Podcasts about attentive

Hey CX Nation,Here's the first CXWeekly Update from CXC in a long time!This week's episode I walk through some ideas, goals & CTAs that I've learned from the 5 years of building CXC.Don't worry we have a ton of amazing guest interviews coming down the pipeline over the next couple of weeks.Part of our goal at CXC is to create more customer focused business leader content, including short episodes like these ones that are digestible, actionable & most importantly entertaining & valuable for all of you.Full candor, we also wanted to celebrate our 5 year anniversary of building CXChronicles. We are approaching 300+ episodes of customer focused business content, we've worked with almost 150+ companies across the world helping them make customer & employee happiness a habit & we are now partnered with some of biggest players in software & technology including Salesforce, Hubspot, Intercom, Zendesk, & Freshworks to name a few. If you enjoy The CXChronicles Podcast, stop by your favorite podcast player and leave us a review today.You know what would be even better?Go tell one of your friends or teammates about CXC's content, CX/CS/RevOps services, our customer & employee focused community & invite them to join the CX Nation!Are you looking to learn more about the world of Customer Experience, Customer Success & Revenue Operations?Click here to grab a copy of my book "The Four CX Pillars To Grow Your Business Now" available on Amazon or the CXC website.For you non-readers, go check out the CXChronicles Youtube channel to see our customer & employee focused video content & short-reel CTAs to improve your CX/CS/RevOps performance today (politely go smash that subscribe button).Contact us anytime to learn more about CXC at INFO@cxchronicles.com and ask us about how we can help your business & team make customer happiness a habit now!Reach Out To CXC Today!Support the showContact CXChronicles Today Tweet us @cxchronicles Check out our Instagram @cxchronicles Click here to checkout the CXC website Email us at info@cxchronicles.com Remember To Make Happiness A Habit!!

In this solo ShopTalk fall recap, Mariah breaks down the two themes that ruled the floor: AI everywhere and an uncompromising focus on customer experience. From post-purchase retention wins to why real-time analytics actually means to-the-second data, she shares five deeper takeaways you can put to work now. Hear what Wayfair revealed about promo-driven traffic vs. non-promo sales, why the U.S. Polo Assn. is leaning into live-streaming marketplaces, Hydrow's candid take on “pivots,” and Gary Vaynerchuk's advice to double down on high-view creative. Mariah also spotlights standout activations and partners from the show, plus brand goodies and tools she's excited to try next.Highlights:AI as the headline act, with practical CX use cases across retail and DTCPost-purchase retention matters because it grows revenue without extra CACReal-time means real-time: inventory and marketing decisions need second-level dataLive selling is rising; learn it before your competitors doUGC > brand hype: let customers sell the story for youShoutouts include Wayfair, U.S. Polo Assn., Hydrow, Shopify, Attentive, Smile.io, Ampee, Insider, Tightly, Purple Dot, Dotdigital, and more, plus ShopTalk's immersive on-site experiences that made networking actually fun.

This week, Deana taught from Nehemiah 3. Nehemiah is not about a building project; it is about a people becoming attentive and responsive to God in the midst of rubble. As the people rebuilt the wall together, we are reminded that God's work is not about structures but about hearts transformed and communities strengthened through obedience and unity. At Genesis, we are a Jesus-centered community shaped by the table, worship, prayer, story, and mission. Our heart is to bring the gospel to the nations, raise up leaders, and plant new Jesus-communities—living as the church both locally and globally.

Josh Krehbiel // SOBER + ATTENTIVE

Josh Krehbiel // SOBER + ATTENTIVE

Josh Krehbiel // SOBER + ATTENTIVE

As we continue in our series in Luke's gospel, Pastor Drew Steele challenges us on our love as followers of Jesus, noting we should have an Active and Attentive love. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A talk by Thanissaro Bhikkhu entitled "Heedful, Attentive, Mindful"

Meg Wolitzer presents three stories about the attraction and perils of reinvention.In “Kerosene,” by Simon Rich, timing is all in matters of invention.  The reader is Santino Fontana.  Attentive parents want to keep their baby safe at all costs in “The Cage,” by Tania James, read by Nicole Kang.  And a widowed man looks for love—with some guidance from his late wife--in “The Dark,” by Jess Walter, read by Jason Alexander.

Sermon Handout: Here1 Corinthians 12:12–14 (ESV) — 12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body,though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slavesor free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many.1 Corinthians 12:12-26 Overview:Vs 12-14 The Love Of Christ Has United Us As Members Of His Body In His Spirit...Vs 14-18 God Has Sovereignly Arranged The Body So There Is No Inferiority, But Purpose For Every MemberVs 19-26 God Has Sovereignly Composed The Body So There Is No Superiority, But Honor For Every MemberVS 12-14 THE LOVE OF CHRIST HAS UNITED US AS MEMBERS OF HIS BODY IN HIS SPIRIT...SO WALK IN THE SPIRIT TOGETHER!WE ARE ONE BODY WITH CHRIST12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body,so it is with ChristEphesians 5:29–30For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it,just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.WE ARE ALL BAPTIZED BY CHRIST IN HIS SPIRIT13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free...Ephesians 1:13–14In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promisedHoly Spirit,14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,to the praise of his glory..WE HAVE ALL BEEN MADE TO DRINK OF THE ONE SPIRIT...and all were made to drink of one Spirit...THE LOVE OF CHRIST HAS GIVEN NEW LIFE IN THE SPIRIT, THAT IS TO BEAR FRUIT IN LOVE FOR THE BODY OF CHRIST!Romans 8:1–11V1-4 There is no condemnation in Christ,there is freedom to walk by the SpiritV5-8 The mind of Christ is ours in thebattle against sin so we can live in peacefor the pleasure of God.V9-11 All who belong to Christ have theSpirit of Christ in them now! And will givelife to our MORTAL bodies...Galatians 5:16-26V16-24 Walking by the Spirit isactively living as you want to (inobedience to Christ) free from sin andbearing fruit of the Spirit!V25-26 Let US keep in step togetherwith the Spirit... Let US not becomeconceited, provoking or envying oneanother.Ephesians 5:15-21V15-18 Attentive careful, and activelyparticipating in what passivelytransforms usV19-21 Life in the Spirit is life in thecommunity of Christ, in submission toone another out of reverence forChrist!Consider the implications of these truths! How should this your connection in and with the body of Christ?

Attentive to the Least and the Lost Romans 15:17-29 Jeremiah Morris

Homily for Sunday, August 31, 2025.  Father John is going on a well deserved 3 month sabbatical beginning next week.  We wish him well.

St Pius X Catholic Student Center - Fr Derek Thome - Yr C

Are brands prepared for a consumer base that's simultaneously more confident and more cautious? Agility requires not just reacting to current consumer behavior but anticipating the shifts to come. It also requires a deep understanding of the nuances within different consumer segments, particularly as generational behaviors diverge. Today, we're going to talk about the evolving landscape of consumer confidence, especially among Gen Z and Millennials, and what this means for brands navigating the current market. To help me discuss this topic, I'd like to welcome, Eric Miao, Chief Strategy Officer at Attentive. About Eric Miao Eric Miao on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-miao-62313b9/ Resources Attentive: https://www.attentive.com The Agile Brand podcast is brought to you by TEKsystems. Learn more here: https://www.teksystems.com/versionnextnow Don't Miss MAICON 2025, October 14-16 in Cleveland - the event bringing together the brights minds and leading voices in AI. Use Code AGILE150 for $150 off registration. Go here to register: https://bit.ly/agile150 Connect with Greg on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregkihlstromDon't miss a thing: get the latest episodes, sign up for our newsletter and more: https://www.theagilebrand.showCheck out The Agile Brand Guide website with articles, insights, and Martechipedia, the wiki for marketing technology: https://www.agilebrandguide.com The Agile Brand is produced by Missing Link—a Latina-owned strategy-driven, creatively fueled production co-op. From ideation to creation, they craft human connections through intelligent, engaging and informative content. https://www.missinglink.company

Are brands prepared for a consumer base that's simultaneously more confident and more cautious? Agility requires not just reacting to current consumer behavior but anticipating the shifts to come. It also requires a deep understanding of the nuances within different consumer segments, particularly as generational behaviors diverge. Today, we're going to talk about the evolving landscape of consumer confidence, especially among Gen Z and Millennials, and what this means for brands navigating the current market. To help me discuss this topic, I'd like to welcome, Eric Miao, Chief Strategy Officer at Attentive. About Eric Miao Eric Miao on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-miao-62313b9/ Resources Attentive: https://www.attentive.com The Agile Brand podcast is brought to you by TEKsystems. Learn more here: https://www.teksystems.com/versionnextnow Don't Miss MAICON 2025, October 14-16 in Cleveland - the event bringing together the brights minds and leading voices in AI. Use Code AGILE150 for $150 off registration. Go here to register: https://bit.ly/agile150 Connect with Greg on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregkihlstromDon't miss a thing: get the latest episodes, sign up for our newsletter and more: https://www.theagilebrand.showCheck out The Agile Brand Guide website with articles, insights, and Martechipedia, the wiki for marketing technology: https://www.agilebrandguide.com The Agile Brand is produced by Missing Link—a Latina-owned strategy-driven, creatively fueled production co-op. From ideation to creation, they craft human connections through intelligent, engaging and informative content. https://www.missinglink.company

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

This week we'll be looking at a familiar passage from the book of Acts and what it has to say about where we place our attention.

Hey CX Nation,In this week's episode of The CXChronicles Podcast #263, we welcomed Maxime Marchand, Senior Director of Product Management at GoTo based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. As the leader in cloud communications and IT, GoTo addresses real-world challenges with practical innovations and a customer-first mindset. They offer secure, reliable, and AI-enabled solutions that are simple to adopt for small and midsize businesses and scalable to enterprises worldwide. Customers around the world rely on our products—GoTo Connect, LogMeIn Rescue, LogMeIn Resolve, GoTo Webinar, Grasshopper, and more—for consistent high performance and unbeatable uptime on any device.In this episode, Maxime and Adrian chat through the Four CX Pillars: Team, Tools, Process & Feedback. Plus share some of the ideas that his team at GoTo think through on a daily basis to build world class customer experiences.**Episode #263 Highlight Reel:**1. Organizational alignment through product management  2. The journey from engineer to CX leader  3. How speed, alignment & focus create growth opportunities 4. One-stop platform for managing customer communications 5. Constant customer listening to drive growth Click here to learn more about Maxime MarchandClick here to learn more about GoToHuge thanks to Max for coming on The CXChronicles Podcast and featuring his work and efforts in pushing the customer experience & customer success space into the future.If you enjoy The CXChronicles Podcast, stop by your favorite podcast player hit the follow button and leave us a review today.For our Spotify friends, make sure you are following CXC & please leave a 5 star review so we can find new listeners & members of our community.For our Apple friends, same deal -- follow CXCP and leave us a review letting folks know why you love our customer focused content.You know what would be even better?Go tell one of your friends or teammates about CXC's content,  strategic partners (Hubspot, Intercom, & Zendesk) & On-Demand services & invite them to join the CX Nation!Want to see how your customer experience stacks up to others, ask us about the CXC Healthzone, an intelligence platform that shares benchmarks & insights from companies across the world. Huge thanks for being apart of the "CX Nation" and helping customer focused business leaders across the world make happiness a habit!Reach Out To CXC Today!Support the showContact CXChronicles Today Tweet us @cxchronicles Check out our Instagram @cxchronicles Click here to checkout the CXC website Email us at info@cxchronicles.com Remember To Make Happiness A Habit!!

Today's Word for the Day is "ATTENTIVE" If you listen to Word for the Day on audio and have never checked out the video, you can do so on our YouTube channel at youtube.com/@fbmmediastudios. To receive your Word for the Day by e-mail, go to http://fbmaryville.org/wordfortheday to sign up.

Turning into your parents might be your worst fear, or your biggest marketing opportunity.That's the brilliance of Progressive's Dr. Rick campaign. It's hilarious, deeply relatable, and sneakily strategic. In this episode, we explore the marketing lessons behind it with special guest Keri McGhee, Chief Marketing Officer at Attentive.Together, we explore what B2B marketers can learn from character-driven storytelling, embracing creative risk, and using humor and relatability to create campaigns that people actually want to talk about.About our guest, Keri McGheeKeri McGhee is the CMO at Attentive, the AI marketing platform for leading brands. She leads strategic global marketing to further build the Attentive brand, overseeing product marketing, revenue marketing, events, partner marketing, communications and content, and brand creative. Keri's past experiences include leading marketing at various start-ups and as a senior director at Zillow, where she led the B2B marketing team of 60+ people, responsible for strengthening partner loyalty and experience for 60,000+ real estate partners. She got her start in tech at Expedia, leading both consumer and corporate travel marketing teams.What B2B Companies Can Learn From Progressive's Dr. Rick Campaign:Take creative risks. Keri's central message is clear: great brand moments come from taking chances. “We take ourselves way too seriously in B2B.  So I think my advice is to step outside of the comfort zone of what the CFO, and the COO, and the CEO say yes to. And do the work to get the customer validation to pitch in some new idea..” B2B marketers often play it safe, focusing on product features, ROI charts, or thought leadership. But real differentiation happens when you create something unexpected, emotional, or funny. The Dr. Rick campaign could've flopped. Instead, it became a cultural reference point.Make your audience feel seen. The best ads are mirrors, not megaphones. Progressive tapped into a deep, relatable insecurity, “Am I becoming my parents?” Keri shares, “It's incredibly memorable, which I think is the most important thing in marketing right now.” For B2B, this could mean identifying moments of self-doubt, imposter syndrome, or job-related stress and playfully reflecting those back to the buyer.Build a fictional persona. A single viral hit is fleeting. A character-driven series builds long-term brand equity. Dr. Rick works because he's a consistent, evolving character. He became a franchise. Most B2B brands invest in one-off videos or campaigns. But serialization keeps audiences coming back, like a show you binge-watch. Keri states, “  I can't think of any B2B that actually has been able to do that…Most of the true B2B play companies are not investing in brand in that way.”Quotes“What we find with B2B buyers is they make decisions as people, not as the companies for which they're spending money for. We undervalue that a lot in B2B marketing…And the reality is, the things that are impossible to measure are where we are starting to place bigger bets because it's the only way to drive differentiation.”Time Stamps[00:55] Meet Keri McGhee, Chief Marketing Officer at Katalon[01:06] Why Dr. Rick?[02:45] The Psychology of Being Seen[04:02] Who Is Dr. Rick?[11:26] Branding in a Commoditized Industry[13:59] Flow vs. Dr. Rick: A Franchise Strategy[15:26] Why B2B Doesn't Do This[22:14] Parents vs. Homeowners[26:35] Keri's Top B2B Takeaway[28:30] Creating Content Around Insecurity[31:20] Why Brands Don't Take Risks[40:56] Final Thoughts & TakeawaysLinksConnect with Keri on LinkedInLearn more about AttentiveAbout Remarkable!Remarkable! is created by the team at Caspian Studios, the premier B2B Podcast-as-a-Service company. Caspian creates both nonfiction and fiction series for B2B companies. If you want a fiction series check out our new offering - The Business Thriller - Hollywood style storytelling for B2B. Learn more at CaspianStudios.com. In today's episode, you heard from Ian Faison (CEO of Caspian Studios) and Meredith Gooderham (Head of Production). Remarkable was produced this week by Jess Avellino, mixed by Scott Goodrich, and our theme song is “Solomon” by FALAK. Create something remarkable. Rise above the noise.

In an online meeting with the Chicago Ramana devotees on 27th July 2025, Michael answers various questions about the teachings of Bhagavan Ramana. This episode can also be watched as a video on YouTube. A more compressed audio copy in Opus format can be downloaded from MediaFire. Songs of Sri Sadhu Om with English translations can be accessed on our Vimeo video channel. Books by Sri Sadhu Om and Michael James that are currently available on Amazon: By Sri Sadhu Om: ► The Path of Sri Ramana (English) By Michael James: ► Happiness and Art of Being (English) ► Lyckan och Varandets Konst (Swedish) ► Anma-Viddai (English) Above books are also available in other regional Amazon marketplaces worldwide. - Sri Ramana Center of Houston

This was a satisfyingly crunchy Monday crossword; it took both cohosts, laboring independently as usual, a significantly longer time than usual to complete. They blame it on the AQI, which in NE Wisconsin is currently hovering somewhere between "hey, what happened to the houses across the street?" and "if you must go outside, don't forget your respirator!" levels. Fortunately they had today's crossword -- the third NYTimes publication by Patti Varol -- to provide a welcome distraction. You can find all the deets in today's episode.Show note imagery: A gorgeous LANAI (beautiful scenery not included)We love feedback! Send us a text...Contact Info:We love listener mail! Drop us a line, crosswordpodcast@icloud.com.Also, we're on FaceBook, so feel free to drop by there and strike up a conversation!

Hey there, ready to put your detective skills to the test? We've got 16 mind-bending riddles lined up that'll challenge your attention to hidden details. From tricky wordplay to optical illusions, these brain teasers will have you scratching your head and questioning everything. So, grab a pen and paper, or just keep your thinking cap handy—it's time to dive into the world of puzzles and see if you've got what it takes to crack the code. Get ready to sharpen those observational skills and unravel the mysteries hidden within each riddle. Are you up for the challenge? Let's find out! Credits Animation is created by Bright Side. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Music by Epidemic Sound https://www.epidemicsound.com Check our Bright Side podcast on Spotify and leave a positive review! https://open.spotify.com/show/0hUkPxD34jRLrMrJux4VxV Subscribe to Bright Side: https://goo.gl/rQTJZz ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our Social Media: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/brightside Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/brightside.official TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@brightside.official?lang=en Stock materials (photos, footages and other): https://www.depositphotos.com https://www.shutterstock.com https://www.eastnews.ru ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more videos and articles visit: http://www.brightside.me Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How good are you at spotting details? Take this simple test and check how sharp your eyes are! If you can pass this test, you are among the most attentive and unique 4%. If you've always dreamed of having a sharp eye for detail just like Sherlock Homes, then today's your lucky day! We're about to put your skills to the test! TIMESTAMPS A picture of a seemingly normal day ⁠0:25⁠ Your time starts now! ⁠0:55⁠ Answers for this video ⁠2:05⁠ SUMMARY Here we have a picture of a seemingly normal day on the farm. But if you look a little closer, you'll notice that it has 25 mistakes in it. You'll have 1 minute to study the drawing carefully and try to find all the mistakes. If this time still isn't enough, pause the video for as long as you need. And here's a helpful tip: pay close attention to the logic of what's happening in the picture. There are a lot of small details that just couldn't exist in reality. You can start by checking out that field! Good luck, detective!! How many mistakes did you manage to spot? Go on and toot your own horn in the comments below! Subscribe to Bright Side : ⁠https://goo.gl/rQTJZz⁠ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our Social Media: Facebook: ⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠ / brightside  ⁠ Instagram: ⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠ / brightgram  ⁠ SMART Youtube: ⁠https://goo.gl/JTfP6L⁠ 5-Minute Crafts Youtube: ⁠https://www.goo.gl/8JVmuC⁠ Have you ever seen a talking slime? Here he is – Slick Slime Sam: ⁠https://goo.gl/zarVZo⁠ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more videos and articles visit: ⁠http://www.brightside.me/⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

InTouch with Terri is brought to you by Podium: Podium is a platform providing AI-powered communication solutions for lead conversion and patient retention. In Touch with Terri listeners get their first month of Podium free CLICK HERE. Be sure to tune into the full conversation to uncover detailed insights into transforming your aesthetic practice by leveraging patient retention strategies. Subscribe for more episodes and stay informed about the latest developments and strategies in the industry  Get InTouch with Terri! Terri Ross Website: Click Here Terri Ross Patreon: Business and Sales Mentorship 4S Summit Info: For more details, look up 4S Summit to understand its role in providing strategic business consulting in the aesthetics industry https://4ssummit.com/ Terri Ross is a renowned expert in the aesthetic industry, specializing in sales training, strategic growth consulting, and business transformation. As an accomplished author and international speaker, Terri has dedicated over two decades to elevating businesses in the aesthetic field with a ground-up approach focused on sustainability, profitability, and scalability. Her experience is rooted in working with Fortune 500 companies like Medicis and Zeltique, where she developed a deep understanding of market dynamics and strategic sales methodologies. About the Guest: Thomas Terranova is the CEO of Quad A, a globally recognized accreditation body known for its dedication to surgical safety. He is an attorney by training, specializing in international mergers and acquisitions, with previous experience advising multinational corporations using data analytics. At Quad A, Thomas steers the organization's strategic direction, ensuring the adherence to quality standards across surgical and non-surgical medical aesthetic practices. Under his leadership, Quad A is pioneering a new accreditation initiative for non-surgical medical aesthetics to enhance patient safety and facility standards worldwide. Quad A Website: quada.org Episode Summary: Welcome to this engaging episode of "In Touch with Terri," where we explore the dynamic world of accreditation in the booming aesthetics industry. Host Terri Ross converses with Thomas Terranova, CEO of Quad A, about an exciting and crucial initiative to introduce a global accreditation framework for non-surgical medical aesthetic practices, such as med spas. As the industry surges ahead with rapid growth, this initiative aims to bridge the current regulatory gap, providing a structured and formal oversight mechanism that has long been absent in non-surgical environments. In this revealing discussion, Terri and Thomas delve into the pressing safety gaps in the medical aesthetics sector. With an understanding that current growth has outpaced both regulations and common best practices, Thomas outlines the steps Quad A is taking to standardize safety, excellence, and consistency. The pair highlight the potential impacts of this initiative on both practitioners—ensuring legitimate, safe operations—and patients who will gain increased confidence in the services they receive. Attentive listeners will learn about the core pillars of this new accreditation framework, the challenges faced during its development, and its anticipated positive repercussions on the global stage. Key Takeaways: The medical aesthetics industry is experiencing rapid growth but lacks adequate regulation, particularly in non-surgical environments such as med spas. Quad A, under the leadership of Thomas Terranova, is leading a global initiative to develop an accreditation framework for non-surgical medical aesthetic practices. The accreditation aims to ensure patient safety, enhance facility standards, and instill greater confidence in aesthetic treatments. The initiative includes comprehensive documentation, rigorous staff training, and the adoption of standard operating procedures to minimize risks. Educating patients and making safety considerations front-and-center are key strategies for improving consumer trust and industry standards. Notable Quotes: "If you're a well-intentioned practitioner, whatever we're talking about are nothing to be afraid of. The only people that should be afraid are the people who don't want to do things right." "Product is a big one. And again, with supply chain, the way it is... that's a huge concern." "It's a choice to do things the right way. It's a choice to do it in a way that's safe." "We're bringing this back to medicine. We're talking about making sure the products are valid, properly maintained, and that the staff is well-trained."

✨ In this episode of Above the Fold, I sat down with Keri McGee, CMO of Attentive and a cx-to-marketing powerhouse, to talk about why good customer experience isn't enough anymore—and what today's best brands are doing to actually stand out.

Can you identify which of the patients is lying and which is telling the truth? At first sight, all of these folks appear to be harmless, but are they? You'll solve this puzzle if you pay attention to the smallest details. Attention, concentration, and the capacity to think beyond the box are the keys to answering riddles quickly. Are you prepared to take on this challenge? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Sushovan Saha, Head of Marketing at Attentive.ai, breaks down how modern marketing leaders can drive real business impact by working backwards from revenue, aligning with sales, and rethinking the KPIs that matter.If you're tired of measuring success with page views and vanity metrics, this one's for you.✅ In this episode, you'll learn:Why "page views" and "open rates" don't cut it anymoreHow to reverse-engineer your funnel based on revenue goalsThe rise of sales enablement and cross-functional GTMHow to balance tactical execution with long-term demand genUnconventional lead gen channels (yes, Reddit and ChatGPT!)The impact of Google's AI Overviews — and how to adapt

Can you identify which of the patients is lying and which is telling the truth? At first sight, all of these folks appear to be harmless, but are they? You'll solve this puzzle if you pay attention to the smallest details. Attention, concentration, and the capacity to think beyond the box are the keys to answering riddles quickly. Are you prepared to take on this challenge? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this GodPods series episode of How to Be Attentive, Reflective, and Loving, Elizabeth Shlala speaks with Boston College 2021 graduates and newly married couple, Sam and Emily Schelble about their journeys of faith, discernment, marriage, and more since their time at Boston College. Emily is currently a life sciences & healthcare consultant at Deloitte and Sam is currently a theology teacher at Arrupe Jesuit High School in Denver, CO.  The How to Be Attentive, Reflective, and Loving series is inspired by the C21 Center's 2024 issue of C21 Resources, Liberal Arts Education: Its Impact and Value. Explore the magazine and the events inspired by it here.  Learn more about the C21 Center and our resources: Website: https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/centers/church21.html Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/c21center/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/C21Center/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/C21Center LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/104167883 Email: church21@bc.edu 

In this episode of The Retail Pilot, we're joined by Scott Friend, a longtime leader in the retail and venture capital world. A partner at Bain Capital Ventures and the co-founder of ProfitLogic, Scott shares his journey from operator to investor, his unique lens on early-stage startups, and what separates great founders from the rest. We unpack the evolution of BCV over the past 20 years, the power of founder-market fit, and why customer success is non-negotiable in today's startup landscape.Scott offers candid insights on investing in companies like Rent the Runway, Jet.com, Attentive, Miracle, and Archive, plus his take on AI's growing influence in commerce. From the one that got away (Peloton) to his thoughts on grit, momentum, and the founder's mindset, this conversation is packed with value for entrepreneurs, investors, and anyone passionate about the future of commerce.Key Topics Covered:Scott's journey from building ProfitLogic to investing at Bain Capital VenturesWhat makes a founder stand out (and why most are first-timers)How BCV approaches early-stage vs. growth-stage investingCommon characteristics of breakout founders like Jen Hyman and Marc LoreThe importance of customer success and analytic rigorAI's disruptive role in commerce platformsWhy focus and momentum matter more than perfectionPersonal stories behind high-stakes risk and reward (including Jet.com)The investment that got away and the companies he'd double down onRapid fire: Favorite show, CEO admiration, and meeting the Dalai LamaIf you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe, leave a review, and share with your network. For more insights on the future of commerce and investing, follow The Retail Pilot wherever you get your podcasts.Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Homily for Corpus Christi - June 22, 2025

Attentive listeners will notice that this episode is about a book but isn't an author interview. That's because it's the first in a new occasional series of episodes that will be dedicated to books by conservative writers that we think are important — whether because a book articulates the right's approach to an issue or problem in an especially revealing way, influenced or galvanized the conservative movement when it was published, or, with the benefit of hindsight, has proven to be prescient about where the right, and perhaps the country, were heading. Many of these books will be from decades past, but our first selection is more recent: Christopher Caldwell's 2020 broadside against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and what it wrought, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties. Caldwell argues that the apparatus created by civil rights legislation and the federal courts in the 1960s amounted to a new, second constitution that displaced the one Americans had lived under since the founding, one that jettisoned traditional liberties like freedom of association and replaced democratic self-government with rule by bureaucrats, lawyers, and judges. Who has access to these new levers of power? Not the working class whites who are neither a favored racial or ethnic minority — a person of color — nor a member of the progressive elites who preside over the new regime. Much of The Age of Entitlement is dedicated to tracing the effects of civil rights legislation when it comes to the causes that arose in its wake: feminism, immigrant rights, gay marriage, and more. But the book is equally a brutal examination of the legacy of the Baby Boom generation (and, by extension, Ronald Reagan, whose presidency they powered), that most "entitled" of generations, whom Caldwell deplores for wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. Boomers, in Caldwell's telling, refused to straightforwardly reject the second constitution and its distributional demands, while also insisting petulantly, again and again, on having their taxes cut. We explore these topics and more, and end with a discussion of where Caldwell leaves the reader — and where we're at now, in light of the challenge he poses to both conservatives and the left.Sources:Christopher Caldwell, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties (2020)— Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West (2009)Helen Andrews, "The Law That Ate the Constitution," Claremont Review of Books, Winter 2020Timothy Crimmins, "America Since the Sixties: A History without Heroes," American Affairs, Summer 2020Perry Anderson, "Portents of Eurabia," The National, Aug 27, 2009. ...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!

Rev. Rodney Henderson Luke 12:35-48

In this week's episode, we play a rousing game of Produce, Marry, Kill. Attentive listeners will note that this is actually the THIRD time we've created a game like this (either intentionally or accidentally). The first two were Fart, Butt, Poop and Holmes, Nemo, Khan. Yes, those are both real. You can check out episodes 38 and 76 if you don't believe me.

Text: Hebrews 10:19-25 Preacher: Derek Baker

The most impactful leaders don't just speak well—they listen deeply and make themselves available. In this episode, we unpack how being present, making time for others, and listening with intention isn't just kindness—it's powerful leadership. Influence starts with availability and grows through genuine connection.You Got This, Ryan

This talk was given by Gil Fronsdal on 2025.04.23 at the Insight Meditation Center in Redwood City, CA. ******* For more talks like this, visit AudioDharma.org ******* If you have enjoyed this talk, please consider supporting AudioDharma with a donation at https://www.audiodharma.org/donate/. ******* This talk is licensed by a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

This talk was given by Gil Fronsdal on 2025.04.23 at the Insight Meditation Center in Redwood City, CA. ******* For more talks like this, visit AudioDharma.org ******* If you have enjoyed this talk, please consider supporting AudioDharma with a donation at https://www.audiodharma.org/donate/. ******* This talk is licensed by a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

Psalm 130 (Message)Andrew and Edwin recognize the prayer of psalm 130 occurs at the temple.Read the written devo that goes along with this episode by clicking here.    Let us know what you are learning or any questions you have. Email us at TextTalk@ChristiansMeetHere.org.    Join the Facebook community and join the conversation by clicking here. We'd love to meet you. Be a guest among the Christians who meet on Livingston Avenue. Click here to find out more. Michael Eldridge sang all four parts of our theme song. Find more from him by clicking here.   Thanks for talking about the text with us today.________________________________________________If the hyperlinks do not work, copy the following addresses and paste them into the URL bar of your web browser: Daily Written Devo: https://readthebiblemakedisciples.wordpress.com/?p=21093The Christians Who Meet on Livingston Avenue: http://www.christiansmeethere.org/Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/TalkAboutTheTextFacebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/texttalkMichael Eldridge: https://acapeldridge.com/ 

Live from eTail in Palm Springs, CMO of Attentive Keri McGhee hangs out with us and brings a friend of the program Jennifer Peters from OLLY! How cool is it to have some serious high level Juicy Nuggets in this fun episode.  Always Off Brand is Ecommerce Simplified, Learn & Laugh!    Guest: Keri McGhee  LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/keri-mcghee/ Company: https://www.attentive.com/   Guest: Jennifer Peters LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennifer-peters-3bbb6220/      FEEDSPOT TOP 10 Retail Podcast! https://podcast.feedspot.com/retail_podcasts/?feedid=5770554&_src=f2_featured_email QUICKFIRE Info:   Website: https://www.quickfirenow.com/ Email the Show: info@quickfirenow.com  Talk to us on Social: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/quickfireproductions Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/quickfire__/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@quickfiremarketing LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/quickfire-productions-llc/about/ Sports podcast Scott has been doing since 2017, Scott & Tim Sports Show part of Somethin About Nothin:  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/somethin-about-nothin/id1306950451 HOSTS: Summer Jubelirer has been in digital commerce and marketing for over 17 years. After spending many years working for digital and ecommerce agencies working with multi-million dollar brands and running teams of Account Managers, she is now the Amazon Manager at OLLY PBC.   LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/summerjubelirer/   Scott Ohsman has been working with brands for over 30 years in retail, online and has launched over 200 brands on Amazon. Mr. Ohsman has been managing brands on Amazon for 19yrs. Owning his own sales and marketing agency in the Pacific NW, is now VP of Digital Commerce for Quickfire LLC. Producer and Co-Host for the top 5 retail podcast, Always Off Brand. He also produces the Brain Driven Brands Podcast featuring leading Consumer Behaviorist Sarah Levinger. Scott has been a featured speaker at national trade shows and has developed distribution strategies for many top brands. LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-ohsman-861196a6/   Hayley Brucker has been working in retail and with Amazon for years. Hayley has extensive experience in digital advertising, both seller and vendor central on Amazon. Hayley is based out of North Carolina and has worked in multiple product categories and has also worked on the brand side and started with Nordstrom on the retail floor.  LinkedIn -https://www.linkedin.com/in/hayley-brucker-1945bb229/   Huge thanks to Cytrus our show theme music “Office Party” available wherever you get your music. Check them out here: Facebook https://www.facebook.com/cytrusmusic Instagram https://www.instagram.com/cytrusmusic/ Twitter https://twitter.com/cytrusmusic SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/artist/6VrNLN6Thj1iUMsiL4Yt5q?si=MeRsjqYfQiafl0f021kHwg APPLE MUSIC https://music.apple.com/us/artist/cytrus/1462321449   “Always Off Brand” is part of the Quickfire Podcast Network and produced by Quickfire LLC.  

Attentive to God