{"version":1,"type":"rich","provider_name":"Libsyn","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.libsyn.com","height":90,"width":600,"title":"How The Future Works with Brian Elliott","description":"Welcome back to Snafu w\/ Robin Zander.  In this episode, I\u2019m joined by Brian Elliott, former Slack executive and co-founder of Future Forum. We discuss the common mistakes leaders make about AI and why trust and transparency are more crucial than ever. Brian shares lessons from building high-performing teams, what makes good leadership, and how to foster real collaboration. He also reflects on raising values-driven kids, the breakdown of institutional trust, and why purpose matters. We touch on the early research behind Future Forum and what he\u2019d do differently today. Brian will also be joining us live at Responsive Conference 2025, and I\u2019m excited to continue the conversation there. If you haven\u2019t gotten your tickets yet, get them here. What Do Most People Get Wrong About AI? (1:53) \u201cSenior leaders sit on polar ends of the spectrum on this stuff. Very, very infrequently, sit in the middle, which is kind of where I find myself too often.\u201d  Robin notes Brian will be co-leading an active session on AI at Responsive Conference with longtime collaborator Helen Kupp. He tees up the conversation by saying Brian holds \u201ca lot of controversial opinions\u201d on AI, not that it\u2019s insignificant, but that there\u2019s a lot of \u201cidealization.\u201d Brian says most senior leaders fall into one of two camps: Camp A: \u201cOh my God, this changes everything.\u201d These are the fear-mongers shouting: \u201cIf you don\u2019t adopt now, your career is over.\u201d Camp B: \u201cThis will blow over.\u201d They treat AI as just another productivity fad, like others before it. Brian positions himself somewhere in the middle but is frustrated by both ends of the spectrum. He points out that the loudest voices (Mark Benioff, Andy Jassy, Zuckerberg, Sam Altman) are \u201carms merchants\u201d \u2013 they\u2019re pushing AI tools because they\u2019ve invested billions. These tools are massively expensive to build and run, and unless they displace labor, it\u2019s unclear how they generate ROI. believe in AI\u2019s potential and  aggressively push adoption inside their companies. So, naturally, these execs have to: But \u201cnothing ever changes that fast,\u201d and both the hype and the dismissal are off-base. Why Playing with AI Matters More Than Training (3:29) AI is materially different from past tech, but what\u2019s missing is attention to how adoption happens. \u201cThe organizational craft of driving adoption is not about handing out tools. It's all emotional.\u201d Adoption depends on whether people respond with fear or aspiration, not whether they have the software. Frontline managers are key: it\u2019s their job to create the time and space for teams to experiment with AI. Brian credits Helen Kupp for being great at facilitating this kind of low-stakes experimentation. Suggests teams should \u201cplay with AI tools\u201d in a way totally unrelated to their actual job. Example: take a look at your fridge, list the ingredients you have, and have AI suggest a recipe. \u201cWell, that\u2019s a sucky recipe, but it could do that, right?\u201d The point isn\u2019t utility,  it\u2019s comfort and conversation: What\u2019s OK to use AI for? Is it acceptable to draft your self-assessment for performance reviews with AI? Should you tell your boss or hide it? The Purpose of Doing the Thing (5:30) Robin brings up Ezra Klein\u2019s podcast in The New York Times, where Ezra asks: \u201cWhat\u2019s the purpose of writing an essay in college?\u201d AI can now do better research than a student, faster and maybe more accurately. But Robin argues that the act of writing is what matters, not just the output. Says: \u201cI\u2019m much better at writing that letter than ChatGPT can ever be, because only Robin Zander can write that letter.\u201d Example: Robin and his partner are in contract on a house and wrote a letter to the seller \u2013 the usual \u201csob story\u201d to win favor. All the writing he\u2019s done over the past two years prepared him to write that one letter better. \u201cThe utility of doing the thing is not the thing itself \u2013 it\u2019s what it trains.\u201d Learning How to Learn (6:35) Robin\u2019s fascinated by \u201cskills that train skills\u201d \u2013 a lifelong theme in both work and athletics. He brings up Josh Waitzkin (from Searching for Bobby Fischer), who went from chess prodigy to big wave surfer to foil board rider. Josh trained his surfing skills by riding a OneWheel through NYC, practicing balance in a different context. Robin is drawn to that kind of transfer learning and \u201cmeta-learning\u201d \u2013 especially since it\u2019s so hard to measure or study. He asks: What might AI be training in us that isn\u2019t the thing itself? We don\u2019t yet know the cognitive effects of using generative AI daily, but we should be asking. Cognitive Risk vs. Capability Boost (8:00) Brian brings up early research suggesting AI could make us \u201cdumber.\u201d Outsourcing thinking to AI reduces sharpness over time. But also: the \u201c10,000 repetitions\u201d idea still holds weight \u2013 doing the thing builds skill. There\u2019s a tension between \u201cperformance mode\u201d (getting the thing done) and \u201cgrowth mode\u201d (learning). He relates it to writing: Says he\u2019s a decent writer, not a great one, but wants to keep getting better. Has a \u201cquad project\u201d with an editor who helps refine tone and clarity but doesn\u2019t do the writing. The setup: he provides 80% drafts, guidelines, tone notes, and past writing samples. The AI\/editor cleans things up, but Brian still reviews: \u201cI want that colloquialism back in.\u201d \u201cI want that specific example back in.\u201d \u201cThat\u2019s clunky, I don\u2019t want to keep it.\u201d Writing is iterative, and tools can help, but shouldn\u2019t replace his voice. On Em Dashes & Detecting Human Writing (9:30) Robin shares a trick: he used em dashes long before ChatGPT and does them with a space on either side. He says that ChatGPT\u2019s em dashes are double-length and don\u2019t have spaces. If you want to prove ChatGPT didn\u2019t write something, \u201cjust add the space.\u201d Brian agrees and jokes that his editors often remove the spaces, but he puts them back in. Reiterates that professional human editors like the ones he works with at Charter and Sloan are still better than AI. Closing the Gap Takes More Than Practice (10:31) Robin references The Gap by Ira Glass, a 2014 video that explores the disconnect between a creator\u2019s vision and their current ability to execute on that vision. He highlights Glass\u2019s core advice: the only way to close that gap is through consistent repetition \u2013 what Glass calls \u201cthe reps.\u201d Brian agrees, noting that putting in the reps is exactly what creators must do, even when their output doesn\u2019t yet meet their standards. Brian also brings up his recent conversation with Nick Petrie, whose work focuses not only on what causes burnout but also on what actually resolves it. He notes research showing that people stuck in repetitive performance mode \u2013 like doctors doing the same task for decades \u2013 eventually see a decline in performance. Brian recommends mixing in growth opportunities alongside mastery work. \u201cexploit\u201d mode (doing what you\u2019re already good at) and  \u201cexplore\u201d mode (trying something new that pushes you) He says doing things that stretch your boundaries builds muscle that strengthens your core skills and breaks stagnation. He emphasizes the value of alternating between  He adds that this applies just as much to personal growth, especially when people begin to question their deeper purpose and ask hard questions like, \u201cIs this all there is to my life or career? Brian observes that stepping back for self-reflection is often necessary, either by choice or because burnout forces a hard stop. He suggests that sustainable performance requires not just consistency but also intentional space for growth, purpose, and honest self-evaluation. Why Taste And Soft Skills Now Matter More Than Ever (12:30) On AI, Brian argues that most people get it wrong. \u201cI do think it\u2019s augmentation.\u201d The tools are evolving rapidly, and so are the ways we use them. They view it as a way to speed up work, especially for engineers, but that\u2019s missing the bigger picture. Brian stresses that EQ is becoming more important than IQ. Companies still need people with developer mindsets \u2013 hypothesis-driven, structured thinkers. But now, communication, empathy, and adaptability are no longer optional; they are critical. \u201cHuman communication skills just went from \u2018they kind of suck at it but it\u2019s okay\u2019 to \u2018that\u2019s not acceptable.\u2019\u201d As AI takes over more specialist tasks, the value of generalists is rising. People who can generate ideas, anticipate consequences, and rally others around a vision will be most valuable. \u201cTools can handle the specialized knowledge \u2013 but only humans can connect it to purpose.\u201d Brian warns that traditional job descriptions and org charts are becoming obsolete. Instead of looking for ways to rush employees into doing more work, \u201crethink the roles. What can a small group do when aligned around a common purpose?\u201d The future lies in small, aligned teams with shared goals. Vision Is Not a Strategy (15:56) Robin reflects on durable human traits through Steve Jobs' bio by Isaac Walterson. Jobs succeeded not just with tech, but with taste, persuasion, charisma, and vision. \u201cHe was less technologist, more storyteller.\u201d They discuss Sam Altman, the subject of Empire of AI. Whether or not the book is fully accurate, Robin argues that Altman\u2019s defining trait is deal-making. Robin shares his experience using ChatGPT in real estate. It changed how he researched topics like redwood root systems on foundational structure and mosquito mitigation. Despite the tech, both agree that human connection is more important than ever. \u201cWe need humans now more than ever.\u201d Brian references data from Kelly Monahan showing AI power users are highly productive but deeply burned out. 40% more productive than their peers. 88% are completely burnt out. Many don\u2019t believe their company\u2019s AI strategy, even while using the tools daily. There's a growing disconnect between executive AI hype and on-the-ground experience. But internal tests by top engineers showed only 10% improvement, mostly in simple tasks. \u201cYou\u2019ve got to get into the tools yourself to be fluent on this.\u201d One CTO believed AI would produce 30% efficiency gains. Brian urges leaders to personally engage with the tools before making sweeping decisions. He warns against blindly accepting optimistic vendor promises or trends. Leaders pushing AI without firsthand experience risk overburdening their teams. \u201cYou're bringing the Kool-Aid and then you're shoving it down your team's throat.\u201d This results in burnout, not productivity. \u201cYou're cranking up the demands. You're cranking up the burnout, too.\u201d \u201cThat\u2019s not going to lead to what you want either.\u201d If You Want Control, Just Say That (20:47) Robin raises the topic of returning to the office, which has been a long-standing area of interest for him. \u201cI interviewed Joel Gascoyne on stage in 2016\u2026 the largest fully distributed company in the world at the time.\u201d He\u2019s tracked distributed work since Responsive 2016. Also mentions Shelby Wolpa (ex-Envision), who scaled thousands remotely. Robin notes the shift post-COVID: companies are mandating returns without adjusting for today\u2019s realities.\u201d Example: \u201cIntel just did a mandatory 4 days a week return to office\u2026 and now people live hours away.\u201d He acknowledges the benefits of in-person collaboration, especially in creative or physical industries. \u201cThere is an undeniable utility.\u201d, especially as they met in Robin\u2019s Cafe to talk about Responsive, despite a commute, because it was worth it. But he challenges blanket return-to-office mandates, especially when the rationale is unclear. According to Brian, any company uses RTO as a veiled soft layoff tactic. Cites Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy openly stating RTO is meant to encourage attrition. He says policies without clarity are ineffective. \u201cIf you quit, I don\u2019t have to pay you severance.\u201d Robin notes that the Responsive Manifesto isn\u2019t about providing answers but outlining tensions to balance. Before enforcing an RTO policy, leaders should ask: \u201cWhat problem are we trying to solve \u2013 and do we have evidence of it?\u201d Before You Mandate, Check the Data (24:50) Performance data should guide decisions, not executive assumptions. For instance, junior salespeople may benefit from in-person mentorship, but\u2026 That may only apply to certain teams, and doesn\u2019t justify full mandates. \u201cI've seen situations where productivity has fallen \u2013 well-defined productivity.\u201d The decision-making process should be decentralized and nuanced. Different teams have different needs \u2014 orgs must avoid one-size-fits-all policies, especially in large, distributed orgs. \u201cShould your CEO be making that decision? Or should your head of sales?\u201d Brian offers a two-part test for leaders to assess their RTO logic: Are you trying to attract and retain the best talent? Are your teams co-located or distributed? If the answer to #1 is yes: People will be less engaged, not more. High performers will quietly leave or disengage while staying. Forcing long commutes will hurt retention and morale. If the answer to #2 is \u201cdistributed\u201d: Brian then tells a story about a JPMorgan IT manager who asks Jamie Dimon for flexibility. \u201cIt\u2019s freaking stupid\u2026 it actually made it harder to do their core work.\u201d Instead, teams need to define shared norms and operating agreements. \u201cTeams have to have norms to be effective.\u201d RTO makes even less sense. His team spanned time zones and offices, forcing them into daily hurt collaboration. He argues most RTO mandates are driven by fear and a desire for control. More important than office days are questions like: What hours are we available for meetings? What tools do we use and why? How do we make decisions? Who owns which roles and responsibilities? The Bottom Line: The policy must match the structure. If teams are remote by design, dragging them into an office is counterproductive. How to Be a Leader in Chaotic Times (28:34) \u201cWe\u2019re living in a more chaotic time than any in my lifetime.\u201d Robin asks how leaders should guide their organizations through uncertainty. He reflects on his early work years during the 2008 crash and the unpredictability he\u2019s seen since. Observes current instability like the UCSF and NIH funding and hiring freezes disrupting universities, rising political violence, and murders of public officials from the McKnight Foundation, and more may persist for years without relief. \u201cI was bussing tables for two weeks, quit, became a personal trainer\u2026 my old client jumped out a window because he lost his fortune as a banker.\u201d Brian says what\u2019s needed now is: Resilience \u2013 a mindset of positive realism: acknowledging the issues, while focusing on agency and possibility, and supporting one another. Trust \u2013 not just psychological safety, but deep belief in leadership clarity and honesty. His definition of resilience includes: \u201cWhat options do we have?\u201d \u201cWhat can we do as a team?\u201d \u201cWhat\u2019s the opportunity in this?\u201d What Builds Trust (and What Breaks It) (31:00) Brian recalls laying off more people than he hired during the dot-com bust \u2013 and what helped his team endure: \u201cHere\u2019s what we need to do. If you\u2019re all in, we\u2019ll get through this together.\u201d He believes trust is built when: Leaders communicate clearly and early. They acknowledge difficulty, without sugarcoating. They create clarity about what matters most right now. They involve their team in solutions. He critiques companies that delay communication until they\u2019re in PR cleanup mode: Like Target\u2019s CEO, who responded to backlash months too late \u2013 and with vague platitudes. \u201cOf course, he got backlash,\u201d Brian says. \u201cHe wasn\u2019t present.\u201d According to him, \u201cTrust isn\u2019t just psychological safety. It\u2019s also honesty.\u201d Trust Makes Work Faster, Better, and More Fun (34:10) \u201cWhen trust is there, the work is more fun, and the results are better.\u201d Robin offers a Zander Media story: Longtime collaborator Jonathan Kofahl lives in Austin. Despite being remote, they prep for shoots with 3-minute calls instead of hour-long meetings. The relationship is fast, fluid, and joyful, and the end product reflects that. He explains the ripple effects of trust: Faster workflows Higher-quality output More fun and less burnout Better client experience Fewer miscommunications or dropped balls He also likens it to acrobatics: \u201cIf trust isn\u2019t there, you land on your head.\u201d Seldom Wrong, Never in Doubt (35:45) \u201cSeldom wrong, never in doubt \u2013 that bit me in the butt.\u201d Brian reflects on a toxic early-career mantra: As a young consultant, he was taught to project confidence at all times. It was said that \u201cif you show doubt, you lose credibility,\u201d especially with older clients. Why that backfired: It made him arrogant. It discouraged honest questions or collaborative problem-solving. It modeled bad leadership for others. Brian critiques the startup world\u2019s hero culture: Tech glorifies mavericks and contrarians, people who bet against the grain and win. But we rarely see the 95% who bet big and failed, and the survivors become models, often with toxic effects. The real danger: Leaders try to imitate success without understanding the context. Contrarianism becomes a virtue in itself \u2013 even when it\u2019s wrong. Now, he models something else: \u201cI can point to the mountain, but I don\u2019t know the exact path.\u201d Leaders should admit they don\u2019t have all the answers. Inviting the team to figure it out together builds alignment and ownership. That\u2019s how you lead through uncertainty, by trusting your team to co-create. Slack, Remote Work, and the Birth of Future Forum (37:40) Brian recalls the early days of Future Forum: Slack was deeply office-centric pre-pandemic. He worked 5 days a week in SF, and even interns were expected to show up regularly. Slack\u2019s leadership, especially CTO Cal Henderson, was hesitant to go remote, not because they were anti-remote, but because they didn\u2019t know how. But when COVID hit, Slack, like everyone else, had to figure out remote work in real time. Brian had long-standing relationships with Slack\u2019s internal research team: He pitched Stewart Butterfield (Slack\u2019s CEO) on the idea of a think tank, where he was then joined by Helen Kupp and Sheela Subramanian, who became his co-founders in the venture. Thus, Future Forum was born. Christina Janzer, Lucas Puente, and others. Their research was excellent, but mostly internal-facing, used for product and marketing. Brian, self-described as a \u201cdata geek,\u201d saw an opportunity: Remote Work Increased Belonging, But Not for Everyone (40:56) In mid-2020, Future Forum launched its first major study. Expected finding: employee belonging would drop due to isolation. Reality: it did, but not equally across all demographics. For Black office workers, a sense of belonging actually increased. Future Forum brought in Dr. Brian Lowery, a Black professor at Stanford, to help interpret the results. Lowery explained: \u201cI\u2019m a Black professor at Stanford. Whatever you think of it as a liberal school, if I have to walk on that campus five days a week and be on and not be Black five days a week, 9 to 5 \u2013 it\u2019s taxing. It\u2019s exhausting. If I can dial in and out of that situation, it\u2019s a release.\u201d A Philosophy Disguised as a Playbook (42:00) Brian, Helen, and Sheela co-authored a book that distilled lessons from: Slack\u2019s research Hundreds of executive conversations Real-world trials during the remote work shift One editor even commented on how the book is \u201cmore like a philosophy book disguised as a playbook.\u201d The key principles are: \u201cStart with what matters to us as an organization. Then ask: What\u2019s safe to try?\u201d Policies don\u2019t work. Principles do. Norms > mandates. Team-level agreements matter more than companywide rules. Focus on outcomes, not activity.  Train your managers. Clarity, trust, and support start there. Safe-to-try experiments. Iterate fast and test what works for your team. Co-create team norms. Define how decisions get made, what tools get used, and when people are available. What\u2019s great with the book is that no matter where you are, this same set of rules still applies.  When Leadership Means Letting Go (43:54) \u201cMy job was to model the kind of presence I wanted my team to show.\u201d Robin recalls a defining moment at Robin\u2019s Caf\u00e9: Employees were chatting behind the counter while a banana peel sat on the floor, surrounded by dirty dishes. It was a lawsuit waiting to happen. His first impulse was to berate them, a habit from his small business upbringing. But in that moment, he reframed his role. \u201cI\u2019m here to inspire, model, and demonstrate the behavior I want to see.\u201d He realized: Hovering behind the counter = surveillance, not leadership. True leadership = empowering your team to care, even when you\u2019re not around. You train your manager to create a culture, not compliance. Brian and Robin agree: Rules only go so far. Teams thrive when they believe in the \u2018why\u2019 behind the work. Robin draws a link between strong workplace culture and\u2026 The global rise of authoritarianism The erosion of trust in institutions If trust makes Zander Media better, and helps VC-backed companies scale \u2014 \u201cWhy do our political systems seem to be rewarding the exact opposite?\u201d Populism, Charisma & Bullshit (45:20) According to Robin, \u201cWe\u2019re in a world where trust is in very short supply.\u201d Brian reflects on why authoritarianism is thriving globally: The media is fragmented. Everyone\u2019s in different pocket universes. People now get news from YouTube or TikTok, not trusted institutions. Truth is no longer shared, and without shared truth, trust collapses. \u201cWalter Cronkite doesn\u2019t exist anymore.\u201d He references Andor, where the character, Mon Mothma, says: People no longer trust journalism, government, universities, science, or even business. Edelman\u2019s Trust Barometer dipped for business leaders for the first time in 25 years. CEOs who once declared strong values are now going silent, which damages trust even more. \u201cThe death of truth is really the problem that\u2019s at work here.\u201d Robin points out: Trump and Elon, both charismatic, populist figures, continue to gain power despite low trust. Why? Because their clarity and simplicity still outperform thoughtful leadership. He also calls Trump a \u201cmarketing genius.\u201d Brian\u2019s frustration: Case in point: Trump-era officials who spread conspiracy theories now can\u2019t walk them back. Populists manufacture distrust, then struggle to govern once in power. He shares a recent example: Result: Their base turned on them. Right-wing pundits (Pam Bondi, Dan Bongino) fanned Jeffrey Epstein conspiracies. But in power, they had to admit: \u201cThere\u2019s no client list publicly.\u201d Brian then suggests that trust should be rebuilt locally. He points to leaders like Zohran Mamdani (NY): \u201cI may not agree with all his positions, but he can articulate a populist vision that isn\u2019t exploitative.\u201d Where Are the Leaders? (51:19) Brian expresses frustration at the silence from people in power: \u201cI\u2019m disappointed, highly disappointed, in the number of leaders in positions of power and authority who could lend their voice to something as basic as: science is real.\u201d He calls for a return to shared facts: \u201cLet\u2019s just start with: vaccines do not cause autism. Let\u2019s start there.\u201d He draws a line between public health and trust: We\u2019ve had over a century of scientific evidence backing vaccines But misinformation is eroding communal health Brian clarifies: this isn\u2019t about wedge issues like guns or Roe v. Wade The problem is that scientists lack public authority, but CEOs don't CEOs of major institutions could shift the narrative, especially those with massive employee bases. And yet, most say nothing: \u201cThey know it\u2019s going to bite them\u2026 and still, no one\u2019s saying it.\u201d He warns: ignoring this will hurt businesses, frontline workers, and society at large. 89 Seconds from Midnight (52:45) Robin brings up the Doomsday Clock: Historically, it was 2\u20134 minutes to midnight \u201cWe are 89 seconds to midnight.\u201d (as of January 2025) This was issued by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a symbol of how close humanity is to destroying itself. Despite that, he remains hopeful: \u201cI might be the most energetic person in any room \u2013 and yet, I\u2019m a prepper.\u201d Robin shared that: And in a real emergency? You might not make it. He grew up in the wilderness, where ambulances don\u2019t arrive, and CPR is a ritual of death. He frequently visits Vieques, an island off Puerto Rico with no hospital, where a car crash likely means you won\u2019t survive. As there is a saying there that goes, \u2018No Hay Hospital', meaning \u2018there is no hospital\u2019. If something serious happens, you\u2019re likely a few hours\u2019 drive or even a flight away from medical care. That shapes his worldview: \u201cWe\u2019ve forgotten how precious life is in privileged countries.\u201d Despite his joy and optimism, Robin is also: Deeply aware of fragility \u2013 of systems, bodies, institutions. Committed to preparation, not paranoia. Focused on teaching resilience, care, and responsibility. How to Raise Men with Heart and Backbone (55:00) Robin asks: \u201cHow do you counsel your boys to show up as protectors and earners, especially in a capitalist world, while also taking care of people, especially when we\u2019re facing the potential end of humanity in our lifetimes?\u201d Brian responds: His sons are now 25 and 23, and he\u2019s incredibly proud of who they\u2019re becoming. Credits both parenting and luck but he also acknowledges many friends who\u2019ve had harder parenting experiences. His sons are: Sharp and thoughtful In healthy relationships Focused on values over achievements Educational path: \u201cThey think deeply about what are now called \u2018social justice\u2019 issues in a very real way.\u201d Example: In 4th grade, their class did a homelessness simulation \u2013 replicating the fragmented, frustrating process of accessing services. Preschool at the Jewish Community Center Elementary at a Quaker school in San Francisco He jokes that they needed a Buddhist high school to complete the loop Not religious, but values-based, non-dogmatic education had a real impact That hands-on empathy helped them see systemic problems early on, especially in San Francisco, where it\u2019s worse. What Is Actually Enough? (56:54) \u201cWe were terrified our kids would take their comfort for granted.\u201d Brian\u2019s kids: Lived modestly, but comfortably in San Francisco. Took vacations, had more than he and his wife did growing up. Worried their sons would chase status over substance. But what he taught them instead: Family matters. Friendships matter. Being dependable matters. Not just being good, but being someone others can count on. He also cautioned against: \u201cWe too often push kids toward something unattainable, and we act surprised when they burn out in the pursuit of that.\u201d The \u201cgold ring\u201d mentality is like chasing elite schools, careers, and accolades. In sports and academics, he and his wife aimed for balance, not obsession. Brian on Parenting, Purpose, and Perspective (59:15) Brian sees promise in his kids\u2019 generation: But also more: Purpose-driven Skeptical of false promises Less obsessed with traditional success markers Yes, they\u2019re more stressed and overamped on social media. Gen Z has been labeled just like every generation before: \u201cI\u2019m Gen X. They literally made a movie about us called Slackers.\u201d He believes the best thing we can do is: Model what matters Spend time reflecting: What really does matter? Help the next generation define enough for themselves, earlier than we did. The Real Measure of Success (1:00:07) Brian references Clay Christensen, famed author of The Innovator\u2019s Dilemma and How Will You Measure Your Life? Clay\u2019s insight: \u201cSuccess isn\u2019t what you thought it was.\u201d Early reunions are full of bravado \u2013 titles, accomplishments, money. Later reunions reveal divorce, estrangement, and regret. The longer you go, the more you see: Brian\u2019s takeaway: Even for Elon, it might be about Mars. But for most of us, it\u2019s not about how many projects we shipped. It\u2019s about: Family Friends Presence Meaning \u201cIf you can realize that earlier, you give yourself the chance to adjust \u2013 and find your way back.\u201d Where to Find Brian (01:02:05) LinkedIn WorkForward.com Newsletter: The Work Forward on Substack \u201cSome weeks it\u2019s lame, some weeks it\u2019s great. But there\u2019s a lot of community and feedback.\u201d And of course, join us at Responsive Conference this September 17-18, 2025. Books Mentioned How Will You Measure Your Life? by Clayton Christensen The Innovator\u2019s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen Responsive Manifesto Empire of AI by Karen Hao Podcasts Mentioned The Gap by Ira Glass The Ezra Klein Show Movies Mentioned Andor Slackers Organizations Mentioned: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists McKnight Foundation National Institutes of Health (NIH) Responsive.org University of California, San Francisco ","author_name":"Snafu w\/ Robin Zander","author_url":"http:\/\/www.robinpzander.com\/","html":"