Category Archives: Business Insights & Lessons Learned

Three decades of knowledge, skills, and experience shared through real-world reflections on leadership, consulting, negotiation, and adaptive strategy. These entries distill boardroom lessons, entrepreneurial grit, and public-private crossovers into useful insights for thoughtful professionals and curious readers alike.

Sharing as the Core of Influence in Knowledge-Driven Organizations

Posted on by
Reply

In contemporary organizational theory, the capacity to share knowledge efficiently is increasingly recognized not merely as a good practice, but as one of the central levers of influence, innovation, and competitive advantage. Influence in the workplace is no longer determined solely by formal authority or proximity to decision-makers; it hinges instead on who opens up their ideas, disseminates outcomes, and builds collective awareness. Knowledge sharing, properly conceived, is a social process that undergirds learning, creativity, and organizational agility.

Why Sharing Still Matters
Even with advances in digital collaboration tools, hybrid work environments, and more explicit knowledge management policies, many organizations continue to wrestle with information silos, “knowledge hoarding,” and weak visibility of what colleagues are doing. These behaviors impose hidden costs: duplication of work, failure to capitalize on existing insights, slow adoption of innovations, and organizational inertia.

Empirical studies confirm that when organizational climate is supportive, when centralization and formalization are lower, knowledge sharing behavior (KSB) tends to increase. For example, a recent study of IT firms in Vietnam (n = 529) found that a positive organizational climate had a direct positive effect on KSB, while high degrees of centralization and formalization decreased knowledge‐sharing intentions.  

Moreover, knowledge sharing is strongly associated with improved performance outcomes. In technological companies in China, for instance, research shows that AI-augmented knowledge sharing, along with organizational learning and dynamic capabilities, positively affect job performance.  

Theoretical Foundations & Diffusion of Influence
A number of established frameworks help us understand both how knowledge spreads and why sharing can shift influence within organizations.
• Diffusion of Innovations (Everett Rogers et al.): This theory explains how new ideas are adopted across a social system over time via innovators, early adopters, early majority etc. Key variables include communication channels, time, social systems, and the characteristics of the innovation itself.
• Threshold Models & Critical Mass: Recent experiments suggest that when a certain proportion of individuals (often around 20-30%) behave in a particular way (e.g. adopting or sharing an innovation), that can tip the whole system into broader adoption. For example, one study found that social diffusion leading to change in norms becomes much more probable once a committed minority exceeds roughly 25% of the population.
• Organizational Climate & Intention/Behavior Models: Behavior intentions (e.g. willingness to share) are shaped by trust, perceived support, alignment of individual and organizational values, and perceived risk/benefit. These mediate whether knowledge is actually shared or hidden.  

Barriers & Enablers
Understanding why people don’t share is as important as understanding why they do.

Barriers include:
• Structural impediments like overly centralized decision frameworks, rigid hierarchy, heavy formalization. These reduce the avenues for informal sharing and flatten the perceived payoff for going outside established channels.
• Cognitive or psychological obstacles, such as fear of criticism, loss of advantage (“knowledge as power”), lack of trust, or simply not knowing who might benefit from what one knows.
• Technological and process deficiencies: poor documentation practices, weak knowledge management systems, lack of standard archiving, difficult to locate material, etc. These make sharing costly in terms of effort, risk of misunderstanding, or duplication.  

Enablers include:
• Cultivating a learning culture: where mistakes are not punished, where experimentation is supported, and where informal learning is valued. Studies in team climate show that the presence of an “organizational learning culture” correlates strongly with innovative work behavior.
• Leadership that is supportive of sharing: transformational, inclusive leadership, openness to new ideas even when they challenge orthodoxy. Leaders who make visible their support for sharing set norms.
• Recognition, incentive alignment, and reward systems that explicitly value sharing. When sharing contributes to promotions, performance evaluations, or peer recognition, people are more likely to invest effort in it.  

Influence through Sharing: A Refined Model
Putting this together, here is a refined model of how sharing translates into influence:
1. Visibility: Sharing makes one’s work visible across formal and informal networks. Visibility breeds recognition.
2. Peer Adoption & Critical Mass: Innovation often needs a threshold of peer adoption. Once enough people (often around 20-30%) accept or discuss an idea, it tends to propagate more broadly. Early informal sharing helps reach that threshold.
3. Legitimization & Institutionalization: When enough peers accept an idea, it begins to be noticed by formal leadership, which may then adopt it as part of official strategy or practice. What was once “radical” becomes “official.”
4. Influence & Reward: As an individual or team’s ideas get absorbed into the organizational narrative, their influence increases. They may be entrusted with leadership, provided more resources, or seen as agents of change.

Recent Considerations: Hybrid Work, Digital Tools, AI
Over the past few years, changes in how and where people work, plus the integration of AI into knowledge-sharing tools, add new dimensions:
• Remote and hybrid setups tend to magnify the problems of invisibility and isolation; informal corridor conversations or impromptu check-ins become less likely. Organizations must work harder to construct virtual equivalents (e.g. asynchronous documentation, digital forums, internal social networks).
• AI and knowledge-management platforms can help accelerate sharing, reduce friction (e.g. discovery of existing reports, automatic tagging, summarisation), but they also risk over-trust in automation or leaving behind tacit knowledge that is hard to codify.
• Given the increasing volume of information, selective sharing and curating become skills. Not every detail needs to be shared widely, but knowing what, when, and how to share is part of influence.

Implications for Practice
For individuals aiming to increase their influence via sharing:
• Embed documentation and archival processes into every project (e.g. phase reports, lessons learned).
• Use both formal and informal channels: internal blogs or newsletters, but also coffee chats, virtual social spaces.
• Be willing to experiment, share preliminary findings; feedback improves ideas and increases visibility.

For organizations:
• Build a culture that rewards sharing explicitly through performance systems.
• Reduce structural barriers like overly centralized control or onerous formalization.
• Provide tools and training to lower the effort of sharing; make knowledge easier to find and use.
• Encourage cross-team interactions, peer networks, communities of practice.

Final Word
Sharing is not just a morally good or nice thing to do, it is one of the most potent forms of influence in knowledge-based work. It transforms static assets into living processes, elevates visibility, enables innovation, and shapes organization culture. As the world of work continues to evolve, those who master the art and science of sharing will increasingly become the architects of change.

References:
Here are key sources that discuss the concepts above. You can draw on these for citations or further reading.
1. Xu, J., et al. (2023). A theoretical review on the role of knowledge sharing and … [PMC]
2. Peters, L.D.K., et al. (2024). “‘The more we share, the more we have’? Analyses of identification with the company positively influencing knowledge-sharing behaviour…”
3. Greenhalgh, T., et al. (2004). “Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations.” Milbank Quarterly – literature review on spreading and sustaining innovations.
4. Ye, M., et al. (2021). “Collective patterns of social diffusion are shaped by committed minorities …” Nature Communications
5. Bui, T. T., Nguyen, L. P., Tran, A. P., Nguyen, H. H., & Tran, T. T. (2023). “Organizational Factors and Knowledge Sharing Behavior: Mediating Model of Knowledge Sharing Intention.”
6. Abbasi, S. G., et al. (2021). “Impact of Organizational and Individual Factors on Knowledge Sharing Behavior.”
7. He, M., et al. (2024). “Sharing or Hiding? Exploring the Influence of Social … Knowledge sharing & knowledge hiding mechanisms.”
8. Sudibjo, N., et al. (2021). “The effects of knowledge sharing and person–organization fit on teachers’ innovative work …”
9. Academia preprint: Cui, J., et al. (2025). “The Explore of Knowledge Management Dynamic Capabilities, AI-Driven Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge-Based Organizational Support, and Organizational Learning on Job Performance: Evidence from Chinese Technological Companies.”
10. Koivisto, K., & Taipalus, T. (2023). “Pitfalls in Effective Knowledge Management: Insights from an International Information Technology Organization.”  

Elbows Up: How Canada’s Cooling Ties With America Expose U.S. Insecurity

Posted on by
Reply

With Canadian travel, spending, and goodwill toward the United States in steep decline, Washington’s defensive tone reveals a superpower under pressure and struggling to cope.

In recent months, the cross-border relationship between Canada and the United States has come under an unusual strain. What was once seen as one of the closest, most dependable partnerships in the world is now marked by tensions over trade, culture, and public perception. Data shows Canadians are spending less on American goods, traveling less often to the U.S., and expressing rising skepticism about their southern neighbor. Against this backdrop, the American response has been marked not by calm confidence, but by a defensive edge: an insecurity that suggests Washington is feeling the pressure and coping badly.

The tone was set when U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra accused Canadians of harboring an “elbows up” attitude toward his country. Speaking to reporters, Hoekstra complained that Canadian leaders and the media were fanning what he called “anti-American sentiment” and warned against framing ongoing trade disputes as a “war.” His words revealed just how sensitive U.S. officials have become about Canada’s growing assertiveness. Where past American diplomats might have dismissed Canadian criticism as the grumblings of a junior partner, Hoekstra’s defensive language betrayed a sense of vulnerability.

If the rhetoric sounded strained, the economic numbers were even more alarming for Washington. Canadian travel to the United States, long a reliable driver of border-state economies, has fallen sharply. According to industry data, cross-border car trips by Canadians dropped by more than a third year-over-year in August 2025, with similar declines in road travel overall. Air bookings are also down, as Canadians increasingly avoid American destinations. Analysts warn that even a 10 percent fall in Canadian travel represents a loss of over US$2 billion in U.S. tourism spending, affecting thousands of jobs in hotels, restaurants, and retail along the border.

Nor is the pullback limited to tourism. Surveys indicate Canadians are choosing to buy fewer American goods, opting instead for domestic or third-country alternatives whenever possible. Retailers and importers report declining sales of U.S. products in sectors ranging from consumer electronics to clothing. The “buy Canadian” mood, once a marginal theme, has gone mainstream. These choices, multiplied across millions of households, amount to a quiet but powerful act of economic resistance, one that chips away at America’s largest export market.

For the United States, the twin shocks of declining Canadian tourism and shrinking demand for U.S. goods are more than economic nuisances. They strike at the heart of America’s self-image as Canada’s indispensable partner. When Canadians spend less, travel less, and look elsewhere for their needs, it signals a cultural cooling that U.S. officials have little experience confronting. Historically, American policymakers could take for granted that Canadians would continue to flow across the border for shopping trips, vacations, or work, while Canadian governments would swallow irritants in the name of preserving harmony. That assumption no longer holds.

The American response, however, has been reactive rather than reflective. Instead of acknowledging Canadian frustrations, whether over tariffs, trade disputes, or political rhetoric, U.S. officials have scolded Ottawa for being too combative. By objecting to the term “trade war,” by lecturing Canadians about their “attitude,” Washington has reinforced the perception that it neither understands nor respects Canada’s grievances. The tone has become one of deflection: the problem, U.S. diplomats suggest, is not American policy, but Canadian sensitivity.

This defensiveness has left Washington exposed. It reveals that, beneath the rhetoric of confidence, U.S. officials recognize that Canada’s resistance carries real consequences. With fewer Canadians traveling south, U.S. border states lose billions in revenue. With Canadian households buying less from U.S. suppliers, American exporters face measurable losses. And with Canadian leaders willing to frame disputes in sharp terms, U.S. diplomats find themselves on the back foot, struggling to preserve an image of partnership.

For Canada, this shift represents a moment of self-assertion. By spending less in the U.S. and leaning into domestic pride, Canadians are signaling that friendship with America cannot be assumed, it must be earned and respected. For the United States, it represents an uncomfortable reality: even its closest ally is no longer willing to automatically defer.

In the end, the story is less about Canadian hostility than about American fragility. A confident superpower would shrug off criticism, listen carefully, and adjust course. What we see instead is irritation, defensiveness, and rhetorical overreach. By lashing out at Canada’s “elbows up” attitude, Washington has confirmed what the numbers already show: it is under pressure, it is losing ground, and it is coping badly.

AI and the Future of Professional Writing: A Reframing

Posted on by
Reply

For centuries, every major technological shift has sparked fears about the death of the crafts it intersects. The printing press didn’t eliminate scribes, it transformed them. The rise of the internet and word processors didn’t end journalism, they redefined its forms. Now, artificial intelligence fronts the same familiar conversation: is AI killing professional writing, or is it once again reshaping it?

As a business consultant, I’ve immersed myself in digital tools: from CRMs to calendars, word processors to spreadsheets, not as existential threats, but as extensions of my capabilities. AI fits into that lineage. It doesn’t render me obsolete. It offers capacity, particularly, the capacity to offload mechanical work, and reclaim time for strategic, empathic, and creative labor.

The data shows this isn’t just a sentimental interpretation. Multiple studies document significant declines in demand for freelance writing roles. A Harvard Business Review–cited study that tracked 1.4 million freelance job listings found that, post-ChatGPT, demand for “automation-prone” jobs fell by 21%, with writing roles specifically dropping 30%  . Another analysis on Upwork revealed a 33% drop in writing postings between late 2022 and early 2024, while a separate study observed that, shortly after ChatGPT’s debut, freelance job hires declined by nearly 5% and monthly earnings by over 5% among writers.  These numbers are real. The shift has been painful for many in the profession.

Yet the picture isn’t uniform. Other data suggests that while routine or templated writing roles are indeed shrinking, strategic and creatively nuanced writing remains vibrant. Upwork reports that roles demanding human nuance: like copywriting, ghostwriting, and marketing content have actually surged, rising by 19–24% in mid-2023. Similarly, experts note that although basic web copy and boilerplate content are susceptible to automation, high-empathy, voice-driven writing continues to thrive.

My daily experience aligns with that trend. I don’t surrender to AI. I integrate it. I rely on it to break the blank page, sketch a structure, suggest keywords, or clarify phrasing. Yet I still craft, steer, and embed meaning, because that human judgment, that voice, is irreplaceable.

Many professionals are responding similarly. A qualitative study exploring how writers engage with AI identified four adaptive strategies, from resisting to embracing AI tools, each aimed at preserving human identity, enhancing workflow, or reaffirming credibility. A 2025 survey of 301 professional writers across 25+ languages highlighted both ethical concerns, and a nuanced realignment of expectations around AI adoption.

This is not unprecedented in academia: AI is already assisting with readability, grammar, and accessibility, especially for non-native authors, but not at the expense of critical thinking or academic integrity.  In fact, when carefully integrated, AI shows promise as an aid, not a replacement.

In this light, AI should not be viewed as the death of professional writing, but as a test of its boundaries: Where does machine-assisted work end and human insight begin? The profession isn’t collapsing, it’s clarifying its value. The roles that survive will not be those that can be automated, but those that can’t.

In that regard, we as writers, consultants, and professionals must decide: will we retreat into obsolescence or evolve into roles centered on empathy, strategy, and authentic voice? I choose the latter, not because it’s easier, but because it’s more necessary.

Sources
• Analysis of 1.4 million freelance job listings showing a 30% decline in demand for writing positions post-ChatGPT release
• Upwork data indicating a 33% decrease in writing job postings from late 2022 to early 2024
• Study of 92,547 freelance writers revealing a 5.2% drop in earnings and reduced job flow following ChatGPT’s launch  ort showing growth in high-nuance writing roles (copywriting, ghostwriting, content creation) in Q3 2023
• Analysis noting decreased demand (20–50%) for basic writing and translation, while creative and high-empathy roles remain resilient
• Qualitative research on writing professionals’ adaptive strategies around generative AI
• Survey of professional writers on AI usage, adoption challenges, and ethical considerations
• Academic studies indicating that AI tools can enhance writing mechanics and accessibility if integrated thoughtfully

The Independent Knowledge Worker and the Question of Marketability

Posted on by
Reply

Recently, I read a post from a well-known contributor on a community platform. This writer, an accomplished author with years of experience, lamented the decline of opportunities in her field. She spoke of a shrinking market, a lack of viable contracts, and the challenges of her geographical location in trying to generate meaningful revenue. Out of habit, I rarely respond to such posts, but this time I did. My response drew a public reply, and while I tend not to engage in prolonged debates on public forums, too often they dissolve into vitriol, I chose to bring the discussion here, to my own space, where ideas can be unpacked more thoughtfully.

Artificial Intelligence was seen as the main villain in this public debate, but I believe that’s a red herring. Yes, we are all adjusting to the challenge of AI, but the only constant in life is change, so what is the real issue here. 

The heart of the matter is this: the defining advantage of being an independent knowledge worker is precisely the ability to work from anywhere. The office is no longer a cubicle on the twentieth floor of a glass tower, but the laptop on your kitchen table, although I prefer my dedicated home office. The clients may live continents away, but the work flows seamlessly across time zones. In this economy, location is not the limitation it once was. The real limitation is mindset.

Even as I write this post, I am exchanging messages with an Argentine colleague who is currently based in Canada. She is orchestrating a major PR announcement for a company headquartered in the Netherlands. Just last week, I was on a call with a professional in Paraguay to discuss a project in Chile. Another colleague, specializing in agricultural and agri-food writing, maintains an active client list that stretches from Australia to Japan to Portugal. None of us share an office, or a city, but all of us share the same reality: we are independent professionals with global client bases, connected by skill, adaptability, and digital tools.

This is why I push back when I hear colleagues insist that their difficulties are rooted in market decline. It is not the shrinking of opportunity, but the narrowing of their willingness to market themselves that becomes the stumbling block. The truth is uncomfortable: talent alone does not guarantee survival.

The writer whose post sparked this reflection has produced over a hundred articles, essays, and commentaries that I have personally read. Her body of work is substantial, and her craft is evident. Yet the refrain of “just give me work, so I can do my job” misses the larger truth of freelancing. Writing is the service, but self-promotion is the business model. Without branding, without a visible signal to clients about why they should choose you over the hundreds of other qualified voices, the work will not come.

Whenever I submit a proposal for a project, I begin by ensuring I have the necessary expertise and experience; but the more important question quickly follows: “why me?” Why would this client entrust me with their project rather than the next bidder? If I cannot answer that persuasively, I do not waste time chasing the opportunity. The answer to “why me?” is not entitlement, nor is it a résumé; it is positioning, visibility, and the willingness to show that your work has unique value.

In the end, the challenge of independent knowledge work is not scarcity of markets, but the discipline of visibility. The professionals who thrive are those who accept that marketing is not a distraction from their craft, but a core part of it.

Strategic Pricing Adjustment to Accelerate User Growth and Revenue

Posted on by
Reply

Dear OpenAI Leadership,

I am writing to propose a strategic adjustment to ChatGPT’s subscription pricing that could substantially increase both user adoption and revenue. While ChatGPT has achieved remarkable success, the current $25/month subscription fee may be a barrier for many potential users. In contrast, a $9.95/month pricing model aligns with industry standards and could unlock significant growth.

Current Landscape

As of mid-2025, ChatGPT boasts:

  • 800 million weekly active users, with projections aiming for 1 billion by year-end. (source)
  • 20 million paid subscribers, generating approximately $500 million in monthly revenue. (source)

Despite this success, the vast majority of users remain on the free tier, indicating a substantial untapped market.

The Case for $9.95/Month

A $9.95/month subscription fee is a proven price point for digital services, offering a balance between affordability and perceived value. Services like Spotify, Netflix, and OnlyFans have thrived with similar pricing, demonstrating that users are willing to pay for enhanced features and experiences at this price point.

Projected Impact

If ChatGPT were to lower its subscription fee to $9.95/month, the following scenarios illustrate potential outcomes:

  • Scenario 1: 50% Conversion Rate
    50% of current weekly active users (400 million) convert to paid subscriptions.
    200 million paying users × $9.95/month = $1.99 billion/month.
    Annual revenue: $23.88 billion.
  • Scenario 2: 25% Conversion Rate
    25% conversion rate yields 100 million paying users.
    100 million × $9.95/month = $995 million/month.
    Annual revenue: $11.94 billion.

Even at a conservative 25% conversion rate, annual revenue would exceed current projections, highlighting the significant financial upside.

Strategic Considerations

  • Expand the user base: Attract a broader audience, including students, professionals, and casual users.
  • Enhance user engagement: Increased adoption could lead to higher usage rates and data insights, further improving the product.
  • Strengthen market position: A more accessible price point could solidify ChatGPT’s dominance in the AI chatbot market, currently holding an 80.92% share. (source)

Conclusion

Adopting a $9.95/month subscription fee could be a transformative move for ChatGPT, driving substantial revenue growth and reinforcing its position as a leader in the AI space. I urge you to consider this strategic adjustment to unlock ChatGPT’s full potential.

Sincerely,
The Rowanwood Chronicles

#ChatGPT #PricingStrategy #SubscriptionModel #AIAdoption #DigitalEconomy #OpenAI #TechGrowth

The Billion-Dollar Bonk: A Light-Hearted Look at How Much Men Spend Chasing the Booty

Posted on by
Reply

Let’s face it, men across the globe, are hopelessly, hilariously, and historically committed to spending absurd amounts of money trying to see, touch, or vaguely interact with sex. Whether it’s through in-person escapades, premium subscriptions to people named “CandyHearts69,” or an emotional relationship with a chatbot named “Mia the Naughty Elf,” men have collectively built a sexual spending empire that could probably fund world peace, colonize Mars, and still leave room for snacks.

Sex Work Is Work… and Business Is Booming
According to a 2023 report by Statista, the global commercial sex industry (we’re talking in-person, real-world sex work here) rakes in over $180 billion USD annually. That’s “billion” with a “B,” as in “Bonkers.” To put that in perspective, that’s more than the GDP of Hungary. That’s more than people spend on coffee. More than on Netflix. More than on avocado toast. Basically, if sex work were a country, it’d be hosting the Olympics by now.

Of that amount, it’s estimated that 90–95% of clients are male, making men the financial backbone of the world’s oldest profession. In other words, if the sex economy were a chair, men would be all four legs, the cushion, and probably the wobbly bit under the seat nobody can tighten.

Porn – The Only Subscription Men Never Cancel
Now, onto the virtual wonderland that is online porn. This is where the numbers get truly pants-down ridiculous.

According to a 2022 report from the University of Nevada, the online pornography industry brings in about $15 billion USD per year. That includes everything from subscriptions to OnlyFans, cam sites, custom videos, and, yes, that one guy still buying DVDs in 2025.

OnlyFans alone had 190 million users as of 2023 and paid out over $5 billion to creators in a single year. The majority of subscribers? You guessed it – men. The platform is less “OnlyFans” and more “OnlyDudes-Willing-To-Pay-$12.95-a-Month-To-Be-Called-Baby.”

Cam sites like Chaturbate and Stripchat bring in hundreds of millions annually, where men tip tokens for things like “wiggle,” “bounce,” “moan,” or the sacred “ask-me-about-my-feet” tier. For some reason, knowing it’s live makes it feel more “authentic,” like artisan cheese or handcrafted bread, but much sweatier.

Let’s Not Forget the Analog Guys
There’s a whole other demographic of men still spending money in more traditional ways: strip clubs, bachelor party dancers, and sketchy motel rooms with plastic plants and a mirror on the ceiling. While harder to quantify, strip clubs in the U.S. alone generate over $6 billion a year (IBISWorld, 2023). That’s just men throwing cash into the air to temporarily feel like a 2003 rap video.

Don’t get us started on massage parlors with “happy endings,” where the happiness is subjective and the endings are suspiciously pricey.

A Global Brotherhood of Bonkonomics
Let’s break it down globally, shall we?
• Japan: Home of the “soapland” and cosplay cafes, Japanese men drop $24 billion USD a year on the adult entertainment industry (Deloitte Japan, 2022).
• Germany: Legal sex work contributes $20 billion USD annually, making it both efficient and very, very naked.
• United States: Between porn, sex work (legal and not-so-much), and clubs, American men alone contribute $35–50 billion to the sex economy.
• United Kingdom: British men spend about £5 billion (≈$6.3 billion USD) annually, presumably while apologizing and calling everyone “love.”

Everywhere, men are paying for sex in some form like it’s a gym membership: full of guilt, poorly hidden, and rarely used to its full potential.

What Could That Money Buy?
So, what could men have done instead?
• Bought every citizen on Earth a decent sandwich.
• Rebuilt Notre Dame in solid gold.
• Cloned David Beckham 48,000 times.
• Paid off the student debt of every art history major in North America – twice.

But no. We have chosen nipples over Nobel Prizes. We live in a world where men will argue over who pays for dinner, then quietly drop $300 a month on a cam girl who once said “hi” with a winky face.

A Round of Applause (and Possibly Penicillin)
Let’s not judge too harshly. After all, sex, paid or not, is part of being human. Yet the sheer economic scale of men’s pursuit of orgasms is an impressive, bewildering testament to male dedication, desire, and sheer… enthusiasm. Whether through a screen or in person, whether it’s emotional support from an AI waifu or a dancer named Sapphire who knows how to make eye contact feel like a confessional, men will continue to spend.

Because in the end, some things are eternal: death, taxes, and a man handing over his credit card to see some booty.

Sources
• Statista, “Size of the global commercial sex industry,” 2023.
• University of Nevada, “Pornography Industry Report,” 2022.
• IBISWorld, “Strip Clubs in the US – Market Size 2023.”
• Deloitte Japan, “Adult Industry Revenue Report,” 2022.
• The Independent (UK), “Britons Spend £5 Billion a Year on Adult Services,” 2023.

Being an Independent Knowledge Worker has a New Trendy Name

Posted on by
Reply

For over 25 years, working as a business consultant has meant managing multiple projects for different clients, each demanding unique skills and contributions. Whether leading a project, analyzing business processes, or facilitating strategic discussions, this multi-faceted approach to work offers both challenges and rewards. One of the most appealing aspects of this style is the built-in networking opportunities. Engaging with diverse clients allows for the development of meaningful professional relationships while creating dynamic ways to generate income. By choosing to work independently and focusing on outcomes-based projects from my own space, rather than embedding within a client’s office, I have embraced a flexible, autonomous way of working that aligns with modern career trends.

This approach aligns with what is now popularly referred to as “polyworking,” a concept that has gained traction in recent years. Polyworking involves taking on multiple professional roles simultaneously, often across different industries or fields, rather than adhering to the traditional single-job model. Its rise can be attributed to advancements in technology, the normalization of remote work, and shifting attitudes toward traditional career paths. It enables workers to diversify income sources, build a broad skill set, and gain greater autonomy over their work schedules.

Polyworking is not without its challenges, however. Successfully managing several roles requires careful time management, as balancing multiple commitments can be overwhelming. The risk of burnout is real, with the potential for fatigue and reduced productivity if boundaries between roles are not clearly defined. Additionally, polyworking often lacks the financial and employment stability associated with traditional full-time jobs, as benefits and protections like health insurance or retirement plans may be absent.

Despite these challenges, polyworking offers notable advantages. By maintaining diversified income streams, individuals can reduce financial vulnerability during economic downturns or unexpected job losses. Exposure to various industries not only broadens professional networks but also fosters personal and professional fulfillment by allowing individuals to pursue their passions alongside their careers. Digital tools and platforms, such as project management software and freelance marketplaces, have played a pivotal role in making polyworking feasible, enabling effective collaboration and organization.

As the gig economy and remote work continue to evolve, polyworking is increasingly seen as an alternative to traditional career paths. For some, it represents freedom and flexibility; for others, it is a necessary adaptation to modern economic realities. While it may not suit everyone, polyworking is shaping the future of work, offering opportunities for greater financial independence, professional growth, and a more tailored work-life balance. Understanding how to navigate its challenges is key to thriving in this emerging landscape.

Why I Always Start With Quebec When Researching Canadian Federal Projects

Posted on by
Reply

After decades of consulting across Canada on everything from agri-food frameworks to integrating geomatics into healthcare systems, I’ve developed a habit: whenever I’m tasked with researching a new federal project, my first instinct is to see what Quebec is doing. It’s not just a reflex; it’s a practical strategy. Time and again, Quebec has shown itself to be a few steps ahead of the rest of the country, not by accident, but because of how it approaches policy, innovation, and institutional design.

Let me explain why, using a few concrete examples that illustrate how Quebec’s leadership offers valuable lessons for any serious federal undertaking.

A Culture of Long-Term Planning and Strong Public Institutions
One of Quebec’s greatest strengths lies in its culture of policy sovereignty combined with a deep commitment to long-term planning. Unlike the often reactive or fragmented approaches seen elsewhere, Quebec’s government institutions are built with foresight. Their mandates encourage anticipating future challenges, not just responding to current problems.

Take water management, for instance. When federal policymakers started talking about a national water agency, Quebec already had a robust system in place, the Centrale de Suivi Hydrologique. This province-wide network connects sensors, real-time data, and forecasting tools to monitor freshwater systems. It’s a sophisticated marriage of geomatics, technology, and environmental science that functions as an operational model rather than a concept.

For consultants or project managers tasked with building a national water infrastructure or climate resilience framework, Quebec’s example isn’t just inspirational; it’s foundational. You start there because it shows you what is possible when policy vision meets institutional commitment.

Integration Across Sectors: Health, Geography, and Data
Quebec’s approach goes beyond individual projects. It’s about integration, the seamless connection between government ministries, academia, and industry research. This “triple helix” collaboration model is well developed in Quebec and is crucial when addressing complex, cross-sectoral challenges.

A case in point is CartoSanté, Quebec’s health geography initiative. By linking demographic data with healthcare service delivery, spatial planning, and public health metrics, this platform creates a living map of healthcare needs and capacities. It is precisely this kind of data integration that federal agencies seek today as they try to bring geomatics and health information systems together at scale.

Starting a federal health-geomatics project without examining CartoSantéwould be like trying to build a house without a foundation. Quebec’s work offers a tested blueprint on data interoperability, system architecture, and stakeholder coordination.

Agri-Food Resilience as a Model of Regional Sovereignty
While Canada has traditionally focused on food safety and quality, Quebec has been pioneering food security and sovereignty strategies for years. Its Politique bioalimentaire 2018–2025 is a comprehensive framework that stretches beyond farming techniques to include local processing, distribution, and regional branding.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government’s interest in “food sovereignty” suddenly became a priority. Quebec was already there, with initiatives like Zone Agtech that connect innovation hubs, farmers, and distributors to strengthen local food systems. Their experience provides invaluable insight into how to balance global markets with local resilience.

For any consultant or policymaker working on national agri-food strategies, Quebec offers a real-world laboratory of what works, from land-use policy to market development, rather than abstract policy drafts.

An Intellectual Independence That Drives Innovation
One factor often overlooked is Quebec’s distinct intellectual culture shaped by its French language and European influences. This has fostered a different approach to systems-thinking, less tied to U.S.-centric models and more open to integrated, interdisciplinary frameworks.

The Ouranos Consortium is a prime example. Long before climate adaptation became a nationwide buzzword, Ouranos was advancing applied climate services by blending meteorology, municipal planning, and risk insurance. Their work has influenced not just provincial but global climate resilience strategies.

This intellectual independence means Quebec often anticipates emerging challenges and responds with unique, well-rounded solutions. When federal agencies look for tested climate data platforms or governance models, Ouranos is frequently the starting point.

Institutional Continuity and Data Stewardship
Finally, Quebec benefits from a more stable and professionalized civil service in key areas like environmental monitoring and statistical data management. This continuity allows Quebec to maintain extensive, clean, and spatially tagged historical data sets, a rarity in many jurisdictions.

For example, when Meteorological Service of Canada sought to modernize weather station instruments metadata standards, Quebec’s Centre d’Expertise Hydrique stood out for its meticulously curated archives and consistent protocols. This institutional memory isn’t just a bureaucratic nicety; it’s critical infrastructure for evidence-based policy.

Starting federal projects by engaging with Quebec’s institutional frameworks means tapping into decades of disciplined data stewardship and knowledge management.

Quebec’s leadership in areas like agri-food resilience, climate and water data, and health geomatics is no accident. It’s the product of a distinct political culture, strong public institutions, integrated knowledge networks, and intellectual independence. When you’re consulting or managing complex federal projects, recognizing this is key.

By beginning your research with Quebec’s frameworks and models, you gain access to tested strategies, operational systems, and a vision for long-term resilience. While other regions may still be drafting proposals or testing pilots, Quebec is often already producing data and outcomes.

So the next time you embark on a new federal initiative, whether it’s improving food security, building climate-adaptive infrastructure, or integrating spatial data into healthcare, remember this: start with Quebec. It’s where the future of Canadian innovation often begins.

Why Remembering You’re Always an Outsider Is Good for Business Consultants

Posted on by
Reply

As a business consultant, it’s common to spend extended periods embedded within a client’s organization. You may have a desk in their office, attend team meetings, and collaborate closely with staff at every level. It can feel like you’re part of their team, and sometimes clients may even treat you as one of their own.

But here’s an important reality that every consultant should keep front and center: no matter how much time you spend on-site, you are not, and never truly become, a member of their staff or permanent team. Recognizing this boundary is not just a philosophical point; it’s crucial for your effectiveness, your professionalism, and your well-being.

The Consultant’s Unique Position: Inside and Outside
Consultants occupy a unique vantage point that combines proximity and distance. You have access to the inner workings of the organization, insight into its culture, and the ability to influence decisions. Yet, unlike employees, you maintain independence and objectivity. That distance is your strength.

When you start to blur the lines, seeing yourself as “one of them” or becoming emotionally over-invested, you risk losing that objectivity. You may find it harder to challenge entrenched thinking or push for necessary, but uncomfortable changes. This can reduce the value you bring and potentially damage your credibility.

Why Clients Want You Close, But Not Part of the Team
Clients invite consultants in because they want fresh eyes, outside expertise, and sometimes a catalyst for change. If you were simply another internal employee, your perspective would be limited by existing organizational dynamics, politics, and habits.

That desk in the office is a practical convenience, a way to collaborate effectively. But it’s also a reminder: you’re a guest with a mission, not a permanent resident. This helps preserve your role as a trusted advisor rather than an insider subject to the same pressures and biases.

Maintaining Professional Boundaries Benefits Everyone
Keeping a clear boundary between consultant and client staff creates space for honest feedback and transparent communication. It allows you to speak truth to power without fear of reprisal or emotional entanglement.

For your own well-being, it helps maintain perspective. You avoid burnout that can come from overidentifying with a client’s internal struggles or organizational drama. You’re able to recharge between engagements, bringing renewed energy and insight to each new project.

Practical Tips for Consultants
• Remember Your Contractual Role: You are hired for a defined scope and duration. Keep that in mind to avoid mission creep.
• Maintain Objectivity: Regularly check your assumptions and biases. Ask yourself if you’re seeing the organization clearly or through the lens of familiarity.
• Protect Your Boundaries: It’s okay to say no or push back if a client expects you to overstep your role.
• Stay Connected to Your Own Network: Consulting can be isolating. Keep in touch with peers and mentors outside the client environment.
• Celebrate Your Outsider Status: Use it as a source of strength. Your independence allows you to spot blind spots and opportunities that internal teams may miss.

Having a desk in your client’s office may create an illusion of belonging, but never forget you are a professional outsider with a distinct role and valuable perspective. Embracing that reality keeps you effective, respected, and energized throughout your consulting career.

Backroom Ontario: How the Ford Government Governs in the Shadows

Posted on by
Reply

The Ford government’s recent actions paint a troubling portrait of a leadership increasingly comfortable with obfuscation, procedural shortcuts, and performative consultation. Across multiple files, from environmental policy to Indigenous relations, Queen’s Park has displayed a consistent pattern of backhanded governance, marked by secrecy, evasion, and a disregard for both democratic norms and legal obligations.

The Greenbelt scandal exemplifies this tendency in sharp relief. Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner recently condemned the Ford government for deliberately making it difficult to track internal decision-making on land development. Staff used code words such as “GB,” “special project,” and most egregiously, “G*” in email subject lines, deliberately sabotaging searchability within the government’s own filing systems. Coupled with the use of private email accounts and a notable absence of meeting minutes or documentation, the evidence suggests not mere carelessness, but a concerted effort to obscure deliberations over one of the province’s most politically explosive issues.

This level of secrecy isn’t just bureaucratic mismanagement, it’s political damage control in real time. The government’s reversal of Greenbelt development plans did little to reassure the public, especially in the absence of any credible explanation or documentation as to how those decisions were made in the first place. When even watchdogs with statutory authority can’t access the paper trail, public accountability becomes a hollow phrase.

Meanwhile, Bill 5, part of the so-called “Unleashing the Economy Act”, reveals an equally unsettling willingness to bypass consultation and oversight in the name of economic development. This omnibus legislation fast-tracks industrial and mining projects across northern Ontario, including the ecologically sensitive Ring of Fire region, by reducing or eliminating requirements for municipal and environmental approvals. Most critically, it sidelines the constitutional duty to consult Indigenous communities.

First Nations leaders, particularly in Treaty 9 territory, were quick to denounce the bill. Chiefs burned environmental documents in protest and staged rallies in Thunder Bay, accusing the province of engaging in “consultation theatre”, informing communities of decisions only after they were made. Even a last-minute amendment to include optional post-passage consultations did little to mollify concerns. The government’s approach sends a clear message: consultation is something to be endured, not engaged.

What ties the Greenbelt and Bill 5 controversies together is not just their shared disregard for transparency and inclusion, but the mechanisms used to enforce that disregard. Whether through technical manipulation of record-keeping systems, suppression of documentation, or legislative sleight-of-hand, the government repeatedly avoids open debate and sidesteps legal and ethical responsibilities. It’s a governance style rooted in control, not collaboration.

These are not isolated incidents. The Ford administration has shown a consistent pattern of centralizing power through Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs), a tool meant for rare and urgent cases. Since 2019, the Premier has issued MZOs at an unprecedented rate, frequently overriding municipal decisions, and benefiting well-connected developers. Auditor General reports have raised red flags, and opposition parties have warned that such orders erode local democracy and set dangerous precedents. Still, the pattern continues, unimpeded.

Other examples confirm the trend. In 2018, the Ford government launched a controversial “snitch line” encouraging parents to report teachers who used an updated sex-ed curriculum, a move widely condemned as punitive and authoritarian. In 2019, sudden changes to autism services blindsided thousands of families, leading to mass protests and eventual policy reversals. Yet, even in those reversals, the government refused to acknowledge fault, framing retreats as “adjustments” rather than admissions of flawed policy-making.

This is politics by backchannel, a deliberate erosion of democratic norms dressed in the language of efficiency. Public engagement is reduced to afterthought; opposition voices are ignored or demonized; and when watchdogs raise the alarm, they are met with silence or spin. In each case, the common denominator is the Ford government’s willingness to weaponize the machinery of governance against transparency.

The implications are serious. Trust in institutions erodes when those in power show contempt for the very mechanisms designed to hold them accountable. The duty to consult Indigenous communities is not an optional courtesy, it is a constitutional requirement. Environmental stewardship and municipal autonomy are not bureaucratic hurdles, they are democratic protections. To dismiss them is not just arrogant, but reckless.

Unless reined in, this mode of governance threatens to become normalized. The lesson emerging from Queen’s Park is clear: when political expedience trumps process, communities lose their voice, environmental safeguards are gutted, and Indigenous sovereignty is sidelined. This should alarm all Ontarians, regardless of political stripe.

The Ford government’s backhanded approach may win short-term headlines or developer applause, but the long-term costs, to transparency, legitimacy, and public trust, are steep. If Ontario is to retain even the appearance of responsible government, it must reject this cynical model and restore meaningful consultation, clear record-keeping, and respect for constitutional obligations as non-negotiable principles of provincial governance. Anything less is a betrayal of public service.