Podcast appearances and mentions of David Cantor

If your team keeps revisiting the same issues over and over again, Groundhog Day-style, this episode is for you. Leadership coach Marsha Acker shares why it happens, how to recognize hidden conversational patterns, and what to do when you feel stuck. Overview In this episode, Brian Milner sits down with executive team coach and author Marsha Acker to unpack one of the most frustrating challenges teams face: circular conversations that never seem to resolve. You know the ones; same issue, different day. Marsha introduces a practical framework, structural dynamics, to help leaders and Scrum Masters decode what’s actually happening beneath the surface of their team’s conversations. From identifying communication patterns to creating space for dissent and inquiry, they explore how to break out of those conversational loops, build psychological safety, and foster real change. Whether you're leading meetings or just stuck in too many of them, this episode will help you shift the dynamic for good. References and resources mentioned in the show: Marsha Acker The Art and Science of Facilitation by Marsha Acker Build Your Model for Leading Change: A guided workbook to catalyze clarity and confidence in leading yourself and others by Marsha Acker #137: Stop Wasting Time with Guests Kate Megaw #94: Connecting Teams and Leadership with Anthony Coppedge Retrospectives Repair Guide Better Retrospectives Join the Agile Mentors Community Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast Want to get involved? This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input. Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one. Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com This episode’s presenters are: Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work. Marsha Acker is an executive coach, author, and the founder of TeamCatapult, where she helps leadership teams break out of communication ruts and lead real, lasting change. With two decades of experience guiding everyone from startups to Fortune 500s, Marsha specializes in transforming how teams talk, decide, and grow—one conversation at a time. Auto-generated Transcript: Brian Milner (00:00) Welcome back, Agile Mentors. We're back for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today I have the honor of having Ms. Marcia Acker with us. So welcome in, Marcia. Marsha Acker (00:12) Hi Brian, it's good to be here. Brian Milner (00:14) Very very happy to have Marcia with us. Marcia is the CEO of a group called Team Catapult and she is a team coach. She does a lot of work with teams and leaders. She's an author. She's a speaker and we wanted to have her come on because of a book that she has out recently called Build Your Model for Leading Change. She also has another book called The Art and Science of Facilitation, which I'm sure is really appealing to a lot of people here as well. You know, as Scrum Masters, if you're a Scrum Master out there, we do a lot of facilitating. So that's probably a really interesting pickup for you also. But we wanted to have Marsha on because we wanted to talk about an issue that I hear a lot about in classes. This is something that I hear a lot of questions around, and it can be a really big source of issues when you think about working together in close, tight units as a team. And that's how teams communicate. kind of the issues and problems that we have with communication amongst teams. So, you know, when we're talking about this, we're talking about teams not listening to each other, not understanding each other, misunderstanding someone's motives, something like that. And one of the things I know that I've seen a lot, I've encountered this a lot, and this is one of the things that I know you talk about quite a bit in your book, is this kind of loop that we get in a little bit, right? We have these conversations where... It just feels like we're stuck in a loop. We're saying the same things over and over again. it's like, I in Groundhog Day? Am I reliving the same thing we just went through? So let's start there and just say, why do you think that that happens? Why do you think that teams have this kind of Groundhog Day effect where you might have these conversations that just kind of keep popping up over and over again? Marsha Acker (01:35) Mm-hmm. It's a great question, Brian. think a number of years ago, I had a background in facilitation, but I got really interested in this particular question because I found not only in my own experience, I had multiple examples that I could give you of conversations that I felt like I'd have with somebody. then we would be, a week or two later, we'd be back talking about the same thing. And I'd think, I, you know, from my perspective, I thought we resolved that. So, so why are we talking about it again? And then I noticed in my work with teams that they would do the same thing. So, you know, I'd be in a session with a team, I'd help them facilitate a decision. They'd make the decision and then I'd be back with them a month later and the same topic would be up. And I'm I just found myself confused. So I think, I think there are many reasons why that happens. But if I were to, If I were to create a theme for that, think there's a couple of big themes that I see play out. I think there are many places on our teams today where we stay at the surface level of the conversation. Like we get super focused on what we're talking about. So whether it's the tool that we're using, the features that are gonna be in the next release, like we get so super focused on it. And then we're hyper. aware of time boxes. So we want to make sure we talk about the thing, get the decision, and we want to do it in 30 minutes or less. I saw a post on LinkedIn the other day where someone was advocating that there shouldn't be any meeting that would need to go past 25 minutes. And I thought, see it really differently because I think while there are places where we absolutely do need to maybe just quickly exchange information or keep things moving along, or we just want to hear briefly from people. I think if we're advocating that every meeting should only take 25 minutes, we are likely going to have those Groundhog Day conversations because it doesn't give us the space to get to the real topic. So I think that's where we spend a lot of time talking about the thing, the topic, and we really don't create enough time to drop down into focus on are we really, there space here for me to share what I really think or do you just want me to show up here in this meeting that you're running? You clearly have maybe your own agenda. You feel like you've already got the decision made. And so you'd really like my role to be to just receive your information and go off and do it. So I think there's a complexity here of Brian Milner (04:27) Yeah. Marsha Acker (04:32) What's the topic we're talking about? Is it the real topic that we need to talk about? Or is there, is it sort of the mask for what we might be able to drop into a deeper conversation to have? Are we being super focused on a time box? And are we creating enough range in our meetings that we've got spaces where we are efficient and fast and very deliberate about the conversation and then other spaces where, you know, those topics that keep returning. They're great places to go, there's data here for us. I think of them as yellow flags. there's something here for us to explore further. So let's take this topic and let's carve out a little bit more time for it. I'm curious what you see. Brian Milner (05:15) Yeah. No, that's a great observation. And I think you're right. It is a frustration. Looking back over my career and looking back through corporate meetings and things I've been a part of, there is frustration with someone who's coming in and not really having a meeting planned and not really having an agenda. But I think there is another kind of side issue there that can cause a lot of misunderstanding about Marsha Acker (05:33) Yeah. Brian Milner (05:44) what we're trying to achieve and that's the purpose. If we're here for a certain topic, I can understand that, but then what is it that's expected of me in this meeting? Am I here to just receive information? Is this a knowledge dump or a status update from someone else? is this, we have an issue and we need to talk through it and fully understand it. Marsha Acker (05:47) Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Brian Milner (06:13) And I think sometimes that's what I've kind of seen is that there's this mismatch of, well, I thought I was here for this. And now it's clear that you don't really want my opinion. You just want to tell me what it is. And so now I'm refocused or the opposite. I thought I was here just to receive information, but now I'm realizing that you really need me to dig in and give you my educated advice on this. Well, I wasn't prepared to do that. Marsha Acker (06:20) Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think this notion, and I see it happen a lot with Agile teams, like somewhere in our professional careers, and I think there's very good reason for, like we get rewarded for, know, from the time we're in very early school all the way through the end of school, we get rewarded for having answers. And then we end up in the workplace and we find ourselves in collaborative spaces. And so I think there's this belief that, you know, someone who's calling the meeting, they will have a little bit of this internal story that if I come with only questions and no solutions, then what value am I adding? Like that's, how am I useful to this organization? I've actually had people say to me, why would this organization hire me to come in and ask other people questions? Brian Milner (07:28) Wow. Marsha Acker (07:29) And so I think that's really, I love giving voice to that because I do think that there's a narrative that sits in our organizations that I, and a little bit of a fear. Like if I come to a meeting and I'm asking people to collaborate or I'm truly asking them open ended questions and I want to hear what they have to say and we're going to listen to, you know, I talk a lot about wanting to create this collective intelligence. And I think it takes a while to access that in a group of people. that it requires us to be able to suspend this idea that we're not adding value if we're asking questions and to reframe our value as helping to tap into a collective. And you can certainly have a point of view or a perspective, but if you're really wanting to tap into that intelligence, then I think it requires something different of us if we're the meeting host or the meeting leader. I think the other thing that will happen too is depending on who's in charge, like senior architects or somebody senior in the team can also get caught in that trap. Like, well, I'm supposed to come with answers. And I think we can come with ideas. But if we're really wanting to collaborate, and then this gets to your point about why are we gathering? Because sometimes I think there will be places where somebody has already made the decision and they're not asking for input on the decision. Brian Milner (08:42) Yeah. Marsha Acker (08:50) but they're wanting to share the decision that's been made and enroll people in the decision that's been made and invite them into collaborating on actually how that's gonna get implemented. But we're not opening this conversation up for what's been decided about architecture, what's been decided about what's going into a release. So I think this clarity and intentionality like you talk about around purpose, why am I here? What do you want from me? It's huge. And I think it's really tied to also some of our thinking about how are we adding value. Brian Milner (09:23) Yeah. The comment about, know, people not feeling like they're adding value if they're just asking questions that, kind of, maybe it's just for my recent experience with coaching and everything, but to me that, that just, it's so contrary, you know, to, to my way of thinking now, I guess I would say in that, you know, when I've been a part of discussion, when I've been part of a meeting, that I've looking back, that I feel like has gone really well. Marsha Acker (09:26) . Mm-hmm. Brian Milner (09:48) Uh, or, or a person that I feel like has really contributed to the meeting. Oftentimes it, it is that person who is asking questions that get us to think in a different way to get us to consider from a different perspective. So, you know, that that's why it feels a little strange to think about it. I agree with you. I agree that that's, you know, the attitude of some people or that's the way they see, you know, how I contribute to a meeting, but it just feels like it's such the opposite of that. That might be the most valuable thing we could do is to get people to see things from a different perspective or consider maybe things they haven't considered about this issue. Marsha Acker (10:25) Yeah, I think it's one of the first mindset shifts in a transition from being a contributor to maybe managing or leading, whether it's you're just leading a team or whether you're leading a whole organization. I think this idea of where does value come from and what's my role in the value creation, it's a shift, I think, for us. I love when people can get to a place of thinking about creating containers in organizations where people get to be their best. And then it does, your thinking does shift from, what's the piece of content that I can contribute to? What's the question that would really unlock different perspectives? And I think the other piece about that is what's the question that would elicit a... I talk about it being opposed, but you know, a contrarian perspective or point of view, because I think that's the other thing that can keep us in these circular conversations is when what we're really thinking doesn't get said. So if I don't feel like I can tell you in the room what I'm really thinking, I'll tell everybody else offline. Brian Milner (11:34) Right. The meeting after the meeting, right? Yeah. Yeah. And that, course, gets to the heart of psychological safety and kind of those dynamics within a team. We started this off talking about kind of this feeling of getting stuck. And so I want to kind of come back to that a little bit and say, I want to ask you, what are some of the causes of that? Why do we find ourselves trapped in these loops? Marsha Acker (11:36) Yes. You Mm. Brian Milner (11:59) that just, know, whatever we decide doesn't actually do anything or we find ourselves right back in the same place. Why do these, what's causing this? Marsha Acker (12:08) Yeah, well, let's play around with a bit of a framework to help us think about what's happening in the conversation. Yeah. So there is a theory of structural dynamics. It comes from work of David Cantor. And what it allows us to do is sort of think about being able to code the conversation that we're happening. And by code, I mean it helps us focus not on the topic. So whatever the topic might be. It doesn't matter. It helps us focus on how we're engaging in that conversation more of the how. And so there are four actions. Everything that we say could actually be coded into one of four actions, which I think is really kind of fascinating. So you just made a move by taking us back and pointing to the topic about stuck conversations, right? So what keeps us stuck? And that's a move because you're pointing in a direction. So moves kind of set direction in the conversation. I could make a new move and say, you know, let's talk about, yeah, where we might meet at a conference sometime, Brian. But that's a totally different topic. So moves set direction in a conversation. The second action is a follow, which gets behind and supports. So I followed your move by saying, yes, that's great. Let's do that. Here's, and then. Brian Milner (13:12) Right. Yeah. Marsha Acker (13:26) And then a bit of a new move from me, let me introduce a language for thinking about that. So you made a move, I followed, and then brought in another move. So now we're starting to, by being able to name actions, we're starting to get a sense of patterns. So there's two more actions, the action of a pose. So a pose offers like really clear pushback. It says, no, hang on, stop. Let's not go off the bridge or. I really disagree with this piece about what you're saying. So it offers a clear pushback or constraint to what's been said. And then the fourth action is a bystand. And a bystand is a morally neutral comment that names what's happening in the conversation. So I could bystand on myself in a conversation and say, you know, I'm really feeling engaged by the dialogue, or I might say I'm really confused. or if we're noticing a pattern, somebody might say, I notice we're getting stuck. So a bystand is a way for people to name what's happening or bridge competing ideas. But the other thing, the benefit of the bystand is that sometimes it also slows down the conversation. So to your question about what gets us stuck, it's really helpful if we can separate. what we're talking about and start to briefly look at how we're talking because what gets us stuck in conversations is when one or more of those actions is missing over the course of time. So we need all four of them to be voiced. One of the biggest problems in our stuck conversations is that a pose goes offline. Not in every team. There will be teams for whom a pose is stronger. But in my experience in American business, for sure, a pose is often the thing that is missing or it goes offline. So the way it will play out, there's a couple of different patterns. One will be what we call serial moving. And those are teams. Like a meeting with serial moving will have lots of fast pace. So somebody says this. then we're talking about this topic, now we're talking about this. And it will, like, you'll have a feeling like we accomplished a lot, but then you walk out at the end of the session and you go. So we talked about, exactly, we talked about this, this and this, and I don't know what we decided. Brian Milner (15:52) What just happened, right? Marsha Acker (15:58) So people that leave those kinds of meetings, they'll have this sort of false sense of, yeah, we got somewhere when we really didn't, we didn't close things out. So serial moving can be a pattern that can keep us stuck because we don't close things. There can be another pattern where there's a lot of move and follow. We call it courteous compliance. Another word for it would just, I forget the other label that we can give to it, but there's the sense that somebody makes a move and everybody else just says, sure, fine. So it's lacking the energy of the dynamics that you would get if the other actions were active and being voiced. And then there's a pattern where we might have too much bystand. So in a team that starts to complain about why did we use this tool or, know, I'm noticing nobody's using Slack or I'm noticing, you know, when we, when something gets posted in Slack, nobody acknowledges it. So if you find yourself in a meeting where, people are sharing a lot of context or perspective, maybe we can, I call it a hall of mirrors. Like we've got lots of perspective, but what's needed is for somebody to really make a move and say, all right, so given that now, what do we want to do about it? So what's really fascinating about those, we can also get locked in a move and a pose, a really strong advocacy or argument. And what's needed in that kind of argument is we need more follow and bystand. But what I find fascinating, so a pattern that I see play out over and over again will be one of two, the serial moving or the courteous compliance. So we've got a lot of moves or we've got move and follow. Brian Milner (17:25) Yeah. Marsha Acker (17:45) And if I'm someone in the meeting that either doesn't feel like my voice is welcomed or that it would be a career limiting move to oppose you, what I'll do is start to use one of the other actions in place of my oppose. So if it's not okay for me to push back and say, Brian, I don't want to talk about that, or I disagree, I think we're going off track, then what I might start doing is just making new moves. Brian Milner (18:02) Hmm. Marsha Acker (18:15) So rather than say to you, hey, Brian, I don't want to do that, you'll be talking about something, and now I'm introducing another topic. Hey, can we talk about where we're going for lunch next week? Or can we talk about the meaning behind that word over there that we were using last week? we don't do it intentionally. It comes for really good reason. Brian Milner (18:36) Right. Marsha Acker (18:39) We will all have our own reasons about why we do or don't do that. But I think some of the greatest work to do in teams is to talk about those four actions, to normalize them, and to invite them. Brian Milner (18:52) I love this. what kind of fascinated me, caught my attention the most about what you were saying is when I saw these, and kind of reading up here and reading through your work prior to our discussion, those four modes, when I read it, the first time it seemed to make sense, move, follow, oppose, bystand. But when I saw bystand, it really did seem, my first initial gut response was, yeah. That makes sense. There are bystanders that are happening in meetings that just do nothing. They just kind of sit back and they're not going to be, you know, they're not going to get in the way of the flow of something. But the way you described it is really fascinating because it's not a passive thing. It is an active participation. Marsha Acker (19:35) Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Actually, if somebody is, well, I love that you're naming that because I get asked that question all the time. So again, American business trends. So if you step into the mind of someone who believes that I'm really only adding value if I'm bringing ideas and the way we would code that would be often you're making moves. So people will tend to value. making moves and opposes because a lot of times that's what the culture values. If you're in an organization that says, bring me problems, bring me solutions, you will find a cultural pattern in there of people showing up and making moves and opposes throughout their whole meeting. It'll be a stuck pattern. It'll be overused actions. But if we think about, so bystand could be questions, asking powerful questions. what's that mean to us falls along the line of bringing inquiry into the conversation. And so it gives us a way to balance advocacy and inquiry. But bystand is, bystand and follow are active. If somebody was not saying anything in the conversation, we wouldn't know, we wouldn't be able to code them because they're not speaking. And those four relate to speech acts. So, We have to speak in order for it to be coded as something. But those people who are sitting back often have some of the best bystands. Like if you were to tap that person on the shoulder and say, hey, I would love to know what you see right now in the conversation, they'd probably be able to tell you. Brian Milner (20:57) Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I love this. And, you know, one of the things we teach in our advanced Scrum Masterclass is having people kind of understand how to deal with conflict in their teams and stuff. And we talk about the Thomas Killman kind of five responses to conflict. And I'm seeing a lot of overlap here in these modes too of, some of these things sound like a certain response to conflict in certain ways as well. But before we run out of time, I want to... Marsha Acker (21:30) Mm. Yeah. Brian Milner (21:43) I want to make sure that we get to, if we're in this situation, what are some steps, what are some things we can do to break that chain and not just have the same conversation again next week. Marsha Acker (21:48) Yeah. Yeah. So I would love for people to just think about using those four actions, especially if you work with a team on a fairly frequent basis, right? You will likely, even as I describe those, you will likely start to be able to identify what's the pattern that might be showing up. So I think the first step is can you identify or create a hypothesis for yourself about what might our structural pattern be? So do I hear like really clear poses? You know, do we make a lot of moves? So if you can find the actions that are predominant in your conversation, that's really the first step. And then the second step, there are a couple of different things to counteract each of them. So if move is really strong and it's coming from certain people, designing your facilitated session or even inviting participants to other participants to be the ones to make the move. So inviting others to speak first is one way to do it. limiting the number of moves that people can make. So sometimes if I'm working with a team that has that pattern, I'll give them some kind of, I'll give them a poker chip or I'll give them a card that says move on it. And I will limit everybody to one move per meeting. So structurally, I'm asking people to start to constrain their own moves. And then asking them to then step into, know, if somebody makes a move, staying with it long enough. as, so as a facilitator, you might say, if you noticed that you've got multiple moves on the table, you might just say, Hey, we've got four topics. This, this, this, and this, which is the one that we want to dive into first. So that's another way of just prompting a group to follow a move that they've made. And I think if you're noticing, you don't have a pose. You. chances are that is not going to come naturally. So I think you've really got to design questions that surface it. asking for what are the risks or who sees this differently. A lot of times if I'm leading a session, I will ask people, where did I get it wrong or what do I have wrong? Brian Milner (23:47) Yeah. Marsha Acker (24:12) What am I missing? What might I not be seen? So those are all ways for me to prompt. And I think if you've got some hierarchy in the room or differentials about that, that's really got to come from the person who's sort of holding some of that positional power maybe. Brian Milner (24:29) Yeah, I love that because there's there's sort of a maybe it's an American culture thing. I don't know. But but I know in the business world I've experienced if you call a meeting if it's your meeting there there's sort of an expectation that you're in control, you know, you know, it feels like there's there's sort of a you're not invited to say something like, what am I missing? Marsha Acker (24:52) Yeah. Yep. Brian Milner (24:53) because that's sort of admitting that you weren't prepared for this meeting. But I agree completely with you, that's not really the case. It's just saying, I can't know everything, so what don't I know about this, I should. Marsha Acker (25:09) Yeah. And it's hard. That can be a hard question. And I often say to people, don't ask the question. Don't elicit a pose if you're not really ready to hear it. It can be hard when somebody says, I think it's a two-ee. I totally disagree with the direction that we're going. Because if I, as the person who's asked the question and now receiving that feedback, If it starts to show on my face or I disconnect from it, what's gonna happen is that gets registered across everybody in that room. And that'll be the last time anybody steps up to answer that kind of question. Brian Milner (25:36) Right. Yeah, I love as well when you were talking about, you know, the actions and maybe having tokens or stuff for people to have actions. think I don't, I'm sure this is maybe part of the intention of this as well, but I love the side effect of that, that yes, I'm limiting people who would be controlling to not, not take control of the entire meeting, but once they've spent theirs, now I'm in a situation where the people who maybe wouldn't be those people that would normally step up. They're the only ones who have that ability left. So you have that side benefit of I'm kind of making space for the quieter voices in this group to have a chance to speak up. And I think that's a really important thing in these kind of meetings too. Marsha Acker (26:35) Yeah, when we find ourselves in stuck patterns, there will be very good reason for, or the Groundhog Day conversation. There will be a pattern to the structure of that conversation that keeps repeating itself. And a lot of times what will be happening is somebody will make a move and very often the person that follows them will be the same person every time. So if Marsha speaks and then Brian follows and that's a pattern that gets set up. every single time. All it does is reinforce me to make more moves because I know you're going to be right behind me. And then over time, we're really unconscious, I think about it, as a structural pattern. But the rest of the team will start to fall back and be like, well, they seem to have it. There's no need. No need. So yes, what we're trying to do is change the behavior by looking at structure and finding ways to invite it. Brian Milner (27:34) That's awesome. This is fascinating. I want to be respectful of your time and everyone's time listening, I could go on for another hour in this conversation. This is just really fascinating stuff for me. And I want to point out to everyone again, if this is fascinating to you, we're going to put all the links to this stuff in our show notes so that you can easily just click on that and find it. But just to call it out again. Marsha Acker (27:41) You Brian Milner (27:55) Marcia has a couple of books out there that are in this topic area that could be really useful to you. One is the art and science of facilitation. And the one that I kind of took a deep dive into is called Build Your Model for Leading Change, which by the way, there's a subtitle of this, a guided workbook to catalyze clarity and confidence and leading yourself and others. And I just, would underline the workbook. Right? Because I think it's true. It is something to kind of work your way through. And it's not just a beach read. Yeah. Yeah. Marsha Acker (28:27) No, it's not. I like to think of it as a Sunday morning, maybe with a cup of coffee and a little bit of quiet space. Brian Milner (28:36) Yeah, love that. I love that picture. Well, Marsha, I can't thank you enough. You know, we've been kind of trading schedules and trying to align this to get Marsha on for a while. And, you know, when that kind of thing happens, for whatever reason, it always seems to be like, when the person comes on, it's like, wow, that was worth it. I'm really, really glad we went through that because this was a great conversation. So thanks so much. Thanks so much for sharing your research and wisdom here on this. Marsha Acker (28:56) I appreciate it. Brian Milner (29:02) and for coming on the show. Marsha Acker (29:04) Thank you for having me. It was great.

In the latest episode of the podcast, Dr. David Cantor, CEO/Founder of Mind And Motion, shares invaluable insights on brain-based techniques and the importance of constantly improving the patient experience. Here are some of things highlighted:The importance of brain-based techniques in optimizing health and driving a superior patient experience.Train staff in empathetic communication skills to ensure patients feel heard and understood.Integrate holistic approaches that consider the physical, emotional, and social aspects of  health. Regularly review and optimize clinic workflows to minimize bottlenecks and improve efficiency. Ensure that all staff members, from receptionists to healthcare providers, maintain a friendly and welcoming demeanor. Develop personalized care plans based on each patient's unique needs, preferences, and health goals. Use data analytics to track patient outcomes, identify trends, and tailor interventions. Stay on top of the latest information and learn all aspects of your business to be better informed.Collaborate with other healthcare professionals to strengthen connections and build community.Connect with David and his team to learn more: mindmotioncenters.com___________________________________________________________________________________________Serious about growing your healthcare practice? DM: Andre Wright, MBA Email: andre@thewrightconsult.com Schedule a chat HERE Our digital marketing agency: The WRIGHTConsult Don't miss out at a chance to take your healthcare practice to the next level with our award winning programs. Let's grow your practice. Connect with Your Company Health Linkedin TikTok Find us on all the major podcast platforms including the ones below! Spotify Apple Amazon

Join us this week as we chat with David Cantor, Founder of Folk Revival, on his mission to enhance food resilience. Discover how he's bridging worlds by introducing high protein, low carb options to natural food enthusiasts. On this episode you'll learn: Are Acorns the Next Superfood Trend?

David Cantor founded Folk Revival Heirloom Foods in 2022 because he was passionate about increasing resiliency in our food supply. Heirloom foods help support biodiversity, and this diversity gives our food system strength and resilience.Cantor has been working in the natural food world his whole adult life. It started after college, when he founded a small organic vegetable farm in New Mexico and never looked back. He later studied Food and Ag Policy and have been working to grow natural and organic food brands ever since. Each cup of Folk Revival contains 20g protein, is low carb, Keto-friendly, zero sugar, made with wild harvest acorns, and is delicious both hot and cold. “Acorns have been consumed by people for millennia and are enjoyed around the world. They have profound environmental and health benefits and are a largely untapped resource,” notes Cantor. Canotr shares the secret of acorns with Mark Alyn on this episode.For more information visit www.FolkRevival.com

David Cantor founded Folk Revival Heirloom Foods in 2022 because he was passionate about increasing resiliency in our food supply. Heirloom foods help support biodiversity, and this diversity gives our food system strength and resilience.Cantor has been working in the natural food world his whole adult life. It started after college, when he founded a small organic vegetable farm in New Mexico and never looked back. He later studied Food and Ag Policy and have been working to grow natural and organic food brands ever since. Each cup of Folk Revival contains 20g protein, is low carb, Keto-friendly, zero sugar, made with wild harvest acorns, and is delicious both hot and cold. “Acorns have been consumed by people for millennia and are enjoyed around the world. They have profound environmental and health benefits and are a largely untapped resource,” notes Cantor. Canotr shares the secret of acorns with Mark Alyn on this episode.For more information visit www.FolkRevival.com

David Cantor, Founder and CEO of Folk Revival, has been growing natural and organic food brands for over 20 years, starting his career in the industry at Mars in their skunk-works Health & Nutrition Division. More recently, he led Marketing, Innovation, and R&D for Dr. Praeger's Sensible Foods, a leading veggie burger brand, helping to grow the brand 5x, resulting in a successful exit to Private Equity. Prior to joining the natural foods industry, David earned his master's degree in Nutrition from Tufts University, focusing on food and agriculture policy. Prior to that, David ran a small organic vegetable farm in Northern New Mexico. Connect with David and his Company: http://www.folkrevival.com/ https://www.facebook.com/folkrevival https://www.instagram.com/eatfolkrevival/ https://www.tiktok.com/@folkrevival http://www.youtube.com/@FolkRevival   In addition to listening to the episode, you can watch a video of their discussion on our YouTube Channel.  And be sure to subscribe to support the podcast! For general information about the podcast, send an email to info@beinhakerlaw.com or visit https://mitchbeinhaker.com/podcast. To follow Mitch and the podcast, go to linktr.ee/beinhakerlaw. You can subscribe and listen to episodes on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, Spotify and most other directories. Please review us whenever possible and thanks for your continued support! Sponsorships and paid guest appearances are available. Connect with us by email or on social media. Be sure to purchase Mitch's book, 10 Ways to Get Sued by Anyone & Everyone: A Small Business Owner's Guide to Staying Out of Court, in either paperback (https://a.co/d/7FmMTuN). The Accidental Entrepreneur is brought to you with the help of our sponsor, AWeber - the world's leading small business email marketing and automation service provider. Since 1998, AWeber has helped more than 1 million small businesses, entrepreneurs through its suite of web-based email marketing, automation tools and education. AWeber – the best option when it comes to marketing your business. Visit http://bit.ly/3HK3DVB for more information and to sign up for a trial account. We are also brought to you by TAB. Since 1989, The Alternative Board (or TAB) has been one of the leading peer advisory and business coaching organizations for independent business owners and CEOs across the world. By facilitating peer advisory boards, private 1-on-1 coaching and strategic planning services, TAB helps business owners improve their businesses in ways that change their lives. https://www.thealternativeboard.com/jersey-shore-north Also brought to you by Beinhaker Law, a boutique business & estates legal practice in Clark, NJ. To learn about shared outside general counsel services and how to better protect your business, visit https://beinhakerlaw.com/fractional-gen-counsel/ Opening music written and performed by Howie Moscovitch and Made to Order Music. For more information about Howie and his music services, visit https://howiemoscovitch.com/made-to-order-music/ Connect with our affiliate sponsor (https://gsmcasestudy.com/gsm-program?am_id=mitchell305) GSM Growth Agency - your reliable partner in overcoming these business challenges! Feel the impact of collaborating with a team dedicated not only to short-term goals but also to building long-term partnerships and achieving sustained success. Embark on an exciting journey to redefine the possibilities of e-commerce, and let's create a legacy of unparalleled excellence! Take decisive action now! Follow their link to receive a complimentary audit of your Shopify store conducted by a GSM expert. Propel your e-commerce game to new heights with GSM Growth Agency! Also, support the show and get your own podcast merch! (https://mitchbeinhaker.com/podcast) Be sure to scroll down the page. The Accidental Entrepreneur is a trademark of Mitchell C. Beinhaker. Copyright 2018-2024. All rights reserved.

Dave Cantor is a 20+ industry veteran in the natural food space. His journey began in the Midwest, where he developed a passion for food, sustainability, and gardening during his college years. After honing his cooking skills and pursuing his interests in farming, Dave eventually ended up running his own organic farm in New Mexico. He later furthered his education by obtaining a Master's degree in nutrition with a focus on food and agriculture policy. Dave discusses the inspiration behind his new brand, Folk Revival and offers up some solid takeaways from his many years in the trenches launching "better for you" brands with larger companies. He delves into topics like product development, marketing strategies, and the crowdfunding decision, and listeners will gain valuable, hard-earned insights into the world of nutrition startups. Regarding the name of the brand, Cantor is a self-described 'music nerd' and states, "The 'folk' really speaks to the the people part, the human nutrition, the functional nutrition, and 'revival' speaks to the heirloom and heritage ingredients, which is really what we're trying to do . . . it's the mission of the brand to to deliver real, functional nutrition by reviving heirloom and heritage ingredients." Key themes discussed 1. Crowdfunding: Funding method for expanding business. 2. Product Development: Creation of unique, nutrition-focused food products. 3. Marketing Strategy: Utilizing partnerships and grassroots marketing for product reach. 4. Industry Experience: 20 years in natural foods and corporate marketing. 5. Retail Selling Cycle: Long sales cycle for retail and food service markets. 6. Strategic Partnerships: Collaborative hiring and strategic investment decisions. 7. Brand Positioning: Differentiating product based on health, sustainability, and pricing. A few key takeaways: 1. Cantor has extensive experience in the natural foods industry, with a background in marketing, innovation, and sustainability, and has previously worked with well-known brands such as Mars and KIND Bar. 2. His latest venture, Folk Revival, focuses on creating functional nutrition products, such as a hot cereal using acorns and other heirloom and heritage ingredients, with a mission of delivering real functional nutrition by helping to revive these ingredients.  3. A major highlight of Folk Revival's product is its focus on high protein and low carb content, catering to consumers wanting to eat clean, or who are following keto, Paleo, and gluten-free diets. The product is positioned as a healthier alternative and will be priced slightly higher than regular oatmeal to reflect its higher nutritional value. 4. Dave emphasizes the importance of efficient use of marketing spend, highlighting the power of in-store promotions and targeting specific avenues like music festivals and events that align with the brand's focus on the HALO sector. 5. The podcast also discusses Dave's decision to leverage crowdfunding as a means to raise capital for Folk Revival, explaining the benefits and challenges associated with this fundraising method, which aligns with the brand's ethos of involving consumers in their growth and success. Click here to download transcript.  Resources: Folk Revival: https://folkrevival.com/ David Cantor: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidcantorfr/  Prospect Wizard: http://www.theprospectwizard.com Promotion Vault: http://www.promotionvault.com HigherDose: http://www.higherdose.com  Connect With Us:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thehaloadvisors/?hl=en  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Integritysquare  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@halotalks  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/integrity-square/  Website: https://www.halotalks.com  Loved this episode? Leave us a review and rating here: www.ratethispodcast.com/halotalks and don't forget to check out the HALO Academy for Executive Education opportunities.

Catching the bug early for an avocation is rare. David Cantor had his nets out early and was able to ride a wave toward propagating and saving heirloom and heritage breed of plants.

What You Need to Know is that the border is being overrun, and journalism is dead. @ViralNewsNYC is an independent photographer from New York City that shares on X. They recently shared a video depicting 80 migrant men from Sudan hopping off of two buses in the middle of New York City. We are being invaded, and these images must be shared far and wide so that people can see what is really going on. We should decide what we want our immigration system to look like. It should not look like an open and flowing tap. David Cantor is the author of I Am Q, a new novel which is concerned with contemporary topics such as AI, social networks, and corporate responsibility. David joins Ed to talk about the novel, especially the ways in which the book concerns AI and the distinction between the technological and that which is fleshly and natural. The book interrogates the future of young professionals in the world, the shifting nature of work, and the meaning of progress. Kimberly Fletcher, founder of Moms for America, joins Ed to talk about the Gender Confusion event panel being hosted by Moms for America and Epoch Times, which regards the recent Epoch TV documentary Gender Transformation: The Untold Realities. Kimberly and Ed talk about the pressure being put on parents and childrens in the insanity of transgenderism. Wrap Up: In defense of Robert Menendez, Democrat Senator from New Jersey, because everyone else is doing it! Instead of hiring his son to run his influence peddling scheme (like President Biden), he decided to roll up his sleeves and do it himself (allegedly). But more than anything, we must distrust and verify. We cannot believe what the government presents at face value. In today's politics, we must always meet the government with skepticism and do our own research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're crossing the Atlantic to Europe for episode 62 of the GMI Rocket show to speak to immigration lawyer-turned-entrepreneur David Cantor, Founder & CEO of Relocate. Relocate bills itself as “the first independent marketplace for Global Migration” and here's how it works: Relocate has a roster of immigration experts from countries around the world, they create informative, country-specific content for the site, individuals interested in moving to those countries may come across that content, and ultimately reach out to the experts to set up a consultation. David officially launched Relocate in the beginning of 2021, which sounds like both a difficult time to launch a global immigration company, but also perhaps the perfect time. Before Relocate, David actually worked as a US and global immigration lawyer for New York-based Davies & Associates, and studied law in New York and Beijing. So, here's what we're going to talk about: David's early days and educational journey, including studying law in China What got David interested in immigration law, and his career in it How David came up with the idea for Relocate, and his first steps Launching Relocate during COVID, and where the company is today The future of Relocate and David's thoughts on tech and immigration And more! So please join us, ask questions and leave comments! #immigration #globalmobility #immigrationlaw #legaltech #relocation ---- Check out the Relocate here: https://www.relocate.world/ Connect with David here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmcantor/ Digital marketing for immigration & global mobility at GMI Rocket: https://gmirocket.com/ Digitize your LCA posting and PAF process with LaborLess: https://laborless.io/ Connect with Roman Zelichenko on LinkedIn! https://www.linkedin.com/in/romanzelichenko-electronic-lca-posting-public-access-file/

Pat Metheny Group – We Live Here Geffen Records | Enero 1, 1995 1 Here To Stay 7:41 2 And Then I Knew 7:53 3 The Girls Next Door 5:30 4 To The End Of The World 12:14 5 We Live Here 4:15 6 Episode D'Azur 8:46 7 Something To Remind You 7:03 8 Red Sky 7:36 9 Stranger In Town 6:11 Acoustic Bass, Electric Bass – Steve Rodby Co-producer – Lyle Mays, Steve Rodby Composed By – Lyle Mays, Pat Metheny (pistas: 1 to 5, 7 to 9) Cymbal – Dave Samuels Drum Programming – Sammy Merendino Drums – Paul Wertico Guitar, Guitar Synthesizer – Pat Metheny Percussion – Luis Conte Photography By – Dennis Keeley, Rick Dunn Photography By [Studio Photos By] – David Cantor (2) Piano, Keyboards – Lyle Mays Associate Producer – David Oakes, Rob Eaton Producer – Pat Metheny Recorded By, Mixed By – Rob Eaton Vocals – David Blamires Vocals, Whistling, Flugelhorn, Trumpet – Mark Ledford Recorded and mixed at The Hit Factory, NYC 1994. Additional recording Miami, FL and Willow, NY. Tracks 1 to 5, 7 to 9: Published by Pat-Meth Music Corp. / Lyle Mays Inc. BMI Track 6: Published by Lyle Mays Inc. BMI © 1995 Geffen Records, Inc. ℗ 1995 Metheny Group Productions, Inc. /////////////////////////////////////////////////// CORTINA FINAL Slip Away Letter From Home Pat Metheny Group Geffen Records | Junio 29, 1989 //////////////////////////////

This podcast interviews actuaries David Cantor and Kailan Shang, co-authors of the SOA research report titled Predictive Analytics: A Primer for Pension Actuaries. David and Kailan explain how pension actuaries can apply predictive analytics to forecast outcomes for defined benefit and defined contribution plans.

This is Listen to the Editors, a series of interviews with journal editors to unveil the trends in research on Operations and Supply Chain Management.   I am your host, Iuri Gavronski.   This month, we are posting in our podcast a workshop promoted by the Journal of Supply Chain Management, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, and the Journal of Business Logistics.   The editors-in-chief for these four journals convened online on Aug 20, 2020 to promote a workshop for reviewers and we find very interesting their insights on ethics on publication, how do you interact with the editors, and what is expected from the reviewers. I hope our listeners enjoy this episode.   The editors that were presenting and discussing were: * Barbara B. Flynn; Professor Kelley School of Business at the Indiana University, co-EIC for the Journal of Supply Chain Management * David Cantor; Professor of Supply Chain Management at Iowa State University - Ivy College of Business, co-EIC for the Journal of Supply Chain Management * Wendy Tate; Professor of Supply Chain Management Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at the University of Tennessee, co-EIC for the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. * Louise A. Knight, Full Professor at the University of Twente, co-EIC for the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. * Robert D. Klassen; Professor of Operations Management at Ivey Business School, co-EIC for the International Journal of Operations and Production Management * Constantin Blome, Professor in Operations Management at the University of Sussex Business School, co-EIC for the International Journal of Operations and Production Management * Beth Davis-Sramek; Gayle Parks Forehand Professor of Supply Chain Management; Auburn University; Co-EIC for Journal of Business Logistics We also post below some conversations that ensued in the chat for the Zoom session: 09:10:44 From Ted Farris : Never was "taught" how to review as a doctoral student so developed my own process. What order do you suggest one conducts a review...red the whole thing through or in pieces and then the whole thing through. For example, I start with the abstract and then go to the tables and figures (to make sure they stand by themselves), then the references, then the conclusion, then the main text. 09:16:14 From Ted Farris : Time to conduct a review...how long should it take? 09:17:18 From Himanshu Shee : It is my work, wondering why can’t I reuse it in my work again. Looks silly but I am still curious to use!! 09:18:56 From Gina McNally : What is the red flag level for plagiarism checker? 09:19:13 From Louise KNIGHT : Every article must make an original contribution, so recycling your own work is not considered acceptable 09:20:17 From Barbara Flynn : We'll talk about the red flag level during the Q&A, but we start getting alarmed as that number approaches 20%. 09:20:22 From Marika Tuomela-Pyykkönen : What software would you recommend for checking the (self)plagiarism? 09:22:17 From Louise KNIGHT : Déjà lu: On the limits of data reuse across multiple publications Erik M.van Raaij https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2018.06.002 09:22:19 From Ted Farris : I am writing a reprise of a published paper written in 2002 (since so much has changed) and am submitting to the same journal. What % of the original content is usable? 09:22:24 From Himanshu Shee : Each journal has a fixed format and empirical study has a kind of fixed writing style. So overlapping of text and methodological context get duplicated easily. Wondering how to rephrase or make different!! 09:26:10 From Constantin Blome : @Himanshu: There are of course some overlaps in the methodology section. That is to a certain extent okay, but there are many different ways to express also statistics and everybody makes his or her life easier by avoiding copying also in these sections. Having said that copying particularly in the other sections is a no-go, including self-plagiarism. 09:26:51 From Ted Farris : good tip on authors running a plagiarism checker! As a reviewer should I assume the editors have done this or should reviewers runs a checker? 09:27:28 From Barbara Flynn : Yes, our submission systems automatically do this for every submission, and we pay close attention to it. 09:27:32 From Constantin Blome : @Ted: Most journals run them now. 09:27:52 From Louise KNIGHT : Editors will run checks but a reviewer should raise any concerns with the editor 09:28:26 From Barbara Flynn : Yes, it's always appropriate to contact the editor if you have any sort of concerns as a reviewer. 09:29:08 From Constantin Blome : What editors are often less aware of and where reviewers can do a great job is where similar data has been used before. It is always helpful in case reviewers identify that content-wise (not plagiarism-wise) is similar. 09:30:09 From Louise KNIGHT : Journals provide guidelines to reviewers. Also check out general advice on reviewing provided by publishers, for example from Elsevier: https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-review 09:33:49 From Gina McNally : Should reviewers include their recommendation in the comments to the authors? 09:35:53 From Constantin Blome : Some journals don't want to have that recommendation included, they make this explicit, but to a certain extent it also provides clarity. However, most important is the constructive feedback, not the recommendation per se, as the AE/ Editor should come up with the conclusion. 09:36:01 From Louise KNIGHT : For JPSM, we prefer not - you provide the recommendation separately. If it's a difficult call, then add a note to the editor. 09:38:00 From Himanshu Shee : On average two days will be good I guess…. To read and make the report ready…. Can’t afford more than that! 09:38:35 From Beth Davis-Sramek : At JBL, it's fine to include your recommendation. I generally start with an "overview" section. In it, I offer positive comments and then say something like, "however, there are some issues that are offered in more detail below that prevent me from recommending that the paper move forward." There can be a "soft" way to communicate a rejection, but I think it's important to provide clarity to the author(s). 09:40:06 From Ted Farris : at what point as a reviewer is a paper so bad that you stop in the middle and return it to the editor 09:40:06 From Himanshu Shee : Does the editor engage more than 3 reviewers to reject a paper? 09:40:08 From Constantin Blome : I agree here. Sometimes it is strange to receive a very friendly review, but then the author writes to the editor that this is a clear reject. It's important to be friendly and constructive, but also authentic. Not easy at all. 09:41:00 From Constantin Blome : @Ted: I would say, almost never. 09:42:13 From Beth Davis-Sramek : @Ted: My hope would be that if we send the paper out for review, then it is worth a full review. We will desk reject those that do not meet a minimum quality threshold. 09:43:37 From Anníbal Sodero - Ohio State University - Fisher College : I typically read the main paper cited by the paper I am reviewing and usually skim through a couple of other ones. I like to ensure authors are building on the work of others in a "proper" way, that is, that there is no misrepresentation. A common mistake is to cite a work just for the sake of having a reference, while the work actually contradicts what the authors are claiming. It also helps me to understand where the authors are coming from and what is the contribution they are making. 09:44:59 From Himanshu Shee : What exactly the desk review comprises of, it takes up to a couple of wks even to reject or decide on to put forward to review. 09:48:54 From Beth Davis-Sramek : @Himanshu: At JBL our goal will be to return a desk-rejected manuscript very quickly. I think two weeks is reasonable. 09:49:16 From Constantin Blome : At IJOPM desk rejects takes 1-5 days typically. If it takes longer then there is a reason for it (internal discussions on the manuscript etc). I guess 95% are done in 1-5 days. We have two steps: editorial assistant (who is also an academic) and then one of the four EICs. 09:49:22 From Louise KNIGHT : @Himanshu: Desk reviews vary - sometimes it is very clear that the standard is inadequate or there is not a good fit to the journal. Sometimes a much closer reading is needed, and this reveals that we do not think the paper has a fair prospect 09:49:49 From Constantin Blome : Interestingly enough we receive then emails from authors asking whether we read the manuscript at all as the turnaround time is fast. Of course, we do;-) 09:51:53 From Beth Davis-Sramek : HA! - So maybe two weeks isn't reasonable! Good point - some are very clearly desk rejects, and others may require more feedback, especially if we see potential and suggest to authors that they can fix the issues and resubmit. 09:53:26 From Ted Farris : Are there times of the year when it is best to submit something...are reviewers more available at different times (Christmas Break v middle of a semester) 09:54:08 From Barbara Flynn : I don't think so, but there are definitely better times for authors - we see seasonality in submissions. For example, a lot of manuscripts are submitted at the end of the summer, just before classes begin. 09:55:04 From Constantin Blome : Reviews over July/ August take longer. We also see that in the pandemic reviews slowed down. 09:55:12 From Ted Farris : A lot of times I comment to the authors about "unsubstantiated conjecture" where they do not support statements or make statements out of the blue. Reasonable comment to the authors? 09:55:40 From Barbara Flynn : Definitely. It's up to authors to make their points clear, not the reviewers and readers to guess. 09:55:45 From Constantin Blome : absolutely, but always good to give the example and give an example how this could be done better. 09:56:29 From Constantin Blome : Often the authors aren't aware that statements are not supported, but of course you don't have to list every unsupported sentence. 09:57:07 From Barbara Flynn : Agreed, it seems obvious to the authors because they are so familiar with the literature, but it's not obvious to others. 09:57:40 From Beth Davis-Sramek : I might also rephrase it to something like, "you need to provide more evidence from the literature that supports this statement/hypothesis/rationale" etc... 10:02:49 From Louise KNIGHT : I agree with that suggestion for rephrasing the point! 10:04:27 From Gina McNally : Can you post the references here in the chat, please? Thanks! 10:04:39 From Himanshu Shee : What methodology is usually a winner? Survey, interviews, mixed methods, longitudinal studies? 10:04:50 From jmuniz : Thanks for share the knowledge. Go Vols 10:06:35 From Constantin Blome : Important is that plagiarism only show "potential plagiarism" and we have to check then whether it is "real plagiarism". 10:07:06 From Arun Kumar Deshmukh : How much is the tolerable limit of similarity index? 10:07:14 From Juliette : Thank you for they great tips! 10:07:35 From Constantin Blome : There is no fixed percentage, but we look in far more detail with 20% or more. 10:07:38 From Juliette : *the not they 10:08:36 From Arun Kumar Deshmukh : Thanks Constantin Blome 10:09:39 From Himanshu Shee : It is so easy to get over 20% plagiarism adding those 1% coming’s from the references, key words and jargons etc… 10:09:50 From Constantin Blome : However, there are also many papers we still send out that have more than 20% in the software indicated, but it is not showing clear cases of plagiarism. So it depends. 10:10:28 From Himanshu Shee : Thanks Constantin 10:10:50 From Constantin Blome : Just to share, the nastiest emails I got from authors were all around plagiarism scores. 10:11:10 From Barbara Flynn : Huff, A.S., 2009. Evaluation of research design and outcomes. In Huff, A.S., Designing Research for Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Koberg, D. & Bagnall, J., 1976. The Universal Traveler. New York: William Kaufman. De Bono, E., 1999. Six Thinking Hats. Boston: Little, Brown. Also http://www.edwdebono.com/ 10:11:27 From Wendy Tate : I agree with Constantin re the emails! 10:14:06 From Louise KNIGHT : A very low (artificially low) score in the plagiarism checker can be a trigger for a closer look. The tool indicates % recognised text, that's all - the rest is for editors to interpret 10:15:28 From Arun Kumar Deshmukh : Sometimes we get a paper with a newer method for review. Should we refuse to review it or the other part of the manuscripts should be evaluated without commenting on the method part? 10:15:56 From Constantin Blome : Personally, I also think that in some institutions PhDs reviews continuously for their supervisors. This would be considered highly unethical. 10:16:45 From Constantin Blome : I. suggest contact the editor. 10:18:17 From Arun Kumar Deshmukh : Thanks a lot 10:22:43 From Ted Farris : the better journals that I review for typically send feedback after all the reviews are in plsace 10:23:04 From Himanshu Shee : I suppose the journal offers a summary of the all reviews so one can see what others have done vs you 10:23:14 From marcon.arthur : Is it appropriate to contact the editor when the reviewers were not clear in their review or when they provide contradictory recommendations? For example, contacting the editor via email when we are working on the corrections of the paper 10:23:59 From Arun Kumar Deshmukh : As an editor, how you decide the fate of manuscripts when two reviewers suggest minor revision and one suggests the rejection? 10:24:03 From Constantin Blome : yes, this is fine Marcon 10:25:14 From Barbara Flynn : It's always fine to contact the editor about anything 10:25:24 From Constantin Blome : @Arun: first, we read the manuscript, but typically AEs would make the call first. But this is not different to any other combination of recommendations. 10:25:48 From Constantin Blome : I agree with Barb.   Background music: ================= “Night & Day” by Dee Yan-Key is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Dee_Yan-Key/years_and_years_ago/08--Dee_Yan-Key-Night___Day

Junto a Marre Mazariegos, David Cantor y Manu Martín, nos inscribimos en la categoría Jóvenes Creativos - Estudiantes del Ojo de Iberoamérica, el festival de creatividad publicitaria más relevante de la región. Fuimos finalistas, pero no ganamos Oro. Nos echamos unas chelas y hacemos un recuento de nuestro proceso creativo, aciertos y errores cometidos en la competencia.

On this week's episode, David and I talk about this incredible externalization tool which helps call up Self and bring compassion to your whole system. This 'wheel' looks like a solar system with a 'sun' representing Self and colored 'planets' representing Parts. His motto 'Bond with Satisfaction at Every Moment' is threaded throughout the whole episode. He reads his children's book, 'The Big Bright Ball' and reminds us Self can always help out. Check out David's site here and sign up for his newsletter... I recommend you take a look before you listen. http://www.youniverse.net/index.html Enjoy!  

This is the eighth episode of Listen to the Editors, a series of interviews with journal editors to unveil the trends in research for Operations and Supply Chain Management. This month we recorded our episode live in the Meet the Editors session at the 2019 Academy of Management Annual Conference. That session took place on August 12th. David Cantor was chairing the session. We had five editors representing four journals. Wendy Tate is the co-editor-in-chief of the Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. Morgan Swink was representing the International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Chris Voss was representing the Journal of Service Management. Tyson Browning and Suzanne de Treville are the co-editors-in-chief of the Journal of Operations Management. While the entire session was interesting, I will place here some pointers to the contents: (01:22) Editors present themselves and provide some highlights of their journal’s mission (08:47) David asks recommendations for authors (09:03) Wendy: “read the journal.” (09:46) Wendy says that plagiarism, besides fit, is one top reason for desk-rejection in the JPSM. (10:27) Morgan builds on that and says that the methods section are a frequent source of plagiarism and self-plagiarism (13:15) Tyson provides an insight on the cover letter (16:34) Suzanne offers a delicious anecdote on the cover letter (Annals of Accounting) (18:44) David asks about non-traditional empirical contexts (24:13) Suzanne weights in on interventionist research (24:52) David asks how to describe data and methods (level of detail), especially when they are not well-known or very complex (27:41) Tyson attributes the plagiarism on the methods to the desire to recite the right incantations; hence authors should be very familiar with the methods and the state-of-the-art (29:00) Chris provided an example, where he and his co-authors were able to convince the reviewers by giving the full method description in the supplemental material. They initially did not provide the complete description to limit the size of the paper. (29:55) Morgan suggests that authors explain qualitative methods because reviewers are more familiar with quantitative empirical methods (31:51) David asked about supply networks research and open data (34:00) Suzanne weights in on sample size (35:32) A member of the audience has the impression that 100 cases are too few for a top journal (39:01) Suzanne explains why editors are tired of hearing about gaps (40:12) Morgan discusses rules of thumb, hard rules, and guidelines (41:08) Tyson and Chris elaborate on the trade-off between rigor and interest (41:43) Iuri asks about the role of surveys in modern OSCM research. Morgan gives his thoughts. (45:20) Wendy provides her opinion on data obtained by survey firms (46:07) Tyson gives some suggestions for sound survey design The host for this show is Iuri Gavronski, Associate Professor for the Graduate Program in Business for the UNISINOS Jesuit University. Listen to the editors is an initiative of the Operations and Supply Chain Management division of the Academy of Management. We post our interviews monthly in our division website. You can discuss any of the topics of this episode using our interactive tool, https://connect.aom.org. Using the discussion section of our site, you can also post suggestions for questions, journal editors you would like to hear from, and requests for clarifications. You can also subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or with the Podcast Addict app on Android. Background music: ================= “Night & Day” by Dee Yan-Key is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Dee_Yan-Key/years_and_years_ago/08--Dee_Yan-Key-Night___Day 2019-08-24 - Episode 008

This is the eighth episode of Listen to the Editors, a series of interviews with journal editors to unveil the trends in research for Operations and Supply Chain Management. This month we recorded our episode live in the Meet the Editors session at the 2019 Academy of Management Annual Conference. That session took place on August 12th. David Cantor was chairing the session. We had five editors representing four journals. Wendy Tate is the co-editor-in-chief of the Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. Morgan Swink was representing the International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Chris Voss was representing the Journal of Service Management. Tyson Browning and Suzanne de Treville are the co-editors-in-chief of the Journal of Operations Management. While the entire session was interesting, I will place here some pointers to the contents: (01:22) Editors present themselves and provide some highlights of their journal’s mission (08:47) David asks recommendations for authors (09:03) Wendy: “read the journal.” (09:46) Wendy says that plagiarism, besides fit, is one top reason for desk-rejection in the JPSM. (10:27) Morgan builds on that and says that the methods section are a frequent source of plagiarism and self-plagiarism (13:15) Tyson provides an insight on the cover letter (16:34) Suzanne offers a delicious anecdote on the cover letter (Annals of Accounting) (18:44) David asks about non-traditional empirical contexts (24:13) Suzanne weights in on interventionist research (24:52) David asks how to describe data and methods (level of detail), especially when they are not well-known or very complex (27:41) Tyson attributes the plagiarism on the methods to the desire to recite the right incantations; hence authors should be very familiar with the methods and the state-of-the-art (29:00) Chris provided an example, where he and his co-authors were able to convince the reviewers by giving the full method description in the supplemental material. They initially did not provide the complete description to limit the size of the paper. (29:55) Morgan suggests that authors explain qualitative methods because reviewers are more familiar with quantitative empirical methods (31:51) David asked about supply networks research and open data (34:00) Suzanne weights in on sample size (35:32) A member of the audience has the impression that 100 cases are too few for a top journal (39:01) Suzanne explains why editors are tired of hearing about gaps (40:12) Morgan discusses rules of thumb, hard rules, and guidelines (41:08) Tyson and Chris elaborate on the trade-off between rigor and interest (41:43) Iuri asks about the role of surveys in modern OSCM research. Morgan gives his thoughts. (45:20) Wendy provides her opinion on data obtained by survey firms (46:07) Tyson gives some suggestions for sound survey design The host for this show is Iuri Gavronski, Associate Professor for the Graduate Program in Business for the UNISINOS Jesuit University. Listen to the editors is an initiative of the Operations and Supply Chain Management division of the Academy of Management. We post our interviews monthly in our division website. You can discuss any of the topics of this episode using our interactive tool, https://connect.aom.org. Using the discussion section of our site, you can also post suggestions for questions, journal editors you would like to hear from, and requests for clarifications. You can also subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or with the Podcast Addict app on Android. Background music: ================= “Night & Day” by Dee Yan-Key is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Dee_Yan-Key/years_and_years_ago/08--Dee_Yan-Key-Night___Day 2019-08-24 - Episode 008

Sean Duggan is the Co-Founder at Geobid, a retargeting tool for small businesses. He been a digital marketer for 7 years and started Geobid 2 ½ years ago with his business partner David Cantor. I’ve spent most of my career as an in-house marketing manager for my business partner’s law firm and managed their 7-figure online advertising budget. We were spending a large amount on display advertising so we decided to bring our media buying in-house and developed our own demand-side platform (DSP) to cut out the middlemen and control 100% of our ad buys.At this time he saw a lot of small business marketers (especially law firms) having trouble running retargeting campaigns so we partnered up and created Geobid to solve this problem. We modified our platform to be self-serve for other marketers to use and also provide free services (ad design, pixel onboarding, etc.) to make it easy for small business marketers to get started with retargeting.

Sean Duggan is the Co-Founder at Geobid, a retargeting tool for small businesses. He been a digital marketer for 7 years and started Geobid 2 ½ years ago with his business partner David Cantor. I’ve spent most of my career as an in-house marketing manager for my business partner’s law firm and managed their 7-figure online advertising budget. We were spending a large amount on display advertising so we decided to bring our media buying in-house and developed our own demand-side platform (DSP) to cut out the middlemen and control 100% of our ad buys. At this time he saw a lot of small business marketers (especially law firms) having trouble running retargeting campaigns so we partnered up and created Geobid to solve this problem. We modified our platform to be self-serve for other marketers to use and also provide free services (ad design, pixel onboarding, etc.) to make it easy for small business marketers to get started with retargeting.

Coni Koepfinger interview of Sandra Bargman about her performance of "The Edge of Everyday"Sacred Stages LLC presents The Edge of Everyday, which explores our fear of change and ultimately, our acceptance of the dichotomies of Life. “The Edge” is where our resistance, our reluctance to embrace the diversity of life, collides with the inevitability of change in all the corners of our lives. Sandra considers the tension between these seeming paradoxes with poignancy and comedy, and with music ranging from David Bowie and Eric Clapton to Georgia Stitt and David Cantor, the show is a rowdy ride!Sandra Bargman has appeared in the Madison Square Garden's Broadway National tour of CINDERELLA starring Eartha Kitt. She has appeared Off-Broadway, internationally, in numerous tours, has played leading roles in regional theaters and summer stock productions across the country, and has sung in many of the cabaret rooms of NYC. She holds a BFA from Carnegie-Mellon University. Her distinct voice can be heard in numerous radio and television commercials. Member AEA, SAG/AFTRA

Coni Koepfinger interview of Sandra Bargman about her performance of "The Edge of Everyday"Sacred Stages LLC presents The Edge of Everyday, which explores our fear of change and ultimately, our acceptance of the dichotomies of Life. “The Edge” is where our resistance, our reluctance to embrace the diversity of life, collides with the inevitability of change in all the corners of our lives. Sandra considers the tension between these seeming paradoxes with poignancy and comedy, and with music ranging from David Bowie and Eric Clapton to Georgia Stitt and David Cantor, the show is a rowdy ride!Sandra Bargman has appeared in the Madison Square Garden's Broadway National tour of CINDERELLA starring Eartha Kitt. She has appeared Off-Broadway, internationally, in numerous tours, has played leading roles in regional theaters and summer stock productions across the country, and has sung in many of the cabaret rooms of NYC. She holds a BFA from Carnegie-Mellon University. Her distinct voice can be heard in numerous radio and television commercials. Member AEA, SAG/AFTRA

Episode 53 features special guest David Cantor.http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7392026724731048755#editor/target=post;postID=1699410862535916337 A full-time animal advocate with national organizations since 1989, in late 2002 David Cantor founded and since then has served as the Executive Director of Responsible Policies for Animals (RPA), a group that engages in what he refers to as “

Episode 62 features a return visit with the Executive Director of Responsible Policies for Animals, David Cantor. When we first spoke with David in Episode 53, David explained RPA’s vision and mission as a group that engages in what he calls “strict rights advocacy”, rejecting both the traditional animal welfare strategy as well as abolitionism. David believes and argues that “rights precede

Dr David Cantor, Lecturer in Human Rights on the MA in Understanding and Securing Human Rights at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, discusses his recent work in Colombia as well as the launch of the new Refugee Law Initiative which will provide a ...

Dr David Cantor, Lecturer in Human Rights on the MA in Understanding and Securing Human Rights at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, discusses his recent work in Colombia as well as the launch of the new Refugee Law Initiative which will provide a ...

On our 18th podcast, we have a somewhat twisted Thanksgiving with a feature interview of Dr. Michael Greger, who has just released his latest book, Bird Flu, A Disease of Our Own Hatching. He explains what has been going on while the potential pandemic has dropped from the headlines. Then there is the podcast debut of David Cantor as a singer songwriter, and a Science Fact about a fourfold increase in salmonella among broiler chickens. Bon appetit...

On our 18th podcast, we have a somewhat twisted Thanksgiving with a feature interview of Dr. Michael Greger, who has just released his latest book, Bird Flu, A Disease of Our Own Hatching. He explains what has been going on while the potential pandemic has dropped from the headlines. Then there is the podcast debut of David Cantor as a singer songwriter, and a Science Fact about a fourfold increase in salmonella among broiler chickens. Bon appetit...

On our 17th podcast, we talk some more about animal sanctuaries, this time with David Cantor of Responsible Policies for Animals. Cantor has an idea for transforming animal agriculture programs in higher learning institutions away from preparations for animal exploitation and toward animal care. Also music from Green Beings and a Science Fact.

On our 17th podcast, we talk some more about animal sanctuaries, this time with David Cantor of Responsible Policies for Animals. Cantor has an idea for transforming animal agriculture programs in higher learning institutions away from preparations for animal exploitation and toward animal care. Also music from Green Beings and a Science Fact.