Tara McMullin's Recent LinkedIn Posts

I used to think that if I could get everything just right... ...my plans, business, or systems would run themselves. And then I could finally relax. But inevitably, something breaks. Or changes. Distractions arise. A new idea pops up. An opportunity gets created. And it means that the system, whatever it is, needs to adjust. It's tempting to think that's a failure. But it's actually something pretty beautiful. "Mutual learning happens in the entropy," writes Nora Bateson, "We need the confusion to release the new. This dance exists everywhere in nature. It is the swarm of confusion that becomes the grace of the way things come together." The truth is: Holding tightly to what SHOULD BE or what was SUPPOSED TO BE or what USED TO BE THE CASE makes it nearly impossible to adapt to a new environment. And the environment is ALWAYS new. There is no glorious day when things just work and don't ever need to change. And that's okay—because change itself is pretty glorious. Today's essay is about an "in-house" coaching session with my own dear husband, Sean McMullin. Read or listen here: https://lnkd.in/ey6x58H7 #philosophyofwork #systemsthinking #smallbusinesstips #changeisgood

Creativity seems to be the cure for whatever ails you. But there's reason to be cautious when invoking its name. (I've been sitting on this one for a while... it feels like the 3rd rail of the 21st-century economy...) Last spring, I read a cultural history of creativity. It's called "The Cult of Creativity: A Surprisingly Recent History" by Samuel Franklin. Right out of the gate, he drops this bombshell: "Strikingly, before about 1950 there were approximately zero articles, books, essays, treatises, odes, classes, encyclopedia entries, or anything of the sort dealing explicitly with the subject of 'creativity.'" The 1950s saw a "big bang" in creativity research. Why? Creativity could be seen as a weapon in the Cold War. Scientific breakthroughs, technological achievements, and freedom of consumer choice all leveraged creativity. The 1950s also saw the US economy truly transition into a consumer economy. Creative people not only came up with new products to make and sell to consumers, but also led the boom in marketing and advertising. In both cases, capitalism valorized creativity. We prioritized new, novel, disruptive, and individual. But as Franklin observes, the invention and valorization of "creativity" meant that we neglected other values like care, maintenance, and community. Obviously, creativity can be a profound source of meaning and personal joy. And I'm not here to argue with that! But it's impossible to separate it from its political and economic valence. And that's why we need to proceed with caution when we rely on creativity as a cure-all.

Ever ask yourself why work can feel so unfulfilling... even when you work for yourself? Let me explain. Bosses have been deskilling work since the early 19th century. Deskilling is the process of taking a complex task that requires a high level of skill and breaking it down into smaller tasks requiring less skill. That means management can replace good jobs that pay well with repetitive jobs with lower wages and no security. Deskilling is ubiquitous in manufacturing. It's how we get cheap, mass-produced goods. Deskilling has become more ubiquitous in healthcare, customer service, retail, and food service. Think ordering meals online or taking electronic self-assessments at the doctor's office. You might think self-employed folks are immune from deskilling. After all, we manage ourselves, right? Here's the thing—we end up deskilling our own work. We use technology to produce more instead of better. We do the task algorithms set for us instead of challenging our creative drives. And that's a recipe for finding work unsatisfying and unfulfilling. There are a few ways we can resist this trend—but I think the most important one is establishing our own standards. What does a job well done look like? And how does that apply to everything from creating social media posts to communicating with clients to producing deliverables? When we choose to solve for quality rather than quantity, we can resist our own deskilling. More on deskilling and the role algorithmic management plays in the process in my latest essay!

Is the creator economy "eating creative acts?" That's how Kate Tyson put it while she, Charlie Gilkey, and I tried to get our heads around this particular moment on the internet. The creator economy is predicated on the idea that we're making content for other people—it's supposed to be a disintermediated peer-to-peer exchange. But that erases the "machine" at the heart of every transaction—be it a like, a share, or a purchase. Exchange in the creator economy is always peer-to-machine-to-peer. Or as Richard Seymour put it in *The Twittering Machine*, we think we're writing to our friends and family, but really we're writing to the machine and it passes along the message for us. Of course, the machine doesn't pass every message along equally. The machine—the algorithm—privileges some messages over others. The messages it privileges aren't based on quality, on consumer demand, or some measure of creative expression. The machine privileges messages that generate the kind of activity that platforms value. And what platforms value isn't often the same as what creators *or* users value. Yet, because the machine is so good at blending into the background, we don't register that disconnect. So we end up making content to satisfy the algorithm—just like I'm doing now. Listen on the podcast or find the essay version at the link in the comments! #socialmediamarketing #creatoreconomy #philosophyofwork

I'm utterly fascinated by something called the "double empathy problem." It's a concept I stumbled upon a few years ago, and it's been rattling around in my head ever since. First described by sociologist and autism researcher Damian Milton in 2012, this theory turns the table on how we traditionally view empathy, especially with regard to human diversity. Here’s the gist: empathy flows more freely among folks who share common ground—be it gender, race, neurology, you name it. But toss different backgrounds and experiences into the mix, and suddenly, understanding one another becomes a bit like deciphering a foreign language. We might think we’re getting it. But really, we are projecting our own feelings and thoughts onto someone else. We often miss the mark—overlooking the nuances of what the other truly means, feels, or experiences. Damian Milton's insights are particularly eye-opening when it comes to neurodiversity. The old narrative? Autistic individuals struggle with social cues and empathy. Milton’s perspective? Nope. Autistic people simply express empathy and communicate in ways that diverge from non-autistic norms. When two autistic individuals interact, there's a shared language and a broader acceptance of behaviors and emotions—especially ones that neurotypical culture might label as 'outside the norm.' This brings us to a pivotal point! Especially in mixed company—that is, when we're interacting with people who don't hold all the same identities and affiliations we do—the burden of adjustment shouldn't fall solely on the shoulders of those from nondominant groups. If empathy is the goal, then a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't cut it. We have to prioritize curiosity and recognize our differences in order to understand each other better. While assuming we might feel or think the same way as others might seem nice, it actually denies others the full range of their experience. Through the lens of the double empathy problem, we're invited to reimagine empathy not as an exercise in sameness but as a celebration of difference. It's a call to action for all of us to lean into the discomfort of not knowing and to ask, listen, and learn with an open mind. Today, I published the first in a 5-part series on empathy. This piece is an origin story of sorts—and the next four parts are interviews with Nmadinobi Chloé Nwangwu, The Brand Scientist™, Samantha Pollack, Erin Perkins, and Leonie Smith. Read or listen here: https://lnkd.in/eviWvDFJ #futureofwork #philosophyofwork #neurodiversity #empathyatwork

I'm in the middle of an article about personality tests for Toastmasters Magazine. It's a balanced examination of when/how personality tests can be helpful and when they can lead us astray. I'm looking for stories from folks who fit one of these descriptions (or something similar): 1. Use a personality test in hiring, managing, or team-building 2. Have used the results of a personality test to make tangible changes in how they present themselves or interact with others 3. Had a change of heart about a personality test 4. Felt mistyped or misunderstood based on a test result because the test was culturally or neurologically biased If you (or someone you know) fit one of those descriptions, leave a comment or shoot me a message! I'm on a deadline... so my turnaround is quick (my fault, not theirs - lol). But I'm hoping you can answer a few questions via email or message for me! Thank you!

This has got to be the most REMARKABLE social media stunt I've ever come across 🤯 Like many artists and creatives, Leigh Stein wears many hats. At the end of last year, Leigh noticed her Instagram audience had come to see her more as a book coach than a novelist and satirist. So, she embarked on a little "digital performance art." She archived all of her old posts and announced she was leaving the publishing industry to accept a job at a wellness company named Richual. Richual isn't a real company. It's the name of the company she invented for her 2020 satirical novel, Self Care. After her announcement, she posted about how proud she was to work for a woman-centered company that requires new employees to undergo colonic hydrotherapy before they start. She continued to post as a proud employee of Richual for the next month. Then, she had a shocking announcement: she'd been fired! Richual wasn't happy that she told everyone about her "squeaky colon." That video went mega viral. Next, she told everyone she was writing a novel about her experience. That novel? Well, it was Self Care, her actual novel. Finally, she confessed to the whole stunt. And sold a bunch of books! Leigh intentionally constructed her "autofanfiction" art project to perform her critique of the wellness industry, influencer culture, and social media marketing—and by performing that critique, she was also performing her chosen identity. What I love about Leigh's project is how it provokes us to consider the performance art at the heart of all social media content. Not in a cynical way, but in a creative way! We've been coached to put our "real selves" into the content we create. Authenticity is attractive, they tell us. But we know our "real selves" and our authentic sharing is mediated through platform logics and algorithmic distribution. We know that the experience of "being ourselves" in these digital spaces is often alienating and objectifying. So what if, like Leigh, we just embraced the performance? What if we accept that the identity we perform in digital spaces is ours to play with? Or, in the words of the great RuPaul: "Once I studied the way society is and how people put on these roles, I realized it was all a game. It was all an illusion. So you know what? I'll have fun with the illusion." The full story is in the latest edition of What Works—listen on the podcast or read the essay!

How do you get seen in a world that refuses to see you? I asked Nmadinobi Chloé Nwangwu, The Brand Scientist™! Chloé told me that the more someone resembles what Audre Lorde called "the mythical norm," the more likely they are to have their expertise, experience, and accomplishments recognized. The mythical norm is white, heterosexual, cisgender, male, financially secure, thin, etc. Lorde wrote: "It is with this mythical norm that the trappings of power reside within this society. Those of us who stand outside that power often identify one way in which we are different, and we assume that to be the primary cause of all oppression, forgetting other distortions around difference, some of which we ourselves may be practicing." We learn to mold ourselves to more closely align with the mythical norm—and in the process, we flatten our differences and might even look down on those who refuse to. Chloé empowers underrecognized individuals by exposing the VISIBILITY BIAS they're subject to and the INVISIBILITY TAXES that they pay as a result. Visibility bias describes the way people in power—in proximity to the mythical norm—are less likely to recognize the expertise, experience, or accomplishments of those who hold marginalized identities. While the invisibility tax describes the extra costs incurred by underrecognized people in order to become visible. Chloé figures out how to build a brand that overcomes visibility bias and evades invisibility taxes. The isn't to make someone more like the mythical norm, but to amplify what really matters and make them impossible to ignore. Chloé told me that a brand is like a constellation. It's a collection of memories, ideas, and relationships that, together, create meaning and influence behavior. ✨ 🤯 ✨ Check out the full piece here: https://lnkd.in/eWJ2sSid #inclusiveculture #brandstrategy #feministleadership #philosophyofwork

Here's what I've learned about EMPATHY from copywriters and doppelgangers... My own practice of empathy, as for many autistic people, is more conscious and cognitive than intuitive and affective. Learning about copywriting gave me a new, extremely helpful toolkit for cognitive empathy. So naturally, I wanted to talk to a copywriter for my series on decoding empathy! Here are a few "tips:" DETAILS MATTER Samantha Pollack, from Cult of Personality, told me that she wants to know "every single freaking thing down to the teeniest, tiniest detail" when she's onboarding a new client. LEARN WHY THEY CARE Samantha tries to answer the question, "Why do they care?"—not for her clients, but for her clients' potential customers. It's a critical question for practicing empathy because it reminds us that what we find fascinating isn't necessarily going to connect with others. GET SPECIFIC General descriptions of an "ideal client" rarely hit the mark. Instead, Samantha asks for stories and "before-and-afters" to get into the specifics that make someone say, "Oh, yes, that's me." PEOPLE WILL SURPRISE YOU Whether we're talking empathy or copywriting, nobody is perfect. No amount of research will allow you to get it right every time. Allowing the room for people to surprise you with what they want or how they feel is empathy at work. WE'RE ALL DOPPELGANGERS OF OURSELVES In her book, Doppelganger, Naomi Klein writes: "Self-branding is yet another form of doubling, an internal sort of doppelganging." Our personal brands (or online presences generally) are doppelgangers. They look like us and sounds like us—BUT THEY ARE NOT US. Navigating the disconnect between the self & self-presentation is tricky. But when we remember that it's not really US that others see online, it's easier to remember that others we see online are doppelgangers, too. We might never know the whole person on the other end of the Zoom window, the chat box, or the cash register at the grocery store—but we can always learn MORE about them. Or, as Klein put it: "Doppelgangers, by messing with our heads and our illusions of sovereignty, can help teach us this lesson: that we are not as separate from one another as we might think." You can read or listen to the whole piece here: https://lnkd.in/eM-ted-S #EmpathyMatters #PhilosophyOfWork #CopywritingSkills

I'm fascinated by the tension between what we say we believe and how we actually behave. For instance, how many times have you told someone they should take a break or slow down? And how many times have you ignored your own advice? (Guilty!) I thought this summer would be a perfect time to tackle this tension in our beliefs about rest: how we earn it, who deserves it, what our bodies actually need... But I'd like to examine our beliefs about rest in a sort of novel way (pun intended). Introducing Summer Seminar x What Works! This summer, I'm leading a group of curious critical thinkers on a little adventure through Becky Chambers's Monk & Robot novellas. Together, we'll read these short allegorical works and sprinkle in some critical essays to deepen our reflections. If you're craving a structured, collaborative environment to examine your beliefs about rest, productivity, and responsibility, Summer Seminar might just be for you. To find out more, go to: https://lnkd.in/e6V4pp6e

This scene from Star Trek: Nemesis shook me to my core a few weeks ago. I should say that I'm a big Trekkie and a lover of ST:TNG. My favorite character was always Data—as he was for many autistic people, it turns out! Early in Nemesis, the crew discovers a prototype of Data, which they learn is named B-4. B-4 lacks Data's cognitive function and processing power—it's presented as childlike and confused. So, Data decides to hook himself up to B-4 in order to "upgrade" it with his processing power and memories. (Note: there is no depiction of consent or Data's consideration of B-4's agency.) And that brings us to the scene that startled me: As La Forge assists with the memory transfer, Data says that it's his belief that B-4 "will be able to function as a more complete individual." La Forge asks Data, "An individual more like you, you mean?" Data concedes, which leads La Forge to respond, "Maybe he's not supposed to be like you, Data. Maybe he's supposed to be exactly the way he is." Data dismisses this to say that B-4 "should have the opportunity to explore his potential." La Forge's comment hit me like a ton of bricks. Data spent his entire existence wishing to be human. B-4 appears to him as a double problem—neither human NOR Data. I've come to see Data as a tragic character who represents the epitome of what scholar Ashley Shew calls "technoableism:" "Technoableism is a belief in the power of technology that considers the elimination of disability a good thing, something we should strive for. It's a class form of ableism—bias against disabled people, bias in favor of nondisabled ways of life." Data certainly displays a bias toward non-android ways of living and a bias against B-4, whom he deems less advanced and less competent. Data perceives his androidness as a bad-difference, rather than a mere-difference—to use philosopher Elizabeth Barnes helpful terminology. Watching Nemesis this time through, it struck me that a character I once considered a HERO had taught me to judge myself not based on who I am but based on who I am NOT. Unbeknownst to me, Data shaped my beliefs about myself and my quality of life in a pretty harmful way. Only in the last few years have I started to live as if who I am is okay instead of trying to become someone I just won't ever be. What stories or beliefs have influenced the way you see yourself? (Yours don't need to be as nerdy as mine...) Read my full essay here: https://lnkd.in/evPu6efC #philosophyatwork #neurodivergence #autismadvocacy #ableism

Such a good recap of what's been a VERY popular post of mine (and a bit of a controversial one, too!). *** I saw Taylor Lorenz post on Instagram about what she calls "Resentment Reels," which, I gather, are videos of people complaining about how much "making it" on social media these days requires. Her observation was not only that these videos represent a trend but that they've also been extremely popular content for their creators. It was almost a meta-commentary on the Rebecca Jennings piece I referenced in my article. Now, I could write a whole book about whether popular content or "going viral" represents trustworthy information. But regardless, I think there's something interesting going on here!

I'm teaching one of my favorite things in the Pollen community: business model design! Pollen is a learning and support network for independent consultants—and it's full of resources and very cool people.

A sustainable business is always a work in progress. Tara McMullin will be helping Pollen members strengthen your current business model and make a long-term strategic plan in our new Sprint: Business Model Basics and Evaluation. A business model is the system that a business uses to create value, deliver value, and exchange value – and it’s unique for every business. This Sprint will help you design a simple business model that is: ✔️ A pleasure to run ✔️ Prioritizes your needs and goals ✔️ Aligns with your values Tara is a small business strategist turned writer and critic. With more than 15 years of experience helping small business owners and independent workers craft businesses that work for them, Tara provides a much-needed perspective that prioritizes personal and social sustainability alongside practical strategy. She’s the author of What Works, as well as the producer behind the newsletter and podcast of the same name (What Works). Tara created the business strategy program Quiet Power Strategy, which generated $2+ million in revenue during its lifetime. She founded The What Works Network, a peer support community for small business owners, which was acquired by Mighty Networks in 2021. And she’s the co-founder of YellowHouse.Media, a boutique podcast production agency. This Sprint will run over 4 sessions from June 3rd - June 12th. You’ll walk away with: - Clear business model - Evident revenue potential - Obvious unfair advantage and unique selling point - Articulated plan in place for the next 6-12 months that you’re excited about - Defined strategy Gain access to Tara’s Sprint with Pollen membership: https://lnkd.in/dJdUwmAY

Starts Monday!

The promise of the creator economy is a life well lived doing what you love. Fulfillment. Autonomy. Flexibility. Self-expression. Community. A stable, comfortable middle-class life. But all too often, business ownership and creative work leads to feelings of alienation just as much as other forms of work in the 21st-century economy. Alienation is a state of being that we experience as “indifference, instrumentalization, reification, absurdity, artificiality, isolation, [and] meaningless.” (via Rahel Jaeggi's book, "Alienation") It’s the opposite of solidarity and community-building. And alienation is a “natural” product of our current economic system. Or like Kate Tyson put it: “This is a facet of the vector economy—it ultimately undermines solidarity. There’s a lot of individualism. There’s a lot of exceptionalism. Like, 'I'm really trying to differentiate myself, be the best I can be, that's how I'm gonna get picked.' Where it actually leads us is further away from any kind of collective success or caretaking.” When we forget that we’re in this together, that we can choose to organize, that we’re not in competition with each other, and instead see the power we hold as a class, that’s when we start to shake off our feelings of alienation. We can resist alienation by seeing our fellow creative workers as allies in the struggle for the lives we want to live. We can choose to see a problem and ask how we can solve it with others. We can build things together—on or off platforms. We can cultivate solidarity in attitude and practice—and in doing so, we can live how we want to live. For more on taking back the vision of the #creatoreconomy (even if it means doing away with it!), listen to the 2nd part of my conversation with Charlie Gilkey and Kate on the What Works podcast. Or check out my latest article! #philosophyofwork #futureofwork #creativework

I finished Kate Manne's brilliant book, Unshrinking, this morning—5 out of 5, highly recommend. Not to spoil the ending, but the intervention she proposes, adopting a position of “body reflexivity,” is spot on: "Rather than changing how bodies are assessed, it urges us to TRANSCEND THE MODE OF ASSESSMENT entirely. (“I don’t look at you with a critical eye,” is something often said to me by my husband—which means more to me, in the end, than his also telling me I’m beautiful.)" (emphasis added) How many other aspects of life could we apply the idea of “transcend[ing] the mode of assessment” to? What else could we practice not looking at with a critical eye? As ever, philosophical critique of one subject offers a new way of approaching so many others.

How do you decide whether to add a new product or service to your business? 💭 In an ever-changing market, we’re continuously presented with “opportunities” to expand what we offer or “pivot.” It can seem like the next big thing is the key to stability or at least short-term security. ⭐️ But every time you add a product or service to your business, you alter it in meaningful ways. ⭐️ You don't just offer more. The business itself becomes something different. To figure out whether you want to add a product or service, you need to consider how that new offer changes the business—and decide whether that business world is the one you want to live and work in. Instead of asking yourself whether you can or should offer something new, imagine the business that does offer it: ✔️ Does that business make it easier or harder to prioritize your needs and personal goals? ✔️ How does the business's brand and value proposition shift to accommodate the new offer? Is that a shift you want to make? ✔️ How do your pricing, clientele, and revenue model change? ✔️ How do your systems and procedures evolve? Looking at the whole world of the business and how it might change gives you a lot more information to make a decision with. I've been thinking about this whole process quite a bit as Sean McMullin and I think about some potential new offers at YellowHouse.Media. I wrote about our deliberations in today's newsletter. #businessmodel #businessstrategy

When we talk about "accessibility" online, the conversation often zooms in on the technicalities... What's the best design for this site? Which ALT text should accompany our images? Are we providing video captions? No doubt, nailing down these technical aspects is crucial. Yet, if our curiosity about accessibility stops at ticking off these boxes, we're missing the heart of the matter: the people these efforts are meant to serve. Disability studies scholar Tanya Titchkosky offers a compelling viewpoint, suggesting that access "is a complex form of perception." This invites us to shift how we see others and the spaces we inhabit together, recognizing that not all barriers are immediately apparent. This shift in perception is key because not all barriers to access are visible. When I spoke with accessibility educator Erin Perkins, she told me, "A lot of us were raised, especially Millennials, with the vision that a person with a disability is in a wheelchair ... Because we meet a lot of people virtually now, you would not know if they had a disability unless they explicitly told you." Accessibility transcends mere checklist items. Sure, these tasks are vital, but genuine accessibility revolves around people. These checklist points should serve as stepping stones towards broadening our understanding and sparking curiosity. Erin's approach to expanding her network with the intention of meeting people with all sorts of differences resonates with me. It's through this genuine curiosity about others that we can begin to consider who might be inadvertently excluded from our conversations and initiatives. Titchkosky challenges us further, proposing that we can cultivate a "desire to wonder" about how we perceive disability in our daily lives. Or, as Titchkosky puts it, "It is possible to nurture a desire to wonder about the everyday act of perceiving disability." Accessibility is more than just a technical necessity; it's a doorway to inclusivity and understanding in the truest sense. For more, check out the full essay or episode: https://lnkd.in/e7H6tvvt #InclusiveLeadership #AccessibilityMatters #FutureofWork