attention. 7. Make participation clear and keep listening If we want people to use a resource or take part in a project, we need to explain how. Tell them where to find the materials, what the activity involves, or how to express interest. Be clear about what is available and what is still being developed. Then ask for feedback. Was the resource easy to follow? What interested the children? What would make the experience more useful? A project can mean a great deal to its creator and still need improvement. A parent’s question or a teacher’s suggestion may reveal something we had not considered. I want to stay open to that as my work grows. Listening gives me a way to make more informed decisions about what to create, revise, or explore next. Where does AI fit into modern children’s authorship? My early experience of writing and editing taught me to return to my sentences and question my choices. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) offers additional tools that writers may choose to explore. I welcome authors exploring new tools and finding a process that supports their creativity. I also believe authors need to take responsibility for what they publish. When my name goes on a book, I want to understand and stand behind its language and ideas. I need to consider how the story sounds aloud, whether it makes sense for the intended reader, and whether the subject has been treated thoughtfully. Whatever tools we use, those decisions deserve attention. As I make room for other authors, I want to remain curious about their processes and the care they bring to work intended for children. Bringing community and creativity together online My new website gives me room to share more of the interests and ideas that connect to my writing. I am developing it as a space for my books, creativity, community initiatives, and projects taking shape. It is also where I am creating opportunities to celebrate fellow children’s authors through their journeys, missions, and hopes for the future. I want visitors to encounter the people and purpose behind the work. Someone may arrive looking for a book and become interested in a community initiative. Someone else may discover an author whose reasons for writing feel familiar to them. This part of my work is still growing. I want to develop it with the same attention I bring to a story: thinking about who it is for, what I hope to share, and where there is room for someone else’s perspective. For authors considering an online space of their own, it helps to think about what you can offer consistently. A useful resource, a thoughtful interview, or a clear invitation to participate can give people a reason to spend time there. Begin with one useful contribution Building a more caring community can begin with something manageable. Share a resource someone needs. Support another author’s event. Invite a child to tell you what they think about a story. Make room for someone else’s idea. My own journey began with rhyming sentences and a child who focused when he heard them. I could not have planned everything that followed. I could pay attention to that moment and keep creating from there. That is the approach I want to carry into my books, my publishing work, and the spaces I am building for others. I want to contribute something useful, keep learning, and welcome people who have something of their own to share. Readers can continue to explore my books and resources here, which remains my main website. I also welcome readers, families, educators, and fellow authors to visit my new website, explore a resource, and discover what is taking shape. Follow me on Facebook and Instagram for more info! Read more from Mona Liza Santos Mona Liza Santos, Award-Winning Children's Author & Emotional Literacy Advocate Mona Liza Santos is an award-winning children's author, publisher, and founder of World Love Press. She is the author of more than 40 children's books focused on emotional literacy, kindness, confidence, resilience, and cultural identity. Her work has been recognized by the Mom's Choice Awards for its positive impact on children and families. Inspired by motherhood, global travel, and her Filipino heritage, Mona creates stories that encourage children to embrace who they are and recognize their worth. Mona is also the founder of National Intentional Kindness Day and Heritage and Heart Day, created to promote empathy, inclusion, cultural pride, and meaningful human connection within schools and communities.

Written by Veronica Powell, PhD, LPC, PC, Founder & CEO Veronica Powell, PhD, LPC, is a licensed clinician, industrial-organizational psychologist, and communication coach. As the founder and CEO of Measures4Success Academy, she empowers individuals, leaders, and organizations to master communication through Kendall’s Life Languages™ Framework, also known as Communication Intelligence (CIQ). Part 1 defined reactive abuse and traced where the idea came from. Part 2 asks what happens when a defensive reaction is the only thing on the record, and why the pattern behind it is so easy to miss. If you are in danger now, call 911. For confidential support at any hour, reach out to The National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233. How does reactive abuse get misread in court? A courtroom, a police report and a body camera share one limit. They capture a moment. The moment that gets recorded is often the reaction, the raised voice or the shove, because the provocation before it was quiet, deniable or invisible. Someone who has been baited for months can look like the aggressor in the minute that was filmed. Other Brainz contributors have written about the covert tactics that build this kind of trap and about how the legal system can compound it after separation. Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO) widens the gap. It has three moves. The person denies the behavior or that it happened. Then the person attacks the credibility of whoever is raising it. Finally, the person reverses the roles, casting themselves as the victim and the other person as the offender. In two experiments with 316 and 360 university students, Harsey and Freyd (2020) showed that participants who read a perpetrator's denial, attack, and role reversal judged the victim as less believable, more responsible for the violence, and more abusive, and judged the perpetrator as less abusive. Participants who first learned about DARVO showed a weaker effect. These were fictional scenarios with student samples, so they reveal a mechanism rather than courtroom outcomes, but the mechanism matches what advocates describe. Omission does quiet work too One guide to deceptive patterns describes omission lies, where a person recounts a conflict accurately and leaves out their own provocative behavior. Every sentence is true, and the account still misleads. Some abusers also turn the system itself into a weapon, a pattern researchers call legal systems abuse.[4] The consequences of getting this wrong are concrete. According to DomesticShelters.org, a survivor misidentified as the aggressor can face: Domestic violence prosecution Loss of child custody Loss of housing Loss of immigration rights Stephen R. Covey advised us to seek first to understand, then to be understood. In a legal setting, understanding must come before judgment. How does it connect to the cycle of abuse? Walker's cycle of abuse describes three phases: tension building, an acute incident, and a calm or reconciliation phase.[5] Reactive responses tend to cluster in the first two. During tension building, provocation rises through criticism, dismissal, or baiting. The reaction arrives in the incident phase, and the calm phase often brings apology, affection, or denial. The National Domestic Violence Hotline describes how alternating harm and kindness can create a trauma bond, which makes the pattern harder to name and harder to leave. The graphic below adds the step where the reaction is turned into proof. The cycle is a model, not a map. Some relationships may not reach the calm phase, and some do not follow "clean" phases at all. Coercive control and gaslighting, both covered in this Brainz article on toxic versus abusive relationships, often run underneath the whole cycle. When is a reaction not self-defense? Not every conflict that includes reactive behavior is abuse by one partner. Johnson's situational couple violence describes conflicts that escalate into aggression without a pattern of control behind them, and both people may contribute. The typology is influential and also debated, including in studies of male samples. A defensive reaction can also cross a line. Responsibility for harm does not disappear because the harm was provoked. Johnson (2008) described three patterns. In intimate terrorism, violence is embedded in a general pattern of coercive control, and one partner uses control and violence to dominate. Violent resistance is a response to that control and violence, used to resist, protect, or fight back. Situational couple violence has no general pattern of control. A specific conflict escalates, and both partners may contribute. Context separates the cases. These five questions help: Who is afraid of whom? Is there a history of control, isolation, or threats? Who has the injuries, and who holds more power? Who can speak freely? Who used force first? That matters less than the pattern because the primary aggressor is not necessarily the first person to use force. These questions guide judgment. They do not replace it. It is important to acknowledge that men experience intimate partner violence too, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) figures in Part 1 show.[3] A man whose defensive reaction is read in isolation can be misjudged in the same way. Key takeaways A courtroom, a police report, and a body camera capture a moment, and that moment is often the reaction rather than the provocation. Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO) can reverse who appears to be the aggressor. The research shows a mechanism, not courtroom outcomes. The cycle of abuse is a model, and the reversal stage in the graphic is a conceptual illustration. Context questions guide judgment and do not replace it. Responsibility for harm does not disappear because it was provoked. In the United States If the pattern in this article sounds familiar, you can reach out for help now or when you are ready. In an emergency, call 911. The National Domestic Violence Hotline offers confidential support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) or TTY 1-800-787-3224. You can also text START to 88788 or chat online at thehotline.org. An advocate can talk through safety planning with you, and you do not have to have it figured out before you call. Outside the United States If you are outside the United States, call your local emergency number. To find a domestic violence or crisis helpline in your country, visit here. Next in the series, Part 3 turns from the system to the self. I share the moment I found a name for what I was living through and the practice that helped me respond with intention instead of reacting. Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and visit my website and BlueSky handle for more insights and updates! Read more from Dr. Veronica Powell Veronica Powell, PhD, LPC, PC, Founder & CEO Veronica Powell, PhD, LPC, is a licensed clinician, industrial-organizational psychologist, and communication coach. As the founder and CEO of Measures4Success Academy, she empowers individuals, leaders, and organizations to master communication through Kendall’s Life Languages™ Framework, also known as Communication Intelligence (CIQ). Dr. Powell is a Senior Executive Contributor for Brainz Magazine and the creator of the Communication Matters Global Movement, where she teaches professionals how to build trust, empathy, and relational intelligence in every conversation. References: [1] Harsey, S., & Freyd, J. J. (2020). Deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender (DARVO): What is the influence on perceived perpetrator and victim credibility? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29(8), 897–916. [2] Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Northeastern University Press. [3] Leemis, R. W., Friar, N., Khatiwada, S., Chen, M. S., Kresnow, M., Smith, S. G., Caslin, S., & Basile, K. C. (2022). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 report on intimate partner violence. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [4] Reeves, E. (2023). A culture of consent: Legal practitioners’ experiences of representing women who have been misidentified as predominant aggressors on family violence intervention orders in Victoria, Australia. Feminist Legal Studies, 31, 369–390. [5] Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. Harper & Row.

Written by Rick Baker, Founder of Tokenised Asset Academy™ Rick Baker is the founder of Tokenised Asset Academy and creator of IRAF™, the Institutional Readiness Assessment Framework™. With 17+ years in digital business, global education and 8+ years in Web3, he is pioneering the institutional readiness discipline needed to move tokenisation from experimentation to mainstream adoption. Tokenisation is creating new opportunities to transform financial markets, from real estate and private credit to funds and government bonds. But while the technology continues to advance, a critical question remains: are institutions prepared to manage the legal, regulatory, operational and commercial realities of tokenised assets? The answer could shape the future of institutional adoption, investor confidence and the wider digital asset economy. What is institutional readiness for tokenisation? Tokenisation is the process of representing rights to an asset digitally on a programmable platform, often using blockchain or distributed ledger technology. It can enable new ways to issue, transfer and manage assets, potentially improving efficiency, transparency and access to financial markets. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has explored both the potential of tokenisation and the economic, legal and technical challenges that must be addressed to realise its benefits. However, the ability to tokenise an asset does not automatically mean an institution is ready to bring it to market. Institutional readiness refers to an organisation's ability to implement and manage a tokenisation proposition with appropriate legal structures, regulatory alignment, operational capabilities, governance, investor protections and commercial foundations. This distinction is becoming increasingly important as financial institutions move beyond experimentation and explore how tokenisation could fit into their existing business models. A project may have sophisticated blockchain infrastructure, an experienced technology partner and a compelling commercial vision. Yet if the legal rights attached to its tokens are unclear, its investor onboarding processes are inadequate, or its liquidity assumptions are unrealistic, the proposition may still be fundamentally unprepared. This is the institutional readiness gap: the difference between what technology makes possible and what an institution is genuinely prepared to deliver. Why is tokenisation advancing faster than institutional readiness? Much of the attention surrounding tokenisation focuses on what technology can achieve. Can transactions settle faster? Can intermediaries be reduced? Can assets be divided into smaller interests? Can smart contracts automate processes that traditionally require manual intervention? These are important questions, and the potential benefits are significant. But financial markets do not operate on technology alone. They depend on enforceable rights, trusted counterparties, effective governance, functioning markets and confidence that obligations will be met. The World Economic Forum's research on asset tokenisation in financial markets identifies barriers to adoption including legacy infrastructure, regulatory fragmentation, limited interoperability and liquidity challenges. These are not simply technical problems. They affect how institutions structure projects, allocate capital, manage risk and determine whether a proposition is commercially viable. The gap emerges when organisations treat tokenisation primarily as a technology implementation rather than a broader institutional transformation. For example, a property investment could be represented digitally using a technically sound token standard. Transactions might be recorded efficiently, and the platform could provide a sophisticated investor interface. Yet important questions remain. What legal rights does each token confer? How is the underlying property held? Which regulatory requirements apply to the offering? Who is responsible for investor verification? How are income distributions managed? What happens if an investor wants to exit or a dispute arises? The blockchain does not independently answer these questions. They require coordinated decisions across legal, regulatory, investment, operational and technological disciplines. The challenge is not that institutions lack technology. It is that technology, on its own, cannot establish institutional readiness. What are the 4 main areas of institutional readiness? Institutional readiness is not a single approval or checklist. It involves several interconnected areas that collectively determine whether a tokenisation proposition can move from concept to sustainable implementation. 1. Legal structure and regulatory compliance A token represents a digital record or claim, but its technical existence does not automatically establish the legal rights associated with it. The underlying asset structure, ownership arrangements, contractual terms, investor eligibility and applicable regulatory requirements must be understood before a proposition is launched. These considerations become more complex when assets, issuers, investors and service providers operate across multiple jurisdictions. A structure suitable for one market may require significant changes before it can be offered in another. Regulatory permissions, disclosure obligations, transfer restrictions and investor protections need to be assessed in the context of the actual proposition. The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has highlighted the potential benefits of financial asset tokenisation alongside the risks it may introduce or amplify, particularly in relation to market integrity and investor protection. For institutions, the implication is straightforward: legal and regulatory considerations must inform the design of a tokenisation project from the beginning, rather than being treated as an approval exercise at the final stage. 2. Asset fundamentals and investor protection Tokenisation changes how an asset can be represented and potentially distributed. It does not automatically improve the quality of the underlying investment. Investors still need to understand what they own, how the asset generates value, how it is valued, what risks they face and what recourse is available if something goes wrong. A tokenised property investment, for example, may offer fractional participation, but investors still need clarity about ownership rights, expenses, income distributions, governance and exit arrangements. The same principle applies to tokenised private credit, funds and other financial instruments. Digital accessibility can make an investment appear simpler than it really is. If an asset becomes easier to purchase but the associated rights and risks remain difficult to understand, the market has not necessarily improved the investor experience. Institutional readiness therefore requires the investment proposition to be assessed alongside the technology used to represent it. 3. Operational capability and governance A successful technical demonstration does not establish that an organisation can operate a tokenisation business at scale. Institutions need to consider custody, identity verification, transaction monitoring, reconciliation, reporting, cybersecurity, business continuity and the allocation of responsibility across providers. They must also understand how new systems interact with existing infrastructure, internal controls and organisational processes. These questions have practical commercial consequences. If an institution discovers late in the development process that its existing systems cannot support the proposed operating model, the result may be additional costs, delayed implementation or a substantial redesign. Effective governance is equally important. Decision makers need clear accountability for risk, technology, asset management, investor communications and ongoing oversight. Readiness is therefore not just about whether a system works. It is about whether the institution can operate, govern and maintain it responsibly. 4. Liquidity and commercial viability Liquidity is frequently presented as one of tokenisation's major attractions. Digital representations of assets may facilitate transfers and create new distribution opportunities, but they do not guarantee a functioning secondary market. Liquidity depends on investor demand, market depth, transfer restrictions, market access, counterparties and the characteristics of the underlying asset. A tokenised asset may be technically transferable without having enough willing buyers to support an investor seeking to exit. This distinction matters because expectations about liquidity can influence investment decisions and commercial projections. Institutions must therefore assess whether the proposed market structure is realistic, rather than assuming that digital transferability automatically creates economic liquidity. Together, these four areas illustrate why readiness must be assessed as a connected system. A weakness in one area can undermine the wider proposition, regardless of how advanced the technology may be. What could the institutional readiness gap mean for financial markets? The implications extend beyond individual tokenisation projects. If institutions underestimate the importance of readiness, the consequences could influence investment decisions, market confidence and the pace of adoption. Capital allocation and project viability Tokenisation projects can involve substantial investment in technology, legal structuring, professional advice, integration and distribution. If fundamental weaknesses are identified only after these resources have been committed, organisations may face expensive remediation, delayed launches or projects that cannot proceed as originally designed. A structured assessment undertaken earlier in the process could help decision makers identify critical gaps, prioritise expenditure and determine whether a proposition is ready to advance. The objective is not to eliminate risk. It is to make risk more visible before it becomes more expensive to address. Investor confidence and market credibility Financial markets depend on confidence in the rights, processes and institutions supporting transactions. Poorly structured tokenisation projects could undermine that confidence, particularly if investors encounter unclear ownership rights, inadequate disclosures or difficulties accessing the liquidity they expected. The reputational consequences may extend beyond a single project. Investors and institutional decision-makers could become more cautious about other propositions, including those with stronger foundations. This is one reason investor protection and sound market structures should be treated as enablers of adoption rather than obstacles to innovation. Regulatory scrutiny and adoption across borders As tokenisation expands across jurisdictions, institutions must navigate different legal frameworks, regulatory requirements and market conventions. The Financial Stability Board's report on the financial stability implications of tokenisation examines potential benefits alongside vulnerabilities and broader financial stability considerations. For institutions, the lesson is that the potential efficiency gains of tokenisation must be considered alongside the structures, controls and safeguards required to support it. Organisations that address these issues early may be better positioned to navigate implementation and regulatory scrutiny than those that treat them as secondary concerns. The gap between innovation and execution Perhaps the greatest risk is that the market develops increasingly sophisticated technology without achieving the corresponding level of institutional adoption. That would not mean tokenisation had failed. It would mean the industry had underestimated the work required to translate technical innovation into sustainable commercial and institutional outcomes. The next stage of development will depend not only on what technology makes possible, but also on what institutions can implement responsibly. How can institutions close the readiness gap? Closing the gap requires a change in how tokenisation projects are evaluated and developed. Rather than beginning with a preferred technology and working backward to address the wider implications, institutions should start by understanding the proposition as a whole. This means asking several questions before committing significant resources: What commercial objective is the tokenisation project intended to achieve? What legal rights will investors actually hold? Which jurisdictions and regulatory requirements apply? Is the underlying asset suitable for the proposed structure and investor base? Are custody, governance, reporting and operational responsibilities clearly defined? Are assumptions about liquidity, distribution and demand commercially realistic? Which critical dependencies remain unresolved, and what must happen before implementation can proceed? These questions should inform technology selection, project design and investment decisions from the outset. A structured readiness assessment can help bring these considerations together, identify weaknesses and prioritise the work required to address them. It can also provide a common language for discussions between executives, legal advisers, compliance teams, technology providers, asset managers and investors. Importantly, readiness should not be treated as an exercise undertaken only once. Regulatory expectations, technology, counterparties and business models evolve. An institution that is prepared today may need to reassess its capabilities as its proposition develops or enters new markets. The goal is not to create another layer of bureaucracy. It is to help institutions make better-informed decisions, reduce avoidable execution risks and build stronger foundations for adoption. Why institutional readiness could become a competitive advantage As the tokenisation market matures, the ability to assess readiness systematically could become an important part of institutional decision-making. Organisations will need to distinguish between a compelling concept and a proposition that is genuinely prepared for implementation. Some projects may be ready to proceed. Others may require changes to their legal structures, operating models or commercial assumptions. In some cases, an assessment may reveal that the proposed approach is not viable in its current form. Identifying these differences early can be valuable in its own right. This is the thinking behind the Institutional Readiness Assessment Framework (IRAF™), which I created to address the gap between tokenisation ambition and institutional preparedness. Through my work with Tokenised Asset Academy and the development of IRAF™, I have focused on the need for a more structured approach to understanding the factors that influence institutional readiness. The wider objective is to help organisations identify gaps, understand their dependencies and establish practical roadmaps towards implementation. As institutional participation grows, readiness intelligence could support more informed decisions across project development, investment diligence, governance and strategic planning. No framework can replace specialist legal, regulatory, investment or technical advice. Nor can any assessment guarantee commercial success. But a coherent view of readiness can help decision makers understand where their propositions are strong, where further work is required and which issues deserve attention first. The opportunity is to make readiness an integral part of the tokenisation process, rather than a consideration introduced after critical decisions have already been made. Is institutional readiness the missing link in tokenisation? Tokenisation has the potential to change how financial assets are issued, managed, distributed and transferred. Yet its success over the long term will depend on more than blockchain infrastructure or the speed at which new projects reach the market. It will depend on the quality of the structures surrounding tokenised assets, the confidence those structures create and the ability of institutions to operate within them. The institutional readiness gap is not an argument against tokenisation. It is an argument for taking its potential seriously enough to address the foundations required to realise it. The industry has spent years demonstrating what can be built on blockchain infrastructure. The next challenge is demonstrating that these innovations can work within the complex realities of institutional finance. For institutional leaders, investors and organisations exploring tokenisation of real world assets, the starting point should be a more fundamental question. Not simply whether an asset can be tokenised, but whether the asset, the structure and the institution are ready for what comes next. If your organisation is exploring tokenisation, start by assessing its readiness. Go to my website to explore institutional tokenisation education, corporate training and the thinking behind IRAF™. Visit my website for more info! Read more from Rick Baker Rick Baker, Executive Founder of Tokenised Asset Academy™ Rick Baker is the founder of Tokenisd Asset Academy and creator of IRAF™, the Institutional Readiness Assessment Framework™, a proprietary framework designed to help organisations prepare for the tokenised economy. With 17+ years of experience across digital business, global education and marketing, and 8+ years working within Web3 and digital assets, Rick has built and launched ventures across the rapidly evolving blockchain ecosystem. His work focuses on bridging the gap between emerging financial technology and institutional adoption, helping organisations understand, assess and develop the capabilities required for tokenisation. Rick is a recognised thought leader and speaker on tokenisation, and institutional readiness.

Selma Makic brings together psychosocial counseling, neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), and systemic work to explore how early experiences shape adult behavior. After moving from Bosnia to Austria at six, she took on responsibilities beyond her years, an experience that later led her to question whether being “the strong one” had ever felt like a choice. In this interview, she discusses the expectations behind perfectionism and people-pleasing, why rest can bring guilt, and how women can begin to separate their own needs from the roles they learned to fill. Selma Makic, Self-Leadership & Mindset Coach Selma, what first sparked your interest in understanding how our early experiences shape who we become? I think it started long before I even knew there was a psychological explanation for it. I was six years old when my family moved from Bosnia to Austria. What I didn't know back then was that I wasn't just leaving a country behind, but also a part of my childhood. As the eldest daughter, I learned to take responsibility early. I accompanied my family to appointments, helped navigate situations that were usually handled by adults, and gradually became the one who always figured things out. Being “so strong” or “so mature for my age” felt like a compliment. Until one day it didn’t. Until one day it started to trigger me because I didn’t choose to be strong. It was simply who I had to become. So, I started questioning everything. It sparked my curiosity about human behavior, our beliefs, and the unconscious patterns we carry into adulthood. Eventually, that curiosity became more than a personal journey. It became my profession. Today, what fascinates me most is that we can spend years believing something is part of our personality, only to discover that it was once a way of adapting to our environment. In your article about the strong daughter syndrome, you explore how strength can become a survival strategy. What signs suggest that a woman feels obligated to be strong rather than choosing to be? If you think to yourself, “I have to be the strong one. Because who else is going to be?” then this is the first sign right there. I think the biggest difference is whether you feel like you have a choice. Can you ask for help? Can you say no without feeling guilty? Can you rest without thinking about everything you should be doing instead? Can you let someone else take care of things without feeling the need to step in? If the answer is no, your strength might not feel like a choice anymore. Many women I speak to have been praised their entire lives for being independent, responsible, and mature. And while these are wonderful qualities, there's often another side to them that nobody talks about. The woman who never asks for help learned that nobody would come when she needed it. The woman who always has everything under control learned that losing control doesn't feel safe. I know what it's like to be the person everyone can rely on. But sometimes, the strongest woman in the room is also the one who desperately wishes someone would tell her, "I've got this. You can rest." To me, real strength means having the freedom to be strong without feeling that you always have to be. Your approach brings together psychosocial counseling, NLP, and systemic work. How do these perspectives help you uncover the patterns behind someone's behavior? One of the things I find most fascinating about human behavior is that there is usually a reason behind what we do, even when that reason isn't immediately obvious to us. Someone might struggle to say no, constantly seek approval, or feel responsible for other people's emotions. Instead of focusing only on changing that behavior, I like to explore what purpose it may have served in the past. Psychosocial counseling allows me to look at the person as a whole, considering their experiences, emotions, relationships, and current circumstances. Through NLP, I explore how language, beliefs, and learned patterns influence the way we perceive ourselves and respond to situations. Systemic work adds another perspective by looking at the roles and expectations we may have taken on within our families and relationships. For me, these approaches are different lenses rather than solutions that fit everyone. There's something I always want people to understand: Just because a behavior once helped you navigate your environment doesn't mean you have to carry it for the rest of your life. Understanding where a pattern comes from can create space to choose differently today. Why do you think perfectionism and people-pleasing can be so difficult to recognize when they are often praised as positive qualities? Because they're often disguised as positive qualities. Think about it. A perfectionist or a people pleaser is often seen as disciplined, organized, reliable, kind, and generous. She's always there for everyone, always willing to help, always trying to meet everyone's expectations. These are wonderful qualities, aren't they? Growing up, I was constantly praised for being so mature for my age. I heard things like, "We never had to worry about you. You'll figure it out. You always do." For a long time, I took that as a compliment. Until one day, something clicked. Of course I figured things out. What other choice did I have? That's when I started questioning the qualities I'd always been praised for. Because here's the thing: Perfectionism is performance. People-pleasing is performance. It's not necessarily who you truly are. It's who you've learned you need to be to meet expectations, avoid disappointment, or feel accepted. When you've been praised for that performance your entire life, it becomes incredibly difficult to distinguish between who you really are and who you've learned to become, or rather, the role you've learned to perform. You've questioned whether greater productivity actually makes our lives easier. What do you think is missing from today's conversations about performance and wellbeing? I find it interesting that we've created so many tools to make our lives easier, yet so many people still feel like they're constantly running out of time. We have calendars, productivity apps, artificial intelligence (AI), and endless strategies to optimize our days. But instead of enjoying the time we save, we often fill it with even more things to do. I think we've become a society of overachievers. We're constantly working through our lists of things to do, jumping from one task to another, always chasing the next goal. And the interesting thing is, we rarely stop to acknowledge what we've already accomplished. Instead, we focus on what's still missing, what we haven't done yet, or what we could have done better. But what happens when there's nothing left on your list of things to do? For many of us, myself included, simply doing nothing can feel incredibly uncomfortable. We're so used to being productive that the moment we slow down, we start feeling guilty. Then it's not even resting anymore, because we're not really resting. We're feeling guilty about resting. I believe we need to shift the conversation from how much we can accomplish to how we actually want to live. Because what is the point of creating a more efficient life if we never give ourselves permission to enjoy it? When someone has spent years putting other people's needs first, where can they begin to reconnect with their own? I think it starts with two very simple questions: What do I need? What do I actually want? They sound easy, don't they? But when you've spent years being there for everyone else, you can become so disconnected from your own needs that you don't even know how to answer them anymore. I remember discussing this with my therapist because I felt like I never had time for myself. She asked me what I could do for myself during the week that would make me feel better. So I started dedicating my Sundays to myself. Nothing extraordinary. Just slowing down, having a little spa day at home, taking care of myself, or watching a movie without feeling like I had to be doing something else. Gradually, I learned to listen to myself beyond those Sundays. Am I tired? Do I need rest? Do I actually want to go out tonight, or would I rather stay home? I learned that honoring my needs sometimes meant postponing plans instead of forcing myself to show up. I think that's where reconnecting with yourself begins. Not with dramatic changes, but with small moments in which you start choosing yourself, too. Can you share an example of how recognizing the origin of a learned behavior can help someone make a different choice? One example that comes to mind is feeling responsible for other people's emotions. For a long time, I believed that if someone I cared about was unhappy, it was somehow my responsibility to make things better. If someone was upset, I wanted to fix it. If someone felt disappointed, I questioned what I could have done differently. And sometimes, I would put my own needs aside just to make sure the other person was okay. At the time, I saw this as being caring and empathetic. But eventually, I realized there was a difference between caring about someone's feelings and feeling responsible for them. That realization was incredibly freeing. I could love someone without making their happiness my responsibility. I could support someone without abandoning myself in the process. That's what I find so powerful about self-awareness. Recognizing where a behavior may have come from doesn't mean blaming our parents, our upbringing, or anyone else. It means understanding ourselves well enough to recognize that we have choices today that we may not have felt we had before. We can acknowledge our past without allowing it to make us the victim of the story or influence every decision about our future. What is one belief about strength or self-worth you wish more women would begin to question? I wish more women would question what being strong actually means to them. Are you really that strong if you cannot allow yourself to be vulnerable? If you cannot ask for help? If you cannot say no to someone because you're afraid of disappointing them? What about your self-worth? Do you need other people's approval to feel worthy? Do you measure your value by how much you accomplish, how much you give, or how much others need you? Or do you believe that you're worthy simply because you are? I think these are questions we don't ask ourselves often enough. Because we can spend years trying to live up to an idea of strength without ever questioning whether that idea is actually ours. Maybe real strength isn't about proving how much you can handle. Maybe it's also about having the courage to be vulnerable, to set boundaries, and to acknowledge your own needs. So if there's one thing I'd encourage women to do, it's to ask themselves: What does being strong mean to me, and who taught me that definition? Follow me on Instagram and LinkedIn for more info! Read more from Selma Makic

Written by James Ogle, Entrepreneur, Enterprise Consultant & Life Coach James Ogle is an entrepreneur and business strategist with more than 40 years of experience in real estate, energy, global trade, and the digital economy. As founder of National Speakers League Inc., he is building Social Compact USA® to expand civic participation. Human time is limited. Every economic choice involves an alternative that’s forgone. Therefore, the cost of doing anything must include the loss of the best forgone alternative. Entrepreneurs are accustomed to asking what an opportunity could earn. An equally important question is what pursuing it will require us to give up. A promising introduction becomes a series of meetings. A new venture requires research, planning, and follow-up. A potential partnership occupies our attention long before an agreement is signed. Even when no money changes hands, we have already begun investing. I approach these decisions through three Ts: thought, time and talent. Together, they provide a practical way to assess the relationship between an opportunity’s potential value and the human resources it consumes. Your productive day is smaller than your calendar There are 24 hours in a day, but being human means we cannot make all of them productive working hours. Sleep, meals, family responsibilities, personal care and recovery require their share. Within the hours available for work, our capacity for concentration also varies. An hour spent making a difficult strategic decision places different demands on us than an hour spent answering routine correspondence. Both occupy the calendar, but they draw differently on our resources. A realistic schedule must account for those differences. Planning every available minute as though it offers equal energy and judgment creates commitments that are difficult to sustain. Time management therefore begins before we organize the calendar. It begins when we decide what deserves a place on it. Apply the 3 Ts before committing The three Ts make the human cost of an opportunity more visible. Thought is the attention and judgment an opportunity requires. How much research, uncertainty and decision-making will it involve? Will it continue occupying your mind while you are working on something else? An undertaking that requires only two meetings a week may still consume considerable mental space. Unresolved negotiations, unclear expectations and repeated changes can carry an attention cost that a calendar never reveals. Time is the full commitment required to move from interest to outcome. Include preparation, travel, coordination, execution and follow-up. Consider how long it may take to receive payment or learn whether the opportunity is viable. A meeting lasting one hour rarely costs only one hour. Its real demand may include reviewing documents, preparing one or more proposals and completing several rounds of correspondence. Talent is the capability you contribute and the expertise you must obtain. Does the opportunity use your strongest abilities? Can someone else perform parts of the work effectively? What specialized knowledge is missing? Being able to perform a task does not automatically make it the best use of your talent. A founder who spends the afternoon solving a routine administrative problem may lose the chance to resolve a customer issue that only the founder can address. The three Ts belong together. Delegation may save time while requiring additional thought and supervision. A familiar project may use your talent efficiently, while an unfamiliar one demands extensive learning. Each opportunity creates its own combination. Abundant possibilities require a clear filter Entrepreneurs may encounter more possibilities than they can responsibly pursue. Technology, professional networks and access to information can make opportunities appear almost unlimited. Our capacity to act remains limited. An assessment made with a clear mind must distinguish an attractive possibility from an opportunity that fits our circumstances. That assessment should consider personal priorities, existing obligations, financial capacity, relevant experience and resources within reasonable reach. What makes sense for an established company with a management team may be unsuitable for an individual founder. The same opportunity may become suitable later, once the necessary capacity exists. This is a matter of timing and fitness. Ambition needs an honest account of the means available to support it. Before committing, ask: Why is this opportunity appropriate for me, with my resources, at this point in time? Examine the opportunity through 360 degrees A compelling presentation usually shows an opportunity from its most attractive angle. The entrepreneur must examine the surrounding conditions. I recommend an assessment covering 360 degrees, organized around three questions. What is already in hand? Identify resources you can use: available funds, relevant skills, committed collaborators, customer relationships, equipment and sufficient time. Separate confirmed resources from expressions of interest. What can reasonably be obtained? Identify the resources you can credibly acquire, from whom, at what cost and within what period. A potential introduction is useful, but it is different from an agreed meeting. An encouraging financing conversation is different from accessible capital. What is missing? Identify the gaps that could prevent execution. These may include expertise, customer demand, working capital, permissions, distribution or someone with clear responsibility for delivery. Then consider the consequences around the entire undertaking. Who controls essential decisions? What happens if a partner withdraws? How will a delay affect current commitments? What would make you stop? The purpose is to establish whether the next commitment is justified by what you presently know. Name the alternative you would give up Opportunity cost becomes useful when the alternative is specific. Imagine a founder with 12 discretionary working hours available this week. A new partnership proposal could absorb all 12. The strongest alternative is improving the existing service for customers already requesting it. The partnership may offer greater potential over the long term. The service improvement may offer a clearer route to revenue in the near term. Neither automatically deserves priority. Compare them using the same questions: What outcome is reasonably possible? How uncertain is it? What further resources will it require? How does it serve the founder’s objectives? The best forgone alternative might also be rest, family time or professional development. Their value deserves consideration even when it cannot be expressed neatly in dollars. Avoid counting every rejected possibility as a separate opportunity cost. The relevant comparison is the best realistic alternative displaced by your choice. Turn intention into a bounded plan In the “Decision” chapter of Think and Grow Rich, Napoleon Hill emphasizes definite decisions and warns against procrastination. Applied to opportunity selection, that principle encourages us to move from prolonged consideration toward a clear course of action. Decisiveness can include approving a limited test. You might authorize five customer interviews before developing a product, or one discovery meeting before preparing a full proposal. Give that test a time allowance, a defined objective and a review date. Decide in advance what evidence would justify further investment. This approach allows curiosity and discipline to work together. You can investigate a possibility while keeping its demands proportionate to the evidence. Make your calendar reflect your choices A few habits can help put this thinking into practice: Plan from actual capacity. Account for existing responsibilities and leave room for unexpected demands. Protect your strongest thinking hours. Reserve them for work requiring your judgment, creativity or specialist knowledge. Define the purpose of meetings. Know what question must be answered or what decision should follow. Review unfinished commitments weekly. Decide which deserve continued attention and which should be closed. Make “later” specific. Record the conditions that would justify reconsidering a deferred opportunity. Reassess when facts change. Prior effort alone does not justify another investment of thought, time and talent. Before your next significant yes, write down what it will require, what you have available and which alternative it will replace. Your answer may reveal an opportunity worth pursuing wholeheartedly. It may also reveal that your resources have a more valuable purpose elsewhere. Entrepreneurship requires the courage to pursue possibilities. It also requires the judgment to allocate a finite human life among them. Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn, and visit my website for more info! Read more from James Ogle James Ogle, Entrepreneur, Enterprise Consultant & Life Coach James Ogle is an entrepreneur and business strategist with more than 40 years of experience across real estate, energy, global trade, and the digital economy. He holds a postgraduate diploma in Real Estate Investment Finance from New York University and founded Intellectual Dynamics Corporation to help leaders recognize opportunities and move complex ideas forward. Today, he is building Social Compact USA® through National Speakers League Inc., creating new ways for Americans to engage in civic life. His articles explore the ideas, choices, and emerging trends shaping business and society. Source note: The Napoleon Hill passage is a paraphrase of ideas in Think and Grow Rich, Chapter 8, “Decision: The Mastery of Procrastination.” Text reference.

Written by Annie Paraison, Founder of Love Before ALL LLC Annie Paraison, the visionary behind Love Before ALL, is a Cultural Architect who leverages over 17 years of leadership experience to demonstrate that love is a strategic necessity. She helps leaders, businesses, and communities operationalize love to optimize personal, organizational, and communal wellness and collective success. What if the most consequential leadership decision you make today is not a strategic one? What if it happens in the 90 seconds before a difficult conversation, in the moment your body tightens, your jaw sets, and something unnamed takes over the room before you have said a single word? Most leadership development programs will teach you what to say in that moment. Almost none of them will teach you how to feel it first. This article is about the skill we keep skipping, and what it costs us every time we do. The feeling we were trained to manage Professional culture has a complicated relationship with emotion. On one hand, we celebrate leaders who can "read the room," inspire their teams, and demonstrate compassion under pressure. On the other, we have built entire industries around the idea that the most effective leader is the one who keeps their feelings in check, who stays rational when others become reactive, who projects composure so seamlessly that you cannot tell what is happening underneath. What we have not examined honestly is the cost of that performance. Managing emotions and understanding them are not the same thing, this I know from personal experience. A leader who manages their emotions has learned to suppress, redirect, or delay what they feel until a more convenient moment. A leader who understands their emotions has learned to name what is happening in their body with enough precision that it informs, rather than hijacks, their next decision. The first produces the appearance of steadiness. The second produces the actual thing, the first facilitates performance while the second sets the foundation for emotional regulation. Emotional literacy, the capacity to recognize, name, and work with one's own emotional experience with nuance and accuracy, is not softness adjacent to therapy. It is a foundational competency that every other leadership skill depends on. The research has been confirming this for years, even as the executive suite continues to treat feelings as a background variable rather than a primary one. What the research has been trying to tell us A 2024 study across multiple industries published in Environment and Social Psychology examined emotional intelligence across leadership development contexts and found a consistent positive relationship between a leader's emotional competencies and key outcomes, including the quality of decision-making, team performance, and employee engagement. The research reinforced what Daniel Goleman identified decades earlier: emotional competencies account for two out of every three skills necessary for effective performance across industries and organizational levels. A 2025 study published in Frontiers in Psychology affirmed that emotionally intelligent leaders are more capable of regulating their own emotions and understanding the emotional states of their teams, producing measurable improvements in communication, adaptability, and conflict resolution. A 2025 review of multiple studies in Sage Journals, which was peer-reviewed and mapped the relationship between emotional intelligence and leader outcomes, found that emotional intelligence consistently predicts three leadership outcome categories: leadership style and behavior, leader wellbeing, and leader performance. Not one of these. All three. The neuroscience goes one layer deeper still. A 2025 review published in Annual Review of Psychology examined interoception, the body's capacity to sense and interpret its own internal signals, and found that interoceptive signals form the foundation upon which emotional awareness, emotional granularity, and emotion regulation are built. In plain language: a leader who cannot feel what is happening in their own body cannot accurately name what they are feeling. A leader who cannot name what they are feeling is at significant risk of having that unnamed feeling make decisions on their behalf. The decision made from unnamed fear looks like a policy change justified by efficiency. The decision made from unnamed grief looks like withdrawal dressed up as delegation. The decision made from unnamed shame looks like overexplaining, micromanaging, or the sudden need to be in every room. We do not need more leaders who can manage their feelings into invisibility. We need leaders who can feel with enough literacy to know what is actually happening and choose, deliberately, what to do next. The compounded weight for Black women leaders Before we go further, the full picture of this conversation requires naming something that general leadership literature consistently elides. Emotional literacy is not a universal experience for all leaders. For Black women and women of color in leadership, the relationship with emotion in professional spaces has been shaped by an entirely different set of forces. Workplace emotional tax, defined as the adverse effects resulting from "feeling different from peers at work because of gender, race, and/or ethnicity," falls most acutely on Black women. Research confirms that Black and brown women perform significantly more emotional labor than their white counterparts and white men, including the constant work of monitoring how their emotions will be perceived, suppressing authentic responses to microaggressions, and managing the emotional needs of the room while their own go unmet. A 2024 Yale Management study found that when men perform emotional labor in the workplace, they receive a 14 percent competence boost and are read as leadership material. When women perform identical labor, they receive a 7 percent competence penalty and are seen as doing what is expected. 2025 neuroscience research suggests that chronic emotional labor physically changes brain structure, with workers in professions requiring high levels of emotional labor for five or more years showing measurably reduced gray matter in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the exact region responsible for emotional regulation and decision-making. Read that again. The sustained, compelled suppression of authentic emotional experience, the kind that Black women in leadership are required to perform as a condition of professional survival, does measurable neurological harm to the very capacity that emotional literacy is meant to develop. This is true for Black women and for anyone required to suppress their emotional experience regardless of the situational context. This is not a personal failing. It is systemic violence dressed in ‘professional’ attire. It is also why emotional literacy at Love Before ALL is not simply a leadership competency. It is an act of reclamation. What emotional literacy actually looks like Emotional literacy is not a practice of becoming more expressive. It is a practice of becoming more precise. Psychologists use the term emotional granularity to describe the capacity to distinguish between emotional states with specificity rather than collapsing everything into broad categories. A leader with low emotional granularity might register feeling "bad" before a difficult meeting. A leader with high emotional granularity knows whether what they are feeling is anxiety about the outcome, grief about the relationship, anger at an injustice that has not yet been named, or fear of their own potential reaction. Those are four different emotional experiences requiring four different kinds of attention before a single word is spoken. That precision matters operationally. Research on leaders' emotional intelligence abilities found that emotion perception accuracy, emotion understanding, and emotion management each produced distinct effects on subordinates' outcomes. Accurate perception of one's own emotional state was the prerequisite for accurate reading of others. A leader who misreads themselves will reliably misread their team. A leader who misreads their team cannot build the psychological safety every other organizational goal depends on. The Grow the Me tier of the Love Before ALL Approach begins here, in the body, in the breath before the response, in the quiet practice of asking not "What should I feel?" or "What am I allowed to feel?" but "What am I actually feeling, right now, and what is it asking me to notice?" That practice is not passive. It is one of the most rigorous and sustaining things a leader can do, and it changes everything that follows. The reimagining prompt What if the most strategic thing you could do before your next conversation with high stakes was spend five minutes honestly naming what you actually feel, not what you are supposed to project? What if your organization treated emotional literacy as a professional responsibility, assessed it alongside strategic capability, and resourced the development of it with the same seriousness it gives to technical skill? Here is what Love Before ALL believes that would look like in practice. A leader who has developed emotional literacy does not walk into a difficult conversation in the same way as a leader who has not. They have already taken an honest inventory of their own nervous system. They know whether they are carrying unresolved tension from an earlier exchange. They have named the fear or the grief or the disappointment, not to perform it but to keep it from performing them. That leader can hold space for the emotional reality of another person because they are not simultaneously managing an unnamed internal emergency. That is not a small thing. That is the difference between a meeting that deepens trust and one that quietly erodes it. Between feedback that lands and feedback that defends. Between a leader who is present and a leader who is performing presence from a distance. For Black women and women of color in leadership, emotional literacy is also something more personal than strategy. It is the right to know yourself fully, to stop performing emotions for the comfort of systems that were never designed to hold your humanity, and to lead from the inside out rather than the outside in. That is the Grow the Me work. It is where everything else begins. An invitation to begin with yourself If you are a leader who has been managing your feelings for so long that you are no longer sure what you actually feel, this is not a moment for judgment. It is a moment of recognition. The emotional literacy you were not given permission to develop is still available to you. It develops through practice, through the gradual, patient work of attending to your own interior experience with curiosity rather than correction. It changes not just how you lead, but how you live. Love Before ALL exists to hold that kind of practice with leaders, from the inside out. Want to go deeper? Here are two ways to take the next step with us: Join the Love Before ALL (LBA) Connection Circle: Our free monthly session, lasting 45 minutes, is a curated space where leaders arrive as they are, without performance and without the pressure to have the answers. It is a room designed to help your nervous system remember what safety feels like, and to practice the kind of honest presence that emotional literacy makes possible. Request your seat here. Join the LBA Movement: Subscribe to the LBA Care and Clarity Update, our monthly resource for leaders navigating the intersection of personal wellbeing and organizational impact. Each issue includes a somatic and emotional reflection tied to our monthly theme, a conversation from the Talk to Me podcast, and a practical tool you can bring into your leadership the same week. Because you cannot heal what you will not feel. The world needs leaders who have the courage to do both. Join the movement Connect with Love Before ALL: Annie's LinkedIn: Annie Paraison, Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA) YouTube channel: Love Before ALL Blog page Spotify podcast: Talk to Me Follow me on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and visit my website for more info! Read more from Annie Paraison Annie Paraison, Founder of Love Before ALL LLC Annie Paraison is the visionary behind Love Before ALL, a consultancy optimizing wellness through the power of relationships. A proud Haitian-born leader, she journeyed from New York City to Vanderbilt University, igniting a passion for harnessing human potential and building "Beloved Community." With over 17 years of leadership experience and an Executive MBA, she challenges the status quo by proving that love is a rigorous life and business strategy. She ensures no leader has to choose between impact and well-being by supporting the transformation of unconscious patterns into conscious compassion. Grounded in faith and guided by hope, Annie is committed to a world where personal and collective success are inextricably linked. References: Bhatt, A. S., “The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Leadership Development: A Multi-Industry Analysis of Performance Outcomes,” Environment and Social Psychology, Volume 9, Issue 10, November 2024. Iyer (2024) and Nwagwu and Henry (2025), cited in “The Importance of Emotional Intelligence in Leadership for Building an Effective Team,” arXiv preprint, 2025. Gerhardt, Bauwens, and Van Woerkom, “Emotional Intelligence and Leader Outcomes: A Comprehensive Review and Roadmap for Future Inquiry,” Sage Journals, 2026. Taylor & Francis Online, “Leaders' Emotion Perception, Understanding and Management Abilities Differentially Relate to Followers' Work Outcomes,” October 2025. Annual Review of Psychology, “Interoceptive Mechanisms and Emotional Processing,” January 2025. Nonprofit Quarterly, “Your Comfort Is Killing Me: The Toll of Unseen and Unpaid Emotional Labor,” Spring 2024. World Economic Forum, “Emotional Labour: What Is It and Why Does It Fall to Women?,” December 2022. Briefedge, “The Science of Work: Emotional Labor Research and Data,” citing Yale Management Study 2024 and University of California, Berkeley Neuroscience Lab 2025. ScienceDirect, “Emotional Intelligence, Leadership, and Work Teams: A Hybrid Literature Review,” citing Goleman competency assessments.

The highly anticipated live music and networking meet-up will take place on May 16th, 2025, at 9 p.m. at Asmera Bar and Restaurant in Toronto. Designed to foster collaboration, the event will bring together entrepreneurs, artists, musicians, business leaders, and creatives to network. "International Connectionz is more than just an event. It’s a catalyst for collaboration and innovation," said event director Ryan Phillips. Attendees will have the unique opportunity to hear local artists. The one-night event will feature local talent and cultural food from East Africa, specifically Eritrea. Some of the world’s best coffee will be available. Toronto, being one of the most multicultural cities in the world, will welcome attendees from across the globe. To make reservations, email here. About International Connectionz International Connectionz is a global event organizer bridging the gap between groundbreaking ideas and real-world applications. Since its inception, IC has been a platform for showcasing talent and connecting the people of planet Earth. Contact Ryan Phillips ryanstrikephillips@gmail.com

Written by Aravind Sakthivel, Author & Technology Leader Aravind Sakthivel is a global IT technology leader and the author of the book "The Leadership Trap: Why Smart Leaders Fail and How to Break Free". Every executive team is under pressure to achieve the same objective: grow faster while operating with greater efficiency. Yet many organisations are still relying on restructuring methods designed for a pre artificial intelligence (AI) world, where reducing costs often meant reducing people. While those approaches delivered short term financial gains, they frequently left businesses with less agility, lower resilience, and employees stretched beyond sustainable limits. Artificial intelligence changes this equation. Rather than simply automating existing tasks, AI gives leaders the opportunity to redesign how work flows across the organisation. Companies that embrace this shift are discovering that becoming lean is no longer about shrinking the workforce. It is about removing unnecessary complexity, accelerating decisions, and allowing talented people to focus on the work that creates real value. What does a lean organisation mean today? The concept of a lean organisation originated in manufacturing, where eliminating waste, improving quality, and continuously refining processes became the foundation for operational excellence. Over time, these principles spread into financial services, healthcare, government, professional services, and technology. Unfortunately, many organisations misunderstood lean as a synonym for cost reduction. In practice, a truly lean organisation is not the smallest organisation. It is the organisation that delivers the greatest value with the least unnecessary effort. Every process, approval, meeting, report, and decision should contribute directly to customer outcomes or strategic objectives. Artificial intelligence introduces an entirely new capability into this model. Instead of asking employees to work harder or managers to supervise more people, AI can eliminate repetitive coordination work, analyse information instantly, and support faster, higher-quality decision-making. This allows organisations to increase capacity without proportionally increasing headcount, creating a more scalable and resilient operating model. Why traditional cost cutting has reached its limit For more than three decades, organisations pursued efficiency through restructuring. Layers of management were removed, departments merged, and hiring slowed. While these initiatives often improved financial performance in the short term, many organisations eventually found themselves operating with fewer resources but no meaningful improvement in how work was actually performed. The hidden problem is that much of today's organisational complexity does not come from frontline delivery. It comes from managing the movement of work between people. Multiple approvals, duplicated reporting, manual status updates, lengthy meetings, and fragmented communication consume thousands of productive hours each year. Removing people without redesigning these processes simply transfers more administrative burden onto those who remain. Employees spend more time coordinating work and less time creating value. Decision-making slows, innovation suffers, and customer responsiveness declines. AI offers a fundamentally different solution because it targets the coordination overhead itself rather than simply reducing the number of people responsible for carrying it. AI is a structural lever, not another productivity tool Many organisations begin their artificial intelligence (AI) journey with isolated use cases. They introduce chatbots for customer support, copilots for document creation, or predictive models to improve reporting. These initiatives deliver measurable productivity gains, but they rarely transform the organisation. The more powerful question is far more strategic. If this business were designed today, with AI available from the beginning, would we organise work the same way? For many organisations, the answer is no. Departments often exist because historical technology limitations required people to manually move information between systems. Management layers frequently exist to monitor work that AI can now track continuously. Approval chains have grown over time to compensate for limited visibility rather than genuine governance requirements. AI enables leaders to redesign workflows around outcomes rather than organisational boundaries. Instead of simply making existing processes faster, it allows businesses to remove unnecessary processes altogether. That distinction separates organisations that automate tasks from organisations that redesign themselves for long-term competitive advantage. Automate the predictable, elevate human judgement One of the most common misconceptions about AI is that it replaces expertise. In reality, its greatest value lies in protecting expertise by removing repetitive work that consumes valuable cognitive capacity. Every organisation makes thousands of decisions each day. Some follow well-defined rules and predictable patterns. Others require context, empathy, creativity, or strategic judgement. AI excels at the first category. Routine invoice approvals, document classification, compliance checks, scheduling, data validation, forecasting, and information retrieval can all be handled consistently and at scale. This enables experienced professionals to spend more time solving customer problems, making strategic decisions, and leading innovation. Consider a procurement function. Rather than manually reviewing every purchase request, AI can validate policy compliance, assess supplier performance, identify spending anomalies, and escalate only genuine exceptions. Procurement specialists shift from administrative processing to supplier strategy and commercial negotiations. The result is not simply lower operating costs. It is better decision quality because skilled professionals are focused where human judgement creates the greatest value. Flatten decision layers, not simply headcount Many restructuring programmes remove management positions while leaving approval processes unchanged. Decisions continue travelling through multiple layers, often creating delays that frustrate employees and customers alike. Artificial intelligence (AI) enables organisations to rethink governance itself. Real-time insights, predictive analytics, and intelligent recommendations allow decision authority to move closer to frontline teams. Employees can act confidently because they are supported by timely information rather than waiting for senior approval. Imagine a customer service adviser handling a complex complaint. Instead of escalating multiple times, AI can instantly analyse customer history, policy requirements, previous resolutions, and risk factors before recommending the most appropriate response. The adviser retains ownership while management focuses only on genuinely exceptional situations. This approach increases responsiveness while strengthening accountability. Leaders spend less time approving routine work and more time coaching, developing capability, and shaping strategy. Build capability before building headcount Historically, organisations increased capacity by hiring ahead of anticipated demand. As business grew, so did the workforce. This approach is becoming increasingly difficult as talent shortages, rising employment costs, and productivity expectations continue to increase. Leading organisations are adopting a different philosophy. Before adding people, they improve the capability of existing teams. AI-powered knowledge management, intelligent workflow automation, decision support systems, and personalised learning platforms allow employees to produce significantly more value without increasing working hours. This does not eliminate recruitment. High-performing organisations will always invest in exceptional talent. However, recruitment becomes the final lever rather than the default response to growth. The outcome is sustainable scalability. Revenue grows faster than workforce size because technology expands human capability rather than replacing it. Measure leanness by speed, not size Many organisations proudly report reductions in headcount or improvements in employee-to-revenue ratios. These metrics may satisfy investors, but they reveal very little about organisational effectiveness. A more meaningful measure is cycle time. How quickly can a customer request be resolved? How long does it take to launch a new product? How rapidly can decisions move from identification to execution? AI consistently improves these indicators because it removes waiting rather than simply reducing labour. For example, automated document processing can reduce contract review from several days to a matter of minutes. Intelligent workflow routing ensures tasks reach the right people immediately. Predictive analytics identify bottlenecks before they become operational problems. Speed becomes the competitive advantage. Organisations that make better decisions faster consistently outperform those that simply operate with fewer employees. 3 mistakes leaders make with AI Despite significant investment, many AI programmes fail to deliver transformational value because organisations approach implementation through a technology lens rather than an operating model lens. The first mistake is automating inefficient processes instead of redesigning them. Accelerating a poor process simply produces poor outcomes more quickly. The second mistake is measuring success primarily through headcount reduction. Sustainable competitive advantage comes from improving capability, customer experience, and decision quality rather than focusing exclusively on labour costs. The third mistake is treating AI as an information technology (IT) initiative. Successful transformation requires leadership involvement across strategy, operations, finance, people, governance, and organisational design. AI is ultimately a business transformation programme supported by technology, not the other way around. The leadership mindset shift Technology alone will not create lean organisations. Leadership will. Executives must distinguish between activities that genuinely create customer value and activities that exist solely to coordinate internal complexity. Artificial intelligence (AI) is remarkably effective at reducing the latter, but only if leaders are willing to rethink long established structures, reporting relationships, and governance models. This often requires uncomfortable decisions. Managers may transition from supervising activity to enabling outcomes. Functional boundaries may become less rigid. Decision authority may move closer to frontline employees supported by intelligent systems rather than hierarchical approvals. These changes demand trust, transparency, and a willingness to redesign the organisation around value creation rather than tradition. The organisations that succeed will not necessarily be those investing the most in AI technology. They will be the organisations whose leaders demonstrate the courage to redesign how work is performed. Where leaders should start Leaders do not need to transform their entire organisation overnight. The most successful AI transformations begin with a clear understanding of where value is lost through unnecessary coordination and repetitive activity. Start by mapping decision bottlenecks rather than technology gaps. Identify where approvals slow progress, where information is repeatedly recreated, and where employees spend more time managing work than performing it. Next, redesign these workflows before selecting AI solutions. Technology should support a better operating model, not preserve an outdated one. Finally, develop AI literacy across leadership teams. Competitive advantage will increasingly depend on executives understanding how AI changes organisational design, governance, productivity, and strategy rather than viewing it solely as another digital initiative. Building competitive advantage through intelligent design Lean has always been about creating more value with fewer resources. Artificial intelligence allows organisations to pursue that ambition in ways previous generations of leaders could only imagine. The greatest opportunity is not replacing people. It is redesigning work so that talented people spend more time exercising judgement, solving complex problems, and creating value for customers while intelligent systems absorb the repetitive coordination that slows organisations down. The competitive advantage of the future will belong to organisations that redesign themselves before their competitors do. AI is not simply another technology investment. It is a once in a generation opportunity to rethink how organisations operate, how leaders lead, and how sustainable growth is achieved. The question for today's executives is no longer whether AI should become part of the organisation. The real question is whether they are prepared to redesign the organisation around its capabilities. Those who answer that question boldly will build businesses that are not only leaner, but also faster, more resilient, and better positioned for long-term success. Follow me on LinkedIn, visit my website for more info, and get my book on Amazon! Read more from Aravind Sakthivel Aravind Sakthivel, Author & Technology Leader Aravind Sakthivel is a global IT technology leader and the author of the book The Leadership Trap: Why Smart Leaders Fail and How to Break Free. He is a former Chief Information Officer (CIO) across Danaher Operating Companies, where he spent 18 years leading multi-million-dollar technology portfolios. He previously worked at market-leading organizations including Oracle, KPMG. Also provided services to General Electric and Toyota in consulting. Aravind holds an MBA from Nyenrode Business Universiteit, completed leadership programmes at Harvard Business School, and is a Certified Enterprise Architect from Carnegie Mellon University. Alongside his book, he has published research on autonomous AI for enterprises in the Well Testing Journal. He is currently based in Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Written by Craig Edis, Founder of The Wink Collective Craig Edis is the founder of The Wink Collective, where he helps designers bridge the gap between craft and business. A product leader and service design expert, he empowers designers to develop strategic, professional, and creative skills that make them indispensable across industries. There is a massive canyon between being a great designer and being an effective design leader. Many senior designers step into their first management role expecting to simply do more of what they love. They assume their days will be spent overseeing high-level design strategy, polishing high-fidelity prototypes, and getting the final say on visual direction. The reality is a rapid wake-up call. The moment you accept a design leadership title, your job fundamentally changes. You are no longer designing interfaces or systems. You are managing people. Your calendar immediately fills up with resource allocation meetings, one-on-one career development conversations, cross-departmental negotiations, and conflict resolution. You have to stop pushing pixels and start navigating complex human dynamics. As a designer, your ultimate responsibility is to the uncompromised quality of the work. As a design manager, your responsibility is the creation of the conditions in which great work can happen. That means giving up control, replacing dictates with clarity, and putting the spotlight entirely on your design team. Too many brilliant UX professionals fail as leaders because they try to maintain their status as the best executor in the room. Creative leadership is not about getting your way. It is about equipping others to find a better way. The evolution from pixel pusher to environment creator A junior manager might look at a problem and say, “Here is what I would do.” A true design leader says, “Here is how I would approach figuring this out.” Teach people how to think, not what to think. If every design decision comes back to you, you have not created a high-performing team; you have created a bottleneck of dependency. Your goal in design team management is to make them need you less by helping them become better decision-makers. Guide, do not dictate. Your job as a leader is not to have the answer to every UX problem, but to ask the probing questions that help people arrive at better answers themselves. Bring stability through dependable processes. Creative work is ambiguous enough without an unpredictable way of working. Create dependable structures around how design decisions are made, how work is reviewed, and what "good" looks like in your organization. Protect your designers from the noise. Your team should not have to absorb every piece of corporate chaos. A vital part of managing designers is filtering out the stakeholder drive-bys, conflicting direction, and political distractions. The most effective design managers focus heavily on creating a clear vision, strategy, and structure. Ambiguity should exist in the problem being solved, not in the expectations placed on the team. Autonomy, ownership, and the science of not micromanaging You hire talented design professionals so they can tell you what to do, not the other way around. Allow your team to feel genuine ownership of the work by giving them context and constraints, then getting out of the way. Give people ownership, not assignments. A great test of effective design leadership is whether your designer could defend their rationale to stakeholders if you were not in the room. Understand that everyone solves problems differently. Your team members are not going to design exactly like you. Be comfortable with people arriving at solutions you would never have considered. Good ideas can come from anywhere. A creative director who always has the best idea eventually teaches everyone else to stop having them. Focus on input, not just feedback. Feedback happens late in the game when a designer has already invested significant effort. Input happens early enough to influence the design outcome. The data backs this up. Jobs deliberately designed to provide autonomy by offering clear expectations for outcomes while giving employees decision-making authority significantly reduce employee burnout and stress. Psychological safety as a strategic growth lever A design department that always agrees with you is a team that is not thinking hard enough. You must deliberately cultivate a culture where failure is safe and disagreement is encouraged. Allow people to fail. If people cannot fail, they will not take risks, and they will produce the safest, most mediocre work possible. The best design teams are not afraid of being wrong; they are just highly skilled at discovering they are wrong early through rapid testing. Make disagreement safe. Someone telling you, “I do not think that is the right design direction, and here is why,” should be celebrated. Critique the work, never the person. Make the problem something you and the designer are solving together. Make critique a team sport. The best design critique is collaborative problem-solving among peers, not judgment handed down from above. In Google's landmark Project Aristotle study, researchers analyzed hundreds of teams to determine the secret to high performance. The number one defining characteristic of an effective team was psychological safety, which is the shared belief that team members are safe to take risks, ask questions, and admit mistakes without fear of punishment. Bridging the gap between design quality and business reality Design strategy cannot exist in a vacuum. The strongest design leaders can move comfortably between user needs, aesthetic quality, and bottom-line business outcomes. You do not need to be right; you need to be able to reason. A design decision should never be based on personal preference. It must be anchored in the brief, user needs, business objectives, and empirical evidence. Advocate for design without becoming defensive. Do not defend a choice simply because “it is good design.” Connect it to metrics the organization understands, such as revenue, retention, risk mitigation, operational efficiency, and brand equity. Do not let perfectionism become procrastination. Know when to say, “This prototype is good enough to learn from.” Sometimes the fastest way to improve a product is to simply let real customers use it. Give credit away and take responsibility upward. When things go well, your team did a fantastic job. When things fail, you own the fact that you did not give them the clarity or support they needed. When you master this translation between design execution and business strategy, the impact is undeniable. Companies that excel at design increase their revenues and shareholder returns at nearly twice the rate of their industry peers. Yet, many design leaders fail because they cannot articulate their value to the C-suite. Research shows only a third of CEOs can confidently state what their head of design is actually accountable for. The transition from senior designer to design leader is ultimately an ego death. You are no longer the best designer in the room; your job is to make the room better. The transition into design leadership does not have to be a solo journey. Through The Wink Collective, I offer dedicated one-on-one mentorship for emerging design managers and professionals looking to elevate their leadership strategy. Pricing and structure are entirely adaptable based on your specific career goals and challenges. Follow me on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and visit my website for more info! Read more from Craig Edis Craig Edis, Founder of The Wink Collective Craig Edis is the founder of The Wink Collective, where he helps designers bridge the gap between craft and business. A product leader and service design expert, he teaches designers how to communicate value, lead clients, and turn creativity into measurable business impact. Through his Design For Business programs, Craig equips designers with the professional skills and confidence they need to operate strategically and be seen as indispensable. His mission is to redefine professional design, empowering designers to influence decisions, defend bold ideas, and thrive across industries.

Written by Jordan Baker, PR Agency Founder Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations, a journalist-led PR agency supporting founders, experts and growing businesses. A former UK national journalist, he has more than a decade of experience in PR, media relations and earned media strategy. As artificial intelligence (AI) changes the way people research businesses, it is also making it easier than ever to look authoritative online. I think that makes the evidence behind a reputation more important, not less, and independent media coverage can be one part of that wider picture. I've spent quite a lot of time recently thinking about what AI search actually means for public relations (PR), partly because businesses are increasingly asking us about it. Can media coverage help a company appear in ChatGPT? Does being featured by credible publications help Google understand what somebody is known for? Should businesses be doing PR differently now that people are starting to use AI tools to research companies, products, and professional services? They're reasonable questions, and I think there is something interesting happening. But I also think we are in danger of jumping too quickly to the technical side of the conversation. Before asking how to persuade an AI system that you are credible, I would ask a much simpler question: If somebody went looking for evidence that you are who you say you are, what would they actually find? It has never been easier to describe yourself as an expert. You can say it on your website, put it in your LinkedIn biography, publish articles on your specialist subject, and create a steady stream of content around your expertise. AI has made doing all of that considerably easier too. There is nothing wrong with businesses talking about themselves. They need to explain what they do and why somebody should work with them. But saying you are credible and having evidence of that credibility beyond the channels you control are still two different things. That distinction has always mattered in PR. I suspect it may matter even more as the way people discover and research businesses continues to change. Your website has limits A company website is naturally written from the company's point of view. I run a PR agency, so of course our website explains what we believe we are good at, how we work, and why a potential client might choose us. Every business does the same thing. You decide which achievements to highlight, how to describe your expertise, and what you want people to associate with your company. The same is broadly true of your LinkedIn profile, your company blog, and most of the content you publish yourself. Earned media is different because somebody else gets a say in whether the information appears at all. A journalist can decide you are not the right person for the article. They can question what you've told them, ask for evidence, use only one part of what you have said, or decide that the story simply isn't strong enough. An editor can make the same judgement further down the line. That lack of control can occasionally be frustrating when you work in PR, but it is also part of what gives earned coverage its value. I certainly wouldn't argue that being mentioned by a newspaper means the publication has officially endorsed you or your business. Journalism doesn't work like that, and media coverage should not be treated as a certification scheme. What has happened, though, is that somebody independent of your business has made an editorial judgement that your story, experience, or expertise was useful enough to include. You cannot quite replicate that by publishing another page about yourself. Expertise must also be useful When I worked as a journalist, I regularly needed experts to help explain subjects I was writing about. Their credentials obviously mattered because I needed to know that there was a legitimate reason for them to be speaking about the subject. But that was only the starting point. Once I knew somebody was credible, I still needed them to be useful. Could they explain something in a way that an ordinary reader would understand? Did they have experience that added something to the story? Could they move the conversation beyond the obvious information anybody could find online? Somebody could have a very impressive curriculum vitae (CV) and still give you a comment that was almost impossible to use because it didn't really say anything. Someone less well known, but with genuine experience and a clear point of view, could sometimes give you exactly what the article needed. I still think about experts in much the same way now that I work in PR. Good expert commentary in PR should not simply involve finding somebody with a relevant job title and attaching their name to a generic quote. It should start with what that person actually knows and whether their knowledge can contribute something meaningful to the journalist's story. There is an important difference between being qualified to comment and having something worth saying. AI is changing discovery Where things become more interesting is in the way people now find information. A prospective client might still go directly to a company's website, but they could just as easily search Google, read reviews, look up the founder on LinkedIn, or ask ChatGPT to compare several businesses before ever visiting one of their websites. Google is also integrating generative AI more deeply into Search through features such as AI Overviews and AI Mode. Its own guidance on AI features says businesses do not need a special new set of optimisation techniques to appear in them. The same underlying search principles still apply. I think that is worth remembering because a whole industry is developing around AI visibility, and some of the claims being made are much more confident than I would be comfortable making. I'm a former journalist and PR professional. I'm not an AI engineer, and I wouldn't tell a client that I've discovered the formula that makes ChatGPT recommend one company over another. There are too many variables, the systems change quickly, and much of what happens inside them is not publicly visible. I certainly cannot promise that getting a national newspaper article on Tuesday will make ChatGPT recommend somebody on Wednesday. What I can say is that the article now exists. There is another publicly available source connecting that individual or business with a particular area of expertise, story, or achievement, and that can have value regardless of whether an AI system ever cites it. Build a public record For me, this is probably the most useful way of thinking about the relationship between PR and AI search. Imagine two therapists who both specialise in relationships. The first has a professional website that explains their expertise clearly and perhaps publishes useful articles about relationships themselves. The second has all of that too, but when you search their name, you can also find interviews about relationship issues, articles where journalists have used their commentary, and other independent references to their work. That doesn't mean the second therapist must be better at their job. There would be no sensible basis for making that judgement from press coverage alone. What it does mean is that there is a broader public record around their expertise. A potential client researching them has more information from which to form an opinion. A journalist looking for an expert in the future can see that somebody else has already used them on the subject. Search engines can find those references, and potentially, AI systems have more publicly available information from which to understand what that person does. I don't think we need to pretend we know exactly how much weight an algorithm gives an individual article to recognise the value of that. The information exists independently of the person's own marketing. More isn't always better There is a danger, though, that this argument turns into 'get as many media mentions as possible', which isn't what I mean at all. I've always thought positioning matters more than simply collecting press coverage. If our relationship therapist is quoted about marriage one week, cryptocurrency the next, skincare the week after that, and then property prices because those happen to be the media opportunities available, they might accumulate plenty of links without becoming any clearer to the outside world. At Fair PR, one of the things we think about when positioning experts is what they genuinely want to become known for. Over time, their public profile should make that answer clearer rather than more confusing. That doesn't mean every article needs to be about precisely the same subject, and nobody should become so rigid about positioning that they turn down every interesting opportunity outside a tiny niche. But there should be some logic behind the overall picture. One substantial interview in the right publication may communicate far more about somebody's expertise than several superficial mentions. A specialist trade publication can sometimes be more useful than a huge national outlet if it places that person in exactly the right professional context. I wrote in my first Brainz article about the tendency businesses have to think about what they want to promote rather than what journalists and their audiences actually need. The same principle applies here. Coverage needs to make sense, not simply exist. AI can manufacture authority There is another reason I think all of this matters. AI has made it extraordinarily easy to produce content that looks authoritative. Give a tool somebody's job title and a subject, and it can produce a perfectly respectable-looking article or expert comment within seconds. With relatively little effort, somebody could publish dozens of pieces around a subject they don't really understand. I don't have an anti-AI position. I use AI myself, and I think it can be extremely useful for research, organising ideas, questioning assumptions, and improving the way we work. The problem comes when the technology starts substituting for the expertise rather than helping to communicate it. If somebody doesn't understand a subject, asking AI to write 50 articles under their name doesn't make them an expert. If an individual has never expressed a particular view, generating an authoritative-sounding quote and putting their name underneath it doesn't suddenly turn it into their professional opinion. For PR in particular, I think there has to be a line between helping somebody communicate genuine expertise and manufacturing expertise on their behalf. Journalists need to know that the person they're quoting actually understands the subject and stands behind what they're saying. Potential customers deserve much the same thing. As the amount of content online increases, I suspect the evidence around genuine expertise becomes more important rather than less. Start with real expertise If I were advising a founder or expert who was worried about AI search today, I wouldn't start with an algorithm. I'd start with their expertise and positioning. What do you genuinely know? What have you actually done? What do clients regularly ask you about? Which subjects do you have enough experience in to offer something beyond information that could be found in a basic search? Then I would look at whether the things you control reflect that properly. Does your website clearly explain what you do? Does your biography make sense? Are the subjects you claim expertise in supported by your experience? If you have qualifications, research, case studies, or other evidence, is it easy for somebody to understand? After that, you can think about the wider public picture. Are there relevant conversations you could contribute to? Could journalists use your knowledge? Do you have useful data, an interesting story, practical experience, or an informed opinion that adds something? That's where PR can help. Not because every article will generate a customer, not because every publication will provide a valuable backlink, and certainly not because anybody can guarantee that an individual piece of media coverage will cause an AI system to recommend you. The value is cumulative. Over time, you're creating a body of independent evidence around what you know, what you've done, and what you want to be known for. PR was already valuable This is probably the point I come back to most. Good media coverage was useful long before anybody was talking about AI search. If a credible publication interviewed you about your specialist subject, that could help a prospective customer trust you. It could give you something useful to point to during a sales conversation, lead another journalist to discover you, or simply introduce your name to an audience that had never heard of you before. Those benefits haven't suddenly disappeared. What AI potentially adds is another way in which publicly available information about a person or business can be found, combined, and understood. I think businesses should absolutely pay attention to that, but without pretending that we already understand every part of it. I'd much rather see somebody build genuine expertise, communicate it clearly, and develop a credible public record around their work than publish thousands of pieces of content because they hope they can persuade an AI system that they're important. If AI systems eventually understand that person or business better as a result, that's useful. But even if they don't, the business has still built something valuable: a reputation that isn't based entirely on what it says about itself. If you'd like help turning genuine expertise into useful media opportunities, you can find out more about Fair Public Relations. Follow me on LinkedIn for more info! Read more from Jordan Baker Jordan Baker, PR Agency Founder Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations, a founder-led, journalist-led PR agency working with founders, experts, professional services firms and growing businesses across the UK, US and Canada. A former UK national journalist, Jordan has more than a decade of experience in public relations, media relations and earned media. He founded the agency in London in 2015 and remains directly involved in client strategy, positioning and campaign direction. His work focuses on helping credible people and businesses turn their expertise, stories and ideas into meaningful media opportunities.

Written by Richard Harrison, Founder of Compassionate Breath | Breath, Sound & Meditation Facilitator Richard Harrison is a Harmonic Resonance Guide and founder of Compassionate Breath. With a rich background in yoga, meditation, and breathwork, he empowers individuals to transform trauma into resilience through his unique blend of breath, sound, and symbolic geometry. Vulnerability is not weakness, but a courageous willingness to be seen, embrace imperfection, and live in alignment with your truth. Through personal stories, reflections, and practical steps, this article explores how vulnerability can foster healing, deeper connection, self-acceptance, and meaningful personal transformation. The power of vulnerability Vulnerability is often misperceived as weakness, yet it is the foundation of authentic living. In this article, we will explore how embracing vulnerability and imperfection can lead to profound personal transformation. Through my own journey and the stories of others, we will uncover the power of vulnerability as a catalyst for healing, connection, and growth. As Brené Brown beautifully states, “Vulnerability is not weakness. It’s our greatest measure of courage.” It is in allowing ourselves to be seen, to show our true selves, that we cultivate authentic connections and invite transformation into our lives. My journey of vulnerability There was a time in my life when I felt an undeniable pull toward something deeper, a longing to explore my inner being and connect with spiritual practices that resonated with my soul. It was a journey that required me to step away from activities and friendships that no longer aligned with the direction I felt I needed to take. This was not an easy decision. I understood that my choices might invite ridicule and mockery from those who didn’t understand my path. I was opening myself up to be shot at, not just metaphorically, but emotionally. Yet, deep down, I knew that this was the only way forward. I had to be vulnerable to follow my path. It was hard, really hard at times. There were moments of deep loneliness when it felt like I was navigating uncharted waters without a map. I often found myself justifying my choices, explaining them to others and sometimes even to myself. But through it all, I held onto a glimmer of hope. I knew I would emerge at the other end. I don’t claim to have gotten everything right, but listening to my inner direction, rather than simply following the status quo, allowed me to take the first steps on the journey to where I am today. Each choice, each moment of vulnerability, was a building block in the foundation of my authenticity. It is through these experiences that I learned the true power of vulnerability. It is not a sign of weakness, but a declaration of strength, a willingness to stand in one’s truth, even when the world feels uncertain. When we embrace vulnerability, we create a ripple effect in our communities. Our courage to be seen encourages others to do the same, fostering a culture of authenticity and compassion. This collective shift can lead to deeper, more meaningful connections and a greater sense of belonging. Embracing imperfection: A journey of self-acceptance In a world that often glorifies perfection, it’s easy to feel unworthy or inadequate. I remember when I first stepped into vulnerability, I felt an immense pressure to make everything I did perfect. It was as if I was under a magnifying glass, acutely aware that any misstep would provide ammunition to those who were looking for weaknesses. This mindset kept me on high alert, striving for a standard that was not only unrealistic but also detrimental to my well-being. However, over time, I learned a profound truth. Nothing needs to be perfect. People respond more to authenticity than to a polished facade. When you are genuine in your intentions, others can feel that sincerity. It creates a bridge of connection that perfection cannot replicate. As I embraced my authenticity, I noticed something remarkable. The need to justify my actions began to diminish. When I operated from a place of truth, the external voices lost their power over me. Yes, generally, people are supportive, but sometimes it’s the louder, critical few who can make you question and doubt yourself. Their voices can echo in the mind, creating a narrative that is far removed from your true self. It does take time to cultivate this inner resilience. Yet, I have come to understand that doing what feels right for you, perfect or not, draws to you those who resonate with your truth. The people who align with your journey will naturally gravitate toward you, while those who do not will fall by the wayside. That’s okay. Anything that slips away was not meant to be yours anyway. This journey of embracing imperfection is not about lowering standards. It’s about raising awareness, awareness of who you truly are and what you stand for. It’s about recognizing that your worth is not contingent upon flawless execution but on the courage to be real. The transformative effects of owning your story There was a weekend that changed everything. I found myself in a circle of seekers, each of us drawn to an event designed to bring us back to wholeness. The invitation was simple, yet profound. Share your deepest memories, those stained with guilt, shame, and regret. The kind we hide even from ourselves. As others began to speak, I felt the air thicken with courage. One man’s story pierced through the room. He had lived a life deeply entwined with darkness, a past embedded in a criminal organization, marked by acts that would make most recoil. Yet, as he spoke, what struck me wasn’t his past. It was his presence. His willingness to share, to stand naked in his truth, knowing the risk of judgment, yet choosing vulnerability over silence. Then something miraculous happened. The group didn’t turn away. They leaned in. Instead of judgment, there was love. Instead of shame, there was compassion. His courage opened a portal, and through it, others, including myself, began to walk. Stories poured out, each one a thread of unspoken pain, now woven into a tapestry of collective healing. I shared things I never intended to say. In that sharing, I found a piece of myself I didn’t know was missing. It wasn’t easy. But it was real. In that moment, I learned that vulnerability is not about being unguarded. It’s about being unarmored. It’s not about seeking sympathy. It’s about inviting resonance. In spaces like that, you don’t just hear stories. You feel the architecture of someone’s soul, and in doing so, you remember how to inhabit your own. This experience taught me that when one person dares to be fully seen, they become a mirror, reflecting the permission others need to reveal themselves. In that shared exposure, we don’t just find healing, we find home. From that weekend, I carried a sacred flame, the understanding that authenticity is not a performance, but a frequency. In my work now, I hold space for others to find their own truth, unburdened by the weight of external validation. It’s not important what others think of you. It’s your own truth that matters. In the spaces I create, whether through breath, word, or silence, you are safe to bring all that you are. Here, judgment dissolves. Here, you are met not with critique, but with presence. Because I know what it feels like to risk everything just to be real. I know the freedom that comes when you finally are. With me, you can open. You can speak. You can heal. Not because I’ll fix you. But because I’ll see you. Sometimes, being truly seen is the healing we’ve been seeking all along. Practical steps to embrace vulnerability Vulnerability is not a single act, but a practice, a series of micro choices that align us with our deepest truth. Here are practical steps to help you cultivate this sacred openness in your daily life. Cultivate inner stillness: Begin each day with a moment of silence. Sit with your breath and allow yourself to feel without judgment. This practice builds the capacity to be present with what arises, without needing to control or fix it. Harmonic practice: breathe in for 4 counts, hold for 4, exhale for 8. Repeat for 5 cycles, visualizing a spiral expanding from your heart. Name the unspoken: Identify one emotion or story you’ve been avoiding. Write it down, not to share immediately, but to bring it into the light of awareness. Naming the unspoken begins the alchemical process of liberation. Reflection prompt: “What am I most afraid to say, and what would happen if I did?” Share from the scar, not the wound: Vulnerability doesn’t mean oversharing. Speak from a place where healing has begun, not where the pain is still raw. This creates safety for both you and those receiving your story. Guiding question: “Is this ready to be shared, or is it still asking to be held?” Create safe containers: Find or create spaces where authenticity is honored. This could be a trusted friend, a journal, a circle, or a solitary ritual. Safety is the soil in which vulnerability blooms. Action step: designate a weekly time and space for intentional sharing, even if it’s just with yourself. Release the need for outcome: True vulnerability is unattached. It’s not about how others respond, it’s about aligning with your own truth. Speak, act, and live from your core, and let the resonance unfold as it will. Affirmation: “I release the need to be understood. My truth is enough.” Integrate with compassion: After sharing, hold yourself with tenderness. Vulnerability can leave us feeling exposed, tend to yourself as you would a dear friend. Celebrate the courage it took to be real. Closing ritual: place a hand on your heart, breathe deeply, and whisper, “Thank you for being brave.” The ripple effect of vulnerability When we choose to be vulnerable, we initiate a powerful chain reaction. It's like dropping a stone into still water, the impact creates ripples that extend far beyond the point of contact. When you share openly and authentically, you give others permission to do the same. Your courage becomes a mirror, showing others that it's safe to lower their defenses and express their true selves. In relationships, this can look like: Deeper conversations that move beyond surface-level small talk A newfound trust that invites honesty and connection The dismantling of walls built from fear, shame, or past wounds Creating a culture of openness. In communities, workplaces, and families, vulnerability fosters an environment where People feel seen and valued for who they truly are Creativity and innovation flourish because fear of judgment decreases Empathy becomes the norm, leading to stronger, more resilient bonds When one person leads with vulnerability, it disrupts the cycle of pretense and invites authenticity to take its place. On a personal level, vulnerability heals. It releases the pressure of perfection and allows us to embrace our humanity. On a collective level, it transforms cultures. It replaces fear with understanding, isolation with connection. In essence, vulnerability: Builds bridges where there were once barriers Turns silence into dialogue Transforms relationships, communities, and ultimately, the world Closing reflection Vulnerability is not a weakness to be hidden. It is a frequency, an invitation to coherence. When we step into our truth, we become living sigils, resonant symbols that remind others of their own forgotten light. We collapse the walls we once built for safety, and in their place, we construct bridges between hearts, between stories, between worlds. In this journey, I have learned that the greatest strength is not found in invincibility, but in the courage to be seen, fully. As I continue to walk this path, I carry with me the whispers of those who dared to share, and the echoes of those who will follow. If this journey into vulnerability resonates with you, I invite you to step deeper into your own becoming. At Compassionate Breath, I offer a sanctuary of stillness, a space where you can reconnect with yourself through one-to-one Compassionate Breath Guidance. All offerings are designed not to fix, but to listen, to breathe together until the silence speaks. Ready to begin? Explore more or book a session here. Join me in the field where breath meets sound, and stillness becomes you. This is your invitation. Your next breath is your first step. Follow me on Facebook, Instagram, and visit my website for more info! Read more from Richard Harrison Richard Harrison, Founder of Compassionate Breath | Breath, Sound & Meditation Facilitator Richard Harrison is a Harmonic Resonance Guide and the founder of Compassionate Breath, where he integrates compassion, stillness, and remembering to help individuals transform trauma into resilience. Through a unique blend of breath, sound, and symbolic geometry, he empowers others to reclaim their sovereignty and live authentically. Richard’s mission is to harmonise the human experience through coherence and compassion, offering transformative practices that resonate deeply with those seeking healing and alignment.

Written by Kate Zappitelli, Alignment Institute Chair & Principal Consultant Kate Zappitelli is an executive team alignment expert and ICF-accredited coach. As Chair of the Alignment Institute powered by Karrikins Group, she helps leaders and leadership teams turn agreement into alignment so strategy becomes action. I love the idea that everyone should be held accountable. Of course, people should follow through on what they said they were going to do, meet deadlines, come prepared, and own their results. This is all easy to say. I have experienced the emotional response of being held accountable when I haven’t met my commitments. The howl of injustice rises up from my soul as I catalogue all the reasons why I didn’t do what I said I would do. It wasn’t my fault! I’m willing to bet you’ve felt that too. Or you’ve seen someone in the throes of it. Accountability is deeply personal. It touches integrity, work ethic, and capability, three areas where we are often highly sensitive to criticism. That’s why the idea of accountability sounds good until it hits home. When your own commitment is behind, your status is red, or your colleagues are waiting on you to come through, accountability becomes an emotional experience that can feel like an unpleasant roller coaster ride. The emotional work of moving from defensiveness to ownership is part of accountability. Leaders need to understand that process if they expect people to do it well. Why missing a commitment can trigger defensiveness When we fall short, we often move through a predictable internal sequence: defensiveness, rationalization, and then (hopefully) ownership. We defend our intent, explain the circumstances, and eventually confront the gap between what we committed to and what we delivered. The speed with which we move to ownership depends in part on the environment around us. Your chest may tighten, your stomach may drop, and your mind may race to defend your integrity. It becomes real personal real fast. When we feel defensive, it is easy to point fingers and rationalize: a colleague did not follow through, a meeting was rescheduled, or circumstances outside our control got in the way. Those factors may be true. But they do not erase your responsibility for the part you own. In my own organization, I have 90-day goals that I set for myself and share with my colleagues, and we review progress weekly. I want my goals to be green for practical reasons and for personal ones: I want my colleagues to see that I can be counted on. I care about the organization’s success. I enjoy the satisfaction of delivering on a commitment. I do not want a missed goal to make me feel like I have failed. Accountability is personal because a missed commitment can feel like a judgment of our character. Effective leaders do not ignore that reaction or indulge it. They create conditions in which people can move through it quickly, own their part, and refocus on what the team needs next. Acknowledging the emotional impact helps you move through it faster Because accountability is so personal, people often respond poorly when it is pointed at them. The way people display defensiveness can be on a wide spectrum, from getting quiet and withdrawing to getting loud and aggressive. Depending on what they are being held accountable for, how quickly they move from rationalizing to ownership varies a great deal. The goal is not to eliminate defensiveness. It is to quickly notice it without letting it determine what happens next. These are a few mindset shifts that can help us acknowledge the emotional impact of being held accountable for a missed goal or commitment and move toward ownership: From To It is not my fault; I was a victim of uncontrollable circumstances I wasn’t able to get it done, and understanding more context will help us reassess and set new goals I am getting defensive and digging in to protect myself Defensiveness is normal; I can choose to stand down and own my part Other people are not held accountable, so why should I be? My ownership and accountability is not dependent on what others are doing Acknowledging that accountability can feel uncomfortable and that defensiveness is a common reaction makes it easier to respond with empathy without lowering expectations. Coming back to what needs to get accomplished Individual accountability does not happen in isolation. The norms of the group determine whether a missed commitment becomes a moment of hiding, blaming, and protecting one’s reputation or a moment of honest assessment, support, and recommitment. Businesses need people to meet their commitments. They also need a culture in which people can raise concerns early, acknowledge a miss without spiraling into shame or blame, and focus the group on what needs to happen next. The following shifts help create that culture: From To Deadlines are arbitrary Explain why the deadline matters: what it enables, who is waiting, and what becomes harder if it slips. A red status means someone has failed. A red status is early information the team can use to solve a problem, reset expectations, or make a tradeoff. Status updates are used to justify or defend. Status updates surface the facts: what changed, what is at risk, what is needed, and what happens next. People wait until they have a solution before raising a risk. People raise risks early, while the team still has options. Accountability conversations happen only when something goes wrong. We make commitments visible, check progress regularly, and recognize follow-through as it happens. Different standards apply depending on seniority, influence, or function. Everyone, including leaders, shares their misses, owns their part, and recommits visibly. At your next team meeting, choose one commitment that is off track. Rather than beginning with “Why didn’t this get done?” start with three questions that move the conversation from defensive explanations to accountable ownership: What is true right now? What part do you own and what is out of your control? What is the next step to get back on track, and what support or decision is needed to move forward? If you are a leader, be sure to apply the same standard to yourself. A culture of accountability is built less through speeches about ownership and more through repeated moments in which leaders make it safe and expected to tell the truth, own the work, and move forward. The leadership work of accountability Accountability will probably never feel entirely comfortable. A missed commitment can trigger defensiveness because it touches something personal: our sense of integrity, capability, and value to the team. But discomfort does not have to lead to blame, avoidance, or excuses. When leaders model ownership, make commitments visible, and focus conversations on what is true and what happens next, the conversation shifts from proving who failed to helping the team deliver. That is the kind of accountability people can trust, and the kind organizations need to achieve shared goals. If you want to talk about how to strengthen accountability in your organization, I would love to connect. Book a call today. Follow me on LinkedIn and visit my website for more info! Read more from Kate Zappitelli Kate Zappitelli, Alignment Institute Chair & Principal Consultant Kate Zappitelli helps frustrated leaders who know they can do more, better with their teams if they are aligned to work together. As a Principal at Karrikins Group and Chair of the Alignment Institute, she partners with leaders and leadership teams on alignment, transformation, strategy, and culture. Our proven methodologies and frameworks are grounded in social science, expertise, and first-hand experiences to help teams get unstuck. Our mission is to make 'how' matter.