We live in communities where we seldom speak to our neighbours.  We commute for hours to and from our jobs by ourselves.  We go to work and see the same people day in and day out, but only speak to those with whom we interact on a regular basis.

What happened to make us think that being alone is a better way to go through life?  There was a time when community was an integral part of our daily lives.  When we looked to the people around us, not just our closest friends and family, for help, advice and friendship.  Nowadays people walk past each other on the street making every effort to avoid eye contact.

Yet, the most amazing thing happens when you start engaging others.  It gives you the opportunity to meet new people who have interesting things to say if only given the chance.  By breaking social norms you get to find out what they have to say and that’s a risk worth taking.

My challenge to you is next time you make eye contact with someone you’ve seen on a regular basis, say “Hi”.  You’ll be surprised how quickly that single gesture will transform future interactions.  Go ahead give it a try.  You never know who you’ll meet next.

We can’t necessarily verbalize what it means to be a leader, but we can usually recognize one when we see them.  A leader doesn’t have to be the smartest, the loudest or the nicest person in the room, but there is something about them that makes you want to know more.  They don’t create this feeling by using force or making threats.  They get their power from their ideas and insights.

These people are hard to come by and that’s why we often satisfy ourselves with those who are less than deserving.  Our obsession with celebrity, politics and wealth often leads us to adorn the wrong people with these titles. There are many who are characterized as geniuses, worthy of our praise, recognition and respect when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.

So pay attention and keep your eyes open for true leaders.  They’re out there and if you happen to come across one, you might be lucky enough to find something worth following.

Rather, I believe it takes a strong sense of oneself to truly listen to what others have to say.  To listen objectively to an opinion that differs from your own takes a great deal of strength.  Alternatively, believing that your opinion is the only one that matters is not a sign of confidence, but rather of ego.

Some of the most impressive people I have ever met did not make a dramatic first impression.  They did nothing to draw attention to themselves, their capabilities or intelligence.  In retrospect, it was their ability not to dominate their environment that was the most impressive.  By leaving space for others to express themselves, they gained a better sense of everyone’s perspective.  They were then able to digest all the information and make more informed decisions.

Don’t be afraid to listen to what other people have to say.  Being receptive is not a sign of weakness.  If you’re lucky those offering their opinion will have something worthwhile to say and if not, you are no worse off from having listened.

I think drive comes from two places: 1) passion and 2) desperation.

When you are passionate you don’t see yourself as being driven.  You dedicate yourself because you love what you are doing.  Time and energy are easily invested without thinking about the possible outcome.  The enjoyment you get from taking part in the act is the only benefit you need.

Although desperation can ultimately lead to similar results as those derived from passion, the road is significantly less enjoyable.  How many of us have dedicated ourselves tirelessly to something because we were in a situation that was no longer tolerable?  Unfortunately, when this happens you forget about the journey and focus completely on the final outcome.  That’s a huge investment of you without any guarantee on the return.

So why not start doing something that you are truly passionate about?  The end result most likely wont be fame or fortune, but you’ll definitely enjoy yourself along the way and really shouldn’t that be enough?

We all have things that we would like to accomplish. But ask us what we are actually doing to attain these goals and most of us fall silent.  The unfortunate truth is that for the vast majority motivation only comes in times of crisis.  It is when a situation becomes intolerable that we find the drive to continue moving forward and get past the point where previously we would have stopped.

If we could only find a way to tap into that energy on a regular basis think of how much we could accomplish in our daily lives.

It’s natural that no one wants to admit they aren’t busy. If they did they would be opening the door to more work.  Instead, people spread what they do have over as long a period of time as possible.  This ensures that they don’t get any additional requests.  If you are put in the regrettable position of having to give someone a deadline, you make sure it’s substantially far in the future. This has two clear benefits: 1) it demonstrates to the person making the request the complexity of their ask, 2) it gives you the opportunity to deliver ahead of time thereby demonstrating how truly skilled you are.  And, as we all know, it is better to under promise and over deliver.

I know some people who work 16 – 20 hour days.  You think to yourself that those people obviously must be busy.  Right?  I would argue that if you looked closely, you would be shocked at how much of that time is spent idle.  This doesn’t mean that there aren’t times when people genuinely have lots to do.  This can even happen for extended periods of time.  However, I don’t believe that is standard for most people.

Now imagine if we focused our attention on what we actually accomplish and not the hours we spend in the office.  Think of how efficient we would be if we actually put in the time we needed instead of what we wanted people to think it took us to complete a task.  That would be a big first step towards spending less time being busy and more time working.

The question I would like to ask is “What would you do if you had more time?”

Don’t worry.  I’m not arguing that you should be spending more time at work.  Nor am I saying that being in an office is a waste of your life.  In fact, I’m only trying to draw your attention to how you choose to spend your time.

We fight tooth and nail to get time, we justly deserve, for ourselves.  Then, when we finally do get it, I would argue, we squander it by distracting ourselves with one of the many means at our disposal.

You have probably heard someone say “No one was ever sitting on their deathbed wishing they had spent more time in the office”.  I believe we could modify that statement to, “No one was ever sitting on their deathbed wishing they had spent more time watching reality television or surfing for YouTube clips”, and it would still hold true.

The one thing that we can be certain of is that our time is limited and finite.  So maximize what you do with what you have, whether it’s at home or the office.

Regardless of the definition, for many there has been a change in their perception of what constitutes a community.  The biggest adjustment comes from the removal of geographic boundaries.  The Internet has provided people with the opportunity to find like-minded individuals all over the world.  This has allowed them to share their experiences, knowledge and know-how with others who not long ago would have been inaccessible.

Why is it that people have become so engrossed by this prospect?  Why are millions spending their time corresponding and interacting with people who they will most likely never meet?  I would propose that it has to do with people’s increasing feelings of isolation within our society.  In our quest to achieve our own version of the “American Dream” we often find ourselves in places and with people we don’t know.  For anyone who has found themselves in this type of situation they understand how much time and energy is required to develop the semblance of a community in the traditional sense.  In an attempt to alleviate these feelings of loneliness many look online where they can find old and new friends with whom they can commiserate.

However, that isn’t the only reason people are moving online.  For many, the Internet provides the opportunity to find others who share their interests.  As discussed by Chris Anderson in his book “The Long Tail” the Internet has made it economically feasible for people with even the most obscure interests to connect with one and other. So if you have a passion, and you give it enough time, the odds are that you will find someone else who shares that interest.  This has been revolutionary, especially for those whose interests would not be considered part of the mainstream.

But what are we creating? A society where people don’t know or care about their neighbors?  A place where you are more likely to start a conversation in a chat room than a coffee shop?  In doing so we are losing something that is fundamental to being human, our need for social interaction.  As much fun as you can have on the computer, nothing will ever compare to being with friends and having a good conversation or laughing uncontrollably.

Now I wont breakdown the details of the book, but I will say that it’s definitely worth reading.  Obviously I’m not the only person who feels this way as it was on the New York Times Best Seller list (I know because it says so on the front cover of the copy I bought).  Perkins’ story is of his career and his role in perpetuating the United States corporatocracy.  Of course there is no way to validate his claims, but whether you believe his claims or not if you enjoy a good conspiracy this will definitely get your juices going.

My problem is that I don’t feel I reacted to this book in the way I should have.  I would assume that the typical response would be to vilify the United States.  To see this book as another example of how the developed world is taking advantage of the developing world and how that leads to increased disparity between the haves and have-nots.  Of course this is all true and I am not saying that is not what should be taken from this book.

However, what stuck with me was how Mr. Perkins was in a position to actually create change in a real way.  Whether you like what he did or not, he was an integral part in guiding the decisions of countries all around the world.  Now to me that’s extraordinary.  How many people can say they’ve been able to do that?  For most of us we have a significant impact on our own lives, somewhat of an impact on the lives of our neighbors, minimal to no impact on our community and absolutely nothing beyond that. What this book made clear to me was how few of us actually get to make decisions that result in any meaningful change.  To me that’s a sad state of affaires and what does that say about our ability to make the changes that are necessary protect our future?

I understand, of course, that examples are necessary if one is to prove a point.  However, it often occurs to me that I could surely find an alternate example that could just as easily bring in to question the validity of what the author is trying to say.

Now, there are different ways in which authors integrate their examples.  Some use the idea that “more is better” and fill whole chapters with what they believe validates their point.  Others are more selective.  They make their point and then integrate the examples to solidify their position.

Personally, I am a proponent of the second type.  By intertwining their opinion with examples, the author establishes greater credibility.  Ultimately, it is their insights that the reader is after, not their research capabilities.  Another way to increase the merit of your point is to introduce contradictory examples and explain why they don’t apply.  This demonstrates you awareness of alternative positions to your own and why they are not applicable.  Otherwise it creates the appearance that you have selectively omitted potentially problematic viewpoints.

When trying to prove your point by using examples; first, make sure that you actually have one.  The examples should be used to substantiate not to create the substance of your argument.  By providing alternative perspectives and effectively dismissing them you are actually strengthening your position.  Otherwise, if the majority of your writing is a series of examples aren’t you just presenting a selective list of other people’s work? From my experience that’s not usually a book worth reading.