Communication

🗞️ A big Yes : highlighting how much we need court-ready attribution framework right now, not just analysis! 👉🏼read this 53 pages study by NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence Love that it brings not only intelligence insight but anticipates the challenges under EU instruments: DSA, sanctions, litigation.. 🔹It proposes an attribution doctrine built on 4️⃣ pillars: Technical, Behavioural evidence (TTP), Contextual evidence (narratives, timing, audiences), Legal-ethical assessment, confidence scales, spectrum of state responsibility. 🔹The framework aims to produce conclusions robust against legal scrutiny. 📰 it takes into account that info op rarely fall into “state vs non-state”… and offers a spectrum of responsibility: • State-ignored • State-encouraged • State-shaped • State-coordinated • State-ordered • State-executed / integrated ➡️ gives policymakers graduated response options (naming, sanctions, diplomacy, etc.). ➡️ Addresses plausible deniability at the core of Russian strategy. 🤖 The methodology borrows heavily from cyber attribution: • Infrastructure forensics (domains, IPs, certificates) • Network analysis • Financial tracing • Behavioural “fingerprinting” 👉🏼but it recognizes structural constraints on open-source analysis: 🔹Analysts increasingly lacking data due to platform API restrictions = pb for democratic resilience: • males governments dependent on platforms • Attribution becomes harder for civil society • Legal thresholds rise while evidence access shrinks 🚨 Narrative warfare is treated as an operational system (not just “disinfo content") : • Narrative laundering • Firehose propaganda • Audience segmentation by language/culture • Multi-platform propagation chains ⚠️ Great case studies 🔹RT & Sputnik sanctions circumvention =Demonstrates adaptation under pressure and infrastructure resilience. • Rapid creation of alternative domains after EU bans • Shared analytics IDs and hosting = common control • Promotion through official social media channels 🔹 Fabricated child-deportation narrative (fondfbr.ru) =illustration of multi-layer attribution using technical clues. • Domain tied to Prigozhin-linked organization • Anonymous registration despite NGO façade • Shared hosting with large numbers of sites • Use of anonymity-friendly services (Let’s Encrypt) • Kremlin-alogned narratives ➡️ attribution requires layered evidence 🔹 Telegram amplification networks, esp @yurasumy channel ecosystem. =reveals Telegram as a central operational hub for pro-Kremlin influence • ++ high engagement rates • Structured cross-promotion btw channels • Rapid synchronized reposting • amplified by regional “local” channels 🔹 False narrative: Poland planning to annex Western Ukraine 🔹Fabricated Georgian-Ukrainian soldier clash= false story made to appear organic. • Source laundering • Cross-posting before “original” publication • Synthetic grassroots amplification 👏🏼authors

Bad news: you’re giving bad news wrong Here’s the research backed way to do it without breaking trust. Stanford’s Robert Sutton has studied this for 40+ years. When delivering bad news, four ingredients matter: Predictability. Understanding. Control. Compassion. During the London Blitz, people in regularly bombed areas were less anxious. Not because danger vanished… because they could predict it. Uncertainty not bad news spikes anxiety. Brian Chesky (Airbnb) laid off ~25% during COVID and still preserved trust by: Explaining the why Letting people keep laptops Letting them keep vested stock Giving them time to say goodbye What not to do: Bird laid off 406 people via a 2-minute Zoom. Some even thought it was pre-recorded. Brutal. Demoralizing. Performative. Sutton’s take: Too many leaders confuse toughness with sadism Cutting deeper “to seem bold,” copying competitors, or just because they can. That’s not leadership. That’s ego maintenance. Even small control signals matter: A CEO promised: “No layoffs for the next 4 months.” Not forever. Not everything. But it gave breathing room. Predictability > vague reassurance. This isn’t just about layoffs. Any move that threatens status, identity, or purpose qualifies: New org charts. Killed products. RTO mandates. When people feel blindsided, they disengage or leave. What people want in hard moments: To understand what/why/when To avoid being ambushed To feel seen and treated fairly To plan their next move Deliver that always. When the news is bad, your job isn’t robotic spin. Leaders we remember aren’t the ones who never made cuts They’re the ones who made them with dignity.

🗣️“You must be more assertive.” Last year, those five words burned into Amy’s memory. She’d walked out of her 2023 review at XYZ Global determined to “step up.” Speak more in meetings. Push harder on decisions. Stop softening her tone so she wouldn’t intimidate anyone. She did exactly that. Fast forward 12 months. Same conference room. Same 2 VPs across the table. 🔇“You’ve become too intense, need to work on softening your approach.” 😑 Amy stared at them, speechless. Wasn’t that what you asked for last year? Which version of me do you actually want? She thought about the past year: 🤔 The time she challenged a flawed budget forecast in front of the CFO, saving the company $3 million, but earning whispers that she was “abrasive.” 🤔 The time she stepped in to rescue a failing project, praised for her “grit” publicly, yet privately told she “dominated the room.” 🤔 The time she finally got invited to an executive offsite, only to overhear a VP say, “She’s great, but can be… a lot.” This is the tightrope trap senior women walk daily: • Be assertive, but not too assertive. • Be collaborative, but don’t fade into the background. • Be visible, but not “hungry.”    The same behavior praised in men (decisive, strong leader) gets women penalized as abrasive or too much. Until you set the narrative yourself, you’re trapped performing for a moving target. If you’re exhausted from balancing on a wire men don’t even see, here’s how to step off it and still rise. 1. Audit the pattern, not just the feedback • Track every piece of feedback, especially contradiction. Patterns reveal bias. If the goal keeps moving, it's not you! • Phrase to use in review: “Last year I was encouraged to increase my presence; this year I’m told to soften it. Can we clarify what success really looks like?”    2. Control the frame before the room does • Pre‑set the narrative in 1:1s and emails leading up to reviews. I.e., “This year I focused on driving results while bringing the team with me, you’ll see that reflected in project X and Y.” • This primes leadership to view your assertiveness as an intentional strategy, not a personality flaw.    3. Build echo chambers, not just results • Secure 2–3 allies who reinforce your strengths in rooms you’re not in. • Promotions happen in the absence, you need people echoing your narrative, not someone else’s. • Phrase to brief an ally: “If my leadership style comes up in review, can you speak to how I challenge decisions but still align the team?”    Women aren’t just asked to deliver results. They’re asked to perform, decode, and reframe, all while walking a wire men don’t even see. If you’re exhausted from balancing between “too soft” and “too aggressive,” stop walking the wire and start controlling the narrative. Join the waitlist of our next cohort of ⭐ From Hidden Talent to Visible Leaders ⭐ https://lnkd.in/gx7CpGGR 👊 Because leadership shouldn’t feel like an impossible balancing act.

I've coached 400+ CEOs. The best ones don't communicate better. They communicate differently. While average leaders wing it, great ones use proven methods that turn conversations into opportunities. After 20+ years studying top performers, I've identified 7 communication systems that separate good from great. (Save this. You'll need it for your next big meeting.) 1. The 3 Levels of Listening Stop listening to reply. Start listening to understand. Level 1: You're thinking about your response Level 2: You're focused on their words Level 3: You're reading the room—energy, tone, silence One CEO used this to uncover why his top performer was really leaving. Saved a $10M account. 2. What? So What? Now What? Transform rambling updates into decisive action. What = The facts (30 seconds max) So What = Why it matters to the business Now What = The specific decision needed Cut meeting time by 40%. 3. PREP Method Never fumble another investor question. Point: Your answer in one sentence Reason: Why you believe it Example: Proof from your business Point: Reinforce your answer Practice this for 5 minutes daily. Sound prepared always. 4. RACI Matrix Kill confusion before it starts. Responsible: Who does the work Accountable: Who owns success/failure (only ONE person) Consulted: Who gives input Informed: Who needs updates Projects with clear RACI are 3x more likely to succeed. 5. Story of Self/Us/Now Move hearts, not just minds. Story of Self: Why YOU care (personal conviction) Story of Us: Our shared challenge Story of Now: The urgent choice we face This framework has helped politicians win. It'll help you raise capital or inspire your team to meet a big goal. 6. The Pyramid Principle Get board approval in half the time. Start with your recommendation Give 3 supporting arguments (max) Order by impact (strongest first) Data goes last, not first McKinsey consultants swear by this. So should you. 7. COIN Feedback Model Make tough conversations productive. Context: When and where it happened Observation: What you saw (facts only) Impact: The business consequence Next: Agreed action steps No more avoided conversations. No more resentment. Your next funding round, key hire, or major deal doesn't depend on working harder. It depends on communicating better. Because in the end, leadership isn't about having all the answers. It's about asking better questions, listening deeper, and communicating with precision. Your team is waiting for you to lead like this. P.S. Want a PDF of my Leadership Communication Cheat Sheet? Get it free: https://lnkd.in/dbaSN9fJ ♻️ Repost to help a founder level up their communication. Follow Eric Partaker for more leadership tools.

🌍 Ten Years After Paris: is the Climate Crisis a Disinformation Crisis? In 2015, the world made a historic promise: to keep global warming well below 2°C, and ideally below 1.5°C. We committed to major emission cuts by 2030, and net-zero by 2050. The Paris Agreement marked a new era of global climate cooperation. But ten years on, we're still struggling with cooperation while the World Meteorological Organization tells us that the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C over a 12-month period (Feb 2023–Jan 2024) for the first time. Why? 🔍 A groundbreaking new study, led by 14 researchers for the International Panel on the Information Environment, reviewed 300 studies from 2015–2025. The findings are alarming: powerful interests – fossil fuel companies, populist parties, even some governments – are systematically spreading misleading narratives to delay climate action. 🧠 Misinformation isn't just about denying climate change. It’s now about strategic skepticism – minimizing the threat, casting doubt on science-based solutions, and greenwashing unsustainable practices. 📺 This disinformation flows through social media, news outlets, corporate reports, and even policy briefings. It targets all of us – but especially policymakers, where it can shape laws and delay critical decisions. 💡 So what can we do? 1️⃣ Legislate for transparency and integrity in climate communication. 2️⃣ Hold greenwashers accountable through legal action. 3️⃣ Build global coalitions of civil society, science, and public institutions. 4️⃣ Invest in climate and media literacy for both citizens and leaders. 5️⃣ Amplify voices from underrepresented regions – like Africa – where more research is urgently needed. We must protect not only the planet’s climate, but the integrity of climate information. 🔗 Read more on how disinformation is undermining climate progress – and what we can do about it: https://lnkd.in/eDN9hKAJ 🕰️ The window is small. But with truth, science, and collective action, we can still turn the tide.

I just watched a brilliant young mind quit after his first performance review.  The system didn't fail, it worked exactly as designed. And that's the problem. A close friend's son called me yesterday asking for advice. This kid has always been exceptional - top of his class, and one of the most hardworking young minds I know. He joined a company last year, excited to prove himself. His first performance review just happened. They put him on a PIP for "team collaboration issues." Here's what actually happened that past year: + On-time, flawless project delivery. + Zero complaints from stakeholders. + Often stayed late to get things right. But he wasn’t loud. He didn’t hang around in Slack threads and coffee chats or networked just for the sake of being visible. He focused on the work. And that somehow became a problem. When he called me, his voice was shaking. "I keep questioning myself. Maybe I really am terrible at my job." Just imagine an A-player, now doubting his entire future because our review systems punish introverts, misfit metrics, and non-traditional brilliance. I told him what I'm telling you: You're not the problem, kid. The system is. Four decades in this industry, and this still breaks my heart every time.  We're crushing exceptional talent with processes designed for a different era. We measure yesterday's activities instead of tomorrow's potential. The best leaders understand that real performance happens in real-time, not annual reviews. They coach continuously, celebrate wins immediately, and address challenges before they destroy confidence. ✅ Netflix eliminated performance reviews entirely.  ✅ Adobe replaced them with ongoing conversations.  ✅ Google shifted to quarterly goals with continuous feedback. These aren't experiments, they're competitive advantages. While traditional companies waste months on review documents nobody reads, smart organisations invest that time in actual development conversations that drive results. We need to replace annual reviews with monthly check-ins that matter. And most importantly, replace the assumption that people need to be "reviewed" like products with the understanding they need to be supported, challenged, and trusted to grow. That young man will find a company that values his work ethic over his small talk skills. His former employer will keep wondering why they can't retain talent while using the same broken processes. The difference will transform one organisation and devastate the other. So, stop managing performance like it's a quarterly report. Start enabling it like it's a human being's career and dreams. #performancereviews #thoughtleadership

I used to think having a voice meant always using it. The thing is, you can’t learn when you’re the one doing all the talking. In my younger days, I believed I had to speak up to let others know how much I knew. To show that I had something valuable to say. That I belonged. I was so focused on being heard, so I wasn’t really listening. With age, I realised that’s a mistake I needed to correct. These days, when I sit down with the youngsters – writers and directors who’ve just entered the industry, entrepreneurs or even creators – I’m mostly just all ears. I listen to them speak about things that never existed in my world. New technologies. New ideas. New ways of thinking. The kind of passion and energy that drives this generation. I could go on about the old-school ways of doing things. Or try to prove I know better. But I’ve realised there’s greater value in what I can absorb. Staying quiet allows you to pick up on things you would otherwise miss. Whether it’s the fresh perspective of a young founder, or the tech-driven solutions of a creative professional. And you know what? It’s worked for me. Being silent isn’t about hiding your voice. It’s about understanding when speaking up is valuable and when listening is the smarter choice. Sometimes, it’s just about being patient. About letting things unfold without forcing your way through. I’ve seen it play out in films, at work, even at home with my kids. When you’re quick to react, you’re quick to miss the point. But when you wait, when you allow yourself to listen, the answers often reveal themselves. It’s not just about learning or absorbing. It’s also about protecting yourself from saying or doing something you’ll regret. And then, there’s the part about speaking in anger. When you speak in anger, your words will always outrun your mind. You say things you can’t take back. It’s better to hold back, let the anger pass, and then speak with clarity. Knowing when to speak is important. But knowing when to stay silent - that’s where real power lies.

There are always situations in which you need to communicate fast and clearly. Especially in a crisis, in new situations, or when there is time pressure. The STICC protocol helps you achieve this. The STICC Protocol was developed by psychologist Gary Klein as a tool for managing the unexpected. STICC stands for: Situation, Task, Intent, Concerns, Calibrate and is a technique for productive communication about what to do when you face a new, unexpected situation. This is what it means: S - Situation = Here’s what I think we face. The leader summarizes how they see the situation, problem, or crisis at hand. T - Task = Here’s what I think we should do. The leader explains their plan for addressing the situation, problem, or crisis at hand. I - Intent = Here’s why I think this is what we should do. The leader explains the reasons why they think this is the best way of addressing the situation, problem, or crisis at hand. C - Concerns = Here’s what we should keep our eyes on. The leader mentions possible downsides or future consequences of the solution suggested to be taken into account as well. C - Calibrate = Now talk to me and give me your views. The leader asks others in the team to give their feedback and viewpoints, and especially invites them to disagree and add. This technique helps you in managing pressured situations in three ways: First, once something unexpected happens, it helps to develop appropriate responses. The five steps are aimed at discussing with a team what to do in cases that are not familiar. Through its focus on concrete action, on gathering different viewpoints, and on speed, the STICC protocol is a quick way to take appropriate action in new situations. Second, in step 4 (Concerns), you open up the discussion for further uncertainties and other changes that may follow. In this way, you mentally prepare people that there will always remain uncertainties. This helps in developing a crisis-ready mindset that is not only helpful in the current crisis, but also in the next. Third, the fact that a constructive dialogue takes place also facilitates communication and mutual learning. Even though the leader brings the suggestions here, it is the team together that comes to a solution. And while doing that, they learn together and from each other in an open and adaptive way, which helps further prepare them for future crises. My advice: use STICC whenever you have to communicate fast and clearly. === Follow me or subscribe to my Soulful Strategy newsletter for more: https://lnkd.in/e_ytzAgU #communicationtips #agile #teamexercise

💥One small step for the SEC… one giant leap for 10Ks. The long-awaited SEC cyber rules have been issued. With a backdrop of 1000+ MOVEit victims and a very public MSFT breach, the SEC couldn’t have timed the release any better. Most importantly: the rules are good for investors. ✅ They’ll also be a tailwind for anyone who cares about improving cybersecurity. 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟬𝗞 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲: ➥ Management’s cyber expertise & roles ➥ Corporate processes to manage & remediate cyber threats ➥ Board committees responsible for cyber oversight & how they’re informed 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗼: ➥ CISOs being appointed in companies that don’t have one today ➥ Execs improving capital allocation for cyber (eg: reasonable cyber budgets) ➥ Boards dedicating more time – more regularly – to cyber risk This is goodness. 🙏 And the main criticisms aren’t show-stoppers: 👌 𝙄𝙩'𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 "𝙬𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙤𝙬𝙣." Yes the board cyber expertise disclosure was removed, but citing the committee responsible for cyber is better anyway. Plus, director profiles are public, so cyber creds are already readily available. 👌 𝙄𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣'𝙩 "𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙘𝙮𝙗𝙚𝙧 𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙠." Disclosing a material incident in 4 days is generous compared to others (see: 24hrs). Besides, the DOJ can now extend the timeframe, if appropriate. Look, the rules passed by a vote of 3-2. So this is what compromise looks like. 🤝 What matters is that cyber is unquestionably a top corporate risk today. And the SEC is arming investors with information to help evaluate it. Even more than that, I think these rules will – in time – fundamentally improve the cybersecurity of publicly traded companies. And that’s something to really celebrate. 👏 #technology #cybersecurity #riskmanagement

Excellent tips here illustrating how a subtle change in tone can have a massive influence upon how your message is received. 1) Acknowledge Delays with Gratitude "Sorry for the late reply…" "Thank you for your patience." 2) Respond Thoughtfully, Not Reactively "This is wrong." "I see your point. Have you considered [trying alternative]?" "Thank you for sharing this—I appreciate your insights." 3) Use Subject Lines That Get to the Point "Update" "Project X: Status Update & Next Steps" 4) Set the Tone with Your First Line "Hey, quick question…" "Hi [Name], I appreciate you. I wanted to ask about…" 5) Show Appreciation, Not Acknowledgment "Noted." "Thank you for sharing this—I appreciate your insights." 6) Frame Feedback Positively "This isn’t good enough." "This is a great start. Let’s refine [specific area] further." 7) Lead with Confidence "Maybe you could take a look…" "We need [specific task] completed by [specific date]." 8) Clarify Priorities Instead of Overloading "We need to do this ASAP!" "Let’s prioritize [specific task] first to meet our deadline." 9) Make Requests Easy to Process "Can you take a look at this?" "Can you review this and share your feedback by [date]?" 10) Be Clear About Next Steps "Let’s figure it out later." "Next steps: I’ll handle X, and you confirm Y by [deadline]." 11) Follow Up with Purpose, Not Pressure "Just checking in again!" "I wanted to follow up on this. Do you need any additional details from me?" 12) Avoid Passive-Aggressive Language "As I mentioned before…" "Just bringing this back in case it got missed."