Make It So is my new eight-week seminar, and this episode is the full walkthrough — what it is, who it's for, and why I built it around practice instead of prediction.

The name comes from Jean-Luc Picard: you're telling me you want to do something, so do it. And there's research behind that instinct. Herminia Ibarra at London Business School has shown that identity shifts when you apply what you're learning — you can think about something extensively, but real learning starts when you make it real. Leadership programs hand you a framework. This is a practice, and preparation starts with examining what you're already assuming to be true. That's my Assumption-Ground Audit: it doesn't start with strategy, it starts a layer back — what are we treating as settled that we haven't even looked at?

Everyone has a history, a present, and a future, which means futurism doesn't require a crystal ball. It's woven into your life already — how you respond, how you plan, how you envision what's ahead. And there's no one future. There's futures.

For decades, Canada operated on the assumption that the US was its biggest trading partner and a great neighbour. This summer, that's not proving reliable. Tariffs may be temporary. Repairs may not be. Whatever your version of that assumption is — in your work, your business, your family — you can't build for the future until you've looked at what you're assuming will hold.

In this episode:

• Who this is for: people who sense things before the room catches up — not the "this is the way it always was" crowd
• Building across a permacrisis: climate, economic uproar, geopolitical drama, technology upheaval — how do you adapt when your strategy stops being realistic within 90 days?
• Why so much of change is rooted in identity, which assumptions are load-bearing in yours, and why letting go of a story you tell about yourself can feel like grief (my neighbours' US-centred retirement plans, my husband's shift as our kids moved to university)
• Trust: who you trust, why, what disrupts it — and how you repair it when the breach is cultural and underlying-values level, not day-to-day
• What's a true signal and what's just noise: how you scan, what bias impedes your noticing, and how you make meaning out of what you notice
• Scenario thinking as a leadership tool, not just a planning exercise
• Language and power: who gets to name things, who respects the reasons for a name, and what the Lake Ontario / "Lake America" drama says about hierarchy and identity
• Embedding: setting up a practice you run in your own life — almost like configuring a tool stack for a world that's shifting in real time
• How I used these skills myself: implementing work from home a full decade before the pandemic, and moving away from working for an American division ten years before this summer
• A note for American participants — what I'll ask you to be able to sit with before you join
• Why this is a moment to invest in Canada and be chosen for the Canadian perspective, not because the historical choice has always been an American expert

These skills are transferable — they'll apply to your work, your parenting, your relationships. It's not a straight line; it's learning to work with the currents, the waves, the disruptions, and get closer to where you want to be. More of what you want, less of what you don't. That's the hope and possibilities in the future of work.

The details:

• Eight weeks, starting Tuesday, September 8
• Runs through Telegram and is designed to be asynchronous — live sessions are recorded, time zones aren't a barrier, and it's open to participants anywhere in the world
• Twenty seats total, across three tiers: Program (fully asynchronous, CAD $1,600), Program + Office Hours (CAD $2,400), and Program + 1:1 (CAD $3,200, two private sessions with me, by application)

Enroll at nolasimon.com/make-it-so

The future isn't predicted. It's practiced.

A reader told me my AI-assisted essay didn't sound like me anymore. That critique kicked off a week where reputation and AI collided in public three times: Substack's new Pangram "human-detection" scan, LinkedIn's AI-slop report button, and the backlash over an influencer's OpenAI brand trip. Each one exposes the terms platforms are quietly setting for anyone with a public body of work. This episode is me working out how to stay visible without giving up my own ground.

Pillars: Trust · Visibility · Identity · Communication

What's covered

A critique that stuck (00:00–03:00) A reader told me my AI-assisted essay had lost my voice — that it sounded more like Claude than like me. I disagreed. But the position got harder to defend once I separated two questions: can I write, and why am I experimenting at all.

Where AI actually fits my work (03:00–04:00) Useful for SEO, AEO, and discoverability. The trainer material — takeaways, reflection questions, anything designed to teach rather than model — is mine to write. That part was never up for experiment.

Substack + Pangram (03:52–05:41) Substack now scans posts and rates them human, AI-assisted, or AI-written. My read: unreliable like every detector, and easy to game, since anything under 100 words, audio, video, or paywalled content can't be scanned at all. So who benefits? Substack gets a PR win. Pangram gets a funding-round talking point. Writers get scanned. My response: I'm moving my experimentation behind the paywall.

LinkedIn's AI-slop button (05:57–07:12) No test, no proof, just crowd-sourced suspicion anyone can act on. Any anonymous reporting system carries the same abuse potential, and we already know where that lands: ageism, misogyny, racism.

Thought leader vs. influencer, and the OpenAI brand trip (07:12–10:54) A creator I follow — she wouldn't call herself an influencer, but she functions as one — took an unpaid OpenAI brand trip and posted about it while running a bath. The comments tore her apart over data-center water use. Her defense was "I didn't know this would be controversial." That's a research failure, and for someone whose credibility rests on thinking things through, it's a costly one.

Trust, reputation, and PR strategy (10:54–12:27) Getting torn apart in the comments isn't the answer either. I think we're capable of civil disagreement on both sides. But if you're a public persona doing brand deals, you need a real strategy: know your stuff, own it, explain it, and make sure the deal's values match yours.

Platform incentives (12:34–15:00) LinkedIn's new multi-collaborator post feature runs on the same engagement logic under a friendlier name. More talking helps the platform at least as much as it helps you. And this goes past creators — if you're an employee, your public presence is also your resume.

Reflection questions

1. Is it actually worthwhile to take the risk of experimenting publicly with AI?
2. What does a platform gain by having users rate each other as "less than human"? Who does that serve?
3. Am I experimenting with this tool because it's genuinely useful, or just because it's there?
4. Whose credibility is most at risk when anonymous, crowd-sourced flagging gets abused?
5. Where's the line between thought leadership and influence, and does that line change how I'm judged?
6. What is it about a voice I don't fully agree with that still works? What can I learn from that discomfort?
7. Before taking a partnership or brand deal, have I actually researched who I'd be standing next to?
8. Do public missteps deserve public dismantling, or is there a more civil way to hold the same concerns?
9. How do I present myself in a way that builds trust and protects my reputation without getting defensive?
10. Would I want my name permanently tied to this company or platform, in this form, five years from now?
11. Am I transparent about how I'm using AI? Does that use actually serve me, my work, and my relationships?
12. What future is this choice building toward, not just what does it do for me right now?
13. How do I stay visible in a way that still feels ethical to me?

A note on process: these show notes are pulled from my own transcript, not generated from a prompt. AI did the structuring and compression; the words are mine. Same distinction I draw in the episode: extraction and discoverability work, not voice work.

It's not safe to be experimental for free anymore. I'll still be on LinkedIn, and the longer essays will still land on Substack — but the experiments are moving behind the paywall. If you want to watch the process, that's where it lives now.

If knowledge I gave a company five, ten, or twenty years ago is still generating value for them, why does the payroll relationship get to end while the value extraction doesn't?

That's the question driving this episode. I read and respond to an excerpt from a LinkedIn post by a former colleague about AI systems that capture and index employee knowledge — the recordings, conversations, and stories that make expertise valuable — so all of it stays discoverable inside a company long after the person who generated it has left. Long-term extraction, in other words.

My issue isn't with the AI capability itself. It's with the assumption sitting underneath the post: that a company can capture, index, and reuse a person's stories, judgment, and point of view indefinitely, without renegotiating consent, ownership, or compensation as the relationship changes.

I trace it through consent, accountability, discoverability infrastructure, reputation risk, and the crux of it for me: compensation.

Key themes

• Consent has an expiry problem. Recording something while employed isn't the same as consenting to its indefinite reuse after departure.
• Accountability gets murky once context changes. If old material is repurposed years later and it backfires, who answers for it? The person who said it, or the company that recontextualized it?
• Discoverability is infrastructure. Making knowledge "searchable" means it gets indexed, pattern-matched, and interpreted, which raises the attribution question: am I cited as the source, and do I have any say in that?
• Reputation and digital footprint are at stake, especially if it's a company or context I no longer want to be associated with.
• The employment contract has changed. Call it the Hotel California Clause: you can leave the company any time you like, but your value never does. Payroll used to be the deal: compensation flows while you're actively contributing. Indefinite knowledge capture breaks that link. The value keeps flowing. The payroll doesn't.
• This isn't limited to employees. Contractors, freelancers, and consultants recorded and captured through AI face the same exposure, and it's nowhere in their contracts.
• Whose knowledge "counts" in the first place. I raise the open question of whether ageism, racism, or misogyny shapes whose expertise gets flagged as valuable enough to capture and monetize.
• Regulatory retention sits in tension with all of this. At my old employer in financial services, everything was already subject to audit and kept on record for six or seven years: recordings, emails, anything written. That's extraction for compliance rather than knowledge-mining, but it's still capture and retention I didn't fully control. I don't resolve that tension here. Where regulatory retention ends and unregulated knowledge-mining begins deserves its own conversation.

Reflection questions

Use these for journaling, discussion, or a follow-up episode:

1. What consent does a company actually have to use my recorded conversations, stories, and expertise after I've left?
2. If information I provided years ago is repurposed and the context has shifted, who is accountable when it backfires: me or the company?
3. If a company builds infrastructure to make my captured knowledge discoverable, indexed, and pattern-matched, do I have any say in how I'm cited or attributed?
4. If a former employer is one I no longer want to be associated with, what recourse do I have over how my past contributions continue to represent me?
5. If my knowledge is valuable enough to keep generating value years after I've left, why doesn't the compensation relationship continue too?
6. Has the employment contract changed, from "paid for your labor while employed" to "paid for your labor, but your knowledge stays extractable indefinitely"?
7. Does this exposure extend beyond employees to contractors, freelancers, and consultants? Is it addressed anywhere in those agreements?
8. Whose knowledge gets deemed valuable enough to capture in the first place? Is there bias (age, race, gender) in that determination?
9. What would it take to make this explicit: legislation, individual negotiation, or structural change at the organizational level?
10. As AI capture of video, writing, and audio becomes normalized, what belongs in a contract today that wasn't there before?

One-line takeaway

The post calls it preserving wisdom. I'm asking who owns that wisdom once the relationship ends, and why consent and compensation don't get renegotiated along the way.

This is an Assumption-Ground Audit

This whole episode is the Assumption-Ground Audit in action, pointed at a LinkedIn post instead of a policy. The AGA is the method I use to surface the assumption sitting underneath a decision before it calcifies into precedent. The question is never whether the technology is good or bad. The question is what everyone is treating as already-settled that hasn't actually been agreed to.

Here, the unexamined assumption is the Hotel California Clause itself: that indefinite capture and reuse of an employee's knowledge is simply part of the deal, and that consent, attribution, and compensation don't need renegotiating just because the mechanism changed from "someone remembers what you said" to "a system indexes it forever." That's the kind of assumption the AGA is built to catch before you build infrastructure, policy, or a vendor relationship on top of it.

If you're building AI systems that touch employee knowledge, client data, or institutional memory, those assumptions are hardening into your roadmap right now, whether anyone has examined them or not. If you want to know what they are before they're impossible to walk back, let's have a conversation.

Work with me on an Assumption-Ground Audit →

Episode: What the YAP Challenge Teaches Us About Trust, Presence, and the Future of Work

In this episode, I dive into the phenomenon of Jessie Jean's YAP Challenge—a 30‑day video‑creation program that has taken the creator economy by storm. Her first cohort brought in $1.2M, and the second crossed $6M, all at a price point of $297. I'm not interested in the hype or the mechanics of her launch; I'm interested in the trust behind it.

Why This Challenge Captured My Attention

I explore why so many people felt comfortable joining a program like this, especially at a moment when online courses are supposedly "dead." As I say in the episode: "What is it about her specifically that people trusted? And I'd argue… it's probably not necessarily her, but how it made them feel."

Jessie didn't come out of nowhere—she had:

• 400K+ followers

• 12 years of online experience

• Funnel experts and coaches supporting her

• A beta tester who hit 1M+ views, proving the method worked

But the real magic wasn't her credibility alone. It was the network effects she created by having participants post their homework publicly. People didn't just trust Jessie—they trusted the community.

Why This Matters in a Corporate Context

I connect the dots between the YAP Challenge and the future of employee-led communication inside organizations.

Employees are more trusted than executives. Their authentic, unscripted presence online is a powerful asset for:

• Employer brand

• Recruitment

• Reputation

• Internal trust

• Cross-team visibility

I share my own experience of building a personal brand inside a corporation and how, even years after leaving, people reached out because they trusted me.

This challenge model could easily be adapted inside companies:

• Run it publicly on LinkedIn

• Run it privately on Slack

• Integrate it into employee advocacy programs

• Use it to build confidence, presence, and thought leadership

As I say in the episode: "This type of challenge… gives them something that they feel they can control."

Why Video Skills Matter Right Now

Video is the antidote to AI slop. It captures:

• Voice

• Presence

• Gestures

• Authenticity

• Point of view

It's proof of humanity in a moment when people are craving it.

What I'm Paying Attention To

I'm not participating in the YAP Challenge myself, but I'm deeply interested in:

• The systems behind its success

• The trust dynamics

• The transferable skills

• The implications for the future of work

• How organizations could use similar models to build capability and confidence

Reflection for Listeners

I close the episode by asking:

• Are you planning to join the YAP Challenge?

• What skills do you see emerging from participants?

• What parts of the model do you admire—or question?

• How could your organization benefit from something similar?

How this creator turned yapping on camera into a 4,000-customer, $1.2 million launch

What Is an Assumption-Ground Audit? Introducing Make It So | Hope + Possibilities

Episode description The assumption ground audit is a structured practice for surfacing the beliefs, values, and past experiences that silently shape your decisions — at work and in life. In this episode, Nola Simon introduces Make It So, an 8-week cohort built around everyday futurism and the assumption ground audit as a leadership practice.

What is an assumption-ground audit?

An assumption-ground audit is a reflective practice that asks: what decisions are you making based on what you currently believe to be true? Your assumptions aren't random — they're built from your values, your experiences, and the stories you've told yourself over time. The audit makes those visible so you can work with them intentionally, rather than having them work on you unconsciously.

It's the foundation of everyday futurism: the idea that the future isn't built in grand gestures, but in the small, compounding decisions you make daily.

About this episode

In this episode, Nola introduces Make It So: an 8-week cohort launching June 1st, designed for people who understand that operating well inside ambiguity is the leadership skill. Make It So pairs everyday futurism with the assumption ground audit to help you integrate future-focused thinking into the way you already work and lead — not as a forecasting exercise, but as a daily practice.

What's covered:

• What an assumption ground audit is and how to use it
• Why everyday futurism is a leadership capacity, not a prediction contest
• How the lice case study shows the way unexamined assumptions drive organizational decisions
• The three tiers of access: fully async, regular office hours, and 1:1 coaching (which includes Substack founder membership with trend and convergence reports)
• Why the cohort is capped at 20 — and why it closes Sunday
• Why Nola builds for digital community (and what a two-hour drive to Toronto has to do with it)

Frequently asked questions

What is everyday futurism? Everyday futurism is the practice of making small, intentional decisions that accumulate into the future you want — for yourself, your work, and the organizations you lead. It's not about prediction. It's about integrated thinking.

What is the Make It So cohort? Make It So is an 8-week, mostly asynchronous cohort built around everyday futurism and the assumption ground audit. It's designed for leaders and implementers who want to develop futurism as a core leadership practice. Learn more and register here.

Who is Make It So for? It's for people who already understand that ambiguity is normal, change is constant, and that how you think — not just what you do — is what determines how well you lead through it.

How is this different from other futurism programs? Most futurism content centers the expert. Make It So centers you — your assumptions, your noticing practices, your decision-making patterns. The goal is a practice you can sustain, not a framework you borrow.

Make It So

• Launches June 1st | Capped at 20 | Sign-up closes Sunday
• Register for the seminar
• Want to talk first? Book a call at nolasimon.com

In this episode, I dive into trust through a pop culture moment that became a global case study: the Coldplay kiss cam incident. What looked like celebrity gossip actually opens up bigger conversations about leadership, workplace ethics, public perception, and how we decide who and what to trust.

Time-Stamped Highlights

• 00:00 — I introduce the episode and explain why trust is the real story behind the viral Coldplay kiss cam moment.

• 02:00 — I recap the incident and how it became a global pop culture and PR event.

• 05:00 — I break down the Astronomer response and why their celebrity ad strategy became part of the trust conversation.

• 08:00 — I explore media framing, public perception, and why context changes how we interpret events.

• 11:00 — I ask: who do we trust more — the celebrity observers, the people involved, or the people managing the story?

• 14:00 — I explain why this is really a workplace issue, not just celebrity drama.

• 17:00 — I reflect on internal trust, leadership accountability, and what employees may have been thinking.

• 20:00 — I share the difference between sounding confident and actually having expertise.

• 23:00 — I reflect personally on learning, capability, and using AI as a tool rather than a substitute for expertise.

• 26:00 — I close with thoughts on discernment, trust signals, and what the future of work asks of us.

Key Takeaways

• Trust is shaped by context, power, and perception.

• Viral moments often reveal deeper workplace and leadership issues.

• Media coverage can amplify or distort what people think they know.

• Confidence is not the same as competence.

• In a world shaped by AI and rapid change, discernment matters more than ever.

I've also written a related case study called "A PR Crisis, a Pop Star, and a Camera Walk Into a Stadium" — you can find it on my website: www.everydayfuturism.com.

I'd love to hear what you think. Reach me at [email protected] or leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts.

In this episode of Hope and Possibilities, I share a personal reflection on what's unfolding in the United States—and why it feels both shocking and familiar to me.

I spent nearly 18 years in global financial services, 16 of them working closely with American clients, many based in Minnesota. That experience gave me an inside view of how U.S. systems shape people's daily lives—and where those systems quietly fail. Long before today's headlines, I began making deliberate choices to reduce American exposure in my work and center my career in Canada and other global contexts where values aligned more closely with mine.

This episode isn't about blame. It's about perspective. I speak with deep respect for Americans—their decency, humor, and care—and with clarity about a hard truth: lasting change can only come from within. External voices have limits. Ownership matters.

Drawing on professional experience, historical training, and family history shaped by wartime Europe, I reflect on why nostalgia is such a powerful force, why democratic pressure often looks uncomfortable, and why other countries are quietly recalibrating their relationship with the U.S.

This is a reflection, not a prescription—an invitation to think more honestly about responsibility, leadership, and what it takes to shape what comes next.

Timestamps

00:00 – Why this moment feels personal Why I chose to talk about this now

02:05 – My American work life Nearly 18 years in financial services, 16 with U.S. clients—many in Minnesota

05:15 – Working across values gaps What you learn when you avoid "safe" topics like healthcare, labor law, and maternity leave

09:10 – 2016 as a turning point Healthcare rollbacks, medical hardship calls, and knowing when work becomes untenable

13:30 – History as an early warning system How family history and studying history shaped my perspective

17:00 – A deliberate shift Why I chose, ten years ago, to reduce American exposure in my career

21:15 – Canadians opting out quietly Travel, consumption, culture, and economic consequences

24:50 – Why change must come from Americans The limits of external critique and the necessity of internal advocacy

29:00 – Protest, boycott, and democracy Why discomfort is often the price of democratic pressure

33:20 – Respect without nostalgia Holding affection for Americans while refusing to romanticize systems

37:10 – The long arc of change Why the Canada–U.S. relationship has been shifting for longer than most realize

40:45 – Closing reflection What the future depends on—and who must shape it

There's a lot of data showing that trust in governments, institutions, and organizations is declining worldwide. Employers were once considered the last trusted institution—and even that is eroding. As someone who has spent years working independently, I've often noticed that these conversations leave out people like us entirely. When you don't have an employer, trust shows up differently. Stability looks different. And the relationship you have with yourself matters more than most people realize.

So I wanted to start there.

I talk about what it actually means to trust yourself when you're self-employed, when you don't see many role models living or working the way you do, and when the noise—from well-meaning friends, family, and society—keeps asking, "Why don't you just get a job?"

For me, self-trust isn't abstract. It's practical. It shows up in how I decide to work, how I communicate, and how I choose between remote, in-person, or hybrid ways of connecting. It shows up in my values—impact, meaning, and helping shape a future of work that supports people, families, and communities, not just productivity metrics.

I also share the inner practices that help me stay grounded when things feel uncertain. Meditation. Walking. Swimming. Paying attention to my body. Noticing what has always been true about me—what I'm drawn to, what calms me, what fuels my curiosity. I talk about rituals, habits, and even "extreme noticing": light on water, changes in seasons, how my body reacts to people, places, and decisions.

These practices help me recognize what's changing, what isn't, and where opportunity actually lives—for me.

As we move through uncertainty, I believe self-trust becomes a form of leadership. When you know your own reactions, values, and rhythms, you're better equipped to make decisions, form opinions, and move forward without needing constant external validation.

I close the episode with an invitation: What helps you trust yourself? What rituals, habits, or inner practices keep you grounded? I'd love to hear your stories, and I may share some of them in a future episode as we explore how self-trust shapes how we lead, work, and relate to others.

Because maybe—just maybe—trusting ourselves more is the first step toward trusting each other again.

• Leave me a voicemail with your questions or thoughts: https://podcastfeedback.com/hopeandpossibilities

• Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nolasimon

• Subscribe to my newsletter: Hope & Possibilities: A Love Letter to the Future of Work | Nola Simon | Substack

• Hire me via website: www.nolasimon.com

In this episode of the Hope and Possibilities Podcast, I talk about what I'm seeing for 2026 and the future of work. My focus is shifting from solely helping companies adopt hybrid and remote work to looking at leadership more broadly. Flexibility, autonomy, and well-being aren't just perks anymore—they're core to how people want to work and how organizations succeed.

We'll talk about the pressures around office return mandates, AI, and workforce reduction, and why I don't buy the narrative that humans are expendable. Instead, leadership in the future is about reinvention, redistributing work, and making sure people feel that they matter.

I'll also share how I plan to use this podcast, my newsletter, LinkedIn, and email to create space for nuanced conversations about the future of work. And I want to hear from you—what questions are keeping you awake at night?

Key Topics & Timestamps:

• [00:00:22] Why I'm pivoting my focus for 2026

• [00:00:53] Why hybrid and flexible work aren't going away

• [00:01:32] Why autonomy and well-being often matter more than compensation

• [00:03:00] The circular debates around office space, identity, and leadership

• [00:04:39] How AI is changing the way work happens

• [00:06:26] Navigating conflicting narratives about AI and workforce reduction

• [00:07:16] Leadership as continuous reinvention, not a one-time project

• [00:08:34] Why making people feel they matter is central to leadership

• [00:09:49] Discernment as a critical skill in an increasingly complex world

• [00:11:05] How work is evolving—universal benefits, portfolio careers, and new models

• [00:12:06] How I'm shifting the podcast, newsletters, and my content strategy

• [00:15:10] How you can interact with the podcast and share your questions

• [00:16:26] Questions to reflect on: identity, life quakes, and navigating change

Connect & Engage:

• Leave me a voicemail with your questions or thoughts: https://podcastfeedback.com/hopeandpossibilities

• Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nolasimon

• Subscribe to my newsletter: Hope & Possibilities: A Love Letter to the Future of Work | Nola Simon | Substack

• Hire me via website: www.nolasimon.com

Takeaway: The future of work is about flexibility, discernment, and creating environments where people feel valued. Change is constant—how we respond and evolve will define the next chapter of our work and our lives.

In this solo episode of Hope and Possibilities: A Love Letter to the Future of Work, I'm talking honestly about how LinkedIn and social media are changing, and what that means for how I show up, get found, and build my business. I share how I went from casually using LinkedIn to becoming a LinkedIn Top Voice with a "small but mighty" following, and why the latest algorithm shifts are nudging me to rethink my strategy.​

I get into what's really going on with discoverability, including how proxy bias can quietly disadvantage women, people of color, trans folks, and anyone who doesn't fit the traditional leadership mold. I also talk about the emotional side of it—what it feels like when your impressions drop, your posts don't land the way they used to, and how I'm choosing to respond with experimentation instead of discouragement.​

I walk you through how I'm shifting from "cheerleader" style commenting to more thoughtful, strategic contributions that actually support my consulting work and signal my expertise. I share how I'm reworking my profile for people who are discovering me for the very first time through a comment, and why I'm putting more energy into things I own—like my website, blog, Substack, newsletter, and search-friendly content on platforms like Pinterest and YouTube.​

I also push back on the narrative that "everything needs to be in-person now." I talk about what it's really like living outside a major city, the time and energy cost of commuting, and why in-person events have to clear a pretty high bar for me: they need to help me make money, save time, or reduce risk—not just feel good in the moment.​

Throughout the episode, I keep coming back to one question: will future me be grateful for how I'm spending my time and attention right now? I share how I'm choosing to support important conversations about bias, platforms, and ethical AI without making "fighting the algorithm" the center of my business, and how I'm designing a visibility strategy that feels sustainable, values-aligned, and genuinely hopeful about the future of work.​

Key insights

• The LinkedIn algorithm is shifting from prioritizing posts to rewarding meaningful commenting, which changes how people get discovered and how you think about visibility and strategy.​
• Proxy bias means that even if gender isn't a stated factor, variables like role, seniority, and activity levels can still disadvantage women, people of color, trans folks, and others who don't match the "default" leadership profile.​
• Commenting as pure cheerleading doesn't necessarily drive business; strategic comments that demonstrate insight, credibility, and clarity on your services are far more valuable.​
• Building on platforms you own (website, blog, email list) is essential so your work and relationships are not entirely dependent on platform whims and opaque algorithms.​
• In-person-only strategies are exclusionary for many people, especially those who don't live near major hubs or carry significant logistical and emotional costs to attend events.​
• Future-focused visibility is about making choices that future you will be grateful for—balancing values, energy, and the reality that friends are wonderful, but clients pay the bills.

A personalized LinkTree for Nola Simon's presence on social media — Nola Simon

Listen: Hope + Possibilties: A Love Letter to the Future of Work

Review: Hope + Possibilties: A Love Letter to the Future of Work