This is the summary from the generos bot, in case you don't have time to listen in. explores the nuances and importance of disengagement in communication, especially over the phone. It emphasizes the need to recognize when the other person is not fully engaged and the significance of respecting oneself enough to disengage when necessary. The writer discusses the concept of active listening and creating space in conversations, not just filling it with one's own priorities. it touches on the broader implications of disengagement for personal work and relationships, advocating for clarity and respect for others' time and engagement levels. The piece concludes by reminding of the value of disengagement and self-respect in various aspects of life.

if you prefer catching the summary from the generous bot instead of listening here it is: this audio clip highlights the significance of embracing ambiguity in relationships and decision-making, viewing it as an opportunity for leadership and action. Clarity is essential, but most meaningful progress often occurs in ambiguous situations. Clarity is better reached by ACTION than by waiting any day of the year. Surely Patience, caution and other things are also critical yet often that NOT what it's about when we're waiting for clarity or a "better idea" or "know it's worth it before starting/daring." Centres on the importance of persistence and simplicity, suggesting that solutions should focus on core needs rather than unnecessary complexities.  USE ambiguity as a catalyst for personal growth and effective problem-solving, particularly in a fast-changing world. If you're NOT your not leveling up nearly as effective. Advocate for daring decision-making in ambiguous situations and using knowledge management tools to avoid repetitive errors and foster collective learning and progress. Please help others dare to embrace this too.

Summarized by the generous bot. Think about your life, work and relationships in the terms "replaceable" and "irreplaceable parts". emphasizing the importance of recognizing which aspects of our lives and work are replaceable and which are not. Most material things and processes, including our roles at work, are replaceable, but certain aspects, particularly related to our perspective, time, and decisions, are not. The irreplaceable parts of our lives are largely defined by our perspectives and are not influenced by external opinions or societal norms. Understanding the difference between replaceable and irreplaceable parts can lead to freedom and clarity, allowing us to focus on what truly matters. Tthe importance of relationships with family and friends, which are irreplaceable, unlike our replaceable roles at work. Reputation is discussed as something unique to each individual, irreplaceable yet fragile, necessitating careful nurturing and protection. Reflect on your own life, identifying replaceable and irreplaceable parts, and to honour the latter to avoid losing what's most important. There's an emphasis on backing up irreplaceable items like photos in the digital space, illustrating the need to understand and protect what's truly ours in a world largely controlled by others. Focusing on the parts of our lives that we can change or influence, encouraging self-forgiveness and self-improvement in these areas. Its important to regularly reflect on and have conversations with others to help distinguish between replaceable and irreplaceable parts of in your life and theirs, from their perspective, ensuring we focus our energy and care on what truly matters.

or doing experiments wrong? And some ABJ testing

Generously, a bot has summarised like this, so you can skip this episode if it's not what you want to listen to. The concept of "viable" in the context of product development and relationships emphasises its importance over "simply achieving the minimum" to get to green on the next iteration/shipping. Viability includes ensuring a product or solution is effective for the creator, the customer, and the environment and that it should be meaningful.  It's an easy trap to fall into focusing on the minimum by skipping the critical "minimum meaningful specific" instead of favouring the "minimum I can flag green on the project chart" The speaker also touches on insecurity in product development, suggesting that accepting they exist and addressing insecurities leads to robust and impactful outcomes.  Encourage embracing inconvenience and addressing hard questions to create long-term viable and significant work. Finally, the speaker advises listing and being specific about the various viability aspects to ensure that solutions serve their intended purpose effectively.   How can you dare to focus more on viable early and recurring? To make the meaningful specific as small as possible into the hands of a real user, a real customer or whoever you aim to help who also cares about getting that specific help - so you can learn what matters and quit what doesn't as fast as possible, with as little waste as possible. And especially waste that your future self doesn't thank you for because you were too rushed to cut corners to get to green today.

The generous Autobot said this about today's episode it emphasises the importance of a collaborative, multiplayer mindset in adapting to the speed of technological advancements. It highlights the need to enhance processes across various aspects, not just individually. In the workplace, it urges reflection on how team members contribute to organisational success, considering their roles, learning speeds, and collaborative efforts. The piece also explores the difference between human and AI ideas, underlining the significance of cooperation in our rapidly advancing world. Historical misconceptions, like the flat earth theory, are cited to demonstrate how human understanding evolves slowly, advocating for openness to new ideas. The example of handwashing in surgery, which took decades for doctors to accept, illustrates human reluctance to embrace new concepts. Finally, the text poses a reflective question: if one isn't actively helping others learn and adapt to new technologies, are they truly participating in the collaborative environment knowledge management of today (multiplayer with async singleplayer threads), or are they isolated in the old ways of working (locked single-player mode)

Personal sounding board in today's arena Choose your HARD problem, and YOUR people who care about that problem don't just say it. In today's fast-evolving landscape, choosing "your meaningful specific hard problem" and "your people" affected by it is crucial. Soft skills like empathy, understanding, and re-learning have always been essential. They are the core of this 10-year-old podcast, yet today, it's more important than ever. It's also becoming more accessible and easier to have your software-based sounding board give you tailored, specific answers instantly. This is great, yet bias and filters also pose a risk. AI-powered Ways of Working are already here, and middle managers are greatly affected since most of their work is coordination, communication, resourcing, and decision-making - stuff software often does way better, way more straightforward and without the cost of delay. An illustration in comparison. LinkedIn job ads will have a "get a resume review" button a year from now; many people will say thanks for helping us train our users to click this button. Top on this service is now an Autobot that will do this for 1% of the price and 90% of the results, making it critical for those who used to live "of/within" that boxed-in service - they now need to find other, better revenue and thus better ways to help their people. Way of working agile resistance from managers - that kind of transparency and owning what is committed and what not is hard Automation - SLA, KPI, OKR fulfilment. Often, I've encountered we don't want that automated since that would give conflicting reports with those PowerPoint where I've given myself some poetic freedom not to show all, to round a few metrics up for years, etc. An organization will only learn to run experiments for continuous risk reduction and better experiences faster and more often. What is the core of this for those you serve? And what experiments and learning should go where since not every initiative should be a win if your organisation aim to do better. Ask yourself what complex and challenging problem might be worth it and for whom we ask yourself a meaningful specific. You need to be precise; otherwise, you can't follow up if it's working for its intended outcome or if you're becoming better at solving this specific problem. Ask yourself this question. What happens when your Autobot instantly gives time back to your boss or client while also leaving no room for conflicting reports? You can ask any meaningful, specific question about any problem like this from many perspectives. Perhaps your client is a higher-up, getting time stolen from conflicting reports, which might help. Perhaps your client is middle management, juggling multiple perspectives from both upwards and peers. Perhaps your client is forward-orienting and Happy to let go of sunk cost. Perhaps she is defending sunk cost whatever it costs? Asking yourself questions like this, with empathy and daring to choose a whom, daring to choose a what, daring to ask ourselves, does it work great for those we aim to help? And where is that heading in the big ocean-like waves of change? Who are you in this and what do you want to become? AND who cares about having those problems solved well in a way that will get you and them there?