"Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action" is a book written by Simon Sinek. The book explores the concept of starting with a clear sense of purpose or "why" in order to inspire and motivate others.

Simon Sinek is a self-professed optimist determined to create a better and brighter future for humanity. An influential speaker and coach, Sinek has helped organizations around the world, such as Microsoft, American Express, the United Nations, and the Pentagon, inspire their employees. He is also the author of Leaders Eat Last and Together is Better.

The book called 'Stolen Focus' by the British journalist Johann Hari, takes a close look at what’s happening, and what’s happened to our collective attention. Hari argues that we’re all becoming lost in our own lives, which feel more and more like a parade of diversions. And it seems to be getting worse and worse every year.

In Stolen Focus, Hari sets out on a global investigative journey into our shortening attention spans. Drawing on more than two hundred interviews with the world's leading experts on attention problems Stolen Focus moves beyond individual solutions towards a collective understanding of a problem facing us all. Only by first solving the attention crisis Hari argues can we turn to fixing the issues we care about most and sustain the attention to build a better society.

Johann Hari is a writer and journalist. He has written for the New York Times, Le Monde, the Guardian, and other newspapers. He was a columnist for The Independent and the Huffington Post, and has won awards for his war reporting.

Key learnings

It’s not just you – everyone is struggling to focus

Unless you’re living off the grid, you’ve probably noticed that it’s getting increasingly difficult to focus. You’re busy all the time, yet you struggle to actually get anything done.

In 2016, Sune Lehmann was having these exact problems. His capacity for deep focus was dwindling, and he was more susceptible to distractions than ever before. Lehmann is a professor at Denmark’s Technical University – so he didn’t simply dismiss the nagging feeling that his concentration was waning. Instead, he spearheaded a study to find out if there was actually evidence to back up his suspicion.

By analyzing various metrics across online platforms, Lehmann and his team discovered something interesting: In 2013, conversation topics trended on Twitter for an average of 17.5 hours before people lost interest and moved on to a new topic. By 2016, that number had dwindled to 11.6 hours. That’s a six-hour decrease in only three years. The study records similar results across platforms like Google and Reddit as well. In short, the more time we’ve spent in online spaces, the shorter our attention spans have become.

So, is it really just the internet that’s eroding our focus? Well, yes. But also no. See, Lehmann also analyzed every book that’s been uploaded to Google Books between the 1880s and today. And he found that this phenomenon actually predates the internet. With every passing decade, trending topics appear and fade with increasing speed. Lehmann’s study is indicative rather than comprehensive, of course. And measuring these metrics isn’t a definitive way to map our evolving attention spans. But, if we accept the premise that our concentration is suffering, the next question is: Why?

It’s difficult to pinpoint precisely, but a good jumping-off point is what think-tank director Robert Colvile calls “The Great Acceleration.” Essentially, the way we receive information is speeding up. In the nineteenth century, for example, news could take days to travel from place to place. Then, technologies like the telegraph, radio, and television sped up the spread of information. On top of this, our information inputs – the different modes through which we receive information – have multiplied. In 1986, the average Westerner ingested the equivalent of 40 newspapers a day through the various available information inputs. By 2004, that figure had risen to an astonishing 174 newspapers worth of information. Today, that figure is almost certainly much higher. The internet has undeniably supercharged this acceleration. Now, information is not only available to us all the time; it actually intrudes on our lives through the ceaseless pings and notifications coming from our laptops and smartphones.

And our brains just haven’t caught up with this acceleration. Research suggests they never will. Our capacity for focus is an emergent field of study. But research in the area of speed-reading suggests that there’s a finite limit to how quickly we can process information. And, as neuroscientists point out, the cognitive capacity of the human brain has not significantly changed in the last 40,000 years. The amount of information we put into our brains has, however, stratospherically increased. It’s really no wonder we sometimes find it difficult to focus.

Apps and online platforms are addictive by design, not by accident

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter – the fact that these apps and other online platforms suck so much of your time isn’t a design flaw. They’re supposed to be addictive. After all, there’s a reason Silicon Valley calls its customers “users.” And where did this design originate? It originated at the Persuasive Technologies Lab at Stanford University. In the early 2000s, the lab asked whether the theories of influential behavioral psychologists could be incorporated into computer code – in other words, it asked whether tech can change human behavior. And the answer to that question was yes tech can change human behavior.

One of the psychologists studied in the lab was B. F. Skinner. Skinner was famous for the experiments he conducted on rats. He’d present a rat with a meaningless task, like pushing a button. But the rat showed no interest in doing this. So Skinner modified the task. Now, every time the rat pressed the button, it would be rewarded with a pellet of food. Rewards would motivate animals, Skinner found, to carry out tasks that had no intrinsic meaning to them. Skinner inspired the creation of other buttons you might recognize: like buttons, share buttons, and comment buttons. Those little hearts and emojis and retweet buttons aren’t design quirks; they’re programming us to use social media in addictive ways by rewarding us for the time we spend on the platforms.

These buttons keep us engaging longer. But they’re only one of the many design elements geared at keeping us online. Here’s another one: the infinite scroll. Back in the early days of the internet, web pages were just that: pages. Sites often comprised multiple pages; when you got to the bottom of one, you clicked through to the next. The bottom of each page offered a built-in pause. If you wanted to keep browsing, you had to actively decide to click ahead.

That is, until Aza Raskin stepped in. Raskin invented the infinite scroll – the endlessly refreshing feed of content that now features on the interface of nearly every social media platform, giving the impression that there is a never-ending supply of content. If likes and shares encourage users to stay online longer, the infinite scroll encourages users to stay online in perpetuity.

Raskin, however, has come to regret his invention. At first, he thought the infinite scroll was elegant and efficient. But he became troubled when he noticed how it was changing online habits – including his own. Noticing that he was spending longer and longer on social media, Raskin started to do the math. He estimates that the infinite scroll induces the average user to spend 50 percent more time on platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

The business model of most of these platforms is predicated on time – or, as they call it, engagement. This refers to how much time a user spends interacting with a product. That’s the metric tech companies use to measure their success – not money, but minutes. But money does play a part, too. Because the longer you spend “engaging,” the more chances the companies have to sell advertisements. The more you engage, the more companies track your behavior and build a profile uniquely designed to target you with specific ads. We don’t pay for platforms like Facebook and Instagram with our money. But we do pay with another precious, finite commodity: our attention.

In Silicon Valley, time equals money. The money is theirs. And the time – the attention – is yours.

Algorithms privilege outrage over community

Online platforms erode our focus and exploit one of our most precious resources – our attention – for their own financial gain. But these same platforms can be a force for good, strengthening community and driving collective action.

To better understand this potential, let’s travel to the Complexo do Alemão favela in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Brazilian government takes a militant approach to this crowded, low-income area, routinely sending in tanks to suppress unrest. And it’s an open secret that the police shoot to kill. When innocent kids get in the way of their bullets, the police plant drugs or weapons on them and claim self-defense.
Raull Santiago lives in Alemão. He also runs the Facebook page “Coletivo Papo Reto,” which collects and disseminates videos of the police shooting innocent people. The page has galvanized many favela-dwellers to rally against their treatment. And it has shifted the tide of public opinion in Brazil, where favelas like Alemão are often reviled. But the situation in Alemão has only gotten worse since the election of Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro. And here’s the thing: Bolsonaro’s victory, like Coletivo Papo Reto’s success, can also be partly attributed to Facebook. Bolsonaro’s campaign inundated social media with clickbaity, fear-mongering campaigns – and he ended up getting elected.

What connects us can also divide us. Lately, it feels like online platforms have been much more intent on dividing than connecting. And it all has to do with algorithms. The content you see on this infinitely refreshing page isn’t ordered chronologically. It’s arranged by an algorithm that is programmed to feed us content that keeps us scrolling longer. It’s easier to disengage from calm, positive content. But if something strikes us as outrageous or controversial, we tend to keep looking. It’s part of a psychological phenomenon called negativity bias – that is, negative experiences impact us more than positive ones. So it’s in social media’s interest to literally provoke its users.

The algorithm has no ethics. It doesn’t condone or condemn; it just codes. But the people watching it feel, believe, and judge. For some, the more they’re exposed to misinformation, the more normal – even credible – it seems. A 2018 study that analyzed extreme right-wing militants in the US found that the majority of them were initially radicalized on YouTube.

You may not engage with misinformation online. You might put down your phone or close your laptop when you feel outraged by what you see online. You may choose not to spend your attention on provocative content. But this still affects you. See, when online platforms privilege divisive, shocking content, they also corrode our power for collective attention – our ability, as a society, to focus on issues that affect us.

Back in the ’70s, scientists discovered that there was a hole in the Ozone layer. It had been created by a group of chemicals called CFCs, which are commonly used in hairsprays. The scientists issued a warning: if the hole in the ozone grew, we would lose a crucial layer of protection against the sun’s rays. Life on earth as we knew it was at risk. Activists campaigned against the use of CFCs. They persuaded their fellow citizens to join the cause. Eventually, they put enough pressure on governments that the use of CFCs was banned. This is an environmental success story. But the outcome might have been different if we hadn’t focused our collective attention – first on the science, then on the arguments of our fellow citizens, and finally on the group effort of lobbying the governments for a total ban on CFCs. Would we be able to collectively train our focus on a similar issue today? Climate change poses a real and present danger to life on earth. But as a species, we can’t seem to absorb the science – or even agree on whether we should be listening to scientists in the first place.

Social media can be a powerful force for good. But rather than harness this force, platforms like Facebook are intent on exploiting our attention – and, as a consequence, they’re sowing division and controversy.

Recently, Facebook conducted an internal investigation called “Common Ground.” Its aim was to uncover whether the company’s algorithms really did promote controversy and misinformation to keep users engaged. According to the report, the findings were very clear: “Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness.” Facebook hasn’t done very much about this disturbing finding, however. And neither have we. We’re too busy infinitely scrolling.

Ditch multitasking – recovering focus is about finding flow

It’s easy – and not inaccurate – to blame our shrinking attention spans on our devices and the easy access they offer to an attention-sucking online world. But, like an artfully cropped Instagram snap, that’s not the whole picture. See, there’s a fundamental flaw in the way we frame “focus.”

We live in an accelerating, consumerist society – one that values speed and output. And in this climate, we’re encouraged to “quantify” our attention in terms of what immediate results it yields. Our focus is a resource that allows us to produce, to earn, to tick items off our to-do lists. And that’s where multitasking comes in. The more we can simultaneously achieve, the better our focus is spent. So why not distribute our attention across several tasks at once? Well because, as it turns out, humans are really bad at multitasking. The word “multitask” was coined by computer scientists in the ’60s to describe the function of computers with multiple processors. It was never meant to be applied to humans. After all, we only have one processor: our brain.

When we multitask, we’re not simultaneously performing several tasks at once. We’re switching between them at hyperspeed. And every switch incurs what’s called a “switch-cost” effect. When you switch between tasks – or when you’re interrupted mid-task – your brain needs to recalibrate, which decreases your mental performance. A study commissioned by Hewlett Packard compared a group who worked on a task uninterrupted with a group that was distracted during the course of their task. The study found that members of the distracted group temporarily dropped an average of ten IQ points while they were completing their task.

In a work climate that values multitasking as a sign of peak productivity, distraction is practically encouraged. We’re constantly answering emails, participating in multiple conversations about multiple projects, and working across three or four different computer screens. In fact, in the US, the average white-collar worker spends 40 percent of their time engaging in so-called multitasking.

Luckily, there is an antidote to multitasking – a way of approaching tasks that cultivates deep focus. The psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi first identified this state, which he called “flow.” You find your flow, Csikszentmihalyi theorized, when you become so absorbed by a task that you lose all sense of your surroundings and are able to access a deep well of internal focus. In flow, your focus becomes deeper and better, and you’re far less susceptible to distractions.

The good news, according to Cskiszentmihalyi, is that everyone can access flow – as long as they meet a few key conditions. 

 

In 'The Serendipity Mindset - The Art and Science of Creating Good Luck', Christian Busch explains that serendipity isn’t about luck in the sense of simple randomness. It’s about seeing links that others don’t, combining these observations in unexpected and strategic ways, and learning how to detect the moments when apparently random or unconnected ideas merge to form new opportunities. Busch explores serendipity from a rational and scientific perspective and argues that there are identifiable approaches we can use to foster the conditions to let serendipity grow.

Drawing from biology, chemistry, management, and information systems, and using examples of people from all walks of life, Busch illustrates how serendipity works and explains how we can train our own serendipity muscle and use it to turn the unexpected into opportunity. Once we understand serendipity, Busch says, we become curators of it, and luck becomes something that no longer just happens to us—it becomes a force that we can grasp, shape, and hone. Full of exciting ideas and strategies, The Serendipity Mindset offers a clear blueprint for how we can cultivate serendipity to increase innovation, influence, and opportunity in every aspect of our lives.

Dr Christian Busch, is an internationally known expert in the areas of innovation and entrepreneurship. He is the Director of the Global Economy Program at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs, and also teaches at the London School of Economics. A cofounder of Leaders on Purpose and the Sandbox Network – and former co-director of the LSE’s Innovation Lab – he has worked with senior executives around the world.

There are several kinds of serendipity, but they're all different than "blind" luck of the draw - they're about creating "smart luck"

Serendipity is usually about connecting dots that have previously remained elusive

How we interpret or look back upon serendipity is important. In fact, it can make a big difference in the likelihood of serendipity occurring in the future. For example, we shouldn’t think of serendipity as a singular event, even if it is one of those thunderbolt experiences. Instead, we should think of it as a process. Often serendipity is the result of seeds that were planted weeks, months, or years in advance. And it always requires something of you – whether it’s noticing a value that hasn’t been seen before, or drawing a conclusion that hasn’t been reached before.

Being attuned and alert to serendipity means letting go of ingrained biases

Do you ever find yourself being a glass-half-empty type of person? It can happen to the best of us. In fact, having biases and preconceptions goes hand-in-hand with human nature, but that doesn’t mean it’s helpful in life. As far as serendipity goes, having strict, unbending preconceptions can be a big hindrance.

To stay alert and motivated, remain focused on a meaningful north star.

What motivates you on a day-to-day basis, money or something more meaningful? Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was developed by the philosopher Abraham Maslow over 50 years ago, but it’s left a lasting impression and continues to influence many of today’s social theories.

You can increase the chances of serendipity in simple ways.

Essentially, you want to create possibilities, and you can do this in a number of ways, no matter what your current circumstances are. There are many people who’ve sent out a mass email to everyone in their contact list, or to people they’ve never met, in the hopes of having a serendipitous result. You may be surprised to know how often this works. Other times, it may be a chance meeting in an elevator or in a Zoom conference, but such encounters require an optimistic willingness to take chances, be sociable, and introduce yourself. Patience is also required. Sometimes, it may take years before the business card you handed someone turns into a case of life-changing serendipity. 

There are easy steps for planting the seeds for serendipity to occur.

Serendipity can take time to develop, so patience is often required.

Another characteristic of the serendipity mindset is grit, or perseverance. The road to serendipity is often paved with rejection, failed experiments, and near misses. Many entrepreneurs will tell you that they were turned away countless times before they finally found the idea that clicked with investors. You need tenacity. Not only because it can take time for the right opportunities to present themselves, but because it often takes time for your brain to connect those important dots. While having a good supply of diverse people around you can be a vital part of setting the stage for serendipity, it also takes patience and perseverance.

Fostering serendipity involves creating a safe space for the mixing of new ideas from diverse minds.

Increasingly, a lot of businesses are wanting to facilitate as much serendipity as possible. They know that things are changing fast these days and relying on stability and consistency just doesn’t make sense anymore. So, what kind of culture and structures do make sense? Basically, you don’t want the kind of company where people are ridiculed for coming up with new or ambitious ideas. You want to create a safe space, where people not only feel free to speak their minds, but where they can also feel free to experiment and fail without fear of being reprimanded or losing their jobs.

 

'How to do Nothing' is an action plan for thinking outside of capitalist narratives of efficiency and techno-determinism. “Time is money.” It’s an age-old adage, but it’s taken on new relevance in today’s digitally-driven, 24/7 economy. Whether it’s work or self-improvement, we’ve come to believe that we should have something to show for our time. Anything that doesn’t produce value in those terms is simply too expensive. Writer and artist Jenny Odell, thinks it’s time to take a different approach. Never switching off, is a recipe for a bland and shallow existence where we simply follow the crowd and fail to do our own thinking. The result? A world of mediocrity, misery, and selfishness. Odell’s alternative is deceptively simple – doing nothing. Above all, this is a question of attentiveness. Learning to direct and focus our attention is a way of opening up an entirely new and deeper experience of the world around us. In the age of social media and its all-out assault on our attention, this is an act of resistance that might just change everything. This book will teach you why social media makes us behave like brands; what nature can teach us about attention; and how attentiveness to others can make us more empathetic.

Warren Buffett’s Ground Rules (2016) is a study of the investment strategy of one most successful investors of all time. By analysing the semi-annual letters Buffett sent to partners in the fund he managed from 1956 to 1970, author Jeremy Miller isolates key strategies that investors can use to play the stock market to their financial advantage. Compiled for the first time and with Buffett’s permission, the letters spotlight his contrarian diversification strategy, his almost religious celebration of compounding interest, his preference for conservative rather than conventional decision making, and his goal and tactics for bettering market results by at least 10% annually.

Miller reveals how these letters offer us a rare look into Buffett’s mind and offer accessible lessons in control and discipline—effective in bull and bear markets alike, and in all types of investing climates—that are the bedrock of his success. The author of this book, Jeremy Miller is a strategy coach and founder of Sticky Branding, a company that works with leadership teams from around the world to create branding and growth strategies for businesses.