Brian D. Shelton

I consistently tell my kids - and my wife - that there are always three sides to a story: your side, their side and the truth.

The truth lies in the middle because it is neutral. The truth never chooses sides. The truth doesn’t care who wins. The truth just is.

I also often share the following quote - my teenage daughter is probably rolling her eyes as I type this:

“There is nothing neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so.” - William Shakespeare

It’s one of the more profound statements I’ve encountered. It speaks directly to “the truth.”

Imagine the following situation: You’re stuck in traffic. No one is moving. You can’t see the cause. 

Now ask yourself: How do I feel?

The answer, in large part, depends on many factors - your current mood, where you’re going, who you’re meeting, the weather, anything.

But let’s consider two people side-by-side in the same traffic jam. 

The first man starts fidgeting, starts muttering to himself, growing more impatient - and angry - by the minute. He doesn’t have time for this. He begins shouting obscenities and banging his fist on the steering wheel. He’s about to lose it.

The second man pauses. He takes in the situation. He sighs. He then rolls down the windows, turns on his favorite playlist, cranks up the volume and begins singing at the top of his lungs and dancing in his seat.

Same situation. Two entirely different experiences. Why?

“There is nothing neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so.” - William Shakespeare

It is the meaning we (choose to) assign to a situation that fuels our emotional response to it and feelings about it. It’s that simple.

It’s hard to avoid the reality that evil does exist in this world. Whether you turn on the news regularly or not, you are likely confronted with tragedy, wrongdoing, social injustice or other human plight in the course of your daily routine.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that many of us - including myself at times - are beginning to see the world through a tainted lens, one that’s hell-bent on filtering out beauty, goodness, hope, and love.

It’s so easy, after seeing and experiencing so much negativity day after day, to begin to only see the negative, to become jaded.

However, if we become aware of this tendency, and make a conscious effort to overcome it, we can not only begin to see the positive, but can do our part to help others to do the same.

We can start by intentionally creating moments that matter.

I recently saw a TEDx presentation by Drew Dudley that sparked my thinking and led to my writing this post. Rather than relying only on my summary of his presentation, here is a link. You won’t regret watching it, I promise.

The premise of Drew’s presentation is that, often, the moments in which we have the greatest impact on another human being, are moments that we, ourselves, do not even remember.

Most of us fail to realize the power that lies within each of us to lead, to impact and improve the lives of those we encounter. And the truth is, unless someone tells us about these moments, we are cheated out of knowing that we not only have the power to positively impact and fundamentally change the course of another person’s life for the better, but the realization that we have done exactly that.

I have been on both sides of the equation - receiving acknowledgment for how I changed someone’s life (definitely worthy of a follow-up post) and acknowledging someone who impacted my life in a profound way. Both situations were moments that mattered.

I was reminded of this again this week.

An 18-year-old Australian graphic design student, Marchelle Anne, who attended a Jason Mraz concert in late March shared on her blog her chance encounter with the 2-time Grammy winner. The singer’s official YouTube channel has since posted a recap video from the Australian leg of the tour, which contained a clip of Marchelle’s experience.

The scene: After the concert, Marchelle and her friend were standing outside the venue gates hoping to catch Mraz’s attention. It worked. Mraz came over to the gate to say, “Hello.”

When he asked for and learned the girl’s name, he immediately responded, “Marchelle... You sent me a letter!” In that moment, the life of the 18-year-old student fundamentally shifted - and for no other reason than another person (ignore the fact that the person is by all accounts a “world-famous” musician) acknowledged her with sincerity and appreciation. Sometimes that's all the validation we need.

Moments that matter don’t have to be big. In most cases, they’re not.

So, take the time to tell those who have had an impact on your life that they have done so. There’s a good chance that they don’t know it, and an even greater chance that it will mean the world to them to hear it.

My daughter brought the following "metaphor poem" home to show my wife and I what she's been working on at school. I think it's worth sharing. I hope you agree.

Love is...

Love is lava. You never know when it will erupt. Sometimes it burns. Sometimes it warms the heart. It can smile or it can make you upset.

Love is a candle. It gives you warmth and comfort. It burns slowly and steadily. But it can go out in a blink of an eye.

Love is music. Sometimes it will be an upbeat happy song and other times it is a solemn and sad song. You never know if it will make you cry or make you smile. But it will always make you feel something.

Love is a pencil writing its story as it goes along. Love's story could take you back two years ago or only two days ago. It could make you feel solemnly or giggly. But it never makes you only feel one way.

Samantha Shelton

With what is sure to be millions of posts about the death and legacy of Steve Jobs (1955-2011), I contemplated whether I should even write on the topic. But, when I awoke this morning, it was clear to me what I felt I should share.

In recent memory, there is no single individual I can think of who has impacted "our way of life" the way Jobs has. His innovation and leadership at Apple have changed the way we listen to and buy music, the way we communicate. The technology and devices he invented are woven into the fabric of our culture.

No doubt, countless articles will be written about his technological contributions - Macintosh computers & GUI design, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, etc. More still will point to his inspirational life story - a child of adoption, turned college drop-out, turned inventor, innovator and entrepreneur, turned CEO, turned unemployed, turned entrepreneur, turned resurgent leader, turned business juggernaut...

But, to me, the part of Jobs legacy that doesn't seem to get much attention is the ripple effect he has had OUTSIDE of Apple.

No one questions the direct impact that Jobs'/Apple's innovations have had. What often gets overlooked is the amount of innovation that has occurred as a direct result of other companies attempting to keep pace, to compete with what was coming out of Apple.

Jobs' ability to think outside the box was second to none, and what that did was provide others the inspiration - and permission - to do the same; it's akin to the story of Roger Bannister, the first person to run the mile in under 4 minutes.

Bannister eclipsed the 4-minute mark (3 min 59.4 sec.) on May 6, 1954. It took only 46 days for Australian John Landy to break his record (3 min 57.9 sec.). Bannister simply demonstrated what was possible, opening the door for others to share in that vision of possibility. That is exactly what Steve Jobs has done for technological innovation.

Additionally, his mere presence on the scene made competition inevitable. He was the Michael Jordan of the tech world - most considered him "the best," which motivated everyone else to "improve their game" in an attempt to compete with and potentially score a victory over him. The competition he inspired has driven innovation across the board.

What's more, Jobs understood the importance of people in every aspect of the innovative process. People are the source of inspiration and ideas, the target of the end-product, the key resource needed to turn dreams into reality. He was all about culture - in design, in execution, in daily interactions. Ultimately, that focus - I believe - is what made Jobs truly great.

Don't believe me? Then explain why there is a segment of the population who readily identify themselves as "Mac people." That's not an accident - it's a cultural phenomenon. It demonstrates Jobs' success in bringing culture into the "core" (pun intended) of everything he ever did.

In his commencement address to Stanford graduates in 2005, Jobs offered these sage words:

"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

Jobs was an amazing individual who has left a legacy far greater than any product, any company. He inspired others. He inspired innovation. He inspired greatness. He inspired people.

I admit it, I am a "talent show junkie" - American Idol, America's Got Talent, X-Factor, you name it.

Last week, I was watching X-Factor and caught the audition of 16-year-old Jazzlyn Little. While the audition was inspiring, there is still part of me that hurts for this young girl.

Here's why.

When you watch the lead-in to her audition, you see a girl who is riddled with nerves and insecurity. You can hear her talking to herself, reminding herself, "Relax. Relax. Relax." She asks herself (audibly), "What if I mess up?"

You then see her talking to her mother, saying, "I don't want to let you guys down."

She continues, "There's so much stress in real life. Peer pressure. Having to fit in. Being judged... singing's an escape from reality. I can be anyone I want to be."

Then the sentence that has been stuck in my head for almost a week...

"I don't have to be me."

She takes to the stage almost unable to speak because of her nerves.

Simon Cowell begins to question Jazzlyn and asks if she has posted any videos on YouTube. She says she uploaded one video, but admits that only about 500 people have watched it. Simon, wanting to know why so few people watched the video, asks her, "Do you think it was you or the song?" 

She responded, "Me. I think."

Then, she sings.

Jazzlyn received a standing ovation for her performance and incredible words of encouragement from the judges.

Yet, as she leaves the stage, she confides, "For the first time in my life, being on that stage and having everyone clap for me, I really did feel truly accepted."

I hope truly hope Jazzlyn finds herself and her confidence through the process of the show, that she accepts herself above all else.

I was watching Brian Solis interview Marcel LeBrun of Salesforce Radian6 about the Future of Social Media Monitoring (h/t Michelle Chmielewski) when two particular comments sparked thoughts I feel are important enough to share.

LeBrun, referring to Proctor & Gamble's withdrawal from soap opera sponsorship after 77 years stated the reason to be, "The audience has moved..." to Facebook.

"It's not really an audience anymore where you just kind of push your message out, it's really, now, a conversation."

However, it's only a conversation when there is dialogue, a back-and-forth exchange. So many companies (and some individuals) miss this. Tweets and Facebook status updates alone are not "conversations."

Later, LeBrun was talking about Dell and it's launch of a Command Center, a "physical place that [Dell] can take their customers through and show how their investing in listening."

That's the other problem I see. Companies are quick to pat themselves on the back for investing in social media, in listening. But, the most important question is, "WHY are they doing it?"

It reminds me of the scene from the movie White Men Can't Jump in which Woody Harrelson's character is debating with Wesley Snipes' character as they drive along in their top-down convertible:

Hey... what is this?

Jimi Hendrix.

I know. Why are you playing Jimi?

Because I like to listen to him.

That's the problem. Y'all listen.

What am I supposed to do. eat it?

No. You're supposed to hear it.

I said I like to listen to him.

There's a difference between hearing and listening.

Exactly. Listening is only important if you're willing to "hear" what is really being said - and to engage with and act upon that information, then "lead the conversation" as Solis suggests.

I noticed this morning that Gary Vaynerchuk (@garyvee) posted a link on Twitter to his first-ever Wine Library TV episode (Feb. 2006). Since he announced his "retirement" earlier this week, I decided to take a quick trip down Memory Lane.

I admit, I got a kick out of it. But, it also struck a chord with me. More on that in a minute.

To be honest, as soon as the video started to play, it triggered something in my brain that recalled the old Highlights Magazine activities I used to do as a kid - which one of these things is not like the other?

Here are the things I noticed immediately:

Episode 1 - February 2006

  It's dark - Hey, it was Episode 1 - no lights yet.

"Cool camera" from Best Buy - It's a far cry from the HD digital video we saw in later episodes. Has that VHS warble...

No fancy intro - No music. No graphics. Just Gary and a little bit of text.

The walls are bare - No Jets swag, no chalkboard, no nothing.

Less intimate - Looks like (Chris) Mott was shooting from the back wall of the office. Later episodes were shot tighter on Gary and the wines, making it feel more personal.

Both sleeves are down - Gary's known for, among many things, rocking the one-sleeve-up, one-sleeve-down look.

Lame spit bucket - Gary upgraded to metal in Episode 76, a Jets-themed pail in Episode 136, then alternated a couple others until finally settling in with his cherished Jets helmet.

A whole lot less "thunder" - Gary is very conservative and almost "corporate" in Episode 1, even introducing himself as "Director of Operations" instead of the now famous "I am your host..."

He uses "real" flavor descriptions - Gary ultimately moved to more colorful descriptions like "racquetball," "Big League Chew," "sweaty sock," and "sheep butt," which skyrocketed his "uniqueness quotient."

Episode 1,000 - March 2011

  However, the progression from Episode 1 to Episode 1000 serves to illustrate why Gary has been so successful. The way I see it, the five biggest drivers of his success have been:

Vision - From the very beginning, Gary knew he wanted to "change the wine world." Though time, technology, tactics, etc. have changed, his vision has not. 

Tenacity - Also known as "hustle." Gary works until his "eyes bleed." He has a tireless work ethic. "It's not enough. We always want to do more... We're going to get better. We're going to keep pushing it." - Gary in Episode 1.

Sincerity - Gary genuinely cares about what he does and the people he works with and serves, and it comes across in every interaction (including in person, to which I can personally attest).

Chops - He knows his stuff... cold.

Gratitude - At the end of the first episode, Gary ended with the words "Thanks so much." Nine hundred ninety-nine episodes later, he still signed off with words of sincere gratitude and appreciation: "Thank you forever... I love you." Heck, he even wrote a book about it - The Thank You Economy (affiliate link).

Most people want a big title. It signifies their arrival on the business scene. It boosts their ego. It changes how others "see" them.

I was reminded through an experience yesterday, how much a title can actually be more of an obstacle than an asset.

And that is the problem.

The trouble with a title is that it immediately throws up boundaries and limitations. Instead of being fully present and focused on the individual and what he or she has to offer, your brain is busy adjusting expectations based on the person's title (label).

One CEO requested branding & positioning documentation from the Marketing Department in preparation for an important meeting with an outside consulting group who was brought in to advise on an important project. One of the employees presented the information (which the CEO conceded was right on the mark), but because the individual carried a title that didn't specifically (or implicitly) indicate expertise in "branding", the CEO responded with a request for someone "better suited" to present the information.

You see, in the CEOs mind, the employee's title disqualified him from being able to provide excellent information, or to add value. Discounting ideas, information, or feedback simply based on a person's title significantly limits the potential of any organization. This is an especially important reality for leaders to pay attention to.

When titles become earplugs, the casualties include creativity, innovation, efficiency and growth.

Most of us have heard the expression, "There's no 'I' in team."

In other words, if one person tries to focus all the attention on himself, it disrupts the chemistry of the 'team.' This self-centered approach often impedes success.

As in sports, the same holds true in business - and in life.

And, it's not just about putting yourself first in a selfish way. It's about inserting yourself into the central context of all your daily experiences.

For example, if someone were to be critical of a project you were working on, or the way you run your business, would you instantly become defensive? Or, would you try to take a step back and see if there is something buried inside the criticism that you can use to improve?

When you take things personally, you're being self-centered. You're also closing yourself off to finding opportunities to grow and improve. 

There is only a one letter difference between "bitter" and "better." Not coincidentally, the letter "I" is what separates the two.

Today was a bit of a 'perfect storm' in terms of finding inspiration for this post.

Today marks Day One of Jeff Pulver's #140edu Conference in NYC - an event devoted to exploring the effects of the real-time web on education. The generally shared view among participants is that the real-time web should create profound changes in the way we think about what students and teachers can do, create and communicate, as well as how and why they do so.

Then, I stumbled upon a 2007 Selling Power interview of Seth Godin where he talks about "the mindset of a winner."

There was one statement in particular that resonated with me and bears repeating.

"The big win is when you refuse to settle for average or mediocre."

The challenge is, each of us is bombarded every day at every turn with messages - spoken or otherwise - that encourage us to be average.

Radio and TV commercials, billboards, in-store signage, magazine ads, web banners, emails, friends and family members all try to convince us that we should strive to "fit in." In other words, be like everyone else. "Be average."

Think about it: what are trends? They are nothing more than a mass of people all striving to be the same - a reflection of a desire to be doing, making, buying, wearing the same thing as the person next to you.

So, what happens when we start to stray from average?

First, you get noticed. Second, people start talking about you (in the form criticism or praise).

Let's look at education as an example. We live in a world where standardized tests and "tradition" are the norm. The problem (as I see it) is that technology has/is changing the world in which we live, yet our educational system seems to want to ignore that fact and wrap "education" up in a nice, neat box and tie it with a bow.

When educators buck the "average educational experience" by introducing cell phones, podcasts, Skype conferencing and collaboration into the classroom experience, people revolt. They warn of the dangers. They shout from their rooftops that these things have "no place in the classroom." Why? Because it doesn't "fit in" with their view of (average) education.

It's no different with fashion, art, business.

Here's the truth: the most successful people and businesses are the ones who leapfrog being average to become different, to become remarkable.

If you've never heard of the organization To Write Love On Her Arms (TWLOHA, for short), you should check them out. They do wonderful things to help people struggling with depression, addiction, self-injury and suicide.

The reason I mention TWLOHA is that the founders began a campaign this summer called Fears vs. Dreams in which they invited anyone/everyone to contribute to our story as a collective people. The concept is simple - answer two questions:

What is your biggest dream?

What is your biggest fear?

What struck me about this campaign was not the simplicity of it, but rather the realization that most of us (myself included) have never taken the time to answer these questions for ourselves - to come to an authentic place of knowing, acknowledging and accepting - and to transform those answers into actions that will move us further from fear and closer to our dream.

In order to get closer to the 'life we've always imagined,' we must first understand - with honesty and clarity - what that dream is and what we're running from (whether we currently acknowledge it or not).

Think of the most offensive word in the English language. Did you get it?

Here's are some clues:

It has 4 letters

It starts with a "C"

It ends with a "T"

Yep. You guessed it.

The most offensive word in the English language is... CAN'T!

That's right. Can't.

You see, the word "can't" is an excuse. A cover-up for fear. A veil for self-imposed restriction or limitation.

Think about it: Have you ever been in a meeting where someone asks the question, "Why can't we..." only to be followed by the 10,000 reasons everyone else in the room comes up with for why it "can't" be done? Of course you have.

The very use of the word "can't" triggers our brains to come up with an excuse, a limitation, an out.

Simply changing the words we use when we speak can have an incredible impact on how we live our lives, on the success and happiness we reap.

Let's go back to our meeting from the example above. What happens if we flip "Why can't we..." on its head? Instead, imagine the same meeting, but this time someone asks, "How CAN we..."

There is an immediate shift in the energy in the room and the thought patterns of everyone in it.

The room is now filled with people focused on creating solutions, dreaming up possibilities rather than restrictions, obstacles and excuses.

In a previous post, I referenced a maxim that my 7th grade history teacher passed on to me.

It's as profound as it is simple: CAN'T means WON'T.

Think about that statement for a moment, and think about how many times a day you say, "I can't." Now, think about how many times you're really trying to say, "I won't."

Everything is a choice. The word "can't" simply represents your choice not to try, not to do. It's a choice to put up walls, to limit yourself, to maintain the status quo (even if you loathe your current situation).

In what areas of your life or business do you find yourself continually saying "I can't" and choosing defeat over growth and achievement? What can you do to eliminate "the most offensive word in the English language" from your vocabulary?

I was enjoying lunch with a long-time friend yesterday, and through the course of our conversation, we began talking about the importance of "charging what you're worth" and knowing when to cut the cord in (business) relationships for one simple reason: just because a client pays you, doesn't make them a good client.

Hazel, aside from being the Queen of Networking, also has a hand full of clients for whom she serves as an executive coach. She explained that she limits her coaching engagements to twelve months because, as she says, "After twelve months, you should have things figured out to the point where you don't need me anymore, or you will have shown you're not willing to do the work required to make it successful."

So, twelve months is the most you'll get.

I then relayed a story about my daughter's softball team. You see, there was one little girl on the team whose father wanted to make sure she knew exactly what to do at every given moment. He would stand next to her when she was in the field to make sure he could relay the information she needed to make the right play. He stood fence-side while she was at bat to make sure she made the proper adjustments. But none of it helped.

It paralyzed her.

From Day One, the girls were taught to "field the ball and throw it to first base." That was the default. Of course, they learned about force outs, tagging the runner, making the play at the closest base, but even if all that failed to register, they knew, "Throw it to first!"

With her dad by her side, the ball would come to her and rather than stepping to throw, she dropped her arms, cranked her head to the side and looked at him with a "what do I do now?" look on her face. The runner was safe... every time.

You see, at some point, you have to cut the cord. It's that whole "teach a man to fish" thing.

Her dad was trying to help, but this little girl didn't learn anything. She became 100% dependent on her dad. She forgot to think for herself. She forgot to take risks. She forgot to learn. She forgot to have fun. She forgot to get dirty.

It's like Hazel's twelve month rule. At some point, you have to do it by yourself, for yourself. If you always rely on someone else to make decisions or pat you on the back, you will never grow. Go out there and get a little dirty!

I think we all have (at least) one; that one teacher who had a significant impact on our life. Mine was my 7th grade history teacher, Neville Austin.

I grew up loving history - something passed down from my Grampy Shelton. He was born in 1918 and was a walking History Channel special - he lived through the Great Depression, he witnessed the Hindenburg explosion, he saw Albert Einstein on his walk to and from work in Princeton, NJ, he was one of the first people in the country to spread the word of the attack on Pearl Harbor while serving as a U.S. Army telegraph operator, he helped change the healthcare finance industry and was posthumously inducted into the Healthcare Hall of Fame at the University of Pennsylvania. He didn't just love history, he lived history.

So, naturally, a history teacher would be a pretty obvious candidate to be "that teacher." But, that's not entirely why.

As a kid, I moved around quite a bit. The start of 7th grade - for me - meant entering my third school in four years and making the jump to Junior High.

Mr. Austin was a fun, passionate, enthusiastic guy who you could tell loved to teach and loved being around his students. I think every kid in the class - even notorious troublemakers - respected him. He taught us more than history. 

It was in his class that I met my life-long best friend. In fact, at the end of the school year, we bought Mr. Austin a Boston Celtics championship flag that listed all of their (up to that point) World Championships. He was a Celtics/Larry Bird fanatic and we saw it as a way to show our appreciation.

Over the past 23 years, I have often thought of Mr. Austin, remembering his enthusiasm, encouragement and life lessons, wondering what he was up to.

Then, a couple weeks ago, my wife Rachel was working on a post for SpreadLurve.com and it really got me thinking. I had also seen her writing (handwritten) notes of love, gratitude and encouragement to people every day for several days straight and it truly inspired me. I wanted to track down Mr. Austin. 

I managed to find his son's email address (he's now a teacher in my old junior high) and asked him to pass my information along to his dad. That was Tuesday. I had a message in my Inbox yesterday morning that included the following:

This is the original Neville Austin. I am starting my 35th year. That makes me 56 if your counting.

He still has a sense of humor. :-)

Finally, after all this time, I could share this with him:

Over the course of the past 20+ years (is that possible?!), I have thought of you often. Why? Quite simply, you were “that teacher” for me. I think we all have (at least) one; the teacher who had the single greatest impact on you during your educational journey.

So, for that, I want to say thank you.

Your passion for history, for students, and for life was clearly evident, even to a wide-eyed 7th grader who was in his third school in four years. You made learning fun, but also took ‘education’ seriously – taking it beyond the textbook into ‘real life’. In fact, to this day, I use with my own kids - Samantha (9) and Sophia (3) – a maxim that you shared with us back then: “Can’t means won’t.”

Your legacy clearly reaches beyond the end of each passing school year and I thought you should know that. So, thank you so much for caring enough to teach, and for sharing yourself with your students.

While the banner Bryan (He was Best Man in my wedding, by the way. We met in your class.) and I gave you back in ’88 is now outdated due to another Celtics title, I certainly hope it hangs proudly somewhere and can now serve as a reminder of not only great basketball, but also of a student whose life you’ve touched forever.

That was it. After more than 20 years, I just wanted to say "thank you" and to tell him how much his presence in my life meant to me.

But, then, the real blessing. His response:

In these times when teachers seem to be the bad guys again.........you have touched my very soul.  You never know whether your time has made an impact. I am truly blessed to know in some small way I have been a part of your life. Please give Bryan my best.........and yes my banner hangs next to my picture of Larry Bird.  Good luck in all that you do and God Bless you and your family!

Neville

That response is the point of this post: You can touch someone's SOUL by simply taking 10 minutes to tell them that they matter to you.

Maybe.

I logged into my Klout profile yesterday and noticed something shocking: my score had dropped 18 points, basically overnight; from 58 to 40.

At first, it looked like Klout may have been experiencing technical problems - aside from the drastic dip in my score, data wasn't charting and my avatar was a cartoon caricature of what appeared to be Ebeneezer Scrooge, complete with feather quill.

I logged in again late last night. Still Scrooged.

This morning, my avatar was back to being me and my score was up to 49, but still significantly lower than where it was previously.

Was it something I said? Did I lose hundreds of followers? Did I stop sharing with my networks? No. No. And, No.

Then, something clicked.

Foursquare.

Last week (July 13), Mashable reported that Klout was integrating Foursquare into it's scoring algorithm. So, like all good early adopters so, I linked my Foursquare account to my Klout profile. No big deal.

Perhaps I should have read the follow-up piece the next day (emphasis mine).

After Klout users learned this week that Foursquare activity would now affect Klout scores, many of them — particularly people who aren’t on Foursquare or who don’t regularly use the location-based service — were unsure about how the Foursquare integration would work.

That’s partly because the folks at Klout aren’t yet sure exactly how Foursquare will factor into the hush-hush Klout algorithm, which already considers Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter to measure the online influence of social media users.

“We are still figuring this out,” Klout CEO Joe Fernandez told Mashable. “Obviously things like tips that turn into to-dos are interesting as is the ripple effect of a checkin through a network. In the next few weeks we’ll be testing and perfecting the algorithm.”

No other significant changes had occurred other than adding Foursquare to my profile. And, I had reassurance. 

One thing Fernandez knows for certain, though, is Klout users’ scores will only go up once they add Foursquare to their Klout dashboards.

I'm not so sure that's the case. It's pretty curious that the day after I linked Fousquare to Klout, the rapid decline began. Sure, it could be coincidence or just my failure to see something more obvious, but it sure looks like a smoking gun.

As of today, I've revoked access to Foursquare. We'll see what, if any impact that has on my Klout score over the next few days. I'm not ruling out connecting the two, but for now - especially if my score recovers - I will opt to not include have Klout factor in my foursquare activity.

Over the past few years, I've observed something happening pretty consistently - particularly among females - that is both fascinating and disheartening.

But, before I get to that, I want to be sure I clarify this post a little. It is NOT a rant against women; it is an observational piece that highlights a tendency I have witnessed, which happens to be particularly evident among females.

Also, there have been numerous studies and news stories documenting the likeness of human social interaction with that of wolves. In fact, groups like Living With the Wolves have been at the center of much of this research. So, there is nothing inherently "new" about likening the behavior of humans to that of wolves. I am simply calling attention to one aspect.

More and more, I began noticing women forming "packs" - not unlike wolves - seemingly as a way to form micro-communities where each member feels accepted, protected. The problem (as I see it) is, the similarity of these human packs to those of wolves don't end there.

I did a little research and here's what I found:

Wolves are an extremely social animal. They exist as a social unit called a pack. 

No surprise there.

Wolves travel and hunt in a group and perform almost all other activities in the company of fellow wolves.

We've all noticed that this includes, among other things, using the restroom in pairs.

Pack sizes vary, most packs have 6 or 7 members, although some may include as many as 15 wolves. The size depends on many variables including the current numbers of the wolf population, the abundance of food, and social factors within the wolf pack.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Individual wolves in a pack play different roles in relation to the others in the group. There is an alpha pair - the leaders of the pack. The other pack members respect their positions and follow their leadership in almost all things. The alpha wolves are usually the ones to make decisions for the pack when the group should go out to hunt or move from one place to another.

And, here is where it starts to get interesting. My observations show that this social dynamic in the wolf pack is very much alive and well in their human equivalents.

There are always one or two "alpha" females in the pack who make sure the other members of the pack know who is in charge and who calls the shots. Look around you. You'll see it. It's not hard to spot.

Remember the alpha wolves decide "when the group should go out to hunt." In the wild, this is straightforward - the wolves hunt for food, for physical survival.

In the human "pack," the "wolves" hunt their prey to try assert their dominance (more accurately, their self-perceived dominance) over those they see as threats or in many cases, just easy targets. They hunt for their for social survival.

Don't believe me?

Wolves are social predators...  they hunt by wearing down [their prey] in short chases.

This is perhaps the most telling statement and most compelling correlation between the wild wolf and her human counterpart.

I have seen, time and again, these human wolves "hunting" their prey with unwavering determination. The social landscape (especially with the proliferation of social media/networks) provides the perfect environment for them to hunt their prey, to attack them in calculated but consistent short bursts - as a pack. Their pursuit is often relentless and highly tactical.

The irony is the fact that while there is a sense of protection and security within the pack, just like real wolves, within each pack is an elaborate hierarchy, where some of them may be "able to 'boss around,' or dominate, their sisters... because they have established themselves as superior in some way. This superiority... can be based on personality."

That's right, the pack can turn on their own in a heartbeat.

While similarities abound, there is one significant difference I have found between the two. It is this:

Wolves do not pretend to be anything but a wolf; whereas, the human "wolf" is often dressed in sheep's clothing.

To most onlookers, the human "wolf" appears to be anything but a wolf. In fact, the most dominant members in a pack are often individuals who most would consider standout members of their churches and communities. They're seen as charismatic, perhaps even as leaders.

That's the entire mirage, right there. By wearing their sheepskin, it makes it more difficult for others (see also, prey) to see them for what they really are - wolves. It makes their hunting style very stealthy because most people "can't see it."

Picture the wolf in sheep's clothing. The outside - the sheep - is passive. The underlying core - the wolf - is highly aggressive. Coincidence? No. That's why passive-aggressive behavior is a hallmark of the pack and it's hunting methods.

Jay Baer (of Convince and Convert fame) made this observation:

  It's sad to me that we haven't evolved enough to put away our claws and stop being so doggone paranoid, insecure and territorial. It's sad that fear drives behavior instead of love.

If you read this and felt threatened in some way, take off your sheepskin and look yourself in the mirror. Own what you really are - a wolf. A bully.

If you read this and felt uneasy or sad, you've probably been preyed upon by the pack. Hold your head up and be strong. Pretty soon, people will figure out who the wolves are and expose them. You will have your day in the sun.

So, what do you think? Am I wrong in my comparison? What has your experience/observation been? How can we deepen our relationships to the point that intimidation and abjection give way to appreciation and kindness?

Quoted Sources:

http://www.wolfweb.com/facts-pack.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves

For those appreciating the Duran Duran reference: